Sitting of 31 May 1962

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  LETCHWORTH GARDEN CITY CORPORATION BILL
  Read the Third time and passed.
  MELVILLE TRUST ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Read the Third time and passed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

  SETTLED LAND ACT, 1925 (SECTION 41)
  Mr. Boxasked the Attorney-General whether he is aware of the hardships caused by the Settled Land Act, 1925, which restricts the granting of a new lease to not more than 50 years where such properties are held in trust; and if he will introduce amending legislation to remove this restriction.
  The Solicitor-General (Sir John Hobson): I am not aware of any hardships caused by the provisions of Section 41 of the Settled Land Act, 1925. If my hon. Friend has any evidence of such hardships, I will, of course, gladly consider it.
  Mr. Box: Is my hon. and learned Friend not aware that in seeking additional leases of fifty years sitting tenants often have to surrender as much as eighteen years and, therefore, get a net increase of only some thirty-two years? I have such cases in my constituency. Is he further aware that some trustees apparently dislike the present restriction of the law and that I have heard of cases Where they are breaking it: Will he, as he has indicated, give further consideration to this matter in company with his right hon. Friend the Minister
  1558
  dof Housing when they are carrying out the current review of the leasehold system for the whole of the country?
  The Solicitor-General: Yes, Sir. We will certainly consider the points my hon. Friend has raised.
  Mr. Gower: Will my hon. and learned Friend take account of the fact that in South Wales, in particular, we are in some difficulty owing to the high incidence of the leasehold system as such which has led to the position that we have many leases which are not mort-gagable but which have about twenty, thirty or forty years unexpired? Any restriction of this kind bears particularly hard on us for these reasons.

  PUBLIC DEPARTMENTS (LAND)
  Mr. Snowasked the Attorney-General what procedures regarding notice to the public are required to be followed by public departments desiring to abrogate a published intention to acquire, or support the purchase of, land at present in the possession of another public department.
  The Solicitor-General: There are no statutory provisions governing the procedure followed by public departments in this matter. If the hon. Member has any specific instance in mind, I suggest that he should put a Question to the Minister in charge of the Department concerned.
  Mr. Snow: Does the Solicitor-General consider that the public interest is well served in the case where there is a relatively sudden change of Departmental policy and where a local authority or, for that matter, potential private purchasers may not have time to reassess their financial liabilities and assets in the matter?
  The Solicitor-General: I quite appreciate that there may be difficulty in particular cases about a sudden change of policy, but that would be entirely a matter for the Department concerned. I am afraid that I could not give a general opinion about the public interest or the effect upon it.

  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Experiments on Living Animals
    Sir Richard Glynasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions in the last five years permission to prosecute a person licensed to perform experiments on living animals, under the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876, has been refused.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State, Home Department (Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke): No application for my right hon. Friend's consent to a prosecution was made in this period.
    Sir Richard Glyn: I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will realise that there is a certain amount of public apprehension about the possibility of cruelty in these cases. Can he assure the House that if any case of cruelty comes to the knowledge of his Department a prosecution will be instituted, even if a private complaint has not been laid?
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I can certainly give that assurance. We believe that there have been no prosecutions because the Act is honestly observed to the best of their ability by those who work it. The minor infractions are, of course, reported in the annual returns, and my hon. and gallant Friend will see that in those cases it is almost always a case of inadvertence rather for a more serious motive
    Mr. Hayman: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman take into account the widespread apprehension that exists about these experiments and the widespread fear that there is unnecessary pain and cruelty? Seeing that there are now only six inspectors compared with three twenty years ago, when then the experiments were about one-fifth of what they are now, will he ask his right hon. Friend to set up a small committee of inquiry into the whole issue, if only to relieve public anxiety?
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I am well aware of the degree of public anxiety, but I can assure the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) that it really is based on the misconception that the experiments of which there has been the greatest growth are in any way surgical experiments. The growth is almost entirely due to the fact that
    1560
    now, by Statute, we are obliged to see that many new substances that are necessary for the health of the human race are injected or fed into animals. In the vast proportion of cases there is no question of cutting or vivisection in the old sense of the word.
    Sir W. Teelingasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he intends taking concerning suffering caused to rabbits, details of which have been sent him by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion; and, in view of the fresh evidence contained in these cases, whether he is still satisfied that his staff is adequate to meet the situation.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Inspectors under the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876, are always ready to inquire into any case of unnecessary suffering alleged to have been caused in experiments; but the information sent by my hon. Friend is not sufficiently specific to enable us to trace the place and circumstances in which these experiments are said to have been carried out.
    Sir W. Teeling: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is making quite big propaganda— if one cares to call it that— throughout the country, presumably quite genuinely, on this whole subject, not only with regard to rabbits, but with regard to other animals as well? The Act seems to be rather out of date today and, presumably, there are various loopholes in it which are being used. Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that many people are very dissatisfied that practically no prosecutions are brought under the Act by the Home Office representatives, and does he feel satisfied that enough is being done to prevent what reputable societies such as the R.S.P.C.A. regard quite definitely as very bad practices?
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: We have had a Question today about the number of prosecutions and I dealt with that part of the matter then. There are subsequent Questions about the pamphlets issued by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. I am waiting for more details of the experiments mentioned in my hon. Friend's Question because we should hope to

    1561
    examine them. Often in these cases, when details are finally sent, including photographs, we find that they relate to experiments which have taken place outside the United Kingdom altogether.
    Sir W. Teeling: On a point of order. In view of the fact that it is obviously impossible to get an answer to these questions——
    Mr. Speaker: No.
    Sir W. Teeling: I ask leave to raise this matter on the Adjournment because of the unsatisfactory nature of the replies.
    Mr. Speaker: I have repeatedly to ask hon. Members to adhere to the traditional formula and not to make speeches when giving notice.
    Mr. Fisherasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has studied the recent demands of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, details of which have been sent to him, with regard to experiments on animals; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Yes, Sir. The proposals made are in line with those put to my right hon. Friend when he received a deputation from the Society last year. My right hon. Friend then gave a full reply to the Society's representations and an assurance that every care was taken to see that all the requirements of the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876, are fully observed.
    Mr. Fisher: Are there sufficient inspectors to watch the more serious operations on animals? If not, would there be sufficient qualified vets to act as additional inspectors if more were thought to be needed? Would it be helpful to invite one or two extra additional veterinary surgeons to serve on the Advisory Committee, and would it be helpful in reassuring public opinion to try to arrange, possibly, for hon. Members of this House to visit some of these licensed premises?
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: In reply to the latter part of that question, certainly we should be happy to try to at-range for these visits. As to the appointment of more inspectors, we are of opinion that there are at present enough inspectors
    1562
    for this purpose. We should welcome inspectors with veterinary qualifications provided they also have medical qualifications. On this latter point, my right hon. Friend insists. There is at present one veterinary surgeon serving on the Advisory Committee, but if one or more others are suggested, we will certainly consider that and see whether, with the agreement of the Chairman, they could be co-opted.

    Immigration (European Economic Community)
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes in United Kingdom immigration laws will be necessary if the United Kingdom joins the European Economic Community.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): Her Majesty's Government are examining the legal implications of adherence to the Treaty of Rome, but I cannot yet make any statement about changes which might be needed in our immigration legislation.
    Mr. Ridley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the position in this country under the recently passed Commonwealth Immigrants Act is, if anything, more liberal than the position obtaining in the Common Market at present, and does he think that this Act would have to be amended if we joined?
    Mr. Butler: No, Sir. It is precisely because we are at the beginning of negotiations and because the full implications of the Treaty of Rome are not clear that I cannot yet give an answer to my hon. Friend's Question.
    Mr. Fletcher: Is it the Home Secretary's conception that, if we join the Common Market, nationals of Common Market territories will, as a consequence, be able to come to this country without restriction?
    Mr. Butler: No, Sir. The articles of the Treaty of Rome which relate to this are not so simple as that. They entail the question of obtaining and having a job to come to.

    Jury Service
    Mr. McKayasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that Territorials are exempt from service as jurymen when on part-time duties but Royal Naval Reserve officers and men are still being called to sit as jurymen; and if, in his review of the need for legislation regarding jury service, he will take into account the desirability of enabling Royal Naval Reserve personnel also to be exempt from jury service.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: My right hon. Friend is aware of the position and has noted it for consideration.
    Mr. McKay: Will the Minister tell the House what his attitude is on this matter? It seems somewhat extraordinary that there should be this discrimination against one section of the Forces.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: We recognise that there is an anomaly here. We do not think that it leads to hardship in practice in view of the fact that persons charged with summoning a jury have a discretion to excuse anyone so summoned for good reason. The persons whom the hon. Gentleman has in mind usually have a good reason which they could substantiate.

    Betting Offices
    Mr. A. Robertsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from the National Greyhound Racing Society of Great Britain concerning the closing hours of betting offices.
    The Minister of State, Home Department (Mr. David Renton): The Society has brought to my right hon. Friend's attention a resolution passed at its annual general meeting on 16th May opposing any extension of the present closing hours of 6.30 p.m. for licensed betting offices.
    Mr. Roberts: Will the Minister resist any pressures put upon him or his Department to extend this form of betting, bearing in mind that to extend the hours would not be in the public interest?
    Mr. Renton: When the Bill was before the House, a majority of hon. Members
    1564
    were in favour of the closing time of 6.30 p.m. which had been recommended by the Royal Commission. We certainly shall not be rushed into making any change.

    Motor Vehicles, London (Parking)
    Mr. E. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been drawn to the congestion which occurs nightly in Down Street, London, W.1, where cars are parked on both sides of the street and often half on the pavement, in Derby Street, and in Chesterfield Gardens where three and sometimes four lines of cars are parked to the great inconvenience of residents; and what action he is taking to prevent this congestion.
    Mr. Renton: The Commissioner of Police is aware that obstruction is sometimes caused by vehicles parked in these streets, but, in view of the shortage of manpower, the police must at present give priority to keeping the principal thoroughfares clear. My hon. Friend's Question has, however, been brought to the notice of police officers on duty in the area.
    Mr. Johnson: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that it is virtually impossible at night to pass through some of these streets and that Chesterfield Gardens is a cul-de-sac and, since motorists are not always aware of this fact, they enter the street and then have to turn round in order to come out again, thus making matters much worse? At least, could a sign be erected at the entrance of Chesterfield Gardens indicating that it is a cul-de-sac, and also might it be possible for some of the police who not so long ago were extremely active in Curzon Street to go round and look at the motor cars parked there?
    Mr. Renton: I have no doubt that the Commissioner will bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said. I ask him to remember that the streets named in his Question are used by only a small amount of traffic in the evenings and it would be difficult to justify large-scale removal of vehicles or other proceedings by the police.
    Mr. Johnson: Does not my hon. and learned Friend realise that he is quite

    1565
    wrong in saying that Chesterfield Gardens, for instance, is used by only a small number of cars at night? It is absolutely jammed at night and people find it quite impossible to get in and out of Chesterfield Gardens.
    Mr. P. Williams: That is why so few cars use it.
    Mr. E. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been drawn to the dangerous practice of parking cars by night on street corners in London so as to make it impossible for a motorist entering from a side street to see traffic; and if he will make and enforce regulations to prevent this practice.
    Mr. Renton: The police already have adequate powers to deal with any vehicle which is left on a road in such circumstances as to be likely to cause danger to other users of the road, and I am informed by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that a large proportion of the cars removed by the police are removed because they are causing serious obstruction at road junctions.
    Mr. Johnson: Will my hon. and learned Friend visit Curzon Street— it would be perfectly proper for him to do so— and see for himself whether there is a car parked right on every street corner, with the result that it is quite impossible for drivers coming out of the side streets to see other traffic, and it is equally impossible for motorists in Curzon Street to see vehicles coming in? Is not this an extremely dangerous state of affairs?
    Mr. Renton: I have, of course, visited Curzon Street, and I should gladly do so again in order to examine the conditions to Which my hon. Friend has referred, but I ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind that the enforcement of the traffic law is a matter for the Commissioner and that, even if I were to inform myself in the way that my hon. Friend suggests, it would still be for the Commissioner to decide how to deal with the matter.
    Mr. Tomneyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ensure that appropriate police action is taken to prohibit the all-night parking of long-distance lorries in Aldine Street, Shepherd's Bush, W.12.
    Mr. Renton: I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that the local police give such attention to this problem as their other responsibilities permit, and that suitable action is taken when a breach of the law is observed.
    Mr. Tomney: That is all very well, but is not the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there are adequate enclosed car-parking facilities available within 200 yards of this area which are not used, that minor accidents are being caused to children who play around the lorries in the evenings, and that my constituents are being kept awake at all hours of the night by lorries arriving and departing? As car-parking facilities are available within 200 yards, why cannot the police insist upon them being used to the full?
    Mr. Renton: It is not quite as easy as the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. The street is, in fact, little used for through-traffic and, therefore, it is not easy to get a prosecution for obstruction. Nevertheless, the police have taken action in a good many cases in the last twelve months. On the question of the general nuisance caused by night parking of lorries, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has appointed a working party to hold an inquiry.
    Mr. Tomney: The Minister's statement is not true. The street is used for through-traffic. Anybody who knows the area will realise that Shepherds Bush can be avoided by using this area. It sometimes cuts out as much as twenty minutes' waiting time at traffic lights. It is no good saying the street is not used. Car-parking facilities are available and should be used, and the police should have authority to ensure that they are used. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman do something about it?
    Mr. Liptonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action is being taken by the Metropolitan Police to deal with the growing inconvenience caused by parking of private and commercial vehicles in residential areas.
    Mr. Renton: Inconvenience in itself is not a ground for police action, but I am informed by the Commissioner of

    1567
    Police that suitable action is taken when a breach of the law is observed.
    Mr. Lipton: Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman realise that that kind of answer, which we have been getting for a long time past, gives no satisfaction at all to the residents who are affected by all the day and night parking that goes on? Does he not realise that this is an intolerable nuisance? Is it not a fact that the matter has been brought to the attention of the various Government Departments concerned on many occasions during many months past and yet nothing is being done to provide those who live in the residential areas of London with the peace and quiet to which they are entitled?
    Mr. Renton: As I indicated in answer to a previous Question, the Minister of Transport realises that this is a question which needs to be looked into and is having an inquiry into it. Meanwhile, the duty of the police is to enforce the law. They have, of course, to enforce the law relating to obstruction of highways. They have no power to enforce a law which does not exist, and there is no law which prevents minor inconvenience, or even major inconvenience, of this kind unless a criminal offence is committed.
    Mr. Fletcher: Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman realise that this is not merely a question of inconvenience and obstruction? Have there not been numerous cases in which the habit of parking lorries in private streets has encumbered the fire services in dealing with fire risks in residential areas of London?
    Mr. Renton: I understand that where that occurs, if it occurs on the highway, then there is, of course, obstruction, and the police are able to take action.

    Election Expenses
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the need to raise the limit on election expenses; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: My right hon. Friend has received very few representations. He is not aware of any widespread
    1568
    demand to change the existing arrangements.
    Mr. Allaun: Did not the Minister see the resolutions from Conservative associations and the statement by the Leader of the House that the 1949 scale of expenses was quite unreal today? May we take it that this utterly unfair proposal, which would give still more power to the money-bags, has now been dropped, even if vast sums of money can still be spent in other ways?
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I am aware of the resolutions to the Conservative Central Council, which are, I think, what the hon. Gentleman has in mind I spoke against those resolutions myself, and I am glad to say that they were defeated.
    Miss Bacon: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that it is making a mockery of election law if, at the same time as there is a restriction on the spending of individual candidates, vast sums of money may be spent nationally by the national party organisations in the months preceding a General Election? Will he, far from increasing the amount which can be spent by candidates, restrict the amount which can be so spent nationally?
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: That goes very much wider than the Question on the Order Paper.

    Child Care Services, London
    Mr. G. Brownasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware of the general disquiet among people responsible for the children's services in the London area at the proposal of Her Majesty's Government to fragment the London County Children's Department into 14 small separate authorities; and what representations Her Majesty's Government have received in the matter.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: Direct representations about the reorganisation of the child care service in the Greater London area have come mostly from the London County Council and its staff, but I am aware that concern has also been expressed by others. These views have been considered, but the Government adhere to the belief that responsibility

    1569
    for child care is a proper function for for the proposed London boroughs. We recognise that there will be difficult transitional problems, particularly in relation to residential establishments and to the needs of children requiring residential care, and we propose to discuss with the authorities concerned the best way of overcoming these difficulties and of ensuring that the well-being of the children is safeguarded.
    Mr. Brown: Is the Secretary of State aware that among those whom he dismisses as others "are some of the most authoritative and impressive people working in this field? Is he further aware that this is an absolutely vital service, quite as vital as the education service, and that his colleague the Minister of Education has been able to make some fresh proposals departing from the Government's original ideas which have made people feel rather happier? I raise this matter, not in order to argue the general issue— we have argued that before, and I do not propose to argue it again— but because we are terribly frightened of what will happen to this service if it is broken up in this way in view of the vast distinctions which there are between boroughs. When the right hon. Gentleman is giving further thought to this matter, will he be willing to see me and some of my hon. Friends to discuss it?
    Mr. Butler: I did not mean to dismiss anyone in a derogatory way. We have had a great deal of thought on this matter, which is a very difficult one to decide. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is a vital service, but there is a difference from the arrangement made over the education service, because the child care service is based increasingly on work in the field by the child care officers and we feel that a close association with the personal and environmental health service, with welfare and housing, is desirable. That is why I stated the conclusion which the Government had reached. I have indicated that there are difficult transitional problems, and I will certainly be ready to see the right hon. Gentleman and any of his hon. Friends.
    Mr. Brown: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his latter statement. With regard to his earlier remark about field work, has he any idea of the difference,
    1570
    for example, between the proposed new borough of Lambeth and Southwark, an area which I know very well indeed, with 18 out of every 1,000 children in its care, and Hampstead, a borough with a much higher rateable value and no more than 5 out of every 1,000 children in its care? The facilities will not be where the need is, and that is why we want so much to talk to the right hon. Gentleman about this matter.
    Mr. Butler: I am aware of the big discrepancies between the boroughs. Nevertheless, the association of the health and welfare services is one to which we attach importance. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to talk about it, let us do so.
    Sir G. Nicholson: The reasons may be good or they may be bad, but is my right hon. Friend aware that many more London children go to residential institutions than are boarded out? Personally, I regret it, but nevertheless that is the position. Anyhow, the result is that London's residential institutions are a model for the country. Will my right hon. Friend take particular care to ensure that they are not broken up in any way?
    Mr. Butler: I am aware of the high quality of the service rendered by the London County Council. I have met the Chairman of the Child Care Committee, who was accompanied by other people of great distinction interested in this subject. I am aware of these homes and their importance, and that is why we are having these preliminary discussions.
    Mr. Reynolds: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that similar problems arise in Middlesex and that to the best of my knowledge no new borough in Middlesex nor any existing one has expressed any desire to take this job from the county council? Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the position in Middlesex as well?
    Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir.

    Administration of Justice, London
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations he has had with the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs in respect

    1571
    of the administration of justice and magistrates courts within Essex local authorities, including the Essex County Council, affected by the proposed Greated London local government reorganisation.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: The White Paper on London Government published last November explained that, when proposals for the administrative structure for local government had been settled, the Government would give attention to such related matters as the arrangements for the administration of justice. I am in consultation with my right hon. Friend, and with other Ministers concerned, on these matters, but I am not yet in a position to make a statement.
    Mr. Sorensen: When will the Secretary of State be in a position to make a statement? Will he consider the desirability of making the prospective new Greater London authority coincidental with the Metropolitan Police area to avoid overlapping? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that there is need for a closer liaison between the local authorities on the one hand and the magistrates' courts on the other?
    Mr. Butler: All these points have been discussed by me with my colleagues principally concerned. I will keep in touch with the hon. Gentleman and will make a statement as soon as I can.

    Summer Time
    Mr. Tilneyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider continuing Summer Time throughout the year in order to encourage trade between the United Kingdom and Western Europe.
    Mr. Renton: This factor will be taken into account in fixing the period of Summer Time for 1963 and later years.
    Mr. Tilney: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that during active business hours in the winter it is frequently very much more difficult to get through on the Continental telephone than it is in the summer? This is due to the fact that by the time we have taken action on the morning's mail the Continentals are going to lunch and that by the time they get back from lunch we have gone to lunch. In order to increase Continental
    1572
    trade, will my hon. and learned Friend look at this matter very carefully?
    Mr. Renton: Of course, there are certain differences in geography, climate and social custom between this country and Continental countries, but we will bear in mind what my hon. Friend says. We shall be considering this matter in the autumn with a view to making arrangements for next year.
    Mr. Fletcher: Will the Minister of State give an assurance that, even if we join the Common Market, we shall still be able to make whatever arrangements suit us best with regard to Summer Time?

    Probation Officers
    Mr. Abseasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many probation officers appointed last year in England and Wales were untrained on taking up posts; what percentage of probation officers during the last three years have taken up posts without prior training; and when he expects to receive the report of the Joint Negotiating Committee to which he has referred the question of the reassessment of salaries.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: The answer to the first part of the Question is 94, and to the second part 44· 6 per cent. As regards the last part, I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Surrey (Mr. A. Royle) on 17th May.
    Mr. Abse: Is it not abundantly clear that the figures which the Home Secretary has given illustrate the urgent necessity of giving salaries to harassed and overburdened probation officers which will attract fully trained people? Surely the right hon. Gentleman is aware that it costs £ 16 a year to put someone on probation and £ 400 a year to put someone in an institution. Is it the right hon. Gentleman's intention to stimulate rather than to prevent crime by preventing probation officers from having an adequate salary?
    Mr. Butler: I have no wish to prevent probation officers from having an adequate salary. We hope that in due course we shall be able to meet their needs, but

    1573
    I cannot add to the statement made on 17th May.
    Mr. Abse: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I intend to raise this matter on the Adjournment.
    Dr. King: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in view of the rejection by the Probation Officers' Association of his proposal to limit a salary increase to 2½ per cent., if he will reconsider his decision in the matter.
    Mr. C. Royleasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reply he has received from the joint negotiating committee on probation officers' salaries to his decision that a salary increase shall not exceed 2½ per cent.
    Mr. Fletcherasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the rejection by the National Association of Probation Officers of his proposal to limit the increase in salaries in the probation service to 2½ per cent. he will now approve the recommendation of the joint negotiating committee for an increase of 10 per cent. as from 1st April, 1962, with. out prejudice to implementing the full recommendations of the Morison Committee at an early date.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: The Government must regretfully adhere to the decision announced on 17th May. No s
    communication has been received from the Joint Negotiating Committee since the decision was made known to it on that day.
    Dr. King: As the wage pause bears most heavily on this small but important group which the whole House, including the Home Secretary, admits to be understaffed and underpaid, will not the Home Secretary consider the matter again, realising that he can do justice to this little group of important servants of his without jettisoning the Government's economic policy?
    Mr. Butler: I am very sorry, but I cannot depart from the Government's decision or from the statement made by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State on 17th May, in which he said, as the House will remember, that
    "the Government were in no doubt that the probation service ought to receive a substan-
    1574
    tial increase of pay at the appropriate time and were prepared to examine its claims at the beginning of next year."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th May, 1962; Vol. 659, c. 139.,]
    Mr. C. Royle: In view of the fact that the Departmental Committee recommended a rise of an average of 30 per cent. and that the joint negotiating committee recommended a 10 per cent. rise without consideration of the Departmental Committee's Report, and in view also of the fact that the probation officers have refrained from asking for a rise during the latter part of the Committee's deliberations, does not the Minister think that what he is now doing is the most outstanding despicable act we have seen during the incidence of the wage pause?
    Mr. Butler: The facts as stated in the first part of the hon. Member's supplementary question are correct. In regard to his observations, I can only say that the Government regret their decision. Taken in conjunction with the statement which I have just made about the end of the year, that is as much as I can say at the moment.
    Mr. Fletcher: Does not the Home Secretary realise that this deplorable decision has caused great indignation and that this is not merely a question of an increase in pay, but a question of giving recognition to the enhanced status of probation officers in the service of the community, as recognised by the Morison Report? This case raises totally different considerations from all other wage claims. In view of the Morison Committee's Report and the recommendation, to which the Home Secretary's representative agreed, for an immediate increase of 10 per cent., will not the Minister reconsider the matter?
    Mr. Butler: No, Sir. I am afraid that I cannot alter the statement made by my hon. and learned Friend and now repeated by me today. It does, however, acknowledge that a substantial increase of pay at the appropriate time is reasonable.
    Dame Irene Ward: May I ask, because I am a magistrate, whether my right hon. Friend can explain why within the Government's incomes policy some people within the range of Government servants are limited to 2½ per cent. increases, some to 3½ per cent. and some to even

    1575
    higher levels? Why cannot they all have the same, and perhaps at the highest rate? This variety is irritating to understand. Surely it would have been possible to have given the same increase as has been given to university tutors and, perhaps, to those people employed by the Atomic Energy Authority, for whom, I see, Lord Hailsham made a better case than has been made for the probation officers.
    Mr. Butler: I cannot answer questions on the Government's pay policy except to say that, while it has been a painful operation, it has had a salutary effect on the economy as a whole.
    Mr. C. Royle: In view of the unsatisfactory replies that we have received, I desire to give notice that I will try to raise this matter on the Adjournment.
    Miss Baconasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why he referred the proposals regarding salary increases contained in the Morison Report to the Joint Negotiating Committee for the Probation Service.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: Because the proposals raised matters appropriate for consideration by this Committee, which is the established negotiating body for the salaries of probation officers in England and Wales.
    Miss Bacon: Does not the Home Secretary realise that it was a waste of the time of the Committee, if he knew in advance that probation officers would get only a 2½ per cent. increase, to send it the Report of the Morison Committee to obtain its opinion upon it? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the debate on 10th May he held out hope of a 10 per cent. increase as recommended by the Joint Negotiating Committee?
    Mr. Butler: It would not have been constitutionally correct if the matter had not been referred. All the reserved rights in relation to arbitration, and so on, would not have been operable had we not referred it.
    Miss Bacon: Surely, the Home Secretary is making a mockery of the whole machinery, if he knows in advance that there is to be only a 2½ per cent. increase, to send the Report and ask the Committee to go through all the pro-
    1576
    cedure and then at the end to say "2½ per cent."
    Mr. Fletcher: Is it not a fact that the Home Office representative on the Joint Negotiating Committee himself agreed to the recommendation for a 10 per cent. increase?
    Mr. Butler: No, Sir. I would not accept that.

    Ice Cream Barrows, Kew
    Mr. A. Royleasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware of the nuisance to residents arising from the parking of ice-cream barrows on the corners of residential streets in Kew during the summer; and if he will ensure that appropriate action is taken by the police to curtail such parking in the future.
    Mr. Renton: So far as their other commitments allow, the police will continue to take action to prevent any breach of the law.
    Mr. Royle: Is my hon. Friend aware that residents in the Lichfield Road area of Kew will welcome his reply, but will he make certain that the police really go all out to stop parking, which is causing such a great nuisance to many people living in the area?
    Mr. Renton: If the ice-cream barrows encroach upon the corners of the streets and the roads the police would cause them to move on, but where they are not standing at the corners they cause less obstruction than many of the cars parked in the vicinity.
    Sir G. Nicholson: Are we to take it from my hon. and learned Friend's Answer that the prevention of breaches of the law takes a low place in the priority of police duties?
    Mr. Renton: No. If my hon. Friend will be so good as to examine my original Answer, he will find that I said that the police will continue to take action to prevent any breach of the law.

    Young Persons (Firearms)
    Mr. Wainwrightasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to make it an offence for any person under the age of 18 years to have in his possession

    1577
    in a public place, or on a public highway, a loaded air-rifle, or any other similar firearm, between the period of one hour after sunset and sunrise.
    Mr. Renton: No, Sir.
    Mr. Wainwright: Will the Minister and his right hon. Friend have another look at this problem? Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the restrictions suggested in the Question are very lenient? When will something be done to help the police and the magistrates by imposing a restriction on irresponsible youths who use firearms of this kind? Is the Minister aware that lights at night are not even likely pigeons but are sitting ducks to youths with guns? Will not the Minister do something to prevent them having guns at night time in any event?
    Mr. Renton: The hon. Member may have overlooked the fact that a Bill restricting the possession of air weapons by young people under the age of 17 in public places received its Third Reading in this House on 4th May and is now in another place.
    Sir G. Benson: What reason is there for anybody carrying firearms at any time of the day or night?
    Mr. Renton: I do not know whether the hon. Member has ever enjoyed a day's shooting or has ever tried to destroy vermin with firearms. These are two good reasons for carrying them.
    Sir G. Benson: But not in public streets.

    Drugs (Convictions)
    Captain Litchfieldasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convictions under the Dangerous Drugs Act there have been in the Metropolitan Police area during the last three consecutive 12-monthly periods for which figures are available; what were the countries of origin of the persons convicted; and whether he is satisfied that all practicable measures within the control of Her Majesty's Government are being taken to prevent the unauthorised importation of drugs.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Convictions under the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1951, in the Metropolitan Police District
    1578
    numbered 139 in 1959, 174 in 1960 and 227 in 1961. I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT information about the countries of origin of the persons convicted. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that all practicable measures are being taken to prevent unlawful importation.
    Captain Litchfield: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that reply and assure him that I have the utmost admiration for the efforts of the Metropolitan Police in dealing with this vicious traffic, which I think is borne out by the figures. However, may I ask him whether he feels that perhaps greater use might not be made of the powers of deportation in respect of persons coming from overseas who are convicted of drug trafficking?
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Certainly, Sir. Of course, hitherto in the case of many persons of origin outside the country there has not been power to deport.
    Following is the information:

    —

    1959

    1960

    1961

    Aden

    …

    —

    —

    1

    Antigua

    …

    —

    1

    —

    Bermuda

    …

    —

    —

    1

    British Guiana

    …

    2

    5

    4

    Canada

    …

    2

    —

    4

    Cyprus

    …

    3

    8

    16

    Dominica

    …

    1

    1

    1

    Gambia

    …

    1

    1

    3

    Ghana

    …

    3

    5

    5

    Gibraltar

    …

    2

    —

    —

    Hungary

    —

    —

    1

    India

    …

    1

    6

    4

    Irish Republic

    …

    13

    1

    8

    Jamaica

    …

    42

    52

    81

    Malta

    …

    2

    6

    3

    Mauritius

    …

    —

    —

    1

    New Zealand

    …

    —

    1

    —

    Nigeria

    …

    6

    5

    2

    Pakistan

    …

    1

    3

    1

    Poland

    …

    —

    1

    —

    Sierra Leone

    …

    1

    —

    2

    Singapore

    …

    —

    —

    1

    Spain

    …

    1

    —

    —

    Tanganyika

    …

    —

    —

    2

    Trinidad

    …

    4

    4

    10

    Union of South Africa

    …

    2

    3

    —

    United Kingdom

    …

    40

    61

    69

    United States of America

    …

    —

    1

    1

    In twelve, nine and six cases, respectively, the countries of origin could not be identified.

    Sunday Observance
    Mr. Parkerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when

    1579
    he expects to receive the report on Sunday observance.
    Mr. Renton: It is too early to say when this Committee is likely to report.

    NEW ZEALAND (LOAN OF PICTURES)
    Captain Litchfieldasked the Prime Minister what representations he has received from the Prime Minister of New Zealand that the pictures on temporary loan to New Zealand from Admiralty House, which formed part of the Admiralty Collection of William Hodges' pictures of the Second Expedition to the South Seas under Captain Cook, should be permanently retained in New Zealand; and what response he intends to make to this request.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I am in communication with the Prime Minister of New Zealand about the pictures to which my hon. Friend refers. Certain proposals are under consideration which I hope will be satisfactory to all those concerned.
    Captain Litchfield: I appreciate the Prime Minister's difficulty while this matter is still under discussion with New Zealand, but may I ask him whether he appreciates my own difficulty in wishing to avoid embarrassing him and yet at the same time feeling that it really is time for a reply of substance to be given to this Question, which has now been on the Order Paper for more than eleven weeks and has been deferred six times? It is a Question in which many hon. Members on both sides of the House and persons outside are interested. May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he can at least give an assurance that he recognises that these pictures, which are national possessions of historic interest and value, should be returned to this country when he returns to 10, Downing Street, in accordance with the terms of the original loan?
    The Prime Minister: I regret the delay, but I am awaiting a reply from the Prime Minister of New Zealand. I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend would think it discourteous of me if I made any statement before I had the reply.
    Mr. David James: If I may declare an interest as a trustee of the National Maritime Museum, might I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that the pictures on loan to New Zealand are not all New Zealand pictures? Only three out of the ten subjects loaned are New Zealand pictures and the balance are at the National Maritime Museum, Greenwich. Will he bear in mind that possibly the interests of New Zealand, too, would be better served if they would have copies of the New Zealand subjects rather than fragment a unique collection?
    The Prime Minister: I would only say now that the temporary loan has, I think, been a great pleasure to New Zealand. The question of the future must, I think, await the reply I hope to receive from the Prime Minister of New Zealand.

    NUCLEAR WEAPONS
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Prime Minister, in view of the deterrent effect of existing nuclear weapons and the fact that nuclear warfare would involve all belligerents and non-belligerents in nuclear destruction, if he will give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will not support a policy of indefinitely seeking parity between Communist and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Powers in the accumulation, improvement and testing of nuclear weapons since even possibly inferior nuclear weapons possessed by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation are sufficiently deterrent because of their vast explosive potential.
    The Prime Minister: The Government's policy is, pending any agreement on properly controlled disarmament, to do whatever is necessary to maintain the effectiveness as a deterrent of the forces of this country and her allies. I accept that "enough is enough", but there are many divergent opinions as to what level of nuclear and other armaments might constitute an effective deterrent. What is certain is that we and our allies could not accept a position in which a series of Russian tests might put us in a dangerously backward position. In the present state of the world therefore

    1581
    we are compelled in our own interests and those of our allies and friends to watch very carefully all scientific and technical developments to ensure that our forces can really deter.
    Mr. Sorensen: While accepting the Prime Minister's statement that enough is enough, and, indeed, not attempting to refute his arguments, may I ask whether he would not at least agree in principle that if sufficient nuclear power already exists to destroy the world there cannot be any point in trying to obtain more nuclear power to destroy the rubble? Surely, in those circumstances, it could be affirmed by Her Majesty's Government that a point might be reached when for no reason of prestige would the Government proceed still to support a policy of indefinitely increasing nuclear power?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir; but the object of the tests is really to secure the quality of the deterrent rather than its total quantity, to make sure that anti-missiles and other things cannot be worked out to our detriment.
    Mr. Warbey: Does the Prime Minister agree that there can be no hope of achieving a disarmament agreement so long as one side or the other insists upon maintaining its military superiority until the last bayonet is destroyed?
    The Prime Minister: That is really the point. For three years we maintained a moratorium. It was then broken. The problem was what we should do. We have tried hard to get an agreement, but we have so far failed. I believe that the House and the country as a whole recognise, however reluctantly, that the only course is to support what the American Government and we decided upon.

    CHINA (FAMINE RELIEF)
    Mr. P. Noel-Bakerasked the Prime Minister whether he will propose to President Kennedy and the Prime Minister of Canada that the Western Governments should jointly initiate United Nations action to provide food for the millions in mainland China who are now threatened by famine.
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that we all agree that ideological differences ought not to be a barrier to the relief
    1582
    of hunger. We have no precise information about the extent of the threat of famine in China, but there is certainly a serious food shortage and I have been thinking whether there are any ways in which we might help. But if food is to be got to the Chinese people, with the vast problem of distribution, it can only be with the willing co-operation of the Chinese Government. So far the Chinese Government have made no request for food, and I fear that an unsolicited offer is not likely to benefit the Chinese people.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that in 1922 Dr. Nansen of Norway proposed a League of Nations loan to help the Russians in the famine of that time without a request from the Russians? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that many people think that if that had succeeded the course of history might have been changed? Does not he think that an imaginative act of statesmanship might have the same result today?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. But, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, very large quantities of food have been purchased by the Chinese recently from countries with surpluses. Of course, it is the countries of surplus which have to make the largest contribution. Nevertheless, I am considering this in communication with some of our friends.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Chinese Government succeeded in reaching agreement with private firms for the purchase of surplus wheat in America and that our American allies prohibited the fulfilment of that agreement for the reasons hinted at in my right hon. Friend's supplementary question? If that is so, will not the Prime Minister make representations to our American allies to withdraw this prohibition?
    The Prime Minister: I am not altogether sure that that would be well received by our friends in Australia and Canada, who have sold very large parts of their surpluses as a result.

    NUCLEAR TESTS
    Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the different views of Soviet and Western

    1583
    scientists, he will discuss with President Kennedy a proposal for the appointment of a committee of independent scientists by the United Nations to investigate and report on the problem of the detection of all nuclear tests.
    The Prime Minister: As I explained to the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) on 15th May, the Russians have repeatedly ignored suggestions at Geneva that their scientists should meet others to discuss this problem. That being so, I do not think any purpose would be achieved by trying to transfer the problem to the United Nations.
    Mr. Henderson: Would not an impartial investigation by a body of neutral scientists of the facts of verification be of the greatest value to public opinion throughout the world, especially in view of the fact that there is direct conflict of views and advice between the scientists of the Soviet Union on the one side and the scientists of the United Kingdom and the United States on the other?
    The Prime Minister: While I accept that the opinions of independent scientists might be valuable, the fact remains that it is the scientists of the nuclear Powers who naturally have the greatest and most extensive knowledge of this matter. In the last resort progress depends on reconciling the views of the scientists who advise the Governments of the nuclear Powers, and if we were to exclude them from this work I do not think that this would necessarily lead to what we really want. I wish that we had an agreement by the Russians that our scientists and theirs should meet together, which is what we persuaded the Russians to do three years ago.
    Mr. Masonasked the Prime Minister, in view of the co-operative effort between the United States Government and Her Majesty's Government in testing nuclear devices, and the sharing of resulting scientific information, if he will now give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will not test any more nuclear weapons in Nevada, United States of America.
    The Prime Minister: We have no present intention of testing further nuclear devices in Nevada. It would be wrong, however, for me to give any
    1584
    firm assurance for the future which we cannot foresee.
    Mr. Mason: Can I not press the right hon. Gentleman to take this a stage further? If it be true, as he says, that we are receiving full scientific information on all the tests conducted jointly at Christmas Island and elsewhere by the Americans and ourselves, why is it necessary for us to go ahead at any time in the future with an independent series of nuclear tests?
    The Prime Minister: Certain weapons are designed in Britain for British purposes, and, although they make use of information received, these devices— whether safety or otherwise— have to be fully tested themselves.
    Mr. Pavitt: Has the right hon. Gentleman had time to study the article in the Willesden Chronicle by Alan Ereira which I sent to him ten days ago? Is he aware that His Excellency the United States Ambassador is forwarding a copy to the White House? Does not the Prime Minister think that this 17-year-old schoolboy is showing a much greater sense of responsibility about testing than the statesmen of Britain, the United States and the Soviet Union?
    The Prime Minister: I very much regret that by some error I have not had this article brought to me, but I will see that I read it this evening.
    Mr. Dribergasked the Prime Minister how many atmospheric nuclear tests have now taken place near Christmas Island; and whether he has yet received an approximate estimate of the damage to human health likely to result from these tests.
    The Prime Minister: The answer to the first part of the Question is 13, all of which have been reported in the Press. On the second part of the Question, I have nothing to add to the answers I gave to the hon. Member on 8th May and 10th April.
    Mr. Driberg: While accepting the Prime Minister's assurances that the fallout which causes the damage to human health is being kept to a minimum in these tests, may I ask him if he realises that the word "minimum" is meaningless unless there is some definition of it and of the number of cases involved?

    1585
    Does he not yet know whether the number of new cases of bone cancer and leukaemia is likely to be of the order of 10,000, or 100,000, or 1 million, and should this not have some effect on his assent to these tests?
    The Prime Minister: No increase has been detected by the Atomic Energy Authority in the incidence of radioactivity in the air attributable to these tests. I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the Second Report of the Medical Research Council published in 1960, which dealt with this whole question. I would not wish to summarise in a sentence that very carefully balanced Report.
    Mr. Driberg: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he referred me on a previous occasion to a report of a United Nations Committee in 1958 and that when I looked at it I found that it did essay tentative figures of the kind I had asked for? Why are they not obtainable now?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think it would be possible to obtain them. But I will see if I can make a fuller statement at a later stage. This is a very difficult and complicated matter. It would be wrong to lay down ex cathedra decisions on such a subject.

    FRANCE
    Mr. Zilliacusasked the Prime Minister whether he will put forward in his conversations with President de Gaulle the need for negotiating an agreement on international guarantees for the independence of West Berlin and freedom of access to it, and for the de jure recognition of the existing Polish frontier with Germany.
    The Prime Minister: I cannot give an undertaking to put forward any particular propositions in my talks with President de Gaulle.
    Mr. Zilliacus: Could the Prime Minister at any rate make it clear that Her Majesty's Government will not be deterred from entering into negotiations by the refusal of France and Germany to start negotiations or to adopt a give-and-take attitude? Will he further make it clear that in no circumstances shall
    1586
    we be committed to war by allies who have not come to terms with us on how to make peace?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman's deduction is quite false. As I understand it, certain explanatory soundings are being conducted between the American and Soviet Governments. It is true that the French Government were somewhat sceptical as to whether these would lead to practical results. But they have not opposed them. Nor have they been opposed by the German Government.
    Dr. King: Since the Polish border cannot be changed except by a third world war, and since a third world war is unthinkable, is it not time that the Western Allies told West Germany that she could make a great contribution to the pacification of Europe by declaring that she has no further territorial interests in changing the Oder-Neisse line?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I agree with the hon. Gentleman if he means that change by force is unthinkable. While a declaration of the nature he suggests might be a useful addition to any wider agreement, I do not think that it would be of any great value to make it without regard to a wider agreement.
    Mr. Zilliacusasked the Prime Minister what representations he has received from President de Gaulle regarding British support for French foreign policy, or the making available to the French Government of information on how to make nuclear weapons, as a pre-condition for French support for Great Britain's entry into the Common Market; and what explanation of Her Majesty's Government's policy in this regard he made in reply.
    The Prime Minister: None, Sir.
    Mr. Zilliacus: Has not the Prime Minister's attention been drawn to the repeated public declarations that it is President de Gaulle's intention to make the increase in nuclear knowledge and support for French foreign policy a condition of France's allowing Britain to enter the Common Market? Will he make it clear that in no circumstances will Her Majesty's Government be a party to any such bargain?
    The Prime Minister: I have not seen any such statement on behalf of the French Government, and I doubt very much the accuracy of such a statement. The two matters are not connected. The hon. Gentleman knows— I reminded the House the other day— the terms on which British nuclear information has been obtained from the American Government.

THAILAND
Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Prime Minister whether he will visit Thailand in view of the fact that British troops are now committed to defence of that country.
The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
Mr. Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that he is adequately informed about Thailand? Is he aware that the country is governed by a corrupt dictatorship and that there is an illiterate population? Does he think it advisable to send British soldiers there in order to maintain a régime like that?
The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman's statement about Thailand is exaggerated. The point is that we have taken certain steps which had the general approval of the House— [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, of a large part of the House— [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The reasons were fully debated the other day.

CENTRAL AFRICA (SECRETARY OF STATE'S VISIT)
The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:
Mr. HEALEY: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Central African Office) if he will make a statement on his visit to the Central African Federation.
Mr. RUSSELL: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Central African Office) if he will make a statement on his visit to Rhodesia and Nyasaland.
Mr. BIGGS-DAVISON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Central African Office) if he will
1588
make a statement about his visit to the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, and on Her Majesty's Government's plans for the future of British Central Africa.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): With permission, I will now answer Questions Nos. 37, 39 and 40 together.
Yes, Sir. In the course of my visit I had informal discussions with the Governments of the Federation and of the three territories. I also talked with representatives of political parties and other organisations, as well as with many individuals of all races. I have thus been able to obtain for myself a fuller and clearer picture of the political and economic problems in Central Africa and I should like to acknowledge the kindness with which I was received. These problems are difficult and complex, and it would be unwise on the basis of a short tour to attempt to reach final conclusions.
I am, however, happy to tell the House that we have succeeded in reaching a position from which, with the co-operation of all the Governments concerned, more detailed exploratory work can now proceed along the lines which I described to the House in the debate on 8th May.
I then said, and I now intend, that the problems of the area should be approached in a composite way so that the various separate aspects of the future relationship of the territories can be examined together.
I propose to put this work in hand as quickly as possible.
Mr. Healey: Is the Home Secretary aware that we welcome the improvement in the political atmosphere which seems to have followed his visit to the Federation? May I ask him two questions? As he has acknowledged that the Malawi Congress Party has received a firm mandate for its view that Nyasaland should leave the Federation, what position does he propose to take up on this issue when he meets Dr. Banda next month? Secondly, can he say whether Mr. Kenneth Kaunda is now satisfied that Her Majesty's Government and the Federal Government and the Northern Rhodesian Government have met the

1589
conditions which he set for participating in the Northern Rhodesian elections next October?
Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. Her Majesty's Government have acknowledged that, backed by mandate at the election, the Malawi Congress Party is not willing to remain in the Federation. We have stated, and I restate now, that Her Majesty's Government consider that before a final conclusion is reached examination should take place of the effect of the withdrawal and possible future forms of association with the other territories.
In regard to Mr. Kenneth Kaunda's requests, I informed him personally in Lusaka and in a public speech in Salisbury that we considered that the conditions prior to his acceptance of standing in the election could virtually be said to be fulfilled, namely, an independent chairman of the Delimitation Commission and the other matters to which he referred.
Mr. Russell: Will my right hon. Friend do his best to ensure that at least a strong association is maintained between the two Rhodesias and possibly some economic association between them and Nyasaland, so that all the good work of the last nine years is not completely lost?
Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. The exploratory work which I described to the House on 8th May will have these objectives in mind.
As I said in answer to the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), I do not propose to call a Federal review conference prior, at any rate, to the Northern Rhodesian elections, but this exploratory work will be designed to see what effective action we can take on the lines of what my hon. Friend has said.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: Did my right hon. Friend assure the Governor of Northern Rhodesia of the full support of Her Majesty's Government in using all the forces of law and order to protect peaceable people of all races from violence, intimidation and political terror? Whatever the result of the elections in Northern Rhodesia, will Her Majesty's Government continue to discharge their constitutional authority and their responsibility for peace and order?
Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. I took more than one opportunity of stressing not only with the Government of Northern Rhodesia, but with the other Governments concerned, the importance of countering intimidation. It is Her Majesty's Government's desire that the elections in Northern Rhodesia and elsewhere should be held without intimidation and in a peaceful way.
The answer to the latter part of my hon. Friend's question is, "Yes, Sir."
Mr. Bellenger: Was the right hon. Gentleman able to discuss with Dr. Banda the economic consequences of secession from the Federation, as Nyasaland is at present receiving substantial subsidies from the Federation to keep it going?
Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. I discussed this with Dr. Banda and we considered together the fact that only a proportion of the budget of Nyasaland is covered by revenue raised in the territory itself. I must also say that at present the chief interest of the Malawi Ministers is concentrated on their constitutional future, but I was able to have very frank discussions with them about their economic future.
Viscount Hinchingbrooke: During my right hon. Friend's very successful tour of the Rhodesias, reports arrived in this country to the effect that Dr. Banda had made an absolute demand for secession and that my right hon. Friend had accommodated him to the extent of conceding the principle. I was not quite sure from his answers whether that was the case.
Mr. Butler: No, Sir. The position is as I stated it personally to Dr. Banda and in the House on 8th May and at a Press conference at Zomba, namely, that before any final conclusion is reached, the examination to which I referred must take place.
Mr. Healey: Can the Home Secretary assure the House that nothing he has just said detracts from the force of the declaration made by Her Majesty's Government's representatives at the United Nations, namely, that no steps would be taken concerning the future of the Federation without the agreement of

1591
the majority of the inhabitants— not the electorate— of all the territories concerned?
Mr. Butler: I stated in a series of speeches while I was in the Federation that we should not proceed without general consent, without which no lasting settlement could be reached.
Mr. Berkeley: While congratulating my right hon. Friend on the personal success of his visit, may I ask him whether, since he agrees that any possible future association between these three territories must be based upon general consent, he would not also agree that the possibility of economic association between these territories, which we all hope to see, might be facilitated by an earlier declaration of the right of each territory to secede if it so desires? Will it not be very difficult to refuse this right in view of what has happened in the Federation of the West Indies?
Mr. Butler: No, Sir. Her Majesty's Government, as I explained in the debate on 8th May, cannot go as far as that at the present time. We are engaged in this work, which will be extremely laborious and difficult, and I cannot take the matter as far as my hon. Friend would wish.
Mr. Stonehouse: Did the Home Secretary tell Sir Roy Welensky and confirm to him the statement made by the Lord Chancellor to the effect that any constitutional change in the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland was completely the responsibility of the United Kingdom, and, if so, did Sir Roy Welensky accept that fact?
Mr. Butler: As can be imagined, protracted argument on this subject took place. I sustained the view of Her Majesty's Government and Sir Roy Welensky sustained his own view and that of the Federal Government. Up to date, we are leaving it that Her Majesty's Government accept what my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor said.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. G. Brown: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for next week?
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. fain Macleod): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 4TH JUNE— Debate on a Government Motion to take note of the White Paper on Hospital Plans for England and Wales and Scotland (Command Nos. 1604 and 1602).
Motion on the Functions of Traffic Wardens (Scotland) Order.
TUESDAY, 5TH JUNE— It is hoped to complete the Committee stage of the Finance Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 6TH JUNE, and THURSDAY, 7TH JUNE— A debate will take place on the Common Market.
For this two-day debate the Government are giving one day and the Opposition are allotting a Supply Day.
FRIDAY, 8TH JUNE— It Will be proposed that the House should rise for the Whit-sun Adjournment until Tuesday, 26th June.
Mr. Brown: May I ask the Leader of the House how the Government propose to handle the business for Wednesday and Thursday? Will the Lord Privy Seal open the debate with a full statement, and does the Prime Minister intend to be available to take part in the debate?
Mr. Macleod: The Lord Privy Seal will open the debate. In reply to a question last week I said that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food would also probably take part at an appropriate stage in the two-day debate, but the full team of Government speakers has not yet been finalised.
Mr. Brown: Will the Prime Minister hold himself available to take part in this debate?
Mr. Macleod: I would not like to commit the Prime Minister on that matter. Perhaps I can put to him the point made by the right hon. Gentleman.
Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: Can the Leader of the House say when it is proposed to make a statement on the cotton industry?
Mr. Macleod: I hope in the first clay or so of next week.
Mr. S. Silverman: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that by an enormous overwhelming majority the Committee of Supply decided last Thursday to report Progress and ask leave to sit again? Can he say whether this leave has actually been sought, and, if so, whether it has been granted, and on What day the debate will be resumed?
Moreover, wild the Leader of the House bear in mind that later the same day, no doubt by the merest inadvertence, the Minister replying to the debate rather over-reached himself and talked out the debate so that it was never concluded? Can the right hon. Gentleman say what plan the Government can offer for the conclusion of that debate, too?
Mr. Macleod: The trouble is that the hon. Gentleman and I suffer from the same disability. So far as Supply is concerned, neither of us is the leader of the official Opposition.
Mr. F. M. Bennett: Has the attention of the Leader of the House been drawn to the Motion on the Notice Paper, dealing with the Repudiation of Clause Four?
[That this House, while warmly commending the Leader of the Opposition for excluding Imperial Chemical Industries from the threat of nationalisation if and when another Labour Government is elected, urges him, with the united support of his party, now to specify what other industries are to be exempt from future nationalisation under the terms of Clause IV of the Labour Party's Constitution.]
Can he say whether, even in the crowded programme for next week, he can find time for a debate to allow the Leader of the Opposition to respond to our courteous invitation to him to clarify the present position of his party about the future operation of Clause Four of their Constitution?
Mr. Macleod: Obviously, this is a splendid occasion for one of the traditional answers that one gives, that this would be a peculiarly proper subject for a Supply day if the Opposition agreed to it.
Mr. Wade: Is it intended that there should be a vote at the conclusion of the debate on the Common Market?
Mr. Macleod: That is not for me to say. It may be convenient for the House if I state the form which the debate will follow. On the first day a schedule of Votes will be put down. On the second day, which is Government time, the debate will be continued on a Motion for the Adjournment. Whether a vote takes place on that is for the House to decide.
Mr. Leather: On the important Common Market debate, can we have an assurance that the minimum amount of time will be monopolised by Front Bench speakers on both sides, and that we shall have a chance to really express a view?
Mr. Macleod: We are having a two-day debate which should give a full opportunity for a considerable number of hon. Members to speak. I am sure that the House wants from the Lord Privy Seal a full, clear, and detailed statement of the progress of the negotiations so far, and with that we shall initiate the debate.
Dr. King: May I remind the Leader of the House of the all-party Motion on the Order Paper, signed by over 120 Members, on public service pensioners, and also remind him that last Friday we were unable to discuss the broad issue of public service pensioners on the excellent Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes)? Will he give serious consideration to giving us an apportunity to discuss this other Motion soon after we return from the Whitsun Recess?
[That this House, recognising the hardships of public service pensioners and especially of older public service pensioners, whose pensions bear no relation to similar pensions now obtaining in the public service, urges Her Majesty's Government to introduce, as soon as economic circumstances permit, a new Pensions (Increase) Bill to raise the incomes of such pensioners.]
Mr. Macleod: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recognises that the two do march, and always have done, closely together. Although it could not come into the debate last Friday, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will find some comfort in the sympathetic answer given from the Treasury Bench to last Friday's Motion.
Mr. P. Browne: Is my right hon. Friend aware that normally by this time

1595
of the year we have had a debate on the Agricultural Price Review? Is it not strange that this year, on the occasion of this particularly controversial Review, Opposition time is not being made available to discuss it? Will he ensure that we have a debate on this subject as soon as possible after the Whitsun Recess?
Mr. Macleod: I cannot guarantee that it will take place in Government time. It is a Supply Motion which could be taken in Opposition time.
Mr. G. Brown: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider that reply? The Price Review was an act of Government policy. It has never been the practice, nor, indeed, the constitutional arrangement, for the Opposition to provide time to debate Government action. This has always been done in Government time. Why should not it be done this year?
Mr. Macleod: With respect, I do not agree. If the Opposition wish to criticise particular acts of Government policy, opportunities to do that are available on Supply days.
Mr. Hoy: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware of the new Clause—Exemption from excise duty of Scottish shale oil— which we suggested should be included in the Finance Bill, but which, unfortunately, was not selected for discussion by the Chairman of Ways and Means? May I renew my request to the right hon. Gentleman to give us time to discuss briefly the future of this old-established Scottish industry?
Mr. Macleod: There is still the Report stage of the Finance Bill. I will consider what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I must not be taken as holding out the possibility of providing Government time to discuss the matter.
Mr. Kershaw: With regard to last Friday's debate on the subject raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), if my right hon. Friend describes the reply from the Treasury Bench as sympathetic, would he care to give me an idea of what would be an unsympathetic reply?
Mr. Speaker: Not on business questions.
Mr. Driberg: Further to that point, Although the Government's reply on Friday was not, in my view, particularly sympathetic, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government spokesman did not divide the House against the Motion of the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes)? The Motion was, therefore, carried and becomes the view of the House— including, presumably, those members of the Government who were present and did not vote against it. Can we take it, therefore, that the Government will take early action to implement the terms of that Motion?
Mr. Macleod: That is precisely the reason why I described the reply by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary as sympathetic He accepted the Motion.
Dame Irene Ward: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that in the Motion of the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), which was agreed to by the House without a Division, it was made quite clear that the Government accepted that at the time of the General Election a pledge was given that all pensioners should participate in the good fortune that has come to the country? Now that that has been accepted and established, may I ask why it has taken nearly three years to keep that pledge?
Mr. Macleod: With respect to my hon. Friend, the point that she is raising relates to last week's business and not next week's, but if one looks at the five pensions Bills which the Government have introduced on this subject, they show that the Government have an honourable record. That the Government intend to carry out and maintain.
Dame Irene Ward: I said before the last General Election.
Mr. Warbey: I wish to raise with the Leader of the House an important point in connection with the business for next Tuesday, when, according to the information given to us, we are to discuss again the Finance Bill in Committee. I, and a number of other hon. Members, have important Amendments down to the Finance Bill which are appointed for discussion on that day. At the same time in the afternoon, from four o'clock onwards, Standing Committee B will be meeting for further discussion on the

1597
Pipe-lines Bill on which I and other hon. Members have important Amendments which we wish to discuss.
This is the third time on which this has happened. On the first occasion Standing Committee B sat until 7 p.m. Last Tuesday, it went on sitting until 11.30 p.m., and we were warned by the Minister— or perhaps I should say threatened— that next Tuesday we shall be expected to sit even later. This involves a really intolerable clash in the duties imposed on hon. Members. It is literally impossible for us to be in two places at the same time. Not only do we desire to take part in the debates in both Committees, but we wish also to move Amendments in both Committees.
Fortunately, there is a provision in our Standing Orders which would enable us partially to overcome this difficulty. I should like to ask the Leader of the House whether he will give notice under Standing Order No. 10 to move the Adjournment of the House next Tuesday?
Mr. Macleod: No, Sir. I understand the point made by the hon. Member, but it is inevitable, particularly at a time like this, at this time of the year— [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]— when business is crowded, that there should be a clash. I have no intention of invoking the powers of Standing Order No. 10, which were, in fact, re-enacted in 1947 and, I think, have never been used.
Mr. Tapsell: May I revert to the subject raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett)? In view of the recent action of the Leader of the Opposition in repudiating his party's constitution in so far as it applies to the chemical industry, would it not be very much in the national interest that all the great industries threatened by nationalisation in the event of another Labour Government should have the opportunity to know exactly what is their position as a result of a general debate on nationalisation?
Mr. Hector Hughes: In view of the objections made from both sides of the House and at open air meetings throughout the country to the Government's objectionable, iniquitous and uneconomic proposals——
Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Did not
1598
you, in your wisdom, reproach me some time ago for using too many adjectives? What about the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes)? His question was full of epithets.
Mr. Speaker: I did not reproach the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I ruled that his question was out of order because it was too thick with epithets. So, also, was the question of the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes). I should like the House to get on with business.
Mr. Hector Hughes: May I now, after that silly and irrelevant interruption, renew my sentence, Mr. Speaker? My sentence is a request to the Leader of the House, in view of what I said, to find time next week for a debate on the very urgent subject of grants and loans to foreign shipyards which are calculated to deprive British workers of employment.
Mr. Macleod: It is good to see the hon. and learned Gentleman back in his old form.
Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: Hear, hear.
Mr. Macleod: Obviously, there is no opportunity for this next week. But I think that there may be an opportunity for the House after the Whitsun Recess, perhaps in July, because affirmative Orders will then come before the House. In that case there may be— there would be— an opportunity in July for this matter to be discussed.
Mr. G. Brown: May I revert to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) about the sittings of Standing Committee B which is discussing the Pipe-Lines Bill? Does not it strike the Leader of the House that it is quite intolerable that a Standing Committee should be sitting for long hours when important business like the Finance Bill is being discussed in this Chamber? Without any desire to hold up the progress of the Pipe-Lines Bill, or to be unduly difficult, may I ask whether the Leader of the House will give further consideration to this matter and try to arrange that the proceedings of the Standing Committee are conducted at more reasonable hours than have been suggested?
Mr. Macleod: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will recall that this complaint has been raised about many forms of business before the House, and not only the Finance Bill. It could be raised whatever the business for Tuesday, 5th June may be. I was asked a specific question, whether I was prepared to invoke Standing Order No. 10, and I said, "No".
Mr. Prior: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it might be possible to make faster progress in Standing Committee B if the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) excused himself from attending that Committee next Tuesday afternoon?
Mr. Brown: If all hon. Members were absent all the business could be disposed of without discussion.
Mr. Ross: The Leader of the House has said that this has happened in relation to other Bills apart from the Finance Bill. Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the Finance Bill is something rather special, that it is one Bill that cannot be discussed in a Standing Committee, but must be taken in this Chamber to allow for the full participation of every hon. Member? Is not this the one Bill which should not under those circumstances, and from the point of view of constitutional propriety, be affected?
Mr. Macleod: If the hon. Member will study the precedents— there is one only a few weeks old— he will realise that exactly the same argument was produced about the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill which clashed with the proceedings of a Standing Committee. The argument could be produced in connection with any business.
Mr. Jay: What is the special reason why, at present, as the right hon. Gentleman said, it is impossible for the Government to ensure that next week hon. Members have sufficient time to do their duty both in the Standing Committee and in this Chamber?
Mr. Macleod: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that it is nothing like as difficult as all that. It is quite possible, if he wishes, for an hon. Member to move his Amendment in this Chamber.
Mr. Harold Davies: Is the Leader of the House aware that every time we
1600
have had a major debate on the Common Market the Government have treated the House nonchalantly, as they did over the movement of military forces, and have not given hon. Members information? Could not we have a White Paper on the progress of the negotiations stating what has been done and what has not been done, so that the debate may be constructive? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we did not even have a copy of the Treaty of Rome when the first debate was held?
Mr. Macleod: I will draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to what the hon. Member has said:
Mr. S. Silverman: May I, for purely practical purposes, revert to the question which I put to the Leader of the House a few minutes ago, and of which he answered only half? While conceding the disability from which he said that both of us suffered and assuring him there is every prospect of that disability being cured in his case quicker than in mine, may I remind him of the second part of my question about the Adjournment debate, from which obviously the Government had full responsibility?
There is a widespread impression, shared as we know by the Prime Minister, that the debate was on that occasion concluded. Will not he give us an opportunity to conclude it? If he cannot do that, will he at least assure us that he will take every care to see that the speaker winding up for the Government at the end of the debate on the Common Market does not overstep his time in such a way as to deprive the House from reaching a decision on the Motion if it wishes to do so? The right hon. Gentleman will remember that last Thursday a Government spokesman talked out the Motion for the Adjournment. I am asking for an assurance that he will not do so on the occasion of the debate on the Common Market on the Motion for the adjournment.
Mr. Macleod: With respect to the hon. Member, I think that he will agree, on looking back to the last occasion— this is very rare for him— that he was caught napping—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, he was. At one minute to ten o'clock he could have asked for the Closure, in which case there would have been such a Division. The hon.

1601
Member was not awake on that occasion. It is something which is very rare, but that is what happened.
Mr. Silverman: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that he is completely mistaken? I was fully aware of what was happening, but if the Government were so afraid for their case that they did not want a decision of the House in their favour, it was no business of mine to come to their rescue.
Mr. Macleod: The hon. Member had better consult HANSARD. He will then find that at two minutes past ten o'clock he awoke to what was happening, but that it was too late.
Mr. M. Foot: As the Leader of the House appears to be so well equipped with these precedents, will he tell us which was the last occasion when, in similar circumstances, the Government talked out their own Motion?
Mr. Macleod: We do this regularly.
Mr. S. Silverman Mr. S. Silverman rose——
Mr. Speaker: I must ask if the hon. Member has a new question to ask. I think that we ought to get on with business.
Mr. Silverman: This is a serious point, Sir. I should like your permission to put it to the Leader of the House.
The right hon. Gentleman has said now, what he did not say before, that the business of talking out Government Motions by their own spokesmen is a regular habit of the present Government. That reinforces the importance of my question to him in asking that he should give an assurance that that will not happen next Tuesday.
Mr. Warbey: On a point of order. In the Standing Orders we have Standing Order No. 10, which provides facilities for the Adjournment of the House to facilitate the business of Standing Committees in certain circumstances. Those circumstances have been described this afternoon. The Standing Order provides that the Motion for the Adjournment of the House may be made only after notice given by a Minister of the Crown, which means, unfortunately, that no one but the Minister of the Crown may invoke this Standing Order.
Mr. Speaker: Does it not also result in it not being a point of order?
Mr. Warbey: I was coming to that, Mr. Speaker.
With great respect, I was about to ask whether, in view of the fact that this Standing Order may be invoked only by a Minister of the Crown, you can tell me what procedure I should follow to challenge the arrogant refusal of the Minister to apply this Standing Order?
Mr. Speaker: There is no point of order for the Chair, manifestly, on the terms of the Standing Order.

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY (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 again intend to publish a more detailed account of the latest developments in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
On 16th May I said that the last ministerial meeting marked the end of the first stage: the way was open for the negotiation of solutions. The House will understand, of course, that any agreement on the solution of individual elements in the negotiations remains subject to overall agreement. The momentum has been maintained both in the meetings of the deputies of Ministers and in the ministerial meeting which ended in Brussels yesterday.
At this meeting agreement was reached on the tariff treatment to be applied to our imports of industrial products from Canada, Australia and New Zealand. As regards these commodities, I said in my opening statement in Paris on 10th October that we recognised that indefinite and unlimited continuation of free entry over the whole of this field might not be regarded as compatible with the development of Common Market.
The solution now worked out provides that the common external tariff will not be applied to these imports in accordance with the normal timetable, but in

1603
three stages: the first stage on accession, the second stage on 1st January, 1967, and the third stage on 1st January, 1970.
The European Economic Community at one time proposed that this delayed application of the tariff should relate only to a limited list of goods, but it is now agreed that all industrial exports are included. It was agreed that the Community would be ready to take part in multilateral negotiations aimed at reducing, on a reciprocal basis, the level of the common tariff on industrial products.
The agreement also provides for consultation between the enlarged European Community and Canada, Australia and New Zealand in 1966 and 1969, after which appropriate steps would be taken in the light of all the circumstances in conformity with the provisions of the Treaty.
Ministers carried a stage further the discussion of the most important and extremely difficult question of the treatment of imports of temperate foodstuffs from the Commonwealth, both during the transitional period and in the long-term. In this connection, I have put forward certain proposals on cereals which will be discussed by Ministers' deputies next week.
The Ministers had a long discussion of the list of products, mostly industrial raw materials, on which we have asked for a nil tariff. In some cases the Community has suggested alternative arrangements to meet the essential needs of ourselves and our suppliers. Deputies have been asked to examine these alternative proposals together with our own with a view to submitting solutions to Ministers at their next meeting.
I have made comprehensive proposals for dealing with the exports of India, Pakistan and Ceylon and emphasised to Ministers the importance of making arrangements to protect the essential export interests of these countries. The Government of India have also circulated a memorandum to the Six Governments. Our proposals, together with the memorandum of the Government of India, will be examined further by the deputies.
Ministers also had before them a report by a Working Party on the prob-
1604
lems of British horticulture. The deputies will examine it in greater detail taking account of individual commodities.
Finally, I made a report on the discussions which have been taking place between our delegation and the Commission on the provisions of the Treaty of Rome concerned with economic union. I was able to tell the Ministers that these discussions have satisfied us that on the most important matters dealt with in these Articles we can accept the Treaty subject to a small number of adjustments on timing and administration.
The next meeting of Ministers will be for four days, 27th to 30th June.
Mr. G. Brown: This very important statement will inevitably be very much a part of the debate which we shall have next week.
Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that parts of the statement seem so involved as to be almost meaningless? For example, there is the reference to the consultations which will take place between the enlarged European Community, as he called it, and Australia, Canada and New Zealand, in 1966 and 1969, leading to appropriate steps "in the light of all the circumstances and in conformity with the provisions of the Treaty." That hardly seems to have a real meaning at all. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will develop exactly what is envisaged there.
In spite of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, is it still understood that all the arrangements we are coming to with the Community will be subject to the general approval of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference before any final decisions are taken?
Mr. Heath: Yes, Sir. I tried to make plain, in the first part of my statement, that as we are dealing with a number of different sectors in these negotiations we work out solutions which come to fruition at different times, and we hope to find agreement on each of them. At the last Ministerial meeting we found agreement on this particular sector concerned with Commonwealth industrial products. This will form part of the outline of a settlement generally agreed among the seven Governments which we shall try to obtain before the end

1605
of July so that it can be placed before the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference in September.
All the undertakings that we have given to the House and the Resolution of last August remain—that no agreement can be signed until it has been debated by this House in accordance with the terms of the Resolution. I think that that position is absolutely plain.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the approval of the Commonwealth. It has always been clearly stated that the Commonwealth countries themselves fully recognise, and this has been repeatedly stated, that the final decision must rest with the United Kingdom Government.
On the particular point that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, each of these sentences in the statement means a very great deal. Full consultation between the three Commonwealth countries and the enlarged European Economic Community in both 1966 and 1969, in each case before the stage of the application of part of the common tariff, is of the greatest importance for these three Commonwealth countries.
On the last point, about appropriate action, I cannot be more specific about the type of action to be taken for the simple reason that it is impossible for anyone now to foresee what the circumstances of 1970 will be, nor what action will be appropriate in 1970.
Mr. Brown: While wholly understanding that the final decision rests with the United Kingdom, may I press the right hon. Gentleman again that, before a final decision is taken, we shall be told whether or not the agreement which we propose to accept has received the general approval of the Prime Ministers of the Commonwealth? The right hon. Gentleman must be quite clearly aware that if it did not receive the general approval of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers, that would very gravely affect the attitude of this House towards it.
Mr. Heath: The Commonwealth Prime Ministers will be able to express their own views fully at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference, publicly in this country and in their own Parliaments and countries. There will
1606
be absolutely no doubt about that at all. The House will be fully aware of their views when it comes to making the decision.
Mr. Turton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the decision to abandon the Commonwealth preference is a matter affecting the bilateral agreements between ourselves and our Commonwealth partners? Before that decision was made, were our Commonwealth partners consulted? Did we obtain their approval for us to end these agreements at the date stated in the agreements?
Mr. Heath: This is not the abandonment of Commonwealth preferences. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is a solution dealing with a particular part of these negotiations, and it is not the solution which is applicable to other parts of Commonwealth trade, necessarily, nor is it being worked out in these other sectors. It applies to this particular sector.
From the point of view of consultations with the Commonwealth, the proposals which eventually led to this solution were first put to the three Commonwealth countries several months ago. I discussed them myself with Canada when I was there on a visit to Ottawa, and they have been fully discussed with other Commonwealth countries.
I am not in a position to state what is the detailed attitude of each country towards these proposals. We have always put the proposals to them at each stage, and we have received their comments on them. We have made changes where we thought it was right so to do, and that is our responsibility. [Interruption.] Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) can be quiet at least for a few minutes and listen to what is being said.
When it came to the last stage of these negotiations, the Commonwealth was informed, immediately before I took part in the discussions in Brussels, about the room in which I was prepared to negotiate. The negotiations finished at 6.35 p.m. on Tuesday, and I met the Ambassadors of the three Commonwealth countries at 7 p.m., when I gave them a full account of these negotiations, and exactly what the solution

1607
was that we had arrived at. There has been the fullest consultation with the three Commonwealth countries on this sector, as, indeed, on every other.
Mr. Healey: Is it not the case that the agreement which the right hon. Gentleman has reached this week involves not only the abolition of Commonwealth Preference on all manufactured goods from all white countries of the Commonwealth, hut also the substitution of a European preference against the Commonwealth countries by 1970? Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that this surrender of Commonwealth preference will not be treated as a precedent for the treatment of other Commonwealth interests, and that, on the contrary, this agreement will depend upon the Common Market countries agreeing to what the right hon. Gentleman called "comparable outlets in an enlarged Common Market", for all the agricultural products of the Commonwealth countries, and cheap manufactures from Asia?
May I also ask the right hon. Gentleman to deny reports published widely in the British Press today that Her Majesty's Government have made a proposal for the treatment of cheap manufactures from Asia which does not allow for an increase in the imports of Asian manufactures to Europe as a whole over the future years, in view of the fact that an increase in Asian exports to Europe is a pre-condition for the success of the development plans in all the Asian countries of the Commonwealth?
Mr. Heath: I have told the House repeatedly that each of the different sectors I have described to the House— the temperate foodstuffs, the products of Asian countries, the tropical products of our African and West Indian members of the Commonwealth, and so on— has to have a separate solution to be put forward for them, and I have described the nature of these solutions on each occasion. None of them is of the same type as those I have described this afternoon, because each group is separate and requires a separate method of treatment.
So far as the Asian countries are concerned— India, Pakistan and Ceylon, which are the three Asian countries— I have told the members of the Six of the
1608
importance of this trade to these Asian countries, and that a rate of growth is required to be allowed for. As I have already told the House, the Ministers have accepted the balancing principle that damage should not be caused to the exports of these countries, and that if damage is later seen to be caused remedial action should be taken.
Mr. D. Walker-Smith: Although my right hon. Friend has said, in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), that the agreement in respect of manufactured goods does not represent the abandonment of Commonwealth preference, is it not obviously a very serious invasion of that principle? Is it not equally obvious that the Community will be encouraged to apply the same principle in regard to other products in general, and to temperate foodstuffs in particular? Will he therefore, for the avoidance of doubt hereafter, affirm the intention of Her Majesty's Government not to regard as satisfactory any conditions of entry which involve, wholly or substantially, the abrogation of Commonwealth preference?
Mr. Heath: There are bound to be changes in Commonwealth preferences, because we have to reconcile the Commonwealth trading position with the Customs Union which forms the Common Market. Therefore, there are bound to be changes. The simple fact, as my right hon. and learned Friend knows full well, is that Commonwealth preferences have been changing a great deal over the last few years. They changed a few months ago as a result of an agreement between the United States and the Economic Community, which was translated, through the "most-favoured-nation" treatment, to Canada, and, therefore, our own Commonwealth preferences were affected.
These matters are changing the whole time, and will have to be taken into account in the other solutions which we are trying to reach in the other sectors which I have already described to the House.
Mr. Wade: The Lord Privy Seal has stated that he is dealing only with a particular sector. Has he any progress to report on the political implications of accepting the Treaty of Rome? When he uses these important words, "We can

1609
accept the Treaty subject to a small number of adjustments of timing and administration", is he referring to the provisions of the Treaty concerned with economic unity, or to the Treaty as a whole?
Mr. Heath: I was referring to the Treaty as a whole, because a very large part of it concerns economic union provisions and the remainder deals with the common tariff and the common agricultural policy. The political discussions to which the hon. Member refers are not taking place in Brussels and are not part of the negotiations on the Treaty of Rome. There have been no further developments in that sphere since the meeting of the Ministers of the six Governments of 17th April.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that to me his statement is particularly disturbing, because he told me from that Treasury Bench that these industrial imports from the Commonwealth countries were not expendable? Have I got it wrong? Has the Lord Privy Seal made the offer to bring to an end over a term of years preferences for Canada, Australia and New Zealand in this sector without having a firm assurance from the European Economic Community that comparable opportunities will be found for those industrial exports in Europe?
Mr. Heath: We have put forward our solutions for dealing with temperate foodstuffs and these concern a very great part of Commonwealth trade. All these solutions will have to be considered in the final outline together. They must all be taken together, and weighed up together to see whether they provide a satisfactory solution to the problems which would be involved in our membership of the European Economic Community.
Many people in the Commonwealth countries will regard a period of transition of this length for a change-over from the present system to what is involved in the future as giving a considerable number of years in which changes can take place. They are being carried through in three stages over this period up to 1970. This does not mean that these industrial goods are expendable. A very careful analysis has been made of the prospects of these goods item by
1610
item in trading arrangements. The importance of the sentence in my statement about negotiations is the undertaking of the Community, which they have expressed previously in a more general form, about taking part in negotiations which are coming to be known as the Kennedy Round, if the President is able to carry his legislation through Congress. Those negotiations, covering the industrial products of the Western free world, would be of the greatest importance for the economies of all Atlantic countries.
Mr. Bellenger: I should like to ask the Lord Privy Seal a general question as to the method of debating these matters. He has told the House that he has already settled, in part, problems which will have to be discussed at some time in debate. Next week we have two days to debate— I do not know what; probably the general issues. But, obviously, what the right hon. Gentleman has said this afternoon is bound to come prominently into the picture.
My question to him is, therefore, this: would it not be better for the House to have a complete picture, because we have to weigh against one item of concessions perhaps another of item of advantage to this country? Does he intend not to give the House a complete statement on the negotiations before the House rises for the Summer Recess, but, instead, to leave it until he and his right hon. Friends have consulted the Commonwealth Prime Ministers and then, late in the autumn, to discuss the whole question whether we go into the Common Market, with the various pros and cons?
Mr. Heath: During the debate next week I will do my utmost to give the House the fullest information I can about the stage which we have reached in the negotiations over the whole front, commensurate with the fact that in those places where we have not yet reached solutions there is a great deal of confidential information between the two sides and between ourselves and the Commonwealth Governments which I am not at liberty to divulge to the House. The question of future debates is one for the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition to arrange, and it will obviously depend upon the timing of when we are able to reach solutions, if we are, over the whole front, so that the

1611
whole House can see the whole picture, as and when it is in a position to have a debate.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is clear that we cannot debate this matter without a Question before the House.
Mr. Stonehouse: On a point of order. May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that, apart from questions by Privy Councillors on this side of the House, not a single back bench Member on this side has been called to ask a Question? In view of the importance of the subject, may I ask whether a question may be put?
Mr. Speaker: I am of the opinion that it may not. It is no kind of snobbery on the part of the Chair which has resulted in this happening. I think that I worked round the parties.
Sir M. Lindsay: On a point of order.
Mr. Speaker: I am on my feet.
Clearly, we cannot debate a great, wide subject like this wholly irregularly and without a Question before the House. The House charges me with the admittedly difficult responsibility of deciding when we ought to stop this kind of irregularity.
Sir M. Lindsay: On a point of order. I know that it is difficult, Mr. Speaker, but all the questions from this side of the House have been from persistent anti-Common Market questioners who do not represent this country at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".] I should have said that they do not represent the majority point of view in the country. Would it not be possible to have a few questions, for example, from my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Leather), or others who take a different point of view?
Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members do not wear for my benefit little flags or badges indicating precisely what their views are, nor, indeed, are questions necessarily the right method for asserting views but rather for a further extracting of information or requiring action. I ask the House to take a sensible view. We ought to get on now.
Mr. Stonehouse: Further to that point of order. In view of the fact that reference has been made to the opinions of hon. Members opposite, could it not be pointed out that the majority of back bench Members on this side of the House regard the Lord Privy Seal's statement as a monstrous thing?
Mr. Speaker: That is manifestly an abuse of rising to a point of order.
Following is the detailed account:
REPORT OF PROGRESS OF BRUSSELS NEGOTIATIONS
Since my last report on the Brussels negotiations on 17th May, meetings of the Ministers' deputies and of working parties have continued. On 29th and 30th May there were meetings of Ministers at which we reviewed the progress made during the past fortnight and continued the process of seeking to negotiate solutions.
The present position with regard to the various problems under discussion is as follows:
Raw Materials and Semi-Manufactures for which we have proposed a zero tariff
This subject has been discussed in some detail by the deputies and we had a further useful examination of the problems involved at our Ministerial meeting on 29th May. We still consider, and have re-emphasised, that the most appropriate solution for each of the products on our list would be the reduction of the common tariff to nil. The Six find particular difficulty in meeting us on some products, but are not yet ready to put forward any alternative proposal. On some other products they have put forward proposals which are to be discussed by the deputies.
Industrial Products from Canada, Australia and New Zealand
Ministers agreed on the following arrangements:
(1) The United Kingdom would take the first step (30 per cent.) towards the application of the common customs tariff to imports of these products on the date of its accession to the Community. The United Kingdom would take a second step (30 per cent.) towards applying the common customs tariff on 1st January, 1967. The United Kingdom would apply the full common customs tariff to all the products concerned on 1st January, 1970.
(2) Note would be taken of the readiness of the Community to take part in multilateral negotiations aimed at reducing, on a reciprocal basis, customs duties on industrial products.
(3) The enlarged Community would be prepared to examine, in 1966 and 1969, in consultation with Canada, Australia and New Zealand, the development of its trade with these countries, after which it would take appropriate steps in the light of all the circumstances, and in conformity watt the provisions of the Treaty.
India, Pakistan and Ceylon Exports
I made comprehensive proposals dealing with the exports of India, Pakistan and Ceylon and emphasised to Ministers the importance of making arrangements adequate to protect the essential export interests of these countries. Ministers asked deputies to examine these problems further, taking into account our own proposals and a memorandum communicated to the Governments of the Six by the Government of India. The deputies have been asked to propose solutions for consideration at the next meeting of Ministers.
Association and Tropical Products
Deputies will revert to these subjects at their June meetings. Meanwhile, we have put for. ward precise proposals regarding the tariff treatment of the various tropical products. The Six have not yet put forward proposals of their own or commented on ours, but hope to do so shortly. Meanwhile, a Working Party has submitted a report analysing the trade in a number of these products and the problems which arise and is continuing to work on further products.
Commonwealth Temperate Foodstuffs
Since the last ministerial meeting deputies have been considering our proposals for safeguarding essential Commonwealth interests in this field. We had a further discussion at the ministerial meeting and the Six emphasised their view that the arrangements made would need to be consistent with the Treaty and the common agricultural and common commercial policies. The deputies will resume their examination of this subject next week, and will consider the proposals which I have submitted for arrangements for imports of cereals from Commonwealth countries.
Horticulture
During the period under review a Working Party has been examining the problems of British horticulture and has prepared an interim report which the deputies discussed and submitted to Ministers. The report set out our view of the problems and how we thought they might be handled, together with the views of the Six. We agreed that the deputies should examine the problems in greater detail, taking account of individual commodities, and should suggest possible solutions.
Economic Union
I made a report on the discussions which have been taking place between our delegation and the Commission on the provisions of the Treaty of Rome concerned with economic union. I was able to tell the Ministers that these discussions have satisfied us that on the most important matters dealt with in these Articles we can accept the Treaty, subject to a small number of adjustments on timing and administration.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  JAMAICA INDEPENDENCE BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.27 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Reginald Maudling): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I have it in Command from the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Bill, has consented to place Her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
  The purpose of the Bill is simple. In the words of the Preamble, it is to
  "make provision for, and in connection with, the attainment by Jamaica of fully responsible status within the Commonwealth."
  I have no doubt that all hon. Members on both sides of the House will welcome the attainment by Jamaica of independence and will welcome the unanimous desire of all parties in Jamaica to remain within the Commonwealth.
  It is some 300 years or more since the first relations between this country and Jamaica were established, and I believe that the first Jamaica Constitution was established exactly 300 years ago. At that time the population of the island was about 3,000, and I believe that piracy was one of the main and most popular occupations. Since then we have seen a development of the island to a great population and considerable economic potential. There was the introduction of the sugar industry with the difficulties which followed in the 19th century, succeeded by coffee production, and now in Jamaica they have not merely the basic products of coffee and sugar but bauxite on a very large scale, industrial development and the latest and very encouraging development of a substantial tourist trade.
  I feel that we can therefore feel that Jamaica will start her career as an independent nation with considerable economic resources and in many ways I would say stronger economically than a number of countries already enjoying their independence. Of course we all know that many economic and social

  1615
  problems remain. In particular the unemployment problem is serious. But the basic economy of Jamaica is strong and the prospects of development can be considerable. Hon. Members will also recognise the political maturity of the people of Jamaica which, along with economic strength, is so important to sound development of a new independent nation.
  The people of the island are lucky in having Sir Alexander Bustamante and Mr. Manley, two outstanding political figures who add colour and freshness of ideas to the political scene in the Caribbean. They, in turn, are fortunate in having in Jamaica a Civil Service of very high quality indeed, to which we should pay tribute on this occasion and to which British civil servants over the years have made a very considerable contribution. There is in Jamaica a degree of political maturity and political stability and an absence of racial tension which may well be envied by many other territories in this part of the world.
  Perhaps the best proof of political maturity in Jamaica was the success of the recent Conference at which we decided upon the Constitution for, and the date of, independence. Because the two main parties before the Conference had voluntarily come to such a very wide measure of agreement amongst themselves, the Conference was able to proceed very quickly to complete agreement.
  So we have this Bill today to provide for the independence of Jamaica. It is in the form of a number of independence Bills which have been before the House this year and in recent years. It will be succeeded by many others. All these Bills are the best answer to those who in some parts of the world seem to think that we in this country need to be taught the fundamental principles of democracy and individual freedom. Over a period we have constantly brought forward and are bringing forward our dependent Territories to full self-government and independence within the British Commonwealth of nations.
  The Bill is a very brief one. I do not think that I need go into any detail about it. Clause 1 provides for fully responsible status for Jamaica. Clause 2 deals with the citizenship question on
  1616
  the lines already embodied in several previous independence Bills. There is one particular point only to which I would call the attention of the House. That is the position of the Caymans, the Turks and the Caicos. These islands have been largely linked with Jamaica. With the impending independence of Jamaica we asked them what they would like to do in future. After considerable public debate, in both cases they decided that they wished to remain Colonies of the British Crown. We naturally acceded to that request. I would only add that I am sure that the help that the Government of Jamaica have generously given to the Caymans, the Turks and the Caicos wild continue in the future as it has in the past, even though that constitutional link has been severed with the independence of Jamaica.
  It only remains for me to express, as I am sure I can on behalf of the House as a whole, a tribute to all, both in Jamaica and from this country, who have played a part in bringing the islands to the stage of launching upon independence with such considerable confidence and with such high hopes for the future, and to wish to the leaders and people of Jamaica every possible success and prosperity.
  4.43 p.m.
  Mr. John Strachey: This is, as the Colonial Secretary has just said, one more independence Bill which comes before the House. With it we say "farewell" to one more Colony and "welcome" to one more member of the Commonwealth. There is a special background to this Bill. It is in some respects an unhappy background. I refer to the breakdown of the West Indies Federation. We certainly do not on this occasion wish to go over all that very unhappy story. All I would say about it is that we hope and believe that Jamaica, while not cutting herself off from this country and the Commonwealth, will also not cut herself off from the rest of the West Indies and that she will continue to give help to members in all other parts of the West Indies which are not so highly developed as she is. In a sense, we hope that she will play the same role in the future in regard to the smaller islands of the West Indies as we play in regard to her. She should be a local leader in the area.

  1617
  I turn to the prospects for Jamaica. She has, like all these newly independent territories, her problems and her assets. The Colonial Secretary mentioned that when the British first came to Jamaica she had a population of only about 3,000. Her economists may look back with some nostalgia to that time, because today her gravest problem is, I suppose, one of over-population. We certainly urge the Government, as we have on so many occasions, that reasonable access at any rate should remain for her immigrants to this country.
  She has many other difficult legacies. We cannot fail to recall the fact that before the last war the West Indies as a whole, and Jamaica herself, was what I can only call an Imperial slum. The lack of development was appalling. It the Moyne Report on the West Indies which in many ways began the new phrase of Commonwealth development in which we are still engaged. Therefore, one does not for one moment underestimate the difficulties of the new members of the Commonwealth.
  As the Colonial Secretary has said, she has real assets. She is a relatively sophisticated community. She has a fine university. It is the University of the West Indies, but still it is in Jamaica and it is a great asset to the island. She has as the principal of that university Professor Arthur Lewis, who is well known to so many in this House, and who I think can be considered an asset in himself, for he is perhaps the founder of the science of economic development in underdeveloped areas. I remember the intense excitement when I first read that remarkable book of his,The Theory of Economic Growth.He will have plenty of scope for the practical application of his ideas in the West Indies.
  As the Colonial Secretary has also said, industrial development and industrialisation generally has on the whole made a promising start in the island. Industrial development, though, is only one side of the picture. I should like the Government to tell us something about the safeguards for the basic agricultural activities in the island What I have above all in mind is the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, which is of such tremendous importance to the island. If its provisions were to be
  1618
  gravely whittled away, it could easily undo any assistance which we can give to the island.
  The Colonial Secretary mentioned that in the days when we first went there piracy was the chief occupation. He also said that today tourism is an important activity. Some people might see some relation between the two activities. Nevertheless, I, for one, wish well to those who conduct the tourist industry in the island, and I do not grudge them the sums which they can extract from the international rich.
  More seriously, the success of this new member of the Commonwealth is of the utmost importance, not only to the people of Jamaica, but to us and to the world as a whole. It will profoundly affect the whole development of the Caribbean and, as I understand it, that will profoundly affect development all over South America. In this area of the world, where the United States of America is perhaps even more closely concerned than we are, the successful development of a stable democratic government in this newly independent country is of enormous world-wide importance. I very much hope that United States capital and development will continue to be active in the island, because every form of development will certainly be needed with its population growth.
  I would put to the Colonial Secretary one specific point concerned with our own continuing share, as I trust it will be, in the economic development of Jamaica It is a point that I have raised before— the ability of the Colonial Development Corporation to initiate new schemes in these newly independent countries. I believe this to be a matter of cardinal importance. The right hon. Gentleman, I was glad to hear, said that he was considering it; but so far as we know, he and the Government as a whole have not come to a decision on it, and we should perhaps take this opportunity to press them on this matter.
  The Colonial Development Corporation has just issued its Report and Accounts for 1961. It is a most encouraging document. I was one of those who took part in piloting through the House the Bill which set up the Corporation. It has had its difficulties, but it is a great satisfaction to us to read this Report and Accounts and to find that

  1619
  newspapers which twelve years ago were foremost in their attacks on the Colonial Development Corporation are now congratulating it and regarding it for what it is— a very great national asset.
  Of course, the activities of the Corporation are in danger of contracting. On its present basis, where it is allowed to initiate schemes in the remaining Colonies only, this must he an ever narrowing field of activity. The Corporation itself, quite obviously, considers this to be so. In its Report it tells us, in page 10, paragraph 6, that in effect the limiting factor is not in the amount of capital which it can command but the finding of new schemes in the contracted area of the remaining Colonies, and that it is being hampered and confined by this consideration.
  To return to the instance of Jamaica, the Corporation has half-a-dozen excellent schemes in Jamaica and it will, of course, be able to continue these, but it may well wish to develop new schemes there which may be even more valuable than the existing ones. I think that it would be most irrational that it should develop only the existing schemes without weighing against that the desirability, with the necessarily limited amount of capital that it can put into Jamaica, of starting new schemes which might be even more valuable. We feel, therefore, very strongly on this side of the House that it is time that the Government made up their minds on this issue of the ability of C.D.C. to initiate schemes in the independent Commonwealth.
  With that main issue which I put to the Government, it remains for me, on behalf, I am sure, of every single hon. Member on this side of the House, to wish the greatest success and good fortune to this new member of the Commonwealth.
  4.45 p.m.
  Mr. Nigel FisherI am sure that the House feels this is not the occasion for long speeches; in fact we have had two very short speeches from the Front Benches. I should like very briefly from the back benches to express support for the Second Reading of the Bill.
  1620
  The granting of independence to any Colonial Territory is, of course, always a matter for rejoicing and congratulation, not only in the territory concerned but in the House of Commons and in the United Kingdom; but one should, perhaps, recall on this occasion that it must be tempered by a regret felt, I know, on both sides of the House that we are passing legislation today designed to give Jamaica independence in isolation, instead, as we had all hoped, as the most important component territory in a wider and federated West Indian nation.
  We discussed these matters in a valedictory debate not long ago in which we analysed and argued the reasons for the sad break-up of the Federation, and I agree with the right hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) that it would be redundant and, I think, unsuitable on this occasion to go over all that ground again. We have to look forward now to the future and not back to the past and we can only hope that the formation of the smaller federation of the "little Eight" and more especially the prospect of the shared services in the British Caribbean will in the end produce a form of association. Whether it will be political or only economic we cannot yet tell, but it will be built on the free choice of these sensible and charming West Indian people who, I hope, will one day want to came together again in a lasting union to form a new nation.
  In the meantime, Jamaica starts on this great adventure of nationhood alone. She is well fitted for that responsibility. She is politically mature, as is evidenced by her two-party system which works extremely well in Jamaica— better than in most of our ex-Colonial Territories— and as, indeed, was shown by the great success of the constitutional conference in London which was founded on the excellent working together of the Opposition and the then Government in Jamaica just before its representatives came here. That was an example of her political maturity to which we should pay tribute, and it gives us great encouragement for the future of this newly independent territory.
  Mr. Donald Chapman: And a model Constitution.
  Mr. Fisher: It was a model Constitution for this size of territory.

  1621
  Jamaica is just of a size and just of an economic viability to sustain the burdens of nationhood, but not, I think, with very much to spare in this respect, although the industrial development in and around the Kingston area is most impressive. I feel that she will still need some help of the kind the right hon. Gentleman suggested and many of us on these benches as well as on those opposite feel very strongly that the operations of C.D.C. should be allowed to continue in the way he described. My hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Leather) has been pressing for that for a long time, as many of us on both sides of the House have done.
  Jamaica is one of our oldest Colonies, if not the oldest, and we are fortunate that she is still intensely loyal to the Crown and to the Commonwealth connection. I am sure that she will prove a bulwark of stability and progress throughout the Caribbean area. Those of us who know Jamaica well and love the island and her delightful and friendly people will all wish her well in the exciting years ahead and we are certain that she will justify all the high hopes we have for her.
  4.50 p.m.
  Mr. James Griffiths: The Secretary of State referred to the earlier association of this country with Jamaica, and as one of my compatriots, Henry Morgan, was one of the pirates associated with the island, it may be appropriate that a Welshman should wish Jamaica well on the attainment of her independence. We hope that it will not close her mind to still closer association with the other islands of the West Indies. I have visited some of the islands there but, to my deep regret, a three-line Whip from this House prevented me from going on to Jamaica. I went out on that occasion on behalf of my own party, which helped to found the Federal Labour Party, and I look forward with intense interest to the future of the West Indies. Let us hope that a federation will emerge again.
  I very strongly suport what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) and by the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) about the Colonial Development Corporation, which has played a not unimportant part in Jamaica's indus-
  1622
  trial and economic development in the last few years. The Corporation has quite a number of very important ventures still going on there, and it is important to Jamaica that we should get clear the Corporation's present position.
  I understand that where the C.D.C. has already established industries or services in a territory existing legislation permits it to maintain them on the territory's attainment of independence. If it were found, as might be the case with Jamaica or elsewhere, that it would be of benefit to develop and expand an industry that has been established by the C.D.C., as well as benefiting the economy as a whole, would that work be regarded as a continuance of work begun before independence and, therefore, still within the scope of the Corporation? Or is that work shut out? I hope that Her Majesty's Government will at least go as far as to regard it as a continuance of the work. I should like them to go much further. If they did, I am sure that their change of mind would meet with the approval of both sides of the House.
  I think that it is time to change the name of the Corporation, to enlarge its functions, and to use it as, perhaps, the most important instrument we have of channelling aid to the newly independent countries. The C.D.C. has had its successes and failures, as was bound to be the case in the uncertain conditions that at first prevailed. It has built up a body of knowledge and "know-how" both at home and among its servants all over the Colonies and the now independent territories, and it would be a very great shame to allow it to disintegrate.
  What will happen to the C.D.C.? Its world is shrinking all the time. It has a very fine organisation and fine personnel. It has men and women who have gathered a great deal of experience. To allow it just to fade away would be to do a very grave disservice to everyone. I therefore hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to tell the House that the Government are having second thoughts. If not, I trust that when, in the not-too-distant future, my colleagues are back on the Treasury bench, the future of the C.D.C. will be one of the first things they deal with.
  We all welcome Jamaica's independence, but we realise what it means. I

  1623
  think that it was President Truman who described the great revolution that is going on all over the world— of which Jamaica's independence is one example — as a revolution of rising expectations. When people get independence they begin to ask, "What does it mean?" Its success or failure will very largely depend on whether, by political independence and a true democratic system, we can raise the standard of living.
  Everyone who has seen the West Indies loves them, and loves their people, but the problems of the poverty of the underdeveloped world are there at their greatest. They are almost intractable. It is to be hoped that after five or ten years' of independence, the standard of life will have so risen that democracy is seen to be not just the right to vote people into Parliament but a means of raising the standard of living by the harnessing of resources, with aid coming from outside. I am sure that the Corporation could play a very big part in that achievement.
  What will happen to the small islands that are still excluded? In 1945 there were 600 million people in the British Empire, under Colonial rule. The fact that there now remain only 20 million is one of the greatest silent revolutions that has ever taken place. I believe that there are now only two problems left. There is the problem of the multiracial communities, about which the Home Secretary spoke this afternoon and on which I shall not now dwell. There is also the question of the smaller territories that remain. They are quite as much entitled to independence as any other country; democratic independence should not depend on numbers. What are we to do about those territories? If, as I hope, we can soon settle the problem of Central Africa and of Kenya there will remain to be dealt with the smaller islands— Malta, Mauritius, the Seychelles and the Cayman Islands. They, too, are moved by this wind of change and by the desire for independence.
  Are the Government giving any attention to that aspect? I commend for the study of the Under-Secretary a pamphlet produced by a committee of my party, of which I was a member, in which we foresaw the time when the major problem left would be that of the smaller terri-
  1624
  tories. They are, perhaps, too small to become really effectively independent on their own, having neither the population nor the resources to meet all the demands and deal with all the problems that face modern nationhood.
  In that pamphlet we suggested that we should provide in a new way the old concept of Dominion status, enabling those territories to make their own arrangements with any other countries, and assisting them to fulfil the functions of a modern nation. It is time this House gave consideration to this matter, and I would hope that at some time— if not in this Session perhaps in the next— we could devote a day to considering the remainder of the task of transforming an Empire into a Commonwealth. I hope that the Under-Secretary will say something about that.
  It only remains for me to wish well of Jamaica and its political leaders, Government and Opposition, and to hope that independence will not only be sustained and maintained but that, through their democratic system, they can demonstrate that this revolution of rising expectations can be met by a democracy. If I may say so as a democrat by temperament, nature and everything else, that will be the real test of whether democracy can mean something real and tangible to the multitudes everywhere. I therefore hope that the Under-Secretary will listen to the pleas that have been made to help the Colonial Development Corporation play its full part in making Jamaica the success we will all want it to be.
  5.0 p.m.
  Miss Joan Vickers: I am glad to have this opportunity to say, "Thank you" to the people of Jamaica for the happy and instructive tour I had of the island with the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) when we went there recently. We were delighted to find, despite our slight regret at the ending of the Federation, that Jamaica was on her way to independence. What struck us most was the tremendous courtesy and delightful manner with which we were received. It was also good to find that there were no racial difficulties, and this should help Jamaica in the future. I am delighted to know that she intends to

  1625
  remain a member of the Commonwealth, and I am sure that every hon. Member will give her a very great welcome.
  I want to follow one or two points that have been made by other hon. Members, especially concerning the Industrial Development Corporation. I was very impressed by the work that is being done by this body. One of the greatest difficulties that will face Jamaica, with her rising population, is the question of unemployment. I was, therefore, impressed by the fact that a number of firms are now going out there. Even Royal Worcester China is about to open a factory there. The making of brassieres seems to be a major industry; "uplift" is on the way. I was fascinated by the number of these being made there today. Cloth is also being made, and various other industries are going into production. I hope that others will receive help and encouragement from Her Majesty's Government in the future. After Jamaica becomes independent on 6th August we must provide help for the employment of her population.
  The right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) referred to the Colonial Development Corporation. One of the greatest difficulties in Jamaica is housing, and this has been tackled very well by the Corporation. If, between now and 6th August, the Corporation obtains a considerable amount of land, I should like to know whether it will be allowed to develop it after Jamaica's independence. I understand that if the Corporation has begun a project before independence it is allowed to continue, and if it could obtain land it would be of great benefit to the island.
  Clause 2 (2,b), dealing with citizenship, provides that a person shall cease to be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies if
  "he, his father or his father's father was born in Jamaica."
  I would draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that in Jamaica there are such things as common law wives, and there is also a rather different idea about marriage and children. There is a matriarchal system, and I am not sure that in all cases it would be possible to trace a person's father or even his father's father. In those circumstances, I hope that my hon. Friend will consider
  1626
  whether another subsection can be added referring to the children of women, who, perhaps owing to the system— and, after all, we were responsible for introducing it in the days of slave trading— may become citizens when the Bill becomes an Act.
  I also have a question concerning the Second Schedule, in relation to divorce. Many Jamaicans now living in this countries have been living here for a number of years, and in some cases they may have maintenance orders. I should like to know whether there will be reciprocal arrangements in such matters between this country and Jamaica. That is a very important point.
  When I was in Jamaica I was very impressed by the number of voluntary organisations and social services. The hon. Member for Flint, East and I had a good opportunity of seeing them working and I hope that they will continue to work. One of the things that we have learnt is that although we now have a welfare society we have been able to retain the interest of our citizens in voluntary work and I hope that this will continue in Jamaica when she becomes independent.
  I hope that Jamaica will recognise the great benefit that she has received from business interests. Sugar and bauxite have been mentioned. Unfortunately, a number of countries, on becoming independent, have thought it a good idea to nationalise such industries. I hope that this will not be the case in Jamaica, because it will not benefit the people of their country.
  Jamaica has been fortunate in having some excellent Governors and I pay tribute to the present one, Sir Kenneth Blackburne. He has been an outstanding success, especially when we remember that he has presided in what has not been one of the easiest of periods— during the time of the independence negotiations. With his great sincerity, patience and understanding of the people of Jamaica he has played a tremendous part in the process.
  The hon. Member for Flint, East and I received a deputation of overseas civil servants. When Jamaica becomes independent I hope that, like many other Commonwealth countries, she will remember the tremendous amount of help that has been given her by people

  1627
  from this country in the past, and that she will pay tribute to this help by giving these civil servants security in the future by seeing that their services are well rewarded.
  Hon. Members have expressed their sorrow at the ending of the Caribbean Federation. Recently, we had the conference of the "little Eight" and we hope to obtain full federation at least amongst them. I sincerely hope that Jamaica will do all she can to keep the common services in being, and will take the lead in forming a Caribbean Common Market. If all these territories are to benefit in the future they must work together, and when Jamaica becomes independent I hope that she will take the lead.
  I am glad that I had an opportunity to visit Jamaica before this Bill was presented, because it has enabled me to pay my tribute to her and to wish her success in the future.
  5.9 p.m.
  Mr. Donald Chapman: I welcome the Bill. This is a very pleasant occasion for those who take an interest in the Caribbean. Like some other hon. Members, I know Jamaica intimately, and I am proud to have what might almost be called a multitude of friends there— ordinary citizens, social workers, Ministers, Members of Parliament and administrators— among the wonderful people that make up the community of that island. I was there for a couple of months last year, doing nothing else but study the economic development and seeing the mountains of work that lies ahead of the island in the next ten years— trying to piece together for myself the problems that the island will inevitably have to face, and to examine some of the solutions that are being put into practice. When one looks at the island today one sees that there are going to be some sticky days ahead although the outlook will be fair in the long run.
  One of the most delightful things that happened to me when I was in Jamaica was that I held a political surgery. So many people there wanted to put forward their ideas about Jamaica's future, about migration and so on and wished to question me, tell me of their ideas
  1628
  and desires, that I held a political surgery, such as hon. Members conduct in their constituencies. As I say, this was one of the most delightful experiences of my life; crowds of Kingston people crowding around me, putting their views about Britain, the Commonwealth, Jamaica, migration and dozens of other problems. I was happy to feel that I was not only a Member of Parliament representing my own constituency, but that I also, so to speak, represented that far flung part of the world in the British Parliament.
  The Colonial Secretary, in moving the Second Reading, mentioned that Jamaica was particularly ready for independence and that she had a number of fortunate factors helping her to face the future with confidence. He mentioned the mature party system that exists in that country. That is so true. We have just witnessed the peaceable change of government which, frankly, none of us expected. It was apparent, after the results of the election, that the electorate had quietly made up its mind to change the Government. The whole thing was completed peacefully and the new Government took over and we now have the former government as a vigorous opposition— all in the British pattern of vigour and democratic restraint. It is indeed also true that there is no racialism there. All the racialist candidates were defeated in that election and that was a happy event.
  The Commonwealth Secretary mentioned the wealth of leadership. Jamaica is fortunate in having leadership on a scale which is possessed by hardly any other Colony of its size in the Commonwealth. It is surprising, considering her population of 1· 7 million people, to realise the number of leaders that that country has thrown up, which is indeed a most fortunate fact for Jamaica.
  There is Sir Alexander Bustamente, the present Prime Minister, flamboyant, impish, dramatic— liberator, if you like — freedom fighter, one of the greatest of our time. He is devoted to caring for the ordinary man in Jamaica. His opposite number, Mr. Norman Manley, is a very different person, a man who is deliberate and who speaks in measured phrases. In my view he is, without doubt, among our world statesmen. As

  1629
  the local paper, the Jamaica Gleaner, stated:
  "On these two men is centred the success of democracy in Jamaica"
  How lucky Jamaica is to have two such men to have brought that country to its present position with such satisfactory working of a democratic system.
  There is one rather funny story I remember most about these two men. It was told to me by Sir Alexander Bustamente when speaking about the vigour of political interchange in Jamaica. I had thought previously that this sort of thing could hardly happen in even the most mature democracy. Roughly, the story goes— although I do not remember the exact figures because it was told to me some time ago— that during an election Mr. Manley, when speaking over the loudspeakers, said that it was scandalous and suspicious that while Sir Alexander had at one time had only one car and £ 5,000 in the bank, after some years in government he had two cars and £ 10,000 in the bank. As I say, I forget the exact figures. Sir Alexander said to me "I issued a writ for libel immediately— because, in fact, I have four cars and £ 50,000 in the bank". This is the sort of interchange and fight that goes on among these two Jamaican leaders and I was extremely pleased, when the story was told to me, that it roused their sense of amusement.
  Regarding economic growth, Jamaica is fortunate because in the last ten years she has been developing at the record rate of about 6 per cent. per annum, in real terms. This is the highest rate in the whole area, apart from Puerto Rico, and is an astounding achievement. In the last four to six years Jamaica's industrial expansion has gone on at a tremendous rate. Industrial output is, in fact, half again as great as it was in 1956 and last year manufacturing output equalled agricultural output for the first time. This is a fantastic rate of growth in such a short period and we are reaching the position when Jamaica is, at last, beginning to take off— just about to leave the ground, to use the economists' jargon. As the Americans would have it, Jamaica's economy has moved from an underdeveloped economy to a partially developed one. It is in that light that we must consider Jamaica's problems.
  1630
  Realising this rate of growth we must, as has been said, consider what may well be her major problem; that as soon as one gets the conditions of a rural slum relieved in a developing country the expectations rise faster than the opportunities of satisfying them. This is Jamaica's problem today. These is a cry for an increasing rate of material improvement, faster than it can be provided, particularly with the population pressure.
  The thing that is so heartening to me, and I say this categorically, is the extent of American and Canadian interest in developing Jamaica. We must give every possible encouragement to this trend. In the coming year America is to help Jamaica to the tune of £ 2½ million to be invested in housing, water supply and agricultural credit. I am referring to £ 2— million in twelve months and this covens the fact that there are longer-term plans for further help.
  Canada has already invested between 200 million and 250 million dollars in Jamaica. How fine it is to see our Canadian friends in the Commonwealth helping Jamaica along to this extent. How good to see America realising that she can do so much to help this part of the world.
  Jamaica is now working to a ten-year plan. At the end of that period we are hoping that there will be some chance of seeing an end to unemployment and the ability to contain the growth of population. If that can be done it will represent a magnificent achievement.
  Having reflected for many months and having studied as hard as I could Jamaica's problems, I now wish to make four deliberate suggestions to the Government so that we may remember certain things as we pass the Bill.
  First, as the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) said, we must at all costs go on encouraging British private investment. After all, last year British private investment in Jamaica totalled only £ 2½ million. That was certainly not a great deal and, as I have shown, the American Government alone are helping Jamaica to the tune of the same figure in the coming twelve months. We should be doing better than we are in terms of private investment as well as in further Government aid.

  1631
  Do not let us east Jamaica off today by thinking merely of her independence and imagining that our material and financial responsibilities are going to be reduced. They are not. They will be as great as ever, and we must do our share to help Jamaica along if her unemployment problem is to be conquered during the ten-year plan.
  Secondly, we must remember that the Caribbean Commission is now beginning work on the economic development of the whole Caribbean region. The British Government must be willing to give every possible assistance. It has been suggested, rightly, I think, that in setting forth on a development plan for the Caribbean region one of the first things to do is to compare notes with the people who have been responsible for the Colombo development plan. How good it would be if we could learn for Jamaica and the Caribbean what has been learned in the initial period of the Colombo Plan in South-East Asia. This will be another of our great responsibilities, to help to prevent any failure of democracy in the Caribbean to raise the living standards of the people there and so secure the area against Communism or similar creeds.
  I do not want to raise controversies about the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, but we must realise, in passing the Bill, that there are grave problems of migration from Jamaica. This is the third factor of importance which we must keep before us. Emigration is Jamaica's safety valve until economic development is proceeding at a pace which will contain the growth of population. If the early working of the Act is to mean that the numbers leaving Jamaica will not be significant, then we must assist Jamaica to find alternative outlets. By "significant" I mean at least 20,000 or 30.000 a year, since that is the number of people who must leave Jamaica, in my view, in order to relieve tension there until unemployment can be cured. This matter must be raised in other parts of the Commonwealth. It ought to be raised, as soon as the Bill is passed, with the United States Government. There is every chance that an amendment of the American immigration laws after independence will add Jamaica to the list of Latin-American
  1632
  countries which will have quota-free entry to the United States. This, too, is part of our responsibility as we bid farewell to Jamaica as a Colony.
  Lastly, I hope that we shall keep a close eye all the time on the sugar industry. It seems likely now that President Kennedy's Bill to alter the basis of sugar purchases by the United States will not become law before 1st July. This means that the present system will continue for another year. In other words, the Kennedy proposals as at present drafted, which would have a profound and harmful effect on the Jamaican sugar industry, seem likely to be postponed for at least a year. If this happens, we shall have a year in which to put pressure on behalf of Jamaica on the American Administration to amend the Bill, if possible, to prevent disaster hitting the sugar industry in Jamaica and the West Indies as a whole following any change in the basis of United States purchasing from the area. I hope that we shall have a year's breathing space in which to help the sugar industry of Jamaica and the West Indies.
  In bidding farewell to Jamaica as a Colony and welcoming the island as an equal member of the independent Commonwealth, I return to what I said earlier. We shall face just as many responsibilities for the island's future as we have had in the past when it was a colony. Nevertheless, there is in Britain, I believe, a fund of good will towards Jamaica, the island which I have often described as a little bit of England cast off into the Caribbean. Such is that fund of good will that I have no doubt that we shall help Jamaica in the coming five or ten crucial years, to solve its economic problems and become a truly prosperous part of the British Commonwealth.
  5.24 p.m.
  Mrs. Eirene White: I am very glad to add my welcome to Jamaica as an independent country. Since I had such a brief, though most delightful, visit there, it would, perhaps, be presumptuous of me to say too much about Jamaica's internal situation, but even a short visit brings certain aspects very sharply to one's attention. For instance, I confess that, until I had been there, I had not appreciated what a very large part of the country is covered with steep

  1633
  conical mountains, very difficult to cultivate, with very narrow valleys in between.
  Agricultural development in many parts of Jamaica is extremely difficult. There is the coastal plain area, with the large sugar and citrus fruit estates, and so forth, but when one considers the opportunities of the population in agriculture and industry, one is forced to realise that, good as the industrial expansion has been in the last few years, in terms of numbers employed it is not as great as all that.
  When one thinks of the number of people there, particularly the children— we saw them everywhere— who, in a few years, will want employment, and compares that with the number of opportunities likely in industry, even on the most optimistic estimate, one must conclude that Jamaica cannot have a prosperous future unless two conditions at least are fulfilled.
  One is that more intensive agriculture is fostered wherever possible. The other, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) has reminded us, is that the prospects of emigration should not be closed. For years to come, we must keep an open door for Jamaicans who cannot possibly find work at home.
  In flying over various parts of Jamaica, I was concerned to see that, so far as I could judge— I am no expert in these matters— little seemed to have been done in soil conservation on the steep lands. Bearing in mind some of the work done in East Africa, with contour ploughing, and so forth, I feel that more should be done in Jamaica in agricultural training and organisation. I was a little concerned to find that in the tourist area of the North Coast, for instance, almost all the food consumed in the luxury hotels is imported from the United States. Remembering the favourable climate in Jamaica— it never seemed more favourable than when I returned to this country— it was surprising to me that Jamaica was unable to organise the growing of more fruit, vegetables and so forth to supply these hotels.
  The producers ought to be able to obtain fairly good prices from the hotels, judging by the costs to the tourists living in those places. The hon. Lady the
  1634
  Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) and I were privileged to walk in and out of several of the most expensive hotels, and we had an opportunity to judge how the tourists lived. The prices were quite staggering.
  Part of the reason for the high prices, of course, lies in the very short tourist season in Jamaica. I hope that this may be extended. In the Bahamas, which, admittedly, is very much closer to the United States coast, the tourist trade is spread over a longer period, whereas the Jamaican tourist season, around Montego Bay and the other resorts, is very short. This is one of Jamaica's economic problems. A great deal of the work is seasonal. There is seasonal work in the tourist industry, seasonal work on the sugar estates, and on the citrus estates.
  There will be many problems facing Jamaica in the next few years. For example, the move in the sugar industry is towards greater mechanisation. This increases productivity and profits, but not the number of people employed. The number of people employed in some of the excellent factories for light industry on the industrial estates is not very large.
  A great deal of hard thinking must be done on the future of economic development in Jamaica. Certainly, I would welcome American and Canadian investment as well as investment from the United Kingdom in Jamaica. However, I cannot help hoping that American investment will never be quite so preponderant and that we shall not find in Jamaica, as was the case in Nassau, that shops will accept United States dollars but not pound notes. One welcomes within reason the investment of industrialists from the North American Continent and hopes that it will continue. However, as I think every hon. Member who has spoken in this debate has said, it would be most regrettable if we failed to continue both public and private investment in Jamaica.
  I cannot understand the Government's attitude on the Colonial Development Corporation. I do not want to go over the arguments again, but back bench Members on both sides of the House are agreed on this. For years we have fought a running but losing battle

  1635
  against the Treasury. We are all convinced that ways can be found to turn this into a Commonwealth development corporation on terms acceptable to the independent members of the Commonwealth. Yet, with this Bill, as with every other preceding independence Bill, we are saying, "If they can only get something started before the given date, it will be possible for them to continue". Is it not ludicrous that they should have to rush through a scheme to try to get it on the books so that it might count for C.D.C. assistance just because of the narrow, parochial attitude, presumably, of the Treasury? One always blames the Treasury in these matters.
  I had hoped that the Colonial Secretary, coming fresh to this office, would have taken up this battle yet again. Otherwise, we shall be left relying exclusively on private investors who are influenced from time to time by what happens on Wall Street and on the Stock Exchange and may get unduly despondent on occasion about investing even in such a delightful place as Jamaica. I hope very much that it will be possible to find some way of continuing public investment. Some external investment in industrial projects in Jamaica is desirable, not merely because of the cash which it brings in but because of the technical knowledge which may be obtained by partnership between the various interests. I hope very much that it will be possible to avoid certain tendencies towards monopolistic interests. For example, in the cement industry arrangements were made to tempt investment which has resulted in very high building costs ever since. However, this is not the time to go deeply into that matter, but it was one of the things which shocked me in Jamaica.
  Jamaica's position in relation to the other British territories in the Caribbean has been mentioned. I do not know whether it was by design or by accident that this debate on Jamaica's independence takes place on the day that the Act dissolving the Federation comes into force. I am sure that we all feel sad and disappointed at the dissolution of the Federation. I confess that by flying from Trinidad, Barbados, to Jamaica I could feel a little more
  1636
  realistically than from a distance how difficult it would have been to keep Jamaica and the other Eastern Caribbean territories in a close association. To have made a real success of the Federation, much more would have had to be done in propaganda and education, not of just the few business people and politicians, who can afford air travel, but of the ordinary people who did not always feel that they were West Indians.
  Those who regret the dissolution of the Federation most are largely professional people and those in the public services. When in Washington, before going to the Caribbean, I was particularly struck by a talk which I had with the student adviser there who was representing all the British Caribbean countries, including the two mainland countries, British Honduras and British Guiana. He said that it was only when the Federation was about to break apart that the university students and other students in the United States realised the effect that it might have on them. They realised that they might have to go back to much smaller public services in their island territories and to a much more parochial and narrow life than they might have had if the Federation had persisted, with its wider opinions and wider horizons.
  The same thing was said to me in Jamaica by a Jamaican, someone who is very well known in this House. He said that it hurt him deeply that this great experiment had been tried but had failed. We know the situation and we must face it realistically. We can only hope that there will be generosity and imagination in preserving the common services.
  I was shocked by the first statement of Sir Alexander Bustamente on winning the election that he proposed to break up the British West Indian Airways. I trust that there may have been second thoughts on that. I hope that there will be generous co-operation in all these matters and a recognition, for example, that in some respects the islands of the East Caribbean cannot possibly carry on the common services without the generous help of Trinidad and Jamaica.
  We are particularly concerned about the University of the West Indies. We can appreciate the desire to build up institutions of university standing in

  1637
  Trinidad, for example, but I hope that there will not be undue parochialism in this matter. The University of the West Indies is a very promising institution, but, to preserve university standards and to have a wide enough community of scholars, there must he a certain size for universities, as we have discovered in this country. I hope that nothing will be done to break up the University of the West Indies.
  As I have said, many problems face Jamaica and the other islands in the Caribbean, but, of all the territories which the hon. Lady the Member for Devonport and I recently visited, I think that Jamaica was by far the best fitted for independence. Certainly, it has the political maturity to which the Colonial Secretary referred. The hon. Lady and I were entertained at the first social gathering of the two parties following the hotly contested election, and we were happy to feel that, although their members were sharply opposed politically, they were able to meet socially in an agreeable manner, with each of them teasing the other in a way which we are not unfamiliar with in this Parliament.
  I think that we can have high hopes for the future of Jamaica provided— and it is a fairly large proviso— that her democratic institutions can be sustained by adequate economic development.
  5.39 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Royle: I shall try to follow the example of other hon. Members by being brief.
  I feel that there is not a great deal to be said on the Second Reading of the Bill, but that it is a good thing that our friends in Jamaica should know that there are Members on both sides of the House who are very anxious to wish them godspeed in their enterprise. It is largely in that spirit that I wish to speak.
  People, particularly hon. Members on this side, must be enthusiastic about the giving of independence to any of our territories in which some economic viability is assured and which are ready for political independence and to rule themselves. But there must be a peculiar feeling in the heart of anyone who loves Jamaica when he reads words in the Bill like this:
  1638
  "Her Majesty's Government … shall have no responsibility".
  That is rather startling. It brings me at once to what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) and the many things that have been said since concerning the Colonial Development Corporation.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) are the Members in this House who can take the greatest credit for the fact that the C.D.C. was ever formed. I had the honour to be one of the back bench Members who supported them in the Standing Committee when we discussed those matters. We felt that we did a great job of work during those weeks. It is impossible at this stage for us to realise the amount of good that the establishment of the Colonial Development Corporation did. It is terrifying, however, to think that a few weeks from now— in August— a line will be drawn against Jamaica and thereafter, by existing legislation, in no circumstances can aid be given through the C.D.C. to Jamaica.
  The hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) suggested that there might be a rush between now and August to get schemes approved, because, as I understand the situation, if a scheme is approved by the C.D.C. before independence it will be carried on. How foolish is that situation. We need not alter the initials, but merely to substitute "Commonwealth" for "Colonial" and all would be well. I hope that we shall be able to persuade Her Majesty's Government to take action on these lines. What a tremendous help it would be to Jamaica.
  I still have some worries, which I share very largely with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman), who has made an excellent detailed study of Jamaica and the West Indies as a whole and has given us the advantage of it in his short speech this afternoon. I would have been much happier if today we had been discussing the independence of the Federation rather than the independence of Jamaica.
  This must be one of the greatest disappointments in our colonial history, because here is a series of territories sharing a common and successful multi-

  1639
  racial outlook, a common culture and a common agricultural interest. I appreciate what my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) has said about the vast distances between the various islands and territories. My hon. Friend is, however, a little pessimistic if she suggests that in the future there will be a very big problem concerning Jamaica and the rest of the West Indies being associated together in federation.
  One of the great problems has been the lack of transport and communications generally between the territories. In the light of modern science, and with air travel being so much easier, and, I hope, coming down in cost, the day is surely coming when, as in every other part of the world, those geographical distances could be made to look very small and these people, who have so many things in common, could be held together. I always hoped that that would be the position. It could have brought about transfers, a mixing of populations and the establishment of industries between the islands which would have created a greater economic viability.
  We could all give opinions about the reason for the collapse of the Federation. While this may not be the occasion for holding inquests, I cannot resist the temptation to express the view that a great deal of the responsibility for the collapse of the Federation lies upon the shoulders of the new Prime Minister of the island that we are now discussing. He did things in a rather irresponsible way and, unfortunately, his predecessor, for whom I have deep respect, fell for the wiles of Sir Alexander Bustamente. I am inclined to think that Sir Alexander played on the ignorance of the country folk and that Mr. Norman Manley plunged unnecessarily into a referendum. The result of that referendum came only from a complete lack of knowledge among the masses of the country folk in the island.
  It is all very sad. Jamaica is now on her own. At the same time, we are considering the establishment of federation for the little Eight. At Marlborough House, the Secretary of State is discussing Trinidad with the representatives, and here is this very unfortunate breakup. However, Jamaica's agriculture and industries improve. As my hon. Friend
  1640
  the Member for Flint, East has suggested, squalor abounds. Shanty towns go on. The poverty in both town and country defy description. We cannot forget that we ruled the people for 300 years and we have a deep responsibility for the squalor and poverty which still exist. My hon. Friend has referred to the hotels. Do not we all know about them? I have been in and out of those hotels. Only 400 or 500 yards away from some of the most luxurious establishments in the world lie some of the world's worst slums.
  How will the new independent Government overcome the problem of those terrible contrasts? The tourist trade is essential, and I should like to see the time come when some of us on these benches will be more easily able to go and stay in a more moderately-priced hotel in Jamaica. There are more moderately-priced hotels in the area of Kingston, but on the north coast it is almost impossible for people like me to afford them. There is a great opening for Jamaica if more moderately-priced hotels can be established and cheaper air and boat fares can be achieved.
  During the time of the last Government in Jamaica, there has been great improvement. Let it be said that they came after the new Constitution. When they had more responsibility of their own, improvements took place that never occurred when we were totally responsible. It was only under the new Constitution and under the wonderful statesmanship of Mr. Norman Manley that those advances were being made.
  I am a little concerned about some other things. I hope that this is not an attack on the new Prime Minister, but I hear nasty rumours about heads falling in the Civil Service and quasi-Civil Service departments. I hope that those rumours are ill-founded and that a very fine body of men and women who have been living for their island will continue to have the opportunity to serve it.
  It is great temptation for an hon. Member like myself to indulge in another speech on immigration, but I just leave it by saying that I am in complete agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield. I would add that even this afternoon there was on

  1641
  the Order Paper once more a mischievous Question about immigration from the West Indies. Let us forget these things and do all that we possibly can to encourage these people to come here to relieve the situation in which Jamaica finds herself.
  I finish, like everybody else, wishing Jamaica well on her new independence. I still hope to be a great friend of Jamaica, and I trust that I shall live some years in which to be so. I am sorry that this day has come in the way that it has and that it is not the independence of a Federation but just the independence of another Colony. It will do well, and we wish it Godspeed.
  5.52 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Hugh Fraser): We have had a debate which has covered a fairly wide field and which has been marked by good will from all sides of the House towards the people of Jamaica on their achievement of independence.
  I think it appropriate for me to deal with one or two technical points in the Bill before winding up the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) raised a point about Clause 2 (2,b) of the Bill. We will certainly look into this. This is a matter not of citizenship inside Jamaica, but of citizenship inside this country, and it is an abnormal provision. My hon. Friend also raised a technical point about divorce jurisdiction and reciprocal arrangements for the payment of maintenance orders. The provision will apply as it applies at the moment, though, of course, it is a matter of enforcement by courts here and in Jamaica.
  Mrs. White: Will the hon. Gentleman explain What is abnormal about a child being its mother's child?
  Mr. Fraser: Nothing in the least. It is a change in the form of words which we usually use in this country to admit, as far as nationality is concerned, legitimacy in the purest sense. However, I am prepared to look at it. In view of special arrangements which may be necessary because of the Jamaican situation, it is in that sense abnormal to British legislation.
  I draw attention to Clause 3 (3). As hon. Members will be aware, we were
  1642
  determined, as were the Government of Jamaica, that compensation should be paid to Federal civil servants. Because of the method by which we were to proceed with the old Federation, the Bill is drafted in Clause 3 (3) as though actual dissolution had not taken place. It was to provide against this that we inserted the provision. I will see that between now and Third Reading an adjustment is made to Clause 3 (3) because as the old Federation is being dissolved tonight there is no further need for the subsection.
  Mr. G. M. Thomson: Will the hon. Gentleman take the opportunity to say whether the arrangements for compensation for the Federal civil servants are now completed satisfactorily?
  Mr. Fraser: I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that the arrangements are acceptable to all concerned.
  The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. C. Royle) prefaced his excellent speech by saying that Her Majesty's Government will no longer be responsible for Jamaica. That is a fact. Independence means independence; nothing more or less. I must say that at moments I felt that some of the speeches were telling the Government of Jamaica what they should do. The Government of Jamaica must now decide what do do on their own. I must say that whether it be Stir Alexander Bustamente in power or Mr. Manley, I am sure that all of us will have complete faith in their judgment. What we have to endeavour to do now is to help an independent nation.
  Several points were raised by the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), Whom we were so pleased to have take part in the debate. The spirit of Morgan rides again. We were certainly very happy to have him with us. The right hon. Gentleman, Who had so much to do with the various developments in some of these matters earlier in his political career, raised one or two points that I should like to answer.
  There is the matter of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, to which reference was made by the right hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey). I do not know whether I have the constituency right— Dundee, West, or

  1643
  Dundee, East. It is extremely difficult to have the two representatives of Dundee sitting on the opposite Front Bench talking about matters south of the Equator, or, at any rate, in the tropics.
  The Commonwealth Sugar Agreement continues after independence. The matter of negotiations about the world sugar situation and our position in regard to the overseas territories is rather more a matter for debate next week than now. However, the Colonial Office is determined to ensure that the rights and interests of the overseas territories, whether independent or of Commonwealth status, are protected if we go into the Common Market.
  The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) mentioned the important matter of the negotiations with the Americans. These negotiations will be continued after independence entirely by Sir Alexander Bustamente. But, naturally, we have a parallel interest in certain other territories such as Barbados in the West Indies, Fiji and so on and shall do all we can to assist.
  The hon. Gentleman also raised the question of the C.D.C. I assure him that this is having the most earnest attention of my right hon. Friend. I myself am completely convinced that "Commonwealth Development Corporation" will become the name of the Colonial Development Corporation. I think that this will be an inevitable development, but we have, of course, to look further at the details. I am speaking today only as a junior Minister, but I am sure that that must be the trend.
  Further remarks were addressed to me on the question of other assistance. I am sure that the essence of the attraction of assistance is the political stability which I believe Jamaica can achieve. I believe that this will be not only the magnet to draw money and investment Which is so needed in that country, but also a beacon for that part of the world. I believe that between them Sir Alexander Bustamente and Mr. Manley can establish a proper democratic system. I believe that this island, whatever else may have been said by hon. Members in a tone of regret at the ending of this ill-fated and ill-starred temporary Federation, can, above all others
  1644
  probably, achieve, maintain and magnify its independence. Therefore, we welcome it, I am sure, from both sides of the House.
  With regard to a possible discussion that we may have one day on the subject of the other territories, I would say that nearly all these colonial problems are individual ones. They vary; there is no set rule. However, the one thing of which I am quite certain is that when we look back on today we shall be able to say that we and the people of Jamaica have taken the right decision in sending Jamaica forward to independence.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.— [Mr. G. Campbell.]
  Committee Tomorrow.

  COLONIAL LOANS BILL
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered: read the Third time and passed.

  NORTHERN IRELAND BILL [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Motion made, the Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.— [Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
  6.0 p.m.
  Mr. Robert MellishThe Joint Under-Secretary of State will recall that on Second Reading I intervened because those I have the honour to represent— the Catholics in Northern Ireland— were rather unhappy about Clause 13 as presented at that time. This Bill began in another place, and views were expressed there about Clause 13 which was, I am glad to say, later amended as the result of an intervention by the Lord Chancellor. Thus, when the Bill arrived here, Clause 13 had been amended to some extent satisfactorily.
  I raised then, and I raise again now, the whole question of Clause 13 (1,b), and seek assurances. Those whom I represent in Northern Ireland were very unhappy that the Government were not

  1645
  able to alter the words contained in that provision, which referred to
  "… the control of the use of land."
  They would like to have seen the words "development of land" inserted instead, but we were not successful. However, we were given certain assurances, for which I am grateful. Since then, there has been correspondence between the Home Secretary and myself and other interested parties on what is meant by the words
  "… the control of the use of land."
  This correspondence was not private and confidential. This was an open letter sent by the Home Secretary to me, in which he gave certain assurances, and I want to put it on record. It was dated 4th May and said:
  "I have since consulted my colleagues in the Northern Ireland Government, who have authorised me to confirm this forecast; and to say that the new powers are required only to ensure that planning control, public health laws and other legislation of the type which can broadly be described as aimed at the prevention of the anti-social use of property may be applied as it is in Great Britain to all kinds of property irrespective of the class of owner."
  It is important that those following the Bill closely will know what the Home Secretary has told me as a Member of Parliament.
  The hierarchy in Northern Ireland were also acquainted with that letter and are appreciative and grateful. But I am asked to say tonight that we are still unhappy about the fact that Clause 13 (1,b) could still be misinterpreted by some people in Northern Ireland if they so desired. I want to avoid that risk of misinterpretation.
  We are concerned with the possibility that some people in Northern Ireland with a prejudice— and I say this quite openly— could interpret, despite the Home Secretary's assurances, the words
  "… the control of the use of land."
  to mean that they could take certain land. We fear that they could claim that the words did not mean what the Home Secretary's letter declared them to mean.
  They might declare, for instance, what a piece of land upon which stands a church hall should be used an an open space, claiming that this amenity was essential to the area. This would mean the whole of that piece of land becoming
  1646
  sterile. I am not suggesting that there are many people in Northern Ireland generally or in Stormont in particular, who would do this, but at certain levels it might well be done, and it is because those I have the privilege to speak for have these fears that I ask for further assurances to confirm what I have said.
  If such action were to be taken, I am surely right in saying that this greatest Parliament in the world is the final authority. I would certainly try to raise the matter on the Floor of the House if we considered that some injustice had been done and that the wording in the Home Secretary's letter had been misinterpreted. I say to the Home Secretary and his Department that we are grateful for the co-operation that we have received. We could not have been treated more courteously. They have tried very hard to meet our point of view. There was a concession in Clause 13 (1,a) for which we were grateful.
  I do not live in Northern Ireland, but many of my friends do, and when we express fears about certain problems they may seem alien to this country. If this Bill concerned only Great Britain I should not be concerned. I should be quite happy about these words. But I want to be doubly sure about Northern Ireland. I give notice that if these words are ever misinterpreted by, perhaps, a local official, I will raise the matter on the Floor of the House.
  6.8 p.m.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke): Our discussions on the Bill have been brief and amicable. This followed from the general welcome it was given because the objectives of the Bill are really essential. It is the wish of all of us that Northern Ireland should be able to enjoy laws which arc as up to date and beneficial as those we have in Great Britain. We all recognise that the fulfilment of this wish must necessarily involve the Parliament at Westminster from time to time in legislation devoted solely to Northern Ireland affairs, and that, in short, is what this Bill is about.
  Since the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) has, quite rightly, come back to the question—which I will deal with in a minute—of Clause 13, I can

  1647
  assure him that if the worst came to the worst—and I have no reason to believe that it would—this House of Commons would still have the fullest power which it has ever had, and it is a power not merely on reserved subjects but on all subjects. Therefore, even if his fears were, in some extraordinary way, justified, we should have power to remedy the situation here.
  On behalf of my right hon. Friends and myself, I thank the House for its reception of the Bill. It was the practice in earlier years to describe such Bills by the title "Northern Ireland (Miscellanous Provision) Bill". This title was last used in 1945. Since then we have gained in brevity, but perhaps lost in accuracy, by changing to the shorter title of "Northern Ireland Bill."
  Short titles should be short. The title "Northern Ireland Bill" may, however, give a greater impression of unity than the contents of the Bill warrant, for there is no lack of miscellany for all the change of title. We have had to jump from the Supreme Court to superannuation, taking in on the way such disparate topics as prerogative writs, juries, slum clearance, rent control, company law, horses, wrecks and warrants of arrest. We have all passed this test of agility with flying colours.
  This illustrates the varied respects in which the law relating to Northern Ireland may need amendment and the reason why it would not be possible to include all these amendments in functional legislation confined to a particular topic, although, of course, from time to time we find it appropriate to proceed in that way.
  During an earlier stage of the Bill, the Committee had occasion to weigh some nicely balanced arguments about the quorum of the new Supreme Court Rules Committee. I am sure that it gave satisfaction to my hon. Friends from Northern Ireland that we felt able to accede to the practical arguments which they advanced on this point. One might say that the balance was preserved when my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) felt able to withdraw his Amendment proposing a Rules and Administration Committee. I hope, also, that
  1648
  we were able to satisfy the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) on the questions which he asked on the first twelve Clauses of the Bill.
  For some years now it has been widely recognised that the law relating to the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland has been in need of revision. It is still largely governed by an Act of 1877 which is now inevitably out of date. The first twelve Clauses of the Bill go far to give effect to the recommendations of the Sheil Committee which reported five years ago. As a result of the Bill and, in particular, of the fresh powers which it confers on the Supreme Court Rules Committee, I hope that it will be possible for the law relating to the Supreme Court to be brought up to date in the way the Sheil Committee thought necessary.
  I fully recognise that it might have been better if we had been able to introduce an entirely new Judicature Act for Northern Ireland, but that would have been a heavy undertaking and if we had set our sights as high as this, I think that it would have been a long time before we were able to introduce the necessary legislation. Here, as elsewhere, the best would have been the enemy of the good. Nevertheless, I hope that what we have done in the Bill will be found to have gone a long way towards making the improvements in the law relating to the Supreme Court for which the Lord Chief Justice and others have been pressing for some time.
  In response to the hon. Member for Bermondsey, I was able at the time of the Second Reading to forecast the intentions of the Northern Ireland Government about the use of the powers conferred by Clause 13 (1, b). I have the express authority of the Northern Ireland Government to confirm his view of this matter. I am very glad that he quoted from the letter of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, as that gets it on the record. The new powers are required only to ensure that planning control, public health laws and other legislation of the type which can broadly be described as aimed at the prevention of the anti-social use of property may be applied, as it is in

  1649
  Great Britain, to all kinds of property irrespective of the class of owner.
  I reiterate that the Northern Ireland Government has no intention whatever of misusing this power in any way, and certainly not in the example given by the hon. Member, that is to say, the conceivable sterilisation of land at present being used for a church purpose. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has informed not only the hon. Member, but also my hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris), of this. There is no question of these powers being used to undermine the safeguards incorporated in Clause 13 (1, a). The Clause must be read as a whole. There is a distinction between subsection (1, a), which is concerned with the diversion of land, and paragraph (b) which is concerned with control over the use of land.
  Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;
  House counted, and, 40 Members being present—
  Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: The safeguard in paragraph (a) for buildings used exclusively for religious or educational purposes cannot be evaded by relying on paragraph (b); if it could, the effect of the Clause would be contradictory. Paragraph (b) does not permit the diversion of property, under the pretence of controlling its use, either directly by legislation, or indirectly by executive action.
  On Clause 14, it may be worth repeating that the situation of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom, the relationship between the Northern Ireland Government and Parliament and the United Kingdom Government and Parliament and, indeed, Northern Ireland's Constitution as a whole are all sui generis, and cannot profitably be compared with the position in other countries to which they may bear some superficial resemblance. I think that it has been generally accepted both in the House and in Northern Ireland and by the hon. Member for Bermondsey in
  1650
  his very courteous interventions both today and previously that it would be quite incorrect to suggest that the Clause created some new danger of expropriation in Northern Ireland.
  On the rest of the Clauses, I would only express the hope that, if we have not thought it necessary to devote a great deal of time to their discussion, this will not be taken to indicate any lack of interest or any lack of belief in their value.
  6.18 p.m.
  Sir Frank Soskice: I had not intended to intervene in the debate and I do so only very shortly because the Minister kindly asked me whether I was satisfied about various matters which I had raised on Second Reading and in Committee. My answer to him would be that in regard to all except the jury question I do not feel that I can take the matter any further. These matters have been fully and exhaustively discussed and hon. Members who sit for Northern Ireland seats have registered their accord with the Government's proposals. I shall say no more about them.
  I do not feel altogether at ease on the question of the reduction in the number of juries, as the Under-Secretary knows. I think that it is wrong in principle, unless there is some overwhelming reason for it. I do not think myself that we had any very compelling reason put before us why juries should be reduced. Convenience was really the basis upon which it was done, and I accept, of course, that the time of busy citizens must not be wasted.
  I content myself by saying in reply to the Minister that I still feel uneasy on the question of juries, but that as the matter has been exhaustively discussed and as right hon. and hon. Members do not seem to share my disquiet, I do not think that I can take the matter further in a Northern Ireland Bill.
  Question put and agreed to
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

  MOTOR VEHICLES (INTERNATIONAL CIRCULATION)
  6.20 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): I beg to move,
  That the Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) (Amendment) Order, 1962, a draft of which was laid before this House on 9th May, be approved
  Under the Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) Act, 1952, powers are given to the Minister of Transport to make Orders in Council to provide for two matters. The first is the issue to British motorists taking their vehicles abroad of any necessary documents. The second is to enable our laws relating to vehicles or their drivers to be modified in favour of foreign visitors coming here with their vehicles. The provisions contained in any such Order must be those which are necessary
  "to enable effect to be given to any international agreement for the time being in force in respect of the United Kingdom",
  so before any Order can be made under the Act there must be an international agreement in force which applies to this country.
  Britain is already party to several international agreements relating to motor vehicle circulation. For example, we were party to the United Nations Conference on Road and Motor Transport of 1949, and an Order made under the Act in 1957 enabled us to give effect to the decisions of that conference. As a consequence, visiting motorists are, for example, not required to hold British driving licences, or to pay vehicle and excise duty, or to have British registration plates on their vehicles while they are here.
  When an Order is made under the Act, it must first be presented to both Houses of Parliament and approved by affirmative Resolution, and the Order that I am moving tonight is one of these. I said just now that there was an Order of this kind made in 1957. The present Order modifies that one so as to enable us to give effect to certain agreements which have been reached more recently by various international bodies. I do not pretend that the changes are of vast importance, but they are intended to ease somewhat the path of international
  1652
  tourist traffic and to reduce the formalities. Frankly, if even a short time can be saved in dealing with each visitor who comes here with his car, something of our bad reputation for undue formalities and delays at the ports may be removed.
  Five changes are proposed by this Order, and they are contained in the three main articles— Articles 3, 4 and 5. The first change relates to documents for drivers and vehicles going abroad. In 1957, the O.E.E.C. circulated a decision which provided that any country could require chauffeur-driven hired vehicles coming from other countries to carry a special identification plate. In fact, no country has yet imposed such a requirement, and we in the United Kingdom certainly do not intend to do so. But we must take powers against the contingency of such a plate having to be issued to United Kingdom motorists going abroad to a country which may eventually implement that decision.
  The second change is to be found in Article 4 and relates to visitors' driving permits. This is a little complicated, but I will explain the matter as clearly as I can. Article 2 of the 1957 Order provides for two types of international driving permit to be recognised. One form is that which was provided for in the 1926 Convention relating to motor traffic. The other is the form provided by the 1949 Convention on Road Traffic, and we recognise this form when it is issued by a country which was party to the 1949 Convention. But we also recognise the 1926 Convention type permit when it is issued by a country which was party either to the 1926 Convention or to the 1949 Convention.
  Article 4 of the proposed Order revises the definition of "Convention driving permit" contained in Article 2 (6) of the 1957 Order so as to give effect to a recommendation of U.N.E.S.C.O. This was that countries party to the 1949 Convention should recognise international driving permits of the kind recommended in that Convention, whether they are issued by countries who signed that Convention or not. The basic effect is simply to limit henceforth the degree of recognition accorded to the 1926 type permit, which is much longer than the 1949 type, and to give wider recognition to the 1949 type permit.

  1653
  A further change made by Article 4 affects the B.A.O.R. Service men and their dependants. At present, they are permitted to drive their private motor vehicles in Germany on a special driving licence which is known as a B.F.G. licence issued by the Army authorities after a driving test. This driving test, and the standards applied, are the same as are laid down for Service drivers in the United Kingdom. For many years these have been accepted as entitling the Service man to our domestic driving licence.
  Although the holder of a "Foreign domestic driving permit" is at present entitled to drive here, without any test, for twelve months, the definition in the 1957 Order of a "domestic driving permit" does not include the B.F.G. licence which can be obtained by the British Service man in the B.A.O.R. The consequence of this is that unless the holder of such a licence already has a British driving licence, before he can drive his car away from the port when he comes home on leave, has to obtain a British driving licence. He can get a licence by producing his certificate of competence to drive to a licensing authority, but he has to leave his car at the port until he gets his licence.
  On the other hand, his dependants—his wife or children—although they may hold the same driving licence as he does, are not issued with a certificate of competence to drive and have not open to them the course open to him. They have to take a test and obtain a British licence before they can drive a car away from the port, and as the House can imagine this causes considerable delay and inconvenience.
  Since, under the 1957 Order, driving permits issued by the Armed Forces of any country outside the United Kingdom are acceptable in Britain, a member of the United Kingdom forces serving in Germany, and his dependants, are, when they visit this country on leave, in an inferior position to the foreign Service man also visiting this country. This is what we want to alter.
  Since the issue of a B.F.G. licence is tied to a test comparable to our driving test, we should not be weakening our arrangements in any way by according to it the same recognition that we give, under the 1957 Order, to a foreign
  1654
  Service man's driving permit, or indeed, to a foreign domestic driving licence. Article 4 of the proposed Order therefore puts B.F.G. driving licences on the same basis as those other forms of driving permit. People who hold them will, if they are resident outside the United Kingdom, and are temporarily in this country, be entitled to use them for driving here, for periods of up to twelve months.
  The next change is one of two which are made by Article 5. Under the 1957 Order, regulations could be made for what were known as "international circulation permits" to be issued to temporarily imported vehicles, for the registration of such vehicles, for the assignment to them of registration marks, for the issue of registration cards, and to exempt them from paying vehicle Excise duty. The present period of exemption is laid down in regulations as being a maximum of 90 days. Article 5 will, first, enable the period of exemption from vehicle Excise duty to be increased so as to correspond to the period of exemption from Customs duty, but this is subject to a maximum period of one year, with the sole exception of public passenger vehicles.
  Article 5 also omits the present power to issue international circulation permits to visiting motorists. I am sorry to say that the United Kingdom is the only European country which still requires the displaying of an international circulation permit on a visiting motor vehicle so as to show that Excise duty is not payable for the period for which the permit is granted. But now we are extending the period of exemption from the duty, and fewer motorists are likely to become liable to it, so the need for the permit as an aid to enforcement reduces it almost to vanishing point.
  This again, I think, will help to speed up the clearance of vehicles through our ports, although I must add, for the sake of clarity, that the visiting motorist will still be given a record of his period of exemption by means of an endorsement on another document which he already has to carry. But this should not take very long to carry through.
  I have done my best to explain the somewhat complicated provisions of this Order which I commend to the House as being a useful easement to the freer

  1655
  circulation of motor traffic between countries and the improvement of international tourism.
  6.30 p.m.
  Mr. R. J. Mellish: I wish to place on record that we on this side of the House welcome this Order and wish to express to the Parliamentary Secretary our appreciation of the way in which he has explained what, on the face of it, appeared to be a very complicated business.
  Its advantages, as he has pointed out, are that it is designed to enable Britain to receive tourists much more quickly and freely and encourage them to come to this country to spend their money. We hope that at the same time they will enjoy our scenery. We are bringing ourselves a little more up to date and that is something to be welcomed. This Order is progressive and we have the greatest pleasure in supporting it.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) (Amendment) Order, 1962, a draft of which was laid before this House on 9th May, be approved.

  ECCLESIASTICAL FEES
  6.31 p.m.
  Sir Hubert Ashton (Second Church Estates Commissioner): I beg to move,
  That the Ecclesiastical Fees Measure, 1962, passed by the National Assembly of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
  At the outset I should inform the House that this Measure was first considered by the Ecclesiastical Committee on 14th June, 1961. All the Clauses, with the exception of Clause 6, were acceptable to the members. It was felt, however, that the proposals of Clause 6 were rather widely drawn and possibly too uncertain in effect.
  Subsequently a meeting took place on 28th June between the Ecclesiastical Committee and the Legislative Committee of the Church Assembly. After discussion on Clause 6 the Measure was withdrawn and resubmitted to the Church Assembly with certain modifications in respect of this Clause. This Measure, in
  1656
  its slightly revised form, was considered again by the Ecclesiastical Committee on 8th May and it has reported favourably upon the Measure.
  Clause 1 deals with fees payable to officials for the legal duties which they perform. It is now proposed that the assessment of 'those fees should be made by a Committee of three lawyers which should be set up from time to time at the request of the two Archbishops; one to be chosen by the Lord Chancellor, one by the Chairman of the Bar Council and one by the President of the Law Society. These fees will be paid to legal officers as defined in the Measure and will require the approval of the Church Assembly and of both Houses of Parliament. The Church Commissioners will ultimately be responsible for the payment of these fees.
  Clause 2 deals with fees payable to the clergy for services in respect of Church offices. The Church Commissioners are charged with the duty of providing a new and uniform table of fees to be in force, in due course, in every parish. This table also will have to receive the approval of the Church Assembly and be laid before both Houses of Parliament.
  Clause 4 will have the effect of relieving the clergy of their liability for fees payable to a legal officer on their ordination, admission to or resignation from any office. Such fees, in the first instance, will become the liability of the archbishops and bishops, who, in turn, will be reimbursed from the General Fund of the Church Commissioners. I am sure that the House will agree that this is in accordance with modern practice and it is the right and proper course.
  These are the three main provisions of the Measure which stems from the Fees and Faculties Commission. The proposals received careful consideration in the Church Assembly and were passed without division and without amendment except minor ones proposed by the members in charge. One of these was my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wembley, North (Wing-Commander Bullus). I have already stated that the Ecclesiastical Committee has reported favourably upon the Measure now before the House, and it gives me

  1657
  great pleasure to move the Motion which is in my name and those of other hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  6.35 p.m.
  Mr. B. T. Parkin: This Measure has recently been described by a leading bishop as a humane but tardy Measure, and I do not suppose anyone would wish to delay its adoption. But there are one or two points that worry me. We understand that this is a Measure intended to relieve clergy from the liability of paying certain fees to ecclesiastical lawyers. That no doubt is where the element of humanity comes in, that it is desirable to defend the clergy against the predatory tendencies of ecclesiastical lawyers. I see that in Clause 4 it states:
  "… any clerk in Holy Orders would but for in passing of this Measure have been liable to pay any fee, whether required by law or custom, to a legal officer …"
  I note that although the fees are to be paid by the bishops and archbishops, they will eventually be reimbursed by the Church Commissioners.
  No honourable body of men has ever been worse served by its lawyers than the Church Commissioners. There is a long history of fees being paid by these people for advice which has turned out to be bad. History reveals that the property of the Church has been mishandled through bad advice and the inadequacy of the protection which ought to have been available to the owners of Church property to defend it against misuse. The history includes old scandals in areas such as those in my constituency which the Church Commissioners have been helpless to put right because of terms in old leases and inability to show the necessary professional competence or imagination to detect tendencies which might develop. All these things add up to a rather sad record of fees being paid out by the Church Commissioners for bad advice. I hope that the Church Commissioners will take the opportunity to review their habit of paying fees to the professional parasites who hang around their organisation and will look at the fees paid to lawyers and to surveyors and firms of administrators and really see that not only on the part of the clergy now to be defended on humane grounds from——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. It is quite impossible to discuss, in connection with this Measure, things like fees to surveyors. The hon. Gentleman must address himself to the Measure.
  Mr. Parkin: I was speaking my last sentence, Mr. Speaker.
  If the implications of this Measure are that the Church Commissioners are to take on new responsibilities in relation to fees of any kind, I am sure that out of their experience of the past they will take this opportunity to look much more carefully at the scales of fees they pay and the service which they get in return.
  6.38 p.m.
  Sir H. Ashton: I am glad that the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) agrees that the parson should be relieved of this burden of fees. It may be a little tardy but we have to go through a considerable process in our Church legislation, and now the Measure is nearly on the Statute Book.
  On the other hand, I am very sorry indeed that he referred to lawyers who advise the Church Commissioners as not only predatory but inefficient. I ought to tell him that a great deal of the good advice given by the legal officers, chancellors and others to the bishops is given entirely without any fee. I therefore feel that it is a great pity that such comments were made by him, and I should like to inform him that from my experience they are quite untrue. As far as we humanly can, if the Measure goes through we shall continue to run the Church Commissioners' affairs in the most efficient manner that we can.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Ecclesiastical Fees Measure, 1962, passed by the National Assembly of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament,

  OIL HEATERS
  6.40 p.m.
  Mr. George Darling: I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Oil Heaters Regulations, 1962 (S.I., 1962, No. 884), dated 27th April 1962, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th May, be annulled.
  It is not our intention to challenge these Regulations or to ask the Minister

  1659
  of State to withdraw them, although I have one or two questions to put to him which I hope that he will be able satisfactorily to answer.
  Our first purpose in tabling the Prayer is to give us a chance to take note of what to many hon. Members is an important occasion. These are the first Regulations to be made under the Consumer Protection Act, and we wish to mark the occasion with a few words of thanks to all those concerned bath in the Act and in the production of these Regulations. It is true that these Regulations have been a long time in gestation—almost a year—but there is a very good explanation for the time which has been taken.
  When the Consumer Protection Bill was under fire and its passage was being somewhat delayed in Committee, some hon. Members were apprehensive about the number of Regulations which would flow from the Act. They thought that Regulations would be imposed by the Home Office on thousands of manufacturers and scores of thousands of shopkeepers who sell the goods with which the Regulations are concerned.
  The Minister of State will remember that we tried to allay their fears, and pointed out that, in practice, there would be very few Regulations and that in almost every case they would take a long time to prepare. In every case, as in the case of these Regulations, there would have to be proof of need, rather unfortunately perhaps, because the demand for action by the Home Office will not be voiced until there have been accidents, injuries or deaths or some other calamities arising from unsafe goods.
  The need for safe oil heaters has been tragically proved. There have been deaths and injuries arising from the use of unsafe paraffin heaters. That is why we welcome the Regulations which aim at making the sale of unsafe heaters illegal. After the need has been proved, there is bound to be a further delay while the Home Office, in consultation with manufacturers and such organisations as the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, works out the rather difficult technical definitions and statistics for safe appliances.
  1660
  It would be possible for anybody commenting on these Regulations to corn-plain about the delay in issuing them, but, in fairness, I must say that I realise that the working out of these minimum specifications and standards of safety for any manufactured article is necessarily a rather long operation. All kinds of organisations have to be consulted—the manufacturers, D.S.I.R., the fire offices research organisation in this case, the British Standards Institution, and so on. It is not a job which can be done quickly if the results are to be completely satisfactory.
  But while we have to accept the inevitable delay, there is one aspect of the procedure which rather worries me, and I wonder whether the Minister of State can help us about this. I understand that we have two safety standards for ail heaters—the Home Office standards, which are written into the Regulation's, and some different standards issued by the British Standards Institution. At first sight, there may be nothing wrong in having two standards. I take it that these regulations provide the minimum safety standards, and it may be that if all the oil heaters from now on are made in accordance with these Regulations, they will all be perfectly safe, even though some will be safer than others.
  But the higher—if they are higher, as I understand they are—and safer specifications of the B.S.I. may encourage the, best manufacturers to put even better and safer heaters on the market than would be the case if all of them worked just to these minimum standards and produced nothing better than the minimum standards. This may be a good thing, because we all want the best and safest oil heaters that the manufacturers can produce, made to higher than the minimum standards laid down in the Regulations.
  However, thinking it over, it seemed to me that the existence of two standards might be rather harmful and confusing, and I should, therefore, like to ask the Minister whether it would not be better, perhaps easier and cheaper for the Home Office in cases such as this to accept the B.S.I. standard and, in effect, to give legal backing to the standards which have been worked out by the British Standards Institution and approved by the best manufacturers.

  1661
  There is a further danger—although danger is perhaps the wrong word to use—of creating confusion by having two standards on the same heater, because the Regulations provide that the warning notice must be put upon the heater and describe the heater, which in effect is a marking of a safety standard on the heater, while the best manufacturers will be working to the best B.S.I. standards, which will also be marked on the heater.
  It may be that that will not be confusing in practice, but perhaps the Minister will remember that when we were discussing the Bill, I was under the impression, which I expressed at the time, that by following the procedure which I have just mentioned, in cases which it is possible to do so the Regulations would, in effect, give legal enforcement to B.S.I. standards. I am sure that I never expected that we should have two sets of standards, one official and one semiofficial, to be applied to the same article.
  The kind of confusion which may arise, in my opinion, can be seen in Regulation No. 9 dealing with draught resistance. This matter has already been brought to the Minister's attention. The Regulation says, in effect, that an oil heater must not flare up or explode if it is subjected to a strong horizontal frontal draught, but it does not say anything about a side or a down draught or a back draught—only a frontal draught. There may be good technical reasons for this, although I believe that the B.S.I. specifications refer to all kinds of draught, so that oil heaters made to B.S.I. standards would be safe in all circumstances, irrespective of the direction in which the wind, when one opened the window or door of the room in which the heater was situated, was blowing.
  If there is the slightest danger of any oil heater of any design flaring up and probably causing a fire as a result of a side or down draught, we would be in the somewhat dubious position of having approved Regulations which failed on one specification. Whereas our best manufacturers would be making safer models based on the B.S.I. standards, we would be sanctioning the sale perhaps of less safer models or cheaper models made by other manufacturers or perhaps coming in from abroad.
  I hope that the Minister will be able to look at this question and give us an
  1662
  assurance—perhaps not today, because I realise that this has been rather sprung upon him, but in the near future — that the reference only to frontal draught in the specification as laid down by the Regulations will not mean that we shall have on the market heaters which may, in certain particulars, be unsafe.
  I do not think that this is a matter which laymen in the House can pronounce about. It is a technical question. It obviously has to be answered by technical experts. If the Minister of State is unable to answer it today, I shall be quite happy to have the answer on a more appropriate occasion.
  For the rest of the Regulations, we welcome them. As I have said, they mark a very important move forward in our steps to protect people from unsafe goods and appliances. The first step in regard to oil heaters was taken by the hon. Member for Kidderminster with the Oil Burners (Standards) Act, 1960. The next step was taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Bilston (Mr. R. Edwards), who introduced the parent Bill for these Regulations, with the help of the Home Office and with the very great help—on the Floor of the House, behind the scenes, and in Committee—of the Minister of State. We now have the first of what we hope will be a series of useful Regulations.
  I repeat what I said in the debates on the Bill. These and other Regulations which I hope will follow are not aimed at making things difficult for manufacturers and shopkeepers. On the contrary, we are laying down safety standards, and by doing that I think that we are helping them to produce and sell good quality and perfectly safe articles. We are also protecting the best manufacturers and traders from unscrupulous, or at least careless, competitors. Our main concern is for the householder and his family, especially old people and the children. We must reduce the terrible toll of accidents in the home. We must reduce the deaths and the injuries which occur all too frequently through people using faulty appliances. These Regulations will help towards that end. We therefore welcome them and we hope that they will be as satisfactory as we have all hoped that they would be during the long time that we have been waiting for them.
  6.54 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Renton): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) for raising this matter, because it gives me an opportunity not only of answering the critical questions he asked—I hope that he will find that I am able to answer them satisfactorily—but also of clearing up several misunderstandings which have been brought to our notice with regard to these Regulations.
  It is true that the Regulations are made under the Consumer Protection Act and are the first of their kind. Therefore, this is in a sense an important occasion. I fully appreciate the enterprise of the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. R. Edwards) and others in introducing that Act last Session. I remind the House that the power to make Regulations prescribing safety standards for oil heaters was first provided by the Oil Burners (Standards) Act, 1960, for which credit is due to my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), who has asked me to apologise to the House for his absence this evening.
  Before the Regulations were ready to be made, the 1960 Act was repealed and superseded by the Consumer Protection Act, which confers on my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary wide power to make safety Regulations for consumer goods. These Regulations could, therefore, have been made even if the Consumer Protection Act had not been passed.
  As the hon. Member has very fairly said, the delay in making the Regulations has been inevitable. I readily agree that their preparation has taken a long time. No single factor has been responsible for the delay. It has been a combination of the complexity of the subject and the need to consult a number of interested organisations.
  It is very important that we should bear in mind that the basis of the Consumer Protection Act' is that the Regulations made under it create legal obligations, both civil and criminal. They are enforceable in the courts. One of the results of this is that the code of requirements laid down in the Regulations relating to any particular matter must be precise and comprehensive within its limits. What we have
  1664
  attempted to do in these Regulations is to give the relevant provisions of the British Standards Institution both the precision and the comprehensiveness or the generality which is essential to legislation backed by criminal sanctions. Therefore, the two standards to which the hon. Gentleman has referred—the one laid down by the British Standards Institution and the other contained in the Regulations—are as nearly identical as the different purpose of the two types of document will admit.
  I will explain that a little more fully. The Consumer Protection Act places upon my right hon. Friend a duty
  "to consult with such persons or bodies of persons as appear to him requisite"
  before Regulations are made. It will interest the House to know that consultations have taken place, not only with the representatives of the manufacturers and retailers of oil heaters, but with such bodies as the British Standards Institution, the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, the Fire Protection Association, the Consumers' Advisory Council, and the local authority associations.
  We have had to take great care in our consultations, in particular with the Oil Appliance Manufacturers' Association, for if, by inadvertence, we had included something which was technically incorrect, not only would they have been the first to complain but it might have had serious economic consequences for them, as well as criminal results. Therefore, we had to have repeated consultations with the Association. In the final outcome there appeared to be a general measure of agreement that the requirements of the Regulations were consistent with those of British Standard 3300 of 1960 for domestic oil heaters. That is the standard on which the Regulations are based.
  Meanwhile, I understand that all oil heaters manufactured in this country since the autumn of 1960 have by voluntary action complied with that standard.
  Mr. Darling: All of them?
  Mr. Renton: All of them. Since that British Standard was issued in 1960, the oil heaters manufactured in this country have voluntarily complied with that standard. That does not refer to all

  1665
  those sold in the shops, because before the Standard was issued there were a number of older appliances which did not comply with it. I understand that a number of the worst of those were voluntarily withdrawn anyway, partly as a result of the matter being raised in the House.
  The wording of the Regulations differs from the British Standard, not only for the reason I have already given, a general reason, but also because in these Regulations we often—I say "We often", but experience has not yet arisen which entitles me to say that. I should say that we nearly always have to aim at laying down general principles of safety, without necessarily specifying the particular method of achieving safety.
  The methods may change with improvements in design and manufacture. The great thing is that we should lay down the requirements, whereas the British Standard deals purely with scientific matters and not only with aims but with methods. That is another reason why there is likely from time to time to be disparity between the two, although not, I hope, inconsistency.
  I can without hesitation give an assurance that there is no significant difference between the standard of safety demanded by the Regulations and that required by the British Standard to which I have referred and which, so far as I know, is the only relevant standard. In giving that assurance I am repeating an undertaking given by my predecessor during the debates in the House in May, 1960 on the Committee and Report stages of the Oil Burners (Standards) Bill, that the regulations when made would conform approximately to British Standard 3300 of 1960.
  It may be that the hon. Gentleman was quite satisfied with what I have already said, and that I have covered the essential points that he made. I will, however, support that by a somewhat more scientific explanation. I shall try not to blind the House with science, because I am sure that if I did so on this occasion I should be blinding myself. The hon. Member for Hillsborough referred to the Report of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, which was issued in 1960, following a study of the effects of
  1666
  draughts on the operation of drip-feed radiant oil heaters. The conclusions reached in the Report were that heaters of the design then available might cause fires under the draught conditions that could exist in houses when outside doors are open and that the design of future heaters should be improved to make them reasonably safe from draughts up to at least 26 ft. per second.
  This recommendation, admittedly, was not limited to draughts from any particular direction. The British Standard 3300 of 1960, which was issued after the publication of that Report and which took account of its findings, required tests to be carried out only with regard to frontal horizontal draughts, and these are the only tests mentioned in the Regulations. It is this standard which is still operative without any alteration in regard to draughts. We understand the view of experts in this matter to be that the main hazard is that of the frontal horizontal draught. The reason for this is that excessive flames produced by a draught from this direction would blow back upon the fuel tank which is placed towards the rear of the oil burner. The result of overheating the fuel tank in this way might be to involve the whole of its contents and so cause a serious fire. This we say, and I ask the House to accept it, is the main hazard to be guarded against.
  The present draught test required by the British Standard has to be conducted in draughts up to 26 ft. per second. That is equivalent to 17·7 m.p.h. We feel that a heater designed to pass a test as stiff as that from a frontal direction would be reasonably safe when subjected to normal wind spends from other angles. To design heaters so that they will withstand the full draught from any angle and at similar speeds would be a complex and difficult matter, we are told, so would be the testing of heaters to ensure that they complied with such a stringent requirement. Nevertheless, we must all continue to keep open minds on this matter and it will continue to receive our attention. Therefore, my right hon. Friend in laying these Regulations has not considered it necessary to include them in a more stringent draught test. That is the scientific answer to the hon. Gentleman.

  1667
  My right hon. Friend would in the last resort, if the British Standards Committee was unable to make progress, and if some way of imposing a more stringent requirement carrying criminal sanctions were to come to our notice, not hesitate to act and produce amending Regulations. We would, of course, first issue a warning which might itself be enough to produce agreement among all concerned. But that has not happened yet. The position is that the British Standards Committee has produced a reasonable requirement in its standard of 1960, and is still considering the possibility of improving it further. Meanwhile, we have acted on its scientific advice.
  I hope that with this explanation the House will join with me in once more thanking the hon. Member for Hillsborough, and that he may now feel disposed to withdraw his Prayer.
  Mr. Darling: With the permission of the House, and in view of the Minister's very thorough explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
  7.7 p.m.
  Mr. Albert Evans: Before we dispose of this Prayer there is one question that I should like to ask the Secretary of State. I should like to know if these Regulations cover the sale of second-hand oil heaters. I put that question because, although warnings would be on newly-manufactured heaters, there are areas where there is a limited but constant sale of secondhand heaters, and it is there that fires are most likely to be caused by the mishandling of those heaters. It would, therefore, be as well if it were made known Whether the Regulations apply to the sale of second-hand heaters. We know that, from the passing of the Regulations, new heaters will have to bear a label giving the necessary warnings and comply with the very full details set out in the Regulations, but it would be helpful if we were told whether those requirements will apply on the sale of second-hand heaters.
  I welcome the Regulations. I think that they are necessary. Some rather alarming cases have occurred. One occurred in my constituency two years ago and I raised the matter then in the House. The Regulations will help to make these burners safe.
  1668
  We welcome the Regulation which lays down that on the heater there must be a warning in permanent writing, engraving or etching. That is necessary. But nothing can safeguard a foolish person from his own folly, and all the warnings we may issue, and everything the manufacturers may do, cannot safeguard that person from mishandling one of these stoves, so that it is also necessary to warn, and warn again, those who do not read the Regulations or are uninformed about their terms, of the dangers of carrying a stove when it is alight. They must be warned against using the heater in an unventilated place, and against putting it where it is exposed to draughts. Draughts, as the Minister of State has said, constitute the greatest hazard. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman would answer my question.
  Mr. Renton: If I may have the leave of the House to speak again, Mr. Speaker, the point about whether the Regulations apply to second-hand goods cannot be fully answered without referring to Section 2 (3) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1961. Subject to the very slight limitations of a somewhat legalistic kind imposed by that Section, these Regulations will normally apply to heaters sold second-hand.
  Question put and negatived.

  MUNDON WASH DRAINAGE SCHEME (GRANT)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. M. Hamilton.]
  7.13 p.m.
  Mr. Brian Harrison: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me this opportunity to raise the matter of the refusal of the Ministry of Agriculture to give the Essex River Board a grant to carry out the Mundon Wash and Lime Brook drainage scheme. I am also grateful to hon. Members who have rushed through the other business this afternoon, and so enabled me to have ample time to put my case.
  Although the case specifically refers to one part of my constituency, and to one area occupied by a score or so of farmers, it is one also which has attached to it a general physical principle which

  1669
  I find the Ministry somewhat reluctant to appreciate. The principle is that water flows downhill. There seems to be some doubt in the Ministry about where the water goes when a drainage scheme is carried out. I can assure the Ministry, on the best possible advice, that it does run downhill, and it is because of that that special drainage schemes are necessary near the sea walls.
  The present trouble is caused by the very success of the grant-aided drainage schemes on upland farms. Over the years, one of the most outstanding, useful and lasting improvements in agriculture has been the Government-assisted farm drainage schemes. They have been immensely successful in improving the productivity of farmland and, by putting something permanent on the land, they have also contributed to the national wealth.
  The trouble about the Mundon Wash and Lime Brook scheme is that the upland drainage has not yet been completed, and unless something is done to bring in this scheme, or the same scheme only very slightly modified, the situation of the farmers in the lower land—that is, below the 6-ft contour—will continue to deteriorate. Now that we have improved pipe drainage and mole drainage, storm water runs off extremely rapidly and accumulates on the lower land, and some of my constituents face an increasing deterioration of their farms and a consequent reduction in their livelihood.
  The project, of which the refusal was announced in reply to a Question I put on 9th May, really consists of two closely-related schemes affecting the Mundon and Latchingdon areas— the Lime Brook scheme and the Mundon Wash scheme. The catchment area of the two schemes—and this is a figure that should be considered when appraising the grant— consists of nearly 6,000 acres of upland, and 1,200 acres of lowland— a total of 7,159 acres.
  The proposed scheme consists of a high-level channel to carry the water straight through from the upland areas to the sea wall, a storage reservoir, the clearing of some water courses, and the construction of a number of new sluices. There is, in addition, a sea-defence element costing some £ 17,000, so that the total cost of the scheme must not be
  1670
  considered as applying only to a drainage scheme.
  Two plans have been put forward to deal with the flooding of the low land—a gravity scheme, and what is called a partial pumping scheme. The gravity scheme has been recommended by the river board, and is the one submitted to the Ministry. In his reply, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary suggested that an alternative scheme should be looked at, so plans were prepared for a partial pumping scheme. That scheme would, as far as can be seen at the moment, cost approximately the same amount to carry out, but would be more expensive to maintain, because the pumps would have to be run, and the cost of running them must be taken into account.
  The gravity scheme, excluding land, is estimated to cost £131,400, with an annual maintenance cost of about £830. The pumping scheme would cost slightly more—as far as can be estimated £ 134,000—but the maintenance would be exactly double each year. The land permanently retained with the partial pumping scheme would be greater than that required for the gravity scheme—14715 acres as against 1272.
  The catchment area affected by the scheme is mostly agricultural land, with some woodland, and there are also 59 acres of land in respect of which outline planning permission for building has been given. Nevertheless, it is essentially an agricultural and forestry scheme. The land is particularly rich—good alluvial soil, on a basis of impervious London clay. It is regarded locally, in Essex, as good wheat and beet land, which requires skilful farming and good drainage. I have seen farming in this area for eight or ten years, and I know how skilful it must be in order to catch the land at exactly the right time. Unless the land is adequately drained a complete crop may be lost for a whole season.
  I understand that the chief reason for turning down the scheme is its cost. I wonder how the cost was calculated. We must consider the drainage area as a whole, because the water is running off the upland farms into the lower area. The cost must be spread over the whole area, and not merely the benefit area. The total catchment area concerned

  1671
  amounts to over 7,000 acres. It is worth comparing this with some of the other schemes which have recently been approved by the Ministry. For instance, nearby there is the Asheldon Brook scheme, which had a benefit area of 640 acres, at an estimated cost of £ 60,000 which works out at … 94 per benefit acre. A little further north, up the coast, there is the Ramsey River—on the Stour— scheme, with a benefit area of 621 acres, costing approximately £ 48,000, the cost per benefit acre being approximately £
  The scheme that we are now discussing has a benefit area considerably in excess of either of those two, but the approximate cost per acre would be only £60. The benefit acreage of these examples were all calculated similarly, using a 6-ft. contour
  The scheme is not merely a drainage scheme; it has a sea defence element of about £17,000. It cannot be said that the scheme is being carried out extravagantly. The standards applied are those arrived at by a committee set up with the encouragement of the land drainage branch of the Ministry of Agriculture, consequent upon the very wet summer of 1958. It was a very commonsense and widely representative committee, fully versed in local conditions. On it were representatives of the river board, local authorities, the agricultural executive committee, the C.L.A. and the National Farmers' Union.
  The standards they decided as being appropriate were that a tile drain, at 3 ft., should not be submerged for longer than forty-eight hours, which is reasonable under the conditions, and that a mole drain 22 inches deep should not be submerged for more than twelve hours. These cannot be considered as anything but practical suggestions. On the construction side, the board has taken into account the fact that some soil is London clay, and has made the angle of repose of the improved channels as steep as it safely can.
  Some of the farmers living in the Mundon Wash area will be seriously affected. Some already have been, especially those who have tried to bring in drainage schemes of their own. Mr. Binder, of South House Farm, had a
  1672
  scheme refused by the Ministry because it would be obsolete the moment the main drainage scheme that we are discussing was approved. He is now in the position of having a scheme pending, awaiting the outcome of this major drainage scheme.
  Mr. Saines, of Halfway House, had a ditch cleaned out under the Small Farmer Scheme. It is now merely collecting the back run from the river board's ditch. This cannot be righted until the scheme is implemented. Mr. Eric Lane, a large farmer, had his scheme criticised by the Ministry, and the 'agricultural executive committee was also criticised for allowing the scheme, because it would not be properly effective until the major scheme was carried out. Mr. Lane told me last Monday that the water has certainly been in the moles for more than twelve hours on a number of occasions.
  Another farmer, a Mr. Taylor, has 100 acres that are undrainable until the river board carries out the scheme, and many other farmers are in a similar position. These people earn their livelihood by the land, but they are unable to utilise it profitably and to the full because of the lack of a comprehensive drainage scheme in this area. It is extremely distressing to them to know that as the upland drainage continues to improve so the situation on their farms will continue to deteriorate.
  I ask my hon. Friend to see whether he can review the scheme and give us a favourable answer, or persuade his friends at the Treasury—who, I suspect, may have something to do with the refusal of the scheme—that it is a natural corollary to the success of other drainage schemes. I hope that the 200 man-weeks spent by the river board on preparing the scheme will not be wasted, and that it will not be necessary to wait for another 70 man-weeks for the Department to give its approval.
  7.30 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. M. F. Vane): My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. B. Harrison) has presented his case with great clarity. I begin by saying that I do not for a moment contest his principle that water flows downhill. I

  1673
  would like to think that he learned that principle when he was P.P.S. to my right hon. Friend's predecessor and hence was, in a sense, responsible for land drainage. As a result of the time he spent with the Department he will know of the great trouble that is taken about all the schemes, small as well as large, which are put up to us.
  I know about the efforts he has made in regard to this particular scheme on his constituents' behalf and I know that the river board and the internal drainage board together are anxious to effect substantial improvements. I can assure my hon. Friend that we never lightly reject any scheme, big or small. I sympathise with them, but I hope that I can give them some hope this evening as well as sympathy.
  My hon. Friend will appreciate that we have to apply certain standards to all proposals and we have, as he knows, felt unable to help them over this particular scheme at this particular time. The proposals which were submitted to us by the Essex River Board, who act also as the internal drainage board for the Mundon and Latchington Drainage District, were to provide for the improvement of the drainage of an area of about 2,350 acres of farmland on the right bank of the River Blackwater and also for the improvement of part of the tidal defences.
  When considering drainage schemes we must think of the upland as well as the lowland and also the tidal defences. We cannot divide these into parts and we are today speaking of a scheme which the board estimated would cost about £140,000 and for which it has applied for grant aid for this work. The total grant aid would have been about £106,000. Parliament has authorised the Minister to pay grant, in agreement with the Treasury, in respect of expenditure on the improvement of existing works or the construction of new works, but not, of course, on maintenance work.
  To show how we are looking ahead and are not cutting back—since my hon. Friend brought the Treasury into his argument later in his speech— in 1960–61 a total of just under £3 million was paid to river boards in grants. Last year, it was just under £3½ million and our current estimates concern a figure of about £4 million. I hope, therefore,
  1674
  that my hon. Friend will agree that we are trying to press ahead with essential works. These are not insignificant increases and they certainly show a steadily upward trend.
  This expenditure is, I am sure, fully justified because of the importance of encouraging improvements and new works affecting land drainage and flood protection throughout the country. However, the total amounts available in this, as in every aspect of Government expenditure, are limited and it is necessary for us to examine very carefully all the schemes that are put before us and to make sure that not only are we satisfied with the proposals on engineering grounds, but are also satisfied that the utilisation of national resources in this way is fully justified and the proper priorities are established as between the many claimants.
  We do our best, therefore, to see that the money spent in grant is used in those cases where the maximum benefit can be achieved from the expenditure involved. There is an element of personal opinion in all of this, as it must be when the Minister's discretion is involved. We do, of course, find it necessary sometimes to refuse grants where we are not satisfied that the cost is reasonable in relation to the benefit. It is a little misleading to try to calculate exact figures, as my hon. Friend did, because when dealing with big schemes of this sort, social implications and many other things are involved. In some cases we ask for revision and in others we say that we feel that the costs are more than would be reasonable, bearing in mind that there are always other schemes to be considered.
  I can assure my hon. Friend that we looked at this case most carefully. We were impressed with the fact that the scheme was undoubtedly complex. My hon. Friend spoke about coast protection work and of a small reservoir to help his gravity plans. It was, therefore, expensive. The estimated cost was about £140,000. That is not a really small amount when thinking in terms of the call on our national resources because there is considerable consequential expenditure on the part of the landowners and farmers concerned if the scheme's full value is to be drawn. In this connection my hon. Friend showed the cir

  1675
  cumstances by quoting the cases of a number of his constituents.
  We appreciate that to a certain degree tidal defences are involved, but it seemed to us difficult to justify capital expenditure of this order on this scheme. By this, I mean that it did not seem to us a strong enough case to warrant a place near the head of the queue. Reference has been made to the fact that some time ago the board had two schemes approved for grant where the cost per acre was more than in the Mundon Wash scheme.
  We have no fixed figure per acre which we apply to assess the relationship between cost and benefit. The circumstances between one county and another and even between a part of a county and another vary considerably and we attach great importance to ensuring that we are going to get real benefit which will justify the expenditure in every case. We always take into account all the benefits from a scheme before reaching a decision, not least because of the increasing number of schemes, many of them large, which are being put forward by river boards.
  We have not by any means ruled out all and every scheme. What we are saying is that this particular scheme is too expensive in relation to the likely benefit and that in its present form we would not be justified in putting it to the head of the list of schemes throughout the country. It may be that the board will be able to produce an amended scheme which we can accept. My hon. Friend mentioned two schemes, gravity and pumping, and it might be that a revision would be able to produce something which we would feel could be given a higher priority.
  My hon. Friend referred to the time taken to give a decision. It is true that this case took longer than normal, but it is a complex, costly and rather exceptional scheme. It must always take time to examine all the aspects of such a scheme and in this case, as my hon. Friend knows, we spent a long time in making sure that we got a proper appreciation of the financial and engineering aspects.
  It may interest the House to know that at any one time we have at least a dozen major schemes like this one under consideration. In all, we have
  1676
  about 1,000 schemes of varying importance annually to consider and assess for priority. We are reviewing our policy on grant-aid to land drainage works, one object being to streamline the procedure for dealing with cases of this kind, and I hope that we shall soon be in a position to discuss our proposals with the River Boards' Association.
  We did not find it easy to reach a decision about this scheme, but I hope that it will be possible for a less costly one to be prepared which, although it may not do all that the present scheme would have done will, nevertheless, be such that we can approve it for grant. The Ministry's Chief Engineer has recently been in touch with the board's engineer and offered to co-operate with him to see what could be devised.
  I hope that my hon. Friend will appreciate that we are not just turning this down out of hand. We would like to help him all we can, and the river board, to see whether something can be devised which is acceptable. I am not without hope that something of the sort can be devised and my hon. Friend need not be without hope, either.

  COST OF LIVING
  7.39 p.m.
  Mr. Norman Dodds: This is undoubtedly an unexpected opportunity for me to raise a matter which is worrying to millions of people. And I welcome it in order to ventilate one aspect of the subject. I refer, of course, to the cost of living and, in that context, the rising cost of living. I submit that the turn it has taken recently is a matter for grave concern and that the prospect for the ordinary people of Britain seems gloomy in this respect.
  Before dealing with statistics I shall deal with the matter in terms of human welfare. I have a neighbour with two children who is proposing to go on holiday this week. The breadwinner is a civil servant. Two days ago, he told me of the increases in his budget during the last few weeks. He finds himself in difficulty, so much so that the idea of going away on holiday is marred by financial considerations.
  The index of retail prices rose by two points in the five weeks between 13th March and 17th April. The index has

  1677
  risen as much during the past twelve months as it did in the previous three and a half years. There was a hope that prices would have reached their peak and that, at long last, the Government would he able to follow their promise that they would see that prices came down. What is particularly disconcerting is that the past twelve months have been the period of the so-called pay pause. I need not emphasise that, if the situation is such that it is necessary to have a pay pause at all, it is essential that some form of control should be exercised, or action taken by the Government, so that there will be restraint in prices.
  Perhaps the Financial Secretary will say that, during the period of the Labour Government, prices rocketed. That was during the period of the Korean War, of course, and it is the fact that this country was at that time at the bottom of the league in regard to price increases because of the control which the Labour Government had exercised. No one can deny that the terms of world trade have for long periods since been very favourable to this country, yet prices have never come down. During 1960–61, the terms of trade improved by 3 per cent, but never has there been a sign of price reductions.
  The Financial Secretary may imagine that these accusations are just a political move. I remind him now that there are other minds, apart from those in the Labour Party, which regard the situation as serious. On Monday of this week, the editorial in the Evening News—which certainly does not come from Transport House—said:
  "The spiral again. Every housewife knows how in the past few weeks food prices, even excluding vegetables hit by the cold weather, have risen quite drastically in some cases. The latest index of retail prices showed a 2 point rise in the five week period ending April, 17th; and the figure has almost certainly risen since."
  Those were the words of people who, I should have thought, were friends of the Government.
  A few days ago, we had the results of an excellent survey carried out by the Oxford University Institute of Statistics. This survey revealed in terms that for a family of five having a modest diet the cost has gone up by 6s. 7d. a week. This can he a cause for some alarm to fami-
  1678
  lies already running near the wind with their budget.
  It is not unkind to recall that the Government said, before they were elected in 1951, that
  "A Government will be judged according to the effect of its programme on rising prices."
  That was a promise. The Government must take note of the present trend and tell us what they propose to do, particularly during the period of the pay pause. If there is restraint in one direction, we need action and, if necessary, control in another.
  Today, eleven years after the Government's promise was made, little can be seen of any attempt to keep faith with the public. The Government have pursued policies which have put up living costs—and they have done it deliberately—from housing to fares, from coal to lollipops and petrol. One could draw up a long list of things which people need in their everyday lives and which are costing more and more, clearly showing that the Government have no concern at all for the cost of living; or, if they have, they are quite unable, for whatever reason, to take any action about it.
  The hon. Gentleman will remember the posters put up eleven years ago, showing a large diagram and carrying a slogan about mending the hole in the purse. That campaign had a tremendous influence on ordinary people, particularly the housewife, who has a difficult job to do. But has the hole in the purse been mended? Whatever pause there was for a period was due to the fall in world prices, and even then we were not at the top of the league table in Europe as regards price restraint. The Government got by just because world prices came down.
  Any Government who hope to call with any moral authority for wage restraint must be seen to be doing something to control the rising cost of living. The Government should be pleased that the women have, for some reason, lost the militancy of the suffragettes. In the 1940s there was a group of women called the Housewives League, but we have not seen them since the Government last came to power. However, there is evidence now that women as well as men are, at long last, becoming very worried about rising costs.

  1679
  The problem of restraint has two sides. I want the Prime Minister to take an interest in this matter. A month ago, the President of the United States made a blasting attack on those who were putting up prices in the United States. Is it too much for our Prime Minister to say a few words? In this debate, we are talking about the welfare of the consumer, yet this is being looked after, if that is the word, by six different Government Departments. If the Government were really serious in wanting to look after the consumer and control the cost of living, they would be keen to establish a Ministry of Consumer Welfare, or, at least, a department of the Board of Trade to deal with it. One of the problems here is the multiplicity of Ministries involved.
  Although it is true that expenditure on food represents, on average, less than one-third of the usual family's expenditure, it represents a large part of the weekly budget of old people. The present prospect for a very large number of poor old people is bleak.
  The price of foodstuffs generally has rise less quickly than that of other items in the index. The slowest rises have been among what I might call convenient foods, such as canned, quick frozen and cooked foods which are not bought to a very great extent by old people. The rises which have particularly affected the lower-paid workers and the elderly people have been among items such as bread, red meat and vegetables, which constitute a very big percentage of their diet. There has been a steep increase in fuel costs which, in the main, have to be met at the end of the summer period. It is a bleak time for the lower-paid workers and particularly for the poor old people.
  I said earlier that the Government have not done anything to help to restrain the increase in the cost of living, but there is plenty of evidence to show that they have played havoc with it in one way or another. There is the high cost of housing and the Rent Act. Many people cannot think of buying fuel at its present cost and they have to cut down on food. There have been increases in the rates as a result of the Government's financial policy. The Treasury is the main nigger in the wood
  1680
  pile. Young couples wishing to buy houses are faced with high interest rates on their mortgages. Whether they are buying a house or whether they are in a council house, people are being affected by the Government's policy.
  There is Purchase Tax on clothing. I should have thought that, with this businessman's Government at the helm, and since the war has been over so long, the Purchase Tax on clothing could be eliminated. It costs people a great deal of money to get to and from work. There have been increases in fares, petrol and licence fees.
  Another situation which has arisen in the last week or two is the meat dispute. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the House warned the butchers that the customers would 'have something to say if prices did not come down, but he does not propose to do anything about it and he has rejected any form of control. I wonder whether the Minister is right? In fact, I wonder whether he worries if he is right. On Wednesday, the President of the London Retail Meat Traders Association said:
  "During the past month wholesale prices of meat have been rising steeply in almost all categories—for instance, 20 per cent. on New Zealand lamb, 17 per cent. on English beef, 12 per cent. on Argentine hind quarters of beef "
  Wherever the meat comes from, the price of it goes up. If people want meat, they will 'have to pay more for it.
  The Minister blamed the butchers in this matter. Do the Government propose to look into the increased price of meat, or do they intend merely to blame the butchers? Will the butchers say that it is not their fault, but that of the wholesalers? Is not this a matter for a Government concerned with the welfare of the people and who do not want those people to ask for increased wages because of the difficult economic situations? When will the Government wake up and show that they are ready to take an interest in the daily lives of the people?
  If the Minister of Agriculture is not right, who is? If he is wrong, do not the retail butchers deserve an apology? Let us hear that there will be a Government inquiry into this so that the customer can know whether he is being looked after by the Government. I

  1681
  understand that a call was made to the Ministry of Agriculture, and a baffled official said, "We cannot understand what is happening. There seems to be no reason for the increases." What a lot of good that is to the housewife when she goes to the butcher's shop. It seems that the Government are out to disturb every facet of our national life in one way another. One day it is the nurses, the civil servants, and the loyal workers in various Government Departments. So successful have the Government been in disturbing the community at a very difficult time that people are thinking of striking who have never thought of doing so before.
  Recently, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) delivered a blast at the Treasury, and the Financial Secretary did not contradict it. My hon. Friend said that he would chase the Government until they do something about this matter, and I think that he meant it. He stated that during this period of difficulty
  "company profits have increased by £1,000 million in less than ten years. But the annual taxation paid on those company profits has gone down by £58 million."—[OFFICIAT. REPORT, 29th May, 1962; Vol. 660, c. 1181.]
  There is no doubt that in the last eleven years there has not been much concentration on mending the hole in the purse, but there is plenty of evidence to show that the privileged people have been doing fairly well.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle)The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle) rose——
  Mr. Dodds: It is no use the Minister coming to life now. He did not get up when the figures were given across the Table on Tuesday, and I can only assume that they were accurate. If he denies it now, he knows very well that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East will be back on the scene before long. It would, therefore, be as well if the hon. Gentleman accepted it.
  The rise in prices poses a difficult problem for the Government. They cannot ignore it; they must do something about it. We have had what has been called "the guiding light". Let it shine on both sides of the counter. I hope that the Government can find a way of solving this problem because, although I am a member of the Opposition, it gives me no pleasure to see hardship
  1682
  and distress among the lower income groups and among old people. A medical officer of health reported a few days ago on the high percentage of old people who are suffering from a lack of food. Yet, in 1962, we hear of the surtax payers getting £83 million. It seems that the object of the Government is to lower taxation particularly for the people at the top and that they are ready to impose indirect taxation wherever possible. Who would have believed in 1951 that there would be a tax on children's sweets and lollies? That shows how low we have sunk in the fiscal sense.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East, I promise the Financial Secretary that we shall return to this matter. I like the hon. Gentleman as a man. I am sorry that he is being kept here so long. He is a very agreeable chap. Whatever may be the situation, he always makes a good defence for the Government, and I congratulate him on that. But this is not an isolated attack on the rising cost of living. It will be repeated again and again. Therefore, this is merely a warning that the Government must "get cracking" to show that they mean business and will endeavour to control the rise in prices which, if it continues, may destroy everything that the Government or anyone else may seek to achieve in the next few years.
  Sir E. Boyle: May I say to the House that I do not want to be discourteous, but that this debate came on at short notice and that, in view of what the hon. Member for Erith and Cray-ford (Mr. Dodds) has just said in his speech, it may be necessary for me to leave the House presently for further information while hon. Members are speaking.
  8.0 p.m.
  Mr. Cyril Bence: We are all grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Cray-ford (Mr. Dodds) for taking the opportunity to initiate this debate on the rising cost of living. It is good to see back benchers on this side taking these opportunities and showing their Parliamentary skill.
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: Where are the others?
  Mr. Bence: Generally speaking, hon. Members on this side are often more alive and more awake to the possibilities and to the things that can be done within the traditions, the constitution and the Standing Orders of the House. We on this side are always much more alive to our opportunities, and quicker to see them so that we may press the complaints and grievances of our people.
  I support my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford. I hope that he will not mind if I speak about Scotland. In the last week, I happened to be in West Lothian, where a by-election is pending. I was shocked by what I found when going around some of the lovely villages built by the West Lothian County Council, with their lovely areas and fine council houses. I canvassed, knocked on doors and met old people. In house after house, they do not apply for National Assistance in that part of Scotland. I have neved met such independent people. Their children are away. Over a quarter of a million have left Scotland in the last ten years because there is no work for them, and they have gone south.
  The population in the villages is almost stable and mainly old people. In discussion with shopkeepers, one discovers that because of reduced turnover and increased rate burdens on their commercial premises, they find it difficult to get a living without hardening prices. It is an amazing phenomenon that prices are higher in many of these areas of impoverished Scotland.
  I checked prices in Bathgate and in Broxburn, as well as in Bo'ness, and I found that prices in shops were much higher than in, say, Finchley or Putney or the environs of London, for the simple reason that unemployment, low incomes, the departure of the young people, the small turnover and the increasing burden of rates and taxation means that the small shopkepers and traders of all kinds must get a bigger gross profit.
  Therefore, we in Scotland suffer in both ways, both from heavy unemployment and from the high cost of administration because of the tremendous social task. We have high taxation, high costs and high prices amongst a people whose income is lower than incomes in the Midlands and the South. The cost-of
  1684
  living problem in Scotland is much more severe than any Member of the Government realises.
  Too often have the Government visualised the economy of Scotland and conditions there as a reflection, as it were, of conditions in the Midlands and the South. The true picture is entirely different. It is like being in a different world. I wonder sometimes why we get the sort of economic policies which are expounded from the Government Front Bench and how the Government believe that the policy which they are following for the benefit of the South can avoid doing more damage to Scotland.
  Earlier this evening, we discussed Regulations concerning consumer protection—very good Regulations indeed. I am in favour of protecting the consumer against manufacturers and distributors who mislead the consumer and who sell products which are not up to standard, and sometimes of standards that are indeed dangerous to the consumer. Consumer protection Regulations were brought in because the Government, quite rightly, have taken action to prevent consumers from a dangerous form of oil heater.
  We take action to protect consumers against their homes being destroyed by fire and there are all sorts of legislation to protect consumers from dangerous drugs, but one action which, apparently, we are not prepared to take is to protect the consumer from being exploited. Those who control the means of production and distribution seem to be able to sweep in any benefits that we may get in the process of our labour and of producing goods and services. The position seems to be worse in Scotland than anywhere else.
  I quite understand that goods which are pitched into the market will fetch the highest price according to the quantity of money that is searching for those goods. The argument of the Government is that when too much money is chasing too few goods, the price of the goods will rise.
  Ever since the Government have been in power, we have had rising prices and rising costs over the last eleven years. There was a short period about two years ago when there was some stability, but twelve months ago prices started to

  1685
  rise again notwithstanding that there had been a fall in world prices in practically every country. Prices were falling on the Continent and in the United States, but here they were rising.
  We know that in a free economy such as ours, if money is distributed through investment or higher wages and more goods are produced, the distributor or entrepreneur will mark up his goods and get a bigger price for them. If that happened uniformly throughout the country, prices would fall in Scotland, with its 80,000 unemployed, because there would be an area of low incomes and not much money. One would imagine that under our so-called free economy conditions, prices up there would be lower.
  That is no longer true, however, because practically all the goods that we produce, no matter who produces them, are marketed through trading associations and by agreement with trading associations, so that a packet of cornflakes costs the same in Scotland as in London.
  In some cases there are extra costs. Some years ago, I wanted a wheelbarrow and went into a shop in Glasgow, where I saw one for £ 3 15s., which I thought was dear. It was made, I believe, in Gillingham, Kent, or somewhere in that area. I asked the shopkeeper the reason for the terrible price. He replied that it was the carriage from London.
  I decided instead to try a shop in London, where I saw an identical wheelbarrow marked up at £2 10s. Carriage to Glasgow was 4s. 9d. I get fed' up with traders in Scotland telling me that things are dearer up there than down here because of carriage. I asked once about plums. I remember in 1950 buying plums in the Bullring, Birmingham, for 2d. per lb., when plums grown in Lanarkshire were 8d. per lb. in Dunbarton. Again, I was told that carriage accounted for the difference. The railways assured me, however, that it did not cost 6d. per lb. to send plums from Evesham to Glasgow.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Order. I fear that the hon. Member is allowing his speech to go outside what is a Government responsibility.
  Mr. Bence: I am talking, Mr. Deputy-Speaker about the increase in the price of goods marketed in this country and about some of the reasons given by some of the traders for those increases. I believe that it is the responsibility of any Government to maintain full employment and stable prices. The Conservative Government say that is what they want to do. I accept that. But my challenge is that they do not do much about it.
  Mr. William Ross: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The index of retail prices published by the Ministry of Labour gives as one of the reasons for the recent increase in the cost of living the increase in the price of fruit and vegetables. Surely, therefore, it is relevant in a debate about the cost of living to refer to such articles.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes, I accept the hon. Member's point of order, but as I was listening to the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) I thought he was alluding to the action of an individual trader in increasing unreasonably the price of an individual article, and I thought that that was going beyond the responsibility of the Government.
  Mr. S. Silverman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. One appreciates to the full that the Government are not responsible for the prices that a trader in Scotland asks for his goods. They are equally not responsible for the wage negotiations in the private sector of industry. Nevertheless, the Government have a general policy about wages, and they are able to give advice, and they do so, and they correlate the advice they give to the private sector on these points with the policy they adopt in the nationalised industries. This, equally, is not their direct responsibility. It becomes their responsibility because they make it so in advancing a general policy about wages. What my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East appears to me to be saying is that it is equally relevant to have a general policy about prices, and he is showing how it works.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes; I do not think that there is very much between the hon. Member and myself. It was the taking of this individual case of a

  1687
  private trader, who I do not think was the responsibility of the Government. It was at that point, and that point only that I interrupted the hon. Member.
  Mr. Bence: Your checking me, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, has certainly been very enlightening. We have had a very able and lucid explanation——
  Mr. E. G. Willis: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. We are very grateful for your help, but surely it is in order to quote what one private trader or another is doing and to suggest that the Government ought to take some action to stop such exploitation.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The answer to that is dependent upon whether the action that the hon. Member is advocating would entail legislation, because it is not in order for us, as hon. Members know, to discuss legislation in detail on the Motion for the Adjournment.
  Mr. Ross: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I think it is important that we should bear in mind that the index of retail prices is compiled on the basis of taking prices in various parts of the country. Surely if there is anything at all that is relevant to a debate about the cost of living, it is the price in any part of the country of any item which appears in the Index.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think that the price of a individual article, a single case citing a single tradesman, can rightly be described as the responsibility of the Government in the context of this Adjournment debate. I interrupted the hon. Gentleman because I thought that way, but the debate can continue as it has done hitherto without interruption from me and, I think, without hon. Members getting out of order in any respect.
  Mr. Bence: I suffer, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, from the fact that I am a countryman and whenever I see a huge wood I know it is composed of a great many trees and I look at the trees. When I see statistics, I know that they are drawn from the figures of many little firms. That is why I quoted an individual case; I know that it must constitute a part of the statistics.
  1688
  But the Government take action in some fields which impinges upon prices and costs to individuals, such as in housing. They exercise a control element in rent structure. We have legislation for Scotland giving the Secretary of State power to determine the rent. Electricity can also be cited. The Report of the South of Scotland Electricity Board states that the price of electricity has been raised so that the Board may comply with the Government's new policy requiring that it should create sufficient reserves itself for its capital development. Therefore, the increased price of electricity is the result of Government action. If that Report is not accurate, I hope the Financial Secretary will be able to tell us.
  Government action of this sort in raising prices should figure in the cost of living index. Potatoes provide another example. The price of agricultural products is determined in large measure by Government policy. I recently saw a leaflet from the Tory Central Office asking people who were fighting in the municipal elections not to fight as Independents or Progressives but to say what they were—Conservatives. In my constituency they would not dare do that in present circumstances because of the price of potatoes. We are taxed in order to subsidise the farmer to produce as much as he possibly can, and then another Department fines him because he has produced too many potatoes. Then we find we are short of potatoes, and the result of that is that Scottish housewives now cannot buy potatoes. The potato is now a luxury. Scots going into fish and chips shops now say, "Three pieces of fish and one chip". It is "fishes and chip" now, not "fish and chips". This is despite the fact that thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money has gone to subsidise the farmers.
  There are fields in which the Government exercise very powerful control over prices, but there are others where they seem to be completely indifferent to the prices charged. I am the son of a butcher. I have been in Scotland for eleven years and every weekend we get the most beautiful beef. I have had in Glasgow the finest beef in my life. But it is 10d. lb. dearer than in London.
  Mr. Ross: It is not the carriage, but the quality.
  Mr. Bence: It is beautiful meat. I will not mention the name of the firm, because that would not be fair to other butchers.
  Mr. Willis: My hon. Friend could mention the breed.
  Mr. Bence: Aberdeen Angus. My hon. Friend knows the name as well as I do. One can get this meat in London much cheaper than in Scotland.
  Mr. Willis: But the buchers here have not reached the point when they know how to cut joints. That is the trouble.
  Mr. Bence: During the last five years, it has been suggested to me on several occasions that when a butcher buys cattle alive from the stock market he is left with tons of what is called coarse meat within the bull, since, because of the rising standard of living, people are increasingly wanting better cuts.
  This coarse meat was sold before the war for manufacturing purposes, and the manufacturers tender for it. That trade is now in the hands of very small groups organised together almost in a ring. There used to be a wholesale butchers' ring in the stock markets before the war. They got together and bought the cattle cheap. I wonder to what extent the butcher is being forced to sell for manufacture the coarse meat at very low prices because of a kind of ring on the manufacturing side. The Government should inquire into this.
  It is extraordinary that the terriffic drop in wholesale prices of lamb, beef and mutton in recent years has not been reflected by any corresponding drop in the shops. Not all butchers are rogues. Of course, there are rogues among them as there are among Members of Parliament— —
  Mr. Ross: They are now on their way home.
  Mr. Bence: —but I am convinced that the prices which the butcher is getting from the manufacturing side are inadequate, I am sure that the housewife would get cheaper meat from the butcher if he could get better prices from Wall's, Unilever, MacFisheries, Bird's and other firms. These are the people who buy the coarse meat for the deep freeze. They are powerful organisations and it is they, not the housewife, who are get
  1690
  ting the benefit both of the subsidy and of the fall in the price of cattle. The Government should examine what is happening in the wholesale and retail distribution of meat. Here may lie part of the answer as to why the butcher cannot bring dawn his prices to a more reasonable level.
  It is really rather insulting to all sorts of workers, whether they be civil servants, nurses, doctors or factory workers, for the Government to go on talking about the first need being to stop wage rises. The Government say that we cannot have continual increases in wages year after year without more production. We recognise the economic arguments, but what about the housewife? She sees her husband perhaps working a few more hours a week and hears him talk of new machinery and new techniques, with more and more coming off the production line. Yet at the same time she finds her real income either not increasing or increasing very little.
  If the pay pause is maintained what will be the situation as electricity and gas prices, and rents, rates and Purchase Tax—even on lollipops—go up? As an engineer, it makes me wonder what use it is to produce more and more and to concentrate intellectual effort on devising new machines when all that happens is that we get higher prices from a more efficient productive machine.
  8.25 p.m.
  Mr. Dan Jones: I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds) raised this subject because a very challenging situation faces the Government. The Conservatives did not say in 1951 that they would stabilise the cost of living. They said that they would stabilise it for a time and then bring it down. Those were their terms of reference from the electorate in 1951. But after eleven years of office it must be agreed that they have brought about a most remarkable situation.
  The gates of the House of Commons have been clogged during the last two or three years with people coming here to fight for wage increases—not to increase their standard of living, but to maintain it as it is. It might be said of them that they are running very hard to go backwards. That is the situation which

  1691
  the Government should look at with a little more concern than hitherto.
  In the Press tonight there is a statement by a man whom I not only respect but revere. I worked with him for a number of years. I refer to "Bill" Carron, President of the Amalgamated Engineering Union. He is a man with foresight and with far more moral courage than any right hon. Gentleman opposite. He is a man who has been pilloried for his statesmanship in British industry. That is "Bill" Carron and there is no hon. Member on either side of the House who can gainsay those attributes. He has made a remarkable contribution to British industry.
  Some months ago, he presented a case for a wage increase for engineers, the basis of which was the increase in the cost of living. The application was rejected. We cannot help the feeling that that rejection was not unassociated with Government policy. However, the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions has very properly held a ballot to determine what action should be taken in view of the rising cost of living and the dogmatic refusal of the employers to concede any wage increases. Tonight, "Bill" Carron has given fair warning "You will reject my approaches now at your peril". This is the view of a man who has given years of statesmanlike service to industry and whose moderation has been a hallmark.
  Engineers have been included in the many deputations which have come to the House about the cost of living, deputations which have come from the professional classes, the technical classes, and what we choose to call the labouring classes, not a very complimentary term and not one with which I agree, but one which is generally used. I have worked with some of these men in engineering, men who have made a major contribution to an industry which, in its turn makes the greatest contribution to our export drive. One would have expected these people to have received some consideration because of their contribution to British industry generally and to British exports and the resulting valuable contribution to our balance of payments. I was told that skilled engineers working a regular 44-hour week cannot pay their way. One of the
  1692
  reasons is that they are buying their own homes, a desirable thing to do, but are now faced with increased rates of interest. This is a matter which the Government dismiss as a purely academic subject of high finance, little realising its tremendous impact upon a home which is receiving less than £10 a week after other deductions have been made. These are the factors which have now culminated in the warning of a man who is the president of a powerful trade union.
  The Financial Secretary should seriously advise the Government that unless this position is controlled—and it can be controlled, as I shall explain—there will be more difficulties. There must, first, be stabilisation and an end of the pernicious pay pause and the antisocial and socially unjust climate which the Government have deliberately chosen to create by allowing the sort of profits about which we have just heard. Nor can we exclude from our consideration the Surtax payers who do not make that contribution to the nation's economic well-being which is made by the engineers, but who have benefited to the tune of £83 million. How can the Government expect wage restraint when they allow others to behave without restraint? The writing is on the wall.
  Like my hon. Friend, I take no pleasure from saying that the cost of living affects the lower strata of society. My boyhood days were spent in a home where my mother was a widow and I know the hallmark of poverty at first hand. I do not need anyone to tell me about it. As I have said on many occasions, there are thousands of people who, because of the high cost of living, have had to sink their dignity and go to the National Assistance Board for a couple of shillings each week, and those who brought about this state of affairs just sit back complacently and take no action to help these people. That is just what the Financial Secretary is doing. His belly is well filled, his back is well clothed, and his home is well appointed.
  I do not regard it as social justice that there are thousands of people who are feeling the vicious impact of the ever-increasing cost of living. The resultant poverty is familiar to me, and as long as I am privileged to come to

  1693
  this revered Chamber I shall go on repeating the injustice being done to these poor people. I wholeheartedly support my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford. His action in debating this subject deserves the credit not only of this House, but of the nation, and he is to be congratulated on attacking the Government for the short-sighted social policies to which they so passionately cling.
  8.37 p.m.
  Mr. E. G. Willis: I am glad of the opportunity to support my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayord (Mr. Dodds), who has raised the question of the increasing cost of living. I do not think that anyone can look at the way in which people are living today, and at what is happening in the world, without being conscious of the impact being made on people week after week by the various increases continually being announced in the Press. These increases are not hidden. They appear as headline news.
  An example of this is the recent 10 per cent. increase in the cost of electricity. This is wholly and solely the result of Government policy. On Tuesday, we had a long interchange with the Secretary of State for Scotland about 'the North of Scotland Hydro-Electricity Board having increased its prices. This has been done not because the board is losing money—in fact it is showing a substantial profit—but because the financial pundits think that the profit is not big enough. At a time when people are being told that they must not ask for more wages, when many of them are having their wages pegged and are unable to take action to improve them, the Government decide to introduce a policy which leads to increased electricity charges.
  The Government are unable to wait six months or a year before introducing such a policy. They do not consider waiting until conditions are more favourable for bringing in these increased prices. Surely when an undertaking is making a profit there is no need for such measures while a pay pause is in operation? What kind of psychology are the Government displaying? What understanding have they of the way in which people react to this kind of situation?
  1694
  This policy of increased prices is also being followed by the South of Scotland Electricity Board, and again it is not because the board is losing money. One would have thought that the Government, having asked for a pay pause and a limitation on incomes, would have said that they would defer the increases for six months or a year. What harm would have been done? The fact is that these increases are being made to meet the long-term policy of the Government with regard to capital expenditure and the return on capital. But the Government do not even do that. They expect the workers not to do anything about it, which is amazing.
  One could go through the whole gamut of rising prices in Scotland—gas, electricity, coal, and a host of other things. When I was in Edinburgh last weekend I learned that there is to be a substantial increase in transport charges. It is not good enough for the Financial Secretary, as he did last Tuesday, to present a set of figures to the House and say:
  "They are remarkable and provide the clearest indication I have seen … of the extent to which inflation has been due to increases in personal incomes which have increased more rapidly than the volume of production"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th May, 1962; Vol. 660, c. 1151.]
  The figures do not do anything of the kind. They were asked for by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis), who asked by how much salaries had had to rise to take account of the cost of living. In the first column of the table of figures which were given we see the rises in the cost of living as measured by the consumers' price index which shows an increase of 30 since 1951—from 100 to 130. The next column gives us the increase in average wages and salaries. Average wages and salaries do not cover the whole of personal incomes by a long way. But the hon. Gentleman said that it was a clear indication of the way in which the present increases were due to increases in personal incomes.
  I wish to make one or two points about this table. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that 3·6 of the 6·4 points by which the cost of living had increased during the past year were the direct or indirect consequence of the increase in personal incomes outstripping

  1695
  national production. The Financial Secretary could hardly contain himself. He was jumping up and down to say how good were these figures. They do not show the increase in personal incomes but in average wages and salaries. This means that they do not apply to hundreds and thousands—to millions of people.
  We spent last Friday afternoon discussing the pensions of Service pensioners which have not been increased for years. But these pensions are part of their incomes and their total incomes have not gone up by the figure shown in this column because a large element has been stable for ten years. That would apply to hundreds of other people in receipt of pensions which they must supplement by going out to work. Neither do the figures apply to people living on small fixed incomes, returns from investments, and so on.
  Like all averages they are very misleading. We might say that the average age of hon. Members present in the Chamber is 45. The truth might be that no one is over 45 and a considerable number might be below. But some would be above and that is how averages are worked out. I cannot accept an average as a good test. I know of hundreds of thousands of lower-paid workers who have not had this increase in their pay during the last ten years.
  On the other hand, a number of people have probably had more. We cannot determine how people are living by a set of figures of this character; we must go into the homes of the people to see how they are living when they are dependent on small fixed incomes or on pensions which have not changed in ten or fifteen years.
  Mr. Bence: Does my hon. Friend realise that unemployment in Scotland has increased from 51,000 to 80,000 and that a large section of the working population there have had their incomes reduced?
  Mr. Willis: I agree.
  Sir E. Boyle: On a point of order. I do not want to be discourteous, but it is extremely difficult to hear what is said when, instead of addressing you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and speaking to where
  1696
  the microphones are placed, an hon. Member speaks in the opposite direction.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): I am bound to say that it was not easy from this part of the Chamber to hear what was said by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence). I am sure that hon. Members will bear that in mind.
  Mr. Bence: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. My hon. Friend was talking about the increase in incomes in the United Kingdom. I pointed out that there had been an increase in the number of unemployed in Scotland from 51,000 or 52,000 to 80,000 and that there has been a terrific reduction in incomes in a large circle of working-class homes in Scotland.
  Mr. Willis: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I will come to that later. In the meantime, is this an intimation that the Financial Secretary will tell his usual little joke?
  Sir E. Boyle: No, it is not.
  Mr. Willis: I am simply making the point that the average does not necessarily apply to everyone.
  But the biggest omission is that the workers are entitled to share in the increased productivity of the nation—a fact which the Financial Secretary will probably accept. We therefore have to allow for the fact that productivity has increased during the past eleven years and that the worker is entitled to his share in this productivity, which substantially reduces the difference in these so-called review figures.
  When we consider inflation we have also to consider a host of other factors —the extent to which credit is being created and to which capital expenditure is being undertaken on a vast scale. To select these figures and then to say that because the average salary has outstripped a certain level we are passing into a period of inflation which makes it necessary for the Government to adopt policies which have resulted in an increase in the cost of living, in my view is misleading.
  Sir Cyril Osborne: Is the hon. Member arguing that because many workers are not getting the average

  1697
  wage, therefore the better-paid workers ought to share with them their higher wages? For example, Ford motor workers earned last year an average of £23 8s. 4d. a week. Those are the official figures given by the company. The average industrial worker last year earned £15 6s. a week. The Ford worker is, therefore, getting about £7 a week more than the average industrial worker. The agricultural worker is getting only about £10 a week. Is it therefore the hon. Member's contention that workers who are paid better than the average ought to take lower wages so that the more poorly paid workers should be paid more?
  Bearing in mind one other factor——
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order, order. I think that the intervention has already been on the long side.
  Mr. Willis: What I was arguing arose from an exchange in the House on Tuesday concerning the manner in which the cost of living has risen. It has risen more in the past twelve months during the period of the so-called pay pause than at any other time since 1951. There was an exchange. The answer indicated that 2·2 points in the increase are due to the current shortage of potatoes and other seasonal factors.
  It has been pointed out that the Government have helped to create the shortage of potatoes. It was said that 0·6 of a point was due to increased rents and rates. The remaining 3·6 points were due to factors associated with the fact that personal incomes were rising faster than national production. The Financial Secretary was delighted with this. He told us how revealing these figures were. However, the figures are not so revealing as he suggested. They certainly do not give the picture of the cost of living. They omit hundreds of thousands of families. We always have to accept average figures with the knowledge of what we are doing.
  I have now reached the point where I was submitting to the Financial Secretary that this table makes no allowance at all for increased productivity, in which the worker is entitled to share. Therefore, his wages ought to rise more than the cost of living if he is to have his share.
  Mr. D. Jones: The House should be aware that the White Paper issued by the Treasury makes it perfectly plain that the cost of living and increased productivity will not be the deciding factors in determining any increase in wages.
  Mr. Willis: That supports my point. Increases in wages must not simply take into account increases in the cost of living. They must also take into account the increased productivity and what share of that increased productivity should be given to different groups of workers. At different times the increased share will be greater for some workers than for others, otherwise there would be no flexibility. There would be very little justification for the trade union movement if that was not possible. Part of the nurses' case at present is that they are now at the point where their share should be larger than somebody else's.
  The figures and arguments presented on Tuesday about the cost of living were not relevant. What is more relevant is how different kinds of people are living. The impact of the increases in the prices of electricity, coal and vegetables will be far heavier upon the people in whose budget these items figure larger than on people in whose budget these items do not figure so greatly. Today the things which are going up so rapidly, and have gone up rapidly, are things Which people cannot avoid buying.
  These are the things that people with the lowest incomes have to pay for. We have had increased National Insurance and National Health Service charges. We have had all kinds of charges imposed by the Government—for electricity, gas, etc.—all of which fall much harder on the man earning £8 or £9 a week than on the man earning £19 or £20 a week. Obviously, in these circumstances, the people at the lower level will suffer.
  This is a serious situation. The Government should at least try to protect the people with smaller incomes by taking the action available to them and preventing this burden, brought about by their own policy, from falling upon these people. That is a fair request to make. It is a logical request to make when the Government are pursuing a pay pause policy. My criticism of the

  1699
  Government is that they have done nothing to prevent this burden falling on the people with the lowest incomes while pursuing this policy. They could do something about it. There is no need for an increased differential rent, or for an increase in the price of coal that will be coming in Scotland. When the Coal Board has been losing money for 13 or 14 years, surely it is not imperative for the Government to increase coal prices at a time when they are telling people that they must not have more wages.
  The same applies to the increase in electricity charges. The electricity boards have been operating very successfully and making very large profits in many cases for the past twelve or thirteen years. Why, then, should the Government, at the time when they are telling people that they must not ask for more wages, put up the prices for the purpose of long-term policy?
  In this there is no logic, rhyme or reason. These burdens fall more heavily on Scots people than on those living further South. The general level of incomes in Scotland is lower. We have a very large burden of unemployment and, as the climate is much more severe, more coal, gas and electricity are needed. We have a right to be concerned, and to point out to the Government that the general rise in prices has taken place since 1951, while the Tory Party has been in power, and while, in general, the terms of trade have been in our favour.
  Those favourable terms of trade presented an opportunity to strengthen our economic basis and stabilise the cost of living, but that opportunity has been frittered away by the Government, first, by five years of a glorious beanfeast, with little idea on the Government's part of what they were doing, followed by a stop-and-start policy, not in accordance with the national needs but to win elections. We have the right to be critical and, of course, the Government have the right to answer those criticisms—if they can.
  9.0 p.m.
  Sir Cyril Osborne: It is undeniable that an increase in the cost of living falls more heavily, proportionately, on the lower-paid worker than on the
  1700
  better-paid man. The increase in the price of coal, gas and electricity affects the old and those living in the North more than it does the young and those living in the South. That is undeniable, but the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr Willis) then reasoned that the averages that have been quoted do not represent the true facts because, he said, there is no such thing as an average person. He said that if the average age of hon. Members were 54, there was probably nobody of that age in the House.
  It must be remembered that if the average industrial wage last year was £15 6s. and there were a certain number of people below that average, there must have been a corresponding number above it. That is what an average is— —
  Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman has got this wrong. It depends how far below they were or how far above. A small number might be a long way above the average, and a much larger number fairly well below it.
  Sir C. Osborne: An average is a matter of numbers and weighting.
  What hon. Members opposite must face is that the last Inland Revenue returns, and I speak from memory only, showed that personal incomes amounted to £13,500 million, of which £830 million went to the Surtax payers— those earning more than £2000 a year. A few weeks ago I asked the Chancellor what would be the result if all income in excess of £2,000 a year net were taken from the Surtax payers and given to all the rest who were getting less. The answer was that the rest would get an extra 2s. 10d. a week.
  Therefore, if the money is to come from the Surtax payer, the amount that can be given to the lower-paid worker to help him meet the increased cost of living is very limited——
  Mr. Bence: The hon. Gentleman said that would be the result if that money was redistributed to everyone getting under £2,000 a year, but that would include people getting £1,850 a year. If the distribution of that money were limited to old-age pensioners, how much would each old-age pensioner get?
  Sir C. Osborne: If the hon. Member puts the question to the Chancellor of

  1701
  the Exchequer I am sure that he will be given the correct answer.
  Mr. Willis: That is not the argument. The argument is that the Government should be taking steps, by means of their own policies, to prevent increases in the cost of living.
  Sir C. Osborne: But increases in the cost of living are in the main due to the costs of production and distribution. The White Paper issued a year ago stated that of our total industrial costs 62 per cent. were for direct or indirect labour. Therefore, it is not the Government who have put up costs.
  Mr. Bence: Come, off it.
  Sir C. Osborne: The hon. Member says, "Come off it". I will remind him what has happened in the coal mining industry. In the old days, when the miners were paid very low wages, coal was cheap, but now that we have given them a handsome wage coal is dear. If we pay high wages, what those wages produce must cost more. Therefore, since 62 per cent. of our total costs come from either direct or indirect labour costs, it is not the Government who fix the cost of living; it is what we pay ourselves for doing the work we have to do.
  Mr. Bence: About eighteen months ago I bought a French salad shaker for 1s. 9d. Since then there has been a sales campaign all round the country and it is now sold everywhere for 8s. 6d.
  Mr. Ross: Will the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) make a speech about I.C.I.?
  Sir C. Osborne: Yes, I will. I am saying that if the workers who earn less than £10 a week are to have their incomes increased to meet the increased cost of living, ultimately the money can come only from the higher-paid workers. The figure quoted by the Ford Motor Company is that its average hourly-paid worker was paid £22 8s. 4d. a week last year.
  Mr. Bence: The highest-paid worker?
  Sir C. Osborne: The average worker. The average industrial wage over the whole country, on the other hand, was £15 6s. Therefore, if we are going to help the lower-paid industrial workers
  1702
  people like the Ford hourly-paid workers must take that much less. Furthermore, if we have to include—as the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) was including—the old-age pensioners, the disabled, and those in the most dire need, not only must the Ford workers take less for what they are doing but the average industrial worker throughout the country must take a good deal less.
  Mr. Bence: What about the stockbrokers?
  Sir C. Osborne: Please be relevant. It is utterly impossible to take great sums from the relatively few very rich people and make a material difference to the lower-paid workers. There is little we can do by sheer redistribution of the national income to help the poorest.
  The great complaint among skilled workers of all ratings is that the differentials have been narrowed too much. The amount of reward in salary, wage or profit is getting so small compared with what the unskilled worker receives that today there is insufficient encouragement and inducement for men to train and take responsibility.
  This was said to me when I met the nurses in my constituency. They said that the skilled people are not getting nearly enough compared with the unskilled workers. If one redistributes to the point when there is not adequate return for skill and responsibility one destroys the efficiency of the economic machine by which we live. The poor would become poorer and, as a result of that scheme of redistribution, people would be poorer instead of better off. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East, when speaking on behalf of the poorest section of the community and saying how they had to carry an increasing burden as the cost of living rose, should realise that if he wants absolute and complete equality of income——
  Mr. Bence: My hon. Friend did not say that.
  Sir C. Osborne: Surely that is the plea the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East made. I am trying to point out that such complete equality would not result in the old-age pensioner and the person living on a small fixed income being better off. It would slow the

  1703
  economic machine down to such an extent that we should all be that much desperately poorer.
  Mr. Willis: The hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) certainly misunderstood my remarks. I did not say at any time that I advocated the redistribution of everything we have. I said that, by their own policies, the Government should take what action they can to protect the lower-paid people. The second point I made was that as we increase our production each year so the workers are entitled to share in the benefit. I also said that as this increased wealth is shared out it should be done in a flexible manner because, naturally, certain groups would require a bigger share than others. The point is that we must have flexibility about all this so that there are varying degrees in this sharing-out process.
  Sir C. Osborne: I am sorry if I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman's remarks. We shall look in tomorrow's OFFICIAL REPORT to get the matter straight. I thought that he was saying that the average figures of income that have been given were not correct in their application to certain people. He said that there were hundreds and thousands of people who had not benefited to the extent shown by those figures. He then suggested that the Government should do something for these people.
  Mr. Willis: To protect them.
  Sir C. Osborne: The only way to protect one section of the nation against an increase in the cost of living is to take something from another group and give it to the first.
  Mr. Bence: Really!
  Sir C. Osborne: Hon. Gentlemen opposite must realise that the Government and the nation have only a certain amount of income—the amount which the nation earns. The Government cannot redistribute between the various sections of the country more than we earn and produce. As I say, the only way to protect the poorer section, for whom the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East pleaded, would be—if it were to be done in the way that the hon. Gentleman would wish—to take something from another group.
  Mr. Bence: What about prices?
  Sir C. Osborne: If the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East means price control, if one controls prices one must either work that section of the economy at a loss or say to those who are working in that section—for instance, coal—"You will be paid less for the work you are doing." These are the two simple alternatives the Government would have.
  Mr. George Lawson: The hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) seems to be talking as though the amount of wealth available was a fixed sum. Does he not realise that it expands or contracts? The basis of our argument against the Government is that their kind of policy has resulted in our economy scarcely growing at all. If production expanded the standards of life would also expand.
  Sir C. Osborne: That is true, of course, as far as it goes; but at any given moment we can redistribute only what we have. Our economic growth depends upon our ability to sell what we produce. It was no use the National Coal Board two years ago producing millions of tons of coal which it could not sell, which it then dumped into unused quarries at a loss of £1 a ton, and which had later to be brought back again at the cost of another £1 a ton. It is no use producing goods one cannot sell. An expanding economy is no good unless it is an efficient economy.
  We must sell in the world one third of everything we produce in order to pay for the 50 per cent. of foodstuffs we import and the nearly 100 per cent. of raw materials we must have to keep our economic machine going. No one can compel the foreigner to buy the goods we produce. Higher quality and good prices decide that. It is upon the standard of efficiency of our economic machine that the life of the country depends.
  If we are to get men to acquire skills and take responsibility we must pay them adequately for what they do. We want greater differentials, not the smaller ones for which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East was pleading.
  Mr. Bence: No pay pause.
  Mr. Lawson: A moment or so ago, the hon. Gentleman spoke in terms which suggested to me that he was under the impression that we could not induce men to seek to equip themselves for skilled work. This is not true. There are thousands of youngsters desperately anxious to become skilled tradesmen, but there are no jobs for them as skilled tradesmen. Every year, we are turning down hundreds of youngsters who want to go to university. We turn them down because there are no places for them. This is the nub of our contention. The facilities available in our society are not adequate to meet the needs of our youngsters or adults either. We are not growing rapidly enough and because we are not growing rapidly enough we are not able to keep our prices down to compete with other countries.
  Sir C. Osborne: There is some truth in what the hon. Gentleman says — [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear".]—but it is nothing like the whole truth. When the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East urges that the poorer section of the community should be helped, I agree with him. He wanted them to be protected. They should be helped, he said, because the cost of living falls more heavily upon them. That is a fair plea. However, this can be done only in one of two ways. We can increase our national productivity greatly. This cannot be done by the Government. It is done by management and workers together, and it will not be done by having strikes as there have been at the Ford Motor Co.— 69 stoppages in 32 weeks. The Government are not responsible for that. It will be done only by greater efficiency in our industry and by co-operation between management and workers to get the maximum out of our economic resources and the highest possible quality of manufactured goods at the lowest possible price.
  The second way in which the protection for which the hon. Gentleman pleaded can be afforded is a straight redistribution of the national income. I have tried to show that, if we indulge to any extent in this method for helping the poorest, we shall discourage the men and women who must take responsibility and acquire skills to make the machine work.
  Mr. Ross: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman has said in the last
  1706
  few seconds, but on the question of our inability to redistribute he goes completely haywire. He will be aware that, because of the provisions of last year's Budget, during the coming year we are doing a measure of redistributing. We are allowing a certain section of the population to have an increased disposable income of £83 million. That section is not the poorest but the wealthiest section of the community. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman, by his admissions, has shown us that redistribution can take place. If he thinks it wrong to redistribute in favour of the poor, what epithets would he apply to redistribtuion which he says exists in favour of the well-to-do? Does not he appreciate that in order to get the co-operation which he and I think desirable, the sort of redistribution that we are having at the moment completely destroys that possibility?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The purpose of an intervention is to elucidate something in the current speech. It is an abuse of debate to make a speech in the middle of another.
  Sir C. Osborne: I was not saying that it was wrong to redistribute. I was not making a moral judgment about it. I was merely trying to put forward practical statistical facts.
  In repeating the reply given to me by the Chancellor of the Exchequer a few weeks ago, I showed that, if everything taken from the Surtax payer over £2,000 a year net were redistributed to the rest of the people, it would make 2s. 10d. a week difference to them. This is not a moral judgment but a statistical fact. There is therefore a limit to the amount that we can give to the poorest by redistribution unless we are to damage the incentives to those who take responsibility and who have the skill for making the machine work. If we do that, we shall run into the danger of making the machine break down.
  Even Communist countries have differentials much greater than those in this country. They do not run on absolute equality. The last time that I was in Russia I found that the chairman of the scientific committee was paid far more money net than anyone in this country, since the Russians have no Surtax, like we have. Their Income Tax is 13 per cent. flat, whatever may be

  1707
  one's income. Therefore, a share redistribution cannot do for the poor what the hon. Gentleman wants it to do.
  What both sides of the House must do is this. We must ensure that the goods which we produce, and which we must sell abroad to maintain even our present standard of living, must be cheaper and better in quality than they have been or we shall not sell abroad. When considering our standard of living, our costs and the poverty of certain sections of his country, I beg hon. Members to remember how lucky we are as a nation. The United Nations' per capita income figure given about six months ago shows that the average income in this country is £387 a year. In India it is £19, in Pakistan £24 and in Nigeria, £30. If we are to have real equality, international socialism, and if all wages throughout the world were average, they would not come to 50s. a week.
  Hon. Members plead for equality. I remember the then Mr. Herbert Morrison saying years ago that national Socialism was not enough and that we must have international Socialism—a wonderful ideal. I want hon. Members to face the reality of it. If the world's wealth were redistributed in the way that the hon. Member has been pleading, wages in this country would be less than 50s. a week.
  Hon. Members opposite should not let their hearts run away with their heads. Certainly we ought to do a great deal more for those with lower incomes, for the pensioner, the disabled and the like, but we cannot do it on the cheap. We cannot play the good Samaritan and let somebody else pay. If we are to redistribute the country's income to help the poorest of the poor, the better-paid worker must pay his share.
  I beg hon. Members opposite to go back to men like the Ford workers, who have been getting on average over £22 a week and who are striking for more, and to tell them that if the men getting £10 get more, the Ford men must take less. If hon. Members opposite will face those realities, I will come with them.
  9.27 p.m.
  Mr. Laurence Pavitt: The hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) has succeeded in stand
  1708
  ing the debate upon its head. My hon. Friends have endeavoured to raise the point of the rise in the cost of living and in doing so have tried to restore the balance not only in this House, but in the country, where we are invariably preoccupied with incomes and with production and not with how that income is able to be spread out and what happens in the sphere of consumption.
  Our complaint is that over recent months in particular, we have continued to emphasise the economic aspects of wages and incomes, which, as the hon. Member's contribution has shown, are the opposite side of the coin. We continue to talk about incomes and the pay pause without paying sufficient attention to the rise in the cost of living or to what happens at the point of consumption.
  The hon. Member has made the mistake of suggesting that hon. Members who have spoken from this side are preoccupied with equality. This debate is about equity. It is a feeling of gross unfairness who has animated my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Cray-ford (Mr. Dodds) to initiate this debate, for which we are all grateful, and which has been the major theme throughout the speeches from this side.
  The hon. Member for Louth is in the same difficulty as his right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench. In seeking to make a case the hon. Member has to deal with averages. That is precisely the difficulty of the Treasury, that in making a policy it deals with averages. When it comes to dealing with the ordinary man or woman, whether a housewife or an old-age pensioner, in our constituencies, there is no such thing as the average. Everybody has a different basis. For that reason, our legislation is always a blunt instrument. It is difficult, also, to take action on averages.
  I warn the hon. Member for Louth that although he may know that the average depth of a river is only 4 ft. and he happens to be 5ft. 8 in., if ever he wants to cross he ought not to be governed by the figure of average depth, because he might drown in the process.
  Sir C. Osborne: I can swim.
  Mr. Pavitt: What we on this side are pleading for is not so much the worker

  1709
  in productive industry, but the housewife, the person who, at the end of the week has to lay out the money, but who finds that in spite of the Government's pay pause, whereby the amount of money remains the same, prices continually rise. I refer in particular to the people with young families—for example, to the housewife who has been earning and whose family has had two incomes and whose hire purchase has, perhaps, grown more than it should. When the family is young, the housewife has to look after them. Consequently, when prices rise, their incidence is unfair upon this section of the community.
  The problem of the old-age pensioners has been mentioned. How deplorable it was to learn from the reports in the newspapers this week of the annual conference of the National Federation of Old Age Pensions Associations about pensioners taking one shoe to be repaired because the cost of leather and repairs means they cannot afford to have two shoes repaired at once. It is this sort of thing which the Government should take into consideration in the action which they pursue to maintain a stable economy and prevent inflation. There is not only the question of incomes; there is also the question of how best to secure value for money in the laying out of incomes.
  The problem of differentials has arisen. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) pointed to some of the special problems in Scotland. In London, we have been faced since 1957 with colossal increases in rents, due to the 1957 Rent Act, not only on decontrolled houses but over the whole range of rented properties. People living in industrial areas like mine are faced with these increases. A much larger proportion of their income is now having to go on rents, and that is not compensated by a 2½ per cent. pay increase. A constituent of mine came to my advice bureau last Friday. He had three children. He had a good job and is earning £11 10s. per week. His rent is £4 15s. It is extremely difficult for a man with that kind of pay to say "For the sake of the country's economy, I can ask for a pay increase of only 2½ per cent. or 6d. in the £".
  From time to time in connection with the pay pause we have debated the way
  1710
  in which we have got to maintain steady prices and a steady account. But, whereas the Government take very definite action to keep down wages, they take very little action to make sure that the cost of commodities does not rise to undue proportions. There is the question of equity—not just the £83 million to the Surtax payers but that fact that £19 million of that was in respect of unearned income. It is true, as the hon. Member for Louth has said, that the spreadover does not make a great deal of difference financially to our 52 million people, but it makes a difference to their intense feeling about being treated unfairly in difficult circumstances. I can assure the House that if anyone is prepared to give any of the old-age pensioners in my area another 2s. 10d. a week, that would not be chickenfeed to them. It would be an extremely important contribution and enable them sometimes to stay up a little later instead of going to bed with a hot-water bottle at half-past seven because they cannot afford coal—which is still happening in 1962. It is on things of this kind that we want action by the Government.
  We recently approved the giving of £78 million to farmers because of the difficulty over the price of meat. Hon. Members who went home and discussed this matter with their wives found themselves standing in the dock trying to explain how it was that the farmers had had to be subsidised to the extent of another £78 million when the price of meat had never gone down during the last five years but had only gone up. We appreciate that there are technical arguments on this, but the housewife is not interested in them. She is interested only in whether her husband's pay packet will feed the family for the week, and she looks to the Government for protection in such matters.
  The nurses are told that they can have a rise of only 6d. in the £because the country cannot afford more. Yet at the same time everything that a nurse buys goes up in price because the cost of advertising must be passed on to the consumer. If the nurse is fortunate enough to get leisure time, and is not too tired to look at television, she learns that she can look a little lovelier each day if she spends money on certain commodities. The whole impact of

  1711
  creating a seller's market is that those who are poorly paid are encouraged to spend money on things that they might not otherwise think so necessary or desirable. Naturally, a nurse will suffer a sense of injustice when she has to pay the high prices which £1,000 million of television advertising brings, and which she cannot match up to in terms of her pay packet.
  If the Government are really serious about this, they should be prepared to take action on prices as they are prepared to take action on pay. It is their responsibility to take action to keep down prices, especially the prices of essential commodities. Yet, at a time when there is this feeling of unfairness among the wage earners, the cost of living has risen by two points. There is no way in which the consumer can protect himself. That is Why we complain about the way we are unable, in this House, to give adequate time to the subject. This is a purely accidental debate. But there is no sense of urgency on the part of the Government in dealing with what hon. Members have shown to be an urgent matter.
  The production workers have strong pressure groups in their trade unions, capable of adopting sanctions at times in order to try to get benefits for themselves. The employers and producers have their own strong associations, such as the F.B.I. But when a consumer is charged an unfair price for an inadequate or poor product, what sanction has he? How can he possibly make any impact? What pressure can he exert to bring down prices to a reasonable level?
  As is so often the case, voluntary associations have had to lead the way. There is the Consumers Association's Which? and there is Choice, put out by the B.B.C. They endeavour to keep the cost of living down, but they have very inadequate resources to pit against those of the forces which are trying to keep prices up. If the Government intend to tackle this matter, I hope that they will be prepared not just to do so in general terms, but to give specific help to those parts of the community who are hit most by the cost of living. This is not a matter only of geographical areas, but of the categories which have already been mentioned.
  1712
  In recent years there has been an increasing trend away from negotiations purely on wages, hours and conditions, to what are called in modern jargon "fringe benefits". The Government consider whether "fringe benefits" might not be given to sections of the community like those living on fixed pensions, on whom the cost of living rises weigh most heavily.
  I am encouraged to be somewhat selective by the hon. Member for Louth, because he was very selective in the averages which he chose. He chose his cases, as we all do, to give his argument maximum weight. I very much liked the kite which he flew about higher-paid workers giving something to lower-paid workers. There are a number of variations on that theme which are interesting.
  For one brief period, before I became a politician and when I was idealistic, I joined a national average group which did precisely that for some time. I would be only too pleased if Mr. Cotton and Mr. Clore were prepared to join with Members of Parliament to have some kind of equalisation. Perhaps they could share some of their wealth with some of ours, and even help hon. Members who, like myself, do just one job as a politician in the House and try to keep their costs of living down and bring some happiness into their families and not worry their wives too much about the cost of living.
  We are asking that this debate should initiate some fresh thinking and, more important, fresh action on the part of the Government so that we get away from the obsession that when there is pressure the first thing to happen is to have a cut down. There is always a cut-down of investment when there is pressure, but I must not follow that theme too far or I shall be doing precisely what I accused the hon. Member for Louth of doing— standing the debate on its head and talking about economics.
  We want something which will provide a feeling of fairness in the community. If it is necessary in the national interest to adopt economic policies which are unpopular, let there be a feeling that no section of the community is being penalised for the benefit of another. For this to be done effectively, we need consideration of the factors which affect

  1713
  the cost-of-living index; we need something to be done in the realm of consumer protection in the standard, quality and price of essential commodities. We need that especially if we are to avoid over-inflation of prices so that goods are put out of the reach of people with ordinary jobs because of over-selling and over-advertising and all the other things which are inevitably finally paid for by the person who buys the commodity in question.
  It is those things which we want the Government to consider instead of merely tinkering with the problem and setting up a committee which will report in four or five years. We want some positive action to help the housewife, the families with young children and the old people, those who make up the bulk of the community.
  9.44 p.m
  Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: The hon. Member far Louth (Sir C. Osborne) re-enunciated at least two fundamental truths tonight in recognising that increasing prices and the increasing cost of living hit the poorest sections of the community and that the impact is heavier the further one gets—paradoxically in a way—from the Government who cause those things. There was a great deal of truth in what he said, as was illustrated by the remark's of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis).
  At least two differentials, which are so dear to the heart of the hon. Member for Louth, have been clearly established in the matter of the standards of living as between the communities in London and the Midlands and those not only merely in Scotland but even more drastically in the far north of Scotland. I assure the hon. Member that to go further away from Westminster and the activities of the Government is not to escape the effects and impacts of their policies anything like in proportion to the distance. When one reaches my constituency, one finds that we feel the impact of Government policy and deliberate acts of Government policy far more than any other section of 'the community, or any other area of Great Britain.
  Sir C. Osborne: Is the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan) therefore arguing that the better-paid workers of London and the Midlands should forgo some of their wages in order to help the poorer-paid workers of Scotland?
  Mr. MacMillan: One of the tragedies is that the hon. Gentleman sincerely believes these ancient fallacies which he argues with such vigour, as though they were true. More than fifty years ago Labour leaders were being told that it all the money in the country—and here again comes this word money, which is not to be confused with wealth—was distributed among everybody, working-class people would be only 6d. or 1s. better off. It would take a long time to discuss this, but it has been argued on innumerable occasions.
  We realise that to bring about a higher standard of living there must be increased productivity, people must get bigger shares from the cake, we must have a bigger cake, and so on. At the moment we are arguing the case made by my hon. Friends, that not only must we endeavour to produce the greatest possible justice within the expanding limits of our economy, but that it must appear to all classes that we are concerned with social justice and decency in the treatment of all our people.
  I would not confine any benefits that could arise from such a policy conducted and prosecuted in a sensible, systematic, way to any one class. I would not confine those benefits only to old-age pensioners or to the poorer sections of the community. There is a case for a differential, but there is no doubt that the lowest-paid worker has been left behind in the advances which have been made as a result of the activities of workers not only in London but in the Western Isles and other parts of Scotland.
  For example, the nurses have been left far behind. It is no good asking them and the teachers to produce more. It must be remembered that when talking about the nursing profession we are not talking about midwives only, and it is therefore difficult to ask nurses to produce more. It is not possible to measure increased productivity among groups of people like teachers and nurses.

  1715
  The hon. Member for Louth has disappeared and I trust that he has taken his arguments with him.
  Sir C. Osborne: I was about to leave the Chamber. I have one or two things to do outside the House. Having been a Member 'for some time, the hon. Gentleman should realise that it is not possible to be present in the Chamber all the time.
  Mr. MacMillan: I know that the hon. Gentleman is never discourteous, and I apologise if I suggested any such thing.
  The further north we go into Scotland and into the Highland areas, the more we feel the impact of these deliberate acts of Government policy which have led to a rise in the cost of living. This is more apparent now than ever before, because it is leading to a disastrous depopulation of many areas in the north. It is forcing the younger people to leave those areas, and even those who are left are not able to continue the indigenous industries because of the increased cost of transport, increased freight charges, and so on. These increases are having a disastrous effect in those areas.
  The Financial Secretary knows these things to be true. We are not in conflict with the Government about their lack of knowledge of the facts, but because they are not prepared to take action to deal with the especially difficult situation in the areas which are particularly badly hit by their policies.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) referred to the difficulty of getting more than one chip with his fish. I apologise if I appear to have borrowed that chip and to be carrying it on my shoulder. In an area like my constituency the catching of fish is one of the major economic activities. Attempts to develop that industry are frustrated because of the high freight charges arising from deliberate acts of Government policy. That is one of the reasons why we carry that solitary "chip" on our shoulders and feel that the Government, while aware of the problem, are quite unwilling to do anything to mitigate its impact upon our people.
  That does not apply only to fishermen, to the cost of their gear and re
  1716
  quirements and the cost of exporting their catches to the mainland markets and to the fish and chip shops. It affects equally the agricultural community in those areas; the farmers and the crofters who have to export cattle and import seed and agricultural equipment and other requirements. It applies to the community in general.
  If we look at the difference between the cost of living in the Outer Isles and places like Inverness and Glasgow we find that there is an increase of anything from 10 per cent. to 12 per cent. In the food ranges, most consumer goods cost anything from 20 per cent. to 50 per cent. more. My hon. Friend referred to individual items. I will not mention plums again tonight. But, taking a wide range of individual commodities, essential Things—not luxuries because people do not go in much for luxuries in the Western Isles—one finds that prices rise well above prices in other parts of Scotland.
  Mr. Bence: Is my hon. Friend aware that one need not go so far afield from Glasgow as the Western Isles in order to discover the kind of examples to which he has referred? In the new town of Cumbernauld which is sixteen miles from Glasgow, because of the lack of shop facilities, housewives, as they have told me, have to pay a ld., 2d. or 3d. more for everything compared with what they would have to pay in Glasgow or Falkirk.
  Mr. MacMillan: That is true, and it affects different areas in different ways. I was pointing out the rough difference between the costs of these items in areas like Glasgow and Stornoway and elsewhere in the Western Isles.
  A large part of the cost is represented by the cost of transport, particularly freight charges, and the Government have been aware of this for many years. Despite the fact that their policies have a considerable impact on those areas, no special steps of any kind have been taken to deal with this type of differential. When the hon. Member for Louth was talking about differentials he might have kept these things in mind. This has been reflected officially in the acceptance by the valuation appeal courts which were so convinced by the arguments about the cost of living that

  1717
  in the Stornoway area and in the Island of Lewis they reduced valuations by about 10 per cent. That was not the full recognition of the economic basis on which demands for reduction were argued but 10 per cent. is a fairly substantial figure.
  If we examine one or two individual commodities we find that bread, for example—by no means a luxury, but a necessity in every home—in the smaller islands such as Barra can be as dear as 1s. 5d. a loaf. Sometimes it is more. That does not mean that the shopkeeper is profiteering. He may have a smaller profit margin than the baker or grocer selling bread in Scottish cities. It is because he has to pay the high cost of transport and freight. If one goes to the only town or burgh of any size in the Islands one would pay about 11d, a pint for milk, for local milk as well as imported milk, but to a large extent the price is settled by the price of the imported milk which includes transport costs.
  Soft drinks, which have attracted the attention of the Government again recently, would cost 10d. to 1s. a bottle in Glasgow. But already in many areas in the Western Isles the price is about Is. 6d. and 1s. 7d. a bottle. Now it will probably soar to somewhere around Is. 10d. or possibly 2s. The increase is never restricted to the 10 or 15 per cent. when it comes to the retail price.
  Another item touched on a number of times tonight— which is a considerable understatement—concerns oil heaters and the fuel used in them. Here again, largely as a result of Government policy, prices have risen. The cost of money borrowed by the Hydro-Electric Board has risen because of the Government policy, with the result that the Board has not been able to provide electricity supplies in islands such as Barra and North Uist. People are thrown back on oil fuel of various kinds. Because of the burdens which they are carrying under the present Government policy, the cost of oil fuel for domestic purposes, for agricultural purposes and certainly for transport in the area has risen, and the cost of living has been sent soaring in this respect. In every respect, every one of these deliberate acts of Government policy is having an effect which, in the sum, has caused the
  1718
  cost of living in the area to soar above even that which my hon. Friends have described as the present exorbitant cost of living in the cities.
  If I make a special plea, therefore, for exceptional action in areas where the impact of Government policy is exceptional, I am asking for no more than equal treatment with other areas, not for especially favourable treatment in any way.
  Every one of these things is frustrating one of the most hopeful industries in Scotland—the tourist industry. The more that transport and fuel costs rise, the higher the cost of living as we go further into the Highlands and Islands, the less likely are we to develop a tourist industry, which is such a potentially valuable and a potentially expanding industry in Scotland. The further north one goes into this paradise for tourists, the less likely one is to get tourists into the area because of these high costs, and once they have been bitten by high costs and by the other difficulties arising from them, they are even less likely to come back a second time.
  My hon. Friend said that one needed four blankets in Scotland to two in England. This is a case of one wet blanket on the tourist industry's prospects. In fact, it is not a question of the weather, because in my constituency recently we have enjoyed more hours of sunshine on average per day than have most parts of Britain. It is not the weather which is endangering the development of the tourist industry but the impact of all these increased transport costs and the freight charges which arise directly from Government policy, together with the inability of the Hydro-Electric Board to supply electricity because of the high cost of borrowing the money which the Board must have for its development.
  The result of all this is that we cannot retain the younger population, in particular, and there is an increased tempo of drift and depopulation in the area, with a consequent ageing of the remaining population. Eventually one reaches the point of no return at which the population is too old and cannot move and at which the young have either gone or are going, and then less and less can one retain hope in the future and an ability to restore the local economy and raise the standard of life.

  1719
  Special action must be taken, as it was between 1945 and 1951, when a good example was given. If special action is not taken, the drift will continue. All the protestations of Government after Government of their desire and resolve to retain communities in the Highlands and Islands will count for nothing, and all that has been done in the past will be largely wasted endeavour and wasted resources. This is an area of great potential for the production of new wealth; it could make a greater contribution to national wealth and the national economy, provided that at this point it is given a sufficient transfusion of capital. Because of poverty and neglect through the generations, they have not been able to accumulate capital for themselves over the years. As long as capital is denied to the area and we make it impossible for new industries to develop and the indigenous industries to survive because of increasing costs, particularly of transport and freight, the more difficult it will be to retain the population.
  It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Whitelaw.]
  Mr. MacMillan: Finally, I will give two examples to the Financial Secretary in ordinary human terms. They are inevitably inseparable from statistics and the census. In the ten years from 1951 to 1961 in one Island in the Outer Islands, notably an island where industry is unable to develop because of the lack of electricity— I refer to the Island of Barra—the population fell by over 25 per cent. It had been falling for years before that. In the neighbouring smaller islands the population fell from 20 to 30 per cent. In the Outer Island of Lewis, with 24,000 people, the population fell by about 11 per cent. in those ten years. Between 1945 and 1951, with the policies in the Highlands, which were directed at that time by the Labour Government, aimed at stopping the drift of population and developing the potential wealth of the area, while controlling as far as possible under Government policy the cost of living, we saw a halt to the drift of population for the first time in
  1720
  a century. By 1951, for the first time in generations, emigration and depopulation halted. A build-up was beginning. Since 1952 it has gone into reverse. Today the tempo and the effect of depopulation, particularly the drift away of the young and enterprising, are more marked than they have ever been in the recorded statistical history of depopulation in the Highlands.
  That is very serious. It is related directly to the impact of Government policy. At this moment we have little to look forward to. The present programme of the Government seems to consist of nothing but stripping away such valuable services as nationalised road haulage and running down the railways, which in turn will throw an impossible burden upon the undeveloped and under-developed road and rail system. It will add again to the cost of living in the Highlands.
  Every action of the Government in all these fields has had an especial and extra heavy impact upon these areas further away from the centres of population and further away from such facilities as railways, markets, sources of raw materials, etc. It is not much good us running away from Westminister, because things will only get worse as we got further away. The only solution seems to be when the Government themselves start running away from Westminster and a better Government take their place. They have nothing to offer by way of policy or programme, but only a counsel of despair to hold on a little longer and perhaps per ardua ad astra wonderful days will come. While other countries send men in orbit round the world, there will be plenty of ardua for us before we see the first blink of the first Government astra.
  10.3 p.m.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle): The hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan) has made a temperate and interesting speech, as he always does, and I will see that it is brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
  Mr. Willis: It was meant for the Financial Secretary.
  Sir E. Boyle: I listened to the part of it which was meant for me. I have

  1721
  no doubt that my right hon. Friend will take an interest in that part which affects him.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds) for seizing a very legitimate parliamentary opportunity this evening. I am sorry that we have not had a better House for this debate, but the hon. Member will appreciate that not very many hon. Members on either side realised that this debate was due to take place.
  Mr. D. Jones: There has been a good House on this side.
  Sir E. Boyle: I am sure that many other hon. Member would have attended and might even have taken part had they known that the debate was to take place.
  The hon. Member for Erith and Cray-ford said early in his speech that he did not want to make too many party points. I was rather reminded, when he said that, knowing what happens when we debate these subjects, of the remark by Dr. Johnson's friend Edwards, who said that he tried to be a philosopher but that cheerfulness kept breaking in. Understandably, panty points have broken in frim time to time during the proceedings.
  I will begin by answering in general, as best I can, some of the speeches which have been made, and then I want to say something rather more consecutive about prices and incomes in the concluding parts of my remarks. To take up one or two of the points made by the hon. Member for Erith and Cray-ford, I do not want to say a great deal about 1951, which is a long time ago. However, it is only fair to remember, if one is talking about Korea and prices, what was the gravamen of our charge at that time, namely, that it was a pity that stocks had been allowed to run down so much before the Korean War, with the result that we had to stock up again just when prices were rising very rapidly. I do not think that the Leader of the Opposition at that time really denied that. He recognised that there had been a very sharp movement in the terms of trade against this country in 1951 and the low level of stocks must have affected that.
  Mr. Dodds: Does the Financial Secretary appreciate what he is now saying?
  1722
  He is saying that the stocks went down absolutely to their lowest, so we had to buy on a rising market. Despite that this country had the lowest increase of prices of any country during that period because we had a Labour Government to introduce controls.
  Sir E. Boyle: Whatever the relative position of other countries, no other country in Western Europe had a 14 per cent. price rise in 1951, as I remember. At the end of 1950—I was fighting a by-election at that time and, naturally, I remember the figures—wholesale prices were 17 per cent. higher than the year before and it took the next year to work through.
  Mr. Ross: Did the hon. Gentleman talk about wholesale prices?
  Sir E. Boyle: I said that wholesale prices at the end of 1950 were 17 per cent. higher than at the end of 1949. This worked through to a very rapid increase in retail prices during the course of the next year.
  The point that the hon. Gentleman made was about wages and prices during the 1950s. The hon. Member for Erith and Crayford was not merely speaking about prices, but about the movement of wages and prices during the 1950s. On that point, I am tempted to quote what the Leader of the House said in the debate on the Address, because I think that it is very relevant to any debate on prices. My right hon. Friend said:
  "The facts are these, and they are quite simple. From July, 1945, to October, 1951, the average weekly rate of earnings went up from £6 Is. 4d. to £8 6s., a rise of 37 per cent., but there was an increase of 40 per cent. in the cost of living which wiped it out. In the last ten years the rate has gone from £8 6s. to £15 Is. 4d., a rise of 80 per cent. as against a 35 per cent. increase in the cost of living.— [OFFICIAL REPORT. 7th November, 1961; Vol. 648, c. 929.]
  It is a perfectly clear point and one that I have often made in debates in this House. On the one band, we on this side take the greatest pleasure in the fact that real wages have risen substantially during the 1950s. There is no inconsistency between taking that pleasure and in believing that we will achieve a more rapid increase in living standards if increases in personal incomes are matched by increases in productivity.

  1723
  The hon. Gentleman finally referred to profits. If I may, I would recommend him to paragraph 55 of this year's Economic Survey, which says quite clearly:
  "Company profits reached a peak about the beginning of 1960 and fell quite steeply thereafter. Movements in tax payments lag substantially behind movements in profits; and between 1960 and 1961 company profits rose by £122 million. … In 1961, however, company profits were £200 million lower than in 1960."
  That is the important figure.
  In general, during the 1950s, movements in wage rates and movements in profits went very closely together, which is only natural, and the figures about this were perfectly clearly revealed in the last report of the Council on Prices, Productivity and Incomes, issued last July. In 1961 as a whole, company profits were substantially down on 1960.
  I know the point made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) about taxation, but I do not think that it is one of his most powerful comparisons. We all quote these statistics, but some make better points than others. That was not quite as good a point as others, because 1952 was only one of two years in which the Excess Profits Levy operated, and no one on either side believed that the Excess Profits Levy had come to stay. I was a back bencher at the time, and I must say that I never thought it a good tax. I am glad that it lasted only two years, and I believe that that was the view of most of the House. Many hon. Members were extremely critical of it—
  Mr. D. Jones: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that during 1950 profits, dividends and wages went apace?
  Sir E. Boyle: Profits are the key point here, because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we now have a combined rate of Profits Tax on a level of profits which governs not only dividends, but the level of undistributed reserves and, therefore, the likelihood of shareholders getting capital appreciation——
  Mr. D. Jones: The Financial Secretary has not answered my question. I hope that he will not shirk it.
  Sir E. Boyle: I am not shirking it. I think that the key point is that profits
  1724
  were £200 million lower than in 1960. My right hon. Friend who is now the Secretary of State for the Colonies was extremely outspoken about dividends in the debate we had last summer. I do not have a detailed breakdown of dividends, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that replies given in the House show quite clearly that the majority of companies have taken notice of what was said about dividends at the time of the July measures—
  Mr. Ross: Would it be worth while recalling what was said last night? During the Committee stage of the Finance Bill it was said that over the last ten years company profits had risen by £ 1,000 million.
  Sir E. Boyle: So many things were said last night that, for a moment, I did not appreciate to what the hon. Gentleman was referring, but he himself is a good debater, and knows very well that we cannot have a high rate of investment or a high rate of economic growth without a good level of profits.
  What I was concerned about was whether profits and personal incomes were moving in a disproportionate way as compared with one another, and my point was that last year it did not happen. On the contrary, company profits, as a whole, fell during 1961.
  I shall not comment on the very agreeable speech of the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence), who reminded me of what I believe was one of the worst poems ever written by Julia Moore:
  "While eating dinner this dear little child Was choked on a piece of beef."
  I will leave the subject of beef to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture.
  The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. D. Jones), who, I thought, made a sincere speech, said that too many wealthy people were too complacent about poverty. I shall say two or three things to him on that——
  Mr. D. Jones: Poverty in particular.
  Sir E. Boyle: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is right about this in general. As one who has been in the Government for some time now, I can say that the question of the living standards of the poorest people take a good

  1725
  share of the time and consideration of the Government.
  The hon. Member had some hard things to say about National Assistance. I wonder whether the feeling in the country is quite as he made it out to be. When I was at the Treasury in 1955 and 1956, National Assistance total payments amounted to £ 100 million; they now run at about £170 million. My own belief is that a great many of the poorer people, just on the fringe of National Assistance, have never had it better from the National Assistance Board. That is to say, a great many people get, not the maximum payment but an average weekly payment of, it may be, 25s, or 30s. a week from the Board.
  As the hon. Gentleman knows, the system of disregards is more generous than it has been before, and I believe that this is a sign that we do take note of the problems of the poorest.
  Mr. Ross: Does the hon. Member appreciate that what we are now discussing is the question of the cost of living index, and the rise in the cost of living? Unless there is a change in relation to these fixed payments we are not meting out justice. Since the announcement of the last increase in National Assistance payments—on the figures given two months ago by the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance—it would take an extra £1 million a week to make up for what has been eroded by the rise in the cost of living. Since then there has been another two points increase. Secondly, there has been no change in the National Assistance scales, and, therefore, the increase of 5s. a week has been wiped out by the increase in the cost of living.
  Sir E. Boyle: It has happened in the past.
  Mr. Ross: It is happening now.
  Sir E. Boyle: I am answering the hon. Member's point. I do not blame him. He makes rather long interventions, but having done so he must listen to the replies. I am pointing out that this is not a unique happening; it happens in all Governments. He must recall that sometimes the situation has been the other way round. On the last occasion but one when National Assistance scales were raised those on National Assistance
  1726
  had a real increase in their standard of living. We must consider this over a term of years and not over a period merely of some months.
  I have answered a good number of points that have been made in the debate, and I want now to say something rather more constructive about prices and incomes, because they are extremely important. The trend during the period from 1958 to 1962 may be broken into two fairly distinct periods. From the beginning of 1958 until the middle of 1960 the overall level of prices was fairly stable. The stability of the retail price index during that time was due to two main factors. The first was a big fall in world commodity prices in 1957. I am going on to say—as my right hon. Friend who is now Secretary of State for the Colonies has often said in the past—that I am sure that our return to the use of monetary policy has had some impact on the terms of trade. It is remarkable how favourable movements in the terms of trade have often coincided with the determination of Governments to strengthen sterling by the use of the monetary instrument. The other factor was the reduction of Purchase Tax and certain Excise duties in the 1957 Budget.
  On the other hand—anticipating the obvious objection from hon. Members opposite—we all know that if demand in the economy is excessive no power on earth can keep prices stable. I am sure that, for the reasons stated by hon. Members on both sides of the House, we have at times to use indirect taxation upwards as well as downwards.
  The main reason underlying the rise in retail prices in the last four years has been the increase in personal incomes. If the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) looks at page 13 of the Economic Survey he will see that the rise in the total of wages and salaries takes up a good part of the increase in personal incomes. If he looks at the table he will find that between the fourth quarter of 1960 and the second quarter of 1961 the biggest increase was in wages and salaries. There is no doubt about that.
  Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman will agree that my main point was that the figures given on Tuesday are not to be taken as easily as he suggested.
  Sir E. Boyle: I agree, but when one is answering a supplementary question one is likely to invoke the enmity of the House if one gives an answer of such a length as one would give in replying to a debate. It has been done by Ministers before now, but it has never been popular.
  Between 1958 and the beginning of 1962, industrial production rose by about 12 per cent. and the gross domestic product at constant prices rose by 2 to 2½ per cent, a year. Allowing for the improvement in terms of trade over the period this increase in production would have allowed aggregate wages, salaries and profits to rise by 2½ to 3 per cent. a year if the overall price level was to remain stable, but increases in income were very much larger during this period.
  In answer to the hon. Member for Burnley, who said that people should have the advantages of increased productivity, I would ask him to study paragraph 7 of the White Paper, Cmnd. 1626, which states:
  "But some arguments which have in the past been widely used to justify higher wages and salaries certainly ought not to be given the same weight as hitherto. For example, arguments derived from the increased cost of living, or from the trends of profits or productivity in a particular industry, cannot in present circumstances be regarded as providing of themselves a sound basis for an increase."
  The paragraph continues, and this is important:
  "There may, however, be cases in which an increase could be justified as part of an agreement under which those concerned made a direct contribution, by accepting more exacting work, or more onerous conditions, or by a renunciation of restrictive practices, to an increase of productivity and a reduction of costs.".
  The point of that reference to productivity is that it would be unfair if the parts of the economy where there had been increased productivity, only the workers in those parts were to get the benefits of it.
  D. Joneso not think that the Financial Secretary is being quite fair. In reading that paragraph he put greater emphasis on the last part of it. I would like to quote the first part and put the emphasis on that. It states:
  "But some arguments which have in the past been widely used to justify higher wages
  1728
  and salaries certainly ought not to be given the same weight as hitherto. For example, arguments derived from the increased cost of living, in particular or from the trends of profits or productivity n a particular industry, cannot in present circumstances be regarded as providing of themselves a sound basis for an increase."
  If one puts the emphasis on that part of the quotation one gets the matter in its proper perspective. I am interpreting it in precisely the same way as the trade union movement is now interpreting it.
  E. Boylehaps we may both be allowed to read the passage in our own way. I have no with to run away from the question which the hon. Member for Burnley asked. I am pointing out that in certain parts of the economy it is more easy to increase productivity than in others and that it would be wrong for only the workers in those parts to get the benefits of that increased productivity simply because they happen to work in them.
  I was also asked what the Government's incomes policy has achieved so far. It is difficult to answer that question precisely. [HON. MEMBERS: "0h."] However, I anticipated that this point would be raised and the best I can say is this: I think that it would have been reasonable to suppose, in the absence of an incomes policy, that the hourly wage rate in April this year would have been about 6 per cent. higher than in the previous year. In fact, the increase was about 5 per cent.
  The difference between those two figures can be roughly regarded as showing the effect of the Government's policy so far. That may not seem a very big change, but one must remember that a high proportion of the increases in wage rates in the year ending April, 1962, was the consequence of settlements made before the incomes policy was announced. If one takes the six months' period from October, 1961, to April, 1962, wage rates actually rose during that period by 2½2 per cent. They would, I believe, have risen by 3 per cent. with-out our incomes policy.
  The difference between 2½2 per cent. and 3 per cent. is appreciable and I entirely dispute, just as the O.E.C.D. Report disputed, that the incomes policy of the Government has been a failure. It has already made a difference to the rate of wage increases. I cannot now deploy all the figures to the House

  1729
  because time prevents me from doing so. However, this difference has been partly due to some fall in the size of the average award, particularly since the publication of the Government's White Paper. I believe that this was the most important White Paper on any economic subject since the 1944 White Paper on Employment Policy.
  There has also been an effect on the postponement of increases because the bargaining was more protracted than usual or the dates of the increases were deferred until the end of the pause. Retail prices in the United Kingdom have risen sharply since last July, more than the average rise since 1950, but some of this, as my right hon. and learned Friend made perfectly clear, was due to a temporary rise in the price of potatoes and other vegetables. I believe that there should not be any substantial further rise in retail prices during the remainder of the year. The price prospect for the second half of this year is distinctly brighter than what we have experienced during the first half.
  It is not easy to estimate what would be the long-terms effect on prices of continuing our present incomes policy, but just for the purposes of illustration I will put it to the House in this way. On the assumption that future wage increases are damped down as much as the calculations I have given suggest that they were damped down between October, 1961, and April, 1962, and on the assumption that increases in other incomes are similarly kept under control and that import prices remain at their present level, it is possible that retail prices will rise 1 per cent. to 1½ per cent. each year less than they otherwise would. This may not seem a dramatic figure. However, if we could achieve over a term of years an average rise of retail prices 1 per cent. to 1½ per cent. less than we have experienced during the 1950's, this would make a substantial difference to our competitive power abroad. Of that I have no doubt whatever.
  If any country wants to achieve rising living standards, this must be based not simply on boosting exports or boosting some particular kind of economic activity. It must be based on the ability to achieve a first-class economic performance right along the line.
  D. Jones: Which the Government have not done.
  E. Boyle: I am pointing out that the biggest problem we have faced during the 1950s has been the perpetual tendency for increases of personal incomes to advance more rapidly than increases in production. I agree entirely from those who say that, from time to time, there have been periods when we have had superadded to the problem I have mentioned the additional problem of excess demand on our resources. However, looking ahead to the 1960s, I am quite sure that the prospects in this country for rises in living standards and safeguarding the living standards of those who are poorest will be infinitely brighter if we stick firmly to the incomes policy on which we have embarked.
  There is a section of the Press which is looking all the time for signs that the policy is failing, which is all the lime asking its readers the question whether the Government will shortly be forced to abandon their, policy. Although this is not a major economic debate, I am very glad that it has taken place, for it gives me an opportunity to tell the House plainly that we have no intention of abandoning this policy. I think that the results we have already achieved show its importance, and I am quite sure that, if we can achieve that slowing down in the rise in retail prices which I have indicated to the House, the benefits for our competitive power and the living standards of all our people will be infinitely greater than even hon. Members on either side of the House suppose.
  10.28 p.m.
  Mr. William Ross: When we take into account the gravity of the implications of the hon. Gentleman's peroration, the first question which comes to mind is, what on earth have the Government been doing for ten years? They have lived with their aura of never having had it so good—"There is nothing to worry about. I'm all right Jack". Belatedly, we now come down to the crux of our continued economic existence, far less prosperity, and of the influence which Britain will be able to have in the world. This is my complaint against the Government in this matter.

  1731
  As a result of the Government's recent actions, millions of our people are having to face present increases without any help at all, apart from the help which the House can give them— help which is denied by the Government. I refer particularly to those who are dependent on National Insurance and on supplementary assistance through the National Assistance Board. In November, 1960, something was given, but that has been eroded away. It is not good enough for the hon. Gentleman to say that there have been times in the past when this has happened. We raised this debate tonight to try to make the Gov-
  1732
  ernment face their current responsibilities in respect of these people, old-age pensioners and the like. It is no use talking about average earnings in their case. What is their income? — £2 17s. 6d. for a single person or £4 12s. 6d. for a couple. Let us consider the effect of rising prices upon them.
  The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.

  PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER
  PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Carlisle and District State Management Scheme
  Carlisle and District State Management Scheme
  Remand Homes, Detention Centres and Approved Schools, North-Western Area
  Remand Homes, Detention Centres and Approved Schools, North-Western Area
  Experiments on Living Animals
  Experiments on Living Animals
  Commonwealth Immigrants Act
  Commonwealth Immigrants Act
  Probation Officers
  Probation Officers
  Metropolitan Police District (Essex)
  Metropolitan Police District (Essex)
NORTHERN RHODESIA
  Judicial Service Commission
  Judicial Service Commission
  Copperbelt (Commission of Inquiry)
  Copperbelt (Commission of Inquiry)
RHODESIA AND NYASALAND
  African Primary and Secondary Education
  African Primary and Secondary Education
GHANA
  Armed Forces (British Personnel)
  Armed Forces (British Personnel)
EDUCATION
  Safety Training
  Safety Training
  Students (Grants)
  Students (Grants)
  Teachers
  Teachers
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Engineering Products (Export)
  Engineering Products (Export)
  Low-Cost Films
  Low-Cost Films
  Chemical Industry
  Chemical Industry
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Coin of the Realm (Sale)
  Coin of the Realm (Sale)
  Finance (No. 2) Act, 1940 (Section 23 (9))
  Finance (No. 2) Act, 1940 (Section 23 (9))
  Government Departments (Charges and Fees)
  Government Departments (Charges and Fees)
  Personal Wealth (Tax)
  Personal Wealth (Tax)
  Incomes Policy
  Incomes Policy
  Brownsea Island, Poole Harbour
  Brownsea Island, Poole Harbour
  HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS (CONVENTION)
  HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS (CONVENTION)
  GENEVA CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT (REPORT)
  GENEVA CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT (REPORT)
  TOBACCO (ADVERTISING INQUIRY COUNCIL'S REPORT)
  TOBACCO (ADVERTISING INQUIRY COUNCIL'S REPORT)
UGANDA
  Karasuk
  Karasuk
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Immigrants
  Immigrants
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Grants and Housing Subsidies
  Grants and Housing Subsidies
BRITISH ARMY
  National Service Men
  National Service Men
  Accommodation, Malaya
  Accommodation, Malaya
  Terendak Camp, Malaya
  Terendak Camp, Malaya

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD MERTHYR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich

THE WHITSUN RECESS
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should like to inform your Lordships that my noble friend Lord Dundee will be making a statement on the Common Market at some suitable moment between 3.30 and 4 o'clock. I should also like to inform your Lordships that dinners will be available between 7 and 8 o'clock. I would further inform your Lordships that we hope to adjourn for the Whitsun Recess on Thursday next and to reassemble on Tuesday, June 26.
LONDON BRIDGE IMPROVEMENTS BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

BUSINESSS OF THE HOUSE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Hailsham.
Moved, That leave be given for the Earl of Listowel's Motion (now standing for Thursday the 7th of June next) to be advanced to Wednesday next.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY ASSOCIATIONS BILL
House in Committee (according to Order).
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (RECORDS) BILL
3.8 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I rise to move the Second Reading of this Bill, which is a Private Member's Bill, introduced in another place by the Member for Circencester and Tewkesbury, Mr. Nicholas Ridley. In another place the Bill had the support of all political Parties: in fact, it was not debated on its Second Reading, the Committee stage took only 35 minutes, and its Third Reading was taken and the Bill was passed on May 18, having been supported by all Members on both sides of the House. To-day, I ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill, which I think will be of particular interest to you, since the records of many families here represented go back into the earliest days of our history, and also as many of your Lordships are members of local authorities. The Bill gives opportunities not only to preserve the records for local authority interest, but to enable students to study them and examine them easily.
The Bill is permissive; nothing is compulsory; nor does it interfere with any previous Act allowing records to be kept. But it does encourage local authorities to keep records. Two previous Acts in connection with records are on the Statute Book: the Public Records Act, 1958, which deals with national records as opposed to local records, and the Local Government Act, 1933, which gives local authorities the right to keep and maintain their own records. This has already been done by some authorities but in a somewhat spasmodic way. Under this Bill we seek to provide a regular means of preserving such records, in places suitable for the purpose, accessible to students, archaeologists or other persons who, for one reason or another, want to look for and to search out accurate information from records of the past. We in this country are used to hundreds of years of recorded history and we sometimes, I think, take it all for granted. Whereas other and newer civilisations proudly record their development and their history, we treat it in a somewhat nonchalant way, and vital information may

269
perhaps escape the historian of the future by the failure of the people of to-day to keep records.
The clauses of this Bill are quite simple. Under Clause 1 it is possible for local authorities to make records available to anyone wishing to study them; also to catalogue records, arrange exhibitions, lend documents, and in fact to make available to students or scholars or searchers documents and records in their possession. Clause 2 allows the major local authorities to do three things: to buy records which they think will be of value to their local historical collection; to accept gifts of records which individuals may wish to pass on to them for safe keeping and a wider use; and to provide safe keeping for records which may be lent or deposited with them by private people. Clause 3 deals with the formation of committees or sub-committees or joint committees to be responsible for the records in their keeping.
Clause 4 gives powers for financial assistance to be provided by local authorities to persons or organisations that might wish to keep records of their own. It is anticipated that it is the larger local authorities who will have muniment room facilities for keeping records, but it is possible that a library or other body might be the most appropriate body agreed upon by the locality, and this Bill gives power to local authorities to assist such an institution. Clause 5 gives a local authority powers to annul Private Acts, if private powers have been already taken and under the new Bill these private powers are no longer wanted. Clause 6 gives the Minister machinery to enable him to make such an annulment, if he is requested so to do under Clause 5. Clause 7 gives powers to the Master of the Rolls to deposit manorial and tithe documents with local authorities, which at present he has no power to do. He can say where such records must be deposited, but this Bill enables him to include local authorities and various other authorities as recipients of his records.
At this point I might perhaps read to your Lordships a letter which I received from the Master of the Rolls, Lord Denning, who, due to his legal duties, cannot be here this afternoon. After saying that he is sorry he cannot be
270
here to-day, Lord Denning writes to me as follows:
"I should like to say how much the Historical Manuscripts Commission (of which I am Chairman) welcomes the Bill. If it is approved, the Bill will do a great deal to improve the preservation of the records of our old manors and our tithes. At the present moment the Master of the Rolls can only direct their transfer to the Public Record Office, the museums and the historical and antiquarian societies, and it would be of the greatest value if authority could be given for their deposit in the County Record Offices and other local Record Offices. Moreover there have been several restrictions on the way in which local authorities may spend their money on the care of records; hitherto they have only been allowed to spend it on their own records, but it would be most helpful if they could be allowed to help with the care of privately owned records: these are the special care of the Historical Manuscripts Commission which would greatly appreciate authority to be given for such help."
Those, my Lords, are Lord Denning's views.
I can only say that I regret that, as a Private Member's Bill, it applies only to England and Wales. I could wish that similar powers were available for both Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Bill, as I said at the beginning, is permissive; there is, in fact, no compulsion about it. But I hope that full advantage will be taken of its provisions. There must be very many fascinating historical accounts lost to us because, in very early days, history was passed from one generation to another by word of mouth, and that is very often inaccurate. The late Sir Lewis Namier introduced new methods of writing the history of Parliament by recording the lives of Members, which shed new light on many historical events. The keeping of records is, I am sure, of vital importance to the recording of history, both now and in the future. We are making history every day, and I am certain we must care for the records that we make ourselves, as well as those that belong to the past. This Bill will help and encourage the keeping of these records, and I very much hope that your Lordships will give it a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Baroness Elliot of Harwood.)
3.18 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I am sure we should all like to thank the noble Lady for having introduced this Bill, and for having done it in so interesting

271
and clear a manner. We all heartily approve of the purpose of this Bill, and I can promise her that we shall not be behind the other place in the expedition with which we shall pass it. I rise in order to raise two small points on the Bill, on which I hope we can obtain some satisfaction from the noble Lord who is going to reply for the Government. The first is that the Bill is not very clear as to which particular local authority in any area will carry out these functions. It is either the county borough, the county council or the district councils, and there may well be some discussion as to which of them will carry out the particular functions.
I would ask the noble Lord who is going to reply whether, if there is any argument about it, there will be an obligation on the part of the county council to discuss the matter with the other local authorities so that it should not be left entirely for the county council to make a decision. I think that that is eminently reasonable and need not involve an amendment of the Bill. I was not proposing to move any Amendment to that purpose, if the noble Lord can give an assurance that that will be the view of the Government, and that he will circularise the county councils and local authorities accordingly. So far as I am concerned, that would be quite satisfactory.
The other point is that this will be of interest to, among others, the legal profession. Solicitors constantly have to make searches in connection with conveyances of property and for other purposes, and it is important that the places where records are kept should be convenient for them. It is also important that, whereas in some cases it is obligatory on the part of the local authorities to permit searches and inspections of documents to be made, in other cases it is quite optional. What the legal profession is concerned about is that it should not be an arbitrary act on the part of local authorities as to whether or not they refuse to permit inspection. Again, it is not a matter which is susceptible to amendment of the Bill, and if the noble Lord can give an assurance that the local authorities will be asked to be reasonable in the exercise of their powers and their discretion, then I think that would satisfy the legal pro-
272
fession. I can assure the noble Lady that, so far as we on this side are concerned, we shall not seek to amend this Bill in any way. We are perfectly happy with it, and we congratulate her on having had the opportunity of introducing so interesting and so useful a Bill.
3.21 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, if I may, I should like to join in the general welcome given to this most excellent little Bill, and again to thank the noble Lady for her very clear speech which, if I may say so, was of exactly the right length. The only criticism I have of this Bill, and it is quite unimportant, is that, on the face of it, it seems to be far too late, and we should have had it a long time ago. The only question I should like to ask the Minister, if he is able to reply, is this. Although I know it is usual, a clause says:
"This Act shall not extend to Scotland or Northern Ireland."
I am sure he would agree that it would be very useful if it could. Is there any prospect of further legislation in that respect?
3.22 p.m.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, I rise principally because I was the first Chairman, and am presently ex-Chairman, of the Lewisham Archives Committee, where we have sought to gather historical material about the Metropolitan Borough of Lewisham—not only while it was a borough but before it was a borough. We have had a certain amount of success, but we have had some difficulties, because local authorities have various ways and, according to who runs them, they may do a thing or they may not. But we had full cooperation from the Council of the Metropolitan Borough of Lewisham. Therefore, I think that this is a useful Bill and it is desirable that it should pass, with or without amendment. I must sympathise with the noble Lady in the fact that, although she is prominently associated with Scotland, she has not been able to bring Scotland into this Bill, and it is doubtful whether she will be able to do so. That is rough luck. However, what England thinks today, Scotland may or may not think the day after to-morrow; and Northern Ireland as well, although it is more likely in the case of Northern Ireland.

273
I think it is a good and useful Bill. As the noble Lady said, it is permissive: it does not seek to coerce local authorities, and I think that that is right. There is one point which worried me for a moment, and that is the power of the Minister, on the application of the local authority, to amend or repeal existing legislation which is not consistent with the provisions of this Bill. However, when I consulted my noble friend Lord Silkin he told me that there is a precedent, and that he, at any rate, made one precedent in the Town and Country Planning Act to exactly the same effect. So I decided I would drop that potato and not pursue it. As I have said, I think this is quite a useful Bill, and the noble Lady has expounded it very well. She has done better on this occasion than she could possibly have done with the Local Authorities (Admission of the Press) Bill on which I had some controversy with her earlier. I agree with my noble friend Lord Silkin that it is a Bill to which we can certainly give general support.
3.25 p.m.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, while congratulating the noble Lady on introducing the Bill, I observe that it does not say anything specific about the physical preservation of the records, and I was wondering whether the noble Lady was quite satisfied that that was not necessary. I am speaking from experience. Twelve years ago I opened up my family muniments room which was underground, unventilated, and a most pokey and unpleasant place in every respect. The first thing that happened was that I fell through the stairs, Which were rotten with dry rot. I then opened up the japanned deed boxes in which the records were kept, and the most appalling smell of fungus greeted my nostrils. I found that some of my records, the paper ones, were irretrievably decayed; and the records on parchment had to be specially treated.
I notice that under Clause 4 (1) (b), the local authority may authorise expenditure on records Which are kept not under the local authority's own control. I was wondering Whether the noble Lady, or Her Majesty's Government, saw some need for an Amendment to ensure that it was a condition of any expenditure of public money that proper physical
274
conditions were maintained for the preservation of records in those places.
3.26 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I should like to put in one word on this Bill, on behalf of the parish councils, because it would appear from the form of Clause 2 (4) that they are not to come within its scope. This is, however, not so. Parish councils have for some time had the power to deposit their records, and so their inclusion in this Bill is not necessary. However, all I would say is that, they have been urged for some time by the National Association of Parish Councils to deposit their records with the county archivist; and this has proved to be most valuable, in that some extremely interesting records have emerged. I therefore welcome the extension of this principle to other councils in the local government circle, and I welcome the Bill.
3.27 p.m.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government welcome this Bill. It is purely permissive in its operation, in that it gives local authorities some useful new powers but no compulsory powers, and it lays on them no new duties. My noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood has explained the provisions of the Bill, and so I will not detain your Lordships by again going into the details, except to answer one or two specific questions that have been put to me.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, raised a point about consultation under Clause 2 (6). The question that the noble Lord asked me was whether an undertaking could be given that county councils would consult with other authorities before coming to any decision. As I understand it, the county councils do not come to a decision but the Minister does, and I know there is a certain amount of unease, which has been expressed by the County Councils Association, because the Minister might exercise his power conferred by Clause 2 (6) to give a county district power to buy records or accept them as a gift or on deposit without reference to the county council of the county in which that district lies. The County Councils Association were anxious that a requirement to this effect should be written into the Bill. But my right honourable friend was a

275
little reluctant to do this, on the ground that this was not the only consultation which would be made. But I will give this undertaking, that the Minister would never exercise his power to confer the additional functions on a county district without first consulting the county council and taking their views into account in reaching his decision.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, will the noble Lord forgive me for intervening? May I ask him whether this means that the Minister can give a direction on particular pieces of work or records? Or is it a power that he proposes to exercise, to give a direction that a county council or, on the other hand, an urban district council or a non-county borough shall be excluded from exercising any powers under this Bill?—because it seems to me to be rather high power for a Minister of the Crown to take on a matter which might be better dealt with by friendly consultation between the various authorities concerned.
LORD DENHAM: No, my Lords. As I understand it, the Minister's direction does not refer to any particular document or series of documents, but to the particular local authority which should have power to keep them under this Bill. That is where the Minister's direction comes.
The second point about which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was concerned is a point that has been raised by the Law Society, who are worried about Clause 1 (1) (a), which enables a local authority to
"make provision for enabling persons, with or without charge and subject to such conditions as the authority may determine, to inspect the records and to make or obtain copies thereof."
I should like to make it clear that this Bill does not in fact change the existing law at all. Any records kept by a local authority which, before this Bill, they were required to show must still be shown. Any records which, before this Bill, they could show if they wished to and in respect of which they could make conditions, they can still show if they
276
wish to and they can still make those conditions. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, asked me about Scotland being covered by this Bill. I shall pass on his views to my noble friend who speaks for Scotland. I think those are all the points specifically on Government policy that have been raised on this Bill. The Bill has been welcomed by all interests concerned, and Her Majesty's Government commend it to your Lordships and hope you will give it a Second Reading.
3.33 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, may I answer the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, about private records? One of the good things about this Bill, I think, is that it makes it possible for assistance to be given through local authorities to records kept in private families, and I do not think that the unfortunate conditions that the noble Earl has described, in which his own family records are kept, need apply again if this Bill becomes law. The object of the Bill is to make the best possible use of all these records, and to keep them in the best possible way. I think the reason why it has been suggested that the larger local authorities should be the prime keepers of these records is that they will have greater facilities for organising and keeping muniment rooms, and so on. But there may be other places for keeping them which will prove to have facilities better than, or at any rate, just as good as, those of the local authority—I am thinking, for instance, of a university or a great central library—and in that case they will also be included. I hope very much that this will mark a step forward in the keeping of records in our country.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

MELVILLE TRUST ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936) deemed to have been read 2a, and reported from the Committee.

TRANSPORT BILL
3.35 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 18 [Financial duty of Boards]:
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 32, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 19 [Borrowing powers of Boards]:
LORD CHESHAM: These are two further "Waterways" Amendments. I beg to move them both.
Amendments moved—
Page 19, line 45, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board).
Page 20, line 19, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 20 to 22 agreed to.
Clause 23:
Special provision for Inland Waterways Authority
23.—(1) The Minister may, with the approval of the Treasury, out of money provided by Parliament make grants to the Inland Waterways Authority to meet any deficit on their revenue account arising during the period of five years beginning with the vesting date.
LORD CHESHAM: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 41, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SHEPHERD: We are in some difficulties this afternoon. My noble friend Lord Lucan, in whose name this Amendment appears on the Paper, is, fortunately for him but unfortunately for us, in Rhodesia, where he is celebrating a major family event. My noble friend Lord Stonham, whom I asked to move this Amendment, unfortunately cannot be here until later on. It is an Amendment of some importance, and I therefore do not propose to discuss it now, or Amendment No. 81, but we will raise them on Report stage.
However, before sitting down, I would say that on my way to the House I noted newspaper bills to the effect that there had been a major rail disaster on the Continent; and, since we are dealing with a Transport Bill, I thought it would be appropriate if we were to express our very great regret that there should have been a loss of nearly 60 lives on the Continent in this rail disaster. This, perhaps, is the price that has to be paid for fast travel, but when it does it is very heavy, whether it is in this country or elsewhere.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 43, leave out ("five") and insert ("ten").—(Lord Shepherd.)
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MILLS): With your Lordships permission, I should like to associate myself with the sympathy expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd.
LORD SHEPHERD: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CHESHAM: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 2, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MILLS: In order that the Foreign Secretary may make a statement, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Motion agreed to and House resumed accordingly.

BRUSSELS NEGOTIATIONS AND THE COMMON MARKET
3.40 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, with the permission of the House, I wish to repeat a statement being made by the Lord Privy Seal in another place on the progress of the Brussels negotiations. I again intend to publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT a more detailed account of the latest developments.
On May 16 the Lord Privy Seal said that the last Ministerial meeting marked the end of the first stage: the way was open for the negotiation of solutions. Of course, the House will understand that any agreement on the solution of individual elements in the negotiations remains subject to overall agreement. The momentum has been maintained both in the meetings of the Deputies of Ministers and in the Ministerial meeting which ended in Brussels yesterday.
At this meeting agreement was reached on the tariff treatment to be applied to our imports of industrial products from Canada, Australia and New Zealand. As regards these commodities, the Lord Privy Seal said in his opening statement in Paris on October 10 that we recognised that indefinite and unlimited continuation of free entry over the whole of this field might not be regarded as compatible with the development of the Common Market. The solution now worked out provides that the common external tariff will not be applied to these imports in accordance with the normal timetable, but in three stages: the first stage on accession, the second stage on January 1, 1967, and the third stage on January 1, 1970. The European Economic Community at one time proposed that this delayed application of the tariff should only relate to a limited list of goods, but it is now agreed that all industrial exports are included. It was agreed that the Community would be ready to take part in multilateral negotiations aimed at reducing, on a reciprocal basis, the level of the common tariff on industrial products. The agreement also provides for consultation between the enlarged Community and Canada, Australia and New Zealand in 1966 and again in 1969, after
280
which appropriate steps would, in the light of all the circumstances, be taken in conformity with the provisions of the Treaty.
Ministers carried a stage further the discussion of the most important and extremely difficult question of the treatment of imports of temperate foodstuffs from the Commonwealth, both during the transitional period and in the long term. In this connection we have put forward certain proposals on cereals which will be discussed by Ministers Deputies next week.
The Ministers had a long discussion of the list of products, mostly industrial raw materials, on which we have asked for a nil tariff. In some cases the Community have suggested alternative arrangements to meet the essential needs of ourselves and our suppliers. Deputies have been asked to examine these alternative proposals together with our own with a view to submitting solutions to Ministers at their next meeting.
We have made comprehensive proposals for dealing with the exports of India, Pakistan and Ceylon, and emphasised to Ministers the importance of making arrangements to protect the essential export interests of these countries. The Government of India have also circulated a memorandum to the Six Governments. Our proposals, together with the memorandum of the Government of India, will be examined further by the Deputies.
Ministers also had before them a report by a Working Party on the problems of British horticulture. The Deputies will examine it in greater detail taking account of individual commodities.
Finally, a report was made on the discussions which have been taking place between our Delegation and the Commission on the provisions of the Treaty of Rome concerned with economic union. The Lord Privy Seal was able to tell the Minister that these discussions have satisfied us that, on the most important matters dealt with in these Articles, we can accept the Treaty, subject to a small number of adjustments on timing and administration.
The next meeting of Ministers will be for four days, June 27–30.
Following is the report referred to at the opening of the statement:
Since the last report on the Brussels negotiations on May 17 meetings of the Ministers Deputies and of working parties have continued. On May 29 and 30 there were meetings of Ministers at which we reviewed the progress made during the past fortnight and continued the process of seeking to negotiate solutions.
The present position with regard to the various problems under discussion is as follows.
Raw Materials and Semi-Manufactures for which we have proposed a zero tariff
The subject has been discussed in some detail by the Deputies and we had a further useful examination of the problems involved at our Ministerial meeting on May 29. We still consider and have re-emphasised that the most appropriate solution for each of the products on our list would be the reduction of the common tariff to nil. The Six find particular difficulty in meeting us on some products, but are not yet ready to put forward any alternative proposal. On some other products they have put forward proposals which are to be discussed by the Deputies.
Industrial Products from Canada, Australia and New Zealand
Ministers agreed on the following arrangements:

1. The United Kingdom would take the first step (30 per cent.) towards the application of the common customs tariff to imports of these products on the date of its accession to the Community. The United Kingdom would take a second step (30 per cent.) towards applying the common customs tariff on January 1, 1967. The United Kingdom would apply the full common customs tariff to all the products concerned on January 1, 1970.

2. Note would be taken of the readiness of the Community to take part in multilateral negotiations aimed at reducing, on a reciprocal basis, customs duties on industrial products.

3. The enlarged Community would be prepared to examine, in 1966 and 1969, in consultation with Canada, Australia and New Zealand, the development of its trade with these countries, after which it would take appropriate steps in the light of all the circumstances, and in conformity with the provisions of the Treaty.

India, Pakistan and Ceylon Exports
The Lord Privy Seal made comprehensive proposals dealing with the exports of India, Pakistan and Ceylon and emphasised to Ministers the importance of making arrangements adequate to protect the essential export interests of these countries. Ministers asked Deputies to examine these problems further, taking into account our own proposals and a memorandum communicated to the Governments of the Six by the Government of India. The Deputies have been asked to propose solutions for consideration at the next meeting of Ministers.
Association and Tropical Products
Deputies will revert to these subjects at their June meetings. Meanwhile we have put forward precise proposals regarding the tariff treatment of the various tropical products. The Six have not yet put forward proposals of their own or commented on ours, but hope to do so shortly. Meanwhile a Working Party has submitted a report analysing the trade in a number of these products, and the problems which arise, and is continuinig to work on further products.
Commonwealth Temperate Foodstuffs
Since the last Ministerial meeting Deputies have been considering our proposals for safeguarding essential Commonwealth interests in this field. We had a further discussion at the Ministerial meeting and the Six emphasised their view that the arrangements made would need to be consistent with the Treaty and the common agricultural and common commercial policies. The Deputies will resume their examination of this subject next week, and will consider the proposals which the Lord Privy Seal has submitted for arrangements for imports of cereals from Commonwealth countries.
Horticulture
During the period under review a Working Party has been examining the problems of British horticulture and has prepared an interim report which the Deputies discussed and submitted to the Ministers. The report set out our view of the problems and how we thought they might be handled, together with the views of the Six. We agreed that the Deputies should examine the problems in greater detail, taking account of individual commodities, and should suggest possible solutions.
Economic Union
The Lord Privy Seal made a report on the discussions which have been taking place between our Delegation and the Commission on the provisions of the Treaty of Rome concerned with economic union. The Lord Privy Seal was able to tell the Ministers that these discussions have satisfied us that on the most important matters dealt with in these Articles we can accept the Treaty subject to a small number of adjustments on timing and administration.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the Foreign Secretary for giving us this statement. There is nothing very new in it, so far as I can see, compared with the report which has already appeared in yesterday's London Times. Nevertheless, some points do seem to me to arise. I took note that early on in his statement he said that
"… the House will understand that any agreement on the solution of individual elements in the negotiations remains subject to overall agreement".
I am not quite sure exactly how that works out with regard to what was

283
described by the London Times correspondent yesterday as the first British success in the negotiations. What sort of agreement is it? Is it the sort of agreement that any two prominent negotiators have shaken hands on? Is it final? Is it tentative? Is it, indeed, as an individual agreement, subject to agreement between the home Government here and a Conference of Commonwealth Prime Ministers? This seems to me to be very important in setting the opinion of the people in this country as to whether they are, in principle, for or against entry into the Common Market.
That is especially so when one remembers that people, very prominent people, on the Continent have even expressed the opinion that, if we go into the Common Market, the Commonwealth goes out so far as we are concerned. This seems to raise very grave issues. Apart from every other question—not going back on matters of sentiment, such as the services of the Commonwealth, given almost at a moment's notice, at any time we wanted them, in the past, and things of that kind—what many of us who perhaps are regarded as advanced politically in thought feel is that we ought surely, in this stage of political thinking in the world, to see that the only real way we can secure finally a social democracy is based upon getting a firm unity between various countries in the great Commonwealth which we have been setting up.
Therefore, I would ask, on top of what I have already mentioned to the Foreign Secretary: Was there a conference on this matter with representatives of the Commonwealth, before these particular proposals on the industrial tariffs concerned between now and 1970, were made? Was there any agreement that this was a reasonable thing to put forward? Because the London Times report seems to me to indicate that this agreement has involved a move from the position taken up by our Government, as well as a move from the position taken by the Community Governments. A little more light upon these matters might help us to collect our thoughts.
3.48 p.m.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I think it is probably better that I should reply now, if the noble Viscount is agree-
284
able. On the last point, the Lord Privy Seal has been in continuous touch with the Commonwealth representatives, both in Brussels and here, and they have a full knowledge, of course, of the kind of lines we are following in our discussions of these different matters concerned with entry into the Common Market.
I think we rather suffer from words here. In the early part of my statement—and I am glad the noble Viscount mentioned it—I deliberately drew attention to the fact that this individual element on which we have agreed in the last few days is one of a number which all hang together. When we say that we made an agreement yesterday, it is really a way of saying that we have been able to agree on certain propositions, and I do not know what else you can do. When you are negotiating and you find certain common methods on which you think you can reasonably proceed, I think you must express that as an agreement. But, of course, the agreement on one section will be dependent upon our ability to reach similar agreements on many other matters, and all these are related to each other. When we come to the end of July, let us say, when we hope to have a series of agreed solutions, then at some point this has to go to the Commonwealth Prime Ministers Conference to be looked at, and it also has to be accepted or rejected by Parliament. I think that these are the processes of negotiation and consideration by Parliament which Parliament would wish.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am much obliged, but when speaking in this way of agreement, I am anxious to know whether your negotiator, in expressing agreement, has uttered the words which I have always taken to be implied in the Government pledge—that it will be subject to acceptance also by the Commonwealth.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, what we are trying to do is to reach agreed solutions to a number of items, of which this is one. For example, we have the question of comparable outlets for Commonwealth cereals, and then there is the item of nil tariffs. There is a whole series of sections which are still open to be debated with members of

285
the Common Market in Brussels and we hope to arrive at agreed solutions on them all. When we have done that, we shall come to Parliament and to the Commonwealth Prime Ministers, and it is for the Prime Ministers and Parliament to decide whether the all-over agreement is worth accepting or not. I very much hope that it will be possible to accept it, but I cannot tell that until we have seen all the sections fall into place and until we are able to present the whole picture to Parliament.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, arising out of the Foreign Secretary's statement, I wonder whether I can ask him this. As I understand it, the eventual position which will be arrived at as a result of the Brussels preferential agreement is that Commonwealth imports will eventually pay a tariff duty Whereas similar European products coming into this country will pay no duty and come in free. How is that position to be reconciled with the oft-repeated pledges of Ministers, such as that of the Colonial Secretary that Commonwealth safeguards must be adequate and enduring or the statement of the President of the Board of Trade in February last:
"I cannot conceive that any Government of this country would put forward a proposition which would involve the abandonment of Commonwealth free entry"?
As some Commonwealth manufactures come in duty-free, how can the position which we shall eventually reach be reconciled with those oft-repeated pledges?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, the section we are talking about now is in a broad negotiation which deals with manufactured goods from the Commonwealth. The noble Lord is perfectly right. Over a period, the preferences on these goods will fade out—and I gave the dates. I also said, he will notice, further down in my statement, that the agreement provides for consultation between the enlarged Community and Canada, Australia and New Zealand, in 1966 and again in 1969—that is, at two periods during the fading out of preference on these manufactured goods. We should hope that the negotiations at that time between the enlarged Community and Australia, Canada and New Zealand would be such as to lead to advantages to those countries in the whole Com-
286
munity. I cannot say exactly how they would work out, but I hope that on balance the Commonwealth would benefit from our membership of the Community and would be able to bargain with the Community as a whole about the export of their manufactures.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, does the noble Earl realise that people think that fading out for a hypothetical benefit in an unknown future is a high price to pay for abandoning the principle of free entry of Commonwealth goods, laid down since the Ottawa Agreements in 1934, and that it is a principle which is dear to many people, not only emotionally but practically as well?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I fully understand that, but, of course, our preferences in Commonwealth countries have been steadily eroding and the principle has been eroded for some time. Of course we want to do the best possible bargaining we can for the Commonwealth export of manufactures. We are coming on to this most important section in the negotiations which deals with comparable outlets for grain, butter, wheat and commodities of that kind, in which Australia, New Zealand and Canada are particularly interested. At this stage, I can only say that we hope that, when the House sees the all-over picture, from the point of view of the Commonwealth, their judgment will be that joining in the Common Market offers better opportunities in the long run for Commonwealth exports than by Britain remaining out of it.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, the Foreign Secretary referred to the possibility that the overall negotiations might be completed by the end of July. If that should prove to be the case, he will be aware that Parliament customarily adjourns for the Summer Recess by the end of July or, in exceptional cases, at the beginning of August. Will he give some undertaking that the Government, when they have reached their over-all picture, will consult Parliament and a debate can take place in both Houses? Would that be before Parliament rises for the Summer Recess or would it be necessary for us to wait until Parliament resumes after the Summer Recess?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I cannot tell whether we shall have completed the process of negotiation by the end of July. I think that perhaps that would be too optimistic. But we hope to get a much clearer picture of what might be involved. We have agreed through the usual channels, as the noble Viscount knows, that there should be a debate on these matters before the House rises.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, I had forgotten for the moment that the Commonwealth Prime Ministers are to meet in London in September. Presumably that would be a real factor in the time-table, which might make it undesirable that Parliament should debate this until the Commonwealth Prime Ministers have met.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I would never invite an unnecessary debate, but I think that probably the Opposition and, indeed, the House as a whole might like to debate certain aspects of the Common Market before we rise. But perhaps we can look at that a little nearer the time. The noble Lord is quite right. The meeting of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers on September 10 is a very important factor in this whole picture.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, it is obvious, from a study of the matter, that Canada is the country most affected by this section of the negotiations. May I ask: have any representations been yet received from them in regard to the agreement that has been arrived at? Is it not very important, in dealing with the interests of our loyal adherents in the Commonwealth, that we should consider how they are to be individually, as well as collectively, affected? Canada has £70 million of exports to this country affected by this one agreement. And what sort of line will be taken by the Government of New Zealand, 67½ per cent. of whose output of dairy products comes into this country on the basis of free entry? It seems to me that our Dominions are likely to get a pretty raw deal, unless something is done about it.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I very much hope that something will be done about it. We are very fully aware
288
of the importance to the Commonwealth countries of the commodities mentioned by the noble Viscount. Of course, wheat, butter and meat are of particular importance to Australia, New Zealand and Canada. The House might be interested to know the amount of trade which is affected by the last talks which have just been completed in Brussels. The proposal is concerned with trade to a value of just over £55 million from the three countries together. It represents 2 per cent. of the total Australian exports to this country and less than one-quarter of 1 per cent. of New Zealand's.
In the case of Canada the volume of trade is more substantial: it is about 16 per cent. of their exports to the United Kingdom and 2 per cent. of their total exports. This is dealing purely with the section I was talking about in my statement, but those are the figures as they affect the Commonwealth countries.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether in regard to the horticultural products which are to be looked at by the Deputies there will be a report to Parliament before any final, unalterable decisions are taken? I am sure the noble Earl is aware that at the moment we have power to impose duties up to 100 per cent. on horticultural products from certain countries which produce them more readily because of climatic conditions; and there are, of course, seasonal arrangements where imports are reduced to x per cent. Will a report be supplied to Parliament before any final decisions are taken on the decisions, if any, that are made by the Deputies now looking at these problems?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, in regard to any particular section of the negotiations and, indeed, on the negotiations as a whole, it must be for the British Government to decide what they think is a tolerable arrangement. As I said earlier, both Houses of Parliament will, of course, be able to make a judgment on this when the balance is complete and the scheme is complete; but it would be very misleading to make a judgment on an agreement reached on one section or another section. We really must see the picture, as a whole, before Parliament can judge whether it is to be accepted or rejected
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, on the point of horticultural products, could the noble Earl tell us whether the Deputies will be discussing the position of horticultural products in the Channel Islands or in Malta? Will there be a different method applied to the Channel Islands? I suppose it is part of the United Kingdom, and that may be so. But what of Malta, and even some other places fairly close in the somewhat less temperate zone?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I can assure the noble Viscount that every conceivable aspect of this has been thought about and considered and will be covered in the negotiations. I think I can say that with my hand on my heart about all these problems. I do not believe we have ever taken so much trouble about anything as we have about this, and we have never had such a high-powered lot of civil servants dealing with a problem at deputy level as we have in Brussels now.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I will leave it at this: that I am still as unhappy about it as I was on the last occasion.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I hope that from now on the noble Viscount will get happier and happier.

TRANSPORT BILL
4.3 p.m.
House again in Committee.
LORD CHESHAM: Amendments Nos. 82 to 86 are all on the same point. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 6, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 8, leave out ("Authority") and insert ("Board").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 15, leave out from first ("the") to ("shall") in line 16, and insert ("British Waterways Board, but the British Waterways Board").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 20, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 25, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 24 to 28 agreed to.
Clause 29:
The Transport Holding Company
29.—(1) For the purposes of this Act there shall be a body corporate with perpetual succession which shall be called the Transport Holding Company and which is in this Act referred to as "the Holding Company".
(2) There shall be a chairman and not more than twelve other directors of the Holding Company who shall be the members thereof and who shall be appointed by the Minister.
(7) It shall be the duty of the Holding Company to exercise its control over any wholly-owned subsidiary of the Holding Company so as to secure that the subsidiary does not engage in manufacture or production except the manufacture or production of things for use in their own business or for supply to a Board, or a wholly-owned subsidiary of any of the Boards or of the Holding Company, for use in their business.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "Transport Holding" and insert "British Transport Development". The noble Lord said: We now come to Clause 29 of the Bill, which is an unsatisfactory and inadequate clause in What is an unsatisfactory and inadequate Bill. I hope that I Shall speak with temperate words. The noble Lord, Lord Mills, rather chided me late on Tuesday evening for using intemperate expressions when I was speaking to his noble friends opposite. But I must say Chat we in the Opposition have a sense of frustration. We have had five days in Committee; we have moved, in our judgment, sensible Amendments; we have spoken with moderation and, in some cases, I think, with an overwhelming amount of evidence to support us. And what has been achieved? The only major alteration made is that to Clause 11, by an Amendment moved by the noble Lord,

291
Lord Conesford. I suppose the Government would describe that Amendment as in many respects a wrecking Amendment. It certainly wrecked the clause, so far as the Government were concerned. Therefore, we feel a certain amount of frustration in that the effort we have put in has achieved so little.
This Amendment is not a wrecking Amendment. It really does not alter the principle behind the Bill but seeks to improve it. The spirit of my Amendment must lie in the words to delete from the clause as it now stands the words "Transport Holding" and insert "British Transport Development ". The accent is on development. Noble Lords opposite have made it clear that they believe in private enterprise and the private operator in regard to transport. It was their original intention, as I understand it, to set road haulage universally free. But when they had the 1953 Act they decided otherwise, and they decided to have what one might call a "mixed economy" in Which there was to be an element of the nationalised undertaking and of the private operator. Therefore, whether we are Conservative, Socialist or Liberal we are committed to this mixed economy in transport.
We are, as I said on a previous ocasion, acting as the nominees of the shareholders. We have invested in State capital in the freight and passenger road services a sum of approximately £123 million. This is a considerable sum. Certainly I think it would be the wish of the Committee that this investment should be used—or, if I may use the word, exploited—to the maximum advantage; that it should earn a reasonable sum for the taxpayer; but, above all else, that it should provide a service. If we look at the words of Clause 29, what is the spirit of the clause? I think it lies mainly in subsection (6), which lays down the objects of the Holding Company. The words are:
"… as if the Holding Company were a company engaged in a commercial enterprise, and the Holding Company shall have power for those objects—

(i) to form, promote and assist companies,

(ii) to subscribe for, take, acquire and hold, exchange and sell securities of companies … "

It is purely a commercial outlook, a commercial aim. It is that the Holding Company may acquire and dispose of.
292
It is obviously the intention of noble Lords opposite, and their Party, that this Holding Company will not acquire any new company. If it did, I can imagine the revolt from the Back Benches opposite. Therefore, the sole intention of these words is that the Holding Company shall hold for the time necessary and then, if the price becomes right, they will sell. I believe those are practically the words of the Minister of Transport in another place some time ago.
There are no duties laid down in Clause 29—none whatsoever—other than this commercial aspect to acquire and sell. In Clause 3, which is the one dealing with railways, there are specific duties. In Clause 7 there are special duties on the London Board to provide an adequate service. It is interesting to note also that in Clause 3 the Board are to provide an economic service—not an adequate service—and we must anticipate from what we have heard in this House recently that we shall have rail closures. But it is interesting to note that the Railways Board in themselves will not be free to carry out rail closures if they so wish. The noble Lord, Lord Mills, has repeatedly said, in assurances to us, that it will be the Minister's decision after an appeal has been made under Clause 56. Therefore, while the common carrier provision of previous Acts of Parliament is to be abolished, the railways are still not to be free to do what they wish. But the Holding Company will be in that position. The Holding Company are to have no duty laid upon them. If they decide to abolish, reduce or curtail completely any of their existing road services, there is no provision in this Bill for the public to appeal. The Holding Company will be able to do it without reference to the Minister, which I think is quite wrong.
There is one other aspect of this clause, and that is in subsection (7). The Minister has laid it down in the White Paper, and in this House, that these companies are to operate purely and simply as commercial companies. Is there a commercial company in private operation curtailed and restricted as to how it shall use its assets, how it is to be restricted in the use of its workshops and its manufacturing capacity? Is there any private operator so curtailed

293
to-day? Yet it is to apply to these companies. Take the case of British Road Services. They provide a very important national transport service. They have over 16,000 vehicles, and in some areas they are the only means of transport. The 1953 Act, which is still in existence and is not being repealed, restricts the number of vehicles that the British Road Services may operate. Therefore, we have a case where the Holding Company (which the Minister says shall be a commercial enterprise and shall operate as a commercial enterprise) are to be restricted in their development and in their capacity to do business. These provisions do not exist for B.O.A.C. or for B.E.A. I doubt whether they exist for any other public Corporation. They certainly do not exist in private enterprise. Why, then, do we have that clause in this Bill? It is obviously a fear of the private operators that this nationalised Board will compete and put them out of business.
I must say also, in regard to Clause 29, that many of the undertakings in the Schedule provide essential local passenger transport services. In many areas they are, in fact, the only public transport service. There is no duty in this Bill to provide an adequate service. There is no situation in which the local community, the local county council, or the rural district council, can make an appeal if there are closures. I submit that there is a clear duty on this Committee to ensure that, when we are looking at the Holding Company, which is a State organisation, organised to provide a service to the community in which they operate, an adequate service is so provided.
Now as to the future. On Second Reading, I estimated that we should be facing railway closures of in the region of 40 to 50 per cent. To some that was a rather startling guess, but it is to be noted that the Government did not respond. It makes me wonder whether my estimate was slightly conservative, and whether, in fact, the closures may be even larger. On the Second Reading of this Bill we had the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, who was particularly concerned about Scotland. I will not quote his speech, but it will be remembered in this House for its admirable content. A few weeks earlier we had the speech of
294
the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, speaking about the position on Wales. More recently, we also had the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Molson, on the first day of the Committee stage. May I remind the noble Lord of the question he put to the noble Lord, Lord Mills? He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 240 (No. 81), col. 810]:
"… your Lordships should be absolutely assured that, when a large number of stations and lines are closed down as the result of the rationalisation of British Railways, it will be possible for the Government to ensure that road services are provided in substitution for the rail service."
That is one of the matters which the Minister has chosen to take upon himself. He then asked:
"Clearly, under the Bill it would be possible for the Minister to issue directions to the Holding Company to provide road services to take the place of uneconomic rail services …"
The noble Lord went on to point out that the noble Lord, Lord Mills, had said earlier [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 240 (No. 74), cols. 210–211]:
"I think that also answers the question as to whether the Minister would, in appropriate cases, direct the Holding Company to require its subsidiaries to provide the necessary transport services if British Railways wished to close down some of their services. The answer is that he would."
The noble Lord, Lord Mills, has said that the Minister has the power, and that he would use that power. I accept that from the noble Lord.
But there is some ambiguity in the Government's position. We must anticipate that these closures may be in areas in which road transport may be uneconomic. It is quite clear that in Clause 29 the whole accent is upon the public Boards. If I may use the words of Mr. Hay in Committee in another place on March 8, on what must be the guiding principle he said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Standing Committee E, col. 1195.]:
"The best initial test of what the public need is given by what they will pay for."
In the areas which we have much in mind it is obvious that adequate transport services may be uneconomic. It may well be that the Minister will decide to use the Holding Company, if the Holding Company has subsidiaries operating in that area. But Mr. Hay,

295
when tackled on this question a moment or two before, said:
"… we must be clear that it will be the duty of the Holding Company to secure the best possible results for the public purse. It was not our desire or intention to place upon the Holding Company any obligation with regard to the adequacy of its transport services for public needs. We regard any such obligation as quite inconsistent with the general duty which we are placing on it …"
We have therefore the reply, which I fully accept, from the noble Lord, Lord Mills, and we have also a statement made in Committee in another place by Mr. Hay, acting directly for the Minister of Transport. We have a case, from this Report, where it is clear that it is not the Minister's intention to place upon the Holding Company subsidiaries a duty to operate a service if it is unprofitable. We are therefore in a position—and I think we must face it squarely—that, with these massive rail closures throughout the country, many of these areas, of the size of which we have little idea at present, may die and their industries may suffer through lack of public transport. I do not take the view that because railways operate there that they must operate to Kingdom come, but certainly I do take the view that if there is a rail closure we must see that adequate alternative transport services are provided; and the word "adequate" certainly means more than one vehicle a week.
I have tried to make the case for our Amendment. Perhaps we do not go quite as fully into detail as might be necessary if the principle on which I have spoken were to be accepted. I make no apology for that, in view of the success of the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, last week. But I hope the Committee will accept the view that this Transport Holding Company should be made a Transport Development Company. The accent should not be on the disposal of very valuable assets, but its duty should be to develop them not only for the public purse but in the interests of the community. I hope that we can write into this clause this special principle. It does not exist in the clause as it is in the Bill; and I believe that the Bill will be a better Bill if our Amendment is included, and the community will be well served. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 7, leave out ("Transport Holding") and insert ("British Transport Development").—(Lord Shepherd.)
LORD MILLS: The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has ranged very widely over Clause 29 in support of his Amendment, which, of course, he is entitled to do. I will do my best, in replying to the noble Lord, to amplify what has been said and to deal with the points he has made. Amendment No. 87, of course, reflects the purpose of Amendments Nos. 91, 92 and 93, which seek to change the purpose of the Holding Company. The title now proposed is, I suggest, not appropriate to the functions envisaged for the Holding Company. It is not intended—and this is the reply to one of the noble Lord's points—that the purpose of the Holding Company should be that of extending materially the scope of the nationalised transport units to be grouped under it by the Bill, or to add to the number of these activities. The function of the Holding Company is to administer and guide the companies with which it is concerned, so that they can operate efficiently in competition with private enterprise and, as the noble Lord has said, do their best also for the public purse.
I think it might be helpful to the Committee if I gave some further explanation in reply to the points made by noble Lords on the Minister's powers to give directions to the Holding Company about the provision of road transport services by its subsidiaries. During the Second Reading of the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has said, I gave answers to the noble Lord, Lord Molson, and the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, which indicated that the Minister could, and in certain circumstances would, give such directions, including the direction about the provision of uneconomic services. In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, I said, as he has already mentioned, that the Minister would not hesitate to give directions to the Holding Company about the provision of adequate services, should this be required. He would have powers under Clause 29 to do this. But I think I should make it clear that in saying this I did not envisage, having regard to the objects and purposes of the Holding Company, that the Minister would give directions to the Holding

297
Company which would bring about a situation whereby the Holding Company would be under an obligation to arrange for its subsidiaries to provide road transport services adequate for public needs but regardless of the costs and the profitability of those services, come what may. The duties under the Bill, both of the Holding Company and of the four statutory Boards do not import any such general obligation.
In this we have had regard to experience. The Commission were under a duty of this kind and the House of Commons Select Committee on Nationalised Industries said, in paragraph 417 of their Report on British Railways, that they—
"consider that this confusion in judging between what is economically right and what is socially desirable has played an important part in leading to the situation in which the Commission now find themselves."
The noble Lord will remember that we have already had a debate on another Amendment seeking to impose upon the Boards the necessity of providing adequate services. The Committee on Nationalised Industries also said, in paragraph 415 of their Report:
"It seems to your Committee that the best initial test of what the public need is given by what they will pay for."
The Government White Paper, Reorganisation of the Nationalised Transport Undertakings (Cmnd. 1248), in paragraph 7, also says:
"The practical test for the Railways, as for other transport, is how far the users are prepared to pay economic prices for the services provided."
We have had this very much in mind in framing the duties to be placed upon the Holding Company and the four statutory Boards to be set up under this Bill.
Let us look for a moment at the practical situation likely to arise. In the first place, I suggest that it is most unlikely, save in very exceptional circumstances, that the Minister would need to give a direction to the Holding Company to secure the provision of a bus service in substitution for a railway passenger closure. There is, I would remind your Lordships, a special procedure in Clause 56 whereby, under Clause 56 (11), the Minister may, as a condition of his consent to a railway passenger closure, require that the Railways Board should provide or secure the provision
298
of a substitute bus service. Whether that bus service would in practice be provided by a private operator or by a bus company under the Holding Company would depend upon the area concerned and upon What buses were in operation there. It would also, of course, be subject to the grant of a road service licence by the traffic commissioners. But it would be up to the Railways Board to see that the substitute bus service was provided and to make good, if necessary, any loss incurred in running it. It therefore seems unlikely that the need would arise to give any direction to the Holding Company in this matter, if one of its bus companies were involved.
As regards the provision of road haulage services, whether or not in substitution for railway freight closures, the general position is that the road haulage industry, which is mainly in private hands, should be able to meet all public demands. There is no dearth of road haulage services. Moreover, where a railway freight service has been closed down the Railways Board have powers to make good the withdrawal of railway services in a particular locality by using their road collection and delivery services over a somewhat wider area to the appropriate railheads. Here again, therefore, there would seem to be no need for the Minister to give any direction to the Holding Company in such a matter.
Perhaps I might now come to the point put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, during the discussion in Committee on Clause 1, when he asked me if I would see whether Clause 29 (4) might be amended to make it clear that the Minister could direct the Holding Company to provide an unprofitable road transport service. I have looked at this point, as I promised. There is no doubt that Clause 29 (4) as at present drafted would enable the Minister to give such a direction, and therefore I do not think that any Amendment is required for this; nor do I think that any such Amendment should be made. The Minister's powers of direction in Clause 29 (4) are designed to provide all the controls he might need over the activities of the Holding Company. As I say, if circumstances arise in which, on grounds of public policy, the Minister finds it necessary to require the Holding Company to arrange for the provision

299
of an unprofitable service, he has power to do so, and, as contemplated in paragraph 32 of the White Paper on the financial and economic obligations of the nationalised industries, he would allow for this in settling with the Holding Company, under Clause 29 (10), what surpluses should be made available to the Exchequer. But, as I have explained, the practical circumstances are not likely, as we see it, to require the Minister to make any such direction.
I hope that that explanation of the Minister's powers of direction has sufficiently amplified what I said on Second Reading and earlier in the Committee stage. But here is a fundamental difference between the way the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, looks at this matter and the way we look at it. He looks upon these units which were included in the British Transport Commission as businesses which ought to be, and can be, developed. We look upon them as businesses which should be administered properly, and our objects provide for that. The noble Lord has at this moment proposed only the one Amendment. I will deal with the other Amendments as we come to them.
LORD SHEPHERD: I thank the noble Lord for his answer. I certainly have made a mistake, I must admit; it was my intention, when moving Amendment No. 87, to speak also to Amendment No. 91. If the noble Lord has anything to say about my remarks which related to that Amendment, I do not know whether he would like to do that now. I certainly deployed my arguments on the Amendment I moved and on those I should have declared I
was speaking to. I do not know whether the noble Lord has anything further to say.
LORD MILLS: I have said that we think the purposes of the Holding Company, as the Bill is at present drafted, are right. We do not consider that they should be altered in the way suggested by the noble Lord. But the noble Lord also has another Amendment down, No. 90.
LORD SHEPHERD: That is another subject.
LORD MILLS: It is on the same point really.
LORD SHEPHERD: No.
LORD MILLS: I can only add that we prefer to leave the scope of the Holding Company in the Bill as drafted and not accept the noble Lord's Amendment.
LORD SHEPHERD: I will not delay the Committee. I find the noble Lord's statement, apart from the manner in which it was delivered, completely unacceptable. We believe that the nationalised industry, the road transport side, should be developed in the national interest. It is clear from the noble Lord that that is not to be the case; that the operation of the Holding Company is to be simply what is in the Bill, commercial development and the selling of the securities. In those circumstances I feel that I must ask the Committee to declare its view.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 24; Not-Contents, 66.

CONTENTS

Burton of Coventry, B.

Kenswood, L.

Silkin, L.

Champion, L. [Teller.]

Longford, E.

Sinha, L.

Citrine, L.

Meston, L.

Summerskill, B.

Colwyn, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Taylor, L.

Crook, L.

Rea, L.

Walston, L. [Teller.]

Douglas of Barloch, L.

St. Davids, V.

Williamson, L.

Esher, V.

Sainsbury, L.

Williams, L.

Henderson, L.

Shepherd, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailsa, M.

Atholl, D.

Boston, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Brecon, L

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Bathurst, E.

Buckinghamshire, E

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Bethell, L.

Carrington, L

Ampthill, L.

Bossom, L.

Chesham, L

Colville of Culross, V.

Grenfell, L.

Robins, L.

Colyton, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Conesford, L.

Hawke, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Coutanche, L.

Horsbrugh, B.

Somers, L.

Crathorne, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Soulbury, V.

Davidson, V.

Iddesleigh, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Denham, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Dundee, E.

Luke, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Ebbisham, L.

Margesson, V.

Tedder, L.

Effingham, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Templemore, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Merrivale, L.

Tenby, V.

Forster of Harraby, L.

Mills, L.

Teynham, L.

Fortescue, E.

Milverton, L.

Todd, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Newall, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Gifford, L.

Newton, L. [Teller.]

Wolverton, L.

Goschen, V.

Rathcavan, L.

Woolton, E.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

4.49 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "not more than twelve other". The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment perhaps I may speak also to Amendment No. 90. The purpose of these two Amendments is, first of all, that there should be no limit to the number of directors of the Holding Company. At present the Bill says that the strength of the Board shall be a chairman and not more than twelve others. In taking into account the constitution of the Board, I recommend to the Committee that we consider the last few lines of Amendment No. 90, which requires that when the Minister appoints directors of the Holding Company he should be able, for such special periods as he may consider expedient, to appoint persons who are directors concerned with the principal subsidiaries of the Holding Company. It may well be that from time to time the Holding Company will have special work to do in regard to some of the subsidiaries. It may be that they are in difficulties or that they may be subject to development. I should like the Board to be sufficiently fluid and flexible in order that the Minister, if he so wished, should be able to appoint to the Board persons who are directors of a subsidiary or who may be in an executive capacity, managing those principal subsidiaries. There are a number of fairly large and important subsidiary companies, and I think it is right that from time to time if these companies are very much involved they should be represented on the Board.
I now come to the first part of Amendment No. 90, which no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Mills, will again say is rigid
302
—as he said so many times on our previous Amendments dealing with the Railways Board. The Holding Company is quite different from the Boards that have been dealt with. The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, reminded us the other day that there is a considerable difference between a board activity and a management activity. Management certainly gains by having relatively few members: it is thus able to exert its wishes a good deal more quickly. But in regard to the Boards it is to be noted that many large organisations—holding companies—have very large boards, in order to bring into them a wide range of experience. There is certainly a case, therefore, for a fairly large Holding Company board, but by this Amendment I specifically wish to see that there shall be a director appointed to the Holding Company from the Railways Board, the London Transport Board, the British Docks Board and the British Waterways Board, and, of course, the British Road Services, which is a subsidiary—a very powerful subsidiary—of the Holding Company.
The purpose of the Holding Company is quite clear from subsection (6) of the clause: it is to manage, and possibly eventually to dispose of, some of the assets of the Holding Company. It may well be that the Holding Company, with little or no contact with the nationalised Boards, may decide to dispose of some asset whose loss would be considerably detrimental to the activities of one of the Boards. Therefore, I think it is right that the views of these four Boards which have been created to operate efficiently their side of the business should be represented when the Boards are operating in the capacity of a Holding Company. I do not expect (although it may be that one day I shall be sur-

303
prised) that the Government will be able to accept one of our Amendments. Perhaps they will not take the view that the Railways Board, the London Transport Board, the Docks Board and the British Waterways Board should be represented. That may well be. But I certainly must press the fact that British Road Services and its main subsidiaries should be very much represented on the Holding Company.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 9, leave out ("not more than twelve other").—(Lord Shepherd.)
LORD CHAMPION: My noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said that he was speaking here to Amendment No. 90 as well, and it is to that Amendment I should like to address my few remarks. With him, I recognise that what we are doing in this clause is to set up something quite new in connection with nationally-owned undertakings. We are here establishing a precedent which may well be followed in future similar ventures. In another place the Government made it glaringly obvious that they were feeling their way in this matter—their minds were not completely made up when they drafted the Bill. Indeed, when the Bill went to Committee, Clause 29 was substantially amended. Quite a number of Amendments were moved there to this clause, and the Government's justification was—and here I quote the words of the Parliamentary Secretary in Standing Committee E in the other place [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Standing Committee E, March 8, 1962, col. 1183]:
"What we are seeking to do here is to set up a body for which, as far as I know, there is no precedent in the nationalised field. It is inevitable that as we have gone along and as discussions have taken place on some of the matters which relate to the boards, we should wish to cover the situation which those debates and discussions have shown so far as the Holding Company is concerned, and the Amendment that I am now moving is a direct result of that."
Clearly, what the Government did after drafting this clause was to have a number of discussions in which they must have learnt quite a lot about holding companies, and, as a result of which, they introduced the Amendments in the other place.
My noble friend Lord Shepherd is trying this afternoon to continue this
304
process of education of the Government on this matter of a Holding Company. Throughout the discussions in another place the Government repeatedly said that there must be co-ordination of the various undertakings of the Holding Company with those of the Boards at the operational day-to-day level. This is to be found in many parts of the Report of Standing Committee E, and indeed the Report of the various Readings in the other place. The Government also said that their activities will to a limited extent be co-ordinated as a result of the work of the nationalised Transport Advisory Council. So what the Government visualise here is coordination attempted at ground level, and, at the highest possible level, a very weak Advisory Council to say things to a busy Minister about what ought to be done to co-ordinate activities. But, at the level at which the directors will be really effective in controlling policy, nothing is to be done which would ensure—and I use the word "ensure" with some stress—co-ordination.
Most of your Lordships know very much better than I do what happens in private industry when one undertaking desires close co-operation with another, without actually merging. They do not just say at board level, "Why not let your local people work more closely with ours, for our interests are mutual and do not clash in these matters?" Neither do they say, "There is an advisory committee of the F.B.I.", or some other body, "that might help us in this connection, even though it has no real power." What they actually do is to come to an arrangement to exchange directors in order to ensure close co-operation. They effectively interlock their companies at the board level, the place where real control is exercised over their undertakings.
As I am sure noble Lords will know, one needs to spend but a few minutes in the Library, with the Stock Exchange Official Year Book and the Directory of Directors, to see how much of this interlocking there is at board level in private industry. I spent some little time there this morning, and although I will not quote instances, I found many examples of Members of this House who are, in fact, on boards whose interests are interlocked with other boards by means of

305
interlocking directorates. Such an interlocking, it seems to me, is in accordance with all the experience of industry in this country and other countries. I am saying nothing against this. I am not saying that this ought not to exist. I am not saying that it is not a proper and wise thing to do, where boards have these mutual interests. But what I am saying is that, in relation to the transport undertakings which we are here discussing, we ought to apply precisely the same principle; that there should be interlocking directorships at this level, which is the Holding Company level.
If the Amendment on the Order Paper were accepted by the Minister to-day, we should be ensuring that, as the noble Lord, Lord Mills, said just now, it would be possible for the Minister to direct somebody to deal with a certain situation—and it could, in fact, be done more easily and better in this way than by a direction, in the form of a statutory instrument or something of that sort, which might have to be submitted to the other House. If the Government want co-ordination between undertakings they should ensure that the directors are looking at the problem in the right way. That is the purpose of this Amendment, and I support it.
LORD MILLS: As the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has said, Amendment No. 88 paves the way for Amendment No. 90. I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Champion, went on to educate the Government—or at any rate a member of the Government—in what they should do. There is a lot of horse-sense in what he says and I suggest that the things he wants are very likely to happen. But that is a very different thing from saying: "It shall be so." The Minister has power, under Clause 29 (3), to appoint the directors of the Holding Company from persons of experience suitable to the duties they have to carry out; but he also has to have regard to the desirability of including among them those concerned with the principal subsidiaries of the Holding Company. This seems to be an eminently suitable provision.
I quite fail to see—if the noble Lord will forgive me for saying so—the common sense of Amendment No. 90. It is surely the Minister's duty to see that the board of the Holding Company is
306
competent to carry out its duties. That must be the first consideration. It may well be that suitable persons will be found in the other Boards, but surely to require that there must be representatives of the other Boards which are set up by this Bill limits the power of the Minister to ensure that the board of the Holding Company is the right one. To suggest, as this Amendment does, that the directors themselves, or the directors representing the Boards, should themselves have powers to appoint alternates to the board, I find to be wholly irresponsible. The suggestion at the end of the Amendment adds nothing to the powers of the Minister as already provided.
LORD SHEPHERD: Is it not customary in large public companies for alternate directors to be appointed to represent the views of the body?
LORD MILLS: I think it is very unusual, except when directors are resident in another country; or when they are resident in this country and the business is in another country. As I was saying, the Minister already has the power to deal with the point covered by the end of this Amendment, in just the way that the Amendment suggests. I think it is far better, in the interests of getting the right board and a good board, to leave the clause as it is.
LORD SHEPHERD: I am not entirely convinced, but in view of the time I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.7 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved to leave out subsection (7). The noble Lord said: May I speak briefly to this Amendment? We had a considerable discussion about the restrictions placed upon the Boards in the operation of their workshops and in their manufacturing capacity, and ultimately were forced to go to the Division Lobby to express our view. That is one case. But we are now dealing with the Holding Company. It seems quite a mockery when the Government say, as they do, that the Holding Company shall operate as if it were a commercial enterprise, and then seek to impose restrictions upon it as to the use, application and development of its objects. If it is the intention of the

307
Government that these shall be commercial companies, that they shall compete with other commercial companies in the private field, why do the Government put restrictions upon them? It makes a mockery. These companies have this capacity, and the Holding Company should not be instructed to prevent the use of it. In these circumstances I must tell the Government, anticipating as I do their reaction, that as a matter of very great principle we shall have to take this Amendment to a Division. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 41, leave out subsection (7).—(Lord Shepherd.)
LORD MILLS: We have already debated this particular matter at very great length, in connection with any extension of the power of the Boards to manufacture for anyone but themselves or for one another. I do not think I should add to all that has been said about this. We have deliberately taken the line that the Boards should be concerned with what they are asked to do, and should not indulge in trade outside their functions. If the noble Lord wishes to take this Amendment to a Division, I can only sit down and await the result.
LORD SHEPHERD: Can the noble Lord help? What does the Bill mean when it says that the Holding Company and its subsidiaries should behave as if they were engaged in commercial enterprise? Surely it means that they should be an enterprise; that they should develop and use their assets and facilities to the advantage and, as the Minister has said in another place, for the interest of the public first. Their position is quite different from that of a nationalised Board because a nationalised Board has not been set up purely and simply as a commercial undertaking. Here, the Minister has said that these subsidiaries and the Holding Company shall operate for the maximum advantage of the public. Why, then, do the Government put on these restrictions? Their position is quite different from that of the Board.
LORD MILLS: I can reply only that these companies have always been restricted. In fact, for certain of them there was a particular output laid down
308
in the Act of 1947. All we are seeking to do is to keep the position as it is.
LORD WALSTON: May I ask if this would apply in the following circumstances? It seems to me that, if so, it would create a rather ridiculous situation, and I think that, as the Bill now stands, it could apply in this way. If the Holding Company owned an hotel which had some land and some potatoes were grown on that land for use in the hotel, and if there were some surplus potatoes, is it right—and, as I read it, it is in fact right—that they would be debarred from selling those potatoes to anybody else? It is something that they produce, and the Bill says they can be used only for their own business. I grant you that that is not a very important situation, but it seems to me that it is something that could happen and that seems quite ludicrous. I am quite sure there are many other far more important and more wide-reaching examples of this sort of thing that could happen. Although I will not repeat the arguments, I must say that I agree entirely with my noble friend, that to hamstring a public company, a public enterprise in this way under the guise of making it competitive and businesslike, and to forbid it those facilities for making a profit which are open to any other company, seems to be loading the dice quite unreasonably heavily against any success that might come about under this new organisation.
LORD MILLS: I would find it difficult to discover a more hypothetical question. In the first place, the Holding Company does not, and it is not intended that it should, own hotels; they are a matter for the Hotels Board. In the second place, I should think the consumption of potatoes on the railways is quite adequate to take care of any potatoes that might be produced.
LORD SHEPHERD: But it is a fact, is it not, that in carrying out its duties the Holding Company can go into operations other than in the field of transport? The word "transport" is merely part of its name. Subsection (6) (b) says that it may
"… form, promote and assist companies,"
but it does not say that they shall be transport companies. Surely they could

309
go into the hotel business if that were necessary for their road transport business.
LORD MILLS: Yes, I quite agree. I am afraid I was rather led away from the subject by the mention of potatoes. But we are dealing with the power of
LORD MILLS: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, leave out lines 5 to 10.—(Lord Mills.)
5.24 p.m.
LORD GRENFELL LORD GRENFELL moved, after subsection (7) to insert:
"( ) Notwithstanding anything in Part I of this Act or in any subsequent provision thereof or in any scheme order or regulation made under this Act or in the case of a subsidiary of the Holding Company being a limited company anything in the Memorandum of Association thereof and without prejudice to the provisions of subsection (7) of this section the Holding Company and its subsidiaries or any of them shall not construct manufacture or produce otherwise than for the purposes of experiment or research:

(a) in any one calendar year chassis for road vehicles so that their total production

the company to manufacture or produce things other than for use in their own business.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 26; Not-Contents, 57.

CONTENTS

Ailsa, M.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Silkin, L.

Amulree, L.

Henderson, L.

Sinha, L.

Amwell, L.

Kenswood, L.

Summerskill, B.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Walston, L. [Teller.]

Champion, L. [Teller.]

Ogmore, L.

Williams, L.

Citrine, L.

Rea, L.

Williamson, L.

Colwyn, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Wise, L.

Crook, L.

St. Davids, V.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Shepherd, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Merrivale, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Forster of Harraby, L.

Mills, L.

Ampthill, L.

Fortescue, E.

Milverton, L.

Atholl, D.

Gifford, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Goschen, V.

Newall, L.

Bathurst, E.

Grenfell, L.

Newton, L. [Teller.]

Bethell, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Boston, L.

Hawke, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Brecon, L.

Horsbrugh, B.

Salisbury, M.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Somers, L.

Carrington, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Chesham, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Lambert, V.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Conesford, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Tedder, L.

Crathorne, L.

Long, V.

Templemore, L.

De La Warr, E.

Luke, L.

Teynham, L.

Denham, L.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Dundee, E.

Margesson, V.

Waldegrave, E.

Ebbisham, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Wolverton, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

of such chassis for that year taken together exceeds their current capacity namely 1,073 chassis;

(b) in any one calendar year bodies for road vehicles so that their total production of such bodies for that year taken together exceeds their current capacity namely 1,200 bodies;

(c) major components for road vehicles which are not required either—

(i) for a chassis to be manufactured by the Holding Company and its subsidiaries or any of them; or

(ii) as replacements in chassis which have been manufactured either by the Boards the Holding Company and their subsidiaries or any of them or the Commission or by the person theretofore carrying on any undertaking or part of an undertaking acquired by the Commission."

The noble Lord said: This Amendment needs a little explanation, but it is very important. The 1947 Transport Act imposed a limit on manufacturing quotas of the B.T.C. as follows: 1,250 chassis; one-fifth of their requirements for bus

311
and coach bodies; and one-quarter of their requirements for bodies of other road vehicles. The chassis are at present made by Bristol Commercial Vehicles Limited, the bus and coach bodies by Eastern Coach Works Limited, and other bodies by Star Bodies, all of which companies were acquired at that time by the B.T.C. as part of the Tilling Group. Figures showing the current production and potential capacity were given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Mr. John Hay, at the twentieth sitting of Standing Committee E as follows: Bristol Commercial Vehicles production, 1,000 per annum, capacity 1,078 per annum; Eastern Coach Works, 750 and 750 respectively; Star Bodies, 300 and 450 respectively. This indicates a production of 1,000 complete vehicles and 50 additional bodies, a potential of 1,073 complete vehicles and 127 additional bodies.
The current annual requirements of the concerns at present operated by the B.T.C. for commercial vehicles, based on the average of the numbers put into service per annum during the six years 1955–60 inclusive, are as follows: public service vehicles (in other words, buses and coaches), 1,023; articulate motor units, each with a trailer (that is, the towing vehicles with the trailer, and also the rigid commercial vehicle and the ordinary commercial vehicle with trailer) together 2,338; tractors, 388; additional trailers, 2,389; making a figure of 6,138 vehicles in all. These figures show that production capacity of these concerns would have to be expanded to nearly six times their present level in order to take full advantage of the powers given to the Holding Company under this Bill.
The Bill, as originally drawn, allowed the manufacturing companies I have mentioned to manufacture load vehicles for sale on the home market and for export, but on Third Reading in another place, the Minister of Transport moved an Amendment, which was accepted, which stopped them from doing so, and he gave them powers only to sell to the four Boards or their wholly-owned subsidiaries. I have already mentioned that the potential of the three companies concerned under this Bill will be increased sixfold. While it is appreciated that Clause 9 contains provisions for overall Ministerial control, these provisions are
312
considered hardly satisfactory for the following reasons: (1) they would be of little effect in the hands of a Minister who favoured nationalisation, who would be able to take advantage of the provisions of this clause to extend nationalised manufacture to the limit.
LORD SHEPHERD: May I help the noble Lord? We would not bother to use this Bill; we would find another.
LORD GRENFELL: Secondly, the commercial quality of the undertakings concerned would depend on the personal views and preferences of the particular Minister empowered. This would render long-term planning impossible, and is therefore contrary to the national interest. Should the expansion in manufacture be fully carried out, an estimated capital cost of well over £20 million is envisaged. It is not, in my contention, the job of a nationalised industry to export; private enterprise is far more suited to take the risks of finding capital to do this. For this reason, it is absolutely right that the Minister should have refused the Holding Company the right to export.
But it would be, in my opinion, utterly wrong to spend over £20 million of public money in removing from private enterprise the cream of the home market of vehicles of this type. It is well known that, in order to obtain a flourishing export trade, a home market is essential; and at this moment, when exports are so badly needed, it would indeed be unfortunate if prospective buyers from overseas were to find leading undertakings in this country using buses made in nationalised factories rather than by such well-known firms as Leyland and A.C.V. It is far better that the main manufacturing potential should remain, as at present, in the hands of private enterprise, who have the know-how and ability to earn the foreign exchange which we need so badly. For this reason, I am asking that Her Majesty's Government should limit the production of the Holding Company to the figures as shown in my Amendment, which are the productive capacity of these companies to-day. I trust that this Amendment will be agreed to. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 10, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Grenfell.)
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: The noble Lord who has moved this Amendment has given the Committee all the facts and figures. The noble Lord opposite is glad that he has done so. Several times during the Committee stage noble Lords on these Benches have felt worried because this Bill gives extra powers and opportunities to nationalised undertakings. This is another such case. As the noble Lord said, under the 1947 Act quotas were imposed on the British Transport Commission. Under this Bill, the manufacturing companies will become subsidiaries of the Holding Company and the quotas will go. That will be replaced by "flexible ministerial direction." This Amendment does not seek to denationalise these companies and cut down their present production. It simply asks that they should be allowed to manufacture only to the full extent of their present capacity and that Government funds should not be expended in providing capital to increase their capacity. I support the Amendment.
LORD MILLS: I have listened carefully to the case put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, and to the support given to that case by the noble Viscount. I do not think that we should be right to do what they suggest. It does not seem appropriate to start these companies off under the Holding Company with rigid statutory restrictions on the actual number of units they can produce. A quota of 1,073 chassis and 1,200 bodies is an arbitrary restriction, which could easily become outdated with changing circumstances. The Minister has already indicated in another place that these companies shall be continued more or less on the present scale, and I can give a clear assurance that it is not the Government's intention that the productive capacity of these companies should be materially increased.
I noted the noble Lord's reference to the fact that there might in time be another Government and another Minister; but, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, indicated, if another Government wanted to take a different line, they could do so. My right honourable friend the Minister of Transport has adequate powers of direction under Clause 29 (4) to control the manufacturing activities and output of these companies and to ensure that the assurance I have given is met. He also
314
controls the capital available to the Holding Company for capital investment purposes. My right honourable friend also said, on Third Reading in the Commons [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 658 (No. 100) col. 588]:
"There is no need, on grounds of public policy, to keep these three companies in national ownership if an acceptable price is offered for them."
In view of those statements, I suggest to my noble friends that there is no need and, indeed, it would be undesirable, to restrict output in the way they suggest.
LORD HAWKE: I am sure that my noble friend will hear the Minister's reply with considerable disappointment. Of course, he is not the Minister in that Department, and I wonder whether the Minister of Transport fully realises the problem of the export of heavy vehicles and buses, which is one of our best. Fleets of Leylands are to be seen in many capital cities of the world. It requires the most intense competition to get these orders, and not only have the firms to compete in price against many other nations, but frequently they also have to offer long-term credits, for some of the capital cities are not such good payers as our own great cities. If anything, there is a surplus capacity in this industry at the moment, and if these great export firms have to fear the whole time that the position of the home market, which they have always enjoyed, is liable to be encroached upon by a State-owned company (with all the best will in the world, the general public is deeply suspicious of the manufacturing and accounting of State-owned companies), they will feel that the best of the home market might be taken away from them by the use of public funds working at what commercial firms would call a loss.
LORD SHEPHERD: Could the noble Lord help us? What does he mean by saying the public are "deeply suspicious of the accounting of State-owned companies "?
LORD HAWKE: The public do not know really whether a nationalised manufacturing undertaking is charging up proper costs on its output, as a commercial firm would have to do in similar circumstances. In other words, we do not know whether there is a hidden subsidy from public funds in any manu-

315
facturing firm which is wholly owned by the State. The noble Lord shakes his head, but I assure him that that view is widely prevalent, and it would take a great deal to dispel it. We accept it when my noble friend Lord Mills says that the Minister has no intention of allowing these people to step up their output; but Ministers come and Ministers go. We on these Benches see no reason why a Conservative Government should pass legislation which would make it easier for a Socialist Minister, when the Socialists came into power, to proceed to the socialisation of the manufacture of buses than it would be if he had to carry through legislation of his own. For that reason, I feel that the attitude of the Government is rather disappointing.
LORD SILKIN: If noble Lords have the courage of their convictions, they ought to say that the Holding Company should not be permitted to manufacture at all. The whole logic of the case that has been made is that they ought not to manufacture. But to put down solemnly, in black and white, in an Act of Parliament that the companies are to remain but to make only 1,073 vehicles seems to me to be utter nonsense.
LORD GRENFELL: That is exactly what the Labour Party did in the Transport Act, 1947.
LORD SILKIN: I know. But why does not the noble Lord put forward an Amendment to prevent them from manufacturing altogether? What I have said is that that would be logical from the argument which noble Lords put forward. It would enable Leyland's and all these great undertakings to increase their home production and thereby be in a better position to export. All the arguments noble Lords have put forward are in the direction of cutting this out altogether, not of limiting it. I was under the impression that the purpose of this Bill was to make the British Transport undertakings more efficient.
I would ask noble Lords, with their vast experience of production and industry, whether it really is efficient to allow an undertaking to remain, and then to say to them that they may manufacture only 1,073 vehicles—"You may improve your efficiency; you may increase output
316
per man, but, whatever you do, only 1,073 vehicles." I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, will forgive me for asking whether this is not really a silly Amendment, or perhaps I should say an insincere Amendment, because what noble Lords really want is that the undertakings should not manufacture at all. In those circumstances, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mills, will be as firm with his own noble friends as he has been with mine.
LORD SHEPHERD: I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Mills, opposed this Amendment, although I must say that he had rather a different approach. When the noble Lord, Lord Mills, opposes noble Lords on this side he is extremely forthright in his views; but on this occasion he spoke, I think, with an element of regret that the restriction could not be greater. The noble Lord indicates that this is not so, but that is how it seemed to me. As my noble friend has said, noble Lords opposite are really trying to impose an even more savage restriction upon these subsidiaries than is in the Bill. I ask noble Lords again to look at the words that I keep repeating (and no doubt while we are talking about Clause 29 I shall continue to do so), that the Government wish these subsidiaries to be commercial enterprises. Enterprise and restriction do not go together.
I appreciate that noble Lords are speaking from a particular interest. But the interest of the car and the bus manufacturers is not served by placing a restriction on the nationalised Boards or the subsidiaries. There are wide open markets for these companies to go after, and some have gone after them with considerable success. Perhaps with a little more "go", particularly in the Continental markets, they could do even better. They will not be served by being provided with a safe home market. It is quite right that the nationalised undertakings or these subsidiaries should be allowed to use their facilities and assets to the maximum advantage, and anything that is done against that is quite cynical when one looks at the terms of this clause, particularly the first paragraph, about giving greater commercial freedom to these Boards.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I am one of those Members of the Committee who have sat through most of

317
the proceedings on the Bill and remained silent. But I cannot remain silent any longer after the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Silkin and Lord Shepherd, who said that restriction and enterprise do not go together. They are members of the most restrictionist Party that there is. They are the fathers of demarcation, say, in the shipbuilding industry, where one group of men are allowed to put in rivets, but another man working alongside them is not. If demarcation is allowed in trade unionism, surely it is not unreasonable to have demarcation in manufacture as between possible State manufacture and private enterprise. I quite see the point of the noble Lord, Lord Mills, about the undesirability of laying down the number of 1,073 vehicles.
LORD SILKIN: Does the noble Lord consider that state of affairs desirable?
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: No, I do not.
LORD SILKIN: Apart from abusing my Party, does he really suggest that that is a desirable state of affairs?
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: What I am suggesting is that those who have restrictionist policies which in many directions they do not stand up against in their Trade Union Congress should not come here and talk about the evils of demarcation as between private manufacture and nationalised manufacture. My noble friend Lord Grenfell made a sound point in saying that an export industry must essentially depend upon a secure and healthy home industry. What I suggest is that there should be some wide outside boundary, possibly bigger than the figure mentioned in the Amendment, which would give some assurance to the private enterprise manufacturers who are having to go out and face heavy competition in the world, that their home ground will not be cut from under their feet. If between now and the Report stage the Minister could consider the insertion of some boundary beyond which these State-owned enterprises should not go, then I think the point would be met in a reasonable way.
LORD STONHAM: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mills, will not accede to the suggestion just made by the noble
318
Viscount. It seems to me an extraordinary situation when the noble Viscount——
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: Not a Viscount; just a humble chap!
LORD STONHAM: I have just promoted the noble Lord because of what I regard as a remarkable piece of effrontery in accusing us of following retrictive practices when the whole purpose of this particular Amendment is to impose the most rigid restrictions on the nationalised undertakings. The rest of the noble Lord's remarks I thought were completely unrelated to the Amendment.
My reason for intervening in this discussion is the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, with reference to the facility (these are not his exact words, but I think it is the sense of them) possessed by publicly-owned undertakings for, as it were, concealing what their true costs are. I should have thought that no other undertaking was subjected to such minute scrutiny, so far as its accounts are concerned, as are publicly owned enterprises. Each of them, for example, has a day in Parliament devoted to debating its annual accounts; each of them is liable to be subjected to scrutiny by the Estimates Committee, and almost certainly by the Public-Accounts Committee. I have myself in successive years sat on the Public Accounts Committee in another place, and I am aware of the relentless questioning and scrutiny which takes place on these costs in the accounts. They come under the Comptroller and Auditor General. I should not have thought there was any kind of scrutiny which was more penetrating than that of Parliament.
LORD HAWKE: Perhaps I may make a comment While this matter is still fresh in our minds. Where you have an enterprise which is selling goods to national departments and perhaps in the commercial field, it is there that the disquiet arises, because it is felt that it may be putting on to the nationalised side overheads which, strictly speaking, ought to be carried by the goods they are selling into the commercial market. That is where the fear lies.
LORD STONHAM: That is a valid point, but it does not apply to the Railways Board, any more than it applies to I.C.I. I would defy anyone to get hold of I.C.I. accounts and ascertain which particular major enterprises or departments were showing a profit and which were not. Therefore, that argument really does not hold any water at all. The fact remains that the accounts and undertakings of public enterprises are subject to the most searching analysis possible, and the accounts of privately owned enterprises cannot possibly be submitted to the same kind of scrutiny.
The other point made was that it is only right that these privately-owned enterprises should have every possible chance to develop their home markets as a buffer, a basis, for their costs, so that they can compete to better advantage in export markets. That again is an extremely sound argument. But, unfortunately, this Bill is not taking away from the private undertakings anything at all which they possess at the moment. It is, much to my regret, to a very large extent limiting the possibilities for expansion by the organisations which will be controlled by this Holding Company. I feel that, as my noble friend Lord Shepherd pointed out, that is the very opposite of the intention expressed in the Bill—that the Holding Company should be run as a commercial undertaking. In other words, the Bill as it stands now, without the noble Lord's Amendment, says that it is going to be a commercial undertaking, but there are a great many shackles put on it which no commercial undertaking would tolerate.
Finally, noble Lords opposite have expressed the fear that these undertakings will be run to the detriment of privately owned enterprise, and that they will have the use of public money for this purpose. Those protests would have been infinitely more effective if noble Lords opposite had been vociferous in their protests when we were considering the loans on special terms to Colvilles, and all the various kinds of assistance which have been given by public money to private undertakings. I very much regret that noble Lords opposite cannot see the advantage in supporting public transport and giving all possible help to a publicly owned undertaking. If they cannot, then that is unfortunate. I hope
320
that the noble Lord, Lord Mills, and the Government, will not give way one inch, and will not impose any further shackles in addition to the heavy ones which are already, under the Bill, imposed on this Holding Company.
LORD TEYNHAM: I think we may be missing the real reason for this Amendment, and the whole point of it. I am told—I may be wrong—that it would cost something like £20 million to expand the Holding Company's industry in order to manufacture their requirements. That would take place with public money at a time when private enterprise is running below capacity. I think that is the real point of the Amendment, and I hope that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will look at the whole matter again.
LORD SHEPHERD: Are we not setting up a Holding Company board to make these decisions? Why should this Committee, without the facts, have to make a decision?
LORD MILLS: I should like to remind your Lordships that when the three companies are transferred to the Holding Company by reason of Clause 29(7) the output of these three companies will be able to be sold only to one or other of the four statutory Boards or to other subsidiaries of the Holding Company. In view of that, we have felt it right not to put any quantities in the Bill. We have given rather positive assurances that it is not the intention to expand these companies, but to let them function as they are now. I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, quite did me justice when he said that he felt I was taking this attitude with regret. I have no regrets. I think it is the right thing. If I did not, then I should be after my right honourable friend to alter it. I would ask my noble friends, in view of the assurances that have been given, and the restriction on the companies that they may supply only the nationalised Boards and other nationalised companies, to withdraw their Amendment.
LORD GRENFELL: Since the assurances that have been given are what we are asking should be put in the Bill, it would be much easier to put them in the Bill. But as it is rather late, and

321
as I want to think this matter over and read carefully what has been said, to see if there is any other way of dealing with this situation, I beg leave now to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clause 31:
Distribution of Commission's assets
31.—
(6) Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this section, there shall be transferred to—

the Railways Board,

the Docks Board,

the Inland Waterways Authority, and

the Holding Company,

the securities of the bodies listed in Parts I, II, III and IV of the Fourth Schedule to this Act respectively (being securities beneficially owned by the Commission), and the rights and liabilities specified in Part V of that Schedule so, however, that where such securities are beneficially owned by the Commission, but held by a nominee, this subsection shall operate only to transfer the beneficial interest in the securities.
LORD CHESHAM: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 1, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 13, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.58 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: moved, in subsection (6), to leave out "being securities" and insert "so far as". The noble Lord said: With the agreement of the Committee, I should like to debate this Amendment with Amendment No. 102, and also Amendments Nos. 233, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240 and 245 to the Fourth Schedule, which are consequential on Amendment No. 102. The object of these Amendments is to main-
322
tain and foster the well-proven system of road-rail partnerships, financial and working agreements between the large bus interests and the railways, which were created as long ago as the year 1929 with the declared object of promoting co-ordination between road and rail.
I should like for a few minutes to trace the history of these partnerships, because I think it is necessary. In 1928, the main line railway companies, concerned by the very large amount of traffic which they alleged was being taken away from them by the bus interests, obtained statutory powers to run bus services themselves through a series of Private Acts. The railway companies stated that their main object in seeking these powers was to put themselves into a position to supply the public with the most efficient and economic transportation services, whether by rail or by road, or partly by one and perhaps partly by the other. But, in fact, after obtaining their powers, the railway companies did very little in the way of providing bus services, and the reason, I think, was that both the railways and the bus interests soon came to realise that the best thing they could do was to get down and negotiate among themselves; as in fact they did. Agreements between road and rail followed so quickly upon the negotiations that the road and rail interests were able to anticipate the problems of rationalisation which the 1929 Royal Commission on Transport had been set up to achieve.
The agreements made with the railway companies were based upon equal financial partnership in the operating companies concerned, the partners being, on the one hand, the railway company or companies operating in the area concerned and, on the other, the parent bus interest. In each case shares were transferred from one side to the other, or were procured to be transferred from third parties, so that each partner held the same number of shares in the operating companies concerned. Thus in some cases the shareholders would work out in this form: the bus company would have 33⅓ per cent., the railway company would have 33⅓ per cent., and an outside interest 33⅓ per cent. In other cases it worked out on a 50–50 basis. As to the directorships of the bus companies involved, each partner had a right to

323
nominate an equal number of directors. These partnership agreements were accompanied by agreements, which are mentioned I think in Clause 4 (2) and elsewhere in the Bill, and it is perhaps important that we should consider their contents.
These agreements were of two kinds: parent agreements and working agreements. The parent agreements were made between a parent bus interest, on the one part and a railway interest, on the other; and the working agreements were made between the parent bus company, on the one part, and one or more of the railway companies, on the other. Working agreements provided for the co-ordination of road and rail facilities for passenger and other purposes, and established separate standing joint committees for each operating company and the appropriate railway company. One particular interesting point of these agreements, as I have mentioned before, is a clause which enabled railways to compel a bus company to run an unremunerative service in substitution for a railway service which had ceased because it was uneconomic to the railways. This clause has been invoked on a number of occasions.
Under the Transport Act, 1947, the British Transport Commission took over the benefit and burden of these agreements, together with former railway company shares. Under Clause 31 of this Bill and Part IV of the Fourth Schedule the British Transport Commission's shares in the British Electric Traction Group of Bus Companies, which is a very large owner of buses, are to be transferred not, as might be expected, to the Railways Board but to the Holding Company, which has no connection whatever with the railways.
Moreover, the Bill proposes the transfer to the Holding Company of all the British Transport Commission's shares in the Tilling and Scottish bus companies, instead of, as provided by these Amendments, one half to the Railways Board and one half to the Holding Company, which I suggest would lead to much better co-ordination. Not only is the existing partnership in the British Electric Traction Group, which has worked very smoothly indeed for 30 years, to be destroyed, for no apparent
324
reason, but it is suggested that this should be the same pattern over the whole country. There is no doubt that road and rail co-ordination, and therefore, of course, the general public, must suffer if this is done. Further, I think it is essential that both road and rail have a commercial interest in such matters as the display of one another's timetables and the inter-availability of tickets.
So far, there has been mention only of the damage which the Bill's proposals would cause to road and rail co-ordination, but there is also the commercial angle. It should not be thought that there is any question of forcing upon an unwilling Railways Board a worthless bag of assets, because the shares are, in fact, of considerable value. Moreover, I believe that in the case of the British Electric Traction Group they still stand in the British Transport Commission's books at their 1929 value. So these shares, I would say, give a very high return on book value and could make a very valuable contribution to the finances of the Railways Board.
I think it was said during Second Reading that the Railways Board and its employees should be left free to concentrate upon the railways, and should not be fettered by commitments in other directions. Proper co-ordination with bus services is, however, an integral and essential part of the job of running railways and is likely to increase in degree with the closing down of more and more railway stations. This suggestion is really inconsistent especially with the explicit powers contained, I think, in Clause 4 for the railways to operate bus services themselves, particularly when taken in conjunction with the proposal to free the railways from the non-competitive covenants contained in the parent agreements which I have already mentioned. One thing safely to be said about the transfer to the Holding Company of these shares is that the railways will cease to have any interest in them at all. Road-rail partnership and financial partnership is a system which has proved itself over the years, and one that has stood the test of time. I suggest that it would be both wrong and un-businesslike for the Government to discard the principle now unless they have very much better reasons to put forward to-day for doing so. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 16, leave out ("being securities") and insert ("so far as").—(Lord Teynham.)
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: I rise to support the noble Lord in his Amendment, because it seems to me to be so important, both for my native part of the country, Wales, and also for those other fringe areas such as Scotland, the West Country and other places where rail services are to be so very greatly reduced. In all those areas surely there will be a very great need for far more co-operation between road and rail services than ever before, and we must have some method by which there is an extremely close contact. We have seen in the past what happened when, for any particular local reason, a bus service and railway service became out of chime and ceased to co-operate with each other. The result in an area like Wales is simply disastrous. We must have some system of holding these together, in order that any form or system of transport shall continue at all in these remoter areas.
6.10 p.m.
LORD MILLS: These Amendments would, I suggest, radically change the purpose and function of the Holding Company in relation to the bus activities to be grouped under it, and would be contrary to the announced intentions of the White Paper (Cmnd. 1248) which envisages, in paragraphs 23 and 24, that all the wholly-owned bus companies of the Commission (that is, the Tilling and Scottish groups) will be placed under the direct control of the Holding Company. In relation to the Tilling and Scottish bus companies, the Holding Company would not have complete control and could exercise its supervision and administration of these bus companies only in collaboration with the Railways Board. It seems to me that if these Amendments were accepted—that is, if the principle were conceded that an equal holding between the Railways Board and the Holding Company was necessary to ensure adequate co-ordination between road and rail—it could equally be argued that it should be extended also to the British Road Services Companies, and perhaps even the shipping companies. If the principle were pushed as far as that it would entirely transform our conception of the purposes and functions of the Holding Company
326
and reduce it to the status of a purely shareholding body.
The noble Lord, Lord Teynham, mentioned the question of the railways devoting their main energies to the provision of their own services, and I am sure that one effect would be that that possibility would arise. To ensure adequate co-ordination, it does not follow, I suggest, that the railways need to have a financial stake in the bus companies. As the noble Lord told us, there have been and there are in existence large numbers of agreements ensuring coordination where it is necessary. The main instruments of day-to-day coordination are the working agreements between the railways and the bus companies, and they should continue. In fact Clauses 4 (1) (b) and 4 (2) (b) provide expressly for the Railway Boards to be able to continue these agreements. The Bill does not therefore destroy the existing partnership between the railways and the British Electric Traction group which, as the noble Lord has said, has existed for over 30 years.
I would also remind your Lordships that there is intended to be a Nationalised Transport Advisory Council to assist the Minister in the co-ordination of policy between the new Boards, including the Holding Company. The Chairmen of the Holding Company and of the Boards will be on that Advisory Council. The Railways Board have been set a very great task indeed and we are most anxious that they should be as free as possible to grapple with the severe difficulties with which they will be concerned. I have been struck all along with the fact that that must be their main concern, and that it should be a matter dealt with in the proposals in this Bill that they can make agreements as to how far there should be railway representation and at what levels on the Boards of the operating bus companies controlled by the Holding Company or on the boards of the British Electric Traction companies in which the Holding Company will hold equal shares with the British Electric Traction group. These decisions will have to be taken by the Railways Board and the Holding Company in the light of their particular needs and circumstances. The Bill should not, in my judgment, by vesting bus companies shares in the Railway Boards, impose an obligation on the

327
Railways Board to appoint railway directors to the bus companies to look after the shareholding interests. I see no reason why the agreements which have worked so well should not continue to work well. I think this Amendment would not be a step forward and I would ask the noble Lords to reconsider their position.
LORD HAWKE: I do not know whether my noble friend is beginning to feel a little tired (if so, I have sympathy with him), but I thought he sounded singularly unenthusiastic for his case. He of course advanced the White Paper. Ministers of the Crown from time immemorial always quoted a Royal Commission if one happened to agree with their case, but a White Paper is the next best thing. But if they did not want to carry out the recommendation in these Blue or White Papers they never bothered to do so. Of course it is the Minister of Transport to whom we are speaking, through my noble friend. I feel the Minister of Transport has completely failed to understand the nature of this case. All over England buses are going to substitute rail in many places and the most convenient method of doing it will be by the partnerships that already exist between the railways and the bus companies, both the wholly-owned and the partially-owned ones.
I cannot see that railways can possibly sit down and discuss with bus companies the question of substituting bus services for railway services unless each has a financial stake in the matter. The sensible thing to do when the lines of the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, are closed down, as doubtless they will be, will be to send for the board of the half-owned or wholly-owned bus company in that neighbourhood and say: "What can we best devise for the benefit of passengers and what will be the best thing, to run a rail here and a rail there or a bus here or a bus there?" That cannot possibly be done if the shares are in the hands of the Holding Company. The lower tier of co-operation on what one might call the working agreements which has taken place between actual operating staff of the railways and the buses is really a totally different thing. It is a question of seeing what time the bus is to start and when it is to finish, and that sort of thing. It
328
is not a question of deciding policy as to where buses will substitute for rail and so on. That will be the main function, and that is why I think it is so vital that the railways should continue to hold their shares in this new method of transport.
I, quite frankly, simply cannot accept the argument that the railway men will not have the time to carry on this work by sitting on bus boards. Not only is it going to be a vital part of rail work in the future but also the calls upon the time of these people are not very great. In the British Electric Traction group there are 54 directorships held by railway people on those boards, and at a rough count I see that 44 men hold those directorships. So a vast majority of them are held by a single man, and I am told that the boards, as a rule, meet every other month and sit for about two hours. I think the argument that those two hours every other month are so going to divert the minds and attention of these great railway men from the running of the steel rails that the railways are going to suffer seriously, is not an argument to which one can attach great importance.
I have a list of their titles. They are all executive officers of the railway and all of fairly senior grades. There are some general managers, some assistant general managers, some accountants, a director of budgets, and so on. Those are the type of people who are required to take these policy decisions as to whether or not we shall remove a railway line and turn it into a bus route. I think that Her Majesty's Government are making the gravest mistake in digging in their toes on the line that the Minister of Transport has taken up.
6.21 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: I think it is becoming obvious that this will not be the only case in which we shall encounter what I regard as one of the evils arising from the break-up of the British Transport Commission. Immediately we run into problems of how we are to reco-ordinate, as it were, what has been disco-ordinated. But it is at least a relief, so far as I am concerned, to be able to discuss an Amendment which should be decided virtually on technical grounds. There is nothing of pro-public or anti-public ownership in this discus-

329
sion. It is merely a question of what is going to be the best method of ensuring co-ordination between the road and rail services and, in particular, in providing those additional bus services or extensions to bus services which may well be necessary when the railways are curtailed.
With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Mills, I would say that he did not answer the case which was put forward by Lord Teynham. He has not answered the case put forward by Lord Hawke because he has not yet had the opportunity, but I think he will find even greater difficulty in doing so. One point struck me in what was said by Lord Mills—namely, that if we accept this Amendment and allow the railways to continue to work with the bus companies, why not extend it to the road freight service? Why not extend it to the coastal shipping service? The reason why not is that they are not linked up now. That is a good reason. I do not think that my noble friend can mention one example of this kind of link-up between ordinary commercial road haulage undertakings, long distance road haulage, and the British Road Services. I do not think he can mention any kind of link up between British Railways and commercial shipping services.
So we are talking about only one thing: the link-up which exists between the railway section of the British Transport Commission and the bus companies. That has grown up, as it were, historically, and therefore the decision should be made on technical grounds. I think that there is nothing to the suggestion that this would weaken the Holding Company. The Holding Company will still be able to carry out the functions with which it will be left—of course it will. If the Amendment were accepted there would be a far greater chance of the same people who are co-ordinating now continuing to do so. I think it is important that it should go on at all levels and should continue to be done by the people who are now doing it. We should try to settle this on the merits
of the case, and I would submit that the merits are all with the Amendment.
LORD MILLS: That is an interesting contribution by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, but the Government take the view that the merits are not all with the Amendment. The merits are in having a Holding Company which has certain defined things to do and which has the control of the companies under it. The noble Lord talks as if the collaboration which has gone on between the bus companies and the railways for years is going to stop. Nothing of the sort. In my view it will continue just as it has always done, to the great benefit of the bus companies and the railways. Again, the bus companies are not lifeless things. They are out to do business. They are out to do the best they can, and their position would not in my view be improved if these Amendments were carried. In fact, there would be difficulties for the Holding Company, and the Government take the view that this Amendment is not a desirable one.
LORD HAWKE: I am afraid that I forgot to say one thing with which I was entrusted. My noble friend Lord Swinton authorised me to say on his behalf that he had been in contact with this close co-operation between the private enterprise and nationalised industry for 30 years. He admired the way that it had developed and worked and deeply regretted its breaking up now. He also regrets that he is unable to be here, owing to a prior engagement in Yorkshire.
LORD TEYNHAM: I must say, if my noble friend Lord Mills will forgive me, that I was not impressed with the argument that he put forward. I do not want again to go through the various arguments which we had earlier. They were gone into fully. In the circumstances, I feel that I must press this Amendment.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 29; Not-Contents, 31.

CONTENTS

Ailsa, M.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Grenfell, L.

Airedale, L.

Champion, L.

Hawke, L. [Teller.]

Amulree, L.

Conesford, L.

Henderson, L.

Amwell, L.

Forbes, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Atholl, D.

Goschen, V.

Kenswood, L.

Long, V.

St. Davids, V.

Walston, L.

Luke, L.

Shepherd, L.

Williams, L.

Merrivale, L.

Somers, L.

Williamson, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Stonham, L.

Wolverton, L.

Peddie, L.

Teynham, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Denham, L.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Albemarle, E.

Devonshire, D.

Margesson, V.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Dundee, E.

Mills, L.

Ampthill, L.

Forster of Harraby, L.

Newall, L.

Auckland, L.

Fortescue, E.

Newton, L. [Teller.]

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Boston, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Salisbury, M.

Brecon, L.

Hastings, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Brentford, V.

Jellicoe, E.

Templemore, L.

Chesham, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Waldegrave, E.

Crathorne, L,

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CHESHAM: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, leave out lines 5 to 10.—(Lord Chesham.)
Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 32 and 33 agreed to.
Clause 34 [Transfer of staff]:
LORD CHESHAM: I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 27, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board").—(Lord Chesham.)
LORD CHESHAM: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 28, leave out from ("Board") to end of line 29.—(Lord Chesham.)
LORD CHESHAM: I beg to move Amendment No 106.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 24, leave out ("any") and insert ("the Board or company or the other").—(Lord Chesham.)
Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 35 to 39 agreed to.
Clause 40:
Railways Board's suspended debt
40.—(1) Part of the commencing capital debt of the Railways Board shall be called the suspended debt and shall not carry any interest and shall not be required to be paid off at a fixed time unless and until the Minister otherwise directs.
6.38 p.m.
LORD HAWKE LORD HAWKE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "Part" and insert "The whole". The noble Lord said: We now come to the clause which deals with the capital reconstruction of the railways. The total capital liabilities of the railways are approximately £1,600 million, of which £400 million represents working losses which have been capitalised in recent years. The proposal is to write off that £400 million, leaving a balance of £1,200 million. Out of that £1,200 million, £400 million represents investments since 1955, the £800 million being the older investments. It is proposed to suspend the interest on the £800 million and to keep the interest running on the £400 million—that is, the more recent additions. New borrowings are to be at interest.
At the moment, according to the last White Paper (and that may not be up-to-date) operating losses are running at £60 million a year, apparently after depreciation, which in the last published accounts was approximately £25 million, with renewals of permanent way amounting to another £25 million. So they are earning their depreciation on their renewals, but at the same time operating at a loss of some £60 million. The Minister prophesies that at the end of five years the interest charges will be cunning at about £60 million; in other words, to break even after five years Dr. Beeching will have to produce a turn-round of about £120 million from a £60 million working loss now, to pay interest charges of £60 million in a few years time. That takes no account of the requirement in the Bill to set up a reserve fund.
On present running costs it means a saving of very roughly one-fifth; in

333
other words, running the railways with one-fifth less men, 400,000 instead of 500,000, or still fewer if they are to be paid more as one must expect over the next five years, because I think one can assume that receipts are not going to be particularly buoyant or elastic as railways are very vulnerable to the increased substitution of oil for coal. If the Government accepted my Amendment, the interest charges would be confined to interest on money borrowed from now onwards; in other words, the interest charges, instead of being about £60 million at the end of five years, would be relieved by putting a further £400 million capital in suspense, which would mean a relief of about £25 million; so that Dr. Beeching's break-even target would decline to something just under £100 million of turn-round from one side of the book to the other. All these are very round figures, but I submit that £100 million turn-round would be a far more realistic assessment of the possibilities of the future, and I think it foolish to chalk up unrealistic interest charges.
Suppose British Railways had been a private railway which had gone bankrupt—and many railways overseas have been in a comparable plight; in fact, I have had some experience in that way. First of all, perhaps two-thirds of the capital would have been in preference and ordinary shares. That represents the £800 million in British Railways which is being put to suspense account. In the City those £800 million would have been regarded as irretrievably lost, and the owners could hope at the best for, perhaps, a little distribution on a sale of the undertaking, in order to buy their consent to the sale. Perhaps £400 million would have been debentures. On these interest would have been suspended. This represents the £400 million on which interest is not suspended by Her Majesty's Government. But a further thing is that debenture holders' representatives would have joined the board, and one of the first things they would have done would be to strip the railways of their valuable unused land and to proceed to realise it for the benefit of the debenture holders. That had some bearing in a short debate we had some days ago.
I think I have said enough to show that private railways in a similar plight
334
have been treated more leniently in the City than this Bill proposes to treat the nationalised railways here. Psychologically it would be better to treat the railways more realistically. Many of the staff still believe that the reason why the railways do not pay is that they are paying £45 million a year to the old shareholders. I met that view the other day. If Dr. Beeching can put over the simple fact that all interest is suspended, I believe he will find it much easier to put over his plans. I believe that with this relief, both psychological and practical, he will be able to hit his target. I am sure that the Treasury are terrified that every nationalised industry will come along to demand exactly the same, but in this case they have already written off £400 million and are suspending interest on £800 million, so the principle has already been accepted.
It is only just a question of degree. Is it not better to give Dr. Beeching a chance which he can probably achieve than to set him an impossible task, knowing that in five years time the same process will have to be gone through all over again? I emphasise that I am not asking for the £400 million to be written off, but only held in suspense like the other £800 million. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 30, leave out ("Part") and insert ("The whole").—(Lord Hawke.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My noble friend's Amendment proposes that there shall be placed in suspense not only that part of the railway debt which was in existence before 1955 but also the amount incurred by capital expenditure since that date. As my noble friend expected, the figures have altered a little since they were put in the White Paper. The clause as at present worded would place a debt of between £650 and £700 million in suspense, and my noble friend's Amendment would place a debt of £1,570 million in suspense. But the clause as it stands fulfils the Government's proposals in paragraph 41 of the White Paper, that the debt represented by the written down book value of the railways investment since modernisation began in 1955 "should continue to rank as an interest-bearing loan", which we think in present circumstances is reasonable.

335
As my noble friend no doubt knows, in a subsequent paragraph of the White Paper, No. 47, the Government recognised that the railways would still be faced with a very formidable task, and it is stated in that paragraph:
"The Government will therefore keep the financial position of the railways under very close review and will make a special review of the position at the end of the five years."
So there will be a review after five years. There will also be an opportunity for a full review of the financial position and prospects, if and when the upper borrowing limit in Clause 19 (3), and the limit on financial assistance to meet revenue deficits, expire. My noble friend has put this on psychological grounds, and I agree there are arguments on both sides. It may be said that the Treasury must pay up anyhow in the end, so why not do it to begin with? But I think it is reasonable to make a distinction between a debt incurred by expenditure on capital improvements since 1955, and the old debt existing before that.
I submit to your Lordships that it is important that the Board's accounts should give an accurate picture of the financial position. If we were to put the whole of the capital debt from the very beginning up till now to suspense account, so that it would not carry any interest, we should then be presenting to the public a misleading picture of the real deficit which the railways were incurring. The justification for putting the old capital, the pre-1955 capital, to suspense, is that it is attributable to assets which are now largely obsolescent. I think it would be a different thing to say that the whole of the expenditure on modernisation since then would not be capable of earning interest. I think it is more in keeping with reality and with honest and realistic accounting to give the public an accurate picture of what is happening and of what the results of the capital expenditure since 1955 have been on the general financial position of the railways.
LORD SHEPHERD: I have a general sympathy with the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hawke. I think there is a good deal to be said, on psychological grounds, for the point that those we are putting in charge of the new railway
336
organisation, certainly for the next five years, should be able to feel that their accounts will reflect the result of their operations. The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, estimated that the Railways Board will have to reduce (if I may put it in this way) their overheads by about £123 million, if their revenue remains the same, in order to make sufficient to pay for the interest on this capital.
LORD HAWKE: And wipe out the working loss.
LORD SHEPHERD: And wipe out the working loss. I suspect that the figure will prove a good deal higher than that. I expect that the revenue the railways now receive will seriously decline with rail closures. The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, said that the accounts should show a true position to the general public. I think that is true; but are we not rather "kidding" ourselves to the extent that the railways will certainly be unable to turn their working deficit into a credit within five years, and to pay their interest? Shall we not, in fact, be creating a further debt which will certainly have to be considered, probably in five years time?
There is certainly a case, I think, for treating the whole of these liabilities as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, but I wonder how such an Amendment from your Lordships House would be appreciated in another place. This is a province in which, were we to accept this Amendment, your Lordships House, certainly in Committee, might be under some attack, but I would ask the Minister whether he would give further consideration to this point. I do not know what are the views of Dr. Beeching. This is one of the ways in which our House could perhaps benefit, some-times, by having some of the opportunities that they have in the United States, where Parliament is able to question a senior executive of an organisation. We ourselves, like noble Lords opposite, are unable to know, other than from what Dr. Beeching says in public; but I suspect that the desire of the Board would be that their capital should be so constructed that sufficient time would be given to them to turn this working deficit into a reasonable, substantial profit. Then, of course, the Treasury would not be losing, because any profit

337
that arose could be paid over smartly to the Treasury. I do not think we should be night to accept the Amendment, but I hope Chat the noble Earl will consider the points that have been made this evening.
LORD HAWKE: I made some inquiries about our constitutional position in this regard, and I gather this action would not be without precedent. However, I did not seriously expect my noble friend to accept my Amendment: I moved it as a gesture, in an attempt to lead the Treasury out of "Cloud-cuckoo land" by the hand. If I am proved to be wrong and Dr. Beeching proves them to be right, I shall be only too pleased. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 40 agreed to.
Clause 41 agreed to.
Clause 42 [Income tax: provisions for determining capital allowances for the Boards]:
LORD CHESHAM: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 38, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board").—(Lord Chesham.)
Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.
LORD MILLS: I suggest that it might be to the convenience of your Lordships if we were now to adjourn during pleasure.
[The Sitting was suspended at two minutes before seven o'clock, and resumed at eight o'clock.]
Clause 43:
Charges and facilities: general provisions
43.—
(7) The Boards shall not carry passengers by rail on terms or conditions which—

(a) purport, whether directly or indirectly, to exclude or limit their liability in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, any passenger other than a passenger travelling on a free pass, or

and any such terms or conditions shall be void and of no effect.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved, after subsection (1), to insert:
"( ) In respect of charges for the carriage of passengers, the luggage which a passenger is entitled to take with him and the charges, if any, to be made in respect of that luggage, on journeys by railway wholly outside the London Passenger Transport Area and on road routes wholly or partly outside the London special area, sections forty-four, forty-five, forty-six, forty-seven, forty-eight and forty-nine of this Act shall apply, mutatis mutandis, as they apply in relation to journeys by railway wholly within the London Passenger Transport Area and on road routes wholly or partly within the London special area."
The noble Lord said: Having, over the last six days or so, been moving what are strictly Party Amendments, in which I firmly believe, I am now moving an Amendment on information provided to me by the County Councils Association. The purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that the Transport Tribunal shall continue to hear local authority objections and control passenger fares over the whole of the country, and not, as proposed in this Bill, only in London. The Transport Act of 1947 provides two methods by which the public can be protected against excessive charges for services or facilities provided by the British Transport Commission. Neither of these methods will continue, under the Bill as it is before the Committee; nor is any substitute method provided, except in the case of the London area.
Under the Act of 1947, the schemes for charges for passenger services of the Commission (I do not know whether the Ministers are listening to my delivery) require confirmation by the Transport Tribunal, and before any scheme is confirmed by the Tribunal, they must hear objections duly lodged by representative bodies, including county councils, on behalf of the public and others. Part III of this Bill provides that the control of fares by the Transport Tribunal, and the right of objection by county councils and others, shall continue only in the London area. The Government may claim that this distinction is necessary because the nationalised London Board is in the position of a monopoly. It is considered that the right of county councils, or, I should have thought, other representative bodies on behalf of the public, to object to proposed charges schemes has ensured that proposals for generally excessive charges have not Seen made. Proposals made by the

339
Commission to which county councils objected have, on occasion, been modified by the Transport Tribunal to secure the fairest possible distribution of the burden of charges among the various users of the Commission. It is considered that the present protection for the public does not exist in this Bill.
There is a case, I believe, that the new Railways Board should have a good deal more freedom in fixing its rates and charges to passengers; but I think there is also a case, considering the position of the general community, many of whom depend upon railway services, that there should be some provision by which a public body, such as a county council, or even, perhaps, a smaller council, should have the right and the power to submit its objections to the rates. I think that hardship may be overcome in this way. It would mean that the persons concerned, knowing that they have the right to object, are more likely to accept railway charges in a better spirit. I believe that the right to object is something we in Britain like to have. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 23, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Shepherd.)
LORD MILLS: I apologise to the noble Lord for my apparent inattention. I was consulting with my noble friend to see whether there was any possibility of our agreeing to his Amendment.
LORD STONHAM: How could the noble Lord possibly start his consultations before he had heard what my noble friend had said?
LORD MILLS: We can still consider the Amendment on its merits, without the embellishment of a well-directed speech. I should like to remind your Lordships that this point was dealt with in paragraphs 56 and 57 of the White Paper, which say:
"The present restrictions on the ability of the railways to adjust quickly and adequately their freight charges and passenger fares are, in the Government's view, no longer justified in present competitive conditions.
"The railways will therefore be freed from statutory control over their charges, except for fares in the London Passenger Transport Area where the London Transport Executive and British Railways have a virtual monopoly of public passenger transport."
340
The object of the Amendment is to make all passenger charges (including luggage charges and allowances) for rail and road journeys outside the London area subject to control by the Transport Tribunal. That is what we decided should no longer continue. The reason for keeping the Transport Tribunal functioning in the London area is that in that case there is a monopoly; but the railways generally are subject to the competition of private cars and buses and no one could claim that they are in a position to do What they like without fear of the consequences.
This Amendment would mean the control of bus fares by the Transport Tribunal and would thus clash with the existing jurisdiction over bus fares exercised since 1931 by the Traffic Commissioners under the Road Traffic Acts. I fail to see the purpose of the Amendment unless it is simply to debate the question whether the railways and buses should be under this kind, of restriction or should be free to raise their fares as their costs mount. We take the latter view and I see no reason to alter it.
LORD SHEPHERD: I thank the Minister for his reply. It is true that under the Bill the Board will be able to charge for their services outside the London area more or less what they wish, but what is going to be the case, say, in Scotland? Under the Bill, the Minister may use his powers to instruct the Railways Board to continue a service in an area where there is a social or industrial need, even though it is to the railway unprofitable. The Railway Board may decide that they are going to continue the service for the community at a rate considerably in excess of the rate that may be charged, say, in the County of Essex or in Surrey. I should have thought that that would be unfair. I believe it is possible for this to happen under the Bill. There is nothing laid down as to how the rates will be calculated. The Railway Boards are to be permitted to charge for their services what they consider necessary for their operation. But when one considers some of the struggling industries of Wales and Scotland, which in the national interest, apart from the social consequences, should continue, in my view it would be not only unfair but quite wrong that the Board should be able to raise the freight rates of those

341
areas above what they may charge in busier areas and so put what are struggling industries at serious disadvantage in relation to others.
I am not sure whether I agree with the Government, but I think there is some point in taking away the common carrier provision. But it is still the old theme which has run through the Second Reading and the Committee stage on this Bill: that the railway services in the past have provided an essential service to the community. There are many areas in our country which need assistance and in which transport will continue to play an important part. Economics to that industry will be vital. Therefore, I think it is wrong that the freights should be higher for certain areas than for others merely because the capacity is not there. If they are to be raised, then I should have thought it only right and fair that the local community, the county council, and perhaps in Scotland the Industrial Development Council, should have some genuine opportunity of stating their case, which could then be considered by the Board and possibly by the Minister.
Recently I had some experience of shipping freights to the Far East. As your Lordships probably know, to the Far East there is a near monopoly of British and German liners who are in the Far East Conference. With hardly any warning their rates were raised and this placed our better-class woollen trade at serious disadvantage. What I noticed was that there was no arrangement made by which these rates could be announced and people could protest and deal with them. In fact, one got over the problem by using influence in various areas. But that influence may not be available to county councils or even smaller local bodies.
While I fully agree that the Railway Boards should have some flexibility and some opportunity to adjust their rates at a time when possibly their costs have risen rather suddenly—and this is one of the troubles from the past, that the railways have not been able to adjust their rates with their increased costs—I think that, on the other side, in the local industries there should be some means by which their views are considered and a judgment made. Possibly; the Board, after listening to pressures by
342
a local authority, might decide to act. But I should have thought that where there was going to be hardship or inconvenience, possibly the death of an industry, an appeal to somebody, maybe the Minister, would be right and fair.
I know it is easy to say that there are competitors who could provide the traffic, but I have been in business long enough—although not as long as the noble Lord, Lord Mills—to know that when one company raises its prices for its products because it is forced to, it is amazing how quickly the competitors raise theirs. They do not need to hang behind, so long as their goods are a few cents cheaper than their competitors'. Therefore, to say that there is competition or an alternative service available does not necessarily mean that the rates will be fair and within what certain people can pay. So I would ask the noble Lord not to say to himself, "There are alternative services; there is competition". I think the noble Lord has been in business long enough to know that competition does not necessarily mean that there are competitive rates. While fully admitting that the Railways Board should have some flexibility to adjust, I think, on reflection, there is reason to provide some means by which the local community, through their representatives, can register their views and take those views and their plea to as high an authority as possible.
I do not propose to press this Amendment this evening. I do not think much useful purpose would be served, but I would beg the Minister to consider the many areas in Scotland, Wales, Yorkshire and some parts of South East England, which are not too well off for transport, whether it is by rail or by road—to consider them and, in some areas, their struggling industry, in which the cost of conveyance plays a very big part. I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment. I hope the noble Lord will consider the inadequate words I have used, for I think there is a case.
LORD MILLS: I am sure the noble Lord has presented his case very adequately. There is a good deal to be said for it. But we really have a choice here between allowing the railways to exercise their judgment and laying down that they are to be subject to controls of various kinds. I have watched the railways

343
for some years, and one of their difficulties, since nationalisation and before, was the fact that they could not act quickly enough to meet increasing operating costs.
But we always have at the back of everything public opinion, and in the end public opinion prevails. If people feel themselves aggrieved by what a public institution like the railways does, they can always make representations to Parliament; they can rouse the local Press, and they can present their case. There are plenty of opportunities. I say that we have to balance that against introducing another control which would prevent the railways from meeting the situation in which they find themselves. I should be very surprised to find that the railways took advantage of local situations to extract the last ounce of blood. I do not think that is the attitude of the railways; I think they have been brought up with the idea of service to the public. When we reflect that the fares of the railways have only doubled, while most other commodities and costs have gone up three times, we cannot accuse them of abusing their position; and I do not think they will in future. I am glad that I heard the noble Lord say that he would not press his Amendment. I think it is probably better left where it is.
LORD SHEPHERD: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I say that I never suggested that the railways would extract the last ounce of blood? What I had in mind was that well-known phrase which has been going through the debate: that the service the public shall have is what they can afford or will pay for. The areas I have in mind are not those such as the London Metropolis, which can well take care of itself, but areas like Scotland and Wales, which, basically, are poor, and have scattered populations and are still more dependent upon transport than we are in London. If a transport service, whether it is by rail or road, has to be maintained at an economic price, it may mean that people in these areas will have to pay more than another community; yet it may well kill their own local industry. That is the point, whether there should not be some means by which these representations can be made and considered. I am not suggesting that
344
the railways themselves wish to extract blood. As the noble Lord has said, their rates have, in fact, gone up very little compared with other costs. That is why they are in difficulties. I will not press the point. I will withdraw the Amendment, but I do beg the noble Lord to consider it. I know he said the other day that he did not want to hear any more Scots hard-luck stories as they get him into trouble in Scotland, but I beg him to consider those areas which may suffer.
LORD MILLS: I hope that the noble Lord, before the Amendment is withdrawn, will just bear in mind that a good deal of what we have been saying is an argument for the independence of the Area Boards of the railways.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.24 p.m.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS moved, in subsection (3), after "Boards" to insert "other than the British Waterways Board". The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 109, I should like also to speak about Amendment No. 112, which belongs to it, and also about that incredibly long Schedule on the end of the list, No. 263. To explain to your Lordships what all this is about, I am afraid I shall have to be a little historical. The position of the waterways is completely different from that of the railways, and I do not think that this has yet been fully understood. With few exceptions railways have always been purely commercial undertakings which proprietors could keep open or closed as they wished. Traffic was carried by proprietors in their own trains. But canals, navigable rivers and harbours have always been treated by the courts as public highways by water. The Minister of Transport prefers the term "statutory rights of navigation" and "common law rights of navigation", dependent on the type of waterway. It really does not make much difference so long as the public right of passage is conceded. These public rights of passage are contained in the Canal, River and Harbour Acts or, in some cases, in Common Law. These assorted waterways are used mostly by the public in their own vessels and are thus much more like public roads than waterways.
The Bill makes no significant change in the legal status of railways, except

345
that in some cases they must give six months advance notice of intention to discontinue; but in the matter of waterways the law is fundamentally altered by this particular Clause 43. As the law now stands, under the Transport Act, 1953, the British Transport Commission have power, with the approval of the Transport Tribunal, to make reasonable charges (I hope your Lordships will note the word "reasonable", because it is basic to my entire argument) for the use of these canals, rivers and harbours and to impose reasonable conditions in the form of by-laws and regulations. The Commission are also bound to provide reasonable services and facilities, wharfage space, cranes, handling gear and so on. Clause 43 entirely repeals the latter duty. It provides that the new Board may make such charges and impose such conditions as they think fit. This must mean something different from "reasonable". There is no control of any kind and the new Board is the sole judge. This may be appropriate enough for a railway, but it is entirely contrary to the existing statutory rights of the canal-using public, both commercial and private, and it is particularly bad for the commercial people whose capital is tied up in boats and waterside premises, factories and so on, making use of the water.
The point is quite simple. They are entirely dependent on a reasonably fixed state of affairs, or on knowing that their costs of transport will be reasonable. They cannot move away from the waterside; they cannot take an alternate canal to the one they are using. So far as they are concerned, the canal authorities are in a position of complete monopoly. In the case of the London Passenger Transport Board in this Bill, where the Government admit that there is a monopoly position, powers of appeal are given; and the same is true with the harbours, where again the Government admit that something like a monopoly exists. But in the matter of the inland waterways, the rivers and canals, no right of appeal is given, and we are entirely at the discretion of the operators of those waterways as to what they shall charge under the Bill. This is indeed a very serious change—a fantastically serious change.
To put the matter right I have put down this enormously lengthy series of
346
Amendments. All this vast mass of verbiage is to replace one word which was in the 1953 Act and which is not in the present Bill; that is, the word "reasonable". The Amendments are basically better than the one word "reasonable", for this reason: they set out a scale of charges, a method of charging which, if it goes in the Bill, will-prevent a lot of lawyers work later. There is nothing in that Schedule which would stop the waterways from charging what they need to charge. It protects the private operator; it protects the factory owner whose goods travel by water and who has factory-side wharves; it protects all the private individuals who rely on the water for their livelihood—the small businessmen and those who have invested their capital in the waterways and who are entirely dependent on statutory rights of navigation, fixed tolls and charges and charging systems.
If this clause goes through as it is the carrying firms are entirely at the mercy of their principal competitor, and the waterside firms will simply be swept out of existence. If we can have this Schedule in the Bill it will make all the difference. Your Lordships will observe that it is a carefully written Schedule. It is made out specially and with enormous care by a transport legal expert who not only knows his job but is, I think, respected by those at the Ministry of Transport who have had to deal with him, and he is probably the only person in the country who could have made out a waterways Schedule in proper form, in the form needed for the use of the commercial and private users of the waterways. If this Schedule is inserted there will be absolutely no dispute about anything. Everybody will know what is being charged and what is being charged for. That is its great advantage over the word "reasonable".
I am informed by the legal eagles that it has a further advantage. I do not know whether my legal terminology is correct, but I am told that waterway charges are of a taxing nature and that the courts, when considering what is being charged for a particular waterway service, tend to look into the legislation to see what is supposed to be charged for. It is most difficult to make anybody pay up for a waterway service

347
unless in the appropriate Act of Parliament there is a statement that so much is charged for this, so much for that, and so on, in detail. If there is merely a general power to charge, it may make the legal position before the courts much more difficult.
The present British Waterways Commission, using the 1953 Act, has been incredibly lucky. A great deal of its luck, as I well know from personal experience, has occurred because it has been resting on the good will of the waterway users; and I assure your Lordships that the waterway users have considerable good will towards the British Transport Waterways. If you will accept this Schedule, then there will be no difficulty; if you do not accept the Schedule, then the alternative is to put the word "reasonable" in the Bill. If the Government will assure me that they will consider inserting the word "reasonable" in suitable context at a later stage in the Bill, I shall be quite happy to withdraw this Amendment. If they cannot accept this Amendment and they are not willing even to insert the word "reasonable", then I think we must take the opinion of the Committee, because one or other must go in if these waterways are to be made a solid and fit part of our British scenery.
The position on these waterways is serious, one of the reasons being, as I stated in a speech on Second Reading, the very great uncertainty as to their future. This Bill is sweeping away many of the uncertainties, but it creates a fresh one, in that it is creating uncertainty as to what the waterway users may have to pay for the use they make of the waterway. If you were a factory owner, with a factory beside a waterway, would you set up handling equipment to deal with goods coming in by those waterways if you did not know from day to day what the charges would be? If you were intending to invest in a fleet of carrying craft, would you invest if you knew that at any time you might be run off the waterway by the lack of the word "reasonable" in connection with the permitted charges?
I know what one of the Government's answers is going to be on this point—the one, the noble Lord, Lord Mills
348
has just put to my noble friend Lord Shepherd. It is, of course, that we are all reasonable people; that we all treat these matters in a spirit of great friendliness, and the charges do not go up very greatly; that everybody is very happy to be of service; and, of course, that there is commercial freedom, which means that if they put up charges too much they would drive the traffic off the water and thus hurt themselves. To some extent that is true of the waterways, but it is not entirely true. There are some cases where it pays quite considerably to drive the traffic off the waterways. I can think of a whole number of waterways—not only national ones but some of the others as well—where it would pay the operators very well to put the charges up to £10 a mile and drive the traffic away.
To quote one historical case, some years ago there went through this House the Rochdale Canal Act. The Rochdale Canal had a very considerable income from water supply; it was also a traffic canal. They made a lot of money on their water, but lost quite a lot of money on their traffic-carrying activities. They raised their rates; they drove the traffic off the water. They came to Parliament and obtained a Bill allowing them to exclude traffic from their waterways. They took out their lock-gates, they put in weirs, they dismissed all the lock-keepers and, for the first time in the history of the company, they made money. I am not saying that the British Waterways Board are going to do the same thing. Nevertheless, it shows that in certain circumstances in operating a waterway it pays very considerably to drive the traffic off the waterway.
Unless we have something in this Bill—either this Amendment and this vast Schedule of mine, or the little word "reasonable", which surely can be put into any Act of Parliament without any damage whatever to the public—the waterways will be considerably endangered. The Government will have put up another barrier to their proper operation, and I think they will be piling up a lot of trouble for themselves in the future. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 29, after ("Boards") insert ("other than the British Waterways Board").—(Viscount St. Davids.)
LORD CONESFORD: I do not know whether my noble friend would like me to add a few observations now.
LORD CHESHAM: I should be delighted.
8.42 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: What I wish to suggest to the Committee is that, whatever their view of the specific solution suggested by the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, the problem is not met in the Bill as it stands, and it really must be met. I should like at once to acquit the Government of any intention to bring about some of the results and the injustices that could, in fact, follow from the Bill as it stands. I do not profess to be in any way well acquainted with, or an expert on, this branch of the law, but to the best of my belief the position has been stated with substantial accuracy and completeness by the noble Viscount who has tabled this series of Amendments. The fact that no injustice is intended against private individuals does not justify us in passing legislation which would enable that injustice to be perpetrated, however unlikely that injustice may be.
The noble Viscount who moved the Amendment was quite right in pointing out that what we are here dealing with are, in effect, highways by water, over which private individuals and private business concerns have definite and valuable rights. I am sure Her Majesty's Government do not wish any business at present exercising such rights, or which may wish to exercise such rights, to be treated unjustly. But think what could result if we left the Bill as it stands. All legal restraints on the sort of charges that could be made would be swept aside. I am not overlooking the small exception made by subsection (2), but all obligation to make only reasonable charges would be swept aside. The people who could suddenly, quite lawfully, be subjected to unreasonable charges could be put completely out of business, and the public body itself—the British Waterways Board—could for a time run its own ships perhaps at a loss, because under this Bill it receives for some years a grant from the Government. It could simply do away with its competitors altogether.
Against that risk, there is in the Bill as it stands, so far as I can see, no
350
protection whatsoever. As a result of the noble Viscount's three Amendments, which are being taken together in this discussion, there is a considered scheme for giving reasonable freedom to the new Board that the Government are creating, but yet reserving some public rights and ensuring that private people and private business concerns are not subjected to what would be the greatest possible injustice. I confine myself entirely to pointing out the necessity for some change in the clause as it stands, and in the scheme of the Bill as it stands, for dealing with the inland waterways, and to saying that, so far as I can see, the scheme proposed in the Amendments of the noble Viscount does provide a solution. It may be that the Government can think of another solution which they prefer, but I cannot think that they will inform the Committee that there is not here a real problem which must be dealt with by Amendment.
8.47 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM: I have listened very carefully to the arguments that have been put forward by the noble Viscount and my noble friend. Needless to say, I had, before the Committee stage, carefully considered what would be the effects of the noble Viscount's three Amendments, including his "two-acre" one at the end of the Bill. The combined effect of those three Amendments is, to all intents and purposes, just this: to impose a rigid code and control over the charges and commercial policy of the new Board, and to re-erect a detailed pattern of statutory obligations and restrictions in relation to their charging and commercial powers. I do not think the noble Viscount would disagree that that is exactly what, in principle, they do.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: It still leaves them full freedom to charge what they like.
LORD CHESHAM: That is difficult for me to understand or to see. But, to sum up, I still think that the effect of the Amendments comes into (I used this expression before, I believe) headlong conflict with the principle of giving commercial freedom which is embodied in the Bill, and which is the whole idea of it. Consequently, the noble Viscount and the Committee will not be surmised to hear that I am not keen on these

351
Amendments. I do not, I must hasten to say, criticise the way the noble Viscount and his advisers have put the Amendments together. I am quite sure that they, and particularly the long new Schedule, are very well drafted and soundly drafted. Not only do I admire the expertise of his friend in doing such a job, but I am amazed that anyone could draft such an Amendment as the new Schedule at all. What I am criticising—and I do not intend to address myself to the details of the noble Viscount's Amendments—is that though they are admirable for his purpose, his purpose is wrong.
The first Amendment, which is the key Amendment, No. 109, seeks to exclude the British Railways Board from that provision in Clause 43 which empowers the four Boards to make such charges for their services and facilities, and to impose such terms and conditions upon the according of those services and facilities, as the Boards think fit. That is the basic charging power of the four Boards, to give them commercial freedom, and that is the power which the noble Viscount's Amendment seeks to deny them. It is to that point, or, rather, to those two points, of which that is one, that I intend to address myself. I should think that the noble Viscount's case, eloquently supported by my noble friend, was a very much better one if I could even begin to accept the argument which was put forward about this question of the canals being public highways by water. I cannot accept that at all. I am going on to say why; but as I cannot accept that, I think that the case on which the noble Viscount has been working is not soundly based. If that were right, his case would be much better; but I do not believe it is right.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: Even if it is wrong, it is sound enough.
LORD CHESHAM: I do not agree there, because I am going on to several other points which the noble Viscount put forward——
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: I stand on equity, as well as law.
LORD CHESHAM:—and perhaps, when I come on to them, it will be a little easier to understand. This argu-
352
ment is a very legal argument; there I agree. I am not a lawyer, and I cannot argue it in that way; indeed, I hope to keep right off that side, and shall try to confine myself to the simpler and more understandable aspects.
There have been, as the noble Viscount, I am sure, knows, a good deal of consultations between the legal advisers to the Inland Waterways Association and those of the Ministry, and I am bound to say that so far I do not think any agreement has been reached on this particular question. Certainly the Ministry do not accept the general proposition which the noble Viscount put forward; that all inland waterways—or perhaps I should say all inland waterways with few exceptions—are public highways by water. I accept the fact that the tidal parts of navigable rivers are public highways by water; and that is probably true also of certain other rivers, or non-tidal parts of rivers. But as a general proposition with regard to canals, it just will not do.
The canals which form the greater part of those that will be taken over by the British Waterways Board are, in fact, artificial creations, constructed and operated under the special Statutes which apply to them. The right of navigation on these canals depends upon such statutory rights as are conferred by those Statutes; therefore it is much more accurate to say that the position for canals generally is that there are statutory rights of user though they are not public highways by water. And the statutory rights of user are subject to such payment of tolls as prescribed in the Statute conferring those rights. On that statutory right of user I must take a stand, because I cannot agree with the noble Viscount that it does not matter whether we call it a public highway by water or a statutory right of user; that the position is the same. The position is not the same at all. There is really no analogy. There is nothing in the provisions on charging in the Bill which repeals any statutory rights of user that attach to canals. As the noble Viscount said, where there are express statutory exemptions from payment they are preserved in the Bill.
My noble friend Lord Conesford mentioned the other day—perhaps this will colour other discussions later on,

353
so I think it is important to get it right—the position of pleasure craft as an example of how statutory rights of user may be very different from the rights of public highway. In the days when canals were first constructed they were little used by pleasure craft. They were constructed for commercial carriers and the Statutes mainly applied to that kind of use. It can be argued that the statutory rights of user conferred by the founding Statutes of many canals did not include pleasure craft at all.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: The noble Lord is entirely wrong, but I shall wait until I reply to deal with the matter.
LORD CHESHAM: The noble Lord may have his opinion. He really cannot "sell" it to us on the basis that, if one says something often enough, everybody believes it. A great many people who are as well able to understand this matter as are the noble Viscount and his advisers believe that he is completely wrong. There is a very strong argument that the statutory rights of user apply only to use by those craft for which there is a clear right in the canal authority to levy tolls and charges. I want to make this as clear as I possibly can because it has a definite bearing on these Amendments.
I am now going to switch to the other side of the argument.
LORD CONESFORD: I am most grateful to my noble friend for the careful way he is going into this. Whether it is more accurate to refer in general language to "a highway by water"or to "statutory rights of user" I shall not question, because I am quite content to accept, his "statutory rights of user". But I should like to ask him about boats which he admits at present have the right to go on these canals and to be charged. Does he not admit that under existing Statutes, particularly the Act of 1953, they can be subjected to only reasonable charges?
LORD CHESHAM: My noble friend has correctly stated what is contained in that Act. The whole theme of my argument is that commercial freedom should be given to the Board. It was necessary to deal with the other side of the argument first because the noble Viscount, and to a certain extent my noble friend,
354
developed the argument that many people were being done out of their rights and the public as a whole were being done out of rights which they could enjoy if they so wished. I thought it was necessary to get the position into perspective to see exactly what it was we were doing.
It might perhaps make it somewhat clearer if I finish my argument. The provisions detailed in the Amendments for the control of charges and restrictions on commercial freedom, which is what they are, would be a serious handicap to the ability of the Board to operate their waterways economically and discharge the financial duties which they have under the Bill. I cannot remember who it was, but one noble Lord said that the Board would be in receipt of Exchequer assistance for at least five years. If they are not to have freedom to charge in this way, that may quite easily entail an additional burden on the taxpayer.
The canals, as has been said on several occasions in our proceedings, are costing the country a lot of money. I was struck by the fact that, although there has been a good deal of talk about injustice, nobody has so far mentioned the injustice which is likely to be done to the taxpayer if the Board do not have the commercial freedom to operate which we visualise for them. To sum up, I do not think any convincing argument has been put forward to persuade us to adopt the course suggested by these three Amendments which would justify sustaining or increasing that burden upon the taxpayer.
My noble friend Lord Conesford raised a point of some importance, as in a slightly different context did the noble Viscount in his speech. My noble friend mentioned the independent waterway carriers, and the noble Viscount mentioned other people who had business of one kind or another on the waterways. The noble Viscount said, I thought in rather a disdainful way, that you could hardly expect the Board to look after their interests very much and they might be priced right out of the market. But these people are the customers of the waterways. They have to do their best to make a financial go of it, and I should have thought it would be a strange policy to adopt to price your customers out of the market.

355
So far as the independent carriers are concerned, there is a rather important point. This was discussed, I understand, in another place and my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport had something to say about it which I should like to quote to your Lordships. He said:
"I would be distressed if the new authority charged its own bodies less or gave them more favourable terms than it gave to the independent carriers. I think that to do so would be indefensible. It would also be wrong for the authority to expand its fleet by using a subsidy to knock out the private people. There must be fair competition between the two. I am concerned to ensure that Exchequer assistance is not used to compete unfairly with private enterprise. In these circumstances, it is not the Government's intention to agree to any significant overall expansion of these fleets."
That my right honourable friend can effect by his control over the borrowing powers and investment as contained in the Bill. I thought I should make that point, because it is of importance. Otherwise, I think the most important point is the possible effect on the taxpayer. I would ask your Lordships not to accept this Amendment.
9.5 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: May I put one point to my noble friend? The Committee are most grateful to him for the detail with which he has gone into this important matter. But the last quotation from his right honourable friend confirms my view and, I think, the view of the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, that that which the Minister deplores is something which can be done under the Bill as it stands, though he has said that he would be against it. I am sure it is not beyond the Government's skill to meet the point by making what the Minister himself has said he would deplore, something that could not be done under the Bill. What is at present possible is completely unfair competition between the Board's own fleet and the independents.
LORD CHESHAM: I am sure it would be quite possible to do that were it thought desirable. As my noble friend knows, the skill and ingenuity of the Government is infinite. But I doubt whether it is desirable, because if you are trying to give the Board freedom of operation in their financial affairs and a task to do their best, the moment
356
you begin writing in a restriction of one kind or another the thing begins to build up, and I do not think that would be the way to do it. What I have just said I said very much on purpose, and I do not think we can start writing into Bills various protective measures for what might happen. After all, if the principle of commercial freedom is being extended to other Boards as well, if it is justified, people could equally argue, with the noble Viscount, that it could affect their costs and injure their business. I do not think that is acceptable in an Amendment.
LORD CONESFORD: There are many statutory precedents for saying that a public Board must be fair as between its own concerns and others who use its facilities. There is nothing very novel in that.
LORD STONHAM: I thought it was a little rash of the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, to claim that the skill and ingenuity of the Government was infinite, because even if that were true—and I doubt if any one Member of your Lordships House would agree that it was—it is not so much that their skill and ingenuity is infinite, but that everything depends on how that skill is applied. If it is applied merely towards evading the point of worthwhile Amendments, then, of course, it has very little value. Indeed, the noble Lord himself, at an earlier stage of his very interesting speech, confessed that he was, as it were, lost in wonderment at the excellence of Lord St. Davids "two-acre Amendment". If he had any real experience of the water, he would not be lost in wonderment at all, because it lends itself to contemplation—particularly inland waterways—and, of course, anyone who sits over the water for a long time would be quite capable of bringing up an Amendment of this kind.
The one point I do not think the noble Lord answered was the quiet insistence of my noble friend that the Government must either accept his very complicated Amendment or else introduce into the Bill the "little word," as he described it, "reasonable". The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, also raised that point, and the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, did not answer it. Whilst one might accept the view expressed by the noble Lord that the Waterways Board

357
must have freedom to charge as they wish, it is a little disconcerting to realise that it might well be that they would have freedom to charge a rate of charges designed expressly to exclude particular forms of traffic. That may well be. We listened to an example of that and the fact that it might suit them to be suppliers of water instead of owners of an active waterway. Really, it is no answer to that to say, in effect, that the Board are reasonable people. As my noble friend has said, that is the stock answer. If the Board are charged with the duty of running their waterways as a commercial undertaking, they may well decide that it will be much more profitable to have an expanse of water between two banks which is merely a carrier of water and not a waterway for the conveyance or use of traffic.
I do not think therefore that we ought to dispose of this series of Amendments without evidence that the Government have really considered that point of view. What we are asking, in effect, is that in subsection (3) the word "reasonable" should be read between the words" such "and" charges". The subsection would then read:
"Subject to this Act and to any such enactment as is mentioned in the last foregoing subsection, the Boards shall have power to demand, take and recover such reasonable charges for their services and facilities … "
and so on. The real purport of these Amendments is to ensure that there should not be artificially high charges with the sole object of driving certain users off the waterway so that a profit can be shown. I think that that is really the essence of all the arguments to which we have listened. Having taken, I trust, a fairly objective view, I hope that the Government, and particularly the noble Lord the Minister, will address themselves to that point. If he could answer that, I am sure that I, and I imagine many other noble Lords also, would be very much more satisfied about the position.
LORD CHESHAM: I should be delighted to do that. I had thought I had dealt with it, although not maybe in specific terms, because the noble Viscount gave us the idea that there were only two alternatives. One was to accept his Amendments; the other was to put in the word "reasonable". In point of fact, there are more than two
358
alternatives. A further course is to accept what is in the Bill, which is what I am suggesting should be done. At this point I will address myself to the actual putting of the word "reasonable" where the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has suggested. Unless that is qualified in some way elsewhere, it has no meaning, because someone has then to determine what is "reasonable". The noble Lord, I am sure, would not say that there would be much object in putting it in and leaving the Board to determine what is reasonable.
LORD STONHAM: If I may say so, very often when we bring up Amendments of that kind that is precisely why the Government reject them. They leave the law to determine what the word means; though it is not very apt if that excuse is made now for objecting to the word "reasonable".
LORD CHESHAM: On the contrary, it absolutely supports what I said, as the noble Lord will realise when he comes to think it out afterwards. Never mind. The real point is this: that the implication is that if you put in the word "reasonable" you then set up some kind of organisation—a tribunal or something of that kind—to determine what might be reasonable. That, incidentally, raises the question of restriction on the Board's freedom of action with charges and commercial policy. That is why I would reject the word "reasonable" in this context. I might add this. I think it would be justifiable to say that up till now there has been a test of reasonableness; it has been possible to take canal charges to a tribunal. I simply say that so far that test has not been applied.
LORD WALSTON: The noble Lord who has just sat down used as the burden of his refusal to accept this Amendment the expression "commercial freedom", and that seems to be, in his view, the ultimate good and anything which does not allow commercial freedom is the ultimate bad. Surely we cannot accept that "commercial freedom" must be the best possible way of doing things, because, after all, commercial freedom does at times lead to some very undesirable things. It can lead to monopolies; it can lead to restrictive practices; it can lead, as the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, pointed out, quite possibly and perfectly

359
reasonably to the squeezing out of any competitors of the Inland Waterways Authority, so that it is then in a monopolistic position and can charge what it likes for its services. That is what commercial freedom can do, and it is perfectly clear from what the noble Lord said in quoting the Minister that that has been envisaged and is deplored.
It seems to me rather a confession of failure that the Government in drafting a Bill of this sort can say: "We realise that something undesirable might happen; we do not want it to happen and we hope it will not happen, but we refuse to put into the Bill a perfectly reasonable"—if I may use the word—"and sensible and practical Amendment which will ensure that it does not happen". That surely is not the way to govern a country even in something as relatively unimportant as canals.
To go to the second point on commercial freedom, if the noble Lord generally sets such store by commercial freedom as he does here, why is not commercial freedom allowed in other parts of this Bill? Why is the Holding Company not going to be allowed to sell its surplus potatoes in the name of commercial freedom? It is not allowed to. The other Boards are not allowed to run a pipe-line somewhere; they are not allowed to make more lorries or other transport facilities. They are not allowed to do a whole mass of things which, surely, if you believe in commercial freedom they must be allowed to do. So I do not really think we can pay a great deal of attention to commercial freedom as a justification for turning down this Amendment. There may be other reasons. But if you are going to be consistent in believing in commercial freedom, let us have commercial freedom throughout the whole Bill and do not just trot it out on the odd occasion when there is an Amendment the Government do not like and they have no other argument, then quietly push it into the background when other noble Lords want to bring it forward for something else. We must have better arguments than that of commercial freedom if we are going to turn this down. Whether its actual wording is correct I do not know, but what the Amendment tries to do is surely
360
eminently reasonable and right and should be supported.
LORD STONHAM: When the noble Lord replies would he explain why it was unreasonable to accept the suggestion that "reasonable" should be included in line 30, and perfectly reasonable for the Bill to include the word "reasonable" in line 36? The words in line 36 are:
"impose a duty to afford reasonable services and facilities."
I cannot see why it is impossible to say what is meant by "reasonable" in line 30, if it is possible to say what "reasonable" means in line 36.
9.20 p.m.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: It seems to me that "reasonable" is becoming the main word under discussion in this Amendment, and it seems to me a reasonable word to write into any Bill, because it has already been said by the Parliamentary Secretary that it means nothing anyway, and the noble Viscount advocating the use of the word "reasonable" said that he would be very happy about it. I do not want to be out of order by referring to something which we have not reached, but if your Lordships turn to the proposed new Schedule you will find that the noble Viscount has taken trouble to lay down what action shall be taken in the event of anybody saying that something is not "reasonable". I defy anybody to define "reasonable". If the bus fares go up one penny per mile the London Transport Board will say that it is reasonable; but I, as a passenger, may say that it is unreasonable. It must then go to the tribunal to decide. I should have thought that the adoption of the word "reasonable" would have been a very reasonable way out of this difficulty.
LORD CHESHAM: I do not know at what stage this is going to become unreasonable. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, raised a rather interesting point in calling my attention to the use of the word "reasonable" in line 36 of page 44, where of course it is put down in connection with a duty to which the Board shall not be subject, as he will readily see if he reads the previous two lines.
LORD STONHAM: Of course I read them. One of my few accomplishments is that I can just read. But if it is the fact that in an enactment which has been in operation, I believe, for 15 years the word "reasonable" has been understood and accepted without any trouble, I should have thought it could be accepted in the enactment that we are now considering.
LORD CHESHAM: Yes, that is right; it has been in that enactment, and that enactment is being repealed.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: It was put in there by this Government.
LORD CHESHAM: And is now being taken out by this Government. We can all understand the facts, quite honestly. But I say again that one thing was left out of the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Walston: he just did not mention it at all. He addressed himself considerably to something which might happen, and so on, and again he completely omitted to talk about something bad which is happening. My final remark on this discussion is, who, or how, or what, is going to determine, and how are they going to determine, what is going to be a reasonable charge in the face of a £600,000 annual deficit?
LORD AIREDALE: Perhaps I could make one final suggestion. If the noble Lord does not like the reference to "such reasonable charges" in line 30, he might consider the expression "such charges as they think reasonable", bearing in mind that two lines later the Government draftsman has used the expression "conditions as they think fit". If the Board is capable of thinking fit, it is perhaps capable of thinking reasonable. Perhaps that would commend itself to the noble Lord.
LORD HAWKE: I wonder whether it would clarify matters if we put in some such words as, "such charges as are reasonable in the circumstances". I would support the Government wholeheartedly in allowing this body to charge what they can get for their services, or what they think they ought to charge, because there is no doubt that a great many of the inland waterways will be redundant in the face of both road and rail. Therefore if they chose to put on a completely prohibitive tariff
362
on certain waterways I should not object. But it must be the same for all. They must not let their own barges through at a cheap rate and somebody else's barges at a dear rate. Provided we could get some words to mean that—that the tariff was reasonable in the circumstances—those circumstances might be explained before a court as meaning that they wanted to prevent anybody from using the thing. That would be reasonable in the circumstances. But, as I say, if it is a case of no discrimination, I support the Government.
LORD SHEPHERD: We have had a good deal of debate on this subject. Obviously there is strong feeling on both sides. I wonder whether the Government could give an undertaking to look at this matter. I wonder whether that would be acceptable to those who have supported the Amendment. We have a great deal more business to do, and if the Government could make that gesture I think we could move on.
LORD CHESHAM: There has certainly been a good deal of expression of thought, both pro and con, on this subject. The Government are, of course, as somebody said earlier, reasonable men. I should be quite prepared to look at this again in view of what has been said. I must make it clear, however, that I will look at it again carefully from every point of view, but with no undertaking of any sort or kind; because I do not as yet, at this moment in time, feel very inclined to depart from my argument. But I would be very ready to have another good look at it if that is what noble Lords would like us to do.
LORD CONESFORD: In doing that, may I ask my noble friend if he will bear in mind what I think would go a long way towards satisfying noble Lords—it would certainly go a long way towards satisfying me. The Minister described in another place an evil that could happen which he would deplore. Could not protection against that evil be inserted in the Statute?
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: Is the noble Lord going to answer that?
LORD CHESHAM: I did not think I need waste the time of the Committee to do so, because I had said that I would look at everything that had been said, and it had already been done.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: I think that the Committee feel that something should be done about this clause, and it might be a good idea if we gave the Government time to have second thoughts. On the other hand, something must be done, and if later on we hear that their second thoughts have resulted in the same decision as was reached on their first thoughts, then I think we would have to move this Amendment, or something similar, again.
In the meantime, I would just point out to your Lordships one or two matters that have been referred to. The noble Lord spoke about statutory right of user. I am prepared to accept his phrase, but statutory right of user consists of two things: a right given by Statute to an individual to navigate the waterway, and a second right resting in the operators of the waterway that if the user does use the waterway then they have the right to charge a toll. That is statutory right. The thing consists of the two halves, as I have said, but if the toll is unreasonable the second half of the business is a denial of the first half because it removes the statutory right to navigate.
The second point that the noble Lord made was when he said that, historically, pleasure craft are recent. He might "get away" with that with any other noble Lord in this House, except myself. Some day I think I shall write a book on the history of pleasure craft through the ages. There were packet boats operating as water stagecoaches along our waterways. I can show you rows of hostelries still called "The Pleasure Boat", "The Packet Boat Inn ", "The Paddington Packet", and so on, but I am not going to recite them all now. The third point was on injustice to the taxpayer. Of course, we are firmly against any injustice to the taxpayer. The most important thing in this matter is to get the British Waterways Board properly on its feet.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD CROOK): Is the noble Lord withdrawing his Amendment?
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: Yes, I will withdraw it. But the point quite simply is this: that the losses are not nearly as
364
great as they are made out to be. The noble Lord, Lord Mills, twitted me at one moment about six million fishermen. Let me point out to the House that there are three million fishermen and that there alone there is a very considerable source of revenue that has not been dealt with.
Differences of treatment was another subject that came up. I am not now going to relate instances to the House, but I could mention many of them. I accept commercial freedom and we certainly need it in this case, but we must not have commercial freedom at the cost of injustice. So I ask the Government to reconsider this matter. If they do not do anything about it at a later stage, then we must move this Amendment again. But to-day I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I understand that certain of your Lordships have Marshalled Lists in front of you with the misprint of the words "rail or" instead of "by rail". The amendment to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, is at page 45, line 19, to leave out "by rail".
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved in subsection (7) to leave out "by rail". The noble Lord said: I will seek to be brief. I do not know what is the explanation of the fact that in subsection (7) it says:
"The Boards shall not carry passengers by rail "—
the words are specific, "by rail"—
"on terms or conditions which—

(a) purport … to exclude or limit their liability in respect of the death of, or bodily injury … ."

As I see it, this means that the Boards will have a liability by rail but will not have a liability when carrying passengers by road or by water. I do not know whether the Government can give an explanation. An illustration has been given to me that, if you were going from Waterloo to the Isle of Wight, you would travel on one of the railways steamers; there would be liability on the Board which carried you by rail, but, because of a certain provision, there would be no liability while you were on the ferry. It seems to me rather peculiar that this should be in the Bill, and I wonder Whether the noble Lord can give

365
an explanation. Can he say whether it is a fact that, because of these words, there will be no liability if passengers are carried by road? I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 19, leave out ("by rail").—(Lord Shepherd.)
LORD MILLS: I think this is quite simple. We announced in the White Paper, on the Reorganisation of the Nationalised Transport Undertakings, paragraph 55, that:
"In the new circumstances it would not be reasonable to leave the railways subject to out-of-date restrictions on their commercial activities."
The common carrier concept was allied to the idea of the railways as a monopoly. Railways are no longer a monopoly, and we felt that it was right to relieve them from the requirement of being a common carrier, which means that they must accept traffic of any kind whenever anybody wants to send it by rail. I just ask your Lordships to bear in mind that it had become quite a common practice to use road transport during the week and then to saddle the railways with the carrying of traffic at the week-ends, because they are common carriers and cannot refuse it. All that this clause seeks to do is to say that none of the Boards shall be regarded as common carriers, by rail or by inland waterways.
LORD SHEPHERD: I do not want to interrupt the noble Lord, but the question of a common carrier was not in fact the point about which I was speaking. The question concerns subsection (7), the exclusion of their liability in the event of death or bodily harm. I am sorry if I did not make myself clear.
LORD MILLS: Does this Amendment not come first?
LORD SHEPHERD: No. I am talking about the Amendment to page 45, line 19: after the word "passengers" to leave out the words "by rail." It is not a particularly important point. If the Government's brief has gone astray I am quite prepared, at this very late hour, to withdraw this Amendment and to move it on the Report stage. It is not controversial; it is merely to illustrate a rather peculiar position.
LORD MILLS: I think there is probably a mistake in the printing of the Amendment. I apologise to the noble Lord and will take advantage of what he has just said.
LORD HAWKE: Will the noble Lord see that the liability for damage to passengers, and so on, covers all their ancillary activities? It would be most unsatisfactory if it did not.
LORD MILLS: Yes, I will have a look at it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.38 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION LORD CHAMPION moved, in subsection (7) (a), to leave out "other than a passenger travelling on a free pass". The noble Lord said: This is a completely reasonable Amendment. If I were asked to define what is reasonable in this context, I would say, "Any Amendment moved by myself". This Amendment deals with an important subsection of Clause 43. It seems to me to seek to prevent any injustice that may flow from an attempt by the Railways Board to repudiate liability in the event of any passenger receiving an injury while using the Board's services. It is a long time since I have used an excursion ticket, but I remember that on the old excursion tickets issued by the railways they always had something on the back which was a sort of "saving clause" which said, "In the event of your being injured, we shall not pay you any damages". Those are not precisely the words to be seen, nor those that used to be seen, on them, but they were to that effect.
I am glad that this subsection removes any vestige of doubt about this matter. The Railways Board will undoubtedly be liable for injuries caused to passengers while they carry them. This subsection is, then, a useful protection for ordinary passengers; but it seems to us, and to me particularly, to be quite unfair to exclude from protection, in certain circumstances, those travelling on a free pass. That is why I am seeking to remove these words from this subsection.
It so happens that for some time I was a member of the negotiating committee of a great railway trade union, and in

367
our applications to the railway companies for increases in wages—applications for improved conditions, and so on—we always sought to make comparisons between the wages paid to railwaymen and those paid to people in comparable employment outside the railway service. We were usually able to prove that people employed outside the railway service in comparable employment were getting higher wages than railwaymen; but the answer we so often got from the employers side of the table was: "Ah, but they haven't the benefit of free travel or privilege tickets." Figures were produced to us showing the value to railway workers of the privilege tickets and the passes which they received. Passes, and also privilege tickets, were excluded from ordinary negotiations; they were regarded as something given to railwaymen ex gratia. Nevertheless, they were always in the background of negotiations with the employers.
The simple fact, as I see it, is that if these privilege tickets and free passes are part of the payment to railwaymen, they should not be excluded from the benefits of this clause. It happens that there is more than one type of free-pass user. There is, of course, the man who is using a pass in the course of his work. In the event of his being injured while using that pass, he would, of course, come under the provisions of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, and he would receive compensation. In the other case there is the railwayman using his pass, or getting a privilege ticket, for holiday or comparable purposes. In the latter case there is no doubt that, if that man were injured whilst travelling on a free pass, he would be debarred from the benefits of the cover of this clause. We think that the railway unions rightly believe that this is an injustice. This is an opportunity to remove it, and I hope that the Government will accept this reasonable Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 23, leave out ("other than a passenger travelling on a free pass").—(Lord Champion.)
LORD CHESHAM: The noble Lord, Lord Champion, has moved his Amendment in a charming and beguiling way, which I am sure is greatly to the taste of the Committee. It makes me feel
368
awful when I say that I really do not want to accept his Amendment. It is not that I do not agree that there is substance in what he says on this matter. The fact that there is substance is proved, I think, by the fact that, although it is not in the Bill, or anything of that kind, this is, in fact, what happens as a result of the negotiations in the past between the B.T.C. and the appropriate union. I think I am right in saying that if someone is injured while travelling on a free pass, he does get the protection he would have had if he had had a ticket. Therefore it could be argued that there is little harm in putting it in the Bill. I think that this was the gist of the noble Lord's remarks. But I could argue that it is an equally good reason for not putting it in the Bill, since the arrangement works perfectly well as it is.
The point that concerns me most is that if the Amendment were accepted it would inevitably mean repercussions on the road. The Road Traffic Act, 1960, sets out the corresponding position as regards the liability of road transport operators to their fare-paying passengers and employees. If the Amendment were accepted, we should have one law for the rail and another for the road.
LORD STONHAM: Subsection (7), to which the Amendment refers, relates only to railways. How will it affect roads?
LORD CHESHAM: I have just explained that the position on the roads is dealt with under the Road Traffic Act. Therefore, if we were to amend this Bill in the way suggested, we should have a difference between rail and road. Particularly in the London area, it would create a nonsensical situation. A transport employee out for the day on a free pass would be protected from injury while travelling in a train, but if he went by bus he would not be so protected. It seems to me better to leave this as it is, and I hope that the noble Lord will agree.
LORD CHAMPION: The noble Lord has been sweetly reasonable about this, and has put forth arguments which in the circumstances I feel bound to accept. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CHESHAM: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 30, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board").—(Lord Chesham.)
Clause 43, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 44 agreed to.
Clause 45:
Transport Tribunal's power to make orders
45.—(1) The Transport Tribunal shall, subject to and in accordance with the provisions of this Part of this Act, have power to make orders as respects the following charges of the London Board and the Railways Board, that is to say—

(a) charges for the carriage of passengers by railway on journeys wholly within the London Passenger Transport Area, and

9.51 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON LORD MILVERTON moved, in subsection (1) (a,) to leave out "on journeys wholly within the London Passenger Transport Area". The noble Lord said: Clause 43, together with the repeal of the greater part of Part V of the Transport Act, 1947, has the effect of removing from local authorities the power, which they have previously been able to exercise, of making an objection to the Transport Tribunal against confirmation of a draft charges scheme—that is, against fare increases. Under Clause 45, the Transport Tribunal are given competence to determine fares in the London area; and by Clause 46 local authorities are enabled to make objections to applications for fare increases within the London area. But there is no provision for the Transport Tribunal to exercise general powers, or for objections to be made to fare increases outside the London area. Indeed, Clause 43 makes it clear that the Railways Board will have complete discretion in the fixing of charges, subject to the Minister's power under Clause 27 to give the Board directions of a general character. It is appreciated that one of the prime purposes of the Bill is to give the Board much greater flexibility for fixing fares, but it is felt by local authorities that there should be some statutory provision for public opinion to make itself known, particularly in view of the fact that charges are also to be outside the scope of the reconstituted Transport Users Consultative Committees.
In his Second Reading speech the Minister drew a distinction between London, where the right of appeal to the Transport Tribunal is to be retained, and the rest of the country, on the ground that in London the Railways Board and the London Board together exercise a sizeable monopoly. But most of the bus services in England and Wales are provided by two large groups—the Tilling group, which is owned wholly by the British Transport Commission, and the British Electric Traction Company, which incorporates most of the large private companies and in which the British Transport Commission also hold a substantial interest. Many of the bus companies in these two groups have working arrangements with the railways, which include co-ordination of fares. Thus, although the element of monopoly is less complete outside of London, there is not sufficient competition for public disapproval at the level of railway fares to have much, if any, effect upon them.
This being so, I venture to urge that the right of appeal by local authorities to the Transport Tribunal ought to be retained. While one fully understands the importance which the Minister attaches to the principle of giving the railways greater commercial freedom, nevertheless, the position seems to be that unless local authorities are able to represent the public before the Transport Tribunal, there will be no measure of accountability by the Railways Board to transport users on the basic matter of the price charged for service rendered or for service offered. I cannot believe that it is in the public interest that a virtual monopoly should not be open to public interrogation on its charges policy before an independent tribunal.
It is relevant, surely, to show the extent to which local authorities have up to the present time taken advantage of the provisions in the Transport Act, 1947, whereby they are able to object to the Transport Tribunal against fare increases. Since the Transport Tribunal was set up in its present form under the 1947 Act it has held ten inquiries on objections to draft charges schemes proposed by the British Transport Commission. On no fewer that eight of these ten occasions the inquiry led to an alteration in the

371
charges scheme. On average, about 24 authorities have put in objections to the Transport Tribunal in connection with these inquiries. On the last occasion, when the Tribunal were considering the Passenger Charges Scheme, 1959, 34 authorities put in objections. Since 24 of these authorities were situated outside the London Passenger transport area, they would have had no right to object under the legislation now proposed. It is also interesting to note that, apart from the 34 local authorities, there were only seven other objectors. My Amendment would restore to the Transport Tribunal the power to determine fares outside the London area. If this principle is accepted, as I hope it will be, no doubt the Government would wish to consider the wording and whether consequential Amendments are necessary. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 12, leave out from ("railway") to ("and") in line 14.—(Lord Milverton.)
LORD HAWKE: Might I point out one small slip in my noble friend's statement? By a majority of two votes, this House decided that there will not be co-ordination between bus and rail fares, and therefore there can be no suggestion of a monopoly. Moreover, anybody who has had any experience of running a railway must realise that one of the reasons why railways have perpetually gone into deficit has been the tremendous delay all over the world—it does not apply only to Britain—in relating fares to the devaluation of currency. The noble Lord's Amendment is only proposing to perpetuate that state of affairs, and I, for one, would support the Government in rejecting it.
LORD MILLS: I am glad that my noble friend Lord Hawke has spoken in support of the Government. I was under the impression that we had debated this matter pretty fully on Amendment 108A, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. The fact is that the present restrictions on the ability of the railways to adjust their freight charges and passenger fares quickly and adequately are, in the Government's view, no longer justified in the present competitive conditions. I do not think I should be far short of the mark if I said that the delays which resulted
372
because authorities and others could appeal were to some extent responsible for the heavy deficits of the railways. It is our deliberate intention to free the railways from statutory control over their charges, except for fares in the London Passenger Transport area, where we admit the railways have a monopoly. Surely that carries with it the idea that there shall not be public hearings and that there shall not be a right of appeal, but that, instead, the railways should adapt themselves to the circumstances of the time. We hope that that will prove the right thing to have done. I am sorry that I cannot agree to the noble Lord's proposal which, in effect, would restore the Transport Tribunal's right to look at all the fares before they are brought into force and to hear objections to them.
LORD MILVERTON: I thank the noble Lord for his reply. While I think it will leave the local authorities as dissatisfied as they are at present, I have no wish to carry the matter further now, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD SHEPHERD: Before the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment, may I say that I understood the noble Lord, Lord Mills, to say, with regard to the Amendment I moved, that he would give consideration to the various points I made. I hope that the rather adamant words he has just delivered on the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, do not mean that his mind has been made up to the extent that he will not consider the points that I made in regard to some special areas of Scotland and Wales.
LORD MILLS: I am always only too willing to consider what the noble Lord has to say on any point, but I do not think I gave any commitment at all that there could be any intention on the part of the Government to restore the authority of the Transport Tribunal over fares anywhere.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 45 agreed to.
Clause 46 [Applications for orders]:
10.7 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON LORD MILVERTON moved, in subsection (8) (c) to leave out all the words after "Area". The noble Lord said: I should be far short of the mark if I noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and myself

373
are associated with this Amendment will convince the House that it carries a great deal of reason behind it. Under Clause 46 representative bodies are to be enabled to object to applications made by the London Board and the Railways Board to the Transport Tribunal for fare increases in the London Passenger Transport Area. Subsection (8) excludes from the definition of "representative body" seven non-county boroughs all of which have a population of less than 50,000. This, I am aware, follows the precedent of previous legislation but it nevertheless seems arbitrary to exclude a few authorities in connection with a matter where the level of population has relatively little relevance. The smaller authorities surely, equally as well as larger authorities, represent public opinion in their areas which can otherwise only be made known through the county councils which are more remote for the transport user.
The Government, I realise, consider that the clause as drafted provides a reasonable balance between the need on the one hand to ensure that proceedings of the Transport Tribunal are not unduly protracted, and, on the other, to ensure that the views of representative local bodies can effectively be put before the Tribunal. There seems then, to be no reason at all to suppose that the amendment of the clause in the way desired is likely to bring about any undue increase in the work of the Transport Tribunal, and hence the Amendment proposed, which extends the definition of representative body. I sincerely hope the Government will be able to see the reason which lies behind this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 43, leave out from ("Area") to end of line 45.—(Lord Milverton.)
LORD CHESHAM: The noble Lord who moved this Amendment has left me a little standing, as he has put both sides of the case already. I had not thought that it was on the whole desirable to accept this Amendment for the reasons that he stated. I think that the status quo, so to speak, which has now existed for some time, has worked well in practice. I had not thought that there was any complaint that any of the smaller authorities had suffered; I thought it had worked well. There is
374
certainly the point that the more authorities who can make representation, the more the work of the Tribunal is bound to increase. They can in any case, as no doubt they have done—as I say, it is working quite satisfactorily—make their views known to the county councils within whose areas they are placed, so that they who can make representations can make them on their behalf, and their views be brought forward in that way. I should have thought that in the circumstances the Amendment was unnecessary.
LORD MILVERTON: I thank the noble Lord for his reply and can only say that I regret he is so impervious to reason. But I do not wish to carry the matter any further, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 46 agreed to.
Clause 47 agreed to.
Clause 48 [Special procedure for temporary authorisation of increased charges]:
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved, after subsections (4) to insert:
("( ) A public inquiry under section forty-six of this Act in respect of an application under subsection (4) of this section shall be held within one month after the time for lodging objections and representations has elapsed.")
The noble Lord said: I hope the Committee will consider this a reasonable Amendment. Clause 48 deals with the special procedure for temporary authorisation of increased charges within the London area. We do not object to the provision that the London Board should be able to raise its fares if it is faced with a sudden increase in costs. But, as I understand it, a public inquiry can be held into these increased costs, and this Amendment seeks merely to provide that there shall be no delay in holding such a public inquiry: that an inquiry should be held into these increased rates "within one month after the time for lodging objections and representations has elapsed". Whilst acknowledging the right of the London Board to raise these rates, we have the monopoly position which has been stressed so many times by noble Lords opposite. Perhaps there is a case for the increases, but if there is to be an inquiry—and I think there should be—

375
the effect of a speedy inquiry will obviously be beneficial to the community. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 46, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Shepherd.)
LORD CHESHAM: I should like to establish the principle here and now that if one resists or recommends the rejection of an Amendment it does not mean one necessarily thinks it is not reasonable. Of course, the noble Lord is right in principle. I agree with him; it is desirable that this procedure should be speeded up. The only thing we have to discuss between us is the question, so to speak, of machinery. Under the existing procedure, which is in some ways a little cumbersome, the whole period of the inquiry—notices served, objections and so on and so forth—takes usually four months, and sometimes more. I ask him to bear in mind that the modifications to the existing procedure and to the constitution of the Tribunal between them are designed to speed up the procedure. There will not be any other charges schemes to take up their time.
The Tribunal are having their membership increased into two divisions, so that they can get on with their work more quickly; they will not be diverted sometimes doing one thing and sometimes another; they will be able to do both simultaneously. Also their procedure is being amended so that the original application by the Board to make an increase will be done by notice, published by the Board or Boards, whichever it is, in the London Gazette; and it will contain a brief statement of the grounds on which it is given, so that they will not have to put that one through. There will still be a period of a month for the Boards to make application for an alteration of the fares order, but the application has to contain a written case in support which will be available to objectors. That should reduce the time occupied by the public inquiry quite materially.
Usually at present the first two or three days of an inquiry are occupied by the B.T.C. case. They then have to adjourn for two or three weeks while the objectors consider that and work up their own case. This should now be unnecessary because objectors can prepare their
376
case on the written evidence which is submitted with the application, all of which should have a speeding up effect. I think that this in itself will meet the point of the noble Lord.
There is one other point: it is one of dignity, in as much as the Tribunal has always enjoyed, and will continue to enjoy, the status of the High Court. In that case I do not think that it ought to do other than exercise its own discretion in the matter, and I do not think it should be told exactly how soon to do it. Perhaps in that case the noble Lord will think that we can rely on the improved procedure to provide the speed-up that he wants.
LORD SHEPHERD: I thank the noble Lord for a fairly satisfactory answer. I must say that I raised my eyebrows at his statement that this Tribunal is rather like a High Court and therefore must be allowed to do what it likes and should not be told what to do. These are the servants and not the masters. They are our protectors, or at least the protectors of the community; and even if we cannot tell them what they should do or when they should do their business, I think they should take into account the fact that in the interests Of the community any inquiry should be held with the greatest expedition.
LORD CHESHAM: I do not want there to be any misunderstanding about this. When I referred to dignity, I meant that they were a body whom one could rely upon to do certain things.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 48 agreed to.
Clauses 49 and 50 agreed to.
Clause 51 [Revision of harbour dues]:
10.13 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM: I beg to move Amendment No. 117.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 2, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board").—(Lord Chesham.)
Clause 51, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 52 agreed to.
Clause 53:
Coastal shipping
53.—(1) If at any time a complaint is made to the Minister by any body appearing to

377
him to be representative of the interests of persons engaged in coastal shipping as to—

(a) the charges for the carriage of goods by rail made by the Railways Board in competition with coastal shipping, or

(b) the charges made by the Railways Board for the carriage by rail to any harbour of goods which are to be carried by coastal shipping,

the Minister may give directions to the Board with regard to the charges which are the subject of the complaint.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD AIREDALE): I think that Amendment No. 118A is out of its correct place in the Marshalled List. With the leave of the Committee I will call Amendment No. 118A after Amendment No. 125, which I think is its correct place in the list.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved, in subsection (1) (a), after "made" to insert "or proposed to be made". The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, perhaps we could debate Amendments 121 and 122 together. The purpose of these two Amendments is to enable complaints to be made not only about charges that have already been put into operation by the railways, but also about charges which are proposed to be made. This is to ensure, so far as possible, that traffic is not lost to the railways before any action can be taken, as would happen if complaints were to be allowed only in the case of charges that have already been made. Traffic so lost to the railways would be very difficult to regain. The Transport Act of 1953, by Section 21 and the Fourth Schedule, recognised this and made provision for complaints by coastal shipping to the Transport Tribunal about railways rates to extend to proposed rates. I would suggest that it would be a good thing if a complaint could be made to the investigator at the same time as it was made to the Minister. I suggest that it would make a speedy procedure, and I feel that any statutory relationship between coastwise shipping and the railways should be such that it would be in the interests of both sides to continue on a voluntary basis, somewhat similar to the conference arrangements that exist at present.
I should like to raise one point that is not strictly applicable to this Amendment. I would suggest that companies
378
engaged in short-sea liner services—which, as your Lordships are aware, carry general cargoes between ports in the United Kingdom and those in North West Europe—should be allowed to appeal against unduly low rail rates as a component of a through-rate. Unless care is taken to see that railway shipping, working in conjunction with the railways themselves, does not fix its rates on any other basis than the hard commercial core of rates which is forced upon private owners, the short-sea little ships will be driven out of business. They are quite prepared to meet fair competition, but I would say that when rate cutting is the result of subsidies provided by the taxpayer, then it is a different matter. Perhaps the Minister would be kind enough to give an assurance on this point; but, dealing with this Amendment as a whole, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 54, line 12 after ("made") insert
("or proposed to be made").—(Lord Teynham.)
LORD SOMERS: I should like to second this Amendment. If there is one section of our public transport that needs protection, surely it is our coastal shipping—not only for the invaluable use it is in peace time, but also for what it means to us in time of war. If it is going to be driven out of business because of unduly low charges by the railways, then there is no hope for it, because it is not a very strong competitor against rail haulage. Rail haulage is faster, and, of course, very much more able to reach various points inland. Personally, I feel that our coastal shipping is so important that it should be protected at all costs.
LORD SHEPHERD: We on this side of the House have given consideration to the Amendments that are on the Order Paper in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teynham and Lord Somers. I think that there is some merit in the fear which noble Lords have expressed on numerous occasion as to the position of the short-haul coastal steamers. When one looks at coastal shipping, one should not, like the noble Lord, Lord Somers, say simply: "This is what we have; it has given us good service, and we shall keep it." I think we must consider

379
this form of transport, and any other form of transport, in regard to the way it fits into the general pattern. Is it necessary? Is it a useful part? I think that coastal steamers can undoubtedly play a useful and important part in our transport service. It is true that on certain merchandise, because of their methods of haulage, rail, and possibly road also, are able to compete by quoting cheaper rates than those of the steamers because, as we all know, the steamers include in their freight rates considerable charges for loading and offloading. I think the noble Lord really has in mind, the possibility of the railways making charges which perhaps are uneconomic in regard to their costs. I think that could be investigated—in fact, it probably has been investigated.
We come back again now to the words of Dr. Beeching, and I should like to read them this evening because I think they are so important. Dr. Beeching was speaking at the Institute of Transport, and he said:
"To me a co-ordination of transport means the use of each of the various forms of transport to do those things which it can do best; best in terms of quality, of service and of cost. It also means avoidance of that condition when all forms of transport are competing blindly for all forms of traffic. Although most people accept the desirability of co-ordination in this sense, the plain truth of the matter is that transport as an industry has never moved very far from the conditions of excess capacity and blind competition."
This, I think, is the major problem, and I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, will agree with me. We have in transport to-day an excess capacity, in that all types of transport are fighting for merchandise to carry. Therefore, the competition to-day is mainly in the rates charged, and not in service or suitability.
If the noble Lord has made a case, I think it must apply equally right through all our forms of transport. In my view, this is the failure, the weakness, of this particular Bill, because it does not deal with these main elements of competition, which means that we do not use transport in the way which is most suitable. I think that the Government will have to devise—and the sooner the better—some system such as exists on the Continent by which, somehow, the rates charged for the movement
380
of freight are equalised, so that they are roughly similar whether freight is moved by road, by rail, by coastal steamer or—as is done on the Continent—by inland waterway. There is no competition on rates, with one side of the industry undercutting another. But these services will compete with each other. They should become complementary to each other, providing the capacity and the facility according to the need.
The noble Lord, Lord Teynham, has put his finger quite clearly on the present weakness. He relates it to the position of coastal steamers, which is extremely vulnerable. But his finger points at a problem which applies right throughout the transport industry—in fact it has bedevilled the industry ever since 1953. We are moving far too much by road when it could well be moved by rail. It may be that we are to-day moving goods by rail which could well be moved by coastal steamer. The Government's decision as to how those goods were to be moved was probably based on price, through which the rest of the public, particularly those who are road-users, have been put to considerable inconvenience and danger. I do not think, with all the merits of the case that the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, has made, that we can relate this to the position of only coastal steamers and the railways. This is a very grave point, and it is one which the Government must soon face squarely—otherwise, we shall be in great difficulties.
As to the terms of the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, I should be grateful to hear from the Minister whether they are practical. I am not sure; but he certainly has made a case. It certainly applies, as I have tried to say, right through our transport industry. I know there is considerable concern not only on the part of the shipowners but also among those very gallant men who man our ships about their future employment. I think there is a case to be looked at. I am not myself sure what the answer is, unless we go right back to the words of Dr. Beeching when he talks of "co-ordination".
LORD CHESHAM: I think that at this hour I will address myself merely to the Amendment, and will let the noble Lord

381
opposite have his say. I also will not address myself for very long to my noble friend's point about the short sea lines. I will simply say that in their case they have never enjoyed the protection that the coastal shippers have had. Coming on to the Amendment itself—or, rather, to the Amendments themselves—with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, I would say that I am a little doubtful as to exactly what these Amendments would do, and whether they would meet the point my noble friend is worried about. The provision in the Bill is that the Minister's power of direction following a justified complaint can be used only in respect of charges made. That is right. The noble Lord wants it to be "charges proposed to be made"; but, as it is, it is not intended to prevent complaints from being made and investigated about charges which the Railways Board may quote. I think we are almost getting down to the definition of "made", because if the clause did prevent investigation at an earlier stage the coastal shipowners on, for instance, the short-haul routes, where they get protection under subsection (1) (b) of Clause 53, might be quoted charges which were so high that they could not accept them. In that case, they could not have been said to have been made—or even, possibly, "proposed to be made". It is rather a difficult point to know exactly what to do about it.
I think the justification is—I do not want to get muddled about this question of "made"—if the railways are going to have complaints made against them before the charges are accepted, or before there exists a contract, they are never going to get any business. As the noble Lord has argued, protection is justified to the degree which the Bill gives in the case of shipping. But we must remember that we have also to try to run the railways as an economic proposition. I think the bar here would be to their legitimate trading transactions and the fact that they could be held in suspense because the commercial competitor enters a complaint against the rate that has been quoted. Unless it is actually charged, it will be impossible for them to enter into any commitments at all. The uncertainty would lose business for them, as their customers, those who require transport, are getting much more choosy about satisfactory prices,
382
regularity, punctuality, and so on. With the uncertainty it would create if we accepted this Amendment, I should like to look at the point again to make sure that prior consideration of a charge before it is actually paid is properly covered by the Bill. Otherwise, I should have preferred not to accept these two Amendments.
LORD TEYNHAM: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, for undertaking to look at the point again, and I appreciate very much the assistance I have received from the Opposition Benches and the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. I do not want to deal with the matter any further to-night, so I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.32 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved, in subsection (1) (b,) to leave out ("to any harbour"). The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to enlarge the definition of the short-haul by rail contained in paragraph (b) of subsection (1), so as to cover not only the haul from inland point of origin to point of shipment, but also from the port of discharge to the inland destination. I thought the fact that paragraph (b) applied only to short hauls in one direction might be a draughtman's omission; but I subsequently learned that this is not so, and that the short haul from port of discharge to inland destination had been deliberately omitted because the Ministry did not think that there were any cases where the traffic would be tied to rail, and therefore a rail monopoly. There are in fact a number of cases where short-haul traffics from port of discharge to destination is virtually tied to rail, but I do not propose to weary your Lordships with them tonight. But they certainly exist. If one adds up the whole amount, I believe it comes to something like a quarter of a million tons, which is really quite a lot of freight. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 54, line 16, leave out the words "to any harbour".—(Lord Teynham)
LORD SOMERS: I rather hesitate to speak in support of this Amendment at this time of night, but I hardly think anyone will consider this Amendment

383
anything but (if I dare use the word) reasonable.
LORD CHESHAM: I do not want to accept this Amendment now as such. But the noble Lord is right; there has been a certain amount of consultation and negotiation on this question. He was also right in saying that the Bill as drafted was deliberately drafted in that way. I think that there is a case here, and if my noble friend will consider withdrawing these three Amendments now, we should like to consider them further. We have a definite sympathy with this point.
LORD TEYNHAM: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, for giving this undertaking to look at the matter again, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved in subsection (1), after "Minister," where that word occurs a second time, to insert:
"shall forthwith refer the complaint to a person appointed by him for the purpose of investigating it and of advising the Minister thereon.
(2) Any person appointed in pursuance of subsection (1) of this section shall be a person appearing to the Minister to have had wide experience of, and to have shown capacity in, industrial, commercial, financial, economic or transport matters.
(3) The Minister, after considering any advice given to him by the person to whom he has referred a complaint in pursuance of the said subsection (1),".
The noble Lord said: The effect of this Amendment is that, when a complaint is made to the Minister under Clause 53, it has to be referred to an investigator with the qualifications referred to in the proposed new subsection (2). I suggest that the nature of the advice given to the Minister as the result of the investigation would guide the Minister as to whether the case is one in which he can properly give direction to the Railways Board under the clause. In effect, the Amendment goes no further than to make statutory the procedure which the Minister has already said he intends to adopt. The Minister used these words in another place:
"When complaints are made, I propose to appoint an accountant of very high standing to investigate impartially and then report to me."
384
It is of the utmost importance that the Minister, having accepted the principle of independent advice from an impartial third party, should write that principle into the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 54, line 18, after "Minister" insert the said words.—(Lord Teynham.)
LORD CHESHAM: The noble Lord is right. That is what the Minister said. The only thing that is between us is that I think, for reasons I need not go into, his Amendment goes further than what my right honourable friend said in another place. Again, I would ask him if he would care to withdraw it now. We will look at it sympathetically once more, with a view to putting an Amendment down at a later stage which would give effect to the undertaking of my right honourable friend.
LORD TEYNHAM: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD TEYNHAM: I beg to move this Amendment formally.
Amendment moved—
Page 54, line 35, at end insert—
("(6) Before the vesting date references in this section to the Railways Board shall be construed as references to the Commission.")—(Lord Teynham.)
LORD CHESHAM: I am glad that my noble friend moved this Amendment formally because I want to tell him that it is not necessary, as what he wants is already achieved in the Bill.
LORD TEYNHAM: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 53 agreed to.
LORD MILLS: It might be to your Lordships convenience if we now adjourn the Committee. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

SHOREHAM HARBOUR BILL
Reported, with Amendments.
SOUTH ESSEX WATERWORKS BILL
Reported, with Amendments.

LETCHWORTH GARDEN CITY CORPORATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at nineteen minutes before 11 o'clock.