Sitting of 15 November 1962

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

    Jury Service (Departmental Committee)
    Dame Irene Wardasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has completed his consideration of improvements in women's representation on the Juror Service arising out of the representations made by the National Council of Women, a deputation from whom was introduced to his predecessor by the hon. Member for Tynemouth; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Henry Brooke): After considering the representations referred to by my hon. Friend, I have decided to appoint a Departmental Committee to review a number of general questions regarding jury service, including the representation of women on juries. I will announce its membership and terms of reference as soon as possible.
    Dame Irene Ward: May I thank my right hon. Friend for his action? Has he any idea how long this Committee is likely to take over this work? He has not indicated what its full programme will be. Is my right hon. Friend further aware that the National Council of Women, which has been primarily responsible for discussing the matter of increasing the number of women in jury service, will be profoundly appreciative of his decision?
    Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what she has said. I cannot say how long the Committee will take to do its work. The principal Act in this matter goes back as far as 1825,
    536
    and there has not been an inquiry for the last forty-nine years. The Committee will therefore have some work to do. I hope that it will be able to begin early in the New Year and complete the work as soon as possible.
    Sir B. Janner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there has been considerable agitation about this for quite a long time? The law really produces an absurd position. For instance, only about 200 women are eligible for jury service in my constituency out of the registered electorate of some 53,000. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman do something to remedy the position straight away without having this long delay through the appointment of a Committee?
    Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman may be under-estimating the complexities of this matter. I rather wish that he had expressed his welcome to my decision, as did my hon. Friend.

    Criminal Courts (Sentences)
    Mr. Abseasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the booklet covering all forms of sentences and written for sentencers, recommended by the Inter-departmental Committee on the business of the Criminal Courts, is now in the course of publication; and when it will become available to sentencers.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke): The preparation of the booklet is going forward, but I cannot yet say when it will be ready for issue.
    Mr. Abse: There is, unfortunately, a view abroad that sentencers are passing sentences about which they know nothing and the consequences of which they understand little. Is it not, therefore, equally unfortunate that this booklet has not been published?
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: It will be published soon. It would have been foolish to have brought it out earlier because one would have had to amend it almost immediately following the passage of two Acts, of which the hon. Gentleman is aware. It would be wrong to assume that those responsible for sentencing are without information in the meanwhile,

    537
    because, of course, there are many sources upon which they can draw and which are offered to them.

    Prisoners (Periodic Reports)
    Mr. Abseasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the central authority recommended to be set up by the Inter-departmental Committee on the business of the Criminal Courts to enable judges and magistrates to obtain periodic reports on those they have sentenced has yet been constituted.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: This recommendation does not require the establishment of a new central authority; the Home Office will make all necessary arrangements for periodic reports where judges ask for them.
    Mr. Abse: Do I understand that already it is possible for judges and other sentencers to make a request to the Home Office for follow-through reports on anyone they have sentenced? I hope that is what is meant by the hon. and learned Member's repay, since it is very important that sentencers should know the consequences of their actions.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: We fully recognise the importance of this follow-up exercise. In the first instance, we are putting machinery in train for the superior courts, because it is they who give longer sentences and, therefore, follow-up exercises are particularly important for them. The machinery is almost ready and it will be in train within a month or two.

    Durham Prison (Oil-fired Boiler Equipment)
    Mr. Boydenasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost of installing the oil-fired boiler equipment in Durham Prison; and what are its annual running costs for oil.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: New boilers were required in Durham Prison. These were supplied and installed complete with oilfired equipment at a cost of £18,257; ancillary work by contract, which included the supply and installation of fuel tanks, cost £17,835. The erection of a new boiler house and other work was carried out by prison labour at a
    538
    cost for materials of £9,854. Oil consumption is estimated to cost £12,400 annually.
    Mr. Boyden: Could not the Home Office have got a coal-fired installation at as reasonable a price? How does the hon. and learned Gentleman reconcile the attempts by the Government to bring employment to the North-East with the taking away of employment by not taking up coke or coal which is locally available?
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I fully appreciate the sentiment behind the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. My right hon. Friend undertakes, particularly in areas such as he mentions, that the importance of coal firing will be looked into. In this case, the area available within the prison wall was peculiarly small and did not allow sufficient space for the storage of coal and for the somewhat larger machinery and equipment that would be necessary.

    Civil Defence
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the response to Home Office Circular 18/6962 on the reorganisation of Civil Defence; and what is the number of resignations among. Civil Defence volunteers since its publication.
    Mr. Brooke: The reorganisation of the Civil Defence Corps, announced in July, was introduced on 1st October. It is too soon for any reliable assessment to be made of the response to the new arrangements. In the quarter ended 30th September there were 18,233 resignations and discharges from the Corps, a gross loss of a little over 5 per cent. of its total strength.
    Mr. Digby: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the training requirements have been made very exacting for this excellent body of volunteers who are being asked to give up a great deal of their spare time?
    Mr. Brooke: I recognise that. We consulted all concerned before bringing in this new plan. I think that it is important that volunteers should fulfil the precise training obligations in order to remain active members. We also have now the Civil Defence Corps Reserve

    539
    which provides for members who have taken the standard training but who cannot undertake continuing obligations.
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what civil defence plans were available at the time of the recent Cuba crisis; which of these were operated; and what plans Her Majesty's Government have to protect key members of the Government or certain workers in essential industries which do not apply to the general population.
    Mr. Brooke: Successive Defence White Papers have set out a wide range of Civil Defence measures, including plans for the maintenance of regional administration and essential services. They could have been put into operation at short notice had it been necessary. In the event it was not.
    Mr. Allaun: But the Home Secretary has not answered the third part of my Question. Are not the public entitled to know the facts? Whilst it is highly doubtful whether any shelter can provide protection against an H-bomb, is the Minister aware that any such special arrangements would arouse widespread repugnance and indignation?
    Mr. Brooke: The third part of the Question appeared to be based on a passage in a publication called Peace News, which on this occasion I read. I have no knowledge of special arrangements to protect Members of the Government. It is certainly the case that for the benefit of the proper working of the whole Civil Defence organisation there will be protected regional headquarters for key personnel.
    Mr. Greenwoodasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that at 6 p.m. on Saturday 27th October, two Hampstead residents sought advice as to what civil defence protection was available; that telephone calls to four civil defence offices achieved no result either because no advice was available or no reply was obtained, and that his department advised telephoning the police who advised telephoning the Hampstead Town Hall, from which no reply could be obtained; and what steps he is taking to increase civil defence alertness in London outside normal working hours.
    Mr. Brooke: I read a report to this effect in the local press. I am sorry the two persons did not offer their services to the Civil Defence Corps earlier.
    In reply to the last part of the Question, civil defence measures can be put into operation at short notice, in case of necessity.
    Mr. Greenwood: Is the Minister aware that one of the offices from which no reply could be received was the London headquarters of Civil Defence? Can he tell the House how it would be possible to alert services at short notice if telephonic communication could not be achieved? Further, is the Minister aware of the effect which his Department's fumbling is having on the morale of Civil Defence workers?
    Mr. Brooke: There is no fumbling at all. In fact the whole Civil Defence organisation could have been alerted at short notice at that time. It was, however, a specific decision by Her Majesty's Government that no such steps should be taken in the circumstances.
    Mr. Greenwood: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Metropolitan Mounted Police
    Mr. Liptonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what is the current annual cost of maintaining the Metropolitan Mounted Police.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. C. M. Woodhouse): About £400,000.
    Mr. Lipton: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that for ceremonial occasions we have the mounted cavalry, and that for controlling political and other demonstrations foot police, for a variety of reasons, are much more suitable? In the circumstances, is this very substantial expenditure really worth while for 200 men and 200 horses? If I may mix my metaphors, is not this all a bit of a white elephant?
    Mr. Woodhouse: I do not think that I would agree that it is a white elephant. In fact, of the £400,000 annual cost well over three-quarters is the cost of the policemen themselves, which would have

    541
    to be paid in any case. It is a fact that for many purposes other than ceremonial occasions it is possible to control crowds more economically with policemen on horseback rather than on foot, so with the elimination of the mounted police we would probably need a larger number of foot police.
    Sir J. Barlow: Is it not a fact that mounted police in London and other large cities serve a very useful purpose in many different spheres?
    Mr. Woodhouse: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend.

    Commonwealth Immigrants
    Sir C. Osborneasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that there is uncertainty in magistrates' courts about the power to compel a Commonwealth immigrant who is recommended for deportation because of conviction for crime to take his family with him; if he will introduce legislation to clarify the position; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: There is no power to compel an offender's family to accompany him when he is deported and my right hon. Friend does not consider that any such provision is called for. My right hon. Friend hopes that the publicity given to this Answer will serve to remove any uncertainty that may have existed on this point.
    Sir C. Osborne: Since this dilemma arose in a London magistrates' court and the magistrate said that the law was not clear on the matter, will this Answer clear up the question for all magistrates' courts?
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I hope so. I think that the law is quite clear that there is no power in such circumstances.
    Mr. C. Royle: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman pass on to his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary the thanks of very many magistrates far the statement that he made on this subject at Durham yesterday?
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: My right hon. Friend has heard that encomium.
    Mr. Awbery: Can the Minister tell us whether any cases have been reported to him of Englishmen, Scotsmen or
    542
    Welshmen being deported from the Commonwealth for committing a crime there and, if so, whether their families were sent home with them?
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I should require notice on the Order Paper of that question.

    Lotteries and Gaming Act, 1956
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware of the differing interpretations put upon the Lotteries and Gaming Act, 1956, with regard to the registration of lotteries and, in particular, of thrift clubs; and if he will introduce legislation to clarify the law in this respect.
    Mr. Woodhouse: No, Sir. If there is any doubt about the interpretation of the law in any particular case, it can be settled by recourse to the courts.
    Mr. Digby: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is very hard for people in a county like Dorset to understand why thrift clubs are not allowed there at all when they are allowed in neighbouring counties? There is no doubt that the views of chief constables differ on this matter, and is not that an unsatisfactory state of affairs?
    Mr. Woodhouse: I am aware that there are these differences, but the proper way of settling them is by recourse to the courts. If it may give my hon. Friend any encouragement, since he wrote to me about the case that he has in mind there has been an amendment to the 1956 Act which should conceivably have some bearing on his case, and it is open to the thrift club that he has in mind in his constituency to apply again for registration.

    Molten Metal (Carriage by Road)
    Mr. Graham Pageasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take action in the interests of road safety to prevent the carriage of molten metal by road, as now being undertaken from Minworth, Warwickshire, to Erdington, Birmingham.
    Mr. Woodhouse: No, Sir. The carrier has, in consultation with my Department, designed and constructed the vehicles

    543
    and containers in such a way as to overcome the intrinsic hazard of this material.
    Mr. Page: Does not my right hon. Friend think that it is an extraordinary thing that while these dangerous substances are within a factory there are innumerable safety regulations, but once they get on to the road the regulations are practically nil? Is he satisfied that his right hon. Friend has the power to make regulations to protect the public against the considerable risk of dangerous substances on the road and, if he has the power, why has he not made regulations?
    Mr. Woodhouse: Yes, Sir. There is no doubt that my right hon. Friend has that power and has had it for a number of years. It has been found in practice that the extremely limited number of companies who wish to convey such dangerous substances by road are prepared to consult the Chief Inspector of Explosives of my right hon. Friend's Department and we have found that this kind of practical co-operation is the best way of making arrangements.
    Mr. Page: Is not my hon. Friend aware that there have been serious accidents on the road, one very near the places mentioned in the Question when a lorry blew up and damaged houses, and other cases of dangerous substances going on the roads and ruining water supplies of villages? Is he saying that the regulations are sufficient to prevent that sort of thing?
    Mr. Woodhouse: There is an existing power under Regulation 73 of the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations, 1955, which would make it an offence for any firm to carry dangerous substances in a dangerous manner.

    Royal Commission on the Police (Report)
    Mr. C. Royleasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will introduce legislation to implement the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Police 1962, in regard to the responsibility, and accountability to Parliament, of the Home Secretary for Police Forces outside the Metropolitan area.
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has for taking steps to implement the recommendation in Paragraph 480 (5) of the Report of the Royal Commission on the Police that chief constables be subject to more effective supervision.
    Dr. D. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware of the concern expressed by the Royal Commission on the Police in regard to the insufficiency of control over chief constables; and what steps he is taking to implement the recommendation of the Commission that he be made statutorily responsible for the efficiency of the police throughout England and Wales.
    Mr. Brooke: In consultation with the representative bodies concerned, I am considering these and many other recommendations by the Royal Commission.
    Mr. Royle: I appreciate that Answer to the full, but is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is growing concern not only among Members of Parliament but among the public generally about the lack of opportunity to raise questions anywhere about the administration of the police in provincial cities and towns? Is he aware that much of the concern arises about the use of police dogs, as is suggested in Question No. 9 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins), and also about allegations from time to time of assault of accused persons by the police? Is he aware that these things can never be cleared up anywhere? Will he give urgent consideration to this matter?
    Mr. Brooke: Many important matters are raised by the recommendations of the Royal Commission which I should think the House would wish to debate one day. The present position is that my predecessor invited the County Councils Association, the Association of Municipal Corporations and other bodies to express their views. The matters with which these three Questions are concerned are also matters of importance to the local authorities and it would be wrong, and the House would not wish it, if I were to reach and announce

    545
    decisions until I had received, as I have not yet, the views of the local authority associations.
    Mr. Chapman: Will the right hon. Gentleman be kind enough to have another look and a close look at the recommendations in paragraphs 322 and 323 of the Royal Commission's Report, where it is unanimously recommended that the Home Secretary should have power, as there already is in Scotland—so there is a precedent—to call for reports from chief constables on broad matters of policy, so that he in turn would become answerable to the House? Would it not be the simplest thing in the world to bring English law into line with Scottish law in this matter and so solve much of the terrible problems which afflict Members of Parliament dealing with these matters?
    Mr. Brooke: I am working hard on these matters. I know that the hon. Member has regard to the local government side and I am sure that there are many hon. Members, on both sides of the House, who would criticise me if I were to announce decisions on recommendations, however unanimous, before waiting for any views which the local authorities had to express.
    Dr. Johnson: Will my right hon. Friend have it in mind during his consideration that the present position is based on legislation dating from the time of King William IV, and would he ask himself if it is really satisfactory to have this antique situation when dealing with the present menace of both criminality and espionage?
    Mr. Brooke: It was because the Government felt that the whole matter needed thorough re-examination that the Royal Commission was set up, and I am certain that in due course the House will have very great responsibilities when we come to debate the whole matter.
    Miss Bacon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this most important Report has now been published for some considerable time and that we want a debate on it not "one day" but soon? Is he aware, that, while we appreciate that he says that he has to consult local authorities, local authorities gave evidence to the Commission, so that their views are well known? Although the
    546
    right hon. Gentleman says that he will not pronounce on it, has he not made some pronouncement on the Report outside the House?
    Mr. Brooke: I am certainly not aware that I have made any pronouncements on this subject outside the House. It is not for me to settle the business of the House, as the hon. Lady knows. I should have thought that it would have been out of accord with our normal modes of procedure if, when a Minister—in this case my predecessor—has invited the local authority associations to express their views on a set of recommendations, another Minister were to announce the Government's conclusions before the replies had been received. That is my position. not altogether an easy one, at the moment.
    25 Mr. Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what inquiries of the kind mentioned in paragraph 480 (108) in the Report of the Royal Commission on the Police he has held in recent years; and what action he is taking on the Commission's recommendation that this power of administrative inquiry by the Secretary of State should be used more readily.
    Mr. Brooke: Since the beginning of 1952 there have been two such inquiries, of which 1 will, with permission, circulate details in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I have noted the Royal Commission's recommendation, and will bear it in mind when considering particular cases.
    Mr. Chapman: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that in the sort of case mentioned by the Royal Commission, namely, the case where a citizen has a complaint against the police, if he fails to obtain redress locally the right hon. Gentleman will, after due consideration and if he thinks it proper, hold an administrative inquiry into such allegations, in the way recommended by the Royal Commission?
    Mr. Brooke: I am not anxious to take these matters out of the hands of, for example, watch committees. The usefulness of the kind of inquiry which the hon. Member suggests is to some extent limited by the fact that there would be no power to compel evidence or to require evidence on oath. But

    547
    I will certainly take all these matters into consideration as future cases arise.
    Following are the details:

    Date

    Subject of inquiry

    Held by

    1952

    Allegations against the Chief Constable of Derbyshire and the Chairman of the Derbyshire Standing Joint Committee.

    Mr. Anthony Marlowe, Q.C., M.P., and Mr. W. C. Johnson, C.M.G. C.B.E.

    1957

    The administration and efficiency of the Cardiganshire Constabulary and the state of discipline in the force.

    Mr. H. J. Phillimore, O.B.E., Q.C.

    Immigrants (Housing)
    Sir C. Osborneasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in view of the fact that numbers of immigrants are occupying houses in the London area while London citizens are homeless, if he will exercise more stringent control over the number of immigrants admitted to this country until British people are adequately housed.
    Mr. Brooke: Pressure on housing was one of the factors taken into account when the Government decided to seek powers to control the rate of immigration from the Commonwealth. There are also a number of other considerations which have a bearing on the exercise of these powers.
    Sir C. Osborne: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that English people ought to have priority in housing in their own country?
    Mr. Brooke: These matters were debated at length during the passage of the Commonwealth Immigrants Measure. I did not hold my present position at that time, but I have never thought that it was the decision of the Government that Commonwealth immigration should be stopped, but only that the rate of immigration should be controlled.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Will the right hon. Gentleman resist all these suggestions which are put to him by the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) which are resented by all good-thinking and decent people in this country?
    Mr. Brooke: I will do my utmost to maintain a balanced view on all these matters.
    Mr. Dugdale: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the reason why large numbers of people in London, the Midlands and elsewhere are homeless is not the arrival of immigrants, but the fact that the Government are totally incapable of building an adequate number of houses at cheap rents?
    Mr. Brooke: I do not agree. In any case, it is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government.

    Racial Hatred
    14, Mr. McKayasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to make illegal organisations that encourage racial hatred, particularly against Jews.
    Mr. Brooke: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave on Thursday last in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger).
    Mr. McKay: Is it not the case that there are still people who consider that not sufficient is being done? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Jews have suffered more than others from the evil of racial discrimination and that our people would consider it a credit to our nation if by legislation we made it illegal for organised groups to ventilate their grievances against a race of people whose history and work in the battle of life is to be admired?
    Mr. Brooke: I made a comprehensive statement on this subject a week ago in answer to a Question, a statement which appeared to me to command the general approval of both sides of the House and for which I have since been thanked by a number of members of the Jewish community. At present I have nothing to add to it.

    Commonwealth Citizens and Aliens, London Airport
    Mr. Stonehouseasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Commonwealth citizens and aliens, respectively, have been held in custody for twelve hours or longer at London Airport as a result of the refusal of immigration officers to admit them to the United Kingdom since 1st August, 1962.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Thirteen Commonwealth citizens and 27 aliens, all of whom were detained overnight.
    Mr. Stonehouse: Are these people able to contact advisers and obtain help?
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Yes. There is no detention in cells or anything of that sort, and they are given every facility to communicate with whomsoever they choose.

    Betting Shops
    Mr. Danceasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many betting shops have been licensed in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Brooke: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on 8th November to a Question by the hon. Members for Dagenham (Mr. Parker).
    Mr. Dance: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that since that date many more betting shops have been opened? Is he aware that people connected with the furthering of racing, and including many prominent bookmakers, sincerely feel that magistrates have been far too lenient in the granting of these licences, of which there are too many? Is he further aware that since these betting shops have been opened, attendances at racecourses have dropped considerably? Would he consider the suggestion that betting shops should not be allowed to be open during the hours of racing?
    Mr. Brooke: I will take account of everything my hon. Friend has said, but there is a later Question on the Order Paper by the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Sorensen), Question No. 23, and I should find difficulty in answering that supplementary question without anticipating the Answer which I hope I shall have a chance to give to the hon. Member for Leyton.
    Mr. G. Thomas: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, while the Betting and Gaming Act has opened the door to all sorts of enterprises in gambling, there is a very uneven distribution of these betting shops, as in some areas magistrates are much too free about allowing the multiplication of betting shops? Will he draw the attention of magistrates to our concern about what is happening?
    Mr. Brooke: One thing I must not do is draw the attention of magistrates to any matters. In general, the answer to the supplementary question of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) must be on the same lines as the answer to the supplementary question of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Dance).
    Mr. J. T. Price: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I was a member of the Standing Committee which considered the Betting and Gaming Bill and that during its many sittings I repeatedly warned the Minister and his colleagues and everybody else in the Committee that that legislation would have two inevitable results: it would lead to a great increase in gambling by women during shopping expeditions and, secondly, to continuous betting, that is, waiting from one race to the next, collecting the winnings on the first and putting them on the second? Is he also aware that I was assured that my fears were unfounded in both cases, but that in the event, unfortunately, they have been completely realised in practice? Is he aware that this is the great social evil and that some restrictions ought to be reimposed.
    Mr. Brooke: I have no personal information about what women do when they go out shopping. I have read the proceedings in the Standing Committee on the Bill a couple of years ago. I am inclined to the view that it is too early to reach final conclusions on what will be the eventual outcome of the new provisions of the law.
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what extent prosecutions for illegal street betting have diminished since the legalisation of betting shops; and if, either by granting fuller powers to local authorities or by taking other steps, he will prevent an excessive number of betting shops being opened, particularly when this adversely affects availability of domestic accommodation or the usage of shops for other purposes.
    Mr. Brooke: In the first seven months of this year there were only seven prosecutions for illegal street betting in the Metropolitan Police District, and my understanding is that illegal street betting

    551
    has virtually ceased in other parts of the country also. The local licensing authorities responsible for the grant or renewal of betting office licences, which in England and Wales are committees of the justices, have power to refuse an application on the ground that the grant or renewal of a licence would be inexpedient having regard to the demand in the locality and the number of betting offices available to meet it. The local authority must be informed of the application, and has a right to lodge an objection. Furthermore, the permission of the planning authority must be obtained before a dwelling house or a retail shop can be converted into a betting office. I have no further legislative proposals at present in mind.
    Mr. Sorensen: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he appreciates that the arrangements to control betting seem to have broken down in view of the fact that in many areas there are obviously far more betting shops than were anticipated, or are needed? In these circumstances, will he reflect again on this very serious question?
    Mr. Brooke: This is a matter for the licensing authorities into whose hands it was put by Parliament. I have seen reports in the Press that there are 20,000 betting offices in existence now. I have no reason to believe that it is anything like that number.
    Mr. Fletcher: Is not the Home Secretary aware that a very much larger number of betting offices have been opened than was contemplated when the Bill was passed, and that the general opinion is that the volume of betting has increased very considerably? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when he will be able to let us have some reliable statistics about this matter?
    Mr. Brooke: The report for the second licensing period will be laid before Parliament in, I should say, a few weeks, but complete control over the number of betting office licences granted is in the hands of the licensing authorities, and by way of appeal from them in England and Wales, in the hands of quarter sessions, and I should have thought that both these courts took every point into consideration, particularly whether there were too many betting offices growing up in a particular area, before reaching a decision.
    552
    I really do not believe that this could be settled centrally.

    Ex-prisoners (Re-employment)
    Sir T. Mooreasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware of the formation of a committee to consider the problem of ex-prisoners of professional status who find difficulty, on release, in returning to their former professions or occupations, or in finding other employment suitable to their educational or academic standing; and what assistance he will give this committee in their work.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: We know of proposals for the formation of a private committee for this purpose, and we shall be happy to consider any requests for advice or assistance which the committee may make.
    Sir T. Moore: My hon. and learned Friend will no doubt appreciate that the idea behind this scheme is to establish an organisation of insurance companies, employers, and the like, to underwrite the reliability of such discharged prisoners so as to give them an opportunity and a chance of getting employment in the professions which they previously possibly adorned.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: It sounds a laudable object.

    After-Care (Report)
    Miss Baconasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the report on after-care from his advisory committee.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: The organisation of after-care is being considered by a sub-committee of the Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders. I am told that the sub-committee has made substantial progress, but that it is not yet possible to say exactly when the inquiry will be completed.
    Miss Bacon: If this report is going to be unduly delayed, will the hon. and learned Gentleman assure the House that he and his right hon. Friend will do everything they can to improve the aftercare services now? Is he aware that in many cases the services are totally ineffective, and that while we wait for the report of the committee, and while we

    553
    are here discussing this matter, there are hundreds of ex-prisoners walking the streets with no homes and no work? Is he aware that in the case I sent him recently in which I requested after-care and was assured that it would be put into operation, the man concerned has no permanent home, no job, no friends, no relatives, and is at this moment walking the streets of London? Is he further aware that if such men get into trouble again they ought not to be in the dock alone, but should have others with them?
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: This is a very serious problem. The sub-committee has finished taking evidence and is in the process of drafting its report. I understand that the committee has gone into this problem with immense thoroughness over a very wide field, and I think that we must wait and see what it says.

    Home Safety
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in view of the high accident rate in homes, he will increase the grant for home safety activities to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents.
    Mr. Woodhouse: My right hon. Friend is considering a request which he has received from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents for an increase in the grant made by the Home Office towards the Society's home safety work.
    Mr. Dempsey: Will the Minister bear in mind that, although twice as many accidents occur in the home as on the roads, the grant for home safety purposes up to the present time has really been a paltry sum? When he does consider it, will he see that the grant is stepped up to a realistic level so that we might save the country from some future tragedies in the home?
    Mr. Woodhouse: I cannot agree that the grant is at a paltry level. I should remind the House that this grant has always been made on the basis that the society working in this field should ultimately become self-supporting, but my right hon. Friend will bear in mind the comparison which the hon. Gentleman has made with the cost of road safety.
    Sir J. Duncan: If there is to be an increase, is it to be directed to a par-
    554
    ticular part of the new programme for reducing accidents in the home?
    Mr. Woodhouse: There has been no decision to that effect, nor indeed that there should be an increase, but my understanding is that it would be for general purposes and not for any specific kind of home accident.

    Air Transport, Great Britain and Northern Ireland
    Mr. Stratton Millsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he intends to take on the Hall Committee's recommendations on the development of air transport between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Brooke: Arrangements have been made for a study, which will be promoted by the Air Transport Licensing Board, of the possibilities of developing the transport of freight by air between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Stratton Mills: Will my right hon. Friend say when this inquiry is to commence, and will he seek means by which Messrs. Short Brothers & Harland Ltd. may be associated with this inquiry?
    Mr. Brooke: The detailed arrangements for the study are really a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation, but I will certainly bring to his notice what my hon. Friend has said.

    Dartmoor Prison
    Sir H. Studholmeasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has now completed his consideration of the future of Dartmoor Prison: and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Haymanasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make his promised statement on the future of Dartmoor Prison before Christmas.
    Mr. Brooke: My predecessor announced on 1st December, 1960, his conclusion that Princetown was an unsuitable location for a new prison; and it remains my intention to transfer the prisoners elsewhere when other accommodation becomes available. The local authorities and other interested bodies were told in March, 1961, that

    555
    a start on reducing the prison population could not be made before the middle of 1965, and might well be later. I greatly regret that, in spite of the additional prisons which have since come into use, overcrowding continues to increase, and I cannot yet fix a firm date. I would hope to give at least three years' notice, when I can fix it. I will review the position as still more new prisons come into use.
    Sir H. Studholme: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his Answer, as far as it goes, will give considerable satisfaction to my constituents in Princetown?
    Mr. Brooke: I am obliged to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Hayman: Will the Home Secretary also take note of the fact that many others, including myself, will be pleased that he has adhered to the decision reached by his predecessor? We can only hope that the removal of the prison will take place as soon as possible.
    Mr. Brooke: If I have pleased both Devon and Cornwall, and both political parties, I have really done well.
    Miss Vickers: Having regard to the fact that my right hon. Friend is now going to make these changes, will he also see that the warders' conditions are considerably improved? The prison is fairly satisfactory from the prisoners' point of view, but the warders have many difficulties.
    Mr. Brooke: I will take note of what my hon. Friend says. I know that the location, as well as the environment, has disadvantages from the point of view of prison officers.

    Experiments on Animals
    Mr. Burdenasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the first experiment took place in which animals were forced to inhale tobacco smoke; and how many animals were used in such experiments up to 30th September, 1962.
    Mr. Woodhouse: I understand that the first experiments of this kind in this country were undertaken about six years ago. The statistics published in the annual return of experiments presented to the House show the total number of
    556
    experiments performed in any year in the course of cancer investigation, but not the number of experiments of a particular kind.
    Mr. Burden: Will my hon. Friend look into this matter again? The Americans have discontinued these experiments, because it has been impossible to induce animals to contract cancer. Experiments here have had the same effect. In view of this fact, is it not time that these experiments were discontinued? What would be gained, anyhow, by establishing the fact that an animal can be given cancer by inhaling tobacco smoke, when, according to medical statistics, it is known that human beings can do so?
    Mr. Woodhouse: I am aware of my hon. Friend's concern in this matter, but it is not possible for the Home Secretary to be made responsible for saying that further experiments of this kind would not lead to new knowledge of the the kind covered by the 1876 Act. It is not for the Home Secretary to adjudicate on the usefulness of a particular piece of research. It is a subject on which he takes advice from very eminent scientific and medical men.

    DISARMAMENT (EIGHTEEN-NATION COMMITTEE)
    Mr. P. Noel-Bakerasked the Prime Minister what proposals he has made to President Kennedy for raising the status and accelerating the work of the Committee of 18 Nations on Disarmament, when it reassembles in Geneva on 12th November.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): Owing to the debate on disarmament in the United Nations General Assembly in New York, it was unfortunately not possible for the Geneva Conference to reconvene on 12th November. The Conference will now reconvene on 26th November and I hope that the negotiations will be resumed with renewed urgency. We shall certainly do whatever we can to hasten progress towards an agreement.
    I think that the Geneva Committee or Conference is the body best suited to do the kind of detailed work that is needed: and I have the fullest confidence in the

    557
    Minister of State who leads the United Kingdom delegation. I would not propose any change of status.
    We are in constant touch with the Americans and other allies on these matters, but any communications I may have with President Kennedy must remain confidential.
    Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Does the Prime Minister recall writing to Mr. Khrushchev in February, saying that the work of the Committee of 18 was the most important and most urgent task confronting all Governments, and that he would take personal responsibility for a supreme effort being made? Does he think that the work of the Committee up to date is his supreme effort?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the work is going on well. Progress has been made. I am not at all without hope that by this process of detailed negotiation we shall move into a position in which we can either get agreement or get the ground ready for high-level discussions.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Can the Prime Minister say what the attitude of Her Majesty's Government is to the Polish Government's proposals, in their revised form, for a zone of controlled disarmament in Central Europe?
    The Prime Minister: That is a detailed part of negotiations on which I would prefer to have notice of the exact question raised.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Lord Privy Seal gave the House the impression that Her Majesty's Government had adopted a wholly negative attitude to this proposal? Will he consult his right hon. Friend and try to achieve thereby a more satisfactory answer?
    The Prime Minister: I thought that that referred to the so-called old Rapacki proposal. I understand that there is now a new Rapacki proposal.
    Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Does the Prime Minister realise that the main difficulty in the Committee of 18 has not been about inspection, as is generally believed, but because of the differences which have arisen concerning the measure of disarmament which should be carried out in the early stages? Will
    558
    he address himself to considering whether we could make more adequate proposals?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. Our American and other allies, and ourselves, have made proposals, and I think that it is much better that the negotiations should continue.

    POLARIS BASE
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Prime Minister, in view of the danger of Britain becoming involved in a nuclear war, as was revealed at the time of the Cuban crisis, if he will now request President Kennedy to remove the Polaris base from Britain.
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
    Mr. Allaun: If the Russian missiles in Cuba wore a threat to the American cities, are not the American missiles round the Russian coast and frontier similarly a threat to Russian cities? Would not the removal of the Polaris base lessen world tension and make Britain less of a sitting target?
    The Prime Minister: I do not believe that it is in the interests of the general safety of the Western world that we should now take the action proposed by the hon. Member.
    Commander Courtney: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the danger at the time of Cuba was not so much of nuclear war as of our involvement in a limited maritime war about which we had not previously been consulted and against which, as far as I am aware, our defence planners had made no contingent arrangements?
    The Prime Minister: I do not know what was in the mind of the hon. Member who asked the original Question, but it referred to the introduction of these missiles into the Western hemisphere, by their being placed in Cuba. I believe that the whole House was gratified to know that at least some preliminary agreement has been reached on that, although negotiations are still proceeding upon the whole matter.
    Mr. Wigg: Does not the Prime Minister agree that the retention of Polaris missiles in this country serves a definite military purpose, whereas, on the

    559
    other hand, the continued operational use of Thor and Jupiter missiles here, in Italy and in Turkey serves no useful purpose whatever?
    The Prime Minister: I cannot agree.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Does not the Prime Minister realise that the argument over these Polaris submarines was that they could get much nearer the Russian coast than the military bases in Cuba were to the American coast? Does not he think that there is so much gratification in the world about the Russian missiles being removed from Cuba that people would welcome any proposal which the right hon. Gentleman might make for these Polaris submarines to be sent to America under the supervision of the International Red Cross?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I think that the question had been debated in this House as to the Polaris base which we have afforded, and I should have thought that the first thing one would hope for now is the conclusion of the negotiations with regard to the Cuban question. I agree that then there might be an opportunity to raise wider issues with perhaps more hope of a result.

    NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANISATION AND WARSAW PACT
    Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with President Kennedy on the proposal for a détente between North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the Warsaw Pact Governments.
    The Prime Minister: We are in close touch with our allies about all suggestions for international détente, and I am in close communication with President Kennedy on this as on other matters.
    Mr. Henderson: Would not such an arrangement make a significant contribution to the reduction of East-West tension? May we take it from the Prime Minister's reply that in the event of negotiations in Cuba coming to a successful conclusion, Her Majesty's Government would give the most favourable consideration to any proposed arrangements as suggested by both President Kennedy and Mr. Khrushchev?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. Of course, if we were to get a détente, which means, really, the removal of the whole tension between East and West, we should have solved the problem and, of course, we should be gratified were that to happen.
    Mr. Henderson: May I ask the Prime Minister to make quite clear that he is not excluding the fact that both President Kennedy and Mr. Khrushchev were referring to an arrangement between the blocs and neither of them was indicating that they were suggesting a détente? If they had a détente, surely it was in reference to something in the nature of a non-aggression pact?
    The Prime Minister: I only took the word which the right hon. and learned Gentleman used—I am sure he wants the same as I do. There has been a good deal of talk about the possibility of a détente between East and West, between the two great groups, and I say that that, of course, is the object we all would welcome.

    CUBA (BLOCKADE)
    Mr. Zilliacusasked the Prime Minister what reply he received from President Kennedy on his communication with him about the partial United States blockade of Cuba.
    Mr. Rankinasked the Prime Minister what further consultations he has had with President Kennedy in regard to the removal of the blockade on Cuba.
    The Prime Minister: In his exchange of letters with Mr. Khrushchev, President Kennedy made it clear that the lifting of the blockade was conditional on the establishment of adequate arrangements through the United Nations to ensure removal of the offensive weapons already in Cuba and to guard against the introduction of other such weapons. Arrangements for United Nations observation and supervision have not yet been made.
    Mr. Zilliacus: Does not the Prime Minister recognise that the imposition of this blockade constitutes a resort to force, in violation of the Charter? Is not the Government supposed to support the United Nations? Why does he condone this act of aggression which reduces the Charter to the value of a scrap of paper?
    The Prime Minister: That I recognise to be the hon. Gentleman's view. But I think that the majority of the hon. Members in this House feel gratified that the first stage of these negotiations has been successful and hope that the second stage will be equally successful.
    Mr. Rankin: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that as a result of this blockade the peaceful trading of British ships in the interception area around Cuba is being interfered with by the American Government which demands that clearance certificates should be signed in respect of every ship? Does he realise that the interception area includes part of the Commonwealth? Will the right hon. Gentleman consult President Kennedy to see whether at least his allies could have the freedom of the seas during times of peace?
    The Prime Minister: Of course we have been discussing this matter. I am informed that there are no reports of any inconvenience having been suffered. The United States Government are instituting a system of clearance certificates which will be issued by American consuls at a vessel's last port of call. This eliminates the need for searching a vessel when it arrives at the quarantine line.
    Mr. Prior: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the support and encouragement which he gave to the President in his momentous and courageous decision was much appreciated by the American people, and did much to help the President in coming to a decision?
    The Prime Minister: I think it is the general view of this House that hon. Members are gratified that Britain stood by her allies on this matter, and that the same solidarity was shown by all the members of the N.A.T.O. Alliance
    Mr. M. Foot: Can the Prime Minister tell us whether the British Government regard the maintenance of this blockade as being legal or illegal? On the question of solidarity between the allies, has he had confirmation through diplomatic information of the statement made in The Times last Friday that in fact President Kennedy knew of the presence of missiles in Cuba ten days before he made his announcement and that throughout those ten days he failed to communicate
    562
    with the British Government on the subject? Has that matter been raised by the British Government with the United States Government?
    The Prime Minister: That is not a question for me. It is a question which should be put down to President Kennedy. I am perfectly satisfied, and I believe that this House and the country are satisfied, that President Kennedy acted in this matter with both courage and with prudence.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Zilliacus.
    Mr. Zilliacus: Question No. 5.
    Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. Is the Prime Minister aware that I am thoroughly disatisfied with his Answer?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Zilliacus: My Question is, what is the policy of the Prime Minister with regard to the Franco-German claim for nuclear weapons controlled by the European Powers in the European Economic Community. The Prime Minister answered "Yes Sir" Does that mean that he is—
    The Prime Minister: I am afraid that I was guilty of confusion between the "allies".

    NUCLEAR WEAPONS
    Mr. Zilliacusasked the Prime Minister what is his policy with regard to the Franco-German claim for nuclear weapons controlled by the European Powers in the European Economic Community; and what communications have passed between him and President Kennedy on this subject in regard to a joint policy.
    The Prime Minister: I know of no such claim. The second part of the Question therefore does not arise.
    Mr. Zilliacus: Has not the attention of the Prime Minister been drawn to the report by the United States Senate Committee, and to the very detailed reports by responsible newspaper correspondents, of the announcements both in France and in Germany—in Germany by Herr Strauss, for instance—that they do claim nuclear weapons for the Bundeswehr and that negotiations are going a long way

    563
    to recognising this claim? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that in no circumstances will the Government accept any such claim as a condition for going into the Common Market?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I think that the hon. Gentleman is confusing different points. There are, of course, nuclear weapons in the N.A.T.O. command. But all of them, so far as the warheads are concerned, are under the control of the American command.
    Miss Lee: Will the Prime Minister keep in mind that the continuous pressure from the German high military command for control of nuclear deterrents is in direct conflict with any hope of getting an area of disengagement in Europe, and will he please exercise his utmost influence on behalf of the latter?
    The Prime Minister: I repeat that there is confusion as to what exactly is meant by the possession of nuclear deterrents. These are very large questions which I think it would be quite wrong to discuss by way of question and answer.

    INDIA AND PAKISTAN (PRIME MINISTER'S LETTERS)
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Prime Minister what replies he has received from the President of Pakistan and the Prime Minister of India in answer to his letters about Indo-Pakistan relations in the light of the Chinese invasion of India.
    The Prime Minister: I have been in close touch with President Ayub and Mr. Nehru about the Chinese threat to the sub-Continent as a whole. I have received communications from both explaining the Pakistani and Indian points of view. The House will not expect me to say more about confidential correspondence with other Commonwealth leaders.
    Mr. Thomson: I appreciate the delicacy of this matter between two Commonwealth countries. Would the Prime Minister consider taking a Commonwealth initiative to bring India and Pakistan together to meet this common military threat along their northern frontier? In particular, would the right
    564
    hon. Gentleman consider taking up the suggestion, made by the President of Pakistan as far back as 1958, that there should be common military talks between India and Pakistan on the basis of a new effort to settle the Kashmir dispute between them?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, but I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that I should be governed by the first sentence in his supplementary question.

ADVANCE FACTORIES, SCOTLAND AND NORTH-EAST ENGLAND
The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
Mr. PROUDFOOT: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what criteria he took into account when selecting recently the sites for advance factories.
The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): With permission, I will now answer Question No. 55.
The decision to build four more advance factories in Central Scotland and five more in North-East England was taken as a special measure of assistance for the two areas with the most persistent unemployment problems. Other advance factories recently announced have been small factories mainly intended to bring relief to more or less remote places likely to be affected by colliery closures and other special factors.
The new factories, on the other hand, are to be larger and will be in places that both need new employment and are likely to be attractive to growing industry. The aim is to attract to these areas substantial firms which might provide a nucleus for industrial development on a larger scale than could be sustained in more remote areas.
Mr. Hoy: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what number of jobs are likely to be provided by the factories proposed to be erected in Scotland?
Mr. Erroll: On the average about 200 jobs per factory, but it varies, of course, according to the type of tenant who ultimately will take them up.
Mr. Proudfoot: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his Answer, may I

565
ask him to look again at the areas in East Cleveland which have recently been put into a development district and which had an ironstone mine closure? Will he see whether the criteria for these factories fit this particular case?
Mr. Erroll: I shall be glad to do what my hon. Friend has suggested, but it is a difficult matter for me to select the areas because I recognise that there are other areas which are just as deserving as those selected. The limitation is not on the ground of finance, but on the rate at which we think likely tenants are to be found. I shall consider sympathetically any suggestions made by hon. Members in any part of the House regarding any districts.
Mr. Bottomley: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that on Tees-side the steel and chemical industries, because of modernisation, will need less labour? Is he doing anything about advance planning to improve further employment possibilities in an area which is already over-burdened with unemployment?
Mr. Erroll: I am fully aware of the difficulties in the district mentioned by the right hon. Member and I am using the full powers conferred upon me by the Local Employment Act to attract new industry to those localities.
Lady Tweedsmuir: Will my right hon. Friend consider that if, in Scotland, he places advance factories only in the industrial belt, such areas as the northeast of Scotland will suffer more than at present? Does he realise that there are great potentialities for growth away from the industrial belt of Scotland?
Mr. Erroll: Yes, Sir. I appreciate the potentialities for growth and in the previous list of advance factories announced in June and July for Scotland one was at Sanquhar and one in Stranraer, in Wigtownshire, which shows that we are not solely concerned with the industrial belt.
Mr. Shinwell: How long will it be before these advance factories are built, and before they are in production? Is it not likely that they will not be ready for eighteen months or two years? Surely it is desirable, because of the high rate of unemployment in certain areas in the North-East, in Scotland and
566
elsewhere, that the Government should immediately proceed with a large programme of public works to alleviate the effects of the present problem?
Mr. Erroll: The first job is to acquire the necessary land to build factories. That is proceeding as quickly as may be. Then we shall build the factories rapidly and do our best to get the tenants in as soon as they have shown interest in leasing the factories. I cannot put a precise date on any of these matters because it depends on a variety of circumstances, especially the acquiring of land.
The question of a programme of public works to alleviate unemployment goes wider than the original Question I am answering.
Dame Irene Ward: While thanking my right hon. Friend for a rather imaginative placing of one advance factory in Chester-le-Street, which indicates a new appreciation of how to plan to meet our problems, may I ask him to tell us now when we are to have a new road to fit in with the new communications for the North-East Coast? Is he aware that just putting down a few advance factories is not all that we want? We want a great, new imaginative programme in many directions.
Mr. Erroll: I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport is considering what can be done to improve road communications in the North-East. I can only say that I am very glad it is his problem and not mine. Mine is to get on with providing new factories as soon as possible.
Mr. Thorpe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his chances of successfully siting these advance factories will be considerably reduced if any of the branch railway lines leading to these areas are closed down? May we know what discussions he has had, or will have, with the Ministry of Transport to see that one Ministry does not cut the railways while another Department is trying to re-create industry in the same area?
Mr. Erroll: I do not think that it necessarily follows that branch lines will be closed down exactly where advance factories are going up [Laughter.]—for the

567
very good reason that we are not as incompetent as the hon. Member suggests we are. In fact, many of the smaller modern factories make extensive use of road transport. That is why I am so glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) referred to roads in the North-East, which, of course, are of considerable importance to the develoment of the area.
Sir C. Osborne: Will my right hon. Friend issue a very necessary warning that the mere building of new factories will not of itself guarantee full employment and that what is necessary is to get businesses from the Midlands and the South-East to be willing to go to the north of England and take work to the people?
Mr. Erroll: I have great respect for what my hon. Friend has just said. The new factories will not of themselves guarantee new employment, but we have had considerable success in letting not only the advance factories which we have already built, but existing factory space which is in Board of Trade ownership. I believe that the existence of these factories and the fact that we are building mare will be a powerful inducement to industries in those parts of the country which my hon. Friend mentioned to go to these areas.
Mr. Ross: Is the right lion Gentleman aware that the action he has taken for Scotland in no way matches the need? May I ask exactly what he proposes to do about unemployment in Ayrshire? If he has not already taken action, will he do so immediately, bearing in mind the additional tragic blow which came to Ayrshire recently, not only by the loss of life but also by the loss of over 1,000 men's jobs in the Barony colliery in Auchinleck?
Mr. Erroll: I am not suggesting for a moment that the building of advance factories will solve the whole unemployment problem, but 'that it will make a contribution to doing so. As to Ayrshire, we announced in July that we were to put up a factory in Cumnock, in the south. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) is for once notably silent during supplementary questions.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate these wide topics without a question before us.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Gaitskell: 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. Iain Macleod): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 19TH NOVEMBER—Instead of the business previously announced, there will be the Committee and remaining stages of the Tanganyika Republic Bill.
Second Reading of the Commonwealth Scholarships (Amendment) Bill, and Committee stage of the Money Resolution which it is hoped to obtain by seven o'clock.
Afterwards, there will be a debate on the Motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition on Nuclear Tests.
Consideration of the Motion on the Cinematograph Films (Collection of Levy) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations.
TUESDAY, 20TH NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Coal Industry Bill, and Committee stage of the Money Resolution.
And, if not previously obtained, the remaining stages of the Pensions (Increase) Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 21ST NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, and Committee stage of the Money Resolution.
Consideration of the Motions on Farm Improvements Grants, and on the Local Government Superannuation (Benefits) (New Towns Staffs) Regulations.
THURSDAY, 22ND NOVEMBER—Report and Third Reading of the Air Corporations Bill.
Second Reading of the Towyn Trewan Common Bill, and Committee stage of the Money Resolution, which it is hoped to obtain by seven o'clock.
Afterwards, there will be a debate on a Government Motion to take note of the Hall Report (Command No. 1835).
Consideration of the Motion on the Cutlery and Stainless Steel Flatware Industry (Scientific Research Levy) Order.

569
FRIDAY, 23RD NOVEMBER—Consideration of the Motions on the Army Act, 1955 (Continuation), and the Air Force Act, 1955 (Continuation) Orders, which the House may take formally to allow a debate on the Army and Air Force, on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House, which will enable a wider debate to take place.
MONDAY, 26TH NOVEMBER—The proposed business will be: Supply [1st Allotted Day]:
Motion to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair, when a debate will arise on an Opposition Amendment relating to National Insurance, Etc., Benefits.
Consideration of the Motion relating to the procedure authorising new routes for trolley buses.
Mr. Gaitskell: While thanking the Leader of the House for arranging for the President of the Board of Trade to make the statement on advance factories which he has just made, may I ask him whether he will now arrange for a debate to take place not only on the problem of alleviating unemployment in the northern part of the country, but also on how to stop the steady drift to the South which is leaving the whole of the north of England and Scotland in a very dangerous situation?
May I ask him, further, whether he can now say when the proposed Bill on the reorganisation of London local government is to be introduced?
Mr. Macleod: On the first point, we discussed these very matters on the last day of the debate on the Address, but it is a question of the first importance and I take note of what the Leader of the Opposition says.
I hope that the Bill to reorganise the local government of London will be produced within two or three days.
Dame Irene Ward: Can my right hon. Friend now tell us when we are to debate the Royal Warrant for the increase of Service pensions? Is he aware that it is very hard on these people if they do not have their problems dealt with, satisfactorily, I hope, by the House and in the interests of democracy and their proper treatment?
Mr. Macleod: Yes, but if the House agrees to the suggestion contained in the business statement which I have made for Friday, 23rd November—in other words, if the House takes the Continuation Orders formally—I understand that, subject to the usual rules about debating matters on the Adjournment, those subjects would be in order.
Mr. Grimond: Further to the last reply given by the Leader of the House, although I appreciate that it is to a great extent a matter for you, Mr. Speaker, could the Leader of the House assist us a little more about the business for Friday? For instance, would it be in order, in his view, to debate defence policy, at least in so far as it refers to the Army and Air Force, or is it intended to stick to discipline and conditions in the Services, or are there to be no limits?
Mr. Macleod: The two matters I had in mind were, first, the matter which has just been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), and, secondly, the matter of Kuwait, which the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) and other hon. Members have raised. If the House accepts this suggestion—I think that it would be advantageous if we could do it in this way—this would then be a Motion for the Adjournment of the House. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, everything, subject to the ordinary rules about legislation, and so on, would then be in order.
Mr. Hirst: Could my right hon. Friend provide time for a discussion on the Anglo-Japanese Commercial Treaty? Does he recollect that I asked him this question on 1st November, when he promised to have discussions with his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade? Yesterday, the President of the Board of Trade, when asked, said that he would have discussions with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I am getting a little jaded at being used as a sort of football between my right hon. and esteemed Friends. There is concern in the country and on both sides of the House. We want to ask many questions. Will not my right hon. Friend accept seriously that it would be to the advantage of the Government to have a discussion?
Mr. Macleod: Those discussions have, in fact, taken place between my right hon. Friend and myself. As to the question my hon. Friend raises, without being able to be more specific at the moment I hope that fairly soon we shall be able to provide an opportunity for a debate on that matter.
Mr. George Craddock: I appreciate the point made by the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst). I hope that we shall have a debate on the Treaty, having regard to the safeguards written into the Protocol, obviously for the purpose of preventing Japanese dumping. It would be a good idea if we were able to debate the matter.
Mr. Macleod: I think I indicated that I am sympathetic to that point of view.
Mr. Worsley: Will my right hon. Friend go a little further on the question of the Treaty and give us a specific undertaking that before ratification the Treaty will be discussed in the House?
Mr. Macleod: Yes, Sir. As I understand the position, ratification is not likely to take place until April, or about then, and I am thinking in terms of the next two weeks or something like that.
Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. Gentleman said, in reply to the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), that it would be possible on Friday week to discuss the matter of an increase in war pensions. As the debate will be on the Adjournment, when we cannot discuss legislation, I am not quite clear how we can debate a matter which requires legislation. Does it not require legislation to increase war pensions?
Mr. Macleod: It does not require legislation and, therefore, I think that my answer is correct. Subject to the usual rules and the directions of the Chair, I think that this matter would be in order.
Captain Orr: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we are grateful to him for having arranged the Northern Ireland debate so promptly? Can he assure us that this preliminary debate on a very important and large subject will not preclude a discussion later in the Session, in Government time?
Mr. Macleod: I hope that we shall be able to have a good discussion next
572
Thursday. I hope that the earlier business will not occupy the House for long. I have more or less promised that there will be a debate this Session and this half a day or half a day-plus will count towards it; but I will redeem the rest later
Mr. Gaitskell: With further reference to the business for Friday week, is not the case for the procedure proposed by the Leader of the House that the debates on the Motions for the two Acts would be very narrow and that it is, therefore, more satisfactory to take the debate on the Adjournment instead? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we would not regard it as satisfactory to dismiss the whole question of war pensions because it has been made possible for a few hon. Members to make some remarks about them in the course of a much wider debate? Will he, therefore, find time quite separately from this debate for a discussion on war pensions?
Mr. Macleod: I agree with the first part of what the right hon. Gentleman has said. That is the object of suggesting to the House that we should take it in this way. I think that we had better see how much this subject comes into Friday's discussion and then see whether it would be appropriate to discuss it further.
Sir C. Osborne: If I remember rightly, the Leader of the House said last week that next Monday's business would ne a debate on the £200 million extra we are to spend on capital equipment, on a Motion to take note of Command No. 1849. Has this subject been put away again, or shall we have a chance to discuss this very important White Paper?
Mr. Macleod: No, Sir. I think that it will come up fairly soon. As a result of yesterday's discussion and the loss of time for the Second Reading of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill and other matters, we have had to rearrange next week's business. In due course we shall have the debate to which my hon. Friend has referred.
Mr. Short: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen a Motion which has appeared on the Order Paper, signed by all Labour Members of Parliament from the North-East, asking the Government to issue a directive to the B.T.C. to suspend the closure of workshops in the North-East

573
so long as high unemployment persists? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, if all the advance factories mentioned by the President of the Board of Trade were fully occupied, they would not nearly take up the redundancy caused by the closure of the workshops.
Does not the Leader of the House think that it would be monstrous if these workshops were closed when we have a very high level of unemployment? Will he allow us to debate this matter?
[That this House regrets the British Transport Commission's decision to close down railway workshops and branch lines in the Northern Region of England, and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to issue a general direction to the British Transport Commission to withdraw this decision until the Government have carried out a comprehensive survey of the economic, social and industrial consequences of such action in the region.]
Mr. Macleod: Yes, Sir, I have seen that Motion and it has been drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend, who takes the considerations that the Motion suggests into account in reaching any decision.
Mr. McMaster: In view of the very high level of unemployment in Northern Ireland, of the fears in the shipbuilding industry following the recession, and of the fears about the future of Short Bros. and Harland Ltd., will my right hon. Friend ensure that the Ministers responsible for shipping and aviation are present during the debate on Thursday to take note of the points made by the Hall Committee on shipping and aviation?
Mr. G. M. Thomson: Would the Leader of the House draw the attention of his right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary to the now overdue need to make a statement next week on the breakdown of the British Guiana Constitutional Conference? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is the first conference of its kind to break down at this stage, so close to independence; and that there is a great deal of anxiety both in this House and in British Guiana about the Government's future intentions?
Mr. Macleod: I think that a White Paper has been laid, but I will convey that particular point to my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Oram: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the President of the Board of Trade has now announced that the proposed Consumer Council will be set up without the introduction of a Bill into this House, and that we shall thereby be deprived of the Second Reading debate that we were all expecting? Can we therefore now expect to have a debate on the Molony Committee's Report in the near future?
Mr. Macleod: No, I do not think that I can undertake to provide another day on that matter. We very recently had the Second Reading of the Weights and Measures Bill.
Mr. Wigg: Does not the Leader of the House agree that the question put to him about war pensions was based on a slight misconception? The hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) was asking about the Royal Warrant in connection with the pensions increases following the passing of the Pensions (Increase) Bill. Therefore, if the right hon. Gentleman gave the assurance for which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked it would not meet the case at all. We should have a quite irregular debate on aspects of the Royal Warrant which concern all three fighting Services. I here declare an interest; I shall get about 4d. a week increase if the Royal Warrant becomes operative in that way.
Further, does the Leader of the House recollect that on business about a fortnight ago I raised the question of a debate calling for a Select Committee to inquire into the organisation and planning of the Kuwait operation, as a result of which the British troops were adversely affected because they were sent into active operations without adequate supplies of ammunition, food, water, clothing and many other items of equipment—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We really must, in the general interest, bear in mind that these are questions on next week's business, and not speeches.
Mr. Wigg: With respect, Mr. Speaker, perhaps you will allow me to finish this

575
part of the question. In view of the arguments to be put forward from both sides, a debate on the Army Act Continuation Order will be too narrow. I should not suffer any great disability, because there has been a breakdown in discipline and one can associate that with the Order, which is what the Leader of the House himself said; but unless this point is cleared up, and if we are to run the risk of its being a debate on pay and any other subject, I will not be prepared to take the Order formally.
Mr. Macleod: I take note of what the hon. Member has said. As to the first part of his remarks, he is quite right—there was a confusion in what was said between Service pensioners and war pensioners. I accept that. On the second point, the Kuwait operation was certainly very much in my mind, and that is one of the main reasons why I suggested that we should take the business in this way, so that the hon. Member should be able to raise these very matters on the Adjournment.
Dame Irene Ward: Will the Royal Warrant be issued before next Friday? If not, the debate will not be very profitable. Further, I asked for a full day's debate. Does not my right hon. Friend realise that if he would agree with me rather than with the Leader of the Opposition it would be very much better?
Mr. Macleod: With respect, I did agree with my hon. Friend. I am always delighted to do that whenever I possibly can, and only regret that the opportunities are not, perhaps, more extensive. It will not be possible for the Royal Warrant to be issued before that date, but I have already given an assurance that we will see how much time is taken in this debate, and then consider the position.
Mr. M. Foot: Is it proposed to confine Monday's debate on the proposed British nuclear test to three hours? Will not the Leader of the House so arrange that if hon. Members wish to continue the debate the Standing Order will be suspended and further time given?
Mr. Macleod: I could consider that. As matters stand at the moment, there will be a three-hour debate on the Motion
576
on Monday unless, as I hope, we are able to dispose of the previous business earlier than seven o'clock.
Mr. Stonehouse: Has the Leader of the House given favourable consideration to the request for a debate on the situation in Rhodesia arising out of the United Nations vote?
Mr. Macleod: I have drawn the attention of my right hon. Friend the First Secretary to the observations made to me by the hon. Member last week.
Mr. Dudley Williams: Can my right hon. Friend say whether there is any likelihood of getting on with the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Bill today?
Mr. Macleod: I hope so.
Mr. Fernyhough: The Leader of the House said that he hopes that we might be able to start the debate on Monday's Motion on nuclear tests before seven o'clock, but there is always the possibility that we will not. As many hon. Members will doubtless want to take part in that debate, can he give an assurance that the time will be extended by an hour.
Mr. Macleod: No, but if there were a strong feeling for that it would, of course, be taken into consideration.
Mrs. Castle: Has the Leader of the House ascertained from you, Mr. Speaker, when you intend to present to the House the very important Report on accommodation which was presented to Mr. Speaker by the Advisory Committee on Accommodation at the end of the last Session? May I also ask the right hon. Gentleman when, as the terms of reference of that Committee were extended, it is intended to reconvene it?
Mr. Macleod: I do not know, Mr. Speaker, whether it is for you or me to answer that question. It is likely that a statement will be made in the very near future on that matter when, perhaps, the other part of the hon. Lady's question will be appropriate.
Mr. Hector Hughes: When will the Leader of the House find time to discuss the statement, which is very unsatisfactory and inadequate, made by the President of the Board of Trade today, with regard to north-east Scotland? That should be discussed at a very early date.
Mr. Macleod: With respect, that was the very first question I answered some little time ago—to the Leader of the Opposition—in this exchange about business.
Mr. C. Pannell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Arising from the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) I wonder, with respect, whether you appreciate the necessity for reporting reasonably early because, as I discerned it, an answer given by the Minister of Public Building and Works the other day ran counter to the spirit of the recommendations of the Advisory Committee.
Mr. Speaker: I do not know that we can discuss all these things now, but I have it in mind, and was intending to do it in the shortest possible time from now.
Mr. Scholefield Allen: Has the attention of the Leader of the House been drawn to the Motion on the Order Paper which, inter alia, refers to the plight of railway superannuitants, who have always been the last in the queue for increases? Will he find time to debate the position of the old railway company superannuitants? They are always the forgotten people on the pensions list.
[That, in welcoming the new legislation relating to public service pensions, this House is glad to note that the Electricity Council and the Gas Council are considering applying the provisions of the new Act to their pensioners; and urges the Minister of Transport, under the financial circumstances of the British Transport Commission, to finance it in order that railway superannuitants may benefit from the proposals of the Bill.]
Mr. Macleod: I have, of course, studied that Motion. A similar Motion, or an identical Motion, was on the Order Paper last Session, and I take it that it will be in order to discuss some aspects of that as the Pensions (Increase) Bill goes through the House.
Mr. R. Edwards: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Molony Report contains 90 recommendations on welfare and consumer protection, and covers a much wider field than weights and measures alone? Is he also aware that another place is allocating two days for a debate on the Report? I am sure
578
that hon. Members on both sides of this House will be very disappointed if we do not have an opportunity to discuss this very important Report.
Mr. Macleod: It is important, but my answer must be that I cannot, at the moment, see the possibility of Government time for it.
Mr. McMaster: Does my right hon. Friend know which Ministers will be taking part in next Thursday's debate on the Hall Committee's Report?
Mr. Macleod: The main speaker for the Government will be my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

TRIBUNAL OF INQUIRY (MEMBERSHIP)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Henry Brooke): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short statement.
In accordance with the Resolutions passed yesterday by both Houses of Parliament, I have appointed a Tribunal under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister informed the House, Lord Radcliffe is to be chairman of the Tribunal, and the other members are Mr. Justice Barry and Sir Edward Milner Holland, Q.C.
Any communications on the subject of the inquiry which the Tribunal is undertaking should be addressed to the secretary of the Tribunal at the Treasury Solicitor's Office, 35 Old Queen Street, London, S.W.1.
Mr. G. Brown: The Home Secretary will be aware that we on this side welcome this belated action by the Government to carry out something that we have been asking them to do for some time. Has the right hon. Gentleman had his attention drawn to the fact that the present Civil Lord of the Admiralty made a speech yesterday, which was published at great length in today's Daily Telegraph, in the course of which it is said that
"Mr. Orr-Ewing referred to a 'certain lobby correspondent' who had been given confidential information in the lobby on this particular case"—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have considered this kind of difficulty. The Home Secretary has made a statement relating to the persons who are to work on this Tribunal and the address to which any communications should be sent. I can allow a few questions in elucidation of that statement. This is a matter of importance presumably because, after the Resolution of the House yesterday, all matters falling within the terms of reference of the Tribunal are now sub judice. The difficulty about these periphery matters is that I do not want to give a Ruling on the precise content of the terms of reference. That is why I am anxious that we should abstain from going into matters of the kind which, I think, the right hon. Gentleman is seeking to raise.
Mr. G. Brown: On a point of order. May I submit this to you, Mr. Speaker. The last paragraph of the Home Secretary's statement says that any communications on the subject of the inquiry should be addressed to a certain quarter. I was about to ask the Home Secretary whether the Government were proposing to ensure that a communication was sent to the Tribunal drawing its attention both to the complaint that the Government made through the Civil Lord yesterday about the Press correspondent and to the fact that confidential information was passed on by a Minister to a member of the Press. Are the Government proposing to do that, or do other people have to do it?
Mr. Wigg: Further to that point of order. When I saw this article, I approached the Civil Lord's office this morning, for, not having much reliance in the Press, I thought it only fair to ascertain what he said. I asked whether I could be supplied with a copy of his speech, and, to my surprise, I was told that all that existed was a few scribbled notes.
I should, therefore, like some guidance from you, Sir, on our position. I am concerned about the fact that now that the Tribunal has been set up it is a judicial body and should be given every opportunity to be supplied with the fullest possible accurate information.
Mr. Speaker: That is a little remote from the matter with which I have to deal now, which is what is in order by
580
way of question on this statement. To be frank with the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), I am not very impressed by the argument that, because the statement says to what persons communications on the subject of the inquiry should be sent, that enables anyone to raise by way of question the subject of any possible communication. That seems to me to be a rather different argument.
Mr. G. Brown: In the light of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, I will not pursue the matter. The point has, I hope, been made.
May I ask the Minister one other question? In view of their absence from the House at this moment, which we understand, will he, in particular, draw the attention of those of his right hon. Friends and others who made attacks on me yesterday, and were full of the implications of this matter, to the fact that the inquiry has been set up and tell them where they can make their representations so that they may have an opportunity to be called?
Sir A. V. Harvey Sir A. V. Harvey rose——
Mr. Brooke Mr. Brooke rose——
Mr. Speaker: I do not know whether the Home Secretary desired to reply to the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown). He had half-risen from his seat.
Mr. Brooke: I have been seeking, as a matter of courtesy, to inform the House that I acted this morning on the Resolution of both Houses of Parliament and signed a warrant setting up this Tribunal. It appears to me that my function is strictly confined to that and that I should not seek to define the terms of reference of the Tribunal or invite its attention to the question whether any piece of evidence is or is not within its purview.
The Tribunal, under the terms of the 1921 Act, has the power to enforce the attendance of witnesses, to examine them on oath and to compel the production of documents. I suggest that I should leave all these matters to the Tribunal.
Sir A. V. Harvey: A few moments ago, you, Mr. Speaker, said that matters relating to the Tribunal were sub judice. Would you be good enough to indicate

581
from what time they became sub judice, because last night there was a programme on I.T.V. at five minutes past eleven, called "What the Papers Say"——
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is nothing to do with me. What I am concerned with is how the rule of sub judice affects matter of order in this House. I am not concerned with the application of the rule elsewhere.
Sir A. V. Harvey: The programme referred to right hon. and hon. Members——
Mr. Speaker: It still makes no difference from the point of view of what I have to rule about.
Mr. Wigg: Now that the Home Secretary has given notice that the Tribunal is set up, may I ask him who is responsible for the provision of accommodation? Where will the Tribunal meet? May I ask him, as a senior Minister and not as Home Secretary, to make representations to whoever is responsible for accommodation to ensure that suitable seating accommodation is made available for Members of the House who wish to attend the Tribunal? On previous occasions, the seating arrangements have caused difficulty and sometimes one found oneself relying on the courtesy and kindness of the Attorney-General. Is it not of the utmost importance that Members of the House should be able to attend to hear what is happening?
Mr. Brooke: In the final analysis, it is for Lord Radcliffe and his colleagues to decide where they wish to sit. I will certainly see that what the hon. Gentleman has said is brought to their attention.
Sir A. V. Harvey: On a point of order. In the first part of my question to you, Mr. Speaker, a little while ago, I asked for your advice as to what time these matters became sub judice. Is it possible to have your view on that?
Mr. Speaker: They became sub judice when the House passed the Resolution last night.
Mr. J. Griffiths: May I ask the Home Secretary who in the Government will be responsible for ensuring that the Treasury Solicitor, acting for the Tribunal, receives
582
information, including copies of speeches made by Ministers both before and after yesterday's debate?
Mr. Brooke: I think that it will be for the Tribunal itself to decide its own procedure and to decide on all matters about which it requires evidence. It is not for any member of the Government to interfere with that.
Mr. Callaghan: Can you, Mr. Speaker, help us about the limits of this sub judice procedure? A speech made by a Minister has been referred to here today, and we cannot assume that the Tribunal, although it will go into these matters very carefully, will necessarily read every newspaper. Would it be improper for us to ask a question, either now or later, of the Government as to whether they intend to put the observations of the Civil Lord before the Tribunal when it meets? Would that be sub judice?
Mr. Speaker: I shall consider a question if and when it is sought to table one. I do not wish, if I can avoid it, to consider the precise confines of the terms of reference because the Tribunal, which is composed of very eminent men, will have, as a matter of law, to say what they are in relation to its own duties, and, naturally, I do not want to do that if I need not do so.
Mr. Callaghan: May I have your guidance, Mr. Speaker? May we take it that we are not automatically ruled out, because this matter has been referred to the Tribunal, from addressing questions to the Government as to the type of evidence which they themselves intend to put forward? Is it not clear that the Government have a responsibility to the Tribunal, but also have a responsibility to answer to this House for statements made by Ministers in connection with it?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman illustrates the difficulty of inviting me to give any kind of general Ruling before I see the specific Question. It will precisely depend upon the terms of it. As regards what evidence is to be brought before the Tribunal, it is probably very hard to argue that that is the Government's responsibility. I think that it is advisable to look at the terms of the precise Question.
Mr. J. Griffiths: May I put this to you, Mr. Speaker? If the speech had been made without the Tribunal having been in the offing, it would have been possible for an hon. Member to put down a Question, perhaps to the Prime Minister, to ask whether the speech made by the Civil Lord last evening was in conformity with Government policy. If we are to take it that, since the matter is sub judice, we may not ask Questions about the speech of the Civil Lord, is it not the duty of the Government in the circumstances, since the House is debarred from raising the matter, to make sure that the Tribunal is fully seized of the contents of the speech and its implications?
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman cannot ask me to pronounce upon what is or what is not the duty of the Government. It does not fall within my field. If anyone tries to put a Question down, I shall, in the course of my duty, have to rule upon it. That I will do.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: There are several hon. Members rising simultaneously to a point of order. I should prefer to hear them one at a time. Mr. Dudley Williams.
Mr. Dudley Williams: On a point of order. The House, obviously, is very concerned that this inquiry should be fair. I understand that my hon. Friend the Civil Lord made his speech at lunchtime yesterday. What I am concerned about, Mr. Speaker, is that, if the matter became sub judice after the passing of the Resolution yesterday, it is surely serious that there should have been a broadcast last night on I.T.V. and an interview with——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have quite enough responsibilities without pronouncing on broadcasts.
Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order. May I ask for your help, Mr. Speaker? It so happens that I today presented to the Table a Question which related to the terms of reference of the Tribunal, and I was informed that it was not in order. However, I understand that I may submit a Question—it has already been submitted—which asks the Prime Minister or the Home Secretary to amend the terms of reference to enable the Tribunal
584
to consider certain events which occurred after the Motions in both Houses of Parliament were agreed to last night. The amended terms of reference might relate to the speech of the Civil Lord of the Admiralty. I understand that the matter is before the Table at present and, no doubt, will be submitted in due course to you, Sir.
Mr. Speaker: It is most attractive to hear the right hon. Gentleman describe ingenious methods which might or might not succeed, but I must not pronounce about them at the moment.
Mr. Callaghan: Further to the point of order which has been raised, Mr. Speaker. May I put this question to you? Assuming that it will be out of order to put Questions on the Order Paper because of the setting up of the Tribunal, will you consider whether it would be out of order for the Leader of the House or some other appropriate Minister to make a statement to the House about the very serious accusation that a journalist has lost his job here because of information given through him——
Mr. Speaker: Order. That does not bear any appearance of a point of order.
Mr. Callaghan: But, Mr. Speaker, the House——
Mr. Speaker: No. If the hon. Gentleman does not understand, I shall have to explain. I do not rule hypothetically upon whether it would be out of order for a Minister to do this or that. I could spend all day making such Rulings.
Mr. Callaghan: Arising out of the original statement made by the Home Secretary, may I ask the Leader of the House whether he will take into account the serious allegations which have been made?
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Callaghan: It is of great concern to the public——
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. A number of hon. Members are seeking to address a point of order to me before the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) seeks to do something else.
Mr. Wigg: May I help you, Mr. Speaker, and, perhaps, help the House? Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), I addressed myself to this problem this morning. I too, have put a Question on the Order Paper to the Attorney-General—I understand that it is in order—asking the Attorney-General, in the discharge of his duty, to bring these matters before the Tribunal.
Mr. Speaker: I shall see the hon. Gentleman's Question in due course. If it is in order, it will appear on the Order Paper.
In the interests of the House generally and the progress of business, I think that I must put some limit to this. I am not prepared to give hypothetical Rulings on points of order.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: I wish to ask the Home Secretary a question about his original statement, Mr. Speaker.
Since the Home Secretary is responsible for the custody of the prisoner about whom all the inquiry has arisen, will he say whether the prisoner will have facilities for attending the Tribunal?
Mr. Brooke: First, we must discover whether the members of the Tribunal wish the prisoner to appear before them.
Mr. G. Lloyd: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity of considering the possible hardship, including financial hardship, falling upon individuals as a result of the proceedings of the Tribunal? This question was raised in another place yesterday. Will it be within the competence of the Tribunal to provide any remedy in this matter?
Mr. Brooke: I think that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney. General answered that question last night.
Mr. Short: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is there not, in the points of order raised by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) and the hon. Member far Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams), a point which has so far been missed? This matter became sub judice about ten o'clock last night. Speeches were made yesterday in the debate which would not have been made had it been sub judice then. The House has always
586
kept control over the reporting of its proceedings, either in broadcasting or in print. Because of that, is it not a prima facie case of breach of Privilege if anyone now repeats in print or in sound broadcasting statements which were made in the House yesterday?
Mr. Speaker: Various problems arise. I assume that when the hon. Gentleman uses the word "now", he uses a common form of words meaning to refer to anyone who, in future, does such-and-such. If that is what he means, I do not think that I have to pronounce about it now because it is totally hypothetical.
Sir A. V. Harvey: You did say a few minutes ago, Mr. Speaker, that, after ten o'clock last night, when the Motion was passed, the matter became sub judice before the Tribunal. I was pointing out to you that a broadcast took place last night which referred to right hon. and hon. Members of the House, and this broadcast commenced at 11.5 p.m. on the I.T.V. programme. I suggest to you, Sir, that if you were to examine it, you might find that there was a possible breach of Privilege. That is the point I was trying to put to you earlier.
Mr. Speaker: I had not appreciated that the hon. Member was trying to raise a breach of Privilege. I am not certain that it is the right time to do so. I will give the hon. Member an opportunity to do it when we get to that time.
Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have listened to all the points of order and questions raised so far, and the point throughout them all has been the question of what is sub judice in this connection. Is it quite clear that a Tribunal of Inquiry under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act is a court to which our rules about sub judice apply at all? It is not a court. There is no issue for it to determine. No one is charged before it. There is no verdict of guilt or innocence involved. Why are we precluded from asking any questions we like in the ordinary course of our business?
Mr. Speaker: I will examine the point which the hon. Gentleman raises and, as a result of my examination, apply the rule where there is need to apply it. I think that that is the right way to deal with it.
Mr. Bottomley: Are not we in danger of making ourselves look rather absurd, Mr. Speaker? The House debated this very important subject yesterday, and the public as a whole have a right to know what took place. Therefore, today's newspapers had to cover that, too——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is addressing me on a point of order, or what he is doing. If it is not a point of order, I cannot hear it.
Sir A. V. Harvey: The point which I made a few moments ago, Mr. Speaker, refers to a programme on Independent Television, "What the Papers Say", which commenced at 11.5 p.m. The announcer was Mr. Bernard Levin. I think that if you examine this programme, Mr. Speaker, you will see that there are innuendoes against right hon. and hon. Members of the House over some period of time one hour after the Motion had been put to the House. I should be obliged if you would rule on this.
Mr. Speaker: First, I understand that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting some contempt or breach of Privilege. Under our present dispensation, I will take 24 hours to consider the complaint. I am not quite certain, in these circumstances, what is the machinery for me to get the text of the broadcast to begin with. I should be very much obliged if the hon. Gentleman would hand that in as though it were a newspaper, and then I should have something to go on.
Copy of transcript handed in.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  OFFICES, SHOPS AND RAILWAY PREMISES BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.22 p.m.
  The Minister of Labour (Mr. John Hare): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The object of the Bill is to raise standards of working conditions in shops, offices and certain railway premises so as to promote the health, welfare and safety of the workers in them. I believe that this is an object which will commend itself to all parts of the House.
  There is a wide disparity in standards in this field. We all of us know offices and shops where working conditions are excellent, but there are still workers in these places who have to put up with conditions which fall far short of the standards provided in factories. The Bill is designed to help people who have to work in cramped conditions, in badly lit or under-heated rooms, in premises where the plumbing is primitive or in those where there are serious risks should fire break out. We wish to banish these conditions to the past, where they belong.
  The Bill takes its place in a long and honourable line of social Measures which extends from the factory legislation of the 1830s to the notable advances of the past ten years, during which the springboard for much of the progress made has been the imaginative report of the Committee presided over by Sir Ernest Gowers. I am glad to pay my tribute to the work of that Committee and to remind the House that three of our number were members of that Committee—my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent), my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Sir W. Duthie) and the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon).
  The Gowers Committee themselves realised that the serious economic difficulties which beset this country when they reported in 1949 would hinder the direction of our national resources towards social reform. But the passing of fresh protective legislation for over

  589
  half-a-million workers in mines and quarries in 1954 marked a further step forward. That was followed in 1956 by the Agriculture (Safety, Health and Welfare Provisions) Act, covering another half-million workers. In 1959, the Factories Acts were strengthened and the statutory safeguards for about 9 million workers improved.
  The present Bill will give protection or strengthen existing protection for a further 8 million people. This is a big advance. It will mean that a total of at least 18 million, or 80 per cent. of the working population, will enjoy statutory protection of this kind. I think that this is a record of which we can feel justifiably proud.
  The House will remember that, due to the initiative and resource of the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh), an Offices Act was passed in 1960. This left all the provisions for securing the health, safety and welfare of office workers to be dealt with in subsequent regulations. The Government decided that the importance of this subject merited a more comprehensive Measure, with more substance in it. The Bill now before the House has a much wider scope, covering not only offices but also shops and many railway premises. It also contains many important substantive provisions. It is true that these substantive provisions are backed up by extensive powers for making regulations.
  We have to steer a middle course between having a Bill which leaves everything to be dealt with by regulations and having a Bill which is encumbered and overloaded with too many meticulous details, especially on minor matters, which may well need revision from time to time. I think that it is right to include in the Bill the main provisions and the broad framework for close scrutiny and approval by the House, and then to leave the consequential detail to be dealt with in regulations. This, of course, is the general pattern which we have followed in the Factories Acts. We have acted on these lines, and I think that we have got the right sort of balance.
  It was our intention to introduce this Bill in the last Session of Parliament, but, as the House remembers, the legislative programme was so heavy that we were forced, with great reluctance, to post-
  590
  pone its introduction. We could not have introduced it earlier than the last Session as we wanted to consult a very wide variety of interests on the outline of our proposals for this legislation.
  The House may be interested to know that we have consulted about 130 organisations—employers' organisations, trade unions, nationalised industries, local authority associations and medical and professional interests, as well as others. We received many constructive comments from these bodies, and I should like to take this opportunity of thanking them for all that they have done to help us. Naturally, we have not been able to meet all the points of view which have been put to us, but we have found that the close critical thought given to this subject by those whom we have consulted has been of great assistance to us in our responsibility for drawing up the Bill.
  Under the Bill a great variety of premises will be covered, from a box office to an office block, from the corner shop to a huge departmental store, from a signal box to Waterloo station. It has been suggested that we should extend the scope of the Bill even more widely by adding various other categories of employment, but I think this would be a mistake. A line has to be drawn somewhere. These other employments have their own special problems and, frankly, I am reluctant to complicate further what I must admit is already a very complicated Bill.
  It would be a pity to distract effort from the very real advance which we are making by trying to cater for a mixed bunch of special interests. One particular category, in connection with which there has been strong pressure for inclusion in this Bill, has been the theatres. The Gowers Committee was at pains to point out the special difficulties of theatres, where an attempt to enforce standard provisions would be likely to put many existing theatres out of business. To meet this difficulty, a suggestion has been put forward that the law should be enforced only when it did not create the special difficulties which I have mentioned—the likelihood of theatres having to close down.
  I do not agree that this is a solution. I do not think it is right for Parliament to pass a law and leave its application

  591
  to depend on the view taken by the enforcing authority as to the probable effect on the continued operation of the business concerned. I should have thought that this was wrong in principle, and that it would, in any case, mean that the law would not be enforced in cases where, perhaps, the need was greatest.
  This is not the only difficulty about theatres. It would be difficult to devise proper standards related to the number of persons employed, because these vary very considerably, I do not say from week to week, but certainly from month to month. Where, if we did contemplate including theatres, do we stop? Do we try also to deal with concert halls, cinemas, bingo, boxing and all other forms of indoor entertainment? I should have thought that the answer to that was a very definite "No". In this Bill we have bitten off quite a lot, and I think that we should be wise to give ourselves a chance to digest what we have got.
  I do not propose to go through this Bill Clause by Clause.
  Mr. Richard Marsh (Greenwich): Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the point about the theatres, as I understand it he accepts the fact that conditions in the live theatres are very bad—not in all, but in a large number of them. He discounts the possibility of dealing with that problem by legislation. How, then, does he see this problem being dealt with?
  Mr. Hare: I think the hon. Gentleman, with his usual energy and resource, is putting words into my mouth which I did not say. What I actually said was, not that conditions were bad there, but that there are probably certain theatres in which conditions might be rather bad, and where, probably, the result would be the closing down of these theatres. No doubt this is a point which can be raised in Committee, and perhaps we could have a full and detailed discussion on it then.
  Mr. Charles Loughlin: Would the right hon. Gentleman develop this theme of exceptions? I can appreciate the point he is making about theatres, concert halls, bingo and so on, but could he give us a little explanation why he has not included coal depots, which are an integral part of distribution?
  Mr. Hare: Again, this is a typical example of where we should go unless we are prepared to draw a line. One of the reasons why it would be wrong to take in theatres is because there would then be very strong pressure to extend the Bill considerably further into the world of entertainment. The hon. Gentleman raises a point about coal depots. Why stop at coal depots? I am sure that many hon. Members could provide overwhelming reasons why special interests I have mentioned should be protected by this Bill.
  Mr. Loughlin: They are part of distribution.
  Mr. Hare: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, as I think he knows very well—we have had discussions on the subject—there are very convincing reasons which I should be delighted to go into during the Committee stage, or which perhaps my hon. Friend will mention in winding up the debate, for drawing the line where we have done.
  I will not weary the House by going through the 77 Clauses of the Bill. It would not be very merciful if I did, but the House will agree that I must draw the attention of hon. Members to some of the salient points in the Bill. The definitions in Clause 1 have been drawn widely in order to confer the benefits of the Bill on as many people as possible who work in the classes of premises that fall within its scope. It will be noted that this will apply only to premises in which employed persons work. In other words, offices and shops run by self-employed persons without employed help will not be covered. This will help to ensure that the Bill will not place a burden on the small family business. In addition, there is provision in Clause 2 that premises shall not be covered if only close relatives of the employer are employed, and these are actually categorised in the Bill. I think that Government interference in family arrangements could give rise to very obvious difficulties.
  The main provisions of the Bill will have a familiar appearance to every hon. Member acquainted with the Factories Act. The decision to follow closely the wording of the Factories Act, where it is relevant to the scope of

  593
  this Bill, was quite deliberate. Many thousands of offices are to be found in factories themselves, and only a doorway may separate the office workers from those actually on the factory floor. On many of the matters dealt with in this Bill, standards have been evolved from years of practical experience in the administration of the Factories Act, and where these are equally relevant to the conditions in offices and shops, again we have adopted them in this Bill.
  We ought also to remember that the requirements of the Factories Acts have been further defined by decisions of the courts, and employers generally will know with certainty what is expected of them under these provisions. I do not propose to single out for special mention today any of the general requirements which are dealt with in Clauses 4 to 23. Together, they add up to a very comprehensive code for ensuring decent working conditions. They cover cleanliness, overcrowding, temperature, ventilation, lighting, sanitary conveniencies, washing facilities, drinking water, accommodation for clothing, seats, first aid, fencing exposed parts of machinery, and the training and supervision of young persons working dangerous machinery—a very comprehensive list indeed.
  Mr. J. T. Price: Having reached that point, one understands that it is a matter for argument how far this Bill measures up to the Factories Act, but there is one very important difference, and that is in the list just mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman—the training and supervision of young persons. This is a vital question to many of us. Section 20 of the Factories Act, 1961, which was a consolidation Measure, expressly forbids women and young persons to clean dangerous machinery, and this is a vital distinction which is not covered in Clause 16 of this Bill. I do not wish to weary the House or to be unfair to the right hon. Gentleman, but I am giving him fair notice that this is a vital matter on which I shall require a fuller explanation, either later today or in Standing Committee.
  Mr. Hare: I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising that point. We shall wish to discuss a number of matters in greater detail in Committee because the Bill covers so much ground. However,
  594
  my hon. Friend will, no doubt, refer to this matter in his winding up speech and, later, we shall have the opportunity, I am sure, of hearing the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) raising the subject in Committee. The Committee stage will be important, and I am sure that we shall make it a better Bill as a result of a thorough Committee examination of it.
  Having said that I do not want to go into the details of Clauses 4 to 23, I would draw particular attention to the important provisions dealing with fire precautions in Clauses 24 to 33. In general, it is true to say that work in the places covered by the Bill is not subject to many of the particular hazards encountered in factories, and on this, I think, we can be in agreement.
  For this reason, many of the safety provisions in the Factories Act do not find a place in the Bill because they have no application. But fire strikes with the same menace in shops and offices, as we know from tragic experience. It is for this reason that the Bill applies the full range of fire precautions which has been evolved in factory legislation, including the important new provisions which were added by the 1959 Factories Act.
  A feature of particular importance about the premises for which we are now legislating is that many separate offices and shops are only part of a building. Sometimes they will be associated with other offices and shops, all of which are separately subject to the Bill; sometimes they will form only a part of premises which are not subject to the Bill.
  Examples of this would be a restaurant, office or shop in a hotel or block of flats. Some offices covered by the Bill will be in factories which are, of course, subject to the Factories Act. We have tried to make sensible provision for these varying circumstances, and I am afraid that in so doing we have undoubtedly complicated the Bill, but for good reason. We have, for example, provided that where there is ready access to amenities required by the Bill, then separate provision is not required. A shop in the hall of a hotel, for instance, will not need its own separate plumbing if there are perfectly good lavatories and washing facilities conveniently available in the hotel. I give this as an example of

  595
  what has made the Bill rather complicated in some respects, but it is readily seen that it is based on common sense. The rules about first aid in a factory have been framed to take account both of those who work in the office and those who work on the factory floor. It is important to realise that separate premises in one building will be grouped for dealing with fire precautions.
  I should like to explain the reasons why I am seeking, in Clauses 36 and 37, limited powers to grant exemptions from certain requirements of the Bill. There has been a certain comment in the Press about this. These requirements are concerned with overcrowding, temperature and the provision of sanitary and washing facilities. The House will observe that all these provisions are similar in that an occupier or owner may have to install new equipment or even extend his premises to comply with them.
  Since the definitions in Clause 1 are widely drawn, it is possible that they will bring within scope classes of premises in which, by reason of special circumstances, it would be unreasonable to require compliance with these provisions—at least, for a period of time. To give an example of this; if there is no piped water supply in an area it would be unreasonable to require a supply of running water under Clause 10, and this might be made the subject of an exemption order by the Minister under Clause 36. I am attempting to give the sort of example that comes to mind. Again, a case might be made out for the exemption of certain types of kiosks from some or all of these requirements.
  These exemption powers relate to classes of premises. There is also provision, under Clause 37, for individual premises to be exempted by the enforcing authorities from most of these same requirements if compliance with them is not reasonably practicable. In some cases it may be literally impossible, for physical reasons, to extend premises to provide the facilities required by the Bill under these provisions and an exemption under this Clause for a short period may be the only practical alternative to forcing a business to close down. I want to emphasise, however, that this is a period of grace during which the employer
  596
  should be active in seeking new premises or making alternative arrangements for his staff.
  Mr. John Hynd: I am rather puzzled about this distinction between Clauses 36 and 37. The Minister tried to explain it and said that Clause 36 enables him to exempt "classes of premises", but Clause 36 states "premises of any class", which could mean individual premises. Does the phrase at present in the Bill cover this?
  Mr. Hare: Clause 36 intends to cover classes of premises. Clause 37 gives the enforcing authority power to exempt individual premises. I think that that covers the point about which the hon. Member is puzzled.
  Mr. Hynd: I know what the intention is, but I urge the Minister to read the beginning of Clause 36, which contains the words
  "… may … exempt premises of any class …."
  which could mean individual premises. Is the wording sound?
  Mr. Hare: The wording, according to the lawyers, is perfect. It means all classes of premises. However, we can discuss this in Committee. As long as I Lave made the principle absolutely clear, we can discuss the subject at greater length later.
  Regarding this period of grace, all exemptions granted to individual premises, other than those relating to the supply of running water, must be reviewed at least every two years, and the exemption can be withdrawn on three months' notice of this intention. Having stressed this point, I hope I have made it abundantly clear that the purpose of these powers of exemption is not to provide an easy method of evading the requirements of the Bill. When they are used, because special circumstances warrant this, they will be subject to frequent review.
  Mr. Edward Milne: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way because I would like him to clarify this distinction between Clauses 36 and 37. Is it not a fact that in Clause 36 power is given to the Minister to grant exemptions while, in Clause 37, the question is the power

  597
  of the enforcing authority to grant an exemption? Is that not the distinction between the two Clauses?
  Mr. Hare: There are two distinctions. The hon. Member is right in saying that Clause 36 gives power to the Minister because this applies to whole classes of premises. In Clause 37 the enforcing authority is given the power to make exemptions in certain individual cases. That is the point and I hope I have clarified it.
  I should like to say something about administration and enforcement. Here, there are definitely two schools of thought. One is in favour of using central Government inspectors to deal with premises which are covered by the Bill. While there are obviously some advantages in unifying the control of administrative arrangements in this way, the considerable number of premises involved would mean creating a very large central inspectorate. It would lead to a great deal of dual inspection by central inspectors under the Bill and by local authority inspectors under other statutes. The other school of thought advocates enforcement by local authorities throughout the whole of the Bill. This has the obvious disadvantage—I hope that the House will agree with me—that it would not make use of the experience of the Factory Inspectorate in enforcing similar provisions under the Factories Act.
  I suppose that by the nature of my office I automatically favour the middle way, which is the more pragmatic approach. It seems obvious to me that much of the inspection required under this Bill will be a natural extension of the existing duties of local authorities under the Public Health Acts, the Shops Act and certain provisions of the Factories Act where local authorities have certain responsibilities. Therefore, local authority inspectors are well fitted for this work, and the Bill provides that they should be responsible for enforcement in most offices and shops. On the other hand—and this is why I favour the middle approach—there is a clear advantage in arranging for central Government inspectors to inspect railway premises and offices in factories
  598
  because of the experience of my Department in administering the Factories Act in these undertakings.
  In addition to these responsibilities, the Bill makes the Factory Inspectorate responsible for inspecting premises occupied by local authorities and fire and police authorities.
  Mr. J. T. Price: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the point dealing with enforcement and the Factory Inspectorate, of which he had tried to give a balanced account——
  Mr. Hare: I have not quite finished.
  Mr. Price: I shall not detain the right hon. Gentleman for more than a moment. Surely he must know that his dogmatic statement that he is pleased at the manner in which local authorities are carrying out their duties under the Shops Act is quite wide of the truth. The complaint of most people who gave evidence before the Gowers Committee in 1949 was that in most cases enforcement of legislation was not being carried out because local authorities had not the resources nor the personnel, nor in many cases the will, to carry it out. Very often the sort of person who is called a shops inspector is also a sanitary inspector and a general Pooh-Bah in a small community, and it is impossible for him to carry out his duties. To repeat this procedure in this Measure would be disastrous.
  Mr. Hare: The hon. Gentleman referred to evidence given in 1949. We must be careful before we condemn local authority inspectors. There may be examples supporting what the hon. Gentleman has to say, but his accusation is in far too general terms and is not fair.
  I was saying that I thought local authority inspectors were fitted to carry out this work and I gave the reasons why. I also think that because of the experience of my own Inspectorate, they will do well the work of inspecting railway premises, offices in factories, and also undertaking the inspection of premises occupied by local authorities as well as fire and police authorities. They will also inspect premises owned or occupied by Government Departments.

  599
  Finally on this aspect, over a wide range of premises covered by the Bill the fire authorities will be responsible for administering the fire provisions. This is important. This follows the arrangements introduced by the Factories Act, 1959, which, as many hon. Members will remember, were hammered out alter a great deal of detailed discussion. I think it is agreed that they are working out in practice and that the time spent in 1959 was well spent. This broad division of responsibility makes full use of the existing expertise of the various authorities concerned, and I believe this will prove the most effective way of ensuring compliance with the requirements of the Bill.
  I should like to draw attention to the requirement in Clause 49 that all local authorities and fire authorities should send an annual report of their proceedings under the Bill to the Minister. These reports, together with similar particulars which will be supplied to me by my inspectors, will enable me to keep Parliament informed of the way in which the Measure is being administered.
  This Bill is part of the Government's wider plans to improve conditions of employment for all workers. It will benefit mainly the growing body of people who work in offices and shops and it will give them protection of the kind which workers in industry already enjoy. The legislation which has been anticipated in the Queen's Speech on terms of employment will provide greater security and an improved status for all workers. I believe that this Bill provides a sensible and fair way of dealing with standards of working conditions by legislation. The millions whom the provisions of the Bill will embrace can look forward to healthier and more comfortable working conditions. Better workng conditions should mean greater efficiency. This Bill will help to modernise Britain and strengthen our position in meeting the challenge of the future.
  4.58 p.m.
  Mr. Ray Gunter: I shall follow the courtesy of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour in restricting my speech as much as possible because of the amount of time Which has been stolen from this debate by previous events.
  600
  I should like to thank the Minister for the courtesy with which he has taken us through a very complicated Bill. I thought I noticed at the beginning of his remarks a note of exultation and pride in introducing it, but we on these benches cannot share that feeling. In other words, there will be no adulation from these benches about the Bill, or about the length of time which has been occupied in preparing and presenting it to the House.
  I am reminded of a leading article in The Times on 3rd November, which, I thought, summed up the position very well. It said
  "Parliament may well be disposed to welcome this Bill; but it may also justly complain that it is not told precisely what it is being invited to welcome, since so much depends on the nature of the regulations made under the Bill, on the use which is made of the powers of exemption and on the discretion of the Minister."
  I fully understand—indeed, there is no Member on this side of the House who does not—that in a Bill of this character, dealing with problems of this nature, there is bound to be a measure of delegation. But I feel bound to say that the amount of power that has been taken by the Minister in this Bill is rather frightening. This Bill can mean much to millions of people—great things can be done under the Bill—or it can mean practically nothing if the Minister does not want it to do so.
  If I may say so, one cannot but be sympathetic with some of those who cynically aver that the Bill is the product not of good intention, but of political expediency, in view of the fact that it has been introduced in the last year before a General Election. It may be that Orpington has had an effect upon the large number of workers who live there and has caused the Minister to introduce the Bill.
  The record of the Government in legislation affecting the well-being of office and shop workers is thoroughly bad. The treatment of the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) was a squalid bit of political expediency. The intentions of the House at that time were clear, but the Government deliberately kept the Act inoperative.

  601
  I join the Minister in congratulating those who served on the Gowers Committee and produced its Report in 1949. That Report was first-class. The presentation of the Report was a blissful moment of satisfaction, but the period of gestation has been so long that we have almost forgotten what the Report contained. Now, we are presented with the delivery and it is not quite the lusty thing that we hoped it would be.
  Looking back over the last decade in the House, some Ministers have gone up, some have gone down and some have disappeared, but at various stages, almost at six-monthly intervals, they have all avowed their great fidelity to the recommendations of the Gowers Committee. Those recommendations had about just as much meaning or worth as the marriage vows of an American film actress.
  I realise that the present Minister does not bear responsibility for this decade of gestation. I believe that he is trying his best to catch up. Without being churlish about the matter this afternoon, however, I should have thought that after this long period of waiting, when some of us have been engaged in thousands of committees and the trade unions have given volumes of evidence and other contributions to various Ministers concerning the recommendations of the Gowers Committee, the Bill might have been a little more comprehensive and precise. While I understand that much will have to await regulations, there is very much more that could have been written into the Bill after this long period of preparation and analysis.
  Now that the Bill is being introduced, an imaginative effort could have been made to encompass many more workers who are outside the scope of the Factories Act. I am not sure of the figures, but there must be million's of workers who are still outside any form of protection.
  Mr. Hare: When the Bill is in operation, 80 per cent. of the working population will be covered.
  Mr. Gunter: That is small satisfaction to the remaining 20 per cent. Inroads could have been made into that 20 per cent. by means of the Bill.
  602
  I want to say a word or two about same of the people who are not included. They may not be all that great in number, but their needs are equal to those who are included. Consider, for example, some of the people working for our health services and local authorities. They exist to provide a service and, in consequence, the work done by many of the staff does not bring the places in which they are employed within the definition of a factory under the Factories Act, 1961. The fact that they are there to serve the public interest is no reason why we should not have statutory safeguards to cover workers in that sort of work. Badly ventilated kitchens and boiler houses and antiquated hospitals and schools are nowadays too often the rule and not the exception. There is a large number of sewerage works and highway and refuse collection disposal depots which still lack adequate washing and sanitary facilities.
  We are reaching the stage when our legislation in this and similar directions presents a ludicrous situation. The various Measures will apply to the offices and to the laundry of a hospital, but not to the boiler house, workshops, kitchens, laboratories or wards, in all of which staff very often work in bad conditions.
  The Minister referred to theatres. The Gowers Committee reflected upon the theatre, but not upon bingo halls or music halls, and had something to say about the conditions backstage. Once again, we find a silly position concerning theatres. I am informed that the proposed legislation could create an administrative absurdity. in one theatre, it might be found that the workshop was inspected by the Factory Inspectorate, the auditorium by the county officers and the manager's office by the borough council, but the place where the work was done backstage would not be inspected by anybody. I fully understand the difficulties outlined by the Minister, but they have been carefully dealt with by Actors' Equity in its consultations with the Minister.
  I think it proper to bring to the notice of the House and to put upon record the sum total of Equity's case as stated in a letter to The Times on 5th November, in reply to a leading article which described

  603
  the Bill as a comprehensive Measure. Equity said:
  "Unhappily, it is not true that the Government's Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Bill is comprehensive in the sense of carrying out the full recommendations of the Gowers Committee. Theatres, cinemas and music halls are excluded and no convincing reason has been given by the Government for making an exception of places of employment where conditions of work are often among the worst in the country."
  Equity went on to say:
  "Members of Parliament who have raised the matter with the Minister have been told that Equity should deal with the matter by negotiation."
  I bring this to the notice of the House only because it is a strange attitude by the Minister in the light of the history of such legislation. It is a strange proposal to say that these matters should be dealt with by negotiation, because the whole history of non-manuel employment, as the Factories Acts show, has been that only legislation can impose and maintain physical conditions of work at a reasonable level.
  After discussions with the Minister, Equity said in the letter to The Times:
  "Equity is thus asked to do the impossible because the Minister has been persuaded that if the Gowers Committee recommendations were given effect so far as theatres are concerned the consequence would be to put many out of business."
  The strange thing is that the Gowers Committee provided against that possibility by recommending flexibility of application. Goodness knows, there is enough flexibility in the Bill in other directions. In view of the power that the Minister is taking to decide in certain cases to what degree the requirements should be enforced, surely he could have taken power to deal with theatres backstage.
  Equity goes on to say:
  "In some theatres, particularly in London, backstage conditions are good. In others they are tolerable. In most they could be put in reasonably decent order by the expenditure of quite a small sum of money. What is needed is not so much enforcement as the power to enforce."
  The hope is expressed that by the time we conclude the Committee stage of the Bill we can persuade the Minister to do something about it.
  There is one other point which is almost akin to theatres. The Minister
  604
  might have had thoughts about the B.B.C., of all people. We are informed that some of the Corporation's rehearsal rooms are not all that they ought to be. I am sure it was a staggering blow to our national pride to read the other day that Maigret, of all people, was chasing criminals and blondes without an adequate lavatory to support him in the pursuit.
  This sort of thing ought to be investigated. The Minister will get into trouble if he is not careful. I am informed from a very authoritative source—my wife—that Maigret is catching up with Ena Sharples in popularity. Ena can go to "The Rovers Return" for stout with adequate facilities, but Maigret cannot pursue his criminals with adequate facilities. The Minister ought to look into this sort of thing in Committee.
  We understand that the Minister is adamant that workers in coal depots must be excluded from these provisions. This matter has been the subject of discussion between the British Transport Commission, the coal merchants and the unions for years, but no agreement has ever been possible because of inability to decide on apportionment of the cost. Everybody admits that for this type of labour adequate sanitary and washing facilities should be provided at coal depots.
  The Gowers Committee said that at most coal depots there might be some very primitive sanitary accommodation, and went on:
  "We cannot help thinking that the provision of minimum standards of welfare is a duty which should be laid upon the owners of the depots or wharves at which the coal merchants are tenants."
  I give these examples of what has been excluded from the Bill. In view of its flexible terms, I think that second thoughts could have been given to these things and they could have been included.
  I turn now to the Minister's power to grant exemption. I am sure that the Minister would agree that this has caused as much concern as anything. The Bill empowers him to exempt premises of any class from all or any of the provisions about minimum space, temperature, sanitary conveniences and washing facilities where, in his opinion, it would, by reason of special circumstances, be unreasonable

  605
  to require compliance with the requirements. The Bill says that such exemptions may be granted unconditionally or subject to conditions and without limit of time or for a specified period.
  The Gowers Report made no specific recommendation in this respect. but stated that many of its recommendations were made in the knowledge that it would be necessary in any consequent legislation to allow a period of grace during which owners or occupiers of shop and office property could adapt their premises to comply with the law. The Opposition's view is the same as that of the Trades Union Congress. We are opposed to indefinite exemption. The T.U.C. was opposed to this two years ago when it met the Minister on this issue. While there may be a need—I would not deny it—for a period of grace for the provision of installation or adaptations in cases where it is justified, it should be at the most two years, and one year in the case of provisions in regard to temperature.
  The House should remember that the intention to legislate on these matters was declared in 1952, ten years ago, when the Government made their original proposals for a Bill. The subsequent delay has been entirely the fault of the Government in their failure to carry out their promise. It would be untenable that fourteen years after the Gowers Committee made its recommendations legislation should provide for indefinite exemptions or exemptions which go beyond two years. Employers have had adequate notice through the publicity given over the years about health, welfare and safety needs in shops and offices, and this legislation ought not to allow long or indefinite exemptions for changes which employers ought to have anticipated and for which they ought to be fully prepared after this long period.
  I draw the Minister's attention to another aspect which causes the Opposition and, I am sure, the trade unions some concern. We are opposed to the present form of the provision for appeal. If the enforcing authority refuses to exempt some premises, the owners are given right of appeal to a magistrates' court. I cannot believe that a magistrates' court is the most suitable instrument. With the greatest respect to all our magistrates, I do not believe
  606
  they have the professional or technical knowledge to judge these matters. Yet they are given the power completely to override the enforcing authority and order that exemption be granted or renewed on the ground that compliance is not reasonably practicable—which is an extremely vague term. I am sure that some of our legal friends will have great times trying to convince magistrates and other people what is "reasonably practicable" in certain office and shop accommodation.
  But this matter goes a stage further. Right of appeal is given only to the employer. What about those who work in the offices? Surely they ought to have some rights in this matter. I am sure that in Committee the right hon. Gentleman, with his usual affability, will consider how the employees can have their say in appeals to the magistrates' court.
  The Bill bristles with legitimately arguable Committee points. The Times states that at a quick glance it has assessed that the Bill will result in 25 sets of regulations. I suppose that "a quick glance" by The Times is equivalent to twelve months' diligent research by others, and so I accept its view. Our trouble is that we cannot assess the real effect of the Bill, how it will influence and help the millions of people involved, until we see the regulations. I hope that the Minister will be forthcoming in clarifying this matter in Committee and will help us about what is in his mind, and, if possible, help us to write into the Bill something more than is at present there.
  The Bill will require the most careful and detailed attention in Committee. I hope that the Minister will not imitate some of his colleagues and interpret an honest and sincere endeavour by the Opposition to improve the very detailed parts of the Bill as obstruction and that in a few weeks' time we shall not find the Leader of the House going round the corridors muttering about the Guillotine. I hope that we shall be able to give the Bill the very detailed consideration that it ought to receive.
  While we shall riot divide the House tonight, I must inform the Minister that we shall do all we can to improve a Bill which appears to us to be so imprecise

  607
  and which after ten OT twelve years of investigation ought to have embraced more workers. But we shall do all we can to help him to make it a good Bill, and I hope that he will listen most carefully and diligently to us.
  5.19 p.m.
  Sir Richard Nugent: I wish to welcome the Bill. I was one of those who had the pleasure of taking part in the deliberations of the Gowers Committee, and I am indebted to the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede)—I am sorry that he is not in his place today to hear my thanks—for appointing me to his Committee in the days before I was a Member of this House.
  I am doubly in the right hon. Gentleman's debt: first, for the very great interest which the inquiry aroused; and secondly, for the opportunity to make the acquaintance of Sir Ernest Gowers, the Chairman of the Committee. I should say that there has been no man in public life in the last two decades who has been chairman of more Royal Commissions and Committees of Inquiry OT has mare ably served the public in that way than Sir Ernest. I would claim that our Report has the special distinction not only of containing valuable matter but also of being written in a style that can be read, which is what one would expect from the author of Plain Words.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend on bringing this Measure forward. It has had a rather protracted history, having been discussed for many years. As I rather expected, with his customary eloquence, the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Gunter) wrung the withers of my right hon. Friend about the decade of gestation, as he so neatly put it, and I agree that it has been a long period. But there are arguments which I would like to advance in that connection. There is no doubt that the Measure will bring benefit progressively to some 8 million workers, and I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House welcome it on that account. As I listened to the hon. Member, however, it occurred to me that the Committee stage, whilst it will be very interesting, may also be a little long.
  608
  The Bill, of course, follows the broad lines of the Factories Act, 1937, and, indeed, the approach of the Gowers Committee to this subject was to see how the thinking behind that Act could be extended to the broad and rather vaguely defined field we were asked to inquire into. In our terms of reference, we were asked
  "To inquire into and make recommendations as to extending, strengthening or modifying:—

  (a) the statutory provisions relating to the health, welfare and safety of employed persons at places of employment other than those regulated under the Factories or Mines and Quarries Acts".

  As my right hon. Friend said, when we came to complete the Report in 1949, we stated in our preface that we were considering conditions of employment in shops and offices at a time when the labour and materials necessary to improve them were not sufficiently available. Of course, in the ensuing thirteen years, conditions have changed tremendously and there has been a very great advance in the standards of living of the country. Yet no one would say today that our building resources are more than is required to meet the country's present needs.
  My right hon. Friend and his predecessors have been prudent in not hurrying this legislation. The fact is that right hon. and hon. Members must recognise that, whereas with the Factories Act there is a definite element of urgency, because human physical safety is at stake, here, although we are naturally dealing with something very important—the health and welfare of persons employed—the element of urgency is not exactly the same.
  Mr. Marsh: The main object of this Bill is to set standards of health, welfare and safety for employees. Why is safety less urgent for non-industrial workers than it is for industrial workers?
  Sir R. Nugent: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to strain the point, but the dangerous element in shops and offices is not quite the same as in factories. It is fair to say that, in the main, in this case we are concerned with improving conditions of health and safety in these places of employment. It is also a fair point to make, however, that it would be really of no

  609
  value to the nation as a whole in implementing these recommendations if it were to be at the expense of diverting large building resources from housing to offices.
  I remember a visit to Russia when I inspected a virgin land development in Kazakhstan, where I was shown a magnificent new machinery tractor station. It was a very fine building costing hundreds of thousands of pounds. I asked where were the new houses for the men who were to work in it. I was told, "They will have to wait until afterwards." The housing of the men and women who worked in the factory were most primitive mud huts which we would never tolerate in this country. But this was a matter of priority. We in this country like to advance over a broad front, which is right in a free community, and our priorities are those which deal with human beings and their lives as a whole and not just one aspect, the place of employment.
  My right hon. Friend and his colleagues were right to wait until the time came when they could say that the resources are broadly available for this purpose. Of course, it is true to say that over the last few years there has been tremendous building of new offices and, indeed, new shops, and now we see town centres being rebuilt. It is not uncommon for hon. Members opposite to criticise the number of new offices going up. It is a fair point to make that we want to see the whole standard of living of the people advancing particularly in the home.
  Mr. R. E. Prentice: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the shortage of building materials has not been the reason advanced by Ministers in recent years for the delay in this legislation? The Government mentioned this Measure in the Queen's Speech at the beginning of the last Session. As one who took part in the Gowers Committee, would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is frustrating for eminent and busy people to give a long time to an investigation of this sort, to produce a unanimous report accepted by all parties, only to find it pigeon-holed for thirteen years? Has not the delay in this case been insupportable?
  Sir R. Nugent: No. That is why I have just said what I have. Indeed, half of the Report has already been implemented. I would have no complaint personally, in a matter which is so difficult for advance, at seeing the implementation of the Report step by step.
  Of course, the Gowers Committee heard a good deal of evidence that no such legislation was needed, that it would be quite sufficient to leave the matter to the general advance in standards of acommodation in the whole community, on the one hand, and to the bargaining powers of the trade unions on the other. I did not accept that view. I think that it is right to establish standards where they can be satisfactorily established, but it is fair to say that there is a balance in this matter, and I think that my right hon. Friend has achieved just about the right one. Whether this Bill was introduced in the last Session or this Session is not a vital question in this context.
  I want to say something about theatres, to which the hon. Member for Southwark referred. It is true that we did recommend in the Report that theatres should be brought into this legislation, but we made that recommendation very tentatively. I can remember having a look at some of these theatres and, being very keen on the theatre myself, nothing would please me better than that the people who play in them should have better accommodation. But we must face the fact that it is physically impossible in the older theatres to bring the accommodation up to a reasonable standard, and therefore our recommendation in paragraph 96 on page 35 says:
  "… the specific recommendations which we make below should only be compulsorily applied in full to new buildings …"
  Then we expressed the view as to how exemptions might be applied to older theatres.
  Mr. Gunter: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and I would not dispute that. Nevertheless, a lot of the confusion and, indeed, the soreness of Equity arises from the fact that, in 1952, when the Home Office came to deal with this, it agreed to bring in some regulations.
  Sir R. Nugent: I do not know what happened in 1952, but I do not see how the Home Office could do it. There is no doubt that if the regulation were

  611
  made firmly applying to all theatres it would close down a large number of them, and, apart from the deprivation to the general public, I do not think that members of Equity would gain very much by that either. Of course, as new theatres are being built, decent accommodation is being provided for players, and I am glad to think that my own town of Guildford is about to build a new theatre which, I hope, will have decent accommodation. I feel bound to say that I think that the present accommodation is very poor indeed and that players do extremely well to manage there at all, but if one applied strict regulations to the theatre it just would not exist. I think that it is a fair point, although my right hon. Friend has not included theatres in the Bill, because as a committee, when we looked at this dispassionately—I was not a Member of this place then; we were a non-party body—we were very much persuaded of the difficulty of dealing with the older theatres.
  I was very interested to see that my right hon. Friend, in establishing standards in the Bill and leaving to regulations the establishment of other standards, followed much the same recommendations that we made in our Report. We recommended that he should establish a standard for temperature and overcrowding, but we felt that it was better to leave it to regulations to establish standards for ventilation and lighting because of the enormous difficulty of laying down exact standards in particular circumstances. I still think that is the right way to do it, but I hope that my right hon. Friend will proceed to make regulations covering these aspects as soon as he conveniently can and apply them to specific classes of premises where the conditions can be laid down and defined easily.
  I think that my right hon. Friend is right to have both the power of exemption for family businesses and the general powers of exemption in paragraphs 36 and 37. There is such a wide variety of premises in both offices and shops that, unless there are powers of exemption, my right hon. Friend will find himself inevitably closing down perfectly good, efficient businesses where people are working quite happily. I am sure that is right and practical, and I
  612
  hope that he will seek to put it into effect in Committee.
  With regard to enforcement; again I am very glad to see that my right hon. Friend has followed the advice of the Gowers Committee, where we had earnest consideration as to whether we should recommend that there should be a central inspectorate or whether it should be done by the local authorities. We were given much evidence on the subject which was very helpful to us. We finally came to the conclusion that, apart from the factors that my right hon. Friend mentioned, to set up a central inspectorate would involve a large, new bureaucracy which would involve a certain amount of duplication. We were very much persuaded that there was a great advantage in having local authorities carry out the functions of inspection because it brings local interest into this matter of inspection in an entirely different and stronger way. I am sure that is a great advantage.
  We recommended—this is something which does not appear in the Bill, but I hope that my right hon. Friend will say something about it tonight—that my right hon. Friend might equip himself with a small national inspectorate which would have the function of moving about the country, to confer with local authorities and help them and advise them in enforcing the regulations and so ensure some sort of uniformity throughout the country. I am sure that that is the right way of dealing with this, because it really would not be right if there were not general uniformity.
  Finally on appeals, to which the hon. Member for Southwark referred, I can remember, although this is some years ago, a long and earnest discussion as to who should be the body to whom complaining persons could appeal, and we felt that on the whole the magistrates' court was the right body to hear the appeal. I would agree that all magistrates' courts are not as wise as the wisest, but, on the whole, they carry out their functions very well and with responsibility. We felt that in a matter such as this the magistrates' court would be the right body to hear appeals, and that it would then be a simple process that could be dealt with locally and in the right conditions. I cannot see what alternative we

  613
  could have unless we were prepared to set up a completely new appellate body.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the Bill and wish him well with a measure which will improve the health, welfare and safety of a very large number of workers and remain a standing credit to him.
  5.36 p.m.
  Mr. Tom Bradley: I am aware of the indulgence that the House usually extends to new Members on the occasion of their maiden speech, and I am most grateful for it. My only regret is that I shall find it most difficult to be non-controversial in return. In the first place, this Bill hardly lends itself to that kind of approach. I remember that my first piece of Parliamentary advice, which came to me when I was a teen-ager, was from the late Mr. James Maxton, who was, I believe, a very well-loved Member of this House. He told me that if I ever succeeded in being elected to Parliament I should make the most of my maiden speech because it would be the only time that I would be allowed to get away with murder. I am told that the position has not changed substantially since that time.
  My constituency is part of the vigorous and progressive city of Leicester, and my constituents mainly are engaged in footwear, textiles, and light and heavy engineering. There is, however, a large minority comprising clerical and sedentary workers in that population, and that is one reason that I have for welcoming the Bill.
  The second reason stems from my experience as an executive officer of a white-collared trade union, the Transport Salaried Staffs Association, which has 87,000 members who will be considerably affected by the Minister's proposals. I think that we are all agreed that non-manual workers are becoming increasingly important in our society. They are certainly experiencing great changes in their working methods. A developing technological and scientific revolution is taking place in offices today no less than on the factory floor, and the mechanisation of office procedure has brought with it conditions which certainly industrial workers would never tolerate.
  614
  By and large, industrial workers have gone ahead in improvements in health, welfare and safety, while the non-manual workers have lagged considerably behind. Nowhere, however, will the Bill receive greater welcome than that which will be given to it by the railway clerks. I hope that I shall be forgiven if I spend a moment or two on that situation, because I have worked with them and for them for the last 20 years. They have certainly been very patient. They have seen the Gowers Committee's recommendations, they have listened to promises, they have been in discussions, and they have had to wait 13 years for this Bill to come before the House.
  The railway administration abounds with offices and premises which are dirty, confined and frequently damp. What is accepted as elementary in many other spheres, electric light, adequate heating and proper ventilation, is nonexistent in scores of railway offices. They are clerical slums. In the past, we have seen many former colleagues ending up in the sanatorium, or contracting contagious diseases, as a direct result of the appalling conditions in which they have had to work.
  I could take hon. Members to offices which would be revealing to them. Near my own constituency there is a railway yard master's office which measures 12½ ft. by 9 ft. by 9 ft. It regularly accommodates three people and often four. There are no staff amenities; the toilet facilities are more than 100 yards away; storage accommodation is 80 yards away. There is a large railway commercial office in Manchester where water regularly leaks through the roof and it being Manchester, I mean regularly. Pools form on the floors in this office and the staff is reduced to using metal waste paper baskets to catch the water. Not far from the House of Commons there is a large railway terminus of the Southern Region, and at this time of year and during the rest of the winter months the inspector in the train announcer's office sits with his feet in a cardboard box stuffed with newspaper in an effort to get extra warmth because the office is so badly heated.
  To be fair to the British Transport Commission, it inherited some shocking premises from the former private railway companies. In the last twelve or thirteen

  615
  years, the Commission has been preoccupied with priorities for modernising traffic movement. Although it has recently been spending larger sums of money on improving and building new offices, about £5 million or £6 million over the last four years, that has been chicken feed compared with what has to be done, and in any case the expenditure of money on patching up and building offices has often been directly due to the representations and pressure brought upon management by the trade unions in the industry.
  Now the law will compel the Commission to act. Or will it? I am bound to say that, coming as it did after years of talks and promises and postponements, the Bill could have been a good deal better. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Gunter) that it ought to cover more occupations and more places of work. Why have the recommendations of the Gowers Committee in respect of theatres and other places of entertainment and coal depôts and dental mechanic work rooms been left out? Why have they been abandoned? I remind the Minister that these things were included in a memorandum of Government proposals issued in 1952 and widely distributed to all interested parties, including the T.U.C. I remind him further that on 14th July, 1955, the then Home Secretary, then Major Gwilym Lloyd George, told the House in a statement in reply to a series of Questions from my bon. Friends that the legislation which the Government would ultimately bring forward would cater for these people. Why have they been left out?
  I must confess that I find some of the Bill's provisions about exemptions frightening in their implications. They could lead to indefinite continuance of slum offices in view of the great delay between the enactment of the Bill and its operation. The specified period of grace of two years ought to be only one year. If employers are to have the right of appeal when an enforcing authority refuses exemptions, is it not fair and just that employees or their trade unions should have the right of appeal against the granting of an exemption by an enforcing authority?
  There are one or two notable omissions in the Bill. For instance, there is
  616
  no mention of any restriction on noise. As I have said, same of the greatest developments in automation are taking place in offices, and noise can be a serious interference with health and convenience. I am sorry that there is no mention of underground offices and accommodation. I bad hoped that future construction of underground offices would have been prohibited and existing underground offices would have been able to continue only if approved by a local authority. However, that is not to be.
  Of course, there are many provisions which I greatly welcome, especially in relation to ventilation and temperature, although perhaps I could quarrel a little with the degrees of temperature which are specified. Why are they expressed in Fahrenheit when it is now official policy to encourage the use of centigrade measurements? Perhaps that is something which can be considered in Committee. On the whole, I think that the Bill is a faltering step in the right direction. It is the most comprehensive Measure we have had yet, but it has its weaknesses, and I hope that by the time it returns to the House from Committee it will have been considerably improved.
  5.46 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Carr: I have been in the House for almost thirteen years, but this is the first time that I have had the honour of following an hon. Member making a maiden speech and so having the opportunity of congratulating him upon it. I can assure the hon. Member for Leicester, North-East (Mr. Bradley) that I regard it as an honour and great pleasure in this instance to do so. I hope that he has now been in the House long enough to appreciate that this convention of ours is not just a matter of formal tradition. It is something which we really mean. I hope that he also appreciates that in the natural play of debate it always falls to an hon. Member on the other side of the House to congratulate a maiden speaker, and I hope that he will also feel that this is a symbol of the community of spirit which exists in the House between individuals who respect each other, however great their political arguments or differences on matters of policy.

  617
  I am sure that the House will agree that the hon. Member for Leicester, North-East is worthy of the traditional praise and congratulation. His speech was quiet yet lively, modest and informal yet well ordered, and extremely well illustrated. If at times he came a little near to the point of controversy, it was out of obvious sincerity and because of personal knowledge. He will find that I shall agree strongly with at least two of his points. He must be pleased to have had the opportunity of making his maiden speech on a subject of which he has so much personal knowledge, not only in the sense that it affects so many of his constituents, but because of his trade union activities and interests. When I have peered into the recesses of railway premises, I have not been able to help but have the greatest sympathy with those who seek by whatever means, legislative and others, to improve the lot of those who work in them.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent) said, there are some who believe that advances in office and shop employment conditions can be made without legislation. They think that the pressures of full employment and all the new building we see will on their own bring about the needed improvements. While it is true that prosperity and full employment are essential for progress in working conditions and will probably achieve more than legislation, I do not, however, agree with those who feel that legislation is unnecessary.
  It is necessary for a number of reasons. First, there is a great variety of conditions. While in our big cities, certainly in London, we may see great new buildings going up and perhaps wish that we were among the lucky ones working in them and enjoying their facilities, we do not have to go far—not even in London and certainly not in other parts of the country—to find totally different conditions. One is therefore impressed by the need for legislative control. But beyond that I hold that there is a fundamental right to protect the conditions of workers, wherever they may work, at a minimum level by legislation, and I do not think that it is a sufficient answer to say merely that things are happening and progressing quite fast without legislation. I believe that the basic standard should
  618
  be guaranteed by legislation, and therefore I welcome this Bill.
  I have less sympathy with right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite who complain too much about the delay in bringing in this Bill because I do not think that one can look at it in isolation. I think that in any period of Parliamentary history one must look at the amount of legislation of a similar type which has been brought in. If one looks at the record of the last decade, I imagine that it is difficult, and probably impossible, to find any other decade in Parliamentary history when there has been so much legislation concerned with the health, safety, welfare and various other aspects of the life of large sections of workers in our community.
  There has been the Mines and Quarries Act, the Agriculture (Safety Health and Welfare Provisions) Act, and the Factories Act. In addition to those Acts immediately related to our subject today, there have been others such as the Miners Welfare Act, the Agricultural (Poisonous Substances) Act, the Night Baking Act, and I think I remember a Pneumoconiosis and Byssinosis Benefit Act. I submit to the House that taking this record of legislation concerned with the health, safety and welfare of workers throughout the country, this last decade has seen more legislation than probably any other decade in Parliamentary history, and it is against this background that the timing of the introduction of this Bill should be judged.
  I turn now to some of the details of the Bill, and in my notes I have in capital letters the word "noise". This is the first major point on which I agree with the hon. Member for Leicester, North-East. I was dismayed by the omission of noise as a special subject from this Bill. It seemed incredible that such an omission could be made in the year 1962. I should have thought that if on the one hand we had had to wait for this Bill, we could, on the other, have had some advantages from waiting by seeing in it the incorporation of some of the improvements and newer ideas of the last ten to fifteen years.
  Noise is one of the curses of modern life, and in offices much of the equipment which is being increasingly used is noisy. Perhaps not as noisy as some of the great presses and other machinery

  619
  with which those who work in industry have to deal, but it is still noisy, and noise in offices is likely to grow rather than become less. This noise can be controlled, and it ought to be, and this omission must be put right.
  It simply will not be good enough to tell the House about all the difficulties of measuring noise and all the rest of it. We all know that there are technical difficulties. Some of the scientific problems of the measurement and control of noise may not yet have been fully solved, and it may therefore not yet be possible to lay regulations about it, but, as we know from experience, we do not have Bills of this kind very frequently, and it is therefore essential to have in this Bill a subject heading of noise which will allow my right hon. Friend, or his successors, in due course to bring in suitable regulations for its control. I should like my hon. Friend, if he can, to say something about this when he winds up this debate, but whatever may be said tonight I appeal to my right hon. Friend to think very carefully about it. It is one of the important factors not only in the immediate happiness and contentment of work, but in the long-term effects on health.
  I turn now to fire precautions. I welcome very much the content of Clauses 24 to 32 which deal with fire prevention and proper escape arrangements, and also fire fighting equipment. On first reading these Clauses seem to be satisfactory, but I hope that when my right hon. Friend comes to implement this Bill he will make sure that the teeth which these Clauses appear to have turn out to have a proper bite.
  One of the rather inexplicable but alarming facts of this country at the moment is the way in which the number of fires is increasing. The records of insurance companies show that this year, 1962, is, I think, the worst year in our history for fires—fires of all kinds in all sorts of premises. It is not only the enormous damage which occurs to property—and that is pretty important in the context of the national economy—but the human tragedies which are all too frequent. I hope that in framing regulations my right hon. Friend and his advisers will, among other things, consult those in the insurance industry who
  620
  are studying these matters and are very well placed to have good ideas about what is required both in the prevention and the fighting of fires.
  I remember that one of the first—if not the first—occasions on which I spoke at the Dispatch Box as Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour was to answer questions about a tragedy which had occurred in a fire in a textile mill in Keighley in Yorkshire. At that time the Factories Acts made no provision for the prevention of fire; they made provision only in relation to alarms, escape arrangements, and so on.
  We have now put that right, and I am delighted to see that fire prevention also comes into this Bill, but I ask my right hon. Friend to make sure that these Clauses are vigorously pursued, and also to consider very carefully the resources available to the fire authorities. I know that my right hon. Friend cannot directly control the resources available to fire authorities, or what they do, but some of us feel that the resources of the fire authorities tend to be over-stretched, and they therefore vary in the standards and services they are able to provide. In so far as there is any lack in any area, I hope that my right hon. Friend will consult his appropriate right hon. Friends to make sure that these provisions are fully effective.
  Lighting is covered in the Bill, and is, of course, extremely important. I suggest that the Gowers Report standards of lighting are now out of date, and I suggest to my right hon. Friend that when he comes to make the necessary regulations they should be based on the 1961 Code of the Illuminating Engineering Society.
  Temperature is another point on which I agree with the hon. Member for Leicester, North-East. I was surprised that my old Department, which I always feel to be so progressive, should on this occasion have slipped and be so out of date as only to talk in degrees of Fahrenheit. I am sure that this is a little relic of a Bill having been pulled out of a pigeon-hole after some time. Most of the dust has been removed, but this is a little bit of the old 1949 dust that remains.
  Mr. Hare: I do not think that my Department ought to be blamed, and I take full responsibility.
  Mr. Carr: I accept that, and I apologise for the error that I made.
  Mr. Marsh: Might not there be another explanation, namely, that this is a breach of security, heralding a major change of Government policy in other fields?
  Mr. Carr: These speculations can lead us a long way. I suspect that if I joined the hon. Member in a debate on that subject I would soon be called to order.
  But I think that I am in order in commenting upon the temperature chosen—whether it is referred to in degrees Fahrenheit or centigrade. I will use the Fahrenheit scale, since that is the one used in the Bill. I would have thought that a temperature of 60 degrees Fahrenheit was loo low a minimum for sedentary occupation in offices, and that 65 degrees would be a more appropriate figure. The situation may be different in shops and other premises where the employees are walking about, but any. body with experience of employing office workers knows that he would soon find himself in trouble if he allowed the temperature in his offices regularly to fall to as low as 60 degrees.
  I conclude by referring to a few general points. First, there is the question of Government offices and Crown buildings. As I understand it, these will be satisfactorily inspected and will be controlled under the Bill. I understand that the inspectors do not have power to enter Government offices, but that inspection will be arranged by administrative action. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to describe what this administrative action amounts to. Those who work in Government offices have as much right to protection as anybody else. Furthermore, it would be most unfair to private employers and to nationalised industry employers if the Government were able to be mare lax in these matters than were other people.
  Secondly, there is the question of uniformity of administration. This question has already been touched upon. I cannot help being concerned about the variety of enforcing authorities referred to in the Bill. I do not like it. On the other hand, I realise that there are great difficulties in setting up one centrally organised inspectorate, which, in theory, would
  622
  appear to be the best solution. The practical arguments must be allowed to win the day.
  Nevertheless, the acceptance of these various enforcing authorities raises the question of uniformity of administration in a very serious form. It is of great importance that my right hon. Friend should do all he can to make sure that only minimal variations exist in the standards applying throughout the country. I hope that some way can be found of enforcing uniformity. Perhaps "enforcing" is the wrong word; at any rate, some means should be found of bringing this about in a positive manner.
  I hope that my right hon Friend will give careful consideration to the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford that we should establish a small central supervisory inspectorate—a small body of people who can move about the country and whose main job will be to see how standards of enforcement are varying from one local authority to another and bring positive guidance to bear to eliminate those variations. If that is not done the Measure will not operate fairly, and it will not produce the results that we all want to see.
  Then there is the question of the date of commencement. I was glad to see that Clause 77 gives my right hon. Friend considerable flexibility in this respect. He is enabled to fix different times for the coming into force of different provisions. I hope that he will use this flexibility. Most of us who look at the subject from a severely practical point of view realise that there are certain types of provision and certain types of premises in respect of which some delay must be allowed. On the other hand, we are all anxious that the need for delay in some cases shall not be allowed to impose delay in all cases. I have in mind particularly the question of new buildings. There may be great difficulties in bringing some old buildings up to date, but I should have thought that from the moment when the Bill becomes law every building that goes up ought compulsorily to be made to conform to the standards laid down.
  It is true that in some cases it will be necessary for regulations to be made, but some points are dealt with by the Bill itself. I was rather disturbed when I read Clause 5, which deals with overcrowding. I gather that it will not come

  623
  into operation for five years. I should like to know why. I appreciate that there may have to be a delay in respect of old buildings, but I cannot see any justification for allowing a brand new building to be overcrowded, and for that overcrowding to be allowed to continue for five years from the date of enactment. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider that point.
  We want the Measure to be effective, bet we do not want it to be unduly burdensome or vexatious to small businesses. There are many small shopkeepers in my constituency, who are providing a much valued service to the community, and we must have some regard to the fact that Bills of this kind are strange to them, and can be burdensome. The exemptions specified in Clauses 1 to 3 seem to cover this point in a reasonable manner, but I should like to have my hon. Friend's comments on the point.
  In particular, I want to ask my hon. Friend a question concerning Clause 2 (1), dealing with premises in which the only employees are relatives of the employer. Not only husbands, wives, sons and daughters, but also brothers and sisters of the employer are included, and I was a little surprised to see that nephews and nieces were excluded. There are many genuine family businesses in which brothers and sisters and their respective children all wish to work in the same premises, and I would have thought that nephews and nieces ought to have been included in that table of consanguinity.
  My final point concerns the question of the regulations to be made under the Bill. This is largely an enabling Measure, depending for its effect upon the regulations which the Minister will make under it. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be both quick and forward-looking in bringing in these regulations. I am sure that he will be, and if he is he will have the support of the House, and, I believe, both of employers' and workers' representatives outside the House.
  As evidence of the willingness of employers to deal with this subject, I draw attention to the work done by the Institute of Directors in relation to office conditions. A few years ago it set up an extremely well-qualified committee to
  624
  look into this matter and, as a result, two or three years ago produced an excellent publication called "Better Offices". Anybody who reads it will feel that it is a most comprehensive and exceedingly progressive document, which gives a tremendous amount of helpful advice on what is necessary to ensure good office conditions. I admit that in many cases it goes well beyond what can be included in legislation, but it nevertheless contains facts and ideas which should be taken into account when regulations are framed.
  I have drawn attention to one or two specific points and some general ones, and I have made some criticisms. In general, however, I want to make it quite clear that I welcome the Bill, congratulate my right hon. Friend upon introducing it, and wish it a speedy enactment.
  6.10 p.m.
  Mr. George Craddock: I listened with care to the speech of the Minister, who said that the Bill would cover the requirements of more than 8 million people and that it was comprehensive in character. I agree with the hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) that this is an enabling Bill. We have waited many years for such a comprehensive Measure to deal with the conditions of employment of people who work in offices, shops and warehouses, and this is the first opportunity which hon. Members have had to deal with such legislation as is to be provided.
  I feel somewhat critical about the shortcomings in the Bill's provisions, but I welcome it because it will lay down standards which will prove most helpful for those engaged in all kinds of occupations and businesses. Often in debates of this kind we imagine that the subject under discussion and the problems which arise relate only to the workers. But it will be apparent, upon reflection, that precautions to protect health in relation to the distribution of food, and the necessity for cleanliness and other factors, are matters which are of benefit to the community as a whole. Not only is the provision of decent conditions in which to work of benefit to those people who handle, dispatch and serve food, but it contributes also to protecting the welfare of the consumer. We should, therefore, do all we can to ensure that

  625
  the provisions contained in this Bill become law. I hope, however, that during the Committee stage discussions the Minister will be a little more forthcoming than he has been today.
  I noted the comments made about the proposals regarding fire safety and the references of the hon. Member for Mitcham. Having been interested in this matter for many years, I am aware that there has been an increase in the number of serious fires and the consequent loss of life. There is a need for the much better precautions in this connection that are outlined in the Bill.
  The matters dealt with by this Measure should have been investigated a long time ago. I hope that as a result of the changes which are proposed, the trade unions may be enabled to provide a better service to their members.
  I recall that during the time when there was a Ministry of Fuel I had cause to make investigations in connection with a problem which had been presented to me, and in the course of those investigations I discovered that the inspectors employed in the main cities of this country totalled only thirty-six. As we are to have a central inspectorate, and inspection through the local authorities, I feel that steps must be taken to ensure that a sufficient number of people of the right type and with the necessary training are employed on this work. We do not know how the Minister proposes to deal with that matter. The right hon. Gentleman skipped lightly over that part of the Bill. But I feel that the job of catering for the needs of 8 million people will prove too great for the existing machinery.
  I hope that the passage of the Bill through Parliament will be expedited, because its provisions are essential to meet the requirements of all who are involved, and this as well as recent Governments have been dilatory in the provision of such legislation. The safety measures which are proposed are required by workers and by members of the public. Some good employers have already done something to rectify deficiencies which may exist in their premises and a notable part in advocating the need for proper working conditions for those engaged in the provision of a variety of goods and services has been played by writers and members
  626
  of professional and semi-professional organisations as well as the trade unions. Measures relating to the temperature of premises, overcrowding, ventilation, sanitary arrangements and safety precautions are included in this Bill. The provisions will also enable steps to be taken to provide reasonable standards where previously it has been the experience of many people that the means to provide such standards have not been available.
  It appears to me that those who work in coal depots have been overlooked and will not benefit from the provisions in this Bill. I have met many of these workers and I know that the conditions in which they have to work are in some cases terrifying. I am surprised that provision has not been made for them. I hope that an opportunity will arise during the Committee stage discussions to ensure that something may be done to alleviate the appalling conditions in which some people employed in coal depots are obliged to work.
  It is the hope of us on this side of the House—the hope, I believe of all hon. Members—that the Bill will receive a quick passage. I trust that the many suggestions which we have in mind for improving the Bill in Committee will be easily resolved.
  6.20 p.m.
  Mr. A. P. Costain: I welcome this Bill as a progressive part of social legislation. Any Bill which gives additional benefits to 8 million workers must be considered such.
  The debate so far, in the main, has been non-controversial. The hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Gunter), however, speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, made some gibe at the Government to the effect that there had been delay in introducing the Bill and he made reference to the Government being pushed because of the Orpington by-election. Had he been sitting where I have been sitting he would have observed that no hon. Member of the Liberal Party was in the House when he made that statement. Indeed, there has not been one of them present since.
  Mr. Marsh: Why comment on that? It is quite normal.
  Mr. Costain: I thank the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh). As he has interrupted me, I shall be frank with him and say that I voted against the Second Reading of his Bill. I did so because I was somewhat worried that if we brought in legislation for offices before there was adequate office accommodation available, we should be raising the rents of the best offices. Even now this Bill is soon enough. I think that all new offices will comply with the regulations. My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) made some reference to the standards being applied to all new offices, but I do not think it is the practice of anyone building a new office block not to comply with the regulations.
  I hope that the Minister will use the Bill as an opportunity for diversifying office buildings. At present there are a number of industrialists with offices in the centres of cities who would like to get into the provinces. This Bill would give an opportunity when new building takes place to persuade them to go to those areas. I suggest that he should have some consultation with the Minister of Housing and Local Government to see if it is possible for provincial cities anxious to have offices in their areas to be given a list of such firms by the Ministry of Labour, or possibly the Board of Trade. If he wants an example, I put in a personal "plug" for my constituency. Folkestone is anxious to have office accommodation in its area. However, I shall not pursue that matter further as no doubt I should be ruled out of order.
  There are one or two minor points in the Bill to which I wish to refer. My right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent), with his very extensive experience relating to the Gowers Committee's Report, has dealt with a number of points I had in mind. My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham made some reference to Clause 2 and the employment of nephews and nieces. That thought had not occurred to me, but I had thought of stepsons and stepdaughters. I do not see why they should not be included.
  Mr. W. E. Padley: Since this point has now been raised twice, may I ask if the hon. Member is aware that it is a completely new departure in
  628
  legislation? The Bill deals with safety. Is there any reason why a bacon slicing machine in a shop employing the sons and daughters of the proprietor should not be brought under the safety regulations?
  Mr. Costain: I think that a very fair intervention, but although the Bill deals with safety it also deals with office accommodation. I do not pretend to be an expert on bacon slicers, but I should have thought that the ordinary regulations governing safety would be sufficient to cover that point.
  There are one or two points relative to the position of landlord and tenant under the Bill. We have to be rather careful that we do not give landlords an opportunity to demand exorbitant rents from tenants. It may happen in some cases that there is scarcity value and we have to see that some tenants with unsatisfactory leases do not overcrowd their offices in order to break their leases.
  There is another matter to which I find no reference in the Bill but with which I hope my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary may be able to deal when he winds up the debate. That is the question of temporary overcrowding. I have in mind particularly small offices. What would be the position if in a small office one or two extra typists were taken on because there was an urgent export order and some documentation work had to be done at short notice? What would be the position of hon. Members during an election if their offices, like mine, became grossly overcrowded at that time with voluntary workers? Should we be committing an offence?
  There was, some reference in The Times to twenty-five regulations. Far be it from me to question The Times, but when I counted I made the number twenty-seven or twenty-eight. I am a little alarmed about what is to happen to the small shopkeeper or office proprietor who has to keep his eye on the London Gazette and keep up to date with twenty-eight different regulations. Will my right hon. Friend undertake at the appropriate time to circularise local authorities, local chambers of trade and chambers of commerce so that those concerned may have a proper appreciation of the difficulties in this matter?

  629
  We are getting a whole heap of legislation and rightly so. Could it be coordinated a little more? Could the fire prevention regulations in this Bill bear reference to the fire regulations in the Factories Acts? Could a small booklet be issued making the position quite clear? I do not want to take up more time. As I say, this is a non-controversial Bill. I look forward to its quick passage through Committee and wish it luck in future.
  6.28 p.m.
  Mr. Richard Marsh: As the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) said, this Bill is largely non-controversial in terms of its contents. That is because there is so very little in it about which one could be controversial. That is one of the biggest objections one could make to it.
  Another thing which I found attractive in the hon. Member's speech was the horror with which he received the idea that the Government's promotion of this Measure at this time could in any way he prompted by such unpleasant or sordid considerations as the result of the Orpington by-election and the swings against the Government. This intrigues hon. Members on this side of the House, The presentation of this Bill makes a complete reversal of Government policy on this subject.
  When the right hon. Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent) said that he doubted whether there should be legislation, because of building problems and the difficulties involved in obtaining building labour, like a good Conservative he was ten years out of date, because that was the point which the Government made in 1952. The point which Government spokesmen made in 1959 when they were faced with legislation was, not the problem of finding sufficient building workers to implement the changes, but the fact that events since the Gower Committee's Report had made legislation unnecessary. The Government opposition to the Bill dealing with the conditions of office workers, with which a number of us were associated, was on the ground simply that legislation of this type was no longer necessary.
  The Government were forced into legislation wholly and solely because, despite the advice of the Minister, the interest of Conservative Members of
  630
  Parliament in white-collar workers and their conditions of employment on the whole was such that a majority of them were not present. The only reason why the Offices Bill went on to the Statute Book was that there was a majority of Socialist Members here on that Friday afternoon and very few Conservative Members.
  Mr. Costain Mr. Costain indicated dissent.
  Mr. Marsh: The hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe has only to count up the names in the Division list at the end of the debate.
  Mr. Costain: I was present on that day. They may not all have gone into the Division Lobby, but they were here.
  Mr. Marsh: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that if a Member of Parliament comes to the House but does not vote he might as well stay in bed. The prime purpose of a Member of Parliament coming here, when one gets to the controversial issues, is so that he can walk either through the "Aye" Lobby or through the "No" Lobby. If he does neither, he might as well stay at home and talk to his wife or dig the garden. However, this is a matter of opinion which could be argued at some length.
  The Division took place on the Offices Bill because the Minister representing the Government advised Conservative Members to vote against the Bill, on the ground that conditions since 1949 had changed and legislation was no longer necessary. The Government were defeated and we had a majority. By this process of government by proxy, which the Opposition seem to be adopting more and more nowadays, we were able to force our point of view on Conservative Members.
  If the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe still is not convinced, there is even more evidence. I am an avid reader of any documents which I can find which emanate from the Conservative Party, because one learns so much. On 7th June, 1961, the Horniblow Sub-Committee was set up to report on the organisation and propaganda of the Conservative Party. The Committee reported in a document headed "Confidential" in June, 1962. The Report is an interesting one because it

  631
  contains an interesting reference which I am sure hon. Members opposite will have seen. If they have not, I will keep them in touch with this document and any other documents of this type. There is a section headed—this is most revealing—"Our men in The Trade Unions". This is taking the minority point of view into full account. This was the advice being given by this very high-powered Committee which had dealt, among others, with the Leader of the House and a gentleman listed as "Right Hon. Charles Hill, M.P., Minister of Housing and for Welsh Affairs." He is defunct in that capacity.
  The Committee reported in this way:
  "The workers want a more down to earth statement of policy."
  That is an under-statement.
  "There should be a more plentiful supply of publicity material aimed specifically at the workers…. We want a Conservative policy on industrial relations."
  Very right and proper, too.
  "Problem No, 1 is redundancy."
  Therefore, in this Session we get a Bill dealing with redundancy.
  "We have to convince the workers…And we must do something for the white collar workers"
  The hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe may not believe me, but this is a confidential report of a Committee of his own organisation.
  Dr. Alan Glyn: How did the hon. Member get it?
  Mr. Marsh: This document was protected by the full power of the Conservative security services. I will say no more than that. Immediately after the issue of this report, in the new Session there is a spate of new legislation on redundancy and on health, safety and welfare in non-industrial employment, and we begin to get to the white-collar workers. The hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe is a decent chap. One can never understand how he became a Conservative. He has not the sort of mind which works in that devious fashion. We on this side of the House immediately begin to wonder what turns hon. Members opposite into rabid social reformers.
  Mr. Hare: The hon. Member is enjoying himself very much, but he must
  632
  remember that I was ready to produce this Bill in the last Session. If in had not been for the heavy weight of legislation, I should have done so. I was profoundly disappointed at not being able to do so. The hon. Member mentioned that a certain document he has is dated in 1962.
  Mr. Marsh: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for having made that point. It brings me to another issue because it is true that in the last Session he gave us an assurance that in this Session there would be a Bill, but in the Session before that his predecessor gave a similar assurance that there would be a Bill.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. William White-law): There is a Bill.
  Mr. Marsh: We were promised one last year. The fact that a Conservative Minister promises Parliament that there will be a Bill in the fallowing Session does not mean anything other than, for example, that he is making a speech on office conditions.
  I want to refer to something that was said during the Committee stage of the Offices Bill. This is germane to the subject. I said this during the debate on one Amendment:
  "I understood his original remarks to mean that the Government intend to produce regulations on these issues unless, and only unless, in the same period they produce a Bill which would cover the whole issue more effectively."
  The then Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department said this in his concluding words on that Amendment:
  "…the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) has exactly summed up the intention of the Government. It is the intention of the Government to produce regulations unless this Bill is overtaken by a more comprehensive and substantial Measure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C. 24th February, 1960; c. 13–14.]
  There is no equivocation about that. As the Minister knows full well, in the course of our debates in Committee firm undertakings were given by Ministers that legislation would be produced in the last Session. It has now emerged in this Session. We are faced with a Bill, but we have at least the skeleton of it on the Statute Book.
  Hon. Members on both sides have spoken about the fight for legislation on

  633
  this subject since the Gowers Committee's Report. The first Bill dealing with non-industrial employment was introduced in 1911. There was a Bill in 1912. There have been sixteen Bills since 1911. It is a little difficult to understand why in 1962 we have to start giving ourselves time to examine the implications of this legislation.
  Mr. Padley: The House may be interested to know that the first Shops Bill was introduced in 1874.
  Mr. R. Carr: I wonder whether the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh), who was speculating so amusingly a few moments ago on what made Conservative Members of Parliament such rabid reformers, can tell us how many of the sixteen Bills to which he referred were introduced by the Labour Party?
  Mr. Marsh: This is merely the good Fabian process of the inevitability of gradualness. It is something against which no Government can stand. Very little of it was initiated, except after considerable pressure.
  Mr. Carr: How many of the Bills were produced by the Labour Government?
  Mr. Marsh: This would have been very difficult one hundred years before the Labour Party became a party.
  Mr. Carr: Were any of the Bills introduced between 1945 and 1951, for example?
  Mr. Marsh: In 1946, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who was then the Home Secretary, set up the Gowers Committee, which reported in 1949, and whose findings were accepted by the Labour Government. By the vagaries of fate and the perversities of the British electorate, the Labour Party was never in a position to implement the recommendations of that Report. Nevertheless the Gowers Report was the creature of the Labour Government. However, I do not want to be controversial on this issue.
  The main objection to the Bill is that after sixty years of legislation and attempted legislation, we are still in a position in which, although a further 8 million people will be covered by this Measure and about 10 million
  634
  already come under the Factories Act, in this industrialised country, in 1962, some 5 million people are still left without any legislative protection at all. That is the biggest criticism one can level at the Bill. There has been long argument, the standards are known and accepted, and there is really no reason why millions of people should still be left legislatively unprotected.
  The hospital service provides a classic example. About 36,000 clerical staff will be covered for the first time by the provisions of this Bill. Staff working in hospital laundries are covered by the Factories Act, but is there any reason why the stoker in a hospital—and the stokeholds in many hospitals are in a pretty deplorable condition—should still work in such conditions? There is nothing difficult about laying down standards for a hospital stokehold. Why should the porter who shows the visitor to the nice shiny asceptic ward, glistening with chromium plate and glass, later have to eat his supper in filthy conditions in a room at the back? I cannot understand the argument that says that while legislation is right for industrial workers and for a section of those in non-industrial employment, some 5 million people are still not entitled to any legislative protection.
  Then there are the local authority workers—really the absurdities of the situation are fantastic. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that if a county roadworker is engaged in the building of a bridge he is covered by the Factories Act, but that if, on the following morning, he is returned to his work of maintaining the public highway he is not covered by any legislation at all. That seems to be quite inexcusable.
  Again, a large number of people work in school kitchens, in buildings never designed for the purpose. They work in deplorable conditions but are to have no protection at all. Yet were they to get a similar job in a restaurant they would be covered. The only difference is that they are serving children instead of adults. It is difficult to find the sense of this.
  Another point ought to be considered. A number of people are forced as part of the conditions of their employment to

  635
  live in the premises in which they are employed. That is particularly true of the hospital service. It seems a major anomaly to give legislative protection to people when they are working but not to extend that protection when they are living in the premises of the employer as part of their conditions of employment. I know that this is a small point, and one that can be argued in Committee.
  The third of the many categories left out are those in the entertainment industry. I find it difficult to understand the right hon. Gentleman's argument here. He agrees, as anyone must, that the conditions in some theatres are appalling. The estimate I am given is that out of some 200 theatres in the country about two dozen are quite good. Those are owned by people like Prince Littler and, because they are owned by the combines, they tend to have better conditions than some others.
  It has been argued that it is up to the organisations representing theatre staffs to negotiate improved working conditions with the employers, but it is almost impossible to sustain that argument. Actors, on the whole, are not employed by the owners of theatres but by producer-managers who have no control over the furnishings and the buildings in which the actors work.
  The right hon. Gentleman says that, in some cases, new buildings would be needed, and that that would be difficult. He conjures up a picture of tearing down theatres as the only means of implementing the Bill in its entirety. One would not wish to do that, but many of the things which cause the maximum inconvenience and irritation could be done without structural alterations at all. Improved heating does not involve pulling down the building, nor do decent ventilation, less overcrowding, better lighting, and the like. One would have thought that, at least in part, the Government, in order to show faith to this section, would have been prepared to introduce legislation to cover most of the people even if they could not cover them within the whole scope of the Bill.
  We do not know even yet when anything is to happen. I understand that regulations have first to be made. I apologise for being cynical about this, but the right hon. Gentleman will understand me
  636
  when I say that firm promises that regulations would be made have been given before, but the regulations have not been forthcoming. Here I do not criticise anyone; I only state a fact. The Bill is largely dependent on regulations being made, but there is no indication of when the regulations are likely to be made. It is not unreasonable to ask the Minister to give us some indication this evening, in broad terms, of the sort of timetable he has in mind.
  Why is so much of the Bill still left to regulation? The right hon. Gentleman may argue that in many ways the Bill follows the Factories Act, but the mere fact that that legislation is on the Statute Book, and that almost every industrialised country in the world, except us, has this kind of legislation, provides the perfect reason why the Government do not need to leave so much to regulation. The standards are beyond argument.
  Another omission is the date of its application. I may be wrong, but I have looked through the Bill quite carefully and can find no mention of a date of application. One therefore does not know when the Measure will come into operation. This is a rather unusual and extremely serious position. We do not know when the Bill will come into operation, yet we know that overcrowding, for example, can be legitimately continued for five years after the Measure comes into operation, so that we may well have hon. Gentlemen opposite casting bouquets on the Government Front Bench for a Measure that might not deal with overcrowding for six, seven or even eight years. One cannot understand why there should be any need to wait for so long.
  There is also the problem of exemptions. Clearly, such a Bill as this must provide for exemptions. That is inevitable, and it is common sense—largely because the deplorable condition in many offices cannot be changed because of things that have been done in the past. Is there really any need for quite so many bodies to exempt people as are contained in the Bill, and are magistrates the best people to determine whether an officer of a local authority, who is trained to examine premises in accordance with the Bill, has made the right judgment or not? I do not know how far privilege goes in a case of this kind.
  I have a great respect for lay magistrates, but I would not agree that they

  637
  are in a good position to make judgments over professional decisions of a local authority public health inspector on an issue of this type. Even if they were, I should like to know whether an appeal could be made to a magistrates' court. The court could then consider that appeal and find against the appellant, and yet, at some later stage, find the self-same appellant before it again in breach of the regulations. The point I am making is that apparently a man may appeal for exemption from the regulations, and may then be prosecuted for breach of the regulations and appear before the same magistrates who had already heard his case in a different context. If that is so, it seems to me to be a most extraordinary situation.
  A number of hon. Members on both sides of the House still want to speak, and I do not wish to delay the House any longer. Clearly, everybody is in favour of some new legislation, but I think that the legislation we now have before us, with the greatest respect to the Minister of Labour, is a pretty miserable product, bearing in mind the amount of time taken and the number of inquiries made. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned that we had had 130 inquiries on this matter, but I think it was 128 already in the early 'fifties, and the number of people who must have been asked about this every five years for the last twenty years must be enormous. The information on the subject is very considerable and one would have thought that a great deal more could be inserted in a Bill of this kind.
  We note that we have now forced upon the Government, after a great deal of effort the principle that legislating for non-industrial employment is necessary. I hope that we shall carry them with us in the next pressure which we put upon them between now and the General Election, because, after that, we ourselves can get on with the job directly and save a great deal of time.
  Between now and then, we shall continue to try to convince them that non-industrial workers are entitled to decent working standards and legislative protection and that that protection which we have agreed over the last sixty years as being necessary in varying degrees for factory workers is as much the right of the non-industrial worker as of anyone
  638
  else. I have never believed that the non-industrial worker is entitled to more than the factory worker, but in many fields he is not even getting the same deal.
  My final point is that, precisely because of this, we think that we should have in this Bill some reference to hours and conditions of employment. Here we are dealing with a field in which, by their own fault, and I blame them for it, they often do not have trade union protection available for these people, as it is to people in other spheres. In terms of hours and conditions, there is a need for legislative protection in that field. We cannot hail the Bill with any great transports of glee, but at least we can say that the right hon. Gentleman has done more than any of his predecessors, although he should not go away too content with that.
  6.55 p.m.
  Dr. Alan Glyn: I hope that the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) will forgive me if I do not comment on his peroration about Socialism and Conservatism, although I would put one point to him. He counted up the number of Acts which conferred social benefits on people in general in this country, and I am sure he will not deny that more were passed under a Conservative Administration than under a Socialist Administration.
  With the greatest respect to the hon. Member, I think he was less than generous to many hon. Members on this side of the House who supported him at every single stage of his own Offices Bill. I am sure that he would be the first to agree that that Bill, though passed on a Friday, was passed with the consent and hard work of Members of Parliament on both sides of the House. It is fair to say that the Government were to some extent influenced by the passage of that Bill. Even though it is many years since the Gowers Committee reported, at the same time the Government were spurred on—and I give the hon. Member full credit for it—by the fact that both sides of this House, working together, agreed to his Offices Bill in 1960.
  Mr. Marsh: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way so early in his speech. Before he completely convinces himself about the efforts made by himself

  639
  and his hon. Friends to pass that Bill, I am sure he will not mind me pointing out that, in fact, he voted against it.
  Dr. Glyn: At what stage? If the hon. Member will look it up—
  Mr. Marsh: In HANSARD, there is the record of a Division on 11th December, 1959, and there is an item in the list of the "Noes"—
  "Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)."
  Whatever were the hon. Gentleman's intentions, his actions were not very helpful.
  Dr. Glyn: I entirely agree with the hon. Member. Although we did, as the hon. Member is very well aware, vote against it, there were certain Clauses in the Bill which we decided were not in accordance with what we had tried to establish during the passage of the Bill, and, in view of the Government's assurance that the Bill would be taken over by the Government, we voted against it. The hon. Member would be the first to agree that during the course of that Bill, a great dead of help was given to him from both sides of the House, because the principle was agreed.
  Mr. Marsh: Certainly. The hon. Member says that they thought it was a good idea, and I only regretted then, and do now, that they did not vote for it.
  Dr. Glyn: We on this side of the House entirely agreed with the idea behind the Bill, but there were many Clauses about which we were not satisfied at the time, and, in view of the assurance which the Government gave, if the hon. Member remembers correctly, before the Bill was passed, we were quite satisfied that a better Bill was coming from the Government and that it would be far more comprehensive than anything which could be carried through by a private Member in private Members' time.
  All sides of the House welcome the fact that 8 million people will be covered by this Bill. I do not subscribe to the view that because in this era we have so many new buildings, we should not provide for the old ones. I believe that the fact that we have got this large number of new buildings, as in the City
  640
  of London and elsewhere, brings home to us the awful comparison which exists between these new modern buildings and the existing ones, where the facilities, in many cases, as all hon. Members know, are deplorable.
  I wish to refer to certain matters contained in Clauses 36 and 37. These are the two Clauses about which I am not entirely happy. As many hon. Members have said, and as was agreed during the passage of the Offices Bill in 1960, there are many buildings in London which are quite unsuitable and which are incapable of certain modifications. One has in mind some of the historic buildings in which offices are still established, even the Inns of Court.
  I am worried about Clause 36 because it is clear that the Minister, and only the Minister, can give an exemption. I see that there is no right of appeal to the magistrates, to a tribunal or to any other judicial machinery, whereas in Clause 37 there is a resort to the magistrates' court. I think the magistrates' court is probably the most appropriate court. It is the court which is generally geographically nearer to the offices, and in which the conditions are probably known. Magistrates are not completely out of touch with conditions, and I think that, for two reasons, this is the appropriate court first because they are probably very much in touch with conditions and, secondly, because it has the great advantage of speed so that a decision can be arrived at rapidly.
  The type of work being done in offices is gradually changing. Machinery whether for duplicating or cutting sheets of paper, is changing, the surroundings of modern offices are tending to become quite different and the necessity for the Bill has increased in the last five years for these reasons. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, when winding up the debate, will reinforce what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) about noise. With all this new machinery going into offices it is a pity that we could not have obtained a standard for noise and have included it in this excellent Bill.
  Mention was made earlier of underground offices. Few people like working underground, but with modern methods of ventilation these premises can be

  641
  made even more attractive and pleasant than many older offices. Thus, we should not rule out premises entirely because they are underground but, rather, we should ensure that the ventilation and lighting in them are up to the standards we regard as adequate. To my way of thought, lighting is of particular importance. The development of modern office blocks has meant that they are often close to other large buildings and one has, of necessity, to resort to artificial lighting which, 10 or 15 years ago, was not so necessary. It is important, therefore, that we should adopt a modern standard of lighting to prevent the standard which might have been considered adequate 10 or 15 years ago remaining.
  We are all sorry that certain offices and occupations are excluded from the Bill, but I am sure that all hon. Members are delighted to see railway offices included. Anyone who travels by train, whether on suburban or main lines, cannot possibly help noticing some of the appalling conditions in which railway clerks and officials are compelled to work.
  I welcome Clause 16 especially since it gives a certain statutory protection to young people working for the first time with machinery in offices. I am also impressed by Clause 18, which gives magistrates power—and this is my reading of the Clause, although I may be wrong, in which case I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will correct me—to stop work immediately in offices or elsewhere covered by the Bill when it is considered that the standards are below a reasonable margin.
  Clause 19 lays down, in a similar way to the Factories Act, the first-aid requirements to be laid on. I appeal to employers—while one does not want to minimise the importance of the first-aid kit—that it is of tremendous importance that members of their staffs should be trained in some form of first aid. I hope that, particularly in large organisations, members of the staff will be given time off to learn first aid. A trained person can often do that first important administration which is so essential in the treatment of industrial accidents. Perhaps members of the staff could take courses given by the St. John Ambulance Brigade.
  642
  The question was raised earlier whether the new standards would apply to new buildings. I should have thought that no sensible person would attempt to build new offices if they did not comply with the regulations in the Bill. No one would wish to take an office if it was known that within two or three years considerable modifications would have to be made to bring it up to standard. I regret—though I am sure that my right hon. Friend could give me excellent reasons for this—that the Minister has not been able to make this a more comprehensive Measure, possibly even amalgamating it with the Factories Act.
  I appreciate that there are limits to the amount of staff available for the important function of inspection, and this brings me to my next point. I have been wondering whether it is right that two methods of inspection should exist and whether the two could be coordinated. After all, there will be a large number of people visiting offices and factories to inspect them for different reasons. I should have liked the inspection system to be consolidated so that, with the exception of fire, which is a highly technical matter, it need not have been divided.
  Reference has been made to the reports which will be made by local authorities. These could be of great value and I hope that the Ministry will have some method of consolidation so that standards can be compared in different parts of the country. Some areas may be able to gain lessons from, say, Manchester or London. I hope that the Ministry can, from time to time, publish summaries of these reports so that they can benefit employers throughout the country.
  I am not entirely clear about Government offices, for it seems that the Bill almost entirely excludes them. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Greenwich about Clause 77, for it was wise of the Minister to include a Clause whereby he could bring the provisions into operation as and when he thought fit. I have great confidence in this matter and I do not believe that this is in any way a delaying tactic. It is, rather, a sensible method of ensuring that the various regulations are not applied until they can be enforced.

  643
  I wish to lodge a plea on behalf of the small shopkeeper and businessman. No one wants them to be under-protected in any way, but the methods of working in family businesses are rather different and I am glad to see that a special provision has been made for what I term "family businesses." However, I would go a little further than some of my hon. Friends on the question of relationships in these businesses. As long as it comes within the category of a genuine family business, I do not think that the exact relationship of the people concerned is of tremendous importance.
  I welcome the Bill. I wish, further to the remarks of the hon. Member for Greenwich, that I could have supported his Bill, but I have spoken of the assurance which the Government gave when his Measure was going through the House. Although it can be said that, in some respects, his Bill expedited the production of this one, it would have been impossible—although I pay tribute to the hon. Member for what he did through his Measure—for him to have achieved what can be done by a comprehensive Bill such as this. To achieve this in a Private Member's Bill in private Members' time is extremely difficult. I am sure that all hon. Members who served on the Committee which considered his Bill in 1960 welcome this Measure as a great step forward in our social progress. We hope that the Government will continue on this path and will endeavour, before long to encompass all who work in other occupations so that we may have a system of reasonable protection for all categories of workers within our community.
  7.10 p.m.
  Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: There is little in the speech of the hon. Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn) on which to comment. Most of what he said is pretty general to other speeches which we have heard from the benches opposite.
  In the main, I agree with most of the hon. Gentleman's contentions. There is, however, one point in his speech on which I should like to comment. He regretted that the Bill is not so comprehensive as he would have liked. We can correct the situation of which he complains during the Committee stage,
  644
  and I hope that we shall have the assistance of the hon. Member to that end.
  Another hon. Member on the opposite side of the House spoke at length about the fire provisions in the Bill. I wish that I were as sure that the provisions for shops and offices and their enforcement by local authorities will be as effective as the fire provisions in the Bill. The question of enforcement is one of the difficult points in this Bill and I shall have more to say about that later.
  This is a memorable day in my life, because I am participating in the Second Reading debate on a Bill which proposes to give legislative life to so many of the things for which I have fought during my association with shop life in Britain. I look on this Bill with great favour. It does not do all that I would wish. It does not contain all that is necessary to meet the needs of the community. I cannot speak for railway premises, but I know something about offices and shops. I do not believe that the Bill will meet all the requirements of offices and shops, because, like so many well-intentioned Bills, it suffers from sins of omission and commission, though I am much more concerned with the sins of omission than of commission in this Bill. Having said that, I do not propose to offer much criticism, but there are some things which will have to be said before this Bill reaches the Statute Book. The reason for my restraint tonight is that the Bill makes a big step forward from the bad old days of my youth, and that is why I welcome the Bill.
  Perhaps I may approach this matter from a different point of view from that of other speakers. Tonight I feel in reminiscent mood. I look into the garden of my memories, and I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) that I do not remember sixteen Acts dealing with this subject since 1911, but I remember distinctly the second shop in which I worked. In that shop there existed shocking conditions out of which great reformers are made, and I hope that I am one of them. Such conditions lead to Measures such as we are discussing tonight, even though this Bill is not quite adequate for the purpose.
  In that shop, floods regularly washed the fixtures into the middle of the shop.

  645
  The back of the shop was built into a hillside, and water flowed from the walls on to the flagged floors and on to the duckboards on which we stood to serve our customers. We had no water and no lavatory. That situation continued for six months. We begged water from nearby houses, and until a lavatory was erected we found relief from the monotony of serving customers by getting the manager's permission to walk the one-eighth of a mile to the nearest public convenience.
  When I look into this garden of memories I discover what I know to be a fact, that unhealthy, insanitary and inefficiently built shops were a menace not only to the health, welfare and safety of those who worked in them, but to the customers as well. There were numerous occasions when I had to serve customers when my hands were dirty, because there was no water. I was behind a counter marked with indentations that were a paradise for germ warfare.
  When dealing with a Bill like this, one is thinking mainly of conditions that affect those who are employed in shops and offices, but we should not forget that the conditions affect also the customers. The question arises, has that state of affairs to which I have referred disappeared? Has time cured the conditions from which I suffered as a boy? It is nearly fifty years since I had those experiences. One would have thought that after fifty years the advance of science, the progress in building and in standards of health and welfare would have entirely eliminated such conditions. But they have not disappeared.
  For the past thirty years I have been a trade union official and have associated with trade union officials connected with the distributive trades. Every one of them can give illustrations from their own experience of conditions as bad as those which I have described. I should like to relate, as a trade union organiser, one of my own experiences of conditions in which dental technicians live and work in these post-war years. I have seen elaborate surgeries with dentists and dental surgeons clothed in shining white garments—whiter than television white—and each professional practitioner had an almost perfect chairside manner. But down in the cellar the dental technicians
  646
  were making prosthetic appliances in conditions which were little short of filthy. That is happening today. One omission from the Bill which I regret is that the Government's proposals of 1952 have not been included.
  I know that not all shops or workshops are such as I have described. There are some wonderful shops and offices, workshops and laboratories in which people are proud to work. We do not, however, legislate for those conditions. We legislate for the bad employer and the bad conditions and premises.
  In the Bill, we are legislating for the bad premises, shops and workshops. I hope that it may be possible to amend the Bill to include workshops which are at present outside the law, and particularly dental workshops. One of the most pleasing features of the Bill would then be that the old controversies about whether workshops should be governed by the Factories Act, the Shops Act or this new type of legislation would disappear. They would be covered by something.
  Even then, however, we would not reach complete satisfaction with the Bill. I have doubts about many of the matters which it covers. There are doubts about some of the items that have been omitted from it. These are Committee points. But even if the Committee stage does not result in all the improvements that I should like to make, even if it does not make the Bill into what I would regard as an ideal Measure, I would still think that the Bill has been worth while.
  My final point concerns difficulties and relates to the Clause dealing with enforcement. I am not concerned with the division of power which is provided for in the Bill between local authorities and others. My interest is in shops and offices. I wonder whether there will be a sufficiency of inspectors to make the Bill effective. Let me give an analogy. In almost similar circumstances, this House passed the Clean Air Act into law. That Act contained a division of authoritative responsibility. In addition to their work in the community health services, their work concerning clean air and all the additional factors introduced by legislation since the war, sanitary inspectors will now have the provisions of today's Bill thrust upon their shoulders.

  647
  Those inspectors had the problem of administering the Clean Air Act, except for the provisions affecting the highly specialised Alkali Inspectorate concerning the industries that were included in the new Schedule covering the alkali industries. Because we had no central control, because we did not have enough inspectors among the Alkali Inspectorate and because the sanitary inspectors had too much to do for them to carry all the extra work, I suggest that innumerable matters which should be dealt with under the Clean Air Act cannot be dealt with because of the shortage of qualified inspectors. I do not want today's Bill to suffer from the same trouble. I ask the Minister to consider closely the problem of enforcement. I certainly hope that when the Bill becomes law, the power of enforcement will be covered by a sufficiency of inspectors, so that the purposes of the Bill are not defeated.
  During the passage of the Bill through its subsequent stages until it becomes part of our Statutes, I wish the Minister a happy time and express the hope that in Committee it will be possible to make improvements in the Bill that will make it worth while both for him and for the country.
  7.25 p.m.
  Mr. Kenneth Lewis: It is a pleasure to speak on a Bill which is so well received by both sides of the House. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Winter-bottom) suggested that the Bill was not sufficiently comprehensive, yet I understand that there has been a conflict of view between The Times and my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) about the number of regulations—either 25 or 27—that are likely to be involved under the Bill. Having looked at the Bill, my view was that it was very comprehensive.
  The hon. Member for Brightside also said that it might be difficult to enforce the provisions of the Bill. He would probably agree that it is better that the Minister should not seek to impose the regulations too fast or that the Bill should not be too comprehensive, but rather that it should be made to work. This is what we all want.
  Mr. Winterbottom: It is equally important that in promoting a progressive Measure of this nature, the Minister should not ride with his head to the horse's back.
  Mr. Lewis: I am sure that the hon. Member for Brightside, with his background and with much greater knowledge than I have on this matter, will make a considerable contribution in improving the Bill in Committee.
  When I saw the Title of the Bill, I was interested to put a title of my own to it, and I thought we might have called it the "Clore, Gussy and Beeching Bill". I wonder what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport will think about putting upon the railways the additional cost of the improvements which the Bill contains. Then, it occurred to me that we might call the Bill "Hare's White Collar Charter", with the "Hare's Workers' Charter" to come a little later in the Session. The Minister will have good record. Whatever the Bill may be called, however, it is a Bill which sets a standard, and this is desirable and necessary. As the hon. Member for Brightside has said, it is the standard set by this Bill which will help to improve conditions where they need improvement in our shops and offices.
  The timing of the Bill seems to me to be about right. It would clearly be of little value to start setting standards for offices during a period of shortage of office premises, which for many years has been the case. Perhaps that situation no longer obtains. When I look around London and some of our big cities, I sometimes feel that we have too many offices and that the new ones all seem to look the same. It is, however, about the right time now to consider putting some of our building resources into the improvement of existing offices rather than the erection of new ones. In so far as the Bill helps in that way, it is a good thing.
  The fact that when the Bill becomes an Act it will set a standard, plus the mere threat of possible inspection, should secure many improvements even without action having to be taken. In many respects, offices are in a similar category to homes. Some of them are slums and need to be pulled down and rebuilt. These are probably in the minority now. Some of them are new, and in the main—this has been pointed out by several

  649
  hon. Members, and I think it is true—the new offices probably meet the provisions of the Bill. Nevertheless, I think the hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) had a point when he said the Minister might consider bringing in his regulations on new offices as soon as possible after the passing of the Bill.
  Other office categories are neither slum nor new but are in between the two—indifferent. Many of them need improvement, and many are capable of it. Probably idle property owners just do not bother to do anything about them. The Bill will give them a jerk, and I believe that as soon as it is on the Statute Book many will take action without having to be told.
  It may be that some of our Government offices are in this indifferent category, and, although I understand that there will be no impositions on the Government and the Crown, the Bill indicates that they will be expected to come up to standard. It may even be that the Bill could apply to some of the offices of staffs in and around the Palace of Westminster. I notice that, in this Productivity Year, Her Majesty the Queen intends to have a work study carried out of all the Royal palaces. Some of us may hope that this will include the Palace of Westminster coincident with this Bill.
  At the same time, I hope that the Bill will not be wearying in its well-doing. It would be very bad if we tried to go too fast with the regulations and caused upset and concern to, for example, the little man. The Times said that we should not through the Bill seek to harass employers without helping the workers. If we unduly and unreasonably harassed the employer who is a small man, we could put him out of business and make redundant an employee who is quite happy although his office conditions may not quite come up to the required standard.
  I remember offices in works when I was starting out in my working life. Many were small, the sanitation facilities were a long way off—which provided a good excuse to go away for a while—and water supplies and washing facilities were not often found on the premises. Some had a gas ring and a billy-can
  650
  for making a cup of tea, and some people were lucky to have an old coal fire. But there were many happy clerks who did extremely good work in those offices, and although we do not want sub-standard offices to exist indefinitely, I repeat that we should be cautious about trying to get rid of them just for the sake of doing so when not only the employer but the employee may be perfectly happily situated. The Bill sets a standard, and it is important that that standard should be reached gradually and that we should not destroy the comfortable through over-enthusiastic bureaucratic zeal.
  I notice that the Bill contains a special dispensation for the man who has his own business, and the industrial squire and his relations are taken account of. That also seems to me to be a very good thing, because many a family business in the past—I think it is still true today—grew into a large concern on the basis of conditions which are perhaps acceptable to a family but are certainly not up to the standard, set in the Bill. From many such a small concern operating in inferior premises a large concern has developed. I believe that if we too enthusiastically try to root out that sort of thing, it will be at the peril of much new development in business and industry.
  The Bill is certainly a welcome contribution to the Conservative Government's policy of change. It may be said by the Opposition that it does not go as far as the Gowers Committee proposed. Although I have been in the House only a very short time, I doubt whether any legislation which arises out of any inquiry ever goes as far as the committee concerned would have wished. It is no different in this instance.
  Hotels and places of entertainment are excluded. The public sections of these places need a public reaction against them where they are bad. It is the man in the street who should oppose the tawdry and antiquated when he sees it. We ought to realise that we cannot do everything by regulation. We can only help by regulation. Indeed, one of the most disappointing things in politics is that sometimes when one wants to help people, they indicate that they do not want to be helped. Imposition should be gradual.

  651
  Staff quarters in hotels and places of entertainment are a different matter. They are rather important, and it may be that later the Minister might consider that staff quarters ought to be looked at. It is important that there should be no difference in this respect between an employee who works in an office and an employee who works on the staff of an entertainment or hotel company.
  The fire provisions in the Bill will probably need to be enforced earlier and given closer attention and follow-up. The number of old offices which lack efficient fire equipment, alarm systems and drill is surprising. I am glad that the Minister has included this provision in the Bill. I hope that soon after the Measure is passed close attention will be given to this, because a great deal of money is lost in fires and this could probably be avoided if better equipment was provided.
  Before we came to discuss this on the Floor of the House, I made inquiries about the fire regulations in the Palace of Westminster, and I am sure that hon. Members will be glad to know that they are entirely and absolutely up to the standard laid down in the Bill.
  I am glad that the Minister suggests keeping the inspectorate in the main at a local level. This is important when one intends that a Bill should gradually make its impact. If there are local inspectors who know the local problems, they are more likely to be sympathetic where applications are made for the imposition of the provisions of the Bill. They will know the special problems of the area, and they will probably also know those involved—both employers and employees. They will also know whether a case for exemption is backed by integrity or otherwise.
  The Bill meets the needs of natural changes in our industrial set-up. It recognises a great many advances that have taken place in the last twenty years. When I was a boy factories were very often dirty and dingy and lacked every amenity. Now most factories are well furnished, and the workers have available meals in canteens, good lighting, and heating and other facilities which are important to health. In many of the more highly skilled electronic factories, the employees work in cleaner
  652
  surroundings than in some offices, and certainly in some of the most modern factories the conditions are better than the conditions were in many offices twenty years ago.
  We must recognise, therefore, as I think we do in the Bill, that there are offices which have lagged behind and that the Bill will encourage the employers to bring them up to date. I was a bit concerned at one stage during this debate because I thought that the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) was rather against our progressive legislation. He spent a good deal of time indicating that he was not quite sure of the Bill's value. This puzzled me, because we are the first to say to him that we are only improving on his own initiative and that we will be very glad when the Bill becomes an Act, both because it will be a good progressive Conservative measure and because he had something to do with its birth.
  I am sure that the Bill can be improved in Committee. For instance, I think that it will be difficult to protect all employers from sanctions covering a temporary situation. My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe pointed out one temporary situation which might arise very soon—in a General Election, when we might find our own campaign offices contravening this Bill. There are other instances which might arise more than just once every four or five years. In my hon. Friend's own business I am sure that building workers going out on project works and taking with them clerks and others very often find themselves in conditions which might contravene the Bill. Again, I am sure that shops involved in "sales" must surely have to contravene many of the Bill's regulations every January and July.
  These temporary situations have to be recognised and I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider this aspect in Committee. The Bill sets a good standard and a new standard. I hope that it will lead to the worst offices being brought up to the level of the best. I congratulate him and hope the Bill will have speedy progress through the House.
  7.43 p.m.
  Mr. H. Boardman: Most of my colleagues have referred to the Bill as being belated, as indeed it may be.

  653
  On the other hand, it is none the less welcome. In so far as the Bill refers to shops it is only fair to say that standards for the employees vary widely and, indeed, in some of the bigger places there is probably very little to be done.
  Nevertheless, it is astonishing in these days how often, more particularly in some of the smaller shops, and very often in the smart-fronted shops such as dress salons and boutiques with nylon drape curtain and deep pile carpets for customers, the sanitary arrangements for the staff are deplorable. There can be no excuse for this sort of thing in any retail premises, because very high profits have been made during and since the war. It has been made increasingly clear by the way in which these people have acted that many employers will do precisely nothing to improve amenities for their staff without the compulsion of the law.
  The Bill has many good features and we hope to make them better in Committee. I am glad that the Minister is here. One of my hon. Friends made reference to the omission of coal depots. I gather from the Minister's remarks that he puts them in the same class as theatres. Although they may be in the category of establishments which have not been considered suitable for inclusion, in fact they are a necessary part of our retail distributive system.
  I cannot understand why coal depots are not catered for in the Bill. They have probably the strongest claim of all for protective legislation. The Gowers Committee's Report made it clear that it had found some very primitive sanitary accommodation at these depots. By any standard it is a dirty job and some protection should be given to these people. In the summer there is just sweat and grime and in the winter there is rain-soaked clothing. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to see whether he cannot extend the amenities of this Bill to coal depots, particularly with regard to sanitary accommodation, a room where the employees can have their meals and a drying room for wet clothing.
  I do not know whether my information is correct, but I understand that originally it was intended to make
  654
  provision for coal depots but the proposal fell down on the question of who should bear the costs. The Department has got over bigger obstacles than that before now and I hope that it will not be put off by a fiddling argument of that kind. I hope that the Minister will consider introducing in Committee what we are asking for.
  Clause 9 deals with sanitary arrangements. I was interested to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Winterbottom) saying that he had worked in a shop where employees had to go outside for lavatory accommodation. I was shocked to see this sort of thing in a shop in Manchester last week. There are still retail establishments with no sanitary accommodation whatsoever because, for many years, there happens to have been a public convenience reasonably near and the staff have been expected to use that.
  My own organisation has made a wide inquiry into matters which are the concern of this Bill, I will quote one case. This was a place where there was only one lavatory serving both male and female staff. The result was that the women were using lavatory accommodation in neighbouring houses. This is a disgraceful state of affairs and does not redound to the credit of the employers concerned.
  There is also the matter of safety in shops—for instance, the use of bacon machines. The legal department of my organisation has already had to deal, and still deals regularly, with far too many cases of mutilation of both men and women, youngsters as well as adults, caused by bacon machines, and something really must be done.
  I do not accept that an inspectorate which emanates from the town hall will be sufficient for the proper inspection of these almost lethal weapons on shop counters. That is not good enough. I know the argument against a central inspectorate but I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that perhaps the inspection of bacon machines could come under the Factories Inspectorate. I see no reason why it should not. These machines have been used by youngsters, although they will not be used by them in future.
  I wonder, however, whether the manufacturers are doing all that they can to

  655
  make these machines safe. A model may have been accepted and it may have been considered safe in its time. The manufacturers—I do not want to do them an injustice—may have tried to keep up to date in this matter, but I suggest to the Minister that if he would allow his factory inspectorate to look at these machines and talk to the manufacturers it might be possible to get some improvement in machines which at present are considered to be safe. If they could do that, I should like them to have regard not merely to the danger in operating these machines but the danger which also arises from the cleaning of them. The figures supplied by the legal department of my organisation indicate that roughly one half of the accidents arise when these machines are being cleaned.
  Most of the points have been covered in the debate and I do not want to rcinterate them, but I should like to say a word on enforcement. I understood the Minister to say earlier in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) that the shops inspectorate has been very satisfactorily carried out under the existing arrangements. I do not know who informs the Minister, but whoever informed him that the shops inspectorate is being adequately carried out has misinformed him. I think that one can go to almost any town in Britain and find that three parts of the shops have never been inspected at all. I challenge any one to deny that, because I know it to be an absolute fact. To give an instance, in my home town in which I live, not in my constituency, almost literally under the town clerk's office the Shops Act has been flouted and apparently no one knew anything about it. I had to draw the attention of the shop manager to this matter.
  It is necessary that the Minister should see that we get the best enforcement possible, because it does this House no good when we are trying to consider legislation for the protection of, I think he said, 8 million people, and then we find that the people who are supposed to be carrying out the enforcement and who are supposed to be implementing this legislation are flouting us. It does not do any good to this House and neither does it do any good to the people whom we are trying to protect by this legislation. I hope that the Minister
  656
  will look at this matter of the inspectorate. It probably means employing quite a number of full-time inspectors, and employing them under the old town hall system, but if the Minister is opposed to a centralised inspectorate, I hope that there will be adequate liaison and supervision by highly-skilled officers of his Department.
  So far as I know, there has not been a discordant note in this debate and I think that provides evidence that we on this side welcome the Bill. I think that we can give an assurance to the Minister that he will get every co-operation from this side during Committee but that is not without strings, because if we are to give the Minister every co-operation I hope that we shall get the Minister's cooperation in our efforts to amend the Bill, to make it worthy of this House and of the people whom it seeks to protect.
  7.55 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Cooke: I do not want to be thought obstructive or discordant if I do not echo many of the sentiments that other hon. Members have expressed this evening. It is because I agree with many of them and do not want again to go over that ground.
  I want to make a brief intervention to express one or two thoughts to the House that I do not think have been covered today but, which might be considered when the Bill goes to Committee. I am as aware as anyone of the great record of social progress which my own party and others can claim, and this Bill is part of that. But there is, of course, the danger when we have legislation of this sort that although it does much good it causes a certain amount of hardship and inconvenience, and even on occasions may have bad effects.
  I want to say something on the question of offices and to repeat and enlarge part of what I said in the debate on the Address at the beginning of the Session. I hope that when this Bill becomes law it will do nothing to perpetuate the use of what was and ought to be residential property for offices. Almost every hon. Member will have examples in his own constituency of a residential area into which, possibly because of wartime conditions, offices and other business premises have crept. Often these premises

  657
  are unsatisfactory for that purpose and we would like to see these commercial users put into their proper place under a proper development plan. But it could be possible under this Bill for these wrong uses of property to be perpetuated, because if we are to legislate for these temporary offices, as they really are, and if these offices in old residential property are to be brought up to date, then money will be spent and, as a result, not first-class offices will result but merely something approximating to what we would like to see for office workers. The use of these offices will be perpetuated and the residential area will be permanently affected.
  I should like to see my right hon. Friend give thought to that kind of problem, because we have cases where there are first-class office blocks going up in the centre of our cities which are not being used. In my own city we have blocks that have stood empty for a long time. Even in London there is this great building which has been put up on the former site of the Carlton Club, which was destroyed during the war. That building has remained empty to my knowledge for a very long time. There may be good commercial reasons for that, but if some of these older buildings were to be discontinued as offices and possibly converted into a number of dwellings, then we might see people taking these new buildings.
  I know that one of the snags is that if there is an "office user", to use a planning term, of a building, that building is more expensive to buy and is worth more. The question of compensation is usually given as a reason for not trying to alter the office use, but if a date were set sufficiently far ahead for the termination of the office use of residential property, no great hardship would result, because anybody who knew that his use of the premises was to be terminated some considerable number of years ahead, perhaps even ten years ahead, would be able to plan for it and write it off against any profits which he might be making.
  I want now to refer to some of the activities of small businessmen practising ancient crafts and trades. I know that the Minister is to be given fairly wide powers to exempt premises, but I can conceive a case where someone with a small shop and workshop behind it
  658
  and employing a few people on some ancient craft, cabinet making of a specialised nature, or metal work, or engraving or printing, or even making cricket bats and cricket balls, might be seriously affected if the provisions of the Bills are applied too harshly. I hope that their interests will be safeguarded.
  I know that there is a reference to shops which will not be affected if only close relatives of the owner are employed, but that provision might be extended a little, perhaps along the lines of an Act of Parliament that I was lucky enough to get on the Statute Book, the Fatal Accidents Act, 1959, in which dependent relatives were described in somewhat wider terms than in the old legislation. I cannot see any reference to the word "nephew" in the Bill, but some companies are described as "So and so and nephew" and they would be affected. Perhaps nephews ought to be included in the definition of close relatives. I intend when my nephew is older to employ him in some form of business—he is only four now—and I hope that my right hon. Friend will not make it too difficult for me to do so. Perhaps the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act might be borne in mind in this respect.
  I am certain that the subject of the Giles cartoon, which appeared in the Press recently, showing someone who obviously had business premises which would not conform with the standard of the Bill has already been raised in the debate, but I hope that the Minister will bear in mind that there are circumstances such as those where there are people in business in a very small way who might be seriously damaged if we passed the Bill without too much thought. I could not support the Bill at all if I thought that it would do anything to damage the interests of the small shopkeeper, because in this day, when we see the oncome of the supermarkets and things of that sort—they must come and no one is suggesting that there is any way of stopping that sort of thing, nor that it is desirable to stop a certain amount of it—the small trader finds himself up against it in all kinds of ways. I am sure that my right hon. Friend, who is a most humane man, will see in Committee that nothing in the Bill does any damage to the small shopkeeper, who is doing a splendid job which we would like him to continue.
  8.2 p.m.
  Mr. Edward Milne: One or two Members opposite have expressed some concern about the fate of the small shopkeeper under the Bill. They were a little unfair to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour, because they ought to have directed their questions to the President of the Board of Trade. The small shopkeeper is not in any danger from the Bill, except that he has to see that his premises are adequate for the people who are employed there. The take-over bid merchants, the Clores, the Frasers and the others, are a far greater menace to these people than the Minister of Labour is ever likely to be under the Bill.
  This has been rightly described as a belated Bill. It has been claimed by some hon. Members opposite as being in line with the traditions of progressive social legislation which they have introduced over the years. I was interested to hear the Minister claim that the position was to have been dealt with last year—I do not know if I heard him rightly—but in the debate on the Gracious Speech last year we complained that legislation along the lines of the Gowers Report had been omitted.
  Mr. Hare: I said that it was with great regret that we were not able to include the Bill in last year's legislation, but that was because of the very heavy weight of legislation which we had to put through. In fact, some of our legislation, even so, could not be taken through the House.
  Mr. Milne: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that clarification, although we could have given him one or two items of legislation which we would have willingly have put aside to make way for the implementation of the Gowers Report.
  It is true that this legislation has a long history. Between 1923 and 1936, no fewer than eleven Bills on this subject were brought to the House. Finally, we had the Gowers Committee. There is another issue on which I cross swords with the Minister. He said that the reason for the delay between the acceptance of the Gowers Report and the publication of the Bill was that so many organisations and bodies of public opinion had to be consulted. However,
  660
  on 1st August, 1952, the then Home Secretary welcomed the Gowers Report in these terms:
  "The Government have considered the Report of the Gowers Committee … and are in sympathy with the general tenor of the Committee's recommendations on this subject.… The Government are, however, anxious to prepare the way for legislation … so that there may be no avoidable delay in Introducing it as soon as the economic outlook justifies it…."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st August. 1952; Vol. 504, c. 208.]
  This is not an economic debate and we cannot argue whether the economic circumstances are bright for the Bill or not, but, as has been said repeatedly, we on this side of the House welcome the Bill, although not because it was the brain child of the right hon. Gentleman. We feel that much of the credit belongs to people who are no longer with us, to those who in the late 19th and early 20th century rebelled against the conditions in which they worked, the people who laid the foundations of shop and office legislation in this country and who wanted to create a new order of society, a body of men and women who
  "builded better than they knew."
  Even in this day and age we mark the footprints where they trod and will possibly be able to show them to our children. It is they and not the Government who ought to be praised for a Bill of this kind finally finding its way to the Statute Book.
  When we debated the Second Reading of the Weights and Measures Bill on Monday, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade referred to the creation of a just society and to the type of Measures which had been included in this year's Gracious Speech. He stressed the history of the part his own party had played in this matter. I wonder where his predecessors stood at the beginning of this century when Bills of this description were being introduced.
  We welcome the Bill, but in the last analysis it will be strengthened by the deliberations in Committee. Much of its success when it ultimately reaches the Statute Book will depend, as office legislation in the past has depended, on the vigilance of the people working in the offices and the methods by which they are prepared to ensure that the present state of affairs is greatly improved.

  661
  On Monday, we had to make some references to the rather clumsy drafting of the Weights and Measures Bill. On looking through this Bill one comes across the same type of thing. On page 4 we see that one sentence occupies lines 5 to 14 inclusive, and perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary who is to wind up this debate will take a little time off from his conversations with the Minister and listen to this particularly bright piece of drafting. It says:
  "After the expiration of the period of five years beginning with the day on which the foregoing subsection comes into force as respects premises of any class, the number of persons habitually employed at a time to work in a room comprised in, or constituting, premises of that class shall not be such that the quotient derived by dividing by that number the number which expresses in square feet the area of the surface of the floor of the room is less than forty or the quotient derived by dividing by the first-mentioned number the number which expresses in cubic feet the capacity of the room is less than four hundred."
  I am certain that the Parliamentary Secretary will need a little time off to work out that sentence.
  I also want the Minister to look at Clause 9, which deals with the provision of sufficient and suitable sanitary conveniences, because, as other hon. Members have rightly said, this is something which affects not only the health and welfare of the workers in the premises referred to in the Bill, but the general public with whom they come in contact, and the recommendations of the Gowers Committee and the Trades Union Congress should be considered in this connection. The regulations made by the Minister should conform to the minimum proposals of the Trades Union Congress. These proposals were specific that the toilet accommodation should be in the ratio of 1 to 15 persons of each sex employed.
  During the debate there has been a tendency to look back about 40 or 50 years and describe the conditions that existed then, and the impression has somehow been created that those conditions have disappeared. My organisation, the Union of Shop, Distributive, and Allied Workers, carried out research into this matter, and in September. 1961, the findings of that inquiry, which covered a balanced sample of about 150 cities and towns, showed that
  662
  the provision of sanitary accommodation was still very primitive in character. I do not intend to detail the types of accommodation mentioned in that report, except to say that Clause 9 of the Bill is obviously one which must receive a great deal of attention in Committee.
  Clause 12, which deals with accommodation for clothing, represents in many ways a retreat by the Government. The Bill does not go far enough. It ought to be an elementary provision in 1962 that workers in the premises mentioned in the Bill shall have suitable facilities for the changing of clothes and adequate arrangements for drying them if and when necessary.
  All the provisions in the Bill ought to be carried out in the light of local scrutiny, and some of the provisions in the Clause referring to reports to the Minister are inadequate. Local authorities should be placed under an obligation to publish annual reports of their enforcement and administration of the Bill in their areas, as well as having to submit reports annually to the Minister. I think that this would lead to a far greater interest locally in the provisions of the Bill, in the manner in which it is carried out, and, in the last analysis, would be the real test of whether the Bill was performing the functions it set out to do.
  I turn now to the exemption of shops in which relatives are employed. It has been suggested that in some way because a person works for his parents or relatives conditions must be very good indeed. I think that many people who have had the experience of working with relatives know that very often the conditions under which they work are worse than those under which they would have to work with an outside employer.
  I am particularly pleased from a constituency point of view at the inclusion of railway premises in the Bill. During the Recess I had occasion to visit the coal staithes at North Blyth. I saw the men's room, the supposed canteen, and the locker facilities that were available to the staff in the marshalling yards at North Blyth. In my capacity as a trade union official of the allied and distributive trades I have seen same inadequate conditions, but I have never seen anything more closely resembling a dungeon

  663
  than this place which many of my constituents, who were doing an exceptionally useful job of work, were asked to regard as a rest room. The facilities belonged not to this century, but to the last, and I am glad on their behalf, just as I am on behalf of the people whom I have represented for so long, that this Bill has finally reached the stage of its Second Reading.
  We commend it on that basis, and trust that the modifications suggested will be made in Committee, and that on to the Statute Book will go an Act of Parliament which will be a real credit to the people who instituted and thought of the idea of improved conditions for shop and distributive workers in this country.
  8.18 p.m.
  Major Sir Frank Markham: It is pleasant to see the way in which this Bill has been generally welcomed by both sides of the House. Any criticisms which have been made of it have been criticisms of detail, and not of principle. I am one of those who are in that category of welcoming the Bill in principle, but wanting rather more information on detail.
  As has been said, this is a Bill to set improved standards of health, welfare and safety for employees in offices, shops and railway premises. Lt is when we come to the last two words, "railway premises"—and the hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Milne) touched lightly on this point—that I find the Bill rather obscure.
  Clause 1 (4) contains this definition:
  "In this Act 'railway premises' means a building occupied by railway undertakers"—
  I like that phrase "railway undertakers"! Why could not it have said "British Railways" or "London Transport"?—
  "for the purposes of the railway undertaking"—
  that, of course, is the origin of the word "undertakers"—
  "carried on by them and situate in the immediate vicinity of the permanent way or a part (so occupied) of a building so situate, but does not include office or shop premises, premises used for the provision of living accommodation for persons employed in the undertaking, or hotels."
  664
  When I read that through I wondered what was left. This Measure is presumably designed to improve the conditions of railway workers; yet, under this provision, the accommodation of practically everybody employed at our stations is excluded. Thus, the stationmaster's house comes out. Also, as I understand it, the ticket office comes out.
  Mr. Whitelaw: No.
  Sir F. Markham: My hon. Friend shakes his head and says that it does not exclude ticket offices. I draw his attention to the fact that the provision says that "railway premises" means
  "a building occupied by railway undertakers … but does not include office or shop premises…".
  Mr. Whitelaw: The answer is that offices and shop premises are covered under the other definitions in the Bill.
  Sir F. Markham: That deals with that paint. Would that also cover newsstands and baokstalls?
  Mr. Whitelaw: Yes.
  Sir F. Markham: Then I turn to the point raised by the hon. Member for Blyth about canteens and porters' rooms. That is the type of railway accommodation referred to, I presume.
  Mr. Whitelaw Mr. Whitelaw indicated assent.
  Sir F. Markham: I gather that my hon. Friend approves of that as a temporary definition. I am glad to have that knowledge.
  I now turn to Clause 6, which deals with temperature. We know that where men are working far any length of time it is most important that reasonable standards of temperature should be maintained; indeed, that is one of the aims of the Bill. But subsection (2) provides that
  "a temperature of less than 60 degrees Fahrenheit shall not be deemed, after the first hour, to be a reasonable temperature.…"
  This provision flies in the face of all the reports which have been put before the House from time to time, and which have advocated temperatures of between 64 and 67 degrees Fahrenheit. Those are the temperature ranges that are more or less compulsory in our factories now. They are practically compulsory

  665
  in schools. In this House, where we are a little older than the average railway worker, the temperature runs between 67 and 70 degrees. The figure of 60 degrees is too low.
  Presumably, during the first hour the temperature could be much less. Until someone has turned on the taps or the fire, or whatever it is, the temperature could easily be zero. I hope that this provision will be looked at again and that in Committee the Minister will accept an Amendment to raise the minimum temperature above 60 degrees, to something more in keeping with the advice of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, the Meteorological Office and the Air Ministry, who have gone into the question of comfort while at work.
  The points to which I have referred may be regarded as trivial ones, but I make them in earnest. I hope that in Committee we shall be given a closer definition of railway premises, and that the question of temperature and living conditions generally will be defined much more closely in accordance with modern commercial and industrial practice.
  8.24 p.m.
  Mr. W. E. Padley: The Bill has been welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, but hon. Members opposite, especially the Minister, should not be surprised at the fact that most hon. Members on this side have begun by criticising the Government's record in these matters. I propose to do the same, and I do it not to rake old fires. The right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) once said that the purpose of recrimination about the past was to force effective action in the present.
  The Bill is largely a permissive Measure. By common consent, its value will depend largely upon the vigour with which the Government of the day operate it—the way in which they use the exemption Clauses and the speed with which they introduce the regulations. That is why, in the trade union movement outside as weld as among my colleagues on this side of the House, concern is felt about the Government's shocking record in dealing with the con-
  666
  ditions of shop, office and other workers which were investigated by the Gowers Committee.
  References have been made to the fact that the Gowers Committee was set up in 1946 and reported in 1949. I remind the House that this same Gowers Committee, under its original terms of reference, produced a first Report on the Shops Act. After much agitation the Government of the day—a Conservative Government—introduced a Bill, based on the Report, in another place. That was in 1956. The Bill was dropped in 1957, allegedly on grounds of lack of time. It has never reappeared.
  During the thirteen years that I have been a Member of the House we have had scores of debates, Opposition Motions and Private Members' Bills urging the Government to implement the Gowers Committee recommendations in respect of shops, offices and other premises. Throughout that time the Government have used varying excuses for the delay. My personal files concerning the Gowers Committee Reports are now growing yellow and brown. I have here a yellow document which is the famous 1952 proposals, to which reference has been made during the debate. A deputation went to see the then Home Secretary early in 1953, and so it went on.
  The first specific pledge that the Conservative Government gave the country followed the initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Harald Davies), who introduced a Private Member's Bill just before the 1955 General Election. The upshot was that the Conservative Party wrote into its election programme in 1955:
  "Legislation will be passed to promote a steady improvement of conditions for other workers, including those in transport, in farming, in offices and in shops."
  Since that was written into the Conservative election programme in 1955, most of the explanations for the delay given by hon. Members opposite are clearly false. It was not principally a question of consultation with various organisations it was not principally a question of Parliamentary time, or a question of shortage of material, otherwise the right hon. Members who wrote the Conservative Party manifestoes would not have written in that pledge.

  667
  The truth is that my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) deserves the thanks of us all for his initiative since he arrived in the House and was lucky enough to come first in his first Ballot for Private Members' Bills. I well remember that debate, three years ago, when the Government were beaten in the Division Lobbies because a handful of Tories voted with us and 20 or 30 others sat ostentatiously in abstention on the benches opposite, because the Government had been thrashed in the debate. That fact, plus the electoral fortunes of the Tory Party, has, in my judgment, been responsible for producing this Bill—which we all welcome. But as one analyses the Bill, inevitably the fears and suspicions based on the record of the Government are aroused.
  First, there are the omissions. It may be true that to extend the provisions to include entertainment and other categories of workers referred to in the Gowers Committee Report might be difficult. But the members of Equity, N.A.T.K.E. and the other trade unions of the entertainment industry will have good cause to be angry because 13 long years have passed since the Gowers Committee reported, and had the then Government implemented the promise made at the 1955 election shops and offices would have been dealt with in 1956 or 1957 and now the more difficult problem presented by the entertainment industry could have been tackled.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham (Sir F. Markham) read out the definition of railway premises which appears in the Bill. One of the reasons for the weird construction of words is in order to exclude coal depots which are in fact railway premises. In order to do that it was necessary to use the circumlocution against which the hon. and gallant Member complained. In the old days the railway companies were the landlords of the coal depots. Now it is British Railways, and the coal merchants are the tenants. I believe that even under the form of words in the Bill coal depots are included. I know that it is the intention of the Government to exclude them, but a coal depot is without any doubt a railway undertaker
  "for the purpose of the railway undertaking."
  668
  There are 30 million or 40 million tons of coal supplied to domestic consumers and minor industrial concerns which are unloaded at the depots. Whether or not I am right on the strict legal interpretation of the Clause, I challenge the Minister to tell us why coal depots alone of railway premises are to be excluded from the provisions of the Bill. Here we have a group of workers doing a job which is dirty and arduous under conditions which. as the Gowers Report put it, are really primitive. Apart from a handful of new depots, these premises do not include lavatories or facilities for washing or changing clothes during wet weather.
  Why should coal depot workers be left out? The only obstacle which has appeared in the negotiations between the Transport and General Workers Union and my own union and the Transport Commission and the coal merchants has been the question of apportioning the cost. It would seem that the Gowers Committee was right when it reported that the cost should fall on the railways and that the railways should recoup it by a necessary adjustment of rents. Even at this stage I appeal to the Minister to introduce an appropriate Amendment to enable coal depot workers to be included among those who will benefit from the provisions in the Bill.
  The workrooms of dental technicians might be included among the premises affected by the provisions in the Bill. Some years ago the question was raised in the British trade union movement of the appropriate union to organise dental technicians. The T.U.C. thought that my union was the appropriate body and so they are organised by U.S.D.A.W. The same reasons which led the T.U.C. to ask the shopworkers' union to organise the dental technicians should prompt the Minister to introduce an appropriate Amendment to include their workrooms among the premises affected by the Bill.
  I have mentioned that the Bill is to a large extent a permissive Measure and that there are provisions for exceptions and exemptions. Several hon. Members referred to the exception of premises where only the relatives of a shopkeeper work. I speak entirely for myself—it is not a trade union matter, nor do I think it a part issue—but I am unhappy that this principle, which has found its

  669
  way into the legislation of Southern Europe for the first time, should have appeared in British social and industrial legislation. There is no exception relating to the family business in the Factories Act, in the Shops Act or the Wages Council Act. I should not mind the family business, narrowly defined as it is in this Bill, being exempted from the provisions of the Bill, but since the Measure deals with the safety of shop workers and since, as some of my hon. Friends have mentioned, many accidents occur from the use of dangerous machinery in shops, I cannot for the life of me see why the family grocer's shop should be exempted from provisions requiring a bacon slicing machine to be protected and that young people should be instructed in the use of such machines. I hope that we shall succeed in getting an Amendment to the Bill to the effect that young persons should be forbidden to clean such machines.
  As the right hon. Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent) said, it is true that the number of accidents in shops do not compare with the number of accidents in industry. But serious accidents do occur in shops. I have here a list of 70 accidents which were reported to the legal department of my union in the last 18 months. They include an accident to a girl of 20, necessitating the amputation of the whole of her left hand, and an accident to a boy of 17 who lost several fingers. To exempt the family grocer's shop from the safety regulations proposed in this Bill seems to me to be quite wrong.
  Likewise, under the existing Shops Act there is a statutory obligation on any shop to provide an appropriate number of seats for female shop assistants. That has been the law of Britain since 1899. The present law dates from 1934. This Bill proposes to remove that. I cannot believe that is social progress. I most sincerely appeal to the Minister to have a look at this again and, so to speak, to divide the sheep from the goats. There may be some provisions in the Bill from which a genuine family shop could be exempted, but other provisions should be obligatory on family shops as well as others.
  I am quite sure that the exemptions are far too wide, even leaving aside any suspicion that this Government and
  670
  many local authorities, because of their composition, would use the exemption clauses very widely. The Minister having this wide power of exemption, local authorities having it and magistrates' courts in effect having wide powers of exemption does not, so far as I know, exist in any other body of British law. The Bill sets up three bodies which can take almost any enterprise outside the scope of the Bill. In my view the exemption Clauses must be restricted. In most cases all that will be required is a short period of delay to give time for the provisions of the Bill and the regulations to be fulfilled rather than the establishment of a case for exemption.
  The question of enforcement has been raised by many hon. Members in this debate. Enforcement is crucial. As the Minister knows, the general view of the trade unions in recent years has been that there should be an enlargement of the Factory Inspectorate to enforce this Bill when it becomes an Act. I have always recognised the difficulties involved in that, but my experience of Shops Act administration and inspection does not leave me as sanguine as the Minister about effective enforcement under the provisions of this Bill.
  I do not want to be misunderstood. In London and many other towns and cities the standard of enforcement under the Shops Act is good, but local government in Britain is like a patchwork quilt of various shapes and sizes. In many towns and villages there is virtually no inspection at all, and even when breaches of the Shops Act are reported action is not taken by the local authority. This was recognised by the Gowers Committee. In its Report, the Committee accepted the necessity for enforcement to be the duty of local authorities. The Committee, however, also recognised that there must be central Government supervision of local authorities and suggested that there should be a number of central Government inspectors to supervise, co-ordinate and help local authorities in carrying out their duties under the Act.
  There is another aspect of the matter which will have to be dealt with in Committee. Many local authorities have a surprising number of shopkeepers and office owners on them. This could

  671
  become an important barrier of disinterest in enforcement of the Bill's provisions. That is why my union, in its evidence to the Gowers Committee, proposed that the local authority should not have the power to dismiss an inspector without the approval of the Minister. That may sound rather drastic as an amendment to propose, but I ask hon. Members on both sides of the House to look at the question of local authorities in Britain and see if it is not distinctly possible—if not probable—that in some parts of the country enforcement would fail because vested interests would be asked to enforce an Act which would affect vested interests.
  I pass to one or two major issues in the Bill. In a sense they are Committee points, but so far as they are very big points, they are also second Reading points. First there is the question of overcrowding. The Clauses dealing with overcrowding are almost meaningless. If we exempt fixtures, fittings and furniture from the definition of air space, we abandon all rational criteria on the subject. Contrary to the recommendations of the Gowers Committee, shops and offices to which the public resort are totally excluded from the Bill. This is a very serious departure from the recommendations of the Committee and the proposals made by the Government in 1952. I hope the Minister will give further consideration to the need to include fixtures, fittings and furniture and the need to bring shops into the Bill in this respect.
  The Bill proposes to repeal Sections 37 to 39 of the Shops Act, but in some cases the Bill does not contain the provisions which are contained in those Sections. That is true, for example, of the question of seats for shop assistants. It would be wrong for Sections 37 to 39 of the Shops Act to be repealed until the Minister brings forward the regulations which will replace those Sections.
  Whilst we welcome the Bill and will do everything possible in Committee to improve it so that it becomes a useful Measure, we must not be complacent. We are almost the most backward nation in Western and Northern Europe in this field. Those of us who represent the trade union movement at international conferences found increasingly in the
  672
  1950s that the British Government's record in the House and at the I.L.O. was an embarrassment to us, because not long ago Britain led Europe in this field. I hope that the passage of the Bill and a speedy implementation of the Clauses which provide for the issue of regulations will once more restore Britain to leadership. It is frightfully important that the job is done speedily.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) that at this time when so much of Britain is being rebuilt, when the centres of so many of our great towns and cities are being rebuilt, it is vital that the new buildings at any rate should conform at least to the full standards of Gowers. Regrettably this is not always the case. This Chamber was destroyed during the war. It was rebuilt, and reopened in 1950. I am sure that there are infringements of Gowers' standards in this part of the Palace of Westminster. I can say from personal knowledge of the great shops of Britain, even some of the newest shops, even some of those that look the best, that they fall below Gowers standards in a number of ways. Therefore, this matter is urgent. We shall not vote against the Second Reading, because in a sense we regard this as our Bill rather than as a Tory Bill.
  8.43 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. William Whitelaw): Recently I was reproached with the words, "It is a pity your voice is never heard at Westminster". I am doubtful, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if you would be prepared to accept that statement just as it stands. I know that my late colleagues in the Government Whips' Office would not. Nevertheless, I am only too conscious at this moment of what my critic meant, for I am now faced, not only with my maiden speech from the Dispatch Box, but also in truth with my first speech in this Parliament. Indeed, if it is not actually a maiden speech it certainly feels like one.
  I admit that for this reason, as well as for many others, I have very much of a fellow feeling for the hon. Member for Leicester, North-East (Mr. Bradley). I congratulate him on what I am sure we all thought was a very able and excellent maiden speech. We hope to hear him frequently again. I think that he was

  673
  unkind to himself. I do not think that on this occasion he did try to get away with murder. Perhaps if he tries it in the future he will find it more difficult.
  I am also only too well aware that I cannot hope to compete with the eloquence and the knowledge of the subject possessed by the hon. Member far Ogmore (Mr. Padley), who would probably agree that we have had a good and constructive debate. I have heard almost all of it, and I now want to do my best to answer the many important points that have been put. In the main, they have shown how difficult it is to strike a right balance in these matters.
  Some hon. Members, anxious as we all are to improve conditions for all those who work in our offices, shops and railway premises, are impatient of delay and feel that the Bill should be even more widely applied. They want to set even higher standards, and they consider the exemption powers are too wide. On the other hand, there are those hon. Members who fear that strict compliance with the various conditions will place too heavy a burden, particularly on the family owner and occupier; and that the improvements required by the Bill may divert an undue proportion of our building resources from their primary task of providing houses. The Bill has been framed with the object of striking the right balance, so it is against that background that I want to consider the various, and sometimes conflicting, views that have been expressed.
  The hon. Members for Southwark (Mr. Gunter) and for Ogmore, and the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh)—who enjoyed himself, as, I think, one would concede he had every right to do—accused us of unreasonable delay in introducing the Bill. I must say that I thought that they were answered pretty effectively by my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent), Who speaks with all the authority of a member of the Gowers Committee. Of course, neither the members of the Gowers Committee nor anyone else expected that all their proposals would be implemented at once.
  Nor am I prepared to allow hon. Members opposite to forget what has already been done in this sphere by Conservative
  674
  Governments in the last ten years: the Mines and Quarries Act, 1954; the Agriculture (Safety, Health and Welfare Provisions) Act, 1956, and the Factories Act, 1959. This record puts accusations of delay in their proper perspective
  It is also fair to point out to the hon. Member for Southwark and other hon. Gentlemen that their demands for immediate improvements in office accommodation are not wholly consistent with the complaints of many of their right hon. and hon. Friends against new office building. After all, it is generally recognised that, to some extent, office building competes with other forms of building, including houses, for scarce resources, and this point was made very plainly by my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain). It really must be faced that earlier implementation of the Bill—or, indeed, of its overcrowding provisions—might well have led to even more new office building than we have had.
  The hon. Members for Greenwich and Southwark, and many others, advocated an extension of the scope of the Bill to certain other classes of premises that have been excluded. In particular, they mentioned theatres—an aspect dealt with by my right hon. Friend. British Transport Commission coal depots were mentioned by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. George Craddock) and many other hon. Members, and Health Service employees were referred to by the hon. Members for Southwark and Greenwich, and by other hon. Members. Of course, as the hon. Member for Southwark rightly said, we will argue some of these particular cases in Committee, but tonight I should like to reply generally—
  Mr. Gunter: The case now being made by the Parliamentary Secretary is very plausible, but some of us have had the experience over the last ten years of the promises that were made by the party opposite that these aspects would be considered, and legislation introduced. In 1952, for instance, the Tory Party promised that theatres would be brought within the scope of the Bill. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can tell us what has changed the Government's mind. Why are these promises being broken?
  Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Gentleman spoke earlier about the long period of gestation. He must appreciate that I have had a considerable period of gestation with this Bill. It would also be true that I have just been newly born into this field. Nevertheless, in his own words, I trust that I may prove to be a lusty child—
  Mr. Marsh: One accepts the hon. Gentleman's point of view, although not necessarily agreeing with it, in terms of difficulties in including hospitals, places of entertainment, and so on, but can he say that, even though the Government may not be able to include them in this Bill, it is their intention to legislate at some time for the rest of non-industrial employment?
  Mr. Whitelaw: I think I should confine myself, wisely, to what is in the Bill, and to what we are actually doing in this sphere, which I think is a great deal.
  In truth, wherever the line is drawn, and after all we have to draw it somewhere, there will always be a case for, in that well-known phrase, "going just a little bit further; just a small one or just a little bit more." We have heard it today, but I think we should be clear that if we brought into this Bill any substantial new classes of premises, we should have formidable new problems to deal with, and a still more complicated Bill, and I have not heard anybody suggest that this Bill is either small or short or entirely simple to understand.
  Furthermore, we must judge various other claims for inclusion against the background of the considerable advance which we are making already. I was very pleased to hear the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Winter-bottom), with his long experience of shops, recognising and welcoming this. We are seeking to deal with 1 million premises employing 8 million people, which, apart from anything else, will impose an administrative task of no mean order.
  Some hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Leicester, North-East, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Buckingham (Sir F. Markham) and my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn) have raised questions about railway premises. I was
  676
  interested in the point made by the hon. Member for Leicester, North-East about this. He expressed his very proper concern over this, in view of his long experience. I can assure him that the Bill will apply to most railway buildings not already covered by the Factories Act. This includes buildings situated in the immediate vicinity of the permanent way, such as stations, marshalling yard buildings and signal boxes, and, as I pointed out in an intervention in the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Buckingham, certain other premises which qualify as offices or shops, for example, a railway ticket office.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) and my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham asked how the Bill would apply to civilian employees in Government offices, and what would happen. The answer is that the Bill is to apply to civilian employees in Government offices and other premises of the type covered by the Bill, and that it will be binding on the Crown, in so far as these provisions impose duties, where failure to comply might give rise to a liability in tort. That is in Clause 70. In other words, and it might be easier in the other words, civil servants will be able to sue the Crown for damages in respect of matters which arise under the Bill.
  Let me give a simple example. It someone were to fall and be injured because a handrail had not been provided, under Clause 14, on a staircase in his place of work, he could bring an action for damages, and the same principle would apply to all those parts of the Bill to which Clause 70 refers. This is in line with the general legal position of the Crown as set out in the Crown Proceedings Act, 1947. The Crown, for good and obvious reasons, cannot be made criminally liable. Nor is there provision for inspectors to have the powers of entry and enforcement which are conferred on them in the case of other premises by Clauses 43 and 44. However, it is intended that conditions in Government premises should conform to the standards required by the Bill and that factory inspectors should inspect these premises by administrative arrangement. Perhaps I should also make it clear that members of the Armed Forces are excluded from the Bill, but

  677
  that civilian employees of the forces will have the same protection as other Government employees.
  Mr. R. Carr: Can my hon. Friend say more about what is meant by "administrative arrangement" in relation to this inspection? Does the initiative in any way lie with the inspector to go where he would like to go?
  Mr. Whitelaw: If I may say so, with great respect to my hon. Friend, "administrative arrangement" means, as I understand the phrase "administrative arrangement". There is every determinatior on the part of the Government to see the standards in Government offices conform with the Bill and I think that these arrangements will ensure that the factory inspectors do their job in a proper manner.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Clapham, Folkestone and Hythe and Mitcham and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) expressed anxiety lest the Bill placed an unreasonable and unnecessary burden on the small shopkeeper. I can assure them that the Government share their concern. As evidence of this I call their attention to the various provisions which are designed to safeguard the position of the family concern.
  Clause 1 states that the Bill applies only to premises where people are employed. Therefore, the shopkeeper who runs his shop by himself is not affected at all. Clause 2 goes further and exempts those shopkeepers who are assisted only by their families. "Family" specifically includes his or her husband or wife, parent, grandparent, son, daughter, grandchild, brother or sister. My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe and my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham, rather like hon. Members opposite in another context, wanted to go a little further and include nephews and nieces. On the provisions as they stand we can all think of families who could muster quite a labour force under that umbrella already.
  Mr. Milne: The Prime Minister.
  Mr. Whitelaw: Clause 3 goes further still and excludes from the scope of the Bill any premises where normally the total number of hours worked, either by one or several employees, is less than twenty-one a week. So those small shop-
  678
  keepers who employ only—again this famous phrase—"a little part-time help" will also be unaffected by the Bill. Having said that, I appreciate the point made by the hon. Member for Ogmore about safety in such premises. I would suggest to him and other hon. Members who have raised this matter that these provisions, taken together, provide a sensible balance.
  Other hon. Members have referred to Clause 5, regarding overcrowding. The hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Milne) suggested that the Clause as drafted was somewhat meaningless. I have sympathy with his point of view but it means, simply, in the end, that one has 40 square feet of space per person and that if the ceiling is lower than 10 feet one has 400 cubic feet. I would make it clear, therefore, that Clause 5 consists of two separate requirements. One makes it an offence to employ people in a room which is so overcrowded as to cause risk of injury to health. Some doubt was expressed about this, but it will take effect as soon as my right hon. Friend brings the provision into force. There is no question of a delay of five years. The delay applies only to the second provision, which requires 40 square feet for each employee. We think that it is reasonable that a period of time should be allowed in view of the possibility of some occupiers having to make structural alterations to comply with this standard.
  The hon. Member for Ogmore asked why "standard space" included, I think he meant, furniture and equipment. It would have been administratively impracticable to do otherwise. For example, if they were to be excluded, what would be done about the space under the desk or table where one puts one's feet? Their exclusion would have inevitably involved inspectors going around the furniture with a tape measure, and that would have been somewhat too bureaucratic to be sensible. Certainly there is no similar provision in the Factories Act for inspectors to go round measuring equipment.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Buckingham suggested that the minimum temperature of 60 degree's Fahrenheit laid down in Clause 6 is too low. This is a point which is best discussed in Committee. Perhaps

  679
  I should outline the basic reasons why the Clause is in its present form. First the figure of 60 degrees applies under Section 3 of the Factories Act to workrooms in which a substantial proportion of the work is done sitting and does not involve serious physical effort—in other words, conditions similar to those in most offices. There is, therefore, a sound precedent for the standard that we have produced.
  Secondly, we feel that we must take account of the fact that many heating systems are incapable of raising the temperature within a building to much more than 30 degrees Fahrenheit above the temperature of the outside air. In the coldest days of the winter, therefore, it might be difficult in some buildings to achieve even 60 degrees Fahrenheit. I do not make too much of this point, but I am sure the House will be prepared to give due weight to this argument when we are deciding the level in Committee.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and the hon. Member for Leicester, North-East asked why the Bill did not express the minimum temperature in degrees centigrade. I think there is a reason which perhaps they did not appreciate. Many thousands of thermometers would have to be replaced. But despite that, I have very much sympathy with the point that has been made. Perhaps it would be right to express the standard in the Bill in both forms, and we shall certainly look into this.
  Now I turn to the question of noise which was raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Mitcham and Clapham and the hon. Member for Leicester, North-East. Most noise, I suppose is likely to come from outside the premises, from traffic and from our British liking for digging up our roads as often and as noisily as possible. I am glad to say that I am effectively silenced on these subjects, first because they are outside the scope of the Bill and secondly because the Wilson Committee is studying them. Then there is the human noise inside a building caused, for example, by people who will conduct their telephone conversations as if the instrument did not exist. I have much sympathy not only with their colleagues but also with them,
  680
  and if a silencer could be devised, in view of my record in this field, I should be very ready to offer myself as a suitable subject for the experiment.
  But, of course, there is also—and do not seek to minimise it—the very serious and important point to which my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham referred about noisy machinery in shops and offices. My right hon. Friend has power under Clause 17 to make regulations to deal with this where there is evidence of a health risk, and I think this meets the point to some extent.
  It has been suggested that it would be better to set up a central inspectorate to enforce the Bill in all premises covered by it. This point has been very carefully considered and I admit that the possibility of more uniform administration over the country which it offers is certainly very attractive, but there are two arguments against it. First, there would be the tremendous problem of recruitment. This was recognised by the hon. Member for Bradford, South. But there are at least four times as many premises under this Bill as there are factories, and after allowing for the fact that offices and shops are probably easier to inspect than factories, the problem of recruitment would remain immense even if officers with lower technical qualifications than factory inspectors were employed.
  The second main argument against a central inspectorate is that much of the work of inspection is, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford pointed out, a natural extension of the present work of local authorities under a number of enactments. These are duties which they would like to do and are well fitted to do. I certainly repeat what my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford said about how careful we should be not to criticise indiscriminately—I do not think that anyone has done so—the competence of local authorities in this field. What is also most important is that this was a task which the Gowers Committee thought that local authorities should carry out.
  I am in no doubt that it will be a more economical method of enforcement than a vast expansion of central machinery and it will avoid duplication of inspection by central and local authorities under different Statutes. I

  681
  noted the point made by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Boardman) about the Factory Inspectorate examining the safety of bacon slicing machines. We have adopted a flexible approach to this problem and are giving responsibilities to other authorities in cases where there is a clear balance of advantage in doing so. Thus, factory inspectors will inspect offices in factories, because they will be visiting those establishments in any event under the Factories Act. Mines and quarries inspectors will inspect offices and shops in mines and quarries. I am confident that this is a commonsense division of responsibilities and will serve our purpose best, and close co-operation between the various authorities will overcome any difficulties that might otherwise arise from the use of different groups of inspectors.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford and my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham made the interesting point that a small central inspectorate should be set up to maintain standards and ensure reasonable uniformity. I know that my right hon. Friend is interested in this suggestion and it may be that such an inspectorate will have a part to play. Perhaps we can consider this further in Committee.
  I turn now to the question of exemptions, about which the hon. Member for Southwark expressed great concern. On the other hand, the hon. Member for Greenwich conceded that some such exemptions were necessary. The Bill will cover a wide variety of premises and circumstances and it is important to ensure that a reasonable degree of flexibility in administration is maintained, particularly during the first few years after the Bill comes into force.
  For that reason, Clause 36 enables the Minister to exempt a class of premises from certain requirements where compliance would, in his opinion, be unreasonable. The requirements in question are those relating to temperature, overcrowding, sanitary conveniences and washing facilities, which, as my right hon. Friend underlined this afternoon, all involve capital investment.
  It is impossible to say exactly how that power would be used until the experience gained in the administration of the Bill has shown what the problems are. I want, however, to assure the hon.
  682
  Member for Ogmore and the hon. Member for Leicester, North-East that this power will certainly not be used to relieve premises from these requirements where compliance would be reasonable. Under Clause 37, the enforcing authority, usually the local authority, is given discretion to grant exemption to individual premises where compliance with these requirements is not reasonably practicable. The exemption may be given with or without time limits or conditions, but it may be withdrawn if the authorities consider that conditions have changed so as to make compliance reasonable.
  We think it desirable to permit this slight degree of flexibility in administration so that occupiers of premises covered by the Bill who are unable by virtue of their special circumstances to comply with one or more of these requirements and would otherwise be faced with the choice of going out of business or flouting the law, can be safeguarded. The criteria for exemption will be strict, and the occupier will be expected to use his period of grace to make other arrangements.
  The hon. Members for Southwark and Greenwich complained about the appeal provisions on exemption under Clause 37. They did not like the idea that appeals were to be taken in the magistrates' courts. I would point out that magistrates' courts have the great advantage of being local and have all the experience of administering Factories Act legislation. There seem, therefore, to be sound reasons for making them the appeal courts.
  Hon. Members then asked why employees had no right of appeal. I should point out that the Bill places the obligation on occupiers. It is occupiers who must find the money for the improvements, and surely it is, therefore, only right that they should have the right of appeal. It is superficially attractive and logical to say that employees should also have a right of appeal against the enforcing authority in granting an exemption. But it is not really the job of the courts to hear complaints that the enforcing authority is not using responsibly the discretionary powers it is given in the Bill. And workers can always take complaints direct to the

  683
  enforcing authority and ask for the exemption to be withdrawn.
  The hon. Member for Greenwich in particular asked about timing. He wanted to know what time was likely to elapse between the Royal Assent and the bringing into operation of the Bill under Clause 77. I would say at once that the Government intend to make the period as short as possible. But we must be realistic and recognise that some time will be required, firstly, to hold discussions between representatives of the enforcing authorities about the administrative procedures, particularly the details of the registration arrangements; secondly, to print the registration forms and give occupiers a reasonable period in which to obtain copies and send them to the appropriate authority; thirdly, to enable the enforcing authorities to build up their staffs and make arrangements to handle the registration forms; fourthly, to enable the Minister to consult the interested bodies on the contents of any regulations that he may wish to make under the Act at the same time as it is brought into operation; and, fifthly, to give owners and occupiers a period in which to bring their premises into line with the Act before inspection begins.
  Experience suggests that these various steps are unlikely to be completed in less than a year. We would intend to issue draft regulations shortly—and I mean very shortly—after the Act comes into operation. In the meantime, I hope that owners and occupiers generally will use the time to bring their premises into compliance with the Act as soon as its details have been decided.
  Mr. Marsh: The hon. Gentleman says "about a year". One does not hold him too closely to this, but is he saying "about a year from the date of operation of the Act", or "about a year from now"? Can he give us some indication of the operative date of the Act?
  Mr. Whitelaw: I can be a little more specific to the hon. Gentleman than I was to my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham who asked a similar question.
  684
  It is about a year from the passing of the Act, and "about a year" means "about a year".
  Mr. Marsh: Can the lion. Gentleman tell us when the Act is likely to take effect? "About a year" from an unspecified date is not very precise.
  Mr. Whitelaw: Some of my hon. Friends have already answered the hon. Gentleman's point. It depends to a large extent on him.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Mitcham and Rutland and Stamford (Mr. K. Lewis) expressed anxiety that new buildings put up from now on should conform to the standards laid down in the Bill. I appreciate their point, but I do not think that we need worry too much about it. People will not be eager to put up a new building which would have to be altered within five years. I know that architects are already taking the standards of this Bill into account.
  I cannot expect to have answered to their satisfaction all the points raised by hon. Members. However, I hope that I have given at least the reasons why the Bill is framed in its present terms. The Government's aim has been to achieve the right balance, and much thought and consultation has been directed to that end. Now the Bill is to have the great benefit of close scrutiny in Parliament.
  I am sure that it will be generally agreed that the process has started with a constructive and helpful debate. As both my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Southwark said, we now look forward to fruitful discussion in Committee in exactly the same spirit. This Bill represents yet another social advance promoted by a Conservative Government, and I confidently commend it to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 38. (Committal of Bills).

  OFFICES, SHOPS AND RAILWAY PREMISES [MONEY]
  [Queen's Recommendation signified.]
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).
  [Sir ROBERT GRIMSTON in the Chair]
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make fresh provision for securing the health, safety and welfare of persons employed to work in office or shop premises and provision for securing the health, safety and welfare of persons employed to work in certain railway premises, it is expedient to authorise—
  (1) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

  (a) any expenses incurred by the Minister of Labour in carrying the Act into effect;

  (b) any increase attributable to the Act in the expenses of the Minister of Power which, by virtue of section 3 (3) of the Ministry of Fuel and Power Act 1945, are defrayed out of moneys so provided;

  (c) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable by way of General Grant, Rate-Deficiency Grant or Exchequer Equalisation Grant under the enactments relating to local government in England and Wales or in Scotland;

  (2) the payment into the Exchequer of any sums received under the Act by the Minister of Labour.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]
  Resolution to be reported.
  Report to be received Tomorrow.

  FOREIGN COMPENSATION [MONEY]
  Resolution reported,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of additional compensation in respect of claims arising in connection with certain events in Egypt, to require the Foreign Compensation Commission to pay sums into the Exchequer in respect of deductions made in meeting such claims, and to make provision in relation to pensions and other payments to or in respect of members, officers and servants of the Commission, it is expedient to authorise—

  (a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of sums required for the making of payments to the Foreign Compensation Commission under the said Act in respect of claims arising in connection with events in Egypt;

  (b) the payment into the Exchequer under the said Act of amounts which, in making payments in respect of claims so arising, the Foreign Compensation Commission has deducted in respect of loans made by Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom;

  (c) any increase attributable to the said Act in the sums which, in respect of the expenses of the Foreign Compensation Commission, are to be or may be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament or paid into the Exchequer under Section 7 (2) of the Foreign Compensation Act, 1950.

  Resolution agreed to.

  ADJOURNMENT
  Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. F. Pearson.]
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes past Nine o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT
  Public Protest Demonstrations
  Public Protest Demonstrations
  London Sessions (Appeal Case)
  London Sessions (Appeal Case)
  Prison Medical Service
  Prison Medical Service
  William John Vassall
  William John Vassall
  East Ham Youth (Member's Correspondence)
  East Ham Youth (Member's Correspondence)
  Children and Young Persons
  Children and Young Persons
  Commonwealth Immigrants (Deportation)
  Commonwealth Immigrants (Deportation)
  Immigrants
  Immigrants
  Crime (West Riding)
  Crime (West Riding)
NORTHERN RHODESIA
  Elections
  Elections
SOUTHERN RHODESIA
  United Nations Resolutions
  United Nations Resolutions
INDIA
  Assistance
  Assistance
EDUCATION
  School, Dagenham
  School, Dagenham
  Youth Clubs, County Durham
  Youth Clubs, County Durham
  Teachers
  Teachers
  Abu Simbel Monuments
  Abu Simbel Monuments
  School-leaving Age
  School-leaving Age
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Scrap Metal
  Scrap Metal
  Advance Factory, Chester-Ie-Street
  Advance Factory, Chester-Ie-Street
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Higher Education (Report)
  Higher Education (Report)
  Wealth Tax
  Wealth Tax
  Building Societies (Interest Payments)
  Building Societies (Interest Payments)
  Tax Allowances (Life Assurance and National Insurance)
  Tax Allowances (Life Assurance and National Insurance)
  Discretionary Trusts
  Discretionary Trusts
  Retirement Annuities (Tax Relief)
  Retirement Annuities (Tax Relief)
  Investment Allowances
  Investment Allowances
  Deeds of Covenant
  Deeds of Covenant
  Wealth of Individuals
  Wealth of Individuals
ADEN
  Yemen
  Yemen
EMPLOYMENT
  Chief Inspector of Factories (Report)
  Chief Inspector of Factories (Report)
  Shipping (Scalers)
  Shipping (Scalers)
  Ford's, Dagenham
  Ford's, Dagenham
  FOREIGN SERVICE (MR. McDERMOTT)
  FOREIGN SERVICE (MR. McDERMOTT)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Nuclear Tests
  Nuclear Tests
  Officers' Widows (Pensions)
  Officers' Widows (Pensions)
  SECURITY
  SECURITY
  NUCLEAR TESTS
  NUCLEAR TESTS
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Richmond Park (Deer)
  Richmond Park (Deer)
COAL
  Prices
  Prices
ROADS
  Wragby-Louth Road
  Wragby-Louth Road
  MAGISTRATES, DARTFORD
  MAGISTRATES, DARTFORD

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD AILWYN on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St. Albans

COVENT GARDEN MARKET
3.6 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government if they are now in a position to say whether the replacement for Covent Garden Market will be built on the Seven Dials Site, and if not, when and where the new market will be built.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (LORD ST. OSWALD): My Lords, as my noble predecessor said on April 16, in answer to a Question by the noble Earl, Lord Fortescue, the rebuilding of the Covent Garden Market is the responsibility of the Covent Garden Market Authority. The Authority are now carrying out a detailed study of the issues involved in selecting the best site for the new market. A firm of professional consultants is expected to report to the Authority by about the end of the year. No decision can be reached until the Authority have had an opportunity of considering this report.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that this firm of consultants, having been instructed to consider Covent Garden as London's biggest central market, has rejected that advice and is looking at perimeter sites? Is it not therefore the case that the rejection of precisely similar advice given in your Lordships' House has wasted a whole year and a great deal of money? Will the noble Lord urge his right honourable friend, through the usual channels, to ask the Authority to decide
720
quickly on one or more of those perimeter sites?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, the noble Lord has not put it quite accurately. We set up the Authority in order to seek the most suitable site. They are now deciding upon that site. We do not see, I am afraid, any reason to ask them to hurry. They are fully aware of the urgency in this matter and we leave it to them.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, if it be the case—I do not know—that the advisers to the Authority recommend a site or sites (I should prefer more than one site) on the perimeter round about the County of London, on the edge of it, will that recommendation be excluded because of the view which the Government previously appeared to have—namely, that the market should remain in central London? Your Lordships will remember that I urged that there ought to be four mixed markets about the edge of the County of London, or something like that, so as to get rid of central area congestion, so that stuff could come to the perimeter and go away from the perimeter, East or West, North or South. Can the noble Lord say whether that question is now open?
LORD ST. OSWALD: Yes, my Lords. I think I can best say that by repeating the words used by my noble and learned friend Lord Kilmuir as Lord Chancellor on July 13, 1961, when he said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 233, col. 281]:
"… it is not the intention of the Minister of Agriculture to withhold his consent to the promotion of a Private Bill in Parliament by the Authority, empowering it to build the market elsewhere …"—
elsewhere, that is, than the Covent Garden area; and of course the attitude of the Government is still the same to-day.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, does the noble Lord think that about next January I shall have the pleasure of heaping coals of fire on his head?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I cannot promise the noble Lord when he will be able to heap coals of fire upon my head.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE HORTICULTURAL INDUSTRY
3.10 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, in view of the decision to dissolve the Horticultural Marketing Council, whether they will announce their proposals for the development of the Horticultural industry.]
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, the Council itself recognised that, in view of the lack of support from the industry, the Government's decision to dissolve the Council was inevitable. My right honourable friend has however already welcomed the initiative of the growers, wholesalers and retailers in expressing their intent to establish a joint consultative council which may go some way to replace the Horticultural Marketing Council. He has also noted that the National Farmers' Union intend to examine the possibility of establishing a development council for the industry.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, is it not the case that the three heads of the Government's horticultural policy—the H.M.C., which they have dissolved; Covent Garden, which will not happen, and tariffs, which they are shortly going to destroy—-have left the Government with no policy whatsoever, and the efforts which are now being started by the industry are no substitute? Will the noble Lord give an assurance that the Government will cease just trying to instruct growers how to grow their produce, and help them to find a way to distribute it at about half the cost of distribution at present?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I think that my original Answer contained my disagreement with the noble Lord's initial premise—that is to say, that the Government were left without any agricultural policy. There are two alternative hopes in the Government's mind that may bear fruit, and we are watching to see whether they are successful. It was only with great reluctance that we saw the inevitable consequence of the failure of the industry to finance this Council that made dissolution necessary.
722
It was always understood that after three years, during which it would be financed by the Government—and has been financed by the Government—the industry itself would have to continue the financing. They were unwilling to do so, and the result is that despite all the encouragement that the Government were able to give, this particular form of encouragement has failed and has come to nothing.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: Yes, my Lords, but while we might regret the result of the recent polls, which displayed little or no enthusiasm for a central council, does the noble Lord not think, in the absence of any other policy to deal with such questions as research, inquiry, advice, education and all forms of publicity, that the Government ought now to do something instead of just waiting and watching?
LORD ST. OSWALD: No, my Lords. We are pinning our hopes on these two other possibilities, and I think that that is the best attitude we can take up at the moment.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: But the noble Lord's answer is very negative. The Government are just watching. Can they not do something to help, to inspire, almost to intimidate growers, who ought to know better than they appeared to know when the last poll was taken?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I do not think we are likely to make any attempt to intimidate the growers. All the same, I think the noble Lord will concede that our original effort to give this encouragement and inspiration failed through no fault of our own. It failed through the lack of interest of the industry itself; and what we are now hoping is that one of these two new ideas will bear fruit. We will then see whether we can give further help.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: The noble Lord must not take it that I am condemning the Government for the steps they have recently taken—which, as he stated, were inevitable. But what I think the Government can do, and perhaps ought to do, is not merely to wait and watch the two new bodies that are talking about this subject, but try to inspire them to do something sensible in their own interests.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, any advice offered by the noble Lord will naturally be treated with immense respect, and I will pass it on to my right honourable friend.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am much obliged for that last answer. The noble Lord did rather object to the use by my noble friend of the word "intimidation", but Mr. Heath repeated yesterday something which was said previously to agriculture in general—that is, whether you enter the Common Market or not, the present support of agriculture is bound to come to an end. That is despite previous pledges by the Government. Does that not look like intimidation?
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I think that is a somewhat wider question than that set down on the Order Paper.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, will the noble Lord please bear in mind that the one thing the growers cannot do is to improve and cheapen the system of distribution? Will he realise that that is really the crux of the whole horticultural problem, and urge his right honourable friend to do something about that? The issue will then be all right.
LORD ST. OSWALD: In all fairness, I think I have pointed out that the efforts we made to encourage the industry to improve their methods of distribution and marketing have failed so far, due to the lack of interest of the industry, and I think we really must wait and see what they produce on their own, and then see where, if at all, we are able to help them.

BARLEY DEFICIENCY PAYMENT
3.16 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the estimated saving to the Treasury of making the final barley deficiency payment for 1961–62 in November in place of in July.]
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I am not entirely sure what the noble Lord has in mind, as the final barley deficiency payment is always made as soon as practicable after the end of the crop year, and the total payment to the farmers is not affected by the date of payment.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, why was notice not given that the Government intended to make the payment this year later than in any previous year? No notice was given to the farmers. Why was that not done? Was it purely for finance reasons; and, if so, what is the saving to the Government?
LORD ST. OSWALD: No, my Lords; it was as a result of the introduction of the premium system and the premium paid to barley growers according to the time of year at which they sell their crop. They are encouraged by this system to hold their crop so that there is provision throughout the year. That means that, whereas the returns for the deficiency payment claims were received from the merchants, the claims for the premium now have to be made by the farmers and checked against the merchants' accounts, and this is bound to take longer. I think that all farmers involved in barley growing were aware of that, and certainly there were numerous announcements and comments to this effect in the agricultural Press at the time.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: But is that not introducing a note of great unfairness to the poorer of the farmers? In fact, the poorer farmers have already paid a premium of 9d. a hundredweight, because they were bound to sell in order to meet their commitments. That was all settled fifteen months ago. Why could they not have been paid out?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I think all I can say to the noble Viscount is that the barley incentive scheme, which caused this later date for making the final payment, was freely negotiated with the Farmers' Unions after the 1961 Annual Review. Moreover, both the unions and the growers were warned through the Press of the effect of this final date of payment; and, of course, the noble Viscount is as well aware as

725
I am that this is only part of the payment. They are given a large payment on account much earlier. It is the final "totting up" payment for which they have to wait.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: What payment has been made on account in regard to the acreage subsidy?
LORD ST. OSWALD: I think I am right in saying that £6 10s. has so far been paid as an initial acreage payment.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I hear complaints from many farmers that they have not yet received anything at all for 1961–62.
LORD ST. OSWALD: I certainly have had absolutely no complaint of that nature brought to me, but I will certainly look into it. If the noble Viscount will give me instances, I will naturally look into them.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that it is the normal practice, at any rate in the agricultural industry, for interest to be charged on overdue accounts? Farmers usually have to pay interest, or forfeit a discount, if they are unable to pay their accounts at the appropriate time, and many of them use their deficiency payments—which, after all, may be in respect of barley which they have sold in the previous September or October—in order to do this. Would the noble Lord not agree that it is at least equitable, if the Treasury have been able to hold on to this money which eventually becomes due to the farmers, even though it is through no fault of their own that payment has been delayed, and as they have presumably been earning interest on it and putting it to good use, that some recompense for this delayed payment should be made to the farmers who have had to suffer?
LORD ST. OSWALD: The noble Lord is, of course, right in a certain example. Some saving was made by the Treasury as a result of this late payment. But in fact this factor in the premium system was known to farmers and was agreed by the National Farmers' Union, so I know the noble Lord is not suggesting it has come as a surprise to them; in
726
fact, nobody could seriously say it came as a surprise to them.
LORD WALSTON: In view of the fact that the noble Lord now tells me that some saving has been made, will he be good enough to answer my question and say what saving has been made?
LORD ST. OSWALD: Yes, my Lords, a saving of about £53,000 as against a total subsidy of £60 million on cereals.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Could we know on exactly what date the acreage subsidy is going to be paid?
LORD ST. OSWALD: I take it that the noble Viscount is speaking of the remaining acreage subsidy. I am afraid that I cannot give him an exact date. It will be very shortly. I am sorry not to be able to give the precise date.
LORD STONHAM: Can I help the noble Lord? I sold some land in October. 1961, and the acreage subsidy on that land was paid this month. Is that not a little long?

THE REFUGEE PROBLEM
3.22 p.m.
VISCOUNT ASTOR VISCOUNT ASTOR rose to call attention to the refugee problem in Europe, Asia and Africa; and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, it is appropriate that Parliament should consider the refugee problem as this moment because it is far enough from World Refugee Year for us to see and assess the result of that Year; and because this year the mandates of the two United Nations Commissioners who deal with refugees (Mr. Schnyder, who deals with the world refugees in general, and Dr. Davies, who deals with the refugees from Palestine) both come up for renewal in the General Assembly of the United Nations, and their future programmes and their future budgets have to be considered this year. Therefore, it is appropriate that, in looking back on the past, this country should express its opinion and, we hope, give a lead as it has done in the past on this matter.
World Refugee Year was a British initiative of which we can be proud of the British Government's having taken it up; we can be proud of the voluntary societies and, above all, of the response

727
of the British public. The global result was £35 million raised in World Refugee Year, of which £9 million was raised in this country, and of that figure £3½ million was raised in the Central Fund and the rest by the voluntary societies. The result of that effort was that the solution of the refugee problem in Europe has been brought forward by at least five years, and that is something of which we can be very proud.
The main effort was concentrated in Europe because it was a definite, limited and attainable objective. There were at the beginning of World Refugee Year a quarter of a million refugees in Europe of whom 35,000 were in official camps, but the rest, living outside camps, were often very much worse off than those in the camps. I saw this year a family with six children living in one dark room at the end of a passage in an old barracks, two elderly people of seventy living in a cellar under a street in Munich where two or three inches of water came in when rain fell; I saw a family with children living in a dark room under a barn where animals were. Those were examples of the problem and we can say with pride that it has been 80 per cent, solved because of the World Refugee Year effort. Houses and flats have been built; in each case new and clean furniture has been put in so that families start right. They have been helped with businesses, with the tools of their trade, in getting shops. Homes have been built for old people, hospitals have been built and the result is a great tribute to all concerned.
They will, of course, need counselling for some time because when people have been living a more or less gipsy life in a camp and they have to move into a flat and pay regular rent, where there are all the usual temptations to indulge overmuch in hire purchase and so forth, they sometimes run into economic problems. Help and counselling is of vital importance for at least twelve months.
Of the rest there are at least 35,000, possibly 50,000—nobody quite knows. It is a matter of great pleasure that we understand that the German Government are now going to make a final detailed survey to find out exactly how many out-of-camp refugees are still left to be dealt with. The High Commissioner hopes to
728
clear up the whole problem within the next eighteen months. It will require a sum of roughly 11 million dollars. There is still a shortfall in his budget of 4 million dollars and it has been asked that all the European countries should double their contribution for this year so as to finish this problem in eighteen months instead of letting it drag on. Because it is so much more economical, not only in financial terms but in human terms, to do these things quickly, we hope that Her Majesty's Government will respond to this appeal.
The High Commissioner is also suggesting a relatively painless way of raising money as he has persuaded leading "pop" singers of the world to join in making a record, which I am sure none of your Lordships will probably like but which apparently is what will be most popular. The money raised will depend on whether Her Majesty's Government will meet him on the matter of purchase tax on this record. Of course, the mere thought of it will make the Treasury feel they have suddenly been stung in the tail by a jellyfish. But, having said that, we hope they will take a generous attitude because in any case the Treasury will not be losing any money, since if they do not make this concession the record will not be sold at all. So there will be nothing lost. They will save what might otherwise have to be given to the High Commissioner out of general taxation. It will help the voluntary societies who, when they sell the record, will get the real profit. And, above all, if Great Britain gives an example other countries of the world follow. I hope it will be considered as favourably as possible.
I think we ought also to pay tribute to the German and Austrian Governments who have matched every contribution from international sources in the resettlement of refugees in spite of their problems with their own East Germans coming in. I think it is right we should express our appreciation of that.
Now, on the future, if this is done, there will be only what one calls the social cases of people in sickness, mentally deficients and so forth, which one can hope the countries concerned will be able to deal with with the aid of their own official services. There is still a steady trickle of refugees coming from Jugoslavia into Austria. They may be

729
young people who want to go to the Dominions, and there is no difficulty in getting visas for them to go. The only bottleneck comes in the matter of fares, which is handled by the International Committee for European Migration (I.C.E.M. for short) and I think it is important for us to ensure that I.C.E.M. is maintained in funds. The Austrians take a very liberal view and allow these people to come in so long as they go on, but they cannot afford in a small country to have a large number of refugees coming in and piling up unless their onward journey can be facilitated. If in Europe the last 20 per cent, can be cleared, it is possible that the High Commissioner will be able to redeploy his very skilled and devoted staff in other parts of the would where the problems axe immense.
There are 150,000 Angolan refugees in the Congo and almost as many in Ruanda. Probably the most difficult immediate situation is that in Algeria, where this year 180,000 refugees have been brought back from Morocco and Tunis. There are still probably 3 million people in great need there, people who, as a result of seven years' fighting, in which their villages have been razed, of their agricultural land having gone back to virgin land and their whole economy of the country being left in chaos, will need help until the first harvest can be planted and reaped and they can get going again. It would be helpful if the French Government realised that sometimes local French people on the spot have been inclined to tear down buildings when they leave, and so forth, no doubt quite against the wishes of the French Government; and if the French Government give instructions for things to be left in the best possible situation it will help a very great deal.
There are also 80,000 Tibetan refugees in India, living in great poverty and distress on the fringes of the Himalayas. They are a special community with a great spiritual and religious background; and it is important for the world and its spiritual life, if one takes an œcumenical view beyond mere Christianity, that they should maintain their culture. Up to now, the Indian Government have not invited the High Commissioner to come in, but we hope that with changing circumstances they will consider this, because the High Commissioner's repre-
730
sentative always acts as a catalyst for the work of the voluntary societies. One can always work round him and co-ordinate through him, which is difficult to do otherwise, and we sincerely hope that this will be considered.
Then, my Lords, there is the largest and most intractable question of the Palestinian refugees in the Middle East, where this country must have special responsibility because it was as a result of our policy that the situation happened. It was not through our wickedness but through our national habit of imprecision. When the phrase "a National Home for the Jews" was made, nobody really knew what a national home was. It was a phrase undefined; one side took it one way and the other side took it another and through that initial fault of lack of precision, which is a British trait sometimes, these events followed; and the end result was that one million people lost their homes and went, carrying nothing with them, into neighbouring countries, which were rather barren and in some cases overcrowded already. While in Europe it has been a question of integrating refugees into the rising economy of Europe, in the Middle East it is a question of trying to cope in a retarding economy of countries with few natural resources.
There are still about 1,200,000 Palestinian refugees. They have been kept alive by the United Nations. The Commissioner General has 30 American dollars, £11, per year per head with which to feed, house, clothe, keep alive and well from the health point of view and educate the Arab refugees. That it has been done on a budget of this nature shows the remarkable talent, devotion and skill of the High Commissioner's staff in that area. They have been kept alive on these dry rations, which are dietetically inadequate but can keep people alive, at a cost of six U.S. cents a day. There are no camps there now, in the sense of tents and barbed wire. Everybody is in some sort of hut, although some may be desperately primitive. I saw one barracks, built by the Turks in 1900 to hold 600 troops, which now holds 2,600 human beings, but they are kept alive and their health has been quite remarkable.
They are now getting six years of primary education and the High Commissioner has kept pushing on to

731
vocational training, because unless people become accustomed to the habit of work, by the time they enter their early twenties they have become unemployable. In the terrible days of unemployment before the war we saw how difficult it was for a lad who never had had a job to start working properly when he was offered a job in his late twenties. It is desperately important that we should not breed a generation of unemployables. And this can be prevented only if we give them technical education. In the past, in the Middle East, people learned trades by working on their father's farm or in their father's Shop. Now, their fathers have no land, they have no shops. They take what casual labour they can, though some, naturally, are getting jobs wherever they can. But this project of vocational training is absolutely key, unless we are going to have a generation of unemployables, a prey to every danger, whether it is Communism or crime or whatever it may be. It is a real human tragedy. They are perfectly good human material. If your Lordships saw these young people working in vocational training centres, you would be proud to have them as your own sons, or daughters.
But the budgetary situation of the High Commissioner for Arab Refugees is such that he is facing all the time steadily rising costs—for obvious reasons. He cannot economise on this tiny ration, which is only enough to keep people alive. He cannot cut down on the health service and allow epidemics. Therefore, unless his contribution from the world is substantially increased, he will have to cut down on the bare education they are getting already. Even if Governments give merely what they are giving this year, in a year or two the education will be diminished. So we have to face the fact that we must spend more on the educational side of the Arab Palestinian refugees.
The hope for the future is not in a refugee debate, to mention politics. One can only hope that statesmanlike restraint will be shown by both sides over every question, to do with water and everything else. Meanwhile, we must concentrate on the general economic development of the area. It is not so much a question of schemes for employ-
732
ing refugees. You cannot make refugees of a very poor country a privileged class. But if we can help to raise the economic level in countries like Jordan and Syria, then everybody in those countries will benefit from it. And the question that we must always put to ourselves is: Is what we are doing adequate?—not whether it is generous or good, but Does it do the job? How often before the war Governments would say that they were doing this and that on rearmament and so forth. It all sounded very nice; but unless it was sufficient to do the job of winning a war, it was useless. It is no use saying that you are giving a patient so much medicine and food unless you are giving him enough to keep him alive. That must be the only standard that we set ourselves—the standard of adequacy—for this area if we are to rid ourselves of the constant human tragedy of people who since 1948 have been living a life of misery.
Then I would refer briefly to the problem of Hong Kong, which I ventured to raise on the Address. There again over one million refugees came into an area of 400 square miles, barren, rocky, with no asset except its great harbour. In the space of one-and-a-half years in this small area there is a population greater than that of New Zealand. It has no raw materials. It has nothing but good government and, perhaps one might say, low taxation and the skill and enterprise of its population. Because this combination of Chinese and, very largely, Scots, has shown such enterprise that these people are being absorbed. There is no actual starvation. New blocks of flats containing 2,000 people are being opened every ten days, and a primary school is being opened every four days. It is an incredible effort, and as a nation we can be proud of what the British Government have done in this area.
No fewer than 102 voluntary societies are working there. But there are still 500.000 people to be housed, and still 50.000 living on rooftops. It is indeed a big problem. All hangs on the: markets for Hong Kong goods. If their goods are excluded and they cannot find markets for them no amount of charity, care parcels or effort by voluntary societies can save them from destitution and starvation. Therefore, we have no option. We cannot allow these people to

733
starve, and we cannot possibly produce enough charity to keep them alive. This is a British responsibility. We know that the Government are aware of this, and accept it.
Those, shortly, are the problems with which we are faced in the world to-day, and I could not help comparing them with the problem of Ireland mentioned in the book, The Great Hunger, that has just been published. There was then a Liberal Government in this country. There was Lord John Russell, a great Liberal Prime Minister, and the honoured name of Trevelyan at the Treasury, both men of high uprightness, integrity and high Christian principles. Yet one million people died of starvation on our neighbouring isle, and a heritage of bitterness was left which poisoned the life of this country for at least half a century. Why did it happen? I suppose it was because people did not see for themselves, and did not think of it in human terms. There is a great tendency to alibi oneself by saying: "They are lazy people who do not work"; or "They are criminal people "; or "They are not grateful for what you give them". That was always being said about the Irish, and one sometimes hears the same thing said about refugees nowadays by people who want to close their eyes to this great human problem. It is not true, of course. Considering what they have gone through, I am always staggered at the way refugee families have kept together, usually led by the mother. We do not want a future generation to look at us as we are now looking back at our forefathers who were responsible for that great Irish tragedy, and to say that we did not see things in terms of human capacity and did not make sure that what was done was not merely good, efficient and generous, but adequate for the need.
I hope that the United Nations, under British leadership, will take measures which will be adequate, and that there will not be left a human tragedy, a legacy of bitterness, but something from which we can say that our civilisation has dealt with the problem adequately and properly. I beg to move for Papers.
3.46 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, for bringing this subject of refugees again before this House. It
734
is a matter to which we have devoted a good deal of interest and to which certain noble Lords and noble Ladies have made their own special contribution. I think it is clear from what the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, said that we can take some pride, not only in this country but in this House, for the individual efforts made by Members of the House in combating this problem; and this includes not only the Lords Temporal, but the Lords Spiritual, who have also taken an active part.
I should like to pay a special tribute to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, himself. I do not know whether it is realised how much work he does and how tactfully he does it. He tricked me last year, without my knowing it, into becoming chairman of the committee that dealt with the Nansen Centenary. He has himself travelled widely, and as chairman of the Standing Conference of Refugee Organisations he is making a continuous personal contribution. I hope noble Lords will appreciate just how much the noble Viscount has done and how well qualified he is to have given this interesting and comprehensive account of the present situation.
It is right that we should look at this matter again. Events change situations, and we have moved quite a long way from the position as it was at the time of World Refugee Year, which was, as the noble Viscount said, a very special British invention and one to which the British privately made such large contributions: indeed, of the contributions that went to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees the British private contribution amounted to 44 per cent. of all the private contributions throughout the world. There are great names in this—names of bodies like Inter-Church Aid, Oxfam, which always seems to be there whenever there is trouble and starvation, the Save the Children Fund and many others. It is, I think, satisfactory that the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, is to make his maiden speech in relation to Algerian refugees, because he has been active in that field and has been in Algeria. So this is a matter upon which we can speak with some first-hand knowledge.
I am not so sure as to the record of the British Government as opposed to the British people. There was quite an

735
eloquent defence by the British Government, who said: "Why should the taxpayer pay twice? If he does it through private contribution, is that not enough?" There is considerable force in that argument. But there are certain things that we expect our Government to do. We hope they will make this contribution to popular culture which the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, suggested in regard to purchase tax. There is no doubt that this will be received with absolute horror by the Treasury. It has been one of our difficulties, in dealing with Governments, that the official mind, for very good reasons, can always find difficulties. This was apparent in the attitude at one stage of the British Government— and I do not differentiate between Parties in this matter—as opposed to certain other Governments, in regard to the admission of handicapped refugees. We had to put on tremendous pressure before they were willing to consent to the admission of some of these particularly tragic people.
The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, was quite right to refer to the work done by the German and Austrian Governments. The Austrians, in particular, a small and impoverished country, have a record that can only be described as shining in the matter of refugees of all kinds, and in particular of the Hungarian refugees. It is satisfactory to-day, remembering the Hungarian refugee problem, to know that it is so largely solved. But it indicates, of course, the extent to which these refugee problems have a way of recurring, not exactly in the same form but in new forms. We have heard today of refugees who two or three years ago never realised—and we never realised—that there was to be an uprooting and that they would have to find new homes for themselves.
All this puts responsibilities primarily on the United Nations High Commissioner. I think the High Commission's responsibilities need to be recognised again. They are, of course, primarily concerned—and, indeed, this is their mandate—with the protection of refugees who are living outside their country of nationality. Of course, those refugees who have found a home, the Volksdeutsche who have gone to Germany,
736
refugees from many of the great struggles such as Indian/Pakistan refugees at the time of the partition of India, have had to be helped by the countries who accepted them as their own people. None the less, the High Commissioner's mandate, while confined in certain respects, enables him to do extremely important co-ordination work. I should like to emphasise the point the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, made in regard to this, which was that the High Commissioner's Office is the office which provides the central organisation which is able to assist and co-ordinate and bring people together. They are concerned with problems such as the Algerian problem which, strictly speaking, are no longer their responsibility. Once they have helped to repatriate the Algerian refugees to Algeria, their work, in theory, is done. But, as they pointed out, you just cannot dump people in a country; they must be looked after. The size of the Algerian problem is still very great indeed. Quite apart from the work of the bodies like the Inter-Church Aid, Christian Action, the Friends of the Red Cross, and Oxfam, we expect the Government to make a rather bigger contribution.
I was taken to task—it may have been by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee—when I said that all the Government had done on a previous occasion was to send a little palm oil, and it was pointed out that this was none the less valuable. Now they have sent tents and a mobile canteen, and now we are asking them to give £100,000 towards the solution of the Algerian refugee problem. The other areas of the world who have recently thrown up refugees, particularly Africa, have not presented quite such intractable problems. It has been relatively easy to re-settle the refugees from Angola. It is appalling to think that there has been migration of this size. I think the actual numbers from Angola are somewhere around 150,000, and there are many refugees, again running into well over 100,000, from Ruanda. They are now in Tanganyika and Uganda, and even in the Congo. These are people who are being settled with the help once again of voluntary agents and the United Nations High Commissioner.

737
There are, of course, certain particularly intractable problems, and it is a desperate thing that we are no nearer solving the problem of the Arab refugees. At this moment I do not think it does any good blaming the Arab Governments, who preserve this problem, or Israel for perhaps not making some greater contribution towards solving it. But until these countries arrive at a political solution there will be no solution to the problem of the Arab refugee. While this goes on, U.N.R.W.A., which receives most of its finance from the United States (although the British Government makes a good contribution) also will have to go on, and I am sure that the Government will do all they can to see that this mandate is renewed for another five years. One could only wish that another five years would be enough to solve the problem, but I am afraid there is little hope of that.
The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, spoke feelingly of the problem of Hong Kong. I have seen something of the refugee situation in Hong Kong, and it is quite unthinkable that the economy of Hong Kong could be seriously disrupted. I am one of those who support our entry into the Common Market, but if there is one area we must provide for it is Hong Kong. They have produced a staggering achievement there. There is magnificent work going on, but it is important that Hong Kong itself should remain able to survive and to continue to make its own very large contribution from its own wealth which it creates towards settling these people.
There are certain problems which are of a more subtle and complicated nature. They do not relate, apparently, directly to the straight humanitarian work of raising funds and settling people, but, nevertheless, are of importance and concern to the High Commissioner's Office and should be, I would submit, of concern to this Government. We know that, thanks to World Refugee Year, we have gone a very long way towards solving the problem of the European refugees. The camps are in process of being closed, and although there are still a number of refugees waiting to foe settled we can help if the Government accept the suggestion of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and double their contribution to the High Commissioner. There is a very good
738
prospect of solving that outstanding European problem.
I should like to say something about the High Commissioner's other responsibilities. He has the responsibility of providing legal protection, and it is likely that in some form or another the United Nations High Commission for Refugees will continue for many years. In his capacity he is, of course, not merely seeking to bring relief; he is concerned with negotiation with Governments and trying to achieve justice by methods other than simple charitable help. I should like to refer to the problem of indemnification of the victims of Nazi persecution. This is something for which the Allied Governments have a responsibility. Under the Allied-German Governments' Bonn Agreement they are directly involved. The German Government has done a great deal towards redressing the crimes committed by the Nazi Government. It has paid out a great deal in indemnification, particularly to those who have been persecuted on grounds of religion or political conviction. But there are still some people who have not been catered for as thoroughly and who have, in fact, an equal moral claim to help in this respect.
The High Commissioner negotiated with the German Government an agreement, which was signed in October, 1960, which provided that refugees Who were persecuted by reason of their nationality and not merely by reason of their religion or political conviction and suffered permanent injury to at least a 25 per cent. disablement would receive compensation; and these claims are all processing. I would say that they are processing rather slowly. It is not for us to ask questions of the Government directly on this point, but it would be a good thing if they could press the German Government to take rather more rapid action.
This Agreement also provided that for refugees who were persecuted for their nationality and who suffered permanent injury amounting to less than 25 per cent. something like £4 million was made available. The United Nations High Commission is processing this and has already dealt with a large number of cases. But although this Agreement represented a big step forward it concerns only persecutees who were refugees

739
on October 1, 1953. One would say that if they were settled happily elsewhere, why should one worry about them? But, in fact, quite a number who suffered by virtue of their nationality as a result of Nazi persecution have, since 1953, become refugees. A Hungarian, for instance, who left Hungary in 1956 is not eligible at all, although morally, as a refugee who suffered at the hands of Nazi persecution, he ought to be brought within the ambit of the otherwise generous arrangements that the German Government nave made. There are about 10,000 to 15,000 such refugee persecutes, if one can use that phrase, in the world.
My Lords, there is a further point: that they do not receive compensation at the same rate; nor are the rules that affect the claims of dependants of those who died as favourable as for those who have been persecuted for political reasons. There are a number of other detailed points with which I will not weary the House. There are the problems of the non-Jewish forced labourers of Krupps and I.G. Farben, for instance, who have still not received compensation. I do not raise this matter in order to stimulate strong feelings against the German Government, but I raise it because we are becoming more closely associated with Europe. If we go into the Common Market we shall be even more closely associated, and this is a matter which I think we should now deal with: and the Government, with their special responsibility in this matter—and they have a responsibility in regard to indemnification under the Agreement I mentioned—will, I hope, make suitable representations in support of those which the United Nations High Commissioner has himself made; and we are asking the Government to give a little additional push towards achieving justice for these people.
I should like to sum up very briefly the position as I see it. Great advances have been made but many problems obviously still remain: problems which are none the less in process of being solved. We do not want to think of the problem of the refugee as something which will always be with us and that we cannot deal satisfactorily with it because, one way or another, there will always be
740
refugees. In purely individual terms, enormous achievements have been chalked up, and we would now ask the Government to consider, in reply to the appeal of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and to the suggestions that have been made, doing certain things. We should honestly like them to increase the contribution to the Algerian refugees. This is a matter of survival for these people. Undoubtedly some will die from malnutrition and others will continue to live under appalling conditions. Then, as suggested by the Council of Europe, we should like our contribution to the High Commission doubled, and I think, in a way, it is right that the Government should do this. The voluntary bodies go on raising money, but, none the less, it is not possible, I think, to ask individual citizens to make the sort of effort that they made during World Refugee Year. So we hope that the Government will themselves step up their contribution.
There is only one other point I should like to make. We need to recognise that the High Commission is a very striking example of effective international co-operation, and its work has been studied by many people to see whether it is economically and wisely run. From my knowledge of it—and I am sure the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, would bear this out—there may be a little waste here and there, but generally it is an efficiently and economically run organisation. Their problems have been quite phenomenal. Suddenly to have responsibility for 100,000 or more people landed on you overnight, having to create an organisation to deal with them, and working with many countries and many organisations, is an appalling responsibility; and it is fortunate that we have been able—and this is an encouraging thing—not only to open our hearts and purses but also to take part in setting up intelligent machinery. Their writ runs all over the world, from places as far apart as Togo and Cambodia and many places that the noble Viscount has mentioned, and this is something which is a part—and I think we should recognise this—of a world effort to deal with misery and poverty wherever it may be.
It can be argued, and it should be recognised, that the refugees are not the only people who are living in

741
appalling conditions. Obviously, there are conditions which may exist even in this country which for some individuals may be nearly as bad as for some refugees. But we are relatively privileged in this matter. There are, however, still 2,000 million people in the world who are in dire want. Of course, the voluntary agencies are heavily involved in trying to keep them alive, let alone to keep the refugees alive. But there is a special case for the refugee. He alone has been taken out of familiar surroundings which are so much more acceptable and to which people can become accustomed, and he has all the mental confusion and uncertainty and fear that the others to a great extent lack. I am sure that it would be the wish of this House that the Government and all of us should do, and continue to do, what we can for these tragic people.
4.10 p.m.
LORD SANDYS: My Lords, in rising to address your Lordships' House for the first time I would seek the indulgence Which, by custom, is so generously offered to newcomers like myself. I hope that any mistakes and errors that I may make on this first occasion will be forgiven. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, for his very kind introduction. It is true that I have worked for a period with Oxfam, and I have been (particularly concerned with the Algerian refugees since 1958, but at a very much lower level than the two earlier speakers; so my remarks this afternoon will be principally concerned with affairs as I have seen them in the field and not as a very eminent authority on the subject.
The return of some 200,000 Algerian refugees to their native land during the summer of this year did not see the end of the problem. Mr. Schnyder, the High Commissioner, and his advisers recognised at once the urgent need to continue aid until after the harvest of 1963, at the earliest, because the refugees could not just be left, abandoned, in a country devastated after eight years of war. The refugees could not go back to their villages because they had ceased to exist; farms, homesteads had been destroyed; fields mined; water supplies poisoned or destroyed, and their herds, cattle, goats and poultry, were either dead or carried off. The few fortunate
742
ones at once set to work to rebuild their villages, but the shortage of manpower and the fact that substantial areas are still covered with mines and unexploded bombs have greatly hindered the work.
It is estimated that one Algerian man in eight was killed, and many more were disabled. Sadly enough, many were disabled, due to these mines and unexploded bombs, on their return to their country. In one area of 150 family groups, for instance, there are only 20 able-bodied men. As your Lordships will readily imagine, this places a tremendous load on the women of Algeria, and it is to the women of Algeria that this newly independent State must look. There is one highly encouraging organisation with which I had personal contact in Morocco, the Foyer Feminin, an exile organisation of What is, if I may call it so, the Algerian Women's Institute. Algerian women are an extraordinarily practical and hard-working group, and they certainly will settle down to tackle these enormous problems with all the zeal and strength at their command.
A very large proportion of the 200,000 refugees are now swelling Algeria's uprooted population, the population which was pushed into the regroupment centres in the latter stage of the rebellion. Some of the refugees live on the fringes of the former regroupment centres, or drift off into urban areas in search of work. Reference has already been made to the fact that the Algerian economy is at a standstill, owing to the disappearance of foreign capital, and the unemployment problem is quite enormous. In brief, the assistance programme organised by the League of Red Cross Societies is a concentrated, in fact a highly concentrated, and very short-term one. It is hoped to supply a total of five million people. That is a curious statistic, because I have already mentioned the two million who were in the regroupment centres. But this assistance programme has been to some extent expanded, and it is hoped that it will cover nearly half the population of Algeria during these winter months. There are great difficulties of transport and communication, and with supervision and distribution. But, thanks to the work of the Algerian Red Crescent. I feel we may have confidence that they will overcome many of these problems.

743
The assistance programme is aimed primarily towards defeating the tremendously widespread malnutrition among young children, particularly those in the group between six months and a year. These children have had no milk at all, and it is therefore of tremendous importance that milk supplies and milk distribution centres, which are part of the programme, should be set up and that milk should flow freely throughout the winter. The supply of milk is an absolute life-saver, as is very well known and practised in many refugee spheres. It is the milk, no doubt, that will carry the Algerian children through these winter months.
The supply of milk will also help the measures against tuberculosis. There is a very high incidence of tuberculosis, particularly among children; and it is a sad comment that French doctors working in Algeria before 1954 said to themselves, "Why cure a tuberculosis child at the age of six if he may die at the age of 30 from starvation?" While that comment may be one with which we heartily disagree, nevertheless there is a great problem there. There is dysentery; and there are all the eye diseases which are familiar names in the Middle East— trachoma and so on. The field reports from Algeria have recently indicated that children are very unwilling, even at distributions, to take their hands away from their eyes, when offered a glass of milk, so great is the problem of trachoma. A State Registered Nurse, working in the Tlemcen area, states in a letter received last week:
"If only we had eyedrops and eye ointment we could do very much here. The primitive people cannot understand that tablets taken through the mouth could affect the eyes."
In a population of 10 million there are estimated to-day to be only approximately 800 trained doctors; and despite urgent appeals for French-speaking doctors from other countries very few are now available, owing to the fact that they have been called to the Congo emergency. There is a tremendous need for mobile medical teams and dispensary teams, and for all forms of medical worker, whether nurses or semi-skilled medical staff. The lack of skilled Algerians is most keenly felt throughout all the professions, but particularly, I
744
think, among the teachers. To go towards meeting this need of the teaching profession a British organisation, Voluntary Service Overseas, is arranging to send six young volunteers in the very near future, young men with the proper facilities and qualifications, who will go into the field; and their task will be an extremely important one. But of course many more are needed.
I feel that the whole of the assistance programme as outlined indicates the real need for international help, and for international help now. The two earlier speakers, far more eloquent than myself, will, I hope, have persuaded Her Majesty's Government to increase contributions. The earlier ones of palm oil and 500 tents, and the jeep, to which the noble Lord, Lord Shacklton, has referred, were greatly appreciated. But they are not enough. The League of Red Cross Societies says that the next six months in Algeria has become one of its greatest challenges, and I feel sure that the good wishes of this House will go out to the League and all its workers, with our hopes that their plans will be put into sound effect in the course of these winter months.
4.21 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, the first thing I should like to do is, on your Lordships' behalf, to give our warmest congratulations to the noble Lord who has just sat down after making one of the most interesting maiden speeches which has been made in this House for a long time. Your Lordships are always extremely appreciative of people when they talk on a subject they really know about, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, has given good evidence of that. I am sure I am right in saying that we hope we shall hear a great deal more of him in future, not necessarily on the same rather tragic subject on which he has spoken to-day, but on other subjects, and that he will be a constant contributor to your Lordships' discussions.
We must be grateful to the noble Viscount for having put this Motion on the Order Paper. There are just one or two points I should like to raise in connection with what has already been said. I was reading the Report of the United Nations Commissioner on Refugees, and I was pleased to see that he feels now that the number of refugees dating from

745
the time of the war has been reduced to such proportions that he can at last begin to see some way of coping with it in the comparatively near future. In spite of that, the figures that he quotes certainly seem large, and one trusts that he is not being too optimistic in the matter to which he is referring. When he deals with refugees in Europe I think that he is probably correct. But the position, as has already been pointed out by several noble Lords (I do not want to go into too much detail), has been further complicated by the addition of a large number of refugees who have taken refuge in countries in Africa during the past few months.
I am very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, went into the Algerian question at such great length. I should like, in a humble fashion, to support what he said about the need now not to feel that, because the war has finished and the refugees are going back home, the work is done. They are going back to a cold, poor, uncomfortable country, and they will want just as much done for them when they go back to their country—because their country will not be able to do much itself—as when they were refugees in Morocco or in Tunis. Indeed, by a curious irony of fate it looks almost as if some of them might have been better taken care of when they were refugees. I have read an account of what was done for these people by the United Nations and by the League of Red Cross Societies. They were at least given—I will not say a very good diet, but enough food to keep body and soul together; they were given clothing and shelter, and some of the children certainly got milk and some form of education. So I hope that the plight of these people will not be forgotten.
When one comes to the problem in Europe, one finds that the number of people in camps has fallen considerably during the last twelve months—it is now about 8,550. There were two comments by the Commissioner which I thought most constructive and interesting. One was that the fact that a large number of people had been returned to some kind of home, and therefore had left the camps, had had a most stimulating effect upon the refugees in the camps; it made them feel less apathetic than they were, and made them easier to rehabilitate and, to a certain extent, more
746
willing to co-operate in their own resettlement. Supposing that can occur, surely that is a great encouragement to come in now and to get these camps completely and finally finished before that stimulation dies away, as I am sure it will if nothing is done to keep it alive. Furthermore, the Commissioner said that the amount of assistance required to restore the courage of these refugees was not really very great, particularly among those who came from some sort of professional class or had had some kind of education in their former life. It did not require a great deal to get them back into being co-operative people, provided that they were given the chance in the first place.
One question that I raised before, in the debate, I think in 1960, upon World Refugee Year, was what was to become of those few people who were disabled and handicapped by mental or physical sickness. In that connection, I commented, I think, possibly rather unkindly, about the smailness of the number of handicapped people who were being admitted not only into the United Kingdom but into other countries as well. It seems to me to be particularly unfortunate, when I think that the disease from which most of these people suffer is pulmonary tuberculosis, or, if not tuberculosis of the lungs, tuberculosis of some other part of their body. It seems such a tragedy that that should be held against them, when one has seen from the figures published over the last ten, fifteen or twenty years, that tuberculosis is a disease which can now be controlled far more easily than we thought was possible. It is not that terror that we thought it was in the nineteenth century. It is a serious disease, but it is one that we can cope with. It is one's hope that there will not be objection raised that, because some of these unfortunate, handicapped refugees are suffering from tuberculosis, it will count against them when the question of their resettlement arises.
The same point, I think, applies to the refugees coming from Hong Kong. I saw in the same Report that about 300 refugees coming from China were physically handicapped. They were sent to some other country from Hong Kong. I should like to join the two noble Lords who have spoken in paying

747
a tribute to the enormous amount of work that the people of Hong Kong have done in taking care of this appalling influx of refugees. I did not know Hong Kong at the time of these refugees' arrival, but I was there in 1947, when the place was being rebuilt after the troubles of the Japanese occupation. It seemed to me then that the town was pretty full and that there was not a greait deal more room for a great many more people. It is astounding that they have been able to absorb so many people, and therefore anything one can possibly do to encourage them and to help them, from the point of view of trade and to keep their economy going, I am sure we should do.
My Lords, before I sit down I should like to refer to one sad thing that I saw in The Times newspaper this morning. It was that the Israeli Government had decided to refuse to admit into their country people from refugee camps. Whether or not that is true, I do not know; I am merely quoting from The Times. But I think that all this does show what a terrible burden of ill-will can be built up. I think I am right in saying that there was a time, some four or five years ago, when the Israeli Government offered to collaborate with the Arab countries in doing something about these refugee camps, and their offer was turned down with indignation and scorn. When one thinks that those unfortunate refugees were beguiled from their homes by tales that did not turn out to be correct, it makes one more sad to think that such a terrible state of affairs in the Middle East is still going on at the present moment.
My Lords, one body which is doing marvellous work in the care of refugees, both in this country and in foreign countries, is the Red Cross. I have been associated for a long time with the work of the Red Cross, and I should like to draw to your Lordships' attention what magnificent efforts they themselves put in when these crises occur. If it were not for a body such as the Red Cross, I do not know what would happen to these unfortunate people. What we must do now is to tidy up as much of the refugee problem as we possibly can, because as sure as I stand in front of your Lordships now more refugees will
748
come in the future. They may be made homeless and desolate by act of God or the furies of nature—I do not know. More likely, they are going to be made refugees by the permanent imbecility of man, who does all he possibly can to make life uncomfortable for so many people living in this world. Unless we find some solution to that situation, we are not going to see the end of the refugee problem.
4.32 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, before taking my seat in your Lordships' House I served for seventeen years as an officer in the Royal Navy, the Service renowned for its silence. As you see, I am now a minister in a profession that is sometimes dreaded for its verbosity. I hope your Lordships Will forgive me if I do not quite manage to keep my balance. I have broken my silence because I thought that it might be of interest and value for you to hear from someone who is not so much dealing with the great global figures and strategy about which we have heard this afternoon, but who has the duty of handling the concern and the compassion felt for refugees in quite an ordinary town of England with a population of just under 20,000 people, and of doing what he can to acknowledge this concern and compassion and turn it into effective action.
My Lords, you hear and read only too much about the divisions in the Church and of the High and the Low parties in the Church of England. I myself believe that these controversies are dying, and I think most of us are now engaged in the more profitable occupation of reaching out towards unity with other denominations. However, here in the field of service to (refugees, the Church is united and can be seen to be united. I am, in fact, a curate in the church of England, but I am proud to be speaking to your Lordships now on behalf of the whole church of my town—on behalf of every single congregation in the place, combined and acting together in the service of refugees. I believe that there are a thousand or so other towns or villages in the country which are so organised and so united, and it is very encouraging to find the support which a united Church can command from the public, and the support which a united Church

749
can offer to the needy—the refugees among them—throughout the world.
Five years ago the Christian Aid Service of the British Council of Churches decided to set aside one week each May, Christian Aid Week, with the object of focusing the attention of the public upon problems such as the needs of the refugees and the needs of the hungry. The first of these Weeks in 1958 evoked a response from the public at large, Christians and non-Christians alike, amounting to £80,000. The latest of these Weeks this year, in 1962, evoked a response of over £500,000—a sevenfold rate of increase in five years. I thought, as I listened last week to the economic debate in your Lordships' House, that this is a rate of growth which "Nick" and "Neddy" could quite well envy.
My Lords, the contribution to this £500,000 in my own town of Harpenden, in Hertfordshire, last May was £2,500. And I should like, by way of illustration, to try to set this figure in perspective. On the one hand, it is worth noting that it is a larger amount than all the other voluntary collections made over the year put together—almost double the Poppy Days, Red Cross collections, and so on. This both illustrates and reinforces what I have said as to the sort of support that a united and purposeful Church can command. On the other hand, we have to note that this town in which I serve, a town of just under 20,000 people, which offered £2,500 a year towards this particular cause (which in fact amounts to 3s. 6d. a head) is a town which is also at the same time raising £20 a head in rates for its own schools, swimming pools, fire engines, police, and so on—all of which are already of a very high standard. I quote this £20 a head in rates because this can be calculated fairly accurately. But, of course, rates are only a small proportion of what we are spending on ourselves, nationally and individually, year by year, and 3s. 6d. a head for this great problem of help to refugees and to the hungry all over the world is a really shameful and minute fraction of our total spending.
But, of course, what can be done, and what is being done, up and down the country to assist refugees is not confined to support by bulk funds of this sort alone. I should like to mention to your
750
Lordships two other methods which are within my experience. First of all, there are the adoption groups for refugee families—by which I mean the adoption of a refugee family, where it exists, by a group of people in this country. To my knowledge we have within the whole Church in my own town, taking all denominations together, eleven such families that we have adopted, spread over Austria and Germany. These are being cared for by groups of people of different denominations all over the town, and by this means some small part of this great global problem can be brought down to dimensions which individual people can understand and handle. A personal relationship is built up here that is permanent. These refugee families, even when they have been set on their feet, have friends in England who I hope and trust will now be friends for life.
The second field I should like to commend especially from experience—and in this I would support what my noble friend Lord Sandys has already said—is the organisation already well known to many of your Lordships, Voluntary Service Overseas, an organisation which does a great deal for our young people, and which enables our young people to do a great deal for the rest of the world. At this moment we have three young people—we have had in the past many more—serving refugees overseas voluntarily. We have one girl from a secondary modern school working in a refugee camp in Austria; one boy, who has just left Lancing, working in a large resettlement camp for 5,000 Ruandan refugees; and another girl—this one from a grammar school—in Simla, where she is looking after a nursery of 20 four-year-old Tibetan orphan refugees. All this is valuable, my Lords, but the point is, how can we do more?—because I am sure it is not enough.
I should just like to make one or two suggestions. Where we can, let us try to reduce the appeal to the emotions. It is very easy to make people want to weep about these problems. But let us rather concentrate on publicising in the most effective way we can, not so much what the problem is but the way in which it is being solved, the projects that are actually in hand, to help people to see that

751
the plight of these refugees is not one of hopeless despair but is one which can be solved. People are, quite rightly, much more prepared to put their weight behind a programme, however costly, once they are convinced that it is viable. I believe that the response to having a collecting box pushed at you with a pitiful poster on it is more often than not a response designed to stop oneself from being bothered with the problem any more. At any rate, fox what it is worth, the churches in my own town try to do without this appeal to the emotions. We concentrate on publicising this problem and trying to educate the public in the ways in which it can be solved. We need much more positive publicity and better education of the public in this matter, and I am very pleased to know, as I understand it, that the Freedom from Hunger Campaign is proceeding on this basis.
On publicity, I have nothing but praise for the local Press as I know it, but I must confess some disappointment at the national Press. I do not know very much about the Press, and perhaps some other noble Lord who does can say exactly what the difficulties are. I am thinking, for example, of the recent earthquakes in Iran, which created a large number of refugees overnight. The national Press covered the sensational features of this disaster very adequately, and they also covered the splendid and encouraging flow of aid that followed immediately afterwards. But what has happened since, though less sensational, I think in the long run is more significant. The Christian Church in Iran is a tiny minority group, constantly harried by its Moslem compaitriots and deprived of the full rights of citizenship. But now the Church there, this tiny, outlawed band, has, with the help of Christian aid from churches all over the world outside Persia, been able to undertake the complete rebuilding of Estamabad—one of the villages destroyed by this earthquake—and has been enabled to rehabilitate entirely the inhabitants, complete with all their pots and pans and possessions. The story Of this very significant and heartwarming outcome was, I believe, given to the Press, but so far as I know has not yet been published.
My Lords, I have taken up enough of your time. I would end only with the
752
reflection that this debate, as well as previous debates on this subject, has shown that when we have learnt to create and to maintain prosperity for ourselves, we have only really just begun the job that challenges us, and that is of learning to share it properly when we have got it.
4.46 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. ALBANS:My Lords, it is my very pleasant duty and privilege on your behalf, and on my own, to congratulate the noble Lord on his maiden speech which he has just made. I congratulate him with two reasons specially in mind. I welcome his careful and thoughtful speech and his constructive proposals, and I am in a position to speak on his good work in the diocese of St. Albans. I know he speaks to us from his heart, and his heart is in this work of Christian aid and with the refugees. I hope, my Lords, that he will often address us again and make a constant contribution to this House.
I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, for a memorable speech and for bringing before us the needs of refugees in this post-World Refugee Year. It is not for me to go over the ground he has already covered about the position in Europe, but I should like to say something about work as I saw it earlier this year in the Middle East, in Jordan. I was in that country for a short time and saw some of the million refugees who are registered with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. My Lords, we talk of the teen age problem in this country, and face the future with apprehension. In Persia there are about half a million Arab refugees under 18 years of age. Of the other half million, three out of four have grown up as refugees, and between 30,000 and 35,000 children are born to these refugees every year.
I spent some time visiting settlements, seeing the work of the Near East Christian Council Refugee Committee, and meeting just a few of the welfare workers. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, explained about the £11 a head from the United Nations High Commissioner. I could get only a quick first impression to see how this £11 per head per year was spent, but it was enough to see what could be done by intelligent planning and good co operation; to see a measure of hope kept

753
alive and sustained among people uprooted from their homes, who would otherwise face a terribly bleak future. Children were being fed with powdered milk, medical skills were available on a limited scale, trained community advice was at hand, and communities were reorganising themselves in the villages I saw. I am not saying that this provision was adequate; I am saying that I saw heroic work being done by relief workers, and work done in that spirit does something to build up the community.
The position in Hong Kong has already been referred to. Remarkable work has been done at the receiving end; and I would add my tribute to the lead given by the Government and to the outstanding work of Christians in Hong Kong. Just how desperate is the position in Hong Kong may be illustrated by a story I heard a day or two ago of two Chinamen so determined to reach the Colony that one came down a water-pipe hoping to find a manhole for his escape before he was drowned, and the other travelled in a refrigerator van, trusting he would not be frozen to death before the van reached the Colony. I hope, my Lords, that on that journey there were no traffic jams.
Much has been said about the position in Algeria, and I am sure that the vivid picture painted by the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, of the position in that land will remain with us. I want to go further South, and think of what I saw in Africa when I was there earlier this year. I visited Uganda and saw some of the 150,000 refugees driven from Ruanda Urundi owing to the unrest in that country since the Belgians left. I went into some of the camps, and I should like to pay my tribute to the speed, intelligence and imagination with which the Uganda Government has acted and made use of the powers put at its disposal by the United Nations. The Africans I met had been settled together. They came from a fail in Ruanda, and they had been found a settlement on the same plot of ground in a Uganda valley—and the difference it made to them to be surrounded by their neighbours was quite unmistakable. I do not forget going into an African hut, with its frame of poles and its thatch of grass, and wondering at the skill and delicacy of the Africans who had constructed it, for
754
that workmanship compared with a wren's nest, and its design would have won it a place in the Design Centre in the Haymarket; and hut after hut was clean.
The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, has referred to the standard of subsistence provided for these refugees by that appeal. Meagre though it was for the refugees, it meant that their standard of living was almost above that of the surrounding tribes. But if these skills are are not to run to waste, if children are to be educated, if hospitals are to be provided and if there are to be churches where these Africans, the majority of them Christians, can worship, then their claim on us for our attention, to use the word in the noble Lord's Motion, and for our active support, must be pressed.
My Lords, I submit that this appeal, five weeks before Christmas, is very well timed, and I hope it will do something to rouse the people of this country once again to support the work of the chief voluntary relief agencies. By far the greatest amount of such help is being given by such agencies, and without them the work could hardly continue. I know some of those who are employed in these agencies as full-time workers, and I know the cost in terms of physical and nervous exhaustion, the spiritual demands made on them and the test of working too long hours in trying circumstances. I should like to pay my very warm tribute to these people, be they Christians or humanists, for their splendid services.
As a churchman, may I put in a special word of praise for Inter-Church Aid and its field representatives in every country all over the world where there is need; praise for its efforts in keeping our interest going, and at a time when church reunion is going forward but, for various reasons, moves slowly? I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has said. How encouraging it is when we find congregations working together; every congregation in a town united in support of this cause! Here Christians join and present a united front for the sake of those who are the world's outcasts, and here also all serve their brothers, regardless of race or creed.
Just two more points, my Lords. I wonder whether there is not some overlapping, some unnecessary competition, among these different agencies. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, is, I believe,

755
chairman of a co-ordinating committee, and I have no doubt that such a committee does valuable work; but I wonder whether its terms of reference allow it to scrutinise and, where necessary, discourage new agencies when it has reason to believe they are crowding the field and their credentials are not all that they should be. I submit that someone should hold a watching brief, for this work among refugees is likely to continue for years and we should see that the money goes to the refugees and that none of it is used to maintain unnecessary persons and plant in England.
There is no mention of Her Majesty's Government in the noble Viscount's Motion, and I am glad he so worded it, for our appeal should be first to individuals, and thousands of individuals will, I know, respond this Christmas to the Inter-Church Aid appeal. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, when he was speaking in the debate in your Lordships' House on World Refugee Year in February, 1960, referred to the line that had often been taken by Government spokesmen. It was descriptive, appreciative, analytical, and gave little encouragement to those who hoped the Government would free as much money as we can afford, and not just sufficient to compare favourably with other countries. At present, the United Kingdom normally contributes the sum of £100,000 towards resettling European refugees. When we contrast this with the millions spent on space research and the millions spent, and the money sometimes wasted, on our independent nuclear deterrent, it seems to many of us an entirely unworthy contribution; and I endorse the appeal by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that it should be reconsidered.
My Lords, we see this running sore of refugees weakening country after country; we see nation after nation where individuals respond to the need and year after year give more than they can afford; and we ask the Government to think again about their contribution, for if it were doubled, if £200,000 were available for Europe and more aid were given to Algeria and Hong Kong, then despair would surrender to hope in places where despair has too long been in power.
4.59 p.m.
LORD DULVERTON: My Lords, it is with trepidation that I venture to speak to your Lordships this afternoon on a subject on which I am far from being as well informed or up to date as other noble Lords who are here to-day. But having had some slight experience of the problem of the plight of refugees in the Middle East, and in parts of Africa, I feel that it is worth while to make this venture, for which I pray your Lordships' indulgence.
Whether or not the existing pattern of the relief work of the United Nations is to continue unaltered, it is unthinkable that so great a work of humanity should be left aside when it is far from being complete: and I am sure that it will not be left aside, for there can be little doubt that this work is one of the greatest and most positive exemplifications of the workings of international conscience that history has provided. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Astor for giving me the opportunity of airing some thoughts to-day. I cannot speak with the deep and wide information which he possesses, and I wish to confine myself to some thoughts about the Palestine refugees in the Middle East, partly because I have some knowledge of their case at first hand and partly because theirs is a special problem. All the other refugee communities who are looked after by the United Nations come under the care of the High Commission for Refugees. As your Lordships know, it is the separate organisation of U.N.R.W.A. that looks after the special problem of the Palestine refugees.
Fifteen years ago these million people fled from their native Palestine and took refuge in the neighbouring countries of Syria, the Lebanon, Jordan and in the Gaza Strip. For the last thirteen of those years U.N.R.W.A. has been looking after them, giving them shelter, food and medical care; and now, in addition, it has taken on the educational task. U.N.R.W.A. set out to resettle these people and now, after fifteen years, it still has over one million people on its books. Naturally, these are not all the same people. A great many of them have found work and have become settled. A great many have died, but, as we have heard this afternoon, a great many have been born—in fact, over half

757
the, number is made up of children under sixteen years of age who have known nothing but the inside of a refugee settlement.
The reasons for this are explained very lucidly in the Report of the Commissioner-General for U.N.R.W.A. for the present year, and it makes tragic reading. People ask, "Why are there still one million people relying on the bounty of the United Nations?" I have heard the question asked in the Middle East, and I have heard it asked in this country. Have the United Nations really done all they can to try to get the problem of resettlement solved? Have the host countries co-operated to the full? What of the refugees? Have they exerted themselves as much as they could to help themselves? It is good that some answer should be given to these questions. There is nothing so destroying for a man as to live endlessly on bounty, even if the bounty is only 1,500 calories a day and the drab circumstances of the camp which the United Nations is able to provide. So it is for the good of the refugee himself, apart from other considerations, that these questions should be asked.
It has been possible for refugees to be settled, and to play an active and useful part in the life of many host countries. But there are three factors Which must all militate together if this happy state of affairs is to be the outcome. The first is the refugees themselves: their nature and their ability, and, perhaps just as important, their attitude of mind. Secondly, there is the factor of politics, the circumstances, and the outlook of the host country and of neighbouring countries, and thirdly, there is the factor of resources, both natural and economic. Of the million Palestine refugees, approximately 30 per cent, were urban people with urban skills. The remaining 70 per cent. were mainly agricultural and peasant people. The urban people have found jobs, or launched out into businesses of their own, and many of them are very successful, and it is mainly the agricultural people and their progeny who are the present problem. In the meantime they are being affected by apathy and by the lowering of morale which is inevitable in the life they are leading. Further, there is throughout the Middle East a strong sense of injustice over the Palestine question, and this feeling is very much alive in the refugee
758
settlements. It is also alive in the host countries themselves, a fact which militates strongly against finding a large-scale solution to the problem.
However, it is the third factor, the factor of resources, on which I should like to expand. Over half of these refugees are located in the very small kingdom of Jordan. Jordan is an extremely poor country, striving almost desperately to find ways and means of expanding her own economy. She has no oil deposits, or if she has oil, it has not yet been located. The two basic industries of the country are the exploitation of phosphate deposits, and potash deposits, used for fertiliser, but neither of these two could absorb labour on a scale that would make any significant impression on the refugee problem inside that country.
Jordan's agriculture could be expanded; and it is vital to her that it should be. This is the subject which is most suited to those refugees who are still unsettled, but all the land which is capable of dry or non-irrigated farming is already occupied by indigenous farmers. Much of the rest of the land of Jordan is extremely fertile chemically. I had an analysis carried out by an agricultural chemist in this country only the other day on behalf of a farmer in Jordan who was making a pioneering exploitation on the desert tundra. The analysis gave good results in all the chemical ingredients of the soil necessary for high farming, but all the land that is not as yet developed for agriculture needs irrigation. Under irrigation it would doubtless become highly productive, but not only is water scarce in that country, as everybody knows; it requires a great deal of capital and a lot of time to win it.
There are only two prominent water courses in Jordan, the rather small Yarmuk river, which is already being harnessed and will produce a useful irrigation scheme in the Jordan Valley, and there is the Jordan itself, but this is threatened with large-scale abstraction and even possibly diversion by the Israelis. There are other possible sources of water. There is underground water in plenty in some parts of the country and this can be tapped by boreholes, and a great deal could be done, I feel, about the conserving of surface water. At the moment, every time there is a storm of

759
rain, the bulk of the water which falls runs headlong down the wadis, taking much of the soil of Jordan with it down to the sterile Dead Sea.
A start is being made by pioneering individuals and through Government agencies to do something about these two water supplies, but the start that has now been made is a long way behind where the Romans left off, some 2,000 years ago, and it will take a long time for any significant change to be brought about in the tundra which comprises the bulk of the country. Then there are the Bedouin, to whom that country belongs, and who are becoming aware of the twentieth century. They will be eager for taking over any developments that may be made. They are becoming aware of how outdated is their own precarious pastoral way of life.
I hope that I have suggested to your Lordships' minds that, whereas the bulk of refugees are of agricultural stock and whereas Jordan could do with her agriculture being expanded, the possibilities of getting these two projects tackled is not very easy and could not be done immediately. To contrast this with a simple example, not without its own tragedies, I was out in Africa last December just after several thousands of Ruanda refugees had crossed into the Tanganyika territory. These, too, are agricultural people and through the co-operation of the Tanganyika authorities and the United Nations, with the help of Oxfam, these refugees were being given not only relief but also bags of seed, homes and small plots of fertile land. By the end of the next growing season, these people will be self-supporting.
But there is no such simple solution for the Palestinian refugees. The Commissioner General's highly informed conclusion in his Report this year is that it is fruitless and impracticable for his organisation any further to pursue their original intent of sponsoring large-scale resettlement schemes for the refugees. What he says, in effect, is, "I cannot go on with the task of trying new settlement. Under the circumstances that prevail, it is useless. All I can do is to keep these people alive and to educate a few younger ones, pending the possibilities, as yet unforeseen, of an improvement in opportunities." That is a tragic conclusion for him to come to.
760
In Europe and in other parts of the world, as we have heard this afternoon, there are possibilities of some refugee problems being solved completely, and it is worth while to back up the task of the High Commissioner to the full, to redouble our efforts, for the satisfaction of getting these tasks completed. But let us not give up the task of supporting U.N.R.W.A. The Commissioner General, in pleading for an extension of U.N.R.W.A.'s mandate, gives the following figures. He wishes to budget in future years on 39 million dollars, of which 36 million, he hopes, will come from contributing Governments. That is about the level of expenditure as it has been running recently. Of that, 27½ million dollars has been contributed by the United States and about 6 million dollars, or £2·2 million, has been contributed by the United Kingdom Government. I hope that we shall have no hesitation in bearing our share of this continuing burden. We have our responsibility in the circumstances of the Palestinian refugees, and the remark able thing is that, despite the circumstances, we still have our friends among them.
I wish to return to one earlier point. I am convinced that there is room for expansion of agricultural practice and particularly of irrigation agriculture in Jordan. Much of the foreign aid money which is going into Jordan, including our own, is going into unproductive channels. By saying "unproductive", I do not mean that they are unworthy channels, but there is scope for productive work in the direction of agriculture, which I feel may contribute something towards the economy of Jordan itself and also contribute towards the eventual solution of the impasse described by the Commissioner General of U.N.R.W.A. I am grateful to your Lordships for bearing with me during these few minutes and for giving me this opportunity of saying what I sincerely believe.
5.19 p.m.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, it is my pleasant duty to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dulverton, on his excellent maiden speech. I am near enough in time to my own maiden speech to remember what a frightening occasion it was, and I think we must all acknowledge that the noble Lord has come through this

761
ordeal with flying colours. It is always agreeable, I think, for this House to listen to someone who is an acknowledged authority on his own subject, and I am sure that in future we shall at any rate occasionally hear him in our debates.
I think that we must all be very grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, for initiating this debate. Of course, everybody knows how well and how successful he has worked in England in the cause of these unfortunate refugees and the great part he played in the extraordinary successful results of World Refugee Year. He has told us to-day of his recent experiences, and it is interesting to note that the situation in Europe is now much better; that it is at least no worse in the Middle East; and that it is, at any rate, provisionally under control in Hong Kong, thanks to the splendid efforts of the local administration.
I think that another person whom we certainly ought to congratulate is the High Commissioner for Refugees, the extension of whose mandate for another five years will shortly come up in the General Assembly of the United Nations. I sincerely hope—and in this I join other noble Lords who have voiced the wish—that this extension will be granted. From what I hear, the way in which the High Commissioner has conducted his work, and more especially perhaps the way in which he has grappled with refugee problems when they have reached a critical stage, is worthy of all praise. I am sure also that we should congratulate his very worthy predecessor, Mr. Lindt. We can only hope, therefore, that Mr. Schnyder's mandate will be renewed, and that by the end of his second term of five years the situation in other parts of the West will have been liquidated in the same way as the situation in Europe, which, after all, only a few years ago still seemed to be of quite alarming dimensions.
There is, I think, a tendency, as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said, for us to assume that the refugee question, like the poor, will aways be with us. It is said that there are new problems, as I understand it, in Angola, Uganda, Ruanda and as regards Tibet and India. But all these recent problems seem to me to be soluble. They are not on any tremendous scale, as I think we gathered from the remarks of the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Sand-
762
ford, who also made an excellent maiden speech. We can also note with a certain amount of satisfaction that the Algerian problem has at least been temporarily solved as a problem of refugees, though obviously a vast amount of work still remains to be done for the simple relief of suffering in Algeria. But, in general, all refugee situations are the result of political earthquakes, and it certainly cannot be guaranteed that there will not be similar earthquakes in the next few years; at least, we shall be very lucky if there are not.
The Middle Eastern problem is, in theory at any rate, much more difficult to solve, because of the underlying political issue. But I understand (I think the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, told me this) that there is at least some prospect of integrating some of the refugees into the society in which they live, provided no attention is drawn to this process, and, more especially, perhaps, of allowing refugees unofficially to engage in some kind of remunerative and productive work.
I am told that the High Commissioner has adopted the very sound tactics of making a modest contribution to a given scheme in order to promote a larger contribution from international organisations or from voluntary agencies. I am told, also, that he has put forward admirable proposals for dealing with refugees in Europe, when the classical refugee problem, so to speak, has come to an end, as it has nearly come to an end at the moment. I believe that he is now expecting to close down all the refugee camps on the Continent and to resettle the remaining out-of-camp refugees (I heard that they amount to some 25,000, but the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, told me it is something like 35,000 or more) by the end of 1963, if, of course, he can get the necessary money. But it looks as if for this purpose he will need at least 6 million dollars, and quite possibly more; and if he is to get this sum, contributor Governments will have at least to double their normal contributions. This in our case, as I understand it, would mean another £100,000, making £200,000 in all.
I must say that I sincerely hope the Government will be able to take on this comparatively small liability. After all, we must consider that if the effort to

763
liquidate the whole problem in Europe is successful, there will obviously be a tapering off of our financial liabilities. There are other claims, of course, on the Government in this sort of direction, such as the world food programme, the Freedom from Hunger Campaign, and the various United Nations programmes of technical co-operation and so on. But £200,000 is really not very much, and, in the long run, as I have said, it might even prove to be an economy.
Finally I should like to say a word or two about Hong Kong, here again with the object of reinforcing what the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, said. The great thing about Hong Kong seems to me to be the extraordinary enterprise and self-reliance of the Colony itself. It is in the general interests of the Western world that this object lesson in the virtues which we like to think underlie our own society should continue. It seems to me that the essential thing here is for us to obtain terms for our entry into the European Economic Community which will give some assurance that this state of things will be likely to continue. The Six, for their part, surely, should seriously consider what would be the likely effect in the East if Hong Kong fell by the wayside, and, consequently, what repercussions this might have on European trade generally. I have no doubt that the Lord Privy Seal will argue strongly to this effect, but he might like to feel, as I am sure is the case, that he has this House firmly behind him in all the efforts he may make to this end. In any case, as I understand it, Hong Kong does not, and indeed could not, distinguish between refugees and the population of the Colony itself. Therefore, quite clearly, the refugee problem in Hong Kong depends on the ability of the Colony to remain self-supporting.
That is all I have to say on this most important problem, the treatment of which, on the whole, seems to me to be, so far as the Western world is concerned, rather on the credit side, chiefly perhaps because there is not in it, to any notice able extent, any element of cold war. It remains true, however, that a steady further effort is still necessary, and I can only hope that when and if we debate this subject next year there will be further signs of great improvement.
5.28 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, for not being here when he opened this discussion, but he knows that he changed the date at rather short notice and I found it difficult to rearrange my engagements. I want to speak quite briefly and to ask a few questions. I can assure the noble Earl who is to reply that I shall not ask him to answer these questions in detail now, but will be quite happy if he will give the answer in writing if he has not the information with him at this moment. First of all, a noble Lord on the other side of the House said that we must not approach this subject in an emotional way. I think it is impossible to divest oneself of any emotion when discussing this tragic matter.
There are one or two practical questions which must arise. The whole country has been involved in what is known as Refugee Year, and I think all noble Lords here will agree that very fine men and women up and down the country have devoted their time and effort to collecting money. First of all, I want to ask a most practical question. The noble Earl may refer me to some book, but I cannot find this clearly set out. I should like to know exactly what percentage of the money collected and, indeed, of the money which is directed to refugee camps is used for administrative purposes. I should like to have these figures, if I could, set out in such a way that they deal with each camp separately. I think we should know that.
Secondly, I come to the question of the camp that has been mentioned before by the noble Lord, Lord Dulverton, and one which I know well, and that is the camp of Arab refugees in Jordan. I went there in 1957. What I should like to know is how the picture presented by the High Commissioner for Refugees to-day compares with the picture which I saw in 1957. I have listened to many of the speeches here, and I find it very difficult to understand why, if the position in Europe has improved so much, the conditions in, let us say, Jordan are still very much the same as they were in 1957. There are, I think, over 1 million Arab refugees, 500,000 of whom are in Jordan, in a

765
place which is hundreds of feet below sea level; where the conditions for life can be regarded only as deplorable; and where one sees misery, hopelessness and a measure of destitution.
I have examined these figures, and I find that, when it comes to feeding these people, the amount of calories—it is calculated in calories—which they are given to-day is 1,500 per head per day in the summer, and 1,600 per head per day in the winter, precisely the same as in 1957. I should say that not one of your Lordships has to-day consumed less than 2,500 calories. This means that these people are living at subsistence level. I have the picture clear cut in my mind of that building in Jordan, where the ten and twelve year olds take their baby brothers and sisters to have supplementary rations. I always remember that those little nurses themselves looked as though they needed supplementary rations. Frankly, I cannot quite understand why these men and women and children are still under-nourished, when it would mean perhaps adding only a limited amount to the present income of the camp to raise their standard of nourishment.
I also have a vivid memory of the queue of children with incipient trachoma waiting for a doctor to evert their eyelids—a doctor who would not speak to me, who ignored me, who regarded me as beyond the pale because I had come from an outer world which allowed this appalling thing to exist. Looking at the Report, it seemed to me that the figures there are given in terms of treatment for trachoma. I should like to know how many cases of trachoma exist in these camps and compare the number with the figure for 1957.
We come to education. I went into rooms where there were children standing round one book. Some were looking at the book upside down. Here was, anyhow, a novelty in a camp which was marked by the fact that these people would even grasp at looking at a book upside down because there was so little to do. We are told that there is more education going on. I should like to know precisely whether there are sufficient books. I should have thought that enough old books from the host countries could have been collected for these camps so that the conditions I saw did not exist. We are told in the Report that
766
training centres have been established for the girls but, of course, for only a few lucky girls. On education—I would be absolutely fair—I believe more arc being educated, but, again, only the lucky few.
It seems to me that the real tragedy lies, from the spiritual and mental point of view, in the number of untrained youths who must be becoming absolutely frustrated. Again I say: why is this problem not concentrated upon? Why is money that has been saved elsewhere not used here? I am hoping, when I get the figures, to learn that perhaps some of the large cost of administration can be channelled to the education of these boys who have been in the camps most of their lives, who are under-nourished, who are desperate, and for whom, we are told in the Report, little can be done. That is a policy of despair. Here we have young men who deserve our attention, who should have our attention and who, indeed, from the point of view of expediency, should be cared for.
Finally, I wish to say just a word on the political situation. The High Commissioner says that the political situation has not changed, and I think we all regret to read in our newspapers to-day that the Israeli Parliament decided not to implement the recommendation of the United Nations that refugees, or at least some refugees, should be allowed to return to their homes. I think every humanitarian will regret this decision, because it is opposed not only to the letter of the United Nations but to the spirit also. My final question to the Minister is this. Could we be told whether the other part of the recommendation of the United Nations has been implemented—namely, that the refugees should be offered full compensation for the homes which have been expropriated?
5.37 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, the noble Lady has raised a number of most urgent questions which will clearly demand answers, even if they cannot be given fully to-day. This debate, begun so gracefully and yet so movingly by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, has been distinguished by three maiden speeches, all of which gripped the House in their different ways, and all of them marked by first-hand knowledge and understanding. I cannot myself remember an occasion when there were

767
three maiden speakers in the first half-dozen or so speeches. If one is to look for a reason, I suppose it is that we have three noble Lords who might not otherwise have the desire to speak and who are far from being loquacious, and yet who felt forced to speak of their strong convictions and close relationships to these problems.
From our Benches the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has said perhaps all, or nearly all, that needs to be said. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, was to have spoken but has had to leave the House. He was especially anxious that I should pay a tribute to the late noble Earl, Lord Winterton, for his labours in the field, spread over many years, which I gladly do and in which I am sure the House will join.
If I am asked why I have ventured to inflict myself on the House at all, I suppose the answer is that the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, asked me to do so. He is entitled to that small favour, if it is a favour to the House, in view of all his own work for refugees. He is the holder, among other distinctions, of the Grand Cross of Merit, the sovereign military Order of Malta, given for his work for refugees. I suppose there is no other non-Roman Catholic, with the possible exception of the noble and gallant Earl, Lord Alexander of Tunis, who holds that distinction, and I can only say that if the noble Viscount can do that without becoming a Roman Catholic, what he would have achieved from a Catholic base defies contemplation. He would certainly have become a Cardinal and possibly a Pope. It is an astonishing achievement for a Protestant. I am told that I do not know him well enough; but we have been friends for 40 years, and if I do not know him now perhaps I never shall in this life; and, of course, in the next world perhaps we may be parted. I think that, with his Grand Cross, he is likely to go into a higher sphere than any open to me. At any rate, he has earned a great reputation for his work here. He and his family, I suppose, might well take the motto: "To whom much has been given, from him much will be required." Certainly, the noble Viscount, like his father and so many of his family, has lived up to that motto superbly.
768
The main requests have been placed firmly before the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. I will not run over them all again, but we are all insistent—and here, indeed, I think we have him entirely with us—in demanding that the mandate shall be renewed for another five years when it runs out. A number of speakers have urged very strongly that our contribution in 1963 should be raised from £100,000 to £200,000, and that the Government should give at least £100,000 for the Algerian refugees. There has also been strong emphasis laid by the noble Lords, Lord Shacketon and Lord Gladwyn—both of whom have special credentials for saying this—on the absolute duty of this country to see that in any arrangements over the Common Market Hong Kong does not suffer.
I echo all these demands, and I echo something else that was said—and I echo it perhaps in possibly a slightly less benevolent frame of mind—by the right reverend Prelate who spoke so well about all these matters. He said he was glad that the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, had not introduced the name of the Government into this Motion. I seldom read the Motions before speaking on them in this House, and I daresay that other noble Lords suffer from the same disability. I did not, in fact, realise that the Government had been omitted from this one until my attention was drawn to the fact by the right reverend Prelate. I do not know why the Government have been left out. I am sorry they have been left out and for a reason which I think will occur to most of those who, as I did, listened closely to the speech of the right reverend Prelate himself.
He did not give all the figures, and I should like to give several figures here which I believe are authoritative. I do not think they will be challenged by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, but these are the figures for the contributions to all the regular programmes—the Hungarian programme, the North African programme, and so on—in 1962. I will give the first seven: United States, £429,000; Germany, £157,000; Italy, £141,000; Canada, £104,000; United Kingdom, £103,000; France, £93,000; Belgium, £90,000. As the right reverend Prelate said, our total was about £100,000. So it is slightly less than that of Canada.

769
He said, in his gentle yet relentless way, that this total was unworthy of our country. I would say that it is a disgracefully small figure. Here I am perhaps a little sorry that the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, felt it was not discreet to labour this aspect of the matter. The noble Viscount pointed out what a great contribution we had made in initiating Would Refugee Year and in our own voluntary contributions during that Year. The noble Viscount, so to speak, tried to assess in the course of "his speech the merit or Otherwise of the Government's contribution—I Will stand corrected if I am wrong, and no doubt he will correct me. I think he left that to be judged by the House, possibly in the light of certain other observations that fell from him
He reminded us of the fact that during the Irish famine, which is not much more than 100 years ago, one million people died of starvation or its consequences and one million emigrated. I have not yet read what seems to foe the great book by Mrs. Woodham Smith, though I have read some of the extracts, but I know the story of the Irish famine fairly well. If one asks how it was possible that these things occurred at that time one finds one reason, no doubt, is that given by the noble Viscount: that people had not been there to look. But many people went to Ireland, including, I think, a good many Members of your Lordships' House. I do not think that could be the whole explanation. Even in those days of relatively old-fashioned transport; Ireland was not very far away. I would say that it was primarily because those who ruled at that time in this country still laboured under a theory that the State must not interfere in matters of this sort. Certainly, the State did a little, but very little—just as they are doing very little here.
I would press the noble Earl, Lord Dundee—I will not bother with figures, as I am afraid that I have not given notice of them, but they are very well known—to justify, if he can (and I do mot think he can) a contribution of this negligible size. How can one defend it for a moment? The right reverend Prelate compared it with sums involved in space research, and there are many other large expenditures which will occur to us. The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, is as
770
humane as anybody in this House, and I put it to him that it would be impossible for a country that really considered this matter, really understood how far below the needs this figure fell, to justify it at all through its representatives. So I put it to the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, that when we talk about £200,000 instead of £100,000, that can be only a beginning. I realise that this is a problem, and I hope it will not last for ever. A figure of this sort ought to foe multiplied many times before one can regard it as a contribution in any way worthy of our wealthy British people. So I would ask the noble Earl specifically, when he replies, whether he can justify in any way this wretched little figure of £100,000 as our total contribution to all these appalling sufferings.
My Lords, I end on a happier note, and one on which I do not think anybody will wish to dissent. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and the right reverend Prelate all laid stress on a point that had been in my mind very much when thinking of something I might say this afternoon. It was suggested to me that I might perhaps offer a few thoughts on what was called the Catholic point of view. That was originally in my mind. Certainly one would like to point to what Catholics have tried to do, just as one would like to point to what has been done by all the other denominations. I do not think that, on the whole, there can be said to be a specifically Catholic point of view here. The essence of this story is that there has been no specifically denominational point of view. There has been a tremendous united Christian effort in which, as the right reverend Prelate said, many humanists have joined very strenuously and earnestly.
Ever since 1944, when plans were being laid for the period of emancipation, the co-operation between the Churches has been one of the most edifying features imaginable. There has been no suspicion—and I have taken a good deal of trouble to go into this story—no trying to take advantage or to get more than one's share, and certainly no back-biting. By and large, there has been since the war a desire among the Churches to work together in the common cause and relieve the suffering of these human beings. Particularly at this time, while the Vatican Council is meeting and while

771
the idea of unity is in many Christian minds, certainly in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, it is possible to look beyond the work for refugees and find in this work an example of how Christians in the years ahead could combine in still wider causes. I wish to press on the noble Earl the point of Governmental responsibility, but I am sure that he and all others who have spoken are at one in seeing here the prototype of a magnificent spirit of Christian unity; and while one cannot take pleasure in the story of the refugees, because it is by and large a story of human suffering, even if that suffering is relieved by human endeavour, one can find this amount of consolation: that it has enabled the Churches to work together in a degree that holds out great hope for the future.
5.52 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, it is very seldom, I think, that we have the pleasure of listening to three maiden speeches in the course of one short debate, and I should like to extend your Lordships' congratulations to all three noble Lords who have so much pleased us this afternoon.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandys, spoke with very close personal knowledge of the Algerian problem. His speech was extremely informative to your Lordships. It was, I think we all agree, very well delivered; it had the great merit of being short but packed with useful information. Since the noble Lord devoted himself entirely to the question of Algeria, which a few other of your Lordships have also touched upon, including the noble Lord who followed him, Lord Amulree, perhaps I might just take this opportunity of saying a word on Algeria now.
I will not go into comparative figures about financial contributions; and I do not think Algeria was included in the figures which the noble Earl opposite has just quoted. The Government have made special contributions to the High Commissioner's programme for the relief of the refugees from Algeria. £50,000 of our contribution to the United Kingdom Committee for World Refugee Year was earmarked for them. Last year, 1961, in response to an urgent appeal from the High Commissioner on their behalf, the
772
British Government agreed to match up 10 per cent. of contributions made by the other 24 member Governments of the High Commissioners' Executive Committee up to a ceiling of £30,000, and almost all this offer was taken up. Mainly due, I think, to this promise of contributions on a matching basis, enough funds became available to enable the joint operation on behalf of these refugees to be continued until June this year. At that time repatriation arrangements were begun, and the High Commissioner issued an urgent appeal for tents to house the homeless Algerians on their return to their native country. Once again the Government made a contribution of £8,500 very speedily to the British Red Cross Society, who purchased and despatched tents to Algeria for this operation.
Last July—July of this year—the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees was able to announce that the repatriation of all the refugees from Algeria had been finished. After three and a half years, this joint operation which he had been carrying out with the League of Red Cross Societies was successfully brought to a close; and I should like to thank the voluntary societies in this country who played a very great part, either in direct assistance or through their contributions in cash and kind, to keep these Algerian refugees alive—over half of them are children—and to enable repatriation to be carried out speedily and in good condition. As the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, and the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, pointed out, although the operation has been completed, the refugees who have been repatriated may still need a great deal of further help; and we are aware of that. And although many of them are no longer refugees in the technical sense, but simply people in very great need, like the victims of an earthquake and like many other unfortunate people all over the world, we do remain conscious of that need. I am glad to say that the Government have recently given to the Algerian Government a fully equipped and fully staffed mobile nursing unit which is now operating in Algeria under the League of Red Cross Societies, and we are certainly ready to consider any further action in this field which might be taken. I thought it

773
might be convenient to deal with this point in congratulating the noble Lord on his excellent maiden speech.
The next maiden speech was that of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. I think many of your Lordships will remember with affection his father, whom so many of us knew in another place as Sir James Edmondson, who was one of the Government Whips for a long time, and we are most glad to welcome his successor here. The noble Lord told us—we knew already—of his gallant and distinguished career in the Royal Navy. As he put it, he said he had been formerly in a Service which is known to be silent, although I think perhaps some of your Lordships have known some sailors who are pretty loquacious, and he has now transferred himself, to a profession which he thought was accused of verbosity: I should think that was a very unjustifiable accusation myself. I have always thought the great advantage clergymen enjoy is that they are able to speak in public without fear of interruption, as a general rule.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: And without applause.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Without applause and without contradiction. That is a privilege which applies equally to those who speak in the pulpit and maiden speakers in your Lordships' House, and I hope therefore the noble Lord will give us many future opportunities of interrupting him and contradicting him before long. We are most grateful for his very interesting and eloquent account of what his own parish at Harpenden is doing, under the inspiration largely of the Church, towards this question. And here may I take the opportunity of saying, on behalf of the Government, how much we welcomed the speech by the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of St. Albans and the noble Earl, Lord Longford, about the unity of Christian endeavour in this matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Dulverton, spoke, again with great knowledge, almost entirely, I think, about the Arab refugee problem in Palestine. His speech, I thought, was extremely interesting. Your Lordships are grateful for it. I will say a little more a little later on about the question of Arab refugees in
774
Palestine. Meanwhile, I would thank the noble Lord for his maiden speech and hope that we shall very often hear him again.
We have had two speeches from the Front Bench opposite, from the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and the noble Earl, Long Longford. I think no Government ought ever to expect that any songs of praise sung to them by their opponents will be in anything but a minor key, with perhaps a suggestion that they ought to have done a great deal better, but I whole-heartedly agree with what Lord Shackleton said about individual effort apart from the Government. It is nearly always true, and it is a pretty safe thing for any critic or supporter to say, that the Government have not done nearly so well as they should. Usually they have not. But I agree with what the noble Lord said about private effort, especially by Members of your Lordships' House; and I feel that it should be a source of gratification to your Lordships that so many Members of the House have done so much fine work in this humane cause. It is not something which gets much publicity, but I think we ought to recognise it here.
First, of course, there is my noble friend who moved the Motion, and to whom we are all so grateful for enabling us to discuss the subject. I could not help but wonder whether there are many Parliamentary bodies in the world which would devote so much time and attention to this subject as have your Lordships. My noble friend Lord Astor has given many years of public service to this cause. He has inspired or led most of the excellent organisations in the United Kingdom who are dedicated to helping refugees, and he has spent much of his own time in recent months finding out for himself exactly what is the position in various parts of the world. He has been to Europe, to the Middle East, lately to Hong Kong, and we all remember the occasion, I think it was six years ago, at the time of the Hungarian oppression, when the noble Viscount did so much active and personal work in himself helping refugees from Hungary through barbed wire and other obstacles in their flight to freedom.
Although my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood is at this moment abroad

775
and not able to attend this debate, I do not think your Lordships would like me to reply for the Government without mentioning the fine work which she has done and her record of public service, particularly during World Refugee Year when she led the voluntary organisations in raising the unprecedented total of £9 million to aid the refugees—far the largest total of any of the 97 countries who took part in it.
At the time when my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood spoke in the last debate on this subject in 1960, it was stated that there were some 20,000 refugees living in the wretched squalor of camps on the Continent of Europe; and it was estimated that outside the camps, suffering in many different degrees from different kinds of mental and physical incapacity, there were another 90,000. At that time the noble Baroness told us that the first aim of her World Refugee Year Committee was to close all these camps and to resettle their inhabitants elsewhere. Now the noble Baroness's ambition will soon be realised, because we have the assurance of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees that, as a consequence of the World Refugee Year, enough funds are now available to finance the clearing of all the camps, and he estimates that by the end of next year all the refugee camps for which he is responsible will be a thing of the past. As I think my noble friend Lord Astor mentioned, the previous High Commissioner said that he had saved something like five years' work in the struggle towards a final ending of refugee problems as the result of this activity in the World Refugee Year.
So much for the camps. But as for the others, the 90,000 who are outside the camps, the United Nations Commissioner tells us that as a result of surveys recently carried out he thinks that at the beginning of this year 65,000 of them were still unsettled. Of these, he estimates that 20,000 are now in the process of being settled under existing programmes; that another 20,000 are expected to settle themselves without the need for international assistance, owing to the favourable economic conditions in Europe, and that of the remainder 20,000 are expected
776
to be settled under his (that is, the High Commissioner's) major aid programme next year. That leaves 5,000 new refugees, who have arrived since 1961, to be taken care of, and the parallel complementary assistance programme of the High Commissioner for 1963 is designed to meet this.
I should just like to mention that, so far as this country's part is concerned, four resettlement missions were sent to the Continent in connection with World Refugee Year, the final operation being completed only in the last few months. These missions interviewed over 3,000 people, about 1,200 of whom were accepted for resettlement in this country. Of course, a few of them—and they often get more publicity in the Press than the others—thought, for various reasons, that they would not like to resettle here; but the vast majority of them have gladly seized the opportunity to start life afresh, in spite of the difficulties of a strange environment and an unfamiliar language. Your Lordships may be interested to know that since they arrived here 22 babies have been born to them, and they are the first ones to be born outside a refugee camp.
As my noble friend Lord Astor said, there are still some refugees coming from various places—he mentioned Yugoslavia. We have not come to an end of the problem by clearing up these camps and the existing refugee population outside the camps. He asked what we shall do, or were doing, to help the work of the Inter-governmental Committee for European Migration. This organisation has made a great contribution to the refugee problem in its twelve years of life. In conjunction with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, it has moved upwards of 400,000 people from the Continent to Canada, the United States, Australia and other parts of the free world. Although in the past we have made only ad hoc contributions to this Committee to help with its refugee work, the Government decided last year to give more support. We became a member of the Committee, and we are now contributing £76,000 a year to its budget. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, must forgive me for not having comparable figures in regard to other countries. I do not think I should have time to go into them now.

777
But that contribution was not, I think, included in the particular set the noble Lord quoted.
In commenting on a few of the particular points your Lordships have raised in this debate, I should like to take first the one which may seem to many of your Lordships—and probably is—one of the more trivial or least important; but it is the one which, I confess, gives me the greatest difficulty in knowing how to answer. Both my noble friend behind me and the noble Lord, Lord Shackle-ton, strongly pressed the Government to remove purchase tax on the gramophone record which is going to be used to raise money for the refugee cause. All I can say is that I will represent What your Lordships have said to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I will certainly not weary your Lordships by reciting the various possible objections which I think might be raised—as, for example, that other charities might make the same claim.
I think your Lordships may remember that a similar kind of proposal was refused for exempting from tax the U.N.I.C.E.F. (United Nations Children's Fund) Christmas card a year or two ago. A good few years ago the last Chancellor of the Exchequer but two told me that, although your Lordships' House was supposed no longer to have any control at all over financial policy, the House of Lords was very much more troublesome to him than the House of Commons in pressing him to spend more money than he could afford to do, and sometimes more effective. I certainly do not want to discourage my noble friend or Lord Shackleton from putting forward these ingenious and imaginative proposals, however unsuccessful they are likely to be.
I think it was the noble Earl, Lord Longford, who asked about our attitude towards the renewal of the mandate of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, which expires next year. The General Assembly of the United Nations will soon debate whether or not his office should be continued. In reply to those of your Lordships who have asked about it, I should like to take the opportunity of reaffirming the Government's wholehearted support of the High Commissioner. In the last eighteen
778
months a great many new refugee situations have arisen elsewhere, particularly in Africa, to which some of your Lord ships have referred—the Angolan refugees, the Ghana refugees in Togo, and so on; and with the small resources at hi" command the High Commissioner ha; already done a great deal in dealing with these situations. We feel that it is clear, having regard to the unsettled state of the world to-day, that similar situations may arise from time to time and that the High Commissioner still has a part to play in the future. The Government have therefore decided to support an extension of the High Commissioner's mandate for a further period of five years from 1963 on the basis of the Statute of his Office.
Without going into financial details, I would just acknowledge shortly the request which has been made by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, that we should double our contribution to the High Commission next year. I know that the High Commissioner has called for something like 6 million dollars to enable him to bring the residual European problem to an end. We are very sympathetic towards this aim, and we are anxious that he should succeed in his bold attempt to liquidate this problem once and for all. I cannot to-day anticipate to what extent the Government may be able to make a larger financial contribution in respect of the High Commissioner's 1963 programme. I can only say to the noble Earl and to my noble friend behind me that the Government have over the years maintained at a high level financial contributions towards the solution of refugee problems, and I can assure your Lordships that we shall have your deliberations this afternoon very much in mind in considering what the Government can do to help. I can also assure your Lordships that the Government are by no means unresponsive either to the appeals which have been made or to the needs of the refugees.
My Lords, I said that I would make a few more remarks about the Arab refugee problem, which is one of the most longstanding and intractable—as well as one of the most politically dangerous and mischievous—of all the refugee problems. I do not think I can give any of the figures for which the noble Baroness,

779
Lady Summerskill, asked, certainly not the proportion of money which goes to the administrative expenses. But I will see whether it is possible to get any figures on those lines from the United Nations, or from whoever can supply them. Neither could I make a comparison, or at least a measurable comparison, between the position in 1957 and the position to-day, although I think that in many respects there has been an improvement. But, my Lords, there still are about 1,200,000 refugees, of whom, as the noble Lady said, about 500,000 are in Jordan, and 700,000 distributed between the Gaza Strip, Syria and the Lebanon.
The Government agree that the United Nations Relief and Works Agency—U.N.R.W.A.—in the Near East, is doing particularly valuable work. I think it has made very considerable progress, particularly, as Lord Astor pointed out, in the fields of education and vocational training. The United Nations General Assembly authorised the operations of this Agency for a three-year period ending June 31, 1963. During its present session, therefore, the Assembly will have to renew the Agency's mandate, or make alternative arrangements for the care of the refugees; and in voting on this question the British Government will have in mind the need for continued care of these unfortunate people.
My noble friend also referred to the financial problems of the Agency. From its establishment in 1950 to the end of 1961 the United Kingdom contribution to the Agency's expenses was nearly £25 million, and this is by far the largest payment made by any country except the United States. I would just ask the noble Earl, Lord Longford, to set that against the other set of figures he quoted, because it is a very much larger affair altogether. The cost of U.N.R.W.A. continues to rise as the Agency expands its educational programme, and the Government believe that this programme is one of the most important contributions U.N.R.W.A. can make towards the welfare of the refugees.
We have pledged ourselves in the current year to pay a total of £1,928,000 towards U.N.R.W.A.'s budget, which totals just over £14 million, and this contribution is again larger than that of any other country except the United States.
780
I can assure your Lordships that the Government's interest in helping these Arab refugees will continue. We feel—and I am sure those who know far more about the question than I do will agree—that the long-term solution of the Arab refugee problem must lie in the economic development of the Middle East. I doubt whether anyone who is familiar with the problem thinks that putting them back into Palestine can be an immediate solution. Meanwhile, we hope—and I think it is right that I should say this—that other countries, which at the moment are supporting U.N.R.W.A. with only token sums, will be prepared to make more substantial gifts to this most deserving cause.
My Lords, I do not want to take up any great length of time, but I feel I must say a word about Hong Kong, in view of the interest which so many of your Lordships have expressed in it, particularly my noble friend Lord Astor, who has been there lately. His praise for the way in which, the people and the Government of Hong Kong have tackled their vast problem is a sentiment which I would strongly echo on the part of the Government. The Chinese refugees are now estimated to number over a million. That is about one in three of the whole present population of Hong Kong, and this huge spate of refugees has never been formally recognised as being within the mandate of the United Nations High Commissioner.
There is, of course, one General Assembly resolution, by which the High Commissioner can use his good offices to encourage arrangements to be made to help them, but the response to this resolution has been negligible. Practically the entire burden of supporting these people and caring for them has fallen upon the Hong Kong Government. As the Governor of the Colony has pointed out, we ought to look at the problem as one of refugee integration, rather than of refugee relief. They are not treated in Hong Kong as a separate class of people, but their integration with the population that was there before does present a great many problems. They have to be provided with work and with medical care; their children must be educated, and they must be rehoused.

781
The Government of the Colony has put in hand a very large building programme, in an effort to do away with the shanty towns which these refugees first of all built in the Colony. A great many multi-storey apartments are being built very quickly, and by the end of last year about 200 of these large blocks of houses were finished and occupied, at a cost of over £11½ million. This year, in March, more than 453,000 of the new arrivals had been resettled in eleven multi-storey estates and cottage resettlement areas. The programme has now been accelerated, and during this year the cost of the programme to the Hong Kong Government has been over £3 million. And of course, your Lordships will be aware that medical care and education are available to everybody in the Colony of Hong Kong, whether they are refugees or not. A third of the Government's total expenditure of over £76 million budgeted for this year will be spent on these services alone; and that does not include capital sums of £1 million for new schools, and £2 million for hospitals and clinics.
All these great achievements Hong Kong has undertaken willingly, and without external aid of any kind. It is a burden upon an economy which is stretched to the limit. The Government entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said about the importance of enabling Hong Kong to earn money by exports. I am sure your Lordships will agree with the Government in expressing the highest admiration for the manner in which the Colony has faced up to this colossal problem.
My Lords, there was one question which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, asked, of which I took a note, although he acknowledged that it was not the responsibility of the Government; it concerned the position of refugees in Germany—What are called Nazi "persecutees"—who ceased to qualify for treatment as refugees after 1953. As the noble Lord said, it would not be appropriate for us to make representations to the German Government on behalf of refugee victims in general, and although we are fully alive to the problem of the refugees this is more properly the direct concern of the United Nations High Commissioner. He has already been informed of the concern felt in this country, and by the
782
British Government, over the exclusion of persecutees who became refugees after 1953.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, before the noble Earl leaves that point, he has in fact put into my mouth (unless I am misinterpreting him) words which are the exact opposite of what I said. I said that it would be appropriate for the British Government to make representations and that, indeed, they had an obligation under the Bonn Agreements to make representations direct to Germany.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I apologise, if I have misunderstood the noble Lord. It is, of course, not the responsibility of the Government, but our representations have been made to the High Commissioner for Refugees, which seemed to us the most appropriate channel.
LORD SHACKLETON: May I go on pressing?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I do not——
LORD SHACKLETON: I should like to press the noble Earl on this, if he will allow me to do so. Does the noble Earl deny that the Government have any responsibility under the Bonn Agreements on this matter?—because, in fact, they have a responsibility in this. They are a party, particularly on this question of indemnification.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I would rather the noble Lord put down a further Question about that. I have rather gone out of any way to reply to this slightly extraneous point which he raised, and perhaps he will forgive me for not pursuing it further at the moment. But I am grateful both to him and to the noble Earl, Lord Longford for their contributions, on behalf of the Party opposite, to this debate.
To my mind one of the most hornible things about this refugee problem is that it seems to have revealed an increase in human cruelty, in some respects greater than that which has existed in any previous age. In the Middle Ages and in modem history there have been refugees, some individual fugitives from tyranny, and some mass refugees from religious persecution—principally, of course, the Jews. But I do not think there has ever been anything like this

783
rabid nationalism, which in our own century and in our own lifetime has sought to justify the Wholesale removal of millions of people from their homes; and, in some cases, the practice of genocide. There have often been conquest, oppression, tyranny and subjection in the past, but it is only in our own time that people seem to have got this idea that people of a different nationality or race must be lifted up and removed bodily from the territories which some other nationality wishes to occupy; and the amount of cruelty and misery which that involves is almost unspeakable.
I think, my Lords that for many centuries our own country has had a good record in affording asylum to the victims of persecution. Since the middle of the seventeenth century when we decided to admit Jews, very large number of Jews have come here, in my view to the great social land economic benefit of this country. Also, of course, we took large numbers of Huguenot refugees who were the victims of the French King's decision to revoke the Edict of Nantes and who also brought many benefits to us. We have taken many individual fugitives, including, oddly enough, Karl Marx, whose disciples have in our own times provided so many more millions of refugees than have ever existed before in the history of Europe.
Since the war, my Lords, the British Government have spent, in all, some £200 million on this cause, on helping refugees, and we ourselves have received into this country nearly a quarter of a million people, including of course about 100,000 Poles and about 20,000 Hungarians. If other countries had received refugees on the same scale as we have done, the problem in Europe would not have existed as it has existed for more than fifteen years now. I think, my Lords, that we have no cause to be ashamed of what we have done, either publicly as a Government or privately as individuals, to serve the cause of humanity in this way.
6.32 p.m.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, may I, with the permission of the House, first thank those noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, especially the three noble Lords who have made their maiden speeches? Their modesty did not hide their deep knowledge of the
784
subject, though it may have hidden to some something about which I possibly know better, and that is the long, strenuous, devoted, personal work that each of them has given in this field.
It is, of course, a great point that this subject has brought all the religions together. We have had help from the Catholics, the Protestants and the Jews, who not only have made great efforts for their own community in this world but have been extremely generous in helping other problems as well, and one should pay tribute to that. We have had Moslems, Buddhists and non-denominational bodies like the Save the Children Fund all collaborating. I am so glad that the noble Earl paid tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, because if it had not been for her strenuous chairmanship, her absolutely bulldozing efforts, we should never have had that wonderful co-operation of all the societies which is existing now and which, we hope, will always continue. If I may say so to the right reverend Prelate, it is of course impossible to stop any society from setting itself up and calling itself a refugee society, but what we do is this: we admit to the Standing Conference only those who can show a balance sheet which is a proper and a good one, and a record of work which shows that they are serious and are not merely money-raising their own salaries.
As regards what my former honourable colleague of Fulham, Baroness Summerskill, said, I can assure her that the administrative costs of the High Commissioner are not great. In the first place, it is terribly hard to see actually where the administrative and the operational sides end in these finings. The other thing is that, even if everybody working under U.N.R.W.A. were working for no salary, the problem is so great that it would not begin to affect the further efforts we must make in education and in providing work in that area.
As to the Government, although the Opposition may have felt that by not mentioning the Government in my Motion I did not mean to ask them to do things, I have in previous talks left the noble Earl under no misapprehension whatsoever. I have not asked for exact figures—it cannot be done in this House. But what we can do here is to

785
accept the fact that we have a total moral commitment in this matter. Once we have that and we have decided that in this century we will give the right answer to the question "Who is my neighbour?", then, if that is done by us as a nation we can be sure that in the years ahead the Government representing us will play their full part not only to do well but to make the thing adequate to
786
cover the problems, so that future generations can look back with pride rather than with shame at what this generation has tried to do. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at twenty-four minutes before seven o'clock.