Sitting of 22 July 1963

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Uneconomic Agricultural Holdings
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will seek to introduce a scheme to give financial inducements for the amalgamation of uneconomic holdings.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Christopher Soames):The Agriculture Act, 1957 already provides for grants towards the costs of creating economic units out of uneconomic parcels of land. But I have the problem under review.
    Mr. Digby:Will my right hon. Friend appreciate that this is one of the great problems of the future in farming? Although I know that the process is taking place gradually, is there not a lot to be said for accelerating it? May that not be best in the interests of all concerned?
    Mr. Soames: This problem is experienced not only in this country but in all developed countries. My hon. Friend may or may not know that in the last ten years, from 1952 to 1962, there has been a reduction of no less than 12 per cent. in the number of holdings, and there has been an increase of about the same amount in holdings of over 300 acres.

    Blue Tongue Disease
    Sir A. Hurdasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking on the recommendation of the Royal Agricultural Society of the Commonwealth, the text of which has
    1024
    been sent to him, that the veterinary authorities in Britain should co-operate fully in promoting research into the blue tongue disease of cattle and sheep, even though it is unknown in Britain, and seek to devise in consultation with the veterinary authorities in Australia tests and quarantine safeguards which will again allow pedigree stock to be shipped freely from this country to Australia.
    Mr. Soames:The recommendation of the Royal Agricultural Society of the Commonwealth was brought to the notice of the Agricultural Research Council which has agreed to ask the Director of the Animal Virus Diseases Research Institute at Pirbright to initiate research on blue tongue disease when resources permit. My veterinary advisers have frequent discussions with the Australians on this problem and they are drawing their attention to the recommendation and inviting their co-operation on it.
    Sir A. Hurd:Is my right hon. Friend aware that the action he has taken will give great satisfaction to stockbreeders in this country and also to many in Australia, who are anxiously awaiting the day when they will again be allowed to import pure-bred stock from this country, because they are feeling the need of a fresh infusion of blood?
    Mr. Soames: I am glad to hear my hon. Friend's assertion that that is so, and also to know the part that he himself played in the recommendations made by the Royal Agricultural Society.

    Grain
    Mr. Hoosonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to intervene in the grain market this year in order to stabilise prices and minimise the subsidy bill; and whether he will introduce immediately a minimum import price for barley and wheat.
    Mr. Soames: Since the necessary consultations with the Governments of our overseas suppliers, parallel to those which we are having with the farmers' and trade organisations here at home, were plainly going to need some time, there was never any question of putting our proposed new import arrangements into operation for this harvest. In the

    1025
    meantime we shall maintain close contact with our principal overseas suppliers, seeking their co-operation with us in maintaining a stable market.
    Mr. Hooson: In view of the estimated yield in the barley crop of at least 6 million tons this year, does not the right hon. Gentleman think it is necessary to intervene, or is he going to wait till next year before putting, so to speak, a bottom into the market?
    Mr. Soames: When I made my statement to the House on 22nd May I said that we needed to go through a process of consultation. We are endeavouring to reach agreement with our overseas suppliers in order to bring this about. As I say, this will not be possible in time for this harvest. We hope to have it completed in time for the next harvest—that is the programme we have in mind—and in the meantime we are resting on the arrangements that we already have.
    Mr. Prior:Will my right hon. Friend do all he can to publicise the working party agreed prices so that farmers may make a big effort to get the working party price and not undercut their own market by selling at a lower price, thus adding to the subsidy bill in the coming year?
    Mr. Soames: I am glad my hon. Friend has mentioned this. In fact, I put out a Press statement and made a speech on those lines early last week.

    Milk
    Mr Websterasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce a new grade of quality milk.
    Mr. Peartasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the proposed introduction of a new milk grade.
    Mr. Soames:It is the function of the Milk Marketing Board, as the marketing authority, to put forward proposals for a new grade of milk, after consulting the dairymen in Joint Committee. We have been having discussions with the Milk Marketing Board about their proposals, but I do not believe that the House would accept from me an Order permitting the sale of a new grade of milk to consumers
    1026
    at a price higher than normal, unless it was to be significantly and recognisably different from ordinary milk, and its higher quality could readily be checked.
    Mr. Webster:Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is a highly complex problem involving the relative merits of a fixed-quality top grade, or a floating-quality top grade, and that in some cases some distributors do not wish to distribute this, but that it is vital to proceed with this system, and we hope that it will be successful?
    Mr. Soames: It is a question of whether we can first of all devise arrangements to satisfy the conditions which I, and I believe my hon. Friend, regard as necessary.
    Mr. Peart:Discussions have been going on now for nearly two years. When will the Minister make up his mind? Is not he aware that the Milk Marketing Board is not hostile to a new quality grade and neither are the producers? What is the delay?
    Mr. Soames:As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, this has been talked about for a long time now, but it was not until February of this year that specific proposals were put forward by the Milk Marketing Board, and the Board was advised of our comments during the first week of April. Discussions are continuing.
    Sir A. V. Harvey:As the dairy industry is now functioning without a subsidy, why does my right hon. Friend have to come into it at all? Cannot he leave it to those concerned to work out their own future?
    Mr. Soames:If my hon. Friend means by that that he thinks that we should stop controlling the price of milk, I must remind him that, since the Milk Marketing Board is the only seller of milk in this country, it is a protection to the consumer which we should not lightly abandon.
    Mr. Peart:The Minister said that negotiations are going on. Can he tell the House when these negotiations are likely to be completed so that he may make a really positive announcement?
    Mr. Soames: It is not a matter of negotiations. I do not think that I used that word.
    Mr. Peart: Discussions.
    Mr. Soames:I said that the Milk Marketing Board put forward specific proposals in February and we told the Board in April of the difficulties which we saw in those proposals. We are still in discussion about whether they can be altered in order to meet the need. I could not give an estimate of when the discussions may be concluded.
    Mr. P. Browneasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will consider means whereby the income of the small milk producer can be increased to a level commensurate with the capital and labour employed.
    Mr. Soames:The Government increased the guaranteed price for milk by ½d. a gallon at the Price Review, and the standard quantity on which it is paid was also raised, reflecting increased liquid consumption. The chairman of the Milk Marketing Board is reported to have said that the pool price to producers is likely to be at least 1d. a gallon more this year than last. Over the year, this would give a substantial increase in the return to producers, and indicates that the balance between production and consumption is now improving.
    Mr. Browne: This, of course, is because so many small farmers have been driven out of milk. Is my right hon. Friend aware that, over the past several years, the pool price per gallon of milk has gone down and that, in spite of the farmers' increased efficiency, costs have risen faster than their efficiency? Does he really think that the very small increase which was given this year in the Price Review is adequate to ensure that these small farmers remain in business?
    Mr. Soames:As my hon. Friend knows, the reason why the pool price has been reduced has nothing to do with the guaranteed price but arises from the amount of milk which was being produced over and above that which was required for the liquid market. It is this which has been getting out of balance and has led to the reduction of the pool price to the producer. It was for this reason, not wanting to start the vicious spiral again, that we put on just the ½d. at the Review. In fact, things are going very much as we foresaw at the time, with the happy result that, as I have said, the Milk
    1028
    Marketing Board will be able to give an increase of at least 1d. on the pool price this year, an outcome which is, perhaps, more satisfactory than my hon. Friend might have thought at the time.
    Sir H. Studholmeasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the movement of retail milk prices, in relation to the cost of living, over the last three years.
    Mr. Soames:Since 1960 the average price of milk has risen slightly less than the cost of living generally. Comparing the first six months of this year with the first half of 1960, the rise is 8½ per cent. for milk and 10 per cent. for the cost of living.
    Sir H. Studholme: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether it is correct or not, as I have heard stated, that we are getting a better price for our milk in this country than any other European country, except Sweden?
    Mr. Soames:It is difficult to assess this because of the service which is given as well as the actual providing of the milk—the service of delivery on a door-to-door basis which we enjoy in this country which very few other countries have. Certainly the price of milk in this country is as high as any in Europe.
    Hon. Members: No.

    Swine Fever
    Mr. Priorasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the cost of the swine fever compensation scheme to date; how many pigs have been slaughtered; and how the number of outbreaks compares with previous years.
    Mr. Bullardasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the sum paid in compensation to pig owners for animals slaughtered in connection with outbreaks of swine fever from the inception of the scheme to date; and in how many cases compensation has been paid twice for successive outbreaks.
    Mr. Soames: From 11th March, when the slaughter policy for swine fever was introduced, to 15th July, approximately 164,000 pigs had been slaughtered. Compensation is estimated at £1·8 million to date in

    1029
    the current financial year, plus £325,000 paid in 1962–63. The number of herds slaughtered in this period was 802, including 169 in which disease had been confirmed before 11th March. The 633 outbreaks confirmed since 11th March compares with 635 outbreaks in 1962 and an average of 498 for the past five years. There have been 16 cases in which disease has been confirmed a second time on the same premises.
    Mr. Bullard:These are very large figures indeed both of the number of herds and of the amounts paid. Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the scheme will result in the elimination of swine fever if pursued far enough, and has he got the rules right about restocking? It seems that some of the restocking in premises which have been infected is rather quick. Do not the alarming number of second cases where compensation has been paid seem to indicate that something is a little wrong? Further, is not my right hon. Friend providing an insurance which the scheme was not intended to provide? Some owners of herds keep very large numbers together in one place. Does it not appear, very often, that there is a risk in the holding of such large numbers which normally would be carried by the private owner but which my right hon. Friend is tending to carry under this scheme?
    Mr. Soames: We were expecting a large incidence of the disease because it was rife at the time when we introduced the policy. In fact, the weekly incidence has come down from between 50 to 60 in the opening stages of the scheme and it is now running at about 20 to 30. This is a considerable improvement. We always expected that it would be high, as it always is when we start a slaughter policy.
    My hon. Friend, asks whether I am satisfied that the scheme will succeed. I think that there is an excellent chance that it will, and it is something well worth trying. As regards the disease coming again in 16 herds, I do not think that this is a very high proportion out of 635. Restocking is not permitted until 14 days after the completion of disinfection. In fact, experimental work has shown that, even without disinfection, the swine fever virus does not survive for more than about 10 days. I have questioned this and I am assured by my veterinary
    1030
    experts that there is no question of a recrudescence of the same disease taking place in any of these herds.

    Fowl Plague
    Mr. Bullardasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many outbreaks of fowl plague have occurred in the present year; and whether he will give information about the source of infection concerned in recent cases of the disease.
    Mr. Haymanasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what types of bird have been affected by the recent outbreak of fowl plague in Norfolk; how many of each type have been slaughtered; what sums have been paid in compensation for each type; and how many firms or persons have received compensation.
    Mr. Hiltonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps have been taken by his Department to trace the origin of the two recent outbreaks of fowl plague in Norfolk; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Hiltonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much compensation was paid in each of the two recent outbreaks of fowl plague in Norfolk.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Scott-Hopkins): Two outbreaks of fowl plague have been confirmed this year. Only turkeys were affected, and 31,820 were slaughtered. In addition, 44,631 eggs were destroyed, and 300 fowls and 23 other birds considered to be at risk were slaughtered. Eleven owners were involved altogether. Compensation is estimated at £160,000, but the Ministry's valuations have been disputed in some cases and may be referred to arbitration. Our veterinary staff have carried out a great many investigations into the outbreaks, including the inspection of all stock in the neighbourhood; the inspection of stock belonging to the owners' employees; the inspection of stock held elsewhere by the same owner, and investigations at his slaughtering plant; the tracing of visitors to the owner's premises; inquiries at veterinary laboratories which investigated disease on the premises before fowl plague was confirmed; the

    1031
    investigation of deaths of rooks in the area; and the blood sampling of wild birds at two bird sanctuaries.
    Despite these investigations, it has been impossible to establish the origin of the first outbreak. The second outbreak was connected with the first through the movement of persons and equipment between the two premises before the first outbreak was confirmed.
    Mr. Hayman:Will the Department go very seriously into the incidence of these outbreaks of fowl plague occurring, apparently, on the same farm at which fowl pest occurred previously and, moreover, occurring there after compensation for fowl pest was stopped? Will the hon. Gentleman realise that there is considerable uneasiness throughout the farming world about the high cost of these outbreaks?
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I hoped that the House would realise how seriously we view these outbreaks having regard to the action taken and investigations pursued by the Ministry. Researches have gone on and are continuing. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are taking every precaution to find the means by which the outbreak occurred and to prevent any recurrence.
    Mr. Bullard:Is there a definite and absolute distinction in the clinical and other symptoms between this disease and fowl pest? I mean an absolute distinction, not one that is a matter of judgment on the part of the expert. Further, is my hon. Friend quite sure that this disease must stay on the list of diseases for which there is slaughter after attacks, in view of the enormous amount of trouble caused among poultry keepers by the fowl pest scheme which we had earlier and which we have now abandoned?
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins:The two viruses, the virus of the Newcastle disease of fowl pest and that of the per-acute form of fowl plague, are completely separate. The vaccine for fowl pest is not effective at all against fowl plague. The present arrangement must continue because this is an extremely acute form of disease with a very high mortality rate, and I think that the only method of controlling it is that practised at present, namely, slaughter.

    Apples and Pears
    Mr. Priorasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consultations he is having with the National Farmers' Union with regard to the introduction of minimum grades for apples and pears, following the decision by Home Grown Fruits to introduce minimum grades from the commencement of the season.
    Mr. Soames: I am at present considering suggestions put forward by the National Farmers' Union for a minimum grade scheme for apples and pears.

    Farm Incomes
    Mr. P. Browneasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give the percentage change in the net farm income of the United Kingdom between 1957 and 1962, using 1957 as the base year, as adjusted for normal weather conditions; and if he will give the figure when adjusted to take account in the change in purchasing power between the two dates.
    Mr. Soames:These figures are not available for calendar years, but figures for the crop years covering 1957 and 1962 show an increase of 13 per cent., or about 2 per cent. after adjustment for the change in purchasing power.
    Mr. Browne:This figure is low. Bearing that in mind, is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the farmer whose capital is at considerable risk compared with many other businesses is getting a fair return on his capital and management employed?
    Mr. Soames:This is a problem which, as my hon. Friend knows, is not confined to this country. The relationship between farm income and the income of the rest of the economy, in a rising standard of living, with people devoting a higher proportion of their earnings to goods other than food, is bound to make difficult the achievement of what we would all like to see, not only here but in all industrial countries. However, the relationship between farm income in this country and that of the rest of the economy compared with the same relationship in other countries has fared well under our system of support.
    Mr. Prior: Is not it rather dangerous to take specific years such as 1957? Could my right hon. Friend say what would happen if he took 1956 or 1958?
    Mr. Soames:The figure would be much better from the point of view of farm income if the year 1958 were taken. One can take specific years and make what one will of them.

    Foodstuffs (Preservatives and Pesticides)
    Mrs. Butlerasked the Minister of of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the effects on health of the Preservatives in Food Regulations, 1962; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Yes, Sir. The Regulations lay down what preservatives may be used in what foods, and up to what amounts. We are satisfied that this is the right way to control the use of preservatives and that the uses which are permitted present no hazard to health.
    Mrs. Butler: Since the Minister has had to introduce special regulations to deal with the hazards to health of antibiotics in milk, can he say what study is being made of the effects on health of antibiotics used in ice to preserve fish, particularly in view of the claim of the industry that most of the residue of antibiotics in fish is destroyed in cooking?
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins:I note what the hon. Lady says, but all regulations on food additives are reviewed periodically by the Food Standards Committee. If any doubt were cast on them by the Committee, I would take immediate action on what it suggested.
    Mr. Darling:Is the Parliamentary Secretary satisfied that the Food Standards Committee is able to work quickly enough and on a big enough scale in these matters? Is it not time that the working of the Food Standards Committee itself, which has been very satisfactory indeed, should be reviewed to see whether it can work more speedily?
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: One always wants these committees to work as quickly as they can, but this Committee is working reasonably rapidly. The sub-committee is examining special items. On the whole, I think these committees are working with reasonable efficiency.
    Mrs. Butlerasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to receive the report of the panel under the chairmanship of Dr. Barnell inquiring into residues of pesticides in foodstuffs.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins:This is a panel of the Scientific Sub-Committee of the Advisory Committee on Poisonous Substances and it hopes to submit its initial findings to the sub-committee in the autumn.
    Mrs. Butler:Why was no mention made of this survey when the Parliamentary Secretary replied to my Questions on 1st April and 6th May on this subject? In view of the fact that the survey paid particular attention to residues of chlorinated hydrocarbons, including D.D.T., in foodstuffs and their effect on health, does the hon. Gentleman propose to issue any warning to gardeners and farmers to treat with caution the Ministry's advice and approval of these chemicals until the report of the panel is received?
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins:I think we should wait until the panel has reported and have seen its recommendations. In fact, I referred to this when I spoke in the Adjournment debate on this subject.

    National Apprenticeship Scheme
    Mr. Prenticeasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to encourage more recruits to agriculture to undertake training in the National Apprenticeship Scheme.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The Agricultural Apprenticeship Scheme in England and Wales is the industry's own scheme, but it has the Government's full active support. All Ministry officers, particularly those whose duties bring them into contact with farmers, are instructed to take every opportunity to spreading knowledge of this scheme among suitable farmers and farm workers. In addition, secretarial and other help, such as the selection of candidates and farmers, is given to the committees who are responsible under the central Apprenticeship Council for the operation and furtherance of the scheme in the counties. Since the revision of the scheme in 1961, the industry has

    1035
    been showing an increasing appreciation of its value.
    Mr. Prentice:Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that, although this increasing appreciation is to be welcomed, it is still unsatisfactory that only about 3 per cent. of recruits to agriculture go through this scheme whereas in industry generally about 40 per cent. of the recruits undergo some form of apprenticeship or organised training? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the way in which it is being applied is very uneven throughout the country? For example, in Bedfordshire 25 per cent. of the recruits are going into it and in other counties none at all. Could the hon. Gentleman's officials pay particular attention to those counties which have not made a start this year?
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I agree that this is slow in starting, but there are special difficulties in agriculture. The National Farmers' Union and the National Union of Agricultural Workers are paying particular attention to and showing a keen interest in this new scheme, and the Government's proposals in the White Paper on Industrial Training have particular relevance to this. However, in some areas where there are many small farms, it is difficult to get going, to find suitable farmers and to release farm workers to participate in these schemes.
    Mr. Hilton:Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that in Norfolk and other agricultural counties of importance very few youngsters are in the National Apprenticeship Scheme? In these areas there is little other employment for youngsters. The reason that young people are not prepared to tie themselves to the agricultural industry is that they can see no future in it. Since the hon. Gentleman reminds us that this scheme has the Government's support—and I agree that it is a good scheme; I wish that more youngsters would participate in it—may I ask what practical steps the Government propose to take to make agriculture more attractive in order to get youngsters into it?
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: As I have indicated, I am as anxious as the hon. Gentleman to see more apprentices coming into the scheme. It is up to the industry itself to help and to enthuse young people going into it to take this course. I think
    1036
    that the Government's proposals in the White Paper will help in this respect.

    Abattoir, Newcastle-upon-Tyne
    Mr. Popplewellasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he hopes to approve the plans for the new public abattoir for Newcastle-upon-Tyne; and if he will expedite his decision.
    Mr. Montgomeryasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the reasons for the delay in the provision of a new public abattoir for Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: A great deal of preparatory work and consultation is necessary before a project of this kind can be put in hand, and I understand that town planning considerations have added to the council's difficulties. The council will have received by now my right hon. Friend's approval in principle of its sketch plans for loan sanction purposes. I know that it shares our view about the urgency of the situation.
    Mr. Popplewell:There is real urgency about this scheme. Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that, owing to no land being available within the City of Newcastle, slum property has had to be condemned, people rehoused and the slums pulled down before sites and proposals could be submitted to him? Now that the hon. Gentleman has received the proposals, could he ensure that no avoidable delay takes place in his Department before approval is given to the scheme which is so urgently required within the City?
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I will certainly give that assurance. We will do everything we can to help. As I say, we have already given loan sanction to the outline scheme. I am informed that the council hopes to have a contract for work to start in 1964. The council is well seized of the urgency of this scheme.
    Mr. Montgomery: Is my hon. Friend aware of the great public concern in Newcastle about this matter? I think that he will confirm that this scheme has been mooted since 1958 and that, in fact, exploratory talks took place between the Minister and the corporation in June, 1960, which is over three years ago. May

    1037
    we know why this delay has taken place? Is it the fault of the Ministry or the fault of the city council?
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins:It is certainly not our fault. We have done everything we can to hurry this on. However, when one talks in terms of such an enormous scheme as this, obviously one must be certain—and, indeed, the council must be certain—that one is meeting the needs of the area and not wasting money. I assure my hon. Friend that the council and I fully realise the urgency of the scheme and are doing everything we can to expedite its completion.

    Meat Inspectors
    Mr. Bossomasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps the Government are taking to ensure that there is an adequate supply of qualified meat inspectors, in view of the fact that he is arranging for a 100 per cent. meat inspection.
    Mr. Soames:Local authorities are responsible for providing the inspectors for meat inspection. But the special provisions covering the first two years of the new arrangements, to which I referred in my reply on 15th July, will allow meat to be taken away if it has not been inspected after six hours. Local authorities will have to notify us each time this, is likely to happen, and we shall then be able to offer the services of one of our veterinary officers, wherever possible. We shall also in this way get to know of any problems, so that we can co-operate in solving them.
    Mr. Bossom: To help overworked meat inspectors of small local authorities, can my right hon. Friend look into the possibility of limiting the hours of slaughtering to set times?
    Mr. Soames:We have already considered that. This suggestion was mooted during our discussions with both local authorities and the trade and we reached the conclusion that to do that would interfere too much with the traditional trade.
    Mr. C. Royle:Can the Minister give an assurance that his new regulations will produce 100 per cent. inspection?
    Mr. Soames:That is the aim, which, I know, is shared by the trade as much
    1038
    as by us. I am convinced that unless we have regulations of this sort, we shall never reach a figure of 100 per cent. I believe that we have got to have this two years' delay, but I expect to see considerable improvement on the figure of 90 per cent. shortly after the regulations come into effect. It is our hope that at the end of the two years we shall have 100 per cent. inspection.

    Meat Prices
    Mr. C. Royleasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he proposes to take in respect of home and imported supplies, as a result of the increase in wholesale meat prices in recent weeks.
    Mr. Soames:The only meat to show any significant rise in price in recent weeks has been beef. Wholesale beef prices have now recovered from the exceptionally low levels reached in April, but are still only about the same level as at this time last year. I see no need for any steps to be taken at present, but I can assure the hon. Member that I am keeping the market situation under constant review.
    Mr. Royle: Is it not logical that if restrictions on imports are imposed when prices go down the restrictions should be lifted when prices move the other way? Does not all this show that the deficiency payments scheme is not much good? When will the Verdon Smith Committee report?
    Mr. Soames: I disagree profoundly with what the hon. Member has said about the deficiency payments schemes. What we have done is to ensure that meat is at the same sort of reasonable price as it was during 1962, which was lower than anywhere else in Europe and below the guaranteed price to our farmers. But for the arrangements which we made with the Argentine earlier in the year, I believe that we would have faced—which, I am now hopeful, we need not have to face—a considerable Supplementary Estimate, as happened two years ago, which, I am sure, the hon. Member would not welcome any more than we would.
    Mr. Royle: When will the Verdon Smith Committee report?
    Mr. Soames: I hope in the autumn.

    Papain
    Mr. Farrasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evidence he has that papa in has a harmful effect on meat.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins:None, Sir. Papain has been used for many years both in food and in medicine and there is nothing to suggest that it is harmful.

    Tenderised Meat
    Mr. Farrasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make regulations to ensure that meat, artificially tenderised by pre-slaughter injections, is specifically labelled as such in the shops.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins:My right hon. Friend has asked the Food Standards Committee, which is now engaged on a general review of the labelling of food, to consider whether any such special labelling should be made compulsory.
    Mr. Farr: In thanking by hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him to bear in mind that a housewife who wants to buy prime steak should be provided with the proper article and not an artificially doctored substitute which is sold as such?
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I am informed that the use of the item in question does not change the appearance of the meat. It only makes it more tender. We are referring the whole question to the Committee to see whether special labelling should be used for this process.
    Mrs. Slater: Does the hon. Gentleman really mean what he says, that it does not matter as long as it looks the same? Is not the whole purpose that the house wife should know how and with what substance the meat has been treated? If she is paying 5s. 6d. or 6s. per lb., should she not get the genuine article?
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: As I have said, the firm concerned is anxious that this item should be labelled, and I have referred the matter to the Committee to see whether labelling should be made compulsory. The application of this item does not change the appearance or flavour of the meat; it only makes it more tender. There is no question of inferior meat being sold as Aberdeen Angus because of this process.
    Mr. Darling: If the Minister is so certain of the consequences of this process, why has it been referred to the Food Standards Committee? How often does that Committee meet to deal with problems of this kind, and how many references have been made to it?
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins:I have said that I am certain that the process does not affect the flavour or the look of the meat. The reason why it has been referred to the Committee is to consider whether labelling should be made compulsory. I have said that the firm which is marketing the process wishes this to be done in any event.

    Foot-and-Mouth Disease
    Sir A. Hurdasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease have occurred in Great Britain since July, 1962.
    Mr. Soames:None, Sir. The last outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Wales was in June, 1962; in England in March, 1962, and in Scotland in February, 1961.
    Sir A. Hurd:To what causes does my right hon. Friend attribute this very satisfactory clean bill of health for twelve months? In the past, we have had reason to believe that infection has come from the Continent of Europe and from the Argentine. Has my right hon. Friend any evidence that Continental countries are tightening up their arrangements and clearing themselves of foot-and-mouth disease and that the Argentine is observing more closely the rules which we require to be applied as health safeguards to meat which is sent to this country?
    Mr. Soames:There are three major factors in the improvement. The first is our own slaughter policy, to which we have held throughout. The second is improved control of foot-and-mouth disease in the Argentine, the banning of pig meat and offal from South America and the close control which is exercised by those countries over meat exported to this country. In addition, all neighbouring European countries now also have a slaughter policy and this, supported by the vaccination which they also carry out, has greatly reduced the incidence of disease on the Continent and, therefore, the danger of its being transmitted here.
    Mr. Peart: Although the position is satisfactory, may I ask the Minister not to be complacent, despite the supplementary question by his hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir A. Hurd)? We must still maintain vigilance.
    Mr. Soames: Of course, we are vigilant and the slaughter policy continues. I hope that I am not tempting Providence if I say that this is the first time since 1918 that Great Britain has been free from the disease for more than twelve months.

    Plant Breeders' Rights (Convention)
    Mr. Peartasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he proposes to implement the Convention on Plant Breeders' Rights.
    Mr. Soames: Before ratifying their signature of the Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, Her Majesty's Government must, of course, be in a position to apply its provisions to a minimum number of plant species, and this cannot be done until a system of plant breeders' rights has been established in this country. As the House will be aware, legislation for this purpose is in preparation.
    Mr. Peart: Can the Minister give any indication when this legislation will come? Will it be in the autumn, or when?
    Mr. Soames:I do not think that the hon. Member would like me to speculate at the end of one Session what the legislation is likely to be in the next Session.
    Mr. Farr: May I remind my right horn. Friend that it is about three years since the Engholm Committee originally reported? Was his attention drawn to a report in the Press last weekend of an annual meeting of a plant breeding firm, at which the managing director said that it was impossible to continue with research on new varieties until such time as we had policies on the lines envisaged?
    Mr. Soames: Yes, I am well aware of both those facts. I am also aware that this House has dealt with a good deal of legislation in the past few years, much of which has come from my Department.

    Potatoes
    Mr. Haymanasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why representatives of the Cornish potato growers were not consulted before the extension of the closing dates for French new potatoes from 15th to 30th June was granted.
    Mr. Soames:I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) on 4th July.
    Mr. Hayman: I have read the reply to which the Minister has referred, but I have in my hand a letter from a leading Cornish farmer, who is respected by everybody in the farming world in Cornwall, who states that
    "The extension of the French date was done without the…growers' representatives being consulted."
    Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the early potato crop in Cornwall, particularly in my constituency, was planted long before this decision was reached and that following a winter which was so cold that the broccoli crop was almost irretrievably lost, considerable losses have been caused to small farmers? Will the Minister ensure that in future the growers' representatives are consulted before such a disastrous decision is taken?
    Mr. Soames: If the hon. Gentleman has read the Answer to which I referred—as he says hehas—he will have seen that this is purely a matter of plant health. Potatoes can be kept out only if there is a risk of plant health disease being brought in. The protection which early-potato growers enjoy in this country is in the month of June and they are protected by a tariff to the tune of £9 and some shillings a ton. Over and above this there is plant health protection. This year, according to the advice I received from experts, there was no plant health risk in bringing in potatoes from France, but there was a plant health risk in bringing them from Italy, or a large area of Italy. But there was no risk in those coming from France and I had no alternative under the regulations.
    Mr. Wilkins: This technical explanation is all very well, but is the right hon. Gentleman aware that small farmers lost £400 in a fortnight in respect of these

    1043
    import licences and that it was a pretty serious business for a farmer with 100 acres?
    Mr. Soames: The principal cause was not the imports, which did not amount to a great quantity from France during the latter half of June, but it was the concertina-ing of the crops. This crop is normally cleared some weeks ago, but only 80 per cent. of it has been cleared, and this is what caused low prices, not imports, but even if that had not been so I had no alternative but to allow these potatoes in provided there was no plant health risk.

  NORTH-EAST

    North Eastern Association of the Arts
    Mr. Willeyasked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science, as representing the Lord President of the Council, what decision he has made regarding special support for the North Eastern Association of the Arts.
    Mr. Boydenasked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science, as representing the Lord President of the Council, what special contribution he is making to the North-Eastern Association for the Arts; and when it will be made.
    The Parliamentary Secretary for Science (Mr. Denzil Freeth): The Association's request for extra funds is one of the many matters being studied by the Government in the light of my noble Friend's report.
    Mr. Willey: Will the Parliamentary Secretary say whether this is seriously considered? Does he realise that the Arts Council could do far more to help in the provinces and that this Association should receive every help from the Arts Council, for it is doing excellent work in the North-East, and this is an important matter?
    Mr. Freeth:This matter is being seriously considered. It is for the Arts Council, of course, to apportion its funds, but I think it worth while drawing the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that the Council already spends £50,000 a year in the North-East.
    Mr. Boyden: Would the hon. Gentleman give consideration to matching local
    1044
    authority grants with an equal grant from the Government? Is he aware of the excellent response there has been from all local authorities in the North-East and that this would be a very good way of encouraging them still further?
    Mr. Freeth: I will certainly bear in mind the point the hon. Member has raised.
    Mr. Bourne-Arton:Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that I am awaiting with interest and hope the reply to representations I have made in this matter? Can he say what the total support which the Arts Council gives in the region is and not only to our Association?
    Mr. Freeth:With regard to the Association, the Arts Council is at present donating about £10,000. That is to the Association. In addition, as I have said, it already spends about £50,000 a year in the North-East. I am told that a month or two ago the Council agreed in principle to take on an additional commitment, to the tune of about £5,000 a year for three years, as a share in the Flora Robson Playhouse in Newcastle.

    New Projects
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science, as representing the Lord President of the Council, what new projects are proposed by the Government in the North-East for absorbing unemployed men and women in the next 12 months, and the following two years, respectively.
    Mr. Denzil Freeth: A list of measures announced by the Government to increase employment in the North-East was circulated in the Official Report on 13th May. Since then my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has authorised additional road work costing £1·5 million in the area, the capital programme for Durham and Newcastle University colleges have been rephased to enable an additional £135,000 to be spent in 1963 and an offer has been made to Kings College, Newcastle, for the creation of a Department of Agricultural Marketing. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman of the £30 million which Her Majesty's Government are prepared to lend British shipowners for construction in this country, and of the

    1045
    announcement of the construction in the North-East, with Export Credits Guarantee Department support, of two more cargo vessels for Ghana, which was made on 12th June.
    Mr. Shinwell: Do we understand that after all the investigations and activities and labour of the Lord President of the Council this is all that is being done in the North-East? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the £30 million for the shipbuilding industry has not begun and may not start for a considerable time? Will he stop dodging about in generalisations and tell us what is being done and what is in prospect for the next three years?
    Mr. Freeth:I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to Hansard of 13th May, and if he will add to it the projects which I have just described, he will see that this is a quite substantial programme which will provide jobs over the next few years.
    Mr. Shinwell:Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that in spite of what has happened there are still 1,750 miners registered as unemployed and with no prospect of being absorbed into employment, and that there are a very large number of unemployed outside the mining industry and that there are prospects of further redundancies? Is this all that is being done by the Government? If so, why do not the Government come clean and say they are incapable of solving this problem?
    Mr. Freeth:Because it would not be true. The measures which have been announced are, of course, in the main short-term measures. The Government will be making a further announcement when they have considered theReport which my noble Friend has made to his colleagues.
    Mr. Popplewell:Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the so-called short-term measures are having no effect at all, and that we are still losing our industrial working population at the rate of some 12,000 a year from the North-East? When will the Government give us a tangible scheme to deal with the short-term position, and when are we going to get the report on the Lord President of the Council's visit to the North-East?
    Mr. Freeth: Naturally the short-term projects, such as I have announced, are
    1046
    providing jobs for a large number of people. For the long-term prospects, dealing in particular with those in the mining and shipbuilding industries, the hon. Gentleman must await further Government announcements.
    Sir K. Thompson:Can my hon. Friend say whether specific requests have been made by the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) for help?
    Mr. Shinwell: Dozens.
    Mr. Freeth: I should have to look into that.
    Mr. Popplewell: In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall take the first opportunity of raising this on the Adjournment.

  MINISTRY OF AVIATION

    B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. (Directions)
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Minister of Aviation how many general directions have been given to British European Airways and British Overseas Airways Corporation, respectively, under the Air Corporations Act, 1949, and on what subjects.
    The Minister of Aviation (Mr. Julian Amery):No general directions have been given under Section 5 of the Air Corporations Act, 1949. Under the corresponding powers in the Civil Aviation Act, 1946, one direction was given to British European Airways; that was in 1947, concerning the transfer of certain European routes from B.O.A.C. to B.E.A. The circumstances in which this direction was given are set out in the Reports of British European Airways and British Overseas Airways Corporation for the year 1947–48.
    Mr. Digby: While not deprecating the value of the informal talks, is it not desirable that a few more directions should have been given over a period of14 years or more to make quite plain, in the national interest, what the views of the Government are?
    Mr. Amery: I do not know whether my hon. Friend has any particular points in mind. It would be difficult to answer a general question of this character.

    Skyvan Freighter
    Mr. Stratton Millsasked the Minister of Aviation if he has now received the advice of the Transport Air craft Requirements Committee as to the development of the Skyvan light freighter; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation (Mr. Neil Marten):I understand that the Transport Aircraft Requirements Committee will be considering the company's latest proposals for this project at its next meeting. This is being held at the end of this month.
    Mr. Stratton Mills:While I welcome that announcement, may I ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind the considerable urgency of coming to a decision on the future of this excellent aircraft?
    Mr. Marten: Yes, Sir; I fully appreciate the need for an early decision, particularly in relation to the Short's design team. But I am certain, having myself seen the aircraft, that it will stand on its own merits.

    Laminar Flow
    Sir A. V. Harveyasked the Minister of Aviation what amount of research into laminar flow has been expended during the past 10 years; and what existing contracts have been placed.
    Mr. J. Amery: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) on 24th June. As my hon. Friend knows, there is an existing contract for the development and construction of the laminarised swept wing now being flight tested on a Lancaster aircraft. A further contract is now to be placed for the project study based on the conversion of a DH.125 to laminar flow.
    Sir A. V. Harvey:What my right hon. Friend says may be all right, but is he aware that in the last ten years British engineers have been leading the world in this development and that the Americans are now beginning to catch us up? If he is going to place a new contract, will he speed it up and let us get something moving so that we regain our leading place in the world?
    Mr. Amery: I agree with my hon. Friend that this was a field in which
    1048
    we were pioneers. I have done my best to get things moving. I am glad to say that we are getting the new project study based on the DH.125 into action right away.

    B.O.A.C. (Competitive Efficiency)
    Mr. Croninasked the Minister of Aviation what further steps he intends to take to increase the competitive efficiency of the British Overseas Airways Corporation.
    Mr. Amery: I am considering in the light of the Corbett Report what action the Government should take to further B,O.A.C.'s own efforts in this direction.
    Mr. Cronin:Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that B.O.A.C. made a further large loss during the last financial year and that the Corbett Report has been in the Minister's hands for several weeks? Should we not have had a statement already and also an opportunity to debate this serious subject before the House rises?
    Mr. Amery: I do not think so. I have had the Report in my hands only about a month. I was, as the hon. Gentleman knows, in the Soviet Union until late in June, and it was on my desk only a few days before I came back. I have been studying it, but, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, although the Ministry of Aviation has to take the lead in matters of this kind, we have to discuss them with other Government Departments. I am not in a position to make a statement, let alone give the House information on which to base a debate.
    Mr. Lee: Unless we know the contents of the Report, how can we judge whether the measures which the Minister will take are sufficient to deal with the problems revealed by the Report? Does he not agree that until such time as the House and the country know the content of the Report, any action which he or B.O.A.C. may take cannot be judged effectively against the size of the problem?
    Mr. Amery: No, Sir. I think that the House will need a good deal of information and advice from the Government before it debates it, but not necessarily in the form of the Corbett Report itself.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: As no secrets are involved in this nationalised industry, would it not be better for the House and the country to know the worst? It cannot be much worse than it is today. The sooner the House knows about the matter and debates it, the better.
    Mr. Amery: I think that the best thing would be for me, in due course, to lay the information before the House in the form of a White Paper, which would serve as the basis for a debate.

    Non-scheduled Flying Operations (Safety)
    Mr. Croninasked the Minister of Aviation if he is aware that British non-scheduled flying operations have recently been shown to be at least 20 times less safe than British scheduled flying operations over the last five years; and what is his policy on improving the safety standards of British non-scheduled flying operations.
    Mr. Marten: It is true that over the last five years there have been more accidents in British non-scheduled flying operations than in scheduled operations—and this is also true for the United States. The total number of accidents, however, is so small that any statistical comparison can be misleading.
    The safety standards laid down by the Ministry are the same for all public transport operators. The measures being taken to improve safety were described in the White Paper on Aviation Safety (Command 1695) published last year.
    Mr. Cronin: Was not this estimate made after a survey by the very responsible aviation journal, Flight, and is it not the case that the Ministry has increased British non-scheduled operations by 50 per cent. since 1960, and, even worse, foreign non-scheduled operations from these islands by 300 per cent., without any really substantial attempts to improve safety?
    Mr. Marten:The House must be very careful indeed about paying too much attention to figures like these. It is not clear on what basis the figures in the article were worked out, but they probably relate to the number of fatalities. On this basis, as the hon. Gentleman who read the article in Flight must know, and as was pointed out in the article,
    1050
    the figures can be distorted by one accident with a very large number of fatalities, such as the one to Caledonian Airways at Douala, where 101 were killed, compared with the B.E.A. accident at Munich, where twenty-five were killed.
    Mr. Cronin: Is it possible that the hon. Gentleman has not read the article? The article makes it clear that various factors have been introduced to make corrections for the very factors to which he is referring?
    Mr. Marten: The article still makes it very clear that the figures are based on a very small number of fatalities and should not be taken too much to heart.
    Mr. Fletcher:Does not the recent disaster to Mr. Cleife, which we all very much regret, in trying to fly from the Scilly Islands to Plymouth when B.E.A. was grounded by fog, indicate that there were inadequate Ministerial precautions in regard to non-scheduled flights compared with scheduled flights?
    Mr. Marten:I think that the Ministerial precautions are there. Following the Civil Aviation Licensing Act, 1960, all public air transport operators are required to hold air operators' certificate certifying—
    Sir A. V. Harvey:On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the accident to which reference has been made took place only on Saturday and the pilot is critically ill, ought not this matter to be considered sub judice until the inquiry has been held?
    Mr Speaker: I do not know whether the matter is sub judice. Whether it is thought fit to answer the question or not is not a matter for me.

    London Airport (Airport Authority)
    Mr. C. Johnsonsked the Minister of Aviation what progress is being made in the preparation of legislation creating a separate airport authority for London Airport.
    Mr. Amery:Most of the preparatory work has been done. Further progress depends on when Parliamentary time can be found.
    Mr. Johnson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the increasing anxiety among many interested parties for the

    1051
    early implementation of the report in relation to London Airport? Can he give an assurance that the necessary legislation will be introduced in the early part of next Session?
    Mr. Amery:The Parliamentary timetable, as the hon. Gentleman knows, does not depend on me; it is a collective decision of the Government. However, I appreciate the importance which he attaches to the Measure, and I hope that when time is found for it, the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend will both manage to be present.

    LAW OF PROPERTY ACT (FLATS)
    Mr. Shepherdasked the Attorney-General if he is aware that the Law of Property Act in England and Wales, in so far as it relates to the holding of flat properties, is not as satisfactory as that of Scotland; and whether he will seek to amend the law to enable owners of flats in England and Wales to be in as satisfactory a position as those in Scotland.
    The Attorney-General (Sir John Hobson):The main advantage of the Scottish law appears to be that it enables certain positive obligations, such as the duty to keep a roof or supporting wall in repair, to be mutually enforceable between the owners of freehold flats. My noble Friend, the Lord Chancellor has recently appointed a committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Wilberforce to consider whether, and to what extent, it is desirable to amend the English law relating to the enforcement and assign ability of positive covenants affecting land, and I think we should await the recommendations of this committee.
    Mr. Shepherd:Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that one of the practical effects of the law is that no building society can give an advance on a freehold flat in this country, and that this is, clearly, undesirable?
    The Attorney-General:Certainly, Sir. That is the practical coinsequence of the difference between the two systems of law. That is why my noble Friend has appointed a committee to consider whether English law could not be made the same as Scottish law in this respect.

    LAW OF LIBEL
    Mr. Shepherdasked the Attorney-General if he is satisfied with the workings of the present law relating to libel; and whether he will consider the setting up of an inquiry into its reform.
    The Attorney-General:The law of libel was comprehensively reviewed by the Porter Committee in 1948 and effect was given to the Committee's recommendations by the Defamation Act, 1952. I do not think there is any need for a further inquiry at the present time, but I shall be glad to consider any suggestions for reform which my hon. Friend may care to send me.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Apropos the Attorney-General's observation that there is no need for such an inquiry at the present time, does he not realise that many recent events make an amendment of the law of libel urgently necessary and that an inquiry is, therefore, urgent and should be prosecuted at once?
    The Attorney-General: With respect, I should have thought that the facts were all fairly well known. It is a difficult question of balance in the law—to hold a balance between the right of the Press to give publicity to a matter and the very proper view, I think, that every citizen has a right to protection against unjust and untrue attacks which may be utterly ruinous to him if they get very wide publicity. While I appreciate the difficulty of holding this balance between those two public necessities, I should have thought that the facts were sufficiently well known at present and that an inquiry into them was not of itself necessary. As I have said to my hon. Friend, I am quite willing to consider any suggestions which may be made.

  PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE

    Old-Age Pensioners, Aberdeen (Letter)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he has studied the letter, dated 20th June, from Rosemount Old Age Pensioners, Aberdeen, protesting against the present level of pensions; and what reply he has sent.
    The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. Niall Macpherson): Yes, Sir, and I have written to the hon. and learned Member about it.
    Mr. Hughes:Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that his letter of reply is a confession of failure because it misses the point made by the Rosemount old age pensioners, to whom it purports to reply, and leaves untouched the present invidious policy which presses painfully on some old pensioners but not on others? Will not the right hon. Gentleman substitute a system which will be fair and just to all, as the Rosemount pensioners require?
    Mr. Macpherson:I will willingly read the letters again, but I think the main point the hon. and learned Member was making really related to the question of a special allowance for fuel, which, of course, is an intermittent one. It goes on in the winter and off in the summer. I think that was the point of the letter and that it has been completely met.

    SOUTH AFRICA (SUPPLY OF ARMS)
    Mrs. Castle(by Private Notice) asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will instruct the United Kingdom delegate to the Security Council to support the request by 32 African States for the imposition of an arms embargo against South Africa.
    The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Edward Heath): The meeting of the Security Council concerned has been called at the request of 32 African States to consider the situation existing in the Portuguese territories and in the Republic of South Africa. In the memorandum accompanying their letter on South Africa to the President of the Council, they referred to a comprehensive resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 6th November, 1962, which called, among other things, for the rupture of diplomatic relations with South Africa and a total trade embargo. The debate is, therefore, likely to range over a wide field.
    As far as arms are concerned, Her Majesty's Government's policy was described in detail in the House by my right hon. Friend the present Minister of State during the debate on the Address on 31st October last year.
    Mrs. Castle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government's policy to date on the export of arms to South Africa has been entirely unsatisfactory? Is he not further aware that the United Nations Sub-Committee on apartheid has, in its second report to the Security Council, reiterated its call for a total embargo on the export of arms and ammunition to South Africa?
    Is it not a fact that the United States Government are about to announce their acceptance of this recommendation? Would it not be intolerable if this country were to fall behind? Can we have an assurance that the United Kingdom delegate will be instructed to support this at least of the recommendations of the Sub-Committee?
    Mr. Heath: I am aware of the recommendation of which the hon. Lady speaks, but perhaps we had better await an announcement of United States policy before we form a judgment about it. Our policy is always to scrutinise all these applications for arms, from the political as well as the economic point of view, and the fact that they may be used for internal repression is a most important factor which is taken into consideration.
    At the same time, we recognise the requirement of countries for arms for external defence and, in particular, of South Africa for the defence of the sea routes around the Cape. As for instructions to our permanent delegate to the United Nations, the Security Council debate has not yet begun. We must wait and see what resolutions are put forward. I would not like to anticipate any instructions we may give in the circumstances.
    Mr. H. Wilson
    Secondly, in relation to the voting in the United Nations on this question,

    1055
    will the right hon. Gentleman for once ensure that the Government, instead of being ranged with a smaller group of oppressive Powers, including South Africa and Portugal, vote on the side of the vast majority of people who want to see peace and civilised conduct?
    Mr. Heath: If the right hon. Gentleman refers to the debate on 31st October, 1962, he will see that my hon. Friend the Minister of State—then Under-Secretary of State—said:
    "We scrutinise all requests from the political as welt as the strategic and economic aspects before they are authorised…and the possibility that a particular supply of arms may be used for measures of internal repression is taken into account."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st October, 1962; Vol. 666, c. 286.]
    That was a statement of Government policy, and I have restated it today. There has been no question of trimming in response to pressure from the right hon. Gentleman. There has been no change in our policy. It remains as stated in October.
    As for action in the Security Council, what is important is that we should hear the representations which are to be made by representatives of the 32 States and form our judgment of the right policy to follow. It is not necessary that one should always follow the majority. I would have thought that the right hon. Gentleman himself would recognise that.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is it not significant that there should be these attacks at the United Nations and in Trafalgar Square not only on South Africa's racial policy, but also on the entirely opposite Portuguese policy of total racial integration and intermarriage? Does this not suggest that what, in fact, is under attack are the sea routes round the Cape and the strategic interests of the Western Alliance?
    Mr. Heath: I have mentioned the factors to be taken into consideration about South Africa. I was not discussing the question of the Portuguese territories, although I understand that they may be discussed first in the Security Council debate.
    Mr. Lee:Will the right hon. Gentleman remember that the last Government statement on this issue was made on the day of the Whitsun Adjournment by the Minister of State, Board of Trade,
    1056
    who made no reference at all to scrutiny of the type the Lord Privy Seal has mentioned? Would the right hon. Gentleman at least state now that arms capable of internal use will be banned by this country?
    Mr. Heath: I have made a very clear statement and have already quoted what was said by my hon. Friend on 31st October last. I have repeated it today, for it represents Government policy.
    Mr. H. Wilson:The right hon. Gentleman has not made a clear statement. The word that the right hon. Gentleman has used is "scrutiny". What happens after scrutiny? Is he aware that time and again, during the past year, the President of the Board of Trade, who does not seem to have heard of this statement in October, has refused to interfere with shipments of arms which may be used for internal purposes in South Africa? Will the Lord Privy Seal now answer specifically, not as to whether there is scrutiny of the shipments, but whether there is a ban on all shipments for this purpose?
    Mr. Heath: The situation is as I have described it. This factor is taken into account with all other factors in the scrutiny of every arms application which is made. The right hon. Gentleman knows the difficulty of making public information about individual arms items. That applies not only to South Africa, but to every other country at well. It is a general policy which has been followed by this and by every other Administration.
    Mr. Holt: In reference to the Lord Privy Seal's original statement, whom does he think is threatening South Africa from the sea, or, for that matter, with a land invasion?
    Mr. Heath:We have certain agreements with South Africa about the sea routes, which were made some years ago. We adhere to those agreements and these arms are required for the defence of the sea routes.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: In scrutinising these arms, will my right hon. Friend be careful not to allow any exports to take place which might be used against the people of the Yemen through the dropping of canister bombs?
    Mr. Heath: That goes much wider than the question about South Africa.
    Mrs. Castle: If this scrutiny takes place how can the right hon. Gentleman justify the export to South Africa of which the South African Minister of Defence has boasted, of helicopters, tear gas, Saracen armoured cars, tanks, to say nothing of military strike aircraft—all of which can be, and are, used for internal repression?
    Mr. Heath:Several countries have been supplied with arms of this type, which are primarily for external defence. Aircraft are also required for the defence of the sea routes. Tear gas is used in many civil disturbances in many countries where there is no question of apartheid.
    Mr. Lee:Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a possibility of the United Nations taking action about South-West Africa and that Her Majesty's Government are continuing to allow the export of arms to South Africa which may well be used against the decisions of the United Nations itself before very long?
    Mr. Heath: In these circumstances, we had better await the debate and see what are the issues put before the Security Council by the 32 countries. It is right that we should hear the representations which they have to make. The whole question of South-West Africa is also to come before the United Nations in the comparatively near future and that is another factor in the situation.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL
  Read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.
  Committee Tomorrow.

  CONSEQUENCES OF RENT ACT 1957 AND PROPERTY PROFITEERING
  3.41 p.m.
  Mr. Harold Wilson: I beg to move.
  That this House deplores the intolerable extortion, evictions and property profiteering which have resulted from the Rent Act 1957, and demands that Her Majesty's Government take immediate and drastic action to restore security for threatened tenants.
  Try as they may to play this matter down, Ministers know that the people of this country have been gravely shocked by what they have read in the national Press and by what they saw in "Panorama" last Monday about the methods of slum landlords in London. I think that it is a commentary on our times and undoubtedly on the myopic complacency of Ministers that it needed a chance reference to Rachman in recent judicial proceedings to bring this record of extortion and fraud into the light.
  Sometimes one turns over a stone in a garden or field and sees the slimy creatures which live under its protection. This is what has happened in these past weeks. But the photophobic animal world has nothing to compare with the revolting creatures of London's underworld, living there, shunning the light, growing fat by battening on human misery.
  Our purpose today must be to draw the lessons from the facts which are available to us and which have been available to Her Majesty's Government for a very long time. We have to ask how far these conditions result from actions of the House or of the Government, or, for that matter, failure by the Government and by the House to act when action was needed.
  Before I do this, I want to say just this: I trust that no words of mine, or of any other hon. Member, will be twisted by persons of evil intent, particularly the Fascist

  1059
  scum which infests parts of London, and used for the purposes of anti-Semitic or any other racial hatred. I trust that we are not to have in this debate, or in the wider debate outside, any attempt to set black against white. Rather let us follow the honourable example of the courageous men and women who form the tenants' protection society in Paddington and who have as a badge a coloured hand grasping a white. Black and white tenants have equally been terrorised and exploited by evil men seeking monetary gain.
  Black hooligans have been used against peaceable law-abiding white citizens. Equally, thugs with white skins have been used to procure the eviction of peaceful and law-abiding coloured families. Of course, we know that there are black landlords who exploit their fellow countrymen and white landlords who do the same. We condemn them not as black or white, but as bad landlords. Our job, regardless of prejudice or colour, is to curb their evil powers and to bring them to account.
  As I have said, the debate stems from the Rachman disclosures, but the lessons which have to be drawn are not confined to Rachman or to London. The Rachman story is a lurid version of a story which goes on in more sombre, sepia tones in other slum empires and other cities as well as London. Although many of us will be using the word "Rachman" today, we shall be using it more as a convenient form of shorthand, because Rachman was only part of a much wider conspiracy. Indeed, there is growing evidence that he may not have been the controlling figure and that he was one of the "front men" of a much bigger organisation. Whatever his rô1e in the organisation was, there is no doubt the conspiracy is continuing and is still using the same methods.
  Summarising the evidence which has appeared in the public Press, and a great deal of other evidence available to my hon. Friends and myself the disease of Rachmanism, if one likes to call it that, can be described in this way. It is to buy controlled properties at low prices and to use every means, legal or illegal, blackmail, or physical violence, to bring about evictions which, under the Rent Act, 1957, have the effect
  1060
  of decontrolling the property so that it can then either be sold to business associates or independent property speculators, or can be let at high rents to people in acute housing need, or still higher rents to prostitutes, because the Rachman property empire was a vice empire, too.
  Then, to evade the palsied hand of official control, the loopholes in the Companies Act are used to create a proliferation of interlocking companies so that any action which may be taken—sanitary notices, certificates of disrepair, or the cumbersome machinery of compulsory acquisition—can be frustrated by a total inability to identify the beneficial owner of the property.
  The machinery that has been used, based on the operation or co-operation of a small number of lawyers and accountants willing at a price or for a share in the gain to pervert their professional ability, was well described in a newspaper yesterday. I could equally well quote from a whole series of cuttings from practically the entire Press, but I will quote from just one Sunday newspaper, the Sunday Times, which is generally regarded as Conservative.
  I make no apology for a somewhat lengthy quotation, because if Ministers had been doing their job—and I think that at the Rachman headquarters, if we could ever find them, there must surely be honoured places for portraits of a Macmillan, a Sandys, a Brooke, a Hill and a Joseph—we would long ago have had a ruthless and searching inquiry and a full report available to us.
  As we do not have that White Paper, I am compelled to read at some length this detailed account from the Sunday Times. It says:
  "As with most property concerns"—
  I want those words to be noted—
  "Rachman operated through an interlocking chain of limited companies, usually with his own nominees as directors. The real control of the companies, however, remained securely with Rachman, because each nominee would be required to provide him with an undated letter of resignation and a 'blank transfer' for the return of any assets vested in the company. (Should one of the parent companies require the return of any property, it was simply a matter of putting a dale on the transfer, which would then become binding.)
  As Rachman's empire grew, these nominee companies proliferated In a typical set-up, Company A might have the freehold,

  1061
  Company B the head lease, and there might be subsidiary companies whose sole assets were an under-lease on one house or even of just one self-contained floor. There is little expense involved in setting up these companies—the usual 'retail' price for each is £25, but regular buyers like Rachman could buy companies 'wholesale' at about £19 a time.
  All this is fairly standard business procedure in the speculative property world. It was a system that grew up mainly for minimising tax liability, and for greater operating flexibility. But for Rachman it also had two fringe benefits. The raising of finance was sometimes easier, because the scale of borrowing from each company was within the discretionary powers of bank managers and building societies. And it had the effect of concealing ownership—of putting Rachman at a further remove from the sources of his income."
  I think that it might be convenient, at this stage, to ask the Chief Whip whether we are to have the benefit of one or two of the responsible Ministers here this afternoon. Tax avoidance is a very important part of this, and we could do with the presence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Since what we are to debate this afternoon is the whole situation which the Prime Minister glories to have created, I think that we should have the Prime Minister here, too.
  Hon. Members: Where is he?
  Mr. Wilson: The quotation continued:
  "It was this that for years foiled attempts by local councils and rent tribunals to get at the facts behind rackets in property and clubs.…If a public health notice or certificate of disrepair is to be served, the council's first problem is to find someone to serve it on. They have two possible clues as to the owner: the person who pays the rates, and the name appearing on the tenant's rent book.…This is unlikely to get them beyond the name of the agent."
  There is then a long account of the way in which they "fiddle" the agency business.
  "The council has power to serve the notice on the agent, but the agent may have no power or money to act until he receives instructions from his client; and he will no doubt refuse to give his client's name. 'It would be quite unethical to reveal such confidences,' the agent says blandly. Prevarication of this type can go on for several weeks.
  Meanwhile, the issue may have been further confused and delayed—though not ultimately avoided—by the immediate owners, Company C being wound up, their underlease reverting to Company B or being assigned to Company D."
  Lieut.-Colonel J. K. Cordeaux (Nottingham, Central)Lieut.-Colonel J. K. Cordeaux (Nottingham, Central) rose—
  Mr. Wilson: I will give way later, because I recognise that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is one of those—there are a number of Members on both sides of the House—who have been fighting this racket for many years, but I want to complete the quotation because it is essential to know the method by which this system has been worked. I can understand the embarrassment which this is causing some hon. Members opposite although I do not refer to the hon. and gallant Member for Nottingham, Central (Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux).
  I will continue the quotation:
  "Meanwhile, the issue may have been further confused and delayed—though not ultimately avoided—by the immediate owners, Company C, being wound up, their underlease reverting to Company B or being assigned to Company D. 'Look guv,' says the owner of Company D, 'I've only just bought the joint. Give me time.' 'One way or another,' said a colleague of Rachman, 'we reckoned we could keep a defective drain going for four or five months without the legal penalties becoming uneconomic' And by that time they would probably have achieved their original ends—of persuading statutory tenants to leave, or simply playing for time in financial difficulties."
  They could keep a defective drain going for four or five months, and a British family with the same inalienable right to a home as any other member of the community, and with full statutory rights guaranteeing security of tenure, could be driven from that home by the intolerable stench of that drain so that Rachman or those behind him could become millionaires. Is this what hon. Members opposite mean when they say, "Life's better under the Conservatives"—because if would be a pity to let Labour ruin it by the introduction of legislation which for once protected the rights of tenants and not the profits of landlords and of legislation which closed the loopholes in the Companies Act?
  Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux:I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way and also for what he said. I simply want to ask him whether he was aware, as the Sunday Times apparently was not aware, that as a result of the Landlord and Tenant Act, which came into force last November, the name of the owner of the house has to appear on the rent book?
  Mr. Wilson: I am certainly aware of that, and I recognise the fight which has been put up by the hon. and gallant

  1063
  Member and by my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton), who has been fighting the Brady case, I think, since 1952. But I shall have a number of quotations in respect of hon. Members who have had an honourable record in this matter.
  Mr. R. J. Mellish: Since that Act was passed landlords have had to give their names, but when one comes to investigate them one finds that the addresses are accommodation addresses and that there are no such people.
  Mr. Wilson: I shall come to the operation of this system later.
  What did all this mean to the tenants? My hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) has given the House details over the years of the way in which tenants have been treated in his constituency. He has given these details in the House with about as much impact on the complacency of the Treasury Bench as if he had been describing housing conditions in Nero's Rome.
  I can select today only one or two cases from a formidable dossier which hasbeen handed to me—a dossier which will be available to any tribunal of inquiry which the Government will set up which is clothed with adequate powers to uncover the truth and to protect innocent witnesses. Nor, of course, can I say that the dossier to which I am referring is complete, because there are many tenants and many ex-tenants in this country who today are living in fear—in fear for their lives—about coming out with the truth. Let me give one or two examples.
  Sir Thomas Moore (Ayr): Oh.
  Mr. Mellish: The hon. and gallant Member should go back to bullfighting.
  Mr. Wilson:There were two old ladies, sisters, entitled to a peaceful and dignified tenure of their home in which they had lived for many years, but who were forced under duress by one of these landlords to pay two months' rent in advance. When they were pressed for more rent the next month, having already paid it, they were told that the property had been sold—it had been transferred from one subsidiary company to another—and that the new owners had no responsibility for the earlier payment. The payment had been made in cash, with no receipt and no rent book.
  1064
  When the old ladies hesitated to pay, they were brutally beaten up, and now they live in permanent terror. They will not give evidence on this question. They are afraid, because they fear that knock on the door which Ministers sometimes reserve for their perorations about Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Russia; and that fear of a knock on the door exists within three miles of this House. That is what happened to these two sisters. What was the message on the Conservative posters which were plastered over Paddington in the last L.C.C election? Was it "Conservatives Care"? I ask for what and for whom do Conservatives care when this is allowed to go on?
  Another woman, aged 64, living with a brother aged 63, was driven out of her home and is now living in North London, and she tells how her rent was not collected, although repeatedly offered, so that she could be evicted. And Rachman's hirelings drove her out. The next case is a man of 52. He happens to be called Mr. Joseph. He has the same rights under our laws as any of his kinsmen. He has gone into hiding this month because he has been terrorised by thugs. His furniture was smashed up as recently as 5th July, after he had refused to move out of his flat.
  The previous Tuesday four men arrived with an Alsatian dog and ordered him to leave. A police constable was brought, who rightly told these thugs that they could not evict him without an order of the court. But three days later he came home from work to find that his furniture had been smashed and piled in the corridor outside the flat, and the floorboards ripped up, and he realised the price of refusing to go. He has no redress. He does not know the name of his landlord.
  Mr. B. T. Parkin: I do.
  Mr. Wilson:I am sure that my hon. Friend does, but how could the tenant know? I am sure that if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, my hon. Friend will have a number of disclosures to make.
  How could Mr. Joseph know the name of his landlord? The property in which he lives has changed hands fifteen times since he moved in eighteen months ago.
  On 10th July, after the last housing debate, in which the Minister intervened with his utterly silly suggestion that there

  1065
  were adequate powers to deal with Rachman and his ilk, Mr. Joseph gave an interview to a local newspaper, and as a result of this he was followed by strong arm men and he had to go into hiding. This is in Britain in 1963. What was it that the Prime Minister said in 1959, before the last election?
  Hon. Members: Where is he?
  Mr. Wilson: This is what he said:
  "All the evidence shows that the Rent Act is working out more or less as we believed it would."
  [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] My hon. Friends must realise that he has no time for dealing with the state of the nation these days. He has other things to deal with. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Then bring him here. Why is he not here?
  Hon. Members: Where is he?
  Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies (Isle of Thanet) rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us have a debate, and not a big fight.
  Mr. Wilson: It was the Prime Minister I was asking for, not the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies).
  The Home Secretary, when Minister of Housing and Local Government had this to say at a Conservative conference in 1958:
  "Whenever people show signs of believing other Socialist scares about the general grant or this or that, I will remind you to remind them how it turned out over the Rent Act. The honourable people in the Labour Party must have it on their conscience that they caused thousands of tenants so much needless anxiety, fear and misery by false propaganda."
  I will give the House only one more reference to what has being going on. I quote now a former member of the staff of this slum empire. He said:
  "I was a member of the Heavy Glove Gang"—
  An Hon. Member: Who is he?
  Mr. Wilson: That is a very silly question. If we were to give the man's name his life would be in danger. But we can bring him forward to give evidence if the Minister will set up a proper inquiry which will protect witnesses in respect of evidence given.
  1066
  Meanwhile, I will give the evidence to the House, and I expect it to be taken seriously. This man said:
  "We were the men employed to clear unwanted tenants out of houses in the Rachman empire.
  The gang is still working for Rachman's successors. The method of working hasn't changed.
  We got paid up to £250 to clear a house of unwanted tenants. Sometimes it is easy. Sometimes hard.
  Tenants who knew what is good for them usually got oat without giving trouble as soon as the Heavy Glove men appeared.
  Those who don't get roughed up and chucked into the street, with all their belongings."
  He goes on with a long account of their methods:
  "At one house in Roseford Terrace, Shepherd's Bush, a girl called Norma Mayers was giving trouble. She was from Barbados and shared room with another coloured girl.
  The House was owned by"—
  he gave the name of the man responsible for it, but I do not suppose that the House wants me to give names:
  "A few of the boys called on her but she locked them out so they smashed down the door. When they found Norma's sick baby in the house they decided not to throw her out. Instead, they cut off her gas, water and electricity. When Norma called the police, the gang took off. A coloured man, who had nothing to do with the job, was arrested."
  He then goes on to say:
  "But this girl Norma wasn't scared. She took"—
  such-and-such a person—
  "to court and got £50 damages. The court case, however, didn't stop the organisation using the Heavy Glove men. They are still working as hard as ever."
  Another man in that organisation said:
  "This organisation is real big. They can get anything done. They have big money behind them. I'm hiding from them now. If they catch me they'll string me up."
  These are some of the questions that really need to be inquired into. It reminds one of what Lord Hailsham has said in
  "Toryism and Tomorrow":
  "Our Conservative ideal is to see that…all get true social justice. My hope, and I believe our aim, is to make each group within society feel that, subject only to the interest of the whole, they are the wanted, the admired and beloved members of a Christian nation. There are no vermin in our conception of a Conservative Briton. All are needed. All must be cared for. None must be denied the

  1067
  opportunity or the just rewards of the style of life they aim at for themselves or their children…"
  "All must be cared for";"…the style of life they aim at for themselves for their children." Was that meant to include Norma Mayers and her sick baby? Hypocrisy such as that in the mouths of Conservative Ministers makes any decent person want to throw up.
  I could go on with case after case. In some cases, peaceful persuasion—the peaceful persuasion of a padlock on the door, gas, electricity and water all cut off, the humiliation of tearing the lavatory door off its hinges and taking it away, leaving the place open, windows smashed, or the roof made to let in rain. In other cases, physical violence—Alsatian dogs, beatings up, terrorism that I think that most hon. Members genuinely find it almost impossible to credit in a so-called Christian civilised society.
  This is the property-owning democracy the people have been cozened into voting for at election after election. We shall be told of course, that it has nothing to do with the Rent Act. One Conservative Sunday newspaper yesterday argued that it was due to control, not to decontrol. If the Minister argues that, we must ask whether he plans any further measures of decontrol. But, of course, these things do stem from the Rent Act. They stem from the creeping decontrol provisions by which any property vacated by the sitting tenant becomes free of rent control, a provision that gives a built-in incentive to unscrupulous landlords, to get tenants out.
  Of course, Rachman's was an extreme case, but this evil is still going on in the Rachman or ex-Rachman empire. But there are others who use similar methods to be found in overcrowded districts in London and other big cities: rent collections with no receipts, no rent book, and evictions varying from the more or less peremptory but legal letter from a lawyer to "strong-arm" methods.
  In Newcastle-upon-Tyne, for example, the pace of evictions has quickened so much in the past few months that the city council there has set up an emergency evictions committee. I was in the North-East at the weekend, and Saturday's edition of the Newcastle evening paper said:
  1068
  "Some landlords have called in violent strong-arm men to try to terrorise old people out of their homes."
  The newspaper quoted the city's director of housing, as saying:
  "These are not fairy tales. We have case histories to substantiate every one of them."
  He proceeded to give examples of kinds very familiar to those who know the Rachman techniques. That is in Newcastle, and I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that hon. Members who catch your eye can give other cases from other parts of the country.
  Before I come to the measures referred to in our Motion that need to be taken, I must refer to certain other issues of public policy. The first is the unscrupulous use of the Companies Act both for tax avoidance—and here we are entitled to call it tax evasion, because it is illegal avoidance of tax evasion—and also even to frustrate the serving of statutory notices.
  There is nothing new in this use of the Companies Act. In the piece I quoted from the Sunday Times it said that this was the common pattern throughout the property speculators' world and, of course, we raised this, question of the proliferation of companies under the Companies Act in the last Parliament. During the last election the Jasper case, the Lintang case, broke—right in the middle of the election—causing the ruling party a period of acute embarrassment. Everything we then said about the Jasper case has been justified—the manoeuvring of the Companies Act to get quick, tax-free capital gains by buying and selling blocks of residential property was justified by the findings of Mr. Neville Faulks' Companies Act inquiry.
  We took the straightforward, commonsense view that if some people can make a killing of £1 million by an overnight sale of property someone has to pay that £1 million—it does not come from nowhere. It is paid for, of course, by the tenants. Look at the whole record of Dolphin Square; and there have been others. It is going on all the time, sometimes with the cognisance of the big insurance companies.
  At the weekend there was an advertisement for a placing with a company whereby a young man, who was clever enough to get into the property market,

  1069
  is to be a quarter-millionaire as a result of getting large loans from an insurance company—and he is getting it from the rents paid by the tenants.
  During the election, when the Jasper case broke, we were promised prompt and effective action, even by the Prime Minister himself—he is always more vigorous at election times. We were promised a companies Act inquiry and effective action to follow. To show that he meant business the right hon. Gentleman appointed as President of the Board of Trade, responsible for this, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer who, in this job, has been a dead loss. We had to wait three years for the Report, and the kindest thing we can say of it is that it failed to live up to its own analysis.
  In the first paragraph of the Jenkins Report figures were produced to show that the number of new company registrations had doubled from 1955 to 1960–61. The Jenkins Committee went on to accept that the case was proved that most of these were being formed for purposes of tax avoidance or other reasons which have nothing to do with the trade and industry of this country. I think that most commentators have found the proposals they made for amendments to the Companies Act miserably inadequate for the purpose. But, even so, having made the proposals, the Government have failed to propose the legislation. In fact, whoever one blames, be it the Jenkins Committee or the Government—and the responsibility rests with the Government—the promises made at the last election have not been carried out.
  Again, I must refer to another common feature between the two cases because the House was warned by the Lintang case. I am referring to the use of unscrupulous building societies controlled by, or linked with, the property racketeer. We all attach too much importance to the good name which the vast majority of building societies have fairly earned to feel happy about some of these cases of a very small minority. I think that it is clear that further legislation is needed, because some of the cases which have been recently reported suggest that the 1960 Act, which was inspired by the Lintang affair, may not have closed all the loopholes.
  1070
  I think that concern must be expressed about the loans made for property speculation both by banks and insurance companies. A case was mentioned on the Floor of the House last week, again within the Rachman sphere, where both the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and a well-known insurance society were taken in by the story about Rachman striking oil in the remote wilds of North Staffordshire. If they are as simple-minded as that, they will fall for the gold brick story next. What I think is more likely is that the Staffordshire valuation was the bait to secure funds for a further extension of Rachman's slum and vice empire in London.
  There is another question here. Is it not Government policy to stop insurance company funds and bank loans being used for property speculation? This was announced by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer in the 1961 crisis. On 25th July, at column 227 of Hansard, he said that the banks were being asked to be particularly severe on borrowing applications, for speculative purposes, property development or other speculative services. He went on to say that the Governor of the Bank of England was making a similar request to the British Insurance Association that the insurance companies should observe a similar policy in their lending. Is this still Government policy, or has it beenrescinded? If it has been rescinded, have we been told publicly about it, or is the Government's policy in this case, in our view a wise if belated decision, being frustrated?
  I think, too, that we must express concern about the behaviour of some members of the legal profession in this business. I suggest that the Law Society must investigate some of these things that have been going on. If it does not, I think that the House will have to do it.
  Finally, before I come to the action that we propose to the House, we cannot ignore the clear and insolent record of tax evasion. We are told that Rachman amassed a fortune of several millions without ever having paid a penny Income Tax from the day he arrived in this country to the day he died. The possibility of being able to get away with this is exactly what we have argued year after year from this Box in debates on

  1071
  the Budget and Finance Bills. I remember at the last election, when we talked about tax avoidance, the Prime Minister, with great authority, said that if we tackled tax avoidance we could not save more than £250,000 a year. We could have saved ten times as much on the Rachman profits alone.
  What of Rachman's estate at the time of his death? The affidavit says that it was £8,000. We have said often enough that death duties are a voluntary tax, but we have never thought that Income Tax was as voluntary as all that. What has the Revenue been up to in all this business? It is always vigorous enough in pursuing an export manager to include in his assessable income the values of meals or laundry services that he has saved from abroad on export business. The teacher with £1,000 a year and two young children, has no means of evading his payment of £52 a year, or £1 a week, in taxation because it is in Schedule E. The research scientist who earns £1,750 a year has to pay £5 a week under Schedule E, yet these racketeers use services provided by the Board of Trade under the Companies Act and manage to evade every penny of tax they owe.
  I doubt whether the full investigation facilities of the Inland Revenue can get at the facts. For one thing, it has no access to Land Registry files. It has no hope of ever tracing the beneficient ownership of these slippery property companies—in any case rents are mostly paid in cash, without records. We shall never know the extent of the illegal salting away of these profits in Switzerland or other countries, despite exchange control, and this is one reason why we fed that a full-dress inquiry, covering all aspects of this case, is necessary.
  While I am on this, I must ask the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will make a full and frank statement on the curiously passive rôle of the police in this shabby record of gangsterism. Were they always unable to find evidence sufficient to secure a conviction? Will the Minister say what instructions have been given locally, and what instructions have been given by the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, on this question? Are they clear and unequivocal? I ask this because I think that we have reached the stage
  1072
  where these issues cannot be regarded as a private quarrel between two private citizens, or between landlord and tenant. We have to recognise that they are a standing threat to the Queen's peace. With all the free money that was involved—I hope that this is true, but we have to ask—can we be sure that there has been no corruption of individual officers? We shall need to be reassured about this whole question.
  Finally, I turn to the drastic action for which we have called in our Motion. The Minister, I see, is to move an Amendment which reaches an all-time low in complacency and irrelevance. Of course we agree with the Government that the answer to overcrowding is to build more new houses, but what does the Minister propose in order to get houses built in adequate numbers at rents which the Paddington and Notting Hill tenants can afford? Where is the land coming from? And at what price? The House debated land prices a fortnight ago. The Minister defends his free market in land. If he does, he has no hope of rehousing these evicted or overcrowded tenants or the 4,000 homeless in London whose plight stems largely from Rent Act evictions.
  Under the present Government, as is well known, the number of local authority houses built has fallen to little over half the number which Aneurin Bevan achieved in 1948, three years after the war. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that there is any hope in the idea of a free market for houses? The Sunday Express has been given an instruction from its noble proprietor to support the present Prime Minister at all costs, so I acquit it of any Socialist tendencies. A week ago last Sunday it carried a front page lead about the rocketing prices of owner-occupied houses in the London area—a 30 per cent. increase in three years. This is the Rent Act at work, solving all our problems!
  But this is not what the Government are to tell us in their Amendment. We are to be told that because of this beneficent 1961 Act local authorities now possess all the powers they need to deal with the property racket. It is true that some vigorous Labour-controlled local authorities have taken action—Birmingham by a process of municipalisation of whole areas, and Newcastle's evictions committee, to which I have referred,

  1073
  is threatening compulsory acquisition wherever it can, and has dealt with some bad cases.
  Is the failure in Paddington simply the total inability of a paralytic Conservative-controlled council to deal with the situation? I see the Minister of Housing and Local Government nodding. Now the right hon. Gentleman is shaking his head. Perhaps I might suggest that he move it in a diagonal direction, because it has taken virtually no action. The Minister must know—and this, I think, is the reason for his gyrations—that the power that he has given is totally inadequate.
  The Standing Joint Committee of Metropolitan Boroughs has made it clear that it regards the Act as worse than useless in dealing with the worst landlords. In one respect, the Act weakened the power of boroughs by repealing their former powers to prosecute for failure to comply with an order to execute the works needed to make a multi-occupied house suitable for occupation, and substituting default powers instead of the powers of prosecution. But how many councils will take the risk of doing the work at great cost to the ratepayers, when they do not know whether they will ever trace the landlords in order to recover the money?
  The Clerk of the Fulham Borough Council, who is also the Clark of the Works Sub-Committee of the London Boroughs Standing Committee, said:
  "At present, we are allowed only to sue the man receiving the rents. He might be a man of straw and a council will find itself footing substantial bills out of the ratepayers' pocket. It is this fear that is making London authorities wary in their use of their Housing Act powers."
  The switching round of properties from one Rachman subsidiary to another, or one property company subsidiary to another, makes a complete monkey of the Act and of the Minister who stands there and pathetically professes his faith in it, because the 1961 Act, as a means of dealing with the Rachman-type empire in London and other big cities, is as ineffective as a peashooter against a pack of wolves.
  The same is true of compulsory acquisition. The Bermondsey Borough Council used it with identifiable landlords whose ideas of rent are a bit over rapacious, but, again, there is the prob-
  1074
  lem of finding the owner. This is anextract from Hansard, I7th June, 1952:
  "Lieut.-Colonel Lipton asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government"—
  that is, the present Prime Minister—
  "what steps he will take to ensure that the correct name? and addresses of property owners are recorded with local rating authorities."
  The right hon. Gentleman replied:
  "I do not think that any steps are called for on my part."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th June, 1962; Vol. 502, c. 977.]
  Now I will tell the Minister of Housing and Local Government what we consider to be essential. He could have taken very short, sharp action on this. I think that full justice would have been met in this case if he had taken over the whole of the properties in this empire, and I think that it would have been quite fair if the compensation paid for it had been based on tax returns made by these companies. After all, we always believe in fair compensation; and that would be fair.
  What I suggest to him is that he should introduce a Bill now—and we will grant every facilities to get it through before the Recess, even after ten o'clock at night—to give powers to take over all the rented property in these zones of dubious ownership, wherever extortion and exploitation is the order of the day and wherever statutory notices are ignored. The failure of the existing legislation—I put this quite seriously to the right hon. Gentleman—is that it is directed against an individual—and an individual who can defy it by concealing his identity or transferring his property. The powers should be directed not at the individual, but at the property.
  Just as an Admiralty marshal can nail a writ of attachment to the mast of a ship, after which it is illegal to move it—and then the legal argument can begin—so the acquisition notice should be nailed on the door of the house. From that moment the house is the property of the local authority and it alone can collect the rent. Once this is done, any legitimate landlord—there may be some and still are some in these areas—can come forward and make his claim by due legal process.
  But the racketeer will be faced with a rather difficult choice, either of identifying himself and discharging his responsibilities in connection with a statutory

  1075
  disrepair, or sanitary, or overcrowding notice, or of remaining in his hide-out, in which case he sacrifices his rent income. So let the Government introduce this legislation forthwith, and we will join with them in making it law. And let them see that the powers are put into immediate effect after the Royal Assent.
  Then again, I think that there is a strong case, although this is not so immediately urgent, for legislation in the near future requiring full registration of all rented property with full details of the beneficial ownership and the rents charged, the sanction for failing to register being requisitioned by the local authority. This would prevent the degeneration of other properties into the hands of racketeers, and the information given would be of inestimable value to the Inland Revenue. Legislation on the Companies Act and on capital gains are the duty of other Ministers, but none the less urgent for that.
  The Rent Act. I repeat where we stand. We shall repeal the 1957 Act and replace it by a Bill which restores full security of tenure to the tenant, which establishes rent tribunals to fix rents when they are appealed to by either the tenant or the landlord, on the basis not of arbitrary local decisions, still less on strong arm methods, but on decisions of this House on what constitutes a reasonable rent in relation to the rateable value, and, of course, to the conditions and amenities of the house.
  On the question of bringing up the conditions of old houses to adequate standards, we published our proposals very recently, and I think that the Minister has seen them and even commented on them.
  The issue that we are debating today goes far beyond the sleazy slum empires of London and other cities. One major reason for the overcrowding which evil men can exploit is the sheer breakdown of Government planning, because the overcrowding in London, which is the main cause, has gone on and developed pari passu with vast and costly office-building programmes for speculative purposes. These have not only added to the congestion in Central London and acted as a magnet for still more employees coming into London requiring housing, but they have also pre-empted urgently
  1076
  needed building resources, including the scarcest of all resources—land—from the housing programme.
  Equally, the effects of the Rent Act cannot be measured and cannot be dismissed in terms of gangsterism. It will not be enough to say, "These are evil men. How we deplore them." Respectable property companies which are operating within the law—the law which hon. Members opposite made—have brought untold hardship to hundreds of thousands. This is not a problem of the slums and the twilight zones. I have received hundreds of letters during the last three or four days since it was announced that this debate was to take place. Hon. Members might be surprised; or perhaps they might not be surprised. Many have come from the Finchleys, the Hampsteads and the Richmonds, and much further afield.
  I will quote only one:
  "Twenty-three years in one flat. Pre-rent Act rent £72 a year, including rates. Now rising at the end of this year to £375, plus rates of £60, plus water rate. In other words, a rise from £72 to £440, more than six fold increase."
  We have all seen the figures of the properties and dividends of the big property companies, but where, in the London area, are people dispossessed from their homes by inability to pay these high rents to go; and why should they go? What this debate shows is that private landlordism has failed. This is why we say: repeal the Rent Act and replace it with a Measure fairer to the tenant. Strengthen the measures needed to enable houses to be built for sale to owner-occupiers, and this means firm action on interest rates and still firmer action on land prices.
  Finally, let it be recognised that for the great number of people living in overcrowded conditions and slums the answer must be rented houses, but houses worthy of our people in this age—not the conditions I have been talking of—houses built to let at rents which ordinary families can afford. That is why this problem will never be solved on the basis of speculative gains and private profit. Slums and overcrowding can only be solved by a housing policy which, in its inspiration, its administration and its humanity reflects the spirit of social purpose.
  4.30 p.m.
  The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir Keith Joseph): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "while deploring any disreputable practices engaged in by some unscrupulous landlords, rejects the suggestion that these have resulted from the Rent Act 1957, and recognises that the effective remedy lies in the Government's policy to achieve a larger programme of new building and the modernisation of many more homes".
  Perhaps I should start by answering the Leader of the Opposition's question about the location of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. My right hon. Friend is at the moment meeting the Prime Minister of the Congo, Mr. Adoula. My right hon. Friend is carrying out his duty, as he always does, of meeting visiting Heads of State and visiting Prime Ministers. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is fulfilling a long-standing and important engagement connected with his Department, and will be here as soon as he can—probably at about eight o'clock.
  Reports of intimidation that have been appearing in the Press have shocked the whole country, but the House will expect from me a fuller story of cause and effect, and scope, than the retailing of current newspaper contents that we have just listened to from the right hon. Gentleman. We have had a speech—the contents of which we could all have gathered from the Press—without, as I understand, a single effort to verify anything, without a single word about the background which makes this problem so intractable and so awful, and with a few perfunctory words at the end related to the so-called, alleged Socialist solution.
  I shall now try to explain—[Interruption.] If right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are concerned—as I am sure they are—that we should have a productive debate, I hope that I shall be allowed to deploy the facts, bad as well as good. I have a lot to say.
  The essence of the offence which Rachman committed is, in one word, "sweating". He appears to have been a racketeer, battening from before the Rent Act, on the London housing shortage. He was not hindered because, at the time that he was in full activity,
  1078
  the law was not effective to prevent gross mismanagement and abuse of property ownership in housing, and because, moreover, the law did not bite on the owner who protected himself, as Rachman did, by a smokescreen of complicated company transactions. That is why he was not hindered.
  Rachman was not punished because no people who knew of any crimes that he committed or condoned came forward to give sufficient evidence. The conduct which is alleged against him is loathsome, but I believe that the House would wish to knew what is known about both the past and the present scale of intimidation of this sort. [Interruption.] I hope that hon. Members will allow me to make my speech. The right hon. Gentleman took 50 minutes, and I shall take less if I am allowed to develop my arguments.
  In 1959, when it is said that the so-called Rachman empire was at its height—I see that the newspapers are saying that there were involved about 80 houses, but I cannot verify that exact figure—a number of allegations of intimidation in connection with the collection of rents of property said to be owned by him came to the notice of the police. These were rigorously pursued, but although the persons reported to have been victimised were closely questioned few were prepared to say that they had been intimidated. Evidence of about 10 incidents were submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions, but in each case he considered that the evidence was not strong enough to support a prosecution.
  During the course of the long investigation into properties controlled by the Rachman organisation several cases of brothel keeping came to light, and a number of successful prosecutions were taken. But in no case was there any evidence beyond supposition, that Rachman was knowingly conniving at intimidation or brothel keeping, on account of the extent to which he personally was removed from day-to-day transactions, hiding, as he was, behind agents and companies. The police are still watching the situation in respect of those and similar properties. [Interruption.] I apologise to the House for reading four pages, but I want to get the exact police and local authority report before the House before going on to things that

  1079
  I can speak of from my own experience. The police are still watching the situation in respect of these and similar properties, but no recent complaints of intimidation have been received.
  My Department has been in touch with Birmingham, Nottingham, Paddington, Kensington, Islington, Stepney, Lewisham, Camberwell, Hampstead, Lambeth and Willesden. But except in the case of Kensington and Lambeth all authorities say that they have no evidence of rackets on the scale alleged in respect of Rachman, but that there are a good many individual landlords who are exploiting their properties by overcrowding and charging very high rents.
  One authority said that it has had complaints of persecution from controlled tenants, but the others have no evidence of intimidation, although they suspect that it is happening here and there. Two authorities suspect that there are two individuals in each borough who may be working some kind of racket. At present, this is only suspicion. We have advised that what is known to the councils should be passed on to Scotland Yard, and the councils concerned are alert and will be on the lookout for any sign of this sort of behaviour.
  I should add, to complete this part of the report, that the Paddington Rent Tribunal reports that it has had no complaints of intimidation recently. On the other hand, Kensington says that it has had about three dozen complaints in the last year, and that all were reported to the police. The individual cases of intimidation which have featured in the newspapers, and which the right hon. Gentleman has retailed to us, seem to me best reported to the police. If the people concerned feel willing to talk about them to newspaper reporters and politicians, then they can talk to the police. One of the dangers of repeating Press and other reports without examination is that the full story is not always uncovered.
  The cause of Rachman's ability to conduct the sort of racket that he obviously was conducting was not the Rent Act. To do him justice, the right hon. Gentleman did not make any strong argument that it was. He referred to Rachman's activities before the Rent Act was passed, and the whole House will know that Rachman operated
  1080
  mainly by way of letting off rooms in a way that took them quite outside rent control. Despite rent control he managed to obtain houses which he converted into this kind of letting. Rent control was, is and would be no protection against racketeers using intimidation, deceit and trickery.
  Mr. Marcus Lipton: It makes it more difficult.
  Sir K. Joseph: I do not even think that it makes it more difficult; is simply increases the temptation to carry it out.
  The police are a protection when the victim can bring himself to give evidence. But in the absence of evidence only vigilant local authorities, using the strong new powers made available to them last year, can end this abuse, until we end the shortage of houses which has made it possible.
  Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite would do well to remember that there was plenty of sweating and exploitation of property under full rent control, and there are plenty of cases of which I have records—I will not weary the House with them—of this sort of behaviour long before the party opposite went out of office. Lettings, neither self-contained nor furnished, escaped all control and sub-tenants were crammed into controlled dwellings. But, as the right hon. Gentleman has pursued his vendetta against the Rent Act, perhaps I should once again explain what the Rent Act did.
  The House will remember that by 1957 rents were, broadly, still at 1939 levels, whereas since then earnings had trebled and, as a result, the economic incentive—on the one hand, for people to house themselves if they could, and, on the other, for the owners to maintain their property—was absolutely blunted. Though there was shortage and decay, there was absolutely no sense in making both worse and that was whatfull rent control was doing. Whatever their needs, whatever their income, whether they needed to be in London or not, people were, naturally, clinging to their bargain accommodation. In those days no new family or household had any chance of renting a home or a flat of their own. Every time a flat or a house became vacant the owner immediately sold it to escape rent control—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] I am coming to that.

  1081
  On the evidence now available, if hon. Members will read it, 80 per cent. of houses and flats now vacated are kept available for letting, whereas before the Rent Act they were all sold. The fact is that it was right and proper and brave to pass the Rent Act. There are people looking for tenancies now. But there were people looking for tenancies before the passing of the Rent Act. There is decay now. There was very much more decay before the Rent Act was passed. Most of the vacancies that were caused by the Rent Act were not caused by eviction, but because of the voluntary movement of people to house themselves.
  As a result of the Rent Act, scores of thousands of people, who would never have been able to rent a house of their own, have been able to do so. Of these scores of thousands of people some have been evicted so that a house could be reoccupied by its owner, or redeveloped. The fact is that those people who have been evicted under the Rent Act have been evicted from tenancies which, but for the Rent Act, they and scores of thousands of others would never have had. There is all the difference in the world between renting property at a rent reflecting current earnings and the standard of the premises and the sharing out of responsibility for repair and maintenance—of which the Government and I absolutely approve—andexploiting, or sweating. It is difficult to stop the latter without reintroducing the distortion, the immobility and decay which goes with full rent control.
  The danger of the exploitation of some rented property by some landlords was recognised several years ago, and local authorities were invited to make compulsory purchase orders where exorbitant rent threatened the tenants with homelessness. This power in the hands of local authorities has enabled many of them to negotiate with landlords for the reduction of rents without having to make a compulsory purchase order at all. Of the 84 orders made, 25 have been rejected because the local authorities did not show either that the rent was exorbitant or threatening homelessness; 16 are still outstanding; 27 have been withdrawn because the local authority was successful in negotiating a lower rent; 16 have been confirmed.
  It is true that rents are higher since the Rent Act. But for those who cannot
  1082
  afford the rents of a free market the proper recourse is to local authority housing. There is now a huge stock of local authority dwellings, 4 million, of which 300,000 are in London, and there are those who feel—
  Mr. Mellish: The right hon. Gentleman said that there is recourse to local authority housing in London. There are 56,000 people on the "A" priority list and the vast majority of them have been told that their cases cannot be dealt with for at least the next three years.
  Sir K. Joseph: What I was going to say was that there are those who feel that somehow this huge stock of local authority housing—4 million in the country generally and over 500,000 in London—could somehow be more effectively used to help the most needy for whom it was built.
  Mr. G. W. Reynolds Mr. G. W. Reynolds (Islington, North) rose—
  Hon. Members: Sit down.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray):Order. I am sure that the House will have a better debate if the Minister is allowed to make his speech.
  Sir K. Joseph: The Rent Act did not cause the phenomenon of Rachman. What did cause it was shortages. The housing position is immeasurably better than when we came to power. But in the big cities the gap is still severe.
  Let me give the House the figures about London where the problem is at its most intense. In the ten years from 1951 to 1961, by planned and by voluntary overspill, the population in Greater London fell by over 250,000 people. This in itself should have greatly improved the spaciousness and quality of the housing available. But not only did the population fall in those ten years by over 250,000, but in the same period 300,000 extra houses were built in Greater London. So, as a result, most of London is very much better housed now than ten or twelve years ago.
  I hope that the House will follow the argument. It is important to get it clear. Within this smaller population one particular component was growing during

  1083
  that decade. There was immigration from all over the world, especially from the Commonwealth, and it grew during that 10-year period—when the population had fallen by over 250,000—by a figure of 120,000 people. These people—we all know it—were not able to spread themselves over the whole of Greater London. They tended, through no fault of their own, to congregate in areas already crowded.
  I may tell the House that the Government very seriously considered—they thought long and hard during that time about it—the possibility of allowing only those immigrants to enter who had some sort of housing certificate to show that they had a place to which to go. I believe it right for me to say that by their conduct the Government have, for honourable reasons, allowed this concentrated demand in some parts of the big cities of the country to be increased and aggravated by their understandable hesitation about Commonwealth immigration.
  Commonwealth immigration posed a serious dilemma for the Government. On the one hand, there was the great tradition of free Commonwealth entry and all the ties of duty and friendship, particularly to poorer countries, together with the need for labour—often skilled and always willing—and, on the other, the constant reminder that extra people, however worthy, must sharpen the pressure on housing.
  The Government paused honourably and then took a cautious step to moderate the right of entry. The Oppposition, for reasons which were honourable and understandable, opposed the necessary legislation at every stage.
  This was the background against which Rachman throve. It is quite right to ask what the Government did. My right hon. Friend the present Home Secretary, in one of his visits to multi-occupied property, was so shocked and appalled by the squalor he saw there that he came back to the Department determined on immediate legislation.
  At that time the main emphasis was on somehow year by year mitigating the shortage, but so greatly was my right hon. Friend horrified by what he saw that he decided to include in the 1961
  1084
  Bill a provision to deal in a more effective way with the squalid evils of multi-occupation. The hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) had explained to my right hon. Friend and me that, however much we increased and sharpened the powers, they would be quite ineffective unless they somehow bit through the smokescreen of legal complexity which operators knew how to weave around themselves.
  So the 1961 Act, which came into force with its regulations in May last year—15 months ago—had four main features. It empowered local authorities to make management orders for houses that were not conducted decently. It empowered local authorities to make works orders to see that more sanitary and other facilities were put into houses to come nearer to matching the number of occupants. It empowered local authorities to make an overcrowding order imposing a maximum number of residents to any one of these houses, but in such a way that the owner was not obliged to evict anyone. He was simply forbidden to fill vacancies which occurred until the number fell below a certain amount. The fourth feature was that the fines and prison penalties were made to bite—if the owner could not be identified—on the manager, or even the rent collector, if necessary.
  My right hon. Friend was not sure, even then, that he hadgot enough powers in the hands of local authorities. Local authorities were at that time specifically warned that two years after the Act came into force, in 1964, they would be invited to report to the Government what further powers, if any, they thought necessary to give them a full armoury against this evil.
  I know there are worries in the minds of local authorities concerned. I know that many of them are, above all, frightened of the large rehousing obligations ahead of the waiting list which might be caused if owners took it into their heads, instead of submitting to orders, to evict large numbers of tenants. I am, however, glad to say—the right hon. Member for Huyton mentioned this—that the powers are being used effectively by a large number of local authorities.
  I was in Birmingham a few months ago, and I was most impressed by the

  1085
  vigour with which that local authority is tackling its very large multi-occupation problem. It has already made 400 management orders. I gather from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Nottingham, Central (Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux), who has been so strong an advocate of these or even stronger powers, that Nottingham has already found the powers useful. I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will be able to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, later in the debate.
  Mr. Roy Jenkins: Is the Minister aware that Birmingham City Council feels that its powers to regulate multi-occupied property are limited by inadequate rights of entry, which are much less than under the Public Health Act? Will he consider amending the law to deal with this part of the problem?
  Sir K. Joseph: Certainly I shall come to that.
  In London, two of the authorities most troubled by this problem have had different experiences. Kensington is using the power vigorously and reports that if a Rachman appeared there the council thinks it could bring him to heel. Paddington, however, has real difficulty and thinks that new and stronger powers might be needed. I am seeing Paddington in a few days' time.
  The Government's position is that, instead of waiting for 1964 to review the 1961 Act powers, we are embarking straight away—I have already issued the invitations—on consultations with the local authorities principally concerned to see what further powers, if any, they want. Among these powers we shall no doubt be considering powers which I believe the hon. Member for Paddington, North may be advocating in this debate. I do not want to prejudge any consideration given to these powers by the House.
  I gather that what the hon. Member has in mind is that for really sweated and exploited property the right thing might be to provide for a more summary form of compulsory purchase order where the property would vest very quickly in the local authority. Certainly we can consider this. The problem will be to define sufficiently by Statute the sort of property for which
  1086
  such treatment would be just. The local authorities, also, may object because they would have to be willing to carry out their housing responsibilities to a very much lower standard than they would like. They might be frightened that the standards would be so shocking to their members that there would be a growing pressure to place some of the people ahead of the list.
  However, we shall consider anything that the hon. Member and the local authorities wish. One thing I can tell the House, which I hope will ease the mind of the hon. Member, is that if a compulsory purchase order were made for such a property the price certainly would not reflect the exorbitant rents or the exorbitant number of people packed into such a property.
  Then there is the suggestion for registration of multi-occupied property, which might be a valuable weapon. This was felt particularly by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Nottingham, Central. Here again the Government will certainly consider allowing this power locally. There is a power already for it to be introduced next year, but I shall have to consult local authorities because there is a difficulty of definition. Of the tens of thousands of multi-occupied houses, the vast majority are decently conducted, orderly establishments, providing rooms for nurses, students, teachers and typists. It would wrong to force these premises to be registered unless that were the only way to increase the power against racketeers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] It can certainly be considered.
  The position then is that urgent consultations are going on with the local authorities and the Government will introduce any necessary legislation at the earliest possible opportunity. But the main solution must be, of course, more houses and, as the right hon. Member said, better distribution of employment. Over most of the United Kingdom the Government's housing programme has outpaced the growth in population sufficiently to keep us still one of the most spaciously housed people in Europe—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—this is true, and statistics show it—but in a few cities and towns the shortage is still very severe.
  I say to the right hon. Member that the shortage cannot be conjured or controlled away. The only answer to it is more houses and better distribution of

  1087
  the working population. The limitation to more houses is not finance; we are reviewing the subsidies at the moment. The limitation is not even land; we shall get all the housing land inside the cities and possibly other sorts of land too. The imperative necessity is to increase the output of the building industry and to achieve somehow more decentralisation from our big cities.
  We have a difficult task to obtain a better distribution of employment from the big cities, without imperilling the prosperity which is so vital to the country. Of course London and Birmingham are magnets, and will remain magnets whether or not there is a more or a less slice of office building. We have tried with office building to steer a middle course. Perhaps we should have acted more quickly—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear hear."]—but it was not so obvious then as it is now.
  It was the Government, and my right hon. Friend now the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, who in 1956 had to require the L.C.C. to reduce the amount of acreage available for offices in London. Over the years we shall, of course, reduce the relative magnetism of London and the Midlands by increasing the magnetism of the areas which are now less prosperous, but this will not happen overnight. Meanwhile we cannot build a wall round London.
  Our policy is more houses, better decentralisation of employment, and sharpening the law if necessary against the abuse of shortage. But there is no magic wand, and what worries a Minister of Housing is the condition of the people in the rented property in the time intervening before we can abolish the shortage in big cities. This must occur until our solution or that of any party can finally be effective.
  This is the worry which I and my right hon. Friends before me have had seriously in mind, and from the start I was concerned about the effect of the shortage that reaches forward from the present generation to future generations by degrading the lives of families and the children who come to them. Because of this worry about the scale of the pressure upon the tenants of rented property I tried last autumn to see whether there was any conclusive evidence about the amount
  1088
  of pressure that was being brought to bear. I had inquiries made of town clerks and of citizens advice bureaux, and by January I had a report from them on an informal basis. As I suppose was inevitable, it was inconclusive.
  As a result, when the Government produced a White Paper on London: Employment, Housing and Land, paragraphs 48 and 49 of that document spoke of carrying out a survey of existing housing so that the Government might know the scale of any pressures which were being brought to bear upon the tenants and might ensure that rented property both public and private, in this still remaining period of shortage, was used to the best possible advantage of those needing housing.
  I had hoped that this committee would be set up a month ago, in June. I hope that the House will consider that it was worth waiting the extra few weeks, because I am now in a position to announce that Sir Milner Holland, Q.C., has undertaken to chair this committee. I think that the House will agree that that is a guaranee that the survey which will be made will be impartial and thorough. The membership and the exact terms of reference will be announced as soon as possible. I do not think that we have lost any time, because over the last months my Department has been doing a lot of preparatory work which I hope Sir Milner Holland and his committee will find will help them forward. Although the committee will limit its activities to London housing, both public and private, any lessons which we may learn from London may prove to be valuable elsewhere. Let me set this vitally important but extremely limited problem of racketeering in its place.
  Mr. John Hynd Mr. John Hynd (Sheffield, Attercliffe) rose—
  Sir T. Moore: The hon. Gentleman has only just come in.
  Mr. Hynd:I know, but I heard the statement. I understand that the report will be limited to London. Why is that, in view of the fact that conditions in Sheffield and many other big cities are equally as bad?
  Sir K. Joseph: I will certainly consider what the hon. Member says, but this report by its terms of reference must be

  1089
  limited to London. I have not had the impression that the problems anywhere else in the country are as intense as they are in London.
  I was about to say that the evil of racketeering is bred by shortage and that the shortage, because of the area and size of the big cities, cannot be solved overnight. We have a larger housing programme and within it a larger local authority housing programme. All land that is practicable will be obtained for housing, and there is and there will continue to be a rising tempo of decentralisation, but while the shortage exists there is the danger of exploitation. The local authorities have strong powers. They have compulsory powers—they can make management orders, works orders, overcrowding orders for housing in multi-occupation—and we are consulting urgently to see whether further powers are needed.
  I have been speaking of the problem we face, of its highly localised nature, of its intractable causes, and of what we have done and may have to do. But, if I may turn from an analysis of the problem to a matter of politics, I think it right to say that the justifiable anxiety about all these things should not obscure for a moment the extreme weakness of the Opposition's position. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition is absolutely entitled to probe and criticise, but when he adopts, as he did just now, a highly moral tone I am bound to remind him and the House that there were parasites in the Socialist paradise, too. [Interruption.] Mr. Brady was one of them.
  The right hon. Gentleman does not often open housing debates. We have had two in the last three months, if he had been interested. The right hon. Gentleman expresses horror now, but he knew these allegations before. He had heard his hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North as I have done. The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart), a diligent, capable and very conscientious representative of the Opposition, has only once in the last four years, in one line of one speech, made reference to this sort of evil of intimidation. I will say why the Leader of the Opposition has only just intervened. The Opposition did not intervene before because they
  1090
  knew that Government action in introducing the 1961 Act was designed to strengthen the hands of the local authorities, and was being used. They raise the subject now not because of worry about housing but because of the Rachmanlink with the Ward case. The high-minded Leader of the Opposition leapt at the opportunity of a general smear based on an admitted evil of which he should have known for several years. [Interruption.] If hon. Members opposite will not hear me I shall stayhere until they do. Am I being asked whether I knew? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] I am sorry but I did not hear the question. Yes, the hon. Member for Paddington, North told me of this in 1960, just before the 1961 Bill was introduced.
  Mr. Parkin: If I am fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, I undertake that I will show the Minister documents which came into my hands yesterday afternoon from the shopping bag of an old lady who was frightened to go back home. These documents could have been available to the Home Secretary from the tenants' association at the time, but he again, again, and again refused to meet those deputations.
  Sir K. Joseph: We shall listen to the hon. Member—
  Mr. Rees-Davies: Before my right hon. Friend replies to that matter, may I ask whether he has not yet been informed that this association to which reference is made is one known to be Communist-inspired? Has the information also not yet been put in front of him, and is he not aware that the leaders of this and the other associations with it are all persons convicted of serious criminal offences?
  Sir K. Joseph: No, no. There is a real evil here somewhere.
  So the Labour Party's chosen solution to all these problems of housing is neither humane nor relevant. A promise to repeal the Rent Act is designed to catch votes and not to produce houses. To cancel the Rent Act and to restore rent control to the 16 per cent. of housing stock which has been freed would make things worse, not better. Such a policy would increase decay, increase shortage, decrease self-help, hold in London people

  1091
  who do not need to be there, build not a single extra house, remove any hope for new families of a home of their own to rent and encourage racketeering.
  The only main answer is more houses. I will tell the House the Labour Party's policy on that, too. Hon. Members opposite have not yet once told us during these last few years how many houses they would or we should build. Speech after speech by the hon. Member for Fulham contained no overall target at all. Only after we announced that our next step would be at least 350,000 houses a year did hon. Members opposite, more or less, adopt that figure also.
  Mr. M. Stewart (Fulham)Mr. M. Stewart (Fulham) rose—
  Sir K. Joseph:The hon. Gentleman—to save him getting up—said that there should be a programme of 200,000 local authority houses, but he never gave an overall programme—not in this House. I defy him to show that he did.
  Mr. Stewart:The Minister is mistaken about that. In housing debates, when the present Lord Hill of Luton was Minister, I set out reasons why I believed the present rate of building overall to be inadequate and described what I thought should be the very minimum figure allowed. I have done that more than once. In fact, I arrivedat a figure very similar to the 350,000 which the Government announced about a year later. But I stressed that that could not be regarded as a figure adequate to our needs. Now the Minister has stated that never once in the House have I mentioned a target. That is totally untrue, and the right hon. Gentleman ought to withdraw it.
  Sir K. Joseph: I want to save time. I do withdraw it. The hon. Gentleman did not repeat it during my tenure of office. I apologise to him.
  Both sides are agreed that if 300,000 is the next step we all want to go higher. The right hon. Gentleman who opened the debate is a great one for criticising others, but when it comes to bold and necessary reform he is against it. The Rent Act—repeal it. The London Government Bill—repeal it. If we had joined Europe he would repeal that, too. The right hon. Gentleman's speech this afternoon was as irrelevant to the real problems as his party's programme
  1092
  is to the needs of housing. On housing the party opposite has a bad record in the past and a wrong policy for the future.
  5.15 p.m.
  Mr. John Silkin: Any hon. Member who rises to address this House for the first time must inevitably be a prey to feelings of both awe and of diffidence. How much more must this be so for one who has the temerity to intervene in a debate as momentous as the present one. Nevertheless, I am comforted by the knowledge that the House is traditionally generous to its newcomers, and today I like to think that some of that generosity may stem from the recognition of a name that a few years back was tolerably known in this House.
  I have the honour to represent a borough which, for many years, could be termed the typical Rent Act borough of London, the Borough of Deptford. My distinguished predecessor, Sir Leslie Plummer, whose loss I know has been very great, spent much of his time endeavouring to help those of his constituents in Deptford who were victims of bad housing conditions and of the effects of the Rent Act, 1957. I make no apology whatever for being Nor'-Nor'-West controversial in this debate. Having listened for 90 minutes or so I find it almost entirely impossible to make a non-contentious speech.
  If one goes back to the days when the Rent Bill was being introduced into the House one finds that certain very definite reasons were given for its introduction, and one of the things that has astonished me today is that these reasons have not been repeated. Let me at least endeavour to bring them again to the House, echoes, as it were, from the past. First, these were the words of the present Minister of Health on Second Reading of the Rent Bill on 21st November, 1956: He said:
  "Then there is the factor of the constant erosion of the stock of houses available far renting by the fact that whenever a rented house falls vacant upon the departure of a tenant, in far mare cases than not the landlord puts it up for sale, however long he has to wait to effect a sale."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st November, 1956; Vol. 560, c. 1762.]
  In other words, by introducing the Rent Bill there will be more houses, he said, for letting, fewer for sale. This has not

  1093
  been the experience of the Borough of Deptford, and I venture to say it is not the experience anywhere. On the contrary, it would seem that the number of houses—and I am using the word "houses" deliberately, though the same applies to flats—for letting has declined all over the country, that is to say, from among those houses released from control under the 1957 Act.
  What has happened to those houses? In the first place, even where they remain let they are now let, we all know, in many cases at exorbitant rents. I said that I was speaking for the people of Deptford, and the House must appreciate that a £2 a week rise in a rent in Hampstead may not be of such enormous moment. In Deptford, it may very often be a crucial rise, because Deptford is a working-class constituency and the effect of the 1957 Rent Act was to render the working class much less able to cope with the enormous difficulties of the present situation. I have in my pocket ready for today's debate a letter which informs me that in a certain house in Deptford for one room the rent charged is £3 a week. The writer hastens to say:
  "Please deal with the matter without angering my landlord."
  In this case, and I think in many others, when we talk of intimidation we do not necessarily mean the Rachman strong-arm tactics. Intimidation can mean the fear of eviction. All over Deptford, and, I have no doubt, all over London and similar areas where there are large centres of population, this is the real intimidation that exists today.
  It is easy to say that where rents are exorbitant the local authority should acquire these houses compulsorily. I speak as a lawyer, and I know from personal and professional experience how difficult it is to get this procedure under way. Let me quote one simple example in Deptford. When a house with vacant possession which, before the passing of the Rent Act, might have been bought for £1,800, is finally offered for £10,000 the resulting difficulties in which the local authority is placed become fantastic.
  This is not an isolated example. There are two small cleared sites in a rather unsalubrious part of Deptford—for, believe me, there are very few palaces in
  1094
  that borough—totalling less than ¼ acre. These were recently sold for over £5,000—small cleared housing sites. How can one expect any local authority to be able to cope with a problem like that?
  The Home Secretary said on the Report stage of the Rent Act:
  "What I say is that all the evidence available goes to show that there has been no outburst whatever of speculation, either in expectation of the Bill or after its terms were published."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th March, 1957; Vol. 567, c. 1071.]
  The right hon. Gentleman should really have paid a visit to Deptford. He would have seen for himself. The fact is that there is speculation, there is extortion and profiteering.
  While I am on the subject of profiteering, there is one form of profit that I know hon. Members on both sides of the House deplore as much as I. The Minister touched upon it, and so did my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. Deptford is a borough in which there has been considerable immigration from the Commonwealth. I think the total of immigrants is now 7½ per cent. of the population—a very large proportion indeed. There are those who have made the more disreputable form of political capital out of the strife between race and race and colour and colour. This is something that I know all hon. Members will deplore. But I am only trying to say that the capital that is made out of the Rent Act is not to be measured entirely in terms of money. It is measured in other terms as well.
  What has happened is that ignorance, gullibility, and the fact that many strangers to a new land tend to cling together for safety have all been capitalised, because houses have fallen into decontrol and they can be offered to these people. The political capital has followed the economic capital. It seems to me that if the Rent Act, 1957 had not been passed, all the powers that the Minister has taken and that he proposes to take would have been quite unnecessary. They are palliatives in a difficult situation. I give the right hon. Gentleman full marks for doing his best, but the truth of the matter is that it is really beyond him. So long as we have this Rent Act with its creeping decontrol, so long will the present situation not only remain but become worse.

  1095
  Two things are necessary to solve the problem—time and the will. Time we still have, but it is slipping past. Whether we have the will depends on the outcome of this debate today.
  5.26 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Allan: I have not before had the pleasure of following a maiden speaker, and I could hardly have wished for a happier occasion on which to do so than today. I do not find it easy to refer to the non-controversial nature of the speech of the hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin). Nevertheless, I have no difficulty in praising its vigour and its clarity of thought, and also in drawing attention to the hon. Gentleman's humanity, which conies well from someone who succeeded the late Member for Deptford. I think that when we learned of the hon. Member's election we all suspected that the son of so distinguished a father would make his mark here, and now we know.
  Another man of great humanity and feeling is my colleague the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin). He and I have represented different parts of our borough for a good many years and are personal friends. I know and share with him the bitter hatred which he has for the type of persecution of the weak and defenceless which he has lately tried to show up. I think he would recognise, too, that all people who value human dignity share that hatred, whatever their political party.
  However, I must add that I think, either by design or perhaps because of the almost appaling appetite for the sordid and the scandalous which the British public seem to have at the moment, these admittedly horrible cases have been built up into a vast blown-up picture which bears little resemblance to the original—as little reality as I am sure the remarks and innuendoes which are now being investigated will prove to have when the investigation is completed. Also this kind of widespread calumny involves innocent people.
  I hold no brief for, and would not attempt for a moment to defend, Rachman or any of his kind. But his activities must be put in their proper perspective, if only to be fair to public employees who have been castigated, or
  1096
  rather to the council which was castigated by the right hon. Gentleman and to others who have an interest in the borough of Paddington.
  At no time did Rachman have very much property in Paddington. The highest number I have seen of houses which he controlled there was about 20, the lowest eight. But he did operate in Paddington considerably before the Rent Act ever came into force. I first came across him in the autumn of 1953. He had bought a property, with statutory tenants, which he wanted to sell with vacant possession to a developer—the old story about which we have heard a good deal in the last two weeks. In fact, he had alternative accommodation to offer to the tenants and all except two went. Those two, quite rightly, decided that they would not, for when their turn came Rachman's supply of decent property had run out. They decided to stay. Then strong-arm methods were used against them. The gas was cut off, the water was cut off, the electricity was cut off, and so on.
  The tenants came to me. I went to the police and to the council, and both co-operated at once, giving full protection to the tenants. The council served notices for the reintroduction of the services. I then called on one of the rather despised legal firms which have been mentioned in the Press recently and gave an account of what was going on. Within a week, those two tenants had been offered satisfactory accommodation and had left.
  Mr. E. Fernyhough: What happened to the people who entered the house illegally and cut off the gas, the electricity and the water? Were they prosecuted? Did the hon. Gentleman follow that up?
  Mr. Allan: They were, in fact, prosecuted on that occasion.
  On about three other occasions between 1954 and 1957 I had dealings with tenants of Rachman. All three were women living alone in unfurnished accommodation in houses which Rachman wanted to get hold of so that he could relet the accommodation furnished. These women decided to fight and they came to me. Again, I had full co-operation from the police in all three cases and from the council in the only case

  1097
  in which its co-operation was relevant. In the end, the police made two arrests in connection with prostitution, covering two cases, and, in the other, an arrest in connection with assault. As a result of what was done, these women won their fight. The houses were eventually sold by Rachman to somebody quite different, not passed to another of his companies. The new landlord offered one woman £150 to go. She accepted and went to live with her sister in the country. Another of the women eventually got council accommodation, and I lost touch with the third. These incidents all occurred before the Rent Act came in, and I had the full co-operation of the local council and of the police in dealing with them.
  Eventually, when the Rent Act was passed, the area in which the Rachman rackets could be operated was limited to places where there was property of £40 rateable value or less. The Rachman rackets were transferred to the St. Stephen's Gardens district of which we have heard so much lately. I have made my investigations, as has the hon. Member for Paddington, North. In many cases, I think, we have seen the same man. I do not believe that strong-arm methods were used by Rachman in more than three cases in St. Stephen's Gardens, and one of these was the notorious case of 34 St. Stephen's Gardens where there was the tarpaulin episode. I do not believe that there could have been a large number there because, from information which I have and which, I believe, the hon. Member for Paddington, North has, Rachman did not own more than six houses in St. Stephen's Gardens.
  I think that I should give some detail about the tarpaulin episode, because people may have got the impression from what has been said and written that everyone just sat back helpless while tenants were exposed to the elements because a heartless and wicked landlord had removed the roof. In fact, when it happened I was alerted, the council was alerted and the tenants' association was on the spot. The council immediately inspected the roof, and it found that 24 slates had been maliciously damaged. The council had a tarpaulin put on the roof and, within two days, had served a notice on the
  1098
  owners, which notice was complied with relatively quickly.
  Mr. Parkin: Can the hon. Gentleman name the owners?
  Mr. Allan: Yes, they were Rachman. I have forgotten the name at the moment—Pierpoint Investments, I think—but it was undoubtedly a Rachman company. That was in the autumn of 1960. I do not believe that Rachman operated in Paddington after that. As I understand it, what his widow is reported today in the papers to have said, namely that he more or less ceased his operations in Paddington by the autumn of 1960, is right.
  I shall not deal with the allegations of thuggery now said to be going on. I had a great deal of information given to me over the weekend, and we have heard what my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) said today. I hope very much that there will be a thorough police investigation of all the alleged thuggeries. I think that it might throw a rather different light on what has been going on and may change the impression which many people now have.
  I do not imagine that I am a paragon as a Member of Parliament. I am no better than most and, I like to think, no worse. I am in my constituency every day simply because I happen to live there. I have my political "surgeries", as we all do, once or twice a week. I believe that I know pretty well what is going on. People come to me, and, as I have said, a fair amount of notice has been given to the various efforts I have made on behalf of constituents.
  With the good name of Paddington at heart, I am interested in trying to put the amount of racketeering which is going on in Paddington into proper perspective. I have gone into some rather exhaustive detail in order to show that, in all the cases in which I have had personal dealings with Rachman or his tenants, I have had full and effective co-operation from both the police and the local authority. I have no doubt whatever that Rachman has never gone unnoticed or, indeed, unhindered because of any lack of drive on the part of the police or the local authority, let alone because of any connivance in his activity on their part.
  Mr. Simon Mahon: I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman with great interest. He says that the police gave him every support. Earlier, he said, that the slates on the roof of a house were pulled off. What were the police doing? Were they asleep at the time?
  Mr. Allan: Not at all. It was done at night. It is quite easily done. If the police had been there, I should have been very pleased but somewhat surprised. It is not the job of the police to guard all the roofs in Paddington.
  The same co-operation which I have had from the police and the local authority in those cases has been forthcoming in what has been happening in regard to vice and clubs. Again, there has been a good deal of publicity about what has been happening in Paddington in this connection. I was in close touch with the Ministers of the Home Office, as was the Hon. Member for Paddington, North, during the early stages of the framing of both the Street Offences Bill and the Licensing Bill. We knew that we could not even attempt by the Street Offences Act to stop what is, after all, the oldest profession. All we sought to do was to stop its flagrant operation in areas where it had become quite impossible to bring up young families in a reasonable atmosphere. Prostitution, of course, goes on, but I should like to record the continuous and not unsuccessful battle which the local police and the council have been fighting in this direction, too. Because I was personally involved in them, I know of at least twenty obnoxious clubs which have been closed as a result of police and council action.
  The second issue of today' sdebate is the question of exorbitant rent. I do not want to go into this matter in such detail as my right hon. Friend, but inevitably it arises from pressure of population on London with resulting overcrowding. In a borough like Paddington the pressure of population is continuous and irresistible. To replace control, as is suggested by hon. Members opposite, merely freezes a bad position. It does not create any more housing and merely gives black market opportunities for racketeers like Rachman to exploit.
  People say, as the Leader of the Opposition said, "Give the council more
  1100
  power and more control. Make it enforce its rights in the provision of amenities." If we do that, what do we do with the displaced persons? I know what my right hon. Friend says. He says that we are merely telling people owning over crowded accommodation to wait till tenants leave and then not replace them. In these circumstances people will never move. Accommodation will be kept overcrowded because it is profitable to do that. Again, if the council is forced to create amenities, it means taking a room for a bathroom and displacing people. What is to be done with those people?
  In any borough—this most certainly applies to Paddington—the areas of greatest overcrowding and lack of amenity are those very areas which are inhabited by the most recent arrivals. People from the Commonwealth, the West Indies, Ireland and the provinces come into that sort of catchment area of Paddington and they are there perhaps only for months. Is the council, in acquiring these properties, to give priority to these temporary, transient people on its housing list at the expense of those who have waited months and, as we well know, years for decent accommodation? We in Paddington have a change of population in this densely crowded area of about 40 per cent. every year. This is something which we must recognise. We cannot give priority in permanent housing to transient people.
  In my view, the only way to have effective development and to overcome this overcrowding problem is by building at higher density levels. This is a particular hobby horse of mine, and I am very glad to ride it again this afternoon. My right hon. Friend says that the provision of houses is the first priority. That is so. But it is not possible to provide new houses in the centre of London, certainly not in Paddington. One can provide new accommodation and relieve overcrowding only by building at higher density levels.
  The Leader of the Opposition talked about the failure toplan. There were great dreams that post-war London would be emptier than it is. But London is a magnet. It will draw people, and we cannot stop it drawing people. If London stops attracting people to it, it means it

  1101
  is decaying. So long as London offers great opportunities for work, culture and pleasure, then people will come to it, and we cannot stop them. The only way to cater for these people—
  Mr. G. H. R. Rogers: How long is this process of allowing London to develop to go on—ten years, twenty years, fifty years?
  Mr. Allan: What part of London?
  Mr. Rogers:London. How long is the conurbation to be allowed to develop because it is a magnet for other people?
  Mr. Allan: We cannot stop it. It is like a tide which we cannot stop. But we can harness it by creating accommodation at higher density levels.
  I have investigated this problem in some detail. In 1953 I was chairman of a group of building contractors and civil engineers which devised a scheme in great detail. We produced a book, to which I wrote the foreword, called The High Paddington Scheme, which was to house 8,000 people on an 18-acre site over Paddington goods yard in multipurpose buildings with high density. I am sure that the hon. Member remembers the scheme. It was turned down by the L.C.C. on density grounds. Eight thousand people were not housed. St. Stephen's is overcrowded twice as much as it was then. The Paddington waiting list has become longer only because of this sacred cow of density which a Labour-controlled L.C.C. insists on worshipping.
  The same happened in Paddington over a smaller scheme which the borough had called Paddington Heights. It wanted to build at a density of 320 people to the acre. Again, the L.C.C. turned it down and insisted on building at a density of 170 people to the acre. In this case, I am ashamed to say, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government supported the L.C.C. This is another occasion when 450 people were not given houses, for which plans were all ready, on a three-acre site simply because of the decision of the L.C.C. to adhere to an outdated density figure. Last year the Paddington Council offered to rebuild a half acre site in the most overcrowded area in Paddington provided it was allowed to redevelop it at
  1102
  the rate of 300 people to the acre. The area already had a density of 350, but the L.C.C. turned down even a permitted density of 300. Therefore, again a great opportunity was lost by sticking to this absurd belief in a mystical density figure. I feel as hot under the collar about this insistence on a meaningless formula by a Labour-controlled council as any hon. Member opposite does about so-called Tory landlords.
  If my right hon. Friend wants to solve the overcrowding problem and thereby to get rents; down, he must ensure building at a realistic density figure.
  Mr. Albert Evans: I am sure that the hon. Member appreciates that the density which is permissible under the Act cannot be altered at the will of the local authority. Any proposed change in the density allowed is a matter for consultation between the local authority and the Minister.
  Mr. Allan:Yes, of course, but the Ministry will certainly accept any suggestions made to the local authority. The L.C.C. has not once tried to raise the density. The hon. Member cannot give me an example of that.
  The last constructive suggestion that I wish to make to my right hon. Friend is this. Some effort might be made to allow statutory tenants to acquire their own property. My right hon. Friend believes, with me, that one reason for exploitation is the existence of a specialised class of tenant ready for the racketeer to exploit. A man who knows a fair amount about property made the suggestion to me over the weekend as a practical proposition that statutory tenants should be given the right to purchase their property at a fixed number of years purchase, perhaps on a mortgage arranged through a building society or insurance company but guaranteed by the Government. I tried this out on one or two other people with knowledge of the property world, and they agreed that this was a feasible proposition.
  I have said that I hold no brief for and would not seek to defend anything that Rachman or any of his ilk have done—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I made that clear at the beginning of my speech. By putting things in the perspective in which I have attempted to put them, I

  1103
  have tried to defend the reputation of Paddington and the zeal of its public servants, who, I think, have done a very good job.
  5.50 p.m.
  Mr. B. T. Parkin: If there is one thing for which the hon. Member for Paddington, South (Mr. R. Allan) is noted and recognised all over the House, it is the quality of his collar. Anyone knows by looking at it from here that he never got hot under it in his life. Of course, it is a very good tactic on his part to make that kind of playing-it-down speech. I would have forgiven him for it if I had not been so provoked by the Minister's speech.
  The hon. Member's remarks about higher density no doubt link up with the Minister's remarks about the old threat that more use would be made of council dwellings. I suppose that that means doubling up and a means test. As for his remarks about a transit area, if one pauses and thinks, that throws some light on the way the Minister can dupe himself, if not us, with his remarkable statistics.
  Does the Minister tell us that 80 per cent. of properties as they become decontrolled are subsequently let for rent? That is the figure that is given to him.
  Sir K. Joseph: It comes from Professor Donnison's published report, which, admittedly, is two or three years out of date. It was two or three years after the Rent Act was passed.
  Mr. Parkin: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I do not have to read Professor Anybody's report. The terrible thing about the two previous speakers from the benches opposite is that, having listened to them, when I come to reply to them I think that I must be talking to them through plate glass. I have no doubt that the professor was right, but what did it signify?
  Let me explain to the right hon. Gentleman. He may have heard about people taking up loans to buy property. Does he know what happens if somebody buys a house with the aid of a bank loan and then leases it? The bank wants its money back. The condition of buying with a bank loan is that the property is kept as valuable as it was, and by leasing
  1104
  it one lowers the value of what is bought. The right hon. Gentleman should look at that one. This is one of the disincentives to leasing over a long period. The bank manager reproaches the borrower and says, "You should not have done that. The security is not what it was. You should keep it unencumbered".
  Therefore, the property is let for short periods. As a result, there is an enormous turnover of tenants, and professors who take pure statistics come to the conclusion that this tremendous number of people are living in rented dwellings as a result of the Rent Act, and nothing is said about the economic rent which is charged.
  The hon. Member for Paddington, South said that the campaign against vice in Paddington was not unsuccessful. That is all right for the constituency, because for the most part that is not where the patrons come. We know that Paddington Council has always waged a relentless war against vice in the borough, and whenever prostitution raises its ugly head the names of the streets are changed. This is a matter of history. South Paddington, however, is the biggest brothel in Europe. I know of only oneRachman property in my constituency. That was No. 1 Wymering Gardens, which was a Church Commission lease and that is where Serge Paprinski nominally lived, but if one got the keys from Audrey, it was £50 a night with a girl. South Paddington is notorious.
  How can the hon. Member expect to persuade this House and the public that one cannot pick up around the West End—I will not give the number; but does not he know the house in Orme Court where half the cast of a recent play are available and one does not need much introduction? I did not know his constituency as well in the old days as I do now after certain recent visits. Does he not know where the girls from the Miramar went? Does he not know who owned the place? I do. Why does he not ask apoliceman? The view which has been given of the hon. Member's constituency simply is not accurate.
  When I come back to the point where both of the speakers from the benches opposite were making the case that they knew about it and that they were deprived of information on which they

  1105
  could act, this is where my most restrained and carefully-prepared speech breaks down. Out of all the mountains of information which I have had, I have had to select a few examples. I had it planned because I wanted only to give cases which were clues to the ownership and working, as I and others have been, in search of the missing link to see whether we would get it right for today.
  Yesterday afternoon, I had three journalists in my house discussing a statement that had been made in response to something which I had provoked the day before. So the information had been coming in. I have certain admissions. I know who was the owner of the house where the assault took place. It is Raymond Nash, because he told me so before witnesses. He claimed to own the house. Of course, he says that he has contracted to sell, but what house in these circumstances is not contracted to sell? They are always contracted to sell. That is how this kind of business is done. The house has always been contracted to be sold to someone else. But as he said it in front of journalists and since he said it in my flat, I do not think I am under the umbrella of privilege. Was any action taken? Will any action be taken?
  Sykes admitted in my house that he had given instructions for the sale of those houses. We know which houses they were. Those are the ones which were filmed on "Panorama", where this outrage has taken place. Will there be a prosecution or not, or is this a quarrel between two private citizens? Can we still maintain that this is not a public issue of public concern, or are we to say once more that they never had a complaint?
  While I was having that conference, there came to my door, unexpectedly, half a dozen people from Paddington-Kensington and another man from Barons Court with another kind of evidence and case. They said, "We have brought you something that might help for tomorrow." I said, "Oh, my dears, I have so much I cannot sort it out. I do not think I can let you in. Leave me alone." Then, I thought that the journalists might have a go and that they might see the documents. So they came in and they all had a cup of tea.
  1106
  Out of the pile of documents, when I saw the first one I said, "That is mine. This is what I have been looking for for months"—Alexander March & Co., Estate and Property Management, 91–93, Westbourne Grove, London, W.2, the same address as on Peter Rachman Ltd., 91–93, Westbourne Grove, London, W.2. Do not the police know? Does not the Minister know who Alexander March is? They are the middle names, obviously, of Julian Peter Alexander March Phillips De Lisle.
  When somebody asked me—amusingly enough, it was an Express man—"When did you first get on to Sykes?" I said, "When you told me about it, on 11th April, 1961, in William Hickey." A fellow rang me up and said, "Have you seen William Hickey? That is him." I said, "What do you mean, 'That is him'?" He said, "Him that is in the Paddington Rent Tribunal every week"—and it was. That is Mr. De Lisle, says the society gossip writer, friend of Captain Anthony Sykes, friend and fellow officer of the Duke of Kent in the Royal Scots Greys.
  Mr. Rees-Davies:Is the hon. Member willing to repeat that allegation outside? Does he want to tear everyone's reputation to smithereens without opportunity of denial and as an abuse of the privilege of this House?
  Mr. Park in:I would not think that the hon. Member had need to advertise himself in this House to get plenty of briefs from that sort of character.
  Mr. Victor Goodhew: On a point of order. We are in danger, I think, of people's reputations being bandied about in this House. Is there nothing that can be done to ensure that if these sorts of things are said in this House under privilege there is recourse for these people outside?
  Mr. Rees-Davies: Further to that point of order.
  Mr. Parkin: I am not giving way.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker:The House will appreciate that I was asked a point of order and another hon. Member rose further to that point of order—[An HON. MEMBER: "It is not one."]—I thought it better to hear whether in my judgment it is a point of order or not. Then I will deal with it. If the hon. Member has a

  1107
  point of order will he please put it now? Mr. Rees-Davies.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: Further to that point of order. If in fact—[Interruption.]I was trying to go on when I heard those offensive epithets across the Floor of the House. The point of order I am making is this. The hon. Gentleman made an allegation that I was acting for Mr. De Lisle. It is without foundation. Is it in order—[Interruption.]—it would be ill of the right hon. Gentleman to say anything before one has an opportunity to be heard. Is it in order for an hon. Gentleman to make disgraceful allegations against hon. Members of this House as well as people outside without giving them an opportunity to deal with them?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker:There are two points which arise. What is said about persons outside this House is privileged within this House. It is a matter of taste as to what is said. Hon. Members are well aware that such persons cannot answer for themselves. What is said about hon. Members in this House is clearly governed by the rules of order. To make an allegation against an hon. Member is not in order. As I heard the debate going on I would not have thought that a direct allegation was made. I would not have thought that, but surely we can conduct our debate in an orderly fashion. Mr. Parkin.
  Mr. Parkin: I am much obliged, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I, of course, would like to conduct my speech in an orderly fashion.
  It did seem to me, since the right hon. Gentleman was developing this case and making those remarks about not knowing and nobody complaining, that here was a dramatic example in the shopping bag of that old lady, who was frightened to have her photograph taken, frightened to go back home unaccompanied, frightened to have the documents returned to her at the house because her letters were interfered with, and wished them to be returned to a relative who would return them to her. The documents which I am given would have given all the information that I am now being accused of disclosing under the umbrella of privilege.
  They belong to a tenants' association which has been refused again and again
  1108
  by the right hon. Gentleman and his predecessor who have not been sufficiently interested. That is the fact of the matter. Tenants' associations have pleaded to put their case and put these facts. I am not going to use up the time of the House tonight in going through many of the mountains of cases I have got, but I can assure all those people that it will not be long before their cases are investigated. It cannot be long in any case before the General Election and no Government could survive the scandals of these revelations.
  Sir K. Joseph: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that I had refused to see or to hear this tenants' association? I did not quite understand that. He said me and my predecessor, I think.
  Mr. Parkin: I expect I did. I expect I meant the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor.
  Hon. Members: Oh.
  Sir K. Joseph: I do not mean to quarrel with the hon. Gentleman. I just do not know whether he said that about me or not. Because if he did, I do not think it is true.
  Hon. Members: Withdraw.
  Mr. Parkin: Anything for peace and quiet. I withdraw.
  Here is a case which I was hoping to use as an example because it was away from Paddington and away from vice, and it was a fresh name. There was a sale by auction on 6th April, 1953, in Battersea. Sinclair & Partners, of Farnham Common. There were four blocks of flats in Prince of Wales Mansions. They did not pay very much for them—three blocks of flats: 31–40; about £2,000 for a block, with 28 years' lease to go; 61–70, £2,400 for 10 flats, 28 years' lease to go; and one round the corner. What was significant was that the address was 21 Mackenzie Street, Slough.
  What happened after that was that as the flats became vacant they were sublet to Mr. Rachman, who sublet them to other characters who conducted the sort of operations he would wish them to do in order to induce the rest of the tenants to leave.
  A tenants' association was formed and I am assured that they made attempt

  1109
  after attempt to get a hearing at the Ministry, and they claimed they were refused. That is my information. I get a good deal of it—from people who seem to me to be honourable, reliable, frustrated people. If it proves untrue I will, of course, withdraw. But I doubt it.
  The interesting thing about this is that when they had done this and got vacant possession and put the flats up again for sale by auction and got a higher price, about £6,000 the block, for the remainder of the lease, Magdalen College, Oxford, freeholders of one of the blocks, with no powers whatsoever, no rights whatsoever, came down and by strength of will frightened the living daylight out of the scoundrels who bought it and made them give it back without compensation. That is the remarkable story. But it came off. They were not going to have that in their property.
  For the sake of cutting down my speech I shall throw away another case. That was where Colonel Sinclair comes into the picture and it was outside Paddington at the time.
  What I was going to say about the bundle of documents I got yesterday was about the ownership of a certain house in Paddington. It was the same address, the same letters, from Kramer, giving notice to quit. It is established with these documents I got yesterday that Kramer acted as solicitor, that it was on the instructions "of our client, A. P. Sykes, Esq." and that the Estate Management Company was De Lisle working from Rachman's office. It was not until afterwards that I saw this further little scrap of paper, which was a worn-out circular. I picked it up. I have seen a lot of that sort of thing before. It was a duplicated circular offering to pay money if the lady would get out. I was not much interested at first, till I saw the name on the back of it was 21 Mackenzie Street, Slough.
  That is why last night in response to the Kramer-Rachman statement I said there might be one or two gaps to fill in and I would like to know the name of the man who sold large blocks of property to Rachman between 1956 and 1959, because in1956 Colonel Sinclair was the owner of that particular house. There is clear evidence. We know what he did at Prince of Wales Terrace, Battersea. We know what he did in Padding-
  1110
  ton. At first, he sent the letters offering to buy it. Then he found that there was a better organisation. Then he put the ferrets in. That is how it was done. The properties were changed over to someone else with an undertaking to resell them back again, and when the process was over the price was inflated.
  There is one thing about which I can agree with the right hon. Gentleman, that the Rachman activities did not stem solely from the Rent Act. As I never met Rachman, or, apart from this one house, had no properties of his in my constituency, I am very happy to agree on that point. During the course of this debate, I shall certainly not let many people, who are laughing their heads off because their own misdeeds have been overlooked, get away with it.
  A great deal of research work has been done during the last few weeks into the Rachman companies and all the rest of the story. It is a very remarkable thing when one considers how much good has been done by the echoes of that entirely harmless pistol shot. Never was a pistol shot fired by a jealous lover with better results. If anybody should get a medal for political and public services, it is "Johnny" Edgecombe.
  One of the reasons why this work has been done so well is that in every newspaper group in this country there are journalists who have had this information for years, keeping it in their personal files. They had their stories spiked and scotched by the lawyers who are always threatening what they will do if one mentions any existing company or living person. Time and again it has been impossible to publish, time and again deputations have been refused, and time and again investigations have been refused. Newspapers have been gagged. I pay tribute to those journalists who have preserved that information and are only too glad to use it now. I only hope that the free-lances, who are the most frustrated of all, because if they do not get their stories sold they do not get any pay, are getting something out of it at the present time.
  As a matter of fact—I hope that he is a happy character—there is one night club photographer who is walking about London unaware that he has the right to draw enormous royalties in respect of his picture of Rachman, which has

  1111
  been copied and taken by practically every newspaper in the country.
  I am now going back to my own experiences as the Member for Paddington, North—a long way. I remember a party celebrating either my selection or my election, when a lot of clever people were deciding on my political career. They were rather aggressive chaps, and they have all gone high in their different professions and activities. But there was one quiet little chap, a councillor who, at a moment when he and I could hear one another, said, "There is one subject in Paddington that you might well study. It is the problem of fag-ends of leases. I have found in my ward in the borough that very curious things are going on."
  He had to explain it all to me. He told me about the great developments in Paddington, including the building of the station, and the fact that 99-year leases were imprudently granted, and they were beginning to fall in because no man of substance could afford to keep a lease because he might have to pay for the delapidations, and as a result the leases were being sold either to men of straw or to perpetually insolvent companies.
  I took this very seriously. I had been the Member of Parliament for Paddington only about six weeks when I wrote to the then Minister of Housing and Local Government. I set out the problem and said:
  "In order to face the problem squarely, it is necessary to assemble all the relevant facts and influences. These seem to fall under three headings:

  (1) The size of the problem and how fast it is increasing.

  (2) (a) The extent to which colonial citizens are either encouraged or permitted to come here.

  (b) The extent to which any check can be afterwards kept on their means of living.

  (3) (a) The extent to which ends of leases or freeholds of dilapidated properties can be freely disposed of without regard to social consequences.

  (b) The extent to which the 'welfare' aspects of housing management as developed under housing authorities could be extended to cover the unrecognised needs of immigrants living here."

  I got a reply. Someone has "pinched" it for the autographs, and I have only a carbon copy of it:
  "The question of the disposal of ends of leases of property comes within the general law of landlord and tenant and is a matter
  1112
  for the Lord Chancellor's Office. The Housing Repairs and Rents Bill, now before Parliament, contains proposals which would enable local authorities to acquire unfit houses and to exercise their management powers over these as well as over all other houses they own."
  There is a long piece about local authorities permitting sub-letting.
  Then there is a reference to a report reprinted in 1947, which sounds so encouraging. It says that good management is
  "…in effect in a form of social service and aims at teaching a new and inexperienced public to be 'housing minded'. A copy of this report was sent to local authorities, and it may be obtained from H.M. Stationery Office, price 9d. net."
  This was under the signature of Harold Macmillan. That was my estimate of the problem and is nearly ten years ago.
  In view of what happened after my study of the ends of leases I certainly will not let some of the old-established estate agents who have been working the "fiddle" of the perpetually insolvent company get away with it while we ascribe most of the evils of landlordism to the fiddle of Rachman. The practice was this, as I found it out. One learns the hard way. There was a rather dramatic circumstance. An Irishman brought to my notice the fact that his friend next door had been thrown out of the basement flat for which he had been paying five guineas a week. The rent tribunal had reduced it to £3 10s. He had been evicted at the end of his security of tenure. The property had been re-let to a Jamaican, quite illegally, at six guineas a week. It was a flat in which an old lady had died. As she had no relatives, all they had to do was to take the body off the bed, and there they had a fully furnished flat.
  Mr. George Thomas: In 1963!
  Mr. Parkin: This was a good many years ago now.
  I made a search to find out what the company was. The company was, of course, a £100 company, with two £1 shares allocated to two characters in Martin East's office. Martin East is an expert in these matters. He was the landlord of my hon. Friend's friend—Christie, of Rillington Place, the place with all the bodies in year after year; Timothy Evans's place. Obviously, he

  1113
  took a very careful interest in the maintenance of his property and what was going on.
  The Jamaican did not want to let us in. He said, "Please do not come. I have been thrown out so many times. Leave me alone, I am happy. It is a lovely dwelling." They said there were two tenants in the top floor. We knew that there were six. By the time they admitted there were six, there were 12. Two lovely "boys" were kitchen porters at Lyons at night and ate all their meals there, and they paid £1 to somebody else for a room during the day and sent the rest of their money home to mother.
  This was going to be Parkin's great triumph. It was going to be a great occasion when I named the place and the house. Television wanted to take a shot of it, and interviewed the coloured tenants. The television people were told the rents, and they photographed the toilet, and it appeared on the television screen. At last, I thought, we have got something which will stir things up. It certainly did.
  Martin East gave all the tenants notice and said that it was done on the instructions of the head leaseholder, and the name of the head leaseholder appeared on the Order Paper of the House of Commons, and he rang up the Church Commissioners to offer to surrender the lease. Forty people were made homeless because the Church Commissioners, through the agency of Colonel Hanbury-Bateman, chucked the lot out, and they got a bonus of a lease which was surrendered. No doubt they rehabilitated this property very nicely and let it at a nice rent, which is no consolation to those tenants. There was George Plant, next door, who had pneumonia after working so hard on the case. He died a few days later. His widow said that he would have been pleased to know that he got a wreath from his Member of Parliament.
  That was the result of my first interference—a dead man and 40 homeless people. You cannot win. But that is the established way of running this racket. The Martin Easts of this system, who have been in existence for years and who will not be touched by the Bill of the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke), have established a principle—that bad property is
  1114
  a better investment than good property because if it is owned by an insolvent company all one has to do is charge the company, as a management fee, the exact amount of rents collected.
  That system is perfectly well known. Nothing is spent on repairs. As a result, when people add percentages and numbers of years, remembering that gross rent is also net rent, they establish a value through the principle that neglecting property is more profitable than repairing it. This was going on long ago. I have tried to provoke all these revelations in the last few weeks so that we could trace all these stages.
  How did I first hear of the practice? It was when constituents came to me and said, "We have nothing against coloured people. When they came into the house we wanted to welcome and help them. But they have these funny habits and make a lot of noise." These people could hardly believe what was happening to them. So there was another stage: the strong-arm man or the noisy, planted tenant. Of course, all the blame was put on them.
  Then there was the stage when all the blame was laid—as I gather it is being laid today—on this particular, unhappy, dead foreign Jew. But that is not right, either, because associated with him were a large number of people, some of whom I have named to the outrage of the authorities of this House and of some hon. Members. But I have done so in order to take the investigation a little further. I have said nothing that these people have not since confirmed in public outside the House in conversation with me in front of reporters. I will not labour that, because the evidence is there for whoever wants to follow it up.
  I spent a long time at the beginning of my speech to show that such evidence could have been available years ago, had these documents been examined. It would have been possible to piece together the incriminating evidence. I am glad now that all these stages of public interest have been gone through and that today we are, so to speak, in the boardroom looking into the future. Yet I wonder whether we ever left the boardroom to begin with, because an interesting situation has arisen.

  1115
  These little clues I have been getting seem to strengthen the view—and the Kramer-Rachman statement last night gave us the picture—that Rachman properties were being sold through Has all at inflated values through "phoney" building societies. Kramer has been solicitor of many companies, and of everyone connected with the Rachman story. He was solicitor to Colonel Sinclair at the time that Sinclair and Partners, of Farnham Common, was formed. That is the company which owned the house I mentioned which later went into Rachman's hands.
  In 1960, Sinclair formed, with Kramer as secretary, Nominees of George and Marjorie Sinclair, Limited, one of the subsidiaries of which was Kelvin Parade Development Limited, the directors of which were George Sinclair and Abraham Kramer. Kramer was Rachman's solicitor and is now Mrs. Rachman's solicitor and probably the executor of the intestate estate. At various times he appears to have lent money on Rachman's properties.
  The other clue is that Sinclair's company, the Long fort Mortgage Investment Company, Limited, of 21, McKenzie Street, Slough, had a second mortgage on Audrey O'Donnell, Limited, which indicates second control there. It would appear that there was a link before—and still existing since—which overrode Rachman and his operations and was interested much more in the long-term buying of bad properties, clearing them by using a gang to put in ferrets, and then selling them again.
  I am sorry to weary the House, but I have set all this out so that the Minister will know that there is material enough for the investigation which we are demanding and which it is surely time we should have. I said that there was something missing lastnight. I regret that there was not a second statement by Kramer saying that he would ask the Law Society for permission to release all the files of the Rachman affair.
  Someone got the Secretary of the Law Society out of bed—at least, I imagine that was what happened, for the answer seems to have been brusque—and he said that this was nothing to do with lawyers, but with the executors of the
  1116
  estate. So the ball is back at Kramer's end. He is able to release these papers and I hope that the Minister will see that he does, preferably tonight.
  One further matter which surely needs more investigation is the strange mortgage of the Eagle Star Insurance Company. This is a question of the public's money. We know how this sort of thing is done. It was done on the basis described by my right hon. Friend—of companies A, B and C passing from one valuation to another until one reaches a valuation enough to enable it to get a full 100 per cent. loan from the public's money.
  The secretary of the Eagle Star Insurance Company must have had his suspicions, but perhaps he was told not to reveal them. There are powers under the law—indeed, it is incumbent upon them—whereby valuers of insurance companies take precautions. If there is any suspicion, there should be an inquiry, and if we have to get the secretary to the Bar of this House he should be invited to reveal the names of each and every valuer engaged in the transaction.
  So much for the investigations that still need to be made. I hope soon to finish this part of the story, because now I want to move on and reveal the most important name of all—that of the very significant figure, indeed, the key figure, in the problem. It is a woman, and she has a secret. It is a secret which involves possible pain, threat and suffering to a number of innocent people. I want to talk about her.
  This woman lives in my constituency, in Fernhead Road. I will not give the number at the moment. I have been trying to get attention focused on her. I have tried with both the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. I asked them, "Why not get up to date and see Miss Carter? I will get her to re-enact the interview she had with me." They have replied that they do not want to do it because that would make it party politics. I asked them, nevertheless, to get a record of it, because they would eventually need it when someone paid attention to Miss Carter, for this is the nub of the problem that we have to face.
  Miss Carter is the owner of two houses. Her net income from both houses for the quarter was nil. It is true that she paid six months' rates in three months and

  1117
  paid her agent £9 10s., but at the end of the quarter she owed him £2 2s. 4d. I would have liked that interview to have been put on the tape along with a picture of this lady when she came to see me. I asked her, "What do you think I can do for you, Miss Carter?" She said, "I want you to get me a pensioner's flat". She could have got a pensioner's flat because in one of the houses there was an uncontrolled tenancy and the house had a lease which was due to fall in.
  If she had lived in that house, she could have had a pensioner's flat from the L.C.C. for life. But she said that that would have meant a court order and, "We do not do that sort of thing in Lancashire". She is about 4 ft. high and is 73. She could have been safe, but she would not do it. Plenty of others would have done it for money, but she would not throw out a family in an uncontrolled tenancy when the lease fell due. Now she is worried. I have to reveal her secret, although she does not like my doing so; it affects many people.
  She dropped her voice and leaned her head towards me and said, "I begin to feel that I cannot manage the stairs as well as I could". She is seriously thinking of selling the house, hoping to get enough money to buy another, but feeling that she will not. When the time comes that she cannot manage the stairs, there will be fear in the hearts of the other tenants who have been living there for a long time. It is not poverty or the lack of amenities. These are clean, hardworking people who make the best of what there is, the people who wash their front doorstep every day. Their fear is of strangers coming in with strange habits, and all the other things that they have heard about.
  For once, I have an audience. I have made 17 major speeches since 1953. Will someone please now pay attention to the case of Miss Carter, because her case represents the problem of the future? Nearly every other problem in housing is tied up with it. The problem of Miss Carter is how to get her transferred to another property without damaging that in which she is now living by allowing it to become the property of speculators. The problem is how to acquire that house, either through the local council or through a housing association. No single individual can do this because
  1118
  room to decant is needed to transfer people while conversion and reconditioning are being undertaken.
  Linked with that is the problem of how old people are to be treated. There are 100,000 old ladies of pensionable age living alone in London. That means that one in 10 of dwellings of this kind in London is occupied by such a person. Many of these dwellings are grossly under-occupied in terms of square feet, but if these old ladies leave, they lose their present security. It is not a modest increase in rent which they fear, but the horror of insecurity. Since the First World War this country has accepted the principle that no one should make vast profits out of housing shortages, and this has established the right of security. Quite apart from rent, it is the problem of the security of tenure which we have to face.
  If people have been listening to this story, they can go on listening a bit longer. If their consciences are smitten by what has gone on, they must demand the inquiry which we are demanding. We are here to counter the Government's argument that this is one limited tragic episode associated with one man. We know that these things have been going on—
  Sir K. Joseph:The Government do not say that this is one single tragic episode, related to one man. I rather carefully read out the position in other places. We were trying to get it into its scale.
  Mr. Park in: I will not recapitulate my argument, but my experience of Paddington is that we had these troubles before Rachmam arrived.
  Miss Carter represents a widespread habit in this country associated with the buying of the house next door as part of the pattern of working-class savings—the feeling that one will be all right in one's old age. Not only will one not be all right, but the house will not be. That is because most houses of this kind are dilapidated and they have become dilapidated because their single owners have been unable to carry out repairs, although large corporations could.
  At the end of the day, we shall have failed in our duty in exposing these scandals if we have not roused the country to personal determination to do something about it. Everybody can do something about it. Everybody can tackle

  1119
  this problem of the group breaking up. The loyalties of a community are destroyed through these stresses and strains in such a way that there is this ghastly loneliness in the tenement houses around London. There are ways of co-operating with and pressing local authorities and making them act. Magdalen College, Oxford, can chase thugs off the premises, but frightened old ladies cannot. There is still terror. Tonight there will be a vote and there will be a row. If the result of both is not on the one hand an investigation of all the matters which I have indicated—and it must come, for the Government cannot escape—and on the other hand a widespread determination to push ahead with a two-pronged assault on this intractable problem, we will have failed.
  Why do we not get help from other countries? I have had letters from Italy saying that journalists there wrote articles about this sort of thing two or three years ago. Can the Italians not take the same interest in our housing that they take in our scandals? Have we sought advice from Sweden and Norway and elsewhere about the techniques of housing?
  This is my moment and I intend to ram it home. How many times have I said this in Standing Committees? All the byelaws must be revised and must then be enforced. Byelaws such as those dealing with fire prevention must be enforced and we must devise penalties which will fall upon the bad landlord and not on the good. While a council must enforce the regulations when a house is brought to its notice, the problems we have been discussing are rarely brought to the notice of a local council. There is one simple reason for this. It is an extraordinary echo of the old notion of property. A local authority is not allowed to demand the name of an owner from the Land Registry, but the owner of the next-door property can get it. The public is not entitled to that knowledge, but property owners can exchange it among themselves. That situation must be changed, as all these gaps in the law must be dealt with.
  But none of it will be successful unless we tackle the other problem of how the community is to acquire for itself the increased value which it has put upon the land, not upon what is developed on
  1120
  the land, but the increased value of the land itself. There is a clue to the answer to this problem in the fact that the law has never admitted private ownership of land. It has admitted only a series of fiddles by which the so-called owner is free to do all sorts of things on it, but the land itself is held from the Crown. Let us restore that Royal prerogative so people can be free to carry on with what they have been doing with the land, on a freehold, until they change its use.
  This is the struggle between the two parties. This is the real issue. All sorts of silly arguments are bandied about at the time of a General Election, but if there is not a dedicated determination to tackle this gross error and injustice in the present system of land owning, a system which has provoked and encouraged these disgraceful distorted values which have produced these scandalous, unheard-of situations in which a man, as a joke, can suggest taking the roof off a house, just as he might suggest, in Army terms, "Burn down their huts", a system in which there have been evictions on this scale and the movement of population of the kind that we have witnessed in recent years, the problem will never be solved. This has gone on without many people knowing or caring, because the facts were not brought to their notice by the Government when they could have been.
  My final accusation against the Government is that they have failed constantly to listen to what has been said to them, and that now they will have to listen to what the whole country will say to them.
  6.41 p.m.
  Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: This debate raises three separate issues. The first issue is housing, and we appreciated earlier that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition did not wish us to discuss that today. Had he done so, he would have called on a much more able man to put forward a reasoned speech, and I refer to the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart). It is, of course, clear to those who have had the opportunity of listening to housing debates that the Leader of the Opposition is not qualified to speak on that subject, nor did he deal with the facts of the situation.

  1121
  The second main issue is the important one of law enforcement to deal with the point at issue, whether one calls it racketeering or anything else. There is a third issue to which I shall refer later but which is of greater importance than the other two, and I beg hon. Gentlemen opposite to pay attention to it. I shall say nothing in this House that I am not prepared to repeat outside. I believe that this House is being used by certain people to get dupes to spread not only Communist but other matters. I am going to prove this, and I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will listen to me. I shall give chapter and verse for everything I say, and, furthermore, I shall name the people who have given me the information that I shall put before the House.
  I have given careful thought to this whole matter, because a few days ago I realised that this was merely a follow-up to what have been called the Johnny Edgcombe, Aloysius, and other people's earlier visits. I was unable to speak on the occasion of the earlier debate in the House because I was connected professionally with the case. On this occasion I am not professionally connected with Mr. de Lisle, who is here with me.
  Mr. William Warbey: On a point of order. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to refer to a stranger by name?
  Mr. Speaker: It is usual to refer to strangers by name.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: The third issue with which I want to deal is that a deliberate public mischief has been created by scandal-mongering, the purpose of which is to try to defame not only the Government but certain men who hitherto have borne perfectly good characters, and to abuse the privileges of the House by making statements here which are without foundation and which are not based on any reasonable knowledge of the facts. This is what I shall try to establish, and I shall give the evidence as I proceed.
  The Leader of the Opposition was clearly obtaining his general information from someone, and it will be evident to hon. Gentlemen opposite that he was obtaining it from the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin), on
  1122
  whom he was placing reliance. I shall deal with the sources of information on which the hon. Member for Paddington was relying, because in the course of 16 to 20 hours work over the last two days I have made it my business to see most of those sources and to take statements from the people concerned.
  With regard to the housing issue, it is a preposterous absurdity to suggest that the existence of the Rent Act can possibly have any direct effect on this question of law enforcement or on the staging of this debate. If anyone looks back over a short period, he will see that the reason for this debate is that the hon. Member for Paddington, North, was fed with certain information which he blew through the corridors and spoke about in this Chamber. The hon. Gentleman made allegations against Captain Anthony Sykes, and the Leader of the Opposition—and I am not attacking the right hon. Gentleman—with that information in his possession, and assuming it to be correct, decided to have this debate. I am making the serious suggestion that this House is being used by journalists and others to bring out these matters, and that certain Communists whom I shall name are responsible for having set the wheels in motion and used as their dupe the hon. Member for Paddington, North.
  Dealing with the Rent Act, I was one of those who rebelled against my party, so the Labour Party cannot accuse me of having been a Right-wing Tory in that regard. Nevertheless, rightly or wrongly, we know that it is not possible to continue having false rents of14s. or 21s. a week without causing the sort of trouble which came to light at the time of Rachman's death, and therefore, whether we get rid of the Rent Act or not, whether we apply a limit on rents, or whether we leave it to the market, the sooner the present state of affairs is ended the better, but it hardly lies in the mouth of the Labour Party to come forward at this stage and say that it would end rent control, though it would apply some measure of control on the upper limits of rent.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition pointed out that for three years nobody raised the question of strong-arm tactics; that nobody raised the question of unlawful behaviour; and

  1123
  these questions of evictions which have now been raised—
  Mr. Laurence Pavitt Mr. Laurence Pavitt (Willesden, West) rose—
  Mr. Rees-Davies: I shall not give way. The Leader of the Opposition refused to give way to me on a very serious point of information, and I do not intend to give way. Anyway, I do not want to take long and I have a lot to say.
  It is clear that this question of security is irrelevant to today's debate. The reason that the debate was put on was first to deal with the question of law enforcement on Rachman; but, of course, the main issue was to try to get another stick to beat the Government with, another scandal which would be timed on the same day as the other—[Interruption.]—I shall establish the truth of these things.
  The right hon. Gentleman talked about the evil men involved. He named no one. The hon. Member for Paddington, North, named a number of men but gave no evidence to support his statements. As to racketeering, I think that I ought to deal with the facts of at least one man who has borne a very high character and whom I saw today for the first time in my life. I knew nothing of him before he came to see me. He did not come in any professional capacity. He has his own lawyer, and he has not in fact taken any action, but he has authorised me to put before the House the full picture of his position. His name is Julian De Lisle. He tells me that he is in fact issuing a writ for libel in respect of statements made about him in the Sunday Mirror yesterday. Let me make it plain to the hon. Gentleman that I neither act for him nor intend to act for him in any way. There have been no proceedings issued, and he is perfectly entitled to take what action he likes in due course. He would prefer to have the opportunity of saying something.
  It was said of this man that he was a close associate of Rachman and, indeed, various defamatory statements were made. The facts are these: he inherited a substantial sum of money from a cousin called Abel Edward Smith, but he never used the name of Smith. He in fact sold that estate in the early part of last year.
  Mr. Mellish: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member has just
  1124
  indicated that he is speaking for a certain gentleman who, I understand, is to bring a libel action on account of something printed in a newspaper. Is it in order now for that article to be read and this matter to be debated, because, as I understand previous Rulings, these matters become sub judice once they become matters for the court to decide?
  Mr. Speaker: If no writ has been issued, there is no question of the matter being sub judice.
  Mr. Rees-Davies:I was not reading from an article. I was in fact giving a set of facts which Mr. De Lisle has authorised me to give. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman had been present he would have known that the hon. Member for Paddington, North and other hon. Members have already attacked this man.
  Mr. Parking: I hope that the hon. Member will not confuse in his speech any answer which he may have to make to any article which appeared in any newspaper, which, I submit, is hardly the concern of this House, with anything that I may have said in describing the group of young men who for a time were associated in this speculative buying and selling of property in Paddington, of which I have said that Mr. Julian De Lisle was one. I know that he withdrew from it and sold out in March, 1962. I do not think that the hon. Member will find that I have said anything discreditable about Julian De Lisle which I could not have said outside the House. I do not need any privilege of this House for any of the remarks that I have made. The documents that I have shown were shown in public and assented to by Captain Sykes and Mr. Raymond Nash yesterday in my house.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: I will certainly give way to the hon. Gentleman if he is now wishing to withdraw the imputations and allegations—[Interruption.] I am trying to clear in this House the names of one or two men with perfectly good reputations, and if hon. Gentlemen at some time might be in an equivalent difficulty they might like to know that in this House there are some of us who regard reputation and honour above everything.
  If the hon. Gentleman now wishes to withdraw what he said on the 8th of

  1125
  this month when he charged Mr. Sykes with being the owner of property purchased from Mr. Rachman, which, I suggest, he now knows to be completely untrue, and if he wishes to withdraw his allegations against Mr. Sykes or Mr. De Lisle, I shall willingly give way to give him the opportunity too make a public statement to that effect. He has indicated that he does not wish to do so, and also, as I understand it, that he would be willing to repeat those matters outside this House. I have no doubt that these gentlemen will be glad of the opportunity for them to be dealt with in another more appropriate place. That is not a matter for us, but it is a matter for them to have that opportunity.
  What I was going to say—and I want to continue quickly—was about the position of Mr. De Lisle. The House I am quite sure realises, or hon. Members do in their hearts, that it is equally disgraceful to tear to smithereens the reputation of men who have borne the highest reputation in this country and who served their country well, without their having any opportunity of replying and meeting these allegations.
  The position of Mr. De Lisle is this. It can all be checked against documents and records. If an hon. Member wishes to check these facts, he is at liberty to see him. One cannot say fairer than that. In fact, Mr. De Lisle acquired all of the properties with which this matter has been concerned from a man called Halsall, who was chairman of the EagleBuilding Society. Mr. De Lisle was never a nominee, or agent or had any connection with Rachman. He in fact obtained an interest in certain properties and certain of those properties still remain in his ownership. Those which remain in his ownership are: Nos. 6, 7, 13,14, 31 and 45, Powis Square, 25, Chepstow Road and 262, Westbourne Park Road. I saw all those properties today with him. I went to see them, entirely personally and in order to inform the House of these matters.
  I went there because I thought that there had been suggestions that these were all slums. That is quite untrue. If hon. Gentlemen want to do so, I am certain that they can see any of those which they want to see. They will find that all of those in Powis Square have been very much improved. The internal
  1126
  decoration of many of them is very good. They will need a coat of paint outside, but they are all what I would call above-average working-class property, and are really quite good. In almost every case, baths, bathrooms and electricity have been put in. While I say would that they will probably be better in another twelve months when they have had a coat of paint, no real complaint can be made of those properties.
  No. 25, Chepstow Road is a perfectly sound property which hon. Members can see. There is only one of these which is really appalling and that is 262, Westbourne Park Road, Kensington. I shall explain why in a moment. It so happens that apart from those properties which he still owns, he also had an interest in four properties in St. Stephen's Gardens. The first of those properties remains extremely bad. He could never obtain possession of those properties, as a result of circumstances which I shall explain. As a result they were repossessed by a mortgagee—a well-known company. Under this mortgage they are now being redeveloped, possession of the premises having been obtained.
  When this, young man decided to go in for the development of property he wanted to be able to repossess certain of it to redevelop it as flats. In some cases this has been done. In what is called the Rachman background there are certain phases. The first phase was one of very bad property, and it existed some years ago. Then various people moved in; there was a change of population, and they moved out. The property was sold in 1960. I have here the contracts which were made at that time, together with complete schedules of the rents that go with the contracts.
  In 1960, the properties were sold by Mr. Halsall. On 27th February, 1960, he marketed about 200 properties. Seventy of those had formerly been owned by Rachman. They were bought by a variety of people. One person who bought some of the properties, in association with two other people, was Mr. De Lisle. There were a number of properties in Chepstow Road, including No. 25; a number of properties in St. Stephen's Gardens, and the ones in Powis Square. Other young men also bought property. Unfortunately they are not "rich Charlies", but it so happens that

  1127
  Mr. De Lisle is a rich man. The others were not even rich at the time. They bought these properties with the intention of carrying out decent redevelopment.
  Mr. Has all was chairman of the Eagle Building Society. He marketed the 200 properties, and the contracts were entered into. Those properties then left Rachman, Rachman having sold out. If any hon. Member goes to that area now he will see that most of these properties are extremely good. This morning I went to see powis Square, and I noticed that many of the properties had had their full Georgian façades restored with white paint over the last 12 months. I was amazed at the difference there was from the situation three years ago. Before we deal with the background of this debate it is important to get the facts into the right perspective. The point is that the problem that we are discussing is rapidly being eradicated by the men who have taken over what was at one time the property of Rachman. I have satisfied myself, at least in one or two cases, that the men who have taken them over are doing their best to redevelop them.
  I will now state how the whole House has been duped. I want to express strong criticism of the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Member for Paddington, North, who should have known, and did know, much of the background with which I shall now deal. In the main the rents of these properties vary from £3 10s. a week to £6 a week, according to whether there are two or five rooms. A schedule of rents is available if any hon. Member wishes to see it. How did it come about that these cases arose? How does it come about that one has some shocking property? Shocking property does not make money.
  Let me state some of the facts that I have been told by Mr. De Lisle about his properties. No. 262, Westbourne Park Road has three tenants. The one in the basement is named Mr. Pinto Fox; the one on the ground floor is a Mr. Lewis, and the one occupying the first and second floor is a Mr. Miles. These three gentlemen have not paid their rent for upwards of a year. The man in the basement owes £180 and the men in the other two flats also owe very large sums of money. There has been no method of getting rid of these tenants. Why?
  1128
  I here is an association not far from that house, which is run by a man called Farr. It is called the St. Stephen's Gardens Association. Mr. Farr is a self-confessed Communist and political agitator. Mr. Pinto Fox, the tenant of the basement of No. 262 Westbourne Park Road, is a member of a society called the Rasitafarians, who follow the line of the Black Lion of Judah, and it is their spiritual belief that they are Ethiopians. [An HON. MEMBER: "Tell us the one about the three bears."] Wait a minute. Hon. Members ought to be a little less ribald about it. Let me tell hon. Members what it is.
  Rastafarians take an oath in support of the blacks and in detestation of white people. The Rastafarian Society is a religious cult which has the opposite of the Capricorn Society outlook. Its outlook is that the black people are better than the white. The society meets in committee from time to time and its members are not only dedicated Communists; they favour the protection of the blacks. If hon. Members want to know more I will send them to somebody who will give them the details.
  These people arequite different from the ordinary run of the decent coloured population in the area. They cause the terror in the area. They are the people who are seeking to get protection money. The evidence is that wherever these people have intervened they have succeeded not only in getting the premises themselves, for a period of 12 months and upwards, but in protecting any other tenants from eviction. The sort of thing they do is to barricade the doors and put up barbed wire, if need be. If a repair is done to the roof they take it off and send for the police. I am not suggesting that there are not problems of this kind both ways, but the important fact is that the information which the right hon. Gentleman has, and which caused him to initiate this debate, came from the hon. Member for Paddington, North, who knows quite well that these were Communist gentlemen and agitators. It is no good saying that the hon. Member did not know. If he did not know that, why did not the Leader of the Opposition have some sense of responsibility and make inquiries? It took me two or three days to obtain this information. I do not believe that I am so

  1129
  exceptional that hon. Members opposite could not have obtained the information a great deal more quickly.
  Mr. Michael Foot: Is the hon. Gentleman attempting to repudiate all the information that has been published, for example, by the Sunday Times about the Rachman empire?
  Mr. Rees-Davies: No. I was going to say with regard to the Sunday Times that I think there is a great deal of validity in the attempt to deal with Rachman. But I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, with his intellect, will be the first to appreciate and note that I have not been dealing with what I call "phase one", which is Rachman. I have been trying to reply to "phase two", which is what happened after Rachman disposed of the properties he owned. We know that, in the main, he disposed of all the residential property by the end of 1959—some years ago. What we are concerned with is not the resurrection or the creation of a public mischief and scandal relating to the past, but the problems of the future.
  I am saying that while there may be cases of bad landlords and bad tenants—undoubtedly there are—and while there may be cases of profiteering—undoubtedly there are—if hon. Gentlemen look for themselves, they will see that there is a considerable improvement in the Paddington district and in those houses compared with the situation which obtained three years ago. If hon. Gentlemen want evidence I am quite prepared to deal with it—
  Mr. Michael Cliffe: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your guidance? Is it correct and proper for an hon. Member to take up the time of this House making charges and counter-charges against personalities while other hon. Members have a number of problems relating to the Motion before the House with which they wish to deal? I think it is not in the best interests of this House or of the country, nor does it relate to the problems which we ought to be discussing, that such personalities should be brought into the debate when there are problems which other hon. Members wish to discuss.
  Mr. Speaker: That does not raise a point of order for me. In common with my predecessors, I welcome and applaud short speeches, because other hon. Members then have a chance to take part in the debate.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: As I was saying, this debate was brought about entirely on the whole basis of hearsay. The hon. Member for Paddington, North has been to the Press in detail and to the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) in detail and consequently there has been created a debate in this House of Commons built on a mass of statements and innuendoes, the great majority of which have no foundation and which, anyway, were fed to the hon. Member for Paddington, North by known Communists and convicts—
  Mr. Parkin rose—
  Mr. Rees-Davies:I cannot give way to the hon. Gentleman. I wanted to say that not only are these known Communists—
  Mr. Parkin Mr. Parkin rose—
  Hon. Members: Give way.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: I cannot give way again. I am very sorry.
  The matter does not end there. There were two other men, de Freitas and Don Ezerco, as well as the men, Farr and Pinto Fox. I understand that all of them have been convicted of serious offences. One of them, I think it was Farr, was convicted of stealing lead from a church. The information available to me is that this is the bunch of men who are feeding information to the hon. Gentleman and upon which he relies—
  Mr. Ellis Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have hesitated to put this point to you because I have been trying to satisfy myself whether it is a point of order—[Laughter.]—Hon. Members who know their Shakespeare will know that he who laughs last laughs best. I am now satisfied that it is a point of order. Time after time the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) has made serious reflections upon the personal character of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and on my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin). I ask therefore

  1131
  whether these reflections can be withdrawn because I understand that Standing Orders prevent reflections being made upon hon. Members.
  Mr. Speaker: I have heard no such reflection or I should have stopped it. I hope that we may get on with the business. There is not much time left.
  Mr. Parkin rose—
  Mr. Rees-Davies: I will not give way again.
  I will pass from that matter and deal with why it was that rents which were owing—and are still owing and have been owing for over a year—could not be obtained from 262, Westbourne Park Road. The reason was that the collector was intimidated by these men and had to go back to the solicitor. Far from coming from the landlord, in this case the intimidation came—it is still coming—from the tenants. I am not saying that this is the only case.
  Here we have an organisation deliberately trying to poison the minds of certain hon. Gentleman in order to create a scandal which I suppose will be known as the scandal of the Rachman affair. Hon. Members will have observed the way in which it is done. The same journalists are on this case as were on the Ward case—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—in order to try to pad out the information on the other—[HON. MEMBERS: "Name them?"]—the same gentlemen, of course they are. If hon. Members read the News of the World they will see that Peter Earle was operating in this case and operated in the Ward case, and Mr. Maxwell of the Daily Mirror operated in this case and in the Ward case—and so on. The reason is that they pursued this case as a follow-up, or follow-on—
  Mr. H. Wilson Mr. H. Wilson rose—
  Mr. Rees-Davies: I will not give way.
  Hon. Members: Oh.
  Mr. Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Hon. Members: Sit down.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I am being addressed on a point of order.
  Mr. Wilson: I have just been informed that the hon. Gentleman has made an allegation against me which is
  1132
  give way to me earlier. The information quite untrue and I wish to give him a chance to withdraw it.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: The right hon. Gentleman did not have the courtesy to which he gave to the Housethen was quite untrue. I will now give him the information which was given, and, in turn, ask him to withdraw his wrongful information. This is the information which the right hon. Gentleman gave in his speech. I will certainly give way to him when I have given it. He said that on 5th July of this year a Mr. Joseph was evicted from his flat. It was in fact, 67, Chepstowe Place, and the right hon. Gentleman will confirm that. He said that Mr. Joseph was thrown out in circumstances in which he, the right hon. Gentleman, showed the very greatest sympathy. He in fact said at that time—he went on to deal with the Rent Act. The reference to Mr. Joseph by the right hon. Gentleman was made on documents and information put before his hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North who obviously did not inform—but ought to have informed—the right hon. Gentleman that in actual fact on 11th July Mr. Joseph of 67, Chepstowe Road was a trespasser and had been given £50 in order to leave the premises.
  Mr. H. Wilson: If the hon. Gentleman will look at Hansard, he will find that he has totally misreported what I said in the case of Mr. Joseph. I did not say that he was evicted on 5th July, or anything like it. The hon. Gentleman seems to have a lot of information on this subject from certain sources. He said that I got my information from my hon. Friend who got it from crooks and Communists. I have not received information on this subject from my hon. Friend. I will stand by the sources which gave me this information and I certainly do not accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) got his information from crooks and Communists. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my information was from reputable sources. I have offered to place it at the disposal of the Government if they will have a proper inquiry.
  Mr. Rees-Davies Mr. Rees-Davies rose—
  Hon. Members: Withdraw.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: Hon. Members do less than justice. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has just returned to the Chamber. What I said—and I repeat it—was that the information was, of course, clearly available to him from the hon. Member for Paddington, North.
  Mr. Parkin Mr. Parkin rose—
  Mr. Charles Loughlin: Do not lie.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: You wait a minute. On a point of order, may I ask for withdrawal of the statement "Do not lie"?
  Mr. Speaker:We should do a little better if the hon. Member tried to address his observations to the Chair. It is no good telling me to wait a minute. I am waiting to get on.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I am trying to reply to the Leader of the Opposition, if I may.
  Mr. Parkin Mr. Parkin rose—
  Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) does not give way, the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) must not persist.
  Mr. Rees-Davies:I want to bring my speech to a close as soon as I can. It is clear that the information of the hon. Member for Paddington, North must have been available to the Leader of the Opposition. It had been raised in this House on two occasions, and on 8th July. If he tells me he did not have that information, of course I accept it, but if he did not have it, I suggest that it was most negligent of him not to get it.
  Mr. Parkin Mr. Parkin rose—
  Hon. Members: Sit down.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: May I be permitted to conclude?
  It seems quite clear that this debate was not raised in order to have a serious discussion on the future of rent restriction. If it were it would not have arisen in the manner in which it did. It was designed to take place on the same day as the Ward trial, produced on evidence fed to hon. Members so that they could use the privilege of the occasion in order to enable newspapers to carry sensational stories
  1134
  which they could not otherwise do, and that the information came from grossly tainted criminal and subversive sources. Coming from those sources—
  Mr. Parkin: On a point of order. The hon. Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), I gather, has been consistently attacking me on the ground that I have got all my information from grossly tainted criminal sources and from Communists. Am I entitled to persist in requesting the courtesy of the hon. Member to give way for a moment?
  Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. The rule of the House is that unless the hon. Member who is speaking gives way, another hon. Member cannot persist in trying to interrupt him.
  Mr. M. Foot: Further to that point of order. If the hon. Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) used the language attributed to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) it is not merely a question of courtesy and giving way, but that such language should be withdrawn.
  Mr. Speaker: No. I have been listening very carefully. The general effect of it is not that knowingly he puts forward that which he knows to be false, but that he was—and I do not use die word myself—duped as to the material.
  Mr. J. Hynd: On a point of order. We understand from the Order Paper that we are supposed to be debating a problem which both sides of the House accept as existing and which covers not only Paddington and London, but many other parts of the country. For the last two hours we have been listening to a dialogue of assertion and counter-assertion which, so far as I can see, has had nothing to do with the substance of the debate. Can we come back to the purpose of the debate?
  Mr. Speaker: I express sympathy with the hon. Member. I have to have regard to the relevancy, but, since the original Motion contained reference to property profiteering, I have not been able to exclude it on the ground of irrelevancy.
  Mr. Stephen Swingler: Are we to understand that it is in order for an hon. Member

  1135
  to say of another hon. Member that he draws his material from tainted and criminal sources? Is it in order for an hon. Member persistently to attack other hon. Members, including the Leader of the Opposition, and to attribute things to them and then to refuse to give way?
  Mr. Speaker: It is quite in order to refuse to give way. With regard to the accusation, and order, it has been as I have already said. All the time I have been here that has been the line adopted.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: I have great sympathy with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd), who wants to get on with the debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not withdraw?"] Please give me a chance to say what I want to say, without these catcalls which go on all the time. They do not do any good. I made no allegation against the integrity of hon. Members. I said that they were stupid and duped, and so they were. You go and have a look at the inmates of 262 Westbourne Park Road tonight.
  Mr. Speaker: I have no intention of doing any such thing. [Laughter.] That is an illustration of the importance of our rule that observations must be addressed to the Chair.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for restoring genuine order with such a nice touch of wit.
  If any journalist or hon. Member takes the trouble to go and see the sources of information from which the hon. Member drew his information—
  Mr. M. Foot: Sunday Times readers?
  Mr. Rees-Davies: The Leader of the Opposition never disclosed the source or gave details. He was referring to the same streets and area, the same material, as the hon. Member for Paddington, North referred to. When we see that in this House this was built up from earlier statements made by the hon. Member on 8th July, it is obvious that this was to be a scandal-mongering debate which had nothing whatever to do with housing. It would be an endeavour once more to try to get an occasion for the Press and other people to beat the Government. I
  1136
  hope that we shall put paid to this sooner or later, because the methods of trying to inspire Members of Parliament—I believe that that is the technical Rachmanite word—to make of these privileged occasions an opportunity to create scandal are a serious matter. They are a smear and something which is wrong in this House. We should be as jealous of its reputation as we should be of others.
  7.28 p.m.
  Mr. G. H. R. Rogers: We have listened to a rather long, and in some ways rather extraordinary, speech. It seemed designed to leave the impression that the charges against the landlords are false and that this whole business is the fault of the tenants. Whether that was the impression the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) intended to convey I do not know, but he did nothing to establish the kind of case that we are advocating this afternoon. He said that our purpose in raising this debate was to defame the Government. That is not a very honourable way of looking at the efforts of his colleagues to raise matters of injustice in this House. As to defaming the Government, it seems that they are making a good job of that themselves.
  I have been rather amused, with some sense of irony, at the charges recently made that the Labour Party has not sought to raise this matter until the Rachman scandal came to light. This is ironical because, at least in Kensington, we have had this problem for many years and have been fighting it continuously, as the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Robert Jenkins) knows very well.
  When the race riots, as they were called, occurred in my constituency I said on television and in the Press that housing was the cause. I said that a new type of landlord had come into London who was exacerbating the situation and whose activities caused the friction which led to what were called the race riots. I saw the Home Secretary about it and I saw the present Minister of Housing when he was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. The columns of the local newspapers in Kensington have been full of our activities against Rachman. I was surprised that the Minister

  1137
  said today that he had had a letter from Kensington Council saying that if it had a Rachman there it would know how to deal with him.
  Sir K. Joseph: Not a letter.
  Mr. Rogers: It seems extraordinary to me that this should have been communicated to the Minister, because Rachman began his operations in Kensington. His first house was in Ladbroke Gove.
  Sir K. Joseph:The council was saying that if there were a Rachman now in the borough the council, having new powers under the 1961 Act, thought that it could bring him to heel.
  Mr. Rogers: It seemed extraordinary to me, as the Minister put it, that he should have been so much out of touch with the situation in the last few years. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) represented the tenants at a tribunal in 1959, where he instanced the kind of physical violence and intimidation carried out by landlords to evict tenants.
  I know that the House must be very bored by statistics, but out of deference to the fact that Kensington has hardly received a mention in the debate I must say that we have been continuously occupied with these problems over the last five years even though we have not had much publicity. It has been said that this matter had to wait until my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) engendered the rumour about Rachman being alive and then the Press became interested. The Press was not interested in housing. We have not had much publicity over the past five years, because the Press has not reported speeches in the House on serious matters.
  "Panorama" came to my constituency to make a feature which appeared on television last week. Local people tried to interest the "Panorama" staff in the real housing problem, but the interviewers were not in the slightest bit interested. They wanted to know only the sensational aspects of the Rachmans and other racketeers in the area. We in Kensington have been carrying on our work for a long time with a great deal of success. I think that we managed to drive Rachman out by the use of able
  1138
  lawyers who managed to make his life so unpleasant that he disposed of a great bulk of his property owned by the Eagle Building Society, to which hon. Members have referred.
  The local newspaper, the Kensington News, put cur situation very clearly when it said:
  "Until a few weeks ago no one outside West London…had heard of Peter Rachman. Many of those who did here dismissed the whole business as a sensational bogey-tale. Now the whole world has heard the story and the question everyone has asked is why were such things allowed to happen? How did he manage to get away with it for so long? What was done by the authorities to put an end to his dominion? And last, but most important of all, what is happening now?"
  I gather from the Minister that very little will happen now, that we can do nothing to stop the intimidation, the violence and the evictions and that we can do nothing to stop the racket until we solve the general housing problem of London. Does this mean that people will have to pay these rents for five to ten years until the housing problem is solved and that unless they are caught by the police or exposed by courageous tenants the racketeers can carry on until then? I was disappointed by the negative quality of the Minister's speech, despite the fact that I believe that as far as legislation goes he is anxious to do as much as he can.
  I must give one or two extreme facts to illustrate the problem as we still have it in Kensington. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said that Rachman is only a symbol of the kind of landlordism we have been experiencing recently. The process is being carried on by small men who have imitated the behaviour of the Rachmanites and the other big property speculators. One house in Bassett Road, North Kensington, recently came to the notice of the council. There were 100 people living in this house which is normally occupied by four families. They got wind of the fact that the council was after them and by swift action the number was reduced to 69. Is nothing to be done about this? Controls are contrary to the Government's ideology and, therefore, we are to have no interference except by the slow and cumbersome machinery dealing with overcrowding. The landlord is not to be touched.
  Sir K. Joseph:I have great respect for the hon. Member, but I hope that he will face up to the problem. In the face of overcrowding in this limited pressure point, where are these people to go? That is the problem until we have more houses.
  Mr. J. Hynd: Twelve years of Toryism.
  Mr. Rogers:This matter should not be left to the speculative landlords to solve. It is up to us here and to the public authorities to solve the problem. Do not let us pretend that the landlord who crowded this house with 100 people was doing it from philanthropic motives.
  Sir K. Joseph:The controls which the hon. Member wants would not solve the problem either. There would still be the need to find somewhere for these people to go.
  Mr. Frederick Lee: It is right that the 100 should stay?
  Mr. Rogers: My hon. Friend points out that the logic is that it is right for the 100 to stay.
  The borough council made a survey of a very bad road. It was found that the landlord of 39, St. Ervans Road, a house which was formerly let for a total of £2 10s. a week, was drawing £21 a week. This is very slummy property. Another landlord was drawing £10 9s. 3d. for 17 people in a house which had only one internal lavatory for their use. The landlord of 63, Tavistock Road, was drawing £17 4s. a week for a house which previously was let for a pound or two. There were 17 persons in the house and only one internal lavatory for their use. As I have tried to point out, we can concentrate as much as we like on the Rachmans, but there is also a variety of small people who are exploiting the present need.
  I think that we on this side of the House look at things rather differently. There is more fire in the belly on this side of the House on behalf of the tenants than there is opposite. Speeches from hon. Members opposite generally show more sympathy for the landlord. Why cannot the Minister consult the Home Secretary and get something done about rooting out these people? Why cannot the Metropolitan Police form an organisation similar to the Fraud Squad which could deal with this property and get
  1140
  on the track of these people? The areas involved are not extensive and a group of competent men could do something to uncover these people.
  I want to quote one further case which came to my notice recently, of a house which has had nine landlords in less than two years. I could quote some names. One is a member of the peerage. Another is a well-known playboy who is associated with a woman of recent notoriety. This property has gone through a series of names of people who have all pretended that they were the landlords of this house in Colville Road. In fact, I think that they have all bean connected with Rachman.
  The tenant occupied the ground floor and the basement. He was approached by one of these gentlemen who said, "You have got rather more room than you want Will you move upstairs?" The tenant was not anxious to do this until he had an agreement in writing. He went away on holiday. We have in Kensington a lot of old basements which flood when there is a downpour. In some basements the sewage comes up into the flats. The Kensington Borough Council closed these basements many years ago, but reopened them again after they had had the minimum of repairs to make them habitable, and for these basements in which the sewage comes tenants pay as much as £7 a week. I know of one man whose income is £15 a week and he is paying £7 10s. a week for one of these flats.
  When the tenant of whom I was speaking came back from his holiday he found his basement flat under 3 ft. of water. His wife said, "We can move upstairs. These men are gentlemen and we can rely upon their word without an agreement." So they moved up to the top flat and the tenant spent a great deal of money on decorations and repairs. This "gentlemen's agreement" has now resolved itself into a notice to quit, because the tenant, by leaving the basement flat in which he was a protected tenant, cancelled his tenancy and moved to a decontrolled flat upstairs where he has since received a notice to quit.
  It is no good saying that this must wait until we have solved the housing problem. That is a most negative way of looking at the problem. Are people to suffer continually till the Government do

  1141
  something about it? I wish that we could have some dynamism from the Government, a little passion and desire to put injustice right and let these people go to prison if a case can be proved against them. Otherwise, it looks as if we shall have to wait until the people give their verdict on the Government.
  When the Minister says that the Rent Act is not responsible for this situation, he must raise laughter in hell. He certainly raises laughter amongst the Conservatives in my constituency. I wonder whether the Government realise how many Conservative votes in London they have lost through the Rent Act. People talk about old ladies and widows owning railway shares, and we talk about old ladies in connection with this housing situation. In my constituency people who have been Tory supporters all their adult lives have turned against the Government because of their experiences which they believe result from the Rent Act. They may be suffering from a complete delusion, but, certainly, that is what they believe.
  It is no use the Government saying that the consequences of the Rent Act have not been serious for the great mass of people in overcrowded areas in London. Therefore, I trust that after this debate is over, instead of being content merely to reform the Landlord and Tenant Act and wait for the long-term dispersal of industry in order to review the pressure of housing on London, they will do something to help these people during the next few weeks.
  7.44 p.m.
  Lieut-Colonel J. K. Cordeaux: I fear that the speech I shall make tonight will be crashingly dull after the sensational details that we have heard bandied about across the House between the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) and my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies).
  I certainly cannot emulate the hon. Member for Paddington, North in his emotional appeal and the sensational details that he has given us. I can also promise the House that I shall not emulate him in the length of my speech. The hon. Gentleman told us that he feels deeply on these subjects and that this was his moment. I would be inclined rather to say that perhaps it was his finest hour.
  1142
  Apart from the Front Bench leaders in this debate I think that I am the first Member who has been called who does not represent a London constituency—apart, of course, from my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet; and his speech was hardly delivered from a constituency angle. I should, therefore, like to take this opportunity of emphasising the fact that the problem which we are discussing, or are supposed to have been discussing, this afternoon, is one which very much affects certain other parts of the country as well as London.
  To start with, I should like to refer to one matter which has been mentioned only once briefly in this debate, namely, by the Minister. It was in connection with Commonwealth immigration. I hope that nobody here will accuse me of any sort of colour prejudice when I say that Commonwealth immigration into this country has greatly exacerbated the problem, not just for the people who were originally in this country but for the Commonwealth immigrants as well. The hon. Member for Kensington, North (Mr. G. H. R. Rogers) suggested that the housing situation was the main cause of the race riots which took place in his own constituency, and there is no doubt that it was the main cause of the riots in my constituency. That is one of the reasons why Nottingham and other cities, such as Birmingham and probably Bradford, are equally affected as London over this housing problem.
  It should be emphasised that the Government have done a great deal to solve this problem simply by passing the Commonwealth Immigrants Act. That will definitely improve the situation, or certainly prevent it from getting worse than it is. The Leader of the Opposition said at the close of his speech that if hon. Members opposite get back into power at the next General Election they will repeal the Rent Act. I have not heard the right hon. Gentleman say—it may have passed my notice—that hon. Members opposite with also repeal the Commonwealth Immigrants Act. But judging from their reaction to it during its stormy passage through the House, I have no doubt that they will feel compelled to do so. I await an announcement to that effect in due course. But I ask them to think, not once but many times, bearing in mind the present housing problem, whether they

  1143
  would be advised to do it, for the sake not only of the people originally in this country but of our visitors from overseas.
  We have heard a tremendous amount about Mr. Rachman today. I do not know why everybody is getting so excited about Mr. Rachman these days. I suppose that it is largely because of the Profumo-Keeler affair. I certainly agree with one hon. Member opposite who said that in that case we certainly owe a great deal to the performers in that business for having at least dragged the present rackets out into the daylight and into the headlines.
  There are many of us who have been talking about these housing rackets for a long time before we heard of the Profumo affair. This problem is not confined to London. We have our problems in Nottingham. My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet may think it not very polite of me to say so, but, nevertheless, I will tell the House that we have a man in Nottingham named Whiteman to whom Rachman could teach very little in the way of exploitation and cruelty. Because I have felt impelled on one or two occasions to say censorious things about Indian landlords in Nottingham, I hasten to say that the man Whiteman is very definitely a white man.
  I visited two of Whiteman's houses last Saturday evening. They were damp, dirty, broken-down places—hon. Members will know the sort of thing—two up and two down, the back door hanging on its hinges, the floor broken up, bricks broken, outside lavatories broken, windows broken and boarded up. There was no question there of a landlord not being able, because of a controlled rent, to do a certain amount of repairs. One tenant is paying £3 and another is paying £4.
  This brings me to the first positive point I want to make. The public health authorities have been called to these houses not once but on more than one occasion. I understand that they have been doing their best to bring pressure on the landlord to do something. To date, they have failed. As I understand it—the Leader of the Opposition referred to this earlier today—the powers of the public health authorities in such cases are at present limited, if they wish to step in and do repairs themselves, to suing
  1144
  afterwards the person who receives the rent. Of course, the probable result is that that person is found to be a quite inconsiderable individual with no resources at all, the final outcome being that the council will have to pay a very large bill out of the pockets of the ratepayers.
  I am convinced that the only successful way of dealing with this particular problem is for the repairs to be made a charge on the property. The council must be empowered to take the property over, receiving all the rents until the bills for the repairs have been settled. I urge my right hon. Friend to consider taking very early legislative action to this effect.
  My next proposal also requires legislation, but of a comparatively minor kind. It is legislation in connection with Part II of the Housing Act, 1961. I was delighted to hear my right hon. Friend refer to this earlier today and say that he was thinking of making some modifications. When the Bill was passing through Committee, one or two of us tried to persuade the Minister to bring in some measure of registration of all houses in multiple occupation. I myself introduced three or four new Clauses on these lines. I felt impelled to do so because I know that in Nottingham a great deal of the racket in multi-occupation slums is run by comparatively few men.
  My belief is that if only we could find out about all the houses which these particular men own and then concentrate on one or two of the worst cases—I mean the worst landlords, not the houses—we should, perhaps, be able to run these people out of business, and this would be a salutary example to the rest. The other reason why I think it important is that, if we had such a register, it would be available to the Inland Revenue authorities. As someone has already said today, there is the most appalling tax evasion going on on the part of these people.
  My suggestion did not find favour with the Committee, but, when the Bill was going through another place, the Government introduced a form of registration. I am sorry to say that it is not of the slightest use to us at present, and I do not think that it will be very much use in the future. It is no use to us at present

  1145
  because it is not in force. For some reason which I could never understand, it was not to come into force until three years after the Bill became law, that is, not until November next year. I was delighted to hear my right hon. Friend say—I hope I understood him aright—that he would definitely consider the possibility of bringing it into force earlier. It would be an excellent thing if he did.
  The reason why I say that I do not think that it will be very beneficial, even when it is brought into force, is that the penalties it prescribes for offending landlords are quite derisory. The maximum penalty for an offending landlord who fails to register his houses or who gives false information is £10.What deterrent will this be to some of these sharks in Nottingham who are pulling in £200 or £300 a week out of this loathsome trade? I most earnestly urge my right hon. Friend to consider, when he is thinking of bringing in some new form of legislation, an alteration of the maximum penalty to a fine of £100 and/or three months' imprisonment for a second offence. Such a penalty would be in line with other provisions in the Act, and it would, I believe, prove a real deterrent.
  In spite of these criticisms, I am convinced that Part II of the Housing Act is an absolutely first-class piece of legislation. It can do an immense amount of good to stop this evil if only people will use it. The weapon has been put into their hands by the Government, but it is not for the Government to use it. I congratulate my right hon. Friend in bringing in that legislation. Although he did not, in fact, bring it in himself, he was one of the chief architects since he was, at the time, Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. Also, I congratulate most sincerely my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I have bitterly disagreed with him on several occasions, in regard to the Rent Act and other matters, but I believe that it was his absolutely firm insistence that something must be done about this evil which resulted in Part II of the Housing Act being brought in, against, so I understand, very strong advice from all the experts who said that such a thing would be quite impracticable or impossible.
  1146
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has the reputation with some people of being an obstinate person. He is certainly a man with a very grim determination. It is very difficult to alter his view when once it is formed. All I can say is that, in this case, I am only too delighted that no experts or anyone else caused him to alter it.
  Part II of the Housing Act is not a perfect or a complete weapon to deal with this evil of multi-occupation slums. Of course it is not. Nevertheless, it can be a very useful weapon if properly used and if the local authorities have the determination to use it.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition spoke of several councils which had had considerable success in their use of Part II of the Act. I understood him to say that they were Labour-controlled councils, so I add to the list ho gave the Nottingham City Corporation which, until a most unfortunate accident a month or two ago, due to the result of mistaken ideas on the part of the citizens of Nottingham, was Conservative-controlled. I think that the same can be said for several other councils of the same kind.
  I fully agree with the Government Amendment to the effect that the best and final remedy can only be a much larger building programme and more modernisation, but I feel that other more immediate measures can be taken as well, such as the two modest ones which I have suggested. I hope that those and any others which my right hon. Friend can think of will be taken because, unless we not only do our utmost but are seen to be doing our utmost to cope with this evil of the multi-occupation slums and some of the other matters that we have been discussing tonight, it will be very difficult for us logically to resist the policy of municipalisation of rented houses.
  8.0 p.m.
  Mr. Emlyn Hooson: The hon. and gallant Member for Nottingham, Central (Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux) need not have apologised for not introducing sensationalism into his speech, for I feel that he made one of the most constructive and least partisan contributions to the debate that we have had so far.

  1147
  I came into the Chamber this evening determined that I could support neither the Opposition Motion nor the Government Amendment.
  Mr. Mellish: A typical Liberal.
  Mr. Hooson: I will explain to the hon. Member why I could not do so. Nothing that I have heard in the debate has made me change my mind.
  Mr. Mellish: The hon. and learned Member has not heard me yet.
  Mr. Hooson: When the Leader of the Opposition made his eloquent and damning—
  Mr. Mellish: And brilliant.
  Mr. Hooson: —indictment of the Rachman empire and of what is revealed by the information which we have on it, and when he described the unscrupulous landlord battening, I think he said, on the poverty and ignorance of people and making money out of it, every right thinking person, I think, agreed with him. However, it is one thing to describe and condemn an evil, but quite another to pinpoint the cause and suggest a remedy.
  What is implicit in the Labour Opposition Motion is that all the trouble flows from the Rent Act, 1957. To suggest that is absolute nonsense. As I understand the Motion, it suggests that if a system of pre-1959 controls were re-introduced we would do away with racketeering. This is simply not right. Racketeers very often like and love the system of controls and regulations, because they are the people who can manipulate it. Anyone in the legal profession in the pre-1957 days who was concerned with property cases will know how much racketeering there was then in furnished property, key money, and so on. The Rachman case is simply one of the worst examples. We have had a glimpse of what can happen when there are far too many people chasing too few dwellings. This is the basic cause of the trouble.
  It is clear to me that the suggestion that simply by bringing back controls we will do away with the evil is an attempt to delude people into thinking that this is a simple problem which can be simply solved. It is not. It seems to me that the Motion cannot be supported on this
  1148
  ground. If it simply demanded that the Government should take immediate and drastic action to cure or curb this evil, I could have supported it—but not if it tries to make the maximum political capital out of the situation by linking it with the 1957 Act.
  I should like to say why I am unable to support the Government's Amendment.[Interruption.] It is time that the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) learned that there are more than two sides to the problem. The picture is not all black and white, as the hon. Member tries to paint it. It seems to me that implicit in the Amendment is the basic argument that this situation has arisen because too many people are trying to get dwellings and there are not enough dwellings for them and therefore the conditions which make racketeering easy are present. This is true as a long-term diagnosis, but it seems to me that the Government suggest that nothing need to be done about it except that very modest changes are necessary but nothing more.
  We are here concerned with the exploitation of ignorance and poverty with unscrupulous landlords waxing fat on it. There must be thousands of people who have lived in absolute misery because of this. To suggest that we can leave it to the effluxion of time and that, when the Government catch up with their housing target some time in the distant future and there are sufficient dwellings for everybody, this problem will not occur and we need do nothing drastic in the meantime, is not good enough.
  Mr. Mellish: Will the hon. and learned Member tell us what he would do?
  Mr. Hooson: Certainly. If the hon. Member bides his time, I will tell him what can be done.
  The long-term remedy is to provide the houses which are needed. But in London, Birmingham and other large cities—and, after all, as was pointed out in several newspaper articles which I read yesterday, this is to a large extent a local and specialised problem; the 1957 Act has generally worked quite well in some parts of the country—
  Mr. G. Thomas: Where? Not in Cardiff.
  Mr. Mellish: Nor in London, Birmingham or Coventry.
  Mr. Hooson: I have not the hon. Member's specialised knowledge of all these cities.
  Mr. Mellish: That is very obvious.
  Mr. Hooson: As I say, the 1957 Act has worked fairly well in general. What has been lacking is ameliorating legislation to deal with the special problems which have arisen. A racketeer will find a way to exploit any difficult situation. We must be very careful about the kind of control which we introduce, otherwise we may do more harm than good and create more difficulties than we solve.
  What I suggest can be done is this. Under Part V of the 1957 Act, power is vested in local authorities to take over by compulsory purchase property for which extortionate rents are charged. Very few people know of this power. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Very few tenants know about this power. Similarly, in the early days of legal aid very few people knew about it. It had to be publicised by the Law Society before people knew of its existence.
  One thing which the Government can do is to encourage local authorities to put up notices in post offices, and so on, pointing out the power of local authorities to take over property by compulsory purchase so that tenants can apply to the local authority and inform it about their own conditions.
  Mr. Mellish: Straight away the Liberal Party is wrong. If the matter were as simple as that we should not be having this row this evening. If all a tenant had to do was to go to the local authority and say, "My rent is high; it is extortionate. Therefore, you should take my property over", we should not be discussing this matter. It is not possible to get a compulsory purchase order as easily as that. There is a whole procedure to go through and many local authorities are deterred even from applying.
  Mr. Hooson: Perhaps the hon. Member will be patient and listen. First, I say that people should know of this power, and, secondly, that the Government should make it far easier for local authorities to act in exercising it. Many of them have not the necessary financial
  1150
  resources. Many of the cases reported to the Government have not been confirmed. We want more information about why the Government are not encouraging local authorities to use this power more.
  Mrs. Joyce Butler: The power about which the hon. and learned Member is speaking is quite illusory. Does he know that the Minister has said that, in addition to the question of exorbitant rents, he must be satisfied that the quality of the accommodation is not good, that he has to be satisfied about the state of repair of the premises and about the amenities and also about the rent for similar accommodation in the area? He is not prepared to accept the local authority's view that the rent is exorbitant unless all these conditions are satisfied.
  Mr. Hooson: I know of some of the views of the Minister in the 1962 report. Perhaps the hon. Lady will allow me to develop my argument. I am suggesting that this is; one of the steps which can be taken immediately without legislation.
  The second step which could be taken—and I am looking for a practical remedy—is this. We need effective legislation, without going back to all the restrictions and rent control that we had before 1957, which will give tenants much greater security than they have at present. I suggest that a system of rent tribunals could be set up again which would enable a tenant who considered himself or herself to be charged an extortionate rent to apply to a rent tribunal to fix a new and reasonable rent. The rent could be fixed by the rent tribunal by relation to the rateable value of the house.
  It is not sufficient to give that power merely by itself. If a tenant so applies and the tribunal changes the rent, the tenant should have security of tenure, attaching not to the premises or to the tenancy, but simply to the tenant or his wife. There could be a power of appeal for both sides from the tribunal to the county court or the registrar of the county court, a provision which has not been provided hitherto.
  Sir Barnett Janner: If a rent tribunal fixes the rent of premises, how will it be permanently

  1151
  fixed to the premises unless there is control of the premises from the point of view of security of tenure?
  Mr. Hooson:I suggest that the rent tribunal could fix the rent for the particular tenancy, for the tenant or his wife.
  Sir B. Janner: That is sheer nonsense.
  Mr. Hooson: Thereafter, both the landlord and the tenant could have the right of appeal. The award could be reviewed from time to time.
  The third thing which I suggest is that the right of appeal to a rent tribunal could be applied to those whose premises had been decontrolled by a pre-1957 tenant giving up a tenancy which was controlled or a tenancy which had become decontrolled by the raising of the rateable value of the house. This is a simple and direct remedy.
  Mr. Mellish: Simple?
  Mr. Hooson: It is simple and direct, for this reason. One is not trying to control all rents or premises. What one would be doing would be giving the rent tribunal the right, when an extortionate rent had been charged, to fix a proper, reasonable rent for the tenant and/or his wife. That is all. That is the power that is needed.
  Mr. Charles Curran: Will the hon. and learned Member be so kind as to tell us how he suggests that the words "reasonable", "proper", "fair", and so on, should be defined? What kind of yardstick does he suggest should be used?
  Mr. Hooson: Certainly, I will explain. Recently, the rateable value of houses has been re-assessed. This is a recent yardstick, by reference to which a reasonable, proper rent could be arranged.
  Mr. G. Thomas: Now we know.
  Mr. Hooson: One other matter with which I should like to deal is the type of exploitation of which we have heard in the Rachman empire. A far more drastic remedy may be necessary here. If the police investigate cases properly, I cannot see why they would not discover that much of the strong-armed eviction offends the existing criminal law. If a magistrate were satisfied that a tenant had been illegally evicted, either through
  1152
  force or the threat of force or by means of fraud, and if he made a declaration to that effect, I do not see why the local authority should not be able to requisition the premises immediately, once a magistrate had made a declaration on evidence which he had heard to that effect.
  Mr. Mellish: That is a control which we had, but we lost it.
  Mr. Hooson: This need only be applied in serious cases such as those we have heard of in the Rachman empire. There could still be an appeal, but the onus would be upon the owner of the property or a leaseholder to satisfy a court that he had had nothing to do with the illegal eviction. This would enable a speedy remedy to be obtained, which would be of great benefit in areas such as Paddington.
  It is not sufficient, however, for the Government to say that the present situation will be cured by the effluxion of time. Drastic remedies are needed now. The suggestion which we are putting forward is not the same as going back to the pre-1957 controls, and so on, as suggested by the Labour Party. We are putting forward a very simple, direct remedy which would meet the greatest hardships which are encountered nowadays by tenants, especially in the crowded areas of London and the large cities.
  In the ultimate, however, there is no remedy but that which has already been mentioned of building far more dwellings, providing far more houses and doing away with the housing shortage, because whilst we have a shortage, whatever controls are applied, evil people will always try to exploit them. It does not matter how many additional controls are introduced. Unless they are fairly simple and direct, there will be racketeers who will get round them the whole time—[Interruption.]—as was the case in the days of the Labour Government, as well as during the time of the present Conservative Government.
  In today's debate, we have had much partisan argument about this. An attempt has been made to derive party advantage from these revelations. What we want, however, is a fairly simple remedy that will meet the hardships of the people who suffer.
  8.16 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Jenkins: I am in nearly the same position as the hon.

  1153
  and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr, Hooson), inasmuch as when I look at today's Motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition and of his hon. and right hon. Friends and then look at the Amendment, I am not certain whether either of them is exactly right.
  The Motion states that
  "this House deplores the intolerable extortion, evictions and property profiteering which have resulted from the Rent Act, 1957."
  That would appear to mean that all the extortions, evictions and property profiteering have emerged from the 1957 Act, a statement with which I could not agree.
  The Government Amendment uses the words:
  "while deploring any disreputable practices engaged in by some unscrupulous landlords, rejects the suggestion that these have resulted from the Rent Act, 1957".
  I do not regard that as quite right, because, with great respect to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, whom I see present and who, with his great skill, piloted the Rent Act through this House, a number of unscrupulous landlords have used the 1957 Act to permit them to indulge in disreputable practices.
  Having said that, however, I go on to say that the Rent Act has been beneficial in many ways. It is fair to say that it has enabled landlords to preserve hundreds of thousands of houses from decay. Many streets throughout our big cities look pleasant and agreeable because of their paint, and many hundreds of thousands are all the better inside, to the great advantage of the tenant, because the landlord has had more money to spend on them.
  A consequence of the Act is that it has brought new accommodation into occupation in a particular way. Before the Act, an owner-occupier who had two or three rooms to let did not let them because he would have to go to the local authority and get the local authority to agree what the rent should be. Since the Act came in it has meant that the owner-occupier has spent money on the part of the house he does not use and let it for a reasonable rent, or, it may be, for a large rent, but, at any rate, an agreed rent. This has happened many hundreds of times in my own division since the Rent Act. I suggest, therefore that the Act is not responsible for all the
  1154
  "extortion, evictions and property profiteering".
  However, I should like to point out some of the bad results of the Act. This applies in the first instance to houses which are rated in London at under £40 a year and in the rest of the country at under £30 a year. One of the difficulties and one of the serious troubles which have arisen is that under the Act when a part of a house becomes vacant it automatically becomes decontrolled. I think that it was the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) who coined the phrase "creeping decontrol". So there is a house half-empty. Somebody buys the freehold and moves in.
  I will not bring the colour question into this debate except to say—because it should be said and it is true; and it is my experience in my division—that somebody will buy the freehold and move in, and, because he is prepared to buy, because the house is half empty, the landlord then, very frequently, intimidates and puts pressure on the existing tenants to get out. That is happening throughout the country and that is a consequence of the Rent Act. The landlord can charge what he likes if he does not occupy it himself, and he probably wants to get them out and sell the place with vacant possession, for a large price. Existing tenants—let us put it at 200 at least in my own division—have been subject to this sort of treatment. Sometimes it is true to say a reign of terror exists.
  I should like to underline a point made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kensington, North (Mr. G. H. R. Rogers), because it is a serious effect of the Rent Act. Unscrupulous landlords offer unsuspecting tenants better accommodation for reasonable rent. I remember that there were some cases in the East End—I for get just where, I think in Bermondsey—
  Mr. Mellish: That is not the East End. It is South-East.
  Mr. Jenkins: I am much obliged.
  There was a case where the landlord in a block of flats would offer a person accommodation either upstairs or downstairs that was decontrolled because it was empty, and immediately the person left the flat which was controlled it became decontrolled. The consequence is

  1155
  that the person who goes into a decontrolled flat is subjected for all time to any demand of rent made upon him, and the flat which has been left is decontrolled and the landlord can get anything he likes to ask for it.
  Then there is the question of the powers of a tenant to go to the local authority to get a certificate of disrepair. Owing to the very grave shortage of homes and land in Greater London, which I know a great deal about, and in all the built-up areas of this country, tenants are frightened to apply for certificates of disrepair. They are frightened to go to the local authority because they think that the landlord will do something.
  I know that local authorities are short of sanitary inspectors and health visitors, but I wonder whether my right hon. Friend would consider, because I think that this would be helpful, that the local authorities should be compelled to take the initiative in these cases, and go round and have an examination to see whether houses ought to be repaired. Otherwise, we shall find that where certificates of disrepair are not applied for there will be a continuous increase in the slums in the areas concerned.
  Mr. Albert Evans: In the Central London areas, where this problem is rife, there is a great shortage of public health officers to enforce the things that the hon. Member wishes the local authorities to enforce.
  Mr. Jenkins: I appreciate that, and thought that I half said it.
  Housing should be looked upon as a military operation. It should be carried out like that.
  Mr. Herbert Butler: Would the hon. Member shoot the bad landlords?
  Mr. Jenkins: When the war started we had air-raid precautions and the officers of local authorities were turned on to all kinds of jobs. I do not see any reason why local government officers should not be turned on to this job. We must get some vigorous action, because the provision of homes is one of the most important jobs any local authority has to do.
  I refer now to the Landlord and Tenant (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1958. It
  1156
  was my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary who brought that Measure forward. It saved several scores of thousands from being evicted, but since 1961 the situation has substantially deteriorated.
  Mr. Mellish: Well said.
  Mr. Jenkins: Prior to the Act an estimate was made by the Financial Times that 80,000 families of the middle-class type were likely to be evicted. In my submission, the situation has deteriorated. Why has this happened? I think that one reason is because of the takeover bidders for property. I can remember, because I was—I think that I still am—President of the Tenants' Protection Council, which is now coming back into operation once more, having been in cold storage for a couple of years, that in Chelsea, Kensington, in my own division, throughout London, and outside the County of London, too, takeover bidders have come along and bought up blocks of flats. In one case I know of, in Chelsea about two years ago, a block changed hands three times, each time at a large profit.
  As was said by the Leader of the Opposition today, if £1 million profit was made on Dolphin Square somebody has to find the money eventually. It comes out of the pockets of the tenants. Every time the takeover bids take place—and there are dozens of them every month, and, I assume, probably more than that—up go the rents and, therefore, people who have been in the flats for many years are being gradually squeezed out.
  The new landlords usually serve them with notice to quit. In many cases they have demanded up to eight times the gross value. I recall a case in Kensington only about a year and a half ago, or perhaps less. In a little backwater there were 16 flats. The new landlord, having bought the block of flats from the old family landlord, put the rent up to eight times the gross value.
  As soon as the local council heard of it—as the Leader of the Opposition referred to the "good Labour councils", I would point out that the Royal Borough of Kensington has a Conservative council, overwhelmingly so—it immediately went into action and threatened to put a compulsory purchase order on the block of flats, with the result that, by negotia-

  1157
  tion, agreements were made for three and five years at four times the gross value. A live and alert local authority, operating under the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, has been able to do that sort of thing. On the other hand, unless one or two of the tenants had communicated with their local representatives about what was happening, the council would never have known and the whole thing would have been over and finished with.
  There is another way in which difficulties have arisen, consequent upon, I think, the Rent Act. Large institutions, such as insurance companies and the Church Commissioners, are getting rid of blocks of flats, the reason being that they do not want the responsibility, presumably, of putting up the rents. They get rid of blocks of flats and sell them to city property companies which have no compassion for the existing tenants. I remember Mr. Stanley Baldwin, when making in the House one of the finest speeches that he ever made, saying that his firm did not mind the old men just walking about in the steelyards—they still got their money. It was a family affair. There was compassion in that firm at that time.
  Landlords, generally speaking, are a very decent lot—at any rate, the vast majority of them are—but when city corporations and city property companies buy properties over, they do not really know what has happened in the past. They do not know, for instance, that the block of flats was probably 75 per cent. empty during the war and that that old lady and her husband were there and stayed and paid their rent. All that goes.
  I do not want to sentimentalise on this, but I am telling the House what is in the hearts of the people—and these institutions have no compassion. These exorbitantrents can be obtained for semi-luxury or half-luxury flats. Some of the rents are fantastically high—four or five times what they used to be. Honestly, I do not know how some of the tenants, having had the rent already put up since 1957, have continued to pay.
  Who are the people who pay these large rents? They are very often the staff of foreign embassies. Foreign embassy staffs are extremely swollen, and they are getting larger and larger every year. Consequently, one finds that they
  1158
  are able to pay these exorbitant rents. There are also the companies which take over leases for the benefit of their executives, and I believe that even at this moment this is a tax-free emolument. Consequently, in a state of scarcity and shortage in the London area in particular, this is boosting the rents of middle-class flats.
  Some landlords who wish to escape publicity in the courts have another dodge which they are now up to. This concerns houses of a rateable value of more than £40 a year. These landlords—they include important bodies—are now giving the tenants six months' notice to quit and, at the same time, offering them the freehold at a fantastic price which the tenants obviously cannot afford to pay. Therefore, when they are taken to court they have the argument that they have been rather good landlords because they have offered the tenants the opportunity of buying the properties—at a high price.
  Another racket is the large capital gains which are being made by selling long leases of flats. Sometimes these are eighty-year leases at a price of £5,000 to £6,000, with a £40 a year ground rent and all the rates, plus an unknown payment for the upkeep of the whole building. This is a racket which is going on all over London and elsewhere. I am not sure whether I would disapprove of a system of this kind if it were a new building, because then one knows exactly how long one is going to be there, and so on, and one can more or less make up one's mind what the unknown quantity for upkeep is. Nevertheless, this is another way in which landlords of old houses which are turned into flats can get around the Rent Act.
  Mr. Leslie Hale: I hope that my Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Robert Jenkins), will allow me to intervene on the question of new buildings. I hoped that he would not say one word to suggest to the Minister that the building of very expensive houses limits the provision or family units. Opposite my house there is a site of new houses for sale at £21,000 apiece while, as the hon. Member knows, I am refused permission to sublet my property even at an invisible or non-existent rent on the ground that these other properties are being built at a price of £21,000apiece and the sort of

  1159
  people that I should have in my house as sub-tenants would depreciate down the social value of the area. On the whole, this is not a contribution to the provision of housing accommodation in any neighbourhood.
  Mr. Jenkins: I have almost finished, but, if the House will allow me, I would just like to say that I have collaborated with the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), who is also a constituent of mine, over two or three years in an attempt to obtain for him permission to convert his larger house into four flats, but permission has not been granted by the Dulwich College Estates governors, for what reason I do not know. I cannot think that any tenants that the hon. Member for Oldham, West, would have in his property would not mix with or be even better than the people who bought the £21,000 property.
  Finally, I do not think that it is any use the Government saying that the Rent Act has not brought substantial hardship. It has. Most of the trouble is due to shortage of housing accommodation, which the Government intend to remedy. But, in my submission, an interim measure must be adopted to deal with the points raised by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery and other hon. Members, to deal with the spivs and sharks of the property world, and to prevent the growing hardship which is being silently suffered by vast numbers of middle-class families, who, being inarticulate and unorganised, are compelled to succumb to the extortion and are, in many cases, living on the breadline today.
  8.39 p.m.
  Mr. R. J. Mellish: I agree with most of what was said by the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Robert Jenkins). His views of the Rent Act coincide with the views of this side of the House. He is one of the few Conservatives who have taken a consistent attitude towards this, and I say to his Front Bench that he knows a lot about this subject, for he lives in an area—Dulwich—which is probably as badly affected as any other by the Rent Act.
  I do not understand the Minister's arguments about the so-called advant-
  1160
  ages of the Rent Act. If it is so good, why do the Government not continue the process? Why do they not decontrol a lot more housing? If it has made available so many more properties and is solving so much of the housing problem, then why not extend it further?
  Why do the Government not go to country at the next General Election and say that they believe that the Act was a dynamic success and that they propose to extend it? I will give the answer. The Government know that they dare not do any such thing because such a slogan would be a mockery, especially of the victims of the Act.
  It was claimed for the Act that it would provide more accommodation because people who could afford higher rent could move into higher rent accommodation and those who could pay only a lower rent would be able to move into lower rent accommodation. The present Home Secretary said that when he was Minister of Housing and Local Government. He said that it would bring about some kind of equality. The very opposite is happening. I beg the present Minister to understand that.
  Before the Rent Act, people were able to move about in my constituency. They were living in privately-owned flats. Those who had been occupying two-roomed flats could move into three or four-roomed flats while those in larger flats could move into smaller. But now, because of so much decontrol, such movement is impossible because those moving out would have to pay such higher rents. That is what is happening in London. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is happening all over the country."]
  In my constituency, there is a privately owned block of flats called Hamilton Square. It is a respectable block and, at least in the past—I do not know about the present—the landlords were good. About one-third of the flats are controlled and the remainder decontrolled. It is hard to realise how inhuman are the rents which are being asked for the decontrolled flats. It is grave injustice. Rents of 35s., £2 and £210s. are being demanded for basement flats which should be condemned.
  We have referred to the colour problem. I have not much of a colour problem in my constituency but when I went

  1161
  to work in Deptford during the recent by-election I discovered that the problem there is appalling. Almost one in three houses are occupied by coloured people. One sees five gas stoves in one house. The houses are packed from floor to ceiling with these poor wretches. One may ask, "Why do not the public health inspectors turn them out for overcrowding? "The answer is that these unfortunate people have nowhere else to go. The inspectors are quite powerless.
  I do not deny the argument that we must have more flats and houses, but private enterprise in London has not even tried to make a challenge. If it were not for the local authorities I do not know what the position would be. I have a perfect example in my constituency of what this adds up to.
  An old couple have lived for 40 years in a flat, where they brought up their children who have now gone away. Then the people downstairs moved and the property was bought by a spiv who sold the flat downstairs to coloureds, seven of whom have moved in.
  On Friday the old couple came to see me. It is almost impossible to explain to these people that there is nothing one can do. They are terrified of living with these seven coloured people downstairs whose outlook and habits are so different and who make so much noise. They will probably get out, although I do not know where they can go—and when they do move the house will become decontrolled and so we have another Rachman kind of story. But whatever the system of society we live in we always have spivs. We had them between 1945 and 1951.
  I have another case, that of a man called Brady—if that is his name—who took hundreds of thousands of pounds off the Government on false war damage claims. I will tell the House how he did it. First, he bought a lot of properties very cheaply—£400 or £500 a house, which were due for war damage benefits. He went along to the borough council and there got authority to do the repairs. He sent this authority to the War Damage Commission which agreed to it and asked him to put forward builder's estimates, when the appropriate amount would be paid. He did. It was not appreciated that the building firm was his as well and
  1162
  that it provided him with false receipts. He took the Government of the day for thousands of pounds. An attempt was made to arrest him, but he went to Ireland and set himself up in a company there. I gather that he cannot be extradited.
  What happened to the property? This was not just one house, but hundreds of houses. People in those houses did not pay rent for several years and then, suddenly, a company called Various Tenancies—the Minister knows about this because I have written to him to ask him to look into it—came along asking for £200 in back rent and serving notices to quit. This is all perfectly legal and this firm has taken over the Brady empire. Dilapidation notices, and so on, have been served, but not enforced because of absent landlords. All this process did not start with Rachman. The Government have been in power for 12 years and they must take responsibility for whatever is happening in housing. They take the credit, and they must take the blame. So the miserable story goes on.
  Sir Barnett Janner: Will my hon. Friend carry this just one stage further and explain to the House that, knowing what Brady had done and how it was done, the Government removed security of tenure, so enabling people as expert as Brady in defrauding to do what they did?
  Mr. Mellish: My hon. Friend is a lawyer; he had better ask the question himself. All I know is that some of these people, like Brady, are very smart. I do not understand how people can be so wicked. Of course they know the law. They know it backwards, much better than I can ever hope to know it.
  I know of seven families who have been paying no rent but who have been paying rates and taxes. Dilapidation notices have been served on them, as well as claims for hundreds of £s in back rent. My own local authority may be at fault, but I want it to make a compulsory purchase order for every Brady property in Bermondsey, and I want the Minister' to give his O.K. at once, with none of this messing about which we have had with previous compulsory purchase orders and none of the legal jargon and legal procedure which has delayed us again and again and by which, when

  1163
  the landlord is unknown, a C.P.O. notice is stuck on the door and that is that.
  The hon. Member for Dulwich mentioned the landlord and tenant legislation which the Government brought in as an emergency Measure, terrified of the wholesale evictions facing them. The Home Secretary knows that he brought in that legislation as a result of the pressure from this side of the House and forced landlords to give three-year leases. Those leases are now running out and we are now reaching the point where we ought to be frightened of the sort of people of whom we were frightened in 1958.
  There is the perfect example in my constituency. The previous landlord signed a lease under this landlord and tenant legislation for some decontrolled property. The tenants were paying extra rent, but they were quite happy about that. Suddenly, a Mr. "Singh"—a good old bright Bermondsey name—[HON. MEMBERS: "Singh."]—S-i-n-g-h—I call it "Singe", but that is nothing to what many people call it—buys the property and then writes to the tenants giving them notice to quit from 31st August saying, "You have no leases with me; your leases are finished; they finished from such-and-such a date with the previous owner".
  The tenants do not owe a penny rent and, much against my judgment, they are prepared to consider paying more. They are screaming out for security of tenure. There are elderly people and they are asking, "What happens to us? Where are we to go?" The Home Secretary gave them the answer in his Rent Act—to an old people's home. After they have been in their house for 40 years, they can now go to an old people's home. Under the 1957 Rent Act, the landlord is entitled to do that to them.
  The Government say that this Act has done a fine job of work. If one asks for a compulsory purchase order, a tremendous amount of work is involved. There has to be a public inquiry to enable people to object to it. We have tried to negotiate with Mr. Singh's solicitors, because he is asking fantastic rents. He is asking £3,000 to £4,000 for houses that are not worth £500, This enormous rise in price is due to current market values and all that we are trying to do
  1164
  is to get security of tenure for these people.
  Many people have tried again and again to expose what is happening to tenants who are being evicted by unscrupulous landlords. Tonight's debate will no doubt hit the headlines because someone called Rachman has been associating with someone called Keeler, whoever she might be. Someof us have been fighting this rent racket for years. We have said time and again that the Rent Act is wrong and is not solving the housing problem. It is causing great harm and hardship to people who do not deserve it in places like my constituency, and we shall continue to fight it with every means in our power.
  8.51 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Curran: Having risen to speak as this late hour, I propose to discard my impromptus and let somebody else make my speech for me. I have received a letter from a lady who lives in north London. She does not want her name and full address disclosed. She is an old-age pensioner of 71 and lives in a house which she bought thirty-seven years ago intending to make provision for her old age. She is a spinster, and she says in her letter:
  "I should like to be able to stand on the Floor of the House of Commons today and relate the consequences that I am suffering from the Rent Act restrictions that are still imposed on me. I am a pensioner householder with controlled tenants and I want you to know my case. All that I am getting from the ground floor flat" of three large rooms, kitchen, boxroom, bathroom, lavatory, indoor cellar and a large garden is a rent of 37s. 8d. a week which includes rates and repairs. I am getting only 44s. a week pension."
  She says that she is being forced to provide this accommodation because it is controlled, and she goes on to speak of her experiences with this house. She says that the council told her that some repairs were necessary so she had them carried out, at a cost of £60, which is one year's rent. She then goes on to say that the tenants next door, where the accommodation is decontrolled, are paying £4 10s. a week for a smaller flat than the one that she is required to let at 37s. 8d. a week, and she considers that this state of affairs will continue for the rest of her life.
  Mr. Denis Howell: What is the rateable value?
  Mr. Curran: She does not say that. Does it make any difference? Does not the hon. Gentleman think that a lady of 71, living on a pension of 44s. a week, is entitled to a certain amount of fair play? She is living in a house which she bought to make provision for her old age. As the house is still controlled she is unable to make a living out of it.
  Mr. Arthur Skeffington: If the circumstances are as the hon. Gentleman has described, the lady can go to the county court and put her case there. If the case is as described by the hon. Gentleman, almost certainly the county court judge will give her possession. No doubt the hon. Gentleman can advise her about that.
  Mr. Richard Marsh: The hon. Gentleman ought to be able to tell her that.
  Mr. Curran: We have listened to a number of speeches about rents and the injustices done by landlords. I do not dispute that there are disreputable landlords, but when we are passing Acts which affect millions of men and women—and not all landlords are criminal scoundrels—we ought to remember that we are making decisions which affect people like this old lady.
  Sir B. Janner: Would the hon. Member say how much the lady paid for the house? Was it bought as a controlled house, and, if so, did not she know at the time that she could not raise the rent?
  Mr. Curran: She is 71. She explains that she is not much good at writing letters. I cannot see why the troubles of an old woman of 71 should be a matter for mockery, nor can I see why someone who is living in these conditions should not have at least as much sympathy and consideration as we give to the tenants of bad landlords.
  I shall sit down so as to give the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) time to wind up the debate for the Opposition. I hope that he will tell us whether, in urging the repeal of the Rent Act, he is prepared to say that he wants to go back to the state of affairs in which large numbers of people who own houses are to be forced by law to let them at pre-war prices. Does he think that it is fair that people who happen to deal in living space should be compelled to
  1166
  sell that living space at pre-war prices, when we do not apply that kind of restriction to any other group of citizens? We do not ask butchers or bakers to sell food at pre-war prices. Why should we force people who own houses to sell living space at pre-war prices?
  The obvious effect of rent control is that we are compelling people with living space to sell, to sell it at a price fixed many years ago. I believe that that is unjust. It is something which we do not apply to any other group of citizens. There is no other group in the country whom we require not only to sell their products at a pre-war price, but to stand the loss out of their own pockets.
  I quite agree that if we allow the market price to prevail there are citizens who will not be able to afford the market price. I recognise, also, that it is the duty of the State to come to the help of those citizens who cannot afford it. I am not asserting that the State should wash its hands of the matter and let the market mechanism operate without reference to human suffering. I am arguing that the State should come to the help of people who cannot afford the market mechanism. The present system of rent control is a system where the subsidy in this one case is extracted not from taxes, but from the pockets of the citizens who happen to own houses. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that this is not fair, and I invite him to say, when he tells us why he is in favour of repealing the Rent Act, whether he regards this state of affairs as being defensible in any terms at all.
  8.59 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Stewart: The Motion that we axe discussing deals with extortion, evictions and profiteering, and the so-called Rachman episodes have highlighted this extortion and profiteering. I say quite frankly that I am glad that it has been highlighted in that fashion, and that the Press has given it the publicity that it has. I am glad because, for a long time—almost ever since the Rent Act was passed—there has been a great deal of persecution of tenants, of a less lurid and compelling form, but causing quite as much misery in a quiet way all over the country.
  That is something, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) pointed out—and I say this to

  1167
  the Minister, in view of some of the things he said—to which my hon. Friends and I had repeatedly referred, without evoking any response from the Government or from any other quarter in particular. When at last something happens which makes everyone aware of the situation, by writing it up in lurid colours, I say that we are fully entitled to seize the opportunity to draw attention again, with a chance of being heard, to abuses which we have repeatedly brought before this House.
  The Minister seemed to suggest that there was something improper in doing it at this juncture, when Rachman's name is in the Press, because of his association with Ward, and because of certain unfortunate memories that that might conjure up for the Government. If we were to fight shy of every subject that has disreputable associations for the Government there would be nothing left to talk about at all.
  But I shall not tell any lurid stories. I want to show that these are, after all, only the illustrative examples. I propose to quote one example only, and I choose it because it illustrates so many of the things that are wrong. The case is the one which was referred to by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, concerning the house at 67, Chester Road. One of the interesting things about that house is that it seems almost impossible to say who, at any moment, owns it. It travels from person to person and company to company. At various times there has been a dangerous structure notice on it and a sanitary notice, but it has not been possible to get anything done because it has not been possible to nail down at any moment who owns it.
  There were decontrolled tenants in it. It was important for the person who was the owner at one stage—and who may be the owner today—to get them out, for the simple reason that once they were out the premises could be let, or the whole house sold with vacant possession, at a handsome profit. At first, the tenants would not go. Their furniture was broken up. They were interviewed by the local newspaper and by the B.B.C. After it was known that they had received visits from those quarters an attempt was made by the B.B.C. to get in touch with one
  1168
  of the occupants again. Here I wish to quote from a copy of a note—I have seen the original—which the tenants wrote, to be left for the B.B.C. man when he called.
  The note says, "I am at"—and he gives his present address. He had gone; the technique succeeded. I do not propose to quote his present address—
  "Kelly's boys were after me this afternoon. After the Kilburn Times and B.B.C. people left they start to keep an eye on us. Please tell the B.B.C. people I am at this address."
  By a grim and ironic coincidence the note is signed "K. Joseph". That example illustrates, first, that the Rent Act was the mainspring of the landlord's action. We cannot get away from that. The Rent Act provides that when a controlled tenant moves out the tenancy becomes decontrolled. That was what made it profitable for the landlords and their thugs to act in the way they did.
  Secondly, it illustrates a pattern of irresponsible ownership of property-property constantly moving from person to person and company to company, so that its proper responsibilities can never be laid upon ownership. It illustrates the difficulty of proper action by the local authority because of this shifting ownership and the weaknesses, for this purpose, of the 1961 Act, to which I shall refer again a little later.
  It illustrates also the ugly story of violence. We are all glad to see the Home Secretary here for part of the debate. I am bound to say that I could have wished that the right hon. Gentleman was to reply for the Government because, although this is a matter for which the whole Government are responsible, the right hon. Gentleman carries a good deal of personal responsibility. It was he who triumphantly pushed the Rent Act through the House and assured the country that he was watching its operation carefully. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman is still watching it. It was the Home Secretary who piloted the 1961 Act through its various stages and who steadily resisted suggestion after suggestion which now his successor gradually, one by one, is going to have to adopt. The right hon. Gentleman is now Home Secretary and, whatever the difficulties of the police may be, the responsibility for maintaining peace in the Metropolis lies on the shoulders of the Home Secretary.

  1169
  I shall say no more about the violence because, wicked and scandalous as it is, in a sense it is incidental to the whole problem. I have known plenty of cases where no violence or even a threat of violence was needed to get people out. They have been terrified and bewildered by solicitors' letters. That was enough. We must notice that the evils done by the Rent Act, as the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Robert Jenkins) pointed out, are not only those of the lurid cases. They are happening all the time. I have here a letter from a constituent who fought in the Korean War. His tenancy has never been controlled. It would have been but for the Rent Act. But, owing to the date when he moved into the premises, it has never been controlled. He has been allowed to stay there for a time. Now he is being told to go for no better, or no other, reason than that his wife is to have a second child. That is the sort of thing which is happening all the time, and that it is the sort of thing which is indefeasible.
  We are told that the purpose of the Rent Act is, as it were, to allow the free play of the market. We have been told that hon. Members on this side of the House plead constantly the case of people who are turned out of premises and do not think of those who are allowed to move in. Let us look at how it is working. Admitted that when people are evicted under the Rent Act, the premises can be let. By no means all premises are let. The sale of property still occurs frequently. The premises can be let to somebody else. But at what rent? The evil of the Rent Act is that it hits hardest at the weakest. Granted that once the controlled tenant is out accommodation may be on the market. But the tenant who cannot pay very much; the tenant with children; the tenant who, for any reason of health, may be an embarrassment to the landlord, is the one who has the least chance of getting the accommodation.
  In so far as the Rent Act has made more rented accommodation available, on the whole it has made it easier for those for whom the position was already comparatively easy, and it has made it harder for those for whom it was already difficult to obtain accommodation. The Minister is always telling us that we have the Donnison Report which shows us that not so much accommodation is being
  1170
  sold when it becomes vacant. When the Rent Act was first passed we were told that much more rented accommodation would come on the market. The highest claim made now is that rented accommodation is not going off the market quite so fast.
  The Government repeatedly quote the Donnison Report. It was only today that the Minister admitted that this Report was compiled in 1960 from information collected in 1958. Why do the Government still stand on the Donnison Report? They have devoted a good deal of energy to collecting their own more recent information which they have not yet published. I think that will disclose that, although there is this accommodation to rent, most of it is at a rent which provides no answer at all to the problem posed by people who are being evicted, and whose stories we have heard during this debate.
  Next I say about the Rent Act that its weakness was shown as soon as 1958 when the Government had to modify it to do things which we told them when they passed the Act it would be necessary to do. There was one think in the 1958 Act which was really useful and which, if the Act were still in force, could be of great value today. There was a provision that anyone who was liable to lose his home as a result of the Rent Act could in no circumstances be turned out except after proceedings in court and by a court order. Since we want this debate to be one which suggests action as well as one which makes criticisms, I offer this to the Government. Take that principle in the 1958 Act now, make it permanent and universally applicable, and make the fact that it is applicable universally known.
  Let it be known to everyone in the country that it is completely illegal to turn anyone out of his house without a court order. I wonder if the Minister has ever seen a gas board trying to deal with the situation of a householder who will not pay for his gas. It has to get an order most carefully. It has to bring along a policeman when it executes the order, and to get a witness to see what it is doing. It has to establish in the eyes of everyone that it has been before a court and that what it is doing is perfectly legal. That ought to be the position always before anyone can be turned out of his house and for some people it

  1171
  would be legal today if the Home Secretary had consented to our plea to make the 1958 Act permanent. But to that suggestion he returned the usual "No" which he has returned to every suggestion to alleviate any people's lot.
  I fully accept that anything we do about rent legislation does not of itself provide more accommodation and that the root of the matter—as the Amendment tells us, as if we had not known and already argued in great detail—is simply that there are no enough houses. There is a shortage, but a shortage of what? For the people suffering from the Rent Act, what kind of dwellings have to be provided? In the overwhelming majority of cases they are council houses, the class of dwellings which this Government, until the last 12 months, have steadily cut down the supply of year after year.
  Another thing by which we have to remedy the shortage in London is a proper policy for the distribution of industry and employment over the whole country. I do not deny the importance of these things at all. If I do not develop them now, that is only because other debates have given us an opportunity to do so. My righthon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition dealt with these points. I repeat them now only because of the extraordinary remark made by the Minister when he said that my right hon. Friend did not deal at all with the background of this problem. I can only suppose that the Minister was asleep during a large part of my right hon. Friend's speech.
  While we are speaking of freeing London from overcrowding, let us remember one real contribution which was made to that task in the days of the Labour Government, the creation of the 14 new towns. It was a great delight to all of us to hear today the maiden speech from the son of a former Member of this House whose great achievement those new towns primarily were. We all admired and respected the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin). Although I do not wish to drag a maiden speech too much into the path of controversy, I wish that the Minister and some of the other advocates of the merits of the Rent Act would try that medicine on the people of Deptford and certain other constituencies. We
  1172
  know what Deptford thought of that line of argument.
  The Amendment suggests that the House, although not willing to do anything about the Rent Act, would at least deplore the disreputable practices engaged in by some unscrupulous landlords. It is, I am afraid, a common Conservative error when discussing social evils to imagine that they can be interpreted in the light of particular individual villians.
  We have to look a bit further below the surface than that. Rachman was a villainous man. Nobody disputes that, but he got the money to acquire the property by loans on mortgage from highly respectable people. In order to console the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Ress-Davies), if he is here, I would say that I shall not repeat now or say anything about anybody which they have not already said about themselves in the newspapers.
  Last Sunday we had several highly respectable people whose names one associates with famous regiments, with famous clubs, with famous schools, saying, "It is true that I lent money to Rachman on mortgage but I had no idea of the methods he employed or the way he ran his property." One thing that always puzzles me is how it is that it comes about that people who are fortunate in possessing wealth and education and the capacity and the facilities to find things out and know their way about the world, people who are shrewd and sophisticated enough to know how to invest their money properly, can be still so ignorant, innocent and naive about something which they could have learned by walking down the street.
  It is more than 60 years since Bernard Shaw wrote "Widower's Houses". In that play there is a dialogue between a respectable English gentleman and a slum landlord. The respectable gentleman reproaches the slum landlord with his methods and his extortion. The slum landlord asks, "From what source do you get your income?" to which the gentleman replies, "Not from houses. I get mine from interest." "Yes", replies the slum landlord, "interest on mortgage on my property, and before I can see a penny of what you say I screw and bully out of my tenants I have to pay 7 per cent. to

  1173
  you. What my rent collector does for me, I have to do for you. You the mortgage holder are the principal. I, and the rent collector, are the intermediaries."
  I bring out this point because this means that although some particular man is a bit of a pioneer in certain methods in discovering what the Rent Acts make it profitable to do, this is something which can rapidly take root and become quite at home and a native plant in the most respectable society. This is not to be interpreted in terms of particular villains. This is to be interpreted in terms of the law and of the system which allows irresponsible ownership of property, and we do not imagine that it is restricted to certain districts of London. I believe that it is the view of the police that dangers of violence may now be moving further west towards Shepherds Bush and the West Kensington area.
  I have reports not of violence but of pressure on tenants and extortions and threats of eviction from Poplar and from Southwark and in the provinces from Malt by where the Government sold an estate which was once the property of the Royal Ordnance. The tenants are not protected because they have been Crown tenants and now they are faced with extortion and eviction. We have not had a very encouraging story either from the hon. and gallant Member for Nottingham, Central (Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux) whose speech I am sorry to have missed. Do not let us imagine that this is an evil restricted to a particular locality.
  We shall be told that it is all very sad but it can be remedied by perhaps strengthening the 1961 Act. I must tell the Minister and the Home Secretary, who piloted the Act through Parliament, that this Measure as it stands is a terribly weak piece of legislation. The Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee has told the Minister so. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition mentioned, the town clerk of my constituency, acting in another capacity, has told him so. Islington and Kensington have expressed their alarm about it. The worry all the time is that if a local authority spends money trying to make these houses decent it will never find anybody from whom it can reclaim the money.
  1174
  I understand that the hon. and gallant Member for Nottingham, Central said that the same anxiety faces the local authority in his constituency. I think this particular abuse may be a little more common in London because the devices of shifting companies and shifting responsibilities are perhaps a little more known and practised in the capital than elsewhere, but it does not take long for knowledge of that kind to spread.
  It is worth looking at what happened in Standing Committee D in 1961 on that Bill. On 11th May my hon. Friends and I put forward an Amendment to secure that local authorities should make a register of all properties in multiple occupation. "No", said the Minister, and then later on he has to admit, "We will let them do so perhaps two or three years later". The Minister today has to say that he will bring that proposal forward. If the Government had accepted our Amendment on 11th May they would have saved themselves the trouble.
  On 16th May we proposed an Amendment—and here I should like to give credit to my hon. Friends the Members for Widnes (Mr. MacColl), for Islington South-West (Mr. A. Evans) and others—so that when a local authority makes an order it can more speedily be carried out. The Minister said "No." On 6th June we tried several Amendments so that if people committed an offence under this Act there was power to get not only at the directors but at the shareholders of the company involved. "Most undesirable", we were told, and we were voted down.
  We moved an Amendment to require that the duties of landlords and the rights of tenants should be made clearly known to the tenants of houses in multiple occupation by the rent book or some other document. We were voted down on that. Then there was a most important Amendment whereby, where work is done by a local authority and it spends money on that work, that should be a cost to be registered in the register of local land charges so that the authority can nail the cost on to the property without having to trace the owner. On 13th June we brought forward a new Clause saying that where, owing to shifting ownership, men of straw and the rest of it, it proved impossible to enforce the Act, the local authority should have power, as my right

  1175
  hon. Friend suggested today, forthwith to acquire the property. The answer we received was "No."
  Every one of those proposals, which have today received approval from both sides of the House, and even the Minister coming toward them, could have been put into the Act. But all the time we were dealing with the same Minister who was so positive that the Rent Act would not cause hardship, who was so positive that it was unnecessary to make the 1958 Act permanent. All the time the Government knew best, and now we see the result.
  The situation is not the result of a single man's villainy. It results from sins of commission, in the passing of the Rent Act, and sins of omission, in the 1961 Act for which the Government are responsible. The results stem from the doctrine that property must always be protected and that people come second. In effect, in this we see Conservative freedom working.
  What action is needed to deal with that situation? First, we should deal with the particular conflation of villainies that have made up the Rachman scandal, because as my right hon. Friend pointed out, we have here not only the housing problem, but the question either of breaches in the company law, or the company law itself not being satisfactory, intimidation and evasion of taxes. I repeat, therefore, the suggestion which my right hon. Friend made, that it would be desirable to have an inquiry, with proper powers, to sort this out. We possess certain information, some of which, I again assure the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet, comes from highly respectable sources, and, if we were certain of the protection of witnesses, we should be prepared to put it before such a tribunal.
  Next, there is the longer-term question of what action should be taken to deal with the housing shortage. The Minister saw fit to say that I had not mentioned a target for houses. I agree; it was just forgetfulness. But the mere saying that we will build so many houses does no one any particular good. One has to consider the line of policy to be pursued if one is to get the houses built. The Minister will not suggest that we have been backward in this connection. If he looks at his own most recent White Paper, he will be surprised by the number of paragraphs in it
  1176
  which are timid shadows of things we have suggested to him in the previous two or three years; in particular, the proposals for preventing houses falling into disrepair.
  I was glad to take part in the debate a fortnight ago. I should be glad at any time to debate what action is needed to provide houses and overcome the shortage. I do not think that the Minister or anyone else in the House will accuse me of not being aware of the importance of these matters. Meanwhile, however, there are certain special actions which we must take, and it is in this context that we must consider rent control.
  I have shown that the Rent Act provides the motive for a great deal of most merciless action, whether it is legal or illegal, violent or peaceable, and that it results in the persecution of a great many unhappy people. We say, therefore, that the Rent Act should be repealed and that it should be replaced by legislation which would give tenants security of tenure at a fair rent. The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran) would not have needed to ask his rhetorical question if he had listened to what we have so often said should be done about the Rent Act.
  I accept at once that to require landlords to receive pre-war rents would be wholly unreasonable. But tenants must be given security of tenure. I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson). If he reads his speech, he will find, whether he likes it or not, that he was proposing a form of rent control. If it was not that, it meant nothing. It was a sort of compromise between what we want and what now is. But, alas, the Conservative borough council of Chelsea has already put something forward on those lines to the Minister and he has turned it down. I am sorry to say that the Liberal Party comes in second to Chelsea in this connection.
  I hope that we shall have from the Chief Secretary tonight an answer to a question I put a fortnight ago and which was not answered then. In the unlikely event of this Government winning the next election, is it their intention to use their powers under the Rent Act to decontrol further houses? Let us have a plain answer to that. Apparently, further decontrol would please the hon. Member for Uxbridge.

  1177
  Finally, what should be done to make property owning a responsible business? Power should be given to the local authority to prosecute if work is not done, not merely to do the work at its own expense. There should be power to bring houses quickly into the authority's possession when the public interest so requires. There should be prohibition of eviction except by court order; and, if I may throw out an idea of my own, why not apply to the ownership of houses the idea that we apply to the right to drive a motor car, that if one does it in an anti-social manner one should be disqualified from doing it? I do not see why a landlord who has used his position infamously in an anti-social manner should not be declared, for a certain period, incapable of owning, directly or indirectly, that kind of property.
  The Government and hon. Members opposite will say that this would be very difficult to administer. May I suggest that hon. Members opposite and the Government, who are so ingenious in chasing ways of trying to ensure that no council tenant shall pay a penny less rent than he can afford, might apply their ingenuity to solving this problem.
  The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet, in a speech just before he voted for the Rent Act, said this:
  "…the County of London…is a speculators' paradise…it would be unfortunate if the commercial men were enabled to muscle in on the extreme shortage of accommodation in the West End, Chalsea, Battersea and other parts of London…."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st November, 1956; Vol. 560, c. 1855–6.]
  When I read this shoddy story of the shifting of responsibility for the ownership in property from one person and one company to another, it was not of Paradise that I thought but the passage in Dante's Inferno in which he describes that part of hell where lie the thief, the fraudulent and the extortioner. It was one part of their nature and penalty that whenever one looked at them they kept changing into somebody else.
  We do not have as part of the common furniture of our minds and speech today that terrible imagery of which Dante was master. But surely we know, or at our peril forget, that the individual who pursues and the law that permits those barren and perverted activities which enrich those who pursue
  1178
  them without adding a jot to the real wealth of the community, and without regard for one's duty to one's neighbour, twist human society from its proper shape into that horrible parody which Dante described—the society without faith, without law, without happiness.
  9.33 p.m.
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury and Paymaster-General (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): My first duty must be to join the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) in extending congratulations to the hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) on his first-class maiden speech. It was a particular pleasure to some of us to hear the hon. Member both because of the happy circumstance that his distinguished father was able to hear it and because many of us in the House recall his father as a parliamentary colleague for whom we all felt the greatest admiration. It was said that he was the only Member on either side of the House who understood the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. I can pay the hon. Member no higher tribute than to say that his speech was fully in the tradition of his father's speeches.
  It has been our experience—it has certainly been mine—to have to pay tribute, and always sincerely but never more so than tonight, to one or two hon. Members opposite on their really brilliant maiden speeches. I must, however, warn them of the unhappy fact that their quality does not seem to go with them when they descend to the Front Bench opposite. It rather recalls G. K. Chesterton's comment, which the hon. Member for Fulham may remember, on education:
  "There must be something rottenly wrong with education. Everybody has wonderful children, but all the grown-ups are such duds."
  That brings me to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition. I found myself for once in the rather embarrassing position of being in complete agreement with an hon. Member who spoke from the Liberal benches, because the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) very fairly made the point that the right hon. Gentleman's speech, whatever its qualities, was not directed to supporting the argument contained in the Motion.

  1179
  The right hon. Gentleman described at great length and with considerable gusto a number of "rackets", a number of the disagreeable, wrong, wicked, unpleasant things done by one individual and by his associates and others of the same kidney. What the right hon. Gentleman did not do was to establish, or even to attempt to establish, a connection between those things and the remedy which he proposes: that is, the repeal of the Rent Act, 1957.
  Indeed, when the Leader of the Opposition has the experience of reading his speech tomorrow in Hansard—[HON. MEMBERS: "The right hon. Gentleman should read it."]—he will see how he completely failed to establish that link. Several of the cases that he quoted of people who had suffered from the depredations of this man were, as he went out of his way to describe them, statutory or controlled tenants. Therefore, it would seem that the argument that one should make other people whose tenancies were decontrolled by the 1957 Act controlled tenants, and that one would thereby give them protection against the depredations of men of this sort, plainly falls to the ground.
  Mr. H. Wilson: Has not the right hon. Gentleman yet understood the process of creeping decontrol and the incentive on the crooked landlords to get statutory tenants out—"de-statting", I think it is called in the profession—so that they can then get the property decontrolled? Secondly, has he not yet understood the link between these problems which we have all been describing and our concrete proposal for taking power to requisition these properties?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I understood the right hon. Gentleman's argument very well, but I want to take it a little further. His argument, apparently, is that these practices will not be followed if the result of getting one lot of tenants out is to get in a further lot of controlled or protected tenants. On the face of it, that seems a fairly improbable view. [Interruption.]
  Does the Leader of the Opposition really think that people who are not prepared to stop at beating up individuals, invading their homes and breaking up their furniture will be deterred by the fact
  1180
  that if they put in another tenant they could not legally charge above a certain rent? [Interruption.] And yet, if the right hon. Gentleman does not think that, then it is quite plain that what the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting, the repeal of the 1957 Rent Act, would not help in the slightest degree to protect these people, and that, of course, is the difference between the two sides of the House on this matter.
  We on this side of the House are at least as concerned as the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to stop practices, abuses, and, indeed, crimes, of this sort, but what we do not follow the right hon. Gentleman in doing is his suggestion that we shall deal with this problem—and this is what the Motion which he has moved suggests, and suggests as the only way to deal with it—by repealing the Act of 1957 and restoring full rent control.
  We simply do not believe that that would offer any help. Indeed, our view is that it would hinder, because anything which diminishes the supply of houses, and of houses to rent, in particular, makes the problem the more difficult. The House knows perfectly well, for we have seen it in many other directions—we have seen it in the black markets in food, in clothing, and so on—that the real basis for these abuses is scarcity, and nothing else. If, therefore, in an attempt to deal with those abuses the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends propound remedies which diminish the provision of additional houses to rent, then, so far from it being merely the case that the right hon. Gentleman provides no remedy, the truth of the matter would be that it would make the position worse, and that is why we oppose the Motion.
  It makes, as I have said, three propositions, that there exist—these are the words—
  "intolerable extortion, evictions and property profiteering"
  Well, we need not quarrel about that. We can dispute the degree and the amount of the abuse, and I think that a good many of the speeches made from the other side of the House tended to exaggerate it, as is easy, but its degree in the particular case of the late Mr. Rachman and others nobody will waste his time in disputing.

  1181
  What I do press the right hon. Gentleman on is this, the second proposition, that these are the results of the Rent Act. That, with great respect, neither he nor his hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, in a very well argued speech, succeeded in establishing. What they did do was to bring out for the umpteenth time their dislike of the Rent Act. On that, we have differed from them in the past and we shall, no doubt, continue to differ from them. That is a matter of argument between the parties, but what this debate is about is the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman that it is the Rent Act which has produced these things.
  It is our contention that the basis of the problem is a lack still, despite the very great advances which have been made, in the provision of housing, the lack, particularly in certain areas of pressure, of an adequate amount of accommodation. Our remedy for that problem is, first—I shall say a word or two about this in a minute—to maintain and expand the very high rate of building which has taken place in recent years—and of house building—and also the measures, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, to help and to mitigate and ease the position for those affected during the interim period till the supply of housing is fully adequate.
  Right hon. Gentlemen opposite really must face the fact that if one seeks to hold down rents well below their economic value while other commodities are sold at market price, while houses are repaired at contemporary prices for labour and materials; if one seeks to select one thing—rented accommodation—and keep it at an artificially low level—
  Mrs. Harriet Slater: No one is suggesting that.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter:—then one is doing the utmost one can to diminish the supply of that accommodation. That means that the biggest single factor in the shortage of rented accommodation undoubtedly was rent restriction, though I would give the threat of municipalisation a good second place.
  The second point is that it is significant that rent, rates, etc., now take a smaller proportion of total consumer expenditure than they did before the war. In 1938, the figure was 11·2 per cent.
  1182
  of consumer expenditure on rent, rates, etc.; last year it was 8·I per cent. The doctrine that one cannot hold down artificially the charges made for the rent of accommodation has all along been accepted in the local authority sphere, with one very curious result. It is the traditional duty, and the right duty, above all, of local authorities to provide accommodation for the poorest section of our society.
  That is undoubtedly now the people on National Assistance. But there is a curious fact deriving from rent control of private accommodation in the past and complete freedom of local authority accommodation. If one looks at the National Assistance Board's Annual Report for 1962 one will find that the average paid by recipients of National Assistance who are local authority tenants is actually higher by about 1s. 10d. than the average rent paid by the tenants of private landlords.
  What right hon. Gentlemen opposite must face in that if one makes accommodation artificially cheap, one also makes it artificially scarce.
  Mr. Mellish: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter:No. I have given way with pleasure to the hon. Gentleman many times, as he knows, but tonight the hon. Member for Fulham, I am sure inadvertently, took between three and four minutes of my time, and I have a good deal to say.
  Mr. Mellish: May I put just one question to the right hon. Gentleman?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I want to say something to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition about another observation in his speech. He made a remark that, in his view, the photographs of some of my right hon. Friends who have been Minister of Housing and Local Government—he named them one by one—would, undoubtedly be displayed in a place of honour in churchman headquarters. I do not know whether that was intended to be jocular. I think that, on reflection, the right hon. Gentleman will feel that that was no more fair or graceful than if one of us had said that photographs of his right hon. Friends and himself were displayed in the office of Mr. Sydney Stanley.

  1183
  The real basis of profiteering in any commodity is shortage and I want, therefore, to say a word or two about what we are doing to remedy the shortage of hoping. The right hon. Gentleman was quite wrong when he said that in 1948 the late Aneurin Bevan built more local authority houses than at any subsequent time. That is not the fact. But what is significant is the way that the total of houses built has risen.
  Indeed, if one looks at the housing record of right hon. Members, one is surprised at their courageous conscience in raising this matter. I accept, of course, that immediately after the war there were serious difficulties, but by 1948 they were doing reasonably well. In that year they built 227,000 houses, but—and this is the interesting point—after that the figure fell to 197,000 in 1949 and down to 194,000 by 1951.
  The House will remember that there was at that time some controversy about the possible size of the housing programme. When my right hon. Friends suggested that 300,000 houses were possible, what did right hon. Members opposite say? Mr. Bevan said that if we set the builders free we would not get 100,000 houses a year, but would have housing riots. Lord Attlee, in a broadcast said that the figure was not possible.
  The House will remember what happened. There was a change of Government and my right hon. Friend the present Prime Minister became Minister of Housing and Local Government. He at once got the figure up to 239,000 in the first year and we have achieved better than 300,000 ever since.
  Mr. A. C. Manuel: Sub-standard.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In the event, there are 1,100,000 people who have been rehoused as a result of Conservative housing policy over and above the level right hon. and hon. Members opposite said was possible.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition still gets a bit mixed up about it. He wrote a Fabian tract called Post-war Economic Policy in Britain in 1957, in which he said:
  "The Tory achievement of building well over 300,000 houses per annum was electorally popular and socially desirable, but it placed
  1184
  a great strain on our economic resources. They were the years when Britain should have been developing her basic industries."
  The right hon. Gentleman then had rather less enthusiasm for the housing of the people than he has shown tonight.
  The fact remains that we are moving forward with an expanded housing programme. In his White Paper of last month, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government indicated that we were moving to a target of 350,000 houses a year. The House knows that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works is doing a great deal to modernise and apply industrial methods of construction to the building industry so as to enable us to sustain a pace and speed of an even greater expansion in housing. That is the real way to deal with the housing problem.
  The hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) made a number of observations about individual cases. One of them at least appears likely to be the subject of proceedings in the courts. I can only say to the hon. Member that if he feels, or any of his colleagues feel, that any of these cases discloses evidence of breaches of the law of any sort, whether it be the ordinary criminal law in respect of intimidation, or breaches of the rent legislation, or whatever it may be, not only are the ordinary sources of enforcement of the law open to them, but if, as hon. Members, they wish to see and to put material before whichever of my right hon. Friends is departmentally concerned, my right hon. Friends will be extremely happy to see them. Whatever else divides us, we are united in the House by wishing to see that the law of the land is properly enforced and that innocent people are not intimidated or bullied out of their rights.
  One hon. Member asked about the Income Tax position of the late Mr. Rachman and of those associated with him. The House knows very well that neither Ministers nor anybody else outside the Inland Revenue are aware of, or could possibly make statements about, the Income Tax or Estate Duty position of any individual. That is a basic principle of our administration which I am sure is right. The House knows that the Inland Revenue is anxious to fol-

  1185
  low up any case in which there is any doubt, and I am perfectly certain that the House can leave that aspect of the matter in its competent and skilled hands.
  Now I come back to the Motion. The Motion is a nonsense because it proposes to treat a real problem by methods which will not work. Its real purpose, as we all know, is political—to pin on a major act of Government policy responsibility for a rogue and his doings. It can best be described in the language
  of the race course as being by malice out of political calculation, as coming from a bad stable with a trainer well qualified to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory, and whose riders have bumped where they have not bored. Let us, in our Amendment, disqualify it.
  Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 232, Noes 329.

  Division No. 168.]

  AYES

  [10.0 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  MacDermot, Niall

  Ainstey, William

  Forman, J. C.

  McInnes, James

  Albu, Austen

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

  Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)

  George, LadyMeganLloyd(Cmrthn)

  McLeavy, Frank

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Ginsburg, David

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Baird, John

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Mahon, Simon

  Barnett, Guy

  Gourlay, Harry

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

  Greenwood, Anthony

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

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Grey, Charles

  Manual, Archie

  Bence, Cyril

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Mapp, Charles

  Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Marsh, Richard

  Benson, Sir George

  Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

  Mason, Roy

  Blackburn, F.

  Gunter, Ray

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Blyton, William

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  Mellish, R. J.

  Boardman, H.

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

  Hannan, William

  Millan, Bruce

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

  Harper, Joseph

  Milne, Edward

  Bowles, Frank

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Boyden, James

  Hayman, F. H.

  Monslow, Walter

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Healey, Denis

  Moody, A. S.

  Bradley, Tom

  Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur(Rwly Regis)

  Morris, John

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Herbison, Miss Margaret

  Moyle, Arthur

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Mulley, Frederick

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Hill, J. (Midlothian)

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Hilton, A. V.

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

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Holman, Percy

  Oliver, G. H.

  Callaghan, James

  Houghton, Douglas

  O'Malley, B. K.

  Carmichael, Neil

  Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)

  Oram, A. E.

  Castle, Mrs. Barbara

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Chapman, Donald

  Hoy, James H.

  Owen, Will

  Cliffe, Michael

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Hunter, A. E.

  Parker, John

  Cronin, John

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Parkin, B. T.

  Crosland, Anthony

  Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

  Paton, John

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Peart, Frederick

  Darling, George

  Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

  Pentland, Norman

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Jeger, George

  Popplewell, Ernest

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

  Prentice, R. E.

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

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

  Probert, Arthur

  Deer, George

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Proctor, W. T.

  Delargy, Hugh

  Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Pursey, Cmdr, Harry

  Dempsey, James

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Randall, Harry

  Diamond, John

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Redhead, E. C.

  Dodds, Norman

  Kelley, Richard

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Donnelly, Desmond

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Reid, William

  Driberg, Tom

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Duffy, A. E. P. (Colne Valley)

  King, Dr. Horace

  Rhodes, H.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

  Lawson, George

  Roberts, Arthur (Normanton)

  Edelman, Maurice

  Ledger, Ron

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Robinson, Kcnneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Evans, Albert

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

  Ross, William

  Finch, Harold

  Lipton, Marcus

  Royle, Charles (Salford, West)

  Fitch, Alan

  Loughlin, Charles

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Fletcher, Eric

  McBride, N.

  Silkin, John

  Foley, Maurice

  McCann, John

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

  MacColl, James

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Taverne, D.

  Wigg, George

  Small, William

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

  Willey, Frederick

  Snow, Julian

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

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

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Thornton, Ernest

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

  Steele, Thomas

  Tomney, Frank

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Winterbottom, R. E.

  Stonehouse, John

  Warbey, William

  Woof, Robert

  Stones, William

  Watkins, Tudor

  Wyatt, Woodrow

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

  Weitzman, David

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

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

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Zllliacus, K.

  Swingler, Stephen

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Symonds, J. B.

  Whitlock, William

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Mr. Short and Mr. Rogers.

  NOES

  Aitken, Sir William

  Crowder, F. P.

  Hicks Beach, Maj. W.

  Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

  Cunningham, Knox

  Hiley, Joseph

  Allason, James

  Curran, Charles

  Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian

  Currie, G. B. H.

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

  Arbuthnot, John

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Ashton, Sir Hubert

  Dance, James

  Hobson, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Atkins, Humphrey

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Hocking, Philip N.

  Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)

  Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.

  Holland, Philip

  Balniel, Lord

  de Ferranti, Basil

  Hollingworth, John

  Barber, Anthony

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John

  Barlow, Sir John

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

  Hopkins, Alan

  Barter, John

  Doughty, Charles

  Hornby, R. P.

  Batsford, Brian

  Drayson, G. B.

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

  Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

  du Cann, Edward

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

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Eden, Sir John

  Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

  Berkeley, Humphry

  Elliott, R. W. (Newc'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Emery, Peter

  Hulbert, Sir Norman

  Bidgood, John C.

  Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Biffen, John

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Bingham, R. M.

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  Jennings, J. C.

  Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

  Farr, John

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Bishop, F. P.

  Fell, Anthony

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Fisher, Nigel

  Johnston Smith, Geoffrey

  Bossom, Hon. Clive

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Bourne-Arton, A.

  Forrest, George

  Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)

  Box, Donald

  Foster, John

  Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

  Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (Stafford&Stone)

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

  Braine, Bernard

  Freeth, Denzil

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Brewis, John

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

  Gammans, Lady

  Kimball, Marcus

  Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Gardner, Edward

  Kirk, Peter

  Brooman-White, R.

  George, Sir John (Pollok)

  Lagden, Godfrey

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Lambton, Viscount

  Browne, Percy (Torrington)

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Bryan, Paul

  Gllmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Buck, Antony

  Clover, Sir Douglas

  Leather, Sir Edwin

  Bullard, Denys

  Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

  Leavey, J. A.

  Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

  Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Godber, Rt. Hon. J. B.

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

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

  Goodhart, Philip

  Lilley, F. J. P.

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Goodhew, Victor

  Lindsay, Sir Martin

  Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

  Gough, Frederick

  Linstead, Sir Hugh

  Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert (Mitcham)

  Gower, Raymond

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Gary, Sir Robert

  Grant-Ferris, R.

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

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Green, Alan

  Longbottom, Charles

  Chataway, Christopher

  Gresham Cook, R.

  Longden, Gilbert

  Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

  Grosvenor, Lord Robert

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

  Gurden, Harold

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Cole, Norman

  Hare, Rt. Hon. John

  MacArthur, Ian

  Cooke, Robert

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  McLaren, Martin

  Cooper, A. E.

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

  Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (MacClesf'd)

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute&N.Ayrs)

  Corfield, F. V.

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

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

  Costain, A. P.

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  McMaster, Stanley R.

  Coulson, Michael

  Hastings, Stephen

  Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)

  Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

  Hay, John

  Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Macpherson, Rt. Hn. Niall (Dumfries)

  Crawley, Aldan

  Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward

  Maddan, Martin

  Critchley, Julian

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Maginnis, John E.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Cot. Sir Oliver

  Hendry, Forbes

  Maitland, Sir John

  1188

  1189

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

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

  Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

  Marlowe, Anthony

  Prior, J. M. L.

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

  Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

  Taylor, Sir William (Bradford, N.)

  Marshall, Sir Douglas

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Teeling, Sir William

  Marten, Neil

  Pym, Francis

  Temple, John M.

  Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  Ramsden, James

  Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)

  Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Rawlinson, Sir Peter

  Thomas, Peter (Conway)

  Mawby, Ray

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

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

  Rees-Davies, W. R. (Isle of Thanet)

  Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter

  Mills, Stratton

  Renton, Rt. Hon. David

  Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

  Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  Moore, Sir Thomas (Ayr)

  Rippon, Rt. Hon. Geoffrey

  Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Cordon

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

  Turner, Colin

  Morgan, William

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

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Morrison, John

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Roots, William

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Ropner, Col, Sir Leonard

  Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

  Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

  Russell, Ronald

  Walder, David

  Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael

  St. Clair, M.

  Walker, Peter

  Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

  Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

  Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Wall, Patrick

  Orr, Gapt. L. P. S.

  Seymour, Leslie

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Orr-Ewing, Sir Charles

  Sharples, Richard

  Watkinson, Ht. Hon. Harold

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Shaw, M.

  Webster, David

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Shepherd, William

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Sheet, T. H. H.

  Whitelaw, William

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Smithers, Peter

  Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

  Panned, Norman (Kirkdale)

  Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Partridge, E.

  Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Peel, John

  Speir, Rupert

  Wise, A. R.

  Percival, Ian

  Stanley, Hon. Richard

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Peyton, John

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

  Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Woodhouse, C. M.

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Stodart, J. A.

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Pilkington, Sir Richard

  Storey, Sir Samuel

  Woollam, John

  Pitman, Sir James

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Worsley, Marcus

  Pitt, Dame Edith

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Pott, Percivall

  Talbot, John E.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

  Tapsell, Peter

  Mr. Chichester-Clark and

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Mr. Finlay.

  Question put, That the proposed words be there added:—
  The House divided: Ayes 327, Noes 237.

  Division No. 169.]

  AYES

  [10.14 p.m.

  Aitken, Sir William

  Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

  Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

  Brooman-White, R.

  Crowder, F. P.

  Allason, James

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  Cunningham, Knox

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian

  Browne, Percy (Torrington)

  Curran, Charles

  Arbuthnot, John

  Bryan, Paul

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Ashton, Sir Hubert

  Buck, Antony

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Bullard, Denys

  Dance, James

  Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)

  Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Balniel, Lord

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.

  Barber, Anthony

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

  de Ferranti, Basil

  Barlow, Sir John

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Barter, John

  Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

  Batsford, Brian

  Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert (Mitcham)

  Doughty, Charles

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Drayson, G. B.

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

  Channon, H. P. G.

  du Cann, Edward

  Berkeley, Humphry

  Chataway, Christopher

  Eden, Sir John

  Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Bidgood, John C.

  Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

  Elliott, R. W. (Newc'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)

  Biffen, John

  Clarke, Brig. Terence(Portsmth, W.)

  Emery, Peter

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Ernmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

  Bingham, R. M.

  Cole, Norman

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

  Cooke, Robert

  Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Bishop, F. P.

  Cooper, A. E.

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

  Farr, John

  Bossom, Hon. Clive

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Fell, Anthony

  Bourne-Arton, A.

  Corfield, F. V.

  Fisher, Nigel

  Box, Donald

  Costain, A. P.

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon, John

  Coulson, Michael

  Forrest, George

  Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

  Foster, John

  Braine, Bernard

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (Staffortf&stone)

  Brewis, John

  Crawley, Aldan

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Bromley-Davenport. Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

  Crltchley, Julian

  Freeth, Denzil

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

  Gammans, Lady

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

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Gardner, Edward

  Longbottom, Charles

  Rippon, Rt. Hon. Geoffrey

  George, Sir John (Pollok)

  Longden, Gilbert

  Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Loveys, Walter H.

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

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Roots, William

  Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

  MacArthur, Ian

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

  McLaren, Martin

  Russell, Ronald

  Godber. Rt. Hon. J. B.

  McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

  St. Clair, M.

  Goodhart, Philip

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan

  Goodhew, Victor

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

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Gough, Frederick

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

  Seymour, Leslie

  Gower, Raymond

  McMaster, Stanley R.

  Sharples, Richard

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)

  Shaw, M.

  Green, Alan

  Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

  Shepherd, William

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Macpherson, Rt. Hn. Niall (Dumfries)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Grosvenor, Lord Robert

  Maddan, Martin

  Smithers, Peter

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Maginnis, John E.

  Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  Maltland, Sir John

  Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher

  Hare, Rt. Hon. John

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Marlowe, Anthony

  Speir, Rupert

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest

  Stanley, Hon. Richard

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Marshall, Sir Douglas

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

  Marten, Neil

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

  Stodart, J. A.

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  Storey, Sir Samuel

  Hastings, Stephen

  Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Hay, John

  Mawby, Ray

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Talbot, John E.

  Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward

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

  Tapsell, Peter

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Mills, Stratton

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Hendry, Forbes

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

  Hicks Beach, Maj. W.

  Montgomery, Fergus

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

  Hiley, Joseph

  Moore, Sir Thomas (Ayr)

  Taylor, Sir William (Bradford, N.)

  Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Teeling, Sir William

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

  Morgan, William

  Temple, John M.

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Morrison, John

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Hobson, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)

  Hocking, Philip N.

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Thomas, Peter (Conway)

  Holland, Philip

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)

  Hollingworth, John

  Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John

  Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael

  Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter

  Hopkins, Alan

  Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

  Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

  Hornby, R. P.

  Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

  Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

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

  Orr-Ewing, Sir Charles

  Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

  Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Turner, Colin

  Hughes, Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Hulbert, Sir Norman

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Partridge, E.

  Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

  Walder, David

  Jennings, J. C.

  Peel, John

  Walker, Peter

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Percival, Ian

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Peyton, John

  Wall, Patrick

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

  Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)

  Pilkington, Sir Richard

  Webster, David

  Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith

  Pitman, Sir James

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Pitt, Dame Edith

  Whitelaw, William

  Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

  Pott, Percivall

  Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Kimball, Marcus

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

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Kirk, Peter

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Wise, A. R.

  Lagden, Godfrey

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Lambton, Viscount

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Pym, Francis

  Woodhouse, C. M.

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Leather, Sir Edwin

  Ramsden, James

  Woollam, John

  Leavey, J. A.

  Rawlinson, Sir Peter

  Worsley, Marcus

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Lilley, F. J. P.

  Rees-Davies, W. R. (Isle of Thanet)

  Mr. Chichester-Clark and

  Lindsay, Sir Martin

  Renton, Rt. Hon. David

  Mr. Finlay.

  Linstead, Sir Hugh

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)

  Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

  Ainsley, William

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Albu, Austen

  Baird, John

  Bence, Cyril

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Barnett, Guy

  Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  1192

  1193

  Benson, Sir George

  Hill, J. (Midlothian)

  Paton, John

  Blackburn, F.

  Hilton, A. V.

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Blyton, William

  Holman, Percy

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Boardman, H.

  Holt, Arthur

  Peart, Frederick

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

  Hooson, H. E.

  Pentland, Norman

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

  Houghton, Douglas

  Poppiewell, Ernest

  Bowles, Frank

  Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)

  Prentice, R. E.

  Boyden, James

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Hoy, James H.

  Probert, Arthur

  Bradfey, Tom

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Proctor, W. T.

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Brockway, A, Fenner

  Hunter, A. E.

  Randall, Harry

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Redhead, E. C.

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Reid, William

  Callaghan, James

  Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Carmichael, Nell

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Rhodes, H.

  Castle, Mrs. Barbara

  Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Chapman, Donald

  Jeger, George

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Cliffe, Michael

  Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

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

  Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)

  Cronin, John

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Ross, William

  Crosland, Anthony

  Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Royle, Charles (Salford, West)

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Silkin, John

  Dalyell, Tam

  Kelley, Richard

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Darling George

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N)

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  King, Dr. Horace

  Small, William

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Lawson, George

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Ledger, Ron

  Snow, Julian

  Deer, George

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Delargy, Hugh

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Dempsey, James

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Diamond, John

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

  Steele, Thomas

  Dodds, Norman

  Lipton, Marcus

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Donnelly, Desmond

  Loughlin, Charles

  Stonehouse, John

  Driberg, Tom

  Lubbock, Eric

  Stones, William

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  McBride, Neil

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

  Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

  McCann, John

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

  Edelman, Maurice

  MacColl, James

  Swingler, Stephen

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  MacDermot, Niall

  Symonds, J. B.

  Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

  McInnes, James

  Taverne, D.

  Evans, Albert

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

  Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

  Finch, Harold

  McLeavy, Frank

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Fitch, Alan

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

  Fletcher, Eric

  Mahon, Simon

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

  Foley, Maurice

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Thornton, Ernest

  Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

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

  Thorpe, Jeremy

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Manuel, Archie

  Tornney, Frank

  Forman, J. C.

  Mapp, Charles

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Marsh, Richard

  Warbey, William

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Mason, Roy

  Watkins, Tudor

  George, Lady MeganLloyd (Crmrthn)

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Weitzman, David

  Ginsburg, David

  Mellish, R. J.

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Mendelson, J. J.

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Courlay, Harry

  Millan, Bruce

  Whitlock, William

  Greenwood, Anthony

  Milne, Edward

  Wigg, George

  Grey, Charles

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Monslow, Walter

  Willey, Frederick

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Moody, A. S.

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

  Morris, John

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

  Moyle, Arthur

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Gunter, Ray

  Mulley, Frederick

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

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

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

  Winterbottom, R. E.

  Hannan, William

  Oliver, G. H.

  Woof, Robert

  Harper, Joseph

  O'MaHey, B. K.

  Wyatt, Woodrow

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  Oram, A. E.

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Hayman, F. H.

  Oswald, Thomas

  Zilliacus, K.

  Healey, Denis

  Owen, Will

  Henderson,Rt.Hn.Arthur(RwlyRegis)

  Pannelt, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Herbison, Miss Margaret

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Mr. Short and Mr. Rogers.

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Parker, John

  Parkin, B. T.

  Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House, while deploring any disreputable practices engaged in by some
  unscrupulous landlords, rejects the suggestion that these have resulted from the Rent Act 1957, and recognises that the effective remedy lies in the Government's policy to achieve a larger programme of new building and the modernisation of many more homes.

  DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF (ESTATE DUTY)
  10.25 p.m.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Barber): I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Estate Duty) (France) Order 1963 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 4th July.
  The Order seeks approval for a Double Taxation Convention with France relating to Estate Duty. Section 54 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1945, provides for agreements with other countries for relief from double death duties to be given statutory effect by Order in Council. Under Section 56(2) of the same Act any such Order must be laid before Parliament in draft before being submitted to Her Majesty.
  The Convention with France was signed in Paris on 21st June, 1963. It is the first agreement to be made since the passing of last year's Finance Act which provided wider powers for the making of agreements for relief from double death duties. Before last year's legislation, comprehensive agreements could be made only with countries that charged a duty which was similar to our Estate Duty. Where another country charged some form of death duty different in character from our duty the agreement had to be of a more limited kind confined to the adoption of a code of rules.
  This was the position in relation to France. Our Estate Duty is a mutation duty payable on the passing of the property on death without regard to distribution among the beneficiaries. The French succession duty is of a different character. It is an inheritance tax levied on property received by the beneficiaries on a death at rates varying according to their relationship to the deceased.
  Section 29(2) of the Finance Act, 1962, abolished this distinction and enables us to make comprehensive agreements with any country that has a death duty whatever form it takes. This agreement with France is such an agreement. It is obviously to the mutual
  1196
  advantage of France and the United Kingdom, and I commend it to the House.
  10.27 p.m.
  Mr. G. R. Mitchison: The Explanatory Note at the end of this Order explains that it provides a code of rules for determining the category of property which may pass on the death of a person who dies domiciled in either country. That appears to be the main object. There have been a number of agreements with other countries having that main purpose, in order to avoid double Estate Duty.
  There is, however, one remarkable innovation in the Order which calls for some explanation. Article 4 of the Schedule, which itself reproduces the Convention, gives the rules for determining the situs of property. The very first sentence of these rules, which appears for the first time, constitutes a remarkable innovation in the use of the English language and apparently in the intentions of the Government. For the first time—it has never been necessary with other countries—the following remarkable observation is made:
  "land shall be deemed to be situated at the place where it is located…'
  You are, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, what you are, but I suppose you are deemed to be what you are not. It therefore appears in the view of two Governments that land is not situated at the place where it is located but it is deemed to be situated at the place where it is located. I wonder what is the purpose, and indeed the effect, of this remarkable sentence. I find it a little difficult to conceive of land being situated any where but at the place where it is located. Indeed, the sentence seems to me to mean exactly the same thing if one turns the words round and says that "land shall be deemed to be located at the place where it is situated." I cannot see the difference between the two forms of words.
  I wonder what is the use of putting nonsense of this kind into an agreement of this sort. It has never happened before. There have been proper rules about the location of immovable property and immovable rights. They require something of this sort because there always is a question whether a

  1197
  right should be attached to the land or whether it is something personal which goes with the domicile of the person concerned. But no Government, however harassed, however uncertain of the very ground on which they are treading, have yet been driven to say that
  "land shall be deemed to be situated at the place where it is located."
  What has been happening? Has President de Gaulle been laying some kind of fiscal banana which has caused the Government to slip up and come down with a bump and say that land is deemed to be situated where it is located? What is the point of putting nonsense of the kind, meaningless stuff, into Conventions or Orders? Perhaps we could have an explanation.
  10.32 p.m.
  Mr. Barber: It is perfectly true, as the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) says, that paragraph (a) of Article IV could be expressed to read that "land shall be deemed to be located where it is situated." But if we were to employ words in that order we should then be out of line with the remaining paragraphs of Article IV which are all concerned to describe where various rights, types of property, debts, securities and so on are situated. Therefore, I should have thought we were simply being reasonable and logical.
  As for the reason for declaring that
  "land shall be deemed to be situated at the place where it is located."
  I am afraid that without notice I should find it very difficult to be dogmatic about a matter of this kind, but I would suggest to the hon. and learned Gentleman that it is conceivable, as we are here dealing with French law as well as with English law, that in French law land is in certain circumstances deemed to be situated in a place other than that in which it is located. If that were the case, obviously it would be necessary to make this particular provision.
  Mr. Mitchison: Could the hon. Gentleman tell us what is the meaning of the words "deemed to be"? It appears clear that in the view of the Treasury, land is not situated where it is located. It has to be "deemed" to be situated where it is located. Where is it?
  1198
  Before the hon. Gentleman answers that question, may I ask him another? It is very ingenious of him to refer to French law, but I have been trying hard to get the French text of this document. It is a Convention in two languages each of which has equal force, and I am sorry to tell the hon. Gentleman that so far as my researches went, the Treasury had not even got a copy of the French text, so we do not know where this application of French logic would lead us in these peculiar circumstances.
  Mr. Barber: I can only tell the hon. and learned Gentleman that if on any future occasion he would like a copy of the vernacular of the other country and will get in touch with me, I will do my best to obtain a copy for him.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved, That an humble Address be presented to Hear Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Estate Duty) (France) Order 1963 be made in the form of the draft laid before the House on 4th July.
  To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

  CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (LEVY)
  10.35 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. David Price): I beg to move,
  That the Cinematograph Films (Collection of Levy) (Amendment No. 3) Regulations 1963, a draft of which was laid before this House on 2nd July, be approved.
  I suggest, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that it might be for the convenience of the House to discuss at the same time the Cinematograph Films (Distribution of Levy) Regulations, 1963.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): If that is the wish of the House, yes.
  Mr. Price: These Regulations embody a number of further changes in the statutory scheme whereby cinema exhibitors pay a levy on admission charges for the benefit of producers of British films. All the changes embodied in the Regulations have been recommended to us by the Cinematograph Films Council. I hope, therefore, that they will recommend themselves to the House.

  1199
  The main changes are in the Distribution Regulations, where there are two major changes and 13 minor ones. The first of the major changes is that news-reels are to get an increased rate of payments. The second is that films which are jointly produced by British and foreign makers in accordance with inter-Governmental co-production agreements are to become eligible for levy benefits.
  First, newsreels. The change in regard to newsreels is being made in order to reduce the disadvantage which they at present suffer relatively to other short films. At present, newsreels' entitlement to levy is calculated in direct relationship to their commercial earnings, whereas the entitlement of other short films is calculated on those earnings multiplied by two and a half. The old-style black and white newsreels were badly hit by the competition of news broadcast on television and three of the five newsreels were discontinued. More recently, helped by the revenue from the levy which the Cinematograph Films Act, 1960, secured to newsreels, the surviving companies have found that cinema audiences still enjoy newsreels if they are on suitable subjects enhanced by the use of colour. It helps the other films shown if the newsreel is part of a general programme offered to an audience.
  In view of this, plus the further considerations that improved newsreels are more costly to produce and that the newsreels do a useful job in presenting Britain factually overseas, it seems to us, as it does to the Cinematograph Films Council, right to reduce the disparity between the rate of levy payments on newsreels and those on other short films. The Regulations before the House, therefore, provide for the calculation of newsreels' benefitsfrom the levy on the basis of double their commercial earnings. In making this proposal for the double rate, my right hon. Friend is accepting the advice of the Cinematograph Films Council that the full two-and-a-half times rate applicable to other shortfilms would be inappropriate, largely because of the more favourable series bookings on which newsreels are supplied to exhibitors.
  I turn now to the second major change in the Distribution Regulations, the proposed admission of co-production films
  1200
  to levy. Section 19 of the Cinematograph Films Act, 1960, already provides for Orders in Council enabling co-production films to be treated as British for quota purposes. The first moves towards co-production agreements with France, Italy and Germany have recently been made. The Regulations now before the House include the changes necessary to enable us to offer the benefits of levy in our efforts in the forthcoming negotiations to secure the maximum benefits for British film makers.
  There are altogether 13 other smaller changes in the Distribution Regulations. Nine of these are either themselves designed to accelerate the process of distributing payments to producers or derive logically from such changes. I think that, at this time of night, the House will not want me to go through them in detail, though I am quite ready to do so if it wishes.
  The change made by the amendment to the Collection Regulations is, by contrast, a very simple one. All it consists of is bringing the collection of levy from exhibitors from the present weekly basis on to a four-weekly one. The weekly basis of calculating exhibitors' liability to pay levy, including the weekly exemption which was raised to £300 last November, will remain.
  Four-weekly collection has been proposed by exhibitors' interests. It is a further minor measure of relief for exhibitors, many of whom have been finding it difficult to continue in business in the face of declining cinema admissions.
  As I said at the beginning of my remarks, all these changes have been recommended by the Cinematograph Films Council. I hope, therefore, that they will meet with the approval of the House.
  10.40 p.m.
  Mrs. Eirene White: As the Parliamentary Secretary has said, these Regulations are mostly for administrative convenience. In dealing with the Regulations concerning the collection of levy, the hon. Gentleman might have given the House an idea of what the financial advantages or disadvantages might be. I understand that collection on a 28-day basis would save a certain amount of money, but, equally,

  1201
  the Agency would lose a certain amount by having to dispose of the money rather sooner than would otherwise be the case. I am also told that the producers will, perhaps, have to be kept waiting a little longer for their money, but that on balance they think that the interests of the exhibitors will be better served and that after a little reluctance, they have agreed to the proposal. We should, however, be given the figures.
  On the Regulations concerning the distribution of levy, it is only right that the House should be aware that there has been a good deal of discussion whether the newsreels should be entitled to the additional benefits which we are bestowing upon them by the Regulations. One of the strongest arguments that was made for newsreels was not that they were of so much advantage in this country, but that they were of value because they displayed the British way of life to people abroad. We can have differing opinions about how far they are successful in displaying those aspects of the British way of life that we would like to be widely circulated.
  Others have felt that if that was the main purpose of supporting the news-reels, the Government might contribute something through the Central Office of Information or otherwise and that it was not necessarily right that the producers of other films should have to pay for the newsreels. However, when all these matters had been discussed, the Cinematograph Films Council finally decided to support the proposal which is embodied in the Regulations.
  I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary can say a word or two more about the Regulations in so far as they deal with co-production. At the moment, there are no films to which this could apply. Can the hon. Gentleman give us any idea of when he thinks that this extremely slow-moving procedure of obtaining co-production agreements might be finalised with any country? The negotiations with Italy are, perhaps, a little further advanced than with any other country. It seems to me that the negotiations with France have been going on almost interminably, and before we pass Regulations for something which is not in existence we should at least have an idea when this part of the Regulations might be expected to become effective.
  1202
  With those few comments, it seems to me that there is no reason to contest any of the Regulations. They are for the general convenience.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Cinematograph Films (Collection of Levy) (Amendment No. 3) Regulations 1963, a draft of which was laid before this House on 2nd July, be approved.
  Cinematograph Films (Distribution of Levy) Regulations 1963, [draft laid before the House on 2nd July], approved.—[Mr. D. Price]

  COMMONWEALTH PREFERENCE AREA (WEST CAMEROON)
  10.43 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Alan Green): I beg to move,
  That the Commonwealth Preference Area (Removal of West Cameroon) Order 1963, a draft of which was laid before this House on 3rd July, be approved.
  This Order, if approved, will have the effect of removing West Cameroon from the Commonwealth preference area as from 1st October, 1963. As the House may recall, the voters in the United Nations Trusteeship Territories of the Northern and Southern Cameroons, which have been administered by the United Kingdom Government since the First World War, were invited to decide by plebiscite early in 1961 whether they wished to become part of Nigeria or part of the Republic of Cameroon.
  The Northern Cameroons opted to join Nigeria, while the Southern Cameroons opted to join the Republic of Cameroon and the change took effect from 1st Otcober, 1961. The Republic subsequently became a federal republic composed of two federated states and these were called East and West Cameroon. East Cameroon was the former French Cameroons, and the West Cameroon was the former Southern Cameroons.
  If the Government had taken no action before she ceased to be a United Nations trusteeship territory West Cameroon would automatically have lost her status as part of the Commonwealth preference area, just as the former British Somali-land lost it on joining the Somali Republic. The Government decided at the time, in mid-1961, that West Cameroon should not be deprived immediately of

  1203
  her preferential status but should instead be given a year's grace, and this was extended to two years as a result of an Order in Council made last year.
  My right hon. Friend announced the decision to give the extension in answer to a Parliamentary Question in June of last year when he said that the Government's present intention—perhaps I had better quote—
  "…is that the inclusion of West Cameroon in the area shall be maintained until 30th September, 1963, but not beyond that date."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th June, 1962; Vol. 661, c. 421.]
  The question would, he said, be reviewed again not later than the following April.
  Having now reviewed the question, the Government have decided to stick to their intended course of action, and the reason is, I trust, a simple one. All West Cameroon's exports consist of tropical produce of one kind or another. As no such produce is grown in Britain there can be only two possible reasons for imposing import duties on it, either to raise revenue or to give a preference to suppliers in the Commonwealth preference area, or both.
  Imports of tea, coffee and cocoa were in fact subject to revenue duties for over 250 years, but these were abandoned in fact if not in form when the rates of duty on imports from the Commonwealth preference area were reduced to nil, and those on imports from foreign countries reduced to levels which retained only the preference margins in the old duties. This was done in the case of tea some years ago, and of cocoa and coffee in the 1962 Budget. As Members may recall, the Import Duties (General) No. 4 Order, 1963, which was approved by the House less than two weeks ago, had the formal effect of taking the remaining duties out of the revenue and putting them into the normal protective field. All duties on tropical produce, therefore, exist at present solely to give a preference to countries which form part of the Commonwealth preference area as defined in Section 2 of the Import Duties Act, 1958.
  West Cameroon's exports to Britain in order of importance are bananas, tropical hardwoods, coffee, cocoa, rubber, palm oil and kernels, and tea. These are all duty free when imported from preference area countries, but dutiable,
  1204
  with the exception of rubber, when imported from other countries. The duties on tropical hardwoods and tea are, however, likely to be suspended as from the beginning of next year simultaneously with a corresponding suspension of the common external tariff on these products. We expect to be able to announce the terms of this arrangement in the early autumn. It will of course be in accordance with the G.A.T.T. action programme of assistance for developing countries.
  Of the other products imported from West Cameroon, bananas are by far the most important. If this Order is approved they will become dutiable from 1st October this year at £7 10s. a ton, or, to express the duty in terms which will be more familiar to the housewife, at three farthings a lb. Those concerned with the production and trade in West Cameroon bananas have expressed grave anxiety about the possible effect of the imposition of this duty on the prospects for West Cameroon growers of selling their production at economic prices, and this aspect has been most carefully considered.
  Because of our severe restrictions on imports of bananas from the dollar area—and those bananas are the cheapest in the world—the price in Britain is normally well above the corresponding price in many other major consuming countries such as West Germany and the U.S.A. West Cameroon suppliers will still have this advantage. Their bananas will still be able to come to Britain without any quantitative limit, but they will of course have to compete in our market with bananas from Jamaica and the Windward Islands, our major suppliers, which will continue to be admitted duty free.
  The question in a nutshell is really this. On the one hand we have West Cameroon, a territory which is by its own choice outside the Commonwealth and is now part of an independent country with no Commonwealth links, the Federal Cameroon Republic. The Republic is associated with the European Economic Community, and because of this relationship enjoys tariff preferences for her produce in the markets of the Six.
  On the other side, we have Jamaica and the Windward Islands, both con-

  1205
  cerned to increase their export earnings and worried about the tendency, especially in the winter months, for the British market to be over-supplied with bananas. These countries have made it clear that they are strongly opposed to sharing their preferential advantages in our market with West Cameroon given that the territory is the only area of the world which enjoys preference both in Britain and in the E.E.C.
  Her Majesty's Government have decided that the right thing to do is to remove West Cameroon from the Commonwealth preference area. The territory will already have had two years' grace. My right hon. Friend made it quite clear last year that the Government's intention was to keep her in the area until the end of September this year but not longer. The present situation of giving preference to part only of a foreign country is obviously anomalous. Jamaica and the Windward Islands have a strong case for arguing that West Cameroon should not continue to have the advantage of preferential entry for her bananas to our market. It is in these circumstances that I move that the Order be approved.
  10.51 p.m.
  Mr. Norman Pannell: I accept the Order with some regret. I have already given my views on it during the debate on 19th June on the Commonwealth Development Bill, and I do not intend to repeat them now.
  I fully understand the contending claims of the West Indies, particularly in regard to bananas, and that West Cameroon, as no longer a part of the Commonwealth, has no prescriptive right to Commonwealth preference; but there are precedents for the continuation of Commonwealth preference even when a country leaves the Commonwealth, to cite only Burma and the Republic of Ireland, and not to mention the Republic of South Africa.
  I regret the Order particularly because it cuts off sharply the preference that this area has enjoyed for the past two years. I urged on 19th June that the preference should not be cut off abruptly but should be tapered off over three years, and that had support from all sides of the House. I regret that my hon. Friend has not found it possible to adopt that course.
  1206
  There are considerable British interests in West Cameroon, particularly the Cameroon Development Corporation, which is managed by the Colonial Development Corporation and has received from the Colonial Development Corporation a loan of £1 million. The Camdev produces some 30,000 tons of bananas a year, and last year it made a loss of £316,000. My hon. Friend dismisses as insignificant the duty preference of £7 10s. a ton as being only ¾. per lb. But it should be borne in mind that if that preference had not existed last year the loss of the Cameroon Development Corporation would have been not £316,000 but more than half a million pounds. It seems fairly clear to me that, as it has a capital which is comprised solely of a loan of £1 million from the Colonial Development Corporation, unless something quite extraordinary happens in the banana market, the Camdev, which is an important element in the economy of West Cameroon, will founder and sink. There are, of course, other interests. There are the shipping interests, which are largely British. Six ships are regularly on the run carrying these bananas from West Cameroon to the United Kingdom.
  An alternative market does not exist. Although West Cameroon is now officially part of Cameroon, which is attached to the E.E.C, the banana requirements of E.E.C. are amply met by the French-speaking part ofthe Cameroon Republic, and there is no possibility of any of the bananas produced in West Cameroon going to the E.E.C. Perhaps it is because the price is entirely non-competitive. I very much hope that my fears will not be realised. I did urge that the duty should be tapered off, because British banana interests out there have been trying strongly to produce a new strain of banana which would eventually offset loss of preference. Now it appears that that will not happen. I should be grateful to my hon. Friend if he could allay anxiety on the prospect of the West Cameroon banana enterprises, in which British interests are so greatly involved.
  10.55 p.m.
  Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: It all sounds so plausible when it comes from so reasonable a man as the Minister of State. According to him it was a question of West Cameroon having opted out

  1207
  of the Commonwealth of its own free will, but that the country would be all right because it was associated with the E.E.C. I hope that this reasonable Minister will be reasonable enough to recognise that the whole of his argument from an economic point of view has been blown sky high by his hon. Friend. How can the West Cameroon banana people suddenly get new markets in Europe? It just will not happen. If he is the reasonable man I think he is he will admit that a mistake is being made.
  What about South Africa? When she left the Commonwealth what did our tired old Imperialists do then? They leaned over backwards to do everything they could to give her what help they could.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. David Price): They are younger than you.
  Mr. Mallalieu: They may be younger in age than I but I have been here twice as long as other hon. Members opposite who are present. I have seen hon. Members opposite who have talked so much about the Empire, throw it away. Throw it away perhaps they must, but what they have failed to do is to recognise that they are stamping with their miserable little footsteps on something that could have been quite big in West Cameroon.
  Big things are happening in Africa generally and in West Africa in particular. Here surely there is a confrontation of the Francophile element with the Anglophile element. That is the drama that is taking place. And what are the Government doing? They are trying to give silly little kicks in the pants to a territory which opted out of the Commonwealth. That is what it looks like even if it is not so. This is a move by tired old men—old at least in spirit if not in years.
  Great efforts are being made to integrate the people of West Cameroon with the French-speaking part and complete fairness is being shown them by their French-speaking compatriots. Immense efforts are being made to see they get a fair deal. The radio is evidence of it, while even the judges still wear their red robes and wigs and will, as far as one can see, continue to do so because of this desire.
  1208
  But now comes this ham-fisted Government saying that because these people are now out of the Commonwealth the preference must be withdrawn. It is red tape. If the preference has to be withdrawn—and perhaps that is Inevitable—can it not be done another way? Could we not have heard something about that from the Minister, who is usually so reasonable? The right hon. Gentleman merely said that the preference was to be cut off and, in effect, that he could not care less.
  This is a tragedy and I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will think again before they take this step which may have sad repercussions in other parts of Africa. This is not the only part of Africa where the French and British systems confront each other. We want there to be the maximum harmony between them to aid them in their efforts, for instance, to encourage the speaking of French in English-speaking parts and vice versa. We are taking a step in the opposite direction. The Government are so muddle headed that they do not even know what they are doing.
  11.0 p.m.
  Mr. G. M. Thomson: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) says that he is surprised that such proposals should come from so reasonable a Minister as the Minister of State, Board of Trade. If he were one of the Dundee Members, he might not be so sure about the reasonableness of the Minister of State, who has recently been in my constituency proposing certain things as doubtful as this. I share the anxieties expressed by my hon. and learned Friend and by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. N. Pannell). We differ on a number of things across the Floor of the House, but the hon. Member for Kirkdale and I share similar views about our responsibilities towards West Cameroon.
  The Government's proposal is very illogical. On 19th June, when the hon. Member spoke at some length on this subject, we had no indication from the Colonial Office Ministers that any sudden termination of these preferences was to take place. The Colonial Office spokesman was most unforthcoming, but he did not say that the Government had made up their mind.

  1209
  It is illogical because during that debate on the Commonwealth Development Bill we discussed the operations of what is now to be called the Commonwealth Development Corporation, which has played a notable part in the life of West Cameroon. What is more striking is that the Government are proposing that the C.D.C. should continue to operate in the West Cameroon and probably increase its already substantial investment there. The Corporation's new report shows that during fast year the Cameroon Development Corporation drew from this country a further £450,000 of its £1 million loan commitment, and goes on to say that an approach has been made from the Cameroon Government for further finance, which, it has been agreed, should be made available from this country on certain conditions.
  I find myself a little puzzled that West Cameroon should be excluded from Commonwealth preference at the same time as being included in the Commonwealth in terms of capital aid and technical assistance, especially when the British taxpayer is being asked to provide money to make an investment in bananas from which the Government are then to remove preference. When that is compared with what was done for South Africa, it makes one think.
  What happened with South Africa was particularly shocking because of the High Commission Territories for which we have special responsibility. Swaziland depended very much on sugar and, in order to make concessions to the Republic of South Africa, outside the Commonwealth, Commonwealth preference on that sugar was seriously cut.
  I think that my hon. and learned Friend is right when he says that there is an inconsistency in the way that this has been carried out. I can only say that, from a brief visit to West Cameroon about a year ago, I was immensely impressed by the amount of work being done by the Cameroon Development Corporation. It seemed in many ways to be the finest thing that we were leaving behind. I was also much impressed by the fact that in this little African country there was this attempt to integrate a French-speaking former colony with an English-speaking former colony. When I returned to this country I de-
  1210
  scribed the English-speaking side of West Cameroon as very much an English-speaking Wales in that South African nation, because it is very much the smaller part of that nation. I came back to this House and pleaded with the Government to do their best to make sure that the English traditions were supported there. People there wanted to maintain their link with us, and cutting the preference on one of their main exports seems a poor way of maintaining this link.
  When I try to discover the reason for this, I can only find it in the view that the Government seem to be taking of France's responsibility for the Cameroon Republic. I am not a noted apologist for the French on these matters, and it seems that they could do a good deal more than they are doing at the moment. If the hon. Member for Kirkdale is right, the French are putting on a quota which means that it is only the French-speaking side of the Cameroon Republic which is likely to benefit from the export of bananas to the European Economic Community. Surely this is a matter about which we ought to negotiate with the French to try to get some sort of agreement?
  I am left with the suspicion that we are deserting people whom we have tried to help in other ways and who look to us for help in many directions, simply because we have been snubbed by the French in our efforts to get into the European Economic Community. It seems rather hard that the people of West Cameroon, who have been linked to us in so many ways for so many years should be made the victims of a dispute between us and France and which is unrelated to their welfare. The Minister is grimacing. Let him make a better case for this Order than he has made so far.
  11.8 p.m.
  Mr. Douglas Houghton: It is evident that this draft Order has not been very well received. I have listened with great interest to the speeches that have been made so far. I think that there must have been some misunderstanding when I was deputed to this task this evening. Apparently it was thought that this was; a simple matter of taxation. It appears to have far deeper significance.

  1211
  I sincerely hope that none of the suspicions expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) were in the Government's mind when they reached their decision on this admittedly difficult matter. Probably part of the trouble is due to the fact that we appear to have no satisfactory and orderly way of dealing with a former Colonial Territory which leaves the Commonwealth. Consider for a moment what it has been necessary to do in this case. Had nothing been done, this territory, on leaving the Commonwealth on 1st October, 1961, would have been deprived of any of the benefits of the Commonwealth preference area. To avoid what clearly would have been conditions of considerable hardship to this territory, a Clause was put in the Finance Bill of 1961 naming West Cameroon as a member of the preference area until 30th September, 1962.
  Then Her Majesty's Government thought that it would be desirable to extend beyond the 30th September, 1962, the benefits of the Commonwealth preference area. To do that they had to take advantage of Section 2(4) of the Import Duties Act, 1958, to bring West Cameroon into the preference area again. Out by the Finance Act; in again by the Import Duties Act. Now the Government want to get them out again, so they invoke another part of Section 2 of the 1958 Act to withdraw the benefits of the preference area. That seems to suggest that when a territory leaves the Commonwealth there is considerable difficulty in finding ways and means of easing its way out in a matter of this kind.
  On these benches we have been very jealous of the benefits of membership of the Commonwealth, and have criticised the extension of those benefits to territories leaving the Commonwealth. That is quite natural, and there is no malice in it. If we attach importance to membership of the Commonwealth, and if importance is to be attached to that membership, the benefits of being in must be extended with care and discrimination to any who go out.
  My hon. Friends will remember how critical we were when it was proposed to give the benefit of quite generous transitional arrangements to the Republic
  1212
  of South Africa. Hon. Members on this side of the House then took the view that if they were going out they could not have the benefits of remaining in, more than very temporarily. We must draw a very sharp distinction in our respective attitudes towards the Republic of South Africa and the territory of West Cameroon. To one we were unfriendly; to the other—West Cameroon—we had the utmost good will for its future prosperity.
  Nevertheless, there is this problem of what we are to do with territories which choose to go out of the Commonwealth. In London at present discussions are going on regarding the future of Malta. There may be opinions in Malta about whether an independent Malta should remain in the Commonwealth. There again, this sort of problem might arise in the future. It may be desirable for the Government to consider whether some more orderly and satisfactory arrangement—a more flexible arrangement—should be introduced to deal with situations of this kind.
  Mr. E. L. Mallalieu:Does not my hon. Friend think it desirable that different sets of arrangements should be arrived at respectively when a country which is prosperous leaves the Commonwealth and a country which is an underdeveloped country leaves it?
  Mr. Houghton:Yes. That was implied in what I said just now—that if we had arrangements which were more flexible, and permitted of more discrimination, it would be much better.
  So far, this sort of situation has had to be dealt with ad hoc, either by specific legislation or, in this case, by being moved temporarily into the Finance Act, then given an extension of the benefits under another Act, and finally being thrown out under the same Act. It does not seem to be a very satisfactory way of dealing with the matter. The information I have is that this draft Order is the very first in which this means of depriving any country of the benefits of Commonwealth preference has been adopted.
  If we face this situation quite fairly we must agree that the benefits of the Commonwealth preference area cannot continue to be given indefinitely to a territory which has left the Common-

  1213
  wealth. There can be no dispute about that. That would be quite contrary to the whole concept of the Commonwealth and would clearly give rise to the strongest objection of many members of the Commonwealth that we were giving benefits of Commonwealth to a country which had deliberately chosen to leave it. We agree that benefits cannot be retained indefinitely by a country which chooses to leave.
  The next question is, how long do we continue them and under what conditions are they to be withdrawn? The hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. N. Pannell), to whose opinions on these matters the House always listens with care, suggested a tapering arrangement. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether any tapering arrangement is possible under the machinery and means at his disposal. This may give point to my suggestion that there is no flexibility about these arrangements. It is all or nothing, it seems, under this Order. Although the extension has been given and welcomed by the territory concerned in order to ease the ultimate decision, the fact is that when it is taken the deprivation will be complete. That, clearly, is the difficulty for a territory of this kind.
  The matter is further complicated in this case of a territory which has been given associated territory status by the European Economic Community. That is more nominal than real from the point of view of benefit to the territory. Finally, the question may be asked, are there any alternative means of easing the difficulties of this territory? Will there be any means of retrieving this step if the damage to its economy is so serious that we feel obliged to do something about it?
  I hope that none of the fears that have been expressed will be realised. If a British taste for Cameroon bananas could be cultivated, the problem could be solved, but so long as people just ask for bananas and get bananas, the Cameroon banana will probably be no more distinguishable than any other, although it may have a peculiar flavour and quality of which I am not aware.
  I am sure that the Minister would wish to give the House what reassurances he can. He has told us that the gravest anxiety has been expressed by
  1214
  West Cameroon. He has also told us that a further continuance of the preference would be objected to by other members of the Commonwealth who are substantially banana producers. That is the dilemma the Government are in.
  One can understand that some territories are anxious that no benefit should be retained by those who go out of the Commonwealth, because if they go out, then there will be consequential benefits for those who remain in. We cannot overlook that. That is a very difficult question and, frankly, I am glad that it has not fallen to me to take the decision. One can only weigh it up with all the information the Minister must have at his disposal as to the pros and cons and the strength of the fears expressed in West Cameroon. Various suggestions occur to one, of lifting duties on this kind of import altogether, but that again would be an indirect way of giving a benefit to a non-Commonwealth territory.
  I am still in the throes of the dilemma. I am concerned that no serious damage should be done to the economy of the Cameroons, I am as anxious as anyone to retain the good will of the Commonwealth. I can only hope that, weighing the factors as best they can, the Government are coming to a wise decision. The hon. Gentleman knows that anxieties are expressed from knowledgeable quarters of the House.
  Mr. Green: I think that, with leave, I should reply to the points made. One of course regrets very much any change in trading arrangements necessitated by a political decision taken by another country but this is the situation. I thank the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) for the honesty with which he took the dilemma and attempted to face it. I was hoping that I should be able to say the same about some of hishon. Friends.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. N. Pannell) put the situation quite straightforwardly. I know his mind and I agree with him that it is a matter for regret that we cannot do more. We have delayed action for two years, and unnecessarily from our point of view. Perhaps I had better not repeat what I said earlier, but it is a fact that if the Government had taken no action before this territory ceased to be a United

  1215
  Nations trusteeship territory, West Cameroon would automatically have lost its status as part of the Commonwealth preference area. We delayed this for two years deliberately.
  The suggestion that this is done as a snub to France is wholly unworthy of both the intelligence and the power of listening of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson). If he had listened to the timetable I gave he would have realised that we extended the period of grace to this territory long before the Common Market negotiations broke down in Brussels and it is simply not possible to connect these two events in time in the way he sought to do. I hope that he will not do that again, because it simply makes a little more trouble somewhere instead of helping to ease things.
  Finally, it is exceedingly difficult to accord to one part of a unified republic treatment one does not accord to the other. What we are doing to help both these territories and others in Africa is to get duty-free entry for at least some of their products agreed by the E.E.C. and ourselves which will widen the market for some of these products for all these West African territories. This applies particularly to tea and hardwood. I hope that this will be achieved this year. This is the best factual answer I can give to show that our interests extend widely over these under-developed countries and we seek to help their trade in tropical produce wherever we can.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Commonwealth Preference Area (Removal of West Cameroon) Order 1963, a draft of which was laid before this House on 3rd July, be approved.

  PROTECTION OF DEPOSITORS
  11.24 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Alan Green): I beg to move,
  That the Protection of Depositors (Accounts) Regulations 1963, a draft of which was laid before this House on 11th July, be approved.
  The Protection of Depositors Act was passed on 10th July and will come into force on 10th October. The House will recall that an important provision of that Act is that companies which advertise for deposits from the public shall prepare
  1216
  special accounts which will be delivered to the Registrar of Companies and the Board of Trade, supplied to depositors on their first making deposits, and made available to existing and prospective depositors. These accounts are required on or after the appointed day, which is 10th January, 1964.
  The Act lays down a number of requirements about these accounts. It states that they shall comprise a balance sheet and a profit and loss account, that they shall be of two kinds—audited accounts which will normally cover a period of twelve months, and interim accounts which need not be audited and which will normally cover a period of six months, that they shall normally be delivered within three months of the balance sheet date, and that if they are audited the auditors must be qualified under the Companies Act to audit the accounts of public and non-exempt private companies.
  Section 13 of the Protection of Depositors Act gives the Board of Trade power to make regulations as to the information to be contained in or annexed to these accounts. It also states the general form that the regulations shall take. It says that they shall apply, with such exceptions, additions or other modifications as may be prescribed by the regulations, all or any of the provisions of the Companies Act with respect to the accounts required by that Act to be laid before a company in general meeting. That is, the regulations are required to be based upon the accounting provisions of the Companies Act. They may, of course, require more information to be given than is required by the Companies Act.
  The regulations are also required, by Section 13(3) of the Act, to provide that a statement shall be annexed to the accounts containing information about the business carried on by the company during the period to which the accounts relate.
  A draft of the regulations which, if Parliament approves, the Board of Trade intends to make, was laid before the House on 11th July. It will, I think, make the regulations easier to follow if I first remind the House that the accounting provisions of the Companies Act, which are contained in some ten Sections

  1217
  and in the Eighth Schedule, provide not only for the accounts a company prepares about its own affairs but also for the group accounts which, if it has subsidiaries, it prepares about the affairs of itself and its subsidiaries.
  I now turn to the draft regulations. Regulation 1 applies with exceptions and modifications the accounting provisions of the Companies Act to accounts required by the Protection of Depositors Act from a company about its own affairs. The provisions which are applied, together with the exceptions and modifications, are set out in Part 1 of Schedule 1. The modifications and exceptions raise no point of principle. They merely take account of the essential differences between the accounts required by the two Acts. For example, where the Companies Act refers to the financial year of a company the regulations refer to the period to which the accounts relate.
  Where the Companies Act requires for purposes of comparison figures relating to the previous financial year to be given, the regulations, which apply both to audited accounts covering twelve months and to interim accounts covering six months, permit the comparative figures in interim accounts to be either those from the last annual accounts or those from the previous interim accounts.
  Regulation 4 requires a company, if it has subsidiaries, to prepare group accounts; and it applies in relation to those accounts, with exceptions and modifications, those of the Companies Act provisions concerned with group accounts. The modifications here are rather more significant than those in Regulation 1 and some appear in the Regulation itself as distinct from in the Schedule. For example, except when directors consider that the accounts of a subsidiary are of no real significance to depositors, the Board of Trade's permission is required if a subsidiary is to be omitted from group accounts.
  The corresponding provision in the Companies Act permits omission without reference to the Board of Trade if the directors believe that inclusion would be impracticable or would be misleading. Those provisions of the Companies Act which are applied but are not set out in detail in the regula-
  1218
  tion itself are to be found in Part 2 of Schedule 1.
  Regulation 2 requires the accounts to give information additional to that required by the Companies Act. The additional information required is set out in Part 1 of Schedule 2. This, I would suggest, is the most important part of these regulations. It requires a company to give information about the amount of money deposited with it, the dates when deposits become repayable, and the amount of money paid out as interest to depositors.
  As most deposit-taking companies finance instalment credit agreements and so have assets in the form of amounts owed to them under such agreements, they are required to state the amount receivable at the balance sheet date under the agreements they have entered into or have had assigned to them. In order that the amount so shown should give as accurate an indication as possible of the position of the company, it is required to be stated after provision has been made for bad or doubtful debts; and for the same reason the company must show what part of it, if any, is revenue which, at the balance sheet date, had not yet been earned.
  I said that a company might have agreements; assigned to it. It may also, under what are commonly referred to as block discounting arrangements, assign agreements; it has entered into or has previously had assigned to it. If it has assigned agreements, it may have acquired liabilities in respect of them, and if that should be the case paragraph 5 of the Schedule requires the company to state the amount of these liabilities and the fact that they arise from an assignment of agreements.
  A depositor may be expected to be interested in the amount and the nature of the new instalment credit business his company has entered into in a recent period. Information of this kind is required by paragraph 4 of Part 1 of Schedule 2. He may also wish to know whether, from his point of view, a significant debt is owed to the company by a small number of persons, and, if it is, whether any of those persons are associated with the company. This point is dealt with in paragraph 7 of Part 1 of Schedule 2. Disclosure is required of the total of debts owed by persons each

  1219
  of whose debt exceeds 10 per cent. of the total amount owed to the company and also exceeds 10 per cent. of the total deposits made with the company. If one of the persons is an associated company, further information is required.
  Regulation 3 applies only to companies a substantial part of whose activities consists of dealing in property. Such a company is required to give the information set out in Part 2 of Schedule 2. It is required to give information about its assets in the form of property and of loans secured on property, and about its income derived from property. It is also required to say whether the value it attributed to its property is based on cost or on valuation, and, if based on valuation, whether the valuation was made by an independent valuer.
  Regulation 5 provides for certain statements from directors. The first two of these statements, about the main activities of the company during the period covered by the accounts, are the statements to which I have already referred as required by Section 13(3) of the Act. These statements are relevant to Section 12 of the Act which places on a company obligations towards its depositors if, after describing one activity in its advertisements for deposits, it thereafter carries on some other activity. The third statement, about the value at which the current assets shown in the balance sheet could be realisedin the ordinary course of business, is a stricter version of a similar provision in the Companies Act.
  The Companies Act requires a statement if the directors are of the opinion that any of the current assets are not realisable at the value shown. The regulation requires either a statement that the directors are of the opinion that the current assets are realisable at the value shown or a note explaining why they are unable to make such a statement.
  Finally, I come to Regulation 6 and Schedule 3, which are concerned with the auditing of accounts. I need say little about most of the matters on which the auditors are required to report as they are the same as the matters set out in the Companies Act, apart from the minor modifications made necessary by the differences between the two Acts.
  1220
  But I should briefly mention paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 as it implements an undertaking which the Economic Secretary gave in Committee.
  In general, the profit and loss account in the first accounts which a company delivers under this Act will start from the date of a balance sheet, called in the Act a "relevant balance sheet", prepared in accordance with the provisions not of this Act but of the Companies Act. If, at the time of preparation of that balance sheet, the company was an exempt private company, its auditors may not have had the qualifications required of a person who audits accounts for the Protection of Depositors Act. When that is the case, this provision requires the auditor of the accounts to be delivered under this Act to satisfy himself as to his opening figures.
  I apologise for the detail. I trust that it has not been too lengthy, and I commend the regulations to the House.
  11.35 p.m.
  Mr. G. R. Mitchison: These regulations are of importance to the working of the Act. Objection was taken on Second Reading and in Committee to the reluctance of the Board of Trade to do anything but collect information to itself. Although we were told by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury that having collected the information, the trained minds of the Board of Trade would find it quite easy to evaluate it, their only remedy if they found the evaluation unsatisfactory was to get the company wound up.
  In those circumstances, on this side of the House on Second Reading, particularly by the carefully considered speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond), who has great experience in these matters, and again in Committee, we stressed the difficult position of the depositor, who is the person who is supposed to be protected under the Act, because the accounts would not get to him and he would never get the benefit of the evaluation by the trained minds of the Board of Trade, since there is nothing in the Act which requires the Department to do anything about the accounts when it has got them.
  In the light of that, the Government's defence when it was suggested to them that something more should be done was

  1221
  to say that they would not put anything more into the Act, and they refused Amendments to improve directly the position of the depositor. They refused even to take other action, which was suggested to them, but they said that they would, at least, see that the accounts delivered to them were adequate.
  I am not here to repeat our broad objections. All I am considering is whether, in the light of that attitude, what the Government have now done is sufficient. I say to the Minister of State that both my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester and I, and, no doubt, other hon. Members have looked at what he said in Committee and what appears in the Regulations and we think that he has carried out exactly what he said he would do, except, possibly, on one point, and that is one concerning which I appreciate the Minister of State's difficulties.
  The hon. Gentleman was asked in Committee whether, when particulars of the business were provided by the directors—this is the matter which now appears in Regulation 5(a)—the directors would give a little more than a general indication of what the company was doing. The Act will apply, so we were told, and such, too, was our own information, almost entirely to two classes of companies. One is hire-purchase companies and the other is the type of company called "certain property companies". One can get what is intended by this in Part 2 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
  The "certain property companies" include companies which might well be of the kind which we have been discussing in a much more heated atmosphere earlier today. These are land development companies and bodies of that sort. They are not defined anywhere, but their character is clearly indicated by the terms of the Regulations. They may be some very odd bodies indeed, and bodies which require a great deal of supervision if the depositor is to have even the limited protection that is given him by the Act.
  I shall not try to repeat, particularly at this hour of the night, a great deal that was said in debate today, but I feel certain that the Minister responsible and the Economic Secretary both realise that
  1222
  the type of activity which is being dealt with here is obviously one that is open to a certain abuse.
  Indeed, if one goes to the origin of the Act and, therefore, of these regulations as a whole, one sees it arose out of some scandalous cases, or at any rate one scandalous case, three or four years ago, and there is no doubt that the thing has to be very tightly drawn. When we have Regulations of this sort we take the discretion, as I see it, very largely out of the hands of the Board of Trade. If somebody complies with the Regulations, then I cannot quite see what the Board of Trade can do to require any more from him, and if one looks through these Regulations as a whole one sees there a very great deal left to the directors.
  I appreciate the point that the directors' opinion is the test in relation to group accounts, but they have not got the same object, and the opinion is not required for quite the same purpose, as in the Companies Act, as it is required here. Here again, there are various other references, in substituted paragraphs, to the directors' opinion. One of them is about a third of the way down column 2 on page 6 of the Regulations, and there is another one at the bottom of page 6, and there are a number of others. I quite appreciate that in all these respects they are following the broad lines of the Companies Act, but if that is the position, and the directors' opinion is to be the guiding matter in this case, one wonders whether the Government may have gone a little too far in leaving it to the directors.
  This is particularly the case in one very important paragraph. There is to be annexed to any accounts a statement, a note, signed on behalf of the board—and this is the very first thing—
  "of the main activities of the company and its subsidiaries if any".
  This point arose in Standing Committee, and towards the end of the proceedings the Government were asked whether this was going to be a general statement or not, and the answer they gave was that it was not going to be a general statement: we were to be given at any rate some detail. In these Regulations as they stand there is no qualification at all, and a director, as I see it, or a board of

  1223
  directors, would comply with this provision if they simply said something like, "We are a development company".
  The sort of instance I suggested in Committee is the case of a depositor being asked to put up money for land development perhaps in his own town. That, of course, is land development, but the directors might intend to develop somewhere quite different, and yet the depositor has no means of judging, and the risks of land development in one place and in another might be substantially different, and the wishes of the depositor might be different. Therefore, if he is to be properly protected, I would have expected something more than this very general statement of what, after all, is perhaps the most important point in the whole Regulations—that is, to say what the activities of the company really are to be.
  Having said that to the Minister I must say, in fairness, one more thing to him. I quite appreciate that the—let us call it a promise; I think that it was a promise—statement made in Committee was perhaps a rather difficult one to carry out. I quite appreciate the difficulties in saying any more, but I must say I would have hoped that the hon. Gentleman could have got a little bit further than appears here, and that he would have reserved something or another by way of an approval or disapproval by the Board of Trade, which would have given him an opportunity of saying, "This statement is far too general. There ought to be more than that in it". I would have thought he would have considered the possibility of supplementing these Regulations, as I think he could do, or replacing them at an early date by something which, if only in the light of experience, would show a little more of what the activities of the company were.
  I have said what I intended to say, and it seems to me to be a point of real substance. It was mentioned very many times in the Committee, and I hope that we shall have an answer on it. I hope even more that the Board of Trade will be prepared to say that if, in the light of experience, it finds that these statements are insufficient, and that they tend to be particularly insufficient in the case of companies whose accounts are open
  1224
  to a certain amount of criticism on other grounds, then it will get them supplemented.
  I see the hon. Gentleman looking at the Regulations. There are, of course, other statements in it, but I do not think they cover this point, and I have looked at them very carefully. They go round it. What is really required is a statement of the main activities of the company in some detail. I gave just now the instance of locality and the type of property, because it is land development companies about which I am thinking. It is not a question of freehold or leasehold. It is the kind of bricks and mortar that are to be developed or the kind of land that is going to be developed. That is the point, and it is not properly covered in the regulation.
  It is late at night, and I do not think that it is a point upon which one would divide anyhow, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider it not merely in the present but in the future and just let us know quite shortly what the views of the Board of Trade are and what the reason is for this very wide form of regulation on that point.
  11.47 p.m.
  Mr. Green: If I may briefly reply to that, I took the hon. and learned Gentleman's point in Committee, as I think he realises. He has been extremely fair in what he has said about it. Clearly, there are difficulties of definition and about knowing just how far one can go. We ask in the fifth Regulation for a statement of the main activities of the company and subsidiaries, if any, and a statement of any change, since the commencement of the period in which the accounts were laid, in the main activities of the company. This is as far as we thought we could properly go at this stage.
  None the less, I promise that what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said will be borne in mind. I believe that on Third Reading I used the phrase, which I hope was not inappropriate, that, this being a new area of legislation, experience in the application of the legislation was required. This is certainly a point on which we will use experience. It is a very appropriate thought to put across the Floor of the House to me. At this moment in time perhaps I should content myself by saying that I take the hon. and learned Gentleman's point, and if I or my successors can improve on this, they will seek to do it.
  Mr. Mitchison: If I may remind the hon. Gentleman before he sits down, he will find it most clearly put in the Committee proceedings. I said:
  "May I ask the Economic Secretary to confirm that when he refers to a general description "—
  that was, of the business—
  "it will not, in the light of our discussions, be too general in relation to the company's business?"
  The reply was:
  "I absolutely take that point. The description must not be too general."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. Standing Committee A, 19th February, 1963; c. 488.]
  Well, it is quite general. I quite sincerely appreciate the difficulty of making it any more particular, but there was an undertaking that it must not be too general, and I hope that the matter will be considered if experience shows it to be necessary.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Protection of Depositors (Accounts) Regulations, 1963, a draft of which was laid before this House on 11th July, be approved.

  STATISTICS OF TRADE
  11.50 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. David Price): I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Statistics of Trade Act, 1947 (Amendment of Schedule) Order, 1963, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 3rd July.
  The object is to extend somewhat further the range of statistics collected under the Statistics of Trade Act, 1947. Broadly, this brings in under the Act figures relating particularly to movements of the capital market. This follows the recommendation of the Radcliffe Report, which devoted a whole chapter to statistics. The Government undertook to look at this. We have been able on a voluntary basis to cover many of the statistics which are necessary to widen our range of statistical coverage and which Radcliffe suggested we should do.
  But there comes a point when it is proper to have a statutory basis and, in addition, we have taken the opportunity to include information about the movement of prices. This may surprise the House. It was, by an oversight, left out
  1226
  of the Schedule of the 1947 Act. We have published for years indices of prices but that has been done on a voluntary basis, and we have taken this opportunity to give the statutory sanction with which to fortify the work of the voluntary system.
  11.51 p.m.
  Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I rise only to say that on this side of the House we always welcome any more light thrown on financial matters and hope against hope that it will not disclose too many terrible things.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Statistics of Trade Act, 1947 (Amendment of Schedule) Order, 1963, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 3rd July.
  To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

  HOSPITAL, BASILDON
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chichester-Clark.]
  11.52 p.m.
  Mr. Edward Gardner: Basildon is one of the most successful of the new towns. A true measure of its success is the fact that most people who live there seem to like it. They like its friendliness, vitality and sense of belonging to a new and thriving community. Visitors, particularly from the Continent and America, are impressed by the superb planning of its roads, houses, shopping centre and factories, which make it one of the most prosperous places in the area.
  But they are equally surprised to find that Basildon is still waiting for a hospital and that on the present estimates will have to wait for one for the next eight years. During this time the population of Basildon Urban District Council, now about 100,000, is expected to increase at the rate of 6,000 a year and reach about 148,000 in eight years' time. The population of Basildon new town is expected to rise from its present 60,000 to 80,000 at the end of those eight years. This is, I believe, the largest increase of population in any district in the country. This increase of population alone is an

  1227
  overwhelming argument for a hospital for Basildon new town. The argument hardly needs pressing, for the case for the hospital has already been won and the Government accept it.
  The real issue, therefore, is not whether Basildon needs a new hospital—it needs one and needs one badly—but whether the present estimated delay in planning and building this hospital, now reckoned at about eight years, is tolerable or necessary. All the figures and all present experience show that the delay is not tolerable and I hope to persuade my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that it is not necessary.
  In October, 1960, I was fortunate enough to persuade my hon. Friend's predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame Edith Pitt), to visit Basildon and see for herself how badly we needed a hospital. What she saw apparently convinced her that the need was urgent, and within a short time we had the announcement by the Government that our case for a hospital for Basildon had succeeded. In 1961, the North-Eastern Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board announced that a hospital of 345 beds would be started in 1964 and completed by 1968. This was at least reasonable and, although it did not satisfy everybody, it was an acceptable solution.
  In 1962, the Government announced their £500 million Hospital Plan, which included 90 new and 134 remodelled hospitals to be started by 1970–71. This is a plan which is wholly laudable and for which the Government deserve high praise. Unhappily for Basildon, this plan has had and is having the unhappy effect of delaying the new hospital by at least two years over the original delay.
  The reason for this was explained by the Minister of Health himself, when he visited Basildon last year. It is that the new town needs a hospital far larger than that planned in 1961. Instead of 345 beds, we are to get 853 beds. Instead of a comparatively small hospital, we are to get what will be a full-scale general district hospital, the most modern of its kind in the country, built with the wealth of experienced gained over the last few years.
  But, according to the Hospital Plan, the building of the hospital will not start
  1228
  until the period 1966–67 to 1970–71. In practice, on this basis Basildon is unlikely to get its hospital working before 1971. Already the hospital facilities serving Basildon are reaching full capacity and any doctor in this area would tell my hon. Friend of complaints, going far beyond inconvenience or annoyance, of the difficulties of getting suitable and timely hospital treatment. Most patients from Basildon have to go to St. Andrew's Hospital, in Billericay. The result is that despite the devoted labours of the staff of that hospital, its services are grossly overloaded. I am told that out-patients have to wait for up to five weeks for medical treatment, and that anyone wanting a bed for surgical treatment may have to wait up to fourteen months.
  Basildon new town has one of the highest birth rates in the country. The maternity services, I am assured time and again by letter after letter, are among the worst. The Cranbrook Committee on Maternity Services, in 1959, recommended the provision of a national average of 70 per cent. of confinements to take place in hospital, but in Basildon even a mother having her first child is fortunate if she can get a maternity bed in a hospital. Indeed, only one in three mothers is able to have her first child delivered in hospital.
  The shortage of maternity beds is so acute and the waiting list so full that the longest practical notice of nine months is not always sufficient. To be certain of a bed a mother-to-be in Basildon new town would seem to need to take the advice of a fortune teller more than a doctor, and added to the shortage of beds there is a very serious shortage of midwives.
  Apart from the vast industrial site already working in Basildon new town, fresh factories are expected to grow up, built by companies like Fords, Standard Telephones and Yardleys, which will bring about 9,000 more workers to the new town and, like those already there, they will want reliable and immediate hospital services if only to deal with casualty and accident cases.
  As long ago as 1960 the need for a hospital in Basildon new town was accepted by the regional hospital board. Indeed, the population figures alone were decisive. The board appreciated that the

  1229
  population of the catchment area it serves would reach a total of 233,000 in 1964–65, and Basildon Urban District Council wisely pointed out that on these figures—and one has to bear in mind that they will be reached next year—the area would need all the existing hospitals and the new hospital which is still to be built at Basildon if disruption of the hospital services in this area were to be avoided.
  This means that we need, and should have, a hospital in Basildon built, staffed, and working next year if we are to be guided strictly by population figures, but on the present plan a new hospital cannot be expected there until 1970–71. This will not do. It is an intolerable situation caused, as I see it, primarily by delays in planning, delays which I submit must be eliminated.
  As the Hospital Plan is careful to point out, it takes several years to plan and carry out any major hospital development. There is no lack of enthusiasm among the staff of the regional board. The architects and planners are already at work on this hospital and they have accomplished a good deal of ground work. I am told that the preliminary plans and estimates will be ready by September, and that the board hopes it will have ministerial approval by November. But after November of this year—until January 1967—more than three years will be taken up on detailed planning. After that, another three years will be taken up on the actual building of the hospital. So now we have at least seven and possibly eight years to wait. It is too long.
  I see that the experts have agreed—and most people sympathise with the view—that there are great difficulties in building a hospital of this kind, with the ambitious future it will have, in under three years, but surely we can do something about the time taken up on planning this hospital. Do we need to plan it right down to the last doorknob, nut and screw, in detail, so that every one of those minute details has to be considered by the Ministry? Cannot we now adopt some other method which would accelerate what must be, in the ordinary course of the Civil Service, a very slow process? Cannot we do something about adopting hospital plans which are already in use?
  I have been told by the Minister-indeed, on one occasion a deputation of
  1230
  representatives from Basildon new town came with me to see him—that there were difficulties. The difficulties were appreciated—they were certainly explained very fully—in adopting the plans we used for that splendid hospital in Harlow new town. But cannot we go beyond Harlow new town, or beyond this country? Let us look to the Continent and the new hospitals there, or to America, and see what we can find in their plans to adopt, in order to save time and to bring this hospital, which is needed so urgently, into a reality far sooner than it is going to be built under the present plan.
  I would be most grateful, and I am sure many people in Basildon new town would be most grateful, if my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary would give the House an assurance that the only thing holding up the building of this hospital is the planning and architectural work that must be done upon it, that the Government have all the funds available and are willing to provide all the funds necessary to build it, and that there is nothing by way of finance that is creating a barrier to its building.
  I plead with my hon. Friend to see that everything is done—everything that is within the power of the Ministry, including, if necessary, an increase in the planning and architectural staff—to speed up the detailed planning and to bring the plans to a stage where the building of this hospital can be started. The present state of affairs is not only disturbing; it is quite intolerable. I plead with my hon. Friend and the Government to see that there is a speedy conclusion to the present state of affairs, and the application of an effective remedy.
  12.9 a.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernard Braine): I fully understand the anxieties of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Gardner) and I know how faithfully he has represented the interests of his constituents in this matter.
  My right hon. Friend announced the scheme for building a new hospital at Basildon in his statement in the House in January, 1961. This announcement was made at the earliest moment when we knew that capital could be allocated

  1231
  for the development, and therefore, planning was still in its earliest stages. It appeared to us at that time that the right thing to do was to regard St. Andrew's Hospital, Billericay, and the new hospital at Basildon as complementary and that, therefore, a hospital of 345 beds would be needed at Basildon.
  Shortly after the announcement, my right hon. Friend met a deputation in March, 1961, and explained to them that the new hospital was not likely to start before 1964–65. In view of what he said, the people of Basildon may have had some justification for expecting that the building of their new hospital would start at least in early 1965. I can understand their deep disappointment when it was announced in the Hospital Plan presented to Parliament in January last year that instead the hospital would start in the period 1966–67 to 1970–71. I accept that the reasons for the change in the likely starting date might well have been explained at that time and I am sorry that this was not done. I understand, however, that they have since been explained. I understand, too, that the reasons for the change were perfectly sound and, as I hope to show, in the long term they are in every way to the advantage of the people of Basildon.
  I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend will appreciate that the release, upsurge and flowering of ideas, which accompanied the development of the Hospital Plan caused all concerned with hospital planning, those at the Ministry of Health and in the regional boards to think much more boldly about the hospitals of the future than they had done in the past. We put on one sidethe "just about good enough"schemes and looked at the hospital pattern as a whole. What principally emerged was the concept of the large, comprehensive district general hospital in which could be brought together the wide range of facilities and expensive equipment needed for the most modern diagnosis and treatment.
  This was the atmosphere in which the planning of the new hospital for Basildon developed after the announcement of the scheme. Moreover, when the North-East Metropolitan Regional Hospital Boardand the Minister got down to the detailed planning we also had more reli-
  1232
  able information about the population growth of Basildon and it became very clear that the idea of a new hospital complementary to St. Andrew's at Billericay was not the rightone. Basildon needed a comprehensive district general hospital large enough to serve the area of which Basildon would be the natural centre.
  We and the regional board therefore came to the conclusion that what Basildon needed was a hospital not of 345 beds but nearer 900 beds. This obviously presented a very difficult planning problem from the smaller hospital originally envisaged. In the light of the definitive studies of the hospital needs for Basildon and our conclusions about the range of facilities required, a revised but wholly realistic time-table was forced on us which will allow building to start early in the second quinquennium of the Hospital Plan. This is the earliest that is practicable. I realise how frustrating it is for Basildon folk and formy hon. and learned Friend to see the empty site reserved for the hospital and no present sign of building activity, but I can assure them that the hospital is well under way. In hospital building at least 50 per cent. of the time needed is used up away from the site in the planning rooms and drawing offices. Meticulous work at the planning stage is the key to proper hospital provision.
  We are always hearing about new medical techniques which are saving life and making medical treatment safer and more effective. I am sure that the people of the new town of Basildon who more than most are living with the most modern industrial techniques do not need reminding that these medical advances call for the most complex physical equipment. A modern hospital is perhaps the most complicated building structure that can be devised, combining a range of technical services which few factories could rival in diversity, domestic provision as carefully planned as in the largest and most modern hotel and the laboratory and teaching facilities of a technical college. Planners, designers, architects and engineers have to produce a structure which is efficient, flexible and, perhaps most important of all, one which is human in scale and atmosphere.
  Clearly, this calls for a different scale of planning from say an office block with simple units inside the framework.

  1233
  In a hospital the inter-relation of wards, operating theatres, diagnostic departments, and so on, each of which is complicated enough, is an intricate planning exercise. Of course, a great deal is being done to shorten the planning time by disseminating information on good and tried procedures by means of building and equipment notes, but the fact remains that every hospital has to be tailor-made to fit the needs of the particular community which it will serve. I am sure that the people of Basildon would not wish it to be otherwise. As for borrowing ideas from others, let me say that there is no country in the world that has embarked on such a large and comprehensive programme of hospital building as we have.
  My hon. and learned Friend has suggested that the plans of a hospital already built could be adapted to meet the needs of Basildon more quickly. For the reasons I have touched on, I do not think that this is the right solution, but the end can be achieved by other means. My Department is producing a mass of guidance material on the design of hospitals, aimed at bringing to the attention of all boards the best of current practice. This work is being extended and accelerated all the time.
  Simultaneously, a large number of study groups has been set up to examine the scope for variety reduction in the building of hospitals and to rationalise building procedures and techniques. These groups are manned from the regional hospital boards, from private professional firms and from the Ministry. Their efforts are directed at producing recommendations of national application. They are working on such subjects as the production of standard ranges of cupboard units, sanitary fittings, ceilings, doors, floor finishes, structural components such as beams and wall units, partitions, engineering components, light fittings, and a thousand and one other things, all geared to the national system of dimensions recently announced by the Ministry of Public Building and Works.
  They are also working on the codification of methods of assembling the briefing required by architects engineers and quantity surveyors and of recording this material so that clear instructions are given to the actual designs, and time-
  1234
  consuming practices and uncertainty are reduced.
  As an example of what can be achieved, early this year the Ministry provided for all regional hospital boards and teaching hospitals sketch plans for a complete 104-bed maternity unitdesigned by the Birmingham board. This design reflects the features approved by the Ministry for this type of building. Its use, adapted to the needs of particular sites, could result in a saving of months of design time and make a contribution to the problem of accelerating the provision of maternity beds which faces the country at present. We hope to extend this policy of recommending acceptable designs to all departments of a hospital.
  For practical reasons the hospital at Basildon will be built in three phases. The first phase will provide a viable hospital with 168 general beds, 44 maternity beds, 30 pædiatric beds, and 56 geriatric beds, as well as provision for babies needing special care, and an infectious diseases unit. The next phase which should overlap or even coincide with the first phase will provide a psychiatric unit of 260 beds. This will be an exciting new departure from the old concept of a mental hospital. There will be a short stay unit of 60 beds and a rehabilitation unit for 200 mentally ill patients who need a longer stay before they return home. The final phase will extend the hospital by an additional 272 beds and an extension of the diagnostic facilities provide in the first phase.
  In short, the work on the new hospital, which is at present hidden from view in the planning offices, is forging ahead as fast as the architects and engineers can physically manage. I can assure my hon. and learned Friend that nothing in the way of financial considerations is holding it up. As soon as we have the right plans for the hospital they will begin to take physical shape. As to when the right plans will emerge, and whether, as my hon. and learned Friend suggests, an increase in the planning staff would hasten their appearance, I assure him that the regional hospital board is firmly of the view that its present planning team is of the right size and that increasing its numbers would not have increased its rate of progress.
  All the technical planning work is being done in the board's own offices, where

  1235
  planning can progress with the greatest ease of consultation and with the greatest degree of control over the work and where the board can adjust the scale of the planning efforts according to requirements. The board expects to complete planning in time to permit building to be started in March, 1967.
  We and the North-East Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board have always recognised the need of the people of Basildon for hospital services whilst they are waiting for their new hospital, and for this reason the hospital board has been pressing on with the development at St. Andrew's, Billericay. My hon. and learned Friend himself opened the new out-patients' department in October, 1960. Two new nurses' homes have recently been opened by the Lord Lieutenant of Essex, a new boiler house has just been finished, and the building of a new pathological laboratory is due to start shortly.
  These facilities, which are perhaps misleadingly called ancillary facilities, are, of course, very necessary for the proper running of the hospital and have a direct impact on its efficiency and quality of service. But, at the same time, the board is doing what it can to increase the number of available beds. A ward which has been out of use for some time was reopened early this year, and wards in another block have been upgraded.
  My hon. and learned Friend drew my attention to the acute difficulties being experienced by the maternity services. It is true that heavy demands are being made on the existing services. Work ona new maternity department at Orsett Hospital should start within the next few months and this department should give
  1236
  relief on completion two years later. I am glad to say that the Essex County Council is planning a substantial expansion of its domiciliary midwifery service—high standards of housing in this area make a high rate of home confinements more acceptable—and I am sure that the county council will have regard to the growing needs of the Basildon area.
  I can understand the desire of people in Basildon to get their hospital as speedily as possible, and I can assure my hon. and learned Friend that we and board do not accept that the planning of a new hospital allows us to shrug off our responsibility for seeing that the current needs of the people of Basildon for hospital services are met. As I have indicated, there have been improvements and there will be more.
  I hope that what I have said will reassure my hon. and learned Friend that we and the hospital board are doing all we can to see that the necessary hospital buildings, both in Basildon and, in the meantime, at Billericay, are available as soon as possible. But, as was shown in the guidance which my right hon. Friend sent to hospitals earlier this year about reducing waitinglists, new buildings are not necessarily the only answer; there are ways and means of making better use of existing facilities. Indeed, I know that the staff of the hospitals near Basildon are fully aware of this and are devotedly applying themselves to the task of giving the people of Basildon a full hospital service until they get their own hospital.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes past Twelve o'clock

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Sugar
  Sugar
  Forestry, Wales
  Forestry, Wales
MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  American Supersonic Airliner
  American Supersonic Airliner
  COUNTY COURTS (ADMINISTRATION ORDERS)
  COUNTY COURTS (ADMINISTRATION ORDERS)
  PETER RACHMAN
  PETER RACHMAN
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Family Allowances
  Family Allowances
  Osteo-Arthritis
  Osteo-Arthritis
  Pneumoconiosis Benefit, North Staffordshire
  Pneumoconiosis Benefit, North Staffordshire
  Retirement Pensions
  Retirement Pensions
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Orange Juice
  Orange Juice
  Liquid Eggs (Pasteurisation)
  Liquid Eggs (Pasteurisation)
  Disabled Persons (Cars)
  Disabled Persons (Cars)
  Water Supplies (Fluoridation)
  Water Supplies (Fluoridation)
  Infertile Eggs
  Infertile Eggs
  Vaccination (International Sanitary Regulations)
  Vaccination (International Sanitary Regulations)
  Population
  Population
  Resuscitation
  Resuscitation
HOSPITALS
  Midwives, Wales
  Midwives, Wales
  Hospital Engineers
  Hospital Engineers
  Waiting Lists, Sheffield
  Waiting Lists, Sheffield
  Daily Visiting
  Daily Visiting
EMPLOYMENT
  Skilled Manpower (Inquiry)
  Skilled Manpower (Inquiry)
  Stornoway Area
  Stornoway Area
  Bexhill, Hailsham and Rye
  Bexhill, Hailsham and Rye
  Gateshead and Felling
  Gateshead and Felling
  UNITED NATIONS (CHINESE REPRESENTATION)
  UNITED NATIONS (CHINESE REPRESENTATION)
  MR. HAROLD PHILBY
  MR. HAROLD PHILBY
  YEMEN
  YEMEN
  EMBASSIES (STAFF)
  EMBASSIES (STAFF)
  HANS JOSEF MARIA GLOBKE (TRIAL)
  HANS JOSEF MARIA GLOBKE (TRIAL)
HOUSING
  Housing Associations (Finance)
  Housing Associations (Finance)
  Improvement Grants
  Improvement Grants
EDUCATION
  Art Colleges, South East
  Art Colleges, South East
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Sunderland
  Sunderland
  Industrial Expansion, Scotland
  Industrial Expansion, Scotland
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Possession of Firearms (Penalty)
  Possession of Firearms (Penalty)
  King and Queen of the Hellenes (State Visit)
  King and Queen of the Hellenes (State Visit)
  Parking Meters (Fixed Penalty Tickets)
  Parking Meters (Fixed Penalty Tickets)
  Traffic Wardens
  Traffic Wardens
  Farmers and Agricultural Workers (Jury Service)
  Farmers and Agricultural Workers (Jury Service)
MALAYA
  Independence Gift
  Independence Gift
INDIA
  R.A.F. Squadron (Visit)
  R.A.F. Squadron (Visit)
SCOTLAND
  Land Drainage (Plastic Pipes and Ribbons)
  Land Drainage (Plastic Pipes and Ribbons)
  Hospital Consultants
  Hospital Consultants
  Cancer
  Cancer
SCIENCE
  Radioactive Substances
  Radioactive Substances
ROADS
  New Road Scheme, Wragby (Letter)
  New Road Scheme, Wragby (Letter)

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

PRESS NOTICE ON RUSSIAN DEFECTOR
2.35 p.m.
LORD FRANCIS-WILLIAMS: 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 why a "D" Notice was issued to the British Press on July 11 naming a Russian agent who had defected to the Americans more than eighteen months before, and whether the timing and form of this Notice was agreed with American security authorities.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, on Thursday, July 11 the Services Press and Broadcasting Committee, with the full agreement of the Press representatives on the Committee, earnestly requested newspaper editors not to publish information about this defector. The man's name was included in the message to editors, which was marked "Private and Confidential", because it was thought right to take them into the Government's confidence and because it was assumed that they would refrain from publishing it or anything else about him. This request was made partly on grounds of national security and partly for the sake of the man's own personal safety. These considerations still apply. It would therefore be wrong for me to go further into the details of the case, as I am sure the House will understand. With regard to the second part of the Question, it is not customary to disclose confidential consultations which take place between Governments.
LORD FRANCIS WILLIAMS: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his not
446
wholly satisfactory reply. I speak with some knowledge of this situation; indeed, I think I may claim to be one of the initiators of the "D" Notice system when I was Controller of Press Censorship during the war and one of those who urged that some such system should be continued after the war. There was then (and I think it is perfectly proper) a matter in which the American security authorities were directly concerned—
LORD SALTOUN: Order, order! Ask a question!
LORD FRANCIS-WILLIAMS: —and there had to be some consultation with the Americans. I should like to ask the noble Earl, without asking for any details which it would be wrong to request, whether any consultation of that kind took place, in view of the impression that has been created by this matter in the American Press?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: No, my Lords; I could not answer that without first of all consulting the American Government to see what their views about it would be. With regard to the antiquity of the "D" Notice, I am glad to hear of the noble Lord's interest, but I think it has been in existence since 1912, which was even a little before his time.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, in view of the two reasons which the noble Earl has given, why was the name included at all in the statement to the Press?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, because it was anticipated that one newspaper was about to publish it, and therefore notices were sent out. The only method of preventing it from happening was to send out this "D" Notice to all the Press, in the hope that it would be observed, as it usually is. The only reason, I understand, why it was not in this case was that the editor of one newspaper suggested that, since the information came from a foreign source, he thought it might be published abroad anyhow.
LORD FRANCIS-WILLIAMS: My Lords, could not the purpose have been well met, without issuing a Notice which actually gave the name of the agent involved, by simply reminding the Press that in any such circumstances they

447
should clear with the Committee the publication of any story before actually publishing? That would have got the request to the Press without giving out this information.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, that may well be, but it was expected that the name was about to be published the next day, and it was not known how many other papers might have it. It was the more specific that this procedure, which has nearly always been observed by the newspapers, as I am sure the noble Lord is aware, should be followed.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, in view of the fact that, according to the noble Earl, part of the reason for the issue of the "D" Notice was the man's safety, why was it that subsequently the name of the man was issued for publication?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, it was not issued for publication. It was published by one newspaper.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, on the whole, I think that the Minister of State has made a good defence of the Government's action, except on the point of circulating the name, although I can see at any rate half a case for that. I see the difficulty that the Government were in. But does the noble Earl not realise that if in circulating a "D" Notice a person is named, then hundreds of people will hear of that name who otherwise would not have done so? Is that a good thing? Let me say, incidentally, that in my experience the British Press is, on the whole, most honourable in these matters and deserves high praise. But it really is asking for trouble if the name is circulated to so many people. The other point is this: can the Minister of State give any explanation of why it was so commonly assumed in many quarters, and published, that this man had defected to the British, whereas in fact he had defected to the Americans? Apart from the publication of the name on this side, it must in itself be annoying to the American security authorities if we unjustly claim the credit (if that is the right word) for this man's defection to us when he has defected to the Americans.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for the first part of his supplementary. I would just repeat that the name was issued confidentially and privately. As a rule, these "D" Notices and their confidential character are respected. In the alternative, if we had done nothing the name would have been published, and the next day not only a few hundred newspaper editors but millions of people all over the world would have known. With regard to the second part of the noble Lord's supplementary, no claim such as he suggests, was made, and I do not know how the idea which he has mentioned came to be entertained.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, can my noble friend say which paper revealed the name?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I do not think it is necessary for me to do that.
LORD FRANCIS-WILLIAMS: My Lords, in view of the fact that there was a break-down on this occasion—and there was, I think, a previous break-down in the Blake case when a notice was ignored by the Press—do the Government think it would be useful to have a further inquiry into the operation of this system, which obviously depends for its efficient working on complete confidence by the Press that they are being asked to exercise caution only when security actually requires it and that no other considerations are allowed to come in?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: When there is no emergency system of censorship in operation, I think that the effectiveness of the "D" Notice can be preserved only by a relationship of trust between Press and the Government and between one newspaper and another. It almost invariably works well, and I should be reluctant to take any steps which might disturb it.

KILLINGHOLME JETTY BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE
Order of the Day for the consideration of the First Report from the Select Committee read.
The Committee reported as follows:
1. QUESTIONS FOR WRITTEN ANSWER
The Committee recommend that the practice regarding the publication of answers to questions for written answer be altered and that answers be issued to Hansard and to the Press Gallery at 4.30 p.m. without an embargo on use and publication. This recommendation would bring the practice of the House into line with that of the House of Commons. It involves some risk that Peers may receive answers to their questions for written answer after publication by the Press.
2. EQUALITY OF VOTES IN A DIVISION ON A PRIVATE BILL
The Committee consider that the provision of Standing Order 49 (Equality of votes on a Division) govern the proceedings on a Private Bill including the proceedings in a Select Committee in the same manner as they apply to a Public Bill.
3. WITHDRAWAL OF AMENDMENTS
The Committee recommend that amendments to Public Bills may, at the wish of the proposer and with the agreement of any Peers who may have added their names to his, be withdrawn from a marshalled list at any time before it is sent to the printer.
4. THE NEW COMPANION TO THE STANDING ORDERS
The Committee have considered the proof of the Companion to the Standing Orders and Guide to the Proceedings of the House of Lords, and adjourned further consideration until the next meeting of the Committee.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, while I am very willing to try to answer any questions which any of your Lordships may have, I do not think there is any particular point to which I wish to draw attention. I beg to move that this Report be now agreed to.
Moved, That the Report be agreed to.—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (GLOUCESTER HARBOUR) BILL
House in Committee (according to Order), on Report from an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House resumed; Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (YARMOUTH (ISLE OF WIGHT)) BILL
House in Committee (according to Order), on Report from an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House resumed; Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (BEMBRIDGE HARBOUR) BILL
House in Committee (according to Order), on Report from an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House resumed; Bill reported without further amendment; Report received.

MALAYSIA BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

PEERAGE BILL
2.48 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD DILHORNE): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. I do not think your Lordships would wish me to support this Motion with a speech which refers in any detail to the contents of the Bill, or indeed with a speech of any length. After all, we debated the contents of the Report containing the Joint Select Committee's conclusions on March 28, and we had a further debate on Second Reading and several interesting debates in Committee. Your Lordships may indeed feel that further debate is unnecessary. None the less, I hope your Lordships will bear

451
with me when I say how glad I am to see this Bill in its final stages. For me, it has a long history, for I was a member of the Committee of Privileges in another place which considered Mr. Wedgwood Benn's case; and in the debate on the Report of that Committee in another place, so long ago as April 13, 1961, I expressed the personal view that if the law was changed it would be unfair that those who had taken their seats in this House should be denied the power to renounce their seats.
I also drew attention then to the position of Scottish Peers who were not elected as Representative Peers, to Irish Peers who were not entitled to vote though they could not sit in this House, and to the position of hereditary Peeresses. All the problems I drew attention to then are dealt with, and dealt with satisfactorily, in this Bill, and we owe a great debt to the members of the Joint Select Committee for the work they did. I am very glad now to move that this Bill be read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I think there are Members in all parts of your Lordships' House who are glad that the Bill has reached this stage. There seemed to be a little difficulty upon the Report stage, and I hope the noble and learned Lord Chancellor who sits on the Woolsack, and who stoutly resisted an Amendment from our side, will allow me to say how much we appreciate the broadmindedness of the great majority of the Members of this House present on that occasion. I do not know whether the Government are to-day going to make any statement, which it has been whispered has already been decided, that the Amendment so passed by your Lordships' House will be incorporated in the final measure. I can only express my great wish that that will be so; and I think that it will also be the wish of the great majority of the Members of your Lordships' House. I felt that this was a rather unique Parliamentary occasion when, on what was obviously a pure question of justice to anybody who might be affected by the particular subsection of the Bill, the great majority did their best on the whole matter. I
452
am grateful to the House for that, and I hope that the Amendment will be finally enacted.
THE EARL OF SANDWICH: My Lords, I will keep your Lordships only a few moments, because I know that there is to follow major Business which has been set down for this day. I should like just to state, fairly shortly, that I believe there are two serious disabilities to this Bill, and that it will eventually and inevitably require amendment. The first is the invidious position of all disclaiming Peers. I should like to give two examples. Lord X, a Marquess, disclaims his Peerage to become Prime Minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer or Home Secretary. He has spent all his life in the Lords, but such is the deadlock of personalities in the Commons that he alone can fill the bill. Besides his family name he has three titles, one of which is borne by his son and another by his grandson. In accordance with the Peerage Act this honourable man and his family abandon all their titles. He soon finds—and his relations with him—that nobody, except the Speaker of the House of Commons himself, follows his lead. The Press abroad and at home, the shops, his friends, his correspondents, works of reference, family lawyers, all make no change at all in the nomenclature by which he has always been known. This splendid man is deeply offended and grieved, and he causes inquiries to be made. Before long testamentary proof of an Irish Peerage, co-equal and co-extensive with his United Kingdom Peerage, is forthcoming. Honour is thereby saved. My Lords, this example is not so far-fetched as it might seem to be. There are 44 United Kingdom Peers who sit in this House and who could disclaim and sit in the Commons with Irish titles, 7 of them with the same rank and with the same name.
The second example I should like to give your Lordships is of a young Member of Parliament whose name is a household word. He succeeds to a Peerage. He disclaims. The section of opinion that I have just referred to will have none of it. They insist on calling him by his title. Puritanical for the law, he campaigns for the acceptance of his surname and fails in his campaign. His career is thoroughly inhibited. The examples

453
can be worked precisely the other way round—in that case with disaster to the Peer and triumph for the commoner. But what the world says about it, my Lords, is that the law is an ass upon the subject.
The second disability which I should like to explain to your Lordships affects you all as a whole. The occasion for the exercise of the choice of disclaimer is a dynamic occasion for a Peer on attaining the age of 21, and an heir on succeeding. Each has a chance in his own time to make that choice. With your Lordships as a whole, however, the choice is static; it is now and for twelve months from now, and not after that. About 700 noble Lords, I presume, have not been here, some hundreds of noble Lords may not have heard of this debate at all, and quite a comparative number, let us suggest, are away abroad, scaling the highest mountains and penetrating the deepest jungles—we do not know where they are. Ten years ago the names of those Peers who might be going to disclaim would have been very different from the names to-day. Half a dozen have been suggested; perhaps rather fewer. Ten years ago they would have been completely different people, in completely different circumstances; and ten years from now the group of names of people willing to disclaim, if it were law, would be utterly different. But from next week twelve-month half a dozen of such potential electees will be debarred by this Statute from making that choice. I really think that this, as time flows on, will become a fatal disability.
It seems to me that the Joint Select Committee have not envisaged this situation as they should have done, by a revolving process, every Parliament or every two Parliaments, of giving your Lordships an opportunity again to disclaim. Therefore I think that, inevitably, amending legislation will come. Once-for-all legislation is always bad, whether it is a Peerage Bill or an investment levy. Except for the provision for Peeresses and Scottish Peers I maintain again, as I did on Second Reading and on Committee, that this is one of the most unsatisfactory Bills ever to come before Parliament. I believe that amendments to it are inevitable if justice is going to be done to those who are interested.
2.58 p.m.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, I presume that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor (I will come to the noble Earl in a bit, if I can clear my mind as to what he means), before the Motion for Third Reading is put, will consider whether he should tell us what the Government's intentions are with regard to the Amendment that your Lordships carried by such a very big and satisfactory majority. Of course, it is possible that the Lord Chancellor may take the view that it is for the other place to consider whether or not they agree with the Lords in the said Amendment, and if he declines to tell us I shall understand. On the other hand, I think it is a bit rough on the Lord Chancellor that he should have taken such pains to resist that Amendment and then had to go through the humiliation of being defeated by 105 to 25, and soon after that finding that the Government are saying, through the Press, that all his labours were in vain, because they are going to accept the Amendment anyway. It is a sad experience. Either the Government have let the Lord Chancellor down, or the Lord Chancellor has let the Government down. I am not quite clear which it is: whether it is that he did not make his speech well enough to persuade the House to go the other way—not that I want to discourage the House from going against the Government from time to time. I agree with the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, that it is a very good Parliamentary experience that, now and again, this House should disagree with a Conservative Government.
But do not let the Chief Whip rejoice too soon, because it is unusual. Usually, this House is a rubber stamp for a Conservative Government; but, thank heavens!, this time it was not. It was a welcome experience to us on this side, and I gather that it was a welcome experience to some noble Lords on the other side, because otherwise the Amendment would not have been carried with such a large majority. I want to congratulate the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, and the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, on their courage, on the declaration of their bill of rights, so to speak, and on their independence, in asserting the right of this House to have a mind of its own,

455
subject to what happens when the Amendment gets back to the other place.
The more I listened to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, the more I came to the conclusion that the decision on the other Amendment, which was handsomely defeated—namely, in favour of the drowning of the Peerage after renunciation—was right. I thought, in view of the long disquisition he made—not overlong, but still adequate—that he overdid it. He talks of going to the other place, which I increasingly doubt because I believe he rather thinks the price would be too much if the name of the Earl of Sandwich were to be lost from current use, despite his hopes that the Press, and so on, will go on calling him what he is now called. But I must say that I thought he overdid it; and I am beginning to think that, on a balance of consideration, he would sooner have the title than go back to the House of Commons. But it is a free country and, under this Bill, he is entitled to do as he likes.
The first part of his speech dealt with an imaginary Lord who disclaimed, went back to another place and became Prime Minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer or Home Secretary. I did not know whether that was intended to be autobiographical or illustrative: whether that indicated the noble Earl's intention or not. For the rest of it, in regard to all the other matters that he mentioned, I do not see the House getting terribly excited about it. These cases will not be numerous. In fact, if we could handpick from the other side noble Lords who should disclaim, we might be very helpful in suggesting who they should be. I have a few in mind myself. But that privilege will not be accorded to us. I do not know what the intentions of the noble Earl are, but if he would like to tell me I will give way to him so that he can inform us of his intentions. But it was an extraordinary speech: partly biographical detail; partly imagining other sorts of cases; and partly other material as to the names people are going to be known by, and so on. The more I listened to him the more I became convinced that the purpose of the Amendment to drown the Peerage upon its being disclaimed was right. If the noble Earl had accepted
456
it, it might have saved him a lot of worry that I suspect has been keeping him awake at night—and I am very sorry about that because I think it is a good thing for the House and the nation that he should sleep well.
My Lords, I think this House has done very well on this Bill; I think the House of Commons also has done very well on this Bill, and, if I may say so, I think that on this occasion the Government have done very well, too. We cordially support this Third Reading, together with an indication of sympathy to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the unpleasant experience he went through and the humiliation which he has suffered. I would only utter this word of comfort to him: that if he has suffered, my Lords, he has suffered in a good cause.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I feel I must say a word or two in reply to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth. I have not felt humiliated during the passage of this Bill; nor have I suffered—at least, not to the same extent as during the course of the London Government Bill. With regard to the inquiry as to what may happen in another place in relation to this Bill, all I have done is to move that this Bill be now read a Third Time; and, after my experience in your Lordships' House, it would indeed be foolish of me to predict what might or might not happen in another place to an Amendment agreed to in this House.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

CONTRACTS OF EMPLOYMENT BILL
3.5 p.m.
Read 3a (according to Order) with the Amendments.
Clause 4 [Written particulars of terms of employment]:
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I apologise for bringing what is purely a drafting Amendment to your Lordships at this stage, but it is purely a drafting Amendment, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 3, at end insert—
("(11) The last foregoing subsection shall not affect the obligation to specify the date

457
when the employment began in a statement under subsection (1) of this section, but in such a statement given to an employee whose period of employment began before the date of the coming into force of this section, and is not less than five years, the obligation may be discharged by stating that the employee has been employed for not less than five years.").—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. In doing so, I do not intend to make a long speech, because we discussed this measure fully on Second Reading and had a most useful and interesting debate both on the Committee stage and on the Report stage. As a result of those discussions, a number of Amendments have been made which I believe will improve the Bill; but I am sorry that I have been unable to accept all the Amendments and suggestions which your Lordships have offered, and, in particular, a suggestion made by my noble friend Lord McCorquodale of Newton. However, I hope your Lordships will realise the position, and will feel that the points made have been thoroughly examined and discussed, and that I have sufficiently answered them in letters individually to those of your Lordships who raised them.
I would just say one word, if I may, about my noble friend's Amendment, since I suggested on Committee stage that it might be possible to find a form of words which would take care of his point. I have written to my noble friend about it, but the difficulty really is that, whatever we do, we raise great anomalies. There is the problem of the three waiting days; there is the problem of deciding what the appropriate single rate of benefit is; there is the problem of the married woman who may opt out of the National Insurance Scheme; and there are a number of other anomalies which I could mention. I suppose it would be possible to solve some of them, though not all; but I am told that, if one did, then one would end up with something so complicated as not really to be worth the candle, and something which would give little satisfaction to the employer. For these reasons it was not thought worth while to put down an Amendment, and I apologise to my noble friend for having failed to find a way of meeting his point.
458
I noticed this morning that a leading article in The Times describes this Bill as "a modest but useful measure". I think it is more than that. It is an important part of the Government's policy in labour matters, and, as such, I hope your Lordships will now pass it. I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Carrington.)
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, from this side of the House I should like to express gratitude, particularly on behalf of my noble friend Lord Shackleton and myself, for the courtesy of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and for the very detailed letters he has sent us on points which we raised during the Committee stage of this Bill. We do not agree with those points, but we appreciate the courtesy with which he put his point of view, and the fact that the letters arrived before this Third Reading, so that we were able to consider them.
He referred to The Times, and to its reference to this being a modest Bill. We let it go through with no enthusiasm whatever. So far as we on this side of the House are concerned, it is window dressing. It falls far short of the industrial charter which we heard so much about from the Tory Party well over ten years ago; and the plain fact is, as I mentioned on Second Reading, that there is not a trade union in this country dealing with a reasonable group of employers which has not got a far better agreement in regard to its workers than ever is provided in this Bill. The worst thing, from a trade union point of view, is that even many of those good employers, when in the future we go to negotiate with them the problems which are covered by this Bill, may refer to it and say, "That is the Government's minimum and, so far as we are concerned, it is the maximum". We let the Bill pass. It does not do any harm; it does not do any good—and there is still a long way to go before this Tory Government come up to their promise of a workers' charter which they talked about when they were in Opposition and when they first came to power in 1951.
3.10 p.m.
LORD McCORQUODALE OF NEWTON: My Lords, if I may keep your Lordships for a few minutes, I

459
should like to make a few further remarks about this Bill. I would join with the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, in paying tribute to the way in which, with a great deal of industry and trouble, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has met us over the detailed points. We, from this side of the House, appreciate it as well.
On Second Reading, both sides of your Lordships' House gave only a lukewarm welcome to this Bill; and I think that that is how the matter stands at the present time. I should certainly not oppose the Bill, because I am in favour of its objects. But I am quite sure that if the Ministry of Labour had followed their usual practice, and consulted fully with the employers and the Trades Union Congress before endeavouring to put the matter on paper, we should have had a Bill which would be comprehensive and one that could be understood by the ordinary layman. This Bill is so complicated in its wording as to be almost completely unintelligible to folks like myself.
I would add that I think that this is not the usual practice of the Ministry of Labour. In the past, under whatever Government, we have always found them most approachable on the details of measures they wish to bring forward. I trust that this slight aberration, if I may so call it, on their part will not be repeated. I have already urged, as I think others also have done, that once this Bill becomes law, and the Minister is prepared to put it into practice, it will be absolutely necessary for a "child's guide" to be compiled, so that both employers and workers know their obligations and rights under this measure. Certainly they will not find it very easy to discover them by reading the Bill as it stands to-day.
The Minister has referred to the fact that he was unable to accept an Amendment which I moved on the Committee stage and which I thought had the general acceptance of the House. This was to try to put right the anomaly whereby, under this measure, those working out their period of notice would do much better in regard to remuneration if they stayed at home sick than if they stayed at work. The Minister promised to look into this matter and, as he said, wrote
460
me a long letter explaining the difficulty of devising a form of words which would meet the point that the House raised without giving rise to even further anomalies. I am not sure that the difficulty could not be overcome; but I do not wish to press the point to-day; and I hope there will be very few cases in future of a man working out notice happening to fall sick.
I think it is a pity that the principle is established in this, and in other measures, that it pays a man better to go sick than to stay at work. I am sure that that is not a good principle. It ought not to be introduced into any Act of Parliament, and I hope that it will not be inserted in any other Acts in the future. I am not going to pursue the matter further this afternoon. I can only trust that this somewhat general measure, which I know is only part of a large scheme of things to the benefit of industrial relations generally in this country, will prove to be more important than we imagine.
On Question, Bill passed and returned to the Commons.

TELEVISION BILL
3.14 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 5 [Advertisements]:
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved to add to the clause:
"(6) In exercising its powers under this section it shall be the duty of the Authority to keep under constant review the amount of time given to advertising, and to ensure it is reduced to a minimum that is consistent with the proper performance by the programme contractors of their duties under this Act and the principal Act."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name and the names of my noble friends. I would ask the Committee to cast their minds back to the Government case when the Television Act, 1954, was

461
passed. I think it is right to say that their declared policy was, in the first instance, to provide an alternative television programme for the whole of the country; secondly, to break the monopoly of the B.B.C. and to place the service in the hands of private enterprise, with an element of competition; and, thirdly, that this should be done at no cost to the viewer, the revenue to come from advertising.
I do not believe that Parliament at that stage contemplated a private monopoly as now exists. Equally, I do not believe that this House contemplated that a television contractor who issued a 5s. share in 1957 would find that share, two years later, standing at 70s. 9d. That is the result of the decisions taken by Parliament and by the Authority. Nor do I believe that this House or Parliament ever contemplated that the very large profits that might arise should be siphoned off and used by the programme contractors for investment in projects quite different from television, such as bowling alleys, or even for providing the investment in television in such countries as Kenya and Canada. The revenue from advertising, as given by the Government, for the year 1963–64, will be in the region of £80 million. This is a cost borne by industry for advertising consumer articles on our commercial television. But, obviously, that amount is borne not by the viewers directly, as in the case of the B.B.C., but by the general consumer. I would suggest to the Committee that the present rate of spending on advertising has resulted in a very expensive service. I would hazard a guess that the cost of operating commercial television is in the region of £50 million a year. If one compares the commercial service and the B.B.C. one wonders why commercial television should cost £50 million a year when the B.B.C. cost is in the region of £18½ million.
I would suggest that when Parliament passed the 1954 Act it had in mind, as I said earlier, the provision of an alternative entertainment and educational television service. They had not contemplated it in the sense of a straight commercial operation. We believe that it would be possible to provide this service with a good deal less advertising than is at present shown on our commercial television.
462
In a struggling area at this stage it may well be possible—I would go so far as to say that it would be possible—for these companies to reduce their advertising time. What they require is a more remunerative type of advertising. In the main areas of London, the Midlands, South Wales and the North-East the profits that contractors are making are quite sufficient, even when the levy is taken into account, for a marked reduction in the amount of advertising. If that were done, it might well make it possible for the bigger advertising groups, like Hedley's, to be able to spend more of the money available for advertising with the smaller companies who really need this extra assistance. On the first day of our Committee stage I quoted the statement by Hedley's that, after paying for advertising with the "Big Four" and the main regional stations, there is little left over for the smaller contractors.
I should like to show that in certain areas it is not unreasonable to state that these companies could well reduce the amount of advertising time. First of all, I would draw the Committee's attention to T.W.W., Limited, which is a contractor for South Wales and West of England. This company was founded in 1957, with a capital of £62,401. Up to 1962, it accumulated in the profit and loss account £833,000. During that time, it has been able to pay out in dividends, on an average, 110 per cent. every year. In 1957, during its first year of operation, it had a loss of £70,000, but during the years 1959 to 1962 it has been making profits in the region of £1,200,000, on the original capital of £62,000. I would suggest that on those figures alone there is sufficient grounds for a marked reduction of advertising time.
I would also refer to a company in the North-East, Tyne and Tees Television, Limited. Like T.W.W., this company is a relative newcomer. It was formed in 1960, with a capital of £58,400. In 1960, its first year of operation, it was able to make £996,000 profit—working profit, it is fair to stress. In 1962 it made a profit of £1,179,000 on the capital of £58,400, and during that period it was able to capitalise £223,000 of undistributed profits. In 1960 it was able to declare a dividend of 450 per cent. In 1961 it did not do quite so well; it paid a dividend of 110 per cent. In 1962,

463
it paid a further 110 per cent. Considering the area, the capital involved and the profits, I think it is not unreasonable to suggest that within that area there could be a reduction in advertising time.
I would now refer to Associated Television, a company in which the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, is interested. It was formed in 1956, with a capital of £750,000. It has increased its capital, in some cases through capitalising its profits, until it now stands at £4,650,000. As the noble Earl said on the Second Reading, this company sustained some loss in its first years of operation—£362,000; but in 1959 its working profits had risen to £4 million; in 1961 to £6¾ million; in 1962 to £5,524,000. The average dividend which this company has paid has been 60 per cent., although during 1963 it has been reduced to 41¼ per cent.
All these three companies have been able to invest considerable sums of money in activities well outside the sphere of television. I would suggest that from these figures alone there is good reason to believe that these companies could voluntarily reduce the amount of time given to advertising. All the television contractors last year made a profit of approximately £23 million. But I think that it is fair to say that the bulk is made in the heavily populated areas—London, the Midlands, the North-East and South Wales. The main burden (shall I say?) of giving up advertising time would have to be borne by the major companies.
The position of the small struggling companies, about which we shall no doubt hear later this afternoon, could be much improved if the advertisers were able and willing to spread their advertising over the country instead of concentrating it, as they do, perhaps are forced to do, in the heavily populated areas. It is true that the Government propose a levy. Taking the suggestion of the Minister in another place, I would say that the three companies I have mentioned will all still be in a position from their heavy profits to effect the reduction which I am suggesting. Taking the levy into account, T.W.W. will still be making a profit of £900,000 on a new capital of £624,000; Tyne and Tees will be making a profit of £702,000 on a capital of £292,000; and Associated
464
Television a profit of about £3,300,000 on a capital of £4,650,000.
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, is the noble Lord talking about issued capital or about the capital employed in the business, because they are different things?
LORD SHEPHERD: I am talking about the issued capital.
LORD LLOYD: With great respect, I think that the noble Lord ought to discuss this in relation to the capital employed in the business, because that is really the standard by which these things should be judged.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, that is quite true if you argue that profits arise and dividends are made, not on the capital employed but on the capital that has been issued and subscribed. But the whole object of private business enterprise is the profit that can be made on the capital employed. I base my suggestion on my own figures. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, will produce his own later.
From the facts and figures I have been able to ascertain, I believe there is a clear case that these companies could well reduce the amount of advertising. The Government and the Authority, in consultation with the contractors, have themselves in recent years reduced the amount of time given to advertising. I think it is clear that there would be great advantages to the industry as a whole—and I suggest to the Committee that that is what we should be looking at to-day; the industry and the viewers as a whole throughout the country—and if we were able to effect a reduction in advertising time in the main areas, then much could be done to assist the smaller companies.
There is one other point in this matter. The Authority, with the agreement of the contractors, have progressively reduced advertising time. But for the first time the Government now become an interested party, because they will receive considerable revenue from the levy. It may well be that the Government will not be so anxious to persuade the Authority to reduce the amount of advertising time, because it might well result in a loss of revenue to the Exchequer. The Authority have had some difficulty in reducing the amount of advertising time in the past

465
few years. I think we should lay a duty upon the Authority, as was suggested in the Pilkington Committee's Report on page 228, where it recommends:
"That the Authority should, in particular, keep the maximum under constant review to see if it cannot be further reduced."
I think it is generally agreed throughout the country that something could, and should, be done about the reduction of advertising time. It may well be possible to get away from this disputed time—what is called the "natural break". I hope I have made out a case, and that the Government will be willing to accept the spirit and principle of this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 35, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Shepherd.)
THE EARL OF SWINTON: I ought first of all to say, as I said when I spoke originally on the Pilkington Report, that, though I am not a shareholder in any of these companies, I am a director of a company which owns shares in a television company. However, I do not think that has prevented me from giving, certainly on the occasion when I made my main speech, some advice, with which even the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, was in a large measure of agreement—and not for the first time, because we have done rather a lot together in cinemas and that sort of thing, not by making a profit, but by way of administration.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, as he always does, has argued his case in a persuasive manner, which, unless one looked at little below the surface, might seem rather more conclusive than I think it is. I should like to ask your Lordships to consider one or two of the results of the proposal put forward by the noble Lord. He has really based it almost entirely on the fact that some of the companies have made excessive profits. I certainly agree that, having initially made pretty large losses on a somewhat doubtful venture, they have made very large profits indeed. I do not know that I have always regarded it as a sin to make a profit. I have generally found that unprofitable bu3inesses were unsuccessful businesses and were not always the best to be connected with, either as a shareholder or as a worker. But I agree
466
that the profits should not be so large, and the Government have already taken steps in the Bill to deal with that. It may be argued—I am not going to argue it now—whether the best way of taking off an excess profit from a company is by putting a special levy upon its profit or by putting a levy upon its gross income, quite irrespective of the profit that may arise. But what the Committee have accepted is that there shall be this levy, and that is the way in which excess profits of the companies will be siphoned off.
But let it be observed what will happen if the Amendment is carried. In the first place, it would, I think, put an invidious and difficult task upon the Independent Television Authority. It would quite certainly, I agree, greatly reduce the profits of the companies; but in doing that, it would also greatly reduce the levy which the Government are hoping and intending to collect out of this, and which is going to be returned to the viewers in meal or malt. The net result, so far from benefiting the viewer, even in this matter, would probably be to make it more certain that the licence fee would have to go up.
But the matter does not stop there. Surely this idea that at any moment the I.T.A. might, and indeed would, be obliged to say to a programme contractor: "Well, I think you could do with a little less advertising time", would create a chronic uncertainty for every company. Do not forget that these companies must plan, not days or weeks but months ahead in their programmes, and still more in their developments. I have no doubt whatever that if this Amendment were carried it would make the companies a prey to uncertainty; they would go for uniformity; go for buying films which they knew they could get at a fixed price, and which they would put on and the viewer would have to "eat". It would discourage new ventures and reduce new opportunities of employment, both for actors and for authors; and I have no doubt at all that it would tend to reduce the quality of programmes.
I hope your Lordships will believe that I am sincere when I say this. I think it is necessary to have this Bill. But I am a little disappointed in it, and in so many of the speeches made in this matter, perhaps not entirely on

467
one side. I say this looking back on what I tried to do, and what the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth is carrying on now, for the cinema industry in this country, when I tried to re-create it—and, indeed, succeeded—when it was absolutely "down the drain". All the time one's idea was: how can we improve it? What worries me so much about what is being done to-day is that it is all restrictive. How ought we to cabin this company in this way? How many codes can we produce, in order to make quite sure that we do not have any sex or any violence; that we ban Treasure Island and we ban Macbeth? I do not know. But this does not seem to me to be the way to get not only more popular television but better television; to get experiments which, though they may lose quite a lot of money to start with, will eventually succeed—because I have a tremendous belief in the British public and in the taste of the British public. In time they will come to appreciate better television just as they came to appreciate good music.
I know the noble Lord's intentions are strictly honourable, but still they all seem to me to be tainted with this desire to crib and cabin, and not a desire to encourage novelty and development and to make television more exciting and worthwhile. I hope that, with that in mind, the Committee will consider very carefully before accepting an Amendment of this kind.
3.40 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: The noble Earl has really misunderstood the purpose of this Amendment. Indeed, I do not think he knows what is in the Bill already. This is nothing to do with codes. This is a small extension in a particular direction of a responsibility that is already laid on the I.T.A. It is a fact that the I.T.A. already have to fix the amount of advertisement. They already vary it, and in certain respects they have already reduced it without any visible signs of disaster to most of the programme contractors. I do not think the noble Earl need be so mournful about this. There are some people who like television advertising, and I think there are times when I like it better than some of the programmes.
468
But generally I should have thought that we are agreed it is something we put up with in order to have commercial television, which I should have preferred not to have. However, we have it now.
The I.T.A. have already done something to cut down the amount of advertising. There was criticism of the I.T.A. in the past for being too lax. When we look at the last Report of the Independent Television Authority we see they go into great detail as to how they set about organising advertising. There are a number of things they have done which are wholly good, such as cutting out advertisements in certain areas, and gradually reducing the total. But we are nervous about one aspect of the advertising levy, and the speech we have just heard makes it clear that it will be assumed that the Government now have a vested interest because of the revenue they will expect to receive from the advertising levy. We do not want the I.T.A. to be tempted or, indeed, pressed by the Government in order to provide revenue.
The Pilkington Report, about which on this matter I do not think anyone can complain, was fairly moderate. The Committee said merely that they hoped advertising would be controlled, and they hoped it would even be possible for it to be reduced. It is not possible to say what the right amount is. The I.T.A., in fixing the amount of time given to advertising in the programmes, have to decide whether it
"shall not be so great as to distract from the value of the programmes as a medium of information, education and entertainment."
They already have the job of forming that much more difficult judgment.
We are suggesting to them—and this again is a very moderately worded Amendment—that in arriving at the figure they should put it as low as possible; that it should be the minimum that is consistent with allowing the contractors to do the job. It may be that in the short term there is not much further reduction that can be made. In the future, when the second channel is started, it may even be necessary to increase it—I do not know. But, on the whole, we should like to keep it as little as possible consistent with carrying out the provisions of this legislation. This gives the I.T.A. a clear lead, and it will

469
give them a power to resist any pressure from any Government of the day to step up advertising as a means of revenue. I do not know that the Government would do it, but the speech we have just heard suggests that the Government will have a vested interest.
I think this is quite a modest Amendment. It is not designed to hurt people in the industry; it is designed merely to lay down a little more clearly what the responsibilities of the Authority are in this matter. I hope that the Government, even if they cannot accept this particular form of words, might consider another form. It may be that it should be dealt with in the Schedule, but on the principle that there should be a minimum, I am quite sure that this is something which should be written into the Bill.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: We all take some interest in the amount of Tv advertising. As the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has said, some people like it, perhaps occasionally even better than the programme into which it is inserted. The noble Lord is right in saying that nobody wants too much of it, but I do not think he is right in desiring that legislative provision should be made for reducing it to the barest possible minimum. I will try to remind your Lordships briefly of the attitude of the Government towards I.T.V. advertising. While I appreciate the noble Lord's purposes in moving this Amendment—and I also share with him the desire to prevent programmes from being adversely affected by too much advertising—I do not think this is a very good Amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has reminded your Lordships of the principle laid down which is copied from the Act of 1954. In this Bill it is in Schedule 1, paragraph 3:
"The amount of time given to advertising in the programmes shall not be so great as to detract from the value of the programmes as a medium of information, education and entertainment."
In spite of what the noble Lord has said, I still feel that this is an admirable definition, and I do not think it can be improved upon. I think it is much better than the change proposed by the Amendment. I agree with the first part of the Amendment, which says that the Authority ought
470
"to keep under constant review the amount of time given to advertising …".
The Authority must do it in any event. I do not agree that we should have an Act of Parliament to try to ensure that advertising is reduced to a minimum consistent with the proper performance of the duties of the programme contractors under this Act and the Principal Act. The programme contractors, of course, have not any duties under the Act. It is not spelled out that their duties consist of the contracts which they make with I.T.A., and it is I.T.A. who must judge whether they are fulfilling those duties or not. When I looked at this Amendment I thought at first its most obvious meaning was much the same as what is laid down in paragraph 3:
"the amount of time given to advertising … shall not be so great as to detract from the value of the programmes …"
That, I should have thought, is not very different (except that it is rather clearer) from saying that it ought to be reduced to a minimum consistent with the proper performance of what I take it to be the duties—it is not very well worded in the Amendment—of the programme contractors as arranged, not defined in the Act, with I.T.A. to produce the best possible type of programme. Of course, we do not want more advertisement than is necessary to ensure the best possible type of programme. But if we are going to put in the Bill, in addition to saying—because Lord Shepherd will agree with this definition in the Schedule—that advertising
"… shall not be so great as to detract from the value of the programme",
that
"it is reduced to a minimum …"
I think the I.T.A. might take it to mean that Parliament was requiring them to reduce the amount of advertising to a level below that which was necessary to enable programme contractors to produce the best type of programme for the benefit of the public. If it means that, it is bad; if it does not, I think it is unnecessary because it does not mean any more than is in the Bill already.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, concentrated mainly on the financial provision of the companies, arguing that because some of them were making, admittedly, large profits, they should therefore reduce their profits by cutting

471
down their advertising. But I cannot see the effects which he thought would follow from it. I think it is quite likely that if we were to cut down times allotted to advertising the rates would go up on account of scarcity value. The effect would be that the smaller advertisers might be squeezed out and the larger ones would have to pay more.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has already explained, and I think we are all agreed with him, that the I.T.A. ought to have concerned themselves with controlling advertising before. Up to now, as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, pointed out, they have done a good deal by voluntary agreement with the programme contractors to reduce the amount of time given to advertising, and I think I am right in saying they have practically eliminated advertising altogether from more serious drama, from art, documentary films, news features and so on. But the Government accept the recommendation in paragraph 228 from which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, quoted:
"We do not … think it desirable that the present or any other maximum or average should be prescribed in future legislation."
We think the Committee were quite right in saying that the average at present of six minutes is reasonable, and we accept the present rule of six minutes as a general average with a maximum of seven for any one hour. We think that the Authority should not hesitate to exercise the power to alter these figures if they think it is desirable, but we do not think it is right to enjoin on them as a desirable objective that the actual advertising time should be reduced.
I would remind your Lordships that the reductions which have taken place so far are voluntary, as a result of arrangements with the I.T.A. Now, in Clause 5 of this Bill, we are giving the Authority very great powers which they did not possess before to control the amount and the character of advertising and to impose requirements as to advertisements and methods of advertising, and they may give directions to a programme contractor in respect of times for advertisements which are to be allowed. Also, they may make different provision for different parts of the day, different days of the week, different types of programme or for other differing circumstances. And
472
we entirely agree that they should keep the question of advertising time constantly under review. I do not think there is very much difference between what our objectives are and the objectives of the movers of this Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said in his speech that it is not possible to say what is the right amount of time, and I think, having given these very wide powers to the Independent Television Authority, we must allow them reasonable latitude for deciding how they are going to be used.
I should like to refer to one more point arising out of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and to comment on what he thought was possible: that, since the levy was now being imposed, the Government might bring pressure to bear upon the I.T.A. and its programme contractors to increase the amount of advertising so that the Treasury would get more money. I do not think there is the slightest possibility of that. We are introducing this levy simply because we think it is the best and most convenient way of ensuring that the programme contractors pay a proper rental for the privileges which they are given under the law, and I can imagine nothing less likely than the I.T.A., which is carrying out these duties under the Act, seeking to increase the amount of advertising time in order to please the Government by raising more money. I think that the provision which I read to your Lordships in the Schedule is the right principle. I do not think it wants any addition. I think the Amendment, although it may be moved with the best of intentions, would detract from it and not improve it.
LORD SHEPHERD: We have a long way to go this afternoon to deal with the Amendments on the Order Paper and therefore I do not propose to argue with the noble Earl, because obviously he has his mind and we have ours. I sought to show that it would be possible for these companies themselves to reduce the advertising time. It is a fact that advertising time is continually being reduced—perhaps with objections from the contractors, but it is being reduced. We should like to see that reduction speeded up, and that is the purpose of this Amendment. Therefore, we will have to support this Amendment in the Lobby.
3.57 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 10) shall be agreed to?
Resolved in the negative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Committee and panel to advise on advertisements]:
LORD FRANCIS-WILLIAMS: This is a very small Amendment, but I think a useful one. Its object, as your Lordships will see, is simply to widen slightly the composition of the Committee which is set up and which at present is stated to be representative of the public as consumers. The only purpose of this Amendment is to make it representative of the public mainly as consumers. The idea behind it is that such a Committee could be made in some cases more effective if it included perhaps, for example, representatives of some of the big distributive firms or retail organisations who have an expert knowledge which they could bring to bear on seeing whether advertising claims made were excessive or not, and therefore they would be able to help in the effectiveness of the Committee. That is the only purpose of the Amendment, and I hope it is one which the Government feel they can accept. I beg to move.
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 27; Not-Contents, 48.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Henderson, L.

Rusholme, L.

Airedale, L.

Latham, L.

Samuel, V.

Airlie, E.

Lawson, L.

Shackleton, L.

Archibald, L.

Lindgren, L.

Shepherd, L. [Teller.]

Champion, L.

Listowel, E.

Silkin, L.

Crook, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Sinha, L.

Faringdon, L.

Meston, L.

Summerskill, B.

Francis-Williams, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Walston, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Ogmore, L.

Wise, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Glentanar, L.

Milverton, L.

Bessborough, E.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Monsell, V.

Bossom, L.

Grenfell, L.

Mountevans, L.

Carrington, L.

Hanworth, V.

Mountgarret, V.

Chelmer, L.

Harris, L.

Newton, L.

Chesham, L.

Hastings, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Conesford, L.

Horsbrugh, B.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Denham, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Sandwich, E.

Derwent, L.

Lambert, V.

Simonds, V.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Lloyd, L.

Soulbury, V.

Dudley, L.

Long, V.

Spens, L.

Dundee, E.

Lothian, M.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Eccles, L.

Lyle of Westbourne, L.

Swinton, E.

Ferrers, E.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Twining, L.

Forster of Harraby, L.

Mancroft, L.

Waleran, L.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Mills, V.

Windlesham, L.

Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 1, after second ("be") insert ("mainly").—(Lord Francis-Williams.)
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): I quite understand why the noble Lord has moved this Amendment and what he is driving at, and it is certainly something in principle with which we agree. However, apart altogether from principle, it raises a point of real difficulty; so much so that it does not seem to me entirely wise that we should incorporate what he has said in legislation. The point is this. Although it is a small Amendment in effect, and rather desirable, what is embodied in a Statute has to be carried out in the way that is written in the Statute. The difficulty arises out of this. In the past, the Advertising Advisory Committee was composed of about half of what we might loosely term advertising interests, but it is not now. It is now composed of twelve people, apart from the independent chairman, in the shape of four consumer representatives, four representatives concerned with medical advertising, who may be said to be representative of a limited section of consumers, and four people who are, again loosely, advertising interests.

475
It is a point of interpretation. If you consider the second section, who are representative of the British Medical Association, the British Dental Association, the Pharmaceutical Society and the Ministry of Health, should they be classed as consumer representation or not? If not, it would mean that to carry out the noble Lord's Amendment five further consumer representatives would have to be appointed. If, however, they are to be considered consumer representatives, there is nothing to worry about at the present time. My right honourable friend the Postmaster General has been in touch with the Authority on the question of strengthening the committee in this respect, and, as I said on Second Reading, Mr. D. T. Jack has now been appointed, and he is, of course, quite independent.
I would draw your Lordships' attention in this context to the assurance given in another place that it was the intention of the Authority that the chairman should always be independent, and I have put down an Amendment, which is the next one, to ensure that shall be so. While I agree that this is a matter that obviously ought to be kept under' review and watched, I think the Authority can be relied upon, in view of the present situation and the point the noble Lord has put forward, to watch it. After all, it is possible for my right honourable friend to have discussions with them on this matter if it seems to be getting out of hand. I think, on balance, while not rejecting the principle, we ought not to accept the Amendment.
LORD SHACKLETON: I rather share the views of my noble friend Lord Francis-Williams, that in principle this is a desirable Amendment. I do not expect he will feel so strongly at the moment that he would wish to take it to a Division, but it is useful to have a discussion on this particular clause. I am quite sure that there is no disagreement between the two sides of the Committee as to the objectives, and certainly this particular clause in the Bill is an improvement. It may sound a little ungenerous, when the Government have put in something which goes a little further than before, that we should ask them to go even further. We accept that there are difficulties, as we found over the British Museum Bill, in arriving at the exact
476
mathematical membership of particular bodies.
Although it is not wholly on the point of the Amendment, I should like to suggest—I echo the point of the noble Lord, Lord Francis-Williams—that this committee should be widely based and that professional interests of one kind or another may not feel quite so free as somebody who is completely independent. I should like to make a plea for some representation of the distributive trades. Perhaps I should declare an interest at this point as I am in the distributive trades myself. I think it would be agreed by all those who are familiar with retail trade that those who are leading the retail trade, and indeed most retail traders, whether they be private enterprise or co-operative, are heavily concerned with the maintenance of standards, and particularly with avoiding the embarrassment of false claims. It was pointed out in another place that one of the most effective members of the committee was Mr. Roger Diplock who was representing the Merchandise Marks Association or Committee.
I should like to think that there was always at least one representative, or possibly two, of those who are going to sell the goods that are advertised. Their interests will not necessarily be the same as those of the advertisers. We want to ensure that there is a really effective watch-dog committee. We think that in the setting up of a panel this clause improves things, but I hope that the Government will bear in mind some of the points that have been made on this matter to-day, and perhaps convey them to the Independent Television Authority.
LORD FRANCIS-WILLIAMS: I thank the noble Lord opposite for his expression of interest in this matter. I should certainly not wish to press it to a Division. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CHESHAM: This is the Amendment that I have just mentioned, put down to fulfil an undertaking given by my right honourable friend the Postmaster General in another place, that he would try to find a form of words to secure the independence from advertising of the Chairman of the Advertising

477
Advisory Committee. He said that if he could, he would table an Amendment later. He did; he could; he has, and this is it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 5, at end insert—
("(4) Before appointing a person to be the chairman of the said committee, the Authority shall satisfy themselves that that person—

(a) will have no financial or other interest in any advertising agency, and

(b) will have no such other financial or other interest in advertising as is in the opinion of the Authority likely to prejudice his independence as chairman;

and the Authority shall also satisfy themselves from time to time that the chairman of the said committee has no such interest as is described in paragraph (a) or (b) of this subsection.")—(Lord Chesham.)
LORD SHACKLETON: We welcome the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SHACKLETON LORD SHACKLETON moved, after subsection (6) to insert:
"(7) The Authority shall sufficiently set out the action taken under this section during the year in the Annual Report prepared in accordance with section 15 of the principal Act."
The noble Lord said: I rise to move Amendment No. 12 standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Francis-Williams and other noble Lords. This, too, is a small, though not unimportant, Amendment. It is to require the Authority to set out the precise action they take under Clause 6.
One of the difficulties that we have found in the past, in regard to discussing and keeping a watch on the operations of the I.T.A., has been that certain information has not always readily been available. Let me say straight away that the I.T.A. give a good deal of information, and in their most recent Report there is an interesting section on the control of advertising. But there have been times when not enough information has been given. Even if it could be argued that there has been, it is so important that the public and Parliament should know exactly what the Authority do under this clause, that we should like to make this a statutory obligation. I am quite sure that there is no difference between us on the desirability that they should report on their actions in this respect: the only possible argument is
478
whether it should be laid upon them as a specific duty, in the same way as are certain other matters that one might wish to be particularly dealt with in their Report. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 27, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Shackleton.)
LORD CHESHAM: I certainly do not propose to try to argue with the noble Lord that he is wrong in what he has put forward as the principle of this Amendment, other than querying the view that this should be made a statutory requirement. I do not so much query that as a question of principle as merely to say that it is not strictly necessary. The reason I say that is that under Section 15(4) of the 1954 Act my right honourable friend the Postmaster General already has the power to require the insertion in the Annual Reports of the Authority, if it is thought desirable or necessary, of the kind of material to which the Amendment refers. Since that power already exists, I do not think it is necessary to put more into the Statute than is there at present.
The noble Lord will probably wish to know that the Authority told my right honourable friend that they would regard it as a natural development to include in their Annual Reports from 1964 onwards, in view of their new powers, the more interesting aspects of their operations in regard to advertising. That, of course, will include medical advertising. The Reports would probably be in rather more general terms, because I do not think the Authority would regard it as part of their function to publish highly detailed and complicated information about their dealings with a great number of individual advertisers. I should have thought that, in view of the powers which my right honourable friend already has, by Statute, to require them to publish this kind of information in their Reports, we could perhaps leave it at that.
LORD SHACKLETON: I do not want to press this Amendment. I did not expect that the Government would accept it, and I am grateful for the Government's assurance. Perhaps I might ask that in the exercise of the powers under the Act details about the people concerned should be published. It would be helpful to know who are the members of these

479
committees. It may well be that they do publish this in their Reports—I apologise; and gather that they do. It would be interesting, at any rate, that they should describe again the sort of interests that are involved. There is no disagreement between us on the principle. I only repeat my feeling that we need to know as much as possible about this; and it is in the interests of the I.T.A., who have in the past complained that they have sometimes been rather harshly judged, that they should publish as much as possible. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7:
Rental payments by programme contractors.
7.—
(4) If the accounting period is a period of 12 months, the amount of the additional payments for the accounting period shall be that given by the following Table.

TABLE

RATES FOR A 12-MONTH PERIOD

Appropriate rate for determining amount of additional payment

For the first one-and-a-half million pounds of the advertising receipts of the programme contractor for the 12-month accounting period

Nil

For the next six million pounds of those advertising receipts

25 per cent.

For the amount by which those advertising receipts exceed the aggregate of the said sums of one-and-a-half million and six million pounds

45 per cent.

(7) The contracts between the Authority and the programme contractors—
(c) shall provide that where for any insertion of an advertisement a programme contractor receives or is entitled to an entire consideration not solely referable to that insertion the advertising receipts shall be calculated by reference to so much only of the consideration as is referable to that insertion according to an apportionment made in such manner as any such contract may provide,
and it shall be the duty of the Authority in framing the contracts with the various programme contractors to include such terms as
480
are in their opinion necessary or expedient to ensure that the amount of the additional payments required under this section are paid promptly and in full.
4.21 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: With the permission of the Committee, perhaps before we discuss the Amendments on this Clause it might be helpful if I were to make a short observation on all of them. It is not the business of either House of Parliament to defend the privileges of the other, and the last thing I should ever seek to do would be to spoil the fun which I am sure we shall have in discussing these Amendments. But I thought that it might be helpful to your Lordships if I made some inquiries about them, because although Amendments which infringe the financial privileges of another place have on occasion been accepted in another place, privilege being waived, but that has never been done in respect of Amendments which actually deal with the imposition or remission of taxation. The principle is set out in Erskine May, at page 813:
"The Commons, when they so wish, 'waive privilege' in individual cases, and accept amendments by the Lords, so long as they do not materially infringe the privileges of the Commons."
I thought that it would be helpful to your Lordships if I were to make such inquiries as are open to me to make about these Amendments on the Paper. It is my duty to advise your Lordships that all these twelve Amendments on this clause do materially infringe the financial privileges of another place and that, with the possible exception of No. 19, in no circumstances could privilege be waived in regard to any of them. I might have put it more emphatically, but I thought that it might be unseemly to anticipate what might happen in another place. I therefore thought it my duty to try to help your Lordships by indicating what might be expected. I hope that a good time will now be had by all in discussing these Amendments. I thought that it might perhaps save a good deal of disappointment later on if I were to give your Lordships this information before we proceed to deal with them.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: Is the noble Earl who is leading the House really right in this matter? Of course, I should

481
not dissent for a moment from the statement that we could not impose taxation, or interfere with taxation which had been imposed, but I understood that this was considered not to be taxation. If the imposition had been an excess profits levy, then (and this has been well known in the past) without doubt that would have been a tax. But is the noble Earl quite sure (I am not discussing the merits at all, but this is a very important point) that a levy of this kind is a tax? I should have thought that it was extremely arguable. I have not looked up the point, because I did not know that it was going to be taken, but there have been a number of cases where levies have been imposed on this or that industry. Are those taxes?
There are levies which have come before us in relation to the cotton industry in regard to research. Both the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, and I have been responsible for legislation which has involved levies of that kind. I have never heard it suggested that that was a tax which could not be discussed or amended here. In a number of cases an Affirmative Resolution is required to approve this kind of levy within industry. Such a Resolution must be brought before both Houses of Parliament. This levy upon these companies is not a general tax at all: It selects half a dozen people, and says: "These people are to pay this levy." I should have thought that it was stretching the terms of the Parliament Act, and the convention about these matters, very far to say that this was a matter of taxation with which this House could not interfere, and that the other place would be entitled to insist on its privilege and reject any Amendments which were made here. I should have thought that that was a very strong thing to say.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I do not want to take up much time, I am only doing my best to help your Lordships in this.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: I agree. If that is the position there is no need to discuss this, but I should have thought it was very doubtful that that was the position.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Under this Bill it is provided that the levy shall not belong to the I.T.A. but shall go into the Exchequer—which, I suppose, is not quite the same thing as in the
482
Potato Marketing Board or the cotton industry when levies are used for the purpose of helping the industry. My reason for not wishing to be dogmatic about this matter is that it might sound as if I was trying to say what ought to happen in the other place, which is the very last thing I want to do. All I want to do is not to mislead your Lordships' House.
If your Lordships like to take the risk of passing a whole lot of Amendments and having them all ignored on the grounds of privilege, then your Lordships are entitled to do so. All I am trying to do is to aid your Lordships in discussion and possibly preventing future disappointment.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: Is not the decisive provision in this Bill Clause 7(2) which says:
"The additional payments shall not form part of the revenue of the Authority and, when received by the Authority, shall be paid into the Exchequer of the United Kingdom or the Exchequer of Northern Ireland as provided by this section."?
If the money is never any part of the revenue of the Authority, and if it is paid into the Exchequer, by whatever name it is called it does appear to be a tax.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: If I may respectfully say so, from the point of view of common sense I think my noble friend Lord Douglas of Bar-loch has put a point which is worthy of consideration. In the end the judgment of this question, as to whether or not the Amendments involve privilege, will be the judgment of another place, and not of this House. My impression is that, unless the other place goes clean off the rails, the judgment of the House of Commons as the custodian of the national purse is final on these matters. As to what the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, said, I should have thought, especially in the light of the point raised by my noble friend Lord Douglas of Barloch behind me, that this might be called a levy but in principle, in practical effect, it is not much different from taxation. It has the result that the advertising revenues of the company will be diminished by the amount of the levy which will be paid into the Exchequer. To that extent I should have thought that it was a matter of

483
language, rather than of substance, as to whether or not it was taxation, and that the House of Commons would take the view that it was taxation.
I should like to be clear on the points that have been raised by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. I think he stated the case fairly, though perhaps I would state it with slightly more emphasis on the rights of this House than he has done. I have made inquiries and, as I understand it, this House can pass, if it is so minded, such Amendments as it wishes, even Amendments which pretty clearly involve privilege. I do not think there is anything in Standing Orders to stop it; and, of course, we have the advantage or disadvantage that we have no effective presiding officer. I must say that in my short experience here I have found it an advantage, and not a disadvantage. It is most useful now and again not to have an effective presiding officer, and one of the great things about this House is that it can behave itself notwithstanding that fact. But, while saying that, I think the House can pass such Amendments as it wishes. Nevertheless, especially on a Bill that came from the Commons, when it returns to another place it would be not merely the prerogative but the duty of Mr. Speaker to draw the attention of the Commons to Amendments which involved prima facie Commons privileges. Then it would be for the Commons to decide whether or not to insist upon their privilege, and there have been some few occasions when they have not so insisted.
On the other hand, I must say that it would not be wise for this House repeatedly and without a sense of responsibility to pass Amendments which clearly involved the privileges of the Commons, as I think a number of these Amendments do, because if we did that persistently and customarily we might not improve the relations between the two Houses. We might begin to get a bad name in another place, which would be unfortunate. I should not wish to deny any noble Lord the right of ventilating what he conceives to be an injustice or grievance—in fact, I ventilated one myself at any earlier stage—and I think it might be useful if we could have an opportunity to ventilate grievances. The Government could then reply and indicate whether or not in their
484
judgment they had administrative powers under the Bill wholly or partly to meet some of these criticisms, rather than that the House should pass Amendments in favour of particular commercial undertakings. It would be a pity if the House—I do not want to use the word "irresponsibly", but without due thought passed Amendments which clearly involved Commons privileges. Because, just as I am jealous of the rights of the House of Commons, I have now become jealous of the reputation of this House, and I should not like it to be such that the Commons began to think that we were being rather foolish and irresponsible.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, as a comparatively "new boy", and certainly as no constitutional lawyer, I hesitate to plunge into this—I will not call it controversy, but rather a discussion, except to say that if we accept the full thesis of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, I think we shall be getting into rather an extraordinary position. He said that it was absolutely useless for us, though we could discuss it, to pass any Amendment on this matter, because, as I understood him, it would inevitably be turned down in another place on the grounds of privilege. Therefore, the suggestion was really that we might just as well shut up shop on these twelve Amendments and go home. Is that really the case?
I quite accept—and I was deeply impressed by what the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, said—that nobody wants to go against the privileges of another place. Of course we do not. We know what the privileges are. But take my own Amendment, for instance. It was never voted on in the House of Commons. They never expressed a view on the Amendment I am putting forward here. It comes up here; there is perhaps a torrent of oratory; and a number of noble Lords say that they think it is a very good Amendment. It might even be that the Government agree—as I think some members of it do now—that it is a good Amendment and they would like to pass it. I gather from the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, however, that the Government are powerless. They may think that it is a very good Amendment, but they can do nothing at all. It goes back to another place and automatically the

485
Speaker takes his pen and says, "This is privilege. It is out." But why should that be? Why should the Government not communicate to the Speaker that they now think it is a good Amendment? Why should he not consult the House? It may be that most Members of another place would think it a good thing if the Government gave a lead. Why should not the Speaker say, "This is an exception"?
In my case the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, read out something about "anything which materially affects the privileges of another place". My Amendment would affect it to the extent of £10,000, out of a total of £18 million which the Government are going to get from this levy. Nobody can say that that materially affects the privileges of another place. In reasonable language they could not say that. Therefore, though the Constitution at the present moment may be so arbitrary as to be almost, on the face of it, unreasonable, why can we not change this by passing, if we like, some unexceptionable Amendment, which the Government may find it in their hearts to support, and then hope that the other place, in their wisdom, will not insist on their privilege? I cannot see why we should not do that. It seems to me the path of wisdom and I hope that the Government will agree.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: I think this is an important point and perhaps I might add a little more on it. I agree with a good deal that the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, has said. I must, I think, accept from the acting Leader of the House the position that this would be treated as a taxing Amendment. I ventured tentatively to express the same opinion and was frowned upon by a number of distinguished lawyers, who told me that I was talking great nonsense. I then withdrew my view, which has now been expressed so authoritatively by the Minister of State. I think the position is really this. It is true that there is nothing to prevent us from passing the Amendment. I have known, and have certainly accepted in leading the House, Amendments which are privileged Amendments. They then go to another place and the Speaker, if it be his view that an Amendment is privileged, draws the attention of that House to the fact that the Amendment passed by this House
486
is privileged. But with that he leaves it to the House to decide, and the House on some occasions, if it has rejected an Amendment, has insisted on its privilege.
I do not myself recall any case where this House has differed and sent the Amendment back. There is a slight delicacy about the business, because I think some form of words is used. It is rather like talking about sex, and the indelicate word "privilege" is not actually used in the reason for dissenting. But they can, on the other hand, accept it and pass it. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, if I might respectfully say so, is right that, if we passed a great many Amendments to this Bill on which the Speaker would almost certainly say to the House they were privileged, we should really get into the position of having tried to recast a taxing measure. On the other hand, there might be one particular matter on which it was felt that injustice had been done and perhaps that another place had not even fully considered the matter. Because, remember, it is not like a Finance Bill. It was not considered in Committee by the whole House; it went upstairs to a Committee, and then it had a day, I suppose, or half a day, in the House on Report; but only certain Amendments were selected for consideration. If one Amendment were made here which the House felt was reasonable and which, perhaps, appealed to the other place, then I do not think that the strictures of the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, would apply. But if we made a great many Amendments, then I think they would. I do not know whether I am in order in saying that, but it seems to me to be perhaps something which a pretty old Member of both Houses might be allowed to say.
4.41 p.m.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Might I make a suggestion, in all humility? I think we have now fairly fully discussed, and quite properly discussed, in an exploratory way, the procedure and the question of rights and privileges. I do not think there is much else to be said. Nevertheless, I feel that it would be just and equitable that noble Lords—even if I do not agree with them—should be able to say what they want to say about these problems. As a matter of fact, I raised a problem earlier, though

487
I have not put down an Amendment, partly because of my own regard for privilege and partly because there was not complete unanimity about it between my noble friends and myself; but I should like to raise the matter again with the object of getting a view from the Government.
Might I suggest this course? This series of Amendments on the Paper do, in my judgment, involve the question of Commons privilege. May I suggest that noble Lords forgo the right to move these Amendments but that, on the other hand, when we come to the Question, "Whether Clause 7 shall stand part?", then we should have a general discussion, in which the substance of these Amendments could be raised in speeches, and in which the Government, either by one Minister or by two Ministers, could reply, indicating their view of these problems, and whether or not, under the Bill, the Government or the Authority have any means of administration by words—not that the words are going necessarily to be inserted, but in order that they can be considered and solutions reached, if they wish to reach a solution. I feel that, instead of our involving ourselves in a discussion on these Amendments separately, it would be better if noble Lords would agree that they should not be moved but that we should have a general discussion on the Question, "Whether Clause 7 shall stand part?" I do not know whether the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, would find that course agreeable to Ministers or not.
LORD LLOYD: Before the noble Earl replies, I must say that I do not feel that that is an acceptable suggestion. I do not think most noble Lords who have put their names to these Amendments would agree to that for a moment. Nor, indeed, having been twenty years in this House, should I consider it in any way necessary. We frequently discuss Amendments which are privileged. We have not necessarily passed a great many, but we frequently discuss them; because, in point of fact, putting down individual Amendments on a very complicated financial clause of this kind provides a much easier peg on which to hang an argument than to have another Second Reading debate on the whole clause. My own feeling—and I say that as a very
488
humble Back Bencher—is that it is perfectly proper to discuss these Amendments. It is the easiest way of discussing the problems. We need not necessarily pass the Amendments, if the feeling of the Committee is that that would be a mistake. After all, this clause is the most important clause in the whole Bill: it is the guts of the whole thing. I do not think we can go through the Committee stage without discussing this clause; and I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will not insist on our having another Second Reading debate.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am grateful to your Lordships for the help you have given to me. In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, who quoted subsection (2) of Clause 7, that, in fact, was the subsection to which I had just referred. In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, I am most grateful for his suggestions, and I will certainly do my best, not only to listen to your Lordships but to make any statements on Government policy which may be helpful. To my noble friend Lord Lloyd, I would say that it so happens that, in dividing up this Bill between my noble friend Lord Chesham and myself, all the Amendments on this clause fell to me, so I am entirely at your Lordships' service, and will do whatever your Lordships indicate you would like me to do. I think, in view of what my noble friend Lord Lloyd has said, it would be better, obviously, if your Lordships were to speak to the Amendments one by one, and I will do my best—I will not say to give a satisfactory reply, but to make whatever statement on behalf of the Government that I can.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, who talked about my thesis, it really is not my thesis; it was all done by a thing called the Parliament Act, 1911, which was passed when we were all very young, and which most of us cannot remember. In reply to my noble friend Lord Swinton, we are always most grateful to hear his advice on these questions. The advice I have been given is that it is not a distinction between one or two Amendments on which privilege might be waived: it is a distinction between a material breach and an immaterial breach, which is not quite the same thing. Although, of course, it is not for me, or for any of us, to anticipate

489
what might happen, the advice I have received is that, even if the other place were to be unanimously convinced by the excellence of your Lordships' speeches that all these Amendments ought to be accepted, the only method by which they can give effect to this wonderful harmony would be by withdrawing this Bill and introducing a new Bill with a new financial Resolution. However, that is not a matter with which we need concern ourselves. I am trying only to help your Lordships in proceeding with our discussion.
LORD SHACKLETON: Before we leave that aspect, may I ask whether the noble Earl reckons that, when introducing new legislation, it would be possible to take action under the Finance Bill? I know it is too late this year, but presumably this is the sort of thing that might find its way into a Finance Bill. The second point which I might suggest to noble Lords is that there are parts of this clause which, I take it, are not privileged. I cannot see how Clause 7(1)(a) could possibly be privileged; and it may well be that noble Lords may find that, if they cannot get what they want to-day, they might be able to adjust certainly their Amendments to that paragraph, because this seems to me to have nothing to do with the Treasury, and ties in rather with the point which the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, was making—the analogy of a levy on a particular industry for that industry's purpose.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I think it would be better if we did not anticipate these points, but took them as they came.
4.48 p.m.
LORD ARCHIBALD: I am sure we are all very grateful to the noble Earl for the guidance he has given us on this matter, and particularly for an earlier remark, that he did not want "to spoil the fun", and that we should go ahead with our discussions. I am afraid that his guidance has rather spoilt the fun. It has, in effect, taken the sting out of the discussion. But, not being a constitutional lawyer, I did not attempt to intervene in the discussion as to what we might discuss or pass, but I am pretty certain we have a right to discuss these Amendments just as we discuss a Finance Bill—which, of course, we would never seek to amend.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: We shall be doing that to-morrow.
LORD ARCHIBALD: I am also flattered by the suggestion that there is a likelihood of these Amendments being passed by your Lordships' Committee, which I am bound to say is something which I had not anticipated. If they are not passed, then I take it that no trouble arises with another place.
Amendment No. 12A, which stands in my name and in that of my noble friend Lord Francis-Williams, is undoubtedly an extremely far-reaching Amendment. I think my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth suggested that this was an Amendment for the benefit of certain big commercial enterprises. I should like to start by assuring him that that is not the purpose of the Amendment in any way.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: I did not say that—not here, anyway. I may have said it somewhere else, but not here.
LORD ARCHIBALD: Yes; this afternoon. I think so, anyway; but we will look to-morrow. Whether the Amendment would have the effect of benefiting the programme contractors is not the point with which I am concerned. The purpose of this Amendment is to benefit three classes of people; the main class being the millions of television viewers; the second class being the people who are the producers of programmes, whether they be filmed or live or of any other types; and the third class, the makers of these programmes, the directors, writers, artistes, technicians, craftsmen—all the creative people who combine to make the programmes for the benefit of the viewers.
Earlier this afternoon, on the first Amendment, the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, made the suggestion that if there was any restriction in the amount of advertising, that would be bound to have harmful effects on the programmes because it would tend to make the programme contractors economise on the programmes to offset the loss of advertising. If that argument holds with regard to the type of restriction of advertising envisaged in the first Amendment, then I think it must apply with greater force to the levy proposals contained in Clause 7 and to which my Amendment relates.

491
Obviously, the first effect of this levy, if advertising revenue remains constant or even if it increases a little, will be that the programme contractors will first of all look at the most expensive programmes they put on to see to what extent that type of programme may be reduced in quality or quantity. I think that the most expensive programmes are probably the British films made specially for television. I do not mean the old films made for cinemas and resurrected to fill in time on television, but those made specifically for television exhibition. These would probably be the first category that would come under the economy axe. I am certain there will be an economy axe in the programme contractors' hands if the Bill goes through in its present form.
It may be argued that the quality of the programme is not determined by its cost. We have heard that argument before and it has a certain superficial truth about it. But, taking it by and large over the whole field of programming, I do not think that anyone would argue that if there is a substantial reduction in the amount that is spent on programmes there will not inevitably be also a falling-off in the quality of the programmes. It is entirely with a view to maintaining the quality of the programmes for the benefit of the viewers, the producers and the workers in the industry that this Amendment proposes that the amount certified by the Authority to have been spent on programmes should be a deduction before the application of the levy.
It has been suggested that if the whole of the cost of programmes is to be excluded, that leaves room for what I believe is called "a fiddle"; but I believe that as the Amendment is drawn it puts it in the hands of the Authority to certify that the programme costs have in fact been incurred. This, I think, reduces the possibility of "a fiddle" to something infinitesimal, if not ruling it out altogether. If this Amendment were acceptable I should have thought it would have been possible for the Postmaster General, under the provisions of subsection (6), to raise the percentage amounts of the levy so that a greater amount would be received by the Treasury than if the Amendment was
492
operated without that increase in the levy on the smaller amount to which it would apply. In view of the fact that this is perhaps purely an exercise with no practical outcome, I do not propose greatly to elaborate the arguments at this stage, but I will at least at this point beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, leave out lines 18 to 21 and insert—

("For such part of the advertising receipts of the programme contractor for the 12-month accounting period as amounts to a sum equal to the aggregate of all sums certified by the Authority as having been expended by the programme contractor in that period on revenue account in the provision of programmes (other than advertisements)

Nil

For the next one-and-a-half million pounds of those advertising receipts

Nil").

—(Lord Archibald.)
LORD FRANCIS-WILLIAMS: I rise to support my noble friend Lord Archibald, although we now know that we speak without the possibility of anything actually concrete flowing from what we say. Having taken part in a good many television discussions, the position is not a strange one to me. One does not expect anything very concrete to come from such discussion; but one hopes to sow a seed. My remarks in the circumstances are made in the hope that with the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, I may sow a seed which will perhaps flower at some future date. I am particularly concerned in this matter—as the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, said that he is—with trying to ensure that the level of programmes on television shall stand high and shall not deteriorate in any way because of the pressures that may be brought to bear to save money after the levy by not spending as much as formerly. I want to urge that more shall, if possible, be spent on programmes.
It is, of course, quite clearly the case that the value and attractiveness of a television programme cannot always be related to its cost. There are a number of extremely interesting and attractive television programmes which are very cheap to make. Indeed, I saw one the other night after we had finished and gone home from the first day's discussion of this Bill in Committee. When I switched on my television set—as I hope other noble Lords did—I had the great

493
pleasure of seeing my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth acting as a television reporter in a programme discussing the changes that have taken place in London in his lifetime. I thought he did a very good job indeed. In fact, if my noble friend wishes to start a new career as a television reporter, I should like to make him an offer right away. I do not imagine that that was a very expensive programme to make; although I hope my noble friend received an adequate fee for it. But, in a great many instances, if there are going to be good programmes, a very substantial amount of money has to be spent.
I should like to deal with the type of programme about which I know most, programmes of public affairs and information, in which it is frequently necessary to send camera teams and commentators across the world and to spend a great deal of money in order to get an adequate interpretation of what is going on in the world. Other programmes, made either at home or abroad, in which a great deal of new shooting has to be done are bound to be expensive. I think I ought to say here that, although it is sometimes said that Amendments such as this one are in some way an attempt to bolster up the unions who are somewhat restrictive, I believe it is worth pointing out that only in the last few weeks one of the strongest and most powerful unions in the television industry, the Association of Cinematograph, Television and Allied Technicians quite voluntarily substantially reduced the crewing and therefore the cost required for a number of these films in the past. Therefore, I do not think that it can be said that the unions, though they hope that something of this kind could be done, are seeking to look after only their own interests, any more than I believe that Equity, the actors' union, is thinking in those terms when it supports this new proposal.
One of the greatest assets of this country is the high quality of the acting ability which we have and which has shown itself on stages all over the world as well as on television and cinema screen. But that acting quality cannot be nurtured unless there are programmes in which it can have a chance to try itself. Even more important than all these is the necessity that the British point of view, the British interpretation of events,
494
should get some adequate showing on overseas screens, particularly on the screens which are more and more coming into existence in many underdeveloped countries. These countries cannot afford to pay any substantial amount for the television films they get.
The producing company with which I am associated, about which your Lordships will know because I have declared this interest before, are particularly anxious to get films dealing with public affairs, international affairs and current issues, on to the screens of underdeveloped countries because we believe that this is part of the important educational business which those interested in television ought to do. We are ready, as I know many television contractors are ready, to make films available to these small television companies in the underdeveloped countries at no more than a mere handling charge, the mere cost of making a copy of a film and getting it there. It is important that these screens should not be left open to nothing but American Westerns or, what is increasingly becoming the case, offerings from the Communist part of the world, which would give a very biased interpretation of how the world goes and of the motives of the West. Films should be offered to television centres of this kind, and I think it is in the national interest that they should be offered, but this cannot be done unless there is a domestic market which enables such films to be made.
The purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that television companies would have adequate resources to spend money on making good television films. I recognise that we have to accept the privileges of another place, but I hope that the point of view which my noble friend Lord Archibald and I have put on this suggestion will have a little weight and perhaps at some time produce some results.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I seem to have mislaid my OFFICIAL REPORT, from which I had intended to quote, but I think that on Second Reading both noble Lords advocated that an allowance for costs should be made before the levy was imposed: if I remember rightly, they suggested a procedure similar to that under Form C in the case of films. The Amendment which they have on the

495
Order Paper would allow all expenses to be deducted, including the cost of buying other films. As I work it out, the effect of this would be to reduce the total levy from £17 million to something like £3 million, and the profits of the contractors before tax would go up from £15 million to £29 million. If we were to restore the position by having the levy on the remaining profit, it would have to be at the rate of 150 per cent.
LORD FRANCIS-WILLIAMS: I do not want to interrupt habitually in what is inevitably a rather theoretical debate, but I should have thought, since the Amendment requires that the costs should be certified by the Authority, that the Authority, with all the experience they have, will be capable of seeing that nothing in the way of swollen programmes would be allowed and would keep them down to the actual bare costs. If they were kept down to the bare costs, they would not have anything like such an effect as the noble Earl suggests.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I have not suggested that the total costs which the Amendment proposes shall be exempt are exorbitant. They include not only the contractors' own costs, but also the cost of other programmes purchased from other sources. I think, from the noble Lord's speech, that what he intended the Amendment to do would be to deduct only the costs incurred by the contractors in producing the features themselves. In that case, it would not be quite such a heavy deduction: he would reduce the levy from £17 million to about £10·3 million, and the profits of contractors would go up from £15 million to £22 million.
I do not think the noble Lord will wish me to take up time to say more than that I appreciate his point and fully understand it. Perhaps there is one comment that I ought to make. We all want the programme contractors to have enough money to spend on the production of the best films, features and television, but it does not necessarily follow that the more money that is spent on a production, the better it is. The effect of encouraging people to spend more may make them more extravagant rather than more efficient. I appreciate what the noble Lord has in mind, but I think that the Government are right in believing that the
496
scale of the levy which we have written into the Bill will ensure that rentals paid by contractors after 1964—we hope they will be adequate and fair—should leave them with sufficient resources to provide first-class programmes and allow for reasonable profits. If that is not so, Clause 7 contains provision for altering the scale, should that prove to be desirable or necessary.
LORD SHACKLETON: I think that I ought to say that I am not in full agreement with my noble friends. We all appreciate the purpose behind their Amendment, and I have had anxiety expressed to me by some individual producers and others that the effect of this levy will be to make less money available for programmes. After reading most of the 270 columns of the Report of the Committee stage in another place on Clause 7, I feel that the Government have produced the best plan that they can at the moment. I have talked to others in the industry who are not too concerned about this.
Clearly, if the effect of this levy were such as my noble friends feared, it would defeat the purposes of the Government in regard to independent television, because we are seeking to get good independent television and to take away such surplus as seems right to get the profits obtained in the public domain, as we regard it, down to a reasonable level. I agree that, from a tax purist point of view, there are objectionable aspects of this type of tax, but it seems to me that we are likely to see new types of tax, anyway, especially if the National Economic Development Council continue their researches and recommendations in the way they are doing. After the Government have given this matter exhaustive consideration, and a number of my honourable and noble friends have also considered it, I feel that we should do better not to change the basis that exists, and I would recommend my noble friends not to press the Amendment.
LORD ARCHIBALD: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.11 p.m.
LORD LLOYD LORD LLOYD moved, in the Table in subsection (4), to leave out "25" and insert "20" [per cent.]. The noble Lord

497
said: Like noble Lords opposite, I feel equally somewhat frustrated, and like them, also, I feel it is right that these matters should be discussed in this Committee. I think there are great injustices in this clause and, like the noble Lord, Lord Francis-Williams, I hope that sooner or later the penny may drop with the Government and something may happen. Therefore, I make no apology for saying a word or two on the clause; and there is a series of Amendments, stillborn, but nevertheless on the Marshalled List, in the names of myself and my noble friend Lord Gladwyn. Since these Amendments are to some extent interconnected, perhaps it will save time if I say a word on the clause as a whole.
As I said on Second Reading, I do not think that discriminatory taxation of individual industries is a good thing; I think it is objectionable, in principle. While we all agree that these concessions have been much too valuable and that the companies must pay more in the future, it is a pity that the Government should have resorted to this particular method of getting the money. It could probably have been done in a better and more healthy way by competition. Failing that, I think a straight increase in the rental, based on past profits, would have been better; or, if you insist on having discriminatory taxation, I am convinced that the fair way to do it would be to have a tax on profits. I say that because of the widely differing circumstances of the companies in this industry.
I gather that the Postmaster General in another place rejected the tax on profits on the ground that it was open to evasion. I must confess that I could not follow his reasoning in this regard. I cannot see why this tax, if it were based on profits, would be any more open to evasion than the ordinary company tax on profits paid out already by the contractors and by every other company in the country—unless he thinks that contractors on television companies are more prone to tax evasion than other gentlemen in a similar position, in which case it would seem unfortunate that so many are Members of your Lordships' House. Looking around me, I cannot believe that he was justified in that view: your Lordships look extremely honest this afternoon. On that particular ground, I find it difficult to follow his mental processes.
But if I could not follow the mental processes of the Postmaster General, I can follow the demerits of this particular levy, which I think is a bad tax for three reasons. First, it works very unfairly between the companies. That was pointed out—not the financial implications of it, but the great difference between the working conditions and areas of the companies—quite admirably by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, the other day; and I was sorry the Government did not accept his Amendment, because I am convinced that something must be done sooner or later about these areas and about the conditions in which the companies operate. Therefore I think it works unfairly in that way. Secondly, a levy of this kind, based as it is on turnover, in a state of affairs when revenue, on the whole, looks fairly static and where overheads are undoubtedly going up, is very dangerous and might easily have the effect of putting this industry into a declining spiral of revenue to profits, which might be a bad thing. Finally, I think the levy is far too onerous.
I put down various Amendments, and other noble Lords have, too, to try to correct the anomalies created by this tax which arise owing to the different working conditions of the companies. Those I hope to advert to a little later. But the first two Amendments on the Marshalled List in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Gladwyn deal purely with the burden of the levy. In order to get an idea of this, one has to take a case, and I happened to take the case of Associated Television. I went to that company and asked them to supply me with certain facts, which they were good enough to do. I thought they were the best example for this reason: that they happen to be a company of a size comparable with the two biggest companies—namely, Granada and Associated Rediffusion—and they happen to be the only one of those three companies who operate in two different areas and, therefore, have a double lot of overheads. I think they are a particularly significant case, and I thought it would be interesting to see the effect that the levy would have had on this company if it had been applied in the year 1962–63.
These figures, which I may say have been supported by a firm of accountants

499
who are a household word in the City and completely reputable, are as follows. If the levy at the rates laid down in the Bill had been applied to the profits of Associated Television in the year 1962–63 those profits would have been reduced by 90 per cent., and the return on the capital employed in the company would have been 4 per cent. Here I should like to take up a point with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. It is the capital employed in the company which is the yardstick in all financial matters, not the issued capital, which really, with respect to the noble Lord, I do not think is very relevant. I think that 4 per cent. for any company, and above all a growth company, is a figure so ludicrously low that it is a very serious matter.
Again, in order to try to get a comparison over to your Lordships, I went into the figures vis-à-vis return on the capital employed in the business after depreciation, but before tax. I took the returns for other well-known companies in various industries at random. They are, in the motor industry, Jaguar Cars, 29 per cent.—against 4 per cent. for A.T.V.; in the rubber industry, Dunlop Rubber, 10·9 per cent.; in the oil industry, British Petroleum, 28·2 per cent.; in the electrical industry, Plessey, 23 per cent.; in stores, Marks and Spencer, 28·8 per cent. I have plenty more, but I think that gives your Lordships a fair idea. Where I work in the City I think it is generally regarded that for a normal, healthy company you would expect the earnings on the capital employed, before tax, to be around 20 per cent.
All I am saying to your Lordships is that I think the Government have really misjudged this position. They started off by letting these companies make far too much money. I believe they have now swung to the other extreme and are putting these companies into a serious financial position, with exactly the results about which the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, was speaking. I am quite sure that he is right. The first thing to go will be film making, which is very expensive in capital, and which is a very good export. I know of one company which, since it started operations, has brought in no less than 12 million dollars in foreign
500
exchange, and £1½ million from the Eastern Hemisphere.
Is this really necessary? The Postmaster General seems to have a fixation about this figure of £18 million. I must confess I do not understand the £18 million. This seems to be a figure which is quite arbitrary, which has been picked out as what has to be extracted from the industry by hook or by crook. It does not seem to have any relation to the future development of the industry, or to what the industry can stand. In another place, the Postmaster General has throughout stuck to this figure. If he gave away in one direction, he took it back in another, so that he got his £18 million. I would be grateful if my noble friend who is to reply could give us some explanation as to the crucial importance of this figure of £18 million. Why not £14 million, £24 million, £30 million or £5 million? I do not know. Perhaps the noble Earl could tell us.
This is very serious for the industry. I am not suggesting that there should not be additional taxes, but I do not think it is right at this stage to tax these companies at this rate. This is the effect on one company as it will be on other companies, though possibly not quite so bad, because it so happens that the overheads of Associated Television are a great deal more expensive than the others. They have to work seven days a week instead of five to get the same revenue, and they have to pay ten days' wages because you cannot employ people for the week-end without paying double wages. I think that is all I need to say. I am sorry if I have delayed your Lordships. These two Amendments go together, and I imagine that the noble Earl will deal with them together. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 23, leave out ("25") and insert ("20").—(Lord Lloyd.)
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I had not intended to say anything on this Amendment, and I would not have done so but for one remark which fell from my noble friend Lord Lloyd; that is, the possibility that by the levy the Independent Television Company's power to earn foreign exchange through exports might be that much reduced. I am bound to say that I had not realised that angle of the problem at all. I rise only to say

501
that (this point will probably come out to-morrow in the debate on the Finance Bill, or I hope it will) this is the last moment when we should do anything to jeopardise the earning of foreign exchange by any industry in this country which can possibly earn it.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Lloyd should seek to use me as a slot machine, although I am afraid I cannot hold out much hope that this particular penny is likely to drop in the near future. The present scale proposed in the Bill is a result of long and careful thought which the Government believe would ensure payment of rentals by companies after 1964 which will be adequate and fair. Some of your Lordships may think we have over-estimated the amount which should be charged, and others of your Lordships have suggested that the profits are much too high so that advertisement could be reduced without affecting them.
I do not think I could give any scientific justification, for which my noble friend asked, for the figure of £18 million, and I would remind him and all your Lordships, that there is provision in this clause for adjustments to be made. We quite appreciate that increasing costs in future might alter the basis on which these calculations have been made. I think I should point out to your Lordships that if these proposals which my noble friend has made were to be accepted on the basis of estimates of advertising expenditure which have been furnished to us by the advertising profession, the effect would be to reduce the yield of the levy for the year 1964–65 by about £4½ million, with a corresponding increase in the total profits of the programme companies, before tax, to some £19½ million. Moreover, the great bulk of this benefit would accrue to the four major companies.
As I said in reply to previous Amendments, and on Second Reading, we cannot accept that this state of affairs would provide adequate rentals for the valuable public concessions which the contractors will enjoy. For that reason I cannot at present say anything about the possibility of accepting the proposals which my noble friend has made. But I assure him that the Government will keep a close eye on this point, particularly in view of the possibility of increasing costs, and that my right honourable
502
friend is ready, if he thinks it necessary and desirable, to use the powers which are given him under subsection (6).
May I conclude by reminding my noble friend that the television advertising duty is being remitted, which makes the return of the capital employed distinctly larger than it would otherwise have been? This duty is, of course, small compared with the new levy, but it is in some ways a less justifiable impost. I thank my noble friend for his interesting figures which, in spite of the academic discussion we are having, I assure him will be seriously considered by my right honourable friend.
LORD LLOYD: I am grateful to the noble Earl for his reply. I confess that I wish he could have told me whether he thought a 4 per cent. return on capital before tax was the sort of thing he would contemplate in any company with which he was associated. I wish he could have told me the significance of the £18 million, about which I am still completely at sea. He mentioned the question of the television advertising duty. I have no doubt he will be aware that this is a matter on which varying opinions are held as to how much of that will come back to the companies. In any case, if it did come back, it would be taxed at the top rate, so that the amount of extra money the companies would get out of it would not be very great.
Before withdrawing the Amendment I should like to draw the noble Earl's attention to a document which has just been put in my hand. It is the OFFICIAL REPORT of Standing Committee B in another place. In column 703 at the bottom of the page the Postmaster General said:
"I make perfectly clear at the outset that the proposed levy is not a tax."
I do not know whether that would alter our earlier discussion in any way, but I will hand the noble Earl a copy of the Report. I do not know what he will feel about that. Either the noble Earl is right and the Postmaster General is wrong, or vice versa. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.30 p.m.
LORD GLADWYN LORD GLADWYN moved, after subsection (4) to insert:
"() If the advertising receipts for the 12-month accounting period do not exceed two-and-a-half million pounds no payments shall

503
be due from the programme contractor for the accounting period:
"Provided that the amount payable under the levy shall not exceed the amount by which advertising revenue exceeds two and a half million pounds."
The noble Lord said: In moving the Amendment which stands in my name alone, I have to declare no interest except that I am an inhabitant of East Anglia and a fervent admirer of Anglia Television. In respect of the other Amenments which stand in my name and in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, I have to declare a certain indirect interest since I am a director of the merchant banking house of S. G. Warburg & Company, who are one of the financial advisers to A.T.V. Since that Amendment has been withdrawn, that fact is perhaps not particularly relevant, but I thought I ought to declare it. May I say at this point that while I am entirely conscious of some of the failures of Independent Television and I am, of course, wholeheartedly in favour of curbing the admittedly excessive profits which have been made, there were many things in the Pilkington Report with which I profoundly, and perhaps temperamentally, disagreed. In principle, I am still firmly on the side of Independent Television, and I think, by and large, it has done a good job in improving the general liveliness of our programmes. I am sure of that.
The Amendment of which I now urge the adoption is designed to cover what undoubtedly this Bill has, in fact, created as a special case, namely, that of Anglia Television, and, of course, the case of other companies who may come into the same category if there is any redistribution of areas made by the Independent Television Authority next year. As your Lordships are aware, the Independent Television companies are divided into three groups. There are, so to speak, three divisions: in the first division are the four major companies; in the second division are the large regional companies; and in the third division are the small regional companies. The proposed levy now exempts the third division altogether. It hits the major companies pretty hard; but if certain, as I think, manifest injustices which were referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, were corrected I think that they
504
would be, by and large, in a position to take it. But it discriminates atrociously between the large regional companies in the so-called "second division". There is no doubt about that.
Anglia's installation and expenditure—that is to say, its general overheads—are similar to those of such companies as Tyne Tees or Scottish Television, but, unfortunately, and it is not its fault but it is a fact, owing to its scattered population and the absence of what are called large conurbations, its revenue is barely half that of those companies, both of which, as we all know and as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, are still likely, if this Bill comes into effect and the levy is applied, to make profits in the neighbourhood of £800,000 to £900,000.
Nevertheless, Anglia has a record which is second to none (this is not disputed) in the quality of production. It has produced a large number of admirable and socially-desirable plays which have been taken by the network, and its nature programmes, as noble Lords probably know, have had enormous success and have been sold all over the world, notably in Europe, the Commonwealth and America. It has contributed largely and handsomely to the University of East Anglia in Norwich. Its directors are prominent and respected local figures. It is extremely popular regionally and it would be a real tragedy to our community in East Anglia if it had to cut down on the excellence of its productions.
These facts have been recognised by the Postmaster General who, on June 24 last, in another place said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 679 (No. 132), col. 992]:
"To that extent, therefore, it is true that Anglia falls between two stools. It is also true that Anglia's performance in the production of things like serious drama has been extremely good and has been better than most of the regional companies. The company deserves good marks for this. It is indeed an extremely good television contractor."
In column 956 he said:
"Naturally, the increase in the amount of the free slice will work to the advantage of all the companies whatever their circumstances and whatever their size, but, in proportion, it is bound to confer the greatest benefit on the smaller companies not already exempted by the original free slice, and"—
the P.M.G. added—
"the middle group of companies will be assisted to a greater extent than the larger companies",

505
which is true with the sole exception of Anglia.
Why is Anglia so much more unfavourably affected by the present levy than, for instance, Tyne Tees Television? Here I must, I fear, give a few figures. I hope I will not bore your Lordships and I shall try to make them as clear as possible for your Lordships' benefit. The net advertising receipts for 1964–65 are, in Anglia's careful estimation, likely to be in the neighbourhood of £2,140,900. That is, if we assume that the entire television advertising duty—which, as your Lordships are aware, is now applicable but which will be abolished when the present Bill becomes law—is "recovered". That is to say, the advertisers will pay for more advertising to cover what they now pay in the way of tax; which is of course, on the face of it, most highly unlikely. If, however, we assume that only half this duty will be "recovered", as the phrase goes—and it is a fact that the Postmaster General has worked on a 50 per cent. recovery basis for the rest of the industry—then receipts of Anglia in 1964–65 are likely to be in the neighbourhood of only £2,041,450.
The expenditure of Anglia during this period is, of course, conjectural, but its own estimate of £1,859,000 seems on the face of it to be a reasonable one. It has been proved by all kinds of experts, accountants and everybody, and up to now it really was not, I think, seriously questioned. But it now seems that the Postmaster General is insisting that expenditure on only £1,780,000 will be incurred during 1964–65, apparently on the quite uncertain assumption that the I.T.A. would make a substantial reduction in its present rental. He seems to assume that, but he does not know whether it will or not. Therefore, if we assume that only 50 per cent. of the advertising duty will be recovered we are left with a profit on Anglia's showing of only £182,450, of which, unless something is done, the levy will account for £135,362, leaving only £47,088 as profit, which, together with income from other sources of about £54,000, will make a grand total of just over £101,088, of which about half, as your Lordships are well aware, goes in taxes.
In fact, we reach the lamentable result that, in all probability, Anglia during the first year of operation under the new Act
506
will be earning before tax only 5 per cent. of its total revenue, which compares with the Postmaster General's figure given in another place of 21·5 per cent. for the rest of the industry. He said that he considered that was a reasonable rate to work on for the rest of the industry. Moreover, it is not at all unlikely that even this may prove optimistic. Even if one accepts 100 per cent. recovery of the television duty it only requires the revenue to fall marginally by 5 per cent. and expenditure to rise by 5 per cent. for Anglia to be actually in the red. Let us see what the Postmaster General said on this point in another place on April 25. He said:
"It is not part of our intention to take an unreasonable amount away from the companies. Obviously, they must be left with adequate funds to enable them to produce high-class programmes and to earn reasonable profits. We have included in the new clause a provision which will enable Parliament to ensure that they make satisfactory margins."
A little later on, on May 7, he said:
"Secondly, I am quite certain that both sides also agree that the rentals should not be pitched so high that any of the companies are left with insufficient revenue to enable them to provide good programmes of the quality that the public is entitled Ito expect and, at the same time, to leave them with a reasonable margin of profit. It is also common-ground, I think, that Independent Television should have a secure and permanent place in our society and that canot be ensured if companies are starved of funds".
That is what he said. I suggest, with the greatest respect, that this admirable declaration of principle would in no way apply to what is perhaps the most deserving of all Independent Television companies if the Bill goes through in an unamended state.
I know that no absolutely conclusive argument can be based on figures which are, after all, only estimates. I believe, for instance, that the Postmaster General not only maintains that the advertising tax will be fully recovered, which as I said really seems to be out of the question, but also seems to want to add a growth factor, as he calls it, which may apply in industrial districts but certainly not in East Anglia; and if he applies that the revenue will be, according to him, £60,000 more than Anglia agrees. The important point is that, even if advertising receipts unexpectedly expand, even if expenditure does not increase, as the Postmaster General thinks

507
it may not, to the entire extent foreseen, and the whole of the advertising tax is recovered, all of which are unlikely, even then Anglia would make a profit of only £302,000 in 1964–65 (this is the Postmaster General's own optimistic estimate), which is only 14 per cent. of turnover, as opposed to 21·5 per cent., which the Postmaster General maintains is desirable for the rest of the industry.
As against this, the Anglia estimates, which are neither too cautious, I think, nor too optimistic, but simply objective—they were considered carefully by accountants, financial advisers and heads of departments and the Board—clearly indicate a lower limit of profits representing only 5 per cent. before tax on revenue, and a maximum, if things go extremely well, of 8·2 per cent. Anybody can, of course, be wrong in making forecasts and assumptions like that, but if the Postmaster General proves to be wrong East Anglia will have to bear the responsibility.
Therefore, the Amendment has two purposes. The first is to provide a sort of safety net for progressive companies who exceed the free slice by a small margin. That is the case with Anglia. The second, as your Lordships will see, is to smooth the passage of an expanding company from a revenue of £1·5 million to £3 million a year without it being severely penalised at the lower level. This is the effect of the second paragraph of my Amendment, which, if your Lordships will put a wet towel round your heads for a second, you will see avoids the horrible situation which would arise if only the first paragraph were approved. If Anglia's revenue, in fact, came to £2·5 million and £1 it would be stung for 25 per cent. levy on just over £1 million, which is not the intended effect of the Amendment! The effect of the second paragraph is that there will be a sliding scale which will involve payment of no duty up to £2½ million and thereafter at a rate starting with £100,000 on £2,600,000 and ending with £350,000 on £2·9 million, after which the levy would apply as suggested in the Bill.
The Postmaster General has implied that Anglia's position, which he agrees is unique at the present time, may be alleviated by various measures which could perhaps be taken at a later date. The
508
Independent Television Authority, for instance, might reduce the rental or it could in theory increase the area, a solution made by various members of the Opposition, or there could be some other special treatment, either by the Postmaster General or the Authority. Unfortunately, when it becomes pretty clear that Anglia's position is such that some reduction of rental is absolutely essential the damage will really have been done. Programme planning in terms of staffs and organisation and equipment is a long-term thing, and you cannot deal with that in retrospect; you have to take a decision now whether to employ next year all those characters, have special programmes and so on, or whether to sack them on a balance of probabilities. You cannot just hope something will turn up and keep them on.
Nor can reduction of rental make any very great difference really, since it obviously on The best hypothesis could not be more than £50,000; they pay £200,000 now. The Authority could not really reduce it more than that unless it was going to get in terrible trouble with other companies. No responsible company can enter into long-term arrangements with the staff unless it has a reasonable prospect of employing them and satisfying the shareholders. As for increased area, this would still need long negotiations in which many other interests would be involved. Anglia's area is now quite large, almost as large as any other; and it seems unlikely to result in solution of any real difficulty, even if it could be arranged in time.
There is a further solution which has been suggested, and that is application of Clause 7(6), which reads:
"The Postmaster General may with the approval of the Treasury, and after consultation with the Authority, by order amend subsection (4)"—
that is to say, the rate of levy—
"… by increasing or reducing any rate, or the number of different rates, or the amount to which any rate applies".
Therefore, under this clause the Postmaster General obviously has a right, after consultation with the Authority and with the approval of the Treasury, to say "All right, Anglia, we agree you are in a special position and we think there should be a free slice of £ ½ million for you". The Postmaster General could do that if he wanted to do it.
If we could get some slight assurance from the Government that this was the sort of thing that might happen, that the Government would, in view of the facts I have given, which I think are indisputable, really seriously consider increasing the free slice to £2½ million, shall we say next spring when Anglia's revenues can be ascertained for the last financial year; if there is some assurance that would be done in the name of obvious justice, I would not suggest that yin the present clearly unfavourable climate my Amendment would be pressed. But I think that unless something like that is done, then the treatment of Anglia is extremely unjust.
I would therefore earnestly beg the Government to reconsider their attitude as regards Anglia and to accent the Amendment, or to give the kind of assurance which is needed. I would resume my arguments for this course as follows. There is no basic change under this Amendment in the operation of Clause 7. There would be virtually no loss at all to the Treasury. Out of the £18 million required by the Government from the levy only about 150,000 would be lost—absolutely "chicken feed""—if that. Moreover excessive profits could never be made by Anglia because, if a company's turnover rose to £2½ million it would, as I have tried to explain to your Lordships, under this Amendment, become eligible for the levy on a sliding scale basis.
But the chief point of my argument—and this is the burden of my song—is that the acceptance of this Amendment, or the provision of some kind of assurance by the Government, will ensure that Anglia, and indeed I think any other small company or smallish company in the future, could continue to pursue a quality programme policy. In East Anglia we are deeply apprehensive lest our admirable local effort should have to be cut down on these quality productions, or lest they should even perhaps cease their admirable contributions to the network and stop their native programmes, which are so popular and which do cost quite a lot of money, as we all know; lest we should, in other words, suffer a marked deterioration of the programmes to which many people in East Anglia look forward every evening. I confess I cannot see why a
510
sort of slavish adherence to what appears to be an arbitrary rule—this blunt instrument which is now being applied, regardless of anything else, in the form of a levy—should be thought to be essential, when for a really trifling sum the excellent service of Anglia can be assured, to the benefit of the community as a whole, to the detriment of no other company, and with no suggestion that anything resembling excess profits would ever be made.
The only conceivable reason I have been able to discover for resisting this Amendment is that if it were passed some kind of exception would be made. I do not quite know what sort of exception could possibly be made. If the principle of a sliding levy in the initial stages were conceded, this would be only a right and just means of tempering the Government's blunt instrument. It would not necessarily be for Anglia only. Any company which might emerge from the redistribution of contracts made by the I.T.A. might come into this category, too. In any case, because a law establishes what is patently an injustice it is really a dreadful thing to assert that this injustice cannot be rectified because if it were rectified a precedent would be created. Therefore, I earnestly beg the Government to give us the assurance for which I ask, or else I would ask your Lordships to vote on the Amendment which I now move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 27, at end insert the said subsection and proviso.—(Lord Gladwyn.)
5.52 p.m.
LORD WALERAN: If I may just add a little to what my noble friend Lord Gladwyn has said, I should like to support him in every way on this Amendment. I have no interest to declare, but as the noble Lord, Lord Francis-Williams, has said, Anglia has done a wonderful job with its programmes; and for that reason it should be supported. Everyone in this House wants better programmes. I would ask the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, who is to reply for Her Majesty's Government, whether he would answer the question put to him by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd: that if the Postmaster General has categorically said that it is not a tax, then surely we are entirely in order in presenting the Amendment.

511
If by any chance it should be a tax—and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, could help us in this—surely it is a matter of tacking a financial provision to a Bill sent to your Lordships' House; and that is a matter of privilege for us. Perhaps this point should be considered, because I seem to remember that on at least two occasions we have raised this matter of tacking a financial provision on to a Bill sent from another place, which is a matter of privilege for us. I hope your Lordships will take the view that, as a matter of justice, we should support Anglia in this matter. I think they are being unfairly treated, and as the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition said in his remarks during the Peerage Bill this afternoon, how right it is for your Lordships' House to take a broad-minded view when it is a matter of justice!
LORD EVERSHED: May I add my warm support to the Amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Gladwyn? My reason for supporting him is because, like him, I am a resident in East Anglia, and I hope your Lordships will agree with me that this part of the country has a superiority in certain respects, at least over other parts of the country even North of the Tweed. For one thing the figures for criminal prosecutions are very much lower in East Anglia than in other parts of the country—but perhaps that is by the way.
The real point is that East Anglia is, and remains, substantially country. That has two effects. First, because there are no dense centres of population the Anglia Television Company has not the same resources in income as other companies which are comparable in other respects. Second, as has been said, it provides exceptional programmes. It won the only major award ever won by Britain at an international television festival for a programme on Anglia wild life. I submit to your Lordships that it would be a tragic thing in these days if an organisation providing that kind of viewing were to be put at risk. As the noble Lord has said, as things stand it will be put at risk: there cannot be any doubt of that. Therefore, I am saying nothing controversial because, as the Postmaster General has said in another place, Anglia Television falls between two stools. He also
512
was good enough to fix an appropriate stamp to the company by saying that its performances deserved the greatest credit. Therefore, I submit that it would not be right, simply in order to have a tidy rule, to commit a real injustice which would be harmful to the nation.
LORD LLOYD: I should like briefly to support my noble friend. Quite enough has been said, and I do not wish to detain your Lordships, except to point out once again that had we had a tax on profit none of this discussion would have been necessary.
LORD STRABOLGI: I should like to support what the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, said in so ably moving the Amendment. I feel that a word of support should come from this side of the House, because I think he has put forward a very strong case indeed. Like other noble Lords who have spoken, I have no financial interest in this matter, although I have a great affection for East Anglia. I was at school there and I have ever since taken a great interest in that part of England. It would be tragic, in my view, if this television company were either so crippled that it had to go out of business, or had to go out of business because of the particular levy.
As the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, has said, this levy is a most extraordinary form of taxation. It should, of course, be a tax on profit, in the same way as every other form of business is taxed, and not a tax on income receipts. But it is in the Bill, and we have to make the best of it. The other point on which I would comment is the rigid attitude adopted by the Government. If I may say so with respect, surely there are exceptions to every rule. One must not be too rigid. I think it is one of our drawbacks in financial thinking that we are often too rigid; in order to be fair all round, we often hurt and ruin businesses where quite justifiable exceptions could be made.
As noble Lords have said, Anglia Television is a marginal case: it falls between the two stools. I understand that the levy figures are based on the kind of receipts coming in to the large television companies, and take no account of the rather knife-edged balance sheet on which Anglia could

513
be working. Indeed, I understand that if receipts fell by only 5 per cent.—which would be quite possible with a trade recession, if there was not so much money spent on advertising (I worked in advertising and I know something about these matters)—and their expenditure also rose (which again is perfectly possible, as all of us in this House know, with rising inflation every month), it would be quite possible for Anglia to be in the red. We should then arrive at the extraordinary situation that their profits before the levy might be £136,000, whereas the levy itself would amount to £139,000. That, I submit, is an absolutely intolerable situation. I realise, as the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, has pointed out, that there are certain provisions in the Bill; but if the Committee do not receive adequate assurances from the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. I greatly hope that the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, will press this matter to a Division.
LORD MANCROFT: I think that the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, has made a strong case. I have no interest to declare in this matter, like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Evershed, and the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, except that I happen to be an East Anglian; and since on Anglia Television recently it was announced that the Church of St. Peter Mancroft was, in their opinion, the handsomest Parish Church in England, I thought perhaps I might take this opportunity to return the compliment. I have listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, and to the case that he has deployed, and I know that that case has been widely supported throughout the whole of East Anglia. There may be some other points that have not been mentioned in the debate and which the Government will now deploy. If that is so I hope they will be strong points, because at the moment, so far as I can see, the case in favour of Lord Gladwyn is very strong indeed.
LORD SHACKLETON: May I intervene to support the Government? I think we ought to get one thing out of the way—namely, the question as to whether this is outside the Commons' privilege. Whatever the Postmaster General said in Committee in another place, it is quite clear, from the context of this matter,
514
that it is a form of revenue raising for the Exchequer. If the noble Lord who quoted so aptly, and was kind enough to give the reference to that unfortunate statement by the Postmaster General, had quoted further, he would have seen that this particular levy was agreed to only after he had consulted the Chancellor of the Exchequer and after the Chancellor had satisfied himself that it was going to be a reliable alternative source of income to take the place of the original television advertising duty. I do not think we can possibly argue on this particular matter (I know that the noble Lord, Lord Waleran made this point) that this is not a form of revenue and not within the privilege of another place. However, it is fairly obvious that your Lordships' blood is up on this occasion, and I should like to make a plea for taking a rather more moderate view.
There is a wave of emotion in support of Anglia Television—I admit that I have shared in it myself. I have been impressed—I say this without any malice—by the case which they have made to many people and to the devoted supporters, particularly those with local loyalty. It is quite clear that Anglia Television have, in fact, won the good will of many intelligent and willing people. But at what point are the Government to guarantee a company against loss? It seems to me that at some point the line must be drawn, and that at some point a company must contrive to pay its way. There are certain powers, to which the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, referred, under which the Authority can, in some degree, temper the wind. I do not think he ought to dismiss as of no consequence the power of the Authority in Section 7(1)(a) to fix the rentals. It was made quite clear in the debate in another place that they could vary those rentals to meet particular circumstances. It may even be that, in order to tide a company over a particular period, the Authority would have power to remit those rentals; but I am quite certain that if we play around further with the agreed scale we might as well abandon this entirely, and I hope that the Government will stand firm on it.
This is an extremely technical matter. It is extremely difficult for this Committee to judge the merits of the various figures that have been put forward. There

515
have been figures which I understand have been exhaustively considered by the Postmaster General and his advisers, and they are standing on these figures. If they can be convinced that they are wrong, then clearly they ought to think again; but I understand that they have not yet so far been convinced. In those circumstances, I hope that the noble Lord will not press this Amendment to a Division. If he does, reluctantly and without any criticism of the performance of Anglia, I should certainly have to ask my noble friends to vote against the Amendment.
6.7 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: The East Anglians in your Lordships' House seem to be almost as numerous as the Scotsmen; and hardly less persistent. I think it is always a good thing to stick together, and I admire loyalty and coherence in these matters. This Amendment was moved and discussed in another place on Report, but it was not pressed. Now my noble friend Lord Gladwyn, with varied support from many quarters, has put the case again—and, I think, much better. I believe that we all admire the record of this programme company, Anglia, and I am glad to hear more evidence of how well it has done. I am glad to hear from Lord Gladwyn that it is selling so many programmes abroad, from which it will earn larger profits without having to pay any levy on advertisement revenue.
I think that the Postmaster General, who has been quoted, appreciates the special position of this company and the way in which it may fall between two stools. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has said, and as I think the noble Lord also said in our Second Reading debate, we must bear in mind the possibility that hard cases may make bad law. My noble friend Lord Gladwyn has based his argument largely on figures which he gave in great detail, and he also, I am thankful to say, gave the figures which the Post Office has compiled, thereby relieving me of the necessity of doing so. In any case, I know that the noble Lord is familiar with the Postmaster General's figures, and, as he has told us, he regards them as highly optimistic; and he thinks that even if they are right they would still be unfair. So I will not pursue the question of
516
figures any further, but will come straight to the point which the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, made; that, whether we think his case is likely to be justified by the event or not, under subsection (6) of this clause
"The Postmaster General may with the approval of the Treasury, and after consultation with the Authority, by order amend subsection (4) of this section in all or any of the following respects, that is, by increasing or reducing any rate, or the number of different rates, or the amount to which any rate applies; and the references in this subsection to a rate include the case where the rate is nil."
I am not going to ask your Lordships to make either too much of that, or to prejudge this question in any final way. But since Lord Gladwyn asked me if I could give an assurance upon the manner in which this subsection will be interpreted, I will make it quite clear that the Government can alter the scale shown in subsection (4).
For example, not only can the rates of levy be changed, but the "free slices" can be increased, and there can be smaller slices after that, with smaller or even nominal rates of levy. The arrangements the Government can make could effectively help the situation visualised in the case of Anglia, though not in the precise method by which the Amendment would seek to do it. I can give your Lordships an assurance that the Government will indeed keep the position under review and will suggest any alterations that appear to be necessary at any time, even before the scale starts to operate, if it is clear from the data becoming available that the assumptions on which the Government have based their calculations are not in fact being achieved in practice.
In any case, I should perhaps add that as soon as a second I.T.A. programme is authorised (this applies to other contractors, of course, besides Anglia), and in connection with such authorisation, the Government will have to review the whole scope of this levy. That is one of the reasons for the insertion of subsection (6) in this clause. I have gone as far as I can to meet what my noble friend has submitted to your Lordships, and I hope that he will be satisfied with what I have said.
LORD GLADWYN: Could the noble Lord just repeat the assurance? I am afraid that I did not take it down.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Which part?
LORD GLADWYN: The part in which you said that in certain circumstances you would take account of the possibility of applying subsection (6).
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Certainly; I want to make it quite clear. The Government can alter the scale shown in subsection (4). For example, not only can the rates of levy be changed, but the "free slices" can be increased; and then there can be smaller slices after that, with smaller or even nominal, rates of levy. The arrangements the Government can make can effectively help the situation visualised in the case of Anglia, though not in the precise method by which this Amendment seeks to do it. I can give your Lordships an assurance that the Government will indeed keep the position under review and suggest alterations as appear to be necessary at any time, even before the scale starts to operate, if it is clear from the data becoming available that the assumptions on which the Government have based their calculations are not being achieved in practice.
LORD GLADWYN: In view of this particular form of assurance, which seems to indicate that, if the figures adduced by the Postmaster General should not be accurate and it should be clearly established next year that this is not so, in those circumstances if the Government would—
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: "Can". Do not run him too hard.
LORD GLADWYN: I understood they can; and I understood the noble Earl to say that if the figures were not accurate they probably would. That was the inference I had from his words. If it is correct then I will ask leave to withdraw my Amendment. If it is not correct, I should like to press it.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: As I understood the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, he was throughout using the language "could" or "was able to". I think that it is important that we should know whether or not he has given a clear pledge to make financial concessions.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: We must get this point quite clear. I understood that the whole object of the speech of
518
the Minister of State was to show that the Amendment is unnecessary. The argument has arisen because the Postmaster General and the company have produced figures which are in conflict. Nobody is going to be able to tell until next year which of them is right. The whole point is that if the Postmaster General is wrong then he has full power to vary the levy.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Yes.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: That is a statement of fact, which appears in the Bill and which we can all read for ourselves. The assurance which the Government are being asked to give—and it is not an unreasonable assurance—is that if the Postmaster General is wrong and Anglia is right, the Postmaster General will exercise the powers which he is taking in this Bill to give Anglia fair treatment. Is that the assurance, or is it not?
LORD SHACKLETON: It is quite unreasonable to expect anybody to take a hypothetical judgment of that kind. He might see the figures; Anglia might be able to prove they were getting deeply in the red. It might be that the Minister might think they could save themselves by more efficient means of operation. It would be rash for the Government to pledge themselves in quite the terms suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton. I should have thought that the undertaking given by the Minister was good enough. It was an expression of good will and of intention, so far as the circumstances justified the application of that power.
LORD CONESFORD: I agree that nobody wants to be unfair to the Minister at the Box, but, as he read the undertaking, I thought the effect was this: that, should it prove that the Postmaster General's assumption as to figures was incorrect, Her Majesty's Government would not hesitate to use the powers under subsection (6) in order to see that justice was done.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: What does the noble Lord mean by that? That is a lawyer's point of view.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am all in favour of clarity, but I suggest to your Lordships that, when a perfectly clear

519
and reasonable undertaking has been given, it may be a little unnecessary to waste so much time in these rather meticulous verbal niceties. I cannot see any contradiction whatever between what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and what has been said by Lord Conesford. I do not want to read out a third time what I have already said twice, and I should have thought that to a reasonable intelligence what I have said should be intelligible.
LORD GLADWYN: It is important for Anglia Television to get the actual form of words right and for them to understand what it means. I wanted to be sure of the facts before taking a decision whether or not to press this Amendment. But in view of what the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, has now said, and in view of what seems to be the intention of the Government, not to allow Anglia to be victimised if its figures are right, in those circumstances—
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: That is really naughty.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, Order!
LORD GLADWYN: It is not at all naughty. That was the impression I got from the Minister; that is in any case the impression I derived. In view of that, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.19 p.m.
LORD LLOYD LORD LLOYD moved, in subsection (6), after the first paragraph to insert:
"As from the date of the introduction of the second television service in any area as provided in section 13 hereof the Table in subsection (4) of this section shall thereupon cease to apply to any additional payments thereafter to be made by any programme contractor providing programmes for broadcasting by the Authority in that or a substantial part of that area, but those additional payments shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this section, be calculated in relation to the not profits of such programme contractor at such rate or rates as may be fixed by order made by the Postmaster General with the approval of the Treasury and after consultation with the Authority."
The noble Lord said: I can deal with this Amendment quite briefly. Its purpose is to ensure that as soon as a second television channel has been introduced
520
the present system of a levy, as opposed to a tax on profits, shall be abolished by the Government and that we get down to a rather more sensible system of taxing these companies. I was encouraged, up to a point, by my noble friend Lord Dundee when he went so far as to say that when a second television channel was introduced the whole question of the levy would have to be reconsidered. But I was not sure whether he meant that they were going to have the same old levy, with slightly different rate, or whether they were going to reconsider the whole question of having a levy at all. I do not think that we ought ever to have had a levy. We ought to have had a tax on profits—and I have said that before.
The point is that, hard as the levy will bear on the companies now, as soon as they have to finance a second television channel—which like all these things, will probably run at a loss for two or three years, or maybe more—their costs are bound to rise very greatly, and the levy will then become an intolerable burden. When we get to that stage I believe that we must go for the normal system of a tax on profits, which is the system by which every company in this country is normally taxed. I do not think there is anything more I need say. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 41, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Lloyd.)
LORD SHACKLETON: I hope that the Government will resist this Amendment. It may well be that the introduction of a second television service, if and when it comes, will reduce the profits, but it seems to me that the principle is just the same. We are taking a decision in this Bill to tax excessive profits in a field which is regarded as the public domain. If the rates are wrong, or, equally, if the profits are cut heavily down to size, it is perfectly open to the Government by Affirmative Order, to amend those rates and, presumably, even to abolish them entirely in practice. I imagine they would even be able to fix a nil rate, or a rate which in fact never operated. I should have thought it better at this stage not to legislate against a hypothetical proposition; all the more so since I am still very uncertain (for reasons I shall not

521
go into now) whether there will be a second television service in the commercial field.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I think the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, who has just spoken, is substantially right about this. The question of whether it is better to have a levy or a tax on profits has been debated at enormous length elsewhere, and in public, for a long time before this Bill reached your Lordships' House. The reason why the Government rejected the idea of basing the levy on profits is that it would have bristled with difficulties for everybody concerned. We think that the present proposal—that is, the levy on advertising receipts—is much more simple to operate, and we still believe that it is right in principle. But the Government are aware that the scale of the levy will have to be reviewed when we are nearer to a second I.T.A. service. What will have to be done depends very greatly, I think, on the way in which the new contracts are allocated. When a second service is introduced, the matter can probably be dealt with simply by changing the scale of levy, for which there is provision in the Bill; but if necessary the Government will consider amending legislation. Meanwhile, this Amendment would bring with it all the various complications which have already been discussed in another place, and for that reason I would not advise your Lordships to accept it.
LORD LLOYD: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SHACKLETON: I believe this Amendment is the only one that is, perhaps, not covered by privilege. I put it down for the perfectly innocent reason that, in a very long clause which I found difficult to understand, I found this particular paragraph more difficult than most. With my noble friends I therefore put down a Motion to leave out paragraph (c), in the hope that the Government can explain to me why it is necessary to have it in the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 26, leave out paragraph (c).—(Lord Shackleton.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am glad to have the opportunity of making this subsection
522
a little clearer. It may be that the noble Lord feared that the programme company might try to reduce the total of advertising receipts on which the levy is calculated, by trying to pass on the burden to the advertiser in the form of some special surcharge. That possibility is provided against by subsection (11)(b)(i) of this clause, under which any such special payments would count towards the cost of advertising receipts. But the purpose of this paragraph is to cover cases where a contractor receives one single payment, which covers not only the cost of the advertising on a time and rate basis, but also the cost of services rendered; such as, for example, the use of studios or technical facilities belonging to the contractor for the production of the advertisement itself. In cases like that we feel it is only right that the contractor's (b) payments—that is, the payments referred to in Clause 7(1)(b)—should be charged only on the cost of the advertisement, and not on the cost of the services rendered as well. I hope the noble Lord will agree that that is right.
LORD SHACKLETON: I am grateful. It did look for one moment as if it were a back-handed way of introducing sponsoring, although I could not believe that to be so. With that explanation, for which I am most grateful, and which for at least for another minute will enable me to understand the subsection, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.27 p.m
LORD GLADWYN: The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, seems to be temporarily out of the Chamber, but he is being sent for. In fact here he is, so I will not go on with my prolonged argument but will leave it to my colleague. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 47, at the end insert:
("(c) any programme contractor who is required under the terms of his contract with the Authority to provide programmes which shall contain a suitable proportion of matter calculated to appeal specially to the tastes and oulook of persons in each of two or more areas (as defined by the Authority and approved by the Postmaster General) and, to comply with this requirement, has accordingly to maintain studios, offices or premises in more than one area, shall for the purposes of this section, make a separate return of his advertising receipts for each area, and the additional payments due from that programme

523
contractor shall be separately computed and charged accordingly, to the intent that the Table in subsection (4) of this section shall apply by reference to each area taken separately.")—(Lord Gladwyn.)
LORD LLOYD: I must apologise to your Lordships for that aberration, which was entirely necessary. Your Lordships have heard of one injustice—namely, the way in which this Bill was born in anger. This particular Amendment deals with what I think is another very considerable injustice, and that is the effect of this levy on companies which have dual operation. I think this applies mainly to two of the large companies; that is to say, A.B.C. and A.T.V. As your Lordships are probably aware, two of the four major companies, Associated Re-diffusion and Granada, have unified operation in a single area.
Associated Rediffusion have five days in London, and Granada have five days in the North, whereas the other two have to operate in two different areas; that is to say, A.B.C. have two days in the Midlands and two days in the North, and Associated Television have five days in the Midlands and two days in London. I think that probably the worst hit of the lot is Associated Television, for the simple reason that they have to work seven days in the week in order to achieve roughly the same revenue as the other two large companies. So they have to pay a wage bill of ten days, because people will not work at the ordinary rates for two days over the weekend, and they therefore have to pay two full lots of wages. There is no question about it, their overheads are therefore about double those of the other two companies, who are fortunate enough to have one area of operation.
Again, I say that if there had been a tax on profits this question would not have arisen because that inequality would have been ironed out as a result of the tax on profits. But, owing to the levy, a company with heavy overheads is obviously going to suffer much more severely than a company with much lighter overheads, although the fact that the company has heavier overheads is not necessarily due to any inefficiency but is due merely to the fact that, by the will of the Authority, the company has been forced to operate in two areas, with two lots of studios, two lots of offices and
524
double overheads. I feel (I am sure that your Lordships will agree on this, but I speak for myself) that this is manifestly unjust, and I believe that even the Government themselves think so, because my noble friend Lord Chesham admitted on Second Reading that the areas and the operating conditions were extremely unequal. He said that he thought that this was something that ought to be dealt with under Clause 7; and that is why I am dealing with it under Clause 7. He said they were very unequal, that it was something the Government themselves wanted to see done, and that they wanted to see that there were fair conditions between the companies.
I know that I shall be told by the Government that the way to deal with this is to charge differential rentals under Clause 7(1)(a.) I cannot feel that this is a very satisfactory solution; and I am rather surprised at the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, because I understood him to say this afternoon that he thought it was a good idea, whereas earlier on this Committee stage, in column 343 of the OFFICIAL REPORT (Vol. 252 (No. 117)) he said:
"I am not myself in favour, nor are a number of my noble friends, of varying rentals."
So I am not quite sure where the noble Lord stands. Since he was speaking for the other side, it may be helpful to know where they stand on this issue. I am quite sure in my own mind that differential rentals are a bad thing, and I am sad to have lost the noble Lord's support, and also his presence.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: If the noble Lord will forgive my interrupting, I thought that, in municipal housing, it was one of the firm planks of the Conservative Party's platform that there should be differential rents. Now the noble Lord says that differential rents are wholly bad.
LORD LLOYD: The noble Lord cannot resist it. Party politics come in when we have hardly started. I am not the Conservative Party; I am just myself, and I am speaking for what I think is right. If the noble Lord wishes to address the Conservative Party, he should address the Government Front Bench. I am not a great expert on

525
municipal politics, either, but I am at the moment trying to develop my reasons for thinking that differential rentals are bad.
I think they are bad because, from the start, you get away from any clearly defined system of taxation. You get away from a system where companies know where they are; and I think that it is bound to lead to unsatisfactory relations between the Authority and the companies. Because, to get any equality between the companies, the differentials would have to be enormous. I understand that if you were to try to get rough equality between the three big companies Associated Rediffusion and Granada would have to pay an extra £2 million, against A.T.V.'s and A.B.C.'s £600,000. That is the scale of the differential. It is the only way you will get equality, and I think differentials on that scale will lead to a great deal of heartburning between the companies.
I do not think you would ever get agreement on the basis of assessment between the companies and the Authority; and, ultimately, you would have a situation where the Authority would have to decide. In fact the situation would be reached where, basically, the profitability of any individual company would be decided, not by the efficiency of the company, the standard of their programmes or anything else, but by the Authority, as an entirely arbitrary power. I do not think that would be a good thing. I do not think it was ever the intention of the original Act which the Government introduced; and I do not understand why that should be their intention to-day, if indeed it is. But that is what I understand the Government's answer to this is likely to be.
Now this Amendment of mine is not very complicated. It is designed simply to provide that where a company has to operate in two different areas it may maintain separate accounts in each area and may be allowed the free slice of Ell million in each area. Curiously enough, from the figures I have seen that would not quite produce equality even then, and those in the dual areas (although the larger of them has, I think, almost exactly the same advertisement revenue as the two companies
526
in the single operating areas) would still be a little worse off. But it would reduce the problem enormously, and it would be a very great deal fairer.
There is one other point which I think I ought to mention. The noble Lord may tell me that this is not possible because it would lead possibly to other companies in other areas having two transmitters and then claiming that they ought to have a free slice for each transmitter. I should like to make it perfectly clear that I do not think that that is what the Amendment says, and it certainly is not the purpose of the Amendment. The purpose of the Amendment is to provide that where, by the act of the Authority—not by the volition of the company, but by the act of the Authority—a company is forced to operate in two areas, this concession should be made.
LORD SHEPHERD: Would the noble Lord not agree that the companies were not forced to operate in two areas? They applied to operate, perhaps some in the case of London and some in Manchester. They were free when they made their application, and they were free in their choice of operation.
LORD LLOYD: With great respect to the noble Lord, I do not think that is true. The areas were laid down by the Authority. The companies were perfectly free to put in for any area they could get, but it was probably a case of "First come, first served". The noble Lord himself has been saying how bad the areas are. Therefore, this is unfair: they are unequal. Either the noble Lord must eat his own words or he must agree with me. Therefore I say that these conditions are not fair, they are not equal, and that these, companies are, in effect, put by the Authority in these areas. Obviously they would much rather have unified working—who would not?—but they cannot help it. Therefore I think this is just as good a case as the Anglia case. The Government have said they think something ought to be done about these inequalities, and I suggest that here is their opportunity.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: I think this raises a point which I raised at an earlier stage. It may not be quite the same, but I think it pretty well is; and I will put it rather more shortly than

527
the noble Lord has done, because the case has been stated at some length. The point is—and I should not like to be cross-examined about it, because I do not quite understand the technicalities of how it can come about—that apparently it is the case that, under the Bill as it stands, the company that has two transmission centres (that is to say, real areas of operation; I am not talking about offices or studios: and there are two such companies, A.B.C. and A.T.V.) is financially materially worse off, it is alleged, than a company like Granada or any other company with only one transmission centre. I cannot make it out. I should have thought that the fact that they had to maintain two television centres would, if anything, entitle them to somewhat better treatment, and I cannot quite make out why it works out this way.
This is not an Amendment which I would be involved in pressing to a Division, but I think there is a question, not of the principle of the levy at all, which I am not challenging, but of equity as between two companies and other companies. That seems to me eminently a fair point with which Parliament should concern itself—because if ever Parliament gives up the idea of not considering equity between one person and another, or between one firm and another, then Parliament will appear in a less favourable light in the public mind than otherwise it might.
What I want to ask the Minister—and I am not trying to tie him down to a promise to do any particular thing as was done on a previous Amendment, to which I rather objected—is whether the Government will have the power under the Bill to make modifications or adjustments either in the levy or in the rental and later, perhaps, as regards areas, whereby such things as prove to be unjust can be put right. That is the only point I am concerned with. I would be much obliged if the noble Earl would deal with this point as well as with the others which were raised by noble Lords opposite.
I must apologise if I mixed up my geography. But I thought the Conservatives sat opposite. I am getting rather confused about the political geography of this House. There is one noble Lord, a very firm and rigid Conservative, who
528
sits on the Cross Benches. Now there is an ex-Conservative Minister who is going to sit on the Cross Benches, and two noble Lords opposite have denied that they are Conservatives. If we could have a little map from the Government Chief Whip showing which are Conservative Benches and which are not it would prevent my making slanderous statements accusing a noble Lord opposite of being a Conservative, when it later appears that he is either Liberal or Socialist.
LORD LLOYD: I must try to help the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth. I dislike seeing him in this confusion and worry. Of course I am a Conservative. What I said was that I was not responsible for Conservative policy on municipal housing. I do not think that housing has anything to do with this Bill.
LORD FRANCIS-WILLIAMS: I would support what has been said by my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth because, in fact, I made the same point on Second Reading. But I believe there is inequity between these companies in this matter. I do not feel quite so dissatisfied as the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, that it cannot be met in some part by a differential rent; but I think it would be very good to get an assurance from the Government that this inequity will be considered, and that measures will be taken to try to even it out.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am sure that the longer the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, is in this House—which I hope may be for many years to come—the more impressed he will be by our superiority to the more uninteresting conventionalities of Party divisions. The Amendment is designed to alleviate particularly the position of A.T.V. and A.B.C. under the levy arrangements by trying to establish separate chargeability in separate areas; and I think the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, has correctly understood the position and the difficulties—or, at least, he has understood it as well as I.
Under Clause 7 the levy payments are made on the advertising receipts of the programme contractors. Even if a contractor has two separate contracts

529
the advertising receipts would be aggregated for the purpose of the levy. The argument is that the expenses of contractors who operate in two areas are particularly heavy because they provide programmes on certain days in two different areas, increasing their costs by having two lots of offices and two lots of studios et cetera in the two areas. It can further be pointed out that in future the Authority might appoint more companies on this divided working basis, and the levy will bite inequitably as between the various programme contractors.
The position in regard to two particular companies, A.T.V. and A.B.C., who have a dual franchise, is that A.T.V., I understand, have a seven-day operation, with five days in the Midlands and two in London; A.B.C. operate two days, Saturdays and Sundays, in the Midlands and the North. A.T.V. have a definite obligation under their contract to provide a proportion of their programme material to appeal specially to the people catered for; and the I.T.A. could also, we understand, oblige A.B.C. to do this under their contract. But in fact they do not do so because the situation of purely weekend operation does not require the same line to be taken.
My noble friend, Lord Lloyd, said that he anticipated that the Government reply would be that we should use the "A" payment, which my noble friend did not agree with. The reason why we think it is right to do that is that the inequalities arise from the pattern of contracts which have been allocated by the Independent Television Authority. Therefore, we think it right that their own rentals should be differentiated accordingly and I.T.A. are, in fact, examining this; and they propose, as I told the House on Second Reading, with the Postmaster General's agreement, to alter them. There is a substantial amount that can be varied here. At present, the total of rentals of the "Big Four" is £3½ million, and in 1964–65 this might very easily be £5½ million; so there would be plenty of room for a proportionate division of these amounts to ensure that the most valuable contracts in the way of returns have to pay the largest sums in rent. But there is also the separate question that will be raised again about a division of areas—different days of the week et cetera—which all
530
depends on the contracts. That will come up again when the contract is renewed and that, in our view, is a matter for the I.T.A. to consider.
LORD LLOYD: As I understand it, the noble Earl says that the Authority may vary the rentals in order to adjust inequalities, and that the Authority is going to look into the whole question of areas and working hours when the contracts are revised. Is that correct?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Yes, that is correct.
LORD LLOYD: Can he give me any assurance that the Authority have this particular problem in mind—it is a very great injustice—and that some remedial steps are likely to be taken before these companies so affected are to be too hardly hit by the operation of the levy? If something is to be done, it ought to be done fairly early. Obviously, if a number of years elapse before anything is done, it will be very unfair on them.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I can certainly assure my noble friend that the Authority have it very much in mind. As to the timing and the remedial steps, I do not think I can anticipate that with any detailed correctness.
LORD LLOYD: I am grateful to my noble friend, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 7 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD ARCHIBALD: I do not propose to oppose the Motion that Clause 7 should stand part of the Bill, but before the Motion is put I should like to raise a point with the noble Earl who is dealing with the clause. At an earlier stage the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, quoted the statement of the Postmaster General in another place that the levy is not a tax. I have not heard reference to that yet. I am also informed that when the original Bill was in its early stages in another place Clause 7 was printed in italics, which those who have served in another place tell me has a special significance. But I am told that after that statement by the Postmaster General, the italic print disappeared when the Bill was reprinted for the next stage. I wonder whether the noble Earl could tell me whether there is any significance in that.
LORD CONESFORD: May I rise on a similar point? I did not intervene before because unfortunately I missed the discussion on privilege that took place at the beginning of the discussion of this clause. I wonder whether in the course of that discussion reference was made to the specific reference to this House in subsection (6) of the clause. If it were suggested that this was a clause with which this House was not entitled to deal, I think that it would be worth calling the attention of the Committee to subsection (6) of the clause, which has been mentioned a good deal by the Minister in the course of this debate. For subsection (6) to be used at all, an Affirmative Resolution by this House is necessary. Perhaps this is germane to the question that has just been put by the noble Lord, Lord Archibald.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Statutory instruments are always laid in both Houses, whether they apply to finance or not. With regard to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, probably he was not here when the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, referred to this, elaborated it considerably and proceeded to give some more quotations. The only one I want to give is the one I have given already and which was repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch. Subsection (2) of Clause 7 says:
"The additional payments shall not form part of the revenue of the Authority and, when received by the Authority, shall be paid into the Exchequer of the United Kingdom or the Exchequer of Northern Ireland as provided by this section."
I make these observations for purely factual reasons. As I have already told your Lordships, all I want to do is to help your Lordships about the facts of the situation. The last thing I want to do—it would be quite improper—is to try to anticipate in any way what may, or may not, happen in another place on certain eventualities.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Newspaper shareholdings]:
6.52 p.m.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH moved, in subsection (1), to leave out all words from "contractor", where that word first appears, down to and including "interest". The noble Lord said: This is the first of a group of Amendments
532
which stand or fall together. The clause as it is provides that the contracts between the Authority and a programme company shall
"… contain all such provisions as the Authority think necessary or expedient to ensure that if at any time there are newspaper shareholdings in the programme contractor, and it appears to the Authority that the existence of those shareholdings has led or is leading to results which are contrary to the public interest, the Authority may, with the consent of the Postmaster General, by notice in writing to the programme contractor, taking effect forthwith or on a date specified in the notice, determine or suspend for such period as may be so specified or until a further notice is given, the Authority's obligation to transmit…"
This leaves open the question of the degree of newspaper interest in a programme company that would imperil the situation with which Clause 8 is designed to deal. That is not satisfactory. It is not even provided that if a newspaper shareholding in a company constitutes a third or a half or 51 per cent. of the shares, then it would be caught. There is no definition whatever. In our view, that is not satisfactory.
I agree that our Amendment goes so far as not to allow newspaper shareholding in programme companies at all. That may be thought to be somewhat extreme, out there is a lot to be said for it. Part of the doctrine of the Government in bringing in Independent Television a few years ago was to stimulate competition between the B.B.C. and I.T.A. I thought that this was wrong at the time and I still think it is wrong. But competition cannot stop there. I.T.A. transmit opinions, on the whole fairly, putting one side and the other, and hard news, on the whole fairly. They transmit drama and plays, and one of their official purposes is to give information and education. The Press is another channel of information and education, and also of entertainment. Therefore, if it is right that there should be competition between the B.B.C. and I.T.A. and that they should be entirely separate concerns, surely, prima facie, it is equally right that there should be competition between Independent Television and the newspapers and that they should be entirely independent of each other.
There is one great newspaper proprietor who firmly takes this view—namely, the noble Lord, Lord Beaver-brook, who thinks that newspapers ought

533
to keep clear of commercial television and who apparently takes pride in the fact that his newspapers have no involvement in commercial television. I do not always agree with the noble Lord or his newspapers—not by any means—but on this point I find myself in agreement with his view.
It may be said that the fact that some newspapers have a monetary interest in commercial television does not upset their judgment of the merits of commercial television. I am not going to assert that it does. But it must be embarrassing to the newspaper, conscious of this financial holding in commercial television, when they feel called upon to express opinions about programmes, or about the merits of this Bill. They must be conscious of the question: do they look independent, if they have a financial interest in commercial television? The Press should not only be independent in fact but should also be independent in form, and appear independent of commercial television, which is a rival form of mass communication.
Your Lordships will remember that when the Pilkington Report came out there was a general attack, some of it of a pretty vicious and, as I thought, wicked character by some newspapers with financial interests in commercial television. Anybody reading it could not but suspect, to put it no higher, that those newspapers were influenced by the fact that they had a commercial interest in television. Your Lordships may remember some of the unbalanced and spiteful things that were said against the Pilkington Report, which, I may say, is a great deal more thought of now than it was by many of these newspapers at the time it was published. Another difficulty with a few newspapers is that they are a little embarrassed about whether to put the B.B.C. or I.T.A. programmes first. Far be it from me to accuse them of improper practice in that respect. They may have a genuine conviction that they should print the programmes in accordance with their view.
It may be that the Bill should have a little more about newspapers. It does not say to what extent they must take into account the amount of newspaper interest in commercial television. To that extent it is a vague legislative provision, which, it appears to us, might have no consequences whatever. So we move to
534
strike out the provision for investment by newspapers in commercial television. We are inclined to think that that is right and the best and straightforward course to take. But if we cannot get that, we should, at any rate, like from the Government a declaration as to how they and the I.T.A. intend to administer this provision in the Bill, so that we may know it is going to be an effective provision to protect the points to which I have referred in my observations. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 5, leave out from ("contractor") to second ("the") in line 8.—(Lord Morrison of Lambeth.)
LORD STRABOLGI: With respect to my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth, I disagree with his Amendment, and I think the clause in the Bill as it stands is perfectly sound. I should perhaps declare an interest here, as I am professionally employed with an international public corporation which has a certain holding in Associated Television, although I hasten to add that I speak as a private individual and in no way on behalf of my colleagues. The clause as it stands is really perfectly adequate. I think the phrase "contrary to public interest" is something that can cover a great many eventualities, but I am not persuaded, by any means, that the shareholding by newspapers in television companies is in any way contrary to public interest. On the other hand, people have a certain disquiet about newspapers—they think very strange things about newspapers, which are hardly ever justified—and I feel that the Government have quite rightly put this wording in the Bill.
My noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth wants to take it out, even if it has the consequences which he has described to your Lordships. In fact, for a perfectly hypothetical reason, he wishes to take out this important clause, so that the company concerned will no doubt have to be suspended from their work and go out of business. If we carried my noble friend's Amendment, I think we should be prejudging the result before it has taken place, and one might describe that (if I may quote the words used by my noble friend Lord Shackleton earlier) as a hypothetical judgment. It is also—and I think this is even really more serious—an intolerable interference with

535
the right of a public company to invest in another public company where and how it wishes.
There are further effects of this Amendment which I would submit should be considered rather more than, if I may say so, my noble friend appeared to consider them. He thought that one could wipe out a company, reinstate it or suspend it just like that. What does it mean? It would mean, if the Amendment were carried, that those programme contractors would be suspended from transmitting programmes and, therefore, that viewers would be deprived of those programmes and advertisers deprived of important advertising time; it would mean that the people working in that company would be thrown out of work, and would also mean a loss to the shareholders in the company. As I said, I think the clause is perfectly adequate as it stands for a very remote eventuality, and I hope the Government will not accept the Amendment.
LORD CHESHAM: I almost began to think that it was going to be unnecessary for me to say any more because of two self-cancelling speeches. But that is not quite the form, and I should like to take the opportunity of which the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, invited me to avail myself of giving a little explanation of the matter. I was delighted that he came out so completely honestly and said that, although he thought perhaps a total abolition of Press holdings went a little too far, on balance he was prepared to put up with that in order to make sure that nothing untoward should happen. This Bill, in respect of Press holdings, has already been strengthened so that drastic action in this direction, should it be desirable, can be taken if any of the kind of things which are feared by the noble Lord in fact take place. Having accepted that, I think we have to stop short of total abolition.
The noble Lord said that there should be some kind of definition of what was or was not in the public interest. I would not envy him the task of trying to define what that was. If it is to be a majority shareholding, is it necessarily wicked and contrary to public interest that there should be a holding of 51 per cent. of the shares as a perfectly straight forward investment? It might be that some effect
536
such as he fears could be created by somebody with a much smaller holding. But I think that to try to produce a definition of what was against the public interest would be difficult and, indeed, unwise, because presumably anything that is not defined as being contrary to the public interest is in the public interest. I do not think it would be well to start on that.
There are the powers in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, doubted that there were sanctions in the Bill for what is to happen if any Press interest should transgress against this clause. He said: "What can be done about it?" The noble Lord has already read out himself what could be done about it, in that the Authority or the Postmaster General can simply stop transmitting their material, which, as the noble Lord will agree, is a most drastic sanction to happen to anybody. But, apart from that, there is a further power which would operate—and that is one of the advantages of the shorter-term contract—in that you could make a change, or suggest that a company should rid itself of some of what I might be allowed to call its Press strings, if it was felt that those Press interests were getting out of proportion.
Just how far are we likely to go in seeing how the interests of Press and television can operate in a way that would be contrary to the public interest? Under Section 3 of the present Act, which remains substantially as it is at present, the Authority have to observe (or see that it is observed) impartiality on matters of political and industrial controversy or relating to current public policy. Therefore, no kind of editorial opinion, the opinion either of the Authority or of the programme contractors, is permitted. That is quite a strong safeguard on what is to be in the programmes themselves. Then there is the other side of the picture mentioned by the noble Lord, and that is how much the Press might be impressed by the fact that they had shareholdings in programme contractors. I should have thought it was a fair claim that, certainly in the main, the newspapers regarded their shareholdings as a normal financial investment, as the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, pointed out it was quite legitimate for them to do.

537
The noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, rather fell over backwards in trying to find points that could be considered as criticism, but I doubt whether the placing of I.T.V. or B.B.C. programmes this way or that way round will make much difference on the mind of the newspaper readers and viewing public. This really is the point. We agree with him that it is possible that something like this could happen. That is why these reserve safeguards of quite drastic sanctions have been included; and there is the discretion for the I.T.A. to be able to operate them when such matters as those to which the noble Lord referred seem to be in danger of coming up. The position is covered. I think a total prohibition would be going too far, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, may feel possibly a little happier about it in view of what I have said.
LORD SHACKLETON: I acknowledge that the Government have gone some way, and they did so in another place, to meet the anxieties of those who were worried about the link between the Press and commercial television. But it is our contention that it is so important that these two forms of public communication and expression should be separate from one another that we should like to see legislation which would prevent newspapers from having interests in I.T.V.
Let me say straight away that I am not so much concerned with the newspapers bringing improper influence on I.T.V., which is a highly regulated industry, as with their interests modifying their own attitude and the handling of news and comment. To my noble friend Lord Strabolgi, who made remarks of a classic freedom of investment approach, I can only say that there are already restrictions under this Bill as to who can have an interest in a programme contractor. Advertising agents are prevented from doing so. We are taking this very much further, I admit, in saying that the Press should also be completely debarred from having these interests. I should like to give the reasons why.
If it were possible to stop at a convenient point, I should be inclined to agree to this. But I think it is extraordinarily difficult for the Government to judge what is in the public interest in a matter as tenuous as this. Would the
538
fact that the Press may or may not report certain discussions in the House connected with commercial television—or that only Lord Beaverbrook may do so—be regarded as contrary to the public interest? This was an allegation made in regard to the Committee stage in another place: the fact that the majority of the Press were very hostile to Pilkington when their interests were involved, although there were exceptions, when they said that the two things were completely separate. But I think it is almost impossible to separate editorial policy, and it might, indeed, have an inhibiting effect on the Press in this respect, although noble Lords may be dubious about anything having an inhibiting effect on the Press.
I am not concerned about the future of the programme contractors if the Press interest is removed. I think my noble friend Lord Strabolgi, if he were to read the Bill, would see that the danger of these programme contractors being closed down and of people losing their jobs is virtually nil. It is clear that other people would want to take up the interest. It would be possible to name a date well in the future—there is no need for it to be retrospective—by which time the Press interests would have to be removed. We have some doubts as to whether this is going too far, but we are driven by the logic that anything short of total abolition of interest will fail to achieve the objectives which the Government declare, and which I accept it is their intention to achieve. As there is a further development of television and possibly, in due course, of local sound broadcasting—although it is not strictly relevant to the Bill—I think it is of the highest importance that news channels should be separated, and that in the public interest the Press should keep to the newspaper business. I am saying this in the knowledge that there is considerable convenience in the present arrangement. There is even a certain obvious logic in it. But I think the dangers are there and apparent to many people who are anxious. Therefore, we should like to press this Amendment.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: Would the noble Lord explain how it would be possible to get separation? Supposing an investment company, which is in the habit of investing in a dozen,

539
twenty or 100 different companies, were to hold at the same time Daily Mirror shares and shares of one of the contractors. It may be said that there is only a sisterly or brotherly interest there. But supposing the control of one company passes to the other, then the mutual shareholding might be offensive from his point of view. How can he prevent this?
May I ask one other question? Would the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, or the noble Lord who has just spoken, go so far as to say that all means of public communication must be separate—the cinema for example? Would the noble Lord help us by giving us any observations on that? Supposing a newspaper proprietor, a newspaper company, or an investment company, holding a lot of newspaper shares, also holds shares in films, film making, or film distribution. Would he think that equally offensive? Where are you to draw the line once you start saying what may be held and what must not be held?
LORD SHACKLETON: We draw the line at the point we are now proposing. We are not discussing cinemas. We fully accept that there may be arguments in that field, but it is not our intention to pursue them, and we do not think there is that sort of danger. If there were, Parliament would have to look at that. There are also powers in the Bill to restrict certain people from being contractors. It seems to me that it is perfectly reasonable to apply these provisions in the same way to this particular group. I fully acknowledge that there are certain difficulties of this kind. But I think it would be reasonable enough to establish whether or not there was a direct or consequential
holding on a direct investment of a kind that gave a newspaper a direct beneficial interest.
I do not think the argument, which has a certain technical attraction, in any way weakens the case we are making. It may well be that it would be necessary to strengthen this matter and to define it in greater detail. But we are pressing the Amendment as it stands, and we are disappointed that the Government have not so far shown a greater willingness to meet our points.
LORD CHESHAM: Before the noble Lord starts marching us through the Lobbies, I should like to make only this one point: that I think there is a danger here of confusion of thought between a monopoly (if that is the word) or centralisation of ownership of various means of communication and the influence on people's minds that those means can exert. It is important to differentiate between them, because I still maintain that the safeguards in the Bill are adequate to see that there is not a monopoly or centralisation of the means of influencing people in this way; and that is what I am concerned about. I do not think that means that it is impossible for the I.T.A. to know or to judge when something has been occurring which is contrary to the public interest, because I am perfectly certain that, apart from their own efforts or those that might be made by my right honourable friend, no one in Parliament is going to be slow in coming forward with observations on the subject.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 21) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 15; Not-Contents, 34.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Henderson, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Latham, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Archibald, L.

Lawson, L.

Shackleton, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Lindgren, L.

Shepherd, L.

Champion, L.

Longford, E.

Summerskill, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hastings, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Conesford, L.

Lloyd, L.

Albemarle, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Long, V.

Ampthill, L.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Lothian, M.

Auckland, L.

Dundee, E.

Mansfield, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Ferrers, E.

Mountevans, L.

Carrington, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Newton, L.

Chelmer, L.

Glentanar, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Chesham, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Strathclyde, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Townshend, M.

Waleran, L.

Swinton, E.

Vestey, L.

Windlesham, L.

Terrington, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8 agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended at twenty-nine minutes past seven and resumed at 8.30.]
Clause 9 [Advertising agents disqualified from being programme contractors]:
On Question, Whether Clause 9 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD SHACKLETON: May I just ask the Government, on the Question, That the clause stand part, whether they are now really satisfied with the position? The noble Lord will realise that about a year ago we had some activity on this subject of an advertising agent as a disqualified person, and I take it that this clause has been inserted in order to clarify the position. When I first saw it I thought it seemed to be pretty satisfactory. I noticed, however, that in the Committee stage in another place an Amendment was moved which suggested that the net was too wide. The Assistant Postmaster General said on that occasion that he would certainly consider the matter, and if it was possible make some changes, because of the difficulty that it might exclude people—newspapers and others—who might come within the net of this particular Amendment. If this was so, and I imagine this was the reason why the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans put down his Amendment, it would obviously be undesirable. Perhaps the Government could tell us whether they are now satisfied with this clause.
LORD CHESHAM: Since the noble Lord asked me directly whether the Government are entirely satisfied, I am bound to be honest and say, "No, not entirely." As the noble Lord knows only too well, there has been a good deal of discussion on the subject of the definition of an advertising agent, and this was an honest and extremely painstaking attempt to try to meet the situation by providing an adequate definition. Although it has not yet been possible to do so, I should still be prepared, if it would help the noble Lord, to have yet another look at it between now and the
542
next stage of the Bill to see whether any improvement can be made. If I find there is I will see whether I can do something about it. I cannot give any promise, of course, or give any undertaking that we shall find something better; but I am certainly prepared to try.
LORD SHACKLETON: I think it is a little unsatisfactory that we cannot get it straight. I suppose it will not be challenged. On the other hand, one could not guarantee that some awkward Member of the House might not get up and suggest that these people are disqualified under the Bill, as I did under the original definition. I suppose that the courts might interpret it in a way which widened the net. Obviously, we cannot do better than the Government on this point. I can only say that I gratefully accept the noble Lord's offer, and that, in view of the anxieties which have been expressed, and which no doubt caused the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans to put down his Amendment, I think it would be helpful if we could have another look. I am very grateful.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed to.
8.35 p.m.
LORD FRANCIS-WILLIAMS LORD FRANCIS-WILLIAMS moved, after Clause 10 to insert the following new clause:
Authority to ensure the showing of British television films
".—(1) Without prejudice to the duty imposed upon the Authority by section 3(1)(d) of the principal Act, it shall be the duty of the Authority as from 1st April 1965 to ensure that in any financial year at least thirty per cent. of the films to which this section applies are of British origin and of British performance:
Provided that the provisions of this subsection shall not impose any such duty upon the Authority in any financial year in which it is not reasonably practicable to comply with those provisions owing to the number or character of the films available or to the excessive cost of such films.
(2) This section applies to all films which are made specifically for exhibition through the medium of television and form part of the recorded matter included in the programmes broadcast by the Authority, other than films the playing time of which is less than twenty minutes.
(3) For the purposes of this section a film shall not be treated as being of British origin

543
and of British performance unless it is a film which would qualify for registration as a British film under section 17 of the Films Act 1960 if the provisions of that Act relating to the making of applications for registration were complied with.
(4) In computing the percentage referred to in subsection (1) of this section no account shall be taken of any film if more than five years have elapsed since the end of the calendar year in which it was first published."
The noble Lord said: In moving this new clause, I stand rather astounded at my own moderation in that the clause proposes only that of all the television films 30 per cent. shall be British. It would, perhaps, be nearer to what would be just and equitable if one asked for 50 per cent., but at 30 per cent. I hope one will find a good deal of sympathy for this proposal from the Government. Let me make it clear at the beginning that this refers only to television films, not to cinematograph films. It refers to 30 per cent. of the television films—of the films shown on television—and not 30 per cent. of the entire television programmes.
LORD SHEPHERD: May I ask the noble Lord for clarification? Does he include in films that material which is in fact recorded, such as plays, which are not straight film?
LORD FRANCIS-WILLIAMS: No. This is concerned with films which are made as films for television showing, and says that 30 per cent. of those films made for television should be British. I think there are many strong arguments in favour of this. In the first place, it is essential that the television film industry and all the manifold talents which go into that industry should receive support. It has to be acknowledged that they have to compete directly with a large number of television films of transatlantic origin, particularly, which have already not only covered their costs but made a substantial income on the American domestic market and are frequently offered in this market at very low rates. Therefore, through no fault of their own but simply because to some extent the British television market is a dumping market for American television films, the British television film maker, if he wants to do a good job of making films, is bound to find himself at a disadvantage unless some quota of this kind, such as operates in the film industry, is allowed to exist.
544
There is the other important aspect of this affair to which I referred on the Amendment to Clause 7, which could not be pressed because of the issues which arose. I think it is important that British television films should be available for sale abroad, both because they can earn a significant amount of revenue and also because it is most important that in the under-developed countries films should be available for the new television screens which will give some picture of the British and Western way of life and which will bring to those communities some evidence of what I believe to be the talent and resourcefulness of the British character and the artistic qualities of Britain. This is particularly important, because, as your Lordships will appreciate, in many of those under-developed territories television is a medium of extraordinary educational and informational force.
In many of those areas you have a largely illiterate or semi-illiterate public. Often, there is a communal viewing of the television, which can get across to such populations in the way the printed word cannot do. It is, I think, most essential for British prestige and legitimate British interests, and for showing the British face to the world, that British television films should be available for sale in those markets; and such British television films are not likely to be available unless they can be reasonably certain of a domestic market here. The new clause does not refer (in fact they are specifically excluded under subsection (2)) to films having a playing time of less than 20 minutes. That is so that the clause shall not apply to the kind of news films that appear in many news magazine programmes and so on, and which obviously ought to be governed by the flow of the world news at any one moment, and not to be required, even by so excellent a general provision as this, to fashion their programmes to meet any other consideration than giving a fair and comprehensive picture of what is happening in the world. Therefore, we have, particularly and definitely, excluded this short news type of film from this category.
What remains, of course, is the large number of entertainment films, the longer documentary films and films of that character. There is a further exclusion by this clause, and I think it is most

545
important. Under subsection (4) no film which was made more than five years previously shall be included in this quota. That, of course, is to prevent the use of any provision of this kind simply to pack the television screens with old British films instead of old American films. What this clause is trying to achieve is to give a healthy life and an economic viability to British television films, newly made for the television screens, giving a picture of Britain to the British people, and also enabling that picture to be spread abroad. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 10 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Francis-Williams.)
LORD CHESHAM: While I fully appreciate the force of what the noble Lord has said, and the reasons that have prompted him to put forward this Amendment, and while I most certainly should not like him to think that the Government are heedless of the interests of the British television film industry, I think it my duty to point out to your Lordships certain things which we feel apply in the possible application of a rigid quota of this kind, and which in fact led us not to propose any change in Section 3(1)(d) of the 1954 Act. I would also, in passing, remind your Lordships that the Pilkington Committee were against quotas in these matters, and in favour of flexibility.
The noble Lord, Lord Francis-Williams, said quite correctly—and I heartily endorse this—that the flow of television films between countries is a very important thing for more reasons than just the money. He spent more time, quite rightly, in saying how it presents Britain to the world, with which I would agree. A point which usually crops up when considerations of this kind are being thought about—this is not my main point—is whether he does not risk, in his suggestion of the imposition of a quota here, sparking off counter measures elsewhere of the same kind.
LORD FRANCIS-WILLIAMS: I do not wish to interrupt the noble Lord too much, but I should have thought that the British television film industry would be delighted if the Americans would impose a similar quota against us so that we had a possibility of showing a
546
larger proportion of British television films on American screens.
LORD CHESHAM: That is a point of view, and rather an interesting one. I had been given to understand that the amount of films exported was larger, but, naturally, I accept what the noble Lord said. I am sure he will agree with me that he certainly would not want counter measures, as it were, to be imposed against our films so that it would make it more difficult for them to be sold abroad. I make no more of it than that, but I think there is that risk. He would no doubt also agree with me that the I.T.A., and the B.B.C. as well, have already achieved a quite creditably high proportion of British material.
That being so, I feel that the sensible course is probably to leave the Authority free to exercise their responsibility for the content and balance of programmes, and not to put on a specific and selective quota—particularly when there is attached to it, if I may, with respect, say so, a proviso which gives them a "let-out", but which is likely to, or might possibly, give rise to almost endless arguments. I am talking about the proviso in the first subsection of the new clause. That proviso would put the onus of proof on the Authority to show why they have not selected certain films. It would also put on the Authority the onus of proof as to why the programme contractors could not afford them. I think that it would end up in an impossible position of interminable wrangling.
The question of cost comes up as well. As the noble Lord knows, filmed programmes are more expensive than either recorded or "live" ones, and I should have thought that there might be a risk that if one had to buy a certain number of films at a certain cost the film might be a rapidly diminishing feature of television as against other methods of producing programmes. After all, it is only one method of a recording material to be shown on television, and even what the noble Lord called a modest figure of 30 per cent. is bound to be an arbitrary one. After all, a programme can be "live," recorded, or filmed, according to a variety of technical considerations and other things. It would be rather difficult, quite apart from the

547
question of the difficulties and differences which can arise under the proviso, to apply a quota.
One further consideration is that I should not have thought that Section 17 of the Films Act, to which the Amendment refers, and which lays down conditions which have to apply to a film made for showing in cinemas in order for it to qualify as a British film, was necessarily entirely appropriate to films which were intended for the rather different conditions of television.
I must remind the noble Lord—not that he does not know it perfectly well—that there is already an existing system which the I.T.A. have for deciding what counts as a British film within the broadcasting industry. I must also point out—not that he does not know this as well—that that is operated with the agreement of fourteen unions, and in fact it works. I will not try to say how, because it is a rather elaborate and complicated process. But one of the troubles which we are up against in that, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said, is the question of telerecording, which does not count as a film. While wanting to support the industry I think we might give it as much cause for alarm as otherwise by switching the emphasis on to telerecording rather than the making of actual films specially for television. Naturally I cannot be specific, and say that this thing would happen or that thing would happen, but I can say that the consequences of this Amendment might at least be described as unpredictable.
We think there are certain objections to this arrangement, which I have tried to outline. But I think the noble Lord might wish to know that my right honourable friend has written to the I.T.A., and the B.B.C. as well, asking them to bear in mind, in so far as television films are used in their services, the possibility of assisting the television film industry as best they can. It might be interesting that I should add that at the present moment the British share of television films on Independent Television is nearly 40 per cent., and the corresponding figure for the B.B.C. during the last quarter of 1962 was 34 per cent.
LORD ARCHIBALD: I think that we on this side of the Committee, at least, and probably noble Lords in other parts also are bound to be disappointed by the reply we have just heard. I would remind your Lordships of the history of this matter. I think I should be right in saying—and I hope this is not boring to your Lordships—that the idea of a quota for television films flowed, first of all, from the producers' association of which I have the honour to be Chairman, the Federation of British Film Makers. We put proposals of this nature to the Pilkington Committee and, as the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, has said, the Pilkington Committee did not agree with us on that. But in the debate in your Lordships' House on the Pilkington Report I revived this suggestion of a quota for television films, and I then suggested that it was perhaps not entirely suitable for legislation. I said that I thought the industry here would be satisfied if the Postmaster General would get an agreement—a gentlemen's agreement if you like—with the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. (or, instead of the I.T.A., direct with the programme contractors) that they would, in fact, fulfil a quota so far as British television films were concerned.
While I am very grateful that on subsequent representations the Postmaster General, as the noble Lord has just said, wrote to the I.T.A. drawing their attention to the value in practice of trying to make sure that an adequate proportion of British television films were shown, quite frankly I do not think that that goes far enough. I am quite sure that, if the Postmaster General were to take up this question seriously, and were to make representations (I know that under this Bill the B.B.C. are not concerned, but I should hope that he would make the same representations to the B.B.C. as to the I.T.A. or the programme contractors), that might be a better way of dealing with it than by trying to write it into legislation. The important thing is to get the two authorities to agree that there should be, in effect, a quota of British television films shown on British television.
I agree with the noble Lord who is in charge of this clause on one point: that the question of definition is a rather difficult one. One might say that we all recognise a television film when we see

549
it, but it is a little difficult to define it in relation to new technques, and newer techniques which may develop in the future. But we all know what is a television film—the B.B.C. know, and the I.T.A. and the programme contractors know—and if they would agree with the Postmaster General that they would observe a quota for British television films, there would be no difficulties about interpretation, because all the authorities would know exactly what they were referring to.
If I may reply to one or two other points which the noble Lord has made, I do not think that there is any danger in the alarm he has raised about counter measures in other countries. After all, we have had a quota for cinematograph films operating since 1927 and, so far as I know, that quota has not been responsible for restrictive measures in other countries. That there are restrictive measures in other countries is undeniable, but there is no evidence whatsoever that those restrictive measures in other countries have been a counter measure to the Cinematograph Films Act and its quota for cinematograph films. And, as my noble friend Lord Francis-Williams says, that is a risk that the industry here would be very willing to accept.
A point which has not been made and which is unfortunately not included in the Amendment, though I think it would be included if there were, as I ask, an agreement between the Postmaster General and either the Authority or the programme contractors, is that the agreement should include a reference to the time at which the films are shown, because it would be quite unsatisfactory if the American television films were shown et the peak hours and the British television films were shown at the less important hours of the day. It would be rather important that any agreement should cover that point. I want also to suggest to your Lordships that this has an important bearing on the whole of British film production, and not just British television film production. Any of your Lordships who have recently been in Hollywood, as I believe some have, and who have gone to the studios there, will have found that the studios which are still open are in fact being kept alive by the production of television films. Without these, the overheads, the general cost of operating the studios,
550
would be such that they would have to close, and there would be no place available for the making of cinematograph films.
We are rapidly getting to that stage in this country. Our film studios get a great benefit from the making of such British television film series as there are. They help to carry the overheads of the studios; they help to keep the studios going when the main peak period of production of cinematograph films has passed; and, by taking their share of labour costs, overheads, rentals and so on, they make it possible for the studios to stay open and to be available for the making of cinematograph films. I think that is a point which cannot be stressed too strongly: that if, as a result of the levy, there is a cutting-down on programme costs and consequently a cutting-down in the making of the most expensive item, the television film, it will have a serious effect on the film studios in this country and, as a result, on the making of cinematograph films here.
If I may, I will emphasise a little more the details of the important point made by my noble friend Lord Francis-Williams. Look for a moment at the actual cost involved. To make one episode of a television film series—and when we are talking about television films we are talking mainly about television film series; and I need not remind the Committee about them; they are well known—costs roughly something like £25,000. It is possible for the programme contractors to buy the British rights of an American series which may have cost a great deal more than the British costs I have indicated. They can buy the British rights for from £3,000 to £5,000 per episode. In fact, this is the market for the dumping of those films which have recovered their costs and have made their profit on the other side of the Atlantic. Faced with the native cost of £25,000 per episode there is obviously a very strong temptation, particularly after the levy comes into operation, to avoid that expenditure, to drop the British film series altogether and to be content to use the cheaper American film series. That would be a most undesirable situation, but it is one that seems to me to be implicit in the Bill and in the consequences of the levy.
I hope, therefore, that if the Government are adamant on refusing this

551
Amendment, they will at least come a little further to meet us on this matter; and I would ask again that it should not be just that the Postmaster General writes to them and says he will keep this in mind but that he should actively take it up with them and try to seek a gentleman's agreement with them under which the B.B.C. and the programme contractors shall undertake to show a reasonable proportion—say 30, 40 or 50 per cent.—of British television films, and to show them during peak hours or off-peak hours according to how the American films are shown in these different hours of the day. I hope that we can get some little satisfaction from the Government and not simply a plain negative.
LORD CHESHAM: I will do my best to help the noble Lord in view of what he has said. Of course, he will realise that, as regards the hours of showing, under this Bill the I.T.A. have quite extensive power of control. But I have no doubt that what he has said will not fall upon deaf ears in that respect. So far as the question of making my right honourable friend agree to some kind of voluntary quota with the I.T.A. and, indeed, with the B.B.C., of course, I cannot stand here and commit him in that respect. Still less can I commit him to come to some agreement with them. Obviously the noble Lord realises that. I will, however, certainly convey to my right honourable friend what the noble Lord has said and the underlying sense of what he meant. Naturally it will then be for my right honourable friend to decide how to proceed next.
LORD SHEPHERD: May I make a suggestion to the noble Lord? I presume that if a quota were to be imposed at some time or another it would be done by regulation and order. I believe that that is what is done under the Cinematograph Act when a quota is imposed or a levy raised. I can well see from the remarks made by my noble friends that something has to be done if British television films are to have a proper showing. I wonder whether the Minister would consider whether it would be possible to include in the Bill provision, should the necessity arise in the interests of British television, for the Minister to make a quota by Order.
LORD CHESHAM: I am always ready to take up serious suggestions from the noble Lord and I will look into this, because I can see that it is seriously intended, but I cannot hold out a good deal of hope. The noble Lord realises that my original reply was devoted to the undesirability of having any sort of statutory quota. When I spoke again, I was talking about a voluntary, free-will quota, which was what I thought the noble Lord had in mind.
LORD FRANCIS-WILLIAMS: I thank the noble Lord for going so far as he feels he can. I wish that he could have brought himself to go a little further, but in the circumstances I will not press the Amendment and beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11:
Contracts for programmes
11.—
(4) Every contract concluded between the Authority and a programme contractor shall contain all such provisions as the Authority for the purposes of the discharge of their functions think necessary or expedient to ensure that the programme contractor—
9.7 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, in subsection (4), after "functions" to insert
"for the purpose of maintaining supervision and control over the programme to be provided under the contract".
The noble Viscount said: This is little more than a drafting point, but I think that it is something which should be right, and I would welcome an assurance from Her Majesty's Government that all is well in this subsection of Clause 11. I am satisfied that it is right that the contracts between the Authority and programme contractors should provide for the supply by programme contractors of various information needed by the Authority for the supervisory and controlling functions under this and the principal Act. But I do not suppose that this clause intends to give the Authority power under the contracts with the programme contractors to get hold of material for them themselves to transmit, if they ever have to do so in default.
What the subsection says is that the contracts
"… shall contain all such provisions as the Authority for the purposes of the discharge of their functions think necessary …".
One of their functions under this Bill and the principal Act is to put out programmes themselves in default. I am a little afraid that the clause as it is at present drafted will enable them to obtain scripts and other programme material free for that purpose. I hope that my noble friend can say that this is not what is intended and, if that is so, that the point is not open to the Authority under a technicality under this subsection. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 40, after ("functions") insert the said words.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
LORD CHESHAM: I need have no hesitation in assuring my noble friend that that is not the purpose of the clause at all. If there is a legitimate doubt about that aspect of it, I shall be glad to look into the matter and see whether anything needs to be done. Of course, my noble friend realises that I cannot accept the Amendment because of other necessary powers which must remain to the I.T.A.; but I will certainly consider the matter, although I think his fears are groundless.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I am grateful to my noble friend. I would point out to him that subsection (5) does put in the words I am here suggesting and thereby would tend to differentiate the purposes for which they used the powers under subsections (4) and (5). That is really the source from which my doubts came. I shall be grateful if he will look into it, and, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved to add to subsection (4):
"(f) if so required will incur expenditure on the production of programmes to be broadcast by the Authority amounting over a period defined by the Authority to a sum not less than a sum being such a proportion of the advertising receipts of its programme contractors as the Authority with the consent of the Postmaster General may determine".
The noble Lord said: I will be as brief as I can in regard to this Amendment. We have heard right through the Committee stage, both from the noble Lord,
554
Lord Lloyd, and from my noble friends behind me, about the possible effects of the levy: that it may well induce contractors to reduce their expenditure on programmes. My feeling, frankly, is that this is not likely to be the case, but fear has been expressed in the Committee this afternoon, and was expressed in another place, that this might be so. We therefore feel that we ought to include in the Bill an Amendment that where the contractors are not spending, in the judgment of the Authority, sufficient sums to provide the type of programmes that is required of them by the principal Act, then the Authority shall have power to so direct them to raise their programmes, even if it means further expenditure. That is the purpose of the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 20, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Shepherd.)
LORD CHESHAM: The noble Lord will understand if I gloss over what I regard as a "cock-eyed" piece of drafting in the Amendment and get on, as has happened before, to the substance of it. This is a matter to which, since it was considered in another place, the Government have devoted a good deal of thought. The noble Lord was perfectly right when he said that this Amendment is based on a certain amount of fear and misgiving that the expenditure will be cut to a minimum and thus depress the whole standard of television.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said on Second Reading that those producers on commercial television to whom he had spoken were not particularly worried about the Bill. I wish that in this connection he had listened to them a little harder. But, needless to say, we understand the feelings and the anxiety of people who work in and for the Independent Television companies and who may be worried about this matter. There are, however, to counteract this anxiety, the safeguards which are in the Bill. The contracts come to an end in July, 1964, anyway. After that the I.T.A. will have responsibility, when they come to select and appoint contractors for the ensuing period, to see that good programme standards are kept up. I do not think I need read out to your Lordships (because you are all familiar with it), the

555
express obligation in Clause 2 of the Bill, which sets out the duty of the I.T.A. in that respect.
There are also the Authority's powers of control over programme arrangements. These are given by Clauses 3 and 4. Then, in view of what has been said this afternoon, in our submission the operation of Clause 7 will leave the companies with sufficient means to produce good programmes; and there is the provision in that clause to enable Parliament to ensure that that is so. I am not sure that I agree with the proposition that the expenditure of a certain sum of money is bound to produce a good programme. Unless I am maligning him, I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Francis-Williams, who mentioned that point this afternoon.
LORD FRANCIS-WILLIAMS: I think I did. What I said was that one could by no means say that a costly programme was necessarily better than a cheap one. But that does not mean you may not have to expend a reasonable amount of money on a programme.
LORD CHESHAM: I remember thinking at the time that I regarded that proposition as rather more dubious than the noble Lord did. He is more knowledgeable about these things than I am, but I should have regarded it as a little more dubious than he appeared to do. Also, in certain circumstances it would possibly lead to some waste. The point I want to emphasise is that I think the anxiety which has been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, about the future is not well based, because it seems to me that Independent Television have a possibility of a healthy future. What we think is necessary is not so much the spending of a particular sum of money on particular programmes, but the production of good programmes which the Bill, with its safeguards and reasonable sums of money, with the spur of competition with the B.B.C. can achieve.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
9.18 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON LORD SHACKLETON moved to add to subsection (4):
"(f) will provide the Authority with a statement of accounts in such form as the Postmaster General with the approval of the Treasury may require and with a view to the publication of the general report prepared by the Authority."
The noble Lord said: The Amendment is designed to ease the lot of Parliament and others who are concerned with the performance of the contractors, both in regard to the terms of the impact of the new levies that are put upon them, and in regard to their programmes. I think it is commonly agreed between us that these contractors are operating within a field of public interest, and are permitted to have a valuable concession. For this they have to give certain services, and it is our hope that these services will continue to improve. Under this clause it is laid upon the contractors that they will give reasonable facilities to the Authority for inspecting books, accounts, records and other documents. It seems to us that the Authority should have power, not merely to inspect the books, but to demand that the accounts are presented in such form and in such detail as will enable them to judge, with the minimum of effort, various matters, and also to enable the Authority in their report to give some account of this.
I would suggest that this is genuinely in the interests of the contractors. They are operating in a field in which there is great public interest, and there can be no reason why their accounts should not be published. Indeed, it might dispose of accusations that might be going around about their activities. I hope that the Government will see that this is a necessary complement to the Act. It will enable the Postmaster General and, if necessary, Parliament, in so far as these accounts are published in the Report, to judge the conduct of these contractors a good deal more fairly. For this reason I hope the Government will consider this sympathetically, and, even if the form of words is not satisfactory, give us an undertaking that they will provide some sort of provision along these lines in the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 20, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Shackleton.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: This is an Amendment which was moved in another place and which my right honourable friend the Postmaster General said he would consider. He did consider it and, I would assure the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, sympathetically. The Amendment was, therefore, withdrawn. My

557
right honourable friend has considered it, although in the course of the discussion he said that it was unnecessary to do so. But I am afraid that he still feels that he is not able to accept this Amendment, for reasons which I must, in courtesy, state to your Lordships in view of what happened in another place and in view also of the case which was put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton.
The first objection in principle to what the Amendment seeks to do is that it goes much further than the Companies Act, 1948. That Act lays down certain minimum requirements about the accounts of public companies to be attached to their annual report filed with the Registrar of Companies and thus available for public inspection. But since most of the programme contractors engage in activities other than television alone, their accounts available for inspection are usually consolidated ones which do not reveal everything that you might want to know about their television activities separated and abstracted from the rest of the activities which go to make up their accounts. If we were to require the programme companies to provide for publication more than the general law of the land requires companies to do, I think that would be really wrong, unless there were strong reasons for doing so. It would not be reasonable to require a company to publish information in the way that the Amendment seeks to require about revenue and costs, which might be of value to competitors in the same business, and publication of one part only of a company's business might give a very misleading picture of the company's overall affairs and financial position, and might cause embarrassment in the company's dealings with trade unions, performers or programme promoters.
There is one particular reason why it might be thought a good thing that information should be provided about accounts. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has represented that if we were to reconsider the amount of the levy in any way it might be desirable that we should have information—and we have heard a good deal of information this afternoon, sometimes conflicting—about how these companies are doing or likely to do. I do not think it is necessary to have this Amendment in order to do that, because the I.T.A.
558
will have power to obtain all the information they need, all the information that the Government need and all the information that will be needed in order to bring about a decision by a statutory instrument under Clause 7(6) about the company's affairs.
In the final three paragraphs of this subsection (you have to go back a long way in this Bill to get the verb of a sentence; very often you have to go back to the preceding page) it says:
"Every contract concluded between the Authority and a programme contractor shall contain all such provisions as the Authority for the purposes of the discharge of their functions think necessary or expedient to ensure that the programme contractor"—
and then you go down to paragraph (c)—
"will provide the Authority with such declarations, returns, documents and other information as the Authority may require.
"(d) in particular, if so required, will provide the Authority with information as to the costs incurred by the programme contractor in providing the programmes or any part thereof (including advertisements) and his receipts from advertisers,
"(e) if so required, will give reasonable facilities to the Authority for inspecting the books, accounts, records and other documents kept by the programme contractor for the purposes of any business carried on by him, and for taking copies of, or of any part of, any such documents."
That, of course, is quite apart from anything the I.T.A. may say in their Annual Report about the effect of the levy on the companies, or anything the companies themselves may say in their own Annual Reports. Therefore, my right honourable friend does not think that it is very necessary in the public interest to impose this additional requirement upon the companies.
LORD SHEPHERD: Frankly, I find the Minister's reply rather bewildering. If the noble Earl would look at the Independent Television Authority's Annual Reports and Accounts, he will see that from time to time statements are made about the progress of the programme contractors. The Report I have here deals with the smaller contractors in Scotland, Grampian and the other one. Therefore, we have this particular aspect appearing in the Report. With regard to the statement of accounts to which my noble friend referred in his Amendment, I am sure the noble Earl, Lord Dundee,

559
will agree that these accounts are available. It is true that they do not give the trading account, but they show the profit and loss; and the balance sheet of each of these companies is available in London on payment of, I think, 1s. Further, you can obtain this information quite readily from the Exchange Telegraph Company, on which I based my information earlier on this afternoon. Here we have detailed information not only on the purposes of the company, but also on its profit margin, the earnings on its capital, the dividend it has paid, the tax it has paid and the like. The information goes even further than that; the chairman describes the progress that has been made. It also gives information as to the subsidiary companies that the contractors have started up. In fact, all this information is available if a person has got the time to go and look for it.
What we are suggesting is that since these contractors, these public companies, are making use of a public medium, all this relevant information should be included in the Report. I appreciate that under the Bill the Authority will be able to call for the information they themselves require to decide upon the performance, good, bad or indifferent, of the contractor. But this is a public Authority which is, in some ways, answerable to Parliament, and I should have thought it was in the interest not only of the Authority but also of the contractors—which, as my noble friend said, have been open to criticism—that the relevant information, which is available if you have the time to find it, should be made readily available in this Report. I cannot think that is an unreasonable requirement.
LORD SHACKLETON: I should like to press the Government on this, especially after hearing the noble Earl's reply. I think the analogy with the Companies Act has nothing at all to do with it. That Act has a completely different purpose. As my noble friend explained, this is a field in which the public are interested, and in the case of the larger companies if they happen to be public companies a good deal of Information is available; so I cannot, for the life of me, see what embarrassment is going to be caused. In my opinion this is typical of an old-fashioned view. I do not believe that the big industrial or commercial company is so nervous about
560
people seeing the details of its trading activities. Indeed most of them not only get their accounts out and sent round to their shareholders, which they have to do anyway, but get them up in a form which is easy for them to understand. How can it cause embarrasssment, as I think the noble Earl said, with the trade unions or with other promoters? The noble Earl knows a great deal about company business and I think he would have done better without his brief on this Amendment.
I should like to make an appeal. I am wondering whether the noble Lords who are concerned with some of these companies might not care to help us—and I mean this in no way to embarrass them, because this seems to me to be desirable. Where there is a feeling of secrecy, then suspicion is aroused. There is no reason why these accounts should not be made available in sufficient detail, as they will be made available to the shareholders in the case of private companies and as they are generally available in the case of public companies. If in fact they are tangled up with other trading accounts, it is almost certain, I should have thought, that the great majority of these companies have their separate trading companies' accounts. I have not checked that against the terms of the Bill, but presumably there are separate corporate bodies in every case, and as such they will have their own balance sheet and profit and loss account. For the life of me, I cannot see why this information should not be delivered. Probably they do deliver their annual accounts. This is probably one of the returns for which the Authority asks. We are suggesting that this should be written into the Bill and also that it should be included in sufficient detail in the Annual Report.
The noble Lord was good enough to say that the Postmaster General had looked at this matter. I suspect that by then he was getting pretty tired of this Bill, and I would appeal to the Government not to give up just yet. It is an exhausing process. They have been doing quite well to-day, and I hope that on this occasion they may do something for the Opposition, who have not been unhelpful. I suggest that this will remove some of the criticisms. It may reveal nothing of great significance, but it

561
will bring things into the open, and I can only say that if the contractors are good employers, and I expect most of them are, it will be in their own interests to provide this information that would be available to the trade unions.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I do not think there is much in this Amendment. My difficulty is that it has already been carefully considered by my right honourable friend as a result of discussions in another place, and I think his original contention that it was unnecessary is right, in view of the three paragraphs that I have quoted to your Lordships; I think that the I.T.A. and the Government, and, if necessary, Parliament, will be able to get all the relevant information they want. What the Amendment is asking is that these contractors should be put under more stringent requirements under the ordinary law than they are under the Companies Act. We have all been most patient over this Bill. I will certainly undertake to consult my right honourable friend again on this. The reason I am doing so is because the noble Lord has suggested that he might have been tired of the Bill when he reconsidered it, and I think that, as we are sitting unusual hours, we ought to be sympathetic to that point of view. Therefore, in response to the noble Lord's appeal, but without giving any kind of undertaking, I will ask my right honourable friend whether he is quite sure that he has reconsidered it enough.
LORD SHACKLETON: I am grateful for that little kindness, and ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.37 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, after subsection (4), to insert:
"() Every such contract shall contain such provisions as may be necessary or appropriate for ensuring or facilitating effective consultation at all times between the Authority and the programme contractors in relation to matters up on which, under any of the provisions of the principal Act or of this Act or of such contracts, the Authority are required to consult the programme contractors, or from time to time propose to give directions to the programme contractors, or exercise powers or rights vested in the Authority for securing compliance with any of such provisions or any regulations, rules or codes made thereunder, or for remedying any breaches thereof, or in relation to other matters of common interest to the Authority and
562
the programme contractors, and in particular for the maintenance of a committee representative of the Authority and the programme ccntractors to consider and give advice or make recommendations to the Authority and the programme contractors as to such matters."
The noble Viscount said: I think that all members of the Committee would probably agree that the one main thing that has come out of the present system under the principal Act is the Standing Consultative Committee which was set up between the earliest of the programme contractors and the Independent Television Authority and has been incorporated in the contracts of all the programme contractors who came into existence since that date. This Committee is an ad hoc Committee—it has no statutory origin. But it has met regularly ever since independent television started, and it has done all the things which I have attempted to set out in my Amendment, and I think done them satisfactorily. It has provided a forum where matters of disagreement and dispute can be discussed and worked out before they ever get to any of the serious statutory stages which are in the original Act. If there is one thing that will be more necessary than anything else when this Bill becomes law, it will be an increased amount of consultation between the programme contractors and the Authority. Therefore, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will agree to give their statutory blessing, as it were, to some sort of consultative machinery such as at present exists, and make quite certain that it is written into the contract and that it can continue to do the good work that it has done heretofore. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 20, at end insert the said subsection.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
LORD CHESHAM: I must admit, having a nasty suspicious mind, that when I first saw this Amendment I thought that my noble friend also had a nasty suspicious mind, and had some sort of feeling that the Authority would be likely to pursue their way through their functions and duties without consultation. I am somewhat relieved at the reason the noble Viscount has put forward, and he will forgive me if I say that I think there is perhaps not a great deal in it,

563
except on one point. Obviously, the Authority must be in constant touch with the programme companies all the way through, and I would point out that Clause 3 provides that there shall be consultation in the drawing up of the programme schedules. Certainly, the Authority will consult as a matter of course with the companies on their policy on codes.
The essential point is that all the consultation in the world, whether it is statutory or not, cannot, and must not, detract from the position of the Authority as being in control. I do not quite know what would happen after consultation if there were not agreement, so to speak. The noble Viscount has referred to the Standing Consultative Committee. I have no doubt that after the useful work it has performed and is performing, as he rightly says, it will continue in being. I have no reason to think that it will not. In point of fact, even if for some reason, it should not, the Authority still has power under Section 8(1) of the 1954 Act, to arrange for the provision of such a Committee. I should have thought it highly desirable that there should be such consultation, but stopping short of making it an actual statutory provision. There is nothing between my noble friend and myself, except as to whether or not it is desirable to make the setting up of such a Committee statutory. Personally, I think it is unnecessary. The I.T.A. must obviously, if it is to get efficient working, consult all the way through, whether it is a statutory duty or not. I think that it would work better if it were not done on a statutory basis.
LORD SHACKLETON: Before we finally dispose of this Amendment, I must say that I should have liked to hear from the noble Viscount how far he has anxieties about the continuation of this Standing Consultative Committee. It is conceivable that in years to come the I.T.A. might become perhaps rather more authoritarian. I do not know. Clearly, it is in the Authority's own interests to have excellent relations with the contractors. I am not sure that there is not perhaps an advantage in writing in some such measure—I do not know whether it is desirable that it should cover everything, including the kitchen sink
564
(which this Amendment, on which I congratulate the noble Viscount, does), but it would seem to be obvious common sense. I am wondering whether the noble Viscount feels very strongly that there ought to be a statutory requirement. This gives the programme contractors collectively a position. It may well be that they already have suitable associations for consultation among themselves, and it is not as if we want the relations to be such that a protection association is necessary. Before the noble Viscount decides to withdraw his Amendment, I should like to say that I have a certain sympathy with what he is seeking to achieve, and I am wondering whether he feels that perhaps what has been said is enough, or whether there are grounds for anxieties over this.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: What the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has said about the kitchen sink is rather a good case in point. It tends to be a very controversial matter at times when it comes into the dramatic side of the programme! I have no serious anxiety about the situation, but I thought it would be useful to draw attention to the particular machinery arrangements which have been made. It has been so successful, and has avoided so much trouble almost before it began, that it seemed to me that, in a clause which was full of what contracts must have in them, of a restrictive or other nature, it would be a good thing to include something that was recognised as good and useful. I thought that Her Majesty's Government would look favourably at it, particularly as my noble friend Lord Chesham has said that he accepts the need for full consultation throughout, which was no more and no less than what my Amendment contained. If the noble Lord thinks it is not necessary, I have no such anxieties as to wish to press the Amendment beyond what has already been said in your Lordships' House. I therefore willingly withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, has informed me that he does not wish to move his Amendment, No. 29.
LORD SHACKLETON: I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name

565
of the noble Lord. It may be that the answer is the same one as we had on the earlier Amendment.
A NOBLE LORD: Should the noble Lord be moving this Amendment?
LORD SHACKLETON: It is in order for me to move it. I was more attracted to this Amendment than to some. I think that in the course of the debate quite a powerful case has been made for taking into account the special problems of special programme contractors. Although most of us ion this side were inclined not to make too big concessions, this does seem to me—
THE EARL OF SWINTON: Is the noble Lord moving this Amendment, because otherwise I would say that he is out of order. He is moving it?
LORD SHACKLETON: I am about to do so, yes. I thought I had to say, "I beg to move" at the end. I am in fact giving the Government a chance to explain a little further. The reason why I am attracted to this is because I think it is a more moderate and workable Amendment. It may well be that the Government's answer is that the Authority will in any event do what is contained in the Amendment. If the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, is not familiar with the Amendment, I would say that it requires the Authority to allocate various areas or days of the week in which programme contractors shall operate. When doing so, the Authority shall take into account the achievement of fair conditions between the programme contractors.
We have had quite a good deal of evidence to-day that conditions have not been entirely fair between certain programme contractors. We have argued from this side of the House that the Authority has power, under Clause 7(1)(a), to ease the lot of those who feel they are oppressed. I am inclined to make it a duty of the I.T.A. to do this. In any case, although this is on a theme which we have already discussed, I think this Amendment is in a rather more workable form. I would be interested to hear the reply of the Government, unless they were misled by the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, was not going to move the Amendment and have thrown away their reply. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 29, at end insert—
("(6) In allocating the various areas in which or the days of the week on which the programme contractors shall operate the Authority shall take into account the achievement of fair conditions between the programme contractors and in addition shall for the same purpose provide for differential payments under section 7(1)(a).").—(Lord Shackleton.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, about this. But, in the first place, I think that the Amendment is not really necessary and, in the second place, I have nothing more to add to the reply which I think I gave about an hour and three-quarters ago to my noble friend Lord Lloyd, and the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, who took the opportunity of asking a number of questions about A.T.V. and A.B.C., which I had rather expected the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, might raise on this Amendment. But I was very glad that he raised them on the earlier Amendment, which I thought would be an economy of time. Therefore I am a little sorry that the matter has been raised again.
But the point which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, mentioned, about (a) rentals in Clause 7, is one which I fully dealt with on the earlier Amendment with regard to inequalities about the nature of the area and the days on which television takes place, and that really is a matter which I think the I.T.A. must decide in renewing contracts when that comes to be done next year. I would only just add the qualification that we want to be fair between companies, as I hope the I.T.A. will be. We must also consider not only fairness between the companies, but also what is going to produce the best type of television in relation to the needs of particular areas.
LORD SHACKLETON: Of course, the noble Earl was in fact on the previous occasion speaking to a different Amendment, which was concerned with a different subsection of a different clause. This is concerned with Clause 7(1)(a). But in the circumstances I should not wish to press the noble Lord's Amendment, and I therefore ask leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Breach of contract]:
9.50 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "has broken the contract on at least three occasions" and insert
"has on at least three occasions within such period as may be specified in the contract committed breaches of the contract which were not merely formal or technical or otherwise of trivial importance".
The noble Viscount said: In another place a very important addition was made to this clause in that the arbitration provisions in subsection (2) were added. This arbitration provision was inserted in order to determine whether or not there was a breach of contract serious enough, in the end, to lead to a programme contractor's licence being taken away. If the words that I suggest are not put into this clause, then the arbitrator will have nothing worth while to argue about, because it may be that there is a trivial breach of contract as a result of which notice is given by the Authority to the programme contractor, and it will be strictly necessary for the arbitrator to say that this is so. This, however, is thwarting the whole point of arbitration, in which it is for the arbitrator to decide whether what the Authority alleges is a serious breach which should lead to the programme contractor's licence being taken away is or is not such a serious breach. I think that, unless some such words are added to this subsection (1) of Clause 12, this point may never arise at all.
After all, even in the last Road Traffic Act it was enacted that it is only for serious offences, if you commit them three times, that your licence is taken away, as I think my noble friend Lord Chesham knows very well. I do not think there should be any question, under this Bill, of three purely formal, trivial or minor breaches of contract leading to a licence being taken away. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will be able to look with some favour upon this Amendment; and, if it is not right technically, at any rate will see that something of a similar nature is written into the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 40, leave out ("has broken the contract on at least three occasions") and insert the said new words.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
LORD CHESHAM: While I see what my noble friend is getting at, I am afraid that if we were to put these words in the Bill we should create rather more difficulties than he is seeking to solve. It would certainly give rise to a good deal of uncertainty—the uncertainty being, of course, who is to be the judge of what is merely formal or technical or otherwise trivial. From what my noble friend says, there are two people who can be the judge. One is to be the arbitrator, in which case, in order that he gets every case to judge what is trivial or what is merely formal or technical, the Authority must give written notice of a breach to a programme contractor—in the case of every single possible breach they make, however formal, however trivial or however technical.
Now I think that that is a complicated way of achieving nothing very much, because I should have thought that at any rate the primary opinion that should be given on this matter would be the opinion of the Authority. They have so far behaved, as I understand it, in a very reasonable way on this matter, and unless the noble Viscount tells me otherwise I see no reason to think that they will not continue to do so. They must have some power to ensure that no company continuously offends against the contract; and, obviously, a breach that the Authority regards as notifiable will be of sufficient seriousness to call for that action. I really cannot see the Authority wanting, or even needing, to deal with every trivial thing by means of written notice, and making it a notifiable breach. I should have thought that they would deal with those kinds of breaches of contract over the telephone, or round the committee table, or whatever they do at the present time. I am sure that we can rely on a sense of proportion coming into play, that no very small errors of judgment, or something of that kind, will be regarded as a matter calling for written notice. I do not think that they should be, and, despite the provisions to which my noble friend refers, I do not think it is necessary for them to go through all this paraphernalia.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: I should rather like the noble Lord the Minister to have another look at this point. There is nothing between us in intention or purpose here, but I recall (as he also

569
ought to, because he was deputy Minister of Transport when we had the Transport Bill before the House) that it was then considered necessary to put into that Bill that a man should not lose his licence—for he lost it after three offences—for a purely technical offence. I cite this merely as a parallel. But it was necessary; not because anybody suspected that the Minister of Transport would do anything unreasonable; but because, unless the position was so stated in the Act of Parliament, even though he would have wished otherwise, it would have been necessary to take action over a technical offence such as leaving a motor-car. Everybody, except a Minister who is privileged, has left his motor car and been told to move it on. For an offence like this a driver might have lost his living. The Minister felt it necessary in that case to put it in the Bill in order to save him from himself. I quite agree.
A great many things have been said about the I.T.A. I think they have done a very good job. I think they have been quite firm when necessary; they have also proceeded by negotiations and talks—which, after all, is not a bad way to proceed. In this connection, there was a lot of comment in this House on a Bill earlier to-day when the Government got themselves into a mess because they had not properly consulted with the Trades Union Congress and the Employers' Confederation. I think that I.T.A. have been admirable in that respect. I should like the Minister to look at this. I am sure that is the way they would want to proceed; but I should like to make quite sure that this Bill is so drafted that they do not have to take action and serve notices for something perfectly trivial. Let them have the right and the duty to intervene where there is a breach of which notice has to be taken; but let them have full power to wash out the trivial mistakes. Would the Minister look at this to make sure that the I.T.A. have the discretion that he wants them to have?
LORD SHACKLETON: I hope the Government will not give way on this matter. The noble Lord has said how good the I.T.A. have been. I would say that a great deal of the grounds of criticism of commercial television has been due to the failure of the I.T.A. to do their job. It may be that in the
570
past they should have taken stricter action than they did. We have taken the financial penalties out of the Bill, and I am not opposed to that: I think the Government were right to do that. The financial penalties are neither here nor there. But it seems to me that the I.T.A. must have the right to judge what is a breach of contract; and there are ample measures to protect the contractors in this matter. It seems to me we cannot help it further by trying to say what is exclusively a trivial offence—because some people might regard some things as trivial when the I.T.A. did not. And I can see the possibility of some quite absurd arguments. I think the Government have it about right. It may please the noble Viscount if they undertake to look at it; but I hope we shall not play around with this particular section.
LORD CHESHAM: Of course, nobody wants any programme contractor to lose his licence for a breach that is trivial or technical. What I am anxious to do is to preserve the position of I.T.A., as I see it. The present position is that the Authority have discretion not to serve a written notice where they think a breach is trivial. What I am afraid of is that, if I accept this Amendment, the I.T.A. will no longer have that discretion and must serve a notice in order that the arbitrator can adjudicate. The noble Earl adduced the analogy of the Road Traffic Act. It rather looks to me as if we should be importing the principle that every constable must prosecute every motorist for every offence, however formal or minor, in order that the court can use its discretion in regard to endorsing his licence. This seems to me a cumbersome way to proceed. Naturally I will look at this again, but at the moment I think that it is better left as it is.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I thank the noble Lords who have taken part in this small debate. It is difficult to put down Amendments to this Bill which do not suggest that one is criticising the way in which the Authority exercise their discretion. I am not proposing to do that at all. Nevertheless, I think that the Bill itself should be sufficiently precise to make perfectly clear what is meant and so that your Lordships should not rely solely on the good sense of the

571
Authority, which may or may not remain as it is to-day. However, I think that my noble friend Lord Chesham has produced a powerful argument against this Amendment. I gladly accept his offer to look at it again to see whether anything can be done to improve the wording and make it more precise. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Second television service provided by Authority]:
10.3 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 13 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD SHEPHERD: I am a little anxious about the wording of Clause 13. It places a duty on the Authority, when a second commercial television service is created, to ensure that so far as possible the same kind of subject matter is not broadcast at the same time in different programmes. I am satisfied about that provision, but the original Act makes it clear that competition should exist where it is possible. We know that that has not been possible because there is only one service. I should like to have it from the Minister that when a second commercial service is started, there will be competition between the two contractors, at least in the main areas, and it will not be a case of the existing television contractors operating two services in the same place at the same time. I hope that the Minister can give us an assurance, because Clause 13 does not deal with this and this may imply that the Government may have shifted their ground on the question of competition in the principal Act.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: I would have spoken on the previous Amendment if it had been raised, and I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has spoken to the clause, because I should like to make one or two observations on it. I said when we discussed the Report of the Pilkington Committee that I thought it right that there should be a Third Programme, but that what that Third Programme
572
ought to be was a genuine Third Programme, like the B.B.C. Third Programme, which would cater for minorities. I believe that is really what the demand is. Minorities are not just highbrow people. It is interesting to go into the statistics of what people view. Sport, racing, and even boxing (the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, is not here, but she would be delighted to hear this)—is a minority interest. So there is a pretty wide field of minority interest that is not just pure highbrow stuff. I am sure it is right to cater for this.
But what I am absolutely certain is that that is not solved by just setting up another third competing programme, and still less by setting up two more purely competing programmes. After all, a second commercial programme would mean that it was inviting competition from a majority audience, just as I think—and I am sure noble Lords opposite, who are such supporters of the B.B.C., in fairness, will not deny this—there is a great tendency in setting up just a B.B.C. second programme that that will lead to the competition at the particular hours for just the majority audience that are desired. Incidentally, nobody has yet said exactly how the money is going to be found for the B.B.C. Third Programme. I do not quite know. It will cost a great deal of money. I suppose something will come out of the levy. "When is a tax not a tax?"—but I must not go back on that. At any rate, after all the devious stages by which the levy has found its way via the I.T.A.—up to which stage it is not a tax, and after which, when the I.T.A. pays it over to the Exchequer, it becomes a tax, though I should have thought it was then a tax on the I.T.A. and not on the programme contractor—something will come out of that. I doubt very much whether that will be enough. I doubt, too, whether eitherside is anxious to put up the licence fees on a General Election.
I wonder whether it is too late, in the interests of getting greatly improved television and the kind of third programme I believe we all want, to have one third programme, and to divide that programme between the B.B.C. and the I.T.A.? You cannot take away things from the great majority audiences. They are going to see what they want, just as

573
people go year by year to see My Fair Lady. It is not too late to think about having a joint third programme. It might get the Government out of a great many financial problems, and it might also help people like the noble Lord, Lord Francis-Williams, and all those people who are good at having ideas about these things; and it might even get a little more mutual understanding between the B.B.C., who are jolly good (they have become much better since they have had this amount of competition, but they are still a little "holier than thou" and non-cooperative in things) and the I.T.A. I do not expect an undertaking from the Government but I should like to know that the door is not closed. If the Government would have another look at this, I do not think they would regret it.
LORD SHACKLETON: It is delightful that the noble Earl should bring this splendid subject up again. I thought we had advanced a little beyond it, but he is hopeful that it is not too late. I am afraid it is. I do not want to rehearse all the arguments against it, but the main argument at this stage is that a third television programme which would be a highbrow programme would not get off the ground at all. I am afraid that the Government's approach, which is the Pilkington approach, by which the B.B.C. and in due course the I.T.A. have their second programmes—though we have doubts about the second I.T.A. programme on economic and social grounds, but not on broadcasting principle grounds—would be damaging to the sort of purposes the noble Earl had in mind. We fully accept the sincerity of his motives, but it has been canvassed so often and has been rejected by the great majority of people, though one or two programme contractors are peddling this as a compromise idea, some of whom did not want to have another commercial channel. I think there are cogent reasons
574
against it, but in any case it is too late now. We are already committed. The B.B.C. are already embarking on their second programme, and I think the matter has to go forward as at present planned.
LORD CHESHAM: After that exceedingly pleasant small debate on the possibility of third channels or double second channels, or whatever it may be, apart from the observation that, taken by and large, probably the more channels you have the more likely are minorities to be catered for, I will pass back, if my noble friend does not mind to the delights of Clause 13. I cannot say categorically and specifically that the second service could not in any circumstances go to existing contractors. What I would agree is that it would be a bad thing if it went to them in the same place, at the same time.
LORD SHEPHERD: That is what I meant.
LORD CHESHAM: Except in remote places, that is not the intention of this clause. There is no question of going back on the spur of competition, or however the noble Lord put it. The substance of the clause is to try to ensure that it is a matter of balance and programme content, and that whoever is running the channel (and, as I say, I agree that it is undesirable it should be the same people, in the same place at the same time) there should be a balanced programme, because the whole idea of having two programmes is to give a balanced television service so that there is a choice for the viewer. As I said on Second Reading, if there is something light on one, there should be something more substantial on the other, and that is the intention of the clause.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Audience research]:
LORD SHACKLETON LORD SHACKLETON moved, to add to subsection (2):
"and the Authority shall include a summary of the said facts in their annual report compiled under section 15(3) of the principal Act."
The noble Lord said: It is surprising that we should have had to put into the Bill an obligation on the Authority to carry out audience research. It was one of the criticisms of Pilkington that the I.T.A. had not carried out proper audience research. I think the I.T.A. were a little hurt about it, having already carried out some rather expensive research, perhaps rather defensively explaining that anything they produced people would not be likely to believe.
I think we should be prepared to believe the I.T.A. if we could arrive at some common standard of approach to this whole problem of audience research. On the one hand, we have the B.B.C. with years of experience of carrying out the most detailed audience research, and noble Lords will be familiar with some of their reports. They are not generally published, but they are based on an exact inquiry using sampling methods and trying to establish not merely how many people watch a programme but how much satisfaction they get from a programme; and from that they build up an appreciation index.
On the other hand, the I.T.A. and the commercial companies have tended to rely on TAM ratings, which, I understand, are based on a device which is attached to a set which records whether that set is on at a particular time and the programme it is switched on to. This is, of course, no indication of the number of people who watch the programme; it is an indication of the number of households in which a television set is switched on and left switched on; and it may well be that people leave it switched on without looking at the programme at all because we are all taught that it is bad to switch a television set off and on too often. I do not know whether there is any truth in this, but certainly you are told that you should not switch a set on within twenty minutes after it has been switched off. Therefore, it is quite
576
likely that this country is full of television sets switched on to commercial television programmes with nobody looking at them at all. Maybe one could even argue that, if they are switched on to commercial television programmes, it is more likely that people are not looking at them than if they were switched on to B.B.C. But that, of course, would be a rather partisan view.
I think it is unfortunate that there has been this competition war. On the one hand the B.B.C., driven by the competitive spur, some of which we rather deplore, would claim to beat the commercial people at their own game, which they have done quite successfully on a number of occasions, and they claim that they have about 50 per cent. of the audience. On the other hand, the commercial companies, who depend on the size of their audience for their advertising revenue, will quote TAM ratings and their answer would be a very different one. I think that this has been a pretty sterile war, and both sides have been using it.
What I think is clearly intended in this clause is that there shall be proper audience research, and we are now asking that, in addition to there being proper audience research, it shall be properly reported upon. I would suggest this is something which is important for the annual report. The B.B.C. in their annual Handbook give some account of the extent to which audience research reflects interest in particular programmes. I am not suggesting that it should be published in detail. Indeed, I can see that it might well be undesirable to do so, as well as becoming a great bore. But I think some account of it should be included in the report.
I would not necessarily press this into the Bill, but I should be satisfied if I have deployed a case in this matter,—and I hope I have—that the Government should give some undertaking to suggest to the Authority that they should cover this. This is not a matter of no significance at all. It will not only be of value, of course, to people who are directly interested in broadcasting; it will possibly be interesting to those who are concerned with sociological developments, and provided that they need the sort of thing which is being done in sufficient

577
detail, then no doubt they will be able to go to the I.T.A. and obtain access to the actual results. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 15, at the end insert the said words.—(Lord Shackleton.)
10.20 p.m.
LORD McCORQUODALE OF NEWTON: I should not like this Bill to go out of this House without one voice, at least, raising some doubts upon the accuracy of either B.B.C. or I.T.V. methods of audience research. Having been trained in science in my youth, I do not believe in the accuracy of all these marvellous researches which, from small samples, are supposed to be able to tell us that 8½ million people watch this programme and 6 million watch that programme. I believe there is an enormous amount of inaccurate supposition provided by these samples, not only in this walk of life but in Gallup Polls and all these fancy things the advertising world produces for our delectation. I would express a sceptical view on the whole of this audience research. I think it is a very good thing the B.B.C. and I.T.V. ask some of their viewers what they think about programmes, but to get down to exact figures about the numbers who watch this and that from a scientific point of view is, to a large extent, in my belief, "hooey". The other thing I should like to say on this clause is this. I have no objection to the Amendment the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has moved. If they are going to make these researches we might as well know about them. But the words in the clause, "for encouraging the making of useful comments", surely are out of place. Are we suggesting that the public might make useless comments, or do we think that people make comments which they do not think are useful?
LORD FRANCIS - WILLIAMS: I would support my noble friend Lord Shackleton on this matter, I myself being a television performer of sorts. Audience research is very often the curse of all good television. If one is told, often in some mystical and, as the noble Lord opposite said, completely unscientific way, that x millions listen to this programme and only a hundreds of thousands to that, it gives a sort of quantitative view of the programme, and this
578
is then used to suggest quality, which is not at all a perfect method. I think there is a strong case for making a provision of this kind which would ensure a report on the audience research done by the Independent Television and an examination of what its results are, because I think that might turn out to be a very valuable thing for commercial television itself.
It seems to me that commercial television, in its audience research and particularly in its use of TAM rating, is still very much at the stage that popular newspapers were about half a century ago when the Northcliffe revolution began, and when the appeal of advertisements was based entirely on the number of heads that could be counted. Newspapers themselves, with the support and backing of advertising agencies and so on, have refined and gone on refining their analysis of their readers, with the result that it has become possible for quality newspapers appealing to comparatively small sections of the public (which if one were to count heads would not be regarded as important at all) to obtain the necessary advertising revenue, because they can show by greater refinement of reader research that the readers they have are people of substance, people who help to form opinion, and so on.
I think it might be good if commercial television were forced to look beyond the completely arbitrary TAM rating and required, because of a public scrutiny of what they were doing in their tests, to develop more refinements. We might then find it possible to develop within commercial television itself some more of those third television programme qualities that have been spoken of. It might well be found that a programme which did not appeal to a very large number of people on TAM rating but appealed to a sufficient number of people of influence and of the kind who read the serious quality papers could secure advertising revenue for the programme which would make it, even by the most commercial standards, a viable proposition, even if it was appealing only to a million instead of eight million or ten million viewers. Therefore, for that reason if no other, in the hope that that might happen, I am very glad to support this Amendment.
LORD CHESHAM: So far as this Amendment is concerned it would be natural to expect the Authority to include in their Report mention of their various branches of activities, and particularly in something like this, which is a new function in respect of audience research. It would be a curious omission if they did not say something about it. I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton that it would be undesirable to go into complete detail, but as on the occasion when we considered Amendment No. 12, it is not necessary to put this into the Bill, because my right honourable friend already has power under Section 15 (4) of the 1954 Act to allow the Authority to put in whatever information appears desirable or necessary.
LORD SHACKLETON: I am grateful, and I hope this will be done. I should like to reply to the noble Lord, Lord McCorquodale of Newton. Without wishing to go too deeply into the value of social surveys and Gallup Polls, and so on, which I think, when they are properly conducted, have considerable value, I believe it is perfectly possible to have a scientifically conducted poll which none the less yeilds unsatisfactory or inaccurate results. I have been trying to get away from precisely this counting of heads, and it is because there has been this slightly unfortunate competition between the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. and all the commercial programmes, which has made the counting of heads seem important, that I should like to see more emphasis on the type of audience research that the B.B.C. does, which does not purport, as a rule, to produce accurate figures of viewing or listening but tries to get a general impression of satisfaction from people of the extent to which they enjoyed programmes, with a view to making judgments. I am sure that if the noble Lord would like to look at some of these reports he will find them interesting. They do not purport to be accurate but they serve a purpose. I am grateful for the Government's acceptance of this principle, and I hope that since the I.T.A. have not done as much in the past they will realise that this is something on which it will be interesting to have a report. I hope in doing so they will heed what the noble Lord, Lord McCorquodale
580
of Newton said. We are not just interested in the counting of heads. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 agreed to:
Clause 16 [Programmes relating to controversial matters]:
THE EARL OF DUNDEE THE EARL OF DUNDEE moved to add to the clause:
"(2) In section 3(1) of the principal Act, paragraph (g) and the proviso (which, with certain exceptions, require matter designed to serve the interests of any political party to be excluded from the programmes broadcast by the Authority) shall cease to have effect."
The noble Earl said: This is an Amendment to clarify Section 3 of the principal Act. I had better just explain briefly what it is about. The operative subsection in the Act of 1954—that is, Section 3(1)(f)—requires the Authority to see:
"that due impartiality is preserved on the part of the persons providing the programmes as respects matters of political or industrial controversy or relating to current public policy;"
In this Bill, Clause 16 provides that in applying what I have just read a series of programmes may be considered as a whole. In the principal Act there is another paragraph (g), followed by a proviso which makes particular reference to the British Broadcasting Corporation's Party political broadcasts. It has been generally agreed by all political Parties, by the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. that the special reference to the B.B.C. should be omitted, which would have made an Amendment necessary anyhow. It has now been agreed by all parties, and by the B.B.C. and I.T.V., that it would make the thing clearer still, and less inhibitable, if paragraph (g) and the proviso were omitted, which is the effect of this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 19, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Rules as to advertisements]:
10.31 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved to add to paragraph 4:
"; and for the purposes of this paragraph the Authority shall draw up a code defining `natural breaks', and it shall be the duty of the programme contractors to obey the said code."
The noble Lord said: Paragraph (4) of Schedule 1 states that advertisements shall not be inserted otherwise than at the beginning or end of the programme, or in the natural breaks. If I had my way (and I think the majority of viewers would agree with me) I should like to see the words "natural break" omitted from the Bill. I think most people who watch commercial television are prepared to accept the advertising material at the beginning and the end of programmes. For some, of course, it is a welcome relief, in that they can nip out smartly and make a cup of tea and get a biscuit, or something like that. But I think that the majority of people, particularly in regard to some of the more serious programmes, feel that these so-called "natural breaks" spoil the programmes.
The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, speaking earlier on an Amendment, stated that advertisements should not be inserted where they spoil the particular programme. From time to time there is dispute as to what is a natural break. I believe that there are discussions between the contractors and the Authority on where and when an advertisement should be inserted in the classification of a natural break. The purpose of this Amendment is that the Authority should make absolutely clear what is a natural break, and that it should be defined in such a way that if the contractors obey the code certain types of programme will not be regularly broken up by advertising. I appreciate that a code is in some cases general, but I should have thought in this particular case that it would be possible for the Authority and the contractors to produce a code of such a nature that, by and large, we could eliminate that type of advertisement from the serious programmes, and perhaps from the quiz programmes, in which I should
582
have thought there was not a natural break; and, where there is advertising in a programme, that it must be quite clear that it is a really natural break and not one that has been created artificially merely for the insertion of advertisements. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 19 at end insert the said words.—{Lord Shepherd.)
LORD CHESHAM: Of course, to an extent I agree with the noble Lord about the irritation caused by a natural break. I can only conceive of its being exceeded by the irritation caused by doing away with the natural break and having an unnatural break. But I do not think we need to go into that at the moment. It is something which has always given rise to a good deal of attention and argument. As the noble Lord says, it has been difficult to define. In fact he admitted that by referring at all to a code.
I suppose one could say that the practice that has grown up over the years has to an extent tended to codify the matter, but I do not think it would be right to put specifically on the Authority a statutory obligation to carry out their duties on matters which, in any case, they have to observe under the Bill. That is rather putting their freedom of administration in a kind of straitjacket. Considerable attention must be paid to this. I do not think there is any argument about that, and I do not think the Authority would argue about it either, but they ought to have a certain flexibility about drawing this up. In regard to any powers they require to draw up a code, they would not require any further powers by way of this Amendment—because they have powers to do just what the noble Lord wants under clause 5, subsections (4) and (5). I should have thought that, having got those powers, there is no need for this Amendment.
LORD SHACKLETON: I want to press further on this because this is a matter in which the I.T.A. have failed. They stated in their last report:
"There are, of course, many more internal breaks in most television programmes into which advertising could be inserted than are used for the presentation of advertisements."

583
In their evidence quoted in Pilkington they use almost the same words:
"Almost every programme contains more natural breaks than are needed for the insertion of advertisements, and the problem of placing them is therefore one of selecting the most suitable break."
We have all watched commercial television programmes in which we know some of these advertisement breaks have in no way been natural at all. Pilkington said:
"There is … evidence that many programmes do not contain obviously natural breaks, and that some of the breaks are not only patently contrived but are ill-contrived in timing or frequency. They thus offend the principle that the insertion of advertisements must suit the programme, rather than the reverse."
They go on:
"We note that, after much public criticism, the Authority took steps to tighten the practical interpretation of the term natural break'."
It has not been good enough so far. There are still too many unnatural breaks. Although I would agree that it is not necessary to add further powers to the Bill, I would urge the Government to ask the Postmaster General to press on the I.T.A. that they must do better in this matter. I am sure most noble Lords will agree with what I am saying on this. I do not think we need further legislation, but it is something which is very irritating and extremely damaging to Independent Television.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 [Amendments of principal Act]:
10.40 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON LORD SHACKLETON moved, in paragraph 2, to leave out "by the Postmaster General". The noble Lord said: It is a little late in the evening to start on the subject of the appointment of the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, as Chairman of the I.T.A. The purpose of this Amendment was to do a thing which, on the whole, I think we should prefer not to do in this country: to require that the Government, in making appointments to the Independent Television Authority, should seek the approval of the House by submitting a draft Order in Council. This would be an introduction of something like the Senatorial practice in the United States, of having
584
to approve Government appointments. While I am quite sure that we should not really want this procedure the Amendment is put down because of the crass folly of the Government in appointing a man who no doubt is an admirable and able man, but a highly contentious figure, to a highly sensitive post.
I am not attacking the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, personally in this matter, but he is going to occupy a post in which he is bound to be subject and open to criticism in one way or another. No doubt he is a man of strong character and integrity, and will resist pressures that are brought to bear on him; but there is temptation, in a case like this, to lean over backwards to avoid criticism by the other side. It may well be that there will be a tendency to be unfair in certain matters to the Party of which he was a distinguished member. But of all people to be appointed to this particular post, I can scarcely think of anybody who is more controversial than Lord Hill of Luton. That is the reason for this Amendment, though I do not expect that the Government will accept it and although I should not really like to see a system of Parliamentary control of such appointments. The analogy with the Coal Board has nothing to do with it, because the I.T.A. and the B.B.C. are in a different category. I should have liked to see the sort of arrangement whereby that appointment would be subject to some agreement between the Parties. It would have been perfectly easy to have discussions. There are many matters on which political leaders of different Parties can come together and can agree on acceptable people. It is for this reason that I beg to move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 13, leave out ("by the Postmaster General").—(Lord Shackleton.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: The noble Lord began by very effectively stating the case against his own Amendment, when he said that this is not the sort of thing that we should want to do, or that we ought ever to want to do. But he was proposing that we should do it because the Government have appointed Lord Hill of Luton as the next Chairman of the I.T.A. It is, of course, a fact that the appointment of members of the Authority—and, for that matter, the

585
Governors of the B.B.C.—has always been made without the prior approval of Parliament. That has always been recognised as desirable, and it was recognised as desirable by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. in his remarks just now. The reason why Lord Hill of Luton has been appointed is that the Government thought he was the best man for the job. He has divested himself of all Party affiliations and the Government are emphatically confident that he will prove a strong, able and impartial Chairman; and that he will not in any way allow his previous political affiliations, of which, as I say, he has now divested himself, to inhibit him in his conduct of the Authority's service. I think this has been very much overdone.
When Lord Robens of Woldingham was appointed by a Tory Government to be Chairman of the Coal Board, I do not remember hearing a loud outcry of indignation from the Labour Party on the ground that people with previous Party affiliations ought not to be appointed as Chairmen of public Boards, and in spite of what the noble Lord has said. I can see no more reason why we should object to one appointment than to the other. I am sorry that the noble Lords feel so strongly opposed to this particular appointment, but I think it would be quite wrong, as indeed the noble Lord has admitted, to change the method of appointment on that account.
LORD SHACKLETON: If the noble Lord can see no difference between the appointment of Lord Hill of Luton as Chairman of the I.T.A. and Lord Robens of Woldingham to the Coal Board, then all I can say is that the case for this Amendment, regrettably, becomes even stronger. I will make no more of it. I believe that in fact the B.B.C. Governors are appointed by Order in Council, but it may not be subject to Parliamentary approval. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.45 p.m.
LORD ECCLES LORD ECCLES moved, after paragraph 3, to insert:
Provision of Experimental Educational Service Outside Programme Contracts
"4.—(1) In section 2(2), at the end of paragraph (b) there shall be inserted the words 'and
586
(c) with the consent of the Postmaster General, arrange for the provision, otherwise than by programme contractors, of educational broadcasting services of an experimental nature to be broadcast in addition to educational programmes provided for the purpose of the public service referred to in section 2(1)(a) of the Television Act 1963 by programme contractors.
(2) So much of section 4(6) as prohibits the inclusion in programmes (other than advertisements) broadcast by the Authority of anything which could reasonably be supposed to have been included therein in return for payment or other valuable consideration to the Authority shall not apply to any programme so broadcast in an educational service provided under section 2(2)(c).'"
The noble Lord said: I have troubled the Committee with this Amendment simply and solely because I believe that educational television has an enormous future, and that in this country we are behindhand and need every possible chance of promoting experiments. I am fortified in that belief by what my noble friend Lord Dundee said on Second Reading of this Bill.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 251 (No. 110) col. 1373]:
"We shall all agree that we should like more educational services to be performed by television. It is a field in which developments are only just beginning".
That is absolutely true; and when I looked at the Bill I saw that, under Section 2(2) of the principal Act, the programmes broadcast by the Authority must clearly be provided by programme contractors in consideration of payments to the Authority. Therefore a body that does not make a payment to the Authority cannot be a programme contractor; nor can the Authority transmit its programmes. This Amendment would enable the Authority to arrange for the provision, otherwise than by programme contractors, of educational services of an experimental nature. I should say at once that the educational programmes provided by the programme companies are of very great value, and what the Authority now wish to do would be additional to and in no sense a replacement of the companies' programmes.
It has always been the view of the Authority that there should be a national service of educational television and that, when it comes, it should be under the direct control of educational bodies, and not under the control of either the Authority or the B.B.C. Therefore, the proposal in the Amendment is for experiments only, and is only for such time

587
as a national education service is not in operation. Why is it so desirable that the Authority should be able to arrange for such experiments? I can perhaps best give the answer by citing an example. The Vice-Chancellor of Queen's University, in Belfast, has a committee sitting to consider an experimental educational service in the Belfast area using the available V.H.F. channel. That is a service which, if it comes off, will, undoubtedly be of the greatest interest to our friends in Northern Ireland, where I can well understand that adult education is something they care about very much.
Suppose that the Postmaster General were prepared to allocate the available channel—and I can hardly think my right honourable friend would make much trouble about that—if this Amendment were accepted, I understand the Authority would be prepared to transmit the programmes of this service and to give it substantial financial support for a period of up to three years. This is a really constructive idea. I am quite certain that the Government do not wish it to be stillborn. I am also certain that many other ideas of this kind will come forward which will come to nothing if the Authority cannot give them support. I need not remind your Lordships how short we are of teachers, particularly in the field of adult education: nor, I think, what a great need there is to supplement, both for schoolchildren and for adults, in any way which will make it more interesting and more lively to them, knowledge and skill. Further, that, of course, some other countries, at any rate, are pushing ahead in this field. We cannot expect the programme companies to provide in the peak hours experimental programmes of educational content. Yet for many specialists who would be deeply interested in programmes that deal with their particular subjects, there are probably no times except peak hours when they will come together and watch in good number. Fortunately, there are a number of spare V.H.F. frequencies not used at present by other V.H.F. services and these make possible the introduction of additional V.H.F. services in three or four areas, including Ulster, of which I have spoken.
The second part of my Amendment is designed to avoid the possibility of difficulties arising from Section 4(6) of the
588
principal Act, which says that programmes must be seen not to have been provided in collusion with advertisers. The lawyers think it possible, that unless this second part of the Amendment is included we may get into difficulties in that respect. I hope therefore that this Amendment will appear suitable to the Government, as my noble friend, Lord Dundee, hoped one would be, and that its acceptance will strike a blow for the better technique of adult education which is very backward at the present time. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 25, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Eccles.)
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: I rise briefly to support the noble Lord in what he has said. I do so not so much as a director of a programme company but as a long supporter of educational television, and especially in this House, where I moved a Motion on this subject two or three years ago. I hope very much that the Government will consider this Amendment most seriously. The noble Lord has already told us about what has been done in other countries, and I think it is true to say that we are behind. I believe that there are at present spare V.H.F. channels, and I hope that ultimately there will also be spare U.H.F. channels which might be used by unversities or other educational bodies. It seems to me that this experimental provision is one of the best Amendments which has been put down in this Committee during the past two days and, indeed, that it could be one of the best things in the Bill.
LORD SHACKLETON: I understand that the Government are likely to look favourably on this Amendment, and I entirely agree with the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, that this is an extremely interesting Amendment. I am quite sure that it is one near to his heart, because I know that he has been very interested in educational television. The Amendment, however, raises a number of questions in my mind. It is a pity that this important Amendment, which could be the subject of quite a useful debate, should have come on so late at night. As I understand it, this is a proposal which might operate in certain areas. I gather that in Belfast Professor Grant

589
has his committee; that there will be a spare channel on V.H.F., either Band I or Band III or one of the V.H.F. channels, available; and that the idea is that the I.T.A. should begin to set up certain experimental services.
It was, of course, very strongly argued by the Pilkington Committee that education should be developed within the existing services, both B.B.C. and I.T.A., and I myself am attracted by that principle. But I can see there are severe limits to this, particularly in regard to peak-hour educational broadcasting. I find it difficult to see how it is going to work. I presume that local programme contractors will help to provide certain of the facilities. I do not know whether that is what the noble Lord, Lord Eccles, has in mind. Presumably the studio and I.T.A. will provide the transmitting service. How is it going to be co-ordinated? Is it going to be run separately from the B.B.C. developments? It is arguable, perhaps, that the B.B.C. should be given these separate channels to do this. Obviously, the last thing we want, whatever our particular affiliations, is competition between the two authorities for this purpose. But I can see difficulties. Whereas most of my noble friends to whom I have spoken on this matter are in favour of the Amendment, I think it is a matter to which we shall have to give particular thought in future. Presumably this is experimental. We shall look forward with interest to hear how the Government regard this and how they look at some of the possible snags that may arise.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I told your Lordships on Second Reading that in the second of the two White Papers on Broadcasting, paragraphs 43 and 44, the Government had accepted a formula defining educational broadcasting for adults, on the basis of which specific proposals for additional hours of educational broadcasting had been made, and that we attached the greatest importance to these developments. I think this is a subject of great importance. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that it involves a great many complicated questions, one or two of which he mentioned: whether it is better to sandwich educational material in between other programmes, how much place should be given to the B.B.C. in
590
relation to the I.T.A., and the methods. But we need not consider these complications now, because all that this Amendment does is to provide that, if any experiments are undertaken, I.T.A. shall be entitled to take part in them. It does not necessarily mean that any experiments will be undertaken, though personally I hope that they will, nor does it mean that if they are undertaken I.T.A. will be required to carry them out.
All that it does is to make a permissive provision that, if an experiment is undertaken, I.T.A. shall be entitled to take part in such experiment. I hope that your Lordships will be willing to accept this Amendment, which I think is a good one. The Minister of Education, who has been consulted about it, has agreed with it, and I therefore would ask your Lordships to accept it.
LORD ECCLES: May I thank the Government very much for their reply? I feel sure that, from what may be quite a small beginning, both I.T.A. and B.B.C.—because, of course, I want to see experiments done by the B.B.C. too—will stimulate the interest of and give hope to people who have ideas and have not yet been able to put them into practice.
LORD FRANCIS-WILLIAMS LORD FRANCIS-WILLIAMS moved to insert the following paragraph:
"9. To the definition of 'disqualified person' in section 5(1) there shall be added the following paragraph:—
'(d) being a body corporate carries on activities which do not further the purposes of the provision of programmes for broadcasting by the Authority'."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Shackleton and other noble friends. This Amendment is an attempt to ensure that programme contractors are in fact programme contractors and do not hive off into all sorts of other activities, like developing bowling alleys, as many of them now are beginning to do. It seems to me wrong and inappropriate that revenue which has been secured by showing television programmes, and advertising revenue acquired by doing so, should be used for investing in all sorts of other activities which are in no way furthering the purposes of the provision of programmes

591
for broadcasting by the Authority. I do not think it is necessary to say much more about the Amendment than that. We want programme contractors to be programme contractors, and we think that in return for the franchise which they get under their contract they should be required to concentrate their activities on producing programmes. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 17, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Francis-Williams.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: This is another Amendment which my right honourable friend in another place undertook to look at. He has carefully considered it, but I do not think that it is either a necessary or a particularly good thing to provide for, or that it is really necessary to achieve the purposes which I know the noble Lord has mainly in mind in moving it. I think it would be unjustifiable to prevent a company which is engaged in one branch of human activity from engaging in another branch of activity, provided that the other branch is not such as to prejudice its performance, which the I.T.A. have the duty of supervising and directing in the interests of good broadcasting. I do not see why a company should not engage, if it so chooses, in farming, or even holiday camps—not that any of them are likely to—so long as it does not so distract the company's attention from television as to detract from the performances it gives.
I would remind the noble Lord that there are existing powers under Clause 11 under which the I.T.A. can act in regard to any change in the nature of the company or any failure on the part of the company to carry out the requirements which are imposed on it by the I.T.A. Clause 11(3) says:
(3) Every contract concluded between the Authority and a programme contractor shall, where the programme contractor is a body corporate, contain all such provisions as the Authority think necessary or expedient to ensure that if any change affecting the nature or characterstics of the body corporate, or any change in the persons having control over or interests in the body corporate, takes place after the conclusion of the contract, which, if it had occurred before the conclusion of the contract, would have induced the Authority to refrain from entering into the contract, the Authority may by notice in writing to the programme contractor, taking effect forthwith or on a date specified in the notice, determine the contract.
592
This Bill is full of provisions enabling the Authority to require that proper sums shall be spent on the improvement of the programme companies' performances in the interests of good television. I think, therefore, it is not necessary that we should impose this prohibition on any company from undertaking any other useful kind of activity or combining one thing with another. If the I.T.A. consider that such a combination of interests or activities is prejudicial to good television, then they have a remedy in their hands.
It also has positive powers under the Act to require that programme contractors shall conduct their business in accordance with what the I.T.A. conceive to be the best interests of television and the best purpose of their duties under this Act in the interests of the public. I would therefore suggest to the noble Lord that, in view of the fact that this matter has already been fully gone into in another place, and that my right honourable friend has undertaken to consider it (I have no reason to think he was especially tired when he did so) for good and reasonable causes he has come to the conclusion that it would not be a good thing to accept the Amendment.
LORD FRANCIS-WILLIAMS: The noble Earl seems to brandish before us a steam-hammer when all that is wanted is a tap on the shoulder. We are told that if necessary the Authority can bring a contract to an end because the company is doing things which it ought not to do. All we are asking is that it shall be laid down that the programme contractors should be programme contractors and not go off into other things; that they should have a "Stop" light which says, "This is a 'No entry' road." But as this matter is being gone into, and in view of the lateness of the hour, I will not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.7 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved, after paragraph 13, to insert the following new paragraph
Accounts of programme contractors
"14. In section 15, there shall be added after subsection (4) the following new subsection:—
'(4A) The programme contractors shall make available to the authority such financial information concerning their television operations as the Authority may require, and the Authority shall include in its

593
annual report so much of this information as it may, after consultation with the Postmaster General, think proper.'"
The noble Lord said: Earlier in the evening the noble Earl agreed to look into the question of Amendment No. 27. I could see some difficulty in that Amendment in regard to a statement of accounts, as perhaps they would be consolidated, although I would agree with my noble friend that before the accounts are consolidated the contractors would have separate accounts for their television operation. But this Amendment is a little more particular. It requires that
"The programme contractors shall make available to the Authority such financial information concerning their television operations as the Authority may require …"—
in other words, such figures as the Authority may themselves require of the contractors—and that the Authority should include such information as, after consultation with the Postmaster General, they think proper.
I would not deploy again the arguments we made. This is a matter of considerable public interest. This is a public medium; it is a public Authority, working in conjunction with private companies. Apart from the reports of operations of the smaller companies, the Report lists the names of the directors and the senior officers of the programme contracting companies. It would seem to me desirable, in the interests of the Authority and the contractors, that such information as to give an indication of the progress of these companies should be included in this Report. I hope the Minister will consider this point when he considers the question of Amendment No. 27. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 34, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Shepherd.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I undertook to ask my right honourable friend to have another look at Amendment No. 27, and I had rather hoped that this Amendment might be consequential to it. I now understand that the noble Lord wishes to pursue it a little more, particularly because it is not exactly the same point. Nevertheless, I think the Amendment is unnecessary. If your Lordships will look at Clause 7(7) of the Bill, you will see that it makes provision
594
for the I.T.A. to receive the information about advertising receipts for the purpose of computing the additional payments. Then in Clause 7(10) there is a provision that the I.T.A. shall prepare a special account of the additional payments which has to be sent to the Comptroller and Auditor-General and laid before both Houses of Parliament. I do not want to go too much into Statute legislation, but I have the principal Act here. Under Section 15(5) the Postmaster General can ask the Authority for any information or document with respect to the financial transactions of the Authority; and under subsection (4) of the same section he can direct what information shall be included in the annual accounts. Then the Authority can, for their own purposes, obtain from the contractors information as to costs incurred in providing programmes and their receipts from advertising, and can obtain access to the contractors' books, accounts and records.
The noble Lord has argued that publication of a certain amount of financial information in the I.T.A. Annual Reports might help the companies themselves because it would show publicly whether the additional payments were as heavy a burden as they are suggesting they will be, and it would indicate how much they were spending on programmes. Under the previous Amendment, No. 27, I think the intention was to limit the activities of companies, and I suppose that the present Amendment is a further attempt to get at the particular position of a company in its television activities alone. But I have pointed out that under Clause 11 and Clause 7 the Authority can get all the financial information they need. As to what might be published, the noble Lord's Amendment leaves this to the I.T.A. as to what they think proper. It mentions consultation with the Postmaster General, but leaves the decision, I think quite correctly, to the I.T.A. I would, therefore, suggest to the noble Lord that there is no need for a statutory requirement of this kind; that it is a matter which could clearly he left to be considered by the Independent Television Authority.
LORD SHEPHERD: I thank the noble Earl. I will carefully look at his remarks, and perhaps he would also look at the case that I have made. On those

595
terms, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Repeals]:
11.13 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM: This Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 35. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 18, column 3, after ("(1)") insert (", in paragraph").—(Lord Chesham.)
LORD CHESHAM: This Amendment, also, is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 21, column 3, after ("person'") insert ("and the whole of paragraph (g) and the proviso").—(Lord Chesham.)
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with Amendments.
House adjourned at a quarter past eleven o'clock.