Sitting of 28 June 1963

Preamble
The House met at Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  FINANCE BILL
  Order for Third Reading read.
  11.5 a.m.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Reginald Maudling): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  The difficulty with this particular stage of the Finance Bill is the usual one, namely, that broadly speaking we are confined to what is contained in the Bill and that the contents of the Bill have been thrashed out in detail more than once in the course of the last few weeks. Perhaps I could start by saying a word or two about the course of the Bill to this stage. It is a large Bill, a substantial, thick document, and there is great detail in it, making some very large changes in the taxation law. I think it a good thing that it passed so smoothly and in very reasonable time.
  I must apologise for the variety and number of Amendments we had to place on the Notice Paper earlier. That was because we were taking the closest possible account of the various representations made to us while the Bill was passing through. I should like to thank the Opposition for the courtesy and restraint of hon. Members opposite throughout the passage of the Bill. This has not stopped them from making some pretty trenchant criticisms at various hours of the day and night on features of the Bill of which they disapproved.
  As the entire work of carrying the Bill through Committee and Report fell on the other Treasury Ministers, I pay tribute to them for all the work they have done. I particularly commend the work done by the Financial Secretary, the Economic Secretary and the Solicitor-General. They served the House well, and I appreciate their great courtesy and diligence and am most grateful for what they have done.
  1846
  The main contents of the Bill fall under two heads. One is the abolition of Schedule A, a major change in the tax structure, to which I shall not refer again as it has been discussed many times in the course of the last few weeks. For the rest, the Bill had the theme, which I have tried to follow both in the Budget and in the Finance Bill, of assisting, in practice, towards a more rapid and more steady rate of expansion. The Income Tax reliefs, capital allowances, the new system of free depreciation in development districts and stamp duty changes were all designed to stimulate demand in the economy, but to do it in such a way as to increase efficiency and promote a steady rate of expansion.
  It is, of course, too soon to see any of the effects of this Finance Bill because, broadly speaking, none of the release of purchasing power involved has begun to take effect. The Income Tax reductions will not take effect until early next month and, as for the change in capital allowances, they will take some time to show an effect in revenue or company accounts, but changes both in the psychology in industry and in investment by businessmen are already becoming visibie. This naturally is a slow process. The movement and trend of private manufacturing investment must be a fairly slow process. It is not something which is rapid or should be rapid or erratic. We must expect to see fairly slow movements but, one would hope, fairly steady movements.
  On the other hand, the economy is clearly reacting to earlier measures. After the very substantial increase in unemployment during the winter, we have had in the last two months a very sharp fall indeed in the level of unemployment, which, I think, now stands out clearly as a structural problem—not a general problem, but a problem confined to certain areas of the country, for instance Scotland, Ulster, the North-East and Merseyside, where it is still important. That is why I think I was justified in concentrating help on regions of high unemployment.
  So far the new system of free depreciation, coupled with the new standard grants which arise from another Bill—the combination of these two—has already produced a very keen interest among

  1847
  businessmen in the prospects of investment in the development districts. I am sure it is the wish of the whole House that this keen awakening interest should soon show itself in factories being erected and jobs being created.
  I conclude, in commending the Bill to the House, by saying that we are now seeing an expansion of the economy; and our essential task must be to ensure that the expansion is as rapid as is consistent with an avoidance of a return to inflation and with maintaining a rate of growth in the steadiness of which business men can have confidence.
  The Finance Bill and the Budget range over the human, physical and financial factors in a growth policy, and, as the House knows, the work of the National Economic Development Council and the discussions we have had on that body are reflected quite considerably in the structure of this year's Budget.
  For the future, I have no doubt that things are entirely in our own hands. We have the ability as a country to establish and maintain a more rapid rate of growth. The national conditions are such that this can certainly be done, provided that we are prepared to match enterprise with restraint.
  11.10 a.m.
  Mr. James Callaghan: The Chancellor made his speech very cogently and succinctly. Last year, I congratulated the then Chancellor on what he had done. I think that I had better beware. A week after my congratulations, on 4th July, he was out of office. I do not know whether any words of mine will have any effect on the Chancellor's position this year. Of course, he need not necessarily be out of office. I suppose that there could be other changes. Anyhow, I forbear from congratulating him, and I would not wish to influence any internal deliberations at all.
  The Financial Secretary has been most diligent, painstaking and courteous in everything he has said. As for the Economic Secretary—I do not see him in his place; no doubt, he is recovering from his weary vigil or, perhaps, planning and plotting more evil schemes somewhere in the bowels of the Treasury—I have never met anyone who
  1848
  was more resolutely determined to find swans in other people's geese. He has bemused us all by his desperate attempts to find good where most of us could see only mediocrity. The Solicitor-General has been urbane and courteous. The Chief Secretary has been himself.
  As for my hon. Friends, I must say that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has performed his usual feat. I said last year that, if he ever gave up drafting Amendments, I was not sure what would happen to the British constitution. What I say this year, after a further 12 months' experience of him, is that I know of no greater expert in Parliamentary draftsmanship in the House. He has, over the last 10 years, won for himself a reputation which is acknowledged in all quarters of the House. It is a saying among us, when we want to find some obscure way of getting round the Government's intention, "Give it to Dick". He has performed most valiantly again on this occasion.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) combines pugnacity with a passion for purity in public taxation. It is a combination which is most refreshing to everyone. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) has, of course, a deep knowledge of the City. My hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland), who also has helped us on this occasion, is not here today because he is finding out in Japan how the Japanese manage to succeed in stimulating a much faster rate of growth than the Tory Government have ever done although faced with rather similar problems. No doubt, he will come back with some proposals about the way in which we should go about it.
  This has not been an exciting Bill. I think that most of us would say that it has been a very dull Bill, despite attempts to engender heat at various times. Probably, the main effect has been to undo a lot of the damage which was done last year. Last year, we added another £289 million to the nation's burdens by the Finance Bill. This year, we are relieving the nation of £260 million through the medium of this Bill. We are, so to speak, "as you were". We have gone back to where we were more than a year ago.

  1849
  I agree with the Chancellor when he says that we cannot expect to see any quick results from the increased capital allowances and free depreciation in development districts. This is all the more reason for regretting that the Amendments were not accepted when we moved them 12 months ago. We might then have seen the delayed effect coming in now, instead of having to wait a further period. The Chancellor has resisted a further Amendment this year which we moved in connection with these allowances, which, I am willing to warrant, stands a pretty good chance of being proposed next year, together with certain other Amendments.
  I am glad that the Chancellor has adopted the system of discrimination in allowances. By themselves, as I think he will agree, the allowances will not achieve a great deal. They must be resolutely applied in conjunction with other Government Measures and executive actions, but they are a very useful addition to the nation's armoury in handling our situation. Anomalies will crop up, no doubt, but I do not think that we need fear them. We can look at them as they come along.
  Now, Schedule A. It took us 19 Clauses and 7 Schedules to get rid of it. It was unloved by owner-occupiers, abused by accountants, and mourned only, I think, by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby and, perhaps—let us be fair—by those who regard the British tax machine as one of the best fashioned instruments of taxation in the world, although it is getting rather old-fashioned and out of date. The fact that some part of the tax base has been eroded has undoubtedly caused a certain amount of perturbation among those who regard the taxation instrument for its own sake.
  The abolition of Schedule A will cause anomalies for those who rent accommodation, either because they cannot afford to buy or because they do not choose to buy because their occupation requires them frequently to move about, or whatever it may be, and I wonder whether we shall, as a result of the abolition, have the growth of demands for allowances in respect of rent. On grounds of logic, I think that it would be extremely difficult to deny them. Whether any Chancellor will feel able to take such a step, I do not know. If
  1850
  we do start to give allowances in respect of rent, there will soon be no limit to the number of things in respect of which we shall be pressed to give allowances—railway fares and everything else which bears heavily on the citizen.
  Although there is no doubt that the Chancellor has done it for political reasons—or his predecessor announced it for political reasons and it was spatch-cocked into the Budget—there is a lesson here. When one does these things purely for a political purpose, one does not necessarily reap the reward in respect of votes. I have not seen any marked intention on the part of the electorate to rush to the Conservative Party because Schedule A has been abolished.
  What I regret is that the decision to abolish Schedule A has not been the occasion for further reforms. I am a resolute tax reformer. I believe that the British tax system, well designed though it was originally, has become outdated and needs radical reform in many aspects, on the earnings side, on the capital side, on the profits side and on the Estate Duty and inheritance side. We have heard in the past from the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd)—he is not in his place now—of his proposals for tax reform, but we have not seen or heard anything about it, as far as I can remember, from the present Chancellor. One of the best things we could do in in this connection would be to embark upon a large-scale reform of the tax system, and I should like to see a determined effort made in that direction.
  I welcome the increase in personal allowances. The £15-a-week married man with one child will have about 5s. a week extra pocket money. Of course, he will have to pay more for National Insurance. He has already had his bill for increased rates. Motor car insurance premiums are to go up by 30 per cent, in the autumn. I have a suspicion that there will not be much left out of his extra 5s.a week spending money by the time the autumn comes. And, of course, prices are going up. If there is any general criticism I make of the Finance Bill, it is that it does nothing, or very little, on balance to help the ordinary family man. Such increase in spending money as he has been given,

  1851
  which is, as I say, minute—the ordinary family man has been given a minute increase in the amount of his spending money—has already been mortgaged by prospective increases in the price of insurance premiums and other dues which will fall upon him. Therefore, it has done little to improve the standard of life or the condition of the great mass of the people.
  Of course, it has done something to help to improve the condition of life of those, represented here again on the back benches, who were so vocal at 3 o'clock the other morning on the subject of the repeal of the Stamp Duty. They will benefit to the tune—not them personally, but those on whose behalf they speak—of some £25 million. Well, as I say, we have to choose our own sense of values and to decide what we think most important. Frankly, I do not believe that it is very important to relieve the Stock Exchange of £25 million when there are a great many other things which need doing more urgently. But the Chancellor has chosen to do this and, in doing so, has revealed his approach to these problems. The other day I read—I am sure that the Chancellor did not say this—that he was a little worried because he had no enemies. He need not worry. He has plenty of enemies on this side of the House. We shall fight him as hard as we can and do our best to expose the policies being followed by the Conservative Party and by the Government at the present time.
  I doubt whether the Government have much more time left ahead of them. For the sake of Britain I hope that they have not. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that, were we able to unleash the energies of the British people, there are no heights of which we are not capable. I believe that this country could be transformed in 10 years with a good Government and I regret that we have wasted the last 12 years and that we have been left in a position where we have the Chancellor making an oration of this sort and telling us what we can do in the future. The British people would be inclined to ask why he has not done it in the past.
  11.22 a.m.
  Sir Henry d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: Generally speaking, I
  1852
  think it more agreeable to discuss these matters at the pleasant hour of 11 a.m. rather than 3 o'clock in the morning. At 3 o'clock in the morning the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) had lost some of the geniality which we find such an agreeable feature in the daylight hours. I wish particularly to address myself first to a few of the hon. Gentleman's remarks at 3 o'clock in the morning. He said two things to which I wish to draw attention. He referred to the City of London and said:
  "Undoubtedly, the City of London can on occasions operate against the interests of British industry."—[Official Report, 27th June, 1963; Vol. 679, c. 1577.]
  I suspect that the hon. Gentleman was thinking in terms of a return to the gold standard of 1926 which in fact caused great unhappiness, great deflation, but was not, I think, done on the lines to which the hon. Gentleman was referring.
  I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he thinks that any action taken since the deflationary Bank of England was carpeted by the Treasury—which was after the nationalisation of the Bank of England—shows that this particular antithesis had been reached. My own feeling is that he will find it difficult to prove that since the Bank of England ceased to be an independent entity the City of London has taken any action other than of a helpful sort towards British industry. If we are going back to such ancient history as 1926, I wonder whether much useful purpose is served—if any at all—by making it a debating point at 3 o'clock in the morning in the year 1963.
  Mr. Callaghan: Would the hon. Gentleman like me to answer that now?
  Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to interrupt me?
  Mr. Callaghan: I shall be glad to take up that point immediately. During the 1950s, whenever we ran into monetary troubles it was the interests of the City of London which were placed ahead of the interests of British industry. That was the whole foundation of the stop-go policies. I refer specifically to 1957. I think there is no doubt that what took place in 1957 meant that the interests of British industry were being subordinated to an out-dated monetary policy, basically in the interests of the City of London. I think that modern methods

  1853
  adopted over the last 18 months have proved of assistance, but I do not have to go back to 1924.
  Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: I still do not know of any action taken in 1957 which was not designed to be beneficial to British industry. I am absolutely convinced about that.
  The other point which the hon. Member made, and on which he animadverted, was that some of my hon. Friends had addressed themselves with particular interest to the question of Stamp Duty. My hon. Friends are capable of defending their own interests, and they are well known as diligent industrialists. I do not see why the hon. Gentleman should have said in reference to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Maurice Macmillan):
  "The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but it is the only matter on which he has bothered to speak."—[Official Report, 27th June, 1963; Vol. 679, c. 1574.]
  Over the last five, six or seven years, I have sat through a great many of the debates on all stages of the discussions on the various Finance Bills. I value Finance Bills in inverse ratio to the number of interventions which I make. That is to say, the better the Bill the less need there is for me to talk about it. In respect of this Bill, were I to work out an equation showing the ratio between my Finance Bill "Chamber hours" and my "intervention minutes," I think I should find that I had the highest average of anybody of the time I spent sitting on my bottom compared with the time when I stood on my feet. The hon. Gentleman may think that I have a due appreciation of my own limitations. But I prefer to think that it is generally recognised that we have had a good Finance Bill; and the fact that my hon. Friends did not find it necessary to speak more than on a few occasions is an additional recognition that the Bill was so well drafted that it carried out the intentions of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.
  There is one point upon which I should like to join issue with my right hon. Friend, and that refers to the question of Schedule A. Last year my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) indicated that he had intentions with regard to Schedule A to be implemented in 1963. I should have thought that this
  1854
  would have given the Inland Revenue a whole 12 months in which to work on this undoubtedly complicated problem. Yet, when it came to the point, we found that we had a volume of Amendments relating to Schedule A which we had to face at very short notice. With a very few exceptions, I do not think that hon. Members on the back benches are capable of absorbing this kind of detail in the time afforded to us to do so.
  I make no objection of any sort to the changes which were made resulting from arguments raised during the Committee stage discussions. But I think that the entire redrafting of very large Schedules is something which an ordinary back bench Member cannot deal with in that way. I put it to my right hon. and hon. Friends that most of the lustre which they gained in our eyes because of their clear and lucid presentation of the arguments was slightly dimmed by the fact that, with the best will in the world and having done a fair amount of homework, it was quite impossible to follow all the arguments which were raised. We spent a lot of time in Committee, and I wonder why we could not have had sufficient time to digest the Amendment on Report. Year after year there is something about which we grumble. This year, I think we had something over the odds about which to grumble, particularly in relation to the Schedule A matter.
  We have had a sound Finance Bill following a good Budget. I cannot understand how the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East can be prepared to say that all the benefits which have been added to the purchasing power of the individual, who has gained so widely from my right hon. Friend's tax reliefs, will be lost in the future rise in prices. If he is referring to his own intended return to power, that is one justification I can see for any future impending rise.
  If the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East becomes the Chancellor, I believe that we shall see that rise. If he does not, then the interests of this country will be extremely well served by this Government and this Bill; and special credit for this must go not only to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor but to my hon. and right hon. Friends who have supported him. Whatever the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East meant

  1855
  by his references to the Chief Secretary, for my part I have valued my right hon. Friend's speeches on the Bill and I prize the efforts of the Chief Secretary, the Economic Secretary and the Financial Secretary in (having made valuable contributions to the Bill and having eased its passage substantially.
  11.31 a.m.
  Mr. Harold Lever: I am not in a position to make the claim of the hon. Baronet the Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) as to the ratio of sitting and speaking time. However, I can assure both my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite that their remarks do not escape my diligent perusal, even though I may not always be physically present in the House. Since the hon. Baronet's remarks in this connection seemed to be acceptable to the House, perhaps I might be allowed to say that in my case it is simply that I am rather more slow witted than the average hon. Member and that it takes me a great deal of time to absorb what is said on certain—particularly the one he discussed—subjects.
  It is reassuring to some hon. Members to learn that having attacked the father, the hon. Baronet defended the son. Although I do not wish to emulate myhon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) by entering the cauldron of discussion on Conservative Party politics, it is somewhat reassuring to learn that the hon. Baronet finds something good in at any rate one right hon. Member of the Cabinet and his doings. I wish that I could share his view.
  I wish today to protest briefly about three aspects of the Budget which disturbed me greatly. The first is Schedule A, which I have examined in more detail at an earlier stage. The abolition of Schedule A is to be deplored as an act of irresponsible Poujadism designed to appeal to the owner-occupier elector at the expense of the general taxpayer. Much as I value the presence of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) in the Chamber, this alteration in our tax law was too high a price to pay for his arrival here because it represents a re-
  1856
  versal of the decision of the electors of Orpington; and we are witnessing that rather than a rational alteration in tax policy.
  I would gently chide myhon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East by reminding him that the only distinguished mourner of this part of our tax law is my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton). It is lamentable that a perfectly sound principle of our tax law—which attempted to produce some equalisation between the owner-occupier and the concessions available to him by way of tax reliefs and the tenant—should be disappearing. This part of the law did produce at least some remedy. It was not an exact remedy and it by no means achieved perfect equity, but it was a rough and ready method of getting some equality. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East is now compelled to examine the bringing into being of another equaliser because this one has been abolished. My hon. Friend may have to think of a less satisfactory type of equaliser, perhaps the question of subsidising tenants in some manner in a general sort of way. As I say, it is a pity that the Government have taken this action, for it is not only indefensible but, in principle, it is distasteful.
  Anyone is able to show in about 10 minutes that our present tax system is manifestly unfair in its impact on the owner-occupier, who is allowed tax relief on the money he borrows to buy his house, and the tenant, who gets no relief for the rent he pays. The complacent way in which these anomalies are accepted is deplorable and I cannot share the belief that there is something sound and logical in our tax system.
  It rather resembles a mid-nineteenth century locomotive trundling along, parts having been taken out of it and replaced by others, there being a general muddle as a result of the thing being interfered with. The machine is encrusted with new devices so that it does not have the reputable simplicity it had in its original form. Instead it clanks along, a museum piece, and in every part of it there is a clanking of apparatus. It is high time that we had a more modern machine.
  I wish also to lament a similar indefensible piece of legislation concerning

  1857
  luxury cars. The Government should make up their mind whether they wish to penalise those who buy cars in excess of £2,000 simply because they cost more than £2,000 or whether they wish to amend the rule that expenditure in a business shall be allowable for tax purposes if it is reasonable. Or do the Government prefer to institute some new rule where there is a fixed flat limit, above which anything is luxurious?
  The Government originally fixed such a rule and said that a tax allowance would not be given on a vehicle costing over £2,000, whether rented or purchased. They now appear to be trying to climb back to the original, more logical tax principle but, unfortunately, they are doing it in a half-hearted way. The result is neither a Government of austerity nor one of logic. It is lamentable that the Government should manoeuvre their tax rules not in the fiscal interests of the nation but because of the electoral fortunes of the time.
  I must return to the question of Schedule A to make it clear that I appreciate that the Chancellor had no choice of action. He was committed by his predecessor, the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd), who took the extraordinary step of promising, before Parliament had even considered the matter, let alone pronounced in favour of its abolition, to make the change. The former Chancellor promised that a change would be made and thereby committed the future Chancellor to changing it without being able to consider the matter on its merits or how it would fit into the Budget.
  I listened with interest to the comments that have been made about the City and Stamp Duty. I do not react with a hostile reflex to either the City or the Bank of England. I do not dissent from what my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East said about the Bank of England's policy in the past. There is no evidence to show that the Bank of England is now behind the Treasury in its economic thinking. If anything, it is rather in advance of it under its latest governor and it now seems to be a modern City institution. The way in which the Government have handled their disastrous stop-go policies may be better known to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East and hon.
  1858
  Members opposite than to me. I do not know what advice they get, but the lamentable economic policies of the Government cannot be supported in any part of the House today.
  Some of my hon. Friends are in error in supposing that the Stamp Duty is a sort of useful compromise between having an effective capital gains tax and not having one. I do not believe Stamp Duty to be a satisfactory substitute for an efficient and effective Capital Gains Tax. If Parliament introduced such a gain tax, and not a demagogic one, a more satisfactory situation would be created, for I do not believe that it is to the advantage of any community to make the transfer of assets between one citizen and another a very costly process.
  A free market in assets is to the advantage of the community and the amelioration in the Stamp Duty is to be welcomed. It makes these assets more easily exchangeable and helps those who own and want to own such securities. However, this is not one of the great issues of the Bill. To my mind, the great issue is the measures that have been taken for the distressed areas. I do not intend to go into laborious detail on this subject, but I wish to register my firm protest at the ill-thought-out plans for dealing with the ills of the distressed areas. The Government's plan represents a tax concession which goes to make them areas of tax holiday. Such actions are no substitute for the creation of a buoyant economy which might absorb these marginal areas of high unemployment.
  It is utterly wrong in principle that we should try to solve the problem of the distressed areas by creating industries in areas where they enjoy fiscal privileges not enjoyed by the rest of the country. I do not think that it will achieve the purpose of the Government or the purpose that we have on this side of the House in wishing to stimulate and help industry in those areas. The truth of the matter is plain. If we have areas where people will not go because it is not particularly profitable to go there, the wrong approach is to stimulate the economy of those areas by relieving them of Income Tax on profits which they will not be able to make. If they could have made profits reasonably well in those areas, people would have gone there. The

  1859
  Economic Secretary, to whose courtesy, perseverance and general help to the House I must also pay tribute, ventured to say that, even if a firm could not earn profits in the development districts, a firm earning profits elsewhere could start in the development districts, knowing that it could get tax relief on its losses in the development districts.
  It is an extraordinary inducement to say to a man, "If you go into a development district, you will not make any profits out of it, but you will pay less on the profits that you are making in other areas". That is hardly a logical argument. It does nothing to tackle the real economic problems, individually and locally, on the one hand, and the general economic probem, on the other. The general economic problem is tackled by the general buoyancy of the national economy. Individual and local problems are not tackled in this manner, because the greater part of the tax concession, since it is shown by way of tax on profits, inevitably and logically must go to those already making profits in those areas.
  The greater part of the £46 million, or whatever it is going to cost that we are voting, will not go to the "new chaps" who come into the areas. When we come to review this next year, it will be painfully obvious that of the £46 million no more than a fraction can possibly have gone to new entrants in these areas.
  A general tax concession, geographically limited, must inevitably go to those who are already making the bulk of the profits in those areas. We are making a needless and irrelevant tax concession to profitable businesses already established in those areas.
  For reasons that have been given before, this may have an adverse effect on employment, because we are really encouraging firms to be more capital intensive in already profitable industries in those areas. They will economise labour by buying expensive machinery, at an artificially supported and unrealistic price financed by the Government, and, far from helping those areas, I think that on balance we shall be doing an injury to them. It is a matter of great regret that this ill-thought-out novelty has been introduced which is inevitably bound
  1860
  to fail in achieving the object that we all have in mind.
  I therefore register my protest at these three anomalies.
  I want to say a final word about the point raised by the hon. Member for Walsall, South about the difficulty which hon. Members have in following the Bill. I think that it is high time that the Government, instead of indulging in this annual orgy of professional incomprehensibility, took some pains in the case of the Finance Bill to inform hon. Members what it is that they are debating. I must confess that some of it is Greek to me, and I am not altogether inexperienced in disentangling some of this legislation. What it must be for some hon. Members without experience to battle with this, I do not know. It is high time that the Government brought in a Finance Bill with a detailed, authoritative, explanatory memorandum so that hon. Members on both sides would know what was happening. I do not dare to say too much about this, but I think that one of the benefits would be that the Ministers would know what it was that they were advocating. It was painfully obvious on more than one occasion that they did not. I am not referring to anyone now sitting on the Treasury Bench.
  I shall not say anything more about the general economic policy, which has been more than adequately dealt with by my hon. Friends on the Front Bench, with those remarks I sometimes wholeheartedly agreed. On the question of fiscal policy, I find the Bill a lamentable one in three respects: the abolition of Schedule A; the indefensible attitude in respect of the more expensive motor cars, which can neither be defended on the grounds of austerity, on the one hand, nor logic, on the other; and, above all, I protest against the strangely unwarranted novelty of the creation of areas of fiscal privilege where people pay a lower rate of tax than they do in other areas.
  11.46 a.m.
  Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I can at least thank the hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever) for not joining in the general condemnation of the Stamp Duty. I, too, should not like to let this occasion pass without thanking my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of

  1861
  the Exchequer for making this concession at last. I am quite unrepentant about this, despite the spirited attack made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) in his imitation, if I may call it that, of William Jennings Brown. I am not convinced that this concession is in either content or results a sop to the City, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) for the defence which he made just now.
  My hon. Friend knows that I do not by any means agree in every respect with his ideas of the relative importance of various sections of our economy. In the contributions that I have made to this and other Finance Bills, including an Amendment which I was not fortunate enough to have selected, I have always made an attempt to suggest alterations in our tax system which would improve the position of the earner and the owner vis-à-vis the trader and the dealer. I am on record as being not altogether unsympathetic to some variations of the wealth tax advocated by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East.
  I would congratulate the Chancellor on the steps he has taken towards a tax reform, although I should be out of order if I regretted that more had not been done in this way. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East for encouraging me to express more of my views and to take up more time in Committee in putting my personal ideas on economic problems, and I assure him that I shall in future take full advantage of his advice. Perhaps I should express it as a formal warning to the Treasury Bench. I think that his assessment of the effect on the City of our economic policy and relationship between the demands of the City and the demands of industry was extremely superficial and that it masked the general conflict in our economy between our position as bankers of the sterling area and a trading and exporting country. What he really means is that the burden of financing world trade is becoming increasingly harsh on dollars as well as on sterling. I think that the Leader of the Opposition, in an even more spirited imitation of William Jennings Brown, in New York not long ago made a more accurate and less superficial assessment of the situation than the
  1862
  hon. Member gave very early in the morning the other day and repeated to some extent today.
  Mr. Callaghan: If I had gone into the details then, or even this morning, I should have been very much out of order. I shall be delighted to send the hon. Member other comments I have made on this subject at other times.
  Mr. Macmillan: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman not wanting to go into more details, but by not doing so he gave a misleading impression to the House of the real criminals in the case.
  The Chancellor's greatest contribution in the Budget and the Finance Bill is the admission, as far as I know for the first time, by the Treasury that our expansion should be geared not to the limitations of our current liquid resources but, as in any other ordinary business concern, to our capacity to borrow on our assets. Perhaps he, too, has been reading the speeches of William Jennings Brown.
  11.50 a.m.
  Mr. Eric Lubbock: The hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever) said that it would be very helpful if we had some indication of the meaning of these complicated Clauses which we have been discussing. We have not been very much in the picture when it comes to their meaning. This is particularly true of Case VIII. The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) said yesterday morning that a booklet should be published under the title, "Case VIII for Tiny Tots". It would be a good thing if such a booklet had been issued before we came to the Finance Bill.
  The hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) raised a question yesterday morning which does not seem to have occurred to anyone until a late stage. It is the effect of Case VIII on local authorities which have a surplus on their housing accounts from time to time. The hon. Member explained that
  "Hitherto, local authorities have been charged Income Tax in respect of excess rental income for their council estates under Case VI of Schedule D. They have also been charged under the same case of Schedule D in respect of other activities, such as the provision of amenities—tennis courts, football and cricket pitches, bathing pools, bowl-

  1863
  ing greens and things of that kind."—[Official Report, 26th June, 1963; Vol. 679, c. 1602.]
  Up to the present Finance Bill they have been able to offset losses made on games fees against profits on which they were assessed for excess rents.
  In reply, the Solicitor-General agreed that the local authorities would lose this concession, which has been worth as much as £40,000 a year to the Borough of Hendon and which has also been extremely important for Orpington Urban District Council. I believe that £150,000 has been saved over the years in Orpington as a result of this concession.
  If the Solicitor-General had looked carefully at Clause 15, I think that he would have agreed that the point made by the hon. Member for Hendon, South was valid, because that Clause defines the kind of income which will be assessable under Case VIII as:
  "other receipts arising to a person from, or by virtue of his ownership of an estate or interest in or right over such land or any incorporeal hereditament or incorporeal heritable subject in the United Kingdom…"
  Then paragraph 13 of Schedule 4, which refers to deductions from other payments, says that
  "… where the sum to which a person becomes entitled in the year of assessment is a sum other than the rent payable under a lease there shall be deducted from that sum such amounts (if any) as are expressed to be deductible under the following sub-paragraph…"
  and it goes on to say what type of expenditure can be deducted under Case VIII.
  I contend that the lettings of public parks for games purposes fall under this heading. Therefore, the loss on providing these facilities should be allowed to be offset against the excess rentals. It all turns on the question whether fees charged for games facilities come under the heading of payments for the use of land. There is a strong case for contending that they do. If this happens, the loss on games fees can be included in the global Case VIII calculations. Local authorities would then obtain some relief, as they have done hitherto.
  It would seem logical that games fees ought to fall under this heading. They are the type of transaction envisaged
  1864
  when Case VIII was originally thought of, and I am sure that it was no one's intention, when doing away with Schedule A, to put a burden on well-managed authorities, as this will do. The facilities offered by local authorities for games are facilities which they are able to offer by reason of their ownership of the land. Therefore, I hope that on reconsideration it will be agreed that both excess rents and games lettings will fall under the new Case VIII and that local authorities will obtain some benefit, as they have done previously.
  I should like to ask the Economic Secretary to deal with this point in winding up and also to say whether he does not consider that income from cemeteries should also fall under Case VIII, being income, as it is, derived from the use of land. This is an extremely important matter for the local authorities concerned. I hope that further consideration will be given to the reply which was given to the hon. Member for Hendon, South yesterday morning.
  11.56 a.m.
  Mr. F. M. Bennett: The most interesting feature of speeches made so far today from the Opposition benches is the apparent unhappiness about the removal of Schedule A. This unhappiness was not found in the earlier stages of the debate. It is true that I have been absent abroad on business during some part of the proceedings on the Finance Bill but I do not remember an occasion when the Opposition went into the Lobby against Schedule A. We on this side of the House will be intrigued to think that it is becoming the official policy of the Labour Party to restore Schedule A. I hope that this will become increasingly clear as the months go by.
  Like my hon. Friends, I want to return to the charge about the halving of the Stamp Duty, with particular reference to the debate in the early hours of yesterday morning. Two of my hon. Friends have already made their position clear. I should like to do the same and perhaps give a more concise explanation of why I am wholeheartedly in favour of this reform than it was possible to give early yesterday.
  One or two excerpts from the speech of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) have already been

  1865
  made. I should like to make one more. The hon. Member said:
  "This complaint stems from a small group opposite. … "—[Official Report, 26th June, 1963; Vol. 679, c. 1573.]
  Mr. Callaghan: I have no objection to the hon. Member giving more publicity to my remarks, but is it in order, Mr. Speaker, to quote from a speech in the same Session of another hon. Member unless he is a Minister?
  Mr. Bennett: Frightened.
  Mr. Speaker: I thought that the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett) was picking up some point. There must be some licence in order to reveal the point which is involved. I am advised that is right. The hon. Member cannot quote. He should in some way dodge round quotation.
  Mr. Callaghan: I hope that the hon. Member for Torquay will paraphrase in any way he can and repeat it as often as he cares to.
  Mr. Bennett: I was aware of the rule and I was encouraged to quote only because, possibly due to inadvertence, you, Mr. Speaker, tolerated earlier quotations from the same speech today and I noticed that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East did not then make the objection which he now makes.
  Mr. Callaghan: A line must be drawn somewhere.
  Mr. Bennett: The line is to be drawn no doubt when the quotation is particularly pertinent.
  I would remind the House that the hon. Member alleged perfectly clearly that this reform arose from a small group in my party who had a clear interest in getting the Stamp Duty abolished, an interest which was shared by the Stock Exchange. Those were the actual terms of the criticism. It seemed to mean that a small group of us had a clear interest in this matter. Two of my hon. Friends have made their position clear and I want to do so, and I have been asked by one of my hon. Friends, who is not here because of constituency duties, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. W. Clark), to make his position clear, too.
  1866
  It will be within the recollection of the House that I welcomed—almost insisted on—being included in this lobby, not from any masochistic feelings about the criticism of the hon. Gentleman, but because I take pride in the fact that over a number of years several of us in public and at other times made it clear that we have regarded a high rate of Stamp Duty as an obstacle to the maximum use of the resources of this country in investment. It is for that reason alone, and if—as it is—to belong to that lobby is to wish to see the interests of the country furthered I am sure that we are all pleased to be criticised by the hon. Gentleman for being in that lobby.
  As for the halving of the Stamp Duty, it seems to me that there are three main reasons for it which must have been in the Chancellor's mind. The first relates to domestic investment, to encourage a wider and wider circle of people to invest in stocks and shares and industry in this country. I do not pretend to any expert knowledge of this. My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) knows a great deal more about this, and he has done a great deal of work in this connection during the last few years, and I do not think there is any need for me to add anything to what he has said about it.
  The second question, which arose in those early hours, is that of investment in British shares by foreigners. I emphasised during my remarks then that I, like many of us, am in favour of an increase in investment from overseas in this country. Then I was criticised for this by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), who is not here today, on the basis that this was a dangerous process because, far from meaning an increase in our earnings, it might, as dividends from shares are paid overseas out of sterling actually mean a net loss in our earnings. This, of course, is a misleading picture, because in the first place this is capital investment in this country, which is a gain to us in the sense that it adds not only to our direct reserves, and to the confidence of the outside world in this country's expansion, but incidentally enables our own industries to expand with greater reserves of capital than they could get merely from internal sources. At any rate, a lot of these investments are made from blocked

  1867
  sterling, and it is just as well for that blocked sterling to be invested in industry in this country rather than held idle and to contribute to those variations in the value of sterling which caused financial crises in the past when the £ has been under strain.
  Mr. H. Lever: Having made a defence of dividends in this country on the grounds of encouraging investment here from overseas—with which I readily agree—would the hon. Gentleman tell the House why he gave support to the Government in not giving fiscal advantage by the opposite process, namely, our investing our capital overseas, where it has not a fiscal advantage, thereby helping to promote financial crises by which we have been bedevilled over recent years?
  Mr. Bennett: Certainly. I do not know how far it would be in order to pursue that matter, which is an economic question rather than one of the detail of this Bill, but the reason, surely, for that is, that we are a trading nation, and that applies to our finances as well as to everything else, and we really cannot expect everyone else to invest in our country unless we do something to invest in other countries, if we wish to export more, particularly manufactures, from this country. That is as far as one can go into that field, I think, without being out of order, much as I am tempted to go further.
  Under this second heading of investment in England the strangest of all analogies was made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East with Switzerland. I think a correction of what was said must be placed firmly on the record.
  The Swiss do not object to investment in Switzerland, nor do they penalise investors. I think the hon. Gentleman with the aspirations he has ought to get straight a fundamental financial matter like this. I will repeat, therefore, what I was attempting to say in the early hours. The only thing the Swiss penalise is the opposite process, leaving one's money idle in a bank, in current account or some other form where it is not invested in Switzerland in industries. If one is prepared to invest in Switzerland one is encouraged in every way, but if one leaves one's money in a bank
  1868
  idle one is penalised—although it is not fair to use the word "penalised", because the truth is that the Swiss are so prosperous that they do not require idle resources of currencies lying idle in banks. The argument is therefore precisely the opposite of what the hon. Gentleman said.
  Lastly I come to a point not touched on yesterday morning. I think it is a very important feature not just for investment in England, not just to domestic investment. I will say again what I sought to say yesterday morning.
  In recent years, particularly because of the expertise of the City of London, foreigners, for example Americans, who have become increasingly interested in investment overseas, apart from investment in England—I am now referring specifically to investment in Common Market countries—have had a clear choice before them, either to go to a Continental financial centre to do it or to come to London. Because of our particular expertise we have been able to get a certain amount of this business from Americans who wished to invest on the Continent.
  There was no possible question of a strain on sterling present or prospective. It is a question of dollars going into other currencies, apart from sterling, anyway. The choice was whether to do it through London or through Continental centres, and the only question which arose here was whether all the benefits which come from these indirect invisible earnings should come to Britain or should go to a Continental centre. There was no question of a choice between British investment and Continental investment. It was a matter of Americans specifically wishing to take up positions on the Continent and whether they would use London or some rival centre to do it.
  In these circumstances there has been a certain amount of such method of investment not only, incidentally, by Americans in Europe but, very often, by Europeans who want to invest in America, or elsewhere, and who want to use the City of London so to do. In these cases everything which accrued to us was a net benefit with no possible risks of over-investment by foreigners in the sterling area. Foreigners, when making investment in a third country, were faced

  1869
  with this choice of using England as their medium or not.
  Up to now there has been a not inconsiderable disadvantage in their doing it here because of the extra costs involved. One of the Treasury Ministers—I think it was the Economic Secretary—during those early hours, gave the sort of figures involved when an American, say, wanting to invest in France, was choosing whether to do so through Milan or through London. In London it would have cost him 2·8 per cent., in Milan 0·4 per cent.
  This is the issue which has not been touched on so far. I have a little knowledge of this subject. I hope that from now on, with the change in the Stamp Duty, there will be a considerable increase in our earnings through facilitating investment through our financial centre through which a large amount, and an increasing amount, of the world's investment can be done with benefits accruing to us and no possible disadvantages whatever.
  For this reason, and if this were the only reason, I am particularly happy at what the Chancellor has done by removing—I mean, cutting—the Stamp Duty. The fact that I keep saying "removing" shows how keenly I wish that he had been able to remove it. We must hope for that on a future occasion.
  With regard to being a centre for international investments, the third category I mentioned, I suggest that we should not underrate their importance to our industry and other aspects of British financial and industrial activity. Once one gets a foreign businessman used to doing his business deals through London in one field, he usually does them in another field. One finds insurance and shipping matters and actual orders for goods often flowing once one gets an individual used to doing part of his business through London, and that benefits not only the City but the whole of the British economy.
  Therefore, I warmly welcome the Chancellor upon a first step—I think there will have to be a second step soon—towards making it even easier for Britain to become once more the leading financial centre for the world.
  12.11 p.m.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: I wish to hark back to a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and myself at 2 o'clock yesterday morning and referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever) and the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock). It concerns the presentation of the work with which we are expected to familiarise ourselves.
  It is very easy when arguing for lucid presentation to pick out certain perhaps rather extraordinarily long Clauses, but I wish to take an average Clause. I would refer, for example, to paragraph 7 of the Chancellor's new Schedule, "Allowance of Trading Deductions where Premium Etc. Paid," which we discussed the other night. If I am right—and it is a big "if"—there are in it 11 adverbial clauses, 4 noun clauses and 3 adjectival clauses. This seems to me to be a reasonably fair average of the sort of thing that we have to deal with. I am not criticising the Parliamentary draftsmen, because they are among the ablest people in our country. I do not doubt this; there is no question about it. But, at the same time, is it not important in itself that this kind of legislation should be easy to understand by all hon. Members and those who have to deal with it outside?
  Taking the Bill itself, I would refer to Clause 37 (9), which consists of 17 lines. Perhaps I may give a concrete example of how it could be changed. It begins:
  "Where a person (in this subsection referred to as 'the transferee') acquires a mineral asset from another person (in this subsection referred to as 'the transferor')…."
  Would it not be more lucid to put at the top of the subsection a series of definitions and then to print the heart of the matter?
  The objection to this line of arguing is that there is a constant battle between the Inland Revenue and the lawyers of financial houses, who are perhaps chiefly concerned. At the same time, unless legislation is fairly well understood by firms, which are concerned with many of these Clauses, how can one expect them to take advantage of the measures which the Chancellor may introduce?
  A further point of some consequence is that many experienced members of

  1871
  the Press who work here will themselves say that they are just lost when it comes to Finance Bill legislation. This in itself is unhealthy.
  Therefore, in connection with Questions to be addressed on Thursday next week to the Prime Minister by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) and myself, I would ask the Minister to have a word with those who are responsible for deciding action on this sort of subject so that we may have a sympathetic answer to our Questions.
  Mr. William Yates: Would not the hon. Gentleman go one stage further? Is it not time that some of this expertise business of the Committee stage, and of other stages of the Bill if necessary, was taken upstairs? Would he not also ask the Government to examine that?
  Mr. Speaker: It is not in order to deal with that subject on the Third Reading of the Finance Bill.
  12.15 p.m.
  Mr. Graham Page: The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has criticised the complication of some of the Clauses in the Finance Bill. That is very easy criticism. There are always complicated Clauses in any Finance Bill. Other hon. Members have criticised the fact that we received some very long Clauses and Schedules at a very late stage in the progress of the Bill. But this is easy criticism, too.
  I should like to put the other view. When the Government come to the House with a Bill already written and refuse to make any alterations to it during its stages and are obstinate when hon. Members put forward recommendations and propose Amendments to make the Bill better, we complain, and we complain bitterly. I do not think we ought to complain when, as occurred in this case, the Government listen to and act upon the speeches made on Second Reading and particularly during the Committee stage. My right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench did everything they could to meet the good points made from both sides of the Committee, but it involved rather long new Schedules and the rewriting of a large part of the Bill.
  I should like to pay my tribute particularly to my hon. Friends the Financial
  1872
  Secretary and the Economic Secretary to the Treasury and my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General for the way they dealt with the Amendments and not only got our points right but explained our own points to us very clearly.
  The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said that this was not a very exciting Bill, but I think one can call it a major Bill, both politically and fiscally. The hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever) put his finger on the three points in respect of which it is a major Bill. Incidentally, it is always delightful to hear the hon. Member for Cheetham, even when he is charming the House for only a few minutes instead of a few hours.
  I must say that the hon. Member for Cheetham would not have got away with a speech like that on any other day but a Friday. We on this side of the House are very polite on Friday mornings, and so are his hon. Friends, but I think that had he put forward such extraordinary statements from that side of the House on any other day he would have had a considerable number of stabs in the back from his hon. Friends. I was delighted to hear some of his remarks, and I shall remember to quote them—his criticism of the assistance to development districts, his strictures about the abolition of Schedule A and his praise for the reduction of Stamp Duty on transfers. This came strangely from the mouth of the hon. Gentleman.
  Those were, I think, the three major points of the Bill. With regard to Schedule A the hon. Member for Cheetham—I refer again to him because his speech interested me so—said that it was a sound principle of tax law. What on earth is sound or even a matter of principle in taxing a man for using his own property and taxing him on an entirely notional figure with the idea that he might have hired it out for someone else to use? If one has to be logical about that and say that it is a matter of principle, one surely has to go the whole hog and make a true valuation of his property. I would like any hon. Member to think what his constituents might say if, instead of abolishing Schedule A, my right hon. Friend had brought the annual value up to the true value and had said that owner-occupiers would now be taxed on that.
  Mr. H. Lever: He should have done.
  Mr. Graham Page: The hon. Gentleman will find himself in a very small minority if lie holds that view. After all, this will affect a large body of people whose number over the last few years has grown in proportion to the number of other householders, with the result that a very substantial proportion of householders will welcome the abolition of Schedule A.
  I want to call the attention of my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to what has been happening already as a result of the Bill. Throughout its stages, we have discussed mainly the effect of the abolition of Schedule A on the owners of rented property, and, indeed, that is where the transition is most complicated—from Schedule A to Case VIII.
  Incidentally, perhaps I may interpolate here the comment that each year we seem to get a new Case. Next year, I suppose that we shall go one over the VIII, and I am rather nervous as to what Case IX may be. However, we have Case VIII this year and have discussed the transitional stage from Schedule A to that Case, mainly, for the owners of rented property.
  We did not spend much time on what was happening with the owner-occupier. Owner-occupiers who paid their Schedule A tax on 1st January last have now been sending in their usual maintenance claims—for the relief on an average of their expenditure over the last five years, including, of course, the last year, 1962–63, in which they may have spent quite a bit of money before they knew that the Chancellor would wholly abolish Schedule A.
  In reply, they have received one of the nastiest little notes from the Treasury that I can imagine. It is not even a nice form. It is only a small note. It says that, because of the provisions of the Bill, the owner-occupier will not now be entitled to make any claims for maintenance relief.
  Those of us who have studied the Bill knew that, but to those who have not it does seem rather tough on the owner-occupier, who has paid his tax in January, and has spent money since the April before last on his house. Of course, we know that he used to get it back,
  1874
  in the year of assessment, on the average for the five previous years. But the Department might have explained that fact, instead of sending out this nasty little note. I do not know whether other hon. Members have had it sent to them by their constituents, as I have, but I know that some of my constituents are "hopping mad" about it.
  They say that it cannot be right for the Government to do this. They have paid their taxes, they say, and want relief in respect of expenditure, but now the Government tell them that they cannot have it. If the note had explained carefully the basis of Schedule A and explained it politely, I do not think that we should have had this resentment. I hope that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will look into this and see that the note which will go out in future, telling people that they cannot claim relief, will explain things a little more carefully.
  Chapter I of the Bill deals with changes in rates of tax and personal reliefs. This will involve a new P.A.Y.E. Tax Tables which will, I understand, come into operation on 5th July. This means reprinting the P.A.Y.E. Tax Tables, and I understand that they are to be in the old form. My hon. Friend knows that I have put to him in the past two years a very simplified form of P.A.Y.E. Tax Tables, and surely this was the opportunity in which to simplify the present tables, which constitute one of the most difficult forms to work out quickly. One has to turn pages and turn back to columns, and so on. The Bill, having made it necessary to reprint the Tables, provided an excellent opportunity for a simplified form of Tables to be used. This would save millions of pages of printing and thousands of hours of time in working out the figures.
  I mentioned that there were three important items in the Bill—all major steps both politically and fiscally. They are Schedule A, capital allowances in development districts and the Stamp Duty relief. My right hon. Friend said today that the effects of the Budget would not be seen for some time, but I assure him that the capital allowances and the discrimination in favour of the development districts have already begun to take effect. Clause 38 has had an immediate result, certainly in my own area

  1875
  on Merseyside, where there have been inquiries from manufacturers about the prospects of development there. It is a subject of the utmost importance.
  In dealing with Part IV Stamp Duties, which reduced duties on conveyances and transfer of shares, there emerged from our discussions on the Bill a plea from time to time for the complete abolition of Stamp Duty on these various transactions. It seems to me that we are progressing towards the stage where Stamp Duty on documents of this sort will be an exception. As it is, having abolished the duty on conveyances, up to a fairly high figure, in the Bill, and having reduced it on transfers of shares, it is becoming more and more exceptional on documents.
  The Bill confirms Schedule I of the Stamp Act, 1891, except for certain alterations, which gives me the opportunity of saying that the confirmation of that Schedule confirms the collection of the petty imposition of the 2d. receipt stamp. This produces only £1½ million now compared with the £5 million it yielded at one time. But it costs industry and commerce £9½ million a year in labour and stationery to collect that £1½ million for the Treasury. Having got that point in without you interrupting me, Mr. Speaker, I had better sit down again, repeating my tribute to my hon. Friends the Financial and Economic Secretaries and to my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General for the assistance they gave throughout the Bill.
  12.30 p.m.
  Mr. Brian O'Malley: I want to support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). When I came here a few months ago as a new Member interested in economic and financial affairs I decided—for this year, at any rate—to make an academic study of the proceedings arising from the Budget and the various stages of the Finance Bill. Although I had had some limited previous experience of reading Bills, including Finance Bills, I found very great difficulty in understanding some of the Clauses and Schedules of this Measure.
  Like my hon. Friend, I appreciate the skill of the draftsmen, and the problems involved for the Inland Revenue, and
  1876
  accountants and solicitors of finance companies and other organisations. Therefore, while not going as far as my hon. Friend in asking for the form of Finance Bills to be amended, I would ask the Chancellor—particularly in view of his remarks the other day—whether, with future Finance Bills, detailed explanatory memoranda might be published as White Papers to assist back benchers like myself, with my limited experience, and others with more experience, the better to understand, before coming into the Chamber, just what we are to discuss.
  My hon. Friend and I have Questions to the Prime Minister next Thursday to this effect, but I take this opportunity of asking the Chancellor to consider helping us in this way in future years.
  12.32 p.m.
  Mr. William Yates: The hon. Members for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) and for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) have a point. I join in paying tribute to the Chancellor, the Financial Secretary and the Economic Secretary, first for producing this Bill, and then for piloting it through all the various stages—sometimes to a very latehour—but, having been faced with these Finance Bills now for quite a number of years, I wonder whether it is necessary to have them at all, together with all the hullabaloo of the Budget, all the accompanying paraphernalia and the dislocation of other work.
  I could, if I wished, divide the House against this Bill. I shall not do that, but I will lay down certain conditions about the Bill that I want my right hon. Friend to note. First, I do not approve of this protracted method of conducting our Finance Bill work, and I ask him to consult once again those to whom he is responsible for preparing—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. One cannot possibly bring within the rules of order relating to the Third Reading of this Bill the entirety of our finance procedure, annuality, and so on.
  Mr. Yates: I realised that I was in danger of getting into grave difficulty now to draw attention to the progress of the Bill through its various stages to this Third Reading. However, the Chancellor must already have taken the point

  1877
  made by the two hon. Members to whom I have referred, and all I ask is that, in future, we might have explanatory documents so that we can understand these Measures, and carry out our duties to our constituents.
  12.35 p.m.
  Mr. Douglas Houghton: Though I warmly welcome the plea of the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates) for enlightenment, explanation and elucidation of this complicated Bill, he has, if I may say so, come into the debate rather late in the day. This plea for greater assistance in dealing with this Finance Bill and similar Measures has been reiterated several times in our debates, and it is noteworthy that it has been reaffirmed by at least three hon. Members today. Indeed, my hon. Friends the Members for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley), both of whom we have welcomed to our debates on this Bill, confined their brief interventions to this very point.
  I hope that the Chancellor will have taken note of their remarks. Although it is not in the fashion just now to make rash promises from this side—it is really unnecessary, when a Government are on their way out, to assist matters by making any rash promises about what we will do when we take their place—at least I will say that a Labour Government will certainly assist the House more than it has been assisted on a complicated Bill of this kind. In the middle of the night this week I made another speech on this very question. I said that this was not a local glee club, but the House of Commons, and that the House of Commons should be allowed to do its work intelligently and be given every assistance to do so. I leave the matter there.
  The Chancellor spoke of this being a large Bill—a thick document—and I want to speak of its contents from the point of view of administration. Before doing so, however, I want to thank the Chancellor for his own courtesy and help in dealing with this Bill and, of course, most warmly to thank his colleagues on the Treasury Bench, who have worked so hard and have been unfailingly courteous and diligent in their duties.
  We should also thank all those who have assisted them—the Inland Revenue, the Customs and Excise, the Parliamen-
  1878
  tary draftsmen, and, indeed, the printers, who have produced the Bill for us this morning in its final form when we were still carving it up only a little more than 24 hours ago. That is a feat of production that private enterprise might one of these days emulate.
  The Chancellor has been a most agreeable and modest opponent—so very different from the gentleman named Mr. Cassius Clay, of whom we caught a brief glimpse a few days ago.
  When my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said that this has been a dull Bill, I do not think that he meant that it has been lacking in interest or substance. It has not been exciting in a Parliamentary sense, perhaps—we have not had bitter clashes between the two sides on contentious proposals—but that is not surprising. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer of a Conservative Government at last goes our way, who are we to quarrel with him, and make life more difficult for him in our debates on the Bill? I shall say more about that in a moment or two.
  There is an enormous amount of work in this Bill, and I think that some processes in connection with tax administration now need serious examination. The earlier part of this Bill, Chapter 1, alters personal allowances on a wide scale, and an almost complete recoding for P.A.Y.E. is necessary as a result of the proposals in this Chapter. Twenty million people who are assessed to tax under P.A.Y.E.—I think that that is roughly the right figure—received coding notices before Christmas telling them what their code number would be for1963–64. The tax deductions which began for this current tax year on 6th April were based on the codings issued to them at the end of last year. The Bill provides for those codings to be changed from the first pay week in July to give effect to the changes in the Bill. This means that since the Chancellor made his announcement of these changes on 9th April, until this week, the Inland Revenue has had to carry out an entire recoding for P.A.Y.E. In other words, it has had to do last year's job all over again.
  There is nothing more disheartening than having to do the same job twice. That is what nearly broke our hearts

  1879
  in the debates the other night, when we ploughed through Schedule IV and poured forth our energy, drained our intellects and our application, and then found that we were presented with a revised version and had to start all over again. Some of us rebelled, and I wonder that the Inland Revenue has not rebelled at what it has to do to get the recoding out. Two million hours of extra work have been involved in this, with the employment of extra staff, and so on, and I think that the Chancellor should consider whether, when changes of this kind are introduced, there could be some smoother transition even if it meant using the coding issued at the end of the previous calendar year temporarily to carry on until the changes under the Bill became effective in the first pay week in July. I shall not stay further on that, but it is a big question of administration which I think the Chancellor should consider.
  Case VIII of Schedule A is another source of additional work, and I am not at all satisfied that the Inland Revenue is at present equipped to cope with it. No one really knows what is going to come out of Case VIII, or how many problems will arise. Certainly the comparative simplicity of the old Schedule A will be replaced by the examination of individual cases to an extent never necessary before.
  The hon. Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) referred to the physical side of the Finance bill—the wear and tear on hon. Members on both sides of the House. We are not complaining of the time which has been given to the consideration of the Bill. The Chancellor has been very accommodating about this, and has provided us with reasonable time in the circumstances. There may be considerable weariness of the flesh. It is tiring if one sits for too long. It is tiring if one stands for too long, and it is certainly tiring to other hon. Members if one speaks for too long. I must be careful not to run into that danger myself, but my enthusiasm for Finance Bills does not wilt on the Third Reading. As I have made clear before, the last opportunity that one has of discussing a Finance Bill on Third Reading is far too good to be missed.
  1880
  My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever) is a most entertaining nonconformist. I envy the freedom that he has had to speak his mind on Schedule A.
  Mr. Graham Page: On a Friday morning.
  Mr. Houghton: On any morning. All I can say is that if I had been as free as my hon. Friend has been I should have been here very much earlier, and would have spoken for very much longer and more emphatically on this topic than my hon. Friend has done.
  Mr. H. Lever: My hon. Friend's recollection is faulty. I spoke for longer than I ought to have done. I spoke with even greater vigour on this subject and expressed my protests and supported the notional speeches that my hon. Friend would have made.
  Mr. Houghton: I had not overlooked that, but on a matter of this kind, upon which one might feel deeply, it is not enough to make one protest. One has to be persistent. One has to drag it in at every conceivable opportunity. After all, the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has just thrust into the debate his own passion for the abolition of the Stamp Duty on receipts. Anyway, this is a very late hour at which to indulge in any lamentations, if any remain, about this change.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East very properly mentioned the likelihood that with the abolition of the tax on the annual value of an owner-occupied house the occupants of tenanted properties who are paying rent will reappraise their position in relation to our taxation system. Indeed, the right hon and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) mentioned two years ago, and Lord Amory, as he now is, even before that referred to the logical consequence of the abolition of Schedule A on the owner-occupier and the claim that would be made for some corresponding relief on the tenant. However, events will unfold on this matter.
  The hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) who, if he will forgive a personal reference, seems to be wearing "Liberal" socks this morning, is to speak in the radio programme "The Week in Westminster" tomorrow and I

  1881
  hope that this will not prevent appropriate reference being made to the inspiration which he brought to our debates the other night and again this morning on the question of the removal of Stamp Duty.
  The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett) and the hon. Member for Walsall, South seemed to be stunned by something said by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East during the long debate the other night. Both hon. Members seemed to be on the defensive, but the Bill contains, at least in large measure, the concession they wanted. What are they nattering about? Perhaps they feel that my hon. Friend said something about their activities and those of their friends which seems to have produced a sharp reaction, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer has in large degree met the insistent claim that has been made on him in this regard.
  The hon. Member for Torquay made a Freudian slip when he spoke of the removal of this duty when, of course, it has been removed only as to a half. He said that it just showed how strongly he felt about getting rid of it altogether. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheetham said that the abolition of Schedule A on the owner-occupier was a very high price to pay for the arrival of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock). I think that it would have been truer to say that this was the cost of the efforts being made by the Government to get rid of the hon. Member for Orpington. That is the cost of the abolition of Schedule A. I hope that the country will take note of the price—£50 million a year in tax relief—put on the head of the hon. Member for Orpington. Obviously he could not bear such a heavy load of responsibility because he has left the Chamber temporarily to recover from his own very pointed but, nevertheless, complicated contribution to our debate.
  The hon. Member for Torquay made an impertinent observation, saying that our reserve about the abolition of Schedule A on the owner-occupier was an indication that the Labour Party would come out in favour of the restoration of the tax which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is removing in this Bill. The hon. Member has no justification for making any such suggestion, and I must refute it straight away.
  1882
  I must not trespass on the time of the House for very much longer, but may I be allowed to say this. The hon. Member for Crosby said that this is a major Bill. It is a major Bill. I doubt whether it is sufficiently realised that this is the first Finance Bill for many years which provides for what is commonly called deficit financing of the Budget. That makes it a major Bill. I think that it is the first time since the war that a Finance Bill has been introduced the financial consequence of which is known to be, and indeed is designed to produce, a deficit above the line. We on this side believe that in present circumstances a Bill of this kind which does this is justified. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, the Bill opens up the possibilities of economic expansion and the encouragement given by tax adjustments and concessions which are to come partly out of revenue and partly out of borrowing.
  During an earlier debate when I was moving a new Clause asking for further reduction of taxation, the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper) asked "How is this money to be found?" That is a question which we have heard many times. I replied that it would obviously add to the borrowing requirement under the Bill. So then he asked, "Are we no longer to go on paying our way?" The truth is that the express design of the Bill is that we should not contain our expenditure this year wholly within current revenue. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made that clear this morning.
  Borrowing in this context is not a profligate policy. It is a means of channelling some of the savings of the people in directions which the Chancellor of the Exchequer judges will promote his economic aims. This is, perhaps, not an occasion when money should fructify in the pockets of the people so much as it should fructify in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has what he conceives to be a proper use for it. The Bill is one means of bringing that about.
  The financial consequences of the Bill are tax reliefs of £270 million, but, after allowance is made for a cut in taxation of £270 million, the amount of taxation which, on his estimates, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will get will be up by

  1883
  £45 million more than in the last financial year. If expenditure were not rising so sharply at the same time, he could have estimated for a substantial surplus at the end of the year, notwithstanding that he is giving tax reliefs of this magnitude, but, as expenditure is to rise this year by £490 million, the Chancellor has to make provision for a deficit of £90 million above the line and provide for his below-the-line requirements as well as some of the expenditure on the Consolidated Fund and the supply services above the line by borrowing.
  That is what is called deficit financing, and some people will regard this as rake's progress. They will ask, "Are not we living within our means?" The question is, what are our means? The country's means go far wider than the simple revenue return under this Bill. Many people believe that tax reductions are synonymous with a lower yield from taxation. They are not. That is not true. As I said in other circumstances, we could have had tax reductions together with a rise in revenue and an increase in expenditure. Had not the expenditure risen so sharply, deliberately and with a purpose, this time, that would have been the outcome of this Bill and this year's Budget. The Chancellor would have finished on the right side, notwithstanding the slash in taxation which the Bill envisages.
  I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have been far happier—so would we all—if what he is doing this year could have been financed from a more buoyant economy and a more buoyant revenue. He is having to provide for the borrowing requirement to meet his tax reliefs which have an economic purpose which he feels it imperative he must fulfil.
  If one looks back over previous Finance Bills and Budgets, one sees how consistently it has been possible to make tax reliefs and at the same time to have the benefit of rising revenue out of which additional expenditure can be met and still have a surplus at the end of the year. I wish that this point were better understood. If it were, we should not have so many Tories saying at different times, "Where is the money coming from? How will you pay for it?" They were saying that in 1959. Only a few
  1884
  weeks before, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had cut taxation by over £300 million. He was providing for a rise in expenditure and still budgeting for a surplus. That kind of paradoxical approach to our budgetary affairs is very difficult for people to grasp.
  Incidentally, we are talking about reductions in taxation. For the record, may I be permitted to amend a reference to a speech which I made the other night in which I am reported to have said that the Chancellor had reduced taxation in 1952 by only £81 million. I hope that I have never referred to £81 million as "only", whether it be a reduction or an increase in taxation. It should be, of course, by £8½ million. This is in column 1350 of Hansard. I should not like it to go out that I cannot distinguish between £81 million and £8½ million. My reputation as a statistician is not as good as all that, that I can take a risk with it.
  To conclude, I think it worth while just bringing to the notice of the Chancellor, while he is here, one aspect of the Bill which I am sure must be causing him considerable concern, and that is whether it is going to do the economic job which he has designed it to do, and, secondly, whether it is going to have in one field at any rate—the trade union field—the effect that he hopes it will have. We all read in the Guardian on Monday, 24th June, with considerable interest and concern, an article by Mr. John Cole, the labour correspondent, in which it is reported that the Chancellor, rarely I am sure, was impatient at a meeting of the National Economic Development Council and that he made an acid remark. This is out of character, and the Chancellor must have been feeling something if this happens to be true. The point is that it is reported that the Chancellor pointed to his Budget, which has been tacitly recognised in the trade unions as the kind likely to create a climate for restraint in wage claims, and said pointedly that it is time for someone else to act.
  This Bill contains a great many things which the Trades Union Congress had urged on the Chancellor and which we on this side of the House had urged on him, and it would be a comfort if we could have some assurances that the Bill is going to achieve in the several

  1885
  directions of importance the purpose which the Chancellor has in mind.
  That is the end of what I want to say, and once more I wish, on behalf of my hon. Friends and myself, to thank the Chancellor and the Treasury Ministers for all their help during our long and at times difficult debates.
  1.4 p.m.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Barber): In reply to this vote of thanks on behalf of my hon. Friends and myself, may I begin by saying how very much we, in turn, are grateful to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) and to his colleagues? Indeed, I think at the outset, when I moved the Second Reading of the Bill, I expressed some gratitude, because, having worked with the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends in previous years, I knew that this year also we should receive the same courtesy and knowledge from a good many of them as we have in the past. I think I can say without discourtesy to another place that this is, for all practical purposes, the end of another Finance Bill and to me falls the lot of burying it, but, like another funeral orator, I hope that I may be permitted a word of praise.
  The Bill embodies the Budget proposals of my right hon. Friend, and I must say that although I have not been in this House for as long as others, some 12 years or so, I cannot recall another Budget the basic principles of which evoked less criticism than this one. I think it is true to say that since 3rd April when the Budget was announced it has, in the view of most commentators, justified the various measures which my right hon. Friend advocated and which are contained in the Bill.
  Mr. O'Malley: Surely the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the Chancellor will recognise that their confidence of an expansion arising from this Budget in at least one section of industry is not well founded. If one looks at the company returns and comments of the steel people and recognises that the heavy steel industry is still running at only about 76 per cent, of capacity, one sums up by saying that the view of the people in the steel industry is that there is very little prospect
  1886
  of an upturn in their orders during the rest of this year.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but he will appreciate that he is not entitled to make a second speech. One is all that can be allowed.
  Mr. O'Malley: I apologise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The point I was trying to make was that the confidence of the Chancellor is not being fulfilled and that we are not seeing any improvement in the heavy steel industry as a result of this Budget.
  Mr. Barber: Of course, it is perfectly true to say, as my righthon. Friend has said on a number of occasions recently, that all the sections of the proposals which he announced on 3rd April have not yet been effective. The P.A.Y.E. reductions do not come into operation until the beginning of next month. As one of myhon. Friends pointed out, the provisions for accelerated depreciation for those engaged in capital development will have a more gradual effect. But I think one can say with some confidence that so far the proposals of my right hon. Friend are working out pretty satisfactorily. One has only to look at the unemployment figures to gain some satisfaction, and to see what is happening.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) said that the better the Bill, the less need to talk about it. That is an observation that may apply to some more of my hon. Friends, but, unfortunately, it does not seem to apply to my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary and myself.
  The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) stated that this Budget curiously embodied a reversal of last year's policy and said that we were now back to where we were. Perhaps I might make two observations to him. If it is accepted, and, indeed, I know that it is by the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, that the Budget should be used as an instrument of economic policy, then it must follow that what is appropriate for one year is not necessarily appropriate for another. Last year's Budget is not in the scope of this Bill, but I will not refer to it. However,

  1887
  as far as this year's proposals are concerned, the fact is that, in the words of one of my hon. Friends a few minutes ago, this is a good Bill and appropriate to present circumstances.
  The hon. Gentleman went on to make once again some most disparaging remarks about the City of London. This is beginning to become common form. One might have thought, and I say this with respect, listening to the hon. Gentleman, that the strength of sterling and sound monetary policy are matters of concern only to the City of London. I must say that I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) that the hon. Gentleman's approach to the affairs of the City seem to be superficial in the extreme. Certainly, if his approach be taken at its face value, then the arrival of a Labour Government would be followed by rip-roaring inflation.
  To the hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever) I offer my sincere and genuine gratitude, gratitude for making a speech much shorter than I anticipated. His views against the abolition of Schedule A and fiscal discrimination in favour of areas of high persistent unemployment are by now well known to the House, although not, perhaps, quite so well understood.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) referred to a number of important questions of principle in the Bill, and I know that he will not expect me to go over the ground again, but I should like to say three things to him. On the question of alteration of the layout of the P.A.Y.E. tax tables, I have written to him and explained why, in our view, it would not be wise to change them at this time. I assure my hon. Friend that the Inland Revenue has not written off the proposals which he sent to me.
  Secondly, I have not myself seen the Inland Revenue note to which he referred which explains why a maintenance claim cannot be allowed for an owner-occupier in view of the abolition of Schedule A. In view of what he said, I will look into this immediately and see whether any change is desirable.
  I take note of the point my hon. Friend raised about the Stamp Duty on receipts, a point which was contained in an
  1888
  Amendment which was not selected and which is not within the scope of the Bill.
  Every year the exhilaration of Budget Day slowly gives way to a mood of grim determination and, I must frankly admit, sometimes dark despair when we sit in the Treasury with our advisers and struggle to translate the poetry of the Budget proposals into the prose of the Finance Bill. This year one can say without any qualification that the House of Commons has played a larger part than usual in shaping the Bill. I reminded the House when I moved Second Reading seven weeks ago that nineteen Clauses and several Schedules were needed to get rid of Schedule A. In the course of the last few weeks, as I have done my best to explain some of the Clauses and the Schedules, I have realised why it was necessary to deal with the matter in this way. I hope that the House will not take advantage of a confession if I say now at this late hour that I am already beginning to forget why they are necessary.
  One hon. Member referred to the drafting of the Bill and seemed to think that there was cause for some complaint in the fact that in a number of respects we had had in the course of the passage of the Bill to alter the wording and make minor drafting Amendments. I can only tell the hon. Gentleman that at that moment my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer whispered to me and said, "The truth is that the Parliamentary draftsmen have had an appallingly difficult task and deserve our gratitude". This is so. I admit frankly that I have some sympathy with the hon. Members for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) and one or two others, who pointed out, fairly, that some of the provisions of the Bill are extremely difficult to understand. This is another point. The trouble is that one tries to cover every conceivable eventuality and circumstance which might be relevant, so as to avoid misunderstanding and litigation at a later stage. Further, we in this country do our best to be scrupulously fair as between one taxpayer and another. It is, in a way, this objective of perfectionism which leads to the complexity.
  I join the hon. Member for Sowerby in expressing gratitude to all those who

  1889
  have worked unceasingly behind the scenes. I was very pleased that he reminded the House of the enormous amount of work which is consequential upon my right hon. Friend's proposals, work not only at the Inland Revenue headquarters and at the Treasury but work which goes on right down to the tax offices themselves.
  Nobody will deny that as a result of its passage through the House the Bill has been much improved. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby that the fact that so many changes have been made is not so much a reflection on the preparation of the original version of the Bill as a tribute to the effective working of the House of Commons and, I might say also, to the public-spirited approach of the professional bodies. It is a significant fact that more than two-thirds of the 99 Government Amendments which we debated earlier this week on Report were tabled in response to points raised either by right hon. or hon. Members or by the various professional bodies. Let no one say that in legislation concerning finance this House acts as a mere rubber stamp, although, as my hon. Friend the Member of The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates) has now left, I have my hopes that it is just possible that the Third Reading of the Bill will be unopposed.
  Mr. Lubbock: Would the hon. Gentleman care to deal with the point I raised about the interpretation of Clause 15(1,c) in its application to local authority receipts from games fees?
  Mr. Barber: I took note of what the hon. Gentleman said. This is a matter to which my hon. Friend the Solicitor-General referred the other night when it was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth). I have taken the further point the hon. Gentleman raised this morning. I do not think that the Third Reading of the Bill is in any event an appropriate moment for me to go into such details. A second reason I can
  1890
  give the hon. Gentleman for not going into them now is that I could not do it off the cuff. A third reason is that it is a quarter-past one. I am not being too light-hearted about this and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I will look very carefully again at what he said and write to him and do my best to explain fully what the present position is.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

COMMONWEALTH DEVELOPMENT [MONEY]
Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to extend the area of operation and alter the name of the Colonial Development Corporation, and to amend sections 1, 4 and 6 of the Colonial Development and Welfare Act 1959, it is expedient to authorise any such increase in the sums which, under the Overseas Resources Development Act 1959 or the Colonial Development and Welfare Act 1959, are authorised to be issued out of the Consolidated Fund, paid into the Exchequer, raised by borrowing or defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament as is attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present Session—

(a) raising from £315 million to £340 million the limit imposed by section 4 of the Colonial Development and Welfare Act 1959 on the aggregate amount of the payments which may be made out of moneys provided by Parliament for the purpose of schemes under section 1 of that Act;

(b) replacing the limit imposed by the said section 4 on the aggregate amount of loans under section 2 of the Colonial Development and Welfare Act 1959 which may be approved in any financial year, and raising from £100 million to £105 million the limit so imposed on the aggregate amount of all such loans;

(c) amending the Overseas Resources Development Act 1959 or the Colonial Development and Welfare Act 1959 other wise than in respect of the limits imposed by those Acts respectively on the aggregate amount outstanding in respect of advances to the Colonial Development Corporation or of the payments and loans mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) above.

Resolution agreed to.

COMMONWEALTH DEVELOPMENT BILL
Considered in Committee.
[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(EXTENSION OF POWERS AND RE-NAMING OF COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION.)
1.15 p.m.
Mr. G. M. Thomson: I beg to move, in page 1, line 9, to leave out "as defined by that Act".
The Chairman (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): I understand that it would be convenient to the Committee to discuss with this Amendment the Amendment in page 1, line 11, leave out "11th February 1948" and insert "15th August 1947".
Mr. Thomson: Yes, Sir William. That will be for the convenience of the Committee as they deal with the same point.
As I think the Under-Secretary knows, the purpose of the Amendments, of which we gave warning on Second Reading, is to allow the very welcome operations of the Colonial Development Corporation in the independent Commonwealth to extend still further India, Pakistan and Ceylon, the Commonwealth countries which became independent in the post-war period but before the qualifying date of the parent Act and of the Bill. There was some discussion on this point on Second Reading. We gathered from the Government at that time that their initial reaction to this proposal was not a hopeful one. They have had some time to reconsider the matter. It is an important and valuable proposal.
The Colonial Development Corporation itself probably feels that the extension of its powers under the Bill is enough for it to be going on with in the immediate future. However, this is in many ways an enabling Bill. It will establish the structure of what will be the Commonwealth Development Corporation for a number of years ahead. We on this side do not suggest that the extra powers which would be given by the Amendment would immediately have to be operated by the new Commonwealth Development Corporation. We suggest that it is important that the Corporation should
1892
have the right to operate throughout the whole of the developing Commonwealth in the years immediately ahead, if it wishes to do so and if it is asked to do so. It is impossible to call it a Commonwealth Development Corporation—a change that we welcome—if it is to be debarred from effectively operating in three of the principal developing countries of the Commonwealth.
I do not see in logic how it is possible to call it a Commonwealth Development Corporation if it is enabled to operate in that great and populous country, Nigeria, but prevented from operating in that other great and populous country, India. I do not see how it can be called a Commonwealth Development Corporation if it is allowed to operate in an Asian and partly Moslem country like Malaya, but is prevented from operating in Pakistan. I do not see how we can properly call it a Commonwealth Development Corporation if it is enabled to operate in the newly independent islands of the Caribbean, but prevented from operating in the newly independent island of Ceylon.
Each of the three nations which would be incorporated by this Amendment could usefully take advantage of the capital and know-how provided uniquely by the C.D.C. Perhaps it might be argued that in India, where they already have very elaborate planning machinery, the need for the services and resources of the C.D.C. to be made available is less than in the other two countries. In Pakistan particularly, which I had the good fortune to visit recently the possibilities of the C.D.C. operating are very considerable.
When my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) and I were there a few weeks ago we were able to have long talks with the two industrial development corporations which operate in East and West Pakistan, respectively. They are very impressive organisations. They already have a very good record of achievement behind them in industrialising a part of the sub-continent which started with very serious handicaps in this respect.
The interesting thing about these Pakistan development corporations is that their structure bears a remarkable resemblance to the structure of the C.D.C. They operate in the same way.

1893
They have the same aim of establishing new industry, building it up successfully, and then trying to persuade local entrepreneurs to take it over. The resemblance between the two bodies is a very close one.
I understand that the Pakistan industrial development corporations had close consultations with the C.D.C. over recent years. It may well be that the present structure in Pakistan owes something to those consultations. If so, that is a further contribution which the C.D.C. has made in a country in which it is not allowed at the moment to operate. The practical point is that I should have thought it possible to marry the operations of the C.D.C. with those of the Pakistan industrial corporations without too much difficulty. Any fear that the C.D.C. had that this would be a big extra drain on its trained manpower would be minimised in that particular situation.
In Pakistan, of which I have some personal knowledge, I should have thought the arguments for allowing the C.D.C. with its new powers to operate are very strong indeed. I am not so qualified to talk about the circumstances in Ceylon, Ceylon is a relatively small, yet tremendously important, developing nation in the Commonwealth. I should be extremely surprised, from the little I know of economic conditions there, if the C.D.C. could not make a very useful contribution. It is for these reasons that we have tabled this Amendment. We hope that the Under-Secretary will give it sympathetic consideration.
Mr. R. W. Sorensen: I wish to support the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson). I am sure that many have emphasised the significance of the transition from the Colonial Development Corporation to the Commonwealth Development Corporation, as it is named in the Bill. It is of very profound significance in that the colonial empire has largely disappeared and in its place has emerged the Commonwealth.
I can appreciate why up to now the Corporation has not covered India, Pakistan and Ceylon. They were never Colonies but were Crown possessions. I suppose that is one of the legal factors which were borne in mind by those
1894
who drafted the Bill. The mere fact that the Bill is called the Colonial Development Bill ignores distinctions of Crown possessions and Colonies. It seems that on that ground alone, if the intentions of the Bill are to be logically applied, India, Pakistan and Ceylon should not be left out of its beneficial provisions. I am glad that that has been emphasised by my hon. Friend.
I support this Amendment also on the broader grounds that this is one of the means by which we can still further implement the principle of Commonwealth. It has often been said that it is difficult to define the nature of the Commonwealth. In many respects there are differences and diversities in policy and economy. Apparently nothing binds the Commonwealth together except an emotional attachment, but here is a means, particularly if we include these other vaster territories of India, Pakistan and Ceylon, whereby we can help to give material substance to the whole concept of Commonwealth.
I know that because Commonwealth is so different in its significance from empire some are less enthusiastic about Commonwealth than they were about empire, but I do not share that lack of enthusiasm. On the contrary, I rejoice very much that the much nobler conception of Commonwealth, based as it is on voluntary co-operation compared with the imposition of alien will, has taken the place of the old conception. I hope that the Under-Secretary will accept this and that we may further integrate this very noble concept, which is a tremendous and inspiring example to the whole world.
I too have been in India this year, seeing my friends out there. I was much struck by two facts, first by the warmth of friendship which exists there for this country. There was always friendship, but it is warmer now than ever before. It has been particularly stimulated by the readiness with which we went to the aid of India when she was in crisis through the aggressive action of China in the early part of this year and the latter part of last year.
I believe we should continue not merely military aid but economic aid to assist India. Here is a way in which that can be done. It is essential that we should be at least as ready to extend economic aid to India as we were to

1895
extend military aid. Otherwise there might appear—although I think it would be fallacious—to be some substance in the contention in certain quarters that we wish to assist with military aid only for some ulterior purpose. I do not share that idea. We should be as eager to do all we can to extend economic aid as we were to extend military aid when India was in peril.
This is not to assume that a great deal has not been done. I know that both from our own resources and from external resources through the consortia of many nations very substantial aid has been extended to that country. There is no logical reason why we should not use this channel for the same purpose. Certainly India and Pakistan need all the aid we can possibly extend to them. I cannot understand why, as was suggested by my hon. Friend, the C.D.C. seems reluctant to accept this and to extend its responsibility. I should have thought that although it might place a very heavy burden on the Corporation and it might be entering wider fields than at one time it anticipated doing, it should eagerly grasp this opportunity.
1.30 p.m.
I am not sure whether this is in order, but by way of illustration I can tell the Committee that, although a great deal has been done by the Governments of India and Pakistan themselves and a great deal has been done by external aid, I have seen with my own eyes the tremendous need for all the aid there can possibly be. I was happy to be able to inform the people of ten villages in the southern part of India that my constituency had adopted these ten villages and raised a very substantial sum of money, through the initiative of out local mayors, supported by people of all parties, and would very shortly be sending out about £5,000 in order that they might sink wells. These wells will enable those people to have two crops a year instead of one, without which they would be consuming per head only half the calories which we consume in this country.
I put that as one illustration of the tremendous need which exists. In spite of great irrigation projects like the Bhakra-Nangal dam, in spite of the construction of steel plants and indus-
1896
trial plants, in spite of a great deal which has been done internally, we have to face the fact that, unfortunately, the third Indian five-year plan, based as it is very largely on the success of the first two five-year plans, will be grievously affected not only by what has happened recently in the conflict with China but by the circumstance that, owing to the cumulative beneficial effects of improved sanitation and improved medical and hospital services, the population of India is now growing alarmingly at the rate of 8 to 9 million a year. This population problem, of course, imposes its own strain on the country's economy.
Whatever may be done about the curtailment of population is another matter. We have before us now an excellent opportunity really to demonstrate and vindicate our appreciation of India. Only last week, we had with us that very great scholar, Dr. Radhakrishnan, the President of India, and we extended to him, rightly, a very warm welcome indeed. I had the opportunity of talking to him at some length when I was in India, and, on this occasion, more briefly. We could do a great deal to emphasise the sincerity of our welcome to him and our recognition that India, Pakistan and Ceylon are equals with us within the Commonwealth by extending the scope of the Bill in the way proposed.
I hope that the Minister, appreciating the pleas which we have made from this side and the fact that there is now this change and the availability of funds for ex-colonial territories, will not allow the circumstance that these other countries were not, strictly speaking, colonial territories to deter him from saying that the scope of the Bill should be extended to include them and do something really impressive to show the world that we believe in the principle of Commonwealth.
The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. John Tilney): The Committee will have listened with much interest and sympathy to what the hon. Members for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) and for Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) have said. I add my appreciation of the work of the President of India, whom I had the privilege of meeting in India last November and recently here in London.

1897
Both hon. Gentlemen are inclined to forget that the Corporation may already act in India, Pakistan and Ceylon as managing agent and perform advisory functions. We really come down to a question of further cash.
Mr. G. M. Thomson: Is there any instance of the Corporation having been asked by an independent Commonwealth country to act as managing agent in that way?
Mr. Tilney: The Corporation has not taken such action so far, but it has the power so to do. It may be that, in the coming year, it will act as managing agent, but it has not so far done so.
Mr. Sorensen: I can understand how the Corporation could give advice, but it has no power to propose the advance of money, has it? That is where the difference lies.
Mr. Tilney: I agree that it has no power to produce money from the United Kingdom Treasury, but it has power to act as managing agent and perform advisory functions in any independent Commonwealth country under Section 7 of the Overseas Resources Development Act, 1959. We ought to bear that in mind. The question really comes down to one of another channel for extra cash for development.
I was much interested in what the right hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) said on Second Reading:
"I do not say that India is a very suitable territory for the C.D.C. It has reached a stale of development in which it does its own planning and a great deal of its own technical assistance. The scale of the Indian economy is so large that it rather dwarfs the Corporation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th June, 1963; Vol. 579, c. 562.]
Those were very wise words.
In fairness to the Corporation, I should tell the Committee that the deputy chairman and the managing director told me in conversation yesterday that, if given the opportunity, the C.D.C. would welcome the inclusion of India, Pakistan and Ceylon within its area of operations, although they would not expect, in the early stages, to be able to use any of the powers extensively. But I should also tell the Committee that the Corporation never put forward that suggestion in the conver-
1898
sations which we had with the Corporation during the past weeks, and I repeat that it has never as yet used its powers of management which it could have used in any of these three territories.
When I first heard the suggestion on Second Reading that these Commonwealth countries should be included, my first reaction was one of sympathy towards the idea, but I have since weighed further the arguments for and against. I feel that we should bear in mind that India, with nearly 450 million people, and Pakistan, with nearly another 100 million, represent far more than half the whole Commonwealth and would put the whole operations of the C.D.C. out of balance. As the right hon. Member for Dundee, West said, it is really a problem of scale.
We are already helping India very considerably. Our total aid commitment to India has amounted to nearly £179 million. To this should be added the £30 million recently committed in the Indian consortium, making a total of over £200 million. Our commitments to Pakistan amount to about £48 million, to which should be added the £8 million recently committed in the Pakistan consortium, making a total of £56 million. Thus, our total aid disbursements to the three countries have been, per annum, in three out of the last four years, £30 million, while our total aid disbursements to all under-developed countries have been about £150 million. Thus, our aid to these three territories in recent years has been between one-fifth and one-quarter of our total aid. This, I think answers to some extent the point made by the hon. Member for Leyton. We have certainly not forgotten the need to help India. To those figures, of course, should be added military aid as well.
Mr. Sorensen: I appreciate that, and I said that substantial aid had been given. However, in India it works out at less than 10s. per head. Surely, it is advisable not to confuse military aid, which, of course, is of a different order altogether, with economic aid.
Mr. Tilney: The figures I have mentioned are of economic aid. To them we should add aid from the Commonwealth Development and Finance Corporation, which has amounted to nearly £7 million to the three countries in the form of

1899
investment. But again it is fairly substantial.
Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: Would it not be right to say also that direct investment in India is considerable. The figures given so far of economic aid under the Export Guarantees Act from 1949 and 1962 are all good. But would not it appear that the total of our aid to Pakistan has been even more considerable, compared with other nations in the Commonwealth?
Mr. Tilney: I have left out private investment from those figures. But I do not think that arises under this Bill.
I believe that were these territories included, there would be obvious pressure on the part of one, possibly of all, the Governments concerned sooner or later to raise the ceiling of aid above the £130 million provided by this Bill. I would again refer to what was said during the Second Reading debate by the right hon. Member for Dundee, West:
"It is for that reason that I proposed no raising of the ceiling".—[Official Report, 19th June, 1963; Vol. 679, c. 595.]
It seems to me that the whole scale and balance of the operations of the C.D.C. would be put out if we included this vast sub-continent with all its huge needs. I accept what was said by the hon. Member for Leyton about the need to help in respect of the poverty per head of population. But the amount of money available to the C.D.C. is limited. I only wish we were richer and that we could afford more aid in every way. But I do not think that we are doing badly.
If we exclude India, obviously we must exclude Pakistan as well and so we are left with Ceylon. Already we have very substantial British private investment in Ceylon. As I said on Second Reading, it was the idea that when the countries became independent they should rely largely on private enterprise to produce the money for their development. That was changed at the Montreal Conference of 1958.Iam told that the City of London holds the view that the political and economic uncertainty in Ceylon has resulted in a virtual cessation of foreign investment, and that sufficient foreign investment is unlikely to be attracted
1900
because of the present restriction on remittances, profits, dividends and other income earned by foreign countries and by the continued extension of public ownership.
If the policies of the Government of Ceylon gave greater confidence, no doubt private investors would be ready to invest additional sums. It is potentially rich and a lovely island and it has a favourable balance of trade with this country. We all hope that Ceylon will overcome her present economic difficulties, and that private enterprise, in partnership with the people of Ceylon, will be able to increase the wealth and wellbeing of that very lovely island.
As I have said, I must advise the Committee that I believe that our present channels of aid to India are the best. I do not want to cramp the operations of the Corporation elsewhere by a demand to them, and by putting a pressure on them, to invest their limited funds in the sub-continent of India. I believe that the present channels are well suited especially to India's balance of payment problems. A line must be drawn somewhere and we have accepted the line which was drawn by the Labour Government in 1948. We believe that the Corporation has enough on its plate. There will be other overseas resources development legislation in future years. We are bound to have another CD. and W. Fund Bill by 1966 and possibly the sub-continent of India could have been added at that time. But I am sure that it would be wrong to add those three countries now. Having weighed up the arguments for and against, I must advise the Committee to reject the Amendment.
1.45 p.m.
Mr. G. M. Thomson: This is an extremely unsatisfactory and unimaginative response from the Minister. It is all the more unsatisfactory because he gave the extremely interesting information that once this matter was pressed by the Opposition during Second Reading, the C.D.C. told the Government that it would be willing to see these powers incorporated into the Bill. I should have thought that any Minister who told the Committee he was initially sympathetic to the proposals of the Opposition would have considered that this intervention by the C.D.C. tipped the balance.

1901
The Minister's arguments do not seem to me very persuasive. The suggestion that there are existing powers in the Act for the Corporation to act as a managing agent in the Indian sub-continent is irrelevant because the experience since the Act was passed has been that this provision is a complete dead letter. One would expect that in the case of India, for all the reasons that the Minister has given, India does not need a management agency technique from a Government Corporation in this country. The unique value of the C.D.C. is that it combines capital assistance with experienced knowledge in developing the under-developed areas. It is that combination which I should have thought of interest to India despite the fact that India has considerable facilities of her own and, as the Minister said, the whole scale of Indian development—one of the greatest and most populous countries in the world—in a sense overshadows the operations of C.D.C.
That does not mean to say that the C.D.C. operation in India, even though it were small against the whole scale of the Indian economy, might not be immensely valuable in itself and helpful to India and to our relations with India. The Minister said, as an argument against this, that inevitably it would raise the total ceiling of aid to India. We are not arguing about the total volume of aid. We are proposing that a new technique should be offered to India and to other countries in the sub-continent. But in the Second Reading debate, not unreasonably, the Government took credit for the fact that it was proposed over the years to raise the total ceiling of overseas aid to something between £180 million and £220 million. So if the only argument against the proposal is that some years hence it is likely to mean that the total help to India will be greater, I cannot see that this presents much of an obstacle.
Most people would feel that we ought in the years ahead greatly to increase our aid to the countries of the subcontinent as well as to other developing countries in the world. I would put India very high in the list of priorities because in many ways the battle for democracy in a developing world will be won or lost in India. There is, I think, a strong case, for India—perhaps
1902
more than other countries—has the manpower and economic equipment to make the maximum use of any help given.
In moving the Amendment I emphasise that I thought an extension would be important to the three countries and particularly to Pakistan and Ceylon. I was somewhat startled by the Minister's rather bland argument that because he felt obliged to dismiss the proposal for India he must, automatically, apply the same argument to Pakistan and Ceylon. I cannot imagine that that argument, if it ever gets beyond the confines of this Chamber, is likely to improve relations between the countries on the Indian subcontinent.
In rejecting the Amendment the Government are creating two worlds within the developing Commonwealth. In some ways they will get the worst of both worlds. The independent Commonwealth countries of Africa and elsewhere which come within the scope of the Bill will wonder why they should get it while the slightly older developing Commonwealth countries should not. All the old suspicions about certain countries being nearer Commonwealth status will be stirred up by this unfortunate rejection.
Equally, the countries of the subcontinent are bound to wonder why, after all our protestations about the importance of aid to the area, this modest interesting and extremely useful device of giving capital aid accompanied by the know-how to use it should be denied to them. The Under-Secretary said that a line had to be drawn somewhere. I cannot think of a more illogical place to draw it than the one he prefers. The only justification for it is the fact that it was the line drawn by the Labour Government during the immediate post-war period. The hon. Gentleman used an illogical argument because the body set op at that time was a corporation confined to the boundaries of the dependent colonial territories for which we were responsible and, therefore, the independent Commonwealth countries of India, Pakistan and Ceylon were automatically excluded.
The whole situation has changed since then and, in the light of that change, the Under-Secretary should have accepted—especially since the C.D.C. has

1903
said that it would like it—our proposal to allow the C.D.C., in due course and when asked, to operate in the Indian sub-continent.
Mr. Tilney: If the Committee was discussing total aid I would have agreed with the hon. Member. But we are already giving massive aid to India and it is not true to say that the only justification I have put forward is the argument that India, Pakistan and Ceylon were never within the territory of the Corporation. We want to give help to India, but it is a problem of scale. Pakistan is a very large country—the second largest in the Commonwealt—and the same argument can apply in that case, but to a slightly less degree.
I repeat, our present channels of aid to India are well suited to that country. If we opened the territory up to the C.D.C., within a very short time there would be pressures to divert its existing funds from poor colonial territories or independent territories which may be just as poor as the Indian sub-continent, or else to raise the figure of £130 million. I must, therefore, urge the Committee to reject the Amendment.
Amendment negatived.
Amendment proposed: In page 1, line 11, to leave out "11th February 1948" and insert "15th August 1947"—(Mr. G. M. Thomson):—
Question, That "11th February 1948" stand part of the Clause, put and agreed to.
Mr. G. M. Thomson: I beg to move, in page 1, line 14, at the end to insert "(c) the Maldive Islands".
We have tabled the Amendment to find out from the Government what is the present status of the Maldive Islands in relation to our aid policy and whether they are not to be entitled to come within the operations of the C.D.C.
The Maldive Islands are by no means the least important of the areas of the world which come under our protection and for which we have a responsibility. I suppose that they are among the parts of the world about which hon. Members know the least. I cannot easily recall many occasions when their affairs have been discussed in Parliament. If, for no other reason, this may justify our having tabled the Amendment.
1904
I recall that on one occasion I received a letter from Male, the capital of the Maldives, about the political difficulties existing between the Maldivian Government and this Government. I went to see the present Minister's predecessor at the Commonwealth Relations Office. He had himself recently returned, I gathered with some difficulty, from a visit there to try to improve relationships. We had a useful and interesting talk and then the question arose as to how my reply to my correspondent was to be delivered because I gather that there are no regular postal services to Male. He offered to arrange for my letter to be dropped by parachute into Male.
Mr. A. P. Costain: The hon. Member may like to know that I have been in correspondence with people on the islands. They write to me and no postal difficulties have been experienced.
Mr. Thomson: In which case communications have improved since my experience. The problem of communications inside the area—between the southern group where our base is established and beyond the capital of Male in the north—may have caused the sense of remoteness which is associated with the area. Despite this, they are important islands and their friendship is important to us.
I understand that the R.A.F. staging post on the Addu Atoll, in the south, is now extremely important. I am told that in the first year of operation of the base more than 600 aircraft, 12,000 passengers and 1½ million tons of goods were handled. In our strategic interests, goodwill with the people of Maldive is extremely important. It is for this reason that my hon. Friends and I wanted to press that the Maldives should be included in the area of operation of the C.D.C.
The Bill already includes places like the New Hebrides and the Cameroon Republic, or part of it. The least we can do is to make available the facilities of the C.D.C. to the Maldive Islands. The Maldivians want those facilities and the appropriate projects that can be undertaken. We are merely asking that the Government should be empowered to operate in the area in this way if the situation seems to warrant it. One

1905
might find that the C.D.C. officials would find it easier to be useful ambassadors there than are the normal channels because there is this long and unfortunate history of dispute between ourselves and the Government of Maldive.
2.0 p.m
I should like this Amendment to enable us to form a better view of the case for extending the C.D.C. to the Maldives and to find out what the present position is with regard to our financial aid to these islands. I gather that under the Treaty of Friendship of February, 1960, we undertook in exchange for our staging posts in the south to provide the Maldivian Government with £850,000. I do not know for what period, although the stage post rights lasted for 50 years. £100,000 of that was to be direct grant. Immediately after that Treaty the dispute flared up again. I should be grateful to know from the Minister now, or by letter later, how much of this money has been handed over and what are the prospects for the immediate future.
Above all, I ask the Government to consider whether this Bill may not provide a modest opportunity to offer the Maldives the hand of friendship and improve relationships with them.
Mr. Sorensen: I assure the Minister that I have no ulterior political motives in supporting the Amendment of my hon. Friend, and I am sure that he will agree that any electoral advantages in regard to this Amendment will be of a very small nature indeed. I am certain that not one in a thousand in my constituency would know what I was talking about if I referred to the Maldive Islands. Quite frankly, I think that a good many of us in this House would not either.
I hope that the Minister will say a word about this interesting remnant of our imperial empire and why it has been left out. I have not been to the Maldive Islands. I am glad that the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) is apparently in close touch, and perhaps he might add interesting information by intervening in the debate. Meanwhile, I ask that we should have some explanation why it has been left out.
I can understand why the New Hebrides is put in a particular category.
1906
I understand the nature of that particular territory, but I cannot see why the Maldive Islands should not almost automatically have been included, because we are engaged now and shall be doing so in the months ahead in sweeping up all the little pieces left over from the Empire of the past. This is one of those little pieces. Whether they are or are not justifiably in some separate category, it seems to me that they should not be put at a loss because they are not in that strange category. Surely they can benefit as much as other islands recognised as ex-Colonial Territories. Why penalise them because they are apparently in some strange category? I should be glad to hear from the Minister why he does not favour our Amendment, bringing these Islands into the general orbit of the Bill.
Mr. Tilney: The Committee may like to know that a considerable amount of aid has been given to the Maldives: Traditional fishing equipment £50,000; dispensing ship £50,000; a power station at Male, £75,000; a boat-yard and engineering repair shop, £20,000; an Inter-Atoll ship £45,000 and, with miscellaneous provisions, a total of £260,000. That has been completed, and in hand are the following three items: £225,000 for harbour and oil storage; £145,000 for a hospital and £100,000 for marine engines, making in all £¾ million.
Mr. Thomson: We are most grateful to the Minister for giving these figures. Could he clarify one or two points about the authority under which they are given? Do these relate to the £850,000 under the 1960 Treaty of Friendship or does any of it come under CD. and W. Is some of it related to the base itself and does it come under our military and Air Force expenditure?
Mr. Tilney: I should like notice of that question. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question later. I should like to confirm that the position of Her Majesty's Government remains as set out in the second paragraph of the letter from Lord Alport, or Mr. Alport as he then was on 4th February, 1960, where he reaffirms to the Prime Minister of the Maldive Islands the
"United Kingdom Government's desire and concern to promote an early reconciliation between the inhabitants of Addu Atoll and

1907
the Government of His Highness the Sultan. I accordingly give you a further assurance that the United Kingdom Government will do all that they can to bring about conditions which will enable the authority of His Highness the Sultan to be restored peacefully in the Atoll."
I am advised that the insert of this Amendment is unnecessary since because in Clause 1(1,a) of the Bill the Maldive Islands are included as being an overseas country or territory within the Commonwealth.
Mr. Thomson: We are obliged to the Minister for giving us that very interesting information. Does this mean that the Maldive Islands will now qualify for consideration under CD. and W.?
Mr. Tilney: I understand that the aid of £¾million is under the Treaty, but it certainly qualifies for operation by the C.D.C. although I do not think that the C.D.C. at the moment has any possible project in the Maldives.
Mr. Thomson: In view of the very helpful and informative reply which the Minister has given us on this point, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. G. M. Thomson: I beg to move, in page 2, line 4, to leave out from "fit" to end of line 7.
This is an exploratory Amendment put down in order to obtain from the Minister an explanation of the meaning of this provision in relation to two points. We are a little puzzled why the important provision of the parent Act with regard to consultation with local inhabitants and employees should be left out in respect of the independent Commonwealth countries which will now qualify for the new C.D.C. projects. We assume that this is out of respect for the complete sovereignty of the independent Commonwealth countries, but we should like to have that matter cleared up quite definitely.
The main reason for the Amendment is to draw attention to the very grave importance in the non-independent territories that remain of the C.D.C. developing the closest possible association with the local peoples. The C.D.C. enjoys a well-deserved reputation for getting on well in the territories in which it is operating, but I do not think that anyone who has seen it operate in the field
1908
and who is, as all of us are on both sides of the Committee, a friend of the C.D.C. would feel that there was a good deal more that could be done.
The parent Act laid it down pretty definitely that local interests should be consulted. Indeed, it laid down rather clearly the form in which they should be consulted, and it said that the Corporation "shall" appoint committees. It was mandatory. I should be interested to know in how many cases the Corporation has appointed committees in many of the independent territories in which it operates. My guess is that it has been rarely, if ever. Why has it not been done?
I had the impression from a number of areas where the C.D.C. operates that this method of forming local advisory committees might be well worth trying out. There is often difficulty in persuading local people of the full purposes and the difficulties which the C.D.C. inevitably faces in many of its projects. It is vitally important, especially when most of these territories are coming increasingly nearer the full state of self-government or of independence, that the maximum explanation should be given. The C.D.C. could increasingly spend money on what might be called public relations. I am told that this varies from region to region, but in any case the Corporation could do more than it does.
The other point which I would press is that the C.D.C. should do everything it can in independent territories to encourage good trade union practices. I should have thought that there was a great deal to be said for the Corporation appointing some senior officers on its staff simply for the purpose of promoting good industrial relations. The Under-Secretary of State for Colonial Affairs, whom we are glad to see on the Government Front Bench, is spending a great deal of anxious time at the moment with the situation in British Guiana. This is an industrial situation which now has highly explosive political implications.
It is important that in all of these kinds of territories the best standards of trade unionism should be built up. The C.D.C, based on this country, can make a notable contribution in establishing good standards of employer and employee relationships, and in creating a more constructive climate of opinion in this respect. The Amendment was

1909
tabled partly to press on the Minister, and through him on the Corporation, that more attention might usefully be paid to this problem.
Mr. Sorensen: I am most impressed and enlightened by the amazing scope that is apparently implicit in the Amendment. I did not think that it could cover so many different subjects. I would emphasise one of the pleas made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson), and that is that as far as possible everything should be done to bring the indigenous inhabitants into close co-operation in and understanding of the projects undertaken by the Corporation. The reason why in the past I have tried to perform some modest service in encouraging the freedom and independence of colonial territories has been that I am conscious of the fact that they are apt to blame the imperial Power for all the ills that they suffer.
If the inhabitants could be involved and made to realise that these problems are not necessarily due to Powers like ourselves but are inherent in the situation, it would be all to the good. Evasion of tax is among the failings of many people, including the inhabitants of the emerging territories. There should be co-operation between the activities of the Corporation and the local people so that the inhabitants might face the facts and realise that things are not always as easy as they think.
2.15 p.m.
Mr. Tilney: I can confirm that the latter part of Clause 1(3) which excludes Section 8 and Section 9(2,b) of the principal Act relating to independent Commonwealth countries, is there because it would not be suitable for the United Kingdom Parliament to legislate for independent countries. It is really for the Government of the independent countries concerned to consider the interests of the inhabitants. I said on Second Reading that my right hon. Friend would use his power to instruct the C.D.C. to consult him so that the United Kingdom Government can be sure that the Government of the independent country is also consulted before any operation of the C.D.C. starts in that country. If that is done, the Commonwealth Development Corporation
1910
obviously will comply with the local law.
I understood the main part of the hon. Member's argument, however, to be directed to the formation of committees in the colonial territories which are still governed from Whitehall. My advice is that no committee has been appointed, but in each case the Corporation has to satisfy the Colonial Office that the welfare of the indigenous people has been considered.
Mr. G. M. Thomson: The latter part of the argument is not wholly satisfactory. We were glad to hear from the hon. Gentleman that he would be pre pared to have talks with the C.D.C. about these matters. It seems strange to us that a Government who, in 1959, pressed this mandatory proposal on the C.D.C. of appointing committees should calmly say this afternoon, four years later, that not a single committee has been appointed and that there is nothing much that we ought to do about it.
I would recommend the hon. Gentleman to ask any visiting politician from some of the remaining colonial territories what he thinks about the operations of the C.D.C. in his territory. The first reaction generally is a rather blank one. The politician has no great knowledge of what exactly the Corporation is doing in the territory. If pressed and asked about some of the projects in his territory under C.D.C. auspices or administration, one hears grumbles about this and that. I should have thought that there was a good deal of scope for consultation and co-operation between the C.D.C. and local people. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will look at this problem.
I should have thought also that there was scope for a good deal of co-operation and consultation in the field between the C.D.C. and the Colonial Office. One had the impression in several parts of the world that the C.D.C. operated quite separately from the local administration and that there could have been better liaison so that the work could be carried out successfully.
I should like to see the C.D.C. advertise itself more. I should like to see it put up big notices saying, "This is a C.D.C. operation" and add that it was being helped willingly by taxpayers in this

1911
country. I do not see why we should not blow our own trumpet more about this. Other people blow their own trumpets and we suffer in terns of good economic relations compared with other countries because we give a good deal of economic assistance in grants-in-aid for administration. One cannot put up a great notice board outside a local Treasury, but where there is a physical project, such as a dam or timber mill being built, we ought to tell the people what is being done and what part this country is playing in it.
Mr. Tilney: I do not object to anything which the hon. Gentleman has said, and the need for consultation may well be there. I have no doubt that the Corporation will take note of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, but I would point out to the Committee that committees of this kind are mandatory only when their appointment is considered by the C.D.C. to be needed and that the local Government are always consulted before operations start.
Mr. Thomson: I put down the Amendment for probing purposes. In view of the explanations I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. G. M. Thomson: I should like to take this opportunity to explore a bit further the very interesting information which the Minister gave us about the Maldives coming directly under the terms of this Bill. The Maldives, as I understand it, are a State under our protection. If they come under this Bill and the C.D.C. is empowered to operate in the Maldives, then I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman to find out whether the C.D.C. is also able to operate, for instance, in the Persian Gulf States which come under our protection and which seem to me to be in exactly the same legal status as the Maldives. There is also the question of Tonga. Does Tonga come under the C.D.C? It also is a protected State.
Incidentally, I think the hon. Gentleman will find, in obtaining this information which I do not expect from him at the moment—that he will be in an inter-Department tangle, because I think he will find that although the Maldives
1912
for some reason come under his Department, Tonga comes under the Colonial Office, and the Persian Gulf States under the Foreign Office. However, they are all protected States, and I do not see any difference between them and the Maldives in this respect, and if the C.D.C. can give its valuable services and improve our relations and do a useful job in the Maldives I cannot see why the possibility cannot be considered of its operating in these other territories, too.
Mr. Tilney: I think the Committee would like to know that this is what I think the position to be, and that is that the Persian Gulf States have never been part of the Commonwealth, but the Maldives are part of the Commonwealth, as is Tonga.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.—(AMENDMENTS OF COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT AND WELFARE ACT 1959.)
Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. G. M. Thomson: I should like to raise with the Minister the general level of CD. and W. aid proposed by this Bill over the years immediately ahead. Members of the Committee will recall that on Second Reading last week the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies said when replying to the debate:
"The latest estimates which I have for 1962–63 give a total of £160 million of Government aid alone. We had expected the figure to be a good deal more, and if all the commitments which we had undertaken had been drawn upon by overseas Government, if would have been more."—[Official Report, 19th June, 1963; Vol. 679, c. 599.]
The debate had hardly concluded before there was a letter in The Times from one of the officials of the Overseas Development Institute pointing out that in the latest issue of the Government's "Financial Statistics" the figure of Government aid for the year 1962–63 was not £160 million but was only £147·9 million.
The first point I want to raise is that this does seem an extremely bad piece of briefing of the Minister, that he should have given the House a figure which was more than £12 million out. As we waited

1913
for this debate to start I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) saying in shocked terms that he had heard a Minister talk about "only £80 million" and he hoped that he would never be guilty of such a phrase. Well, the Government in this case have been quite unnecessarily wrong about £12 million, which is a very substantial amount in relation to the aid programme, and I think that we are entitled to some explanation why this mistake was made.
But there is more than the question of inaccurate information given to the House. There is also the fact that this figure of £147·9 million for 1962–63 is very substantially down on the 1961–62 figure of £160 million and is also down even on the 1960–61 figure, so that over the last couple of years the total sum of Government assistance to developing countries overseas has dropped.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, in his winding-up speech, referred to the statement by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) in 1961 when he put a ceiling of £180 million on our total Governmental overseas aid. I well remember that at that time some of us in the House protested against the Chancellor's imposing a restriction on this form of aid and at developing countries of the world being made victims of our incompetent financial policies at home, but the astonishing fact which emerges is that we have never gone near £180 million since 1961. Last year we spent less than we did in the two previous years. I gather that the reason for this is the reason given by the Minister in justifying his inaccurately high figure, and that is that although the money was allocated, in a number of cases it was not, for various reasons, taken up and used.
As Mr. Mackintosh, Director of Studies of the Overseas Development Institute, argued in his letter to The Times, this raises for the Government a point as to whether the arrangements with regard to this aid are adequate and flexible. If there is a £12 million drop in the total sum over the last 12 months does this mean that the type and the terms of the aid we offer are of the wrong kind in certain cases?
A more immediate point which is raised is that if in fact particular terri-
1914
tories are unable to use the aid which has been allocated to them is the Governmental machinery flexible enough to transfer this aid to other places where it is urgently needed? I think everybody in this Committee could tell the Minister of places where there are urgent priorities which are unsatisfied because they have not been able to be brought within the current budget.
Just before this debate I was talking to somebody from Swaziland about the operations of C.D.C. in that country. He tells me that in Swaziland, where there has been a good deal of trouble recently, literacy among the number of children at school is about 26 per cent, and that there are more than 30,000 Swaziland youngsters who do not get any schooling at all. He tells me that in this small but very important country nowadays there are only l6 people who emerge from secondary school in any year with the matriculation standard which would take them on to higher education. This is just one simple example which came to me casually before this debate began. One could give other examples of urgent needs in every colonial territory for which we are responsible.
It seems sad that if at the end of the day we find ourselves with £12 million under spent of the not very generous total, we have no arrangements to have this transferred to other places, and I think that the Committee is entitled to an explanation why the House was misled about the total figure and is also entitled to some sort of indication from the Government that they are considering their machinery for giving this aid so as to make sure that if in future years the targets announced are not achieved as announced they may be achieved in other ways and will not necessarily remain as figures on a slip of Colonial Office paper.
2.30 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Nigel Fisher): It is perfectly fair of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) to take up the point about the letter. I confess that I was a little embarrassed to see the letter in The Times. It was published almost exactly one week after our Second Reading debate. Although I have infinite confidence and faith in

1915
my advisers, I began to wonder whether I had received a not altogether perfect briefing.
But I think I did, because it is fair to say that that was the latest estimate available in the Colonial Office at the time I gave the figure to the House. The letter gave a later but still provisional figure which, I agree, indicates that the outturn for 1962–63 may be only £148 million. This is not confirmed yet but is only a provisional figure, and even the provisional figure was not available to the Colonial Office the week we were debating the matter. That is my explanation why I gave the figure of £160 million, which was what we were working on at that time, and not the figure of £148 million.
As to the shortfall of £12 million—which is, as the hon. Gentleman says, a large figure—I have the exact breakdown. It is rather detailed, and perhaps it would be more convenient and suitable if I sent it to the hon. Member in a letter rather than read it out now. I would just tell the House that, broadly, of that shortfall £4 million is attributable to aid under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act, and £3 million of it takes the form of Exchequer loans. I will write to the hon. Member about the other items.
As to the Exchequer loans item, the £3 million represents a re-phasing rather than an actual fall in expenditure. The commitment to provide these loans remains and will have to be discharged later. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that point. Exchequer loans are, in fact, administered very flexibly in that commitments to provide them are not entered into until the actual need is clearly shown.
With regard to the CD. and W. grants, which are in a quite separate category, allocations have to be made—as I know the hon. Gentleman understands—to the territories well in advance to enable them to plan forward. Therefore, one has to have them in the form of territorial allocations in advance. But, in so far as there can be flexibility within that framework we do our best to make sure that they are administered flexibly within the allocations. I think the hon. Gentleman would agree with me that one has to give the territories the chance
1916
to plan forward, and, therefore, there have to be the territorial allocations which could in a sense, I suppose, be considered rigid if the hon. Gentleman wishes to put it that way.
Mr. G. M. Thomson: I accept that that is the explanation of how the hon. Gentleman gave the figure of £160 million, but I still suggest that it is worth looking at the machinery which produced the figure, because the letter which I quoted was written on 21st June, two days after our debate, and the writer was quoting from the June issue of the Government's own financial statistics, which I gather became available that day to the writer and must certainly have been available within the Government machinery some time before that. In the case of a Bill of this nature which deals with the total figure of Government assistance, it is rather surprising when a mistake of £12 million is made in a global figure which was crucial to our whole discussion, because there was the usual discussion about what percentage of the national income we were devoting to overseas purposes.
I should like the hon. Gentleman to clear up another point. Let us assume that when the final accurate figure is established the shortfall is about £12 million. Does this mean that when we receive next year's figures, whatever they are, they will include the £12 million, or will next year's figures be an entirely fresh start and will the £12 million go on being spent separately related to its year of allocation and not concealed in a future apparently inflated figure?
I appreciate the practical difficulties about flexibility in this matter, and it is certainly very important that each project should be argued out on its own merits and closely examined. I do not deny that. But let us assume that as a result of Colonial Office experience it is discovered that there is bound to be a certain shortfall. Would it not be worth while for the Colonial Office to have a floating reserve available for urgent action where money may have to be spent quickly so that over the financial year the Colonial Office is able fully to spend the amount of money which it has finally been able to wring out of a reluctant Treasury?
Mr. Fisher: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I asked him to accept—and

1917
I know he will—that the error of £12 million was not known to me at the time, nor to my senior adviser upon whom I rely for advice in matters of this kind, although it came to his knowledge later and he drew my attention to it the moment it became available. I will look into the question of whether it was known at any level in my office. I take the hon. Gentleman's point that it looks as if it might have been, and if it were so known, then it should have been conveyed to me. I do not really know the answer, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will not press me for an answer now, but I will look into it.
The £12 million will go on. It will not be lost to the territories.
Mr. G. M. Thomson: Will it be in next year's total?
Mr. Fisher: The point is that this amount of money has been allocated and is available to the territories. I do not know quite what the hon. Gentleman is getting at.
Mr. Thomson: If we are discussing this subject at this time next year and the hon. Gentleman is still—I think it is an unlikely contingency—in office and tells the House, "I am proud to say that our aid figures have now risen to £172 million; this is a wonderful increase", will it mean that it is really £160 million of 1963–64 aid plus the £12 million that he failed to spend in 1962–63?
Mr. Fisher: I am sure that if I am still fortunate enough to be here at that time I shall not mislead the House in any way but will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said and will not fall into the error, simply for presentational reasons, of presenting an inaccurate picture. I shall give the actual amount by which the aid has gone up and not take credit for the, so to speak, "lost" £12 million.
We get a small reserve, wrung, as the hon. Gentleman so graphically put it, from a reluctant Treasury. It is not very large. I do not know whether I am supposed to reveal this sort of thing from the Dispatch Box but it is a reserve to cover such contingencies as hurricanes and goodness knows what—things which happen for which one cannot
1918
possibly plan, things which suddenly hit a small territory. I would point out that many of the colonies are within potential hurricane areas. It is for that sort of thing that we have a reserve. Indeed, we must have one to meet cases where immediate action and immediate cash to help are required.
But the reserve is of that nature and of that size, and I am afraid that in those circumstances it does not give a great deal of scope for much assistance over and above the territorial allocations which have been made to specific and individual territories.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill reported, without Amendment.
2.40 p.m.
Mr. Tilney: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
This Bill will give to the Colonial Development Corporation a new name and a new lease of life and a new freedom to invest in the independent countries, where it has done such good work in the past. I believe that there will be much for it to do. Its method of co-operation with Governments or private enterprise in promoting development in Commonwealth countries is a good example of Commonwealth co-operation at its best, and I am confident that it will make an important contribution to the economies of the various Commonwealth countries. It will also show that this country does not lose interest in a member of the Commonwealth after it becomes independent.
The main burden of development must rest on the shoulders of the people of the developing countries themselves—it is self-help—but this Bill shows that we are glad to help where we can. There has been a general welcome for that part of the Bill which extends the period of the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts and increases the amount of assistance given under it. I believe that both sides of the House recognise the special responsibilities that we have for helping our dependent territories, and these Acts have never been subject to party controversy.

1919
There has been some criticism, especially during Second Reading, that the period covered by the new CD. and W. arrangement is only three years rather than the five which has become customary. The reason is solely that, in present circumstances, it is difficult to foresee requirements for longer ahead. We recognise, however, that there will be a continuing need. I am confident that the aid provided by this Bill will ease the economic and social progress of lands for which we are still responsible.
2.42 p.m.
Mr. G. M. Thomson: We welcome the opportunity of passing this Bill and to pay tribute to the work of the Colonial Development Corporation. We are glad that it now ceases to be the Colonial Development Corporation and becomes the Commonwealth Development Corporation. We think that this is a recognition, perhaps belatedly but none the less important that the developing countries of the Commonwealth, although their political status changes completely at the point of independence, still have an economic relationship to us and that our responsibility for their welfare does not cease.
We look forward to the Corporation being able to do well through its increased responsibilities, but we are sorry that the provisions for colonial development and welfare are perhaps rather more limited than on previous occasions. We hope that these will be extended to give colonial territories ample opportunity to plan well ahead. We hope that this will be used by the Government for a fairly wide consideration of the kinds of aid under CD. and W. and the method of giving it. We very much welcome this Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

VENEREAL DISEASE
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Batsford.]
2.44 p.m.
Mr. Richard Marsh: It was on 3rd July last year that I raised in this House the problem of what I believe is the terrifying growth of the incidence of venereal disease in this country. As a result, and as often happens following debates of this type, I was bombarded with an enormous volume of correspondence. Much of it, as usual, was from cranks of one type and another, but a great deal was from ordinary people equally disturbed by the problem.
A number of people also queried, I suppose understandably, why I was interested in this matter. I will merely say that I spent some years in the Army working for Command Headquarters and concerned solely with the administration of Defence Regulation 33B. I became interested in the subject professionally then and have been interested ever since.
I make no apology for bringing the subject to this House, because I think that, though it is generally regarded as an unpleasant topic, it has none the less reached proportions which make it a matter of national concern. That is the proposition I shall attempt to put forward. Last year, I tried to introduce a Bill under the Ten Minute Rule in order to deal with the problem, and I gave some figures for new cases of V.D.
Those figures, for 1960, showed 139,506 new cases in that year compared with 94,698 in 1955.The percentages showed that the 1960 figure of new cases was 8 per cent, higher than the figure for 1959, which was in turn 12 per cent, higher than the 1958 figure. The latest figures I have—I gather that later ones are now available to the Minister—show that in 1961 new cases of V.D. reported to the special clinics totalled 141,361.
I do not think that there would be any dispute between any of us that this is a most serious problem and that it has become a national issue. In fairness, it should be said that this is not just a British problem. But this makes

1921
the thing all the more dangerous because of the speed with which people move about the world, as we discovered when there was an epidemic of a different complaint a year or two ago. Such easy movement renders the dangers of any world increase of any particular disease that much more severe to this country.
Out of 105 countries which made returns to the World Health Organisation last year, 76 recorded a significant increase in the figures for V.D. Again the point should be made that this is not just a problem of the coloured sections of the world. I know that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary would not claim that it was, but some people would say that it was a problem purely of coloured people. There are immigrant problems but that is not the issue.
The European figures in general are deplorable. In Denmark, for example, there was a tenfold increase between 1957 and 1961. We are faced with the position where this group of diseases, very serious in nature, is growing very rapidly throughout the world, including Europe and this country. But because it is happening in other countries we have no cause for complacency. The latest figures show that complications of syphilis alone killed 600 people in 1961. More people were killed by syphilis than by tuberculosis, poliomyelitis, scarlet fever and diphtheria together. We are therefore faced with a disease that is killing a large number of people.
That is not the sole point. A very much more serious facet of this problem, and the one with which I want primarily to deal, is the increasing number of children from 11 years upwards who have venereal disease. One of the great difficulties is the widespread lack of knowledge about the disease and the myth that exists among ordinary respectable parents that it involves only the rather dark, murky underworld of professional prostitutes—places and people with whom their children could not have any contact at all—and therefore does not concern them or their families. The result of that attitude is that the ignorance continues, not only among the children but among their parents. Children do not ask their parents about this subject, but, even if they do, in the overwhelming
1922
majority of cases the parents have no more knowledge than their children.
The latest figures show that a quarter of all infected females were between 15 and 19 years of age, and of the total increase among females between 1957 and 1961 one-third were teen-agers. It is time that it was quite brutally said that thousands of our teen-agers and a not inconsiderable number of school children have venereal disease. That is the hard, brutal fact. This group of diseases will render some of the sufferers blind, crippled or insane, will kill a few of them, and cause suffering to numbers of children who have not yet even been conceived.
There is no need to labour the horrors of some of this group of diseases. Nor is there much point in moralising. Morality is an entirely separate issue, and one of the things that this House cannot do, and never has been able to do, is to legislate very successfully about sex. On the other hand, the position is now sufficiently serious for the House to take cognisance of it and see if there is anything that can be done about it.
We can put up more posters, but the figures of the last ten years show that very little will be achieved by that. We can say that younger people should not have casual sexual relationships, but I do not think that anybody has the slightest hope that that would have very much effect. We therefore have to accept this as a major, serious and growing problem, that none of the present methods appear to have altered the very serious and steady increase in the incidence of the disease, and decide whether there is anything further that the House can do.
One thing we could do would be to introduce legislation on the lines of Defence Regulation 33B, brought in during the war. That had two effects. It enabled medical practitioners to inform persons that they were believed to require treatment for examination, and absolved them from any danger of libel action. It also enabled the authorities, on the first notification, to inform the alleged contact that he had been so nominated and, on the second notification concerning the same person, to insist upon that person receiving examination and treatment.
Is the tracing of contacts important? I quote as typical the case of a young business man who reported to a London clinic. He arranged that a woman whose

1923
name he gave should attend for treatment. Incidentally, asking patients themselves to ensure that someone else should attend for treatment is not a very efficient method. I can imagine a number of people who, even if they had the names, would not feel enthusiastic about going to their former girl friend and telling her they thought that they might have caught syphilis from her.
This young man arranged for his woman contact to attend for treatment. He subsequently revealed the names of nine other contacts who reported for examination, and six were discovered also to be suffering from gonorrhoea. The check continued, and four of those six were subsequently discovered to have infected one other person. From the one original case reporting for treatment no less than twelve infected cases were traced. That is the key problem, and I submit that the present methods of tracing contacts are inadequate.
The only argument I have heard against Defence Regulation 33B is that it is a breach of the traditional defence of individual liberty; that it is an infringement of the rights of the individual to insist that he or she should go for examination and treatment, and is contained in no other legislation. I regard that as pure, woolly, doctrinaire liberalism. I appreciate and will defend the freedom of individuals to preserve their liberties to the maximum extent in an organised society, but, in the light of the figures and the rate at which they are increasing, it is not sensible to suggest that a person's liberty possibly to infect other people with syphilis is something with which we should not be concerned and, since other methods have not worked, some such step as this should be carefully considered.
I hope that the Minister will tell us whether there are any other arguments than that against this proposition. I know that after the last speech I made on the subject, I was approached by a number of very respectable large organisations which said that forced treatment and inspection of this type was a monstrous infringement of the built-in rights of the individual. I am not prepared to support those rights in this respect, and if a majority of people knew
1924
what the figures were, and the speed at which they are increasing all over the world they, too, would have some doubts about whether, in the interests of their children, they should support those rights either.
My second point is not an original one, but was raised recently at a conference at Copenhagen where were read a number of papers of considerable interest on this subject. If the dangers of venereal disease are increasing in this country and in others, is it not time that the Ministry provided facilities not only for the treatment of V.D., but for the immunisation of persons against the contraction of the disease?
I know that this suggestion will raise a storm of protest, but one of the advantages of having a good safe Parliamentary seat is that one is not so worried about a storm of protest or an issue such as this. Disregarding whether it is right or wrong, Christian or un-Christian, I think we have to accept the fact that, on the evidence, there is likely to be an increase in casual sexual relationships rather than a decrease, and in present circumstances that leads one to suppose that there will be an increase in the number of persons contracting V.D. I think we have to face that fact and provide the facilities for people who are going to take these risks—and they are a much larger proportion of the population than we are honest enough to accept—to be immunised to see whether there is something we can do to slow down the rate of increase of this complaint.
I do not want to take up any further time on this subject except to say that this one series of figures about the extent to which this is affecting children all over the country—and the figures for the London area are about the worst in the country—shows that this is becoming a bigger problem among children who, if they were the children of hon. Members, would still be at school. Indeed, some of the children concerned could be the children of hon. Members because those affected are not confined to any particular social group. I gather that a survey is now being carried out, but as far as I can establish there is no social pattern for this. There is no particular social or regional group concerned other than where there are ports and things of that sort.

1925
If this disease is becoming as widespread and as dangerous as I think it is, the House ought to regard it as something which we must face to see whether there is a new move that we can make to alleviate what could be a dangerous threat to a large number of children who, in the overwhelming majority of cases, are not particularly wicked. They are certainly not evil children—children never are. They may be stupid and a little silly, but they run the risk of jeopardising their future and that of their unborn children. Those who object to the proposition which I have put forward as a possible method of combating this will, I hope, have some alternative proposal to make.
3.2 p.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernard Braine): In raising this afternoon the subject of the recent increase in the incidence of venereal disease the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) has drawn attention to a very serious social problem, one which surely must be of concern to all responsible people. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has done so, and I think that the House can be assured that the Government share his concern and are not in way complacent about tile present situation.
Perhaps I might first say something about the factual background to this debate. After reaching in 1946 a peak which reflected the exceptional conditions of the later years of the Second World War, the number of new cases treated in hospital clinics of infection by the principal venereal diseases, gonorrhoea and syphilis, fell steadily until 1954. Since then, I regret to say, this welcome trend has been reversed, and the number of such new cases of gonorrhoea in 1961 was more than double that in 1954. It is perhaps a hopeful sign that the figures for 1962, which are not yet published, suggest that the trend has at last been temporarily arrested. Compared with 1961, the total number of new cases of gonorrhoea fell from over 37,000 to 35,438, and of syphilis from over 4,400 to 4,120. However, there was a slight rise in the number of cases of acquired syphilis diagnosed within the first year of infection.
1926
For the record, I should make plain that the figures quoted by the hon. Gentleman are the total number of cases attending V.D. clinics. They include cases of people found to be suffering from conditions which were not venereal disease. In 1961, a total of about 141,000 people attended clinics, but this included 75,000 with other conditions, of which 40,000 required no treatment at all.
Perhaps I could now say something about research into trends. A great deal of valuable information has been obtained by the British Co-operative Clinical Group of Venereologists who have studied cases of gonorrhoea treated each year in an increasing number of representative clinics throughout the country. Undoubtedly, the most disturbing fact emerging from their studies is the increase in gonorrhoea among young people between the ages of 15 and 24 years. Sixty-four per cent, of the female and 37 per cent, of the male cases covered by these studies in 1962 were within this age span.
The high rate of infection among these younger age groups indicated by these studies is particularly worrying, and in future the statistical returns made by all clinics direct to my Department will provide for an age break-down so that an analysis of national figures can be made. We will therefore have in future a clearer picture than we have had up to now. I entirely agree with the remarks of the hon. Member about the seriousness of the position in regard to young people. The Central Council for Health Education is carrying out an investigation into the sexual behaviour of young people, and a specialist committee of the British Medical Association has been considering the more general problems of venereal disease. We are hopeful that the results of both these studies will point to new ways of attacking the problem.
As the hon. Member has raised this question, I want to treat the House with complete frankness. A very important factor in the spread of infection is that girls or women infected with gonorrhoea often show no signs or symptoms of the disease. In fact, they may very well be unaware that they are diseased and therefore do not seek advice or treatment. If such women are promiscuous, their condition is obviously a menace

1927
not only to themselves but to others, because they provide a pool of infection which it is most difficult to detect and treat.
I take this opportunity—and this is why I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter—strongly to emphasise how important it is for anyone, man or woman, who has been exposed to any possibility of infection to go to a hospital clinic for examination and, if necessary, treatment. Whether a venereal disease has given rise to symptoms or not, its diagnosis and treatment is essential to future health. There is still a great deal of ignorance on this point, and it is dangerous ignorance.
The problem is most acute in the case of women. In past years, thousands of men have presented themselves at clinics for a check-up solely because they have been exposed to infection through promiscuity. Many fewer women have done so. In one clinic recently, out of 124 young women with no symptoms who attended simply for a check-up, 80 were found to have gonorrhoea.
I emphasise that at hospital venereal disease clinics the relationship between doctors and patients is, as would be expected, one of complete confidence. Examination and treatment are painless and the cure rapid and certain. If anyone does not know where a local clinic is, he can quite easily find out in a very simple way by ringing up the health department of the local authority or any large hospital which, if it has no clinic of its own, will know where the nearest one is to be found. I hope that the widest publicity can be given to this information.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned in passing the coloured immigrant aspect of the problem. Studies in clinics covering about 90 per cent, of all cases suggest that over half the males attending clinics are immigrants. But I think I should say that experience indicates that few immigrants bring the infection into this country. The vast majority contract the disease here after arrival. The majority of female patients are British.
Now I turn to the question which the hon. Gentleman asked me very fairly, the question of compulsion. He suggested that the problem was so serious that compulsory measures are
1928
necessary. I am sure the House would agree that compulsory examination and treatment would be alien to our traditions and could be justified only in the most exceptional circumstances. The hon. Gentleman chose to apply to these traditions the description "pure doctrinaire liberalism".
Mr. Marsh: Woolly.
Mr. Braine: "Pure doctrinaire woolly liberalism". Well, I do hot know about that, but there are, of course, considerable practical difficulties to implementing the proposal which he has in mind. After all, we are not operating in a vacuum.
We had experience of such measures under Defence Regulation 33B between 1942 and 1947, and that experience provides no indication that compulsion would be effective. On the contrary, I am advised that it could have unfortunate consequences. Defence Regulation 33B provided for compulsory notification of suspected sources of infection when named by patients. It provided for compulsory examination of any person named as a source of infection by two or more patients and, if necessary, for that person's treatment.
I am bound to say that these powers of compulsion could seldom be applied because sources were seldom identified by more than one patient. While the Regulation was in force, contact tracing in practice continued to be based on informal voluntary action, as it had been before and as it has been since. In other words, we had experience of this during a crucial period and the existence of the Regulation did not help materially to solve the problem. The existence of the Regulation did not increase the number of contacts receiving treatment.
Moreover, and I am bound to say this in the House, the reintroduction of compulsion would impair the confidence which exists at present between doctor and patient. It would be likely, in many cases, to deter patients from attending a clinic at all and might lead to an undesirable increase in attempted self-treatment and unqualified treatment.
May I now turn to the question of immunisation.
Mr. Marsh: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I am particularly disturbed, to give the classic case

1929
of the question of compulsion. On page 62 of the Report of 1961 there is a specific reference to an incident at Holloway Prison. The number of known prostitutes admitted to the prison in 1961 was 537, and of those only 476 submitted to examination. Does not the hon. Gentleman honestly think that there is something a little absurd in a known professional prostitute being in the custody of one of Her Majesty's Prisons, an obvious person to spread venereal disease on a large scale, being permitted to refuse to be examined?
Mr. Braine: What the hon. Gentleman is now suggesting is that a specific class of person held in custody in one of Her Majesty's prisons might be subjected to compulsory examination and treatment. That is part of but a separate question from the general proposition that we should introduce compulsory measures, which were found to be ineffective before, to cover the population as a whole. On the other hand, I do not wish to rule completely out of court any suggestion that that problem might be looked at. I do not think that that argument necessarily invalidates what I have said about the broad question of compulsion.
Mr. H. Hynd: Is there not another precedent in certain parts of the Commonwealth where there is compulsory notification of leprosy?
Mr. Braine: I do not think I can go any further in this connection. Leprosy is not a condition which we have in this country. I am not saying that we cannot draw parallels or anything of that nature. I am merely saying that the general proposition that we should have compulsory powers does not, in the light of past experience, give any promise that we should be able to tackle this serious problem any more effectively than in the way in which we are now doing it.
I turn now to the question of immunisation, a very interesting suggestion made by the hon. Member for Greenwich. He is right. I believe that this suggestion was made at a health conference abroad. The clinics are able to offer an effective cure. I cannot emphasise that too much. If people who fear they may be suffering from this disease will present themselves to the clinics, an effective cure can be provided. How-
1930
ever, on the best advice that I can obtain, the prospect of any effective immunisation seems poor. Many vaccines against gonorrhoea have been tried in the past but none has produced even temporary immunity. Apparently this is a disease which confers no natural immunity and it is possible for patients to be repeatedly infected within a short space of time. In the circumstances, it seems extremely improbable that it will be possible to devise any effective method of artificially induced immunity. The organism which causes syphilis—Treponema pallidum—has never been grown in artificial culture, and until this has been achieved there is, I am advised, no possibility of effective vaccine being prepared.
It would be appropriate at this stage to say something about what is being done at the moment to counter these diseases. Following a review of the problem of venereal disease by my right hon. Friend's Standing Medical Advisory Committee in 1960–61, an extensive programme of visits to clinics is now being undertaken by my Department. In the course of these visits improved arrangements are being discussed for tracing contacts and patients who did not complete their treatment, and the adequacy of the present clinics is also being considered in every respect. A memorandum describing the venereal disease service and the criteria for establishing a true diagnosis of venereal disease was prepared and distributed to general practitioners throughout the country in July last year.
New posters have been introduced to help local health authorities in their health education campaigns. We have given assistance to the Press in compiling articles and to the production of television programmes. I think it true to say that these have helped to focus public attention on the problem. A film version of one television programme will very soon be available through the Central Film Library. We hope to add a second film based on another recent programme.
In addition to general health education, a great deal of effort is being put into contact tracing. A physician in charge of a clinic asks his patient about possible sources of infection and any

1931
contact who may have been infected. Patients are encouraged to ask contacts to go to the clinic for examination and medical officers of health co-operate with clinic physicians in tracing contacts where the patient cannot assist. Many local authorities employ full- or part-time social workers for this purpose.
To sum up: we rely not on compulsion but on making examination and treatment readily and conveniently available free of charge and in strict confidence. What is more, we are making treatment available which is effective. We are attempting to dispel by health education the widespread ignorance which still exists generally, with particular emphasis on the special problem of teen-agers.
I hope that our debate this afternoon will make some contribution to this end. It is of the utmost importance that those who may have been infected, and who therefore may infect others, should attend a hospital clinic for examination and any necessary treatment, which they will find there readily available. I repeat my thanks to the hon. Member for raising this subject this afternoon.
3.22 p.m.
Mr. Kenneth Robinson: I wish to add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) for having sought your permission, Mr. Speaker, for an Adjournment debate on a very important subject indeed. I think all of us who have followed these figures have been extremely disturbed at the serious trend of increase in these two diseases. Naturally we all very much welcome the news the Parliamentary Secretary gave this afternoon that the figures for 1962 show not perhaps an enormous, but nevertheless a marked, improvement. Of course we profoundly hope that this improvement will continue.
I was a little sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary in his opening remarks said that this is a very serious social problem, because it is by no means only—perhaps not even primarily—a social problem; it is also a medical problem. I doubt very much whether the increase in incidence of these
1932
diseases over the period we have beer discussing is itself a measure of the increase in promiscuity among young persons or among the population generally.
I should like to know, if the Parliamentary Secretary could, with the leave of the House, answer one question, namely, the extent to which the Minister's advisers think that this increase is due to a failing of the antibiotics which have been used, indicating a renewal of strength of the organisms which cause these diseases against the antibiotics which were contributing so much. There was a time when some optimistic clinicians thought these diseases were on the way out, but they clearly seem to have got a new lease of life. One would like to know how much this is due to a weakening of the antibiotics in the struggle against syphilis and gonorrhoea.
Of the two solutions to this problem put forward by my hon. Friend, I admit that I rather prefer the second. I, too, may have a streak of woolly doctrinaire liberalism about me, but I am unenthusiastic about compulsory measures unless the situation becomes so very serious that no other solution is thought to be adequate. But I was very interested in what the Parliamentary Secretary had to say about the very minimal success of Defence Regulation 33B when it was in operation.
Although the prospects for immunisation may not be very encouraging, I very much hope that the search will go on. The doctor who attended the conference in Copenhagen—I do not know whether he was a venereologist—appeared to think that this was something which we could look forward to in the future. There is everything to be said for pressing on with research. We must look upon this as a group of serious diseases. This is how I prefer to look at them, not as some sort of inhibitor of sexual promiscuity. That aspect should be a matter for departments other than the Ministry of Health, I suggest, and, in any case, one would find it difficult to respect a moral code for which the sole basis was fear of the consequence of breaking it.
I suggest, therefore, that there is everything to be said for pressing on with research to find a vaccine or preparation for inoculation which might render

1933
the subject immune from these diseases. I hope that the Medical Research Council will be interested in the matter. The Parliamentary Secretary was not very clear about whether his Department was doing anything to promote research. Perhaps he can tell us whether it is.
3.26 p.m.
Mr. T. L. Iremonger: Before my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary asks the leave of the House, as I think lie may, to reply to some of the further points which have been made, may I ask him to include in anything he sees fit to add a rather more detailed reply to the point made by the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) about action taken in prisons to deal with both men and women who may be infected or who may, perhaps, benefit from instruction and advice in this matter?
Also, with similar reference to a point about Government initiative and the responsibility of Departments, my hon. Friend referred to the use by local authorities of social workers employed by the health departments. I think that it might be helpful to the House to know exactly what they do and which authorities are helpful and which are inclined to drag their feet. There is a tendency among even very great local authorities to regard this as a subject worth thinking about and, perhaps, talking about but very difficult to do anything about. Which are the active authorities, and what are they doing?
Is my hon. Friend satisfied that his right hon. Friend the Minister of Education is fully alive to his responsibilities in this matter? The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) said that this was not a social problem so much as a medical problem. It is, of course, fundamentally a social problem, a problem of the attitude of young people to their sexual behaviour and also to the risks which they run. How far are education authorities stimulated by the Minister of Education to promote responsibility among teachers in this connection? How far do parent-teacher associations actually take the bull by the horns and do something to overcome the reticence to which the hon. Member for Greenwich referred by saying to parents, "This is something which does happen to children, to your children", warning them of the need for regular examination in appropriate cases?
1934
If my hon. Friend could tell us something about those matters of Departmental responsibility, the House will, I think, be grateful.
3.29 p.m.
Mr. Braine: May I, by leave of the House, reply to the points made by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger)?
This is, of course, primarily a medical problem, but it is also a very serious social problem. Neither the hon. Member for Greenwich who raised the matter nor I have sought to moralise about it. It is a problem which concerns not only physical health but the health of our society as a whole, and I was using the term "social problem" in that sense.
The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North asked about possible resistance through the use of antibiotics. I am advised that the treatment at present available at the clinics can overcome any resistance induced by antibiotics. He asked about research, and I am glad to be able to tell him that the Medical Research Council is doing research on this matter at the present time. Regarding the wider question about pressing on with research into other aspects, we may take it for granted that the Council is concerned with the whole field of research into illness. As regards vaccines, this is a matter about which obviously one must ask questions. The House may rest assured that we in the Ministry of Health shall continue to ask them. Whether one will get the answers hoped for is quite another matter. But up to date, at any rate, it has not been possible to find a vaccine which would be effective.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North took up the point which was made by the hon. Member for Greenwich about prisons. Perhaps I should have said—I take the opportunity of saying it now—that, with the Home Office, we are considering whether anything may be done by voluntary measures to bring the facts about venereal diseases more clearly to the knowledge of women and girls in prisons and Borstals so as to persuade them of the benefits of examination and treatment.
I have no evidence that local health authorities are in any way failing in their

1935
duties. In recent months I have had the opportunity to travel to many parts of the country and to discuss health and welfare problems with local authorities. I have been struck by the efficient way in which their duties are carried out, and I have no reason to believe that local authorities are failing in vigour or enthusiasm. We give them every possible encouragement. My hon. Friend asked also about social workers. We should like to have more social workers doing this sort of work. Those that we have are actively engaged in contacting people and visiting them. Without due warning
1936
I do not think that it is possible to go into this aspect in greater detail.
As in every other sphere of social health there is need for the utmost vigilance. I hope that this short but extremely useful debate will help to focus attention of the local health authorities and members of other organisations on what is a very serious problem and one which, as I said at the outset, must be of grave concern to us all.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to Four o'clock

  HOSPITALS
    Mentally Subnormal, Barnsley
    Mentally Subnormal, Barnsley
    Psycho-Geriatric Units, Sheffield
    Psycho-Geriatric Units, Sheffield
    Rampton and Moss Side Hospitals
    Rampton and Moss Side Hospitals
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH
    General Practitioners (Payments)
    General Practitioners (Payments)
    General Practitioners (Reserve Fund)
    General Practitioners (Reserve Fund)
  ROYAL NAVY
    Air Station, Lee-on-Solent (Developments and Renovations)
    Air Station, Lee-on-Solent (Developments and Renovations)
  ALGERIA
  ALGERIA
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT
    Advertisement Control
    Advertisement Control
  SCIENCE
    Engineering Geology
    Engineering Geology
    Pedologists
    Pedologists
  ROADS
    Cardiff-Merthyr Trunk Road
    Cardiff-Merthyr Trunk Road
    Road Junction, Ilford
    Road Junction, Ilford
    Traffic Signs (Worboys Committee's Report)
    Traffic Signs (Worboys Committee's Report)
  EDUCATION
    Intelligence Quotients
    Intelligence Quotients
    Art Schools (Places)
    Art Schools (Places)

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Manchester
The Lord Hailes—Took the Oath.

SOUTH AFRICAN GOLD REMITTANCES
11.5 a.m.
LORD BARNBY: 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 with regard to South African gold production—

(a) What is the value of bullion remitted annually by South Africa to the London market; and

(b) In the event of a general boycott by the United Kingdom of South African goods and the consequential discontinuance by South Africa of consignment of gold to Great Britain, whence do Her Majesty's Government expect to receive regularly equivalent gold to achieve such continuing support to sterling.]

THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, actual sales of bullion vary from year to year, depending on the level of production and the balance of payments in South Africa. United Kingdom customs returns show that imports from South Africa amounted to £256 million in 1961. No final figure is yet available for 1962, but it is expected to be of the same order. The second part of the Question appears to be hypothetical.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply. With reference to the second part of it, which I find disappointingly inadequate, may I ask him whether it is not right to assume that the massive increases in the gold and currency reserves of South Africa indicate the widespread confidence of world financial centres in the strength of the South African economy?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: That may be so, my Lords, but since we do not contemplate a boycott the question does not arise.
LORD OGMORE: In any case, my Lords, is it not the fact that the reason why they have very large gold reserves there is that South Africa has most of the gold mines of the world?
LORD BARNBY: With regard to the policy of the South African Government in consigning its gold stocks to this country, would the noble Earl be inclined to give an assurance that that is advantageous or disadvantageous?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: No, my Lords; I cannot give assurances on behalf of the South African Government.

MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (BOLTON) BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

FORESTRY (SALE OF LAND) (SCOTLAND) BILL
11.8 a.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, this Bill is about one very simple thing: the need for the Secretary of State for Scotland to be able, if he wants to do so, to sell back to private ownership, for use for forestry purposes, land which was bought for the Forestry Commission. It may seem strange to your Lordships that this cannot at present be done but it cannot. The reason for this depends upon the interpretation of three Acts of Parliament, and I will tell your Lordships briefly about them.
The first is Section 4(7)(c) of the Forestry Act, 1945, which this Bill seeks to amend. That section allows the Secretary of State—or, in England and Wales, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—to sell land:
"vested in or acquired by him as aforesaid which in his opinion is not needed or ought not to be used for the purpose of afforestation or any purpose connected with forestry,…".
In other words, he can sell land bought for forestry, but only provided that it is

443
to be used for purposes other than forestry. In England and Wales, the difficulty has been overcome by the use of Section 90(1) of the Agriculture Act, 1947, which says:
"The Minister may manage, farm, sell, let or otherwise deal with or dispose of land acquired by him …".
There has been no difficulty south of the Border if the Minister of Agriculture has wanted to sell the land for forestry purposes. But the Scottish equivalent of that Act, the Agriculture (Scotland) Act, 1948, says in Section 61(1):
"The Secretary of State may manage, farm, sell, let or otherwise deal with or dispose of land acquired by him under this Act …"
Therefore, he cannot sell for purposes of forestry land which was acquired by him under the Forestry Act. In Scotland this situation has caused a certain amount of trouble. I may say at once that there is no intention whatever that Forestry Commission land should be sold on a large scale to private owners, but there are cases—and they were referred to in another place—of specific instances where it would have been very valuable had the Secretary of State had the power which this Bill proposes to give him. I think that perhaps your Lordships might like to know one or two of them, to justify the Bill which is before the House.
One of them was a case where the Secretary of State had bought, out of forestry funds, about 5,000 acres of land, and eight compartments of this, of about 180 acres, carried growing trees which had previously been sold to a timber merchant. The trees were kept out of the sale, and the Commission received rent for the land on which they stood. At the time of the application to deal with this land, the trees had been felled in four of the compartments, and the remaining four carried trees 30 to 40 years old which might not be licensable for clear felling for some time in the future. During this time, however, proper management required that windblown trees should be replaced and that other work should be carried out to keep the wood in proper order. The Commission could not undertake this work because the existing trees belonged to the timber merchant. The timber merchant was prepared to sell the trees to another merchant who would have done the necessary work, but he would not do it himself. It was not possible to deal
444
with the matter at all, because, of course, the other merchant would not deal with the trees unless he was allowed to buy the land, too. So the whole thing fell by the wayside, and nothing was done to keep this wood in proper condition.
Then there was another case in 1955 and 1956 in which the Secretary of State had purchased out of the forestry fund some 90 acres of woodland which was split up with areas in between them. Subsequently, an estate company acquired the intervening land, and it could well have formed an extremely useful and compact block of about 350 acres if it had been able to include in its management 90 acres of Forestry Commission land. But, of course, the Secretary of State could not sell it to them, so that particular piece of proper management of woodland could not take place.
There was another case in 1961 where there were five acres of Forestry Commission land which were completely cut off from the rest of their woodland by a railway line. In fact, the Commission had no access to them at all. On the other hand, the owner of the land on the right side of the railway line was prepared to include it in his forestry work. It would have been beneficial if this small area of 5 acres had been able to be sold to him for this purpose, but it could not.
The Bill itself deals with this question, as your Lordships will see, by an amendment to Section 4(7)(c) of the Forestry Act. It does not give the Secretary of State unlimited powers to sell Forestry Commission land to anybody he may think fit; he can do it only if it is desirable in the interest of rational land management, and I think that the cases I have mentioned make clear what is meant by that readily understandable phrase. He must also be satisfied that it would facilitate the discharge by the Forestry Commission owners of any of their functions; though that really is the same point. Between the two provisions is a certain safeguard by which the wholesale disposal of Forestry Commission land would not be possible. I do not think there is anything more I need say in description of this Bill. I hope that it is entirely self-explanatory and will commend itself to your Lordships, and that you will be able to give it a Second Reading today. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I do not know whether any other noble Lords are going to speak. I should rather like to hear more about the case.
11.15 a.m.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: My Lords, the noble Viscount has moved the Second Reading of this Bill with his usual skill and clarity and there is very little that I can add to what he has already said, except warmly to commend it. It is a very simple measure, but it is of considerable importance to the economy of Scotland. It brings Scotland into line with what has been the practice in England ever since the Forestry Act, 1945, where the Commission has been able to resell for afforestation purposes land that is surplus to its requirements. There is no question here of compulsion at all; it is purely an enabling Bill; but it may be useful in getting considerable areas of land restocked with trees which have, till now, been lying idle.
There is one point that I do not think the noble Viscount touched on which may be another good reason for this Bill. Planting is still, of course, an expensive operation; but possibly the overall cost to the woodland owner is today not so great as it was just after the war. It may well be that, owing to the increased planting grants available, and other things, the private woodland owners will now find themselves able to re-purchase land and plant it, which after the war they were afraid to do because they thought they could not face the great expense then involved. I think that is all I have to say. It is a good Bill and useful for Scotland, and I hope it will pass into law. If it does so, then I hope the Commission will look favourably on any requests that landowners may make to purchase or re-purchase such land as has been mentioned.
11.18 a.m.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords this is a most admirable Bill; and there are only one or two comments I should like to make, In several cases I have heard of, the Forestry Commission would have been only too glad to get rid of land they acquired which was
446
technically plantable but which, from their point of view, was extremely inconvenient. I had a case myself where neighbouring property was sold and broken up. The farmland was acquired by a new owner, leaving a tongue of land of some 20 acres of not very good ground, but which could not be said to be unplantable, between the new agricultural owner and myself. I should have been glad to take the land off the Forestry Commission at a greater price than they had paid; and they would have been delighted to let me have it, but they could not do so as the law stood. So they found themselves with 20 acres of poor land in a narrow strip between a river and farmland, which they had to fence with over one mile of fencing at great expense—something they would not have had to do if they had been able to get rid of the land.
One point does not appear to me to be quite clear. Is the land which the Forestry Commission are now going to be allowed to sell to be only land that can be planted and not land that already has trees on it? It often happens that when the Commission acquire a large property for the purposes of planting they are enabled to get rid of the agricultural land; but on that land, or adjacent to it, there is often land already carrying timber—sometimes good, more often indifferent. I suggest that, if it is not already possible under this Bill, it should be made possible during the Committee stage that small portions of woodlands like that could also be sold; because they are often merely a great nuisance to the Forestry Commission, being in many cases remote from other land they are administering.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I should like to support this Bill. I am very much out of touch with forestry now; but there is one point that occurs to me that has not been mentioned. That is, I believe that the exercise of the powers under this Bill will allow for experiments on a small scale which may be very useful to forestry in the future. In common with everybody who loves the country, I have always been a great opponent of clear felling, which violently alters the climate and fauna of any area to which it is applied, and have always had great pride in the Swedish system of forestry, which

447
avoids this. I believe that if private land-owners, who are mostly warm lovers of the country, made clear portions, which could be disposed of by the Forestry Commission this might enable them to try on a small scale experiments which might prove very useful to the country as a whole.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD CRAIGTON): My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend for his lucid and, according to my brief, entirely accurate explanation, and I thank noble Lords for their support of this Bill. I would tell the noble Earl that the Forestry Commission can, under this Bill, sell land with growing timber on it. The Government welcome this Bill and I would ask your Lordships to support it.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I do not want to hold up any reasonable forestry developments in Scotland, but, highly as I value many of the subjects which are deal with by Private Members' Bills, I should have thought that this was hardly a matter for Private Members' legislation. We are dealing in the operation of one part of this Bill with the disposal of Forestry Commission land, and I should have thought that this would have been done on the initiative of the Government.
11.23 a.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, to deal first with the point which the noble Earl opposite has made, this is a problem which affects private landowners in Scotland as much as it does the Forestry Commission, and it is something which they have had very much in mind and have been pressing for for a long time. The Timber Association, the Scottish Landowners' Federation and other bodies of this nature have had a great deal of interest in this subject and have wanted legislation to make it clear. I do not think that it could really be said to be unsuitable as Private Members' legislation. It is a fairly small thing and it seems to me to introduce exactly the right sort of freedom into Scotland, which after all has not proved to be detrimental on the other side of the Border. I do not think that your Lordships will consider it unsuitable for me to move the Second Reading of this Bill
448
rather than my noble friend on the Front Bench.
I am grateful to the three Scottish experts who have supported me, and also to my noble friend Lord Craigton, because I am glad to hear that from the wealth of their experience they do see great value in this Bill. I thought so, but it is very nice to have confirmation of it. I also think that the point of my noble friend Lord Saltoun is probably covered because "purposes connected with forestry" would surely include proper experiments in that field. I thank your Lordships for the welcome given to this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

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

SALE OF DEAD WILD GEESE PROHIBITION BILL [H.L.]
11.24 a.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Mansfield.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Dead wild geese not to be sold]:
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: Your Lordships will have noticed that there are a series of Amendments in my name which at first sight would appear almost to destroy my own Bill, or at least very greatly to alter it. I think that it would be as well if, in the first place, I were to explain to your Lordships how these apparent great changes come about and how the main purpose of the Bill is, despite them, preserved intact.

449
Your Lordships will be aware that this Bill cannot stand by itself, but must be taken in conjunction with, and is in fact about to become a portion of, the Act which was passed in 1954, in the passage of which I took a fairly active part. It was represented to me that were this Bill to go forward in its original form, it would mean the introduction of a number of penalties of a very much more severe nature than were contained in the parent Act and that they would be applied to offences which, ornithologically speaking, were much less serious than those to which the minor penalties in the main Act applied. I hope that this is not too complicated a way of putting it. In point of fact, what all these changes mean is that we lose the increased penalties for second and subsequent offences, and we lose the power of imprisonment.
Within a very few years, the original Act of 1954 will have to come up for revision. It was admitted at the time to be an Act on a rather experimental basis. One had to see how it worked and then amend it, if and as necessary, in a few years time. In point of fact, the Act has worked remarkably well, though there are, of course, certain deficiencies in it, and certain improvements could be made. Ornithology does not stand still. As an example, perhaps I may be permitted to quote the case of a bird, which is not affected by my Bill or, indeed, by the main Act—that is to say, the collared duck, which now nests in fair numbers in several parts of the country, though it was not even on the British list as a straggler in the year 1954.
When the original Act comes to be amended, which must be within ten years (and I greatly hope that it will be within that time), I am given to understand that favourable consideration will be given to the idea that the penalties for repeated offences should be made much heavier and that imprisonment may well be included as a final resort. With this explanation, I beg to move my Amendment that Clause 1 be omitted.
Amendment moved—
Leave out clause 1.—(The Earl of Mansfield.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD THE EARL OF MANSFIELD moved to insert as a new Clause 1:
Extension of prohibition of sale of dead wild geese.
.—(1) The prohibition imposed by section 6(1) of the Protection of Birds Act 1954 on a person's selling, offering for sale or having in his possession for sale a dead wild goose, save as may be authorised by a licence granted under section 10 of that Act, shall, instead of being limited to the period in any year commencing with 28th February and ending with 31st August, have effect throughout each year.
(2) Accordingly, for paragraph (c) of the said section 6(1) there shall be substituted the following paragraph:—
(c) a dead wild goose, or, during the period in any year commencing with 28th February and ending with 31st August, any other dead wild bird being a bird included in schedule 3 to this Act or a wild duck, whether or not so included;'
(3) In this section any reference to sale shall be construed as including a reference to barter and exchange.
The noble Earl said: I beg to move this new clause in substitution of the one just omitted. I think that I have explained what it mainly does, but there is one addition to it, however, which I think is a considerable improvement and to which I should draw your Lordships' attention. That is subsection (3), which says:
"In this section any reference to sale shall be construed as including a reference to barter and exchange."
That fills a gap in the original drafting. It means that a person who shoots a number of wild geese will not be able, as he would under the Act, to dispose of them to his poulterer in exchange for a future supply of chickens, or to his local public-house for a number of bottles of whisky or cases of beer. That, I think, is a considerable improvement. In point of fact, the penalty under the main Act of £5 for every goose that may be sold or may be attempted to be sold remains in this addition to that Act. So we are really getting somewhere. It must be remembered that that is a penalty for each bird and not for each offence. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Mansfield.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [Amendment of Protection of Birds Act, 1954]:
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: I am now advised that Clause 2 is no longer necessary, and I beg to move its deletion.
Amendment moved—
Leave out clause 2.—(The Earl of Mansfield.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [Short title, construction, citation, commencement and extent]:
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: For the same reason, I beg to move that subsection (2) be omitted.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 22, leave out subsection (2).—(The Earl of Mansfield.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
In the Title:
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: I frankly do not regard this Amendment as being of much importance. It was, however, represented to me that there was already a prohibition of the sale of dead wild geese in so far as the close season was concerned, and that therefore the Title would be better and more properly explanatory if it contained the words "to extend the prohibition of the sale of dead wild geese." I think it is a distinction with very little difference, but as it does not harm the Bill I was quite willing to agree to it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out ("prohibit") and insert ("extend the prohibition of").—(The Earl of Mansfield.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with Amendments.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) BILL
11.34 a.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, whereas just now I was presenting to your Lordships a simple Bill for Scotland, I have now a complicated one for England and Wales. Each of the clauses in this Bill is on a different subject, and I think your Lordships might be forgiven if you thought at first sight that it was something of a packet of all sorts. Although the outside of some of the items looks a little sticky and indigestible, I think your Lordships will find that they mostly have soft and palatable centres.
452
There are two themes which go through the Bill. The first is apparent from the Title, in that it deals with local government financial provisions. But the second, which is, I think, an important theme, is that they are all aimed at giving local authorities rather more scope to run their own affairs in the most effective way, with the minimum of prohibition and control from Whitehall. There are some limitations which will be found in the clauses or can be provided by general regulations, and some of the existing requirements for individual sanctions or consents will be removed. In fact, I believe that this Bill will cut out a lot of unproductive time and paperwork—the sort of thing whereby sixpence is spent in order to see that threepence is not wasted. But, on the whole, these provisions will not provide for extra expenditure out of the rates. Although local authorities will be able to spend limited sums on some reasonable purposes, they will be able to do so without the necessity, which has hitherto existed, for them to get permission from the Minister on mere trivialities in so many cases.
The Bill does not lay any new duties on the local authorities; it gives them no new powers of compulsion over the citizen. It has been welcomed, except for Clause 3, by all the local government bodies, and warmly welcomed in another place when my honourable friend the Member for Hexham introduced it. I think, therefore, your Lordships might approach it with what I hope would be a favourable mind. Nevertheless, I think that I ought to explain at a little length its somewhat complicated provisions, so that your Lordships should understand them better than I fear you will merely by reading the clauses.
Clause 1 does away with the need for cumbersome procedure which at present has to be followed to enable local authorities to pay their members' expenses when they attend conferences and meetings on the functions of the authority. There has been enormous growth over recent years of the scope of local government services, and it is vital that members, as well as officers, should be able to go to the conferences of the specialist bodies, to learn the latest

453
developments in the various fields and how these things are being dealt with by other authorities. Although under the law as it now stands local government authorities have power to pay expenses of sending representatives to conferences, they can do so only if the conference is called by a body which consists purely of local authorities. This has been the law since 1933. It excludes, of course, all the main associations dealing with housing, town planning, highway construction, water supply, sewage purification, many of the road and rail services and similar matters; clean air, parks, burials, and an enormous number of other important functions of local authorities. The effect of this limitation has been to exclude payment of expenses for members to attend conferences dealing with all the important main functions of local government except education (for which there is a special provision in the Education Act), because, although in many cases these important bodies largely consist of local authorities, if there is any other membership, the expenses cannot be paid without the sanction of the Minister. This has been given by special request in the past, but this clause will, I think, overcome the difficulty caused by local authorities' having to ask each time and obtain special sanction under the Local Government Act, 1933.
There is, of course, the other side to this question. I know that your Lordships would not wish such powers and freedom to be used in an overenthusiastic way, and the purpose of subsection (3) of Clause 1 is to grant the necessary control so that these things are not abused. There are two safeguards. One is that the provision is constructed so that the amount of the allowance to members is limited to the rates laid down by the Minister in regulations for other council duties; and your Lordships can see a full and detailed list of the expenses which can be paid under the Local Government (Members' Allowances) Regulations, 1948. This is a comprehensive list and keeps a close eye on the whole expenditure. It does not lay down at all extravagant rates.
The other safeguard is that the clause is simply an extension of the provision in the 1933 Act, which means that it
454
is effective only to the extent that it is brought into operation by Minister's regulations, and these will come before Parliament under the Negative Resolution procedure. One of the things these regulations will probably do (perhaps my noble friend Lord Jellicoe could say something about this) will be to limit the number of members whose expenses can be paid, because under the present system, normally, only two members from one local authority can attend these conferences and have the expenses paid by their authority.
Clause 2 relates to a point that was raised in another Private Member's Bill in another place, but was withdrawn when it reappeared in the Bill of my my honourable friend the Member for Hexham. The point about this clause is that under the Local Government Act, 1948, the local authority are empowered, with the Minister's consent, to contribute to the bodies which provide services for the benefit of the authority's area, or its inhabitants, but they can do this only where the activity of that body is carried out in the area of the contributing authority. There may be a voluntary body which serves the area of several authorities in such matters as old people's workshops, convalescent homes, museums, and so on. At present, it is only the local authority in whose area the particular activity is carried on which can contribute: others who also get the benefit of the work cannot do so. This is put right in the Bill.
Clause 3 raised a certain amount of trouble on Report stage in another place. It was inserted there, and was not in the original Bill. It gives power to the local authorities to contribute to associations, not so much of officers but of members, of councillors, of the authorities themselves, if the body to which they wish to contribute is approved by the Minister. There is, in fact, an embryo or an infant body which has recently been set up which will give a certain amount of useful assistance to councillors, and I think it would help them to be educated in their duties as councillors. It is still in a very early stage, and the honourable Member for Islington, North, who is a vice-president, and very keen that the power should be in the Bill, says, nevertheless, that he does not think this body is ready for approval. Nevertheless, there is

455
power in the Bill, if such a body should come into existence and be approved by the Minister.
Clause 4 is another adjustment to an existing power. Under the Local Authorities (Expenses) Act, 1956, councils may incur expenditure on the reception of distinguished visitors and persons representative of local government in other countries. They may also pay the expenses of their own members on official courtesy visits abroad. It was an Act to facilitate the "twin town" links, which are very common and, I think, beneficial in this country; but it would also be useful on many occasions for officers of local authorities, as well as members, to go on these expeditions and compare notes with their opposite numbers abroad. This the clause now allows to be done, although I am bound to say that it does not produce the same freedom that many local authorities abroad have when they send their delegations here. Nevertheless, it is a step in the right direction.
Clause 5 concerns a technical point and, unless your Lordships have any questions on it, all I will say is that it is to clear up a doubt which existed as a result of the drafting of the relevant section in the 1933 Act. But I will try to answer any questions that your Lordships may wish to raise on it.
Clause 6 is a modest provision to deal with the limitation of local authorities' powers: that they can incur an item of expenditure only where they have statutory authority or where the Minister allows them to do so. This applies even to very small and, perhaps, insignificant items. In the main, the smaller the item the less reason there will be to provide general powers, either by Public or Private Act. There are any number of things which will come into that category, but which will be well worth doing in individual cases by a local authority. I have a variety of examples which might appeal to your Lordships. For instance, the erection of warning posts and expenditure on life-saving patrols at seaside towns; the fencing off of dangerous places where children might fall down and hurt themselves; floodlighting of war memorials; prizes for allotment and garden competitions; and—another quite important little thing for a small
456
place—contributions towards the cost of maintaining unremunerative public telephone boxes in villages.
This clause gives a general power to incur that sort of expenditure for the benefit of the inhabitants of the area, and makes it unnecessary for special or public legislation to be passed. In fact, some of these things can be done already with the Minister's sanction, but there are other little points—like the fencing of dangerous places so that children should not fall into them—where the Minister has not hitherto been able to sanction expenditure. Under this clause the work can be done. There will be little new expenditure—and I hope your Lordships will not think that that is too bad a thing—because for the parish councils there is a limitation of one-fifth of ld. rate, and for other local authorities a 1d. rate. This compares modestly with their powers to spend under other individual specialised enactments. For instance, they can spend up to a 3d. rate to advertise the attractions if they are a health resort or a holiday town; they can spend a 2d. rate for net loss on allotments, and a 6d. rate for net loss for helping the arts, music and drama. It is very seldom that they spend anything like that amount. This general power to spend this small amount of money has existed in Scotland for fifteen years, and it has proved very beneficial, although the Secretary of State has had to give his consent to its use.
There are, of course, considerable safeguards. Since there is to be public inspection of accounts, a separate account will have to be kept. There is also the very important provision that the power cannot be used where the authority have a similar power to do that sort of thing under another Act but subject to some limitation or to some consent. If they wanted, for instance, to send more people to a conference than they could otherwise do under one of the several clauses in this Bill, or under the existing law, they could not then use the ld. rate under this clause to do what they could not do otherwise. I think that should be a sufficient safeguard against any abuse of this power.
Clause 7 deals with the power of a local authority to issue bonds. Up to now, they have been able to borrow

457
for capital purposes but only by mortgage, stock, debentures or annuity certificates. The last two are very seldom used. Metropolitan borough councils covered by this clause are restricted to borrowing by way of mortgage. On the other hand, there have been over 150 Private Acts to allow local authorities to issue bonds, and recently the Derbyshire County Council attracted £2¾ million from the investing public under a Private Act for this purpose. So this new way of borrowing is now added generally for all the local authorities mentioned in the clause, that is to say, county councils, county boroughs, county districts and metropolitan boroughs—so long, I suppose, as they last. The power will also apply to the other statutory bodies—such as water boards, for example—to whom the relevant provisions in the Local Government Act have been applied by special Statute.
Schedule 1 lays down the conditions of these bonds, and there is power to make even more specific provisions by regulation if necessary, and I have no doubt that the Minister would do so. Clause 8 is the one which I, personally, found the most difficult to grasp, but it seems to me to be fully justified, when eventually one finds out what the point of it is. This is an extension of the existing power of local authorities to suspend for up to five years payments into sinking funds for the repayment of loans for the construction or alteration of works for their revenue-producing undertakings. This clause extends the power to other purposes to be specified by the Minister and, in particular, to the purchase of land which is either initially acquired or is later appropriated to one of these purposes which the Minister says it should be. It also enables the authorities to borrow to pay the interest due on the loan while the suspension is in force, and power can be exercised for any period up to five years, but not, of course, during the last five years.
As I understand it, the difficulty is this: that you have a loan for a large operation which does not in the first stages produce anything in the way of revenue to pay the interest on the loan, and, at the same time, under the law as it at present stands, in addition to getting no return, you pay the interest
458
and you also have to pay the amounts into the sinking fund for the eventual repayment. This places a very heavy burden on the rates until the revenue comes in, whereas later the revenue comes in and it would then be very much easier, if it were thought fit, to put bigger funds into the sinking fund, to make up for the period during which none has been provided. This is what the clause will allow to be done; and I think, again, that the safeguards are fairly solid. But of course, it does not follow that all local authorities will want to do this. There may be some, but, on the other hand, it is not a panacea for all circumstances, because it means the money has to be paid at a greater rate later when the suspension stops. Nevertheless, I think the Minister will be able to deal in general regulations under this clause with the purposes for which the power of suspension is obviously right, and probably it would be correct if he dealt also, as the clause provides, with the ad hoc case which does not fall within the general specifications. I hope that my noble friend will also say, when he comes to reply, something about this, because it seems to be an important point.
I should also say that there is the less common case where a loan has been repayable by instalments, and in this case there would be no power to the local authority to dispense with the need to secure the lender's agreement to any 'alteration in the repayment terms so that the lender will not, in any case, be prejudiced. The power may also be used by those other authorities I have already mentioned who have powers to borrow money under the provisions of the Local Government Act given to them by special Statute.
Clause 9 deals with capital funds and the renewal and repairs funds. These are popular with local authorities and they provide a useful means of financing capital schemes of moderate size as an alternative to borrowing. Again, many local authorities have power under Local Acts which they have from Parliament, and there is general power contained in the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1953. But the funds under the 1953 Act cannot be applied to education. At that time it was a grant-aided service and the use of capital funds

459
for education could have resulted in abuse of the grant arrangements; but now education comes under the general grant, and so it would, I think, be a great advantage to have power to use these capital funds for educational purposes as well; and that is what the clause provides.
Clause 10 empowers local authorities to pay the unexpended balances of loans in ways which I think they would almost certainly be allowed to do now but which would require individual sanction from the Minister. Again, this is bound to save a lot of typing, correspondence and expense both at the local government and Ministerial ends. Clause 11 provides for similar relaxation where boundary changes have taken place in areas of local authorities, and I have no doubt that as the 1958 Act and the Commission set up under it gradually produce boundary changes and the changes of status in authorities that is going on now, this should be rather an important clause.
The rest of the clauses in the Bill and the Schedules are really machinery and I do not think any difficulty will arise under them. But if any of your Lordships wish to ask questions about them I shall be happy to do my best to answer them. I must apologise to your Lordships for being so long on this, but it is a complicated measure. I hope I shall be forgiven for trying to explain it in detail and that this will help your Lordships to give it what I hope will be an easy passage through this House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
11.56 a.m.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, this appears to me to be one of those Bills to be found in the pigeon-holes of all the Ministries, waiting for some opportunity to be introduced. Clearly, no such opportunity has arisen and a Private Member has undertaken it. But I regard it as being no worse for that fact and certainly, had a Government Front Bench speaker introduced it either in the other House or here the Bill could not have had a better exposition than that which we have enjoyed this morning. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, apologised for the long time he took to explain the Bill, but, after
460
all, it is an important Bill and one which I personally welcome. I must admit that when I was a member of a local authority I thought that the existing law on this subject of expenses paid to members was unnecessarily restrictive. These councils are responsible bodies and, of course, have to watch their ratepayers' money, but there are certain conferences, and so on, the attendance at which provides information which otherwise could not be obtained. For that reason I certainly welcome this Bill.
The only other point I would make is that I rather like this expansion of the general power to borrow by means of bond. I think this is useful and should be within the power of local authorities without having to go to Parliament and obtain a Private Bill for this purpose. It is right, I think, that there should be an extension of this power to all authorities, always provided that the necessary safeguards are included. With those few words I, as an ex-local government man, certainly give my personal welcome to the Bill, feeling that it will be beneficial to local authorities; and I would end by congratulating the noble Viscount upon the way in which he introduced it. I hope he will have an easy passage for the rest of the Bill.
11.58 a.m.
LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, I rise to support my noble and learned friend Lord Colville of Culross in moving the Second Reading of this Bill. I have always advocated decentralisation of responsibility as much as possible, and I think that this is just as important in local government as it is in industry. I am particularly attracted by this Bill because, in my capacity as a member of the Council of the Industrial Welfare Society and of the Executive Committee of that body, I have found great difficulty in getting people from local authorities to attend the numerous courses and lectures which we run and which we believe could help the officials and staff of local authorities. Also, we have evidence from the local authorities themselves that they would like to send their people to the courses that we run. I think that this Bill, if I have understood the very clear explanation of my noble friend, will enable them to do so. Therefore, I welcome the Bill.
11.59 a.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, my first duty is to echo the congratulations which my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross has received on sponsoring this Bill, and I think my second duty is to congratulate the Bill on its sponsor. It is, I think, a good Bill and it has certainly attracted a very good sponsor. This fair bride, if I may so term the Bill, has, I think, been very lucky to go up the aisle on the arm of my noble friend, accompanied by two such expert bridesmaids, if I may so term the noble Lord, Lord Champion, and my noble friend Lord Ampthill. As a result of my noble friend's having covered the ground so fully and clearly I have, I am glad to say, very little to do, but I feel that I should straight away make it clear that the Government, for their part, are happy that this Bill has received a warm welcome not only here and in another place but also from the expert local authority associations, and we hope it will commend itself to your Lordships.
I also feel that perhaps there are one or two clauses which I should very briefly embroider, particularly as my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross has asked me to say a word or two on one or two parts of the Bill. In the first place there is Clause 1, which, as your Lordships now know, extends the power of local authorities to pay expenses incurred by their members in attending conferences and meetings. The season for conferences of this sort is already upon us, and we shall soon see the papers filled with reports of the conferences of this and that association at Blackpool or Brighton. Some of us may perhaps wonder whether all these conferences always serve a useful purpose. I myself am convinced that most of them do. But, he that as it may, some of your Lordships may conceivably have had some suspicion lurking at the back of your minds that this Bill could lead to some vast increase in conference junketing. If any of your Lordships do harbour that suspicion, I think I can assure you this will not be the case.
The new clause covers by and large much the same ground as the existing Section 228 sanctions which my right honourable friend gives. Its practical effect, therefore, is not to extend confer-
462
ence-going by local authority members but merely to replace the detailed, makeshift and often grandmotherly control through Whitehall, by much more economical and decentralised control at the essential points by regulations. The present regulations, I gather, provide that for most conferences a local authority may not pay the expenses of sending more than two members to any one conference. The Department's general practice on the Section 228 sanctions for conferences outside the terms of these regulations made under the 1933 Act has been to sanction attendance by one member only.
The scope of the new regulations will, of course, have to be discussed with the local authority associations, but I think it is likely that they will again limit the number of members who may attend at any one conference, perhaps in much the same way as is now done. They could, of course, exclude certain types of conference altogether if that were held to be desirable after consultation. In any event, I think they are likely to provide for closer control over attendance at conferences abroad, a point which those of your Lordships who may be suspicious of foreigners and their very odd goings-on may find reassuring.
I myself am quite sure, in any event, that this new clause will represent a great improvement over the present practice whereby the attendance of council members at almost all conferences has to be specially sanctioned. In principle this seems to me quite wrong and a misuse of Section 228. It means that a lot of the staff of the Ministry are kept employed on totally unproductive and unrewarding work, and in any case it strikes me as undignified to subject responsible local authorities to this type of detailed control over what are primarily their own affairs. I should like, therefore, if I may, to commend this particular clause very warmly to your Lordships' House.
The next clause on which I should like to touch, again briefly, is Clause 6. This, as my noble friend explained, is a relatively modest prevision providing local authorities with a general power to incur minor expenditure for the benefit of their locality or its inhabitants. He also explained the present position,

463
and that this limitation applies only to very small and insignificant types of expenditure. He mentioned the fencing off of dangerous places for which there is no present cover. I was glad he raised that point, because some of your Lordships may remember a rather tragic incident some years ago when some boys playing by the banks of the Manchester Ship Canal near Warrington slipped in. I believe that at least one boy was drowned. The local authority concerned, the Warrington Borough Council, then very properly decided that they should fence the canal at this point in order to avoid any repetition of this tragic incident. But they found they did not have power to incur this obviously necessary and very small expenditure. They had to go to the Ministry, and it was only after a great deal of head scratching by all concerned that it was possible for them to incur this expenditure, and then only by stretching the Section 228 special sanctions further than they properly should have been stretched. This new clause will put right this sort of absurdity, and again I commend it warmly to your Lordships' approval.
The only other clause I should like particularly to refer to is Clause 8. Like my noble friend, I found the drafting of this clause very tricky, but I think the meaning is quite clear. It will give local authorities a power to suspend the annual provision for the repayment and to borrow for the payment of interest on certain loans. I think this fills a need felt in local government circles—and not only in local government circles—for some time past. I regard this particular clause not only as important but also as having a particularly soft and palatable centre, to echo my noble friend's phrase. I might perhaps remind your Lordships that in a debate on urban central redevelopment in another place last year the then Minister of Housing and Local Government (whom we shall soon be welcoming to this House) said [OFFICIAL, REPORT, Commons; Vol. 657, col. 1721]:
"I think that a good case has been made for enabling local authorities carrying out redevelopment schemes to defer repayment for an initial unremunerative period. This means legislation, and I can give no undertaking when that will be possible, but I accept the principle of being able to do this in this field as it can be done in certain other fields."
464
When I was at his Ministry, at the time, this was a matter which to some extent came my way, and I am delighted it has been found possible to incorporate this particular provision in the Bill. Of course, it will not mean that all local authorities anxious to get ahead with perhaps very much needed schemes for redevelopment will now be able to do so. We must be realistic here. I would remind your Lordships that in any redevelopment scheme loan charges—and particularly the interest element—can represent a substantial charge on the rates during the initial period before rents begin to come in or before money is received from the sale of sites for redevelopment.
However, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, has said this particular clause is not a panacea, and of course it is not. The suspension of loan charges in itself can be expensive, and borrowing to pay interest during the period of suspension will naturally in certain cases quite substantially increase the total cost. Therefore, borrowing for interest, as this clause will permit, is something which the local authorities will not wish lightly to undertake. Nevertheless, I have no doubt that many redevelopment schemes can be expected to yield revenue on a scale which will amply justify recourse to this particular clause; and the experience of private developers proves this up to the hilt. I can think of a number of otherwise very desirable schemes which would have been held up even in the last year or so but which might well have gone forward to the advantage of the community concerned had this provision existed. I do not think I should name the place, but there was a case in the North-East where the importance of power to defer interest charges would have meant the imposition of an additional 3s. rate for the first years of the scheme. In the future that sort of scheme could be proceeded with, if the circumstances were right, without laying an undue burden on the ratepayers. In any event, I am confident that this power to borrow to pay interest will in fact be widely welcomed, as it has already been, by many go-ahead local authorities.
Before I leave this clause I should perhaps confirm to my noble friend that, in framing regulations or in designating

465
purposes in individual cases where this power to suspend would be authorised, my right honourable friend would restrict the operation of the clause to purposes which would either produce revenue or lead to the receipt of a capital sum for the sale of land or property. If there is no prospect of either of these things, the local authorities ought, of course, to meet the loan charges in full from the outset.
My Lords, I do not think there is anything further I need add to what my noble friend has said in his lucid explanation of this complicated measure. In looking down the clauses I noticed that, under Clause 14, the Isles of Scilly can be brought within the scope of the Bill. This is doubtless a most important provision, but it surprised me at the time. Nevertheless, I gather from your Lordships that this Scilly provision (if your Lordships will excuse that appalling pun, which I think is permissible on a Friday) is quite customary in local government measures of this sort. That said, I should like once again to echo the congratulations which my noble friend has already received on being the sponsor of what I regard as a thoroughly useful addition to legislation, which I am sure will work to the advantage of Government, both central and local.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I am most grateful to your Lordships for the welcome which you have given to this Bill. On the last point that my noble friend made, I must say that I should think the Council of the Isles of Scilly would be just as jealous as myself that they should on all possible occasions have a special mention in legislation of this nature. I think it is entirely suitable. Apart from thanking my noble friends and the noble Lord, Lord Champion, opposite, for their enthusiastic welcome to this Bill, the only other thing that I should like to say is that in opening I forgot to draw attention to the most important part which will be played in safeguards under the Bill by the district and the professional auditor. This is a subject close to my heart, and I am glad to see that he has an important part to play, whether he be district or professional. My Lords, I commend the Bill to your Lordships for a second reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

DEER BILL
12.12 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, in rising to move the Second Reading of this Bill, I want to remind your Lordships of the Deer (Scotland) Act, 1959, which followed the Report of the Scott Henderson Committee on cruelty to wild animals, so wisely set up by the Labour Government in 1951. The sections of the Scottish Act in dealing with the avoidance of unnecessary cruelty to deer are, to all intents and purposes, the same as the corresponding clauses in the Bill that I am now presenting, with the exception of course that they conform to English law as opposed to Scottish law.
The reasons underlying the necessity for this Bill are not in every case the same as those behind the Scottish Bill. The Scottish Bill became a dire necessity through the break-up of many big Highland estates after the war, when the vigorous protection which had been afforded to the wild red deer by these estates went by the board. But for the protection of landowners interested in conservation, the deer were at the mercy of bands of armed thugs who shot them at all times and seasons of the year. The situation was further complicated by the great food drive in the war, and the great increase of sheep on the high hills which in many cases drove the deer to other areas to seek new pastures. That, of course, required the setting up of the Deer Control Commission.
In the case of the England and Wales Deer Bill, which I am now presenting, the reasons are, on the whole, put forward on somewhat similar lines, although there are many reasons which are not the same as those behind the Scottish Act. First, we have had a great increase in the deer population of England and Wales owing to the extremely large acreage of timber that we now have in this country. In fact, it has been increasing ever since the First World War, owing to the extremely praiseworthy efforts of the Forestry Commission and of private landowners. I believe that there are now 600,000 acres of young plantations in England and Wales. This has altered the pattern of wild life in the

467
country and has resulted in a great increase in deer, because, as your Lordships know, the natural habitat of deer is woodland. Equally, with the increase of woodland we have had an increase in arable land. Deer do damage to arable land. So it has become necessary to have a Bill to control, but at the same time to conserve, them.
Another reason has been the great increase in the number of weapons in private hands, especially in the last fifteen years. Then there is the greater accessibility of the countryside because of the motor car. This has resulted in a great deal of unauthorised shooting throughout the countryside by people who not only cause great danger and suffering to wild life, but are also a danger to themselves and to the public generally. To aggravate the problem, we have also had higher prices paid for venison, which is a direct encouragement to gangs in cars to shoot entirely for commercial profit without any regard to animal suffering. Probably it surprises a great many people in this country to learn that there is no proper legislation already in force to protect our largest and finest wild fauna. I think we are alone among civilised nations in having no such protection. In feudal times the wild deer were heavily protected by the Crown. But I personally can find no Act of Parliament during the last one hundred years that has done anything at all to protect wild deer. We have the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, which of course is chiefly concerned with domestic animals.
Before proceeding to discuss the Bill itself, I should like to name those organisations which have put an immense amount of effort and work into the preparation of this Bill. First of all, we have the sponsors of the Bill, the British Field Sports Society, ably supported by the Forestry Commission, the Nature Conservancy, the Council for Nature, the Fauna Preservation Society, the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare, the National Farmers' Union, the Country Landowners' Association, the Devon and Somerset Staghounds, and the New Forest Buck-hounds. I should also like to mention my honourable friend Mr. Jasper More in the other place, who presented this Bill there; also my honourable friend
468
Mr. Kimball, who ably supported it, and there are many others, including my noble friend, Lord Willingdon, who is really rather more qualified than I to present this Bill. All these organisations have taken an immense amount of trouble in the preparation of this Bill. I am afraid I have done very little in relation to it; I am just a spokesman, and have not done the actual work.
May I now turn to the Bill itself? If we take Clause 1, which deals with close seasons, and if your Lordships will turn to the Schedule, you will see there the stags and bucks (apart from the roebuck, for which I will explain the reason later) who, if the Bill is passed, are to have a close season from May 1 to July 31. Some of your Lordships may wonder why this is such a short season, because in the Scottish Act the season for stags runs from October 21 to June 30. The reason is the difference in habitat. One has to remember that in the Highlands when the stag has bred he is very weak and valueless as a carcase, and, owing to the sparse grazing because of the early frost, he cannot regain his condition and is in a very poor state for the whole of the winter. But this does not apply in England, because after the breeding season the buck or stag has plenty of feeding and soon regains his strength. One also has to remember that in England, where the deer live in forests, the only season during which one can shoot them is when the leaves are off the trees and the bracken is down, so it is quite impracticable to have the same close season as exists in Scotland. The only way one can shoot deer in dense forest when the foliage is on the trees is to have a couple of highly trained hounds or tufters to drive them out of the forests.
Your Lordships probably want to know why the roebuck has no close season. The reason is that the roebuck has a different life cycle from that of the red deer, the fallow deer and the sika deer. He sheds his antlers at a different time and is in velvet at a different time; and when in velvet he does a great deal of damage in the woodlands. This is in contrast to the cycle of the fallow and red deer who are in velvet from May I to the end of July; the roebuck is in his velvet far earlier on in the winter when the leaves are off the trees. If one had

469
a close season for him, it would be extremely hard to shoot him in the summer when the foliage is on the tree. No sportsman, of course, ever shoots a stag or buck in velvet, because they are then at their lowest ebb and, if they are frightened at all, they can easily damage their horns in the undergrowth.
Your Lordships will also notice from subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 1 that:
"The Secretary of State may by order amend the said Schedule by the addition of deer of any species not mentioned in that Schedule …"
The reason for this is that we have other species of wild deer in England that appear to be coming indigenous. We have small deer called a mountjac, which is only the size of a small dog; we also have the Chinese water deer. Probably, in the course of time, these deer may increase and it will then be necessary for the Secretary of State to lay down a close season for them. By subsection (3) the Secretary of State will consult with any organisations interested before laying down a close season for any of these other species of deer, and I understand that these organisations include anti-blood-sports societies.
I think Clause 2 is quite straightforward. We have the same clause in the Scottish Act. One cannot have night shooting, because that leads to great cruelty—one cannot follow up wounded deer. But I would also point out that farmers are protected under Clause 10(2), which brings in the requirements of the Agriculture Act, 1947, to enable farmers or smallholders, if deer are eating their crops, to protect such crops in the night time or the daytime by shooting.
I now come to what I think your Lordships will agree is the most important clause of the Bill, Clause 3. This clause deals with unlawful methods. It follows to a great extent the recommendation of the Scott Henderson Committee in prohibiting such things as traps, snares, nets, poisons, drugs and things of that sort.
We now come to the weapons clause, and I must ask your Lordships to turn again to the Schedules. You will see that under paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 you cannot have a shot-gun under 12 bore. Of course a great many of us would rather do away with the shot-gun, but, as has been pointed out by the National Farmers' Union, who supported this Bill,
470
owing to the difficulty of getting firearm certificates it is really necessary to have shot-guns, and so we have had to include them. The Scott Henderson Committee also pointed out that in undergrowth and restricted country the rifle was perhaps too dangerous, and in certain cases it was preferable to have a shot-gun.
Now we come to rifles. Of course, you cannot use a rifle with a calibre of under ·240 inches. No doubt an expert can shoot a deer with a ·22 calibre if he hits it in a vital place, in the neck or in the heart, but I am afraid the average person would only wound a deer. The trouble is that, if you shoot a deer with a ·22, you cannot with certainty tell whether or not you have hit it, because it gives no reaction at all, unless of course you hit it in a vital place. Therefore, after the words "a calibre of less than ·240 inches", there is inserted "or a muzzle energy of not less than 1,700 foot pounds." Some of your Lordships are probably ballistic experts; I think my noble friend Lord Swansea is going to speak on this subject. But what we call the foot poundage or the muzzle energy is a definition of the measure of the punch with which the bullet hits the deer. If you have a high muzzle energy you are, of course, far more likely to kill the deer. But even if you "haunch" it, which would be most regrettable, although the deer may not keel over you can see that you have hit it, and where you have hit it, and can then follow it up. Of course, I quite agree that you cannot expect a local constable to measure the muzzle energy of a rifle, but if he arrests a poacher presumably he will have his rifle and cartridges and then one can easily have the muzzle energy of the rifle proved by an expert.
As regards the shot-gun cartridge, it would of course be far preferable to have only a single ball as large as that used in Germany and elsewhere on the Continent. But here, again, under the existing law in England, if you have a shotgun you have to have a firearm certificate to fire only a single slug, to which again the N.F.U. object, so we have decided that we cannot have that. But a great deal of work has been done in experiments on the size of shot and on the type of shot-gun cartridge. After exhaustive experiments carried out, I understand, under the jurisdiction of a

471
deputy surveyor of the New Forest and of one or two other bodies interested in this, the conclusion has been reached that SSG gives the best results, because in their experiments they found that 83¼ per cent. of all pellets of SSG fired proved to be fatal, as against 47½ per cent. of LG. Perhaps some people do not agree with that, but we have the proof of the experiments.
I shall have to return to the unlawful weapons clause because I forgot to mention the use of mechanically propelled vehicles, which of course is not allowed. Under Clause 3(3), the occupiers of deer parks are exempt from the restrictions on the use of mechanically propelled vehicles as set out in Clause 3(2). The reason for this is, of course, that in deer parks the ground is usually flat and open, and the most practical way of getting in to close range is by driving up in a Land Rover, because, as a great number of noble Lords will know, wild animals do not appear to be so scared of human beings in cars as they are of people on their feet. So the object of this clause is to prevent wounding, but the exemption is applicable to only the owners of deer parks. Of course, the chief owner here is the Crown, particularly in Richmond Park.
My Lords, Clause 4 is quite plain sailing, and I do not think there is anything I can say about that. I ought perhaps to point out here, with regard to Clause 4(2), that the term "prohibited article" does not include a car. In other words, if a man were caught poaching and his possessions were taken the authorities could not take his car. Clause 5 follows the Scottish Act but conforms to English law. Clause 6 also follows the Scottish precedent but conforms to English law. Clause 7 also follows the Scottish procedure on seizure, but perhaps I may refer your Lordships to subsection (2) of Clause 7. Here it says:
"A constable may sell any deer seized under this section and the net proceeds of the sale shall be liable to forfeiture in the same manner as the deer sold".
If a constable seizes a deer, you cannot just let it rot in a police station: it ought to be made use of. We are here following, as I have said, the Scottish procedure. There is the same principle in the game laws, too. As to Clause 8, I do not think there is anything I
472
need say. The penalties are far less severe than under the Scottish Act. On Clause 9, I ought to point out that "vehicle" includes an aircraft also. It may seem rather extraordinary that people should want to poach deer from aircraft, but I understand that there has been an instance of somebody in a helicopter shooting deer. I must say that seems a rather expensive way of doing it.
Under Clause 10, a person may kill an injured or diseased deer by using any of the articles prohibited by Clause 3(1)(a) or (b)—that is to say, traps, snares, drugs or nets. He may also use any weapon for that purpose. Subsection (2) of Clause 10 is important. I have referred to it before with reference to farmers. There is nothing in this Bill which prohibits farmers from protecting their crops. Subsection (3) of Clause 10 is important because there might be an instance where the farmer or the smallholder was ill, and if he was ill he would, presumably, be unable to go and protect his crops from the deer. Under this subsection he can designate somebody else to do this job for him. Of course, he has to prove that the action is necessary to protect his crops, pasture or trees.
Clause 11 gives to the Nature Conservancy the authority to license such prohibited articles as stupefying drugs or muscle-relaxing agents with the object of taking deer alive for scientific purposes and also educational purposes. These relaxing agents have been used in Africa with great success, and they are humane and quite harmless. The licences can be revoked by the Nature Conservancy at any time. Clause 12 merely prescribes the form in which the Secretary of State is to make orders under the Bill. Clause 13 is just the Title of the Bill, its extent and commencement.
My Lords, that is the Bill. Of course, it is not perfect—I do not suppose any Bill ever has been perfect—but it must be remembered that it had been born out of compromise between many conflicting interests. But I would emphasise that this Bill is not directed to favour any particular section of the community—sport, forestry, agriculture or commerce. The plain object of the Bill is to prevent cruelty to our most beautiful of wild animals. It may surprise your

473
Lordships to learn that, out of all the deer shot in. Forestry Commission woodlands last year, 60 per cent. of them had gunshot wounds. I myself have seen the most pitiable sights of wounded deer—deer with their jaws shot off or their entrails hanging out—and it honestly makes one's heart bleed to think that we have not had any previous legislation to prevent this. One sometimes sees fawns that are dying of starvation because the does or the hinds have been shot. My Lords, I really commend this Bill to your Lordships as an extremely humane Bill, and I hope your Lordships will give it all the support you can. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Massereene and Ferrard.)
12.48 p.m.
LORD CROOK: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Viscount on the way in which he has presented the details of the Bill, and I am bound to tell him that I support it to the extent that it does anything at all to help deer. But I want, if I may, in a speech that I think will take rather longer than until the one o'clock adjournment time—but we shall see—to say why it is that I criticise this Bill. I criticise it not because of what is in it but because of what is not in it. I do not like it for the following reasons. It will not stop the hunting of deer by hounds; it will not stop the worrying or the hunting of pregnant hinds; it will not stop that dreadful practice of slitting a deer's throat without pre-stunning; it will not stop the disgusting cruelty of the hunting of carted deer: it will not stop the use of a shotgun using what is called "sportsman" size shot; it will not stop the indiscriminate shooting of deer; and it will not stop the leaving of a wounded deer. That is a fairly comprehensive and formidable list of deficiencies in the Bill, as I see it, but there are more. These I shall endeavour to point out not in this speech, in order not to waste the time of your Lordships, but when moving Amendments trying to change the close season, and so on, when we reach that stage of the Bill, if it goes on its way this afternoon.
As the noble Viscount moving the Bill has said, this is a child of the British Field Sports Society, and I do not need to tell your Lordships that the aims and objectives of that Society are not the
474
defence and protection of animals but the defence and protection of all blood sports in this country. They set up this working party under the chairmanship of a Member of another place, a former huntsman and a Master of Hounds, and, as the noble Viscount has said, that working party consulted with various people. It consulted with important and reputable bodies like the Forestry Commission and the Country Landowners' Association, and as the noble Viscount reminded us, it consulted also with the Devon and Somerset Stag-hounds and the New Forest Buckhounds.
But I will name three organisations that it did not consult: the National Society for the Abolition of Deer Hunting, the League Against Cruel Sports, and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. One might have been forgiven for thinking, if this Bill is to help animals, that each one of those three organisations might have had some inquiries addressed to it and might have been consulted before the Bill was drafted. I am afraid I agree with those in another place who said that the Bill is a rearguard action of those anxious to continue blood sports. I agree, too, with the honourable gentleman who, in the Committee stage of the Bill, said that what always impressed him was the enormous lengths to which Parliament in this country will go to protect the interests of so-called sportsmen. My Lords, we are the nation that passed resolutions condemning the Russians for putting a dog up in a sputnik in the air.
It may surprise some of your Lordships to know that deer have even less protection than the hare. They are classed, in fact, with rats as vermin in England and Wales. The Protection of Animals Act, 1911, completely failed to protect them. Sections 12 to 16 of the Larceny Act, 1861, which refer to unlawful hunting, wounding, snaring or killing, relate in fact only to animals that are owned. Wild deer are not owned by anybody and are the responsibility of no one. So in England and Wales you can still do what you like. In Scotland, by the Act of 1959, as the noble Viscount commented in moving this Second Reading, machinery was set up which was regarded by most people as containing many satisfactory features. As one listened to the noble Viscount one would have thought, from his praise

475
of the Scottish Act and the comparison he was seeking to make between that Act and his Bill, that this Bill would have reproduced effectively those features in the Scottish Act; but, of course, it does not.
The Scottish Act of 1959 sets up a Deer Commission, making a provision that it is unlawful to kill deer other than by shooting, and providing for the establishment of effective and long close seasons. I should like to deal in Committee with the way in which this Bill does not. In my view, the first improvement needed in this Bill is a clear one: the provision for a deer authority, somewhat on the lines of the Scottish Act Commission, charged with clear functions to be carried out in accordance with the directions given by the Secretary of State. Only by the establishment of such an authority can cruelty, embarked upon in the name of sport, be dealt with effectively.
My Lords, I welcome the fact that the Government representative in another place said that the indiscriminate shooting which constitutes the main evidence in respect of this problem is not necessarily attributable to poachers. The fact is that more and more inexpert marksmen are taking part in shoots. I take one of a number of Press cuttings that I possess to quote to your Lordships. It is from the Manchester Evening News of May 31, 1963. It states:
"Top professional people and business men in the North-West have started practising for a suddenly fashionable sport … and in the new hunting grounds of the North it is cheaper than most other prestige pastimes … 8s. per hour … and sportsmen may buy the heads of any deer they kill for £2 10s. 0d."
I regard it as deplorable that the Bill, as it is now drafted, places no curb on the amateur marksmen whose numbers are increasing.
This state of affairs, with its increase in unnecessary suffering to the animal, is likely to continue unless the control of deer is put in the hands of a Commission or authority on lines similar to those I have suggested. Indeed, unless there is such an authority the next thing we shall know, based on this North-West experience, is the use and hiring of land for "shoots" which, in turn, could even lead to the breeding of animals especially
476
for use in hunting and shooting. That is common on the Continent. At least one firm in Denmark exports animals especially bred for this so-called sport.
The only method of humane deer control, in my view, is the system increasingly practised by Her Majesty's Forestry Commission, modelled on the German style, which is called "selective shooting"—shooting by experts trained in the knowledge of deer, trained in marksmanship, using high seats and rifles; and not deer drives such as are now practised in this country, and which are still not to be prohibited under this Bill as it now stands. A recent issue of the Field, referring to deer drives, said:
"They are conducted too often as if they were pheasant shoots, with deer sent forward in panic and hasty shots fired."
Nor does this Bill prohibit the most horrible practice of all in respect to deer drives: the hunting of carted deer. On that subject I venture to keep your Lordships from lunch for another couple of minutes to read to you from the pamphlet of the R.S.P.C.A.:
"The most decadent of all hunts is the hunting of the carted deer. The Government Committee on Cruelty to Wild Animals, reporting to Parliament in 1951, said of it: 'We cannot see that it fulfils any useful function'."
Then it goes on to give a description given by a person called a "humane person" who saw it at the Norwich Stag Hunt. This is the description given to the Association:
"… 'Two harmless hinds, bred in captivity, each in a small crate, were carted to the meet. The hounds sniffed round the crates for the scent. The crates were then taken to a field some distance away where one terrified deer was released and this bewildered creature made off. Then along came the hounds and huntsmen into the field to get more scent. (The second deer was still in its crate.)
'The hunt was then on and men and women started the chase. Others at different points showed the way the poor frightened creature had gone. It was caught exhausted and half-drowned in a pond and was re-crated to be used for a future hunt.
'The "spare" deer in a frantic state was jolted round the countryside for hours, the trailer traversing banks and gullies following the sport.'"
That animal is released if the first one does not provide good enough sport; or if it manages to get itself killed and thus gets out of its misery. But if the sport is good enough then the second one goes back with the first one.

477
My Lords, that is a pretty shocking story. I cannot think why provision to stop this is not in the Bill already. This disgusting thing is practised in only two small parts of the country. It is a blot on England and on the English way of life. I deliberately use the word "England" because both cases are in England. My Lords, we have spent thousands of pounds to save antelopes in Kenya. Can we not spare a thought for the deer in this country, to protect them from those who misuse the name of sportsmanship? While we follow with growing interest tie rescue of animals from the encroaching waters of a dam in darkest Africa, here, in allegedly civilised England, the Press can report an ex-master of the Devon and Somerset Staghounds as saying of a deer at kill:
"Of course, it was in calf … they always are at this time of the year … and, of course, it was exhausted … we do not catch them unless they are."
So, are we a civilised community?
While I shall not oppose the Second Reading, I will try to persuade your Lordships, in the stages of the Bill between now and Third Reading, to make such Amendments as will make it a Bill which is really for the benefit of animals as well as for the benefit of alleged sportsmen. I welcome the Bill because it does two things. First of all, it opens the door to legislation about deer; and, secondly, it gives me an opportunity of persuading some of your Lordships to make this the good Bill it can be.
[The Sitting was suspended at two minutes past one and resumed at 2 o'clock.]
2.0 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF WILLINGDON: My Lords, as the only Member of your Lordships' House who was a member of the unofficial committee which drafted this Bill and sat through many weary hours in a bad winter, I should like to commend it to your Lordships. I could not agree more that the Bill is a glorious compromise: it pleases everybody on the committee, but satisfies none completely. We had tremendous help as the noble Lord, Lord Crook, said, from the Forestry Commission, in that they were the people on the Committee with probably the most experience in the technical slaughter of deer. The most difficult task
478
was that of the ballistic experts, because having once decided what should be possible, with the anti-cruelty well in mind, and the safety and the non-safety of the high-powered rifle, we forgot that there were also some people who owned foreign rifles; and the ballistic gentlemen had to start work all over again.
I wish that my father's great friend the late Lord Winterton could have been here to see this Bill begin its life in your Lordships' House to-day. It embodies a plan that was always very dear to his heart, and I hope that it will have a satisfactory progress. Lord Winterton, I would also add, was one of the greatest masters of foxhounds we ever had in Sussex. I should like to point out that the Bill was given a vast amount of time in another place, where it was carefully considered, and certain Amendments were adopted. What it does is to enable the deer family to produce their young in comfort, and in safe conditions, and the stags to grow their horns at the appropriate times of the year—always provided that they do not commit any major crime of crop destruction, a stipulation that is very much appreciated by many of us who in these days are rather intensive farmers. The Bill lays particular stress on the vital point of the protection of wild life in the right proportion to the various parts of England, a matter which I know appeals to all your Lordships. It also proves the most important point, which again will appeal to many of your Lordships: that the sportsman is the greatest conservationist of all.
2.3 p.m.
LORD DOWDING: My Lords, I welcome this Bill as giving a little much-needed protection to the deer in England and Wales. I do not think that it goes far enough, but there are many interests to reconcile; and we must not forget (I think this is right) that the original sponsor of this Bill drafted it from the point of view of the preservation of field sports. So it would be unreasonable to try to reverse the whole thing in this House. It is a good start towards the preservation and protection of deer, and even if it went through without any Amendment, I should still think it was a valuable Bill.

479
The Bill prohibits night shooting, trapping or poisoning, shooting with injurious weapons and shooting from motor cars. Close seasons are introduced for all deer except the roebuck. I do not think that the reasons for this exemption are very cogent. I suppose the original reason for the close season of stags in Scotland was that when they were shot they should have good heads as trophies, with fully grown antlers, and no velvet. But supposing that that was the case, I can see no real reason why the roebuck should not have similar protection, though, of course, if he grows his horns at a different time from other deer then his close season might differ from that of the others.
There is one point that has not been mentioned about the exemption of the roe deer from the close season clause, and that is that anybody shooting one of the other three kinds of deer during that close season would be able to say that it was a mistake; that it was in thick bushes, and he thought it was a roe deer. He might get off on that plea. There is one thing about the close season which is very important—I think it is the most important thing in the whole of the Bill—and that is that the close season for hinds and does in England and Wales does not begin early enough. Owing to the difference in climate, I suppose they generally drop their young three weeks to a month earlier than is the case in Scotland. I think there is a strong case for putting forward the beginning of the close season for hinds and does to February 1. Incidentally, it would also help to abolish the rather horrible practice of hunting pregnant does in March. So I should be strongly in favour of putting forward the beginning of the close season to February 1.
Of course, all these points would really fall to be discussed in full detail during the Committee stage, but there are some which I think could fairly be brought forward now. One of the others is the question of the prohibition of certain arms and ammunition listed in Schedule 2 of the Bill. It seems to me that the practice of horizontal shooting with high-powered rifles is a very dangerous one, and I should like to see the shotgun permitted, provided that the lethal bullet
480
is used. The large type of buckshot (I have forgotten what it is called) scatters and makes a very bad pattern, but the lethal bullet is a very deadly projectile. It is used for shooting dangerous game in India and other places.
The objection to such a course is that anybody using a lethal bullet in a shotgun requires a firearms certificate. I do not see any harm in that: I think it is a very good thing. It will prevent a great deal of this casual shooting by inexpert marksmen which results in the wounding of so many deer. We were told by the noble Lord, Lord Crook, that an experienced forestry marksman said that no fewer than 60 per cent. of the deer which he shot showed old wounds from shotguns; and that is a rather terrible state of affairs. So I would say that it was for consideration whether the use of the high-powered rifle, at any rate, should be recommended in conjunction with the high seat, and that the shotgun with lethal bullets should be legalised for horizontal shooting on the ground and in woods.
Additions to the Bill might include a deer-control authority, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Crook. This is, I think, a rather novel idea and it is difficult to see precisely what its functions would be and how it would exercise them. But the idea seems to be worth consideration, because at the present moment the deer are "nobody's children" and it would be a good thing to have some kind of body which had direct responsibility for looking after them. I am one of those who would like to see deer-hunting with packs of hounds entirely abolished. I think that if such a body were formed it should cover the sporting interests, and the interests of the Nature Conservancy, the Forestry Commission, land owners, farmers, market gardeners and animal-protection societies. There is plenty of work to be done by such an authority in the proper management and protection of wild deer which at present belong to nobody; but I fear that public opinion requires further education before such a body would come into the field of practical politics.
The hunting of carted deer, however, falls into a rather different category. I think it is a thoroughly unsporting procedure. The deer themselves, because they are liberated in strange country,

481
often run into barbed wire, entangle themselves and are cut very badly. Furthermore, if the deer takes a line across country infested with barbed wire then the field do not get much of a run. And it seems to me that a well conducted drag hunt would have great advantages over this practice of hunting the carted deer. Again, I would say that whatever Amendments may or may not be introduced at the Committee stage, I think this Bill as it stands is a very valuable instrument as, at any rate, a starting point for looking after and preserving the interests of the wild deer of England and Wales.
2.15 p.m.
LORD SWANSEA: My Lords, I would agree wholeheartedly with what the noble Lord, Lord Dowding, said in his concluding remarks. I think this Bill will do a very valuable service in establishing close seasons for deer and in placing restrictions on the methods to be used in killing them. I should like to take up a couple of points which the noble Lord, Lord Crook, mentioned during his speech. When he was talking about the bodies which were represented on the working party sponsored by the British Field Sports Society, he said that the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals were not given an opportunity to be represented. That is not quite so; because I have here a Memorandum on the Bill circulated by the British Field Sports Society in which they say:
"In their evidence to the Scott Henderson Committee the R.S.P.C.A. made their position clear in relation to irresponsible shooting, and as they were not actually involved in the earlier Bill or the management of deer they were not represented on the Working Party."
The Bill before your Lordships now is based broadly on the recommendations of the Scott Henderson Committee on which the R.S.P.C.A. were represented.
The other point raised by the noble Lord was that he said that the Bill does not prohibit the shooting of deer with shot-gun cartridges loaded with small shot. With due respect to the noble Lord, I must say that is not so. If he will read Schedule 2 to the Bill he will see that the type of cartridge to be used in smooth bore weapons is clearly defined and does not include any size of shot which could, by any stretch of the imagination, be used for shooting small game.
482
Your Lordships may like a little amplification of some of the aspects of the Bill dealing with weapons and ammunition, in particular the clause relating to muzzle energy. This is a common term in ballistic circles and means the striking energy developed at the muzzle by any given bullet or cartridge. It is expressed in foot pounds, and is easily calculated when the weight of the bullet and its muzzle velocity are known. I think it is very desirable for this Bill to include such a provision as that in paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 which lays down the minimum muzzle energy for rifle cartridges. The difficulty here is the question of enforcement of the clause. If the village policeman caught up with somebody whom he suspected of being in possession of arms and ammunition which are prohibited under this Bill, I should be most surprised if he knew enough about firearms to be able to tell, first, the calibre of the rifle and, secondly, the power of the rifle; in other words, whether it came within the permitted scope of the Bill. It would be possible for somebody carrying a rifle of an inadequate calibre with which he intended to shoot deer, to have in his pocket a couple of cartridges of a permitted calibre which he may have collected, acquired, scrounged or got hold of in some other way, and to produce them to the policeman, saying, "These are my cartridges; they are legal." Unless the policeman knew more than just a little about firearms, he would be hard put to it to determine whether or not that person was carrying a permitted weapon.
Then, supposing that the constable took into his possession a rifle and the cartridges which were to be fired from it, how is the muzzle energy to be determined? The only way to determine it is to test fire the weapon and measure the muzzle velocity by means of a ballistic pendulum or a chronograph and thence calculate the muzzle energy. I do not know how many chronographs or ballistic pendulums there are in this country. I do not think there are many. Nor can there be many people who are sufficiently skilled or trained in their use. They need skilled operation. How easily those facilities would be available to the police for testing impounded weapons and ammunition, I do not

483
know; but it is a rather serious weakness in the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Dowding, mentioned the use of lethal ball cartridges in shot-guns. Here I am bound to say that I agree with him, because the shotgun used with shot, even of the sizes permitted in this Bill, is comparatively ineffective. It is effective only at a short distance with SSG shot—20 to 25 yards. Beyond that distance the pellets have neither the power nor penetration to inflict a disabling wound on the deer, nor are they grouped closely enough to ensure that a vital part of the animal is hit. The solid ball is very widely used on the continent of Europe and, I believe, in the U.S.A., and it is a very effective cartridge indeed for the shooting of deer and wild boar, for which purpose they use it on the Continent.
The Scott Henderson Report itself says:
"The shooting of deer with shot-guns must inevitably be accompanied by a great deal of suffering".
That has been mentioned earlier by other noble Lords in this debate, and is the case particularly when cartridges loaded with what might conveniently be described as "bird-shot" are used. Even with cartridges loaded with large shot, SSG or larger, if the shot is taken at too great a distance there is very great danger that the animal will get away wounded. I do not think that this Bill goes quite far enough in this respect, and I should like to see, so far as concerns smooth bore weapons, small shot prohibited altogether and only the use of lethal ball or rifled slug being allowed.
While a suitable rifle is the most humane weapon, if a shot-gun must be used I think that a ball cartridge, especially for red deer, should be the only one allowed. Admittedly, it needs a firearms certificate, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Dowding, said, I do not think that this would be a bad thing, as some measure of control would then be exercised over those who would be entrusted with the control of deer. The Forestry Commission, for instance, are very closely concerned in the control of deer, and I feel sure that they would not allow any of their employees to go out and shoot deer in order to reduce their numbers unless they were well satisfied
484
that the person was able to kill the deer effectively and humanely and that he used a weapon suitable for the purpose.
It may not be generally realised just how powerful a ball cartridge in a shotgun is. This Bill lays down a minimum muzzle energy of 1,700 foot lb. As an example, the muzzle energy developed by the ·303 service cartridge is in the neighbourhood of 2,300 foot lb.; the muzzle energy of a solid ball in a 12-bore shot-gun may be anything from 2,400 to 2,700 foot lb. Admittedly, it does not maintain its velocity over a great distance, owing to its poor ballistic shape and very curved trajectory. The maximum effective range of one of those cartridges would be about 50 yards, but up to that distance it would certainly deliver a disabling blow to a deer, even if it was not hit in an immediately vital spot.
As regards the danger of the solid ball, admittedly it has a range of approximately a mile. If it were fired horizontally, as it would be in most cases, if it missed the deer, and missed any trees that were around—in other words, if it were allowed to continue on an uninterrupted course until it hit the ground—it would hit the ground in the space of about 200 yards. At that distance it would have lost a considerable amount of velocity; and even if it did ricochet, it would not go very far. It is only when the shot is fired at a considerable elevation so as to reach its extreme range, that it could be dangerous, and in that respect the ordinary rifle would be more dangerous than the solid ball from a shotgun, because it would go further. My Lords, I think I have said enough about that point.
There is one other point that I would make. As your Lordships are no doubt aware, a short while ago Imperial Metal Industries said that they were going to cease all production of centre-fire rifle and pistol ammunition. From many points of view, that is extremely unfortunate: it means that we shall now have to be dependent, at least for the time being, on imported ammunition. If they had still been producing commercial rifle ammunition I am quite sure that, with the passing of this Bill, they would have taken it upon themselves to see that they did not produce any rifle cartridges, capable of being used against

485
deer, which did not fall within the provisions of this Bill. Now that they are ceasing production there will be no such certainty. We shall be relying on imported ammunition, and with the less powerful cartridges—those which are marginal cases under this Bill—there will be no guarantee that certain of them will not fall outside the provisions of this Bill. And although freely available on the commercial market, they may not be suitable for the purpose.
My Lords, I think I have taken up enough of your Lordships' time, and I will finish by saying that this Bill is very desirable. It fills a gap in providing for the humane killing of deer, and although it has certain weaknesses I am sure that they can be overcome in due course, either at a later stage or, perhaps after the passing of the Bill, by an Order in Council. I commend the Bill to your Lordships as a very big step forward in the treatment and management of deer.
2.34 p.m.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, this seems to me to be a sportsman's Bill. It is a very difficult subject because it involves many interests with different points of view. There are the people who are interested in the preservation of nature, who want to see the deer in this country preserved and, if possible, their numbers increased. Then there are the foresters and the farmers who, in some cases, would like to see deer exterminated. One can understand the point of view of a man who has grown crops with great difficulty and finds overnight that a large part of them have been destroyed or eaten by deer. Then there are people who are interested in hunting deer, who would like to preserve a limited number. These are the people who shoot deer out of sport. Then, in lesser numbers in this country than in Scotland, there are those who poach deer in order to sell them on the market and who naturally would like to see as many deer as possible.
There is also, of course, the humanitarian point of view, which insists that, if we are going to keep and preserve deer, they should be allowed relatively happy and free lives, and that if they are to be killed they should be killed as humanely as possible. It is difficult
486
to argue to a humanitarian that hunting deer—chasing it for a long time and then cutting its throat—is a humane way of despatch, and I must say that I agree with the humanitarian point of view; I do not think it is. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Dowding, has said, present public opinion supports it, and there is nothing we can do about it. But we should recognise that this Bill is a compromise measure. I imagine that all of us in this House, apart from the controversial issue of hunting the deer, would wish to prevent any cruelty or suffering to these animals, which can possibly be avoided, particularly by indiscriminate shooting of deer as a result of which these unfortunate, wounded and mutilated animals are eventually found half dead and in a dreadful condition. It is from this point of view, I think, that this Bill has its greatest importance.
I suggest that the main things to be said for the Bill are, first, that the deer are going to be protected. Up to now deer have been considered wild animals, nobody's responsibility, and have been completely unprotected. I think that is one great point of the Bill: it brings deer into the category of those animals for whom we are concerned. The second great point of the Bill is that it attempts to limit indiscriminate shooting, often by unskilled marksmen, which causes a great deal of suffering. Lastly, and perhaps most important, it introduces a close season for most species, during which the deer can breed. However, I hope that during the Committee stage of the Bill we shall see some alterations.
I should like to apologise and say how sorry I am that I was not able to be here this morning to hear the noble Viscount introduce the Bill, but I shall attentively read his speech in Hansard. However, I should like to say I do not see why we should not have a deer authority or deer commission which could be responsible for studying this subject and looking after the deer in our forests. This may have been argued this morning, and I would be very much in favour of it.
I do not want to argue the following points; I want merely to state very briefly what I hope will result from Amendments during the Committee stage. I personally should like to see a provision to the effect that a licence must

487
be issued to people who wish to kill deer, so that no one could do so without a licence; or, alternatively, as the noble Lord, Lord Dowding, said, that a firearms certificate should be granted for the purpose. For that reason, I would much prefer the rifle to be the only weapon allowed for the shooting of deer. But if, as I understand, the rifle is considered to be too dangerous over flat spaces, I would agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, said in his speech (which I thought was an extremely well-informed and interesting one), that we must allow smooth-bore guns but only to be used with a lethal cartridge or slug and not allow bird shot or any lesser bore of gun.
There are two other points. The first is that I do not see why the roebuck should be excluded. We know that they can do quite a lot of damage. But I do not see why there should not be a close season for them too; and I suspect they are excluded because there are certain interests who like to shoot them early in the year when nothing else can be shot. Whatever is the reason, I am sure they ought to be brought into the Bill and given a reasonable close season. Lastly, I hope that we can put back the date of the close season to, say, something like February 1. I understand that the breeding season here is different from that in Scotland, owing perhaps to climatic temperature and other differences; but I think the hunting of the deer later than February 1 is a mistake. I hope that someone will introduce an Amendment to alter the date of the close season and I would suggest February 1. However, hoping that some of these alterations, which I am sure would be good ones, may be brought into the Bill I would, like many of your Lordships, give it a warm welcome and hope it will be passed.
2.43 p.m.
LORD HURCOMB: My Lords, I should like to express very shortly my strong support for this Bill. It may not do everything that everyone would like; and it may not do everything it does in a way that everybody likes; nevertheless, it has received a surprising measure of assent from a very great variety of interests. It has the strong support in principle of various organisations with
488
which I am concerned: the Council for Nature, the Fauna Preservation Society, and the Nature Conservancy itself. If I may, I would suggest to your Lordships that in a matter of this kind we shall make more effective progress by taking such steps as to secure a general measure of consent than by attempting something more which may be controversial and, in some respects, premature.
I am one of those who think that it was a very important step forward when the law was altered in relation to Scotland and a Deer Commission was set up. Under good scientific guidance it has worked very successfully, and I believe that it has given general satisfaction. But I feel that any step of that kind would be premature in England and Wales: although we may at some time reach the stage when such a step could usefully be taken, I am confident that we have not yet reached it. Here, with all the interests concerned, I feel that the promoters of the Bill have been wise in restricting its scope, as they have done; and for my own part I hope it will be generally accepted that we should not interfere with the long-established sports of the countryside—an issue which does not really arise out of the essential features of the measure. It is a great step forward that at last we are having a Bill which protects the deer and secures their humane treatment and, at the same time, recognises the fact that they have to be controlled. In Scotland, control is necessary in the interests of the deer themselves. I think it is equally so in this country; and the legitimate protection that agriculture and forestry need has clearly to be recognised—especially in view of the growth of some of the smaller species of deer, the roe in particular, and possibly some of the imported species. I would submit that the Bill is in no sense a measure for the protection of sportsmen; it is a genuine measure for the protection of deer, and marks a sensible and scientific step forward in conservation.
I would add only one further point. In the past, I have had a good deal to do with many European naturalists and I have had the pleasure of taking some of them round this country. They have always expressed amazement that Great Britain, which has led the world in so many respects in the protection of natural life and in the practice of sport in a

489
really sportsmanlike spirit, should have left these most interesting and largest items of our fauna in England and Wales completely unprotected, with very little protection on the humanitarian side and none at all in respect of close seasons. I am very glad, on this account alone, that at last Parliament is able to deal with this situation.
I think we are all indebted to the honourable Members in another place, to the noble Lords in this House and to all the voluntary organisations, for having reached this measure of agreement, which will enable us to remove what has been a legitimate source of criticism of our practice in this respect from other countries, who in most respects are so far behind us. Therefore, I give the Bill my strong support and hope that it may reach the Statute Book before the end of this Session.
2.47 p.m.
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I welcome this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, said a great many of the things I was going to say and so I shall be brief. I should like to say that I speak only on my own behalf and not for anybody else. I think it is the greatest pity that the occasion has been taken on this Bill, which is purely humanitarian, to drag in the question of British field sports and of hunting. It was my fortune to be brought up upon Exmoor, where deer have been hunted from time immemorial. I was brought up to be a sportsman, and the essential of being a sportsman is to be humane. All sportsmen—and I think here that I am speaking for stag-hunters and fox-hunters and everybody else—abhor any form of cruelty. I am not getting carried away, but there has been a Commission, which has decided that hunting must go on in the interests of deer and foxes. So it is the greatest pity that the opportunity has been taken to try to make an anti-hunting Bill of this measure.
There are two minor things I would mention on the question of close seasons. The noble and gallant Air Marshal, Lord Dowding, said that he objected to the hunting of hinds in March. I would point cut that the close season in the Bill starts on March 1. Secondly, I do not think that anyone wants to hunt, shoot or deal in any
490
way with stags during and after the rut. Then, the stag is quite incapable of helping himself, and, in any case, he is inedible. I welcome the Bill and follow heartily behind what the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, said.
2.49 p.m.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, with practically every speaker who has spoken in your Lordships' House to-day, I give whole-hearted welcome to this Bill, but there are one or two details on which I am at variance with several noble Lords. I am not going to mention the smaller ones, but will go at once to the Schedules. First of all, in regard to the close season, I entirely agree that, on the one hand, it should be advanced for hinds and does to a considerably earlier period, and, on the other hand, that the roebuck ought to have a close season, too. It must be recognised that the roe can be an extremely mischievous animal, dangerous to the growth, and almost to the existence, of young woods. At the same time, he a most attractive little beast—so much so, that I myself have fenced with deer fencing most of my larger new plantations in order to avoid the otherwise absolute necessity of keeping the numbers of roe down to a very low level, if not to exterminate them altogether.
The damage done by the roe is almost entirely with his horns, and not with his teeth. He does nip off the tops of a few young trees if he gets a chance, but my experience is that such damage is not sufficiently great to be worthy of serious consideraton. But when the buck is getting his horns, and the antlers are engorged with blood and are itchy, then he rushes about the woods rubbing those horns on young trees, for which purpose he usually chooses trees of anything from three-quarters of an inch to two inches in diameter. He often completely ring-marks them, and the number of dead or dying trees that one finds on a plantation, simply from this use of the horns, is surprising.
Usually he begins to get his horns about Christmastime, although I have seen them as early as November. By the time a close season would be introduced, comparable to other deer there would be no reason why he should be a nuisance at all, so far as his horns are

491
concerned. They would have been comfortable for a long time past. Therefore, I think these deer should be given the benefit of this protection, always bearing in mind that it is possible for any owner or occupier to take steps against them if they are found to be too numerous or doing damage at other times.
Where my main controversy arises is in regard to the prohibited firearms and ammunition—in fact, the general use of the particular type of firearm. If it is a question of sport, there is no doubt that all deer should be shot solely with a rifle; and in order to avoid, in comparatively inhabited country, the danger of so-called horizontal shooting, the desirable thing is that, where one cannot get a bank against which to fire, one should have platforms built so as to get plunging fire and render one's shots innocuous to the neighbourhood. That can be done only on properties where the deer are regarded from a sporting point of view. I think there has been rather a lack of perception in your Lordships' House this afternoon of the fact that when most deer are shot in order to preserve crops or woods they are shot by driving woods, often in the course of the ordinary day's duty.
Were I going out merely to shoot roe—an unpleasant but, unfortunately, unavoidable necessity—the ideal weapon that I should use would not be a rifle, and it would not be even the shotgun with aspherical or hollow bore. First of all, snap shooting with a shotgun, a single bullet, is a very difficult thing and requires an expert shot. My noble friend Lord Swansea might be able to do it, but I doubt whether the rest of us here could. Furthermore, unless the shooting is taking place in very open country one has to look over one's shoulder all the time to see that there is no one within several hundred yards. As my noble friend Lord Swansea said, the possible range of solid ball is about a mile, which is roughly the equivalent of a ·22 rifle with a long cartridge. At, say, 1,000 yards, I would far rather be hit by a ·22 bullet than a plunging 12-bore solid.
LORD SWANSEA: I would remind my noble friend of what I said. I said that the extreme range of a solid ball from a shotgun is about a mile if fired
492
at an extreme angle of elevation. But I think I said that the shot fired more or less horizontally, as it would be from a standing man against a deer roughly on the same level as himself, if it missed the deer, and did not hit anything else on the way, would fall to the ground in about 200 to 250 yards.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: The noble Lord overlooked the fact that not everyone can contain himself. People are sometimes apt to fire slightly uphill, and if the deer happen to be downhill the other side, the range of the bullet might be a great deal more. It might be several times 200 or 300 yards, and then it becomes a very dangerous weapon. Accuracy is also extremely difficult. If I were setting out for the purpose of shooting deer in woods or not very open country, the weapon I should use would be the 12-bore shot-gun, preferably a 3-inch chamber gun, and the shot I should use would not be the immense slugs mentioned in the Bill, but something like AA shot, 40 to the ounce, the reason being, as the noble Lord, Lord Dowding, said, that the pattern of this very large shot is extremely bad.
I made experiments during the war on behalf of the Home Guard, when one put up targets which were supposed to represent the Hun, and it was extraordinary, even at comparatively short range, how often that target was missed altogether, and how seldom there was more than one large bullet which struck it. The mass effect of a dozen AA pellets striking a deer at 30 or 40 yards—personally, I should not fire at more than 25 yards—is infinitely more satisfactory than one or two large pellets, which in any case might not hit a vital spot. Even with a small deer like a roe, there is quite a lot of roe where a hit does not make a vital wound. It is for that reason that I feel it must be recognised that, in order to keep deer in control safely, one must legislate for the use of a shot-gun. I, personally, should like to see a decidedly smaller-size shot allowed. With these comments, which I hope are not too destructive, in common with the rest of your Lordships I welcome this Bill, which is going to do something which ought to have been done long ago for the benefit of most of our interesting wild life. I see no reason whatever for setting

493
up a Deer Commission. We have already the Nature Conservancy, and I think it is to them that the task should be entrusted.
2.57 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, this Bill offers for the first time, as the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, pointed out, a limited measure of legal protection for the largest and most beautiful of our wild animals in England and Wales. For that reason, every noble Lord who has taken part in this debate—and I have heard the whole or part of all the speeches which have been made—has welcomed its introduction. I would add my congratulations to those of other noble Lords to the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, for the clear and painstaking way in which he explained the Bill. He mentioned that Scotland had this protective legislation in 1959. Those of us who live South of the Border cannot allow Scotsmen to go on out-stripping us in this way.
This is a Bill which bears on its face the stamp of compromise. As the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, pointed out, it is in fact a compromise between all the main interests concerned—humanitarian, farming, nature conservation and sporting. I think these main interests have been reflected in the views expressed by noble Lords in the course of the debate. Now, of course, humanitarians complain that the Bill does nothing about deer hunting by staghounds. I was not very impressed by the arguments of the noble Earl, Lord Fortescue, that this was the only way of controlling the deer population in certain parts of the country. Would he not agree that, although you need hounds to catch and kill the deer in certain parts of the country, you need not necessarily have an organised hunt as well?
But I think most noble Lords took the view that they themselves did not like deer hunting or did not approve of it—and I am one of those myself—and also took the view that whether or not you ban this sport must depend on public opinion. Obviously, you do not want to pass a law banning a sport because it is cruel unless you have public opinion behind you. If one just looks at what happened in the past, it easily bears out this view. Three or four hundred years ago we had cock-fighting and bear baiting
494
in this country, but no one would tolerate those sports now. They are banned by law. At the moment bull-fighting is a popular pastime on the Continent but is illegal here. These sports are recognised by public opinion to be cruel and are, therefore, prohibited by law. But I do not think myself—and I share the views of my noble friend Lord Huntingdon and the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb—that we have reached the moment when public opinion wishes this sport to be made illegal. However, I think that one of the functions of Parliament is to educate public opinion, and it is a very good thing that some of your Lordships have expressed such a strong view against deer hunting, which view has also been expressed in another place.
At the same time I am sure none of us would wish to appear prigs in this matter and we must admit that there are plenty of people outside Parliament from whom we ourselves have a great deal to learn. But it is a very good thing that there is no proposal in this Bill to ban deer hunting, for it certainly would not have survived the first test in another place. On the other hand, I do think—and the weight of opinion expressed in this debate was in this sense—that the Bill should give more protection to deer than it offers at the moment, and this protection is needed both in relation to weapons that are used to kill deer and in relation to the close season for the protection of the species.
There was a great deal of discussion about the use of the shot-gun. Some noble Lords took the view that the shotgun should be banned, which is the case, I believe, in Denmark and Western Germany, both of which are agricultural countries which produce a great deal of food and have woodlands and deer as well. In those countries, at any rate, it looks as though agricultural interests do not suffer because the use of the shot-gun is prohibited. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, who suggested the other alternative of allowing a shot-gun to be used but without shot; that is to say, with a solid ball or rifle slug. That is clearly the other alternative if you want to kill deer in the most humane way. But neither of these alternatives is offered by the Bill. I think everyone would agree that the weight of the evidence shows that the

495
shot-gun is effecting an enormous amount of unnecessary pain and suffering in deer at the present time. The Scott-Henderson Report, as the noble Lord, Lord Swansea reminded us, confirms this, and I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Dowding, who mentioned the facts reported by the Forestry Commission about the number of animals among those killed by the Forestry Commission which had been previously wounded by lead pellets.
On the question of the close season, there is the poor, lonely roebuck. I suppose that, as a male, I may be slightly prejudiced, but it seems rather hard that he alone among the male members of the species, should not have the three months which other members are allowed, when they are free from pursuit by sportsmen or people protecting crops or wishing to keep down the deer population. But the strongest case of all is that made out by my noble friend Lord Huntingdon for advancing by one month the close season for hinds, bringing it forward from March 1, which is the date in the Bill, to February 1. The date in the Scottish Act, I think, is February 16. So that hinds in Scotland are protected a fortnight earlier than is proposed for those in England.
Surely that cannot be reasonable: because the climate in Scotland is a good deal colder, and it must therefore be the case that in England hinds have their young at an earlier date than they would have done in Scotland. I think the idea of killing or shooting a large animal like this in an advanced state of pregnancy, or when it already has its young, is repugnant to all of us, and this can be prevented only if the date is brought forward by, say, one month, which would make England only a fortnight earlier in this respect than Scotland.
I hope that Amendments on these lines may be put down at a later stage of the Bill. I am sure your Lordships will agree that no Bill that comes to this House is absolutely perfect, and it is one of our most useful functions to improve Bills that come to us in any ways that appear to be desirable. It is perfectly certain that we do not want to make any alteration that would involve the fate of the Bill. We certainly do not want to
496
jeopardise its passage through Parliament at this late stage in the Session, but I very much hope that some of the alterations which many of your Lordships would like will be made at a later stage. And I certainly hope that the noble Viscount will be successful in getting this Bill passed into law.
3.7 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am sure that all Members of your Lordships' House, and indeed all animal lovers, are indebted to my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard for sponsoring this measure, and I also think we are indebted to him for doing so in his speech at Second Reading so fully and so ably. Being one of those Members of your Lordships' House to-day who are perhaps less well informed at first hand about this matter, I am grateful, too, for the very well-informed observations which have been made on this Bill by a number of your Lordships who are obviously very well informed about this matter. It has certainly added greatly to my knowledge. I have learned about poaching by helicopter, which I was not aware of before. I have learned a great deal from my noble friend Lord Mansfield about the more mischievous habits of the roebuck, and something about the relative lethality of SSG and LG pellets, which I was also not very well up in, and about the plunging effect of 12-bore solid shot. On that I do not want to go much deeper because I feel that these inner mysteries of the art of ballistics are perhaps best left to my noble friends behind me.
The law as it stands—and this was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Crook, and the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon—does in fact at present offer little or no protection to deer in England and Wales. This Bill, if it becomes law, will, as my noble friend explained, go some way towards bringing England and Wales into line with Scotland. Some may think, with the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, that it is perhaps unfortunate that the English and Welsh should have lagged so far behind the Scots in this matter. Your Lordships will recall, however, that while the Committee on Cruelty, the Scott-Henderson Committee, made a specific recommendation in their 1951 Report that there should be a statutory

497
close season for deer in Scotland, they made no corresponding recommendation so far as England and Wales are concerned. The Committee thus recognised that the Scottish problem was a more urgent one, and I myself therefore think it was right it should have been dealt with first.
Nevertheless, I am sure your Lordships will agree that the interval which has passed during which the present Bill has been produced has been put to good use. You will doubtless remember that, despite the very clear recommendation of the Scott-Henderson Committee for a close season in Scotland, no little difficulty (to put it mildly) was found in getting the various interested bodies to agree about the merits of a close season there. That being so, I should also like to congratulate those who have worked on the preparation of this Bill on having arrived at agreed proposals on the close seasons which are, I understand—this was confirmed by the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb—in the main, generally acceptable to all the interested bodies and organisations.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I believe it is correct to say—I think the noble Earl will agree with this—that all the animal welfare societies want a longer and extended close season for hinds.
EARL JELLICOE: That may be so. Doubtless this is one of the points in the Bill to which your Lordships will wish to give further attention on Committee. On the question of the close season, it is quite obvious that nature creates a clear need, on humanitarian grounds, for a close season for hinds at certain times of the year. With the male deer the need may not be so obvious at first sight. However, as many noble Lords have explained, the "velvet" which covers the growing horn is extremely sensitive and damage to it can therefore cause acute pain. Unless deer can remain undisturbed while they are "in velvet", there is a risk of damage to the horn and of consequent suffering. I therefore find myself in sympathy with both Clause 1 and Schedule 1 of this Bill, without going into the precise details of the timings, and indeed of the particular categories which are included there.
498
The same sort of humanitarian considerations underlie the case for the imposition of nightly close times under Clause 2. This clause should, I feel, be of great value in preventing much of the suffering which must inevitably be caused to deer when they are shot during the hours of darkness, but are not mortally wounded, and therefore cannot be followed up and despatched. I was struck here by the illustration of the sort of suffering which is caused, which I think was given by my noble friend, that over 60 per cent. of the deer culled each year in the Forestry Commission's forests already often carry shot of small calibre. I think it is quite clear from such evidence as I have seen, that many of these poor animals must have lived, often for months, in a maimed and mutilated condition and must have suffered greatly.
This brings me to the weapons provisions in Clause 3 and in Schedule 2. As a glance at them shows, they are complex and they go beyond the comparable provisions in the Scottish Act of 1959. The original provisions of the Bill when it was introduced in another place, were even more complex, but they have been modified to overcome some of the more difficult problems, above all of enforcement, which they appear likely to give rise to. I think it is clear in any event, that if we are to succeed in eliminating the suffering at present caused to deer by the use of unsuitable weapons and ammunition, these rather detailed provisions are going to be quite unavoidable. But on the precise details of the type of cartridge and other matters, I, for one, would like from the Government's point of view, between now and our Committee stage, to give close attention to what has been said in this debate to-day and I am sure that those other noble Lords who are interested in this matter would also wish to do the same.
THE MARQUESS OF WILLINGDON: My Lords, can the noble Earl on this point give us any guidance at all in regard to the issuing of a firearms certificate? Is there any objection to a firearms certificate being issued?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should prefer not at this stage. I should like to reserve my ammuniton on this point until we get to the Committee

499
stage, and meanwhile look at this whole question more closely.
In regard to penalties in Clause 8, the Bill, as originally drafted, provided for more severe penalties if two or more persons acting together engaged in night shooting or the use of prohibited weapons. In this respect it follows Section 24 of the Deer (Scotland) Act which was designed to deal with the problem of gang poaching organised on a commercial basis in Scotland. The taking of deer by such gangs involved considerable cruelty. While I understand that indiscriminate shooting of deer by two or more people together sometimes takes place in England and Wales—there were reports of this type of thing in the Lake District in 1951, and in the Quantocks in 1959 and 1961—there is no evidence, so far as I know, to suggest that it is common or organised on a commercial basis. In these circumstances, there is not, in the Government's view at least, any justification for retaining in the Bill these very drastic penalties and forfeiture provisions which were originally provided. We feel that, on balance, the Bill is the better for their deletion.
I do not think that at this stage it would be right for me to try to add anything more to what has been said by other noble Lords speaking with a great deal of knowledge on this matter. Some noble Lords feel—and this view has been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Crook—that the present Bill does not go far enough. I think he took the most extreme position in that respect, but other noble Lords have also felt that in certain respects the Bill should go somewhat further. But, be that as it may, I should like to agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, has said, that this seems a sensible and scientific step forward. And, in any event, there is little doubt that if this Bill becomes law it will do much to reduce the suffering at present inflicted on deer by indiscriminate shooting—by shooting at night (when wounded animals cannot be followed up), by killing hinds when suckling (thus leaving calves to starve), and by the use of inadequate weapons which maim and mutilate but do not kill outright. In that respect, speaking personally, I welcome the Bill in that it will undoubtedly reduce the suffering inflicted
500
on what is certainly one of the most attractive and most interesting species of wild animals which inhabit our islands.
My Lords, this is a Private Member's measure and it is for you to decide whether or not to give my noble friend's Bill a Second Reading. It will equally be for your Lordships to decide on the fate of the various Amendments which I think it has been foreshadowed may well be moved at Committee stage. However, before I sit down I should like to make it quite clear that the Government has no desire whatever—to put it no higherx2014;to impede the further progress of this clearly humanitarian measure.
LORD CROOK: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down could he reply to me—and it may be that there is no Government view on them—on the two points I raised, in particular the question of carted deer, which has not been mentioned at all?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, as regards carted deer I was rather at pains to steer a little clear of the whole question of hunting. Here I would echo the views expressed on both sides of your Lordships' House, that whatever we may feel on the merits or demerits of hunting, there is clearly not a sufficient consensus of public opinion in the country at the present time for us, in the context of this Bill, to decide one way or the other. On the specific question of carting, I think I should also like to make my observations brief. I felt that, in talking about the habit of carting deer for the two Hunts which I think do cart deer, the noble Lord in one respect was—I am sure quite unwittingly—a trifle misleading in what he said. He quoted some words in the Scott-Henderson Report of 1951 to the effect that the carting of deer in this way fulfils no useful function. It is quite true that that Report said that, but I think it is also right, since it has been quoted and since I have been specifically questioned on this particular point, that I should just read the whole sentence from which that extract came. The sentence is to be found in paragraph 239 of the Scott-Henderson Report, and it reads:
"We are not satisfied from the evidence which we have received that there is a sufficient degree of cruelty in this sport to justify legislation to prohibit it, and therefore while

501
we cannot say that it fulfils a useful function"—
the words quoted by the noble Lord—
"other than the provision of recreation, we do not find it necessary to make any recommendation about it."
The Scott-Henderson Committee not having made any recommendation about it, having considered the matter very seriously and attentively, I myself should also prefer not to make any recommendation about it to your Lordships this afternoon.
3.22 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I have been told to be very brief and I shall be, but might I just point out first of all to the noble Lord, Lord Crook, that there is only one carted deer Hunt in the country now? The mid-Kent pack stopped about two years ago. The noble Lord, Lord Crook, spoke about stag hunting as carried out on Exmoor. Apparently, he cannot have read the Report of the Scott-Henderson Committee, because they laid down that it was necessary for the control and conservation of the red deer on Exmoor. The noble Lord, Lord Crook, said quite rightly that the Forestry Commission are extremely enlightened in their deer management, on which I quite agree. But I would point out to the noble Lord that the Forestry Commission employs hounds themselves to hunt deer.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, whom I was extremely pleased to see supporting the Bill so warmly, said—I may have misunderstood—that he did not object to professional, paid people following deer with hounds, but he did object to people following hounds if they were not paid. I cannot quite understand that.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am sorry; I am sure it is my fault, but I do not think the noble Viscount has understood me correctly. What I said was that hunting is not indispensable for the control of the deer population. Very often, as the noble Lord himself said, hounds or dogs must be used—they are used by the Forestry Commission—but you can use hounds or dogs without having an organised hunt at the same time. That was my point.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: In other words, what the
502
noble Lord objects to is not the hunting of animals by hounds, but the enjoyment of people following the hounds. I think I am correct in that assumption. Anyway, my Lords, I said that I should be brief, but I would just point out, with regard to having a deer control commission in England, that it is not practical in England as it is in Scotland, because in England the total deer population is only about 40,000, whereas in Scotland it is 200,000. So there is really no need for a deer control commission.
I quite agree with the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Mansfield, and I think one or two other noble Lords, about roebuck not being protected. I think it is a pity, but we have to remember that this Bill is a compromise, and that we have had to take into account the views of all sorts of people and of all sorts of organisations. It is not, of course, a perfect Bill, but it is a start. Another point made by some noble Lords was with regard to the Schedule dealing with weapons. I agree that perhaps it can be improved upon, but I should like to point out that Clause 3(4) states:
"The Secretary of State may by order amend the said Schedule 2 by adding any firearm or ammunition or by altering the description of, or deleting, any firearm or ammunition mentioned in that Schedule".
Therefore, my Lords, the Bill already covers that point. If it is proved that the weapons clause in the Schedule can be improved upon, the Secretary of State has power to do that.
With regard to hinds, it has been suggested that hinds ought to have the close season put back, to have an extra month from February 1 instead of March 1. I have seen hinds shot in February. Several noble Lords have said they are heavy in pregnancy then, but in actual fact that is not so; they are not heavy in pregnancy. With regard to carted deer, there is something that has not been pointed out. I happen to know that a mid-Kent stag hunt, when they existed, had two or three deer there which they hunted for years and years. They always ran the same line. I know it may seem rather absurd to your Lordships to say so, but, honestly, I think that two or three of these old deer really enjoyed it. The hounds do not harm them, and the instant the deer gets tired he stands at bay and the hounds do not

503
touch him. He runs into a yard, and then he is taken home, where he is given a week or two's rest.
LORD CROOK: Is the noble Viscount suggesting that the stag or the deer enjoys that?
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I do not think they object to it after they get used to it. I personally do not particularly approve of carted stag hunting; I would just as soon have a drag-hunt—but we are really off the point here. I should like to end by thanking all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate for their support, and particularly my noble friend Lord Jellicoe for his sympathetic reception of the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

OIL IN NAVIGABLE WATERS BILL
3.30 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, perhaps, after the controversies of the Bill we have just been considering, your Lordships will be relieved to come to a Bill which is concerned with the pouring of oil on waters. This is a Private Member's Bill introduced in another place by Mr. H. A. Price, the Member for Lewisham, West. It is a short Bill, but I hope to show your Lordships that it is none the less important in trying to make further progress in preventing the pollution of our beaches by oil.
I am sure I have no need to dwell on the seriousness of the problem. Many of your Lordships will have had the personal unfortunate experience of being covered in oil on our beaches; but, even if you have not, you will be aware of the seriousness with which this problem is viewed by British holiday resorts and the tourist industry; not to mention the amount of destruction and damage caused to wild life, to birds in particular, but also, possibly, to fish. The problem has tended to increase since the war as the quantity of crude oil carried by sea to new refineries in this country and the Continent has steadily
504
increased. We in the United Kingdom have suffered particularly badly because of the heavy concentration of British and foreign shipping around our coasts and also owing to the fact that the Atlantic currents may bring oil over great distances to our shores. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that the ultimate objective must be to prevent the release of oil in any way into the sea by any ship at any time; but this has necessarily to be the subject for international negotiations and we can proceed only by stages. I hope to be able to show noble Lords that this Bill represents a significant step forward to the ultimate objective.
The problem arises because of the practical needs of shipping. The cargo-carrying tanks of the oil-tanker require to be cleaned and freed from oil residue after the cargo has been discharged. This is a lengthy process and must be carried out before the ship arrives at an oil-loading port or before entering port for repair or survey. Moreover, when not carrying cargo, the tankers need to ballast some of their cargo-tanks with sea-water to ensure stability. On discharging this ballast, oil remaining in the tanks is discharged at the same time. A separate but equally important aspect arises in the case of ships, other than tankers, which are burning fuel oil. The bunker tanks from which the fuel has been used must be ballasted with seawater in order to maintain stability. This ballast water becomes considerably contaminated with oil and often has to be retained until arrival within sheltered waters, or even within port areas, in the interests of safety.
The solution is two-fold. So far as tankers are concerned, it involves the retention of tank washings, oily residues and oil-contaminated ballast water in a slop tank where, after a period of settling, separation of oil and water can take place and most of the oil-free water can be discharged overboard. The balance must be retained on board and pumped ashore at oil-loading ports or tanker repair ports. Secondly, as regards non-tankers, it is necessary to install oily water separaters on the ship to ensure that only clean water is pumped into the sea; and also to provide installations in ports to receive the residues remaining after the separation of the water.

505
It is satisfactory for many years that the United Kingdom has been in the forefront of this struggle to achieve the ultimate object. In 1952 the situation around our coasts had become so serious that the Minister of Transport set up a Committee under the chairmanship of Mr. P. Faulkner
"to consider what practical measures can be taken to prevent pollution by oil of the waters around the coasts of the United Kingdom."
The Committee reported in 1953 and, in accordance with its recommendations, an international conference was convened by Her Majesty's Government and met in London in April-May, 1954. It was attended by representatives of 42 nations and resulted in the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954.
The Convention's recommendations were accepted by Her Majesty's Government and were incorporated in the Oil in Navigable Waters Act, 1955, by which this country became the first to ratify the Convention. That Act designated certain prohibited sea areas in which it was an offence to discharge oil. It stipulated the keeping of records relating to the discharge of oil, and laid down considerable penalties for the infringement of its provisions. The Convention also provided that, when the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation came into being, it should act as a central co-ordinating body, and it was this body, the I.M.C.O., which convened a further conference in March-April, 1962.
This second conference was attended by 55 countries, and prepared a list of amendments to the 1954 Convention, which represented a series of further useful steps towards total prohibition. And this Bill, to which I am inviting your Lordships to give a Second Reading, is to put into effect those amendments agreed by the 1962 Convention and so enable Her Majesty's Government to ratify them. They will come into force twelve months after their acceptance by two-thirds of the contracting Governments. Unfortunately, on this occasion the United Kingdom will not be the first to ratify, as these amendments have already been ratified by France, Poland and Sweden, and I understand that the necessary legislative steps are being taken in the U.S.A. and the Federal Republic of Germany. At the same time, it is
506
important that this country, as one of the leading maritime Powers, should ratify the amendments as soon as possible, and give an encouraging lead to other countries to follow suit.
I should like now to refer to the provisions of the Bill. Clause 1, relating to the sea areas in which the release of oil is prohibited, eliminates the distinction between tankers and other ships which was made in the 1955 Act. In that Act, the prohibited sea areas were larger for tankers than for non-tankers, but, as I have already explained, the problem applies to other than tankers, and it is an advantage that these prohibited sea areas should apply to all ships. Under the 1955 Act, the areas concerned may be varied by the Minister in order to meet the provisions of any subsequent international Convention, and the enlarged prohibited area recommended by the 1962 Convention can, and will, be put into effect by the Minister without need for further legislation. One of these prohibited areas, which is of most immediate concern to the United Kingdom and which, when this Bill comes into effect, will apply to all Conventions on shipping, extends some 1,000 miles westward into the Atlantic from Iceland, in the North, to Cape Finisterre, in the South, including the whole of the Bay of Biscay, the English Channel, the North Sea, the Irish Channel and the Baltic Sea.
Clause 2 of the Bill is an entirely new departure and a significant step forward towards total abolition of the release of oil at sea. It makes it an offence for any United Kingdom-registered ship of 20,000 gross tons or more, for which the building contract is placed on or after the day on which this clause becomes effective, to discharge persistent oil anywhere at sea. Underlying this provision is the idea that ships of over 20,000 tons built in the future should include arrangements for the retention of oil separated from water in tank washings, oily ballast water and oily residues, so that clean water only is discharged at sea and oily waste is subsequently deposited on arrival at port.
The Bill recognises, as did the Convention, that there may be special circumstances which make it impracticable or unreasonable to retain the oil or oily

507
mixture in the ship, and in such cases the master is allowed to exercise his discretion, provided he reports the fact to the Minister. This early discretion allowed to the master of a ship applies only outside the prohibited areas specified for other ships.
Clause 3 relates to the Schedules to the Bill and covers three minor amendments to the 1955 Act. The first is to define more clearly what is meant by pollution. In the 1955 Act the words used were:
"with the consequence that the oil in the mixture fouls the surface of the sea".
The effect of this amendment is to remove all reference to fouling the surface of the sea and to prohibit the discharge of an oily mixture containing 100 parts or more of oil in one million parts of the mixture. The second relates to the defences provided under the 1955 Act in respect of the discharge of oil in a prohibited zone. The 1955 Act allowed as a defence the proof that the discharge of an oily mixture was made in order to secure the safety of a vessel or her cargo. This is enlarged by this Bill to include the safety of any other vessel or her cargo. Thirdly, the 1955 Act applied only to ships registered in the United Kingdom, but in accordance with the recommendations of the 1962 Convention this is now extended to include unregistered ships of British nationality. Naval ships are still excluded, as they were in the 1955 Act, but the provisions of the Bill will now apply to other Government ships, such as G.P.O. cable-layers and Air Ministry weather ships.
Clause 4 extends the Bill to cover Northern Ireland, and provides that the Minister may bring into operation any part or the whole of the Bill at any time by order. The reason for this is to ensure that, as the amendments to the 1954 Convention are accepted by two-thirds of the contracting Governments, they may be brought into force twelve months later in the United Kingdom, as provided by the Convention. My Lords, there is still a long way to go before the ultimate ideal of total prohibition of pollution of the sea by oil is achieved, but in the meantime I can warmly recommend this Bill to your Lordships as a significant step forward, backed by international agreement. I
508
beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Aberdare.)
3.42 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF WILLINGDON: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Mabane, who is Chairman of the British Travel and Holidays Association, has asked me to apologise for his not being here; he had to leave at half-past two. He has asked me to say how enthusiastic his Association is in supporting this Bill. Personally, I remember querying along the Mediterranean coast last year why all the local Italian inhabitants swam in the swimming pool within a yard of the sea while the English folk swam out to sea, until we realised the oil and bilge pouring in from the ships stopping at Naples, and also, I think, from the drains coming out from the city. He asked me to mention one further point, and that is that he understands from experts that some of the causes of the trouble are ships sunk in the war that are now discharging oil from the depths. I am sure the Minister will take note of this point.
I have also been asked, as representating the Fauna Preservation Society, of which I am Chairman, and the World Wild Life Fund, to express our gratitude for this Bill. Also I think we should remember the tremendous propaganda and hard work put in by Mr. Callaghan in another place over the years to stop pollution, especially as it affects wild life and birds. It seems strange that in the last ten years the human race seems determined to destroy, not only themselves, but everything of beauty. Anything that this Bill can do to make oil pollution better in the seas around us has the wholehearted support of this Society.
3.40 p.m.
LORD HURCOMB: My Lords, I was a member of our Government's delegation, both at the earlier international meeting and at that held last year. I am very glad to hear that we are now taking steps which will enable our Government to ratify a new Convention. The alterations made some material improvements in the old agreement, some of them of very direct interest to this country. As one who took a part in these proceedings and has in many respect a great interest in its subject matter, and more

509
particularly having been for so many years associated with the Ministry of Transport and shipping, I cannot but regret that on this occasion our Government has not been able to be the first in the field. France, Poland and Sweden have on this occasion got ahead of us. But I think it is only right to say how much all those concerned with the protection of our bird life are grateful to the Government for the assistance they have always given to advancing some means of coping with this evil, not only in the international Convention itself, but behind the scenes in the drafting of this measure.
There is one point I should like to raise to which the noble Lord who will speak on behalf of the Government may or may not be able to give some answer. The crux of the whole matter, as was said by the noble Lord who introduced the Bill so clearly, is how to get rid of the oil which can be separated on board ship in washing out the tanks, or whatever other methods may be adopted. The disappointment I think we have all felt during the last ten years is that so little progress has been made in most countries of the world in providing the shore facilities to which the separated oil can be discharged. But, of course, there is another method, and that is to retain the separated oil on board ship and put it back into the holds with the new cargo. I should not wish to ask any question or say anything which might impair progress of negotiations, but I would say that to my own knowledge our own ship-owners and oil companies have taken the most progressive and enlightened views of these matters. I believe it is quite practicable, having separated the oil, to put it back and bring it again into the country as part of the new cargo. The great difficulty is that some authorities abroad insist on charging dues on the separated oil, so that the owner of the oil and the ship are subject to a financial disability. There may be means of getting over that.
As I have said, I do not want to ask any question or make any point which could possibly embarrass negotiations. But that is the real, new and hopeful line of approach: to avoid the cost of having to put facilities on shore (which in some cases is not at all easy) for the reception of the separated oil, and to merge it in with the cargo and use
510
it again, which I believe to be in the long run both the economical thing to do and also the real way of keeping the oil out of the sea. I should again like to give my strong support to the Bill, and hope that the Government will lose no time in ratification, once they are empowered to do so by the passage of this Bill.
3.48 p.m.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, may I say a word or two on behalf of this side of the House to thank the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for introducing this Bill and to assure him that it has our support? We hope it will have a speedy passage through all its stages. May I add that, like other noble Lords, I have the honour to be one of the vice-presidents of the River Boards Association, and I am in a position to say that that Association is strongly in favour of the Bill. The River Boards Association, representative of the river boards of our country, has a mass of evidence which is convincing as to the need for this Bill, and I am sure that when it reaches the Statute Book and becomes an Act the separate river boards will do all that they can to see that the Act and its provisions are effective. Again, I should like to congratulate and thank the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for bringing forward this Bill.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, I should like to make the briefest of interventions in this debate in order to give warm support to this Bill. For a number of years now the Co-ordinating Advisory Committee on Oil Pollution of the Sea has been campaigning in this country and abroad to secure in due course, as the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, told us, the total prohibition of the discharge of oil and oily wastes into the sea. The Association of Municipal Corporations have been in deep sympathy with this work, and this Bill of course has their warmest support. They, of course, are particularly concerned with eliminating or reducing to a minimum the contamination by oil of beaches and coastal works. This matter has become not merely a nuisance but a menace to their position and prosperity; and, naturally, they are anxious that this Bill should become law as soon as possible, again as the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has emphasised, as just a further step

511
towards the ultimate goal which is total prohibition.
3.53 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, having regard to what your Lordships have said generally on this matter, I hasten to assure your Lordships that the Government give their full support and welcome to this Bill, and I should certainly like to take the opportunity of expressing my thanks to my noble friend Lord Aberdare for having introduced it as he has done to your Lordships today. It seems to be generally recognised as important that it brings us a further step towards the stage when the discharge of oil into the sea, heedless of the consequences, on which I need not expatiate beyond what my noble friend has said, will cease. Of course it is perfectly right that the Bill is needed in order to give effect to amendments that were made to the 1954 International Convention by the Conference which met in this country last year.
The noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, regretted that we had been slower than some Governments to accept it. I hope that he did not mean to be chiding in that respect, because I do not think that after a period that is only a little over a year the Government can really be described as being slow.
LORD HURCOMB: My Lords, I was not seeking to chide Her Majesty's Government at all, but merely to regret that on this occasion we were not first, as we were before.
LORD CHESHAM: Of course, I share the noble Lord's regret in that respect, but I am unable, without actually making a constitutional study regarding the other countries, to say offhand whether their legislation permitted them more easily to accept the amendments than is the case with us. Be that as it may, we cannot formally accept the amendments until the existing legislation is modified to give them legislative effect. I might point out that, for the future, the Bill takes opportunity, I notice, to extend certain of the Minister's powers under the 1955 Act so that provision can be made for the easier
512
acceptance of future measures as and when they are agreed internationally, and possibly even to avoid the position which the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, now regrets.
The noble Marquess, Lord Willingdon, mentioned wrecks, which, undoubtedly give rise to pollution. There is really little that can be done about it, from the very nature of the problem, and also from the fact that many of them lie in very deep water. I suppose we can at least derive a little comfort from the fact that that must be a diminishing problem over the years, as the war recedes.
The noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, mentioned retaining or re-separating residues and using them again, which I understand is a matter of some technical difficulty. I can assure him, though, that my information is that work is proceeding to try to develop the system he mentioned, although it is not proving as easy as is sometimes thought. In the same way progress is also going ahead—whether or not it is fast enough to satisfy the noble Lord I do not know—to provide facilities for discharging it in ports in countries which have accepted the Convention. With that, I have no more to say except that the Bill does have our sincere welcome and full backing, and I can assure your Lordships that it is the Government's intention to accept these Amendments as soon as the Bill receives the Royal Assent.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I should like to thank, most warmly, those of your Lordships who have so kindly supported this Bill, as indeed all of you have. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Chesham for giving it Government support, and to the noble Lord, Lord Burden, for speaking on behalf of the Bill from the other side of the House. May I also refer particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, who has himself played such a significant part in bringing these provisions into effect as a member of both international conferences? I would thank all your Lordships for the kindness shown to this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

WILLS BILL
4.0 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, this Bill amends the law relating to the formal requirements for the making of wills. It will enable the United Kingdom to ratify the Hague Convention on the Conflicts of Laws Relating to the Form of Testamentary Dispositions, made on October 5, 1961. That is Cmnd. 1729. The terms of that Convention were largely based on the Fourth Report of the Private International Law Committee which reported to my noble and learned friend Lord Kilmuir, then Lord Chancellor, on July 23, 1958. That is Cmnd. 491. My noble and learned friend Lord Kilmuir had invited that Committee, which was then under the Chairmanship of Mr. Justice Wynn-Parry:
"To recommend what alterations, if any, are desirable in the rules of the private international law of the United Kingdom relating to the formal validity of wills."
The Committee produced an admirable Report, for which they have earned and deserve our gratitude, setting out the defects of the existing law and making clear recommendations for its improvement. It is interesting to note that, of the twelve members who served under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Wynn-Parry, three have now become High Court Judges, and one has been appointed a Judge of the International Court of Justice. The Committee were of such distinction that if any noble Lord desires enlightenment on any part of the Bill he would do much better to refer to the Committee's Report than to rely on any words of mine. I will simply sum up what I think is the principle which should be followed in dealing with the subject matter of this Bill, and assure the House that this Bill endeavours to give effect to it.
The principle underlying any law requiring wills to be executed with certain formalities is that only those documents should be accepted as valid of which it can be said with reasonable certainty that they were executed by the testator with the intention of disposing of his assets after his death. A document which fulfils these conditions ought to be accepted as valid, and it is therefore a defect in the law if such a document
514
has to be excluded because of some technical imperfections of which the testator might reasonably have been unaware. If, therefore, the testator complies with the formal requirements of any system of law which he may reasonably assume to be applicable, his will should be treated as formally valid.
Further, it is plainly desirable that, so far as possible, a will treated as valid in one country should be treated as valid in others. Such is the principle to which I think The Hague Convention and this Bill give effect. The Bill had the support of members of all Parties in another place, and I now commend it to this House. At a later stage I shall be happy to give further explanations on any point on which a noble Lord desires to be further informed—a task in which I know I shall have the help of my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack. My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Cones ford.)
4.2 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD DILHORNE): My Lords, after the clear exposition of this Bill by my noble friend Lord Conesford, it is not necessary for me to add a word in explanation of the measure. That it is a useful measure, he has made clear; and it will, of course, have the support of Her Majesty's Government. I should like to join with my noble friend in thanking the members of the Private International Law Committee for their most valuable Report, which has been a great help. It was not possible to legislate with regard to it before because The Hague Convention had not then been concluded. This is a useful measure, and I join with my noble friend in commending it to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

OATHS AND EVIDENCE (OVERSEAS AUTHORITIES AND COUNTRIES) BILL
4.3 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, this Bill clarifies and improves the law on

515
various matters relating to the taking and admission of evidence and the administration of oaths where the evidence is taken or the oath is administered in one country for purposes connected with another. I venture to deal with it shortly, because the House will certainly prefer to leave to a later stage any detailed consideration which it may desire.
It is a normal and convenient international practice for a court wishing to obtain evidence abroad to appoint a person to take the evidence on its behalf in the foreign country. Clause 1 clarifies the law, and empowers any person appointed by a court or other judicial authority in a foreign country to administer oaths in the United Kingdom for the purpose of taking evidence for use in civil proceedings. So much for Clause 1. I pass to the second clause.
Our diplomatic and consular representatives abroad have long had power to administer oaths and to perform notarial acts which are then recognised by our courts here as valid for the purposes of our law. Clause 2 enables provisions to be made by Order in Council for authorising the administration of oaths and the doing of notarial acts by the representatives of any Power that is protecting our interests in any country with which we are not maintaining diplomatic relations.
Clause 3 adds counsellors to the class of British representatives abroad who
516
are empowered by the Commissioners for Oaths Act, 1889, to administer oaths and do notarial acts in a foreign country. Our courts are empowered by the Foreign Tribunals Evidence Act, 1856, to comply with requests from foreign courts to obtain evidence in relation to matters pending in those courts. Clause 4 enables such facilities to be made available for any international court or tribunal which may be specified by Order in Council. Clause 5 is designed further to facilitate the proof in our courts of entries in public registers overseas.
My Lords, those, very briefly, are the provisions of the Bill. It had the support of Members of all Parties in the House of Commons. I now commend it to the House, and beg to move that it be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Cones ford.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for the clear and sufficient explanation he has given of this Bill, which the Government welcome, and I hope your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at eight minutes past four o'clock.