Sitting of 6 March 1963

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PETITION (HOSPITAL FACILITIES, BLYTH)
Mr. Speaker: Sir Leslie Plummer.
Sir L. Plummer: Question No. 1.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): None, Sir.
Mr. Milne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, I gave notice to the Table Office that I wished to present a Petition to this honourable House today.
Mr. Speaker: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. Apparently, there is an error. I had no knowledge of the fact. If the House will allow me to correct it, I will do so at once. Mr. Milne.
Mr. Milne: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I beg leave to present to this honourable House the humble Petition of citizens living and working in the Borough of Blyth in the County of Northumberland. It is signed by leading citizens who have a close interest in and knowledge of the town's hospitals. The Petition has the full support of the Council of the Borough, and one couched in similar terms was signed by at least 5,000 citizens of the town.
I shall not detain the House with the details of the Hospital Plan for England and Wales which expresses the intention to change the nature of the Thomas Knight Memorial Hospital in the Borough of Blyth, but I underline that the citizens deeply deplore the intention to deprive them of their hospital facilities.
"Wherefore, your Petitioners pray that legislation be introduced by Her Majesty's Minister of Health to retain the present facilities and to increase and expand them where necessary.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray."
To lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  TRANSPORT

    Road Vehicles (Bulk Loads)
    Mr. Speaker: I do not know how we should best resume. Perhaps the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) will be so good as to ask his Question again.
    Sir L. Plummerasked the Minister of Transport what legislation he proposes to introduce to limit the carrying by road vehicles of bulk loads now being transported by other means.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): Repeating the Answer, Sir—"None, Sir."
    Sir L. Plummer: What has happened has given me an opportunity to rehearse what I was going to say in the first place.
    Is not that a shocking reply, in view of the report of the technical committee which has already advised the Minister of Transport that the traffic on our roads may be doubled or trebled in the next decade? Cannot the hon. Gentleman do something about the bulky loads which could go on the railways or the waterways and dangerous loads which should not be put on the roads but should be transferred to other means of conveyance?
    Mr. Hay: Replying to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's prepared supplementary question, we are, of course, studying the views which have been put to us by the group under Sir Robert Hall which has now reported, and we shall take account of its views in our future policy. On the general question of the removal of bulk loads from road to rail, we have always taken the view that it is the desires and wishes of the customers, which really count here, and it is our job to provide a sufficiently developed transport system both by road and by rail to meet their likely requirements and needs.
    Mr. Wingfield Digby: Will my hon. Friend consider making a charge for the cost of the police escort in these cases? I suppose that this would be done by

    365
    the Home Office. Will my hon. Friend make representations to the Home Secretary so that there might, at least, be some discouragement to the increase of these loads which lead to a tremendous amount of traffic congestion out of all proportion to their size?
    Mr. Hay: With respect, I think that my hon. Friend is thinking more of heavy and wide indivisible loads, whereas the Question asked by the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) relates to loads of bulk, that is to say, bulk quantities. The point about police escort has been looked at before. We have always taken the view that it would be an unwise imposition to make.
    Mr. Mellish: But should not the Ministry of Transport be concerned with this sort of thing? There is the example that 800,000 tons of coal normally transported by lighter on the River Thames are, from 1st April, I understand, to be transported by road. Is not this the concern of the Minister, or does he say that it is not a matter for Her Majesty's Government?
    Mr. Hay: I did not say that at all. As regards that case, I understand that the North Thames Gas Board has not yet reached a decision, and my right hon. Friend has asked to be kept informed of developments.

    Motor Vehicles (Mud-Flaps)
    Mr. E. Johnsonasked the Minister of Transport whether he has yet reached a decision on whether the present requirement that road motor vehicles should be fitted with mud-flaps can be improved.
    Mr. Hay: Work is still proceeding on this matter.
    Mr. Johnson: How much longer will this work proceed? The matter has been under consideration for over six weeks. Is not my hon. Friend aware that wet roads make motoring not only unpleasant but extremely dangerous, especially on high-speed roads? What are the difficulties about defining the type of motor car or motor vehicle which should use a mud-flap when on a public road?
    Mr. Hay: The difficulty is that practical experimental work has to be done
    366
    and, as the House will he aware, in recent weeks we have suffered not from rainy conditions, but from snow and ice. The experimental work has, therefore, been held up, but we are getting on with the matter as quickly as we can.
    Mr. Johnson: Is not my hon. Friend aware that mud-flaps have been used on many motor cars for many years? What further experiment is required to reach a decision?
    Mr. Hay: We need experimental work to decide whether mud-flaps are the best answer to the problem or whether something better could be provided.

    Heavy Goods Vehicles
    Mr. F. Noel-Bakerasked the Minister of Transport what new action he will take to protect the public, including both pedestrians and motorists, against the noise and danger caused by heavy goods vehicles, including danger resulting from diesel fumes; and what improvement has been made in the development of exhaust measurement.
    Mr. Hay: Regulations now being prepared will lay down noise levels for motor vehicles which it will be unlawful to exceed. I do not accept the implication of the Question that heavy goods vehicles as a class are dangerous. Their accident record is, in fact, better than that of any other class of vehicle. It is an offence to emit smoke so as to cause danger to other persons on the road, and active steps are taken by our vehicle examiners in conjunction with the police to check excessive black smoke emission. Exhaust measuring instruments have not proved necessary for this purpose.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Is not the Minister aware that the application of measures against the emission of dangerous fumes are really ineffective and that increasing numbers of large heavy goods vehicles are emitting fumes which are dangerous from the viewpoint of both visibility and health in the country and in towns, and that it is time that effective action was taken to stop this?
    Mr. Hay: Last year, we carried out a nation-wide series of smoke checks and no fewer than 83,000 diesel lorries were taken under observation. Nine thousand, eight hundred of them were emitting black smoke, 132 were

    367
    issued with immediate prohibition notices, 3,900 with delayed prohibition notices and 4,000 warning letters were issued. We are trying to bring this problem of smoke emission to the attention of operators of heavy commercial vehicles. There is a great deal of evidence to show that our investigations and checks last year were extremely effective. I implore hon. Members, however, if they find cases of this nature occurring on the roads, to report the facts either to the local office of my right hon. Friend's Ministry or to our headquarters.
    Mr. D. Smith: Will my hon. Friend say whether, despite what he has already said, the number of prosecutions for this offence is increasing?
    Mr. Hay: I think so, but I cannot say definitely without notice.
    Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Is the Minister aware that the number of 10-ton coal lorries per hour now passing through the County Borough of Derby has reached 240, or four a minute, and that they commit a grave nuisance with diesel fumes?

    Rural Transport
    Sir J. Maitlandasked the Minister of Transport what instructions he has given to the teams at present analysing the problems of rural transport; and whether they are taking evidence from local authorities and county organisations interested in these problems.
    Mr. Hay: The surveys we have set on foot are detailed factual studies. Information will come mainly from house-to-house canvassing. There is no question of taking evidence in a general sense, but local authorities and other organisations are giving valuable help in providing some of the facts we want.
    Sir J. Maitland: Can my hon. Friend ensure that this fact is known to the local authorities concerned, because I am informed that certain rural district councils and so on have not had an opportunity to get into official touch with the people who are carrying out such an important job?
    Mr. Hay: I am sure that the exchange of Questions and Answers this afternoon will be reported in the local authority journals and the Press. Any local authority which has any question or point
    368
    to raise about this should be advised to get in touch with my right hon. Friend's Ministry.
    Mr. Watkins: What new evidence can the hon. Gentleman hope to obtain from mid-Wales about rural transport when the Jack Committee itself visited the area and there has been a special report by a panel of the Council for Wales on rural transport in Wales—in the very place where the survey in now taking place?
    Mr. Hay: The point is that the surveys are intended to collect information about actual journeys carried out by individuals, the way in which they travel and the purpose for which they travel. Generally speaking, the terms of reference were set out in the reply that my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) on 27th November last, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman would have a look at that.
    Mr. Webster: Would not the quickest way of assisting rural transport be to reduce the fuel oil tax?
    Mr. Hay: That is a question for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. Popplewell: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary realise that both the House and the country as a whole will look upon his reply as merely another delaying tactic? He has had the Jack Report and another recent report on the transport needs of Great Britain in the next 20 years. The facts are pretty well known. Is not this just another excuse for taking absolutely no action? Will he not vitalise his Department and realise the pressing needs of rural transport?
    Mr. Hay: No, Sir; it is not just an excuse for failing to take action. The purpose is to give us some detailed information of a kind that we must have before we can decide what is the right policy to adopt in respect of rural transport as a whole.

    Foreign Visitors (Highway Code)
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Minister of Transport if he will arrange for the Highway Code to be printed in various languages so that it can be handed to motoring visitors to this country on arrival at ports and airports.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Vice-Admiral John Hughes Hallett): I do not think that this is necessary. A free copy of the Highway Code is given to all foreign visitors who arrive with a car. The British Travel and Holidays Association's publication "Come to Britain" which is published in French and German includes a summary of the more important rules.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that apart from driving on the left—which is rather different from the practice on the Continent—we have a number of peculiar practices, and will he see that not only the French and the Germans have an opportunity to learn them? Can we not have a summary for the many other foreigners who come here?
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Windscreen stickers on road signs and the rules of the road are distributed, worded in French and German. But we have no evidence that foreign visitors are involved in accidents as a result of lack of knowledge of the Highway Code, nor that their accident rate is higher than that of British residents.

  RAILWAYS

    Level Crossing, Steeton
    Mr. Worsleyasked the Minister of Transport (1) if he will replace the level crossing at Steeton, near Keighley, with a bridge;
    (2) what estimate he has made of the saving resulting to British Railways were Steeton level crossing to be replaced by a bridge.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: This level crossing is on a classified road for which the West Riding County Council is the highway authority. It has not as yet asked us to consider a scheme for its replacement. Should it do so, we will take into account any savings likely to be made by the railways.
    Mr. Worsley: Will my hon. and gallant Friend agree that the importance of replacing this level crossing is very great to the people of Silsden, that it is the only access between that town and the rest of the industrial West Riding and that the delays caused by it are exceedingly
    370
    frequent? Will he make representations to the West Riding County Council to see whether it will move in this matter?
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: We appreciate that a detour of no less than four miles is involved in order to avoid the level crossing, and we realise that there are frequent delays to those who have to use it, but I assure my hon. Friend that if a scheme is put to my right hon. Friend he will certainly consider all the relevant factors, financial and otherwise. With regard to making representations to the council, I believe that my hon. Friend's Question will have drawn its attention to this matter.

    Policy
    Mr. F. Noel-Bakerasked the Minister of Transport when he proposes to announce the Government's new policy on railways; and if he will accelerate the decisions reached.
    Mr. Fellasked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on Dr. Beeching's plan for railway reorganisation which has now been submitted to him.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: I apologise to the Parliamentary Secretary and wish to explain that the last line of Question No. 16 was intended to invite him, not to accelerate the decisions—which we on this side are not sure whether we want applied at all—but to accelerate an announcement.
    Mr. Hay: My right hon. Friend has now received, and is considering, the Railways Board's proposals for reshaping British Railways. He will make a statement on them as soon as possible, but I cannot yet say when this will be.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Can the Parliamentary Secretary go a little further in explaining what he means by "as soon as possible"? Can he give us an assurance that we shall have a definitive Government policy on the railways at least before the next election?
    Mr. Hay: I think that the bon. Gentleman will, on reflection, understand what the expression "as soon as possible" moans. It means, as soon as we possibly can. As to the second part of his supplementary question, we have never made any secret of our policy for the

    371
    railways. Indeed, we have spent a lot of time in this House debating Government policy for the railways. If the hon. Gentleman does not know it now, presumably he never will. I can only say that we will make a full statement on the matter as soon as we are ready.
    Mr. Fell: I wonder if I may have an assurance from the Minister that before the Government take any decisions on this report there will be a full debate in the House on the whole matter? Secondly, may I ask him whether he remembers that the Prime Minister on 10th March, 1960, warned us that the public must expect inconvenience on certain lines by certain lines being closed, but that other means of transport would be made available? Other means of transport being made available is pretty important, because in many parts of the country, because of poor road conditions, this just cannot be done. Will my hon. Friend be very careful in the assessment of what lines are to be closed?
    Mr. Hay: As to the question of a debate, I think the House would prefer to see the document first and hear what the Government have to say about it. My right hon. Friend did say on 5th December, in answer to a Question by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), that
    "the Government will take the House fully into their confidence before any final conclusions are reached on the Railways Board's proposals for the future size and shape of the railway system."—[OFFICIAL RFPORT, 5th December, 1962; Vol. 668, c. 171.]
    Mr. Strauss: May we have a definite assurance that the report from the Railways Board will be published, and published in full, so that we may be able to come to a proper consideration of the matter?
    Mr. Hay: Oh, yes, it is far too good a report not to publish it.

    Members of Parliament (Complaints)
    Mr. V. Yatesasked the Minister of Transport whether he has studied the correspondence sent to him by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood; and if he will give a general direction to the British Railways Board that complaints from Members of Parliament should be dealt with in a proper manner.
    Mr. Hay: This is not an appropriate matter for a direction. I am sure from what my right hon. Friend and I see of the large volume of Parliamentary correspondence with the Board, and from what hon. Members tell us, that the Board generally deals helpfully and sympathetically with the letters it receives.
    Mr. Yates: Does not the Minister consider that when questions were raised about high prices charged for refreshments on British Railways it was improper for Dr. Beeching inaccurately and offensively to refer to my attitude on nationalisation; and will he not really take steps to see that Members do get detailed and courteous answers and not rude and offensive replies?
    Mr. Hay: With all respect to the hon. Gentleman, I have looked at this correspondence, and I think there is some room for doubt whether both parties concerned were not just a little touchy on the whole subject. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I quite understand his point, and I think now Dr. Beeching is fully seized of the point and I think my right hon. Friend has had a word with the hon. Gentleman about it.
    Mr. Strauss: Whatever the general practice may be, however satisfactory it is or not, is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that in this case there is no no doubt that Dr. Beeching, replying to my hon. Friend, rebuked him in a most offensive way—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—for making a complaint, and that while none of us expects or wants Dr. Beeching personally to investigate administrative complaints which may be put forward, we do expect, in the interests of the relationships between this House and the nationalised industries, that when the chairman of a board replies to a Member he should do so helpfully, and anyhow courteously?
    Mr. Hay: I also have examined the correspondence and I am afraid I do not take the same view as the right hon. Gentleman does. [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has seen it as well. I do not know. Anyhow I have seen it, and I do not take the same view, but we must remember that Dr. Beeching has a very big job to do and, as far as he is concerned, I know

    373
    from personal conversation with him that he does take with the greatest seriousness his responsibility to tell hon. Members what he can about matters which they raise.
    Mr. Shinwell: May we have an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary that Dr. Beeching will be informed by his right hon. Friend that in future, when Members address questions either to Dr. Beeching or any official of the nationalised British Railways, in the replies no reference will be made to their political views, and, indeed, that their political views will be disregarded?
    Mr. Hay: I do not think I can give any assurance of that kind at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It depends entirely on the circumstances and on what is actually said in the correspondence.

    Accident, Barking
    Mr. Dribergasked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on the accident at Barking, Essex, on 17th February, when a passenger train was derailed and crashed down an embankment into a chemical works; what other accidents there have been at this point since the completion of the railway modernisation scheme; what steps are being taken to prevent further accidents; and if he will recognise in some suitable way the resourcefulness and initiative of the chemical workers whose prompt action averted a serious disaster.
    Mr. Hay: In view of the length of the factual part of the statement, I will, with permission, circulate it in full in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    British Railways have, however, asked me to express their appreciation of the action of the chemical workers, but for whose resourcefulness and initiative the consequences of the accident might have been more serious. I am glad to do this and to add my appreciation to that of the Railways Board.
    Mr. Driberg: While I join, as obviously all hon. Members will, in the appreciation which the hon. Gentleman
    374
    has expressed, may I ask him whether his circulated Answer indicates that there is a special danger at this point?
    Mr. Hay: The Answer indicates that there was a special danger, but alterations to the signalling arrangements are now being carried out, which should completely avoid such danger in future.
    Following is the statement:
    On 17th February the driver of the 10.10 a.m. 3-coach multiple-unit train from Barking to Kentish Town ran past a junction signal at Danger at 25–30 m.p.h., and his train was diverted into a short spur line which is provided to protect the junction. The train demolished the buffer stop on the spur line and ran down the bank beyond it, coming to rest partly inside the boundary fence of Messrs. Howards Chemical Works and causing some damage to their equipment. The driver received some cuts but no passengers were injured.
    A similar accident occurred at the same point on 4th January, 1961; this was after the track layout had been rearranged but before the present colour light-signalling had been introduced. After that accident a special type of buffer stop was installed on the spur line.
    The railways are considering whether any further improvement in the signalling arrangements is practicable. Meanwhile, a temporary revision of the signalling procedure has been made with the object of preventing further accidents of this type.

    Dartford Station (Rebuilding)
    Mr. Sydney Irvingasked the Minister of Transport what proposals he has received from the Railways Board for major capital expenditure on the rebuilding of Dartford Station.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: None, Sir.
    Mr. Irving: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman bear in mind that there is an urgent need for a new station, and will he give sympathetic consideration to any proposals that come forward?
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Certainly, Sir. We understand that a scheme is being worked out by the Southern Region, but it has not yet been put to the Regional Railway Board.

    Stoke-on-Trent Station
    Mrs. Slaterasked the Minister of Transport what proposals he has received for major capital expenditure on the improvement of Stoke-on-Trent Railway Station.
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Transport if he will now approve the British Transport Commission's proposals for reconstructing Stoke-on-Trent railway station and the capital expenditure involved.
    Dr. Strossasked the Minister of Transport whether he will make a statement on the proposed capital expenditure for the railway station of Stoke-on-Trent.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: The British Railways Board has put no proposals to us for capital investment in reconstructing or improving Stoke-on-Trent railway station.
    Mrs. Slater: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some time ago the British Transport Commission promised my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) that something along these lines would be done? Is he further aware that this station serves an extremely important industrial area and that it is in an appalling condition? It is dirty, untidy and unfit for people to use. Is it not time something was done?
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Yes, but this is a matter for the Railways Board, and it has informed us that plans for modernising Stoke, to which my right hon. Friend referred as far back as November, 1961, have not yet been finished.
    Mr. Swingler: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman do anything about the Board itself? Can he give an assurance that Dr. Beeching is not proposing to close Stoke Station altogether? Is he aware that the only time we ever get an improvement at Stoke Station is when we have a visitor from the Royal Family? In addition to arranging more visits by the Royal Family, will not he persuade the Board to produce a scheme?
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: When the proposal for Stoke Station is put to the Minister it will be considered on its merits.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: In view of the unfortunate circumstances that have arisen, will the hon. and gallant Gentleman undertake to expedite consideration of this matter?
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I will certainly see that these questions are brought to the notice of the Board.

  ROADS

    Motorways (Traffic Signs)
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Minister of Transport what action he has taken on the advice he received from the Advisory Committee on Traffic Signs for Motorways; whether decisions have been taken on a system of motorway warnings and on police supervision of central control rooms; what other action is to be taken to make the motorways safer; where are the experiments on motorway safety being made; and on what roads will new safety equipment be installed.
    Mr. Hay: The traffic signs provided on motorways are in accordance with the advice of that Committee. We propose, as soon as the necessary arrangements can be made, to install a system of remotely controlled illuminated warning signs on the M.5 motorway. These signs, like the emergency telephone system, will be connected to a central police control room.
    We have installed an experimental anti-dazzle screen on M.1, and this year we propose to install two experimental lengths of safety barrier also on M.1. We are considering the trial of further methods of preventing dazzle, but cannot yet say on which motorway this trial will be made.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: I greatly appreciate that informative Answer. If what is contained in the Question is a success, will the hon. Gentleman set an example to the other Government Ministries by encouraging the export industries so that when we take a lead in these matters the export industries receive the encouragement which they deserve?
    Mr. Hay: I think that all Her Majesty's Ministers encourage the export industries.

    Berkeley Street (Left Turn)
    Mr. Shepherdasked the Minister of Transport if he is aware of the inconvenience resulting from the prohibition of the left turn from Berkeley Street into Piccadilly; and, in view of the fact that a left turn would be with the stream of traffic, whether he will consider an alteration in the arrangements.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: We are aware that this experimental prohibition, which helps pedestrians to cross Piccadilly, does inconvenience some drivers. My right hon. Friend is taking account of this in his current review of the whole traffic experiment of which this prohibition forms one part.
    Mr. Mellish: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman note that the London taxi drivers have made representations to me saying that they support the contention in the Question and that this prohibition is causing tremendous inconvenience and annoyance? They have put forward their own proposals on safety which I understand would meet the situation which the Minister has in mind. Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman take this matter very seriously?
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: We certainly will, but, of course, there are points on both sides.
    Mr. E. Johnson: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that the turn from Berkeley Street into Dover Street involves two right-hand turns across traffic followed by four left-hand turns—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think we can go all round my constituency on this Question.

    Road Junction, Clapham (Traffic Signals)
    Dr. Alan Glynasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the dangerous conditions occasioned by heavy traffic in Larkhall Rise, Clapham, London, S.W.4; whether he will consider authorising the provision of traffic signals at the junction of Larkhall Rise and Union Road to reduce the danger of accidents; and whether he will make a statement.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes-Hallett: We are aware of the unsatisfactory accident figures for the junction of Larkhall Rise and Union Road. Our engineers are discussing possible remedial measures, including the provision of traffic signals, with the Wandsworth Metropolitan Borough Council.
    Dr. Glyn: I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for that very satisfactory reply. As he is fully aware, there has been a large number of accidents here, and the road is no longer a small road but a main access in and out of London. I am grateful for the Answer, which I know will bring great relief to the residents in the area. I hope that it will not be too long before the negotiations are completed.

    Trafford Park (Traffic Congestion)
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Minister of Transport if he has considered the report, a copy of which has been sent to him, on the cost and delay of the worsening road traffic congestion in and around Trafford Park; what action he is taking to implement the proposals made in the report; and on what date construction will start on the proposed 232 route linking it up with the M.62 and other main roads.
    Mr. Hay: The roads on the Trafford Park industrial estate and those giving immediate access to it are the responsibility of the local highway authorities. It is for them to initiate schemes to improve traffic conditions in this area. No doubt the authors of the report referred to have sent copies to the local highway authorities concerned. We shall consider such schemes as they may wish to submit to us in the ordinary way for grant or approval.
    Trafford Park and its environs are within the South-East Lancashire and North-East Cheshire conurbation area for which a committee of the local highway authorities concerned is working out a phased long-term programme of road improvements. We expect to receive its recommendations within the next few months.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: Would I be correct in interpreting that as a very sympathetic reply? If constructive proposals are sent in as early as possible, will they receive consideration in the light of the urgency

    379
    of this matter and be dealt with in the same appreciative way in which the Minister has answered the Question?
    Mr. Hay: We will always examine with the utmost sympathy any proposals put forward by local highway authorities for the improvement of their roads. I cannot go further than that until we see what the proposals are.

    Expenditure (Dorset)
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Minister of Transport, in view of his proposals to spend over £5,000,000 in Gloucestershire, Somerset and Wiltshire during the next five years, how much he estimates he will spend in Dorset.
    Mr. Hay: In the three years 1962–63 to 1964–65 commitments of Exchequer funds on major improvements of trunk and classified roads in Dorset are expected to be about £440,000. I cannot at this stage give estimates for later years.
    Mr. DigbyAre not these figures very much smaller for Dorset than they are for the other counties? Is it not depressing for Dorset people that they always seem to be bottom of the list for road improvements and top of Dr. Beeching's list for proposed rail closures?
    Mr. Hay: No, Sir. As I think the House realises, the funds which we have available for road improvements are distributed on the basis of the traffic need. The other counties which he has in mind have received a larger share, and will receive a larger share, but their traffic problems are greater.
    Mr. Barnett: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, with the development of the Winfrith Heath Atomic Energy Station and the continuing increase in the holiday trade, a great strain is placed particularly on holiday roads in Dorset and along the coast? Will he bear this in mind in bringing forward positive proposals.
    Mr. Hay: These factors are always borne in mind, but we have only a very limited amount of money available to do a large amount of work. We must have some system of priorities, and the system is based on the traffic needs in the area concerned.
    Mr. F. Noel-Baker: Whatever may be the complaints of Dorset, the hon.
    380
    Gentleman should not get away with the idea that Wiltshire is satisfied with the amount of money being spent on its roads—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We could go all round England on that basis.

    Traffic Congestion
    Mr. Spriggsasked the Minister of Transport what methods are employed by his Department to measure road traffic congestion; and what is his estimate of the effect road traffic congestion has upon Britain's economy.
    Mr. Hay: This is a highly technical matter and is not capable of a short explanation. In practice, various methods are used, according to the purpose of the study. I accept that road traffic congestion is detrimental to the country's economy. That is why we are now engaged on the largest road building programme Britain has ever had.
    Mr. Spriggs: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that, according to Professor Jones of Leeds University, the estimated cost of road congestion in the United Kingdom today is £500 million a year and that by 1967 it will have reached the astronomical figure of £2,000 million? Will he and his right hon. Friends bear in mind this cost to the economy when considering Dr. Beeching's proposals for the closure of stations and branch lines?
    Mr. Hay: The estimates which various distinguished people provide from time to time as to the cost in money terms of congestion continue to rise. I have heard of £240 million, £300 million and now £500 million. The difficulty about all these estimates is that they are based on an assumption that in an ideal situation all traffic should be able to make all its journeys under light traffic conditions. That is something which one cannot expect to happen and it is not a realistic basis for assessment.
    Sir Richard Pilkington: Will my hon. Friend remember that, if the proposal to have even larger lorries on the roads goes through, the congestion will be worse than it is now?
    Mr. Hay: Not necessarily. It depends on how quickly we can get on with our road building programme.

    A.51, Vicars Cross (Speed Limit)
    Mr. Templeasked the Minister of Transport what advice he received when he consulted interested bodies concerning the imposition of a 40 miles per hour speed limit on the A.51 clearway in the vicinity of Vicars Cross, near Chester; which local authorities were directly, and which indirectly, consulted; and if he will make a statement.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: The proposal for a 40 m.p.h. speed limit on this road was put forward in 1961 by the Cheshire County Council with the support of the Chester Rural District Council. We were unable to accept the proposal because we did not regard the speed limit as justified. We have recently consulted the county council again to see whether it adheres to its earlier views now that the road has been made a clearway. We await its reply.
    Mr. Temple: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that all the local authorities, including Cheshire County Council, have already made their views perfectly clear, and will he, in view of the unanimous desire of all the local interests, impose a speed limit at the very earliest opportunity?
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: No, Sir, not without further consideration, and not without an answer to our last question. It is a fact that the fatal accident rate and the proportion of fatal and serious accidents are well below the national average. No pedestrians ware involved in accidents in the five years from 1958 to 1962 and over a quarter of the accidents which occurred were with parked vehicles, which have now ceased.

    North Street, Midhurst (Pedestrian Crossing)
    Mr. Goughasked the Minister of Transport if he will now authorise a pedestrian crossing in North Street, Midhurst.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: No, Sir, for the reasons which my right hon. Friend explained fully in correspondence with my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Gough: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that that Answer will
    382
    give a great deal of displeasure to the people of Midhurst? Will he confirm that he has already received a petition signed by hundreds of local people asking for this pedestrian crossing, bearing in mind that the main street of Midhurst is a main thoroughfare between London and the coast and that in summer it is very dangerous? Will he please think about this again?
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Certainly I will bear that in mind, but, as my right hon. Friend has already informed my hon. Friend, we would be prepared to consider North Street as a possible site for a panda crossing when the results of the current experiment have been assessed.
    Mr. Gough: On a point of order. In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of my hon. and gallant Friend's reply, I beg leave to give notice that I shall raise the matter at the first opportunity.

    By-Pass, Berkhamsted
    Mr. Allasonasked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the accidents and congestion in Berkhamsted, he will give a higher priority to the construction of the Berkhamsted by-pass.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: No, Sir. There are many other schemes whose claims for inclusion in the road programme are greater.
    Mr. Allason: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that that reply will give great disappointment to many people who have to cross this very dangerous road, and that it is a very long road, probably the longest street in any town in England, with traffic continually going through it? My hon. and gallant Friend is aware of the great congestion there. Will he give me an undertaking that, if the town itself manages to make its own arrangements to clear up the congestion, it will not then be put even lower down the list of priorities for by-passes?
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I think it depends exactly on what the arrangements are. I do not see why that should follow. The proposed by-pass forms part of a comprehensive improvement of the A.41 road which includes by-passes at Watford, King's Langley, Hemel

    383
    Hempstead and Tring, and it does seem that these latter places which are closer to London are more urgent to deal with.

    Warning Signs, Motorways (Remote Control)
    Mr. Danceasked the Minister of Transport if he will arrange for an experiment with remotely controlled warning signs to be conducted on the M.1 thereby enabling a comparison to be made in due course of the accident record before and after the experiment with a view to the assessment of the value of such installations on future motorways.
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Minister of Transport when the results of the experiment on M.5 of illuminated signs giving warning of hazards will be ready.
    Mr. Hay: The motoring organisations have suggested that we should install such signs on M.1, but because no spare circuits are available on that motorway we are arranging for a trial to be carried out on M.5 where spare circuits have been provided in the emergency telephone cable. All major motorways being built or to be built will similarly be equipped with spare circuits, as will M.1 when re-cabling is carried out. A record will be kept of accidents before and after the installation of the signs.
    I cannot yet say when the results of the experiment will be available.
    Mr. Dance: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, which I know will cause great interest to the motoring organisations. I thank him very much indeed.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Will my hon. Friend agree that it is quite clear that the use of these illuminated signs is becoming pretty obviously necessary, and that we do not want too long-drawn-out an experiment before putting them in?
    Mr. Hay: I think we ought just to let the experiment get started before we decide to end it.

    Double White Lines (Bus Stops)
    Mr. Danceasked the Minister of Transport whether he will prohibit the siting of bus stops on stretches of road painted with double white lines, where the width of the road makes it impossible for traffic to overtake a stationary bus.
    Mr. Hay: It would be difficult to prohibit this altogether.
    We have already advised local authorities that it is undesirable that a bus stop should be so placed that a stationary bus would oblige following vehicles either to stop or to cross a prohibitory line.
    Mr. Dance: Is not my hon. Friend aware that a Standing Committee, of which I was a member, made it an offence to cross a double white line, for which one can have one's licence endorsed? Will he, therefore, give some advice to the public at large about what they ought to do—stop behind the bus and hold up the traffic, or break the law and risk having their licences endorsed?
    Mr. Hay: The advice that I have to give—depending on the circumstances, of course—is that they should stop if they are in any doubt at all. What I think I had better do is to send my hon. Friend a copy of the circular of advice that we gave to local authorities in 1960, and perhaps he will study the matter from that.

    Panda Crossings
    Mr. Goodhartasked the Minister of Transport what observations his Department has made to date on the effectiveness of Panda pedestrian crossings; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Hay: We are calling for a full report on the results of the experiment with panda crossings when the 12-month trial period ends on 2nd April. The present indications are that these crossings are certainly no less safe than zebra crossings and that, once the public becomes accustomed to them, they are generally proving successful.
    Mr. Goodhart: Can my hon. Friend say roughly how soon after the report is received he intends to make an announcement about whether these crossings will become a permanent part of our traffic scene?
    Mr. Hay: The 12 months' trial period, as I said, ends at the beginning of April. The results will take a little time to assess. I rather doubt whether we shall be able to say anything much before May.
    Mr. J. Wells: Will there be any indication in the report of how often each of these crossings has been used per day?
    Mr. Hay: I am afraid that I cannot say that without notice.

    Dartford Tunnel, Approach Road
    Mr. Sydney Irvingasked the Minister of Transport whether he has yet received the observations of the Kent County Council on the alternative proposals for the route of the approach road to the Dartford Tunnel from the south; and when he expects to publish the necessary orders under the Highways Act, 1959.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Yes, Sir. Our engineers are examining them. Until this study is completed I cannot say when the necessary Orders will be published.
    Mr. Irving: Is not the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that his right hon. Friend's earlier lack of foresight and procrastination already means that much of the benefit from the tunnel will be lost by the congestion which is likely to develop on the southern approach road? Has he put this into a road programme? If not, will he do so? Will he ensure that there is no further waste of time in this matter?
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I could not accept that at all. The fact of the matter is that the agent authority, which is the Kent County Council, considers that the alternative proposals are inferior to its original proposals. Our engineers are now going into the matter, and we have asked the county council for further data.

    Severe Weather Conditions (Local Authority Expenditure)
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Minister of Transport whether he will grant additional funds to local authorities, in view of the heavy expenditure incurred in snow clearance, particularly in the West Country.
    Mr. Walkerasked the Minister of Transport what estimate he has made of the total cost of frost damage to roads during the past winter.
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Transport what assessment has been made of the extent of damage to road surfaces caused by continuously severe whether conditions; and, in view of the burden imposed on local authorities, what financial and other assistance he is now prepared to offer.
    Mr. Hay: We have invited the county councils to let us have estimates of the additional expenditure they will have incurred on classified roads in the present quarter because of the exceptionally severe weather. We will then consider, as my right hon. Friend has already promised, what additional grant assistance can be given. It is too soon to expect any worthwhile information about frost damage.
    Mr. Digby: Has my hon. Friend received any of the claims yet, and have any been met up to this moment?
    Mr. Hay: No, Sir. A number of local authorities have told us about their expenditure, but in due course we must have the full picture for each of them, and, indeed, for all local authorities, and we shall get that as soon as it can be done.
    Mr. F. Harris: Is my hon. Friend aware that in response to an invitation by his colleague I put a Question to the Minister of Transport on this matter, and this morning I received a very unsatisfactory reply? Does what my hon. Friend has now said mean that there is an advance in policy and that the Government are really going to make a serious contribution towards the cost of the very considerable road damage?
    Mr. Hay: I am afraid that I am not aware of the Answer to which my hon. Friend refers. I will certainly look into it. However, the Answer which I have just given the House is, of course, an authoritative one.
    Mr. Ridley: May I ask whether the definition of "West Country" includes Gloucestershire, where the damage has perhaps been more severe than in any other part?
    Mr. Hay: I think that once one started to discriminate between different parts of the country as to which suffered most one would find oneself in very deep water.
    Mr. Popplewell: The exceptional nature of the extreme weather of the past winter will be realised by the House and the nation generally. Will the hon. Gentleman draw the necessary lessons from it and try to conduct some further research into the best type of equipment that can be used to deal with any similar set of circumstances arising at some future date? This is a very important non-party line of approach. The Minister ought to authorise some research along such lines.
    Mr. Hay: Yes, Sir. As soon as we began to learn lessons from the recent bad weather, my right hon. Friend gave instructions that a very full investigation was to be carried out. We shall draw on the experience of local authorities throughout the country as well as that of our own organisation to learn what we can and to make improvements for the future.

    Barton-on-Humber (Bridge)
    Mr. E. L. Mallalieuasked the Minister of Transport if he will now take steps to have a bridge built across the Humber from Barton-on-Humber, having regard to the facts that the steel industry is not working at full capacity, that there is unemployment in Scunthorpe, notably among steel erectors, and that the making of the approach roads would employ a considerable number of men.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer my right hon. Friend gave on 13th February to my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. Coulson) and Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), and to the hon. and gallant Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Commander Pursey).
    Mr. Mallalieu: Is not the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that there has been a considerable further period of Tory rule since that Answer was given, with a consequent rise in unemployment? Is he not aware that the unemployment is quite severe, even in Scunthorpe and in Barton-on-Humber, and that the steel erectors in Scunthorpe are unemployed now? Would not this project give them some hope of employment and bring great benefit to a very large region south of the Humber, apart
    388
    from what might happen on the north side of it?
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: We do not consider that the scheme has sufficient justification from the point of view of transport. I am aware that this was recommended in the Rochdale Committee's Report, but I point out that the cost of the bridge alone would be in the region of £15 million to £20 million, quite apart from the cost of improvement of the approach roads.

    A.20, Harrietsham
    Mr. J. Wellsasked the Minister of Transport what further steps he intends to take to promote pedestrian safety where the A.20 trunk road bisects the village of Harrietsham.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: A footpath from East Street to Fairbourne Lane will be provided as soon as weather conditions permit. We are also prepared to provide a bus lay-by when a site is agreed.
    Mr. Wells: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that this is no comfort to the parishioners of this village, since the old people's homes, almshouses and many private residences are situated on the south side of the road whereas the church, the post office and the school are on the north side? There has recently been a fatal accident there. Will he look at this again more seriously with a view to having a speed limit of 30 or 40 m.p.h., or the installation of a pedestrian-operated crossing or some other method?
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: We shall certainly listen to the hon. Gentleman's representations, and we are sorry that he has not been encouraged by what has been done.
    Mr. Wells: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that all that he has outlined this afternoon is an improvement in the passage of persons from east to west, whereas what the pedestrians and parishioners want is to improve their passage from north to south across the road.

    Motorway (South of Bristol)
    Mr. Websterasked the Minister of Transport when the work on the motorway south of Bristol will commence.
    Mr. Hay: It is too early to say, A draft scheme for the length of the M.5 motorway from the Filton By-Pass to the River Avon will be published this month and one for the continuation southwards to East Brent later this year. Start of work will depend on completion of the statutory processes and on the availability of funds.
    Mr. Webster: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that the time is coming when the balance will have to be redressed from a concentration on motorway requirements into the centre of the country to improving communications with outlying regions where there is unemployment, where the agricultural industry needs better communications and where the British industrialist, I hope, seeks to go for his holidays?
    Mr. Hay: That is a point of view and one which we always take account of.
    Mr. G. Wilson: Will my hon. Friend remember, in considering priorities in this matter, that Cornwall is primarily an industrial county and not a holiday area?

    Parking of Lorries, London Area
    Mr. D. Smithasked the Minister of Transport if he will consult the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police in an effort to prevent the continued growth of lorry parking in residential roads and streets of the London and Great London area.
    Mr. Hay: We are already, consulting the Commissioner of Metropolitan Police, as well as some of the local authorities and other bodies chiefly concerned with this problem. More lorry parks are needed. Five were opened last year in London, and more are planned. The police encourage drivers to use the off-street parks that exist instead of parking on streets where they may inconvenience traffic or residents.
    Mr. Smith: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the feeling that the police turn a blind eye to this problem because they are only too glad to get the lorries off the main roads? Will he also bear in mind that very good residential roads are being damaged as a result and that residents are having their sleep disturbed night after night?
    Mr. Hay: We are well aware of this problem and have been in close touch
    390
    with the police, the local authorities and other bodies about it for some time. Of course, there is no easy or quick answer except the provision of off-street parks on a large scale. We will do all we can to ensure that this is brought about.
    Mr. Mellish: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in some constituencies in London as many as 300 lorries are parking at night and that the disturbance to residents is quite incredible? Will he see what needs to be done, and, if necessary, bring in legislation to deal with this problem, which is getting beyond control?
    Mr. Hay: I am advised that legislation is not really the answer, since existing powers of local authorities are quite adequate to deal with the matter. It is a pity, for instance, that Bermondsey Borough Council would not acquire a site which would have provided a lorry park in that area, where the problem is so acute, as the hon. Gentleman knows.

    South-East Lancashire and North-East Cheshire Highway Plan
    Sir S. Storeyasked the Ministry of Transport (1) whether he proposes to authorise the construction of the link between M.62 and Trafford Park as recommended in the South-East Lancashire and North-East Cheshire Highway Plan; and when the work will be begun;
    (2) if he will implement the proposals of the South-East Lancashire and North-East Cheshire Highway plan for diverting the tanker traffic from Carrington which now passes through Urmston.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: This highway plan, which was prepared by a committee of the surveyors and engineers of the highway authorities concerned, is at present being considered by those authorities. We must await their recommendations for a phased long-term programme of road improvements for the area as a whole before we can say whether these particular schemes should be undertaken.
    Sir S. Storey: Is it not a fact that we have put forward definite recommendations for these roads? Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that the heavy concentration of industry in Trafford Park urgently needs a connection to the M.62? Is he also aware that the bringing of the

    391
    oil terminal to Carrington means that heavy tankers go through the residential quarter of Urmston? Is he further aware that these roads are built only for light traffic? Will he see that these recommendations are carried out as quickly as possible?
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: We are well aware of all those points. On receipt of the Report, discussions will be necessary and the various authorities will have to agree on a programme. Meanwhile our divisional road engineer has agreed to annual programmes totalling about £4 million.
    Sir S. Storey: What does my hon. and gallant Friend mean by receipt of the Report? It has been issued and contains recommendations.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: As I have said, the recommendations are being considered by the authorities themselves. Perhaps my hon. Friend did not quite hear me. The Report was prepared by their surveyors and engineers.

  SHIPPING

    Flags of Convenience
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Minister of Transport if he is aware of the importance to the British shipping industry of the recent variations in international maritime law and conventions relating to flags of convenience; if he will draw these to the attention of ship-owners, sailors and all who are engaged in the industry, for their guidance; and if he will make a statement.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I assume that the hon. and learned Member is referring to the recent coming into force of the 1958 Convention on the High Seas, Article 5 of which deals with flags of convenience. Unfortunately, although they signed the Convention, none of the countries usually described as flag of convenience countries has as yet ratified it. I do not think that any further statement would be useful at the moment.
    Mr. Hughes: Does not the Minister realise that it would be greatly in the interests of international trade, industry and commerce if he could induce the various other competing fleets to agree to some kind of co-ordination so that they all have the same rule of conduct?
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: We much appreciate that. That is one of the objects of the Convention.

    Ports (Rochdale Committee's Report)
    Mr. Owenasked the Minister of Transport what steps are being taken to implement the recommendations of the Rochdale Report; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Websterasked the Minister of Transport what steps he proposes to take to improve dock facilities in relation to export prospects, in view of the breakdown of Common Market negotiations.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I propose, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, to make a statement about the Rochdale Report at the end of Questions.

  SHIPBUILDING

    Vacant Berths, Clyde
    Mr. Benceasked the Minister of Transport how many shipbuilding berths are unoccupied on the Clyde; and what steps he proposes to take to bring these berths into use.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: At the end of January, 60 berths were unoccupied in the Clyde shipyards. But as was pointed out in reply to a similar question by the hon. Member on 4th July last, this is not a true measure of idle capacity because modern techniques have diminished the number of berths needed for a given output.
    Mr. Bence: Is the Minister aware that over 6,000 shipyard workers on the Clyde are unemployed, compared with 3,000 12 months ago, which represents a doubling of the number of unemployed? Will he take, not negative measures to frustrate the shipbuilding industry, but positive steps to encourage the replacement of older vessels and help the exports of the shipbuilding industry? Furthermore, will the hon. and gallant Gentleman give a general directive to merchant shippers that if they want a price for a tanker, it is not advisable to telephone the chairman of the company and ask him what is his price for a 55,000-ton tanker but rather to give specifications and ask for a proper tender?
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I do not accept the imputation that the Government have done anything to restrict shipbuilding orders. On the contrary, we have done our utmost to encourage them. But I am well aware of, and I agree with the hon. Member about, the serious position in the shipbuilding industry. The various remedies which the hon. Member has suggested are, as I have said once before, under active consideration.
    Mr. P. Williams: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that only yesterday it was announced that various shipbuilding orders had been placed in foreign yards? This discloses a serious situation. Many of us, on both sides, do not believe that this can be simply bad workmanship, bad costing or bad prices on our side. Will the Minister undertake to have a detailed inquiry made as to how this situation has arisen and to report back to the House at a suitable moment?
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: This matter is being gone into. The short answer, however, to my hon. Friend's supplementary question is that the prices at which these orders have been accepted are certainly below anything that could be approached in this country. We are going into the matter.

    Nuclear-Powered Ship
    Mr. Benceasked the Minister of Transport which of the Clyde shipbuilding firms are in a position to build the hull and machinery for propulsion of nuclear-powered ships; and whether he will now start consultations with a view to speeding up plans for the laying down of the proposed nuclear-powered ship.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: The hulls could be built by any shipyards which are capable of building the corresponding conventional ships. Any shipbuilding firm which manufactures turbines would be able to build all the machinery except the reactors.
    As for the second part of the Question, talks with the shipping and shipbuilding industries have already begun.
    Mr. Bence: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that a report is circulating that no consultation was held with the Yarrow Admiralty Committee on the Clyde, a research organisation set up by
    394
    the Galbraith Committee to examine marine propulsion, and that no consultation whatever has taken place? The situation is ridiculous when this institution on the Clyde has been established to consider nuclear propulsion but is never consulted when the Government decide to go in for nuclear-propelled ships.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: This establishment—Y.A.R.D., as it is called—concerns itself chiefly with the lay-out of ships' engines and propelling machinery rather than design. It has done a lot of work on the suggested layout of nuclear-propelled ships with which we are fully familiar.
    Mr. Pentland: Would not the Minister agree that the reactors which have been chosen for our first nuclear-propelled merchant ship exist only on the drawing board and might be subject to a good deal of modification before they are built? In view of the widespread controversy which has arisen in this matter, does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman think that a comprehensive statement should now be given to show why the Government prefer the nuclear reactor system of the Atomic Energy Authority rather than other systems? Surely, the Government must have a good reason for reaching this decision.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Any such detailed statement would fall within the responsibility of my noble Friend the Minister for Science. The reactor, however, goes a little beyond the drawing board stage. A certain amount of experimental work has been done on parts of it. In that respect, it is exactly the same as its rivals. The only reactors at present in existence are the types used in warships, which would be totally uneconomic for merchant vessels.

PORTS (ROCHDALE COMMITTEES REPORTS)
3.30 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Vice-Admiral John Hughes Hallett): Mr. Speaker, with your permission and that of the House, I wish to make a statement.
The Government have now reached their conclusions on the major recommendations of the Rochdale Committee.

395
Once again we should like to thank Lord Rochdale and his colleagues for their work. We are also grateful to the various organisations which have let us have their views.
The Government accept the central thesis of the Report, namely, that in future the development of individual ports should be consistent with a national plan. We also accept the recommendation to set up a central body, which will be termed the National Ports Council, whose primary function will be to formulate the national plan and supervise its execution.
Implementation of the national plan will be achieved through control by the Government of capital investment. In this connection we accept that there is a need to concentrate development, and for a higher level of investment, and for better access to ports.
Additional functions of the National Ports Council will include: Preparing plans for the grouping of ports by geographical areas, wherever it appears that this would make for greater efficiency. The control and regulation of port charges, subject to appeal to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport. The standardisation of statistics. The co-ordination of research. Advising on port organisation and management. Recruitment, training, and education of non-industrial staff.
No port will be wholly outside the Council's terms of reference. There are, however, certain ports in which my right hon. Friends the Ministers of Transport, of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and of Power, and the Secretary of State for Scotland, already have specific responsibilities under statute. These ports include the transport piers in the Highlands and Islands, fishery docks and harbours, certain iron ore ports, and the ports in national ownership. The relationship of the National Ports Council to these parts calls for special consideration, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport will pursue this matter with his right hon. Friends.
The Committee concluded that capital investment in ports should normally be regarded as an ordinary commercial undertaking, although it recognised that there might be cases where Government loans or even grants in exceptional
396
circumstances might be justified. The Government strongly endorse the Committee's view that our ports must pay their way. Nevertheless, if port development is to go forward as part of a national plan, approved by my right hon. Friend on the advice of the National Ports Council, it seems right that a port should be treated for the purpose of financing its approved investment broadly on the same basis as a local or other public authority.
I indicated earlier that one of the functions of the National Ports Council will be to prepare plans for estuarial groupings where these appear desirable The object of such groupings would be to promote efficiency, and we do not consider that this necessarily involves a common pattern of ownership or organisation. In particular, the Government regard it as premature to come to any conclusion now about the future status of the ports at present operated by the British Transport Docks Board.
The Government accept the Committee's conclusions that insufficient resources are at present devoted to research and development. We are not yet satisfied, however, that the establishment of a separate research organisation for the industry would be the best solution. This will be examined further and discussed with the National Ports Council after it has been set up.
Legislation will be required before the Council can exercise all the functions which I have described. Meanwhile there is much preparatory work to be done. My right hon. Friend therefore intends to establish an advisory panel as soon as possible, which can form the nucleus of the future Council. This will enable an early start to be made with the preparation of the national plan. I am glad to inform the House that Lord Rochdale has accepted an invitation by my right hon. Friend to be the first chairman of the new body.
Mr. Strauss: Everyone who has read this Report will endorse the comments of the Minister that the House owes a deep debt of gratitude to those who worked on the Committee and produced this Report, which is one of the most comprehensive and valuable which has come to the House for many years.
While we are all probably delighted to learn that the Government accept nearly all the recommendations of the

397
Report, nevertheless the principles involved are so important and affect so many people that the House would probably like to debate the matter before the Government bring forward their legislation. Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman be good enough, therefore, to convey the view, which I think will be shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House, to the Leader of the House that a debate on this matter would be very welcome?
Further, may I ask when the legislation he contemplates is likely to come forward? Will it be in this Session?
Lastly, on one subject which was not mentioned by him, for the very good reason that it is not the responsibility of the Ministry of Transport, may I ask him if he can give us any information on an extremely important feature of the Rochdale recommendations, namely, the need for much further and more rapid decasualisation? This is not the responsibility of his Ministry, but the Rochdale Committee thought that this was one of its most important recommendations.
Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: With regard to the last question asked by the right hon. Gentleman, we strongly endorse the recommendations in favour of decasualisation. We wholeheartedly support the Committee's views. We believe that this is a matter for the two sides of the industry, and we very much hope, and we are encouraged by recent indications, that progress is being made along these lines.
With regard to a debate, I am authorised by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to say that he foresees opportunities for a debate before legislation is introduced.
Regarding legislation, there is a good deal of work to be done in preparing for it, but it will be introduced at the first appropriate moment.
Mr. Webster: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that constitutional processes for implementing the change of structure of the Docks Board should not be allowed to get in the way of the urgent need for constructing deep-water berths, particularly in view of the competitive position being built up in the Common Market by Rotterdam and other ports? It is most urgent that this structural work should be proceeded with and not delayed unnecessarily.
Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I glady give an assurance that we have no intention of allowing the gradual changes of organisation coming about to delay schemes which are considered worthwhile.
Mr. McInnes: When the hon. and gallant Gentleman says that he accepts the recommendations of the Rochdale Report, does he mean that he accepts also the closure of certain ports, or does he intend to leave that to be determined by the National Ports Council?
Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: We have not yet made up our minds about any of the individual detailed recommendations. My statement really concerned the major recommendations on points of principle. One of the advantages that we shall have in setting up the advisory panel now is that it will work in the knowledge that in due course it will be the body responsible for implementing its recommendations. In the meanwhile, I assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be no question of closing individual ports without the fullest consultation with the various authorities and interests concerned.
Mr. J. Howard: Can my hon. and gallant Friend be more specific about the proposal affecting Southampton which, after all, features prominently in the Report owing to its unique advantages? In particular, may I ask him to direct the attention of the panel, whose preparatory work will soon begin, to the fact that it is important that Southampton should know as soon as possible what the intentions are in view of the developments that are possible in the new docks? May I also ask my hon. and gallant Friend to request the panel to take evidence from Southampton pilots who did not have the opportunity of giving evidence to the Rochdale Committee as they operate a rather different type of work from that applying elsewhere? May I also ask my hon. and gallant Friend to draw the attention of the panel to the need to improve road communications particularly with Southampton if the port is to be expanded on the lines of the Report?
Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: All these points will be borne in mind. I actually referred to access to ports in my

399
statement. I am sure that my hon. Friend would not expect me to give an ex cathedra pronouncement on the future development plans for Southampton. This is the sort of matter which will have to be discussed with the panel when it is set up.
Mr. Owen: Will the recommendations concerning the North-East be accepted by the Ministry? Secondly, with what speed will they be implemented, in view of the urgent need to make some contribution to solving the unemployment problem in the area?
Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: This matter is very much in our minds. I think that a start will shortly be made on the Lackenby scheme for the Tees. I hope that the hon. Member will not be disappointed.
Mr. Gower: Can my hon. and gallant Friend say something to relieve my anxiety and the anxieties of many of my constituents set out in a Motion on the Order Paper?
[That this House calls attention to the excellent docks and facilities for shipping and for import and export trade at the Port of Barry; notes how these facilities have been unproved during recent years by considerable expenditure provided out of public funds; emphasises that the Port of Barry does not depend upon the tides like other neighbouring Bristol Channel ports; notes that no considerable expenditure on dredging is required to keep the docks at Barry in operation; calls attention to post-war rating assessments which showed that the port has not been a financial burden for the British Transport Commission, notes with approval several demonstrations of the British Transport Commission's confidence in the future of the port, and their desire to sustain its operation; notes with like approval the success of the port in attracting new traffic and cargoes in the past few years, culminating in a 20 per cent. increase in total trade during 1962; stresses the importance of the new installations at Barry docks of firms like Geest Industries Ltd., Cory Bros. Ltd., Mobil Oil Ltd., and Isherwoods Ltd., and the trade resulting therefrom; notes the value of Barry docks to older-established industries like
400
Ranks Mills Ltd., Midland Silicones Ltd., and Distillers Ltd.; emphasises the importance attached to the future maintenance of the docks by the owners of Bailey's Dry-Docks; recalls the invaluable services of Barry docks to the country at large in time of war and of peace-time emergency; welcomes the recent statement of Lord Robens, Chairman of the National Coal Board, that the port of Barry will have an important rôle to play in increased coal shipments which he envisages; stresses the comparative proximity of Barry to the industrial Midlands, and its proximity to the developing industries of South Wales; notes that some 2,000 or more persons owe their employment directly or indirectly to the docks at Barry; recalls the long record of good labour-relations at the port, and its freedom from strikes and disputes; deems all these considerations at variance with the recommendation of the Rochdale Committee that a new docks' authority should contemplate the possible closure of Barry docks in due course; calls attention to development plans projected by several of the firms now established at Barry docks; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to make an early decision which will permit the continued expansion of the trade of the Port of Barry, and which may enable industrialists there to proceed with their development plans.]
Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I expected a question about Barry. I do not think that the problems of the Port of Barry can be considered in isolation. We shall ask the advisory panel to make an urgent study of South Wales ports, in consultation with the local authorities concerned, the British Transport Docks Board, and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs.
Mr. Awbery: Since the recommendations of the Rochdale Committee Report will have a detrimental effect on a number of ports in this country, especially those in South Wales—the merging of Bristol and Newport, and the closing of Barry Dock are life and death matters for these ports—can the Minister assure us that we shall have a general discussion on the Report? Some of us would like to have an opportunity of expressing our opinions on the matter.
Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I appreciate that. As I said in my first reply to the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House foresees that there will be an opportunity of arranging for a debate before legislation is tabled.
Mr. R. W. Elliott: Will my hon. and gallant Friend draw the attention of the proposed interim committee to one of the conclusions of the Rochdale Report, namely, that apart from the specialised needs of ore and oil traffic, and subject to there being no completely unexpected change in the nature of trade, the foreseeable national needs can be met by our existing ports? Will my hon. and gallant Friend, in drawing the attention of this recommendation to the interim committee, emphasise the need for an interim development of the ports on the North-East Coast, as an aid to combating unemployment in the area?
Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: The latter point will certainly be borne in mind. On the more general question which my hon. Friend raises, we can rely or Lord Rochdale, as chairman of the new advisory panel, to take due note of the recommendations of the Rochdale Committee.
Mr. Lubbock: Can the Minister tell us when we shall have these detailed proposals about ports in unemployment areas, not only in the North-East but in other parts of the country where the unemployment rate is high? Secondly, can he expand a little on what he said in his statement about capital works? Under the proposals, will the ports obtain money directly
402
from the Government, through the Public Works Loan Board, or from some other source? Thirdly, can he say why the Government have not yet made up their mind about the establishment of central research facilities for this industry? Is he aware that it has been clearly established in other industries that this is a good thing?
Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: On the last point, it is a little more complicated in this industry because it is made up of so many parts that it does not follow that a seperate research organisation for the industry would be possible It might be better to lend rather more support to existing organisations. With regard to the question of the time when these proposals will come forward, I cannot commit myself. There is a lot of work to be done. I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall proceed with them as quickly as we can. As for the important question of finance, at present any major port development normally requires a Private Act of Parliament. Therefore, it depends on the support of the Government of the day. Thereafter, all finance has to be raised on the market. Under the proposals that we are now making the development schemes which fall within the framework of the national plan will be capable of being approved by the Minister of Transport, and thereafter the finance will, if necessary, be raised with Government support.
Mr. Speaker: I fully realise the interest there is in this matter, but we cannot debate it without Question before the House.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1947 (AMENDMENT)
3.47 p.m.
Mr. E. G. Willis: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to repeal Section 330 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947.
As Scottish Members will know, Section 330 enables certain persons to enjoy the full rights of councillors in the Councils of Perth, Dundee, Aberdeen, Glasgow and Edinburgh, without passing through the normal processes of election. In Perth, Dundee and Aberdeen it is the Dean of Guild who enjoys the privilege, while in Glasgow and Edinburgh both the Dean of Guild and the Deacon Convener of Trades enjoy it.
Their right to the enjoyment of this unique and thoroughly undemocratic privilege is a legacy of the history of the development of our town councils. For about 400 years in Scotland the Guild Brethren and the Trades have been represented on our councils. In fact, they practically formed the closed corporations which were the town councils before the passing of the Municipal Reform (Scotland) Act, 1833.
Looking back to that time, one cannot but be impressed by the scandalous manner in which they discharged their responsibilities. They brought Edinburgh virtually to the edge of bankruptcy. In fact, Edinburgh did not clear the debt until about a hundred years later. Writing of the Edinburgh Town Council immediately prior to the passing of the 1833 Act, Lord Cockburn said that it was
"omnipotent, corrupt and impenetrable. Nothing was beyond its grasp."
He went on to say that it was
"silent, powerful, submissive, mysterious and irresponsible."
Mr. Cyril Bence: Tories.
Mr. Willis: He added that for a good number of reasons Edinburgh was probably rather better than most Scottish councils, and speaking generally of the councils in Scotland, he said that they were
"sinks of political and municipal iniquity, steeped in the baseness which they propagated
404
and the types and causes of the corruption that surrounded them."
So much for the domination of the councils by the members of the guilds. When the 1833 Act was passed the representation of these bodies was unfortunately continued, in the manner that I have already mentioned, not by the activities of Members of this House but of Members of another place. Various attempts have been made to change that since then, so far without success.
I suggest that since the war circumstances have arisen in at least four of these cities which point to the necessity for taking the steps proposed in the Bill and abolishing the right of the Dean of Guild and the Deacon Convener to sit as full councillors. In Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen and Dundee positions have been reached where the balance of power has almost been in the hands of these unelected representatives. In Glasgow, in 1949, we had the notoriously disquieting situation where the two non-elected members, one of whom was flown home from Paris especially for the job, decided who was to be the Lord Provost of Glasgow, against the majority of the elected members of the Council. This was a sordid piece of political jiggery-pokery such as we expect from the Tory Party in Scotland, but it had its repercussions because it helped to lead afterwards to the very heavy defeat of the Progressives at subsequent municipal elections.
In Edinburgh we now have 34 Moderate councillors, 30 Labour councillors and five Liberals, and it can easily be seen that it is quite possible for the events which occurred in Glasgow in 1949 to be repeated in Edinburgh this year when we have to elect the new Lord Provost. I must say on behalf of the gentlemen in Edinburgh, however, that they resigned from the Moderate Party—
Mr. George Lawson: Moderate Party? Tory Party.
Mr. Willis: Tory Party—when this present position arose, and they have acted with circumspection.
However, the matter does not end with the election of the Lord Provost. These two unelected members, with responsibility to none but a tiny handful of

405
wealthy and influential people, can determine decisions affecting the lives of hundreds of thousands of people and involving the expenditure of enormous sums of the ratepayers' and taxpayers' money.
The question which has to be answered is what special significant features the Guildery and Trades have which give them the right, this blatantly undemocratic right, to a privileged position in the running of our municipal affairs. I have read the reports of most of the debates of the past and I have not been able to find an answer to that question. Those who have supported the present position in those debates have done so on the ground that these privileged people have been and are persons of distinction and integrity, that they are concerned with a great deal of charitable work and that in the past, and even at present, have rendered great service to the municipalities.
All those things may be true, but they do not give them any automatic right to sit and vote in the council. In all these cities there are many persons of distinction and integrity and there are many who devote themselves to valuable social and charitable works and there are many people who make very important contributions to the lives of these communities. But none of them claims the right to sit in the council. It is sometimes also suggested that the proposals contained in my Bill would injure the work at present done by the Dean of Guild Court. This is nonsense. All it would do would be to prevent the Dean of Guild from automatically sitting and voting in the council. The courts would continue to function as they do at present.
Try as we might, it is very difficult to find any justification for the present position. It is as though the president of the Federation of British Industries and the chairman of the British Manufacturers' Association sat in the House of Commons, able, in an evenly divided House, to make the important decisions of the House. So far as I know, nobody in the House of Commons would tolerate that position for a moment. If we are not prepared to tolerate it in the House of Commons, we should no longer tolerate it in the five cities I have mentioned.
As long ago as 1835, a Royal Commission recommended that these persons should no longer sit ex officio in the councils of Scotland. I trust that 128
406
years later the House will accept that recommendation and support my Bill.
3.55 p.m.
Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: In the past, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) has often been responsible for causing me to get to my feet, so it is perhaps not inappropriate that today, when I am speaking from these benches for the first time in thirteen years, it should also be in reply to him. Unfortunately, however, I am sorry to say—and this I do not expect to be a surprise to him—that as usual I find that I cannot agree with him and that I must therefore ask the House not to grant him permission to introduce a Bill to amend Section 330.
I can scarcely think of a less appropriate moment for making a change of this sort. As the House knows, Scotland is going through a period of industrial transformation. At such a time, nothing should be done to weaken in the councils the traditional link which exists between the elected representatives and the business community, a link which the Deans of Guild and the Deacons Convener so effectively provide.
I realise that the existence of these ex officio members in an elected body is apparently contrary to democracy, as the hon. Member suggested, but there are plenty of examples where the elected and the non-elected share power and responsibility together. In certain local education authorities there are nominees from the churches and although we in the House are an elected body, Parliament as a whole is not. In the other place there are hereditary peers, elected peers and appointed peers, and this combination does not seem to prevent us from regarding Parliament as a whole as a thoroughly sound democratic body. I think that we are all agreed upon that. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] This is very interesting. Is it part of the policy of the party opposite to have single-chamber government? I thought that we were all agreed generally on our Parliamentary set-up.
If this combination of elected and non-elected is good for Parliament, it is surely acceptable for local government, particularly as it is on such a modest scale and has been practised for so long. I agree that the existence of these ex officio members, as was suggested in the report of 1835, could mean

407
that certain citizens were represented more than once, but in practice this does not amount to very much.
To take Glasgow as an example—and I regret that for reasons of time I must confine myself to Glasgow—out of a council of 113 only two are ex officio members, and that does not seem to me a very large proportion. In any case, with the growth of communications, a considerable number of the business community now live in the suburbs and do not have a vote in the city. When one considers that many local electors whose votes determine policy do not contribute to the cost of that policy, it does not seem unreasonable that those who do contribute to the cost of the policy should be allowed to retain—and there is nothing new about this and it is merely retaining—this modest form of representation, which in the case of Glasgow has existed for 350 years. I know that "One man, one vote" is a very good principle, but it is not the only principle. Another principle which concerned the House, admittedly some time ago, was "No taxation without representation".
I do not know that I would necessarily suggest making a change to give effect to that principle, but as it is already recognised in our law in Scotland by the presence of these ex officio members, it would be wrong to alter it now, particularly when there is no great public demand for this change.
I realise, of course, that there is a suspicion, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, that these ex officio members are, to put it bluntly, "in the pocket" of the Progressive Party. I suggest that this suspicion is not justified by the facts. For example, in Glasgow only the other day there was a spirited debate on liquor advertising, and the ex officio members supported the Socialist Party against the Progressives. In Edinburgh where, as the hon. Gentleman said, the parties are evenly divided, in a debate on a rather contentious subject—whether local councilors should have their telephone bills paid for them—the ex officio members decided to abstain from voting.
I admit that in the past there may have been occasional lapses from the strictest interpretation of independence, and there may indeed be occasional lapses in the future. But I believe that
408
the risk of this is slight, because fundamentally these men are of independent outlook and they are deliberately trying to be independent. The party system is certainly necessary. But surely there is room, particularly in local affairs, for the continuance alongside the parties of a few independently-minded men of the character and calibre of the Deans of Guild and the Deacons Convener.
I fully admit that there is nothing to stop them voting on party political lines if they want to do so; but, in fact, they do not do it. Furthermore, our Constitution is not a static thing. It is constantly developing, and when a convention of genuine independence is being built up, as it is here, it seems to me a great pity to remove these men from the council at the very time when industrial changes makes their advice particularly valuable.
It is not as though they have achieved their position easily or without effort. I believe that it takes about six years for a councillor in Glasgow to be a magistrate and it takes twice as long to become a Deacon Convener. Throughout this period the Deacon Convener is gaining valuable experience by handling charitable funds and serving on various public bodies, of an educational, cultural and philanthropic nature. I am not saying that this ex officio road is a better road to the council chamber than the normal elective process. I do say that it is not an unworthy road; that it demands a long apprenticeship and that those who choose these ex officio members are themselves widely experienced in public affairs. Indeed, many of them head firms whose names are household words throughout the world. It is a remarkable record and when this system has been operating for so long, surely we can agree that two representatives from an electorate of this sort—which in Glasgow numbers 10,000—and is pretty democratic—cannot do other than enrich a city council without in any way damaging the basic principles of democracy.
In deciding what is the right thing to do, I do not think that we in this House should forget the feelings of the corporations and the possible adverse effects which any change may have upon their public-spiritedness. They value these seats in the council very highly—
Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: Why?
Mr. Galbraith: —and if, after so long, they are to be deprived of them for no valid reason except a kind of impracticable doctrinaire logic, I am afraid that that spirit which sustains them may be damaged. We do not know. But there is this risk, and the sense of service is not so abundant, I suggest, that we can afford to squander it wantonly in this way. Rather, we should do everything we can to encourage it. The hon. Gentleman's Bill would not have that effect.
For all these reasons, and especially because the system has worked so well for so long and because there is no general demand for its abolition, I ask the House to reject the hon. Gentleman's request, and to allow this well-tried and beneficial method of representation to continue its good work in nurturing the development of our great trading cities in Scotland.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 12 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):—
The House divided: Ayes 166, Noes 190.

Division No. 68.]

AYES

[4.5 p.m.

Ainsley, William

Hannan, William

Pavitt, Laurence

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Harper, Joseph

Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

Awbery, Stan (Bristol Central)

Hart, Mrs. Judith

Pentland, Norman

Bacon, Miss Alice

Hayman, F. H.

Plummer, Sir Leslie

Barnett, Guy

Healey, Denis

Popplewell, Ernest

Beaney, Alan

Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (RwlyRegis)

Prentice, R. E.

Bellenger, Rt. Hon, F. J.

Hilton, A. V.

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Bence, Cyril

Holman, Percy

Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

Holt, Arthur

Rankin, John

Benson, Sir George

Houghton, Douglas

Redhead, E. C.

Blackburn, F.

Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)

Reid, William

Blyton, William

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Reynolds, G. W.

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

Hunter, A. E.

Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)

Bradley, Tom

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)

Brockway, A. Fenner

Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

Ross, William

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

Royle, Charles (Salford, West)

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

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

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Callaghan, James

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Skeffington, Arthur

Castle, Mrs. Barbara

Jones, J, Idwal (Wrexham)

Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

Crosland, Anthony

Kelley, Richard

Small, William

Crossman, R. H. S.

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Cullen, Mrs. Alice

King, Dr. Horace

Sorensen, R. W.

Dalyell, Tam

Lawson, George

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Lipton, Marcus

Spriggs, Leslie

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Lubbock, Eric

Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Swingler, Stephen

Deer, George

McCann, John

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Dempsey, James

MacDermot, Niall

Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

Dodds, Norman

McInnes, James

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

Driberg, Tom

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Thornton, Ernest

Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

Timmons, John

Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

McLeavy, Frank

Wainwright, Edwin

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Warbey, William

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

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

Watkins, Tudor

Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

Mapp, Charles

Finch, Harold

Marsh, Richard

Weitzman, David

Fitch, Alan

Mason, Roy

White, Mrs. Elrene

Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

Mellish, R. J.

Whitlock, William

Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

Mendelson, J. J.

Wigg, George

Forman, J. C.

Millan, Bruce

Wilkins, W. A.

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Milne, Edward

Williams, D. J. (Neath)

George, LadyMeganLloyd(Crmrthn)

Mitchison, G. R.

Williams, Ll. (Abertillery)

Ginsburg, David

Moyle, Arthur

Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

Gooch, E. G.

Mulley, Frederick

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

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

Gourlay, Harry

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

Winterbottom, R. E.

Greenwood, Anthony

Oram, A. E.

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Grey, Charles

Oswald, Thomas

Woof, Robert

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Owen, Will

Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

Padley, W. E.

Gunter, Ray

Paget, R. T.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

Pargiter, G. A.

Mr. Steele and Mr. Manuel.

Hamilton, William (West Fife)

Parker, John

NOES

Agnew, Sir Peter

Hare, Rt. Hon. John

Page, Graham (Crosby)

Allason, James

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

Page, John (Harrow, West)

Barlow, Sir John

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

Batsford, Brian

Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

Peel, John

Bell, Ronald

Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

Harvie Anderson, Miss

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Bidgood, John C.

Hay, John

Pilkington, Sir Richard

Biffen, John

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Llonel

Pitt, Dame Edith

Biggs-Davison, John

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

Bishop, F. P.

Hendry, Forbes

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Black, Sir Cyril

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

Prior, J. M. L.

Bossom, Hon. Clive

Hobson, Sir John

Proudfoot, Wilfred

Bourne-Arton, A.

Hocking, Philip N.

Pym, Francis

Brewis, John

Holland, Philip

Quennell, Miss J. M.

Hollingworth, John

Ramsden, James

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

Hopkins, Allan

Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

Hornby, R. P.

Rees, Hugh

Bryan, Paul

Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

Renton, Rt. Hon. David

Bullard, Denys

Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

Hughes-Young, Michael

Ridsdale, Julian

Burden, F. A.

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Russell, Ronald

Campbell, Rt. Hn. Sir D.(Belfast, S.)

James, David

St. Clair, M.

Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Scott-Hopkins, James

Channon, H. P. G.

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Seymour, Leslie

Chichester-Clark, R.

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Sharples, Richard

Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

Skeet, T. H. H.

Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

Jones, Arthur (Northan s, S.)

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

Cleaver, Leonard

Kimball, Marcus

Smithers, Peter

Cole, Norman

Kirk, Peter

Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John

Cooke, Robert

Kitson, Timothy

Spearman, sir Alexander

Corfield, F. V.

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Speir, Rupert

Costain, A. P.

Leburn, Gilmour

Stanley, Hon. Richard

Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Stevens, Geoffrey

Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

Lilley, F. J. p.

Studholme, Sir Henry

Crawley, Aidan

Lindsay, Sir Martin

Summers, Sir Spencer

Critchley, Julian

Linstead, Sir Hugh

Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Litchfield, Capt. John

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

Dance, James

Longden, Gilbert

Teeling, Sir William

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Loveys, Walter H.

Temple, John M.

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

Doughty, Charles

MacArthur, Ian

Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

Duncan, Sir James

McLaren, Martin

Turner, Colin

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

Tweedsmuir, Lady

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

Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute&N, Ayre)

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

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

Vane, W. M. F.

Errington, Sir Eric

Maddan, Martin

Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

Farey-Jones, F. W.

Maitland, Sir John

Wakefield, Sir Wavell

Farr, John

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Walker-smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

Finlay, Graeme

Marlowe, Anthony

Wall, Patrick

Forrest, George

Marshall, Douglas

Ward, Dame Irene

Foster, John

Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

Webster, David

Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

Mawby, Ray

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Freeth, Denzil

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Whitelaw, William

Gammans, Lady

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

Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

Gibson-Watt, David

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)

Morrison, John

Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

Nabarro, Sir Gerald

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

Wise, A. R.

Goodhart, Philip

Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael

Woodhouse, C. M.

Goodhew, Victor

Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

Gresham Cooke, R.

Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Gurden, Harold

Osborn, John (Hallam)

Mr. Galbraith and Mr. Stodart.

Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  OFFICES, SHOPS AND RAILWAY PREMISES BILL
  Order for consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.
  Bill recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendments to Clause 58, page 43, lines 19 and 21; and the new Clause (Provisions for securing discharge of local authorities' duties in uniform manner), standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. John Hare.—[Mr. Hare.]
  Bill immediately considered in Committee.
  [Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

  OFFICES, SHOPS AND RAILWAY PREMISES BILL

    Clause 58.—(FALSIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS, FALSE STATEMENTS, ETC.)
    4.15 p.m.
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. John Hare): I beg to move, in page 43, line 19, to leave out "or".
    I wonder, Sir William, if it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I discussed with this Amendment the following Amendment:
    Clause 58, page 43, line 21, after "Power" insert:
    "or an officer appointed under section (Provision for securing discharge of local authorities' functions in uniform manner) of this Act by the Minister".
    and also the new Clause—Provisions for securing discharge of local authorities' duties in uniform manner. The second Amendment and the new Clause are consequential on the Amendment I am moving.
    The Chairman: I expect that would be for the convenience of the Committee.
    Mr. Hare: Thank you, Sir William. During discussions on the Bill in Standing Committee, an Amendment was moved by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Padley) which had as its object the appointment of a small central Government inspectorate to supervise the work of the local enforcing authorities under the Bill. The idea was based on a recommendation in paragraph 292 of the Gowers Committee Report. It received strong support from both sides of the Committee. This strong feeling was
    414
    expressed on Second Reading and was re-echoed clearly when the hon. Member's Amendment was discussed.
    It has been made clear that the aim of such an inspectorate should be to promote the effective and uniform enforcement of the Bill. At the same time, it has always been emphasised, quite rightly, that such a central body of inspectors should not attempt to cover the duties of local authorities nor to dictate to them, but should assist them by advice and guidance and generally help them to succeed in what will be quite a difficult task. Although my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary explained to the Committee that it was always our intention to co-ordinate the activities of the local authorities by informal guidance, there was, as I have indicated, a uniform demand in the Committee for some statutory powers on this matter. As hon. Members who were on the Committee will remember, my hon. Friend promised to report the feeling of the Committee to me and, on that assurance, the hon. Member for Ogmore withdrew his Amendment.
    I have studied the matter further and decided to accede to the wishes expressed on this matter. The new Clause, which I shall move later, will enable the Minister to appoint inspectors for the purposes we have in mind and to provide them with the powers to do the job if in practice such powers are found to be necessary in particular cases. Observant hon. Members will have noticed that the form of the powers is very similar to that contained in Clauses 41 to 47 of the Weights and Measures Bill. The Minister will be able to make recommendations about how the duties are to be discharged and how reasonable assistance and information can be given, not only by the local inspector or his authority, but by other persons, for example, employers as a whole.
    There is also provision that in cases where the Minister so directs the central inspector shall report in writing the results of his inquiry and that a copy of the report shall be sent to the local authority concerned. If he thinks fit the Minister may publish the report, either in whole or in part. In addition, central inspectors will have the same powers as are conferred by Clause 45 on local authority inspectors and they will also have to carry some evidence of their

    415
    authority. The consequential Amendments to Clause 58 are necessary to secure that impersonation of one of the central inspectors shall be an offence in the same way as impersonation of other inspectors will be an offence under the Bill.
    I wish to make plain that the powers will not be used to carry out a general routine inspection of the manner in which local authorities administer the Bill. The powers are taken to meet the argument put forward that there might be the need for such powers where difficulties cannot otherwise be resolved. I fully expect that a close liaison between the central inspectorate and local officers will be established, and not only established but maintained, on a basis of good will and co-operation. It is my intention that these powers should not be exercised in a way which would undermine the independence and responsibility of local authorities.
    Mr. R. E Prentice: In welcoming this Amendment and the new Clause to which it refers, may I be permitted to comment that this is the first of a long series of Amendments which the Minister will be moving during the course of the day and which, in fact, reflect ideas advanced by some of my hon. Friends in Committee upstairs. We were very keen to get this new Clause and central inspectorate and to make other improvements in the Bill. It is, therefore, perhaps not too partisan for me to say that this Amendment, and many of the other Amendments in the Minister's name, ought to have had some of our names attached to them. We welcome the late conversion of the Minister to this and some of the other ideas which should have been in the Bill originally.
    This is a relatively important point, because enforcement is the whole crux of the Bill. The Bill when it becomes a Statute can be effective or not according to the way in which it is enforced and the way inspection is carried out. The Minister, although he has conceded our main argument, has, I think, from what he said just now, left us in doubt as to how many inspectors he intends to appoint and what kind of scope they will have. No doubt his answer will be that we shall have to wait for the regulations referred to in the Clause.
    416
    We are anxious that when this proposal is carried into effect we shall not see the existing Factory Inspectorate given another duty to perform without any addition to its numbers. In our view, the Factory Inspectorate at the moment is too small to carry out its many duties. Industrial safety is one of growing seriousness, and it requires more vigorous enforcement than there is at present. Therefore, in taking on this new power, we are anxious to see a team of new inspectors appointed.
    I was a little worried when the Minister said that there would not be routine inspections by this new inspectorate but that he was taking, as I understood him, a kind of reserve power which might be used in cases where it seemed that local authorities were not doing their job properly. What many of us envisaged when we raised this matter in Committee was something like the relationship that exists in the matter of education between Her Majesty's Inspectors of Education and the local inspectorate. We think that there should be inspectors who will be working on this, not necessarily a very large number in total, but sufficient to see that the job of every local authority in the country comes under review from time to time and that there will, as a result of this work, be a standardisation of the way in which it is carried out, so that laggard local authorities can be brought up to scratch.
    I hope that the Minister will seek your permission, Sir William, to speak again and give us a little more indication of the number of inspectors that he has in mind and the scope of the work they will be asked to carry out. We, of course, welcome the Amendment, but we intend to be very vigilant about what it will mean in practice, because this is the key to the whole success of the operation of the Bill.
    Mr. Niall MacDermot: I should like to support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) and to ask the Minister to enlighten us a little further on what he has in mind. As I read the proposed new Clause, the inspectors that he is taking power to appoint would have two rôles to perform. One would be an advisory one to the local authorities and the other a supervisory one. Clearly

    417
    it is desirable, if possible, that they should operate entirely through their advisory functions.
    We all want to see enforcement of this Bill when it becomes an Act and of comparable Acts carried out as far as possible with full co-operation on all sides, and if this object can be achieved purely by the inspectors acting in an advisory way, well and good. As I understand it, the Minister is taking, as it were, reserve powers to bring a certain amount of pressure on, and a certain amount of control over, local authorities if he feels that they are not enforcing these powers as intended.
    What concerns me is this. Is he proposing only to appoint inspectors under this Clause if he finds that he needs them in order to exercise supervisory powers?
    Mr. Hare indicated dissent.
    Mr. MacDermot: I am glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman shook his head. If he were to do that, it would mean that all the advisory work, which is bound to crop up in any event, would be thrust upon the existing overworked staff. One of the points which we raised expressly in Committee, and which the Minister has not dealt with so far, is that we were very anxious that the already overworked Factory Inspectorate Department should not have thrust upon it any duties for the enforcement of this Bill, and that it should be clearly understood that his Department would set up a new, additional staff to deal with any functions which his Ministry has to perform under the Bill. That is certain to include substantial and extensive advisory work, with so many provisions in the Bill, and local authorities requiring responsibility for its enforcement are likely to be inundated with inquiries for advice, guidance and assistance. We want to be sure that there will be an adequate staff to deal with all that. If the Minister finds that they need rather stronger powers to achieve their objects, I hope that he will give them those powers.
    Mr. Sidney Silverman: I apologise to the Committee if I have got this proposed new Clause out of focus. I do not pretend to have been a close student of this Bill. I was not on the Committee, and it may be that I have failed properly to understand the Bill. If I indicate that I have, I hope that the
    418
    Minister will not hesitate to interrupt me, because I would not wish to waste the time of the Committee on a false point.
    Am I right in supposing that the change proposed by this Bill is to relieve local authorities in the exercise of their statutory functions under the Bill from the supervision of factory inspection?
    Mr. Hare: The hon. Gentleman is wrong in his assumption.
    Mr. Silverman: Then I had perhaps better wait until the Minister has spoken again, because I should like to understand exactly the change proposed by the Clause. My interest in the matter is that I have been asked by my own local authority to look at this rather closely. It is rather indignant about the original proposal. It claims to have exercised in its own area for many years a very much higher standard than this Bill imposes, and it rather resents that it should be subject to the supervision of the factory inspectors. I leave the matter there for the moment, because it is quite possible that if I go further I shall be wasting the time of the Committee. I hope that the Minister will speak again and explain exactly what the proposed change means and how it will work.
    4.30 p.m.
    Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: Does the Minister envisage, as did the Gowers Committee, that there should be established something in the nature of regional offices from which the newly appointed inspectors will operate? We have not been given sufficient information yet as to how the right hon. Gentleman's proposals will operate from a practical point of view.
    While I am not quarrelling with his ideas, I am trying to discover if, immediately the Bill becomes law, a new set of inspectors will be appointed and bow they will operate. I am sure that I speak for my hon. Friends when I say that we would have liked to have seen the whole of this inspection service in the hands of a specially created inspectorate. It seems that the Minister does not intend to go to those lengths, but I hope that he will at least say whether he intends to create a new inspectorate and whether the inspectors will be based at regional or local level.

    419
    I would also like to know what kind of supervisory and other duties these people will have and if such an inspectorate will have anything to do with railway premises. If the right hon. Gentleman intends to create a new inspectorate, I hope that he will realise the importance of appointing people with practical knowledge of the premises covered by the Bill so that they will have first-hand experience of the problems which are likely to confront them. It is important that the inspectors should have wide knowledge, not only of the provisions of the Bill but also of the practicalities involved, because, by the nature of the problems with which they will be faced, they will have to advise local authorities on such matters as the structure of buildings and so on.
    Mr. Hare: I will, with permission, reply to some of the points that have been made. The hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) made what I thought was a partisan point. I said in my opening remarks that strong feelings had been expressed by hon. Members of both sides of the House on Second Reading, and the hon. Member knows perfectly well that his hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Padley) got considerable support from some of my hon. Friends. Thus I do not think that we need argue too much on that point.
    The hon. Member for East Ham, North welcomed "this conversion", as he called it, and felt that my proposals will make enforcement more effective. He is right, and that is why I have introduced them. In this connection, the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot) was right in his remarks. As I explained, I hope and believe that the central inspectorate will work in close harmony and co-operation in an advisory capacity with local authority inspectors. I will have powers to investigate any troubles that may arise.
    The hon. Member for Derby, North was also correct in saying that unless I had created a new corps, so to speak, I would be merely placing, in advice alone, extremely heavy additional burdens on the existing factory inspectorate and it is my intention, therefore, to create new posts to cover these new responsibilities. I think that the point
    420
    which the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has in mind will be covered by a later Amendment—number 121 on the Order Paper—in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, North (Wing Commander Bullus) to Clause 44, page 34, line 17, at end insert
    "or, in respect of premises occupied by themselves, to comply with."
    The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Winterbottom) made a good point when he asked if the new inspectors will be placed regionally. My intention is that they should be placed in Factory Inspectorate divisions and that they should have local knowledge of their areas. He also asked if railway premises would be covered. The answer is "No" because railway premises are already inspected by my own inspectors. He also made a practical point when he asked me to ensure that the inspectors would know something about what they were doing and would have knowledge of shops and offices. That is certainly a point which I will keep in mind.
    Mr. Prentice: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate what will be the numbers in the new inspectorate?
    Mr. Hare: I cannot do so now, but I have, I think, in the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Derby, North, indicated that I am creating extra posts to meet the extra work.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Did I understand the right hon. Gentleman to refer earlier to the Amendment numbered 121, in the name of the hon. Member for Wembley, North (Wing Commander Bullus)?
    Mr. Hare: Yes.
    Mr. Silverman: Is the right hon. Gentleman sure?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. William Whitelaw): My right hon. Friend referred to the Amendment numbered 121 on page 1508 of the Order Paper.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 43, line 21, after "Power" insert:
    "or an officer appointed under section (Provision for securing discharge of local authorities' funtions in uniform manner) of this Act by the Minister".—[Mr. Hare.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    New Clause.—(PROVISIONS FOR SECURING DISCHARGE OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES' DUTIES IN UNIFORM MANNER.)
    (1) For the purpose of securing that the duties under this Act of local authorities and the London County Council with respect to the enforcement of the foregoing provisions of this Act and regulation thereunder (except sections 25 to 33 and section (Provision of means of escape in case of fire) and regulations under any of them) are discharged in uniform manner, the Minister—

    (a) may make regulations with respect to the manner of the discharge of those duties and of the exercise of the powers conferred by this Act on inspectors appointed by local authorities and the London County Council respectively;

    (b) may, with the approval of the Treasury as to numbers and salaries, appoint officers to be charged with the duty of securing that he is at all material times in possession of all information requisite to enable him to determine whether those duties are being so discharged and of advising local authorities and the London County Council on matters concerning the discharge by them of those duties.

    (2) An officer appointed under this section may inquire into the manner in which the duties aforesaid are for the time being discharged by a local authority or the London County Council and, for that purpose, may—

    (a) examine any records kept in connection with the discharge of those duties by the authority or Council;

    (b) require the authority or Council or an inspector appointed by them in pursuance of this Act to give such assistance and information as the officer may reasonably specify; and

    (c) make inquiries of any person who appears to the officer likely to be able to give him information with respect to the manner in which the duties aforesaid are for the time being discharged by the authority or Council.

    (3) The results of an inquiry under the last foregoing subsection shall, if the Minister so directs, be reported to him in writing by the officer by whom it was carried out; and where that is done the Minister shall send a copy of the report to the local authority in question (or to the London County Council, in a case where the subject of the inquiry was the manner in which their duties were for the time being discharged) and may, if he thinks fit, publish it in whole or in part.
    (4) The like powers as, by section 45 of this Act are conferred on an inspector within the meaning of that section shall be exercisable by an officer appointed under this section; and subsection (2) of that section shall, with requisite modifications, apply accordingly.
    (5) An officer appointed under this section shall, if so required when visiting any premises in exercise of powers conferred by the foregoing subsections, produce to the occupier of the premises some duly authenticated docu-
    422
    ment showing that he is so appointed.—[Mr. Hare.]
    Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
    Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal), considered.

    New Clause.—(SITTING FACILITIES.)
    (1) Where persons who are employed to work in office, shop or railway premises have, in the course of their work, reasonable opportunities for sitting, without detriment to it, there shall be provided for their use suitable facilities for sitting sufficient to enable them to take advantage of those opportunities.
    {2) Where persons are employed to work in a room which comprises, or is comprised in or constitutes, shop premises, being a room whereto customers are invited to resort, and have in the course of their work, reasonable opportunities for sitting without detriment to it, the provision for their use of a number of seats such that that number and the number of the persons employed are not in less ratio than 1 to 3 shall be deemed to constitute compliance with the foregoing subsection.
    (3) It shall be the duty of the employer of persons for whose use facilities are provided in pursuance of the foregoing provisions of this section to permit them to use them whenever the use thereof does not interfere with their work, and if he fails so to do he shall he guilty of an offence.—[Mr. Hare.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Hare: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    I think that it would be convenient to discuss at the same time the Amendment standing in my name, numbered 19 on the Order Paper, to page 8, line 15, to leave out Clause 13, since it is directly consequential.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If that is convenient.
    Mr. Leslie Hale: On a point of order. The Minister has moved a new Clause, which we are endeavouring to study. It is in substitution for the Clause which was never discussed in Standing Committee. Having done that, the right hon. Gentleman says, without notice and without anything to the effect of that intention on the Order Paper, that it will probably be convenient to the Committee to discuss something else at the same time—something, apparently, which we will find on an odd page under a new system by which the Amendments are numbered. I really have no idea of what the Minister wishes us to discuss along with the new Clause;

    423
    in fact, I think that I have already forgotten the number of the Amendment with which we must also be concerned. I have attempted to ascertain what it is, and I must point out to the right hon. Gentleman that this is a highly important Clause.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I thought I heard the Minister say that it was Amendment No. 19 and that it was consequential.
    Mr. Hale: If the Minister says that it is consequential, then I suppose that we shall find out if it is in due course.
    Mr. Hare: I undertook in Standing Committee to replace the power in Clause 13 to make regulations about sitting facilities with substantive provisions. Hon. Members will remember that I said this. The new Clause, together with the new Clause entitled "Seats for sedentary work", fulfils the undertaking which I gave to the Committee. Subsection (1) is virtually the same as Section 60 (1) of the Factories Act, and subsections (2) and (3) are based on Section 37 of the Shops Act, 1950. These last two subsections represent an advance on the provisions in the Shops Act, because whereas Section 37 in that Act applies to female employees the provision in the Bill applies to both sexes. When the new Clause is brought into effect, Section 37 of the 1950 Act will be repealed.
    Mr. W. E. Padley: The new Clause, along with the Clause "Seats for sedentary work", which we shall be discussing, goes a good way towards meeting points which my hon. Friends put forcibly to the Minister in Standing Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), when he studies these complicated papers, will realise that this Clause is to be substituted for Clause 13 in the original Bill.
    The battle to obtain seats for female shop assistants goes back in this House to 1899, and Section 37 of the Shops Act, 1950, contains one part enacted in 1912 and another enacted in 1934. I hope the Minister will realise that one of the difficulties as a result of the Government leaving out so much in the original draft of the Bill is that in the last few days virtually a new Bill has been put in the hands of hon. Members. Whereas I confess that on first reading I thought that the Minister in the second new Clause
    424
    had gone all the way to meet my pleading in Committee, I now have some reservations.
    Mr. Hale: So have I.
    Mr. Padley: It is perfectly true that the Clause concedes to men what hitherto has been conceded only to women. It also extends the provisions from shops to offices and railway premises. Whereas Section 37 of the 1950 Act states that where a shop employs female assistants seats shall be provided and it is the duty of the employer in a prescribed form to notify the assistants that they may use the seats, subsection (1) of the first New Clause, which follows the Factories Act, uses the phrase:
    "… reasonable opportunities for sitting without detriment to it …"
    Some of my hon. Friends express the fear that in supermarkets, which are the dominant trend of the present revolution in retailing, it might possibly be argued that this form of words is not as satisfactory as that already existing in Section 37 of the 1950 Act. Therefore, whilst I thank the Minister for having gone this far to meet the case which I put in Standing Committee, I ask him not to be surprised if in another place yet another Amendment crops up and, having warned him, I hope that he and his advisers will give further consideration to the matter.
    4.45 p.m.
    Mr. Graham Page: I appreciate that the new Clause does what the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Padley) says it does. It makes necessary provisions for seats for males as well as for females. I hesitate to criticise at this stage any words of the drafting, but need we have "facilities for sitting"? Cannot we have "seats"? "Facilities for sitting" may mean sitting on the ground, and then one comes to the extraordinary statement:
    "… reasonable opportunities for sitting without detriment to it …"
    To what?
    Mr. Hale: I always listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Padley), speaking on a matter like this, as one listening to an authority. As he was a member of the Standing Committee, I listened to him with even greater attention. I have not been able to dispel my own suspicion of the new Clause and the very curious alteration in the wording

    425
    which has taken place between the original Clause 13, which was not challenged or discussed in Committee, and now. That original Clause was open to an objection which we have discussed so often that we can well understand members of the Committee thinking that it was a work of supererogation to discuss it again.
    The original Clause 13 relied on the good motives of the Minister in this connection, and whilst I would not say anything to hurt the feelings of the right hon. Gentleman, I must say that the motives of Ministers in relation to the whole principle of the Gowers Report have never been honourable in the past.
    The new Clause says:
    "Where persons who are employed to work in office, shop or railway premises have, in the course of their work, reasonable opportunities for sitting without detriment to it …"
    "It" means the work. I do not argue about that.
    It is an extremely ugly and clumsy Clause in atrocious English, but we are always told that the Parliamentary draftsman, who is the great authority, has found it essential, for this, that and the other reason which we do not understand, to produce ugly, clumsy and revolting English. That conceivably may be true, but "without detriment to"? Who decides? What does it mean? The Clause goes on to say that
    "There shall be provided for their use suitable facilities for sitting …"
    After all, the good Lord has done that for everyone of us.
    Mr. S. Silverman: May I be allowed to remind my hon. Friend that on this point he has the eloquent support of the late Dr. Johnson? He once attended a crowded reception and when his hostess came up to him and said, "Oh, Dr. Johnson, have you nothing to sit on?" he replied, "Yes, madam. I have plenty to sit on but nowhere to put it."
    Mr. Hale: This really covers the point. If we had gone into the Common Market, however, that would not have been a sitting facility but something to pinch.
    But what does it mean? What is a "sitting facility"? The curious thing, if I remember aright, is that in the original Clause 13 the word "seat" was used. Now it is not. Here
    426
    "… facilities are provided in pursuance of the foregoing provisions of this section …"
    What is a sitting facility? People sit in astonishing positions. There was a time in the enlightened United States when pole-sitting was regarded as a form of sport which attracted almost sensational notice. People sit on bars, people sit on swings and all sorts and sizes of contraptions; but, seriously, a wooden box is a sitting facility in a shop.
    Here again I am in the unhappy difficulty that we have about Amendments these days which wander around the Order Paper. One wants a chartered accountant and a computer to find them when one is doing one's homework. There were provisions in the original Section for foot-rests to be ordered in appropriate cases.
    Mr. Winterbottom: There was a series of Amendments to propose that footrests should be provided.
    Mr. Hale: There we are, and that has now been eliminated. The Minister was going to take power to provide for footrests in circumstances which seemed to him appropriate. I thought that he had got that power.
    Let us see what the Clause says. The Clause says that where it can be done without detriment to one's work, it shall be the obligation of the employer to provide sitting facilities in the ratio of not less than one in three of the persons employed. The curious effect of the form of words in the Clause is that the harder a person has to work, the less need there is to establish that sitting facilities have been provided. If a girl is working in a shop every minute of the day and is working so hard that there is not a moment for her to sit down, the employer does not have to provide sitting facilities. The harder she works the lower the standard. This seems a very unfortunate form of words to use in that connection.
    Who is to decide what a sitting facility is? It is obvious that packing cases are to hand in many shops and premises. The Clause is limited to people working in the premises. I had occasion a few weeks ago to travel by British Railways. It was, in fact, a misfortune to an extent, though I do not criticise British Railways for what happened in the extraordinarily bad weather. I think the workers on British Railways have earned the

    427
    gratitude of almost all the travelling public for the extraordinary efforts that they made.
    I had to travel from London to Manchester. At Marylebone the train came in looking exactly as if it had been six weeks in Siberia. It was frozen; twelve sleeping compartments were closed down as not being in working order. The water was frozen; there was no heating. It was certainly not a very happy method of travelling. The point I wish to make is that I was told that that train had arrived in perfect condition that morning. It had gone out to the railway sheds, to which this Clause refers. It had been given the necessary treatment, the provisioning of new sheets, the attention necessary to—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but surely he is straying a little from the Clause which is under discussion.
    Mr. Hale: I am discussing whether sitting facilities have got to be provided for railway workers working outside railway sheds but who are normally employed inside railway sheds. I respectfully submit that nothing is more directly relevant to the Clause that we are considering, which applies to "shop or railway premises".
    The question we are discussing is whether, if their work permits them, they shall have reasonable opportunities for sitting down. What is a reasonable opportunity for sitting down in that connection, walking up and down a railway carriage and repairing it? Are there sitting facilities available in the compartment, and are the workers to be entitled to use them if they have finished their work, or not? I may be wrong, but I was told that this train had been inside the sheds for cleaning, repairing and refurbishing that day, and people were working under those conditions. If they were working under those conditions, they must have been in serious danger of being frozen solid. This Clause relates particularly to railway premises—
    Mr. Padley: Not railway running sheds.
    Mr. Hale: That may be, but, with respect to my hon. Friend, is it not right that they should be included?
    Mr. Padley: Largely because of the activities of a former colleague, who was the Member for The Hartlepools, railway running sheds to which my hon. Friend is referring are now included in the Factories Act.
    Mr. Hale: I appreciate that. I also appreciate that one of the defences of the words proposed by the Minister in Committee was that these words are used also in the Factories Act. On the other hand, the hon. Member himself has taken a very active part in calling attention to some of the defects in the Factories Act and to the need for some amendment.
    The Clause provides that sitting facilities of some sort, undefined, have got to be provided for one in three people if they are people so employed that they can be permitted to sit down at some time during the day without detriment to the work that they are called upon to perform. Last weekend, after thirty-odd years of married life, I took the "missus" to the pictures as a reward and we saw a small, detailed, constructive film on this very point. We were told that one of the great achievements of modern science was that by calling in work study people and so on, it had been found that a girl could sit down and produce in an assembly job about twice as much as she could when standing up. She had always stood up until experts, computers, graphs, mathematicians, surveyors and so on had drawn the number of operations she performed; and then they decided—one would have thought it was fairly obvious to start with—that if she had everything a bit nearer to her, and if she did not have to walk from one end of the factory to another to get the various things, she would achieve greater production.
    We now have the position that in the modern factory sitting is provided, but in the bad factory the girl cannot sit down without detriment to her work. So long as a factory has not adopted modern conditions, she will not be allowed to sit down because she could not perform an assembly job without detriment to her work which involves walking round six or eight boxes, picking up the bits and dashing off to twist them in the required shape.
    The wording which the Parliamentary draftsman has selected is highly suspect

    429
    and it puts a premium on the bad employer. The good employer who provides better conditions is bound by the Clause, and so he should be, but the Clause does not operate in a bad factory where the conditions are bad. I do not know what court will decide the highly technical point—which I would willingly leave to my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore to decide with his expertise—whether a person can, within the meaning of this Clause, sit down without detriment to her work if two persons out of the three are not occupying the one seat provided for three at the time that one of them can sit down without detriment to her work.
    Mr. Richard Marsh: I do not want to pursue the discussion on these grammatical abortions in the Bill. Any party which can spend thousands of pounds on such literary gems as "You've never had it so good" and "Life is better under the Conservatives", without specifying what it is better than, is capable of proposing a Clause of this nature.
    The objection to Clause 13, which is shared by all hon. Members on this side of the House, is that it is not specific in any way at all. It says that regulations may be made, but it does not say what the regulations are. The reason why so many of us were suspicious of that form of wording in Clause 13 was that there were very clear regulations on this specific point, and there have, in fact, been such provisions in our legislation since the Factories Act, 1937. Section 60 of the Factories Act, 1961 clearly specifies regulations providing for persons to sit down.
    I should, therefore, like to hear from the Minister why, having been converted to the paths of righteousness to the extent that he has, to specify some form of legislation on sitting facilities, with the mass of legislation from which he has to choose, he chooses the most inadequate. Why did he not use in this Clause the wording in Section 60 of the Factories Act, 1961? It has worked clearly, though its major let-out is that it is not applicable unless the facilities can reasonably be enjoyed. We are entitled to know why the Minister has chosen the Shops Act form of words and rejected the Factories Act terms which have worked perfectly well in a much wider and more diverse field and which are quite specific.
    430
    5.0 p.m.
    Why has the Minister chosen the extraordinary wording—I know where it comes from, but I do not understand why he repeats it—that seats shall be provided
    "not in less ratio than 1 to 3 … to constitute compliance with the foregoing subsection".
    If it is possible for employees to sit down at their work, why is it assumed that, in some circumstances, only one out of every three need be given facilities for so doing? In a factory, if it is possible for an employee to sit down, without detriment to his work, Section 60 is quite clear that sitting facilities shall be provided. How does one justify a provision that says that, even if it is possible for an employee to sit down without any detriment whatever to his work, the employer is under an obligation only to provide sitting facilities for one out of every three? Why should the other two have to stand up, if, according to the Minister's own definition, it is perfectly practicable for them to sit down?
    I should like to have an answer to these questions. The Minister has shown a willingness to pay regard to suggestions made by the Opposition. Indeed, he has almost rewritten this part of the Bill. We are grateful for that, but why has the right hon. Gentleman found it impossible to apply in this connection that part of the Factories Act which has been applicable ever since 1937 to about 8½ million manual workers?
    Mr. Hare: By leave of the House, may I answer one or two of the points which have been put?
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman does not require the leave of the House. He is entitled to reply.
    Mr. Hare: I am much obliged, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
    Some of the complaints which have been voiced by hon. Members arise from the fact that we went into the Bill very thoroughly in Committee, discussing it most carefully, I think, with a common desire to improve it. The new provisions now put upon the Notice Paper are the results of that work. It has, therefore, been difficult for some hon. Members who were not on the Committee to follow the very drastic changes which have been made. I quite understand the difficulty

    431
    of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale). He was not a Member of the Committee and, since we did so much during the Committee Stage, it is difficult for him, as it is for some others, to follow everything which has been done.
    The hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Padley)—I am grateful to him for it—said that I had gone a long way to meet the suggestions which he put to me. He has given me fair warning that, at another stage of the Bill's passage through the Houses of Parliament, there may be further Amendments put down, and I note that warning.
    I was a little confused by some of the reasoning of the hon. Member for Oldham, West. He doubts the wording of the new Clause, and, also, he rather dislikes the drafting. The trouble here, as I said earlier, is that in subsection (1) we have used practically the same words as appear in Section 60 (1) of the Factories Act.
    Mr. MacDermot: The Section to which the Minister referred uses the phrase "without detriment to their work", not "without detriment to it". Someone seems to have thought that that was an improvement. I do not know whether the Minister does.
    Mr. Hare: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for calling attention to that.
    I think that the point raised by the hon. Member for Oldham, West and the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) can be put in this way—Why did not we make more use of Section 60 of the Factories Act? Hon. Members will see that in the next new Clause, Seats for sedentary work, we have used practically the rest of Section 60 of the Factories Act. I think that that probably answers the question which they have in mind.
    Mr. Hale: This was the point made by the hon. Member for Oldham, West. Why use the words "without detriment to"? Let us see how it will work in relation to one in three. In a shop, the time when one can sit down without detriment to one's work is when there are no customers in the shop. According to the new Clause, if a shop is empty and there are three assistants, only one will be able to sit down. It
    432
    seems a fantastic provision, and I wondered why it appeared in that way. How is it to work?
    Mr. Hare: I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman has in mind. We have tried to follow the provisions of the Factories Act, and, generally speaking, I think that the Committee felt that this was reasonable. This is why I have moved the new Clause.
    Mr. Marsh: I am becoming more and more puzzled by the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. The Factories Act does not provide for any ratio of one in three. As I understand it, the right hon. Gentleman's new Clause provides that, if all the employees in a shop may sit down, the Bill will be complied with nevertheless if only one of them can sit down. The other two have to stand up. It seems quite unreasonable. If all factory workers are allowed to sit down, if that is possible, why should the words of the new Clause come from the Shops Act? Why is the Minister so committed to ensuring that, even though they can all sit down, only one is to be allowed to sit down, while the other stands?
    Mr. Hare: I referred to the one in three in relation to the Shops Act, not the Factories Act. I have noted the points raised by both hon. Gentlemen. Doubtless, in another place, if anything can be done to help, it will be done. I cannot go further at this stage.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause.—(SEATS FOR SEDENTARY WORK.)
    (1) Without prejudice to the general obligation imposed by the last foregoing section, where any work is done in any premises to which this Act applies is of such a kind that it (or a substantial part of it) can, or must be done sitting, there shall be provided for each person employed to do it there a seat of a design, construction and dimensions suitable for him and it, together with a foot-rest on which he can readily and comfortably support his feet if he cannot do so without one.
    (2) A seat provided in pursuance of the foregoing subsection, and a foot-rest so provided that does not form part of a seat, must be adequately and properly supported while in use for the purpose for which it is provided.
    (3) For the purposes of subsection (1) of this section, the dimensions of an adjustable

    433
    seat shall be taken to be its dimensions as for the time being adjusted.—[Mr. Hare.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Hare: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    This new Clause is the second which I undertook in Committee to introduce in place of the present enabling Clause 13. It is based on Section 60 (2) and (3) of the Factories Act. I commend it to the House.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause.—(EATING FACILITIES.)
    Where persons employed to work in shop premises eat meals there, suitable and sufficient facilities for eating them shall be provided.—[Mr. Hare.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Hare: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    This new Clause fulfils the undertaking which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary gave in Standing Committee to put down an Amendment requiring eating facilities in shops. In effect, the new Clause replaces Section 38 (5) of the Shops Act.
    As my hon. Friend promised, I have carefully reconsidered the arguments for extending the Clause to offices. I fully sympathise with the objective of hon. Members opposite who argued in Committee for the inclusion of offices under the Clause. Both sides of the Committee and of the House want conditions and facilities for office workers to be better. That is the object of the Bill. I have read their arguments again, but they do not convince me that the extension of these facilities to office workers would achieve the objective hon. Members have in mind. Indeed, I fear that it might lead to the withdrawal of concessions, and this would be the last thing that any of us wanted.
    It is the custom in offices for people to eat sandwiches at their desks. Some employers, looking at the new Clause, might, if their employees ate sandwiches on the premises, say, "I shall have to provide 'suitable and sufficient facilities' for them". They then say, "I have not the space", or, "I do not want to face this additional expenditure now, so I had better stop this practice of allowing them
    434
    to eat on the premises". I am sure that no one on either side of the House wants this. I do not think it is likely to happen in the same way in shops because, as I think the House knows, shop assistants do not eat their sandwiches in full view of the public. That is the reason for the difference in treatment which I suggest we should adopt.
    Mr. Hale: I do not agree with what the Minister says about the practice in shops. Many shop assistants consume their lunch behind the counter. His argument is valid, but I have certain experience of London restaurants and of what would happen if one tried to provide restaurant facilities in a small professional office. Either one would put the firm out of business or the firm would have to order the staff to go out to a restaurant. This is a fair argument which I do not dispute, but why does it not apply to shops?
    Mr. Hare: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman appreciates the main point. As he says, it might be quite impossible for employers to provide the facilities which are given in offices if a statutory requirement were placed on them. I think that we can afford to disagree as individuals on this. Experience shows that the majority of shop assistants do not eat their sandwiches in full view of the public. The hon. Gentleman may go to certain shops and see them eating behind the counter, but this is a valid distinction and that is why I have taken the view that I have taken.
    The hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot) argued that there was no requirement in the Clause that a separate eating room must be provided, with which I agree, and that, if all that was required was "suitable and sufficient facilities" to eat sandwiches, an office chair would be eminently suitable and sufficient for that purpose. I do not think that that meets my point. It is not his or my interpretation of what is suitable and sufficient that matters. It is what the employer hinks and what the courts decide which might lead to the withdrawal of permission to people to eat their lunches at desks. For that reason, we have not extended the new Clause to cover offices.
    Mr. Winterbottom: I should like to correct the Minister's view that most

    435
    shop assistants do not eat their sandwiches in the shop in which they serve customers. I worked in 27 of the 30 branches belonging to a firm by which I was employed. I had to eat my sandwiches in twenty of those branches in the place where I served customers, and no alteration has been made to those premises since.
    I am not speaking of the big establishments in which there are usually rest rooms and rooms for eating, but in the shop in which I worked the dining facilities consisted of biscuit tins and I could hear customers being served less than two or three yards away. The time has come to provide proper catering facilities for those people who work in the distributive trade with which I was associated, namely, the grocery trade.
    5.15 p.m.
    I have tried in my own small way to devise words better than those in the new Clause, but I confess that when I did that I came across all kinds of difficulties arising out of my own experience. Therefore, while correcting the Minister's view that most shop assistants have elaborate or even adequate eating facilities away from the customers, I welcome the new Clause, if only because it will help those shop assistants who work in surroundings such as those in which I used to work. It will bring about a great improvement in conditions for them and for most shop assistants in the country.
    Mr. John Farr: The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Winterbottom) will find that conditions in shops have changed quite a bit since the very early days of his experience.
    I welcome the new Clause, which is probably one of the briefest, if not the briefest, that we shall have in the Bill. That in itself gives it certain merit. It is, however, extremely vague. It refers in the first line to places
    "Where persons employed to work in shop premises eat meals".
    It does not go on to define what a meal is, which I think it should do if it is to mean anything. Does it mean merely a sandwich in a paper packet? On the other hand, I know of a number of office workers in the City of London who have a two-course meal delivered by van at lunchtime.
    436
    The new Clause also refers to the provision of
    "suitable and sufficient facilities for eating".
    Again, this appears to me to be rather vague. I know that in Standing Committee this point was debated fairly fully. It seems to me that the whole Clause rests so much on individual interpretation that it possesses very little value.
    Mr. George Craddock: I am sure that both sides of the House welcome the new Clause. We are pleased that the Minister has carried out the undertaking which was given in Committee. The important point here concerns the words "suitable and sufficient facilities". These words can be interpreted in many ways in order to meet many circumstances and it will be extremely difficult to fix precisely what facilities should be provided.
    This is a modest new Clause. The Minister has had the benefit of the Gowers Report, and reports have been made by various important bodies such as the Multiple Shops Federation, which represents large retailers, the London County Council and the National Association of Local Government Officers. Therefore, out of all this something will shortly reach the Statute Book. I am sure that this new Clause is welcomed by both sides of the House.
    Mr. A. P. Costain: When we discussed this matter in Committee, I raised with my right hon. Friend the Minister the question of conditions in small lock-up shops in rural areas which close for lunch. Before we part with the Clause, can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that under the Bill it will be in order for assistants in those shops to have their lunch in them when the premises are closed for lunch?
    Mr. Padley: The House should be clear that, by the Clause, the Government are giving us nothing. It is simply Section 38 (5) of the Shops Act, which has been in existence for roughly 30 years. It is being written into the Bill because another part of the Bill proposes to delete Section 38 of the Shops Act. I am grateful that the Minister has restored the status quo, but since this is merely a case of restoring the existing position there is no need for impassioned argument about it.
    Mr. Hare: The hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Padley) has made a fair point. Much of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) was answered by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Winterbottom) and the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. George Craddock). To get the proper wording is extremely difficult. The Clause will cover a vast proportion of the variety of cases which automatically must come within any definition which is put upon the Statute Book. As such, it is the best we can do. That, I think, is the general feeling of the House.
    Mr. Hale: Will the Minister reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain)?
    Mr. Hare: If a shop is shut, presumably there would be nothing to stop anybody eating in it.
    Mr. Hale: The question referred to a lock-up shop in a rural area. The assistant may have come from a distance and has to work both winter and summer. I am thinking, however, not about a shop which locks up for lunch, but one which keeps open for lunch. Obviously, any premises which lock up for lunch constitute a different set of circumstances under the Clause.
    If a shop keeps open all day and an assistant or two come from a distance and bring with them a meal to eat at lunch time, what happens? Do they have to be turned out into the snow to eat it, or what? In a sense, I put this point earlier. I am anxious to see the Clause passed and implemented, but we ought to know what we are doing.
    Mr. Hare: The decision, presumably, would be that of the owner of the shop. If the shop were shut, presumably there would be no objection to facilities being provided in the shop and for its workers to use that facilities.
    Mr. Hale: What about a shop which remains open?
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause.—(ACCOMMODATION FOR CLOTHING.)
    (1) There shall, in the case of premises to which this Act applies,—

    (a) be made, at suitable places, suitable and sufficient provision for enabling such of the clothing of the persons employed to work in the premises as is not worn by them during working hours to be hung up or otherwise accommodated; and

    (b) be made, for drying that clothing, such arrangements as are reasonably practicable or, if a standard of arrangements for drying that clothing is prescribed, such arrangements as conform to that standard.

    (2) Where persons are employed to do such work in premises to which this Act applies as necessitates the wearing of special clothing, and they do not take that clothing home, there shall, in the case of those premises,—

    (a) be made, at suitable places, suitable and sufficient provision for enabling that clothing to be hung up or otherwise accommodated; and

    (b) be made, for drying that clothing, such arrangements as are reasonably practicable, or if a standard of arrangements for drying that clothing is prescribed, such arrangements as conform to that standard.

    (3) The Minister may make regulations—

    (a) determining for premises to which this Act applies, or for any class of such premises, what is suitable and sufficient provision for the purposes of the foregoing provisions of this section;

    (b) prescribing for such premises as aforesaid, or for any class thereof, a standard of arrangements for drying clothing.—[Mr. Hare.]

    Brought up, and read the First Time.
    Mr. Hare: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    I do not know whether it would be convenient, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to discuss with the new Clause the consequential Amendment in page 8, line 9, to leave out Clause 12.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Yes, if that would be the wish of the House.
    Mr. Hare: Members of the Standing Committee which considered the Bill will recall that I accepted the argument that, on balance, there was advantage in having a substantive provision instead of an enabling power to make regulations about accommodation for clothing. I believe that the Clause strikes the right balance.
    Subsection (1) deals with outdoor clothing. Suitable and sufficient provision has to be made for accommodating it during working hours and reasonably practicable

    439
    arrangements have to be made for drying it. Subsection (2) provides for similar arrangements for working clothes. Subsection (3) enables me by regulation to specify
    "what is suitable and sufficient"
    accommodation for clothing and standards of arrangements for drying it.
    The Clause is intended to require that everything should be done to provide adequate facilities of this kind for employees while, at the same time, guarding against unreasonable demands upon employers. The main point is that I am substituting a substantive provision for an enabling power to achieve the same object.
    Mr. E. C. Redhead: As the Minister has indicated, the new Clause is in replacement of the original Clause 12. As he will recall, that Clause came under strong criticism in Standing Committee, when I moved an Amendment designed to remedy what appeared to us to be the nebulous and unsatisfactory terminology of the original Clause. It was criticised because it seemed neither to give effect to the purposes of the Gowers Report nor comparable protection and provision for those covered by the Bill as is given by the Factories Act to industrial workers. I readily concede that the Minister has fulfilled his undertaking and has spelled out his intention more precisely and satisfactorily. What we now have before us is the substance, suitably adapted to the purposes of the Bill, of Section 59 of the Factories Act, 1961.
    In welcoming the Minister's concession, however, I wish to utter a word of caution and an expression of hope that when he makes regulations under the powers which he is taking in subsection (3) he will be mindful of the comment by the Gowers Committee in paragraph 47 of its Report, because the power which he is taking is to make regulations defining
    "what is suitable and sufficient provision for the purposes of the foregoing provisions of this section".
    These nebulous words seem to be inescapable in the Bill.
    Like so much else in the Bill, the effectiveness of the Clause will depend, unhappily, not on what the Bill says but on the nature of the regulations that will be drafted by the Minister. I draw his
    440
    attention once again to the opening words of paragraph 47 of the Gowers Report which says:
    "Some witnesses, for the most part those representing clerical workers, told us that they thought it undesirable for employees to have no option but to hang wet outdoor clothing on ordinary hooks and pegs in the rooms in which they worked, and suggested that the provision of some form of locker or cloakroom accommodation should be compulsory."
    I hope, therefore, that when the Minister drafts his regulations under the power that he derives from the new Clause he will not be too easily persuaded as to the physical difficulties which, I suspect, some proprietors and employers in premises covered by the Bill might urge upon him as difficulties against making provision of a sufficient and suitable character. In short, I hope that the regulations will really give effect to the purposes of the new Clause and will not, in their turn, be as nebulous as the words of the original Clause which is now to be withdrawn.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause.—(AVOIDANCE OF EXPOSURE OF YOUNG PERSONS TO DANGER IN CLEANING MACHINERY.)
    No young person employed to work in premises to which this Act applies shall clean any machinery used as, or forming, part of the equipment of the premises if doing so exposes him to risk of injury from a moving part of that or any adjacent machinery.—[Mr. Hare.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    5.30 p.m.
    Mr. Hare: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    Again, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I wonder whether the House would find it convenient to discuss two consequential Amendments: In Clause 16, page 9, line 43, leave out subsection (3) and in Clause 77, page 52, line 33, at end insert:
    "'young person' means a person who has not attained the age of eighteen".
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes.
    Mr. Hare: The two Amendments are consequential upon the new Clause, which deals with young persons. Young persons are mentioned also in Clause 16, and to save repeating the definition

    441
    in both Clauses the Amendments delete the definition in Clause 16 and transfer it to Clause 77 with the other definitions.
    We originally took the view that since machinery, particularly dangerous machinery, was not as frequently found in premises to which the Bill applies as compared with factories, we might leave the prohibition about the cleaning of machinery to be dealt with by special regulations under Clause 17. However, after listening to the arguments advanced in Committee, I agree that there is a case for putting this Clause into the Bill. It is based on Section 20 of the Factories Act with two differences. The first of the differences is that we do not specifically mention prime movers and transmission machinery because they are already covered by the word "machinery" in the new Clause. Secondly, the prohibition does not extend to women.
    I know that some hon. Members may feel that we ought to go further and stop women cleaning moving machinery, but there may well be—I think we should ponder on this—establishments where there are no male employees, and I think it would be going too far to extend this prohibition to women simply on the analogy of the Factories Act where circumstances are, in fact, very often very different.
    Mr. MacDermot: The Minister has come half-way to meet us and for that we are grateful. As he says, the new Clause is based on Section 20 of the Factories Act, but with the difference that whereas that Section protects both women and young persons from being exposed to the danger of injury from contact with moving parts when cleaning machinery this Clause only affords that protection to young persons.
    In studying this new Clause it occurred to me—I confess, for the first time—that there appears to be an inherent contradiction between it and Clause 15 (4). It is a contradiction which exists also in the Factories Act. Clause 15 (4) provides that fencing, that is the fencing of all dangerous parts, shall be
    "kept in position while the parts required to be fenced are in motion or use"
    except in three cases, namely, when they are
    "exposed for examination and for any lubrication or adjustment shown by the examination to be … necessary".
    442
    None of this covers cleaning. It follows, therefore, to my mind, that if a person is exposed to the risk of injury from a moving part when cleaning, it must be a dangerous part within Clause 15, and therefore there would be a breach of Clause 15 (4), and consequently this new Clause is really, from that point of view, unnecessary. But, as I say, that is a contradiction which has only just occurred to me. I do not expect the Minister to be able to answer my point straight off, but he may like to consider it.
    Leaving that aside and returning to the substantial point whether or not this Clause ought to apply to women, we should like to have seen it do so. We argued for that in Committee. The Minister brings forward the same argument today as he brought forward in Committee and seems to think it a conclusive argument. He says that there are some premises where there are machines which require to be cleaned but where there are only women employed.
    That is not a conclusive answer, because there are very few such machines which require to be cleaned while they are in motion, or, if in motion, with the guard off. These sorts of machines are very rare, and if there are machines which have to be cleaned in motion with the guard off, then, in my submission, the cleaning ought not to be done by women, who are not trained in engineering work. That is a job for a trained engineer to do, and that kind of work ought to be done by periodically getting someone from outside to service the machine. This seems to me to be the right answer to that problem.
    We had quoted against us in argument, as we did many times in Committee, the familiar example of the bacon-slicing machine, which is an extremely dangerous one. My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Padley) gave us enlightening statistics about the number of accidents which had occurred with bacon-slicing machines, and a very large proportion of those accidents are to women. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Winterbottom) has enlightened us further on this point, because there is no need for a bacon-slicing machine to be cleaned in motion with the guard off. It does, it happens, have to be cleaned while in

    443
    motion; it is not practicable, apparently, to clean those machines properly while they are stationary, but there is a proper tool designed for this purpose which enables the grease to be scraped off the side of the blade but with the guard still on.
    I should be grateful to hear from the Minister whether he is able to instance a single machine in current use which has to be cleaned in motion with the guard off and in circumstances in which it would be unreasonable to ask for somebody to come in from outside to service it, and where this has to be the daily task of a female employee. I find it hard to believe that there are such instances. If there are, I accept that the Minister has made out his case, but he has not given us an example yet. Till he does, I for one shall remain unconvinced. Perhaps it is a matter which the Minister may like to consider further, and for that reason, perhaps, my hon. Friends will not feel that they wish to divide on this new Clause—because this is one of the uses of the second Chamber, and there will be opportunity for the matter to be looked at further in the future.
    But as the Minister has given us half of what we asked for, I should like to express to him, in conclusion, at least a moiety of gratitude.
    Mr. Graham Page: I am a little concerned about the possible effect of this new Clause on office premises. Office premises are becoming more and more mechanised by the use of copying machines and such things. In considering dangerous machinery one has, perhaps, always thought of the sharp knife of some sort, the bacon slicer, for example, which has been mentioned, but danger can occur frequently from electrical contacts, and so on, and it seems to many of us that office machines now come within the definition of dangerous machines or at least ones which are likely to cause injury.
    As I read this new Clause, it means that any person under 18 years of age must not clean one of these office machines if there is any risk from a moving part. Are we, perhaps, defining a young person by an age a little too old? Many of the youths between 16 and 18 are far more capable of dealing with mechanism than an older man, and
    444
    certainly if they are trained to do it, but as I understand this new Clause it does not even allow a young person who is trained to clean a machine or to touch it if he is at the risk of injury.
    If this came within Clause 15 (4), which allows a trained person in certain circumstances to deal with a machine, that would cover the point, would it not? But here we seem to be preventing even a trained young person from cleaning a machine if there is any risk of injury.
    Mr. Hale: Unfortunately, the word "lubrication" is not included. I am not objecting to what the hon. Member is trying to tell us but I am seriously wanting to know what it is. He talked of the possibility of electric shocks, which one can get from switches, and there is no obligation to fence an ordinary light switch. I find it hard to visualise an office machine which can be cleaned while in motion, even if one wanted to. I cannot visualise the sort of office machine which, if cleaned in motion, would involve danger to life, limb or future happiness. I am hoping the hon. Member will tell me. There has been mention of a bacon slicer. That, I suppose, could be an eating facility, but even if it is an eating facility one would not use it for all meals. Would it be used for lunch? I am not suggesting that what the hon. Member is saying is not reasonable, but I think it rather strange, and I am merely trying to follow his reasoning to see how what he says applies.
    Mr. Graham Page: Since the hon. Gentleman asks me, there are cutting machines for paper. They are similar to bacon slicers. They can slice paper.
    Mr. Winterbottom: On the question of offices, in my experience the greatest danger is where there is the use of a guillotine. It can be a very dangerous instrument, and I think that young people up to the age of 18 and women ought to be prohibited from using machines of that kind.
    I regret that the Minister has not gone all the way over the Clause, because there are some machines in the distributive world which are dangerous for women. My wife worked in the shop—it still exists—of a confectionery and bread-baking establishment. In the days when she worked there a four-year-old child lost a finger through

    445
    putting it into a machine, although it was guarded. The same machine is there today. There are many types of machine like that, especially in some of the baking establishments, which ought to be prohibited for use by women.
    The bacon-slicing machine is not very dangerous. Three weeks ago I went into the shop of a friend of mine—he used to work for me—so that I might see two kinds of bacon-slicing machine, one electrically operated and one hand operated. I found that the new machines were just as safe as the old ones if from the very beginning one took the precautions that one was instructed to take. It must be clearly understood that one cannot effectively clean a bacon-slicing machine blade with the blade in motion.
    There are some instruments in grocers' and butchers' shops which are even more dangerous than a bacon-slicing machine. My hand is pitted with scars through the use of an ordinary knife, which is a most dangerous instrument. I sometimes think I would prohibit women from working in fleshing establishments, because they sometimes ruin the beauty of their hands through the steeling of the blade.
    I welcome the Clause in so far as the Minister has gone part of the way, but I wish he had gone to the length of including women because of the existence of certain types of establishment, of which small bakery establishments are an example. It has to be remembered that in some bakery establishments tremendous dangers arise from the use of the ovens. I would impose restrictions upon women going direct to some of the ovens.
    If only we had included women, we should have done a tremendous job in the distribution world, and perhaps done more for safety and welfare in that sphere than any other single thing which has taken place during my lifetime's association with distribution. I am sorry that the Minister has not included women but I am glad that he has gone to the age of 18 for young people.
    Mr. Prentice: I am surprised at the remarks of the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). I should have thought that every hon. Member on both sides of the House would have welcomed the Clause.
    446
    When we discuss these matters we do so against the background that in recent years the number of accidents in all places of work has been rising lamentably. The statistics under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act and from the Factory Inspectorate, and so on, indicate this, and they also indicate that accidents among young workers under 18 have been rising in a larger proportion than those among workers as a whole. I should have thought that every one would have wanted the most stringent rules that we can have to safeguard young workers against injury. On the whole, the House ought to welcome the Clause.
    I reinforce what has been said about our regret that the Clause does not apply to women workers. Similar provisions of the Factories Act prohibit women and young people from cleaning machinery with the guard off. If the Minister is to provide in the Bill something which is less than the provisions of the Factories Act, a particularly heavy onus of proof is on him, and I do not think he has discharged it.
    We urge the right hon. Gentleman to think about this. Unless the Government move an Amendment in another place, it is likely that some of our noble Friends there will move one of their own. We shall debate this matter again with regard to lubrication and inspection of machinery on a later Amendment, and perhaps we can deploy the argument in more detail then. I welcome the Clause as far as it goes, but I urge the Minister to think again about applying it to women workers.
    Mr. Hare: I will think over the points which have been made, but I have given the reasons why I have limited the Clause to young persons.
    The hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot) raised the question of the relevance of the new Clause and Clause 15 (4). He was right in what he said. The answer is that the new Clause gives additional protection to young persons if there has not been full compliance with Clause 15 (4). I think that answers the hon. Gentleman's question.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause.—(MINISTER TO REPORT TO PARLIAMENT.)
    The Minister shall annually lay before Parliament a report of his proceedings under this Act and generally about the operation of this Act.—[Mr. Hare.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    5.45 p.m.
    Mr. Hare: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    I think that Parliamentary interest in the Bill is likely to remain high. Therefore, I think it right to produce an annual report so that Parliament can be informed of the working of the Measure. Taking this together with a subsequent Amendment to Clause 50, in page 39, line 44, at end insert:
    (2) A copy of every report made in pursuance of the foregoing subsection by an authority shall be kept at the authority's offices, shall be open to inspection by any person at all reasonable hours free of charge and shall be supplied to any person on payment of a reasonable charge therefor.
    which will provide for annual reports of local and higher authorities to be open for public inspection locally, I believe that it will be possible for Parliament and the public to judge how the Act is working both locally and nationally, and that is why I move the Clause.
    Mr. Prentice: I should like to say on this Clause something that I said on the first new Clause and might well have said on the intervening ones if I had not wanted to avoid tedious repetition. We are glad of the conversion, although it is late, of the Minister to our attempts to improve the Bill.
    We welcome the Clause particularly because we hope that the publication of the annual report will focus public attention upon the whole operation of the Measure. As we have said on other occasions, the Bill can either be almost meaningless or really make a big impact on the working lives of the 8 million or so people who are affected. Whether it will make a big impact or not will depend partly on enforcement, partly on the vigilance of everyone concerned, including the trade unions at national and local levels, and partly on the willingness of the workpeople themselves to insist on their legal rights and, where necessary, to report a bad employer.
    We hope, therefore, that the publication of an annual report and the publi-
    448
    city which it will receive will help to focus attention in this way, that the annual report will perform the same function as the annual report of the Chief Inspector of Factories, and that it will be the subject of Questions and, possibly, debate in this House and another place. We hope it will help to create the climate of opinion needed for carrying out the purposes of the Measure.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause.—(PROVISION OF MEANS OF ESCAPE IN CASE OF FIRE.)
    (1) All premises to which this Act applies shall be provided with such means of escape in case of fire for the persons employed to work therein as may reasonably be required in the circumstances of the case.
    (2) In determining, for the purposes of this section, what means of escape may reasonably be required in the case of any premises, regard shall be had (amongst other things) not only to the number of persons who may be expected to be working in the premises at any time but also to the number of persons (other than those employed to work therein) who may reasonably be expected to be resorting to the premises at that time.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. William Whitelaw): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    It would perhaps be convenient to discuss at the same time the following Amendments which are very closely related: In Clause 25, page 16, line 35, leave out subsection (2).
    In page 18, line 27, at end insert:
    (12) Subsection (2) of section (Provision of means of escape in case of fire) of this Act shall have effect for the purposes of this section as it has effect for the purposes of that.
    In Clause 30, page 21, line 35, at end insert:
    "but nothing in regulations under this subsection shall be construed as being in derogation of the general obligation imposed by section (Provision of means of escape in case of fire) of this Act".
    In Clause 34, page 22, line 43, after "33", insert:
    "and section (Provision of means of escape in case of fire)".
    In page 23, line 17, at end insert:
    "and section (Provision of means of escape in case of fire)".
    The Deputy-Speaker: That may be done if it is the wish of the House.
    Mr. Whitelaw: This Clause arises from what we were all agreed was a most important and valuable discussion in Committee. At that time, I was most impressed by the points put forward by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) who, as we all know, has very great experience in all questions of fire prevention. I think that there was a general feeling in the Committee, shared by my right hon. Friend and myself, that everything possible must be done to ensure the safety of employees, not only in those establishments subject to certification by a fire authority but in all premises covered by the Bill. That was the purpose and that is the object of subsection (1) of this new Clause.
    I should emphasise that the responsibility for compliance with this requirement will lie primarily with the occupier or owner where that is appropriate. The new provision does not alter the general intention that the fire authority should concentrate resources on examining those premises which by and large present the highest risks—for example, those requiring a fire certificate. What it does is what everyone wished for in Committee. It lays down that a means of escape should be provided in all premises.
    Subsection (2) extends to all premises the requirement previously stated in Clause 25 (2) in connection with premises requiring certification. This lays down that regard should be had, in deciding what means of escape may reasonably be required, to the presence on the premises of persons other than those employed there.
    I know that this was considered to be an important point. It is obviously important in shops and provides one way of dealing with the problems of such premises as supermarkets, upon which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Winterbottom) and I had some discussion in Committee. I hope he feels that this new Clause goes some way to meet the point he made then. In these places, of course, the numbers employed may be too few to make a fire certificate necessary but a number of visitors may often be present.
    Our Amendment to leave out subsection (2) of Clause 25 is consequential.
    450
    The Amendment to leave out subsection (6) of Clause 26 makes clear that the requirement will continue to apply to premises which require certification. The Amendment to insert a new provision in Clause 30 is designed to ensure that any regulations which may be made by the Minister as to the means of escape will not be construed in any way as detracting from the general obligations imposed by the new Clause.
    Finally, the last two Amendments we are discussing with this new Clause are consequential, extending the references to the appropriate authority under Clause 34 to the administration of the new Clause.
    Mr. William Hannan: In view of the very full explanation which the hon. Gentleman has given, there would appear to he little that one can say from this side of the House. I think, however, I should start by conceding that this is a concession to the points of view expressed from this side in Committee. I am glad to think that what was said has proved of value.
    However, there is one small matter I wish to raise. One never gets all that one wants in these matters, and while it is true that the Clause says that all premises and not only those employing twenty people and more shall be provided with means of escape, what concerns me is that there is no force behind it. Who is to ensure that it is carried out? If it is not complied with, how will the delinquents be dealt with?
    It may be argued that, in the next new Clause in the name of the Minister of Labour, some steps are taken to ensure that unless certain requirements are complied with for the avoidance of dangerous conditions, no certificates will be issued. That goes some way to meet the point, but surely premises other than uncertificated premises will not be subject to the same penalty.
    Without this provision, I think it is true that the claim we made upstairs would remain—that 80 per cent. to 90 per cent. of all shops would escape any requirement for fire prevention. Of course, the new Clause does not go as far as some of us would wish. We still think that the requirement of a minimum of twenty employees before a certificate is needed is far too high. In

    451
    Committee we suggested that the number should be ten on the ground floor and only one person elsewhere in the building.
    The Parliamentary Secretary said, quite rightly, that subsection (2) of Clause 25 is now to be deleted and added to this new Clause. The point that concerned us on Clause 25 was that there could be an anomaly whereby it would be possible for premises employing less than the stated number to have a large number of members of the public present and yet still not be subject to these statutory conditions.
    Some of the premises we had in mind were self-service stores, betting shops and bingo halls. Are the two latter types of establishment to be covered? Public houses and auction rooms are also involved. These are premises which could very well have continued under this disability without the new Clause. The representations which have been made to me, and which were put forcefully in Committee by my hon. Friends, were that certification should be required for premises employing a smaller number than twenty people.
    However, the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have gone a long way to meet the point. While we are grateful to them for that we also hope, incidentally, that the public will become a little more aware of the need for fire prevention to save not only human life but the great annual losses the country sustains from fire each year.
    Mr. Hale: I welcome this new Clause. I also welcome the form in which it has been drafted. It has not been limited by the draftsmen to a restrictive interpretation. But what worries me now—and it may be that I have misunderstood, is the Amendment in page 18, line 27, which adds a new subsection (12) to Clause 25 and reads:
    (12) Subsection (2) of section (Provision of means of escape in case of fire) of this Act shall have effect for the purposes of this section as it has effect for the purposes of that.
    That is not a very elegant expression. I think it reasonably easy to understand what it is intended to mean, however. It means that subsection (2) of the new Clause shall have effect for the purpose of Clause 25 as it does for the purpose of the new Clause.
    452
    There is another Amendment which calls upon us to delete subsection (2) of Clause 25, but if we are to delete subsection (2) of Clause 25 and shove in subsection (2) of the new Clause, I find myself in some difficulty. This new subsection (2) is to be a complete new provision, in which case, I can understand it. But in that case it will not be subsection (12) but subsection (11). This may be normal Parliamentary procedure, but it is all highly confusing when we discuss all these matters together. Is it then the situation that the new Clause to be a new Clause should become Clause "something or other" of the Bill, and subsection (2) of the old Clause is omitted? The addition that we are making of subsection (12) to the new Clause will become subsection (11), in which case we have to consider the words of the new Clause in isolation and not as clarifying, except where expressly stated, the provisions of the old Clause.
    6.0 p.m.
    The Minister looks puzzled, but surely this is true? We are taking out subsection (2) which is subject to the various qualifications contained in subsections (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10) and (11) of Clause 25, and shoving in a new Clause, so there is nothing in subsections (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9) and (10) of Clause 25 which are drawn so as to qualify, except under certain Amendments that we are discussing.
    Is the Minister satisfied that when he has done all this—pulled out subsection (2), bunged in subsection (12), called it subsection (11), added a new Clause—the qualifying conditions will continue to operate in the way that they did when the Bill was drafted?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I am so satisfied. Perhaps I might make two points in reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan). He was worried about penalties. The answer is that the general penalty under Clause 54 will apply to uncertificated premises. Bingo halls are places of entertainment, and therefore do not come within the Clause.
    Mr. Marsh: I cannot help wondering whether the new Clause is really of as much value as it appears to be. All that happens is that the original proposals remain completely unchanged in relation to

    453
    certification, but the Minister expresses a desire that people shall be able to get out of buildings into which they have gone, that there shall be some means of escape from buildings, but there is no obligation for any employer or owner of such premises to obtain any certification.
    The argument which was made in Committee, and which is as strong now as it was then, is that if we are certifying any premises it seems unreasonable to draw a dividing line. It is not difficult to certify premises as having escape facilities. If they have them, it should be easy to get a certificate, but under the Bill as amended, what will happen is that in respect of a group of employees over a certain number an employer will have to obtain a certificate, while no certificate will be required in respect of a building in which there are people below that number undergoing exactly the same fire risks.
    I should have thought that there were two issues. First, whether we could cut down the number of people which the Minister has decided must be in a building before it becomes eligible for a certificate. Secondly, where persons are employed other than on the ground floor of a building, that building should be certified as having escape methods for those people to get out of the building.
    I do not want to be ungracious, but I cannot see that the Minister has given us very much in this new Clause. Surely any employer is under an obligation to ensure that his people can get out of the building? If the only way in which this can be implemented is by the inspector insisting that it be implemented, and if the inspector has to see the building anyhow and pronounce on whether or not the precautions are satisfactory, there is no reason why he cannot give a certificate at the same time.
    On what grounds has the Minister ignored the argument which was put forward that where persons are employed in a building other than on the ground floor it is not unreasonable for the owner of that building, or the occupier, to have a fire certificate showing that there are means of escape? If there is a fire in a building and there is a tragedy, this new Clause might be of some help in establishing liability in common law, but I
    454
    cannot see that it will do very much to ensure that there are methods of escape.
    Mr. Whitelaw: We had a considerable argument on this point in Committee upstairs, and I think that this was one of the rare occasions on which the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) was not able to be with us.
    I argued this on two points. I separated the general question of means of escape from certification, and, on the question of certification, I argued that it was difficult to know exactly where to draw the line with regard to numbers. We drew the line where we did because we wished to concentrate the activities of the inspectors on the certification procedure, which is a considerable administrative problem, to those premises where the fire risks were greatest. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would wish me to go over the arguments, but I hold very much to those which I deployed at that time.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause.—(POWER OF MAGISTRATES' COURTS AND SHERIFFS TO MAKE ORDERS FOR PUTTING DOWN DANGEROUS CONDITIONS IN REGARD TO MEANS OF ESCAPE IN CASE OF FIRE.)
    If the appropriate authority are satisfied that the conditions in regard to escape in the case of fire in the case of any premises to which this Act applies are so dangerous that, until steps have been taken to remedy the danger, persons ought not (according to the circumstances of the case)—

    (a) to be employed to work in the premises or in a particular part thereof, or

    (b) to be employed to work in connection with the carrying on in the premises or in a particular part thereof of some particular process, or

    (c) to be employed to do in the premises or in a particular part thereof some particular work:

    the authority may, if the premises are situate in England and Wales, make a complaint to a magistrates' court acting for the petty sessions area in which the premises are situate or, if they are situate in Scotland, make a summary application to the sheriff within whose jurisdiction they are situate, and the court or, as the case may be, the sheriff, on being similarly satisfied, may by order prohibit, to the extent appropriate in the said circumstances, the employment of persons to work in the premises until such steps shall have been taken as, in the opinion of the court or, as the case may he, the sheriff, are

    455
    necessary to remedy the danger.—[Mr. Whitelaw]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Whitelaw: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    It may be convenient, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to discuss at the same time the following related Amendments:
    In Clause 26, page 19, line 31, leave out subsection (6).
    In Clause 71, page 49, line 10, leave out "(6)" and insert "(5)".
    In Clause 71, page 49, line 10, after second "(2)", insert:
    "and section (Power of magistrates' and sheriffs courts to make orders for putting down dangerous conditions in regard to means of escape in case of fire)".
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If that is convenient to the House, so be it.
    Mr. Whitelaw: This new Clause, as I think the hon. Member for Maryhill has recognised, is really consequential on the last one. The last new Clause required all premises to be provided with such means of escape as were reasonable in the circumstances of the case. This new Clause replaces Clause 26 (6) which empowered the magistrate's court to make orders on a complaint from the appropriate authority putting down dangerous conditions relating to the means of escape in premises requiring a fire certificate under Clause 25. This new Clause extends this power to all premises covered by the Bill and is designed to ensure that persons employed in all such premises will enjoy this safeguard against dangerous conditions.
    The Amendment in Clause 26, page 19, line 31 is consequential, and two Amendments in Clause 71, page 49, line 10 make the necessary changes in relation to premises owned or occupied by the Crown.
    Mr. Hannan: The Parliamentary Secretary has rightly said that this new Clause replaces Clause 26 (6). I think that some of us are inclined to reproach ourselves because we did not see an obvious error in the drafting. Subsection (6) says:
    "If, in the case of any premises with respect to which a fire certificate is in force … the conditions … are so dangerous that, until steps have been taken to remedy the danger persons ought not … to be employed to work in the premises or in a particular part thereof …"
    456
    If one examines these words closely, one sees that no fire certificate should have been issued if such conditions in fact prevail.
    The new Clause seems to rectify the situation by saying that if the authority is satisfied that the conditions in regard to escape are not sufficient, or that there are certain dangers, these must be obviated before a certificate is issued, and it then outlines the procedure of which the applicant can avail himself, and in that respect I think it makes the Bill a little more comprehensible.
    Mr. Graham Page: I am not sure whether the new Clause lays down any summary procedure. It says in the latter part that the authority may make a complaint to a magistrate's court, and it then says that the court may by order prohibit the use of the premises. Does that mean that it can be done ex parte, without any notice to the owner or occupier of the premises? Is that the object of the Clause—that in an urgent case, where quick action is necessary, this summary application can be made to the magistrates' court merely by complaint, and without the issue of any summons or notice to the party concerned? If it does, it goes a little far, and seems to adopt a new form of procedure.
    My second point has nothing to do with the Clause. I am aware of the fact that the rubric does not form part of the Statute, but I hope that my right hon. Friend can find a better phrase than "putting down". It sounds like a reference to wine, or a rebellion, or, with a slightly different pronunciation, to golf. The last line of the Clause refers to remedying the danger, and I do not see why we should not use that phrase.
    Mr. Whitelaw: It is not a new procedure. The procedure laid down here is similar to that in Section 41 (7) of the Factories Act, 1961.
    Mr. Page: Does that mean that the owner or occupier has no notice before this matter comes before the magistrates' court?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I shall have to check that point. I will do so, and let my hon. Friend know later.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause.—(EXCLUSION OF APPLICATION OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS TO CERTAIN FUEL STORAGE PREMISES AND MODIFICATION THEREOF IN RELATION TO OTHERS.)
    Nothing in sections 25 to 33 or section (Provision of means of escape in case of fire) of this Act or in regulations under any of those sections shall apply to fuel storage premises which are wholly in the open, and in the case of such premises which are partly in the open so much of them as is in the open shall, for the purposes of those sections and of such regulations, be treated as not forming part of the premises.—[Mr. Hare.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Hare: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    I suggest that with this proposed new Clause we can take the next new Clause—Provisions with respect to continuous fuel storage premises in single ownership—together with the Amendments in page 3, line 44, at end insert:
    (5) Nothing in this section or in regulations thereunder shall apply to fuel storage premises which are wholly in the open, and in the case of such premises which are partly in the open, so much of them as is in the open shall, for the purposes of this section and of such regulations, be treated as not forming part of the premises.
    In page 8, line 43, at end insert:
    (5) The foregoing provisions of this section shall not apply to any such part of any fuel storage premises as is in the open, but in relation to any such part the following provisions shall have effect, namely—

    (a) the surface of the ground shall be kept in good repair;

    (b) all steps and platforms shall be of sound construction and properly maintained;

    (c) all openings in platforms shall be securely fenced, except in so far as the nature of the work renders such fencing impracticable.

    In page 14, line 29, at end insert:
    (8) Subsection (5) of this section shall not apply to fuel storage premises which are wholly in the open, but in the case of such premises which are wholly in the open there must be given to each person employed to work there a notice stating the like particulars as would be stated in such a notice as for the time being would, by virtue of that subsection, be required to be displayed in the premises if that subsection applied to them.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If that be the wish of the House, so be it.
    Mr. Hare: Yes, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. They are all concerned with the application of the Bill to coal depots.
    458
    This is an important group of Amendments. In Committee, I promised to give sympathetic consideration to the important extension of the scope of the Bill in this way. I said that a number of special problems would need consideration, and the House will see that it has been necessary to adapt a number of provisions in order to make them fit the circumstances of coal depots.
    One problem to which I referred in Committee was the programme which the British Railways Board has in mind for concentrating its coal depots, and therefore reducing their numbers. I said that we would have to be careful to avoid large sums of money being spent on amenities which were to have only a very short useful life. I propose to use the powers available to me in respect of the timing of the provisions, together with the exemption provisions, in order to achieve this.
    6.15 p.m.
    All the provisions which have a general application and are not restricted to specified premises will apply to coal depots—referred to in the Bill as "fuel storage premises"—in the same way as they apply to other premises, subject to the modifications set out in this group of Amendments.
    The definition of fuel storage premises is provided for in the Amendments in page 2, line 11, leave out from beginning to end of line 19, and insert:
    (ii) a building or part of a building, being a building or part which is not a shop but of which the sole or principal use is the carrying on there of retail trade or business;
    (iii) a building occupied by a wholesale dealer or merchant where goods are kept for sale wholesale to persons resorting thereto or a part of a building so occupied where goods are so kept;
    (iv) a building to which members of the public are invited to resort for the purpose of delivering there goods for repair or other treatment or of themselves there carrying out repairs to, or other treatment of, goods or a part of a building to which members of the public are invited to resort for that purpose;
    (v) any premises (in this Act referred to as "fuel storage premises") occupied for the purpose of a trade or business which consists of or includes the sale of solid fuel, being premises used for the storage of such fuel intended to be sold in the course of that trade or business, but not including premises which constitute, or are comprised in, premises to which certain provisions of the Factories Act 1961 apply by virtue of section 125 (1) (docks. etc.) of that Act; and

    459
    In page 2, leave out lines 24 to 26, and insert:
    "and
    (c) 'solid fuel' means coal, coke and any solid fuel derived from coal or of which coal or coke is a constituent;
    and for the purposes of this Act premises occupied together with a shop or with a building or part of a building falling within sub-paragraph (iii) or (iv) of paragraph (a) above for the purposes of the trade or business carried on in the shop or as the case may be the building or part of a building, shall be treated as forming part of the shop or, as the case may be, of the building or part of the building, and premises occupied together with fuel storage premises for the purposes of the activities there carried on (not being office premises) shall be treated as forming part of the fuel-storage premises, but for the purposes of this Act office premises comprised in fuel storage premises shall be deemed not to form part of the last-mentioned premises."
    which we shall be discussing later. The modifications now proposed are necessary in respect of coal depots which are wholly or partly in the open. The new Clause provides that the requirements about fire precautions shall not apply to those parts of fuel storage premises which are in the open. Clearly these requirements can have little or no application to such places, since there are no problems concerning means of escape.
    The other new Clause that we are discussing provides that where there are two sets or more of fuel storage premises on land all parts of which are in the same ownership, the owner of the premises shall have certain responsibilities in relation to sanitation and washing facilities, in the same way as does the owner of a building to which Clause 35 applies. Where, however, only one set of fuel storage premises is situated in a depot, the occupier remains responsible for the provision and maintenance of lavatories, wash basins and other matters referred to in Clauses 9 and 10.
    The Amendment in page 3, line 44 removes the obligation to keep clean those parts of fuel storage premises which are in the open. It would be a fairly thankless job to attempt to do this, and such a provision would be quite unenforceable.
    The Amendment in page 14, line 29 removes the obligation to post a notice stating the name of the person in charge of the first aid box, in cases where the fuel storage premises are wholly in the open. Instead of posting such a notice, the Amendment provides that a note
    460
    containing this information shall be given individually to each employee. This will not place a great burden on the employer, because he will be able to comply with this requirement by putting a short note in his employees' pay packets. Where there is a hut in the fuel storage premises the ordinary notices can be posted there.
    I suggest that these Amendments apply the provisions of the Bill to open air coal depots in a commonsense and practical way, and I commend them to the House.
    Mr. Padley: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for bringing coal depots, as we normally call them, within the scope of the Bill. As he knows, strong trade union pressure has been brought to bear not only upon him but also upon the Ministers at the Home Office during the last eleven or twelve years to bring coal depots within the scope of the Bill. When the Bill was presented it appeared that there was no chance of the Government's yielding, I am glad that strong pressure in the Second Reading debate, together with strong pressure from the trade unions, has brought about this concession.
    My union feels that the claim of coal distributive workers to the benefits afforded by these elementary health and welfare provisions is greater than that of any other section of the retail distributive trade. The job is dirty and arduous, and it has to be done in all weathers.
    This group of Amendments, together with the Amendment in page 2, line 11, to which the Minister has already referred, will have the effect of bringing virtually the whole of the wholesale and retail trades within the provisions of the Bill. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not use his powers of exemption too freely. New coal depots are being constructed, but as yet the pace of their development, if not very slow, is certainly not as quick as hon. Members representing coal distributive workers—apart from consumers—would wish.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause.—(PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO CONTIGUOUS FUEL STORAGE PREMISES IN SINGLE OWNERSHIP.)
    Where two sets or more of fuel storage premises any of which is held under lease or an agreement for a lease or under a licence are

    461
    established on a parcel of land all parts of which are in the same ownership, then—

    (a) for a contravention, in relation to any of those sets of premises of section 9 of this Act (other than a contravention consisting in a failure to keep clean conveniences provided in pursuance of that section, not being conveniences provided for use jointly by the persons employed to work in that set of premises and by other persons); and

    (b) for a contravention, in relation to any of those sets of premises, of section 10 of this Act (other than a contravention consisting in a failure to provide means of cleaning and drying or a failure to keep clean and in orderly condition the place where facilities are provided in pursuance of that section, not being facilities provided for use jointly by the persons employed to work in that set of premises and by other persons);

    the owner of that set of premises shall be responsible instead of the occupier thereof.—[Mr. Hare.]
    Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause.—(DUTY OF APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY, IF NOT CONCERNED WITH CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS, TO CONSULT AUTHORITY SO CONCERNED BEFORE REQUIRING ALTERATIONS TO BE MADE.)
    (1) Before the appropriate authority—

    (a) inform the applicant for the issue of a fire certificate with respect to any premises situate elsewhere in England and Wales than in the administrative county of London that they will not issue the certificate unless specified alterations are made to the premises; or

    (b) serve, under section 26 (4) or 30 (2) of this Act, a notice on the occupier of any premises so situate;

    they shall, if not themselves the local authority (within the meaning of the Public Health Act 1936) for the area in which the premises are situate, consult that authority.
    (2) Before the appropriate authority—

    (a) inform the applicant for the issue of a fire certificate with respect to any premises situate in Scotland that they will not issue the certificate unless specified alterations are made to the premises; or

    (b) serve, under section 26 (4) or 30 (2) of this Act, a notice on the occupier of any premises so situate;

    they shall, if not themselves the local authority (within the meaning of the Building (Scotland) Act 1959) far the area in which the premises are situate, consult that authority.
    (3) Before the appropriate authority—

    (a) inform the applicant for the issue of a fire certificate with respect to any premises situate in the administrative county of London that they will not issue the certificate unless specified alterations are made to the premises; or

    462

    (b) serve, under section 26 (4) or 30 (2) of this Act, a notice on the occupier of any premises so situate;

    they shall, if not themselves the London County Council, consult that Council.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Whitelaw: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    This Clause raises a point which was advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) and by the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) during the Committee stage discussions. Its purpose is simple. It provides that the fire authority shall consult the building byelaw authority before requiring the occupier to make structural changes to his premises in order to improve the means of escape in case of fire. As I stated during the Committee stage discussions, it was always our intention that such consultations should take place as they do in similar circumstances under the provisions of the Factories Act, 1961. We did not then consider it essential to write statutory requirements into the Bill. However, in view of the well-reasoned arguments advanced by both hon. Members in the Committee we agreed that, on balance, it would be right and preferable to put such a provision in the Bill, The Clause is somewhat lengthy. The reason is that the three subsections take account of the different legislation affecting England and Wales, Scotland, and London. But in principle they are substantially the same.
    Mr. John Hynd: I am wondering whether the wording of the Clause meets the points put forward in Committee and the purpose behind the arguments then advanced. The basis of those arguments was that the powers of the local authority to prevent premises from being passed as satisfactory under building byelaws and so on, had been eliminated by the wording of the Bill.
    The wording of the present Clause is extremely complex and complicated and it is difficult to appreciate whether it meets the position. It states:
    "Before the appropriate authority"—
    that is the authority issuing the certificate—
    "… inform the applicant for the issue of a fire certificate … that they will not issue the

    463
    certificate unless specified alterations are made to the premises …"
    they will consult the local authority. Does that meet the point? This wording is saying that before the property is rejected and the authority says it will not issue a certificate, it will consult the local authority. What happens after the local authority has been consulted? Has the local authority power to do anything, it haying been consulted, or is the local authority satisfied merely to be consulted?
    I should like a further elaboration of the effect of the Clause. So far as I understand it—that is not very far because I am not a lawyer—I do not see that the wording of the Clause meets the point it is intended to cover. I hope that the Minister will be able to satisfy hon. Members that it does.
    Mr. Hannan: I do not object to the Parliamentary Secretary giving credit to my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) and to the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) in respect of this Clause. But is it not the case that during the Committee stage discussions on Clauses 24 and 25 I made the point that it did not follow that the fire authority and the local authority were always the same? It was in respect of that point that the Parliamentary Secretary promised to look at the matter and I think that the point is met by the provisions in this Clause. At the beginning of the Clause it states:
    "Before the appropriate authority"—
    here is meant the fire authority—
    "inform the applicant for the issue of a fire certificate …"
    it has to consult the local authority. That is all that is being asked to be done—
    Mr. J. Hynd: Before the authority will not issue a certificate.
    Mr. William Hannan: Yes. Before it will not issue a certificate, it will consult the local authority.
    If I am rightly interpreting the Clause, its provisions eliminate any confusion between the fire authority and the local authority which is not always the same body. The position under the Factories Act, 1961, is that the administration of the provisions in the corresponding Sections is the duty of the master of works
    464
    or the city engineer, following a joint inspection of the premises with the fire authority. Am I right in thinking that in this Clause we are giving the fire authority precedence and that the administration of the provisions of Clause 25 passes solely to that authority in cases where it is considered that a fire certificate should not be issued? Here the fire authority is obliged to consult the local authority. If there happens to be a dispute between the two authorities and they are different bodies, who resolves the dispute? Is it referred to the Minister or to some other authority? I am not clear about what happens in such circumstances.
    The point is that the officer responsible for fire prevention, or examining buildings in order to suggest possible structural alterations, is sometimes the borough engineer and sometimes the surveyor. The provisions in Clauses 25 to 33 in reference to fire prevention are now the responsibility of the fire authority. But in making the first inspection under the new Clause the authority, if it wishes to refuse a certificate, will have to consult the local authority.
    Mr. Whitelaw: I assure the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) that in his concluding sentences he has correctly stated the position. The fire authority will have the final say. This Clause follows in general the wording of Section 42 (4) of the Factories Act, 1961, and I think it has been agreed that the provision in that Act has worked satisfactorily.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause.—{EXCLUSION OF APPLICATION TO PREMISES OCCUPIED FOR TRANSITORY PURPOSES.)
    It shall be a defence in any legal proceedings to recover damages and in any prosecution, in so far as the proceedings or prosecutions are or is based on an allegation of a contravention, in relation to any premises, of a provision of this Act or regulation thereunder, to prove that at the time of the alleged contravention the premises were occupied for a purpose that was accomplished before the expiration of a period beginning with the day on which they were occupied for that purpose and of such of the following lengths as is applicable to the circumstances of the case, that is to say, six months if the premises consist of a movable structure, and six weeks if not.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Whitetaw: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    This Clause, among other things, is designed to meet the problem to which my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) drew attention during the Committee stage. He argued that it would be unreasonable to apply the provisions in the Bill to premises occupied for purely temporary purposes. As examples, he gave mobile offices and banks, caravans used for information services, and exhibitions and premises used for charitable appeals or election campaigns. I think it is generally agreed that it would not be sensible to apply the provisions of the Bill to such premises. But here there was a very real difficulty.
    6.30 p.m.
    We wished to frame a provision to exclude those sort of premises, but at the same time it was most important in doing so not to provide a loophole which might enable occupiers of such premises to slip out of the provisions of the Bill or to prolong their exclusion beyond what would be a reasonable period. Therefore, in framing this provision we have sought to combine common sense with very real safeguards to ensure that there are no loopholes. The Clause has been designed to place the burden of proof on the occupier. The Clause protects him from civil or criminal proceedings under the Bill if he can show that his premises were occupied for a period of less than six months for a movable structure and a much less period—which I think everyone will agree is right—of six weeks for any other premises.
    Movable structures would, for example, include marquees and stands, portable offices found in docks, and huts used as offices on building sites and in connection with civil engineering work. Because of their particular movable character, it would probably be agreed that a longer period of occupation, six months, is reasonable as compared with the occupation of permanent buildings and structures. For the latter the period is to be confined to six weeks. This, we feel, would ensure that permanent premises used only for short periods—I give the example of such premises used for a charitable appeal or for election purposes—would be excluded.
    466
    I should draw the attention of the House to two further safeguards. If an occupier overruns a period of six weeks or six months permitted by this new Clause he would make himself liable to proceedings, not only in respect of subsequent offences, but in respect of offences committed during the initial six weeks or six months as well. All the provisions of the Bill will therefore have potential application to the premises from the first day on which they are occupied.
    Secondly, persons employed in offices on building and civil engineering sites or in portable offices in docks, will generally have the use of facilities provided for manual workers under the Factories Acts legislation or those provided for workers in offices in adjacent buildings. The main object is to avoid repeated registration of premises and applications for exemption certificates which, unless we had a provision of this kind, might be necessary every time any of these huts was moved.
    I hope I have been able to show the House that, while we are trying to bring in a common sense provision, we are most anxious to ensure that proper safeguards shall go with it and that there shall be no loophole for people who exceed a reasonable period in the use of this sort of premises.
    Mr. MacDermot: This new Clause is remarkable for two reasons. It is the first new Clause we have considered today which has not been put on the Notice Paper as a result of a request from this side of the House. In case we should appear to be claiming all the credit for ourselves, it is only right that we should give credit to the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) for having brought this matter forward.
    The second way in which, I suggest, the new Clause is remarkable is in its syntax. I do not know how many times hon. Members have had to read the new Clause before they could understand it, but I confess that I had to read it a number of times. I hope that when my son takes his G.C.E. in a short time he will not be confronted with a sentence like this.
    Mr. Hale: If my hon. Friend can understand it, will he tell me which is the noun which controls the verb in
    "proceedings or prosecutions are or is".

    467
    Is "proceedings" regarded as singular, or is "prosecutions" regarded as singular?
    Mr. MacDermot: I am afraid my hon. Friend has beaten me to it because that was the next point I was about to make. My understanding was reached only when I persuaded myself that this was a printer's error in this extraordinary sentence. I think the "s" on "prosecutions" ought not to be there. If that is right, I can make sense of it. With "prosecutions" in the plural I am afraid that, like my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), I got lost.
    Those are small points, but I think we can agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that there is a need for a Clause of this kind. It would be unreasonable to ask that the whole provisions of the Act should apply to what are purely temporary office structures. I think we can also agree with the periods which have been suggested, six months for movable structures, and six weeks for permanent buildings for these purposes.
    We have been told that every effort has been made to draft the Clause in such a way as to prevent any evasion. Only one point has occurred to me on that. It is that there is not any requirement that the user which entitles the person to the defence under this Clause shall be the sole or exclusive user. If there were a building which was normally office premises but which was loaned to, or let out to, some charitable organisation for a short period, the Act would cease to apply. I do not see any reason why that should be so. There could be a dual user, the permanent user and occupier and someone else. That is all the more reason why the Act should apply, to prevent overcrowding and unsuitable conditions. I throw out the suggestion that at a later stage it might be thought desirable to tidy that up and to see that the defence is applicable only where there is an exclusive user. Subject to that, I should commend the Clause to the House.
    Mr. Graham Page: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for this new Clause. There would have been great hardship caused both to occupiers and administrators under the Bill if premises occupied for temporary
    468
    purposes were subject to the full force of the Bill. Apart from misprints and difficult grammar, I think the Clause is a very ingenious way of accomplishing what was wanted.
    It is, therefore, perhaps extremely ungrateful for me to criticise it in any way, but I have one criticism to make because I think a practical difficulty will arise. The person prosecuted is to have a defence if he can show that the premises were used
    "for a purpose that was accomplished"
    —I repeat the word "was", in the past tense—before the expiration of a certain period. The period is in one case six months and, in the other, six weeks. During any such period a prosecution might take place. A prosecution might take place against the occupier of a movable dwelling one month after he has started occupation for temporary purposes.
    The Clause places him in some difficulty because he has a defence only if he can show that the whole of the six months was completed for this purpose. He cannot do that when he has been occupying the dwelling for only one month. If a prosecution is brought against him after one month, unless he can get the magistrates to adjourn the case for a further five months, which they may be unwilling to do—he cannot force an adjournment—he will be in great difficulty.
    I think this was an ingenious way of dealing with the matter, but I hope that in another place an Amendment will be introduced to meet this point to bring it from the past tense to the present so that such a person is not liable to prosecution until six months after he started to occupy a movable dwelling, or six weeks in any other case. If it were restricted to prosecution after that time he would have the protection of this new Clause, but if not, he would have difficulty in putting forward a defence.
    Mr. Hale: Not only would this mean almost inevitably that no proceedings would be brought in the six months, but if an occupier were conscious of a contravention he would have to move at the end of the six months to avoid a prosecution and he could come back later. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) because I had not seen this point until he made

    469
    it. It is no use asking magistrates to prosecute people who have the worst premises under the sun and who are contravening every Section of the Act if those people can say, "We have only just come in temporarily and we shall go out in six months time." If the provision were amended there would be the excellent effect of getting those people out and they could not avail themselves of the loophole. I think the hon. Member for Crosby has made an important and constructive criticism, which is worth consideration.
    Mr. Whitelaw: I am always extremely anxious when the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot) suggests that he does not understand something in legal language because if he does not understand it there is absolutely no hope for me, and if also the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) does not understand it, then I realise that I had better retire from the contest altogether.
    I understand that a small Amendment would make the Clause clearly comprehensible to the hon. Member for Derby, North, and I am therefore delighted to be able to assure him that the "s" in the second "prosecutions" is a printing error and will be put right. If that is done, I am delighted that it will be comprehensible to him, and also, I understand, by a side wind, if that is the right way of putting it, to the hon. Member for Oldham, West.
    I have listened to the point put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) and I think that possibly what he is referring to is an unlikely event, but, nevertheless. I think it would be right for me to say that we shall carefully study what he has said and, if it is necessary to do anything, of course it will be done.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause.—(APPEAL FROM REFUSAL OF COURT TO MAKE ORDER.)
    Where on a complaint made to an appropriate court under section 19 of this Act the court fails to make an order under that section the complainant may appeal therefrom to a court of quarter sessions.—[Mr. Temple.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. John M. Temple: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    In the unavoidable absence of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wembley, North (Wing Commander Bullus), I present this new Clause which, I believe, is comprehensible and contains no printing mistakes whatsoever, and therefore I hope that it will commend itself to the Minister.
    This Clause has the support of the Association of Municipal Corporations, the Rural District Councils' Association and, I believe, the other local authority associations. The underlying object of the Clause, will, I think, be reasonably clear to hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is to make it possible, mainly for local authorities who, I believe, have a considerable knowledge of constructional standards and dangers with regard to buildings and structures, to be able to take action before a higher court.
    I will explain this rather more clearly. It may well be that a magistrates' court under Clause 19 of the Bill may fail to make an order for putting down dangerous conditions and practices. Clause 19 contains all kinds of references to possible dangers to structures and buildings and it is just possible—I speak as a magistrate—that magistrates may not be quite as conversant with dangerous conditions in premises as are inspectors of local authorities.
    In the particular circumstances, if this Clause were added to the Bill local authorities would be able to make an appeal to quarter sessions against the decision of the magistrates' court. The Clause is put forward in order that we shall be able to give additional protection to the public. I do not believe that this is in any way an unreasonable request, and as an extra safeguard it may well commend itself to hon. Members on both sides of the House. I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will take into consideration the extra safeguard to the public which would be assured if this Clause were accepted.
    6.45 p.m.
    Mr. Whitelaw: My hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) has put forward this Clause with a very careful and well reasoned argument. We had a similar discussion, as

    471
    hon. Members will recall, in Standing Committee. On that occasion, an Amendment to the same effect was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Bourne-Arton) and my right hon. Friend undertook to consider the point further. Since then, this problem has been most carefully considered. I think that one must accept at once that on the face of it it seems equitable that equal rights of appeal should be given to both parties. But having said that, one then has to appreciate that their interests are really quite different.
    The decision of the magistrates' court against the occupier hits his actual interest and one might add, of course, his pocket. He has to do something; he has to spend money; he may even have to shut down his premises. I think that it would be agreed that in the general principle of our law a man in such a position has the right of appeal from the court in the first instance to a higher court, and under the Bill he has that right.
    I equally think that it would be accepted that an enforcing authority is not in this regard in the same position. Surely to some extent the enforcing authority is in a position analogous far more to that of a prosecutor, and in our law we do not give a prosecutor a right of appeal against an acquittal. I do not think that anyone would suggest that we should. But I think that we have to accept that the position of the enforcement authority in this case is somewhat analogous. In factories the safety issues, I think it is generally agreed, are likely to be even more important than those under the Bill. In fact in the Factories Act the provision suggested in this new Clause is not given. I think that it would be agreed that one should have a finality of enforcement at some point. That point was fixed without going as far as this new Clause for the Factories Act, and we felt it right after long consideration to maintain the same principle as in the Factories Act.
    I realise that this is a difficult point and that there are arguments on both sides. I should like to assure my hon. Friend that the decision to continue as in the Factories Act was taken only after very careful consideration of all the possible issues, and I hope that I
    472
    have been able to put in detail the reasons why we felt it was right in this case to maintain the same principle and to follow the precedent of the Factories Act.
    Mr. Prentice: I find the Parliamentary Secretary's views on this new Clause very disappointing. In the unlikely event of his hon. Friend wanting to press it to a Division, I think that we would support him. I think he has made out a case that deserves a better answer than the one he has had. The Parliamentary Secretary said, as was said on a similar point in Committee, that the position of the occupier in this is different from the position of the enforcing authority, and he has drawn attention to the fact that the occupier has to spend money to comply with an order and, in certain circumstances, might have to close down.
    What we are really concerned with is not so much the rights of the enforcing authority as an authority, but the rights of the employee. The Bill is designed to provide certain minimum standards for employees. A local authority applies for an order on behalf of the employees where it thinks they are required to work under conditions so bad that they fail to come up to the very moderate standards—in our view, in some cases, too modest—of this piece of legislation. It would, therefore, seem reasonable that the enforcing authority should have the right to appeal to a higher court if the magistrates do not feel inclined to make an order. There must be finality at some point, but should it rest at the point of the magistrate's court? I do not want to denigrate the voluntary magistrates, for I was one myself, but it is only right that against their decisions there should be appeals and I would have thought that this was one of the things against which an appeal should lay in certain cases.
    This is something about which, I would have thought, the Government might have been prepared to make a concession. I hope that they may feel inclined to do so before the Bill reaches another place and that, if they do not, a number of noble Lords will raise the matter because a case has been made out and it has not been answered by the Parliamentary Secretary.
    Mr. Ede: I understand the main argument adduced by the Parliamentary Secretary was to the

    473
    effect that finality should be reached if the case goes one way at the lowest court. Are we certain that finality will be reached there? If the local authority is seriously aggrieved by a decision, is it not possible that it will ask to have a case stated for consideration by a higher court; which would be a much more expensive way for the defendant if the decision a there goes against him?
    I would have thought that an appeal to the appeal committee of quarter sessions, which is well understood these days—where the committee has been carefully selected from among the magistrates—would enable the case to be contested far more cheaply than if it goes by way of case stated or such other remedy as the local authority may have. I support the Amendment and the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice).
    Mr. Graham Page: The Clause would introduce an entirely new principle into our criminal law, and I am doubtful if we should accept that the Bill is of such an exception to all criminal law that we should introduce a Clause which would completely reverse the normal principle that there is no right of appeal from acquittal. The only really good reason why a local authority should want to take the matter to a higher court would be on a point of law; perhaps for a rehearing of the facts all over again. The fellow acquitted should not, I would have thought, have to be put to the burden of having those facts tried all over again.
    If there is a point of law it should be decided by a higher court, and the local authority has the right to ask the magistrate to state a case for this. It can then be taken to a higher court, but not for a rehearing of the facts. It is no argument in support of the Clause to say that the prosecutor in this case is acting on behalf of employees or the public. The prosecutor is always acting to protect the public in one way or another, and in, say, a traffic case he is acting to protect the public against, perhaps, dangerous driving. Thus this is no argument for the Clause. I do not think that we could accept that the Bill is such an exceptional piece of legislation that we must destroy a major principle of our ordinary law.
    Mr. Hale: With respect to the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), so far as I understand the Clause—and I speak always subject to correction, for we have a mass of paper to understand and a great deal of discussion to study—this is nothing to do with the prosecution. It is true that the effect of applying Clause 19 on an owner has some penal consequences, and I am happy to see my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) in his place—had I seen him first, in fact, I do not think that I would have had the cheek to get up to comment on this matter otherwise—for he could comment further from his knowledge and ability and with authority on this matter.
    There are always these quasi-criminal, quasi-civil procedures which are not easy to define. An application for an injunction may be penal in its results and it may result in great financial consequences. I speak subject to correction, but from my reading of Clause 19 there is no provision for a punitive penalty in the sense of a sentence or fine. The owner of the building is not convicted of anything. He may be hard hit but, as I understand it—and as I have said I always speak subject to correction—the only effect is on the building; a serious matter for him, but the declaration is that the building should not continue to be occupied until it is made safe and the prohibition on its occupation and use remains until the dangerous conditions are remedied. That is a civil procedure.
    I realise that this is not an easy matter. We have always had this problem of civil proceedings before magistrates. I rather think that there are even more now than when I was in practice, for there are matrimonial cases, affiliation cases between persons and a variety of others. There is no prosecutor as such involved in the provisions of the Bill. There is a complaint by an appropriate officer of the local authority who merely says, "These premises are not safe to be used". There cannot possibly be any question in the mind of anyone that if the local authority comes to the conclusion that there is a fire danger of the type we recall in this country—and I can recall some striking examples in work places in the United States—something should be done about it. In the type of cases we can all recall we probably know

    475
    that for a considerable time the authority had been writing and saying, "You must do something about this; you must keep the doors open and widen those exits." On many occasions local authorities must have told those concerned, "You must act quickly"?
    Clause 19 as originally drafted—and I do not think that it has been amended—provides that a case could be heard by a single magistrate. Is not the point of providing for such matters to be heard by a single magistrate simply a question of ensuring urgency? Again subject to correction, when I was practising—and it is some years since I did that—a single magistrate could hear applications for the disposal of certain matters of urgency under the provisions of the old system. But a single magistrate could try a charge. Urgent matters decided by a single magistrate may mean perhaps without all the evidence being ready.
    In this case, however, the law would work rather in the form of an interim injunction. A single magistrate makes an order and the complainant has the right to appeal to quarter sessions and the hearing there would be in the nature of a rehearing, with power to call fresh evidence; with the result, perhaps, that the right order is made. Surely, in the circumstances, there is no invasion or abrogation of principle whatever and there is nothing fundamentally wrong in saying that the complainant may not have had the expert evidence at his disposal and had to put a case for a prohibition or injunction of an interim kind to prevent any danger to workers and that, in those circumstances, there should be the right to go to court when there would be more time to consider all the evidence.
    Mr. J. Hynd: Like other hon. Members, I feel rather uneasy about this matter. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) I will not go into the legal ramifications. However, from the layman's point of view, it seems obvious that there is something wrong here.
    The proposed new Clause refers to Clause 19. I think that it also involves Clause 60 in which, again, the question of appeal is involved, including the right of the enforcing authority to appeal. I certainly cannot see the logic of the argu-
    476
    ment of the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) regarding the right of the public prosecutor; and the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West adequately dealt with that matter.
    The position, when the Bill is passed, will be this. A complaint is made about there having been a breach of the provisions of what will then be the Act. The case goes to the magistrates' court and the prosecution is confirmed. There is the right of appeal but, according to the hon. Member for Crosby, the same right of appeal should not be given to the enforcing authority which is, it is claimed the prosecutor. But surely it is not the prosecutor in that sense. Why did it bring the case in the first place? Not in order to punish somebody or to see that the penalties of an Act of Parliament were applied because of some crime or misdemeanour, but primarily in order to ensure observation of the conditions required by the Act in the interest of perhaps large numbers of ordinary people who have no other safeguard.
    7.0 p.m.
    That is why it does it. No local authority will bring such an action unless it is fully satisfied from its experience that the conditions exist which create a risk to safety or health as laid down in the minimum standards under this Measure. Is the House seriously suggesting that because a magistrates' court, and it might be a single magistrate, does not quite see the point and rejects the order the local authority is then to be left helpless with no other recourse?
    I should have thought that in simple justice and equity the local authority, being the only authority concerned with safeguarding the interests of those who are working on the premises which it is satisfied are either dangerous or injurious to the health and comfort of the employees, must have this recourse. Unless the Minister can give us a much more satisfactory reason, and I cannot imagine that he will, because we have had this point dealt with already in Standing Committee, I would seriously consider whether we should not reject the Clause as it stands or at the very least ask that something should be done to put it right in another place.
    Mr. MacDermot: The Minister is in the House on this occasion without the

    477
    assistance of one of the Law Officers of the Crown. This is the first of a number of proposals which will raise quite difficult legal questions and I would have hoped to have seen a Law Officer present. Perhaps we shall later. If the House divides, it looks as if we shall have some interesting cross-voting, because the House does not seem to be divided in the normal way on this matter.
    I share the views expressed by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). I feel that it would be wrong to introduce the new Clause and that it would bring about an innovation into the legal system. It is true that these are net strictly criminal proceedings, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) has said, they would be quasi-criminal proceedings. In these circumstances the person who is bringing the proceedings has the duty, first of all, to satisfy the court of first instance that the facts of which he complains are well-founded. If he proves the facts, he then has to satisfy the court that the facts produce a state of affairs about which in law the court ought to make an order. If the complainant establishes his facts but the court refuses to make an order, that is a matter on which he will have the right of appeal to a divisional court by way of case stated. That is frequently done in cases of this kind.
    Mr. Ede: To the benefit of lawyers.
    Mr. MacDermot: I am afraid that the lawyers will get the benefit whether the case goes to quarter sessions or to the divisional court, and I do not think that it is right to suggest that it is very much more expeditious to go to quarter sessions. Probably it will be more expensive if the appeal is to quarter sessions, because then there is a completely new hearing of the matter. It has to be tried again. All the witnesses have to be called on both sides and there may be fresh witnesses, whereas if it goes to the divisional court it is a purely legal argument on the facts as found by the magistrates.
    The principle is that when a man who is put in peril on a criminal or quasi-criminal charge he ought not to be put in peril twice. If the prosecution fails to prove the facts the first time it ought not to be allowed to say, "Sorry,
    478
    we did not prove our case very well the first time. We will try again and produce more evidence". It is a very salutary requirement that those who complain shall produce all the evidence and the facts at the first time of asking.
    Mr. Graham Page: Has the hon. Member noticed that if the new Clause is carried there could be an appeal from the interim order as well, so that the man might be put in peril four times, on the interim order being heard, on an appeal from that, and then going back to the magistrate again. This comes under subsection (2).
    Mr. MacDermot: I think that is quite right. I had not noted the point.
    If we look for precedents in this matter surely there are many provisions under public health Acts and the Town and Country Planning Acts where the enforcing authority, usually the local authority, can bring someone before the magistrates and ask for an order, on a complaint, for example, to abate a nuisance or on an order for an enforcement notice under the Town and Country Planning Acts.
    I speak again subject to correction, but I think that it is not normal and I cannot think of any instance where under those Acts if a complainant fails to establish his facts before the summary court he is able to appeal to quarter sessions in order to try to prove his case afresh there. Although this is not a strictly criminal matter it is quasi-criminal. There are many precedents, and for my part I think it would be undesirable to give the complainant the right of appeal.
    Mr. Whitelaw: The discussion has underlined the difficulty of reaching the right decision on this matter. I have received welcome reinforcements from my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) and from the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot). This I find very encouraging, but against that I have to set the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), and he is a very powerful reinforcement on whatever side he chooses to go, and he has gone against me. There have been other powerful reinforcements against me in the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd) and the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale).

    479
    If we had legal opinion on one side and lay opinion on the other one would have understood that, but this occasion is more difficult because we have legal opinion and lay opinion on both sides. Clearly, therefore, this is a most difficult matter to resolve. The House may have noticed that in my original speech—untypical of myself because I usually rush in far too fast—I was extremely careful not to commit myself on the new Clause at that stage. I thought that it would be right to hear further the views of the House on both sides on this matter in view of the difficulty in reaching a decision. I suggest, having heard the discussion, that possibly the right course for my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) would be to withdraw his new Clause now. Then this point can be returned to in another place where perhaps further arguments of the sort we have heard can be undertaken to consider the point further.
    I am bound to tell my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend believes that the decision we have made is the right one, but of course it was a narrow decision and a difficult one to reach. In these circumstances it would seem right not to rush into hasty action now but to withdraw the Clause and continue discussion on what is inevitably a rather narrow and difficult point. I hope therefore that my hon. Friend will be ready to withdraw the Motion.
    Mr. Temple: On this comparatively short Clause we seem to have got into rather deep water. Lawyers on both sides seem to be divided, but one thing on which they are united is that this will be a legal breakfast of some magnitude if it is enacted in this form. I never claimed to be wedded to the wording of the Clause. All I claimed was that the spelling was immaculate. But I was fortified by the support which I had from the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), and I should like to quote one short sentence from a letter which I have received from the Association of Municipal Corporations which entirely supports the point of view which the right hon. Gentleman put forward. It reads:
    "It is not clear whether local authorities have a right of appeal upon a question of law by way of case stated to the Divisional High Court of the Queen's Bench Division."
    480
    The Association of Municipal Corporations thinks that there is doubt on this matter.
    I should like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for saying that once again this matter, which is of some consequence, will be reconsidered, and, in those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Clause.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 1,—(PREMISES TO WHICH THIS ACT APPLIES.)
    Mr. Speaker: The next Amendment is in page 2, line 11. Mr. Whitelaw.
    Mr. Winterbottom: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand, subject to your correction, that the Amendment in page 2, line 13, after "trade", insert "including mail order trade" standing in my name and in the names of two of my hon. Friends, will not be called. In view of the fact that the issue in the Amendment includes the question of mail order trade, which was not discussed in Committee, is it possible that the Amendment in my name, to the Minister's Amendment, may be called and discussed with the Amendment to which you have referred so that we may clarify the position of mail order business?
    Mr. Speaker: There are two Amendments standing in the name of the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp). I do not propose to select the second of them but I will call the first, which covers all of the points with which the hon. Gentleman is concerned.
    Mr. Whitelaw: I beg to move, in page 2, line 11, to leave out from the beginning to the end of line 19 and to insert:
    (ii) a building or part of a building, being a building or part which is not a shop but of which the sole or principal use is the carrying on there of retail trade or business;
    (iii) a building occupied by a wholesale dealer or merchant where goods are kept for sale wholesale to persons resorting thereto or a part of a building so occupied where goods are so kept;
    (iv) a building to which members of the public are invited to resort for the purpose of delivering there goods for repair or other treatment or of themselves there carrying out repairs to, or other treatment of, goods or a part of a building to which members of the public are invited to resort for that purpose;

    481
    (v) any premises (in this Act referred to as "fuel storage premises") occupied for the purpose of a trade of business which consists of or includes the sale of solid fuel, being premises used for the storage of such fuel intended to be sold in the course of that trade or business, but not including premises which constitute, or are comprised in, premises to which certain provisions of the Factories Act 1961 apply by virtue of section 125 (1) (docks, etc.) of that Act; and
    It may be convenient, Mr. Speaker, if with this Amendment we discuss the Amendments in page 2, leave out lines 24 to 26, and insert:
    "and
    (c) 'solid fuel' means coal, coke and any solid fuel derived from coal or of which coal or coke is a constituent;
    and for the purposes of this Act premises occupied together with a shop or with a building or part of a building falling within sub-paragraph (ii), (iii) or (iv) of paragraph (a) above for the purposes of the trade or business carried on in the shop or as the case may be the building or part of a building, shall be treated as forming part of the shop or, as the case may he, of the building or part of the building, and premises occupied together with fuel storage premises for the purposes of the activities there carried on (not being office premises) shall be treated as forming part of the fuel-storage premises, but for the purposes of this Act office premises comprised in fuel storage premises shall be deemed not to form part of the last-mentioned premises."
    In Clause 77, page 51, line 27, at end insert:
    "fuel storage premises" has the meaning assigned to it by section 1 (3) (a) (v) of this Act"
    and also, if you were agreeable, we could also discuss the proposed Amendment to this Amendment in the names of the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) and others.
    Mr. Speaker: Yes, if the House so wishes.
    Mr. Whitelaw: These Amendments have some objects which I think will commend themselves to the House. First, there was a point raised in Committee by the hon. Members for Bradford, South (Mr. George Craddock) and for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Winterbottom) on the definition of shop premises. Shop premises other than shops are now defined in terms of a building or part of a building.
    The object of this part of the Amendments is to make clear beyond any doubt that shop premises that form part of a larger building—for example, a private house—are covered by the definition.
    482
    This was a point about which the hon. Members for Brightside and Bradford, South were anxious; and, in order to make sure that this point is covered, this Amendment was put down. We were of the opinion that the existing definition in the Bill included the premises which they had in mind. We are really moving the Amendment in order to put the matter beyond all possible doubt. I hope that the hon. Members concerned will feel that that is right.
    Secondly, the addition in paragraph (iv) of the words
    "or of themselves there carrying out repairs to, or other treatment of, goods"
    is intended to cover such places as launderettes where, although people are normally employed, the washing of the clothes is carried out by the people who actually take them there. This is a point on which several hon. Members have written to me, including my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason).
    Thirdly, the Amendments bring coal depots, which we now refer to as fuel storage premises, within the scope of the definition of shop premises. The expression "fuel storage premises" refers to the individual set of premises occupied by a coal merchant and there may, therefore, be a number of such premises within the area, commonly regarded as a coal depot. Most of the premises will be wholly in the open, but the definition includes any that are under cover, and also any huts or buildings other than office premises which are occupied together with the fuel storage premises for the purpose of the activities carried on there. The definition does not limit the premises to those on railway land, but excludes coal depots in docks and on canal wharves because these places are covered by the Factories Act.
    Fourthly, the Amendment in page 2, to leave out lines 24 to 26 and to insert sub-paragraph (c) defines solid fuel in the same terms as the definition in the Sixth Schedule to the Weights and Measures Bill.
    7.15 p.m.
    May I now turn to the problem of mail order businesses, referred to in the Amendment in the names of the hon. Members for Oldham, East Brightside, and Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price). The hon. Member for Oldham.

    483
    East was good enough to send me a very full description of these premises, and I am extremely grateful to him for his courtesy in so doing. This matter has been considered very carefully and I am advised that the definition starting at line 11 on page 2—that is, subsection (3, a, ii). of Clause 1—even as modified in the Government Amendment will cover any premises where the sole or principal use is that of a mail order business. I know that the hon. Gentleman's object in putting down his Amendment was to get that assurance on the record, and I am glad to be able to give it to him.
    The words which are relevant to this part of the Clause and which, indeed, remain unchanged, are:
    "of which the sole or principal use is the carrying on there of retail trade or business".
    I am advised that these words cover a mail order business, and I hope that with that assurance the hon. Gentleman concerned will be satisfied. I hope also that I have managed to explain the other Amendments.
    Mr. Charles Mapp: I am indebted to the Parliamentary Secretary for having included in his remarks a reference to mail order businesses. In a few months' time this Bill will be presented to town clerks and public health inspectors as an operative Act. The Town Clerk of Oldham may well have grave doubts about the mail order business and whether the Act will be clear to those who have to interpret it. When I refer to the mail order business I am excluding the clerical element of it, and devoting my remarks to the packing side, in which two-thirds of the employees are engaged.
    It is my view that the mail order business is an innovation, in the sense that it does not fall neatly into the normal descriptions of either retail or wholesale business. I take the view that the average man would say that it is neither. It is a new form of business. Let me describe, for the benefit of hon. Members who are not familiar, what takes place. A mail order firm recruits, on a commission, agents all over the country. The agent is usually a private citizen and she encourages clients to join her club as she calls it, consisting usually of about twenty people. Having encouraged those
    484
    clients, she then, on behalf of the mail order firm, distributes a catalogue, and that is the only basis of sale. The catalogue is presented to and received by her customers or clients, and the sale of whatever it may be is on the basis of what is in the catalogue.
    As a rule, the agent informs the mail order business of her 20 customers, but there is at no point any invitation of any kind or any inference that the goods may be seen at any point. There is no invitation whatever such as one would expect in a retail business. It is done entirely on the catalogue.
    In Oldham, there are half a dozen mills concerned, employing between 3,000 and 4,000 people. The trade is even more extensive in Liverpool and in Manchester. It is equally extensive in Wigan and in Bolton. Whatever we may think about it, this is a developing trade.
    The major sources of supply for the mail order firms are congregated at the stock warehousing point. In Oldham there are six mills, and in Bolton also there are some mills. On receipt of the individual orders, the packing staff break down the stock, and it is then packed and handed over to the railways or the Post Office for transmission in the ordinary way. It may go either to the ultimate buyer or to the agent. I understand that the agent is not responsible for any bad debts.
    The point I make is that the thousands of people employed in this business need the reassurance of words in the Bill that they are covered.
    In Oldham—the situation could be reproduced in many other Lancashire towns —mail order businesses occupy five large warehouses, three of them of six floors and two of five floors. They are not small places at all. There is a total staff of 2,500. Of these, 974 are clerical, and they are covered by the Bill in any case. The remaining 1,500 are engaged on the packing processes, and it is here that the Bill is doubtful in its application. There are roughly 974 male workers and 1,500 females.
    I have had from the Minister a clear and courteous letter, now confirmed by the Parliamentary Secretary, to the effect that he regards workers in mail order businesses as covered by what he proposes. However, this will be of no avail to a diligent local authority—the problem

    485
    arises in an area where this legislation is overwhelmingly required—which, in its efforts to apply the intention of the Bill in a few months' time, takes the matter to a court of law. In the Lancashire towns there are serious fire risks in all sorts of mill buildings. This is one of the uses to which the mills have been put, and we welcome it, but we wish to make quite certain that legislation passed by the House is clearly seen by laymen to be applicable to what goes on in those premises.
    In view of what has been said, the Minister will, I appreciate, find it difficult to go back on his statement and say that he is prepared to consider the matter again. He has assuredly said that these premises are legally covered. However, I beg him to consider what may happen in 12 months or so when well-intentioned public health officers or town clerks, anxious to give guidance locally, have to consider how the Bill applies to the facts as they find them. These gentlemen are not constantly coming down to London or elsewhere for legal and other advice. This new and extensive form of trading does not fit happily within the normal conception of retail and wholesale business.
    I suggest that, if he can do nothing now, the Minister ought to consider, as the Bill goes further, whether some form of words—mine may not be quite right—can be written into the Bill to put beyond any doubt or ambiguity that these workers are covered. When I speak of these workers, of course, I quite appreciate that the clerical workers are already included. I have in mind the packing staff who constitute two-thirds of the people employed in these premises.
    Mr. Farr: The large-scale change in Clause 1 (3) gives me an opportunity to ask my right hon. Friend whether he could settle a doubt which arose in Standing Committee and which was never satisfactorily dealt with. Do betting shops fall within the scope of the Clause? In Committee, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) raised the question of betting shops and asked the Parliamentary Secretary for his views. He was supported by the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot), who said that, in his view, betting shops quite clearly came within the scope of the Clause.
    486
    I have taken the trouble to look for a definition of "shop". I have referred to the Concise Oxford Dictionary.
    Mr. Whitelaw: Perhaps I can save my hon. Friend's time. Betting shops are offices. Therefore, as offices, they come within the provisions of the Bill. Perhaps my hon. Friend will think that his further intervention is no longer necessary.
    Mr. Farr: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. He said in Committee that he had not at that time formed an opinion. I am very glad that he is now able to give us the benefit of that information.
    Mr. Winterbottom: I stress the need for putting in the Bill something which will clearly cover mail order stores. I still believe that the text of the Bill as we discussed it first in Committee covered mail order stores. I consider that the text now suggested in the proposed substitution will not cover mail order stores. It is essential that there should be no shadow of doubt whatever that mail order stores are covered.
    The office workers in mail order stores are covered already, so we leave those out of consideration at this point. Should mail order stores be regulated as retail, wholesale or office premises? I understand that retail distribution is the business of selling goods in small quantities, taking goods from the bulk and making sales in small units. The trade has to be done directly with the customer.
    I gather that there are many references to this question in the legal textbooks and many cases have come before the courts where the nature of the sale to the customer has been the direct link in defining what is or what is not retail distribution. If a mail order business is conducted by means of a catalogue being sent directly to a customer, then I believe that that makes it a retail distributing firm. But a third person intervenes here. Instead of going direct to the customer, the catalogue goes to an agent who conducts the business for the firm directly with the customer. Therefore, the definition of "retail distribution" does not apply. Because this business is carried on in small units as distinct from wholesaling in bulk, mail

    487
    order firms cannot be covered by the definition of "wholesaling" as it is in the Bill.
    7.30 p.m.
    The Parliamentary Secretary said that his legal advisers are clear on this matter. But it is not what he has said in Committee or here today which counts. What counts in a court is the text in the Act. Magistrates and judges will not consider what the Parliamentary Secretary has said in justification of his belief that mail order stores are covered by this legislation. They will look at the cold letter of the Act. There should be a closer examination of this matter. I believe that the old text of the Bill would have covered mail order firms. I believe that the new text proposed today by the Parliamentary Secretary creates a larger and much more dangerous loophole than the text which we had in Committee. I therefore ask that the position of mail order concerns be reconsidered.
    Mr. Whitelaw: I have only stated what I have been advised is the position. I am the first to appreciate the limitations of the wording and I would not seek to put a greater construction on it than is justified. Having heard the arguments of the hon. Members for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) and Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Winterbottom)—and I know that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) holds the same view—it would be churlish if I did not say that we will carefully reconsider the matter. We want to be careful that we do not put words into an Act which are not necessary. There will be an opportunity in another place to return to what I accept as a new and very important point. I hope that that assurance will satisfy the hon. Member for Oldham, West.
    Mr. Hale: I am not quite satisfied with what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, and I should like to add a few sentences.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) has served the House and Oldham very well by tabling his Amendment. He has presented the case for it with great clarity. Naturally, he described the situation in Oldham where several thousands of workers are affected by this matter, and he devoted his attention principally to that. The business of
    488
    mail order not only affects many parts of Lancashire but is spreading to many other places. Trade and economic experts think that this process will expand. hope that tomorrow morning I shall receive a pork pie in the post from someone in Leicestershire, because I was born in Leicestershire and I like Leicestershire pork pies. A very substantial trade is carried on in food and it may be extremely important that it should be expanded.
    I should like to say this in addition to the cogent points which my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East made. He described this practice in great detail and with great lucidity. Some of these companies advertise on the basis that one deals directly with the wholesaler. This is not the case with Oldham companies as far as I know, but in other places advertisements are issued saying. "Buy your stuff at wholesale prices. Get your stuff by post direct from the manufacturers" In many cases, the manufacturers have taken over concerns for the purpose of distribution. One factory in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East is engaged in packaging things for export. It makes nothing. The merchandise is made in another factory many miles away, but it employs many people who are engaged in packaging.
    I suggest that the Minister has got it wrong. There is no objection to including additional words in a Statute. The objection is to leaving them out. The rule of ejusdem generis is being applied with increasing strictness. The Parliamentary Secretary may know that day after day judges are saving with increasing pain, "Why will not Parliament say what it means?" Day after day courts of three judges are wondering whether tinned salmon is fish or whether salmon cakes are fish cakes. The Minister says. "We do not want to put in extra words if they are not necessary". But my hon. Friend has drafted his Amendment with complete correctitude. The only reservation that I have—and I am sure my hon. Friend will not mind my saying this—is that I wonder whether on the whole it is better to call these premises shops or to treat them as industrial premises generally, because some provisions do not apply to shops but do apply elsewhere. All that the Amendment proposes is that the words "including retail trade" should be put in the Bill. What harm can that do? What

    489
    possible mistake can arise from that? Why is there a curious tendency against a little additional clarity being put in a particularly obscure Bill which is not notable for the perfection of its English?
    The Minister should reconsider this matter. He has treated the House fairly and generously and we have been ready to accept his assurances. However, he has more faith in another place than I have. Unless the Government take action on this in another place, perhaps no one else will. This is a matter of vital importance to a growing industry.
    I hope that I shall be forgiven for repeating a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East because it is important. This mail order business is being carried on in old, and often very old, industrial premises which were constructed for a wholly different purpose and which are being rapidly adapted to accommodate increasing numbers of workers. I therefore suggest to the Minister that the Amendment is really important, and I say to him with absolute sincerity that I cannot think of any reason why it should not be accepted.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East referred to the Town Clerk of Oldham and to town clerks generally who have to decide whether a prosecution should go before the courts. There is a phobia in many town halls about bringing unsuccessful litigation. If there is a doubt about the matter, if there is the possibility of appeal and if the authorities may be landed with great expense in order to ascertain whether Clause 1 means this or that, it is likely that no action will be taken; it will not be worth the worry or the trouble. Unless the Minister has any intrinsic objection to the Amendment, I should have thought that, on reflection, he could accept it. Certainly the matter should not go by default. It would be serious if words were left out thereby omitting the whole of a great and growing industry.
    Mr. Graham Page: I intervene briefly only because there is a large mail order business in my constituency. I should not like to think that the speeches which have been made today are any criticism of the admirable way in which the mail order business is run. From experience, I know that staff conditions and safety precautions in the mail order business in my constituency which I have in mind
    490
    are thorough and good, but that is no reason why such businesses should receive any exemption from the Bill. I am sure that they would not wish to receive exemption. They conduct their business very well and would, I am sure, like to be included within the Bill the same as every other shop and business premises. I am inclined to think that it would be as well if my hon. Friend reconsidered the matter to make it clear that these concerns are included.
    Mr. Arthur Holt: For similar reasons. I, too, consider that there is more reason why we should make certain that mail order businesses are included than many other premises. One in my constituency is in an old cotton mill, where probably four times as many people now work in the mail order business as worked there when it was a cotton mill. It is extremely important that matters such as fire precautions, to which the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) referred, should be thorough and efficient.
    In the premises which I have in mind, and which I visited at Christmas, I was very impressed by the fire precaution arrangements that were made and I should be happy to think that they were as good in many other places. Nevertheless, it is most important that there should not be any doubt that mail order businesses are included within the Bill.
    I should like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary whether any case affecting mail order business has been heard in the courts in which the court has laid down that such a business was covered by the same set of words as is used in the Bill. If the hon. Gentleman can instance a court decision, that, obviously, would be something that the House could accept. It cannot, however, accept merely the hon. Gentleman's assurances on the subject, which have no standing in the courts.
    Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill, put and negatived.
    Question proposed, That those words be there inserted.
    Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) move his Amendment?
    Mr. Mapp: I am in some doubt, but in the light of the words used by the

    491
    Parliamentary Secretary, with reservations and in view of the fact that there has been an appeal from all sides of the House to the hon. Gentleman, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is not, in fact, moving it.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 2, leave out lines 24 to 26, and insert:
    "and
    (c) 'solid fuel' means coal, coke and any solid fuel derived from coal or of which coal or coke is a constituent;
    and for the purposes of this Act premises occupied together with a shop or with a building or part of a building falling within sub-paragraph (ii), (iii) or (iv) of paragraph (a) above for the purposes of the trade or business carried on in the shop or as the case may be the building or part of a building. shall be treated as forming part of the shop or, as the case may be, of the building or part of the building, and premises occupied together with fuel storage premises for the purposes of the activities there carried on (not being office premises) shall be treated as forming part of the fuel-storage premises, but for the purposes of this Act office premises comprised in fuel storage premises shall be deemed not to form part of the last-mentioned premises."—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

    Clause 2.—(EXCEPTION FOR PREMISES IN WHICH ONLY EMPLOYER'S RELATIVES OR OUTWORKERS WORK.)
    7.45 p.m.
    Mr. Prentice: I beg to move, in page 3, line 1, to leave out "This Act" and
    to insert:
    "The provisions of this Act (other than those contained in sections 15, 16, 17, 20, 25 to 34, 53 and 54)",
    We now move to a rather different stage of our proceedings, having thus far been mainly concerned with accepting from the Government Amendments which met or partially met points made from this side in Committee. We now move to a rather more controversial phase of our proceedings and the Amendment is a controversial one.
    We on this side do not like the Clause in any event. It states that where nobody is employed on the premises other than a whole list of relations of the employer, the Bill shall not apply to the premises. The relations who are specified are a husband, wife, parent, grandparent, son, daughter, grandchild, brother or sister of the person by whom they are employed.
    492
    In Committee, we sought to reduce that list of relatives, but we were defeated. We also voted against the Clause and, again, we were defeated.
    Now we propose something different. We propose to limit the application of the Clause to those parts of the Bill which deal with welfare and health provisions and we seek to exclude it from applying to the safety and fire precaution provisions of the Bill. To be fair, we have to admit that from the ventilation, cleanliness and similar aspects, it is possible to have two views about the duty of a man who employs his relatives, In Committee, the view was put by the Minister, although we did not accept it that on such matters it would be an interference by the State in family relationships for legislation to apply. We now suggest that special considerations are involved when dealing with the safety provisions and the fire precautions in the Bill.
    As to the safety provisions, I have often drawn attention, and have done so again today, to the fact that safety matters must be considered against the background of the rising number of accidents at work, including the increasing number of accidents at work in the kinds of premises covered by the Bill. It is vital that anyone who employs somebody else, even if it is a relative, should maintain the safety provisions specified in the Bill concerning, for example, machinery. If one considers the fencing of bacon slicers, coffee grinders and the conditions in which they may be used, the duty that a man owes to his sister or his grandchild, if he employs these relations, should be just as rigid and should be defined by law just as though he were employing somebody else.
    The same arguments apply to fire risks. We are concerned to reduce fire risks in offices, shops and railway premises. When talking about fire risks, we are talking not only of those who are employed in the premises, although the Bill is designed to protect them. It affects also people who may be working or living next door or, for example, living in a flat above a shop. The standards which we lay down should be rigid and we should not apply exemptions for people who employ their relatives.
    I do not propose to develop the case. It was made in Committee but was not

    493
    accepted. I merely repeat our main points. The Government should accept our Amendment. If not, we shall certainly press it to a Division. We invite the support of hon. Members opposite in these matters in which we are concerned with the safety of people and in which the standards specified by law should not be modified in the way that the Clause as it stands modifies them.
    Mr. Whitelaw: Am I right, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in assuming that with this Amendment we are discussing also the next one, which goes with it, in pace 3, line 2, leave out "it" and insert "they"?
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): That is so.
    Mr. J. Hynd: I urge the Minister to consider accepting the Amendment which has been so ably explained by my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice). This matter was discussed very much in Committee. The attention of the House should be drawn to the long list of relatives who can be employed in a shop or office in all manner of capacities and who, in total, could represent a considerable staff.
    I know that many hon. Members have, as I have, visited Chinese restaurants, where we find, perhaps, a staff of fifteen or twenty people who look almost identical, as though born on the same day, and who are all like brothers and sisters, and we sometimes find to our surprise that two of them are the parents. But they could all be members of the same family. Whether they are or are not does not matter to me. What matters to me is that if there is a staff of five, six or seven people, or more, they are entitled to the same kinds of conditions as anybody else, and it really does seem to be going too far to exempt from the provisions of the Bill any office or shop where there is such a number of people employed—or maybe only three or four—just because they happen to be relatives of the owner of the shop. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will sympathetically consider the Amendment.
    Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice), as always, has stated the position about this Amendment and about the Clause it concerns both fairly and correctly. We were
    494
    unable to agree on similar provisions in Committee; we were unable to agree on the Clause itself. I should like to start by saying at once that my right hon. Friend and I and everyone on this side of the House are absolutely at one with the hon. Member on the need to do everything we can to reduce accidents, to reduce risks from fire, and, of course, to promote both safety and first-aid. Where we differ here is purely on the question as to whether the best safeguard for close relatives is, in fact, the law or the family relationship itself.
    I accept at once that the hon. Member says, as he said in Committee, that the family relationship should be defined and actually put into law. I am afraid I must take the opposite view. I believe that it would be wrong to subject those small concerns where only close relatives are employed to the apparatus of enforcement and inspection even in as far as the new, limited provisions which are put forward in this Amendment are concerned. As the hon. Member said these are much more limited than those put forward in the Committee.
    However, I am afraid that here we have a fundamental disagreement. I do not think it is worth arguing the point further. The hon. Member for East Ham, North and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd) believe that this Bill should be used in the case of those small concerns where only close relatives are employed. My right hon. Friend and my hon. Friends and I think differently. We do not believe that this should be the case. We believe that the close family relationship is the right safeguard, and on those grounds I must resist this Amendment.
    Mr. J. Hynd: It is very difficult to understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, because what he said was that he thinks that the family relationship is the right safeguard; in other words, that that is a better method of ensuring these conditions than bringing in the whole apparatus of the Bill, Surely, however, if it is the case that the family relationship guarantees maintenance of these safeguards, if he has confidence in the family relationship, and if he is right, there will be no such cases in which the apparatus of the Bill will be brought into play. What we are trying to provide for is the situation where for any reason the

    495
    family influence breaks down, and that then this Bill ought to be effective.
    Mr. Whitelaw: If I may say so to the hon. Member, that is not quite what he is doing. He is going a great deal further than that. He is insisting that, whether the family relationship is right or whether it is not, the apparatus of the Bill will
    be brought in. It is this principle which, I am afraid, I cannot accept, and it is on this ground that I resist the Amendment.
    Question put, That "This Act" stand part of the Bill:—
    The House divided: Ayes 189, Noes 150.

    Division No. 69.]

    AYES

    [7.55 p.m.

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Green, Alan

    Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael

    Allason, James

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

    Arbuthnot, John

    Gurden, Harold

    Osborn, John (Hallam)

    Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Barlow, Sir John

    Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

    Partridge, E.

    Batsford, Brian

    Hare, Rt. Hon. John

    Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

    Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

    Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

    Peel, John

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhn)

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Percival, Ian

    Berkeley, Humphry

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

    Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

    Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Pike, Miss Mervyn

    Biffen, John

    Harvie Anderson, Miss

    Pilkington, Sir Richard

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Hastings, Stephen

    Pitt, Dame Edith

    Bingham, R. M.

    Hay, John

    Pott, Percivall

    Bishop, F. P.

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

    Bossom, Clive

    Hendry, Forbes

    Price, David (Eastle gh)

    Bourne-Arton, A.

    Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

    Prior, J. M, L.

    Box, Donald

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

    Prior-Palmer, Brig, Sir Otho

    Braine, Bernard

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Pym, Francis

    Brewis, John

    Hobson, Sir John

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

    Hocking, Philip N.

    Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

    Bryan, Paul

    Holland, Philip

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Buck, Antony

    Hollingworth, John

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Bullard, Denys

    Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

    Russell, Ronald

    Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

    Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

    St. Clair, M.

    Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    Seymour, Leslie

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Hulbert, Sir Norman

    Sharples, Richard

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

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

    Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Smithers, Peter

    Cleaver, Leonard

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John

    Cole, Norman

    James, David

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Cooke, Robert

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Spelr Rupert

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Cordle, John

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Storey, Sir Samuel

    Corfield, F. V.

    Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Coulson, Michael

    Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

    Talbot, John E.

    Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

    Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

    Taylor, Edwin (Bolton E.)

    Craddock, Sir Beresford

    Kershaw, Anthony

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

    Critchley, Julian

    Kirk, Peter

    Teeling, Sir William

    Cunningham, Knox

    Kitson, Timothy

    Temple, John M.

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Leather, Sir Edwin

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Leburn, Gllmour

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Dance, James

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Lilley, F. J. p.

    Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.

    Lindsay, Sir Martin

    Turner, Colin

    du Cann, Edward

    Longden, Gilbert

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Duncan, Sir James

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    van straubenzee, W. R.

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

    MacArthur, Ian

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Maddan, Martin

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    Maitland, Sir John

    Walder, David

    Farr, John

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Walker, Peter

    Finlay, Graeme

    Marten, Neil

    Wall, Patrick

    Fisher, Nigel

    Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

    Webster, David

    Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    wells, John (Maidstone)

    Gammans, Lady

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

    Whitelaw, William

    George, Sir John (Pollok)

    Mills, Stratton

    Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk Central)

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

    More, Jasper (Ludlow)

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Goodhart, Philip

    Morgan, William

    Woollam, John

    Goodhew, Victor

    Nabarro, Sir Gerald

    Worsley, Marcus

    Gower, Raymond

    Neave, Alrey

    Grant-Ferris, R.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Mr. McLaren and Mr. Rees.

    NOES

    Ainsley, William

    Harper, Joseph

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Hart, Mrs. Judith

    Pentland, Norman

    Awbery, Stan (Bristol Central)

    Hayman, F. H.

    Popplewell, Ernest

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (RwlyRegis)

    Prentice, R. E.

    Barnett, Guy

    Holman, Percy

    Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

    Beaney, Alan

    Holt, Arthur

    Rankin, John

    Bence, Cyril

    Houghton, Douglas

    Redhead, E. C.

    Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Benson, Sir George

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Blackburn, F.

    Hunter A. E.

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Blyton, William

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)

    Boardman, H.

    Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

    Roots, William

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

    Short, Edward

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

    Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

    Jeger, George

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Bowles, Frank

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Skeffington, Arthur

    Boyden, James

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

    Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

    Brockway, A. Fanner

    Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

    Small, William

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Smith, Eills (Stoke, S.)

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Castle, Mrs. Barbara

    Kelley, Richard

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Collick, Percy

    King, Dr. Horace

    Steele, Thomas

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Lawson, George

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Cronin, John

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Swingler, Stephen

    Crosland, Anthony

    Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

    Taverne, D.

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

    Lubbock, Eric

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

    Darling, George

    McCann, John

    Thomson, G. M. (Dundee E.)

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    MacDermot, Niall

    Thornton, Ernest

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    McInnes, James

    Tomney, Frank

    Delargy, Hugh

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Wade, Donald

    Dempsey, James

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Diamond, John

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

    Warbey, William

    Dodds, Norman

    Manuel, Archie

    Watkins, Tudor

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Mapp, Charles

    Whitlock, William

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Marsh, Richard

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Finch, Harold

    Mason, Roy

    Willey, Frederick

    Fitch, Alan

    Mendelson, J, J.

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Fletcher, Eric

    Millan, Bruce

    Williams, Ll. (Abertillery)

    Forman, J. C.

    Milne, Edward

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Mitchison, G. R.

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

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Moody, A. S.

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Gourlay, Harry

    Moyle, Arthur

    Winterbottom, R. E.

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Mulley, Frederick

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

    Neal, Harold

    Woof, Robert

    Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

    Gunter, Ray

    Oram, A. E.

    Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

    Oswald, Thomas

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

    Padley, W. E.

    Mr. Charles A. Howell and

    Hannan, William

    Parker, John

    Mr. Grey.

    Clause 3.—(EXCEPTION FOR PREMISES WHERE ONLY 21 MAN-HOURS WEEKLY NORMALLY WORKED.)
    Mr. Whitelaw: I beg to move, in page 3, line 29, to leave out subsection (4).
    Perhaps it would be convenient, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to discuss at the same time the Amendment to Clause 77, in page 52, line 32, at end insert:
    "week" means the period between midnight on Saturday night and midnight on the succeeding Saturday night.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If that is agreeable to the House, yes.
    Mr. Whitelaw: The effect of the two Amendments is very simple, to transfer the definition of "week" from Clause 3 to the interpretation Clause, Clause 77. The reason is that the word "week" will
    498
    appear in a second place in the Bill if the next Amendment that I shall move, which concerns weekly cleaning, is accepted by the House. We do not want to repeat the definition of "week" twice. This Amendment would transfer it to its rightful place in Clause 77, and I hope this will be acceptable to the House.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 4.—(CLEANLINESS.)
    Mr. Whitelaw: I beg to move, in page 3, line 37, to leave out subsection (2) and to insert:
    (2) No dirt or refuse shall be allowed to accumulate in any part of premises to which this Act applies in which work, or through which pass, any of the persons employed to work in the premises; and the floors of, and any steps comprised in, any such part as aforesaid shall be cleaned not less than once a week

    499
    by washing or, if it is effective and suitable, by sweeping or other method.
    (3) The Minister may by regulations made as respects premises to which this Act applies, or any class of such premises, require that, in addition to the taking of the steps whose taking is requisite to secure compliance with the last foregoing subsection, there shall be taken, for the purpose of securing the cleanliness of premises to which the regulations apply and of the furniture, furnishings and fittings therein, such steps as may be prescribed by the regulations.
    (4) Neither subsection (2) of this section nor anything in regulations under the last foregoing subsection shall be construed as being in derogation of the general obligation imposed by subsection (1) of this section.
    These subsections fulfil the undertaking which I gave in Standing Committee to write a substantive provision of this sort into the Bill. Subsection (2) provides that:
    "No dirt or refuse shall be allowed to accumulate in any part of premises to which this Act applies",
    and that the floors and steps throughout the premises—this includes toilets and washing places—must either be washed weekly or kept clean by sweeping or some other effective and suitable method. This is similar to the corresponding provision in Section 1 of the Factories Act.
    I do not think there is any need for me to comment on subsections (3) and (4). They are simply a slight modification of the present subsection (2) of Clause 4. There was a general desire in the Committee that a substantive provision of this sort should be written into the Bill, and I hope the House will accept the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 3, line 44, at end insert:
    (5) Nothing in this section or in regulations thereunder shall apply to fuel storage premises which are wholly in the open, and in the case of such premises which are partly in the open, so much of them as is in the open shall, for the purposes of this section and of such regulations, be treated as not forming part of the premises.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

    Clause 5.—(OVERCROWDING.)
    Mr. Whitelaw: I beg to move, in page 4, line 5, to leave out from the beginning to "shall" in line 9 and to insert:
    "The number of persons habitually employed at a time to work in such a room as aforesaid".
    500
    Would it be in order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to discuss at the same time the Amendment in line 18, leave out from "to" to end of line 19, and the Amendment in line 21, at end insert:
    "and
    (c) shall not, in the case of a room comprised in or constituting, premises of any class (being a room which at the passing of this Act is comprised in, or constitutes premises to which this Act applies), have effect until the expiration of the period of three years beginning with the day on which the said subsection (1) comes into force as respects premises of that class".
    and also the Amendment to that Amendment tabled by the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice), to leave out "three years" and insert "one year"? They all seem to go together.
    Mr. Padley: I take it that the Opposition Amendment, in page 4, to leave out lines 18 to 21, is included.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If it is agreeable to the House, that may be done.
    Mr. Whitelaw: At the end of the debate in Standing Committee on an Amendment to reduce the period of five years before subsection (2) of Clause 5 becomes operative, I undertook that my right hon. Friend would consider all the arguments which had been advanced for a reduction in the period. In addition to those arguments—
    Mr. MacDermot: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I am confused about what we are discussing. A moment ago my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Padley) referred to the Opposition Amendment in page 4, leave out lines 18 to 21, and, I think, led you into assenting to the proposition that we were discussing that Amendment. As I understand it, the Parliamentary Secretary asked that we should discuss with the Amendment which has been moved the Government Amendments to lines 18 and 21 and the Opposition Amendment to the last Government Amendment mentioned. Thus, as I understand it, we are not discussing the Opposition Amendment in page 4, leave out lines 18 to 21.
    Mr. Whitelaw: I am sorry if the fault was mine. The position is as stated by the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot).
    In addition to the arguments in Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) and my hon.

    501
    Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. K. Lewis) raised another important point on Second Reading, suggesting that when the Bill becomes law new buildings ought to conform at once to the standards laid down, since the difficulties inherent in bringing old buildings up to date could not be invoked for them. This Amendment is the result of our considerations of the discussions on Second Reading and in Committee.
    Subsection (1) of Clause 5 will be brought into force probably about a year after the Royal Assent. Subsection (2), which lays down the formula of 40 sq. ft., will apply immediately to a room which was not occupied as office, shop or railway premises at the date of the Royal Assent. For rooms in use as such premises at the date of the Royal Assent, there will be a period of grace, which the Amendment to line 21 reduces to three years, starting from the date when subsection (1) of Clause 5 is brought into force. This will be about three years from the summer of 1964.
    This arrangement goes a long way to meet the point made by various hon. Members on Second Reading and in Committee, and I commend it to the House. The hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) and the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Padley) and other hon. Members seek to reduce the period of grace to one year. We had considerable argument about this in Committee, but I cannot accept that it would be right to reduce it further.
    Of course it is true that the period of grace will not begin until the summer of 1964, and that therefore the period we are discussing is somewhat longer in fact. But I think that in seeking to reduce the period to one year hon. Members are under-estimating the considerable difficulties which this requirement may cause in the case of some of the old buildings.
    We have dealt with the new buildings which will be put up from the time of the Royal Assent. In some of the old buildings these provisions will cause considerable difficulties and may well demand structural alterations. In these circumstances it is only fair to give the occupiers a reasonable time in which to make their plans, and possibly to build an extension or, indeed, in some cases to search for new premises altogether.
    502
    It may be argued that it will be possible to reduce the general power to one year and then to exempt buildings where there may be very real difficulties. But I do not think that argument squares with another argument put by hon. Members opposite, that exemption powers should not be used at all, or at most extremely sparingly. We have always said that we have no desire to use exemption powers except in very limited cases. Therefore, we have put down this general provision for three years. We think that is the right balance and that we should not, therefore, require exemptions from it.
    In these circumstances, I hope that the House will agree to the period of three years and will not accept the proposal to reduce it to one year.
    Mr. Padley: The provisions about overcrowding are rather less favourable than those recommended by the Gowers Committee. The Clause proposes 40 sq. ft. or 400 cubic ft. per person. The Gowers Committee sat in the late 1940s and reported in 1949. This House has been discussing the implementation of the recommendations of that Report for nearly 14 years. It is not true to say, therefore, that the occupiers of these "Black Hole of Calcutta" premises have not had adequate warning.
    That is why we felt that it was quite intolerable to wait for five years—the period the Government originally proposed—and feel it intolerable that we should wait for three years. The right course is to allow one year and then for the Government, if they can find an exception justifying intervention, to apply the exemption Clause.
    8.15 p.m.
    I accept that my hon. Friends and I have always argued that the exemption Clause should be used sparingly, if at all, and I doubt if there will be many cases in which a Minister with progressive ideas will want to apply the Clause. Legislation laying down a standard of 40 sq. ft. or 400 cubic ft. per person has been promised by one Government or another for 12 years, so adequate notice has been given.
    We feel so strongly on this that if the Minister makes no further concession or offer to re-examine the position in another place, we shall have to divide the House.
    Mr. MacDermot: The Parliamentary Secretary has justified this extraordinary provision for a three-year exemption by saying that he wants to comply with our request not to have to use exemption provisions. This is an extraordinary argument. If he accepts our plea that he should be chary of using exemption provisions, why does he write a three-year exemption into the Bill itself? Quite apart from the exemption provisions, we find that Clause 78, which deals with the question of when the Bill shall come into operation, says:
    "This Act shall come into operation on such day as the Minister may by order appoint, and different days may be appointed for the coming into operation of different provisions, of a particular provision in relation to premises of different classes or of a particular provision for different purposes."
    Quite apart from any question of exemptions, this gives other power and facility to the Minister to delay the coming into operation of this provision in Clause 5 if it is unreasonable to bring it into operation at the same time as the general provisions of the Act as a whole. Why, therefore, does he tie himself to not being able to bring this provision into force until three years after the Act has come into force?
    It will be about one year before the Act as a whole comes into operation, so that in effect he is tying himself to a four-year period, although he already has power to delay the coming into force of Clause 5 under the provisions of Clause 78. This is unreasonable. The sensible thing to do, if it is necessary to have a provision of this kind, is to make it as short as possible, accepting our Amendment for a one-year period. If, when the time came for bringing the Act into force, he felt that for the premises as a whole or for a class of them this would not be workable, he could then use his powers under Clause 78.
    Miss Alice Bacon: I hope that the Minister will accept our proposal for a one-year period. I hesitate to intervene since this matter was taken over from a Home Office Bill, but I do so because I am one of the few remaining members of the Gowers Committee in this House. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Padley) said, the Gowers Committee sat in 1949, and it is 14 years since we made our Report, yet we are to allow another three years after the
    504
    passing of the Act before applying these conditions. We shall certainly support my hon. Friend's Amendment.
    Mr. Whitelaw: Perhaps I might take this opportunity of welcoming the intervention of the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon). In view of her distinguished membership of the Gowers Committee we are glad to see her taking part in our deliberations, and I am sure that it would be the wish of my right hon. Friend, and all hon. Members, to say how pleased we are to see her.
    The hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot) accused me of using an extraordinary argument. For once I am going to throw the words back at him and say that he has used an extraordinary argument. He has suggested that instead of having a three-year period of grace we should use Clause 78 to delay the coming into effect of the whole of Clause 5. I remind him that if we did that we should delay the coming into effect of Clause 5 (1), which I am sure is the last thing he would wish to do.
    Mr. MacDermot: But surely the Amendment in line 9 abolishes subsection (1)? It does not exist any more.
    Mr. Whitelaw: I do not think that I shall seek to argue further with the hon. Gentleman, although I do not accept what he says.
    I come back to my main point, which is that we have reduced the period as far as we thought was possible from five years to three years. We do not feel able to go further, and, therefore, despite what the hon. Lady said, I must resist the Amendment to bring the period down to one year.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Does the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Padley) wish to move the Amendment in page 4, to leave out lines 18 to 21?
    Mr. Whitelaw: We have not yet discussed this Amendment.
    Mr. Padley: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, is it your wish that I move my Amendment now?
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It must be taken now.
    Mr. Padley: With respect, this Amendment in a sense raises a new issue, but if it has to be taken now, I beg to move, in page 4, to leave out lines 18 to 21.
    This is a simple but vital Amendment. I remind the House that Clause 5 lays down a very modest standard of 40 sq. ft., or 400 cu. ft., as the minimum space for each worker. Subsection (3, b) says that any room to which the public are invited to resort is excluded fom these provisions. This means that shops and offices such as bank premises to which the public are invited to resort are excluded.
    I find it incomprehensible that the Minister and his advisers should have decided to put in paragraph (b). The Gowers Committee said that the case was as strong with regard to shops as it was with regard to offices, and if we apply common sense, a commodity which often is not applied in the drafting of Parliamentary Bills, surely in a room, be it a bank office or a shop, in which the workers as well as the public will take up space, it is doubly necessary to ensure that this modest minimum of 40 sq. ft. or 400 cu. ft. exists for the workers employed there.
    There are probably not many shops, and perhaps still fewer bank offices, to which tie public resort and in which the workers would need this protection, but that makes it all the more incomprehensible why the Minister and his advisers have deemed it necessary to exclude bank offices, shops, and so on. I hope that the Minister will at least give an undertaking to examine this again between now and the further stages of the Bill. If not, again this is an issue upon which we feel strongly, and we shall divide the House.
    Mr. MacDermot: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Padley), I am mystified by the need for subsection (3, b). If the principle is accepted, as it is in this Clause, that people should not be asked to work in premises unless there are at least 40 sq. ft. or 400 cu. ft. per working person, why does a worker's need for that amount of space become less because the public have resort to the place where he is working? Surely the need is all the greater? The public do not come into the sum at all. To arrive at the
    506
    sum of what constitutes overcrowding, one has to refer only to the number of persons habitually employed, so why does one need less protection against overcrowding if the public are to be allowed to crowd in as well?
    Mr. Cyril Bence (Dumbartonshire, East): I might get this wrong, but what my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot) said frightened me. Do I understand that if a worker is employed in an office to which the public are not admitted, he gets 400 cu. ft., but if somebody opens the door and lets in the public he has to work in a smaller space?
    Mr. MacDermot: Certainly.
    Mr. Bence: Should not there be an Amendment to provide more space if the public are allowed into the room? There ought to be an explanation for this, because, as a layman, and as a visitor to this debate, I want an explanation.
    Mr. Whitelaw: If I were to get involved with the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) it would not be the first time I had been involved with him, and if I were, I might be worsted as I was on a previous, and perhaps more important electoral occasion. I shall not follow him on this occasion.
    The hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot) was wrong when he sought to score off me about subsection (1) and I hope that lie will look at this again. Subsection (1) remains. The Amendment was in page 4, line 5, whereas subsection (1) is in page 4, line 1. It is very important that that subsection should remain, because it applies to the people whom we are discussing in this Amendment.
    8.30 p.m.
    We considered carefully whether the additional safeguard—the 40 sq. ft. formula in subsection (2)—could or should be applied to rooms to which members of the public are invited to resort. Although hon. Members feel strongly on the matter I am sure that they agree that certain difficulties are involved.
    The first would be to define the working space. In many shops the assistants are not confined to the area behind the counters, but walk about in older to help customers in the central area. In such cases we should have to have regard to the whole room, and not simply to the area behind the counters. Taking the

    507
    number of employees only, in the whole room, the ratio of employees to space in rooms frequented by the public would usually be far in excess of the minimum standards laid down in subsection (2). I am sure hon. Members accept that. We must bear in mind that the chief purpose of the Clause is to assist in the maintenance of a healthy atmosphere, and in many shops the number of customers greatly exceeds the number of employees. It would therefore be wholly unrealistic to apply a formula to employees only, since we could place no limitation on the entry of the public.
    I do not think that there is anything between us in our efforts to provide this safeguard, by way of the 40 sq. ft. formula, for as many people as possible, but I suggest that for the reasons I have given it would be extremely difficult to do what is proposed and extend the formula to cover people employed in shops. In those circumstances, I am afraid that I must ask the House to resist the Amendment.
    Question put, That the words proposed to be left out, to the word "a" in line 18, stand part of the Bill: —
    The House divided: Ayes 185, Noes 145.

    Division No. 70.]

    AYES

    [8.32 p.m.

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Goodhart, Philip

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

    Allason, James

    Goodhew, Victor

    Mills, Stratton

    Arbuthnot, John

    Gower, Raymond

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)

    Grant-Ferris, R.

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Barlow, Sir John

    Green, Alan

    More, Jasper (Ludlow)

    Batsford, Brian

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Morgan, William

    Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Nabarro, Gerald

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

    Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

    Neave, Airey

    Berkeley, Humphry

    Hare, Rt. Hon. John

    Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael

    Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

    Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

    Biffen, John

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Osborn, John (Hallam)

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Bingham, R. M.

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Partridge, E.

    Bishop, F. P.

    Harvie, Anderson, Miss

    Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

    Bossom, Hon. Clive

    Hastings, Stephen

    Peel, John

    Bourne-Arton, A.

    Hay, John

    Percival, Ian

    Box, Donald

    Hendry, Forbes

    pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

    Braine, Bernard

    Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

    Pilkington, Sir Richard

    Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

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

    Pitman, Sir James

    Bryan, Paul

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Pitt, Dame Edith

    Buck, Antony

    Hobson, Sir John

    Pott, Percivall

    Bullard, Denys

    Hocking Philip N.

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

    Holland, Philip

    Prior, J. M. L.

    Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

    Hollingworth, John

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

    Gary, Sir Robert

    Hopkins, Alan

    Pym, Francis

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Hornby, R. P.

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

    Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

    Rees, Hugh

    Cleaver, Leonard

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

    Cole, Norman

    Hulbert, Sir Norman

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Cooke, Robert

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Iremonger, T. L.

    St. Clair, M.

    Cordle, John

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Seymour, Leslie

    Corfield, F. V.

    James, David

    Sharples, Richard

    Coulson, Michael

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

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

    Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Smithers, Peter

    Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John

    Critchley, Julian

    Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Cunningham, Knox

    Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

    Speir, Rupert

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Kerans, Cdr. J, s.

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Storey, Sir Samuel

    Dance, James

    Kirk, Peter

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, sir Henry

    Kitson, Timothy

    Talbot, John E.

    Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.

    Leather, Sir Edwin

    Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

    du Cann, Edward

    Leburn, Gilmour

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

    Duncan, Sir James

    Lewls, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Teeling, Sir William

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Lilley, F. J. P.

    Temple, John M.

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

    Lindsay, Sir Martin

    Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Longden, Gilbert

    Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Farr, John

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Finlay, Graeme

    McLaren, Martin

    Turner, Colin

    Fisher, Nigel

    Maddan, Martin

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

    Maitland, Sir John

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Gammans, Lady

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    George, J. C. (Pollok)

    Marten, Neil

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk Central)

    Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

    Walder, David

    Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Walker, Peter

    Wall, Patrick

    Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

    Worsley, Marcus

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Webster, David

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Mr. Ian Fraser and Mr. MacArthur.

    Whitelaw, William

    Woollam, John

    NOES

    Ainsley, William

    Harper, Joseph

    Parker, John

    Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)

    Hart, Mrs. Judith

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Hayman, F. H.

    Pentland, Norman

    Barnett, Guy

    Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (RwlyRegls)

    popplewell, Ernest

    Beaney, Alan

    Holman, Percy

    Prentice, R. E.

    Bence, Cyril

    Holt, Arthur

    Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

    Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Houghton, Douglas

    Rankin, John

    Benson, Sir George

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Redhead, E. C.

    Blackburn, F.

    Hughes, Emrys (s. Ayrshire)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Blyton, William

    Hunter, A. E.

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Boardman, H.

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

    Short, Edward

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

    Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

    Jay Rt. Hon. Douglas

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Bowles, Frank

    Jeger, George

    Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

    Boyden, James

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

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

    Small, William

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Castle, Mrs. Barbara

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Steele, Thomas

    Collick, Percy

    Kelley, Richard

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    King, Dr. Horace

    Swingler, Stephen

    Cronin, John

    Lawson, George

    Taverne, D.

    Crosland, Anthony

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

    Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

    Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Lubbock, Eric

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

    Darling, George

    Mabon Dr. J. Dickson

    Thornton, Ernest

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    McCann, John

    Tomney, Frank

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    MacDermot, Niall

    Wade, Donald

    Delargy, Hugh

    McInnes, James

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Dempsey, James

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Warbey, William

    Diamond, John

    Macpherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Watkins, Tudor

    Dodds, Norman

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Whitlock, William

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Malialieu, J. p. W. (Huddersfield, E.)

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Manuel, Archie

    Willey, Frederick

    Finch, Harold

    Mapp, Charles

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Fitch, Alan

    Marsh, Richard

    Williams, Ll. (Abertillery)

    Fletcher, Eric

    Mason, Roy

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Forman, J. C.

    Mendelson, J. J.

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

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Millan, Bruce

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Milne, Edward

    Winterbottom, R. E.

    Gourlay, Harry

    Mitchlson, G. R.

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Moyle, Arthur

    Woof, Robert

    Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

    Mulley, Frederick

    Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

    Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

    Neal, Harold

    Gunter, Ray

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

    Oram, A. E.

    Mr. Charles A. Howell and

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

    Oswald, Thomas

    Mr. Grey.

    Hannan, William

    Padley, W. E.

    Amendment made: In page 4, line 18, leave out from "to" to end of line 19.—[Mr. Hare.]
    Amendment proposed: In page line 21, at the end to insert:
    "and
    (c) shall not, in the case of a room comprised in or constituting, premises of any class (being a room which at the passing of this Act is comprised in, or constitutes premises to which this Act applies), have effect until the expiration of the period of three years beginning with the day on which the said subsection (1) comes into force as
    respects premises of that class".—[Mr. Hare.]
    Mr. Padley: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out "three years" and to insert "one year".
    Question put, That "three years" stand part of the proposed Amendment:—
    The House divided: Ayes 184, Noes 144.

    Division No. 71.]

    AYES

    [8.41 p.m.

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Barlow, Sir John

    Berkeley, Humphry

    Allason, James

    Batsford, Brian

    Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Arbuthnot, John

    Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

    Biffen, John

    Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Bingham, R. M.

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Partridge, E.

    Bishop, F. P.

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

    Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

    Bossom, Clive

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Peel, John

    Bourne-Arton, A.

    Harvie Anderson, Miss

    Percival, Ian

    Box, Donald

    Hastings, Stephen

    Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

    Braine, Bernard

    Hay, John

    Pilkington, Sir Richard

    Bryan, Paul

    Hendry, Forbes

    Pitman, Sir James

    Buck, Antony

    Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenahawe)

    Pitt, Dame Edith

    Bullard, Denys

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

    Hobson, Sir John

    Prior, J. M. L.

    Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

    Hocking, Philip N.

    Prior-palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Holland, Philip

    Pym, Francis

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Hollingworth, John

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

    Hopkins, Alan

    Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

    Cleaver, Leonard

    Hornby, R. P.

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Cole, Norman

    Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

    Rodgera, John (Sevenoaks)

    Cooke, Robert

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    St. Clair, M.

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Hulbert, Sir Norman

    Seymour, Leslie

    Cordle, John

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Sharples, Richard

    Corfield, F. V.

    Iremonger, T. L.

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

    Coulson, Michael

    Irvine Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Smithers, Peter

    Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

    James, David

    Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John

    Craddock, Sir Beresford

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Critchley, Julian

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Speir, Rupert

    Cunningham, Knox

    Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Curran, Charles

    Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

    Storey, Sir Samuel

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

    studholme, Sir Henry

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Talbot, John E.

    Dance, James

    Kirk, Peter

    Tapsell, Peter

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Kitson, Timothy

    Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

    Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.

    Leather, Sir Edwin

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

    du Cann, Edward

    Leburn, Gilmour

    Teeling, Sir William

    Duncan, Sir James

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Temple, John M.

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Lilley, F, J. p.

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

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

    Lindsay, Sir Martin

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Longden, Gilbert

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Turner, Colin

    Farr, John

    McLaren, Martin

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Finlay, Graeme

    Maddan, Martin

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Fisher, Nigel

    Maitland, Sir John

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

    Marten, Neil

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell

    Gammans, Lady

    Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

    Walder, David

    George, J. C. (Pollok)

    Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

    Walker, Peter

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Wall, Patrick

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk Central)

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

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

    Mills, Stratton

    Webster, David

    Goodhart, Philip

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Goodhew, Victor

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Whitelaw, William

    Gower, Raymond

    More, Jasper (Ludlow)

    Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

    Grant-Ferris, R.

    Morgan, William

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Green, Alan

    Nabarro, Sir Gerald

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Neave, Alrey

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Gurden, Harold

    Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael

    Woollam, John

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

    Worsley, Marcus

    Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

    Osborn, John (Hallam)

    Hare, Rt. Hon. John

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Mr. Rees and Mr. MacArthur.

    NOES

    Ainsley, William

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Awbery, Stan (Bristol Central)

    Cronin, John

    Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Crosland, Anthony

    Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

    Barnett, Guy

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

    Gunter, Ray

    Beaney, Alan

    Dalyell, Tam

    Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

    Bence, Cyril

    Darling, George

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

    Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Hannan, William

    Benson, Sir George

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Harper, Joseph

    Blackburn, F.

    Delargy, Hugh

    Hart, Mrs. Judith

    Blyton, William

    Dempsey, James

    Hayman, F. H.

    Boardman, H.

    Diamond, John

    Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Dodds, Norman

    Holman, Percy

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

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Hess (Caerphilly)

    Holt, Arthur

    Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Houghton, Douglas

    Bowles, Frank

    Finch, Harold

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Boyden, James

    Fitch, Alan

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Fletcher, Eric

    Hunter, A. E.

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Forman, J. C.

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

    Castle, Mrs. Barbara

    Gourlay, Harry

    Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

    Collick, Percy

    Grey, Charles

    Jeger, George

    512

    513

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Moyle, Arthur

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

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

    Mulley, Frederick

    Swingler, Stephen

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Neal, Harold

    Taverne, D.

    Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansheld)

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Oram, A. E.

    Thompson, Dr, Alan (Dunfermline)

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Oswald, Thomas

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

    Kelley, Richard

    Padley, W. E.

    Thornton, Ernest

    King, Dr, Horace

    Parker, John

    Tomney, Frank

    Lawson, George

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    Wade, Donald

    Lea, Frederick (Newton)

    Pentland, Norman

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

    Popplewell, Ernest

    Warbey, William

    Lubbock, Eric

    Prentice, B. E.

    Watkins, Tudor

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

    Whitlock, William

    MacDermot, Niall

    Redhead, E. C.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    McInnes, James

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Willey, Frederick

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Williams, Lt. (Abertillery)

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Short, Edward

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

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

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Manuel, Archie

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Winterbottom, R. E.

    Mapp, Charles

    Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Marsh, Richard

    Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

    Woof, Robert

    Mason, Roy

    Small, William

    Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Millan, Bruce

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Milne, Edward

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Mr. Charles A. Howell and

    Mitchison. G. R.

    Steele, Thomas

    Mr. McCann.

    Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

    Clause 6.—(TEMPERATURE.)
    Mr. Hare: I beg to move, in page 4, line 32, to leave out "60" and to insert:
    "16 degrees Centigrade (which is equivalent to 60·8".
    The purpose of the Amendment is self evident. Centigrade replaces Fahrenheit as a primary standard and the minimum temperature for rooms—in which severe physical effort is not involved—is raised to 60·8 degrees Fahrenheit after the first hour of work. I realise that this does not go as far as some hon. Members opposite wished when we discussed this in Committee. However, since we discussed this matter in some detail in Committee I will not detain the House by adducing the arguments at great length.
    We are not laying down 16 degrees centigrade or 60·8 degree Fahrenheit as a desirable temperature but what is really a legal minimum; and employers generally will aim above this if only to ensure that they do not break the law. Indeed, the weather we have been having in recent months is a good test of this minimum temperature to be allowed by law in any room. To ensure that all rooms in their premises achieve the statutory minimum—and this includes the coldest room in the building—most rooms will obviously have to be heated to higher standards. I believe, therefore, that the Bill as amended will achieve the object we have in mind, of providing
    514
    comfortably warm conditions in which to work.
    Mr. Prentice: In Committee, when we were sitting in a room heated to a temperature of 72 degrees Fahrenheit my hon. Friends and I tried to improve on the figure of 60 degrees Fahrenheit then in the Bill.
    Mr. Farr: The Committee Room temperature was 60 degrees Fahrenheit.
    Mr. Prentice: The hon. Member may consider that in that part of the room in which he was sitting it was 60 degrees, but, by my thermometer, the room was at a temperature of 72 degrees. That was more than the figure we wanted to insert in the Bill and, as we can see, more than the Minister's figure. However, we welcome the right hon. Gentleman's proposal, partly because we take a modern view of temperatures.
    We also welcome the fact, as good internationalists, that he is thinking in terms of centigrade and that there is ·8 of a degree Fahrenheit improvement. We should have liked the right hon. Gentleman to have gone further, but, though a modest improvement, it is welcomed, and we share his hopes that employers will aim somewhat higher because temperatures as low as this will be uncomfortable for sedentary workers.
    Mr. Fan: When moving the Amendment my right hon. Friend said that centigrade was in the process of replacing the Fahrenheit scale. I should be grateful if he would advise me as to

    515
    who came to that decision because, as far as I am aware, the question of the value of the centigrade scale as opposed to the Fahrenheit scale has never come before the House. This question is in the minds of many hon. Members, some of whom have marked views on the subject. Those concerned with agriculture, and commerce generally, consider that the dual scale to which we are subjected daily on television and in official announcements is causing a great deal of confusion.
    I suggest that the Fahrenheit scale has done us well enough since it was invented by Fahrenheit around 1736. I suggest further that one of the possible reasons why the Fahrenheit scale was originally duplicated by the centigrade scale in official announcements, namely, the possibility of our going into the Common Market, is now no longer a relative factor to be considered. I ask my right hon. Friend to withdraw the Amendment and to put intc the Bill something which everybody in the country understands, without making life more complicated than it is already, and to put in 60 degrees or 61 degrees Fahrenheit and have done with it.
    Mr. Bence: I know how ready the the Minister is to answer any question raised in the Chamber. I spent some time on the Committee stage of the Weights and Measures Bill and I found that when temperatures were mentioned in that Bill the word "Celsius" was used. I understand that he was a Swedish or Norwegian expert on thermometers and that this is an international scale which, instead of working from 0 degrees to 100 degrees works from 100 degrees to 0 degrees. Why cannot we use Celsius in this Measure just as in the other Bill so that at least the House of Commons will be using standard measurements throughout its legislation?
    If we are to have Celsius in weights and measures, why not in shops, offices and railway premises where there will be weights and measures the standards of which will be determined by referring them to temperatures in terms or Celsius? I hope the right hon. Gentleman will realise that, as it is,
    516
    we shall be measuring weights and measures in terms of the Celsius scale but using the centigrade scale in offices. I should like to have some information on the subject because when I speak to my constituents I like to think that I know what I am talking about, and in this case I am not sure.
    Mr. Denys Bullard: I should like to support my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr). I hope that I am not a backwoodsman in this matter. I certainly agree with the desirability of using international scales whenever posible, but there is a vast difference betwen the scientific use of these scales and their use in ordinary language, which is the purpose behind providing a scale in the Bill. I have long held that the centigrade scale has enormous advantages in scientific use. It is a much more rational scale than the Fahrenheit, which is not rational at all with its freezing point at 32 degrees. But from the point of view of common usage the Fahrenheit scale has great advantages.
    Mr. Bence: It is still as cold.
    Mr. Bullard: It may be, but the advantages are that the Fahrenheit scale covers the normal range of temperatures which people experience in their ordinary life on their bodies. If the temperature is 0 degrees F. it is jolly cold, and if it is 100 degrees F. it is very hot indeed. Therefore, the range covered, with its average round about 50 degrees, provides a convenient variation of temperature in a scale in common use.
    Mr. Bence: The hon. Gentleman has described conditions under Fahrenheit and centigrade. He seems to be well informed. Could he say what the conditions are under Celsius?
    Mr. Bullard: I am not so well up in the Celsius scale as I am in the other two. Therefore, I am afraid I cannot help the hon. Gentleman.
    I should like to know what is the origin of this change. Who is putting on the pressure for this change? My right hon. Friend said that this is recognised as a primary scale, but by whom is it so recognised? We have been dealing with the Weights and Measures Bill which goes to great trouble to define various units of measurement, and the Bill sets up, amongst other things, a

    517
    Commission of Units and Standards of Measurement. I should like to know whether those bodies which are concerned with changes in units of weight and volume have given any consideration to what is a useful temperature scale.
    I am not at all averse to the wider adoption of the centigrade scale in its proper sphere, but I do not ask my grocer to measure my butter in grammes or to adopt any of the units in scientific use. I should have thought it was much better in our legislation to adhere to a scale which, though it is not a British scale, has the advantages which I have already mentioned, namely, that it covers in a convenient way temperatures between 0 and 100 degrees, the range of temperatures which people experience in their every day lives.
    I hope my right hon. Friend is not going to be driven too far. I have already raised this matter on the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, where we are not making any change. We are using the Fahrenheit scale of temperatures. If there is to be any general move towards the centigrade scale there should be co-operation between all Government Departments so that we follow a uniform practice. I think the present practice leads to confusion rather than to clarity, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will reconsider the matter.
    Mr. J. Hynd: I would only remind the hon. Members for Harborough (Mr. Farr) and for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard) that Fahrenheit emanated from a German source, whereas centigrade and Celsius emanated from an E.F.T.A. source; and, since we are not in the Common Market, we can congratulate ourselves on the fact that the Common Market has adopted an E.F.T.A. scale.
    I differ from the hon. Member for King's Lynn who said that one reason for adopting the Fahrenheit scale is that it is in general use. But it is only in general use in a restricted sphere, whereas the centigrade scale is universal. I think it is time that we were practical in these matters. I support the Amendment and, thanks to the fact that we are now getting the centigrade scale adopted, we have at least got ·8 plus in the minimum reading for offices, shops and railway premises.
    Mr. Hare: I am glad the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) and
    518
    I welcome this Amendment. Indeed, several other Members do so as well. I was sorry to hear the views expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for Harborough (Mr. Farr) and for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard). The switch from Fahrenheit to centigrade is being made by the Meteorological Office as part of international practice, and, as hon. Members have said, this is reasonable international practice. It is not the result of a statutory change. We were pressed on both sides of the Committee to consider this, and that is why I brought the matter forward.
    In reply to the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence), Celsius and centigrade are one and the same thing. If I am wrong, I will try to deal with the point at a later stage.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Hare: I beg to move, in page 5, line 7, after "floor", to insert:
    "on which there is a room to which subsection (1) of this section applies".
    Perhaps, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, we could discuss also the consequential Amendment in page 5, line 10, after "any" to insert "such".
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes, if that is the wish of the House.
    Mr. Hare: Clause 6 (4) requires a thermometer to be placed in a conspicuous place on each floor and that it shall be kept available fox use by employees who wish to take the temperature in any room on that floor. If there are no rooms on a particular floor in which, normally, persons work—for example, if one floor is devoted to records or stock—there is no point in requiring a thermometer to be kept there. That is the simple reason for these two Amendments.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 5, line IO, after "any", insert "such".[Mr. Hare.]

    Clause 7.—(VENTILATION.)
    Mr. Hare: I beg to move, in page 5 line 29, after "fresh", to insert "or artificially purified".
    In Standing Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) moved an Amendment designed to make clear that air

    519
    conditioning would be allowed under this Clause. I thought then, and other hon. Members agreed, that he had made a valid case, and I said that I would like to consider wording to suit the purpose he had in mind.
    I think that the addition of the three words in the Amendment makes perfectly clear that the use of air conditioning will be lawful. The Amendment makes clear, also—this is important—that the conditioned air must be purified and that the recirculation of stale air will not do. I am sure that the House will agree that this is reasonable.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 8.—(LIGHTING.)
    Mr. Hare: I beg to move, in page 5, line 45, at the end to insert:
    (3) All glazed windows and skylights used for the lighting of any part of premises to which this Act applies in which work, or through which pass, any of the persons employed to work in the premises shall, so far as reasonably practicable, be kept clean on both the inner and outer surfaces and free from obstruction; but this subsection shall not affect the whitewashing or shading of windows or skylights for the purpose of mitigating heat or glare.
    I think that it might be convenient, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if we could discuss at the same time the two Amendments in Clause 35, in page 24, line 23, at the end to insert:
    (c) all glazed windows and skylights used for the lighting of a part of a common part of a building to which this section applies in which the securing of lighting is required by this subsection to be provided for shall, so far as reasonably practicable, be kept clean on both the inner and outer surfaces and free from obstruction".
    In page 24, line 28, at the end to insert:
    "but paragraph (c) above shall not affect the whitewashing or shading of windows or skylights for the purpose of mitigating heat or glare".
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes, if that is the wish of the House.
    Mr. Hare: The Amendment to Clause 8 reproduces, with minor variations, Section 5 (4) of the Factories Act. As I explained in Committee, we had considered that this subsection had more application to factories than to offices and shops. However, having heard the arguments of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd), who moved an
    520
    Amendment in similar terms, I agreed to propose at a later stage the addition of a provision on these lines. In fact, this provision goes wider than the Factories Act and the requirement will apply to passages as well as to places where people work.
    The other Amendments will impose a similar obligation to keep clean and free of obstruction glazed windows and skylights to which Clause 35 applies, that is to say, stairs and landings. Because of the way the Bill is drafted, the requirement will also apply to Clause 36 buildings without any Amendment being made to that Clause.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 10.—(WASHING FACILITIES.)
    Mr. Hare: I beg to move, in page 7, line 7, at the end to insert:
    (4) Regulations under this section may provide that, where persons of both sexes are, or are intended to be employed to work in premises to which the regulations apply, provision shall be deemed not to be suitable for the purposes of subsection (1) of this section unless it affords proper separate accommodation for persons of each sex.
    The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that when regulations about washing facilities are made under subsection (3) there is power to require separate accommodation to be provided for the sexes. There is a similar provision in Clause 9 (4) relating to sanitary conveniences, and, on reflection, I thought it wise to take similar powers in this Clause.
    Mr. J. Hynd: I do not think that the Amendment entirely meets the case. It was strongly pointed out in Committee—and I gather that the Minister was prepared to consider the proposition favourably—that on the railways, for instance, standard conditions are laid down for these facilities in regard to whatever may be the number of employees. There is no such provision in the Bill. I maintain that if it is possible to do this in the railway regulations, and as experience has shown that it is practicable, similar provisions should be written into the Bill. I ask the Minister to give further consideration to this point.
    Mr. Hare: I have gone as far as I promised to go in Committee. I am afraid that I cannot go further.
    Mr. Hannan: Why should the wording be in this negative form—
    "provision shall be deemed not to be suitable for the purposes of subsection (1) …"?
    Why cannot it be laid down that where both sexes are employed accommodation shall be separate? Can the Minister answer that simple question?
    Mr. Hare: I would not attempt to go into the matter in too much detail. This wording gives the effect which I want and which, I think, the hon. Gentleman wants.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 12.—(ACCOMMODATION FOR CLOTHING.)
    Amendment made: In page 8, line 9, leave out Clause 12.
    Clause 13.—(SITTING FACILITIES.)
    Amendment made: In page 8, line 15, leave out Clause 13.

    Clause 14.—(FLOORS, PASSAGES AND STAIRS.)
    Mr. Hare: I beg to move, in page 8, line 31, after "hand-rail" to insert "or hand-hold".
    It has been represented to us, and I imagine that it has occurred to hon. Members on both sides, that some dignified grand staircases such as those to be found in town halls and other eminent buildings are not furnished with anything as utilitarian as a hand-rail but have instead a balustrade or moulding. The purpose of the Amendment is to provide that, where such balustrades afford a proper hand-hold, the requirement in subsection (2) will be satisfied. We shall get into trouble with some of our town clerks if we do not pass this Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 8, line 36, after "hand-rail", insert "or hand-hold",—[Mr. Hare.]
    Mr. Hare: I beg to move, in page 8, line 40, to leave out from "of" to end of the line and insert:
    "efficient means of preventing any person from accidentally falling through the space between the hand-rail or hand-hold and steps of the staircase".
    522
    My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary accepted in principle an Amendment moved in Committee by the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) which was designed to strengthen the guarding of open sides of staircases. The Amendment on the Notice Paper has the same effect, and I am advised that it is sufficiently comprehensive to make a special reference to a lower rail unnecessary.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 8, line 43, at end insert:
    (5) The foregoing provisions of this section shall not apply to any such part of any fuel storage premises as is in the open, but in relation to any such part the following provisions shall have effect, namely—

    (a) the surface of the ground shall be kept in good repair;

    (b) all steps and platforms shall be of sound construction and properly maintained;

    (c) all openings in platforms shall be securely fenced, except in so far as the nature of the work renders such fencing impracticable.—[Mr. Hare.]

    Clause 15.—(FENCING OF EXPOSED PARTS OF MACHINERY.)
    9.15 p.m.
    Mr. Hare: I beg to move, in page 9, line 4, to leave out "employed to work" and to insert "working".
    I wonder, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether we could discuss at the same time the Amendments in Clause 20, page 13, line 1, leave out "employed to" and insert:
    "shall in the course of his"
    and in line 2, leave out from "applies" to "be".
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): Yes, if that is agreeable to the House.
    Mr. Hare: Thank you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The purpose of the Amendments is to extend the cover provided by Clause 15, dealing with the fencing of exposed parts of machinery, and Clause 20, dealing with the prohibition of heavy work, not only to persons "employed to work in the premises", but also to persons employed by outside employers to do some work there—for example, window cleaners and delivery men—as well as to self-employed persons working in the premises.

    523
    The desirability of this step was discussed in Standing Committee, when the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot) moved an Amendment on the subject. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary undertook to bring the Bill into line with the corresponding provision of Section 14 of the Factories Act. That is what we have done.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move, in page 9, line 5, at the end to insert:
    (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing subsection, no dangerous part of any machinery shall be deemed to be securely fenced unless the fencing or guard provided is effective to prevent injury to every person working in the premises through the ejection of materials or of parts of the machinery or through clothing or tools or any other things attached to or held by persons working in the premises coming into contact with that part:
    Provided that where the only risk of injury through the ejection of materials is a risk of injury to the eyes, the requirements of the foregoing subsection shall be deemed to be complied with so far as that risk is concerned if suitable goggles or effective screens are provided to protect the eyes of persons who are subject to that risk.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: With this Amendment, we can discuss the two following Amendments, in page 9, line 6, leave out from "the" to end of line and insert:
    "protection of the operator of any machinery against the risk of injury through contact between him and his clothing or tools or any other thing attached to or held by him and a dangerous part of the"
    In line 11, leave out from "prevents" to end of line 12 and insert "any such contact".
    Mr. MacDermot: If you please, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Before I begin with the Amendment, I wish to thank the Minister for the Amendment which has just been passed and which meets the point raised in Committee. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be equally co-operative on this Amendment. I am glad to see that the Attorney-General has joined us, because this is my second attempt to raise a matter which aroused interest in Committee. It is a matter which we discussed at length. I took some time in proposing it and it will be necessary for me to take a little time in deploying my argument again tonight.
    524
    I propose briefly to recapitulate the argument for an Amendment to deal with the objections that were raised in Committee by the Government and to explain how I have sought to meet some of them in the new form which our Amendments take. Clause 15 follows closely and is modelled upon Section 14 of the Factories Act. That Section is familiar to many hon. Members and is, broadly, the Section which is designed to impose a duty upon employers to fence dangerous machinery.
    Until 1946, Section 14 was always understood to impose an absolute duty upon the employer, subject only to what is known as the foreseeability test. That is to say, provided that it was foreseeable that injury could result from a moving part of a machine, there was a duty on the employer to fence and to protect workmen from that danger. If the part was dangerous when in motion, if danger was foreseeable and if injury resulted from the failure to fence, the employer was liable and the man could recover compensation.
    As also is well known, that Section has an old history, going back to 1891. Since 1946, there have been a number of decisions in the highest court in the land, the House of Lords, and it has been a matter of great surprise to the legal profession and to all those responsible for applying the Factories Act to see the way in which the protection thought to be afforded by that Section has been whittled down by, in particular, four decisions of that court. I do not think that it is too much to say that these decisions are almost an object lesson in the way in which the intentions of Parliament can be frustrated by judicial interpretation. Perhaps I may just briefly outline what these four cases are.
    The first is the case known as Nicholls against Austin in 1946. The plaintiff was a lady working a woodworking machine. She was injured by a fragment of wood which she had been feeding into the machine and which was thrown out by the machine. It flew out and it hit her. There was no fence on the machine, a danger which was foreseeable. If there had been a fence provided it would have protected her. Nevertheless, her claim

    525
    failed. The reason it failed was stated pithily by Lord Simonds in these words:
    "The fence is intended to keep the worker out, not to keep the machine or its products in."
    It is that formulation which came as a shock to the legal profession, because for over 50 years, in case after case after case, claimants had been recovering damages in cases where they had been injured by work pieces which had been thrown out by machines or parts of machines. I think the original case was in principle established as far back as 1897 in a case called Hindle and Birtwhistle. In that case a weaver was involved. A shuttle was thrown out by the loom. It struck the plaintiff and the plaintiff recovered.
    The decision in Nicholls and Austin, the surprising decision, was based on the wording of a proviso to Section 14 which is now in the 1961 Act in which it become Section 14 (2) and which is copied into this Bill and is Clause 15 (2). I think I should read that proviso:
    "In far as the safety of a dangerous part of any machinery cannot, by reason of the nature of the operation effected by means of the machinery, be secured by means of a fixed guard, the requirements of the foregoing subsection shall be deemed to be complied with if a device is provided that automatically prevents the operator from coming into contact with that part."
    That was originally the proviso, and I refer to it as the proviso, and that was only dealing with the safety of the operator, but the Section itself is meant to protect far more than the operator. It is meant to protect all the people working on the premises, as the Minister has just told us on the last Amendment we were discussing. The wording of the Section is that it has got to be safe for every person working on the premises.
    Unfortunately, it appears that their Lordships were not told in Nicholls and Austin that this proviso had been introduced only as an Amendment to the 1937 Act. They had assumed that it had been there from the start. They had used the rather limited field of this proviso, dealing only with the protection of the operator from coming into contact with the dangerons part, as if it governed a claim under the original protection in the original wording of the Section, and it was that which led to this formulation, this interpretation, by the court that what Parliament intended by the fencing
    526
    was merely protection against a man's coming into contact with a part and not with materials or parts of the machinery which were thrown out.
    In a later case Lord Reid expressed doubt whether, if the earlier court had been told the true history of the Section and how this proviso had only been added in the 1937 Act, the court would have come to the conclusion which it did in Nicholls and Austin. But, of course, that court is bound by its own decisions. Consequently when we came to the second case, that of Carroll against Andrew Barclay and Sons Limited in 1948, we got the following result. That case dealt with a belt on transmission machinery. It was a belt running over pulleys, and there was a fence which was 5 ft. high, which would provide adequate protection in the ordinary way. But what happened in that case was that the belt broke and lashed out over the fence and struck the plaintiff. Again, the plaintiff failed, and he failed because of the application of the principle in the case of Nicholls and Austin, that there was no duty to fence against part of the machine flying out.
    In that case there was some doubt whether the danger of the belt lashing out over the top of the fence was foreseeable. Consequently, there were a number of cases, including cases which went to the Court of Appeal, in which plaintiffs continually succeeded in claims arising out of injuries by parts flying out where they could establish that it was foreseeable that parts could fly out. For instance, we have the case of an abrasive wheel, a hand-operated grindstone, which burst, which is a well-known risk, something which is foreseeable. In that case the plantiff succeeded.
    But even that degree of protection was swept away by the next decision, that against the Steel Company of Wales in the case Close v. Steel Company of Wales in 1961. In that case the plaintiff was operating an electric drilling machine, the drill shattered and a piece entered his eye. It was held that even if it were foreseeable that the drill might shatter, there was nevertheless no obligation to fence.
    The extent to which in that decision the courts, by their interpretation, had departed from the evident intention, as I suggest, of Parliament in the original

    527
    wording was put very forcibly by Lord Denning in a dissenting judgment in that case. He said:
    "I fail to see how any speeches in this House"—
    referring to judgments in the earlier cases—
    "can bind your Lordships to hold that a dangerous part of machinery need not be fenced when the statute expressly says it shall be."
    Nevertheless, by majority decision, that was the way the decision went.
    The fourth and last case was last year, 1962—Sparrow against Fairey Aviation. In that case a lathe setter was removing burring in the central hole of a petrol filler cap which he was manufacturing. The part which he was making was a ring with a central hole 2½ inches in diameter. It was held on a lathe by the jaws of the chuck gripping inside the hole, and then that part, with the jaws, rotated at 500 revolutions per minute, and the plaintiff's duty was to hold a tool against the edge of the central hole in order to remove the burring. He had to hold it in a position where it was only one-sixteenth of an inch away from the jaws of the chuck.
    The plaintiff acted perfectly properly. There was no negligence on his part. But, as was plainly foreseeable, by accident the tool came in contact with the jaws of the chuck. I emphasise that the plaintiff was acting properly and there was no negligence. The chuck was a dangerous part which should have been fenced. All this was accepted. If it had been fenced, the plaintiff would have been protected and would have recovered. Nevertheless, he failed. The reason why he failed was that his hand, which was injured, did not come into contact with the chuck, which was the dangerous part, but was flung against part of the casing of the machinery, something which was not a dangerous part. Because there was no contact between the man and the dangerous part, it was held that it was not a risk which was required to be fenced and guarded against, and the claim failed.
    Some very strong things were said by their Lordships in delivering the judgments in that case. Lord Reid, who felt himself bound by the earlier decision and reluctantly had to give judgment against the plaintiff, said:
    528
    "It is too late to question the rule which this House laid down in Close's case, and we must do our best to apply it in a practical way."
    He went on:
    "Accordingly with regret and some hesitation I must move that this appeal be dismissed."
    9.30 p.m.
    Another of their Lordships who dissented said that in his view the doctrine stare decisis—that the court is bound by previous doctrine—
    "… is a doctrine to be honoured in the interests of consistency and certainty; but to apply it here would be to break new ground without advancing those interests, and to reach a point where the intention of Parliament could suffer erosion by a sort of judicial inadvertence which even the most anxious circumspection cannot entirely avoid."
    I trust that I have not overstated the case. I suggest that that is the position on which the law now stands. The House is being asked to re-enact that law in this Clause. If we do not amend the Clause, we will be saying that the law as at present states the duty, no more and no less, as it applies to shops, offices and railway premises.
    Under that law there is no duty on the employer to fence a machine against the danger of the work flying out and injuring the operator. There is no duty to fence it against the danger of part of the machine flying out, or against the danger of a tool coming into contact with a dangerous part of the machine and throwing the operator against another part. It is doubtful if the law at present covers the situation where clothing comes into contact with a dangerous part of the machine. There is no firm decision on that point.
    Do hon. Members want to enact that position again in this Bill? That is what we shall be doing if we pass this Clause unamended. It is plain from these decisions that the wording borrowed from Section 14 is manifestly defective. Why should we repeat it here?
    In Committee I put down an Amendment designed to afford protection in these matters. The arguments with which it was rejected can be summarised briefly. Firstly, there was some attempt to minimise the scale of the problem. We were told that in the statistics of accidents in factories only 1·3 per cent. were of the kind which would be covered by my Amendment.

    529
    But when we asked for the total figure it turned out that it was 2,500 accidents a year. I do not believe that any hon. Member will seek to minimise a problem involving the health of that number of people a year. It would need a lot of unofficial strikes to result in the loss of time which arises from injuries which keep men and women off for a minimum of three days and most of them for very much longer.
    Secondly, it was pointed out, as I had already pointed out, that the nature of the problem was such that it was much more likely to arise in factories than in offices, shops and railway premises. That, of course, I accept. But even if it is of greater importance in factories that is no reason why we should not put the matter straight for offices, shops and railway premises. Nor is it beyond the resources of this House quickly to pass legislation to put the matter right in factories. I should be happy to introduce a Ten-Minute Rule Bill myself.
    Thirdly, it was said that half these injuries were to eyes. It was pointed out that many things thrown out by machines are harmless, except to the eyes. It was further said that in half these cases of injuries to the eyes, the plaintiffs ought to have been working with goggles under the Eye Protection Regulations. The fact that a plaintiff was not wearing goggles, of course, may give him some claim under those regulations if he should have been wearing them, but those involved in the rest of the eye injury cases would have no remedy at all.
    Then it was said that my Amendments would require the employer to provide a screen against the ejection of any and every work piece; to protect the worker against quite harmless materials being thrown out. I reject that argument, as I did in Committee, because it is only if the part is dangerous if thrown out that there is any requirement for the protection at all.
    Then it was said that what I was asking for would prevent the use of certain safety tools. Art example was given of an oil can with a long spout which went through a guard to lubricate the machine while in motion. Another example was the rammer by which one rams things into a mincing machine. My answer is that unless the use of those
    530
    tools could in itself produce some danger to the workmen there would be no objection to his using them, but if the effect of using one of them could be to fling his hand against some other part so as to cause him injury, then it is a matter against which he ought to be protected.
    Finally, and this was perhaps intended as the most serious argument put forward, it was said that this is a matter which is better dealt with by regulations. I always get suspicious when I hear that argument, because one has a long memory in these matters and knows how many times one has heard the argument and then not seen any regulation.
    In any event, I challenge that this is a matter better dealt with by regulations, for this reason: the general practice under the Factories Act—and I think it is a good one—is to start with an absolute protection, or as we thought an absolute protection, provided by Section 14. Sometimes, in some industries, one gets a case where it is not practical to provide the absolute protection, to provide an effective guard or fence against all dangers. An obvious example is the circular saw. It is not possible to produce a guard which will provide complete protection against the danger of a man's hand coming in contact with a circular saw. Consequently, there were framed and passed the Woodworking Regulations which covered circular saws and many other kinds of woodworking machinery.
    These lay down a requirement for fencing and describe in detail what kind of fence has to be provided for each of these machines, and then, provided the employer provides that fence, he is exempt from the absolute provisions of Section 14. He has complied with all that he is required to do. In other words, the regulations should be used for formulating a more limited kind of protection which the employer is to provide in cases where it is not practical for him to provide an absolute protection, but as a matter of legislation the way one achieves the result required is to start by imposing an absolute protection and exempting from it by passing regulations.
    What is being put against us here is that that is the wrong way to do it, and that the right way to do it is to leave the field about which I have been speaking

    531
    wide open, accept the decisions of the House of Lords, and not try to change the legislation about that, and the Government will look again and when they find a case in which they think there is a need for special legislation they will meet the requirement by extending the Eye Protection Regulations, by having grindstone regulations, or whatever it may be.
    The grindstone legislation provides an excellent example to reinforce what I was saying about the suspicion that we have of regulations. Grindstone regulations have been in draft for 14 years, and still have not seen the light of day. In Committee we were told by the Parliamentary Secretary that there was a new draft which was just about to be circulated. I was told the same thing in Committee on the Factories Bill in 1959, and we still have not seen them. I therefore urge that the right way to deal with this is to reassert our intention that there shall be absolute protection and then leave regulations to be formulated where that is not practical.
    What these Amendments seek to do is, first, to give protection against materials or parts flying out. Secondly, to give protection against tools or clothing or other things held by the operator coming into contact with the dangerous parts and producing injury. Thirdly—and this is to meet a point raised in Committee—if the only risk of things flying out is a risk to the eyes it will be sufficient if the employer provides goggles or a screen to protect the operator from that risk.
    Finally, they extend what I have been calling the proviso—that is to say, subsection (2)—relating to automatic devices to provide protection where a complete guard is not practicable, to include all relevant risks and not merely the risk of contact between the operator and the dangerous part.
    There is widespread support for the Amendments. In Committee I quoted a letter I had received from Mr. Ian Fife, editor of Redgrave, the standard textbook on the Factories Act, in which he strongly supported every point put forward in the Amendments. Since the Committee stage there has also appeared an article in the Law Society's Gazette for this month, written by Mr. Anthony Wolf, in which he supports what we
    532
    are seeking to put forward. I hope that we shall hear from the Minister or the Attorney-General—or both—a more positive and constructive answer to this point.
    Mr. Whitelaw: I do not seek to intervene to keep out other hon. Members, but I thought it right and proper to try to deal with this very important Amendment in the fullest possible way. This was my right hon. Friend's wish, and he asked me to take part in discussions in order to obtain the best technical advice which is available to us on the practical side of the matter. I shall deal with the results of that discussion. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will deal with the legal aspects of the matter. I shall therefore confine myself purely and simply to the technical aspect—with great relief.
    The hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot) has slightly modified his proposals, in that he has changed the provision concerning injuries to the eyes. I agree at once with some of the points he made. Of course it is true—as was said in Committee—that these accidents are much more likely to occur in factories than in the kind of premises with which the Bill deals. That fact is accepted on both sides of the House. He says, nevertheless, that when passing new legislation it is important to take account of the problems which have arisen in the Factories Acts legislation. Again, I wholeheartedly agree.
    My point is simply that, bearing in mind all the legal aspects to which my right hon. and learned Friend will refer, the question is simply this: would it be practical, if right in law, to make a general provision making it an absolute requirement to provide protection against the ejection of materials from machines, and also against the possibility of tools being caught in a dangerous part of a machine? The advice that I was given on these two points was that from the practical aspect there was no doubt that to impose such an absolute and general requirement in this respect would undoubtedly make it impossible legally to use many machines which are now in common use.
    Mr. MacDermot: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not mistake my argument when seeking to refute it. I have not asked—nor do the Amendments provide

    533
    —for a prohibition on the ejection of materials; they merely provide that where the ejection of materials would cause danger the workman shall be protected against that danger.
    9.45 p.m.
    Mr. Whitelaw: I thought I was arguing that point. I think that the argument I am advancing is valid in respect of that point as well.
    The technical advice I was given indicated that to fulfil the requirements in the Amendment would mean placing an obligation on employers which could not practically be carried out. It would be impossible legally to use many of the machines which are commonly used, and undoubtedly it would be extremely difficult to carry out many practices regarding tools that are at present encouraged in order to promote safety among the workers. I thought it right and proper that I should announce that advice to the House without seeking to refer to the legal arguments.
    My right hon. Friend realises that from the practical and the legal aspect there is a problem here. He is discussing it with the interested organisations, the Trades Union Congress has discussed it, and he intends to introduce regulations—despite the aspersions made by the hon. Member for Derby, North—to deal with many of these matters. The technical view at present is that this is the right and proper way to deal with the problem, rather than by the imposition of absolute requirements as is suggested by the Amendments.
    Mr. Bence: This is an important Amendment and those hon. Members who have experience of working in factories will know the serious problem which exists. At the end of the First World War, when I was a boy, there was a machine used in factories, a surface grinder manufactured by Bradshaw. It had a magnetised base which revolved round a central spindle and underneath was a segment of carborundum stone. The machine was completely fenced round so that if the current failed, and the piece of steel being machined whipped off, it would crash against the guard and no one would be injured. I have seen huge dents in the guard caused by a piece of steel hitting it. That machine went out of date. It was a poor job and not sufficiently precise. It was invented long before the passing of the
    534
    Factories Acts. We then had the Churchill and the Snow surface grinders. These incorporated the magnetic principle with a circular carborundum stone, but no guard.
    I have seen a piece of die steel, a heavy piece of metal, travel 40 yards from the machine, when the current failed, with sufficient force to crush a man's head. I have seen a man badly injured in that way. There was no protection on the machine for the reason which was explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot). We sometimes make derogatory remarks about lawyers, but if all lawyers were as lucid as my hon. Friend I should never criticise members of his profession again. I consider that he gave a lucid exposition of an industrial problem which has existed for many years.
    The Parliamentary Secretary said he had been told that this is a difficult technical problem, and it is. My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North made clear that he was not advocating that a machine should be surrounded by a protective device to stop any material from being ejected. He wishes to protect the operator from such material.
    Many of my hon. Friends could quote experience with the universal grinder. Unfortunately a worker using a universal grinder and working to precision limits of perhaps a thousandth of an inch cannot use goggles. He has to grind to very fine dimensions and cannot be protected by the use of goggles because he must have a clear vision. I have done this work myself. I have rigged up something on the universal grinder in such a way that if stock was ejected it would ricochet away from me. That is a little commonsense. I happen to be an engineer and can fix little "Heath Robinson" things on to machines so that the material is ejected away from me.
    If a worker in a factory can devise his own protection like that, the Parliamentary Secretary should not tell us that the technical brains of the country are incapable of doing what my hon. Friend wants them to do. Every worker in the factories would deem it a great advance if he could be protected from the stock of a machine being thrown out and it being liable to cause very serious injury to the operator, or to a person standing by who is not an operator. I therefore hope

    535
    that this Amendment will be accepted and, if not, that we shall vote for it.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot) on the reasoned case he has presented, which coincided with my practical knowledge of many years working in several of the largest industrial establishments in the country. From that work I gathered experience which confirmed the correctness of the case my hon. Friend has stated.
    My hon. Friend stimulated my uneasiness. If it is correct that High Court judges have made such a pronouncement with regard to their interpretation of the 1937 Act, I am sorry that Parliament in those days was responsible for inserting a Section which worsened the protection of industrial workers. I accept my share of responsibility, because I played a big part in the Committee proceedings, but, of course, I am not a legal man. I had to accept the legal advice which was tendered to us. We thought that the Bill which became the 1937 Act was a step forward. I am very disappointed that the protection of our people has been worsened as a result of a High Court decision on a case which arose out of the administration of the Act.
    This is very serious, and no one knows it better than the Minister. The Ministry of Labour has been responsible in the past few years for rendering great service to industry in general and to work people in particular. The Ministry has published very fine literature which has been reflected in trade union journals which are seen by work people. It puts the need to reduce accidents as a first priority. That lessens absenteeism and keeps work people in a better frame of mind. The good work done in that way will be undermined if these interpretations placed on these provisions find expression in factory legislation in future.
    I understood my hon. Friend to say that the suggestion is sometimes made that the workers should wear goggles. Anyone who knows the men with whom I am associated would know that to suggest that they should wear goggles would be greeted with a smile. One cannot work to "thous" with the tools
    536
    they have to use while wearing goggles. They have to depend on the naked eye and, when the eye is no longer good enough, their earning capacity is affected. They not only need to be intellectually perfect, but physically perfect to be able to hold their own in industry. That is why the suggestion that they should wear goggles while working makes me smile. I hope that the Attorney-General will have regard to that.
    As to the example given by my hon. Friend of a piece of material which flew away from a machine and protection not being given by the guard, I have worked in very large places where this has been fairly common. The workpeople could not have got on with their work unless they had some confidence in the guard. The reason that they went on working with complete confidence with machines operating behind them was because they had confidence that they were as well protected as they possibly could be, first, by the guard and, secondly, by the material being securely fastened. This is another example why the intention of the 1937 Act should be insisted upon in the future.
    The instance that has been given with regard to material leaving a machine applies in the use of many other machines. I was working in one place where a huge fly-wheel came away with grave risk to a large number of people. Therefore, if this new interpretation is to be applied in the future it will have a very serious effect.
    I welcome the undertaking given by the Parliamentary Secretary of the Minister's intention to consult representative organisations on this matter, and I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will give it their support. But it is not what an outside body says that matters. It should be for Parliament to decide. Parliament are the elected representatives of the people.
    I do not take second place to anyone in regard to the need to have consultations with organised interests outside, but on an important legal matter like this affecting the people of our country it is the responsibility of Parliament to decide what should be inserted in the Bill, so that when the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament it can be administered in the way that Parliament intended. It does not

    537
    matter what is in the regulations; it is what is in the Act that will tell, and I hope that the Attorney-General will have regard to these observations.
    The Attorney-General (Sir John Hobson): This is a very important Amendment which has aroused a great deal of interest on both sides of the House. The only question that we are debating is whether it is better to deal with a problem, which everybody admits exists, by general legislation or by passing regulations to deal with it in the future. This is the choice upon which I wish to address the House. My right hon. Friend concedes that there are large numbers of accidents and something has to be done in respect of them, and the only question is which is the best method of dealing with the problem.
    I congratulate the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot) on his excellent exposition of the law, but every problem that arises presents a question of fact as well. He did not really address his mind to the result of passing an Amendment such as he proposes on the ordinary day-to-day administration of the law and the day-to-day problems that would confront the courts, the employers and the advisers of the employees. It is not merely a question of civil damages. The criminal law is involved.
    It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
    Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Hare.]
    Question again proposed, That those words be there inserted in the Bill.
    The Attorney-General: I was saying that if one is to impose what will be an absolute liability on all employers involving a criminal liability for its breach it is very important to make certain that this is a feasible and sensible way to proceed.
    The question whether a particular machine or any part of it is dangerous in the event of contact—which is the present position which the law must examine—is one fairly easy to answer and identify. The risks can be fairly guarded against and identified by looking at a machine and saying that it is perfectly obvious that if a workman came into contact with that part of the machine it would be
    538
    dangerous and, therefore, it should be fenced. It is also easy to devise fences which will keep a workman from getting into contact with the dangerous part of the machine.
    But ejection can take place in any direction and it is, I submit, difficult indeed to identify either the machine or the part of it which is liable and can foreseeably be said to be dangerous in the event of an ejection. It is true that many machines—abrasive wheels and others—are known to be dangerous, but there are a great number of other machines which would be absolutely marginal and about which the danger of an ejection might well depend on the type of material being used. It might be a machine which would not eject at all if a certain material was used while it might contain a risk to a workman if some other sort of material was being worked.
    With the added difficulty that the ejection is liable to take place in any direction, one would be placing on the employer a liability to provide all round fencing in every direction to prevent ejection in every direction if he had to fulfil the absolute liability which the hon. Member proposes should be placed on him. The Minister proposes to deal with abrasive wheels and woodworking machinery by Regulations and to amend the Protection of Eye Regulations. It is expected that these new Regulations will be laid during the course of this year.
    How many other machines are there for which goggles will be insufficient? The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) said that goggles were no answer, but they are, of course, part of the proposals of the hon. Member for Derby, North in those cases where there is a risk of injury to the eye. That is a sensible provision and can be dealt with adequately by the Protection of Eye Regulations.
    Leaving out the eye cases, abrasive wheels and wood-working machinery, can anyone say with certainty that one can identify every other type of machine throughout the range of industry and say with reasonable certainty "This is a machine which is dangerous and should be fenced"? Or is it better, in the residium of cases other than those which will be covered by the regulations I have mentioned, to leave it to the Ministry of Labour to apply safety regulations?

    539
    I was grateful for what the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South said about the care which is taken by the Department over which my right hon. Friend presides and its anxiety to see that there are safety regulations. This is a question of balance, because there is no doubt that if one were to have an absolute requirement to provide protection against the risk of ejection, then certain machines would become almost unworkable; whereas by regulations it would be possible to provide a protection which would be reasonably safe, satisfactory and sufficient even though it was not an absolute protection of the kind proposed by the Amendment.
    It is upon these grounds that I suggest to the House that it is better to proceed upon the basis that the regulation-making power is the correct way to deal with this problem, and, if necessary, to see that the Ministry of Labour makes the necessary regulations from time to time. But even if the House takes that view on this Clause, it does not mean that my right hon. Friend would come to that final conclusion. He is, as has been said already, inclined at the moment to advise the House that the right way to proceed is by making regulations to deal with those cases where it becomes obvious that there is a risk of ejection and where a suitable and sensible guard can be provided. My right hon. Friend is already in touch with both sides of industry. This is a very difficult problem and I suggest that it would be wrong to rush in at this stage when the consultations between either and both sides of industry have not been completed.
    As the hon. Member for Derby, North rightly said, the real problem lies with the Factories Acts, and there is no doubt that if it was decided as a result of the consultations that general legislation was the right solution it would be easy to provide a Ten-Minute Bill to amend the Factories Acts. Moreover, there would not be the slightest difficulty in adding an amendment dealing with this Bill also particularly if it is passed in the form of the relevant section of the Factories Acts. I therefore suggest that the matter be left as it is in the Bill. The real problem, as I have said, arises with the Factories Act and my right hon. Friend is dealing with this both with the T.U.C. and the
    540
    employers. In the circumstances, I respectfully suggest that we should not pass the Amendment.
    Mr. Prentice: I do not want to detain the House, but I am sure that all of us would like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot) on the case which he deployed on this very important matter. He deployed it equally strongly in Committee as long ago as 18th December. On that occasion we were not satisfied with the Government's reply, but we thought that with some months to think about it they might come forward with something more attractive than in fact they have done this evening.
    The Parliamentary Secretary said that the technical advice he had received indicated that this proposal would not be practicable. He did not deploy his advice or give chapter and verse why it is not practicable. The Attorney-General has told us that the question before us is whether we should deal with this unsatisfactory situation by general provision or by regulations. Our position on this side of the House is that we want the general provision to be as comprehensive as possible but we want the regulations as well.
    It is not a satisfactory situation when we have gaps in the law, and my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North has indicated a gap which has existed since the Nicholls v. Austin case in 1926. What the Attorney-General has said does not meet our requirements in a matter as important as this. He told us that this was essentially a problem of the Factories Acts rather than of the Bill. If that were so, we would have been more convinced if he had told us that he had proposals to amend the Factories Acts or if he had indicated, in response to my hon. Friend, that if any of us sought leave to introduce an amendment under the Ten-Minute Bill procedure we should have Government support. We have had no such indication. I hope therefore that my hon. Friends will agree to divide the House.
    Mr. MacDermot: My hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) has made most of the points which I had intended to make in reply. I would only note that firstly the Parliamentary Secretary brought forward the argument that there would be cases where

    541
    it would not be practicable to carry out this absolute duty. Everyone knows that the same thing applies under the Factories Acts and under Clause 15 of the Bill as it stands. Clause 15 (1) imposes a duty which, apart from the exceptions with which the Amendment deals, is absolute. In some cases that is not practical to carry out. I will give an example. Take the example of the bacon slicing machine. We know that elaborate guards have been invented for bacon slicing machines which afford a high degree of protection. But it is still possible for an operator to cut herself on a guarded bacon slicing machine because somewhere the bacon has to come in contact with the blade which cuts the bacon, and the finger can do so as well.
    If the Minister wants to, he can make regulations under this Bill in order, as with the Woodworking Regulations, to prescribe the kind of guard that a bacon slicing machine shall have. Until he does that, he is by this Bill imposing a requirement which is not practical. All I am saying is that the right approach is to impose an absolute duty and then to make exceptions by regulations.
    The Attorney-General says, "Let us deal with it by regulations". He threw at me as an argument, "Are you able to tell me all the machines which could produce danger by throwing out articles, other than woodworking machines, machines which can be covered by regulations and abrasive wheels?"
    Mr. Winterbottom: When my hon. Friend refers to the bacon machine, he should also bear in mind the bacon machine sharpener, the abrasive, which is probably the only thing which comes within the framework of the Amendment. That in itself can be dangerous to the eye which is covered by the regulations.
    Mr. MacDermot: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for giving that practical instance of the sort of thing that I am aiming at.
    The Attorney-General asks me if I can define the other machines which would require to be protected. No, I cannot. It is precisely because I cannot that I ask that an absolute duty should be imposed. Then it is up to the employer, if he says "You are trying to impose an impossible duty on me", to come, through his organisations, to the Ministry of Labour and to say, "Please make regulations which will make something practical". If it is done in the way which the Minister suggests, those machines will go on being used, ejecting material and causing injuries, and no legislation will result.
    If the Government feel that this matter can be dealt with so satisfactorily by regulations, why have they not had regulations under the Factories Act? It is eight years since Nicholls v. Austin was decided and since that lady was injured. If the Government are so satisfied that they can deal with this matter by regulations, what have they been doing during the last eight years in not producing regulations? I have no confidence that we shall see regulations other than those which have been mentioned—some extension of the eye regulations, and eventually these grindstone regulations which have been grinding round for 14 years eventually seeing the light of day. But that will not cover all the risks with which we are concerned in these Amendments.
    I am disappointed at the reply that we have had. I hope the House will show its views on this matter by dividing, and I hope also that the Government will yet again give thought to the matter and see if they cannot in another place put it straight.
    Question put, That the proposed words be there inserted in the Bill:—
    The House divided: Ayes 133. Noes 180.

    Division No. 72.]

    AYES

    [10.14 p.m.

    Awbery, Stan (Bristol Central)

    Boardman, H.

    Cronin, John

    Barnett, Guy

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

    Crosland, Anthony

    Beaney Alan

    Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

    Bence, Cyril

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Dalyell, Tam

    Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Benson, Sir George

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Blackburn, F.

    Castle, Mrs. Barbara

    Delargy, Hugh

    Blyton, William

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Dempsey, James

    Diamond, John

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Redhead, E. C.

    Dodds, Norman

    Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)

    Finch, Harold

    Kelley, Richard

    Ross, William

    Fitch, Alan

    King, Dr. Horace

    Short, Edward

    Fletcher, Eric

    Lawson, George

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Forman, J. C.

    Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

    Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Lubbock, Eric

    Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

    Gourlay, Harry

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Small, William

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    McCann, John

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

    MacDermot, Niall

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

    McInnes, James

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Gunter, Ray

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Steele, Thomas

    Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

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

    Swingier, Stephen

    Hannan, William

    Manuel, Archie

    Taverne, D.

    Harper, Joseph

    Mapp, Charles

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Hart, Mrs. Judith

    Marsh, Richard

    Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

    Hayman, F. H.

    Mason, Roy

    Thornton, Ernest

    Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Wade, Donald

    Hilton, A. V.

    Millan, Bruce

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Holman, Percy

    Milne, Edward

    Warbey, William

    Holt, Arthur

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Watkins, Tudor

    Hooson, H. E.

    Mulley, Frederick

    Whitlock, William

    Houghton, Douglas

    Neal, Harold

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Oram, A. E.

    Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Oswald, Thomas

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Hunter A. E.

    Padley, W. E.

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

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Parker, John

    Winterbottom, R. E.

    Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

    Pentland, Norman

    Woof, Robert

    Jeger, George

    Popplewell, Ernest

    Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Prentice, R. E.

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

    Rankin, John

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Dr. Broughton and Mr. Grey.

    NOES

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Allason, James

    Farr, John

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)

    Finlay, Graeme

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Barlow, Sir John

    Fisher, Nigel

    Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

    Batsford, Brian

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

    Berkeley, Humphry

    Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

    Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

    Biffen, John

    Gammans, Lady

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Biggs-Davison, John

    George, J. C. (Pollok)

    Kirk, Peter

    Bingham, R. M.

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Kitson, Timothy

    Bishop, F. P.

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk Central)

    Leather, Sir Edwin

    Bcssom, Clive

    Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Bourk e-Arton, A.

    Goodhart, Philip

    Lilley, F. J. P.

    Box, Donald

    Goodhew, Victor

    Lindsay, Sir Martin

    Braine, Bernard

    Gower, Raymond

    Litchfield, Capt. John

    Brewis, John

    Grant-Ferris, R.

    Longden, Gilbert

    Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

    Green, Alan

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Buck, Antony

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Bullard, Denys

    Grosvenor, Lt. Col. R. G.

    MacArthur, Ian

    Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

    Gurden, Harold

    McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

    Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

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

    Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

    Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

    Maddan, Martin

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Hare, Rt. Hon. John

    Maitland, Sir John

    Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Marten, Neil

    Cleaver, Leonard

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

    Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

    Cole, Norman

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Matthews, Gordon (Merlden)

    Cooke, Robert

    Harvie Anderson, Miss

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Hastings, Stephen

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

    Corfield, F. V.

    Hendry, Forbes

    Mills, Stratton

    Coulson, Michael

    Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Courtney, Cd-Anthony

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Craddock Sir Beresford

    Hobson, Sir John

    More, Jasper (Ludlow)

    Critchley, Julian

    Hocking, Philip N.

    Morgan, William

    Curran, Charles

    Holland, Philip

    Nabarro, Sir Gerald

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Hollingworth, John

    Neave, Airey

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Hopkins, Alan

    Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael

    Dance, James

    Hornby, R. P.

    Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

    Osborn, John (Hallam)

    Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

    du Cann, Edward

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Duncan, Sir James

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Partridge, E.

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

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

    James, David

    Peel, John

    544

    545

    Percival, Ian

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

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

    Smithers, Peter

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell

    Pitt, Dame Edith

    Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John

    Walder, David

    Pott, Percivall

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Walker, Peter

    Prior, J. M. L.

    Speir, Rupert

    Wall, Patrick

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Pym, Francis

    Storey, Sir Samuel

    Webster, David

    Rawlinson, Sir Peter

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

    Whitelaw, William

    Rees, Hugh

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

    Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

    Renton, Rt. Hon. David

    Teeling, Sir William

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

    Temple, John M.

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)

    Wise, A. R.

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)

    Woollam, John

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Worsfey, Marcus

    St. Clair, M.

    Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Seymour, Leslie

    Turner, Colin

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Sharples, Richard

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Mr. J. E. B. Hill and

    Mr. McLaren.

    Mr. Whitelaw: I beg to move, in page 9, line 27, to leave out from "necessary" to the end of line 28.
    The Amendment in page 9, line 28, at end insert:
    (5) Subsection (3) of this section and so much of subsection (4) thereof as relates to the exception from the requirement thereby imposed shall only apply where the examination, lubrication or adjustment in question is carried out by such persons who have attained the age of eighteen as may be specified in regulations made by the Minister and all such other conditions as may be so specified are complied with.
    and the Amendment to the proposed Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) after "such" to insert "male", are associated with this one. Would it be convenient to discuss them at the same time?
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: So be it.
    Mr. Whitelaw: In Commitee, the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot) moved an Amendment seeking to add at the end of subsection (3) a provision similar to that in Section 15 (2) of the Factories Act. This would have had the effect of restricting the examination and any necessary oiling and adjustment of unfenced machinery in motion to men over 18 years of age. We had an interesting discussion in Committee, and I argued that we would not be able to go as far as to prevent the work from being carried out by women of 18 years and over because in a number of premises—and this is unlikely to occur in factories—there will be no male employee to whom the employer can turn. I agreed, however, that we should prevent young persons from undertaking these tasks on unfenced moving machinery. That is the purpose of the two Amendments.
    The House will note that the new subsection (5) applies to both subsections (3) and (4) and that when the regulations are made, my right hon. Friend could, if the circumstances warrant it, require that certain operations might be done only by men. We have, therefore, moved even slightly further than might at first sight appear towards the arguments that were put forward.
    There are good reasons for resisting the Amendment to the proposed Amendment which would prevent this task being carried out by women. In Committee, we
    548
    did not have the benefit of any women Members of the House and we do not have the benefit of any women Members on the benches opposite at the moment. I know, however, that women are, on the whole, reluctant nowadays to see restrictive legislation proposed for them. Their argument is that they are perfectly as capable as men of doing the many tasks which men carry out. Therefore, they would not be too happy at the idea of the somewhat restrictive attitude adopted in the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
    In particular I would draw the House's attention to the fact that there may be shops in which there are no male employees, and also the fact that in this day and age women should surely be considered, and certainly consider themselves, capable of carrying out the tasks which men do. These are good reasons for not agreeing to the Amendment to the proposed Amendment. I equally hope that the distance which we have moved in our Amendments in lines 27 and 28 will commend itself to hon. Members who pressed the matter in Standing Committee.
    Mr. MacDermot: Before adducing arguments in support of our Amendment to the proposed Amendment, I should like to make clear that we strongly welcome the Government's Amendment. It goes a long way to meeting a point which we argued in Committee.
    The Government have now agreed to write into the Bill the same provision as exists in the Factories Act that where it is necessary for machinery to be examined or adjusted with a guard off while it is in motion—something which could be highly dangerous—it shall be done only by people who not merely are qualified to do it, but whose qualification to do it has been recognised by the issue of a special written certificate authorising them to do it. The Government's Amendments write this requirement into the Bill. In view of that, clearly there is less need for us to press our Amendment for the protection of women: that is to say, to make a prohibition on this work being done by women.
    I should be surprised if the Parliamentary Secretary's attempt to arouse the feelings of loyalty of the ladies to their sex will greatly help with the Amendment. When it comes to protection, ladies do

    549
    not resent Parliament or anybody else affording them special protection. The fact is that, generally speaking, women are not equipped or qualified to do this sort of work. If, on the other hand, through the certification procedure, it will be ensured that certificates are given only to people who are properly trained and qualified, I concede that our arguments are not so strong for saying that there should be an absolute prohibition on women.
    I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to explain—to dot the t's and cross the t's, as it were—and assure us that the pattern of the certification procedure under the Bill is proposed to follow that of the Factories Act. If we get that assurance, perhaps my hon. Friends will not feel it necessary to press our Amendment to a Division.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 9, line 28, at the end insert:
    (5) Subsection (3) of this section and so much of subsection (4) thereof as relates to the exception from the requirement thereby imposed shall only apply where the examination, lubrication or adjustment in question is carried out by such persons who have attained the age of eighteen as may be specified in regulations made by the Minister and all such other conditions as may be so specified are complied with.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

    Clause 16.—(TRAINING AND SUPERVISION OF YOUNG PERSONS WORKING DANGEROUS MACHINES.)
    10.30 p.m.
    Amendment made: In page 9, line 43, leave out subsection (3).—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

    Clause 17.—(REGULATIONS FOR SECURING HEALTH AND SAFETY.)
    Mr. Whitelaw: I beg to move, in page, 10, line 1, to leave out from "may" to "against" in line 3 and to insert:
    ",as respects premises to which this Act applies or any class of such premises, make special regulations for protecting persons working in such premises or, as the case may be, in such premises of that class".
    There is also a consequential Amendment to this Amendment, in page 10, line 26, and perhaps it would be convenient for the House to discuss the two together.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes.
    Mr. Whitelaw: The first Amendment has two purposes. It makes clear that the Minister may make special regulations for securing the health and safety of persons working in any classes of
    "premises to which the Act applies".
    As drafted at present, the Bill refers to
    "premises … to which the Act applies",
    and we are indebted to the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot) for drawing our attention to the point. The first Amendment also has the effect of extending the provisions afforded by the Regulations already made not only to persons
    "employed to work in premises"
    but to any persons working in
    "premises … to which this Act applies".
    As I explained before, this would cover persons sent by another employer to work on premises, such as a delivery man. It would also cover self-employed persons working on the premises.
    The second Amendment is consequential on the first, and I do not think anyone would want me to comment on it.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Whitelaw: I beg to move, in page 10, line 22, to leave out from "thereof" to the end of line 24.
    Perhaps we might also discuss with this Amendment the one in page 11, line 8.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes.
    Mr. Whitelaw: In moving this Amendment, I think, perhaps, I should explain that we believe that we need the power to modify Clause 15 which requires every dangerous part of machinery to be securely fenced. This might entirely prevent the use of a particular machine, for example a bacon slicer. The present wording would enable regulations to be made "modifying" all or any of the provisions in Clause 15, and we are not satisfied that this is sufficient.
    The hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot) will remember that I accepted an Amendment of his in Committee deleting the words "or exclusion". We accept that position and stand by it. In making regulations dealing with these matters, however, one

    551
    might first wish to modify the existing safeguards and then to specify alternative measures which provide the required degree of safety but which allow the machine to be used. For that reason, we do not think that the power to "modify" the provisions of Clause 15 is sufficient. We want to be able to add to the safeguards, if that were necessary, and this Amendment now provides a new subsection (9) which will give us the power to make regulations which may be either in addition to or in lieu of a requirement imposed in Clause 15.
    I think I should just make clear that the words "in lieu of" really mean the purpose which I have in mind of substituting either an equivalent or a better safeguard for one which one might happen to be removing. I hope that, with these words, the House will accept the Amendment as a working arrangement.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 10, line 26, after "applies", insert:
    "(or, where the regulations relate to a class of such premises, for use in such premises of that class)"
    In page 11, line 8, at end insert:
    (9) A requirement imposed by virtue of subsection (3) (b) of this section with respect to the safeguarding of dangerous parts of machinery may he expressed to take effect in addition to or in lieu of a requirement imposed by section 15 of this Act.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

    Clause 20.—(PROHIBITION OF HEAVY WORK.)
    Amendments made: In page 13, line 1, leave out "employed to" and insert:
    "shall in the course of his".
    In line 2, leave out from "applies" to "be".—[Mr. Hare.]

    Clause 21.—(FIRST AID: GENERAL PROVISIONS.)
    Mr. Hare: I beg to move, in page 13, line 11, after "In", to insert "the case of".
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker, there are consequential Amendments which perhaps we might discuss with this Amendment:
    In line 25 after first "in", insert "the case of".
    In line 36, after "in", insert "the case of".
    552
    In page 14, line 20, leave out "provided at" and insert:
    "maintained at or in conjunction with".
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes, if that is agreed.
    Mr. Hare: These Amendments provide what I believe is a slight but sensible relaxation to the absolute requirement of subsection (1) of Clause 20, which lays down that a first-aid box or cupboard has to be kept in all premises to which the Bill applies. We do not think it is always necessary that the first-aid box should be inside the premises so long as it is readily accessible. In railway premises, for instance, it will often be desirable that the first-aid box should be kept not in the premises where the men report for work but much closer to the place where they are actually working.
    The wording of the Amendment in page 14, line 20, which is to subsection (7), is designed to achieve the same effect. A first-aid room does not have to be "at" the premises. If it is maintained "in conjunction with" premises the enforcing authority may give exemption certificates for which subsection (7) provides. I think the House would agree that the real test is whether immediate treatment can be given if necessary.
    I think that these Amendments will make for flexibility and will certainly not lead to any lowering of the protection afforded by the Clause, and I therefore commend them to the House.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In line 25, after first "in", insert "the case of".[Mr. Hare.]
    Mr. Hare: I beg to move, in page 13, line 31, to leave out from "exceeding" to "are" in line 33 and to insert "the relevant number".
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker, there is a consequential Amendment, in page 13, line 42, at end insert:
    In this subsection "relevant number", in relation to any premises, means one hundred and fifty or such less number as may by regulations be prescribed by the Minister in relation either to premises generally or to premises of a class within which the first-mentioned premises fall.
    which perhaps, by leave of the House, we might discuss at the same time.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes, if the House wishes so.
    Mr. Hare: Under subsection (4), first-aid boxes have to be provided where more than 150 persons are employed or where the number exceeds such lesser number as may be prescribed by regulations. It is possible that we may wish to prescribe a lesser number for a class of premises but not for all. The purpose is to give us this added flexibility. In other words, we shall be able to reduce the number of 150 to such lesser figure as we think reasonable for any class of premises. I hope that will commend itself to the House.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Hare: I beg to move, in page 13, line 33, after "work", to insert "at any one time".
    We are dealing with a Clause on the provision of first aid facilities, and in deciding on the scale of the facilities to be provided it is sensible to cater for the number of people on the premises at any one time. In the case of some railway premises, for instance, most of the work people based there may spend their day travelling up and down the line. It is obviously unnecessary in such a case to require that the scale of first-aid facilities should be related to the number of people who, although based there, are hardly ever present. The words "at any one time" are already in subsection (1) of the Clause.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Carol Johnson: I beg to move, in page 13, to leave out lines 35 to 42 and to insert
    "the person in charge of each first-aid box or cupboard required to be provided in accordance with the provisions of this section must be trained in first-aid treatment and one such person must always be available during working hours in respect of not less than three of such first-aid boxes or cupboards required by this section to be provided in the said premises".
    The point raised here may seem at first sight to be a minor one but it directs attention to what appears to be a slight defect in the first-aid provisions of the Bill. It has attracted the attention, amongst others, of the British Medical Association, and I hope, therefore, that the Minister will give sympathetic consideration to what I have to say.
    554
    Clause 21 provides that where there is one first-aid box or cupboard in circumstances where fewer than 150 persons are employed on the premises. the responsible person in charge of it must be trained in first-aid treatment and always be available during working hours, but that if two or three first-aid boxes or cupboards have to be provided where there is a larger number of employees, only one of the persons in charge of them needs to be so trained.
    As it seems that there need be no more than one first-aid box for each group of 150 persons employed in any of the premises affected, I should have thought it was necessary and certainly desirable that there should be one person trained in first-aid in respect of each 150 persons employed. That is not unreasonable.
    The Amendment is designed to achieve this, and I emphasise that, if the Minister accepts it, it will, at the same time, require only one such trained person to be available in respect of each three or less first-aid boxes or cupboards during working hours. This would cover circumstances where three shifts might be working on the premises during each period of 24 hours, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will feel that this is a reasonable argument and that, even if he cannot accept the Amendment as it stands, he will deal with it in another place.
    10.45 p.m.
    Mr. Hare: I am grateful to the hon. Member for the way he has put forward the Amendment, but I find it difficult to accept a change. When the outline of the Bill was circulated for comment we received a great number of representations to the effect that there was difficulty in getting volunteers to take training courses. It is not a question of employers being unwilling to release staff for training during working hours, but simply the difficulty of finding volunteers to take the courses. The hon. Member will probably realise that.
    As I read the second part of the Amendment, it would seem to require that one of these trained first-aid persons should be available during working hours only when at least 450 persons were employed. This is less than is provided for by the Bill. I do not think that that is

    555
    the result which the hon. Member intended his Amendment to have. He said that he was not wedded to the wording of the Amendment.
    I would add that there would be added complications and difficulties for employers if the figure of 150 were lowered by regulation, because more trained persons would be required, and I have already referred to the difficulty of finding them. Having heard my explanation, therefore, I hope that the hon. Member will be willing to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Mr. Johnson: In view of the Minister's reply, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendments made: In page 13, line 36, after "in", insert "the case of".
    In line 42, at end insert:
    In this subsection "relevant number", in relation to any premises, means one hundred and fifty or such less number as may by regulations be prescribed by the Minister in relation either to premises generally or to premises of a class within which the first-mentioned premises fall.
    In page 14, line 20, leave out "provided at" and insert:
    "maintained at or in conjunction with".
    In line 29, at end insert:
    (8) Subsection (5) of this section shall not apply to fuel storage premises which are wholly in the open, but in the case of such premises which are wholly in the open there must be given to each person employed to work there a notice stating the like particulars as would be stated in such a notice as for the time being would, by virtue of that subsection, be required to be displayed in the premises if that subsection applied to them.—[Mr. Hare.]
    Mr. Hare: I beg to move, in page 14, line 32, at the end to insert:
    "or which are comprised in an institution which provides medical or surgical treatment for inpatients or an institution which, not being such as one as aforesaid, is carried on by a person registered under Part VI of the Public Health Act 1936, the Nursing Homes Registration (Scotland) Act 1938 or Part XI of the Public Health London Act 1936".
    The purpose of the Amendment is to exempt offices and shops in hospitals which treat in-patients, or in nursing homes in charge of a doctor or qualified nurse, from the necessity to provide first-aid facilities under the Clause. In hospitals and such nursing homes there will not only be facilities in excess of those required by the Clause, but also doctors and qualified nurses. They will be readily
    556
    available, if need be, to atttend to any accident or illness suffered by the staff of the office or shop. For these reasons, and reasons of common sense, we think it right to exclude these places from the provisions of the Clause.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 24.—(PENALISATION OF NEGLIGENT ACTS AND INTERFERENCE WITH EQUIPMENT, &C.)
    Mr. Hare: I beg to move, in page 15, line 44, after "17", to insert "or 18".
    This Amendment is necessitated by Clause 18, relating to noise and vibrations, which was added to the Bill in Committee. The regulation-making powers of Clause 18 are similar to those in Clause 17, which is also mentioned in subsection (3) of this Clause. It is also necessary to make it clear that nothing in Clause 24 should be taken as limiting the power in Clause 18 to make regulations.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 25.—(CERTIFICATION OF PREMISES BY APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY.)
    Amendment made: In page 16, line 35, leave out subsection (2).—[Mr. Hare]
    Mr. Hare: I beg to move, in page 16, line 45, after the first "the", to insert "greatest".
    I think that with this Amendment it would be convenient to discuss the following Amendments in page 16, line 45, page 17, lines 26 and 27, and page 18, line 38.
    These Amendments follow from an Amendment moved during the Committee stage by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Matthews). He drew attention to the practice in some large shops of employing two shifts of part-time assistants. In such cases it is reasonable to relate the requirements regarding means of escape to the greatest number of persons employed on the premises at any one time and not to the total number employed. The Amendment provides that the number must be stated by the occupier when he applies for a certificate and by the authority in granting it, and also by the occupier in notifying a material change in the number employed. I should like to take this opportunity to thank my hon. Friend for his useful contribution.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 16, line 45, after "work", insert "at any one time"—[Mr. Hare.]
    Mr. C. Johnson: I beg to move, in page 17, line 2, to leave out from "and "to end of line 4 and to insert
    "must be accompanied by such plans as the Minister shall, by regulation, prescribe".
    I feel sure that the Minister will not be indifferent to the purpose of this Amendment, which is designed to reduce some of the administrative work of fire authorities in connection with premises affected by the provisions of the Bill. Subsection (3) of the Clause provides that if—and it is "if"—regulations made by the Minister so require, an application for a fire certificate is to be accompanied by
    "… such plans of the premises as may be specified in the regulations".
    A somewhat similar provision appears in the Factories Act. It is important to note that there is no obligation on the Minister to make regulations under this Bill or the Act. I understand that, though the right hon. Gentleman has been pressed in the past by the London County Council, and by other fire authorities, he has refused to make such regulations. I think that the Minister is aware of the strength of the case which has been presented by the fire authorities. He has recently taken steps to make changes in the form of application to bring home to applicants the desirability of furnishing the fire authority with adequate plans of the premises. That marks some progress, but it does not go far enough.
    I have therefore tabled this Amendment with a twofold object: first, to strengthen the Clause; and, secondly to reduce, if possible, the heavy additional burden of work which otherwise would fall on the fire authorities. Unless plans of the premises are provided, it will be necessary for the fire authorities to make special surveys of the premises for the purpose. I am sure that the Minister will appreciate that much of this additional work could be avoided if applicants for certificates under the Cause were required to submit plans of the premises. I should not have thought this an onerous obligation to put upon them.
    558
    I hope that, in these circumstances, the Minister will feel that the Amendment is a worthy one which he can accept. It seems right and proper to make it compulsory that applicants should submit plans of their premises under regulations which will—not, as provided by the Clause, "may"—be made by the Minister. Otherwise, the application of the provision will be left in some doubt in future and that, I hope the Minister will agree, would not be desirable.
    Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. C. Johnson) has argued his case in his usual very reasonable and fair manner. I say at once to him that there is a lot in what he has said. He has argued that it would ease the work of enforcing authorities responsible for certification of means of escape if all applications for fire certificates were accompanied by plans of the premises in question. My right hon. Friend is certainly in sympathy with the hon. Member's objective of helping the enforcing authorities, but we have to take care in doing so see that we do not place a burden on owners and occupiers.
    I agree at once that plans of premises would help the enforcing authorities in some cases, but I am afraid that if we were to make it mandatory, as suggested in the Amendment, for plans to accompany applications for fire certificates, owners and occupiers would think automatically of architects' drawings, even if a sketch plan would in fact be good enough for the purpose. This would put them to expense, but I do not rest my argument on that. What is more important is that it might cause delay in submission of applications for fire certificates. It is surely better for the enforcing authority to have an application without a plan than no application at all, particularly as in any case many authorities prefer to consult plans deposited with the local authority under the building byelaws.
    For these reasons my right hon. Friend would prefer not to change the position, but to keep the power to make regulations, if he thinks that necessary, to require the submission of plans. We shall be discussing the whole certification procedure with representatives of the enforcing authorities. I think there is no doubt that, as the hon. Minister himself suggested, this is one of the points which will

    559
    be brought forward. It may be that the best solution arising from those discussions would be an explanatory paragraph in the application form for a fire certificate urging owners and occupiers to submit plans in appropriate circumstances. I think the hon. Member indicated that he might agree to this procedure, which probably would be wiser.
    It would be better to leave the matter to careful consideration at a later stage. If it became apparent that the fire authorities were being handicapped in regard to certification because of lack of plans, my right hon. Friend would certainly consider using regulation-making powers. I hope that the hon. Member will feel satisfied with that explanation, that we are prepared to discuss all this with the enforcing authorities and will consider an explanatory paragraph in the application form and that, if all this does not work, my right hon. Friend will consider using the regulation-making powers. I hope the hon. Member will feel satisfied and able to withdraw the Amendment.
    11.0 p.m.
    Mr. William Hannan: The Parliamentary Secretary has addressed us with his usual persuasion and charm, but does he expect my hon. Friends to accept that an explanatory memorandum would cover this important point? The whole essence of the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. C. Johnson) was that even to leave this matter to regulations would not be sufficient, and he explained why it should be clearly stated in the Bill. The Parliamentary Secretary seemed concerned about the importance of the time element in this matter. He should realise, therefore, that if applications are sent in and, subsequently, the fire prevention service must call to inspect the premises, even more time will elapse.
    I urge the Parliamentary Secretary to consider the expense involved in a report being presented by the Fire Prevention Service in, say, Glasgow. I have a document with me in which it is stated that if all this work is to fall on the Service, consideration will have to be given to staff requirements. It is stated that an increase of 75 per cent. in staff might be necessary, apart from increased typing staff. He should also recall that Edin-
    560
    burgh pressed for Amendments to be made to the Bill. Despite the Parliamentary Secretary's remarks, I hope that he will consider the matter again and give us a further assurance.
    Mr. Whitelaw: When the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) talks on fire prevention matters one takes particular attention because of the experience he has on this subject. I certainly note what he has said, but I do not think that it would be right now to give an assurance that I will take the matter further.
    It is right that these questions of certification should be discussed with the representatives of the enforcing authorities. I have indicated the way in which my right hon. Friend considers we should proceed. We will certainly bear in mind what the hon. Member has said, but I do not think I can go further than that tonight and I hope that, having assured hon. Members that there will be this discussion and having pointed to the way in which our minds are working, the hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. C. Johnson) will withdraw the Amendment.
    Mr. C. Johnson: I do not feel altogether happy with the Parliamentary Secretary's reply. His arguments were weak, particularly in regard to the plans of premises. I should have thought that it would have been easy to provide that the plans to be submitted need not be of a type requiring the assistance of an architect. However, in view of his assurance that the matter will be discussed with the fire authorities concerned and that his right hon. Friend will consider the procedure under the Bill, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendments made: In line 26, after "the", insert "greatest".
    In line 27, after "work" insert "at any one time".
    In page 18, line 27, at end insert
    (12) Subsection (2) of section (Provision of means of escape in case of fire) of this Act shall have effect for the purposes of this section as it has effect for the purposes of that.—[Mr. Hare.]
    Mr. C. Johnson: I beg to move, in line 27, at the end to insert,
    (12) Nothing in this section shall require the issue of a fire certificate in respect of any

    561
    premises which have, prior to the coming into force of this Act, been erected, modified or maintained in accordance with plans approved under the provisions of Part IV of the London Building Acts (Amendment) Act 1939.
    I have, once again, tabled an Amendment which is designed to avoid unnecessary administrative work by the fire authority; in this case the London County Council. I consider that special treatment is warranted in the circumstances.
    The Clause makes it unlawful

    (a) for more than twenty persons to be employed to work at any one time in any premises to which this Act applies;

    (b) for more than ten persons to be so employed elsewhere than on the ground floor of the promises; or

    (c) for any person to be employed to work in any such premises in or underneath which explosive or highly flammable materials of a kind described by regulations made by the Minister are used or are stored in a quantity not less than such as may be so prescribed;

    unless the fire authority has issued a fire certificate in respect of the premises.
    All that, of course, appears to be right and proper and is to be welcomed. Moreover, it follows the procedure laid down in respect of factory premises by the Factories Act, 1961. The House might therefore ask the reason for the Amendment. Perhaps I should begin by pointing out that there is one very important difference between the provisions in the Factories Act and that contained in Clause 25 of the Bill. The Factories Act makes special provision for premises in London where the London County Council has already dealt with means of escape from fire under powers contained in Part V of the London Building Acts (Amendment) Act, 1939.
    Surely it would not be unreasonable to ask for the same qualification to be written into the present Measure. The purpose of the Amendment, therefore, is to exempt owners or occupiers of premises which have already been inspected by London County Council, and already provided with adequate protection against fire under the 1939 Act, from the necessity of applying for a fire certificate under the Clause.
    The position in London with regard to fire risk has long been the subject of statutory provision, as the Minister will be well aware. Ever since 1905 it has been necessary under a succession of Building Acts for the Council's
    562
    approval to be obtained for nearly all new buildings erected in the county, and the Council insist upon such buildings being provided with such means of escape in the case of fire as can reasonably be required in the circumstances of each case. The powers of London County Council apply not only to new buildings, because the Council has exercised its powers and made requirements in respect of old buildings to ensure that they are provided with proper and separate means of escape in case of fire. As the Minister is no doubt aware, the Council has insisted upon requirements in many hundreds of cases and continues to do so.
    It seems, therefore, that the provisions in the Clause will duplicate work which has already been done and I would ask the Minister to consider very carefully the terms of the Amendment which is designed to avoid obvious duplication. Moreover—and I take up the point made by the Parliamentary Secretary a few minutes ago—this provision in the Bill will also be unfair to owners and occupiers of premises who have previously been required to comply with the Council's regulations dealing with fire precaution provisions. I hope, therefore, that on this occasion the Minister will find it possible to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Whitelaw: My inclination would be to respond to the hon. Member's very reasoned argument, but I hope that I shall be able to show him that if I were to do so it might not produce a very satisfactory result and that I believe it is better to leave the Bill as it stands. The hon. Member, of course, will appreciate that whereas the Bill has the primary object of protecting employed persons, the London Building Acts are inevitably designed to secure a number of different objects. Moreover, there are certain requirements in this Bill which would cease to apply if the Amendment were accepted, and one would therefore be withdrawing some of the protections which are provided.
    Of course, I accept the hon. Member's argument that it is necessary to keep the administration of the Bill as simple as possible and to avoid multiplicity of inspection. But surely in the case of London this case can be answered briefly because the authority responsible for certification will be the authority administering the London Building Acts

    563
    —that is, the London County Council. It will be possible, therefore, for the Council to make such administrative arrangements as it thinks fit to harmonise the standards under the two enactments so long as these do not conflict with any other requirements under the Bill. I should have thought this was a simple way of proceeding.
    I should also like to draw attention to Clause 67 which provides that a person required to make alterations to a building under a local Act will not be penalised for not making these alterations if they would involve a contravention of this Bill. This gives employers security against the imposition of conflicting requirements under the London Building Acts and the Bill. I would hope that such conflict would not occur in practice, but the security is there. I hope that, with these assurances, the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his Amendment.
    Mr. C. Johnson: I should have thought there was a common factor between the provisions of this Bill and the provisions of the London Building Acts in so far as, in effect, the provisions in both cases benefit people working on the premises affected. However, I take the Parliamentary Secretary's point that the matter can be covered administratively by the fire authority, and in those circumstances I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 26.—(MAINTENANCE OF MEANS OF ESCAPE IN CASE OF FIRE, AND INSPECTION BY APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY.)
    Amendments made: In page 18, line 38, after "the", insert "greatest".
    In page 19, line 31, leave out subsection (6).—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

    Clause 30.—(MEANS OF ESCAPE IN CASE OF FIRE.)
    Amendment made: In page 21, line 35, at end insert:
    "but nothing in regulations under this subsection shall be construed as being in derogation of the general obligation imposed by section (Provision of means of escape in case of fire) of this Act".—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

    Clause 34.—(APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY FOR PURPOSES OF SECTIONS 25 TO 33.)
    Amendments made: In page 22, line 43, after "33", insert:
    "and section (Provision of means of escape in case of fire)".
    In page 23, line 17, at end insert:
    "and section (Provision of means of escape in case of fire)".—Mr. Whitelaw.

    Clause 35.—(PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO BUILDINGS IN SINGLE OWNERSHIP.)
    Amendments made: In page 24, line 23 at end insert:
    (c) all glazed windows and skylights used for the lighting of a Hart of a common part of a building to which this section applies in which the securing of lighting is required by this subsection to be provided for shall, so far as reasonably practicable, be kept clean on both the inner and outer surfaces and free from obstruction".
    In line 28, at end insert:
    "but paragraph (c) above shall not affect the whitewashing or shading of windows or skylights for the purpose of mitigating heat or glare "—[Mr. Whitelaw.]
    Mr. Whitelaw: I beg to move, in page 25, line 3, after "a" to insert "contravention consisting in a".
    Perhaps it would be convenient to discuss the next Amendment at the same time.
    Mr. Speaker: Certainly.
    Mr. Whitelaw: These are purely drafting Amendments designed to correct a clerical error, and I hope they will commend themselves to the House.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 36.—(PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO BUILDINGS PLURALLY OWNED.)
    Amendment made: In page 27, line 29, after "a", insert "contravention consisting in a".—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

    Clause 37.—(POWER OF THE MINISTER TO GRANT EXEMPTIONS FROM CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS OF ACT.)
    11.15 p.m.
    Mr. Hare: I beg to move, in page 29, line 27, at the end to insert:
    (4) The Minister shall not make an order under this section except after consultation with an organisation which appears to him to

    565
    be representative of workers concerned and an organisation which appears to him to be representative of employers concerned and an organisation which appears to him to he representative of any other persons who appear to him to be concerned.
    (5) In this section "organisation" includes—

    (a) in relation to workers, an association of trade unions; and

    (b) in relation to employers, an association of organisations of employers and also any body established by or under any enactment for the purpose of carrying on under national ownership any industry or part of an industry or undertaking;

    and "trade union" includes an association of trade unions.
    The Amendment is designed to meet a point made by the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) in Standing Committee, He will remember that he moved an Amendment requiring the Minister to consult organisations representing employed persons and occupiers before he made exemption orders under what is now Clause 37. As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary made clear on that occasion, we agree entirely with the aim of ensuring that representatives of employers and workpeople are consulted before the Minister makes orders under the Clause. This would, in any case, have been our intention, in line with our general practice under the Factories Act, as the hon. Member knows.
    We have gone rather further than the hon. Member originally intended by providing for consultation with other interested parties which appear to the Minister to be concerned as well as with employers' and employed persons' representatives. For instance, we have in mind an organisation representing owners who might have an interest in the matter.
    I draw attention, also, to the second part of the Amendment, subsection (5), which defines employers' and workers' organisations in this context. The form of words used is exactly the same as in Section 117 of the Factories Act, and it is designed to ensure that consultation shall take place with associations of employers' and workers' organisations as well as with the organisations themselves. We think that this is reasonable because of the general interest which organisations such as the British Employers' Confederation and the Trades
    566
    Union Congress may he expected to take in the subject.
    Mr. Prentice: I welcome the Amendment, which meets the point which many of us had in mind in Committee. On this side of the House, of course, we do not really like Clause 37. We hope that it will be used as little as possible. On several occasions, we have pressed the Minister to say that it would be used only in very exceptional circumstances. If, or when, it is used, it should be used, we believe, only after the most careful consultation with all the interests concerned, and we hope that the trade unions and the other bodies will be vigilant and make sure that the advice which they tender is such that it will encourage the Minister to use the Clause very rarely.
    The provisions of the Bill are to protect workpeople. In many cases, the provisions are more modest than we should like. Therefore, if there are to be exemptions which enable some occupiers to maintain conditions which fall short of what the Bill requires, this should be allowed only in very exceptional circumstances. We are glad that the Amendment has been proposed. We hope that it will be a useful safeguard for those whom the Bill is designed to protect.
    Mr. C. Johnson: I was hoping that the Minister would explain why he felt it necessary to use such strict language in regard to the bodies to be consulted. Consultation is to be with "an organisation" of workers, "an organisation" of employers, and "an organisation" appearing to be representative of other persons concerned.
    I believe that it is usual, under provisions of this kind, to make arrangements for consultation, if necessary, with more than the one body specified here. There may well be occasions when more than one union and more than one association of employers are concerned, and the Minister would have the invidious task of selecting one of them.
    One might, perhaps, assume that this would be covered by the Interpretation Act in the ordinary way, in which case the singular includes the plural but the language used in this Amendment seems precise and intended to limit it to the singular. Why has the right hon. Gentleman circumscribed himself in this way?
    Mr. Hare: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's intention to simplify and shorten the drafting, but, in his laudable attempt at brevity, he has left out of consideration subsection (5), which, for the reasons I gave, is really an essential part of it.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 38.—(POWER OF ENFORCING AUTHORITIES TO GRANT EXEMPTIONS FROM CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS OF ACT.)
    Mr. Hare: I beg to move, in page 29, line 44, to leave out from "time" to "be" in line 47.
    It might be convenient, Mr. Speaker, to discuss at the same time the following related Amendments, in page 30, lines 5, 11, and 25, the two in line 35, page 31, line 16, and page 49, line 30.
    Mr. Speaker: If the House so pleases.
    Mr. Hare: I am grateful, Mr. Speaker.
    The main Amendment in this group is the one in page 30, line 11, on which most of the other Amendments are consequential. Its object is one on which both sides in Committee were agreed: that employees should be informed when an application for exemption is made under Clause 38 in respect of the premises where the employees are employed and that they should have the right to make representations to the authority empowered to grant the exemption before a decision is made. The principle is entirely reasonable and is one which we intend to follow in our general administration of the Bill: that is, to seek consultation with all interested parties on measures affecting their interests.
    Subsection (4B) of the main Amendment sets out a simple procedure to be followed by the person making the application, who normally would be the occupier, to ensure that that purpose is achieved. He has to post a notice in the premises stating the nature of the exemption for which he is applying, the period for which it is sought and the name and address of the relevant authority; and the notice must state that it is open to the employees to make representations to the authority. The notice must be kept posted for fourteen days. We have provided for a fine of up to £20 for non-compliance with these provisions.
    568
    The Amendments in page 29, line 44 and in page 30, line 5, are consequential, and the Amendment in page 30, line 25, is a drafting Amendment. The first of the two Amendments in line 35 extends the existing requirement to keep an exemption certificate posted in the premises by specifying that the certificate must be posted so as to be easily seen and read.
    The second Amendment in line 35 provides that in refusing an exemption, an authority shall give notice not only to the applicant, but to any persons employed in the premises who have made representations or to representatives of the employed persons. Taken together with the first Amendment in line 35 about the posting of exemption certificates, this ensures that employees will know where they stand.
    The Amendment in page 31, line 16, will permit applications to be made for exemption certificates and for such certificates to be granted as soon as a commencement order is made under Clause 78 appointing a date for the coming into force of the provision from which exemption is desired.
    The intention is to give occupiers sufficient time to apply for exemptions before the relevant provisions of the Bill are in force concerning the premises in question. In addition, the new subsection (8B) permits the posting of notices of application for exemption in the "common parts" of buildings covered by Clauses 35 and 36. This is necessary because some exemption certificates will be applied for by owners of the buildings concerned.
    The Amendment in Clause 71, page 49, line 30, makes the necessary modifications in relation to the Crown in respect of those parts of Clause 38 which are clearly inappropriate.
    Mr. Prentice: These Amendments nearly meet the points that were put from this side in Committee. We welcome them for the same reasons as we welcomed the Amendments to Clause 37. Whereas they provided for national consultation with trade unions, employers' organisations, and so on, this set of Amendments provides for what may be described as a local edition of that provision. It provides for more than consultation. It provides for the

    569
    right to make objections and the right of the individual to object, because this Clause gets down nearer to ground level and applies to individual premises.
    Once again we take the view strongly that arty exemptions which are awarded either nationally or locally should be very exceptions, and that in any case in which an exemption is needed, the people whose working lives are affected should have ample right to make representations on the point. We welcome the Amendments and hope that people will be vigilant about these things and will stand up for their rights in matters connected with the Clause.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 30, line 5, leave out "that person" and insert:
    "the person who, if the exemption were not in force, would be responsible for a contravention in relation to the premises of that provision (being a contravention consisting in a failure to comply with that requirement)".
    In line 11 at end insert:
    (4A) An exemption of any premises from a requirement imposed by a provision of this Act shall not be granted or extended under this section—

    (a) except upon application made, in such form as may be prescribed by order made by the Minister—

    (i) in a case where the grant of an exemption is sought, by the person who would be responsible for a contravention in relation to the premises of that provision (being a contravention consisting in a failure to comply with that requirement)

    (ii) in a case where the extension of an exemption is sought, by the person who, if the exemption were not in force, would be responsible as aforesaid;

    (b) unless the application is accompanied by a certificate in such form as may be so prescribed, that the obligation to which the applicant is subject by virtue of subsection (4B) (a) below has been complied with; and

    (c) until the expiration of the period of fourteen days beginning with the day next following that on which the application is made.

    (4B) In relation to an application for the grant or extension of an exemption under this section of any premises, compliance by the applicant with the following requirements shall be requisite, namely—

    (a) he must, immediately before the application is made, post in the premises, in such a position, and in such characters, as to be easily seen and read by the persons employed to work in the premises, a notice—

    (i) stating that such an application is being made;

    570

    (ii) specifying the requirement from which exemption or, as the case may be, further exemption, is being sought;

    (iii) specifying the period for which the grant or, as the case may be, the extension, is being sought (or if, where a grant of exemption is being sought under subsection (2) of this section, it be the case that the grant thereof without limit of time is being sought, specifying that fact);

    (iv) specifying the name and address of the authority to whom the application is being made and notifying the persons aforesaid that written representations with respect to the application may be made by any of them to that authority before the expiration of the period of fourteen days beginning with the day next following that on which the notice is posted in compliance with this paragraph;

    (b) he must keep the said notice posted as aforesaid throughout the last-mentioned period;

    and a person making an application under this section who fails to comply with an obligation to which he is, in relation to the application, subject by virtue of this subsection shall be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds.
    In line 25 leave out first "of" and insert "imposed by".
    In line 35, at end insert
    "in such a position as to be easily seen and read by the persons employed to work in the premises".
    In line 35, at end insert—
    (7A) Notice of the refusal by an authority to grant or extend an exemption under this section shall be given by them to the applicant for the grant or extension and also (if it be the case that representations with respect to the application were duly made by the persons employed to work in the premises to which the application related or any of those persons), either individually to such of those persons as duly made representations or to a person appearing to the authority to be representative of such of those persons as duly made representations or to each of a number of persons who appear to the authority to be representative between them of such of those persons as duly made representations.
    In page 31, line 16, at end insert—
    (8A) An application for the grant under this section of an exemption of any premises from a requirement imposed by section 5 (2), 6, 9 or 10 (1) of this Act may be made, and such an exemption may be granted, despite the fact that the provision imposing the requirement is not in force, but such an application shall not be entertained unless an order has been made under the following provisions of this Act appointing either in relation to all premises to which this Act applies or in relation to premises of a class within which fall the premises in question, a day for the coming into

    571
    operation of that provision; and for the purposes of the application of the foregoing provisions of this section to an application made by virtue of this subsection—

    (a) references to the authority having power to enforce with respect to the premises the provision imposing the requirement from which exemption is sought shall be construed as referring to the authority who would have power so to enforce that provision if it were in force; and

    (b) the reference in subsection (4A) (a) (i) to the person who would be responsible for such a contravention in relation to the premises of that provision as is therein mentioned shall be construed as referring to the person who, if that provision were in force, would be responsible for such a contravention as is so mentioned and the reference in subsection (6) to the person who, if the exemption were not in force, would be responsible as aforesaid shall, if the exemption is granted and the provision in question is not in force at the time of the grant, be similarly construed.

    (8B) In relation to an application made under this section with respect to premises which form part of a building to which section 35 or 36 of this Act applies, subsection (4B) above shall have effect with the substitution, for the words in paragraph (a) "post in the premises", of the words "post in the premises or in a part of the building which for the purposes of the said section 35 or the said section 36 (as the case may be) is referred to as a common part of the building.—[Mr. Hare.]

    Clause 40.—(NOTIFICATION OF ACCIDENTS.)
    Mr. Hare: I beg to move, in page 32, line 21, leave out "24" and to insert:
    "11 and 14 to 24 and sections (Sitting facilities), (Seats for sedentary work), (Eating facilities), (Accommodation for clothing) and (Avoidance of exposure of young persons to danger in cleaning machinery)".
    It would be convenient if we discussed at the same time a number of other Amendments which also adjust the Clause numbers now that we have added new Clauses. They are the next two Amendments to this Clause; the Amendment in Clause 44, page 34, line 20; the Amendment in Clause 53, page 41, line 33; the Amendment in page 41, line 34; the Amendments in Clause 71, page 48, line 39; the Amendment in page 48, line 40 and the Amendment in Clause 44, page 34, line 29.
    Mr. Speaker: That would be convenient.
    Mr. Hare: All these Amendments are consequential on the addition of new Clauses, and I do not imagine that the
    572
    House wishes further explanation of them.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 32, line 27, leave out "24" and insert:
    "11 and 14 to 24 and sections (Sitting facilities), (Seats for sedentary work), (Eating facilities), (Accommodation for clothing) and (Avoidance of exposure of young persons to danger in cleaning machinery)".
    In line 33, leave out "24" and insert:
    "11 and 14 to 24 and sections (Sitting facilities), (Seats for sedentary work), (Eating facilities), (Accommodation for clothing) and (Avoidance of exposure of young persons to danger in cleaning machinery)".—[Mr. Hare.]

    Clause 44.—(AUTHORITIES WHO ARE TO ENFORCE ACT.)
    Mr. Temple: I beg to move, in page 34, line 17, at the end to insert:
    "or, in respect of premises occupied by themselves, to comply with".
    Perhaps we could also discuss the following two Amendments to the same Clause:
    In line 41, to leave out from the beginning to the end of line 6 on page 35.
    In line 7, to leave out "a police authority or".
    Much earlier this afternoon the sun was out and many of us were thinking of the spring events which are coming along shortly—the Spring Double. I very much hope this evening to bring off a double, and I shall make a sporting offer to my right hon. Friend. The object of the Amendments is fairly clear, and if he cares to say now that he will accept them, then I will sit down at once. If he cannot accept my first offer, I make a second: if he does not think that the wording of the Amendments is correct, and if he says that he will take over my Amendments and choose his own wording to achieve the same end, I will sit down at once,
    I am afraid that my right hon. Friend is most unresponsive to these sporting offers, and I shall have to explain the objects of the Amendments. They are comparatively simple. They are backed by the Association of Municipal Corporations and the Rural District Councils Association, and are approved by other local authority associations. In Committee the Government said that

    573
    they would like, without commitment, to examine the principle underlying the Amendments, which is that local authorities should have power to inspect their own offices and associated premises. I do not think that the local authority associations are asking for any particular precedents to be created in this way, because at present they have the power to inspect their own slaughterhouses, restaurants and cinemas. In their restaurants and slaughterhouses they have their own employees on the premises.
    11.30 p.m.
    One would think that it had been accepted that local authorities are responsible bodies, perfectly capable of carrying out an inspection job of this nature. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend is thinking that his Factory Inspectorate will pinch the best inspectors from the local authorities. That is conceivable, and in that case it is legitimate to think that the factory inspectors should take over the inspecting of local authority offices.
    I do not think that that is realistic, but it is realistic to think that local authorities being responsible bodies and having these tasks to do in other spheres should be able to inspect their own premises. I very much hope that my right hon. Friend will look on these very reasonable Amendments favourably. It would be rather a slight on local authorities to say that they should have their own offices looked at by my hon. Friend's factory inspectors. For those reasons, I very much hope that my right hon. Friend will have another look at this series of Amendments and will agree to accept them.
    Mr. James Allason: I thought that in Standing Committee we were given a pretty clear promise by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. There was no criticism of the local authorities in any way, and my hon. Friend said nothing to infer that local authorities were incapable of looking after their own affairs. Yet he has not been able to meet the point. I understand that he has been unable to find a form of words with which to meet the requirements. This seems to be quite fantastic.
    574
    I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary present tonight, and I would press him once again to accept my hon. Friend's Amendments. He accepted that if there was a strong requirement for this he would be able to meet it. It is very disappointing if these responsible bodies are once again to be denied the duties which they can perfectly well carry out for themselves.
    Mr. Leslie Spriggs (St. Helens): I wish to support what the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) has said and, in particular, the remarks of the hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple). Local authorities have in the past been accepted as responsible bodies. Parliament has considered them to be competent. Therefore, if for all these years we have accepted local authority inspectors to be competent to inspect their own premises, why does the Minister oppose this Amendment now? His hon. Friend appealed to him on two or three counts to give due consideration to the plea which he was making to him.
    I have every confidence in local authorities choosing the right kind of people to do this work, and I believe that the bulk of local authorities would rather retain their own inspectorate and use it for inspecting their own premises. I can speak from experience. I have had many opportunities of going through local authority departments. The St. Helens county borough, in particular, is an example to the rest of the country. I only wish that the Minister had had the same opportunity that I have had. If he had had that opportunity, I am sure that he would be only too ready to accept his hon. Friend's Amendment.
    Mr. C. Johnson: Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs), I hope that the Minister will resist the Amendment. There have been numerous occasions in our discussions on the Bill when the Minister has indicated his desire when enforcing its terms to consult both sides affected. The hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) would have been in a much stronger position if, in addition to the support which he claimed from the various associations of local authorities, he could have given some indication that this was also favoured by the people who

    575
    will work in the various offices of local authorities. I can assure him that their attitude would be very different from the one he has put forward. What he is asking for in the Amendment—
    Mr. Temple: The hon. Gentleman has made a statement about what the employees feel. Has he any evidence to back up that statement? Has he had any representations?
    Mr. Johnson: Yes. If the hon. Gentleman had waited a moment, I would have given him the evidence.
    I was about to say that the Bill as drafted brings local authority premises within the scope of the Bill in exactly the same way as other premises. The object of the Amendment is to exempt local authority premises alone from the provisions of the Bill and make the local authorities judges in their own cause. It seeks to create a special and favoured class of premises. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that N.A.L.G.O., which has a membership of 300,000, the majority of whom are employed in the offices affected, would view with considerable concern the incorporation of the Amendment in the Bill. In these circumstances, I hope that the Minister will resist the temptation to accept it.
    Mr. Whitelaw: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) did not seek to be unfair to me, but I really must put on the record what I said in the Committee so that there shall be no misunderstanding:
    "If anyone in the Committee feels strongly on that matter"—
    that is, the question of local authorities inspecting their own offices—
    "I would be prepared to consider without commitment the possibility of putting down an Amendment at a later stage …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 29th January, 1963; c. 464.]
    I said "without commitment", and that was exactly what I meant. I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate that.
    Having said that, I want to assure my hon. Friend that, very naturally, we considered most carefully whether it would be possible to give effect to the provision, that local authorities should inspect their own offices instead of, as it is under the Bill at the moment, the Factory Inspectorate being responsible for doing it.
    576
    I should like to say at the start that we have been advised that we cannot provide that local authorities should enforce the Bill against themselves. Indeed, the Amendment appears to recognise this, for it merely requires local authorities to comply with their legal obligations. I should point out that such a provision is in any event unnecessary because the obligation to comply with the law already rests on the local authorities, as it does on every other owner or occupier.
    The question that we really have to decide here is whether the local authorities should merely be left with this duty of compliance with the law or whether we should make some provision for enforcement. If any such provision is to be made, it can surely be done only by some outside agent, and I should have thought that that meant in practice the Factory Inspectorate. Having considered this very carefully, the Government came to the conclusion that it would be wrong, to make no provision whatsoever for enforcement in local authority premises.
    I really must call the attention of the House to the important remarks made by the hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. C. Johnson) in this connection. He said that there are large numbers of people involved in these provisions and that to make no provision at all for enforcement in their case would detract from the safeguards provided. That is why we decided to adhere to the original provisions.
    It has been argued by my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) that the local authorities enforce provisions of other Acts in their own premises. This is true. But I suggest that none of those Acts is in any way comparable with this Bill in dealing extensively and intimately with conditions provided by local authorities for their own employees. I am sure that the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs) will agree that this Bill is quite different from these other Measures. We are dealing with a different position.
    We can all pay great tribute to the local authorities in our own areas. No doubt they will all set a splendid example in complying with the requirements of the Bill. Surely, then, they have absolutely nothing to fear if they carry out the job

    577
    in accordance with the Bill. The better they are, the less they have to fear. That is a reasonable proposition.
    If that is the case, then it is desirable in their own interests that they should have the opportunity of showing clearly to all concerned that they have set this first-class example. If we took away this provision for enforcement, that would not be the case.
    I appreciate the arguments and not one of us, in seeking to retain this provision, is in any way criticising the local authorities. But equally we must realise that they have a considerable job of enforcement already. We are trusting them to carry out these provisions. We would not do that if we were critical of their capacity to do so. Surely it is right to retain a provision for enforcement in the case of their own offices. We are advised that we cannot have them enforcing this on themselves and, that being the case, it is right to keep this provision whereby the Factory Inspectorate will do the job.
    The standing of the Factory Inspectorate is, I think, extremely high in this House and in the country generally, and I am sure that the local authorities will have no need to fear that this provision will not work extremely well in practice. To do anything else would not be right, and we must bear in mind what was said by the hon. Member for Lewisham, South on behalf of a very large number of these employees. For these reasons, I must resist this Amendment.
    Mr. John Hall: I had not wished to intervene until I heard my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. I remain unconvinced by his speech. I do not think he has put the matter quite clearly. This is not a question of the local authorities fearing the Inspectorate. The point is that they feel that they are not being trusted to do a job that they have done so extremely well in many other respects, whereas the Government themselves, with their own Factory Inspectorate, are apparently to be allowed to inspect its own offices.
    The Minister of Labour's inspectors will be inspecting the offices of other Ministries and will no doubt do a good job. But what about the Ministry of Labour offices? Are they to be inspected by the Minister's own inspectors? If that
    578
    is the case, why should not local authorities inspect their own offices? Why the difference? Speaking for my own local authority, at any rate, this seems to be the main problem and the main thing that worries it—the feeling that it is not trusted. I hope that my right hon. Friend will try to remove this impression.
    11.45 p.m.
    Mr. Whitelaw; The position of the Crown is quite different. The Crown does not and cannot incur any criminal liability under the Bill. There can be no provision for enforcement against it. The civil liability of the Grown is dealt with in Clause 71. In practice, Crown premises will be inspected by the Factory Inspectorate, in order to fulfil the Government's intention that the standards laid down in the Bill shall be observed in Crown premises. But the position in law of the Crown is absolutely privileged.
    Mr. Temple: I am rather disappointed by my hon. Friend's reply, but when I moved the Amendment I was not aware that the National Association of Local Government Officers was concerned about this matter. I have a high regard for that body, and if that is its view—which I now recognise is the case—I regard it as a material factor.
    I thank my hon. Friend for his exhaustive explanation, and although we have not found it entirely convincing, either on these benches or the benches apposite, in the circumstances I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: In page 34, line 20, after "33", insert:
    "and section (Provision of means of escape in case of fire)".—[Mr. Hare.]
    The following Amendment stood upon the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. PRENTICE:
    Page 34, line 25, at end insert:
    No inspector appointed in pursuance of the requirements of this subsection shall be discharged from his appointment as an inspector save by the Minister or with the consent of the Minister.
    Mr. Prentice: My hon. Friends and I have considered this point. We think that the purpose we had in mind is largely met by the new Clause moved by the Minister which provides for the

    579
    setting up of an inspectorate. Therefore, I do not wish to move the Amendment.
    Amendment made: In page 34, line 29, after "33", insert:
    "and section (Provision of means of escape in case of fire)".—[Mr. Hare.]
    Mr. Whitelaw: I beg to move, in page 34, line 41, to leave out from "county" to the end of line 43.
    If the House agrees, it might be convenient to discuss the two further Amendments, in page 34, line 44, and in line 45, which are closely bound up with this one.
    The purpose of the three Amendments is to clear up a doubt that has arisen about the premises defined in paragraphs (a) and (b) of Clause 44 (3). It has been put to us that these paragraphs are ambiguous, and might be held to relate only to premises connected with the administration of justice. The paragraphs are intended to refer both to premises occupied by county councils or local authorities, as defined in the Bill, and to premises provided and maintained by county councils and local authorities for purposes connected with the administration of justice. The three Amendments are designed to remove any doubt on this point. I hope that they do so, and in that spirit will commend themselves to the House.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 34, line 44, leave out from "authority" to end of line 45.
    In line 45, at end insert:
    (c) premises provided and maintained by the council of a county for purposes connected with the administration of justice or provided and maintained by a local authority for such purposes.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]
    Mr. Whitelaw: I beg to move, in page 35, line 9, to leave out from the beginning to "and" in line 13.
    The purpose of the Amendment is to bring the enforcement of the means of escape provisions in railway premises into line with existing provisions under the Factories Act. Railway running sheds are subject to the provisions of the Factories Act and factory inspectors are responsible for the enforcing of the Act. The fire authorities are responsible for the certification of the means
    580
    of escape and we want to continue the division of duty under this Bill.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 35, line 32, at end insert:
    "and
    (d) railway premises and office premises occupied by railway undertakers for the purposes of the railway undertaking carried on by them and situate in the immediate vicinity of the permanent way (not being office premises comprised in hotels)."—[Mr. Whitelaw.]
    Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, in page 35, line 35, at the end to insert:
    (5) The foregoing provision of this Act and regulations thereunder shall as regards premises licensed for public entertainment be enforceable by the authority which has licensed such premises for public entertainment.
    This Amendment deals with the inspection of places of public entertainment and the enforcement of the rules and particularly with who is to be the enforcing authority. Places of entertainment are already subject to extensive rules and regulations under the licensing system. The licence conditions and regulations apply not only to the parts of the building where the public resort, but to the whole building in which the theatre or cinema is situated. I have before me a licence of the London County Council in which the premises referred to are defined as including, in the cases where such premises consist of part or parts only of the building, also any other such part or parts of the building used for the purpose and in connection with such premises. So the licence granted to the theatre or cinema applies to the whole building and not merely to the auditorium or the passages where the public may resort.
    It has been recognised in subsection (5) that in the case of the London County Council the licensing authority should be given power to enforce the regulations under the Bill, for there is power invested in the county council as the enforcing authority. Had that not been done the metropolitan boroughs would have been the enforcing authorities, because the local authority is defined under the Bill as
    "… a county borough or a county district, the council of a metropolitan borough …"
    The licensing authority for theatres or cinemas is the county or the county

    581
    borough. So we are left with the situation that outside London the county will be enforcing the regulations under the theatre and cinema licences, but in the county districts, the urban or district councils will be enforcing the regulations under the Bill. It seems to me the height of absurdity to have two authorities administering very much the same rules. I am asking that the authority granting the licences and making stringent and detailed rules about the conduct and the structure of the premises should be the authority for enforcing the regulations under the Bill. It would be a great administrative convenience and, of course, a convenience to the occupiers of the theatre or cinema, that they should deal with one authority rather than being under a sort of dual control of the county and county districts, as they would be in these areas.
    Mr. Whitelaw: My hon. Friend has returned to the same point that we discussed in Committee and has argued, as he did then, that if London County Council were made responsible for enforcing the Bill in shops and offices in premises licensed for public entertainments, county councils in the rest of the country should be given the same duty under the Bill. There is a very large concentration of theatres in London and they are regularly inspected by the L.C.C. Because the council inspects many of them as agents of the Lord Chamberlain, they are in a special position. It was therefore thought right to make the council the enforcing authority in offices and shops in London theatres instead of giving this duty to the metropolitan boroughs.
    It was argued by the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) in Committee that it would be logical to extend the L.C.C.'s duties under the Bill to other places of entertainment which are inspected by them, and, as the hon. Member will notice, we have some Amendments on the Notice Paper to give effect to his suggestion. If those Amendments are subsequently accepted by the House we shall have the position in London that for its great number of theatres and cinemas the same authority will be responsible for enforcing the Bill and issuing the licence. In other cities and large towns where the next largest
    582
    aggregations of theatres and cinemas are to be found, the county boroughs will have duties both under the Bill and also as the licensing authorities. So, in those important areas as well, as my hon. Friend will be the first to recognise, his purpose will be achieved without the carrying of this Amendment.
    The only effect of the Amendment would be to bring together under the same authority responsibilities for enforcing the Bill and for licensing in the residual county areas where we must accept that theatres and cinemas are not so numerous. In order to achieve what I think my hon. Friend would be the first to accept is a very limited objective, it would be necessary to add county councils to the list of enforcing authorities for the non-fire provisions of the Bill. They would have to maintain registers, issue certificates, compile statistics and send reports to my right hon. Friend—all this to achieve what I think is agreed to be a somewhat limited objective. I suggest that in all the circumstances it would be a mistake to complicate further the pattern of enforcement laid down in the Bill.
    I do not think that in fact any conflict will arise between the requirements of the licensing authorities and the enforcement authorities under the Bill in places where they are not the same. I ask my hon. Friend particularly to accept that London is in a special position. For all these reasons I am afraid that I could not accept the Amendment. I hope that, once again having returned to the point and once again having had it discussed, my hon. Friend will feel able to withdraw the Amendment.
    Mr. Graham Page: It is not the same point as I raised in Committee. In Committee the point was to make the regulations the same. In this Amendment it is merely over a narrow area to make the enforcing authority the same. To that extent I can only regard the answer of my hon. Friend as wholly unsatisfactory. The county councils have already the organisation for inspection of the premises they license. There is no reason why the county district inspection and enforcement should not be added to them when there is already an organisation within the county to do the job. The provision in the Bill will impose on

    583
    each place of entertainment a dual control. Under the circumstances I cannot withdraw the Amendment. I will merely leave it to be negatived.
    Amendment negatived.
    12 m.
    Mr. Whitelaw: I beg to move, in page 35, line 37, to leave out "theatre" and insert "place of public entertainment".
    I think that it would be convenient for the House to discuss at the same time the Amendments standing in the name of my right hon. Friend, in line 38 and in page 52, line 18 and page 52 to leave out lines 29 to 33.
    I agreed in Standing Committee that it would be convenient if the London County Council was made responsible for enforcing the Bill in other places of entertainment in London as well as theatres. This group of Amendments—further to what I suggested earlier—would make the L.C.C. the enforcing authority for cinemas and premises used mainly for public music and dancing. The Amendments in page 52 to Clause 77 delete the definition of "theatre" and replace it with a definition of a place of public entertainment. This is in response to arguments put forward by the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice).
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In line 38, leave out "a theatre" and insert "such a place".

    Clause 49.—(RESTRICTION OF DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION.)
    Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move, in page 39, line 19, after "any" to insert "civil".
    I think that it would be convenient to discuss at the same time the Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice), in line 19, to leave out "pursuant to this Act".
    I think I am right in saying that whereas we have had a great number of Amendments produced by the Government to meet points raised in Committee, we have not yet persuaded them to accept any of the new Amendments now on the Notice Paper. I hope that this will be an exception and that we will be able to claim having scored at least one victory.
    584
    The Amendment concerns a modest point but one of considerable importance. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary has not been given a negative brief by his advisers and that, if he has, he will pay at least as much attention to me as to what may have been put before him in his brief.
    The Clause, an important one, restricts the disclosure of information which is obtained by inspectors and other enforcing authorities in the course of their investigations. This is an important principle. If the inspectors are to obtain and retain the confidence both of employers and employees, particularly when investigating accidents, it is important that the general principle should be that that confidence would be respected and that whatever is said then will not be indiscriminately disclosed.
    That is what the Clause sets out to do, but it makes exceptions, the principal one being disclosure for purposes of legal proceedings. This is divided into civil and criminal proceedings. There is no limitation on the latter and in any criminal proceedings, whether or not taken pursuant to the Act—that is, when the Measure is passed—the inspector will be allowed to make available to the court any information which he has obtained in the course of his investigations.
    But on civil proceedings—under the Bill as it stands—there is a limitation. He is only allowed to disclose the information in civil proceedings pursuant to the Act, including arbitrations; and civil proceedings not pursuant to the Act would be such that he would not be allowed to disclose the information. This is something which could operate unfairly. Civil proceedings which are pursuant to the Act will be proceedings where someone has been injured and brings a claim; and that claim is formulated on the basis that there has been a breach of statutory duty—that is, a breach of one of the provisions for the protection of the workman under the Bill. Where the claim is formulated in that way the inspector will be allowed to give evidence and be allowed to disclose statements made to him in the course of his inquiries.
    But if the claim is not formulated as a claim resulting from a breach of the provisions but is framed as a general claim at common law—a claim for negligence without a breach of statutory duty—then,

    585
    although the inspector may have investigated the accident and obtained vital information which is necessary to the plaintiff's case, he will not be allowed to give that in evidence before the court or to make that information available to the parties or their legal advisers. This could operate very unfairly.
    Let me try and give an example. There might be an accident where there was an independent witness, and only one witness, the person who knew the true facts. The inspector might be called in. He investigates the accident and takes a statement from that person, which is committed to writing and signed. Then that independent witness dies before the action is brought on for hearing. It may be that it turns out that there was negligence on the part of the employer—common law negligence, a failure in supervision or something of that sort, but there was no actual breach of the statutory provisions in the Act. Consequently the plaintiff could not bring his action "pursuant to this Act." He could bring it only at common law.
    If the inspector were allowed to give evidence of the statement, which would be something admissible under the Evidence Act, the plaintiff would be able to establish the case, but if he were not allowed and this power were limited to cases in civil proceedings which are pursuant to the Act he would be unable to establish his case. I cannot think that anyone would feel that what is proposed under the Amendment was an abuse of confidence or in any way contrary to the spirit of the exceptions already written into the Clause.
    After all, it is a very technical question of law whether the plaintiff's claim lies at common law or under the statute. Indeed, one could have a claim which lay both at common law and under the statute and it might happen that the pleader had merely pleaded the case under common law being confident that that was sufficient without relying upon a breach of statutory duty. But if the case were pleaded in that way there would be, under the present wording, a limitation of the power of the inspector to assist the course of justice and to place the true facts before the court.
    I have based my argument on a case where evidence was given on behalf of the injured man. It might work the other
    586
    way, but our duty is to see that justice is done and not to put barriers in the way of justice, I hope that the Minister will accept the Amendment to ensure that in any legal proceedings, civil or criminal, there will be power to disclose information in this way.
    Mr. Hare: The hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot) has moved the Amendment with great skill and persuasion. He suggested that the Opposition had not been getting their way at all today. He was not echoing the sentiments of his hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice), who has made a point of saying that everything done in the Bill has been the result of action taken by hon. and right hon. Members opposite.
    Mr. Prentice: To put it on the record, I said that the Government Amendments today were the result of our pleadings in Committee but that the right hon. Gentleman has not given us any of our Amendments in this debate. There is therefore a chance yet of his doing that.
    Mr. Hare: The hon. Member for Derby, North will remember that this matter was discussed in Committee on an Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Hocking), which was supported by the hon. Member for East Ham, North, but I think that both the hon. Member for Derby, North and I were away when it was discussed. He has given his reasons why he thinks it would be desirable to extend to all civil proceedings, whether or not they are "pursuant to this Act", the removal of the restriction which he pointed out is imposed in the Bill on disclosure of information. Under the Clause as it stands, in any civil action founded on a breach of statutory duty under the Bill it would not be an offence to disclose information. But I have taken advice on this, and I have also listened to the hon Gentleman and, on balance, I do not think it would be right that an inspector should be required to disclose information which he had obtained in the course of his duties, purely to further some private action which had no direct connection with the Bill. This would be the effect of the Amendment that we are discussing.

    587
    The hon. Gentleman gave a number of examples. Let me give an example. It could mean that an inspector would be required to disclose in court trade information which might be of benefit to a rival who was bringing the action. The principle that I accept is that information should be made available to further the cause of justice but not to serve, as it could under the Amendment, purely private action. For that reason, I cannot accept the reasoning of the hon. Gentleman, and I must ask the House to reject the Amendment.
    Mr. C. Johnson: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that when this Clause, which was then Clause 48, was before the Standing Committee I moved an Amendment which was designed to ensure that disclosure of information to a local authority for statistical purposes should not constitute an offence. I need not repeat the arguments which I then put forward because at the time the Parliamentary Secretary was kind enough to say that he would study the arguments to see in what way they could be covered by the provisions in the Bill.
    I appreciate that the provisions now in the Bill for the preparation and publication of annual reports may go some way to cover this point, but, to make doubly sure, I should like the right hon. Gentleman to give a specific assurance that there is nothing in the Bill as drafted to preclude the disclosure of statistical information by a local authority to a county council, and that would, of course, include the London County Council. I think it was tentatively agreed in Standing Committee that this was the position, but I should like to hear from the Minister.
    Mr. Hare: I am very pleased to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. He has, I think, had it unofficially in a letter from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary.
    I am advised that there is nothing in the Bill to preclude the disclosure of statistical information by a local authority as defined in Clause 77 to a county council. I am glad to give the hon. Member that assurance.
    Mr. Graham Page: I do not think that even at this late hour the House ought to leave this matter in this state. I am very
    588
    sorry that my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is not present. I do not mean to be offensive to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour in any way, but I feel that his remark that he did not want to accept this Amendment purely to further some private action, showed that he completely misunderstood the Amendment.
    This Clause, as it stands, may work unfairly to either side, to the plaintiff or the defendant. The Amendment is not intended to protect either the plaintiff or the defendant. It is intended to prevent the Clause working unfairly to one party or the other. There is no discrimination about this.
    For example, it depends entirely on how the plaintiff pleads his case whether the defendant will be precluded from producing this evidence. This means that the Clause as it stands will work unfairly on a defendant in that case. Through no cause of his own, he will not know how the case will be pleaded against him. If it happens to be pleaded not pursuant to the statute, he is prevented from bringing forward what may be vital evidence in his case. He cannot bring it forward even with the consent of both parties. There cannot be consent of both parties under the Clause because, if the inspector discloses the evidence, he is liable to criminal prosecution. There is thus no question of one or other party saying to himself that the Clause works unfairly against his opponent and, since he does not want to hide anything, allowing the inspector to tell the court what he knows. The judge would not allow it because there is the absolute duty on the inspector not to disclose such information.
    I feel that the consequences of the Clause as it stands have not been properly thought out. I hope that, if my right hon. Friend persists in rejecting the Amendment in this House, our words will be read and something will be done about it in another place.
    12.15 a.m.
    Mr. MacDermot: I appreciate the valuable support which the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has given to our arguments. I urge the Minister very strongly to look at the matter again. Although it may not seem a very large point, in a few individual

    589
    cases it may mean the difference between justice being done and not being done.
    I remember a case in which I was involved not very long ago. I was appearing for the defendants. We thought throughout—I say this at once—that the claim which the man had brought was based on a fabricated case. We could not prove it, and the judge accepted his evidence. The factory inspector had been subpoenaed but had not been called by either side because none of us knew what information he had, and we did not want to call him blind, as it is said, without knowing what evidence he would give. Immediately after the case was over, the factory inspector came up and said that, in fact, he had a statement from the man, which he had taken only a few days after the accident, and this statement was completely and utterly at variance with the evidence which he had given in the witness box. As it happened, if I had taken the risk of calling him blind, the evidence he would have been able to give would, I think, have been completely destructive of the plaintiff's case.
    There is no provision in the Factories Act comparable with this, and I should have been able to call the inspector blind in that case. But, as the hon. Member for Crosby has pointed out, in a case pleaded at common law and not as a breach of statutory duty, I should not be able, even if I wanted, to call him blind. I should not be allowed to do so under the Clause as now drafted because the claim would not be brought pursuant to the statute. This is frustrating the interests of justice.
    The Minister may have a point, though I find it hard to appreciate, in saying that he does not want an Amendment in a form such as mine which would be so wide as to enable an inspector to be called in order that he might give away trade secrets, as it were. It is difficult to envisage circumstances in which an inspector, in the enforcement of this Bill, would acquire trade secrets. However, if I am wrong about that, and if there is a real risk, this becomes a drafting point. One must find the right words to ensure that the evidence may be given in the kind of cases I have in mind, which, I think, are almost entirely personal injury claims, which are the vast majority of common law cases
    590
    today. I certainly do not seek to obtain power for the inspector to give evidence in a breach of copyright action, a passing-off action, or anything of that sort.
    I hope that what we have said, supported by the hon. Member for Crosby, is sufficient to persuade the Minister that there really is a point here which he should consider further and put right at a later stage.
    Mr. Hare: I appreciate the sincerity with Which the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot) has put his case for the Amendment, and I take note that he does recognise that his drafting may be so wide as to enable a trade rival to obtain the benefit of information. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman had not that possibility in mind when drafting the Amendment, What I think the hon. Member has in mind is a case where the inspector's presence is needed in connection with an accident which that inspector has investigated. In this case a breach of statutory duty could probably be alleged and the inspector would be able to give evidence.
    At this late hour, it would probably be wiser for me to say that I should like to consider whether there are different words which could bring into practice what the hon. Member has in mind, so that the matter could be considered in the later stages of the Bill in another place. Perhaps we could leave the position at that for tonight.
    Mr. MacDermot: I am grateful to the Minister and I hope that, with assistance, he will be able to find a suitable Amendment to meet the point. In view of what he has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 50.—(ANNUAL REPORTS TO MINISTER BY LOCAL AND FIRE AUTHORITIES.)
    Mr. Prentice: I beg to move, in page 39, line 38, after "particulars", to insert:
    "of any exemption granted under section 38 and the grounds thereof and"
    I can make the point briefly. The Committee lays down the procedure by Which the Minister will receive annual reports from the local enforcing authorities. It states that he may by order prescribe the matters to be dealt with

    591
    in the reports. Our objective is the simple one of making certain, by writing it into the Clause, that the Minister shall be informed in those reports of any exemption which is granted under Clause 38.
    We are anxious—and the Minister, on other occasions, has said that he, too, is anxious—that exemption should be granted only in exceptional cases. Clearly, therefore, he should be informed when an exemption is granted and he should be aware from the reports which he receives whether certain local authorities are granting more exemptions than he would consider proper. He would be able to see from the contents of the reports which local authorities are inclined to give more exemptions than others. This is something to which his central inspectorate could then give attention.
    That is our objective in the Amendment. It is in line with the Minister's objectives and, therefore, he has yet another opportunity to do something which we invited him earlier to do: that is, to accept on Report one of the Amendments moved from this side of the House.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): It would be convenient, I think, to take with this Amendment the following one, also in line 38, after "such", insert "other".
    Mr. Prentice: Yes, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that would be convenient.
    Mr. Hare: I genuinely appreciate the objectives which the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) has stated, but I do not consider that we should be justified in imposing on local authorities the altogether disproportionate burden of reporting that these two Amendments would necessitate. There may be large numbers of individual exemptions from particular requirements—for example, village shops from requirements relating to piped water—and it would not be profitable to require authorities to give details of every case. I hope that the hon. Member realises the force of this argument.
    I assure the hon. Member that we intend to keep a close watch on the granting of exemptions by enforcing authorities and we shall ask them to
    592
    state in their annual reports the total number of exemptions granted from the various requirements of Clause 38. This, surely, will go a long way to meeting the point made by the hon. Member. In addition, we intend to publish national statistics of exemptions in the report that I, as Minister of Labour, will present to Parliament. I hope that in view of these assurances, the hon. Member will be willing to withdraw his Amendment, because we cannot accept it.
    Mr. Prentice: In the circumstances, I think that I can withdraw the Amendment. I think that the point is largely met by the Minister's statement that he will require local authorities to give the number of exemptions. We hope that in that spirit any local authorities which are clearly granting more exemptions than was expected will be the subject of the attention of the central inspectorate which will be established by the new Clause moved earlier by the Minister. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment by leave withdrawn.
    Mr. Whitelaw: I beg to move, in page 39, line 44, at the end to insert:
    (2) A copy of every report made in pursuance of the foregoing subsection by an authority shall be kept at the authority's offices, shall be open to inspection by any person at all reasonable hours free of charge and shall be supplied to any person on payment of a reasonable charge therefor.
    This Amendment will require a copy of the annual report submitted to my right hon. Friend by each local and fire authority on their activities under the Act to be open to inspection at the authority's office by any person at all reasonable hours free of charge. In addition, the Amendment provides for the report to be supplied to members of the public at a reasonable price. I think that this was the object of an Amendment put down by hon. Members opposite. It is a reasonable object and in line with our general aim of encouraging public interest in the administration of the Bill.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 53.—(OFFENCES.)
    Amendments made: In page 41, line 33, leave out "12, 13 (1)" and insert "11".
    In line 34, at end insert:
    "and subsection (1) of section (Sitting facilities) and sections (Seats for sedentary work), (Eating facilities), (Accommodation for clothing), (Avoidance of exposure of young persons to danger in cleaning machinery) and (Provision of means of escape in case of fire)".—[Mr. Hare.]

    Clause 58.—(FALSIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS, FALSE STATEMENTS, &C.)
    Mr. Whitelaw: I beg to move, in page 42, line 34 to leave out "issued under section 38" and to insert:
    "such as is mentioned in section 38 (6)".
    Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House to discuss at the same time the next two Amendments.
    The Clause affected by the Amendments relates to the falsification of documents. The purpose of the Amendments is to make the wording more specific. The general wording "issued under section 38" relating to exemption certificates is replaced by
    "such as is mentioned in section 38 (6)."
    The second Amendment rectifies a printing omission and the third Amendment does away with the general phrase "any such certificate" and "any such instrument" and specifies the type of certificate and instrument. I hope that the words are more specific, and as such I commend them to the House.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: line 40 after "instrument," insert "as".
    In page 43, line 1, leave out from second "of" to "makes" in line 4 and insert "a fire certificate or the grant or extension of an exemption under section 38 of this Act or the issue under regulations under this Act of an instrument whereby exemption is granted from any provision of the regulations."—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

    Clause 62.—(POWER OF COUNTY COURT OR SHERIFF TO MODIFY AGREEMENTS AND APPORTION EXPENSES.)
    Mr. Whitelaw: I beg to move, in page 44, line 27, to leave out from "court" to "considers" in line 31 and to insert
    "having regard to the terms of any agreement or lease relating to the premises, may by order give such directions with respect to the persons by whom the expense or increase is to be borne, and in what proportions it is to be borne by them and, if need be, for modification of the terms of any such agreement or
    594
    lease so far as concerns rent payable in respect of the premises as the court."
    Subsection (2) confers powers on the county courts to apportion expenses arising from alterations made or other things done to comply with the Bill between persons having an interest in the premises, usually the owner and the occupier. The purpose of the Amendment is to make it clear that the court may make an order adjusting the rent.
    The point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) in Committee. He said that he could not follow my arguments. Reading them, nor could I, nor could my advisers. It is therefore thought advisable to put down this Amendment, which I commend to the House.
    Mr. Graham Page: May I express my great gratitude to my hon. Friend.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 71.—(APPLICATION TO THE CROWN)
    12.30 a.m.
    Amendments made: In page 48, line 39, after first "to", insert "11 and 14 to".
    In line 39, leave out "(2)" and insert "(12)".
    In line 40, after "36", insert:
    "and sections (Sitting facilities), (Seats for sedentary work), (Eating facilities), (Accommodation for clothing), (Avoidance of exposure of young persons to danger in cleaning machinery) and (Provisions of means of escape in case of fire)".
    In page 49, line 10, leave out "(6)" and insert "(5)".
    In line 10, after second "(2)", insert:
    "and section (Power of magistrates' and sheriffs courts to make orders for putting down dangerous conditions in regard to means of escape in case of fire)".
    In line 30, at end insert:
    "and as if, the words in subsection (3) from 'and are further satisfied' onwards, subsections (4A) to (8), the words in subsection (8A) from 'and for the purposes' onwards and subsection (8B) had been omitted.".—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

    Clause 73.—(EXCLUSION OF APPLICATION TO FACTORIES AND TO PARTS BELOW GROUND OF MINES.)
    Mr. Whitelaw: I beg to move, in page 50, line 20, at the end, to insert:
    (2) Nothing in this Act shall apply to any premises which, not being office premises, are

    595
    used for the sale of fish by wholesale and constitute, or are comprised in, premises to which certain provisions of the Factories Act 1961 apply by virtue of section 125 (1) (docks, etc.) of that Act.
    It may be convenient to discuss with this Amendment the Amendment in Clause 77, page 51, line 27.
    Mr. Speaker: Very well.
    Mr. Whitelaw. The object of these Amendments to to exclude from the Bill places where fish is sold wholesale in the docks. Many of these places are on open quaysides which probably would not be regarded as premises within the meaning of the Bill. In other docks parts of the quayside may be earmarked as wholesalers' "stands"—perhaps under some kind of roof. The "stands" may be no more than lines drawn on the ground and frequently there are no lateral divisions at all. They are usually adjacent to office premises occupied by the fish wholesalers. The "stands" are normally used only for two or three hours a day for the sale of fish. At other times they may be unoccupied or used for other dock purposes. These places are so different from the premises for which the Bill is designed that it would, in my view, be impracticable to apply its provisions to them. Since circumstances in the different fish docks vary considerably there may be doubt in particular cases whether the Bill does apply. My right hon. Friend, therefore, thought it best to set the matter beyond doubt by moving this Amendment.
    I should like to make it clear that the scope of the Amendment which I have moved is limited and that it does not affect other premises used in connection with the sale of fish in docks—for example, offices used by wholesalers. These will remain within the Bill.
    I should also like to point out that the Food Hygiene (Docks, Carriers, etc.) Regulations, 1960, apply to fish docks and make requirements about cleanliness, ventilation, lighting, sanitary and washing facilities, drinking water and first-aid. The Regulations, therefore, provide, incidentally, benefits for the workers concerned although their primary purpose is to secure a high standard of hygiene in the handling of food.
    I hope that these two Amendments will be thought to make sense in that they
    596
    exclude from the Bill premises which I believe no one thinks should be included. I commend them to the House.
    Mr. Hannan: While appreciating the Parliamentary Secretary's explanation of the Amendment which he moved, may I ask him whether he would care to elaborate on the other Amendment which was taken with it?
    Mr. Whitelaw: Not, I think, specifically.
    Mr. Graham Page: I think that this is all very fishy. My hon. Friend has excluded from the definition of fish something which I have always thought came within the definition and which is very tasty—the eel. Why has my hon. Friend excluded eels from the definition of fish? They do not come within the definition of molluscs and crustaceans or within that of fish. Supposing there is a wholesale undertaking which deals in eels, would that come under the Bill now?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I think that at this stage it would be difficult for me to be specific about eels, but I certainly note what my hon. Friend has said.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 77.—(INTERPRETATION.)
    Amendments made: In page 51, line 27, at end insert:
    "fish" includes mulluscs and crustaceans.
    In line 27, at end insert:
    "fuel storage premises" has the meaning assigned 4o it by section 1 (3) (a) (v) of this Act".
    In page 52, line 18, at end insert:
    "place of public entertainment" means—

    (a) any premises used mainly for public music and dancing in respect of which there is in force a licence granted under the Disorderly Houses Act 1751;

    (b) any premises in respect of which there is in force a licence granted under the Cinematograph Acts 1909 and 1952;

    (c) a place of public resort had or kept under the authority of letters patent from Her Majesty, Her heirs or successors, or predecessors, or a licence under the Theatres Act 1843, for the performance of stage plays as defined in that Act.

    In page 52, leave out lines 29 to 33.
    In line 33, at end insert:
    "week" means the period between midnight on Saturday night and midnight on the succeeding Saturday night.
    In line 33, at end insert:
    "'young person' means a person who has not attained the age of eighteen".—[Mr. Whitelaw.]
    Mr. Whitelaw: I beg to move, in page 52, line 40, after "premises", to insert:
    "or at office premises occupied by the undertakers for the purposes of the railway undertaking carried on by them and situate in the immediate vicinity of the permanent way".
    It might be for the convenience of the House, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if we discussed at the same time the two remaining Amendments in line 41 and 43, which are consequential upon this one.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes, if that is agreed.
    Mr. Whitelaw: The purpose of paragraph (a) of subsection (3) of the Clause is to bring what I might term the "outdoor" railwaymen within the ambit of the Bill. This is done by deeming them to be employed to work at the premises at which the general control of their work is exercised. These premises are simply defined as "railway premises" in line 40. If hon. Members examine the definition of "railway premises" in Clause 1 (4), they will find that "office premises" are specifically excluded. But the general control of the work of the "outdoor" men is, of course, usually exercised from office premises, and the first Amendment makes good this omission.
    The second Amendment is purely consequential. The third Amendment extends the exclusion of minor railway premises in subsection (3, b) of the Clause to buildings which might be caught by the definition of office premises simply because some outdoor railway workers go into them on occasions to do some writing which is incidental to their main job. Of course, if persons are habitually employed in these buildings as office workers the premises will not be excluded by this Clause.
    These three Amendments merely tidy up the definitions in Clause 77 (3). They do not have the effect of excluding any railway workers from the protection of the Bill. I hope that with that assurance the House will feel able to pass the Amendments.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: page 52, line 41, eave out "there" and insert:
    "in the premises at which the general control of the doing of their work is exercised".
    In line 43, leave out "railway premises shall not" and insert:
    598
    "neither railway premises nor such office premises as aforesaid shall".—[Mr. Whitelaw.]
    Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified]
    12.38 a.m.
    Mr. Hare: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    I am sure of the unanimous agreement of the House when I say that the Bill makes a major contribution to the corpus of social legislation of this country. More than 8 million people in offices, shops and railway premises will benefit from its provisions, which are set out in about 90 Clauses, taking into account what we have added today.
    I think all of us take pleasure in the part, whether it has been large or small, which we have played in helping to improve the Bill on its passage through the House. I should like to express my appreciation of the consistently constructive approach of all hon. Members to the Measure. We spent only 13 mornings in Committee on Amendments which totalled more than 160, and if arguments had not been stated concisely and in a helpful manner, we might have spent at least double that time. I should like to say how grateful I am to all concerned, but would like to pay special tribute to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary who carried, on my behalf, the main burden of work in the Committee. Great credit is due to him. Most of the Government Amendments today have been the result of undertakings given by me or him.
    Among the changes made since the Bill was first introduced, four stand out. First, the extension of the Bill to include coal depots; secondly, the provisions setting up a central inspectorate in order to secure uniform administration; thirdly, the requirement that all premises covered by the Bill should have adequate means of escape in case of fire; fourthly, provision for consulting employed persons concerned when applications for exemption certificates are made.
    We have not yet completed our task of strengthening the Bill. We are still studying one or two provisions, minor in character, which we may include at a later stage. As soon as the Bill passes into law, we shall initiate discussions with the various interests concerned, with a

    599
    view to setting up the necessary administrative framework in the shortest possible time. The Government yield to no one in their desire to see the Statute in force at the earliest possible moment.
    12.41 a.m.
    Mr. Prentice: It goes without saying that we on this side of the House welcome the Third Reading of this Bill. We have waited an awfully long time since the Gowers Report and have made many efforts to get its proposals on the Statute Book. Naturally we are glad that the process has been completed at last.
    I agree that in Committee we had a pleasant and constructive time. We on our side tried to help to move the Bill forward quickly and at the same time to improve it. We can say, without being boastful, that we have improved it, that it is a better Bill now than it was when it was first introduced.
    It was a singularly timid Measure then. It fell far short of the Gowers recommendations in many respects. It still does fall short of them in some respects, but it has been considerably improved and I should like to pay tribute to the excellent team work of my hon. Friends in this respect. We are glad that the Minister was able to meet us on a number of points.
    Everything now depends on the way in which the Bill is implemented. In our view, the Bill needs to be followed up by rapid preparation of the regulations and by a decision on the date on which the Bill is to come into effect. That date should be as soon as possible. Whereas there may be some parts for which a date cannot be fixed, as the right hon. Gentleman said, for about a year from now because of administrative preparations, other parts can come into operation sooner. Clause 17 gives general powers for regulations on the health and welfare of workers and need not be long delayed.
    The Bill's success will depend on the way it is enforced. From this side of the House we shall not lose side sight of all this. We shall be chasing him and putting down Questions about the implementation of the Bill. Perhaps it would be realistic to add, in view of the political situation, that very soon it will be his duty, and that of his hon. Friends, to chase us up on the way in which we implement the Bill.
    600
    We intend, when, shortly, we become the Government, to carry out the Bill as vigorously as we can. We intend to issue regulations to the fullest possible extent to set up a strong central inspectorate, and to see that the provisions are carried into effect in such a way that they make a genuine impact on the working lives of the eight million people involved.
    A question mark will hang over the Bill when it is on the Statute Book. It can either remain merely a piece of window dressing or it can make a real impact on the lives on the working people concerned. Everything depends on the way it is enforced, and we take the view that it must be strictly enforced. It is an important piece of social legislation provided that it is properly carried out.
    Since most people have to spend a very large proportion of their waking hours at work, it is essential in a civilised society that we should lay down minimum conditions regarding health, safety and welfare at places of work. These conditions have existed for a long time for factory workers and some other workers, but the workers in offices, shops and railway premises have had to wait a long time. It is a good thing that the Bill has reached its present stage, and that its provisions have been extended to the workers in coal depots, through pressure which hon. Members on this side of the House and trade unions put on the Government. It would have been better still if it had been extended to the other groups of workers which we tried to include in Committee, but they must wait for another occasion.
    It is a step forward, provided it is implemented correctly, and it is our determination that it should be so implemented.
    12.45 a.m.
    Mr. Reader Harris: The words just spoken by the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) were very necessary words, and I support them. The Minister is to be congratulated on seeing this piece of legislation through, but a great deal will depend on the speed with which its provisions are implemented once the Minister has made his regulations, and inevitably it will be some time before he can do so.

    601
    I ask my right hon. Friend to keep a very close eye on the way in which the Measure is implemented. I have in mind what has happened in the last three or four years since we had a major overhaul of factory legislation. Many of the provisions which are contained in the Bill have been taken almost lock, stock and barrel from the last Factories Act, but there are many workers in factories to whom the Act has still not yet been applied.
    In passing a Bill of this kind and putting a tremendous responsibility on local authorities we are also giving them a vast amount of work to do, with which they scarcely have the staff to cope. It will be many years before the Factories Act is properly implemented, and I hope that it will not be as many years before we see this Bill fully implemented. Yet, with the staffs at present available to do the work, it must be a long time before all the offices which should be inspected and given certificates are in fact given them.
    Everybody will have his own idea of what is the most important part of the Bill. It is no doubt important that offices should be clean and not overcrowded; that they should be at the right temperature and properly ventilated, and so on, but if these conditions do not exist it may or may not be prejudicial to the health of the workers. I therefore submit that the most important Clauses are the ones from Clause 25 to Clause 34, which deal with fire precautions. Every year some people are killed in offices as a result of fire breaking out—a form of death which can come very suddenly, but which happens regularly every year. But how long will it be before the fire precautions provided in the Bill are applied to the offices?
    Once again, I remind the Minister that these precautions still do not apply in the case of factories, although we passed the relevant legislation some years ago. It will therefore depend on the pressure the Minister is able to maintain upon the appropriate local authorities, through the local authorities which are fire authorities and the factory inspectors, but it will also depend upon which department in a local authority is given the work to do. One would think that in the case of fire precautions
    602
    the fire authority would give the work to the fire service, but in many cases it is given to other departments. This applies particularly in the case of the L.C.C., where the inspection of the moans of escape is carried out not by the fire service but by a special escape department.
    These departments do good work, but sometimes they take a long time to get round to doing it. This, therefore, is a case where Ministerial pressure should constantly be applied. The Minister should constantly review the situation in order to make sure how many premises are still outstanding, and if he thinks that too much time is being taken I hope that he will take the appropriate action.
    I congratulate the Minister once again on bringing in the Bill, and I hope that it will be only a short time before he puts its provisions into operation.
    12.50 a.m.
    Mr. MacDermot: The last occasion on which I had the pleasure of taking part in a debate on a Bill of this kind was in 1959, when we debated the Factories Bill. I believe that that was the last Bill in which I was engaged in Committee before I lost my seat. I feel more confident about my position this time. I have been looking at my Third Reading speech on that occasion, and I could make almost the same speech tonight, except that the hour is rather late for such a speech.
    Those hon. Members who took part in the Committee stage proceedings found it a gratifying experience. I wish to join in the tribute paid by my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) about the helpful way in which the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary received our suggestions, proposals and Amendments. It is possible to spend a lot of time in this Chamber and in Standing Committees and feel frustrated. But sometimes one feels that such time has been well spent and that it has been a rewarding experience. I should like particularly to endorse the tribute paid to the Parliamentary Secretary. I think we all feel that the hon. Gentleman handled this matter with great tact and skill and treated our arguments with the respect that I hope they always deserve.

    603
    We on this side of the House have scored—if that be the right word to use—many successes in respect of this Bill. About eleven mew Clauses and about 20 substantive Government Amendments were designed to meet proposals which we put forward during the Committee stage discussions. I suffered a major disappointment today. But that does not rankle.
    Everything now turns on the enforcement of the Measure and the first stage in the preparation of the necessary regulations by the Minister. I remember expressing doubts at the time of the 1959 Act which I am glad have been falsified in the event. We have seen speed and progress in connection with the production of regulations under the Factories Act since the amending legislation. I hope that we shall see the same in respect of this Measure. The scope of the Bill and the number of premises to which its provisions apply is so vast that enforcement will have to be carried out by the local authorities. I put it that way because we all recognise that had it been possible it would have been better to have had a central inspectorate. But that is not practicable. The trouble is that the local authorities will have a burden thrust upon them and it is unlikely that many of them will be able to recruit additional staff. So the authorities will require a lot of assistance from the Ministry and one of the most important Amendments provides for a central inspectorate and machinery at the Ministry.
    I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that he will have an extensive publicity campaign to help to make known the provisions in the Bill. I am not referring to the publicity that will pour out of the Conservative Central Office about how much has been achieved for the workers. I hope that leaflets and booklets will be distributed to offices so that employers will be able to read in language that they can understand the duties which we are imposing on them. If we do that and get good co-operation our labours here will be rewarded and there will be a real improvement in the conditions of the workers.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

  WATER SUPPLIES (FLUORIDATION)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. MacArthur.]
  12.55 a.m.
  Mrs. Joyce Butler: I am glad to have this opportunity to express some doubts about the campaign for the fluoridation of water supplies to which the Minister of Health has now given his blessing. In this very short debate I shall not attempt to counter the arguments put forward in favour of the campaign, but I want to draw attention to one or two rather disturbing features of it.
  The support of fluoridation by a number of medical bodies has, I think, been taken by the public to be the expression of a substantial body of informed opinion in support of fluoridation, whereas in fact what those bodies have usually done has been merely to re-echo the views of other bodies. There has in fact been very little research and investigation of the facts on which these comments have been made. The Report on the Conduct of the Fluoridation Studies in the United Kingdom which has given the go-ahead to the advocates of fluoridation, for example, did not present exact data in many important respects. The use of a process of averaging in compiling most of the figures makes it difficult to evaluate them and ignores important differences in individuals.
  It is a fact that this study followed a mission to the United States which advocated that the studies in this country should include full medical and dental examinations at all ages, but in fact no such examinations have been made. It seems quite unscientific and misleading to claim that after an experiment for a period of five years, in which attention was concentrated upon the milk or deciduous teeth of children of 3 to 7 years of age, we know the ultimate effects on permanent teeth or the cumulative effects on the body generally of fluorides applied over several decades. The British Pharmaceutical Codex, 1934, under the heading "Sodium Fluoride", states:
  "Chronic poisoning may occur from the continued ingestion of small quantities of

  605
  fluorides and is characterised by slowly progressive wasting, anaemia and brittleness of the bones."
  Advocates of fluoridation say that this will not be the result of taking small quantities, but it is extremely difficult on the research so far done in this country to support that contention.
  It is a fact that a dosage of one part per million is advocated as being safe, whereas only half a decimal point more fluoride added is regarded by most authorities as dangerous. There is a fine line drawn between what is safe and what is unsafe in this respect. Very little study has been made of the difference in action between calcium fluoride, which occurs in natural supplies, and sodium fluoride, which it is proposed to add to supplies. There has been no research on the effect of added fluoride on the complete life cycle of animals and human beings. We do not have the evidence to show what the effect will be of adding fluoride to supplies taken by people suffering from diabetes, nephritis or febrile diseases, or even on people who drink more than the normal amount. The amount regarded as necessary is between four and six glasses of water which has been fluoridated by one part per million, but many people, particularly in hot weather, and especially children, drink more than that.
  One could go on on the question of research. The research which has been made has been extremely scanty, but on this basis we are going forward encouraging water authorities to add fluoride to the water supply because it is said that the bad state of the teeth of children is such that it could be remedied only in this way. I draw attention to the fact that it is widely thought that any possible benefits to teeth are confined to those of children up to 12 years. A book on dental care states:
  "In England, Weaver observed in 12 year old children consuming naturally fluoridated water less caries than in control groups. However, 15 year old children showed an equal caries incidence in both groups."
  It seems that the campaign for fluoridation is diverting attention away from the causes and possible cure of dental decay, and other methods of reducing dental caries have not been sufficiently examined, and this is realised by dental authorities.
  The fact is that dental decay is not isolated from the other aspects of the body's health, and it seems that this is
  606
  being completely overlooked. Decayed teeth usually indicate a faulty diet which, of course, is not good for the health of the whole body as well as not being good for teeth. Similarly, the first specific symptom of injury resulting from fluoridation to a child—that is the whole child—is a mottling of the teeth. There is no doubt that tooth mottling from fluoride is a warning of future disease, although it may take as long as 25 to 30 years before the first toxic symptoms appear. This is an important factor which seems to have been completely overlooked in this campaign.
  The people who have expressed doubts about the wisdom of fluoridation are not cranks, half-wits or liars—although they have been described as such by medical representatives who have been discussing the fluoridation campaign. It is doubtful whether a campaign which has to proceed with such abuse and which has refused to allow opponents of the idea of fluoridation to speak at conferences on this subject is proceeding in the best possible way and in the public interest, for many people have been very much disturbed about what is being suggested, and I should have thought that they have a perfect right to express their views. It is essential in a democracy that people with contrary views should be allowed to express them.
  Unfortunately, once fluoride is added to the water supply no one can contract out of imbibing it. This is in contrast to all other forms of medication because there is no control on the amount which the individual may take. There is also no means of reducing the amount consumed, particularly when such an amount as must be consumed may be harmful to the individual. Thus, those who do not want to take it, or who should not do so, will be compelled to through the normal water supply. It is also a wasteful method.
  In Hull, for example, it has been estimated that to make the appropriate quantity of fluoride available to the appropriate age group—that is, very small children—20 lbs. of fluoride each year would be needed. Even if this were not a waste product of the aluminium industry, the cost of making this quantity available to the children annually, along with their welfare foods, would be trifling. But to add it to the water supply of Hull

  607
  would require 33 tons a year, of which all but the requisite 20 lbs. would go into the Humber without being of benefit to anyone—and the price charged would be likely to be £500 per ton; a wasteful and ineffective way of going about it.
  Those who wish to give fluoride to their young children can do so in tablet form, but the Minister has refused—he did so when replying to a Question which I put to him—to make these tablets available through welfare clinics.
  This brings me to another point of extreme importance—advice which the Minister has given to water works and undertakings on this subject. The Parliamentary Secretary will know that the Waterworks Association, which represents water undertakings, has expressed grave doubts about the admissibility of adding fluoride to water supplies because, in its view, the prime duty of water authorities regarding the supply of water for domestic purposes has been and remains a duty placed on them by Parliament to give the householder a wholesome and abundant supply. The water undertakings fear that the deliberate use of the public water supply as a convenient method of administering fluoride to the population is at present outside the functions and powers of the water authorities.
  This is a view which I think is held by anyone who is concerned with water supply. But, further than this, the Minister has written to the Waterworks Association, or discussed with it, this point about its powers in this respect and has said that he is aware that doubts have been expressed as to whether the present powers of water undertakings permit this addition. He writes:
  "The point could only be determined by the Courts, but the Minister takes the view that the present powers are adequate and has decided to advise local authorities who so wish to proceed with arrangements for this useful measure for protecting children's teeth. In the event of court proceedings he will indemnify both the local authority concerned and the water undertakers".
  This is very serious, because this promise of indemnity goes far beyond anything the Minister has powers to perform. It is probably a breach of the law in that it is a fundamental part of the constitution, derived ultimately from the Petition of Right, that the Government have no power whatever to grant dispensations from compliance with the existing law.
  608
  The only thing the Minister could do in such an eventuality would be to introduce a Bill to indemnify, and the indemnification would eventuate only if Parliament adopted and enacted such an act of indemnity.
  I am gravely concerned that the Minister has put himself in this position in support of fluoridation. I hope that he will take an early opportunity of considering this point and give rather different advice to the water undertakings. I can assure the Parliamentary Secretary, although I do not expect him to say that the Minister will change his mind, that what I am saying expresses very serious public concern about the whole subject. I would ask whether he would make an opportunity available for a much wider discussion of this matter and that if in particular areas there is a demand by public authorities for the adding of fluoride to water supplies there should be an opportunity for public opinion to express itself through a poll or in some other way before that step is taken.
  1.8 a.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernard Braine): I am grateful to the hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) for providing me with an opportunity to remove certain misconceptions. I find myself in some difficulty in replying to her references to a campaign for fluoridation. There is no such campaign, although there is, of course, a ground swell of opinion in the country in favour of fluoridation. It is true that the Government, having carefully considered all the evidence available concerning fluoridation, have become convinced of its value. In view of the suffering which is caused by dental decay, I think that any Government would be failing in their duty if they did not bring to the attention of those authorities most closely concerned their view that fluoridation is a beneficial health measure.
  What my right hon. Friend has done is to announce, in the House on 10th December last, that he is ready to approve under Section 28 of the National Health Service Act arrangements made by local health authorities with water undertakings for the addition of fluoride to the water supply where is deficient in it naturally. My right hon. Friend came to this decision

  609
  only after giving very full and careful consideration to the volume of evidence on the effectiveness, safety and practicability of fluoridation, to the advice which he had received from expert advisory bodies, and to the volume of support for fluoridation from responsible professional and local authority organisations. On 14th December my Department issued a circular to all local authorities informing them of my right hon. Friend's announcement and enclosing an extract from the relevant part of the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  The next step clearly lies with the local authorities, and we naturally hope that they will not be slow to secure for residents in their areas the benefits of fluoridation. Indeed, the unreserved support for it expressed by the County Councils Association and by the Association of Municipal Corporations encourages us to think that they will not be so. Hon. Members will be aware that as recently as 26th November we were able to have a similar debate on the general subject of fluoridation, on the initiative of the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon). In my reply on that occasion I gave a very full description of the background to fluoridation, and I would not wish to weary the House again by reiterating all the detail that I laid before it at that time. Nevertheless it may help hon. Members, and the hon. Lady in particular, to see the matter in perspective if I briefly review the evidence in favour of fluoridation.
  For more than 30 years it has been known that the presence of fluoride in drinking water is a factor in dental health. Studies not only in this country but in other countries have shown that children nurtured in areas where the water naturally contains fluoride at a level of one part per million have less than half the dental decay of children in areas where there is only a trace of fluoride. Their teeth are well formed and of good appearance and there is strong evidence that the benefit of fluoride lasts well into middle age.
  I must emphasise that the presence of fluoride in water is a perfectly natural occurrence. For generations people all over the world and in certain places in this country have been living in areas where the drinking water has far more than this level of fluoride, and they have
  610
  enjoyed better health. In my own county there are areas where people all their lives have been drinking water which contains up to six parts per million—six times as much as is recommended—without any harm to health.
  What is fluoridation? It simply means the addition of fluoride to water supplies to increase the amount already present—and I stress "already present" because almost all waters contain some fluoride naturally—to one part per million, which is the level shown in the fluoride areas to be the most beneficial for dental protection.
  The hon. Lady has made some play with the difference between natural fluoride and fluoride which may be added to water supplies. It is calcium fluoride which occurs naturally in water, but when artificial fluoridation is introduced it is sodium fluoride that is used. It is correct that the source of much of the fluoride occurring naturally in water is probably fluorspar—calcium fluoride—but it is not practicable to use calcium fluoride because of its low solubility. Sodium fluoride, which is commonly used, is also derived from fluorspar, and its effects on the human body are precisely the same. This is because at the very low concentrations which are used in fluoridation these salts lose their identity and break up into their component parts, called ions. The fluoride ion is exactly the same, whatever its origin, whether it has come from calcium fluoride or from sodium fluoride. It is this which is the active agent in preventing dental decay. All drinking waters contain sodium, calcium and other ions in addition to fluoride ions.
  If the hon. Lady lives, as I think she does, in the area served by the Metropolitan Water Board ate may be interested to know that she and her family are probably already drinking water which has between 0·2 and 0·3 parts per million of natural fluoride. Indeed, there are some consumers in the area served by the Board who are drinking water with a content above one part per million of fluoride. As I say, in the neighbouring County of Essex there are places where people are drinking water with up to six parts of fluoride, and where it is known that there is far less dental decay among the children.

  611
  Thus, all that fluoridation does is to increase the concentration of something which is already in the water. Studies have shown that the addition to drinking water of fluoride up to the level of one part per million, where the natural level is below this, has the same beneficial effect on teeth as the same amount of the fluoride present in the water naturally. It cuts dental decay by half, and extensive investigations conducted on a scientific basis have failed to demonstrate any harmful effects.
  There seems to be a great deal of muddled thinking on the subject of pure water. The only really pure water is distilled water, and I can assure the hon. Lady, if she has not tried it, that it is very unpleasant. I do not recommend her to make the family tea with it. A good deal of our drinking water is sterilised by the use of chlorine. Some water authorities use up to 30 chemicals in order to ensure wholesome drinking water. Is it argued that it is wrong to add fluoride to water where a trace of it already exists, but it is right to add chlorine and other chemicals to water which does not contain them? The answer to that, surely, is no. Anybody who has travelled outside this country knows that there are very few countries where there is such a universally clean and wholesome water supply as here.
  In my reply to the debate on 26th November, I spoke in some detail about the studies made in the United States from 1945 onwards, of the British mission to North America to study fluoridation in operation, and of the detailed studies which have been carried out in selected areas in this country since 1955. I referred also to the expert advice which my right hon. Friend had had from his Standing Medical and Dental Advisory Committees and from the Central Health Services Council, and to the similar advice received by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I made plain that none of these bodies consulted had made any comments which were other than favourable to fluoridation.
  It really seems extraordinary to me that, in the light of this, the hon. Lady should assert that there is insufficient scientific evidence in support of fluoridation. The General Dental Council, the
  612
  British Dental Association, the Royal Society of Health, the British Medical Association, have all expressed their unreserved support of fluoridation as a health measure. Could there be a wider range of more important and influential bodies than this in matters of health? It is obvious that such bodies would have weighed the scientific evidence most carefully. As for the bodies which advise my right hon. Friend directly, they comprise some of the most eminent figures in the medical and dental professions in this country, and, may I say, the world.
  I cannot accept that we are exercising any bias in favour of fluoridation. Indeed, perhaps the strongest support has come from the hon. Lady's side of the House. She will remember—no doubt, she was present—when the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson), speaking about fluoridation, described it as a
  "medico-social advance in which all the evidence is on one side, to a quite unprecedented degree".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November, 1962; Vol. 668, c. 178.]
  In that view I concur.
  Before reaching his decision, my right hon. Friend had regard to the views expressed by all the authoritative bodies representative of medical and dental opinion. None expressed views other than favourable to fluoridation. It is true, of course, that a few members of the medical and dental professions do not support the idea. Some difference of opinion always arises when new public health measures are suggested, and it is natural that contrary opinions should be strongly held. The scientific documents and reports containing opinions adverse to fluoridation which have been published have received the most careful review of their factual basis, and their evidence has been weighed against that derived from other sources. I say in all seriousness to the hon. Lady that none of these reports has carried any conviction. Indeed, in some cases the writers have subsequently admitted that their conclusions were based upon inaccurate information.
  While objective scientific studies of fluoridation are welcome, whatever their conclusions, I must, of course, distinguish those from the quantity of anti-fluoridation propaganda which has been produced. This is a campaign which is

  613
  both biased and misleading and contains the most reckless statements. As an example of this worthless literature, I have a leaflet headed "Danger! Poison in our water". It suggests that fluoridation may lead to paralysis and early death and is especially dangerous to the unborn child. That is utter nonsense and is completely without foundation.
  I quite understand that any proposals to introduce fluoridation give rise to questioning. It can be said, as the hon. Lady said tonight, that this is an infringement upon the rights of the individual, it gives the individual no choice but to drink fluoridated water, and there may be doubts whether fluoridation is really necessary.
  To argue that it is morally wrong to interfere with the water supply and that fluoridation is mass medication is to ignore the fact that water occurring in nature is never pure and needs to undergo extensive chemical treatment at waterworks before it can emerge from the domestic tap as wholesome drinking water. It is also to ignore the fact that nearly all water supplies contain some fluoride and that already in this country—the hon. Lady must be careful where she goes—half a million people drink water with a natural content of one part per million, which is sufficient for dental protection. Fluoridation is simply a deliberate adoption on a wider scale of a natural process.
  The answer to the question whether it is necessary is that we are, of course, pressing on with health education. The problem of dental decay is, however, so formidable that we cannot afford to ignore a simple, safe, natural, proven way of laying the foundations for healthy teeth.
  At the age of 5, when children start school, four out of five of them have decayed teeth. It is, of course, accepted that the modern diet, including a heavy consumption of fermentable carbohydrates, is largely responsible, but it is extremely difficult to change dietary habits. It is true that fluoride is available in tablet form and in theory—I stress "in theory", because in practice little evidence is available—the effects of tablet fluoride should be similar to those of fluoridation of water. But this would entail a daily administration in regular doses
  614
  throughout childhood, involving a degree of perseverance which, I suggest, we could expect few parents to maintain.
  The argument must be seen against what was actually achieved after five years of fluoridation in the study areas of this country. It achieved a reduction by 1961 of 66 per cent. in the dental decay in children aged 3, a 57 per cent. reduction in children aged 4 and a 50 per cent. reduction in children aged 5. The hon. Lady says that this is too short a time, but we are not dealing with this matter in a vacuum. This is entirely in line with American experience, and the studies which have been under way in that country for between 10 and 15 years show that these striking results are maintained.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister would not favour fluoridation if it involved a risk of health. To quote from the report of the World Health Organisation Expert Committee on Water Fluoridation:
  "The most convincing evidence of the safety of water fluoridation comes from the numerous population groups who have drunk naturally fluoridated water containing 1 part per million or more during their lifetimes. In these groups water drinking has been of course uncontrolled and there have been well and ill babies as well as healthy young adults and frail elderly people. Medical practitioners and specialists in these areas have never detected and defined a systematic aberration in health of any kind related to the fluoride consumed."
  It is this which indicates why fluoridation is gradually extending throughout the world.
  Fluoridation is practised extensively in the United States of America. Forty-eight million people there now drink fluoridated water. Canadian schemes cover 1½ million people and shortly this number will double. From a careful review, therefore, of all the available evidence, we are entitled to conclude that objections to fluoridation are objections to a valuable public health measure which has been shown to be not only beneficial, but safe.
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at twenty-five minutes past One o'clock.

SHIPBUILDING
  Transatlantic Liners (Replacement)
  Transatlantic Liners (Replacement)
  Shipyards, South of England
  Shipyards, South of England
  Nuclear Propulsion (Reactors)
  Nuclear Propulsion (Reactors)
  Prototype Nuclear Ship
  Prototype Nuclear Ship
  Output
  Output
  Tonnage
  Tonnage
  Orders (Oil Companies)
  Orders (Oil Companies)
RAILWAYS
  Information Departments (Telephone Inquiries)
  Information Departments (Telephone Inquiries)
  Discontinuation of Services
  Discontinuation of Services
  Properties (Development)
  Properties (Development)
  Scotland
  Scotland
  Lots Road Power Station
  Lots Road Power Station
  Closed Lines (Private Acquisition)
  Closed Lines (Private Acquisition)
  Branch Lines (Diesel Trains)
  Branch Lines (Diesel Trains)
ROADS
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Lancashire-Yorkshire Motorway
  Lancashire-Yorkshire Motorway
  Stockton-Thirsk Road (Improvements)
  Stockton-Thirsk Road (Improvements)
  Road Junction, Darfield ("Halt" Sign)
  Road Junction, Darfield ("Halt" Sign)
  Motorways
  Motorways
  Louth Traffic Plan
  Louth Traffic Plan
  Portland Road, Weymouth
  Portland Road, Weymouth
  Carriageway Edges (Reflectorised Material)
  Carriageway Edges (Reflectorised Material)
  A.5 Road, Shropshire
  A.5 Road, Shropshire
  M.3 Route (Survey)
  M.3 Route (Survey)
  Lancashire
  Lancashire
  Motorways (Maintenance Work)
  Motorways (Maintenance Work)
  Street Lighting
  Street Lighting
  Warning Signs, Motorways (Remote Control)
  Warning Signs, Motorways (Remote Control)
  Trafford Park
  Trafford Park
  Warning Signs, Motorways (Remote Control)
  Warning Signs, Motorways (Remote Control)
  Swanley By-Pass (Draft Order)
  Swanley By-Pass (Draft Order)
TRANSPORT
  Firth of Clyde (Barrage)
  Firth of Clyde (Barrage)
  Road Vehicles (Size)
  Road Vehicles (Size)
  Cross-Channel Link
  Cross-Channel Link
  Heavy Commercial Vehicles
  Heavy Commercial Vehicles
  Goods Vehicles (Accidents)
  Goods Vehicles (Accidents)
  Motor Vehicles (Mud-Flaps)
  Motor Vehicles (Mud-Flaps)
SHIPPING
  Flag Discrimination (Uruguay)
  Flag Discrimination (Uruguay)
EMPLOYMENT
  Accrington
  Accrington
  Young Persons, Cardiff
  Young Persons, Cardiff
  Manual Workers (Average Hourly Earnings)
  Manual Workers (Average Hourly Earnings)
  Leyton
  Leyton
  Fife
  Fife
  Falmouth, Camborne and Redruth
  Falmouth, Camborne and Redruth
  South-Western Counties
  South-Western Counties
  North-East
  North-East
  SUDAN (BRITISH MISSIONARIES)
  SUDAN (BRITISH MISSIONARIES)
  RUSSIA AND CHINA (BRITISH PUBLICATIONS)
  RUSSIA AND CHINA (BRITISH PUBLICATIONS)
  SPAIN (E.F.T.A.)
  SPAIN (E.F.T.A.)
  FAROES (FISHING LIMITS)
  FAROES (FISHING LIMITS)
DEFENCE
  Good Will Mission, Latin America
  Good Will Mission, Latin America
  Service Men (Parliamentary Candidatures)
  Service Men (Parliamentary Candidatures)
ROYAL NAVY
  H.M.S. "Blake"
  H.M.S. "Blake"
  Polaris Submarines
  Polaris Submarines
  New Frigates (Competitive Tendering)
  New Frigates (Competitive Tendering)
  Pembroke Dockyard (Sale of Surplus Land)
  Pembroke Dockyard (Sale of Surplus Land)
ARMY
  Ordnance Sub-Depot, Barlow
  Ordnance Sub-Depot, Barlow
SCOTLAND
  Derelict Sites (Clearance Grant)
  Derelict Sites (Clearance Grant)
  Housing, Sutherland
  Housing, Sutherland
  Kelty-Cowdenbeath By-Pass
  Kelty-Cowdenbeath By-Pass
  Bronchitis (Report)
  Bronchitis (Report)
  National Health Service Expenditure
  National Health Service Expenditure
  Register Offices (Amenities)
  Register Offices (Amenities)
  North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board (Schemes)
  North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board (Schemes)
  New Commercial College, Aberdeen
  New Commercial College, Aberdeen
  Crown Estates
  Crown Estates
  Hill Sheep Subsidy
  Hill Sheep Subsidy
  New Road, Kinlochmordart
  New Road, Kinlochmordart
HOME DEPARTMENT
  N.E.D.C. Meeting (Parked Cars)
  N.E.D.C. Meeting (Parked Cars)
  Service Men (Parliamentary Candidatures)
  Service Men (Parliamentary Candidatures)
  Advisory Committee on Service Candidates
  Advisory Committee on Service Candidates
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Wood Pigeons
  Wood Pigeons
  Poisoned Baits
  Poisoned Baits
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  V-Bombers
  V-Bombers
EDUCATION
  Schools, Don Valley
  Schools, Don Valley
  Women Teachers
  Women Teachers
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Staff
  Staff
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Outstanding Applications
  Outstanding Applications
  Exchange Equipment (Shortage)
  Exchange Equipment (Shortage)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Birmingham
The Lord Windlesham—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

MINISTERIAL EMPLOYEES IN LONDON
2.36 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: 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 how many people are employed at the London headquarters of the Ministries of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Education, Health, Housing and Local Government, Labour, Power, Public Building and Works, and Transport, giving separate figures for men and women in each case.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, the eight Departments together employ some 28,000 headquarters staff in the London area, including 7,700 women. I will circulate the detailed figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following are the figures referred to:

HEADQUARTERS STAFF EMPLOYED IN THE LONDON AREA (a)

—

Men

Women

Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

1,682

1,238

Ministry of Education

1,655

902

Ministry of Health

1,234

967

Ministry of Housing and Local Government

1,490

782

Ministry of Labour

1,058

1,058

Ministry of Power

544

314

Ministry of Public Building and Works

11,043 (b)

1,566 (c)

Ministry of Transport

1,527

839

TOTALS

20,233

7,666

Footnotes
(a) Within 16 miles of Charing Cross.
(b) Includes 6,826 industrial civil servants.
(c) Includes 292 industrial civil servants.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for the Answer he has given, the form of which is perfectly satisfactory to me. I am following up in this Question the suggestion made in the debate on February 17 that the Government might give consideration to locating certain Ministries outside London, from the point of view both of easing the shortage of office accommodation here and of helping employment in other areas. Since placing this Question I have, however, learnt from the proceedings in another place that Her Majesty's Government have asked Sir Gilbert Fleming to make a comprehensive review of such Ministries that might be taken outside London. In view of that, may I ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have asked Sir Gilbert to report as a matter of urgency; and in acting on the report, if it is favourable, will they give consideration to the location of such Ministries (a) in places where there is heavy unemployment, and (b) in areas which have been referred to in the Toot-hill Report as "growth points"?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his suggestions. It is our policy to disperse Government work from London to the fullest extent that can be done without loss of efficiency; and, wherever possible, we certainly aim at sending it to areas needing additional employment. I see from the noble Lord's supplementary that he has already learnt about the Government's request to Sir Gilbert Fleming to report on this matter. We hope that his advice will soon be received, and we hope that the Government will be able to announce their decisions on his recommendations before the Summer Recess.
LORD HUGHES: I thank the noble Earl.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, will my noble friend suggest to the National Coal Board that a move somewhat nearer the coal mines would be very acceptable to the general public?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: If my noble friend likes, I will certainly make that suggestion to anybody to whom he asks me to suggest it.

AGRICULTURE AND N.E.D.C.
2.39 p.m.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have considered the advisability of appointing a representative of the agricultural industry to the National Economic Development Council and, if so, what were the reasons for their negative conclusion.]
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have considered this matter. When the National Economic Development Council was formed, it was decided that its members should be appointed in a personal capacity, not as representatives of particular industries. If the principle of direct representation of particular industries had been followed there would have been many justified claims and the Council could not have been kept to a reasonable size. Arrangements have however been made for the Council, through their staff, to have the benefit of authoritative advice from the agricultural industry. For this purpose the Farmers' Unions of the United Kingdom, the National Union of Agricultural Workers and the Country Landowners' Association have set up a joint committee. This committee put forward a submission, which was taken into account in the Director-General's Report recently published on the growth of the British economy to 1966. In addition, the National Farmers' Union have made available a member of their staff to serve on the staff of the Council.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for his reply, I fully appreciate that it would have been almost an impossibility to have all the various industries and services represented on the Council, but does he not think that agriculture is in a position needing special representation, in that there is a great deal of interdependence between agriculture and many heavy industries, such as agricultural machinery and so forth, and that therefore there should be
404
a representative from the agricultural community sitting on the Council?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Although we do not think that vocational representation would be the right method, the Government appreciate that farmers have a special interest and special problems. The Chancellor of the Exchequer at the Vine when the Council was formed, Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, discussed this matter personally with the President of the N.F.U., and the Director-General of the National Economic Development Office was also subsequently in touch with him. We try to maintain contacts and get all the advice we can from the representatives of the agricultural industry.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: To avoid appearing to provide a representative from any particular industry, would it not have been possible to select one from the agricultural arena without its being thought that he was representative of the National Farmers' Union, or indeed, of any section of the farming community?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I do not know whether that would have been possible. But I would certainly say that being a farmer is not a disqualification for anything of this kind.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: But apparently it has failed to produce any qualifications. This is the largest industry in the whole country. It has an enormous effect on the general economic balance. I should have thought that the noble Earl would be able to tell us which representative on this Council can speak effectively about the whole of the agricultural economy.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: If the noble Earl wishes to discuss the qualifications of people who are on the Council, that is another question. What I am trying to tell your Lordships is that, we do not think vocational representation would he very practicable or the best way of arranging the membership of this Council. But we do recognise the special importance of agriculture in our economy.

THE NEW COVENT GARDEN MARKET
2.44 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are now in a position to say if, when, and where, the new Covent Garden Market will be built.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (LORD ST. OSWALD): My Lords, the noble Lord has asked three questions in one. I cannot accept the implication in the first question, that there is any doubt that a new Covent Garden Market will be built. The practical effect of Section 17 of the Covent Garden Market Act was and is that a new market must be built within seven years from March 26 1962, when the Covent Garden Market Authority took over the market. As I told your Lordships on November 15 last, in answer to a Question by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, the Authority have commissioned a firm of professional consultants to advise on the siting of the market. I understand that the Authority now expect to receive the consultants' report by the end of next week. They will then wish to weigh all the factors and to discuss the matter with the interests affected. If their choice is outside the Covent Garden area, they will need to introduce a Bill to amend the present Act. Provided that all the interested parties agree quickly, the Authority would hope to introduce a Bill at the beginning of the next Parliamentary Session. That is the closest guidance I can give the noble Lord on his second question. It is clear both to him and to me that nobody can yet answer the third.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm the accuracy of a statement which appeared in the Press at the weekend, that the experts have suggested that the two sites which have the greatest particular advantage are those at Beckton Road and at King's Cross; and that the site at Seven Dials is bottom of the list, because of its small size, its lack of railways and the conges-
406
tion it would cause in the area of central London? If he can so confirm, does he not agree that it would mean that two whole years and a great deal of money have been wasted because the Government rejected the advice of your Lordships' House more than a year ago?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, all I can confirm is that those appear to be the views of the Sunday Times.
LORD STONHAM: I asked the noble Lord, and I would ask him now to answer—this is a very circumstantial report in a very responsible newspaper—is it true or untrue (he must be aware) that this report reveals detailed investigation of five sites, of which two come top of the list, and one, the one proposed by the Government, right at the bottom as totally unsuitable?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I thought I had explained that neither the Authority nor I have yet seen the report.

MILK FOR U.S. PERSONNEL IN BRITAIN
2.47 p.m.
LORD WISE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether representation has been made to the American authorities that the importation of liquid milk for consumption by their forces and families in this country is not in British national and farming interests, and if such representation has been put forward what was the reaction of such authorities to it.]
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Yes, my Lords. I spoke to the Minister at the United States Embassy on February 28. I emphasised the strong reasons why, in our view, the American Service units in this country should continue to obtain their milk requirements from British sources, and I told him of the strong reaction there would be if the American forces were to import their milk. The Americans are giving our representations very careful consideration.
LORD WISE: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply. Since I understand that the matter is very urgent, can

407
we expect some information from the Government in the next few days?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I understand that we should have a reply soon, but I do not want in any way to anticipate it.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, as the noble Earl has discussed this matter with representatives from the United States, could he say why the Americans took the action they did and whether it is related to the increase of strontium 90 which has recently been recorded?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: No, my Lords. It has no relation to that.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the Americans are also importing meat into this country for their forces?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: The Question on the Paper, my Lords, is about milk.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the British interests, in tendering for the supply of milk to the American forces, tendered on the basis of day-to-day delivery; whereas, the Dutch interests, I am given to understand, tendered—and the tender was accepted—on the basis of alternate-day deliveries? In consequence of that, British interests, so I am informed, and I should like it confirmed, have sought to re-tender on the same basis as the Dutch interests.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, the Milk Marketing Board are in touch with the American authorities on all these matters. I do not wish at the moment to enter into a discussion of the many different factors which might come into it.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, could the noble Earl answer my question? I want to know what was the reason.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: The reason for what?
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: For the Americans' decision that their very strong, tough Servicemen must have their milk imported from Holland; and why
408
our milk is not good enough for them? It is a simple question.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I do not want to enter into that point either. The American forces in Europe, except the stations in England, get all their milk from the same source in Holland. Having, I think, fully answered the Question of the noble Lord, I do not want at the moment to enter into any discussion of details which might be relevant to the final decision. I have fully represented the views of the Government on this matter, and I think the national Milk Marketing Board are fully capable of representing all the various factors which should weigh in the decision.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask whether the noble Earl, when he was speaking to the American representatives, asked them whether or not this action was being taken with a view to penalising England because she had not got into the Common Market?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: No, my Lords, that would never have occurred to me. If it had done so, I think it would have caused the greatest surprise.
LORD PEDDIE: May I repeat the point I made previously, and ask: in the the course of the negotiations with the American authorities, were Her Majesty's Government aware that there was a different basis of tendering between the Dutch and British interests?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Certainly, my Lords. There are all kinds of questions which enter into this: one is regularity of delivery, another is the quality of the milk, and another, of course, is the price.
LORD STONHAM: Butter fat, too.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, I would inform your Lordships that, at a suitable moment after half-past three, my noble friend Lord Chesham will be making a statement on the Report of the Rochdale Committee on Ports.
I would further inform your Lordships that, owing to the large number of speakers there are today, it has been arranged through the usual channels that

409
dinner will be available after seven o'clock, and it will be of the greatest assistance to the dining authorities if noble Lords wishing to have dinner there would let them know as soon as possible.

PURCHASE TAX BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

CONSEQUENCES OF BREAKDOWN OF BRUSSELS NEGOTIATIONS
2.53 p.m.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH rose to call attention to the situation arising from the failure of the negotiations with the European Economic Community; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, no doubt noble Lords will wish to have a very wide debate covering almost every aspect of the "might-have-beens" inside the Common Market, and, of course, the "ought-to-have-beers" within the Commonwealth, EFTA, GATT, East-West trade and all those glorious uncertainties inside the Community of Six. I shall leave the wider question of the hopes and fears of general industry, whether inside or outside the Community, to those noble Lords much more competent than I am to deal with them. I shall tend to confine my remarks to the simple issue of domestic agricultural policy, and the actions, speeches and attitudes of Her Majesty's Ministers during the course of the last twelve months. But I should like to make it transparently clear that nothing I hope to say to-day is intended to reflect in the slightest degree on any one of the Ministers within the Community in their conduct of the negotiations on behalf of their various countries. We know, of course, that each country have their own form of support for their own agriculture, and, not unnaturally, they think that their support policy is best. Therefore, if I happen to think that our system is best for us, we can disagree, at all events, without being disagreeable.
After all, my Lords, agriculture is still the largest industry in this country, still employing something like one million people, with another million or more who are serving the industry in one form or
410
another. The industry has just passed through a very difficult stage of suspended animation and glorious uncertainty, most of which has been created by the speeches of the Ministers of the present Government. Finally, of course, it has emerged from the promised sunshine of the managed market to the deep freeze of de Gaulle. Throughout this period, both the farmers and 95 per cent. of the people have been in a state of utter confusion, due entirely to their lack of knowledge or information about what was taking place. I make that statement despite a number of negative reports in another place; and the Foreign Secretary confirmed my belief on Wednesday last when he said that we could not have the information because the discussions were confidential. If the noble Earl thinks that the facts will remain secret and confidential when six other countries know all about them, all I can say is that he is the world's greatest optimist. But, so far, the only source of information to us has been through the National Farmers' Union economists, and they are entitled to our thanks for what scraps of knowledge we have had brought to us.
When discussions started in Brussels our agriculture wax firmly based on the Agriculture Acts of 1947 and 1957: guaranteed prices and deficiency payments to provide confidence and stability in the continuous campaign for increased efficiency. This involved the Treasury, who are responsible for the deficiency payments; 50 million consumers, who have been enjoying cheaper food than would otherwise have been the case; and industry, especially exporters, who have had a direct or indirect interest in the scheme. This system may not be the final answer to our prayers—indeed, supplementary action has been necessary for some time to safeguard the interests of the Treasury, as was pointed out by the Sub-Committee of the Estimates Committee in another place in 1961, when they drew attention to the fact that, in the absence of any ministerial power to exercise control over imports during periods of glut, world prices were bound to fluctuate and there were no means of safeguarding the Treasury. But, my Lords, that was no fault of our support system: that was the fault of the Government, which took no action despite the advice and guidance of the Sub-Committee of the Estimates Committee. Nevertheless, in the peculiar

411
circumstances of this country, it is the only system which has stood the test for any length of time, and produced highly satisfactory results.
However, despite the wonderful achievements over the last fifteen years, to which I shall refer later, we are still obliged to import some 50 per cent. of our food. Therefore, if we are to shelter our own farmers from wildly fluctuating world prices and continuous uncertainty, and to allow our consumers to enjoy the benefit of free entry of food, especially from the Commonwealth, apart from the exceptional circumstances I have just referred to, the basic principle of the 1947 Act is as important to-day as it has been over the last fifteen years. But, my Lords, during the last twelve months, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, as well as many other Ministers, have indulged in far too much "double talk". At one moment they have had their hands on their hearts declaring that they would never let British agriculture down: on other occasions they have stated in public that the managed market abroad, with its tariffs, levies, target prices, intervention prices and the 116 regulations governing the Community's agricultural policy, so far as they have one, is better than our own system in this country, although it has been demonstrated over and over again that the Community system could never give our farmers the stability they have enjoyed over the past fifteen years.
Speaking at Llandudno, the Prime Minister said:
"Although a gradual change over a period of years would be involved for our farmers, the system of managed markets adopted by the Community could have many advantages over our present system."
In other words, he was willing to give away our system. Speaking at the same conference the Deputy Prime Minister, as he then was, said that in Europe the system of rewards came from the market price and he contended that there was an advantage in such a system over the subsidy system. So the Deputy Prime Minister was willing to give away our system. Then he "went overboard" at the Saffron Walden farmers' annual dinner. There he said to the farmers:
"Please do not fear adventure. The weakness of our present system is that you might sit back."
412
He did not say the feather bed was too soft, but it was a very broad hint that the farmer's armchair was too comfortable. He ought to know something about comfort and discomfort in chairs because he has sat in quite a few over the last eleven years—sometimes with quite pathetic results.
Finally the Deputy Prime Minister put a rhetorical question, asking whether 4 per cent. of the population could stop what 95 per cent. thought right about the Common Market. Very clever indeed! But far too disingenuous; for when did the Government take a referendum to ascertain what the 95 per cent. did think? Why did the Deputy Prime Minister imagine that 95 per cent. of the 50 million consumers were bubbling with excitement to pay 10 or 12 per cent. more for their foodstuffs? Moreover, had the Deputy Prime Minister forgotten what happened in 1923 when the then Conservative Government fought the election on food taxes and lost? For that was the position then. Now from those quotations it is crystal clear that the Government had no confidence in our own support system. They were willing to exchange it for a foreign system. In other words, if there was any give-away or giving away, then they gave the lot away at the Llandudno conference and subsequently. They were contemplating a form of protection described by my late colleague Hugh Gaitskell as the most devastating scheme of protectionism ever devised, and they were contemplating that without consulting the electorate.
How does that square with the many pledges made by the Ministers in the Government generally? I can quote at least half a dozen White Papers and any number of ministerial speeches which all read something like this—and this is from a Government White Paper:
"But the Government firmly adhere to the principles of the Agriculture Act, 1947, and fully accept their obligation to make alternative arrangements to secure a stable and efficient agricultural industry."
That statement has been repeated time and time again; yet, from the quotations which I have just made, noble Lords will see that both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister were willing to give our system away. It is no wonder, therefore, that between them they have created the maximum uncertainty in the farming community. This

413
was no great surprise to me for I could never trust a Conservative Government where agriculture is concerned. I say that after sitting face to face with them for forty years. Throughout that period no Conservative Government ever had an agricultural policy worthy of the name—except the one they inherited from the Labour Government in 1951; and they have steadily undermined that ever since they took office. Now they are willing to give the remainder of the carcase away to foreign countries.
If noble Lords want any justification for that statement, then all I need to do is to remind them that Conservative Governments were in power with large majorities between 1919 and 1923, 1924 and 1929, 1931 and 1939. And in 1939 (the last year before the, war) the output of agricultural produce in this country was little better than in the first year of this century and most of those engaged in the industry were in dire poverty. All the facts are on record. They never tried to produce a policy that would bring confidence, stability and prosperity to our basic industry, although during that period there were no fewer than seven Ministers of Agriculture. No noble Lord on either side of the House will persuade me that all those seven Ministers were failures; they failed only because their Government would never allow them to produce a policy that was really worth while.
My Lords, at least we did learn something during the discussions in Brussels. We learned that the Government have got both a positive and a negative policy; not a home-made one, an imported one. Their enthusiasm for a foreign managed market was equalled only by their dislike of our own system in this country. They were ready, willing and anxious to sell our farmers and their stability as well as the consumers to get that Continental system. What became of all their pledges? Perhaps the Foreign Secretary will tell us something about these. What of the speeches at Llandudno and the pledges that have been made by Ministers from time to time about never letting the agricultural industry down? Now, almost in the twinkling of an eye, the present Conservative Government have made progress backwards to 1923, to adopt an almost similar policy to that which then they tried and failed to get with the electorate.
What are the chief arguments advanced by the Government in favour of this fundamental change in our national policy? So far as I can gather, these arguments were limited to one; they were feverishly anxious to get rid of the deficiency payments to relieve the taxpayer. They were to leave the farmers to get all their income from the market price, as the deputy Prime Minister said at Llandudno. That is exactly what happened to the farmers in the 'twenties and 'thirties: they got all their income from the market price; and a pretty miserable income it was for both the farmer and the farm worker! And the small production from our limited acres during that period was little short of a national scandal.
Noble Lords ought not to need reminding but they cannot be reminded too often that the total net income of farmers in 1939 was £56 million. I would ask noble Lords to divide that £56 million by the 500,000 farmers in the United Kingdom, and they will find the average for each farm (taking the one-acre farm with the farm of 1,000 acres) is just £112 per year. That was the income of the farmer in 1939 after nine years of Conservative Government: £112 per year for the farmer and his wife. No wonder therefore, when there was a danger of going into the Community, of adapting the Community farm policy, so far as they have one, that there was grave anxiety in the countryside. Thanks to a fortuitous circumstance, that nightmare has passed, at least temporarily, and instead of basking in the sunshine of the Community the Government have got to do some homework.
The Prime Minister had his preliminary canter on the subject in another place on February 11, when he said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol 671 (No. 54), col. 950] that the
"open-ended commitment"
of support
"must be brought under greater control"
—whatever that may mean. There must be consultations, conferences and cabals of every kind with overseas suppliers, including the Commonwealth, long-term contracts, import control, commodity agreements, which the Prime Minister described as a great hope to avoid excessive price fluctuations. My Lords, we were saying that about 35 years

415
ago. What a pity it has taken the Government at least a dozen years to think up that old pearl of wisdom: that something must be done at the earliest possible moment! However, we welcome this belated discovery that something needs to be done, something home-made and not imported from elsewhere. And, not wishing to be political, I think that we ought to do all that we can to help the Government.
But, I wonder, have they the wisdom, courage and foresight to set up a commodity Commission for meat on the lines recommended by the Lucas Committee in 1947? A Commission, made up of impartial authoritative persons, could plan and co-ordinate the home supply and imports, so avoiding periodic gluts, depressed prices and outsize Supplementary Estimates. I dare declare that if such a Commission had been in existence in 1961–62, the better part of that £78 million could have been saved, and saved very largely by sensible negotiation. And have the Government now the vision to see the need for a series of well-sited factory abbatoirs, with adequate storage, the final need for the efficient marketing of meat, which is now worth something like £600 or £700 million a year? If their concern for the taxpayer is so intense, is it too much to expect them to forget their idealogical doctrinaire inhibitions for a moment and do something constructive on the lines indicated to help their down-and-out friends, the taxpayers?
We learned in Brussels that the present Conservative Government are no longer afraid of an odd control here and there. In fact, they have indicated that they are prepared to swallow both the gnat and the camel. I understand that there are already 116 regulations governing agriculture in the Community, and this Government were willing to swallow the lot, and more. But, despite all the specious attractions of the Common Market, I am still an unrepentant supporter of the system of this country and shall remain so until something much better is produced. On this occasion, I am in fairly good company. Speaking in your Lordships' House on November 8 of last year, the noble Earl, Lord Avon, said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 244, col. 414]:
"There are two things to be said about these support costs, because I think there is some
416
public misunderstanding about them. First, the system was not the result of clamour in the agricultural industry; it was a political decision taken by the Government of the day with the purpose of giving agriculture a fair return while also benefiting the nation through modest prices of foodstuffs. It is quite true that that system has become expensive, particularly in recent years, and particularly for some items, and the consequent burden has fallen on the taxpayer. But if our nation's taxation is graded according to the ability to pay, it is probably fairer and more satisfactory than a rise in the price of food which must be most hardly felt by the poorest in the community. In other words, if somebody has to pay more, better the taxpayer than the consumer of foodstuffs."
That puts the whole thing in a nutshell. It is totally contrary to the conception of the Prime Minister and of his deputy, and totally contrary to the conception of the Government as a whole. In fact, the inventor of our system could not improve upon it. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, will be good enough to take a copy of that and hand it to the Prime Minister—and one to his deputy, too.
In the meantime, I should like to remind your Lordships of what has been achieved under our own system, facts that cannot be repeated too often. I regret the necessity for using figures, but it seems to me the only way to demonstrate the facts. First, I give the increased efficiency as expressed in yields, comparing the average of the last three pre-war years with the average of the last three post-war years. The yield per acre of wheat has gone up from 17·8 to 28·5 cwt.; barley, from 16·5 to 25·8 cwt.; oats, from 16·1 to 21 cwt.; potatoes from 6·7 to 8·6 tons; sugar beet from 8·2 to 14·2 tons. The yields per cow, in terms of gallons of milk, rose from 540 to 630 per year. Eggs per hen on farms have increased from 148 to 187. In the production of livestock and livestock products, beef and veal have gone up from 578,000 to 867,000 tons; mutton and lamb, from 195,000 to 267,000 tons; pig meat, from 435,000 to 745,000 tons; milk for human consumption, from 1,556 million to 2,566 million gallons; eggs, from 385,000 to 759,000 tons. The net value of the output of agricultural produce in 1939 was £290 million. Last year, it was nearly £1,750 million. Above all, output has actually increased by 83 per cent. over pre-war.
Your Lordships will readily appreciate that increased production of food

417
is of as great a value to our balance of payments as increased exports of manufactured goods. But that is not all the story. In 1939, we produced about £2½ million worth of agricultural machinery, and we exported £1·4 million. Thanks to a rejuvenated agriculture, we produced last year over £200 million of agricultural machinery and exported £144½ million worth. We are now the greatest exporters of agricultural machinery in the world, so that many of our larger industries have a very healthy interest in a thriving, efficient and prosperous agriculture. It is worthwhile reminding your Lordships that the farmers are spending between £850 and £900 million every year on goods and services from other industries—a classic example of interdependence between town and country.
So, before the Government start subjecting the 1947 Act to any surgical operation, they would do well to consult their political surgeons—not that I have confidence either in their political surgeons or in their diagnoses. In this anxiety to relieve the taxpayer at the expense of producers or consumers, or both—and, after all, we are all taxpayers to-day, if we gamble, drink, smoke or play bingo—if they had their way, the result would be largely a blood transfusion to the healthy at the expense of the anæmic. We on these Benches are just as anxious to avoid wasting the taxpayers' money as anyone else. But we are equally anxious to ensure that the fullest economic use is made of our land, our only raw material, except perhaps coal, and that it is allowed to play its part in our economy.
I have tried to show that, with the right conditions, the industry has fulfilled almost every hope and expectation we had, except perhaps in the field of marketing, whether in efficiency, output or as a contribution to our balance of payments. It is now time that the Government, who have been mesmerised for so long by the European Community and dogged by their ancient inhibitions, woke up and recognised that agriculture in this country is something more than a nuisance just to be tolerated; that it is a living productive part of our national life, where every person engaged produces enough food for himself and 25 others, and deserves a far better fate
418
than that which has been overhanging it for the last eighteen months. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.22 p.m.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: My Lords, one useful result of the breakdown at Brussels is that it has made it clear that the future pattern of Europe cannot be settled only in figures, important as they are in their effect on balance. This is my excuse for leaving figures to other noble Lords who may wish to deal with them. The future of Europe is an involved political problem; to us and, I think, to the world, the most important political question of our day. There is all the difference between planning economic union as a means to an end—that is, real European unity—as did the sponsors of the Treaty of Rome, and being satisfied with a Customs Union in a limited geographical area as an end in itself. If the ideas of Europeans are to stop at the economic level, comfortably established within a Customs Union, through which only non-competitive products would be admitted, Europe would no longer perform the services she has formerly rendered to the rest of the world; and a little charity in the form of assistance to developing countries would be no substitute for the development of world trade.
This is the danger that we and the Commonwealth countries foresaw. Holland, among some other countries, has also drawn attention on a number of occasions to this possibility. Unfortunately, instead of realising at once that in discussing the unity of Europe we were involved in great political questions, we set about trying to widen the limits of the economic arrangements in being in Europe by proposing a whole series of modifications and exceptions. The idea of this sort of compromise upset those Europeans who wanted a tight economy, and did not satisfy those who took a wider world view. So we were in a difficult position from the beginning.
If what was envisaged was only a short period of adjustment in Europe, a case could be made out for a fairly tight Customs Union to give it cohesion and allow the process of unification to be firmly consolidated. But this involves us at once in political questions; whether it is to be in fact a period of adjustment,

419
and, if so, its purpose and its length. This aspect was very important to free traders, like noble Lords on these Benches and elsewhere, who are opposed in principle to such restrictions, certainly if the intention is to maintain them permanently.
Looking back upon the long negotiations at Brussels, I think my comment would be that I am surprised that so much progress was made as to convince Her Majesty's Government that they could submit detailed terms with the confidence that they would be accepted, if not welcomed, in this country and the Commonwealth. This is the tribute I think we should pay to the negotiators on both sides, who must have been both skilful and considerate to the needs of many people outside Europe. I can understand the shock over the break in January, when the British negotiators thought they were safely within sight of the end of the trade negotiations. What puzzles me is that Her Majesty's Government apparently thought that the reaching of an agreement in Brussels on the matters under discussion there meant the end of difficulties over the entry of this country into the Community of the Six.
I do not wish to mention in any detail the difficulties which remained; suffice it to give as an example the applications of Norway and of Ireland for full membership, and of Sweden, Switzerland and Austria for association, to which objections were raised some eighteen months ago, and not in this case by France. As noble Lords know, we were pledged to clear up most of these difficulties before taking up membership ourselves. So I feel the road was by no means clear, even had the Brussels negotiations been completed. Again I must emphasise that these difficulties arose, not because of trade considerations but because of political implications. The point I am trying to emphasise is that in this country the whole question has been treated too much as one of trade and not one of politics. The Lord Privy Seal was the first to take up the political challenge at rather a late stage, when there was little or no opportunity for a general discussion with the Six Governments on the political issues involved.
The other matter which puzzles me is the extent to which the failure of the
420
negotiations in Brussels is being blamed for what are said to be the inadequacies of Western defence. Granted that defence questions could more conveniently and tidily be discussed within an economically and politically united Europe. But, as I was able to confirm by a visit last month to SHAPE, the defence position at the moment is unaltered by the Brussels breakdown. The thinking which is going on started well before the break in Brussels, and the complex questions under discussion could not have been avoided, even if we had reached agreement at Brussels. Economic and political integration in Europe would, of course, have simplified certain aspects of these questions, but they are difficult anyway because of the great dangers inherent in them.
So, my Lords, I can see no reason for despair over what has happened. Dis. appointment, yes, but not despair. Some of us have had to face the same sort of disappointment over European unity or disunity on previous occasions. We do not forget the efforts of M. Briand after the First War. Incidentally, may I ask the Government whether negotiations are still being continued with the European Coal and Steel Community and with EURATOM?
It would not be appropriate for me to mention defence as such to-day, in view of the debate which is to take place in your Lordships' House on this subject next week. I had hoped that greater and wider European unity in the political field could have come before the discussions on changes in the defence set-up in NATO, but it seems that, in view of the recent American initiative, far-reaching decisions affecting the defence of Europe may be taken before negotiations between European Governments on greater unity can be resumed. In these circumstances, I think we should emphasise very strongly our wish that nothing should be settled in defence negotiations affecting the relations between any European Power and the United States which might prejudice the success of future negotiations for European unity.
How easily this can be done is exemplified by the fact that it was a defence issue, first mooted in the United States over eighteen months ago, which in my view gravely affected the negotiations between some EFTA countries and

421
the Community. This was the desire to exclude Sweden and Switzerland from the Community of Europe unless they modified their law or Constitution on neutrality in such a way that they could take part in a multi-national system of defence. I hope, therefore, that Her Majesty's Government will try to avoid any arrangements with the United States which do not appear to be acceptable to other European Powers. Perhaps I should say "continue to avoid", in view of the obvious efforts of the Foreign Secretary to this end.
No doubt the Defence debate will deal with questions involving not only the level of conventional forces in Europe, the control of nuclear weapons, tactical and strategic, and the like—all burning questions in Europe, as they are in America—but also how far possible decisions on these questions could help to unite or divide Europe. In this debate, all I wish to do is to draw attention to the impact that defence decisions could have upon the wider political questions we are discussing to-day.
Included in the consideration of to-day's debate, which is really, "Where do we go from here?", I should like to raise again a suggestion I made during the NATO debate, that we should propose to our partners in EFTA the institution of European citizenship, in addition to existing national citizenship. EFTA is the only European association to which we belong upon which we can build without hampering the Six or without being hampered by the Six. We are just as much entitled to lay a claim to use the word "European" as was the community of the Six in calling their assembly the European Parliament.
The common rights to be accorded by European citizenship may need formulation, but as common citizenship was once offered by us to the French, I assume that no great difficulties need be anticipated in definition. So far, in spite of all the institutions established in Europe, the ordinary man and woman has no sense of being a member of any European community, and this applies just as much to people in the countries of the Six as it does to those in this country. It is time we saw that in EFTA as a start they are given such a sense through the suggestion I am making.
422
I noticed that one report of the recent meeting of EFTA'S Council of Ministers in Geneva was headed: "Wait and see in EFTA". In my view, my Lords, this is no time to "Wait and see in EFTA". This is the time to show in practice what we mean by economic and political integration, of which we have talked so much. Economic and political integration was our professed aim when we talked with the Six. In spite of large directing institutions in Brussels the Six have not as yet progressed far in economic integration. They have made no progress in political integration. Perhaps they have lost the way. We have the opportunity in EFTA to create the institutions necessary, doing in the political field similar experimental work to that done by the Six in the economic field. In the economic field, we should continue to build on parallel lines, only, I would urge, rather faster than the Community. If we do this, I believe that within a short period of years, with the help of the Council of Europe, it will be possible to put our work and theirs together to bring into being a widely extended European unity.
Meanwhile, apart from the development and expansion of EFTA, we have much to do in the reorganisation of our own agriculture which is, I would say (in spite of the views of the noble Lord who has just sat down), a necessary prerequisite to economic unity in Europe. I hope also that the opportunity of the forthcoming Commonwealth Conference will be used to formulate agreements between this country and the countries of the Commonwealth for access to British markets. In this way, in any resumed negotiations Commonwealth products in Britain could be presented as part of British production as a whole, both home and Commonwealth. I believe this method of dealing with Commonwealth imports established in our home market would avoid a lot of misunderstanding on the Continent.
My Lords, I believe we have an important rôle to play; as important as ever. Delay in Europe is disappointing. I believe it need be only delay. We can use the period of delay wisely; more thought is obviously necessary.

THE ROCHDALE REPORT ON PORTS
3.42 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, with your Lordships' leave, I think it might be convenient for me to make a statement about the Rochdale Report on the major ports of this country, similar to that which is now being made in another place. The Government have now reached their conclusions on the major recommendations of the Rochdale Committee. Once again we should like to thank Lord Rochdale and his colleagues for their work. We are also grateful to the various organisations which have let us have their views.
The Government accept the central thesis of the Report, namely, that in future the development of individual ports should be consistent with a national plan. We also accept the recommendation to set up a central body, which will be termed the National Ports Council, whose primary function will be to formulate the national plan, and supervise its execution. Implementation of the national plan will be achieved through control by the Government of capital investment. In this connection we accept that there is a need to concentrate development, and for a higher level of investment, and for better access to ports.
Additional functions of the National Ports Council will include: preparing plans for the grouping of ports by geographical areas, wherever it appears that this would make for greater efficiency; the control and regulation of port charges, subject to appeal to my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport; the standardisation of statistics; the coordination of research; advising on port organisation and management; and, finally, recruitment, training, and education of non-industrial staff.
No port will be wholly outside the Council's terms of reference. There are, however, certain ports in which my right honourable friends the Ministers of Transport, Agriculture, and Power, and the Secretary of State for Scotland, already have specific responsibilities under Statute. These ports include the transport piers in the Highlands and
424
Islands, fishery docks and harbours, certain iron ore ports and the ports in national ownership. The relationship of the National Ports Council to these ports calls for special consideration, and my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport will pursue this matter with his right honourable friends.
The Committee concluded that capital investment in ports should normally be regarded as an ordinary commercial undertaking, although they recognised that there might be cases where Government loans, or even grants, in exceptional circumstances, might be justified. The Government strongly endorse the Committee's view that our ports must pay their way. Nevertheless, if port development is to go forward as part of a national plan, approved by my right honourable friend on the advice of the National Ports Council, it seems right that a port should be treated for the purpose of financing its approved investment broadly on the same basis as a local or other public authority.
I indicated earlier that one of the functions of the National Ports Council will be to prepare plans for estuarial groupings where these appear desirable. The object of such groupings would be to promote efficiency, and we do not consider that this necessarily involves a common pattern of ownership or organisation. In particular, the Government regard it as premature to come to any conclusion now about the future status of the ports at present operated by the British Transport Docks Board.
The Government accept the Committee's conclusions that insufficient resources are at present devoted to research and development. We are not yet satisfied, however, that the establishment of a separate research organisation for the industry would be the best solution. This will be examined further, and discussed with the National Ports Council after it has been set up.
Legislation will be required before the Council can exercise all the functions which I have described. Meanwhile there is much preparatory work to be done. My right honourable friend therefore intends to establish an advisory panel as soon as possible, which can form the nucleus of the future Council. This will enable an early start to be made with the preparation of a national plan. I

425
am glad to inform the House that the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, has accepted an invitation by my right honourable friend to be the first Chairman of the new body.
3.46 p.m.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, for giving us the Minister's statement and I would join with him in expressing our thanks for the amount of work which has been put in by the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, into the leading of the Committee who formulated the main Report. I think he deserves the thanks of the House.
After reading the statement in the early copy supplied to me, and after listening to it read now by the noble Lord, I think it is an exceedingly "mixed grill". I can see that the Government are faced with some particular difficulties, but I am quite amazed at their method of dealing with the subject. For example, they are going to have this Council set up, but they do not yet know exactly what the Council's powers will be; they have not thought it out. The Government say they cannot do anything until they have had legislation; and that they have not thought out; but in the meantime the Council are to go on working. I really must say that this is another repetition of what I call Government shuffling along. It really is not the way to go about Government business.
Moreover, as I see it, while no doubt in almost any sphere you can say "Thank you" for a constructive piece of work that will result in real coordination, perhaps in services, I find enough in this statement to show that the Government have not made up their mind as to whether in particular areas it is going to be an actual approach almost towards a nationalisation basis, or whether it is going to be merely the creation of an authority over a particular area for purposes of co-ordination. It seemed fairly clear to me as I listened more carefully to the noble Lord, after having read the statement, that the area authorities to be set up will have financial control over the whole of the particular area.
I think your Lordships will agree that before the Government go much further
426
on this matter it would be advisable that in both Houses of Parliament there should be full and frank discussion as to what is intended by the Government within the framework of this statement. I would say to the noble Lord, for example, that unless the Government are fairly rapid in taking final powers from Parliament some schemes will undoubtedly be held up or scrapped; and I have one particularly in mind. I suppose the only solely municipally-owned port is Bristol. Here is a port which is advancing all along the line. It has increased its tonnage handled per annum by over 2½ million tons in the last few years. It has a scheme in hand at this present moment which will cost £25 million for extending the operations of the port in a new site adjacent to the other at Portbury; and, as I read the Report of the Rochdale Committee, that scheme will either be held up indefinitely or destroyed. That seems to me to be a very great pity.
I hope I have said enough to indicate to the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, that there are features about this Report that one would really desire to welcome. On the other hand, I wish the Government would make up their mind and not leave quite a number of ports which have grown up naturally around the coasts to be suddenly, in the future, subjected to what is called "commercial results", and closed down, as has been done in so many instances in the British Transport Commission under the Dr. Beeching policy, causing all the extension of human suffering and unemployment that happened there. I hope that the Minister will arrange—perhaps Lord Chesham will consult him about this—that both in the Commons and in this House we might have an early debate on the matter and perhaps a White Paper.
LORD REA: My Lords, while agreeing largely with the noble Earl, I should like to give this project a rather warmer welcome. It is perfectly true, of course, there is not very much to get one's teeth into at the moment, but I think that in general the port authorities and others concerned with the ports in this country are all glad that this matter has been put in motion. Details are of course always subject to criticism, but I think the general feeling is that this is a good move in the right direction,

427
and I suggest that to set up an advisory panel now to put forward some sort of tentative suggestions is indeed the very way to put before Parliament certain matters which can be criticised and worked out. While I have sympathy with the noble Earl, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, about the rather vague part of this proposal, all the ports are really looking forward to something of this sort in order to get some sort of co-ordination. I do not speak specially for Bristol, of which the noble Earl knows so much, but of new ports such as Milford Haven and some of our old ports like Liverpool and London which are very much looking forward to encouragement and some sort of co-operation. While I do not endorse everything the Government may have in hand, I welcome the general scheme to enable people to discuss what might be done.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I have been interested, although perhaps not very surprised, by the reception that this statement has received, and I would at once agree with the noble Earl who leads the Opposition that a debate is no doubt desirable to air this matter thoroughly. I think it would do a lot of good for the purpose we all have basically in mind, and no doubt there will be consultation through the usual channels towards that end. When we come to that debate, and the noble Earl has considered the situation and the statement in a little more detail, I very much doubt whether he will in fact make a speech in the tone in which he has spoken to-day. I would simply say that there is a great deal of preparatory work to be done. My right honourable friend proposes to ask Lord Rochdale and his colleagues to start work on an outline national plan without delay and thereafter to refine it in detail. It will be my right honourable friend's object from now on to ensure as far as possible that all major developments that take place are leading towards a sound national pattern. The point is that we are somewhat behind the progress made by other nations in this respect and I
428
think that, far from shuffling along, the proposals are likely to act as a stimulus to the port authorities, as the noble Lord who leads the Liberal Party mentioned, and not as a brake, as the noble Earl sees it.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am much obliged, but perhaps we had better wait to see what happens to the scheme at Bristol as to whether that can be borne out in fact. I would remind the noble Lord that the Government have been in office long over eleven years, and it is about time something was done.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether, in view of the very drastic recommendation of the Rochdale Report in regard to South Wales ports, a high-powered Welsh representative will be placed on this advisory committee? May I also ask him, with reference to Milford Haven and its special considerations, whether his right honourable friend will consult the Minister for Welsh Affairs?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I cannot say one way or the other about the high-powered Welsh representative, but I know my right honourable friend proposes to consult as quickly as possible with the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, as to what should be the proper composition of this committee. Would the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, repeat his second question?
LORD OGMORE: My second question was whether, in addition to the list of Ministers which the noble Lord's right honourable friend proposes to consult, the Secretary of State for Scotland and so on, he will also consult the Minister for Welsh Affairs, particularly with regard to Milford Haven.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I am sure he will do that, because he intends to carry out further consultation with all interested parties, not only Ministers. The ones I mentioned are those with statutory responsibilities in regard to certain ports.

CONSEQUENCES OF BREAKDOWN OF BRUSSELS NEGOTIATIONS
3.55 p.m.
Debate resumed.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, I must apologise in advance to the House. Many months ago I promised that this evening I would entertain to dinner and go to the opera with the Prime Minister of Sweden and the Foreign Minister, and I am sure the House would wish me to keep that engagement. If noble Lords will forgive me if I do not hear the latter half of the debate, I shall be very grateful.
It is all too seldom that we have the privilege in this House of hearing the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, but he has retained enough of the techniques of another place to deliver, under the cover of a most innocent Motion, an all-out attack on the agricultural policy of the Conservative Government. I must say I thought that his history was a little biased. He said, if I remember aright, that the agricultural policies of successive Conservative Governments in the 'twenties and the 'thirties had been an unrelieved disaster. That may be his opinion, but I am bound to point out that, if he will recollect, it was not the opinion of the electors at the time. Only for one short period in 1929 were the noble Lord and his friends elected. They made the most disastrous economic bungle and were shot out at the earliest possible opportunity, with their agricultural policy. The next time they came back was in 1945 and they did, I must admit, splendid work by introducing the 1947 Act. But they undid almost everything good they had done by being the first British Government to have the honour of devaluing the pound. Really, when the noble Lord accuses us of having a disastrous agricultural policy he must refresh his memory of what happened and whom the people elected during those years.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, does the noble Earl remember that the previous Conservative Government decided to go back to the gold standard and that that led to very grave economic consequences for the country?
The Earl of HOME: My Lords, we can job backwards, but we had better get our history right. If I can look forward a little and give the noble Lord some advice I would say that if lie really wants to protect agriculture from damage let him go and muzzle his friend Mr. Callaghan. I was looking at his proposals the other day and the only way I can see in which a farmer who has a farm valued at £20,000 or over can pay the tax will be to sell one field one year and two fields the next year until the whole farm disappears.
Lord WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: My Lords, the noble Earl will not be in ignorance of the point that if the Conservative so-called agricultural policy had been maintained from 1945 onwards there would be no farm worth over £20,000.
THE EARL OF HOME: All I am saying is that if the noble Lord wants an agricultural debate with me he can have it and he will get as good as he gives. But this Motion suggests that the debate really is about the Common Market, of which agriculture is an important feature but not the only feature. It is one to which I will come back; I will deal with it further in a moment when I come to deal with some of the agricultural problems involved. But as I listened to the noble Lord's speech I thought, although he dealt almost entirely with agriculture, that it could be said that he was against the Common Market, like his noble Leader, who has never disguised from the start that he was firmly against it. All I can say is that that is a perfectly tenable point of view. But I should like to point out to him that the last months have revealed that a great many people were in favour of British application and British membership.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Where?
THE EARL OF HOME: The noble Earl says, "Where?". The five countries out of the Six; all the EFTA countries, which really means the whole of free Europe; all the United States and, as I understood it to-day, the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. That really is not bad.
LORD REA: My Lords, surely Lord Grantchester comes ahead of all these other people in regard to the time for which he has supported it?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, he comes high in quality, but not in numbers. I think it is worth asking why all these people have been so keen on British entry. The broad answer is, I think, that this Common Market, particularly if Britain had been added to it, is an imaginative adventure in European co-operation, political co-operation and economic expansion—and it is political co-operation and economic expansion which are the keys that will open the door to peace and prosperity in the future. We want to get away from the mentality which is introspective and restrictive, and all the time pursue policies which are policies of expansion. It was therefore thought—and I think rightly—by a great many people in this country, and the people that I have named overseas, that it would be a good thing if Great Britain's voice were heard in the formulation of all the big political decisions taken in and on behalf of the Continent of Europe. It was also thought to be a good thing that British influence should be added to the scales on the side of a liberal Europe recognising its duty to the world outside; and our Commonwealth relations and our close relationship with the United States were in fact a guarantee that if we got into the Common Market we would use the Common Market, not in a restrictive way but to build a bridge between the United States, Europe and North America, the United States and Canada, and between Europe and the Commonwealth.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask a question here? I would not do so, but for the fact that the Foreign Secretary has a duty to perform later on and will not be here when, if necessary, I shall have to deal with some of these points. If all this was the real reason behind the Government policy, can the noble Earl tell me why all the contrary was prophesied about such a proposal by Mr. Maudling in February, 1959, and by Mr. Macmillan in the same year? No such proposal was laid before the electorate for a mandate. Where does all this come from? At whose instigation? Why have not the people therefore been properly informed all the way through?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I think that in 1959 there was no question of political co-operation—it was one of the weaknesses of that scheme. We were
432
really dealing, if I remember aright, with what would have amounted to an industrial Customs Union at that time. But I do not think that anybody can complain that, in the last two and a half years, the public have not been informed of the Government's intentions.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Never.
THE EARL OF HOME: So clear have our intentions been that we have practically caused a political crisis in this country and almost a revolution in Europe. But what I was going on to say was that I think these broad reasons for British entry have been accepted by the countries overseas; and, indeed, if the noble Earl has, as I have no doubt he has, read the papers to-day and has seen the extract from the Commission's Report on where the negotiations had reached in Brussels, he will no doubt have read this comment:
"The negotiations with the United Kingdom … compelled the Community to come to grips with [problems] sooner than it otherwise would have done. This process brought with it greater awareness of the responsibilities an enlarged Community would bear to the world. Because of the United Kingdom's almost worldwide responsibilities, the questions raised by the United Kingdom delegation also made it vital for the Community to define without delay the main policy lines of such a large and powerful Common Market with regard to matters which, once Britain was a member, would have had a direct and crucial impact on the overall balance of the free world."
So our participation in the negotiations for the Common Market I think have been carried on in a way which proves that, had we got in, this Common Market would have been the most powerful political body of co-operation in Europe, with an influence far outside. I hope it will still be so, but it would certainly have been so if we had been a member.
I think there are certain consequences of our failure to get in—namely, that if there is to be political cohesion it must either be based on an economic base or a basis of security. I think the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, was saying something of the same kind. He was wanting common citizenship. You cannot have that unless you have common constitutional arrangements. I do not think you can have a political agreement unless you have an economic base or a security base on which to rest such agreements. The fear is, now that the

433
economic structure of Europe does not include Britain, that it may have serious repercussions on the security system, which does.
We shall return, I have no doubt, in the Defence debate, to questions of the organisation and purpose of NATO. I will not say more about that now. But the noble Lord did not deal with this point. I think it is right to remind the House that there will be repercussions at Britain's failure to get into Europe, particularly if the French pursue the policies which General de Gaulle seems to have in mind. I am not going to represent the failure of the talks as a tragedy. We have plenty of resilience in this country, and we have many resources upon which we can draw and can exploit. But there is a definite loss which we must face. If the influence of the French, for instance, inside the Community is against the lowering of tariffs, we shall not be in the councils to counter that move. When the time comes for the Community to react to the tariff reductions of what is known as the "Kennedy round", we shall not be in the inner councils; and although we can help our friends of a like mind, no doubt, so that we should hope that the recommendation would be a liberal one, it is not the same thing as being inside, because inside you can exercise quite a different sort of authority.
If I may say so without arrogance, I think that while it is a loss to Britain that we are not in Europe, it is an even greater loss to the Continent of Europe itself, because they have lost the opportunity of unity of Europe reinforced by the strength of Britain, who would have been a full and active partner. Before I deal with the questions, "Where do we go next?" and, "What do we do next?", I should like to take up one theme which I detected in the speech of the noble Lord, and which, of course, the House has detected in the Questions asked by the noble Earl, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough. He, in particular, has always talked in terms of agreements which were reached in Brussels between our negotiators and the Six, and of commitments entered into by Her Majesty's Government at the various prolonged stages of negotiation, and in Question and Answer I have done my best to make the position clear. I think I must do so again.
434
Every arrangement which was entered into by our negotiators in Brussels was provisional and dependent on the whole of the negotiations being acceptable. When the negotiations had been completed they would have been judged by Parliament and a decision taken as to whether, on balance, they could have been adopted; and the Socialist Party would then have been perfectly entitled—or anyone, or either House, would have been entitled—to reject the whole arrangement as a bad bargain. But neither I nor the noble Earl know what the final balance sheet would have been. So that I think that at the present time a post-mortem on this or that provisional arrangement, taken out of the whole context, is really a waste of time.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, may claim that we were a long way from a settlement, and certainly there were quite a number of things left unsettled. The noble Lord will find them in the account given by the Commission to-day: for instance, matters of interest to the Commonwealth; the interpretation of what was meant by "reasonable price levels"—a very important point; the question of New Zealand—an agreement had been reached in principle, but no agreement worked out on how one would deal with the New Zealand butter problem; again, on agriculture no agreement worked out as to how we could deal with the provisional period during which we should have changed from one system to another. There were a number of problems still outstanding. Noble Lords can say that we were far from agreement, and I can say we were much nearer; but it would be a profitless exchange. I think it is better to concentrate on what we might do in (the future.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, before we leave this part of the discussion, may I say that I appreciate the fact that the Foreign Secretary is trying to make things plain to me; but on the one hand it is stated that we were almost in, and on the other, that we were not in. We do not know how much we had conceded—nobody knows. We have had certain information in the White Papers issued, but none on that point. I say that the country, which was never

435
asked for a mandate on the question, has a right to know what were the facts at the time the break came.
THE EARL OF HOME: I can only give a short answer to that point. The answer is that they would have conceded nothing, and they know nothing about conceding anything—unless we had been able to complete the negotiations to a point which we considered would be satisfactory to Parliament. The noble Lord may shake his head but that is the fact—that we have conceded nothing.
It will not surprise the House to know that the points of difficulty, which are illustrated in the Report of the Commission to-day, are just those points in which both Houses of Parliament were most interested, and the points about which the Government pledged themselves to find satisfactory solutions: namely, the Commonwealth (in particular New Zealand), and the transitional provisions for agriculture. These were the "sticky" points, and we had not reached agreement on them. Until we had, we should not have been able to judge whether we could accept an agreement or not.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: The noble Earl, will not, I imagine, by implication or otherwise, charge me with having referred adversely to our negotiators—neither our own nor Continental Ministers negotiating for their countries. I made that clear in my opening remarks. What I complained of throughout, however, was not that we were nearly in or nearly out, but that the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister at Llandudno made the statement that the Community agricultural policy—which they did not understand, and still do not understand—was better than our support policy. That was my serious complaint.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I was in a way, perhaps a little unfairly, anticipating, what the noble Earl might say this evening when I was absent from the House; but he has said it before so I felt bound to try to give him an answer once more as to how we were not committed to anything unless we were satisfied that the whole package could be accepted by Parliament.
436
One thing I think I must add to the Report that came out from the Commission to-day is that, while it pretty well conveys the facts of the case about the negotiations and the point they had reached, what it cannot convey is the atmosphere of the talks on which hopes rested. With the will, we feel that agreements could have been reached, and reached quickly, and that was the opinion of the great majority of negotiators around the table.
There have been rumours that there might be presented to us a proposal for what, for convenience, I would call an industrial Customs Union, and it has been asked whether we could consider such an approach. I think I would say, in reply to that, that we cannot go in for another period of prolonged negotiation. If any proposals are put to us they must be in specific terms, put to us by the whole Community and agreed by the whole Community, and we should need to be convinced of the good faith of all parties participating in such an offer. I would add that we have had no evidence at all that such a proposal would be encouraged by the French. Indeed, it would be easier to think in terms of an economic agreement if success or failure of the negotiations had really depended on this or that economic adjustment. For a long time we felt that was so, because the French indicated to us that if the checks and balances in the economic side of the negotiations could be got right, British entry would be assured.
But, as the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, said in his speech, it became clearer at the later stages of the negotiations that underlying the technical points still at issue was a fundamental conflict of principle on what the structure of Europe should be. The statements and action of the French Government really reveal a concept of Europe inward-looking, tightly-knit; a Continental grouping from which British and United States influences would be removed; a Europe pursuing the rôle, as I said the other day in our debate on NATO, of a third force, balancing between the United States and Russia in the hope that Europe alone—this is what I understand—could achieve something which the whole strength and the whole negotiating diplomatic power of the West has not so far been able to achieve: a

437
rapprochement with Russia, and the reunification of Germany.
We think that those calculations are wrong and that those hopes are vain. There would be room for Britain in such a grouping; but only, it became clear, if we were willing to shed our ties with the Commonwealth and our close relationship with the United States. I hope, my Lords, that I have stated that view fairly. We are totally opposed to such a conception of Europe, and we have always made that clear. It has become quite clear that the other five members of the Six are totally opposed to such a conception of Europe, too. In fact, everybody is really opposed to that conception, except the French. If the French persist in this view it is well that it has been brought into the open, because this is an issue—if it is to be brought to a head—which must be resolved inside the Community and inside NATO. We must therefore be vigilant to keep our contacts alive, both in our bilateral arrangements with the different European countries, in EFTA, in the W.E.U. and, above all, in the NATO Alliance. We must work as best we may through our friends and by ourselves for a Europe which, in the fields both of trade and security, is liberal, progressive and co-operative with North America and with the world outside.
My Lords, so far I have dealt with some of the debits of our failure to get into the Common Market. I should like to say now a word about what one might call the credits. The first is that there is no immediate obligation to alter our Commonwealth preference arrangements. It is very timely that there is a meeting of the Commonwealth Economic Advisory Council to be held in April—the noble Earl will remember that we set this up in Montreal—and that will be in a position to consult about the operations in GATT before the "Kennedy round" of tariff reductions. We all want that "round" to succeed, and it will be very valuable to have talks with the Commonwealth countries before that matter is taken in GATT.
There are some who argue—I do not know, but I suppose my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchyre was doing so, from the questions which he asked yesterday—that all the United Kingdom has to
438
do to bring about an expansion of Commonwealth preference is to put forward such a proposal in GATT. I want only to give a note of caution here. The erosion of preferences has not been the United Kingdom's choice; the erosion of preferences has come because practically every Commonwealth country wants to build up and establish its own industries. The second point is this: that there is no evidence so far that the Commonwealth countries wish to disturb the international trading framework which GATT provides for them. Of course, if the "Kennedy round" runs into the sands, or is actively frustrated, then it is perfectly true that many countries will have to do a lot more thinking about the future patterns of world trade.
The second thing on the credit side—and this will be endorsed by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh—is that we retain our freedom of policy with regard to our own agriculture, and we are not faced now with fitting British farming into the European system of support prices in a matter of a very few years. I only wish I could say that this relieved us of all difficulties so far as our home agriculture is concerned. Like him I am an absolutely unrepentant believer that much of the health and wealth of any country depends on keeping a sturdy rural population. That is certainly true; but we do, of course, have a dilemma in a small island, highly industrialised, with an enormous population for our acreage. How much food can we grow, and is it desirable to grow, for our own economic and social needs, and how much can we take in from overseas?—because unless we take in a great deal countries cannot pay for our exports.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I quite agree with the points laid down, but the noble Earl left out the word "security". Agriculture has been our security in war.
THE EARL OF HOME: Of course I would not hesitate for a moment to add national security to this; and of course we must supply a high percentage of our own needs so far as food is concerned. But none of us can escape from the dilemma that, if we are to enable countries overseas to pay for our exports, we must take in a pretty high import of food. We cannot escape from that.

439
When the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, says to me, or implies, that we were willing, by entering into the negotiations with the Common Market, to betray British agriculture, I would just remind him of this: that the objectives, as they were stated at any rate, of the European Community were, as I understand them, the same as ours—to increase productivity, to ensure fair standards of living for the farming community, and to create enlarged and stable markets. One can go further, because during the course of the negotiations the countries of the Six accepted our proposal that there should be an Annual Review; and if experience showed that the objectives which I have mentioned were not being achieved in any country, remedial measures were to be taken at the request of any member Government.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: Yes, my Lords, but of course the noble Earl will tell your Lordships that nobody in Europe need take any notice of those Annual Reviews.
THE EARL OF HOME: I do not know what the point of having them would be, if there were no notice taken of them.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: Neither do I.
THE EARL OF HOME: You may well say that nobody would take any notice of the Annual Reviews here, but we do. We sit down together and we work out what the income of the farming community ought to be over the next year. That could have been done.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: Yes, but the noble Earl will not forget that that is a statutory obligation. The Annual Review foreshadowed in Europe would, as a result, have been sent to the Commission which could have forgotten it.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: If any noble Lord can tell me exactly what it meant, or that I am wrong, I shall be very happy to listen to him.
THE EARL OF HOME: I think the noble Lord is assuming that if the Commission accepted the obligation they
440
would proceed to ignore it, and it would simply be something on paper which would never be worked.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: That is it.
THE EARL OF HOME: He is entitled to that assumption, but it is a curious way to go about international negotiations. You have a right to expect, if you negotiate something and the other partners in the negotiation accept it, that it will be carried out in good faith. I agree that could only have been seen, and that the proof of the pudding would have been in the eating. But at any rate the rules, and what they agreed to, were as I stated.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, to get the record straight, may I say that if my recollection is correct the Community were prepared to deal with Price Reviews. But no single member of the Community was going to be required, unless they wished to do so, to submit facts for the Annual Review. That was the position as published in the Press.
THE EARL OF HOME: Not compelled to submit, no doubt. But it would have been a great advantage to every country to do so, because the whole purpose of the Review was to work out an agricultural policy which was fair. But, my Lords, I repeat that this phase of the negotiations is over. What we are doing now, in a way, is to have a postmortem, and I do not think there is very much point in it. But when we are accused of betraying British agriculture in the negotiations as carried on so far, I think I am entitled to repudiate that suggestion with facts. We will, of course, try to look after British agriculture as best we can as a Government.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: As best you can.
THE EARL OF HOME: Nobody can do better. We can do our best—let me put it that way—to look after British agriculture, and I do not think we have been unsuccessful in the past. The noble Earl really must recognise that there is a problem here ahead of us—ahead of us, I hope; not of him. When British food production is expanding, when Commonwealth food production is expanding, and when a considerable

441
percentage of the British farmers' income is in subsidies, the equation is not very easy to face. We must be realistic and realise that. Whichever Government are in power, there is a Problem as far as agriculture is concerned.
The third item on the credit side is that we now retain the whole of the advantages of EFTA, which would have been embodied in the larger European Economic Community. But, my Lords, I have deliberately left until last the only action that will bring us real compensation, reward and expansion, and that is, by all means, to increase our national efficiency. That is really the answer to the problem. There is the opportunity. If we can hold our costs competitive, then we have a chance to neutralise the attack. If we can hold our costs competitive, there is a chance we can attract people from overseas to put down factories in this country. They will, of course, calculate between the Continent and Britain. There is, on the one side, a large market of 150 million people or more: on the other side, here, if we can hold our prices competitive, they will have considerable advantages. I think that, in the mind of a man putting his factory here, all will depend on this question of whether we can hold our prices, because if we can hold our prices reasonably steady and competitive then there is a chance for anybody manufacturing in this country to jump the external tariff of the Community. But if costs are not held, then our percentage both of European trade and of world trade is bound to fall.
My Lords, in the coming months the steps which the Government mean to take to expand our economy will be unfolded, but I must say that there is a limit to what any Government can or could do, and we shall remain a great trading nation earning wealth on an expanding scale only if the whole nation is put on its mettle. That is the Government's task—and, indeed, something in which we should all cooperate; and it is on that note that I would end my reply to the speech of the noble Lord.
4.32 p.m.
LORD ROBERTSON OF OAKRIDGE: My Lords, I feel in considerable trouble of mind about my speech to you this after-
442
noon, particularly speaking, as I do, after the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary himself, because I am all too conscious that what I have to say this afternoon is really very small beer. I have not any profound review to offer you of the situation created by the suspension of the Brussels negotiations. Indeed, I am not capable of making one. I only wish to make a certain number of remarks, rather discursive, and to offer a few suggestions, with very great diffidence. I do not expect all these suggestions to be liked by everybody, but I hope it will be thought that they are put forward in an attempt, at least, to help.
The first remark I should like to make is to join with the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, in complimenting the Government on their handling of these negotiations. I think the noble Lord did compliment the Government, though I must read more carefully in Hansard to-morrow what he said. But, at all events, I for my part should like to do that, and particularly to pay a tribute to our negotiators at the conference table.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: If I may say so, I complimented the negotiators on both sides.
LORD ROBERTSON OF OAKRIDGE: I should particularly like to compliment our own negotiators, without saying anything about the other side, as it seems to me that it was a tribute to their skill that, when President de Gaulle decided to bring the discussions to an end, he found no way of doing it other than by sending his representative into the conference room with instructions, metaphorically speaking, to "kick the table over".
The discussions have been suspended, and this is described as the failure of Great Britain to get into the Common Market. It may be that that is justifiable as a statement, but I venture to say that it is not less true that it is the failure of the countries of the European Economic Community to get Great Brtain into the Common Market; and I believe that those countries so regard it. The noble Earl the Foreign Secretary said so himself in his own language. It is not only five out of the six countries who would like to see us in: we all know that there is a large, influential and well-informed section of opinion in France who have always wanted to see us in; and still do.

443
Perhaps I might remind your Lordships of the basic reason for that. In doing so, I am stating the obvious; but, after all, we have it on the authority of the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House that sometimes the obvious is the only thing worth saying.
The basic reason is this—and perhaps I can remind your Lordships of it because, whereas the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary has to be careful what he says, I do not, or at least not to the same degree. They desired us to be in the Community from the start because none of them wished to have a Community that is dominated by any one country, whether it is France, whether it is Germany or whether it is anybody else; and they believe that Great Britain, if she enters the Community, will provide a means of equilibrium. That is something they still feel, I am sure, and that is why I feel absolutely certain that these negotiations will be resumed in some form. When, we cannot say, but I hope that the delay will not be too long.
I should now like to make a remark or two about the recently signed Treaty between France and Germany, and about its bearing on this matter. After the First World War, France endeavoured to insure herself against any repetition of German aggression by erecting a system of collective security under the League of Nations and by insisting that Germany should remain disarmed. That strategy, as we know, failed. After the Second World War, France made a renewed attempt. She demanded that Germany should be split up into a large number of semiautonomous States, held together only by the flimsiest confederacy at the centre. She openly expressed her disinterest in the reunification of Germany, and her dislike of the idea that Berlin should ever be the capital again, and she proposed methods of demilitarisation which would have had a permanent effect on the German economy. This strategy, also, was not successful, and very largely because France could not persuade Great Britain and the United States of America to go along with her. Now she is adopting a new strategy. Now she is endeavouring to bind Germany to her with the silken threads of a treaty of friendship. I believe, my Lords, that you will think of this as I do: that it is a much wiser-seeming strategy, that it is a strategy which has a
444
much greater chance of enduring, and that it is something which we can welcome and support.
I should like next to refer to something which was written in the French Press at the height of the crisis at Brussels by a very distinguished Frenchman who is an acknowledged expert on Franco-German relations. He referred to the new Treaty as "a tender sapling just planted in the ground". He said that it had no roots, no hold on the soil, and was a very tender plant. He went on to say that Germany would certainly not allow herself to be estranged either from the United States of America or from Great Britain. Nothing could be more certain to kill this tender plant and render it a dead letter than any attempt by France so to isolate Germany.
I mention this to your Lordships because I was struck, as I am sure your Lordships would have been, by the way in which this prognosis was borne out, letter by letter, only last week by the debate which took place in the Bundestag, when the Treaty came up for First Reading or ratification. One might say that it was almost word for word; and that is why I am sure the discussions will be resumed. Indeed, that is why we must be sure that nothing foolish will be done; because this Treaty is something we welcome. I am sure we desire the enmity between these two countries to be ended and ourselves to be on good terms with both of them. I welcome what the Prime Minister said in another place when he spoke of the need for friendly relations with Germany. As to France—we are smarting to-day; but we know quite well that we need friendly relations with France, just as she needs them with us. Anything else is both silly and dangerous. Some remarks which were made in this House only yesterday show how many agree with this point of view.
The discussions, I am sure, will be resumed in some form. I wonder if one may hope that, meanwhile, other nations will not be given cause to think that the attitude of Great Britain is uncertain in the matter of our being willing to accept, and desirous of accepting, economic and political union with the Community; or that it might change with time, or, if I may say so with respect, with a change

445
in the political scene. It has been a very difficult problem, and this country did not make up its mind, through its Government, for a very long time—not until a great deal of heart-searching had taken place. Indeed, right at the end there was a division of opinion, and there still is.
But, as I say, the Government made up their mind, and when they did so they had behind them a volume of support that was certainly not limited to a majority of their own Party. I do not think I shall be contradicted if I say that the division was not on Party lines. Over and beyond that was the statement by the Prime Minister in another place, that most economists and a large majority of businessmen agreed with that decision. And his statement has not, I believe, been contradicted. I would suggest that it has been a characteristic of our method of conducting ourselves in international affairs over the years that, once we have made up our minds, we show a great consistency; our representatives all speak with the same voice, and foreign nations are not given the opportunity to point to contradictions between what they say or to play off one section of political opinion against another. There perhaps I have made my first point.
During these difficult negotiations (and reference has been made to this point this afternoon) a number of provisional agreements were reached and a number of provisional concessions were made. President de Gaulle now says that they can be forgotten. Here, this afternoon, is a request that they should be published. I do not quite understand what is asked for. A good deal has been made public, and the Report issued in Brussels makes further things public. But I cannot help thinking that this would be likely to lead to reproaches to the Government for any concessions which they have made and to a hardening of the positions, an insistence on fresh commitments and a general tendency towards more stiffness next time the discussions are opened.
With great respect, I cannot help thinking that that is not the wise thing this time. I feel personally that, as regards those provisional agreements, it would be better to leave things just where they are, and to spend one's time and effort in negotiation and probing to make matters
446
easier when discussions are resumed. I venture to refer for a moment, with much immodesty, to something I said when I spoke on this subject last August. I said that perhaps we should find that our biggest difficulty about entering the Common Market lay in our own national characteristics and in our insularity. That is exactly the reproach which President de Gaulle threw at us when the negotiations were broken off. It hurt. Maybe it was meant to hurt. And it hurt because it has been true.
I suggest that in this interval it would be very helpful to ourselves and to our friends if we could give some practical, concrete evidence, however small, that this reproach is no longer true. Could we, for example, bring forward some of those measures which we know we shall one day have to take to bring our methods and practices into harmony with those on the Continent? There is the question of our currency, which has been discussed in this House and is under consideration; there is the question of weights and measures, and so forth. These are practical matters; they are rather difficult, but I think most of us know that we shall have to act on them one day. If only one of them could be brought forward, it would, I think, give encouragement to our friends and practical evidence of our desire to associate ourselves with them.
Finally, my Lords, I would make a suggestion which could be made only by someone from the Cross Benches—and I make it with some trepidation because of the rather menacing words which the Foreign Secretary let fall in the course of his speech. We all know that we have to increase our exports—the National Economic Development Council tell us so; the pundits say so; and we know it ourselves. Speaking in another place, Mr. Harold Wilson the other day used some very simple words—simple, but striking in their simplicity. He said that the breakdown of the Brussels talks brings the certainty now that discrimination will be taken against our exports into Europe. I think nobody will deny that. It seems difficult to deny.
How are we to increase our exports to Europe? The Government will produce plans: they will help. But suppose they do not succeed; suppose they

447
do not go far enough. It is not easy. There could be extended credit, export incentives—all these things are not easy to devise if they are, in fact, to do the trick. Are we likely to get our costs down? One sees no evidence of that. Profits cannot be cut much more. There is one way which is certain as a means of ensuring that our goods will sell more cheaply and more freely on the Continent, and there are some wise men who are arguing that we shall have to come round to it. I should not myself like to venture any opinion on it, but we know that there are wise men who are having a look at it.
The suggestion that I am making is that, if we are to consider the devaluation of our currency, and if some change in the level of exchange has to be made, there is a good deal to be said for taking the two steps together. It is what we did in Germany, in rather different circumstances; but it certainly was successful. It is a hard thing to do, but I suppose that the road ahead is hard, as the Foreign Secretary has told us. One sees little evidence in the newspapers that that fact is hoisted in generally, especially when one reads of what is going on in the world of industrial relations. I should like to see the leaders in Government, and out of Government, constantly reminding the people that the road ahead will be hard and that if we do not work hard ourselves, we shall not get to where we want to go.
4.51 p.m.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just spoken speaks with considerable knowledge of Germany, especially of post-war Germany. I had the pleasure of meeting him there when he was Military Governor. I agree that friendship between France and Germany is a circumstance to be heartily welcomed. It is a good thing, especially in the light of history and of the series of wars in which these two countries engaged, just as it is a good thing that we should be good friends with France, in view of the series of wars in which we were engaged with France earlier on in our history.
I am bound to add—and I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, will violently disagree with me—that I cannot see the vital necessity of
448
the treaty recently arrived at between France and Germany. It seems to me unnecessary. The relations between the two countries are good. Both are in NATO and in the European Economic Community, and for them to single themselves out as two countries among the Six seems to me to be open to the interpretation that they are rather separating themselves from the others. From that point of view, I wish it had not happened, and I should not be sorry if the Bundestag, the Lower House of the German Parliament, was not in a hurry to ratify this treaty. I cannot see that it is useful and I think that it is open to misinterpretation, though on the principle of good relations between France and Germany, it is to be welcomed.
This debate was opened by my noble friend Lord Williams of Barnburgh in an able speech, with some of which I did not wholly agree. It is well known that there are differences of opinion in the Labour Party about E.E.C. and there are differences of opinion in the Conservative Party about it as well. Indeed, it is not sharply a Party political issue, although it is difficult for these things not to be argued on a Party basis in the long run. I think the Foreign Secretary was unduly aggressive with regard to my noble friend Lord Williams of Barnburgh. I do not mind the Foreign Secretary's being aggressive on those occasions when it is open to him, as Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to be aggressive, because it is so often impossible for a Foreign Secretary to be as aggressive in speech as he would like to be. I rather welcomed the Foreign Secretary's action in landing out and knocking my noble friend about, though I do not think he was justified to the extent he went in knocking my noble friend about.
Say what you like, my noble friend was a great Minister of Agriculture. I have heard farmers say he was the greatest Minister of Agriculture we have ever had, and I think they are right. It is the case that prior to my noble friend, there were numerous Conservative Ministers of Agriculture, a number of whom were farmers. They were picked up, put in office, and put out—in fact, the political stage was pretty crowded with ex-Conservative Ministers of Agriculture—because they had not brought pleasure or confidence to the farming community,

449
despite the fact that the farmers are predominantly Conservative—or they were. My noble friend Lord Williams of Barnburgh was a very good Minister of Agriculture. His Act of 1947 is a great Act. I know of his work very well, because he used to consult with me and I gave him a good deal of encouragement and support, so far as I could, in the Labour Government, in the implementation of his agricultural policy, and it would not do the Foreign Secretary any harm if he admitted that my noble friend was a very good Minister of Agriculture.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, if I did not do it, may I do it now? Of course, he was a very good Minister of Agriculture. I said that the 1947 Act was a very good Act. What I did not like was the way he took the Motion and the use he made of it. That is what I was complaining of.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, that is very generous on the part of the Foreign Secretary. I thank him very much, and I appreciate what he said about the Act of 1947. Not all farmers are Tories. There are a certain number of farmers on this side of the House and I am glad they are here. I used to go round with my noble friend and I have met many farmers. I met some farmers in Yorkshire who said that Tom Williams was the greatest Minister of Agriculture we had ever had. I said, "All right, boys, you will vote Labour at the next Election." "Oh, no", they said, "that is another matter." I replied, "What is the good of your praising Tom Williams as the greatest Minister of Agriculture we have had and then voting Tory, so that he cannot be Minister any more?" But they did not see the point. We have done very well with the agricultural workers, and a little with the farmers, but they are pretty slow-moving when it comes to switching politically. But I hope the time may come when we shall have far more farmers supporting the Labour Party.
If my noble friend takes a strong view about agriculture in relation to the Common Market, as does my noble Leader, who is also very much interested in the well-being of agriculture, I can understand it. I certainly would not hold it against them, nor can I argue with them about it, because I am nowhere near so expert on agricultural questions
450
as they are. I was, and I remain, in principle a supporter of the Common Market. I believe in it for a number of reasons—first, because I am a Socialist. I believe that international co-operation is a good thing and that, if protective tariffs between countries can be abolished, even on a regional basis, that is a thing to be welcomed and encouraged. I do not take the view that it would be wrong to enter the Common Market because you do not like foreigners. I do not see how one can be a Socialist and at the same time not like foreigners in principle, though some people take that point of view. But the world is full of anomalies of one sort or another.
My second point is that protective tariffs, especially over a contiguous region, such as Western Europe, are a fetter upon trade, a fetter upon economic progress and economic well-being. I think that if those tariffs can be done away with, and there can be free trade between those countries, it is a good thing; just as it is a good thing in the United States of America, in view of the circumstances, that there are no tariffs between the fifty States there. I am sure that country would not be nearly as prosperous as it is if there were tariffs between them.
Thirdly, I think that economic wellbeing, a healthy economic basis, economic prosperity and progress is a good thing for Western Europe in the light of the foreign policy and military problems that it faces. I am a strong supporter of NATO, as is the Leader of the Opposition in your Lordships House—in fact, he had a hand in bringing it about. NATO is a good thing, and Europe would have been worse off if it had not existed. But if NATO is also based upon, in part at any rate, communities which are themselves economically prosperous, then the military strength of NATO will be stronger as a consequence. The late Mr. Stalin took the view, and enforced it with great ruthlessness and even brutality, that if Russia was to be a great Power she must be economically strong, especially in relation to her heavy industries. That is why he pursued such a policy. It is equally true that if Western Europe is to have adequate military strength, then Western Europe should have a sound economic basis. The reason why the Communists are

451
opposed to the European Economic Community is that they wish Western Europe to be economically weak, just as They wish Western Europe to be militarily weak, as well.
So I am sorry that the negotiations were not successful. I do not wish to pronounce finally as to whether they could have been sufficiently successful to be satisfactory to the British Parliament and people, or to the British Commonwealth, or British agriculture; I think it would be premature to make a final judgment upon that point. You cannot judge of these things until the negotiations are completed; until the balance sheet is available and the arguments for and against are set out in black and white with great care and circumspection and a respect for fact. Therefore, I reserve judgment. I only say that, in principle, I was in favour of the Common Market, and, in principle, I am still in favour of it; but I reserve final judgment until such time may eventuate when negotiations are completed.
It looks is if the next General Election will return a Labour Government to office and to power, and it may well be that it will fall to a Labour Government to resume and complete these negotiations, if the Labour Party is minded so to do. The negotiations have broken down, and General de Gaulle must take the major personal responsibility for their breakdown. I think it was unkind of him; I think Britain deserved more appreciation from General de Gaulle and from France than we got in the course of these negotiations. But there it is, and it is no good our being permanently bitter about it or degenerating into an anti-French frame of mind; we are neighbours and we have to live together. The Five were loyal to the ideal that the British should join, and they remain so loyal; and I hope that in due course the Government of France will change its mind and will be with us in a desire for us to enter Europe, if that still remains the opinion of the country.
I think that perhaps our own Government made a mistake at the beginning, when they sought the authority of Parliament to enter into negotiations, in laying down minimum conditions of such a character and degree that they ought to have known they might not be fully
452
able to be achieved: there must not be any disturbance of British agriculture; there must be full rights and protection for the Commonwealth; and the same for EFTA. You cannot start negotiations, any more than a sensible trade union leader can start negotiations, an the basis of laying down minimum conditions beforehand, for the essence of negotiation is that there must be give and take and some degree of elasticity. In fairness, I must say that I think the Labour Party also laid down two stiff minimum conditions for our entry, which, having been adhered to, almost led to the point where it was impossible for us to go into Europe unless those conditions were fully met; and it was not likely that they would be. So I think that both the great political Parties added to our difficulties by the undertakings into which they entered.
The Government really ought to have known better, because in fact (and this is a justifiable complaint of my noble Leader and the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh) they have not lived up to the undertakings into which they entered when they first started negotiations. They have not properly observed the promises they made to British agriculture, to the Commonwealth or to EFTA: indeed, I do not think they could live up to them. But the answer to that is that they should not have made these firm and rather extravagant undertakings which they did at the beginning.
Whether we go into the Common Market or not, we face serious economic problems. I said in an earlier debate, and it was said with greater emphasis by the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, that it would be a great mistake for us to think that going into the Common Market was an automatic solution of all Britain's economic problems; that if we went in we should face economic headaches and problems almost as great as would exist if we stayed out—though in my view, on the balance of advantage, it was right for us to be in. We should have faced increased competition, for Western European trade would have had a common tariff round the lot of them, and the result would be that we should have had to meet Continental competition on equal terms without any tariff protection, and, consequently, we should have had to

453
buck ourselves up and improve our efficiency, our economic energy and enterprise; and that would have been nothing simple. On the other hand, being outside, we have the disadvantage that we have to get over that tariff wall in order to get into Europe on something like economic equality, and we are not on economic equality until we have passed the tariff wall.
Some British manufacturers have already decided to build factories in the Western Europe mainland, because of the fact that we are out of the Common Market, and they had decided even before they knew whether we were to be in or not. I saw one British manufacturer on television who looked quite cheerful about shifting part of his factory over to Europe. It made me a little sick, because I do not think he should have been so glad about it. It may have been inevitable that he should, but I do not see anything to be pleased about in shifting British factories and British employment on to the mainland of Europe because of the tariff. That is the other side of the picture which we now have to face: that we may be up against difficulties in that respect.
But for the time being we are now out. Just as we should have had to make ourselves economically and industrially as efficient as possible if we were in, it is no less necessary—indeed, if anything, is is more necessary—that we should make ourselves industrially efficient, progressive and lively now that we are out of the European Common Market, because it means that we have to try to be in a position of active and effective competition within Europe, notwithstanding the tariff around the Six which will be to some extent an impediment to British trade. Therefore, just as it would have been necessary to be lively if we were in, it is no less necessary, and perhaps a bit more necessary, that we should be lively now that we are out.
I should like to say to British industry on both sides (I wish we could avoid this phrase about "both sides" of industry, but we cannot) that the employers, management and the trade unions have to think about the well-being of our country. All of them must put their best foot forward to ensure the economic and industrial efficiency and progress of our country. This is no time for restrictive
454
practices on either side of industry, whether it be management or trade unions. We want to get rid of it: we want public spirit. If we had not had public spirit in the war, when the nation was fighting for its life, we should have gone down in that war. We owe a lot to the fact that during the war the British people, of all classes, pulled their weight and gave of their best to ensure victory. That was a triumph of morale. Why cannot we have triumphs of morale in times of peace, as well as in times of war? Must we have the enemy's razor at our throats before we do our best? Or cannot we do our best, on the merits of the case, for the sake of our country, because it is necessary in all the circumstances?
My Lords, we need to win this battle of morale, and I want to put this point to Her Majesty's Government. As a whole they have been running—not entirely, but as a whole—a policy of laissez faire: of letting things drift, of standing aside from industrial progress, improvement and liveliness. I say that it is the duty of the Government to inspire, and to lead the nation in industrial vigour, progress and liveliness. The Government are not doing it. They are not doing enough public education on the economic problems with which we are faced. They are letting things drift too much.
Take this problem of unemployment in the North, and over-employment, if anything, in the South and in the Midlands. The sin of the Government here is the sin of laissez faire. They do not believe, and will not believe, that they can encourage industry to go to the North instead of swamping the South and Midlands to the extent that it is doing. It is really a wicked thing that the Government should be indifferent to that, because those Northern people are a fine people—they have great character. Our country owes a lot to them. So have my people in the South great character. But the people in the South have enough tolerance and sense to learn that it is not a good thing that we in the South-East and the Midlands should be over-industrialised, and that the North should be facing a slump and a tendency for growing unemployment.
I would not say that the Government are indifferent to this problem. I would

455
not say they do not care tuppence about what happens to the North. But their philosophy is wrong. They instinctively believe that there is nothing effective they can do about it. Now they have appointed the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, as Minister for unemployment in the North. I think he was a foolish chap to undertake the job, but it is his funeral and not mine. I remember our late friend Jimmie Thomas, when, in the Labour Government of 1929–31, he was Minister for unemployment. It nearly killed him, politically and otherwise. It is not a fair burden to put upon one man, because inevitably a series of State Departments are involved in this matter. However, I wish the noble Viscount luck. Whether he will get it or not, I do not know.
The next thing is that we must do our best with the Commonwealth. If there can be consultation whereby the tariff barriers between ourselves and the other countries of the Commonwealth can be reduced (to expect them to be abolished is too much), I am in favour of it; and I hope that the Government will do their best to be persuasive and reasonable about it. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, in advocating Commonwealth Free Trade—formerly Empire Free Trade—was asking for the impossible; because I think that the other Commonwealth countries, with their young industries which they are determined to protect, are not likely to accept it. I think it was an unreal ideal which he had. But he was sincere about it and meant it, and I must say that he has stuck to his guns, even at the expense of conducting a persistent and vigorous campaign against the idea of the European Economic Community. But if we can do anything with the Commonwealth whereby trade can more easily flow freely between us and the Commonwealth countries, that is all to the better. The same applies as between us and the EFTA countries. If we can develop the ideas which were behind the establishment of EFTA, that will be a good thing, so long as it does not become an impediment to our joining later on the European Economic Community. So we must look after our own industry. We must look after our own exports, because unless we export we cannot effectively import—at
456
least without becoming involved in recurrent balance-of-payments crises.
The Government must give information. They must look after the morale of the nation in industrial affairs and give to the people a pride in our country and its industrial achievements and progress. The Government must inspire a national drive for economic progress and efficiency. It must declare polite war against economic and industrial inefficiency, because upon the economic and industrial efficiency of our country depends not only our future for the purpose of getting a living, but also our future as a great Power in the world.
5.18 p.m.
LORD ECCLES: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, because, like him, I am a supporter of the Common Market. I think that he will find the reasons for my support similar to those which he gave. I was much interested in his desire to recapture, if possible, some of the public spirit that we knew so well in the war. It is tempting to find some point of resemblance between the end of the Brussels negotiations and the crisis in the summer of 1940. When Western Europe was overrun and gave in, a great many people here felt their spirits rise at the prospect of being left alone to fight it out. Sacrifices were made, and great deeds done, beyond the expectation of ourselves or our enemies. Of course it is also true that the loss of so many Allies greatly increased the final cost of the war. Now, twenty years later, we are engaged in another great struggle, in a cold war to contain the ambitions of the Communists. We have suffered another sharp reverse in Europe; and again there is a sense of relief, irrational as I think it is. But it is there, and it offers an opportunity to call, and call successfully, as the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, also wished to do, for an extra effort. I think it is equally true that what happened in Brussels is going to damage our prospects in the cold war.
What has happened has been partly our own fault: we waited too long to take the Treaty of Rome seriously. But whether we had begun earlier or not to negotiate, it must now seem always to have been a matter of doubt whether the French Government would accept us in their

457
Europe. A small acquaintance with history shows that all Governments are selfish, and French Governments more selfish than most; and I cannot help having a certain amount of sympathy with the Administration in Paris for wanting to get a bit of their own back for the various occasions in the past on which we have successfully opposed their desire to dominate Europe. But what is really depressing is that paying off old scores should have been done at such a tremendous cost to the co-ordination and strength of the Western World, which so badly needs to make a more intelligent use of its scattered resources.
My Lords, it stands out a mile how the economic power of the Free World is fragmented and diminished by nationalist policies, out-of-date rivalries, tariffs, quotas, subsidies, flag discrimination, and so on; and how the flow of new capital ought to be very much stronger than it is. Looking forward over the next 25 years, one wonders whether the hotch-potch of free nations, some old, some new, all more or less jealous, are going to prove a match for the thousand and more million Communists who live on one great land mass from the Iron Curtain to the China Sea and the Behring Strait. In numbers these Communists must increase very fast, because they have a very large number of young people in their population; and we have already seen that by keeping down consumption, and by investing largely in education and in capital programmes, they can achieve rates of growth in planned directions never before equalled. What all that costs them in personal freedom they do not reckon as important.
This economic challenge to the West builds up every year, but I suppose that the French Government are not unduly worried. They must be convinced that the Russians do not want to start a shooting war; and in that they may well be right. But they are wrong to conclude that therefore it does not matter how much the Western Allies dissipate their economic power; and all for the sake of some national or Continental sense of superiority. I do not think the conclusion that the French seem to have come to takes real account of the size of the threat that faces us. Certainly, if I were a Moscow Communist, I should not see the point of a shooting
458
war: I should think it was a waste of effort. Why should they go to all that ruin and expense when they can win completely by the penetration of their goods, their propaganda and trained personnel? And when they see the Western leaders falling out among themselves, how much that must add to their confidence that final victory will be theirs without launching a single rocket!
This competition with the Communist system grows all the time. In such organisations as UNESCO I used to observe the representatives of Asia, Africa and Latin America watching and questioning, now the Communists, now the Western delegates, to discover which system of society promised them most help in raising their standards of life. They were not interested in our political philosophy, or in our culture, or in our religions. What they wanted to know about was our capacity to produce food and manufactures and universal education. At every meeting one felt that our half-capitalist half-Socialist methods of creating wealth were on trial and that with their success or failure would go our political and spiritual values.
That is why I regret so much the breakdown in the Brussels negotiations. I thought that by going into Europe we could work with the Six, and others, to find a large part of the answer to the regimented power of the Communists. But now the negotiations are dead; and the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barn-burgh, at any rate, did not conceal the fact that he was very pleased to be here at this memorial service. When we have paid our respects to the corpse, what do we do next? I will, with your Lordships' indulgence, turn for a few moments to that question.
Failure means freedom—freedom to do things which we could not have done had we gone into the Community; and there are many temptations to abuse that freedom, to sit back and do nothing, to try to revive hoary old dreams and make fresh enemies. Her Majesty's Government are receiving advice of all sorts and kinds on what British policy should now be. I would submit to your Lordships, in the first place that there are no dramatic alternatives to the things that it would have been right to do here at home whether we got into the Common Market or not. That is not to agree

459
with those who favour waiting, in a gentlemanly way, to see what may turn up in Europe. I suppose these people hope that some change in leadership will make it possible to resume negotiations and bring them to a successful conclusion. I doubt that. But, at any rate, if we now took that drab and complacent view we should almost certainly leave undone a great many things that badly need doing. Had we gone into Europe our industry and agriculture would have been re-shaped by the forces of a much larger home market, and that would have brought great benefits to us and to the Community as well.
I had not intended to talk about agriculture, but the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, devoted his whole speech to it. He might perhaps think, as was pointed out by the Foreign Secretary, that going into Europe would have been an opportunity to look again at the situation created by duty-free, quota-free, imports of food from so many suppliers with surpluses to sell, and to think once more whether possibly there was not a method by which, without increasing the unknown commitments to the Treasury, we could assure our farmers—of course, it would have meant managed marketing—of a very much more secure and long-term future from which to expand the output of British farming through efficiency. The policy we have now, which the noble Lord did not invent—it was invented entirely by our old friend the first Lord Hudson—
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: Who told you that?
LORD ECCLES: I was there at the time. The policy was the outcome of the agricultural policy in the war. But it is not a policy which it is possible to go on with for ever without putting a ceiling on the total production of British farmers, and that is a very depressing thing to do.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: My Lords, the noble Lord has just made about the most contradictory contribution that I can possibly conceive. He suggests that our agricultural policy if we were in the Community would be this, that and the other, thinking in terms absolutely of no duties on food anywhere
460
at any time, when the whole basis of the agricultural policy in the Community so far as it has been built up—and I am not complaining—is based on perhaps higher tariffs than we have ever dreamed of for food.
LORD ECCLES: I probably did not make myself clear, but I never suggested that if we went into the Community there would be no duties of any kind on food. I have a slight knowledge of the agricultural negotiations.
At any rate, I really came to your Lordships' House to talk about industry. The benefits that we have lost by not having this very large home market we must now by other means contrive to secure, because it is even more important, as the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, said, that we should remove all obstacles to growth; and we have to consider seriously whether there are not other patterns of trade that might suit us and our friends in EFTA and the Commonwealth and the United States. In my view what happened in Brussels is bound to force great changes in international commercial policy, compelling many nations outside Europe to plan and act on a scale much larger than they have hitherto contemplated. And perhaps, as we heard from the Foreign Secretary, these events will force a change in the Community's policy as well.
When all these reappraisals have been made it will be seen that Mr. Heath was negotiating as much in the interests of the Commonwealth and the United States as directly for the United Kingdom, and that the veto of the French President was as much a defeat for all of them as it has been for us. It is not to be expected, just because the French have chosen to block one line of advance, that so many and so powerful nations will be content to abandon their interest and their duty to rationalise and expand the trade of the rest of the free world. It seems to me that a new initiative in policy for trade and aid is now the absolute logic of events, and that that initiative will have to be on a considerably wider scale than a round of haggling in GATT. I regret to say that I do not have much confidence that negotiations in GATT will go anything like to the root of what we now want to do. More fundamental thinking is required and a great deal of consultation with our friends. If I

461
may say so with respect, it is a matter of great satisfaction that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister of Sweden should be in London now, because their advice will be very valuable.
Inside Great Britain, the problem is how to use to the full the traditional rise in spirits that always follows a reverse on the continent of Europe. We have to put our own house in better order by removing the obstacles to growth. And here we are fortunate because we have just had the report of the N.E.D.C., which is bound to be of great help to the Government. We also have to show ourselves to be patient, understanding and unselfish in our dealings abroad. I have to say, in answer to a suggestion thrown out by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, that we cannot either take a short cut to efficiency or win respect abroad by devaluing the pound. Devaluation is a cruel act of the last resort which is justifiable only when currency reserves are almost exhausted, export prices are out of line and when the crisis is so severe that it cannot be solved in any more civilised manner.
Let us look at the present situation. Our currency reserves are, without doubt, uncomfortably small, but measures to buttress them by international action have recently been improved and could be improved still more if Mr. Maudling can get his ideas accepted. Our export prices are not out of line, and no crisis exists to justify the damage which devaluation would do to fixed incomes and to overseas holders of sterling, among whom some of the more vulnerable are our good friends in the Commonwealth. The advocates of devalution, or of a floating rate, which of course means a sinking rate, are really telling us that we have neither the courage nor the maturity to combine big plans for growth with a sensible incomes policy, that we have not the will to get rid of restrictive practices, nor the wits or the training to produce and sell enough exports abroad without the temporary intoxication of a depreciated pound. To take that view is to take a very low view of British character in adversity, and it is one I am sure your Lordships will not share.
There is another piece of advice that is being given us in strange quarters, and that is to clap on import controls as a
462
protection against the inflationary effects of rapid expansion. We have had experience of import controls in peace time. The Labour Party kept them on far too long after the war, with most damaging effect on the vigour and growth of the economy. In any case, there is a fallacy behind this policy. If a man is prevented from importing something for which he has the money to pay, he does not put the money in a drawer; he goes into the home market, he buys the next best thing, he forces up home prices or takes away goods that might have been exported, and very soon a policy of import controls is self-defeating. In any case, nobody has ever been able to produce a list of the imports and the quantities which would have to be prohibited and would add up to a substantial sum of money and yet not frustrate growth or invite damaging retaliation from abroad. Over and over again in another place when Mr. Harold Wilson was speaking as Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer we challenged him to produce such a list. He never could. Nor could anybody else. Again, if imports are cut, how could foreign travel escape? What a good example that would be at a time when we all want the peoples of the world to get to know each other better! Devaluation and import controls must be seen for what they really are, unworthy substitutes for taking a number of tough but honest and bracing measures of the nature of which we are all perfectly well aware.
Is it really too much to hope that an attack upon restrictive practices would now succeed? I should like to see published the details of restrictive practices, about which so many of us know bits and pieces, and then those who cling to them challenged to defend them in public. I fancy the trade unions would be surprised at how few young workers would support the old principle of protecting the job where it costs a great deal in industrial efficiency. I think those young people also have no tender feelings for the out-of-date managements who skimp their technical education and give the good jobs to those with influence rather than to those with qualifications. The time is ripe to attack all these restrictions, and that attack would be all the more likely to succeed if, at the same time, bold plans were announced for promoting growth

463
through much higher investment in the basic services. When I suggest that the time is ripe, what I mean is that the mood to act with vigour is a dividend that we might get from the upset in Brussels.
At the risk of repeating what I ventured to say to your Lordships in the debate on unemployment, I would say that I am quite convinced that the Government would do well to tell the people in the plainest terms just what additional investments in houses, schools, universities, roads, factories, power stations and so on, could be put in hand without danger to the pound, but provided that some restraint in incomes and current consumption were accepted. I hope that Ministers will not try to run, at one and the same time, a short-term policy of indiscriminate releases of purchasing power, and a long-term policy of more selective investment, if they do that, they will blur their purpose and will invite not enthusiasm but inflation.
There are many choices to be made. To give one example, is it better to make cosmetics and "pop" records cheaper and leave undoubtedly many millions in the pockets of the teenagers; or is it better to use that money to give the same young people a better education? Those are the sort of choices which the Government must make. On their decisions will depend whether the morale to which the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, referred, is as good as we all want it to be. I was most encouraged when my noble friend the Leader of the House told us the other day that he would press for more investment in the basic services in the North-East. That is the right policy for the whole country. But it will have to be paid for. It means more savings, and therefore some restraint and sense of responsibility by all of us. It was most difficult to carry that sort of argument to the people a year ago, as Mr. Selwyn Lloyd found out to his cost. But things have changed. The negotiations in Brussels are dead, and we have an opportunity now. One might perhaps repeat the words of one noble Lord in Shakespeare's Richard II:
" … even through the hollow eyes of death I spy life peering".
5.45 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Eccles, has again made a well-reasoned speech, although on this occasion, at least from the point of view of this side of the House, it was slightly more controversial than his previous one. I has been said that when the Common Market talks broke down we should face the situation as we did in 1940, in the spirit of Dunkirk. Perhaps that would be exaggerating the position of this country. But undoubtedly in industry and in all phases of our financial life, a spirit of Dunkirk, a determinatoin to go back and fight, would be extremely welcome. In fact, a New Zealand friend who has recently visited various industries in this country told me that he was pleased to see, not only among the directors of companies but even among the workers, a real determination to make a go, to make it possible for this country to expand. I believe that there is this spirit within the country. Perhaps it cannot be expressed by the ordinary working man, but I believe it to be there.
Patriotism is a thing that this country has always been known for. We appear to act at our best in difficult circumstances, and I would have hoped that in the present circumstance we would have had more leadership from Her Majesty's Government. It may well be that the Government had put their utmost confidence in our entry into the Common Market, and that they had not considered the alternatives; that may be the case. But if you are responsible in Government, or if you are responsible as a director of a company entering into negotiations, one major factor must be that, if you should fail in your deal or negotiations, at least you have an alternative plan available.
Two or three times this afternoon it has been said that we should continue to try again to open negotiations to enter the Common Market. I would suggest to the House that for at least a number of years that would not be wise. I wonder whether the Government have appreciated what may have been the cost to industry, to finance, not only in this country but also in the Commonwealth, because of the long-drawn-out negotiations in Brussels. I would draw the attention of the Government to their own balance-of-payments figures issued

465
in October, 1962. They said that our own trade with the Commonwealth continued to decline. In fact, it had declined in the last eighteen months to the tune of £66 million. Our exports and re-exports in January to June, 1961, were £741 million; in January to June. 1962, they were £675 million.
As one who is in the trade of exports to the Commonwealth, I speak with some experience when I say that while those negotiations were going on, and in view of the exhortations that were being made by Her Majesty's Government, many of our industries and many of our businesses turned their minds to exploring the possibilities of the Common Market, and did not in fact carry out the prosecution of their trade as they did previously in the Commonwealth. If it is said that our trade with the Commonwealth declined due to a retraction of Commonwealth trade, the figures are indeed interesting. During the period 1959 to 1961 the Commonwealth developed their purchases to the tune of £490 million; they increased their trade with Western Europe by £156 million, with North America by £216 million, and with the non-sterling area by £121 million. Our share of that was a mere £48 million. I see the invoices of merchandise going from Europe to Australia and New Zealand as I do those in relation to business from this country. The significant thing is that the Germans, the French and other European countries ship much the same articles as we do.
It is, I fear, a fact that we ourselves, particularly in the last eighteen months, in looking to Europe, have rather turned our backs on the Commonwealth and South America. We cannot get into Europe, and therefore we have to go back and recapture the share of the trade which we had in the Commonwealth, in EFTA and also in South America—though I realise that that is a very difficult area with which to trade. I think the House and the country should face up to the fact that Government policy aimed at stimulating our stagnant production is taking a very grave risk. As the noble Lord, Lord Eccles, has warned us, we should not proceed too fast. During 1962 this country incurred a deficit of £318 million in regard to visible trade, £302 million of which was incurred in the last six months of 1962. I wonder
466
what the figures for the first six months of 1963 will show? It may be that the "invisibles"—on which we have for so long depended to balance our payments position—may help us out, but we have very little margin to play with.
I would not go so far as to suggest that we should consider import controls, which would be difficult to operate. But we must face the fact that if we are going to release purchasing power in this country, and if we are to face the very heavy military expenditure which this Government have now undertaken in regard to Polaris and other military equipment in the United States, we must either develop our exports well above that recommended by "Neddy", a mere 5 per cent., or somehow budget on the basis of what we can import. I believe that if we could spread out our military commitments, if we could develop our own trade so as to make it really competitive, and if we could also develop our exports we should not need to consider import control. This whole matter will depend on our ability to develop exports. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Eccles, that we should turn our backs on the question of devaluation. In the past it has afforded only a short-term advantage during critical periods. We should also have to take account of such a course upon Commonwealth countries in the sterling area, particularly those countries producing primary products whose prices are very low indeed. Devaluation at the present moment would have a savage effect on many of our Commonwealth friends.
The Government could do a number of things to help exports. First, we have to get ourselves into the spirit of exports. This involves a very difficult decision to be made by a board of directors, particularly in those efficient firms supported by the big chain stores which could well do more in the export market. At home they have a distributive and retail organisation in which there are fixed prices, which provide comfortable margins to retailers and manufacturers. I would agree with Lord Eccles that we must deal with this matter of fixed prices. If we are to have competition, let there be full competition. As "Neddy" so clearly says in its Report, if home prices can be brought down to the export price, then the manufacturers will look to the

467
export markets for increased turnover. At the present time the home market has been so comfortable that the efficient firms have had little need to look to the export markets to keep their machines going.
However, I do not think that this in itself will be sufficient. Something will have to be done about incentives. I remember discussing this point with the noble Viscount, Lord Mills, on a previous occasion, when I was opposed to it. But I believe that circumstances have changed considerably since then. I would suggest to the Government that as soon as possible—perhaps in the Budget—they should put company taxes and individual taxes on a different basis. This would allow considerable flexibility in giving inducement and incentive to company executives who have to go out into the byways of the world markets to secure business—and they do need an incentive. In this way tax concessions could be given to executives in the higher income bracket, without necessarily having to make the same concessions to companies. Having adopted that system, the Government could then go a stage further and levy a different rate of tax according to the proportion in which a company indulged in export markets. Whilst the home and export prices may well be in line the overheads are not the same, because to operate in an export market involves infinitely more expense than operating at home, having regard to overseas travel, overseas agencies, and many other things.
Would the Government, in order to help the smaller companies who perhaps are setting out for the first time in the export market, consider treating overseas travel of executives or directors, which has been approved by a board, in some way similar to capital equipment, whereby the depreciation, or the write-down of that depreciation, is spread over a number of years? The expenditure would not then, as at present, have to be included for tax purposes in the accounts for the year in which the travel was undertaken. If a man goes to Australia, and has five or six weeks' extensive traveling—and, with it, entertainment—it may involve the company concerned in the expenditure of £2,000 to £3,000. This is a very considerable sum to a company wishing to set out into the export market. I think
468
that, if these small gestures to exporters could be adopted, and with leadership, more companies would be persuaded to go into the export business.
Here I would say to the Government that I wish they would stop saying that our future in exports depends upon sophisticated goods, such as electronic equipment and computers. The export trade of this country will depend to some extent on those, but I believe that it will depend in the main on the general merchandise that we produce. I can give two examples. Recently when I returned from Australia I had some samples of plastics that were being shipped from Japan to Australia. Those I showed to a leading firm in this country. I gave them the price, and I was very surprised to find that they were able to get very close to the price—sufficiently close, indeed, for my Australian friends to place their first order, which was in the region of £40,000. Here was an example of the will of a British manufacturer to get into the Australian market.
I could quote another example of a textile firm—one of those which have suffered, perhaps, more than any other of our industries in the export trade. This firm was determined to remain in Malaya, and it created the qualities of cloth which the market required. It was able, by a sacrifice, to meet the price. It maintained its turnover at £100,000 and has done so since 1950, at least. My Lords, those are two examples of companies which were not prepared to be talked out of the export market. They went in and were able to achieve what they wanted. Therefore I hope that the Government will stress the fact that if you are efficient, no matter what you produce, and if it is an article that is bought in any of the Commonwealth or overseas markets, you can trade.
There is much that could be said. I should have loved to cross swords with my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth on the question of the Socialist approach to the Common Market. As one who looks on the Common Market not necessarily from British eyes, but from the viewpoint of the Commonwealth, I cannot help saying that it appears to me to be rather a rich cartel of nations, which will, perhaps one day, be outward-looking. But since they have treated our application as they have

469
done, there does not seem much hope that in the end they will prove outward-looking, so far as the countries of Africa, Asia, Australia or New Zealand are concerned. I believe that, if there were to be a trading group, it should not be with the narrow European concept. I would have accepted, I would have supported, the Atlantic Alliance, into which would have been brought the United States and Canada, because I believe that it would then have proved outward-looking due to its diversification.
My Lords, I personally am not sorry that we are not going into the Common Market. I believe that we have a great chance here. We have had some of the wool pulled away from our eyes. I hope that we shall foster the spirit of Dunkirk. We are not alone. We were not alone at Dunkirk. There is a lot of good will towards us in the Commonwealth, and there is a lot of good will in many other countries. Many would wish to trade with us if we were prepared to trade with them. I believe that if the Government will create the conditions, and if management and workers are determined to make this country great, nothing in Europe will prevent us. I believe that the future is ours.
6.6 p.m.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, in view of the very large number of speakers to-night I have said that I will speak for only a very few minutes, so my contribution to what I am afraid has been aptly referred to as a memorial service will take the form of a series of unsupported assertions which may nevertheless commend themselves to your Lordships—or some of you. The first point I would make is that I think it must be obvious to all reasonable people that the Government were quite right to apply for membership of the E.E.C. in August, 1951, and thereafter to try to negotiate their way in. Nobody, I think, has disputed that to-day in this House; I hardly think it can be disputed. Just think what would have happened if they had not done this! Just think of the flood of legitimate criticism to which they would have been subjected by practically everybody in all Parties!
Nor can anybody say, I think, that the eighteen-months-long negotiations were not extremely valuable, at least
470
in that they disentangled the real issues and prepared the ground on which any future agreement must inevitably rest. I think that can hardly be disputed. No fair-minded person, either, can further assert that it was the Government's fault that the negotiations broke down. They broke down because General de Gaulle thought that they were going to succeed; he did not want the United Kingdom to come in now, for purely political reasons. All this, I think is common ground.
Now it is perhaps arguable that if the political nettle had been seized earlier in the negotiations, success might have resulted. A noble Lord made that suggestion earlier in the debate, but I am afraid I have forgotten who it was. But for this argument to be sustained, it would be necessary to know exactly what happened in the many secret talks between the Prime Minister and General de Gaulle. Since we do not, and we cannot, know the full details of these conversations, we cannot, I think, legitimately criticise the Government under this heading, either. All we do know is that, rightly or wrongly, General de Gaulle apparently believes that the Bahamas Agreement is not consonant with the entry of this country into the European Economic Community.
Now it may be that that was just an excuse on the General's part, and that he was determined to prevent our entry into the Community whatever we did. Frankly, I doubt this. I think that even now, if he thought we really favoured a political and defence machine in Europe which could function, he might even reverse, gradually perhaps, his veto. But if the Brussels negotiations were ever reopened—and I imagine all noble Lords will agree that in practice they cannot be reopened until our next General Election in this country is over—I think it would not only be General de Gaulle who would continue to prove a very tough economic bargainer: it would be the representative of any French Government which might conceivably have taken the place of the Government of General de Gaulle.
Meanwhile, I think General de Gaulle will try to get on with the organisation of Europe on his own plan—that is to say, on the sole effective basis of the Franco-German Treaty; and though we cannot object, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, said, nor

471
do we object, to the conclusion of this Treaty as such (we are all for friendship between these two great nations, who have quarrelled so often), I think we must nevertheless admit that if Europe is really going to be organised on this basis it is going to be on the basis of a strong appeal to nationalist and indeed, I am afraid, to anti-British feelings. That is the danger. Therefore, it will, I think, be a horribly dangerous experiment. It may even result—and we must admit this—in the break-up of the Community, and even, perhaps, in the breakup of the Western Alliance.
Nevertheless, it would obviously be wrong for us now to work consciously to disrupt the progress and the development of the Community itself, for, after all, if the E.E.C. broke up, there might well be other dangers for the Alliance. What we should do in the first place is to go on trying to revive our economy by all the ingenious means suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, the noble Lord, Lord Eccles, and others, including, if you like (and I think that probably it is very necessary, so far as it can be appealed to), an appeal to something like the Dunkirk spirit—"We are up against the world, and we must show them where they get off"—which would be very healthy; including, also, doing everything we possibly can to stimulate our exports. But, in addition—and here I am not sure I am on the side of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd—what I think we should do—collectively, I mean—is to go on saying that the people of this country still feel that the best hope for the future is the entry of Great Britain into the European Economic Community on the broad terms which, as will be seen from the document which the Foreign Secretary quoted just now, seemed attainable in Brussels a month or two ago—namely, terms enabling Commonwealth trade and trade with the rest of the world to be satisfactorily developed at the same time as our entry is organised into the Community itself.
Furthermore—and this, I think, should be the other side of our long-term policy—we should make clear our desire to come into a European political and defence Community that makes sense; that is to say, one comprising a small and a workable council, acting by some
472
form of majority vote and, in the absence of disarmament, with a European deterrent, however large or small it may be, at its disposal, the whole firmly within the framework of the Western Alliance. Here, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, that we should, if possible, between now and then, accept no long-term defence commitments which would make it impossible one day to attain this European end.
Such objectives as I have been describing are the objectives for which, in any case, the small organisations over which I have the honour to preside will continue to press. I believe that, as the dangers of the United Kingdom's exclusion from Europe become more and more apparent bath here and on the Continent, and as the extreme difficulties of organising any so-called multilateral NATO deterrent which is anything more than a snare and a delusion become increasingly evident, so the desirability of relaunching the great European conception on new lines and under better auspices will once again present itself, and we shall eventually achieve that unified, democratic, confident and outward-looking Europe which is still the best hope of this country and, indeed, the hope of all mankind.
6.15 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I cannot agree with the description of the noble Lord, Lord Eccles, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, that this debate is necessarily akin to a memorial service. A memorial service is always a sad occasion. To some, at any rate, this is a more joyous occasion, in that we see propects of entering into a new and fuller life.
LORD GLADWYN: If I may interrupt the noble Lord, I said it certainly was a memorial service; but it is clearly a joyous occasion for the noble Lord.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: No: a joyous occasion in that I think we shall have greater opportunities.
My Lords, I think the theme of this debate, illuminated as it has been by the speech of my noble friend the Foreign Secretary, has been, "Brussels is dead—long live opportunity and triumph!" Because from all sides of

473
the House your Lordships have been saying that this is an opportunity for rethinking and for a re-dedication. By all means let us agree to go forward with, as the Foreign Secretary said, no post-mortem, whatever our part may have been, because we must truly combine for the future. But I think we should be clear on one thing. Let those who are most disappointed, the most ardent supporters of Britain's entry into the Common Market, even if they do, quite naturally, feel disappointed, and even resentful, have no thoughts or reservations that at some future time we can pick up the negotiations where they were left off and start with them again. Because if that thought is allowed to enter the minds of any of us we shall continue to find—as has been the fact for the last eighteen months—that our political and economic thinking is dominated by Europe. While, of course, one has no thoughts of severance from Europe, I am convinced that looking back over one's shoulder, with regrets at opportunities that might have been taken, will only revive stagnation and uncertainty. That is why I take such issue with the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, who I think desires to continue to encourage hopes that we shall be able to pick up the negotiations where they were left off (I presume he means where they were left off) and succeed where we have just failed.
LORD GLADWYN: If the noble Lord will allow me to intervene for a moment, I should certainly say that if negotiations are resumed (and I hope indeed that one day they will be resumed, though it may not be for a year or two), it can be only on the broad basis of the agreement which was nearly reached at Brussels and if that broad basis is not acceptable to us, then surely we shall not be able to resume negotiations at all.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: thank the noble Lord. That is where I take issue with him. I feel it would be a great mistake if we were to let our minds be constantly diverted from our present and future tasks by looking over our shoulders all the time, hoping that we can job backwards to a position which we have just lost.
The Foreign Secretary's plea for looking forward was supported by the point he made, that no-one will ever really
474
know whether the negotiations would or would not have succeeded. I took the point; but I would say, with respect—and I am glad that, for my next remarks, the Foreign Secretary is not here—that the point would be more acceptable if some of his colleagues in the Government would cease talking in their speeches as if everything had been decided except for the wickedness of General de Gaulle, because that is not in accord with what the Foreign Secretary has been telling us today. The Foreign Secretary said: "No more long negotiations"—and I am sure that we agree with him. But let us take one more resolve: that we shall never again see British Ministers put in the undignified position in which the Lord Privy Seal (who conducted these negotiations with great courage and thoroughness) was put. He, and through him the British nation, was put in a most undignified position—waiting on the doorstep to be allowed admission into the rooms. It is, as noble Lords have said, time for new measures, and the cut is clear.
But apparently the Government, from the answers given to two questions I put yesterday, still hold firmly to their trade policies of non-discriminatory trade on an international multilateral basis. This policy has not stopped a series of balance-of-payments crises under several Chancellors of the Exchequer during the past few years. Nor has that policy succeeded in any way in insulating us from the immediate and rapid effects of a fall in world trade. So to-day we see figures of unemployment which have distressed noble Lords on every side of the House. I was encouraged, however, to see the first glimmerings of a breakthrough from that passionate adherence to international multilaterialism in the speech of the Foreign Secretary, when he said that if the "Kennedy round" does not fulfil its aims and objects then much re-thinking on trade policies will have to be done by all countries. My comment is: must we wait for this?
The theme of many of your Lordships speeches to-day, on both sides of the House, has been Commonwealth, EFTA, and then, perhaps, an approach to the Six on a far wider and bolder basis than before. I listened with great interest to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Eccles. He said that big plans were needed for growth. He had little faith

475
in future developments from the forthcoming GATT meeting. He spoke of the need for patience, for selling ourselves abroad: but after that, I thought if I may say so the speech rather fell away, because the noble Lord then recounted a most formidable list of nothing new at all. These were desirable generalities to which we all subscribed. He reminded me of a horse which comes to a big jump; looks at it, does not like it, turns away and goes back along the well-tried and well trodden paths.
My Lords, my final point is that everyone agrees with the Foreign Secretary's main point—to be enthusiastic and to be efficient, in or out of the Common Market. It is the prime need, and it is the Government's task to lead. My only reservation is this. Can those who have sacrificed so much, who have staked so much, who have believed so firmly in the policy of Britain's entry into the Common Market, be the men to inspire and guide in Government policies in other directions? Will not their bitter disappointments involve them emotionally, so that one would be inclined to ask whether their great abilities would not be better directed in other channels of Government activity, rather than that they should be expected to do an about-turn and forget that which meant so much to them? That is the question that I put, with all humility; and naturally I do not expect any answer from the noble Earl who is going to reply, because that is a matter on which one Minister could not comment. It is, if I may say so, essentially a matter that a private Member is entitled to put forward. This is a time of great opportunity. There are many speakers, so I will curtail any remarks I might have made about the fiscal opportunities that the Commonwealth gives this country; but they are there for us all to see if we read the past trade figures in Europe and in the Commonwealth. I believe that the hope lies in Britain, the Commonwealth and EFTA making a combination which will be an unbeatable one as regards successful trading in the world.
6.28 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just sat down posed a very pertinent question to the Government which I very much hope that, even
476
if the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, is not in a position to answer, others will do so. I hope the noble Lord did not direct it simply to those individual Ministers closely connected with the negotiations for the Common Market, but that it was directed towards the whole of the Government whose entire policy was identified with the Common Market. It is a question I should like to see put to them from the country as a whole.
The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, and other noble Lords made considerable mention of the Commonwealth and its position now that we are no longer in a position to enter the Common Market. That is not surprising because a great deal of the discussions which went on in the preceding months was concerned with the Commonwealth. Those of us who, like myself, hoped to see us enter the Common Market were extremely concerned (and took pains to say so) that the interests of the Commonwealth must be safeguarded. Those opposed to our entry made one of their main planks for opposition the fact that the Commonwealth would be abandoned. Both sides are now presented with a situation where we are not likely to enter the Common Market for some time to come; but both sides—those who wished us to enter, provided we could safeguard the Commonwealth interests, and those against our entry because we could not safeguard the Commonwealth—are confronted with this fact.
Now we have both committed ourselves to safeguard the Commonwealth and to strengthen and increase the ties with the Commonwealth, what do we propose to do about it? That is a very specific question which inevitably arises out of this particular situation. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, gave in his extremely interesting speech some useful and valuable figures concerning the decline of Commonwealth trade that clearly have significance in this particular context.
Earlier, my noble friend Lord Williams of Barnburgh explained in his inimitable way what I hope and imagine most of us already appreciate, the need for the farmers of this country to have certain things, in particular to have security, remunerative prices and guaranteed markets—in other words, the guaranteed prices of the 1947 Agriculture Act.

477
Whether, in fact, the ideas of that Act first arose in the brain of the late Lord Hudson or in the brain of my noble friend, or in a combination of their brains and other people's, I do not think many people will deny that it was under my noble friend's Ministership that such principles were put into force for the first time in the peace-time history of this country. That is what British farmers require, and it is not surprising that farmers overseas require the same things, even farmers in all parts of the Commonwealth. If we are going to fulfil our pledges to the Commonwealth, we must take into account this overriding need of the majority of people living in the Commonwealth. The Foreign Secretary said:
"Much of The health and wealth of this country depends upon keeping a sturdy rural population".
That, of course, is true. Do not let us forget that 75 per cent., even 80 per cent., of the population of the countries of the Commonwealth are rural, and if we are to keep them sturdy, they must have a fair amount of wealth. Therefore, as the largest buyer of Commonwealth produce and as the country with the greatest responsibility towards the Commonwealth, clearly we have a large part to play.
It is no good simply relying on the existing systems of Commonwealth preference and the rest, which have not stood the strain too well. They have not led to prosperity throughout the Commonwealth and to a strengthening of the ties of Commonwealth. In fact, they have led to the reverse. We must look elsewhere, as the noble Lord, Lord Eccles, suggested in talking of our own domestic agricultural policy, to a new form of commercial association with the Commonwealth, if we are to fulfil what in fact are pledges, albeit unwritten, to the members of the Commonwealth. I suggest that the way in which this can be done is by some form, depending on the commodity, of long-term purchasing agreements. We may call them commodity agreements, though there is considerable difference of opinion about what "a commodity agreement" means. I do not mean an association of producers of a certain commodity, such as the association of coffee producers which is taking place whereby they can agree among themselves that they will not sell
478
below a certain price. Possibly that has some value, if nothing better can be thought out, but for us, as the main purchasers, it is not the type of agreement into which we should enter. Our agreement should be much more specific, along the lines of the existing Commonwealth Sugar Agreement.
This is not in any way an airy-fairy theoretical idea. It has been proved to work and, with your Lordships' permission, I will give some figures which show just what happens under such a system. Before I do so, I would give some figures of a commodity, which affects certain areas of the Commonwealth closely, which is not subject to any such agreement and concerning which the free play of economic forces has full power. That commodity is cocoa, an extremely important one in many parts of the Commonwealth and, in particular, in West Africa. Over the past ten years, the price of cocoa has fluctuated to an extraordinary extent. It reached its highest in 1954, with a price of 562s. 6d. per ton—£28, let us call it. Three years later, it was at its lowest, with a price of 178s. 9d.—in other words, £9 compared with £28, a fluctuation in three years of over 300 per cent. During that time the crop also fluctuated. There was not a particularly large crop when price was low and vice versa.
If we take Ghana as an example we find that in 1954 its gross income from cocoa amounted to £5·7 million and in 1957 it had dropped to £2·6 million. I ask your Lordships to consider the effect upon a developing country, which one year finds itself with an income of over £5 million and three years later finds itself with an income of not very much more than one-third of that. How can it plan, develop its own resources, build its own railways, roads, schools and hospitals? And how can the actual producers of cocoa, even though they are buffered to some extent by equalisation payments inside their own economy, plan in any efficient way, improve their efficiency, adopt new methods and pay higher wages? It is manifestly impossible.
Now let us turn to another commodity, sugar, regarding which the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement is in operation, and, to make the comparison somewhat similar, let us restrict our view to the area of the West Indies. There, in the

479
last five years, from 1958 to 1963, the prices varied, it is true, but only within the range of £37 to £41 per ton, a variation of approximately 10 per cent.; whereas, during the same period, the world prices on the free market varied from between £16 to £50 a ton, a variation of approximately 300 per cent. Again, just as we looked at Ghana, let us look at Barbados, where sugar is virtually the sole export—at any rate, by far the most important. The total production of sugar sold for export is, in round figures, 150,000 tons a year and the range of the total national income from sugar is between £5½ and £6¼ million, a perfectly fair and reasonable range, enabling the country to plan in the way we should like to see members of the Commonwealth and other underdeveloped countries planning their general evolution. Had Barbados not been the beneficiary of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement but subjected to the wild fluctuations of world prices, its national income would have varied from something under £2½ million to something over £7½ million. Its total income over the period would not necessarily have been significantly different, but its year to year variation would have been of the order of 300 per cent.
I suggest to your Lordships that, if we are in any way sincere and serious in our desire to do something to help the Commonwealth, as we appeared to be when making arguments for bargaining purposes about the Common Market, we have here a clear blueprint of how this can be done. I do not say that we can follow explicitly every single section of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. Clearly it depends on the elasticity of demand, the variation in the time it takes for Drops to mature and the harvest yield, but we have that blueprint which we can follow, and which we must follow if we really do mean to do something for the Commonwealth, let alone for the underdeveloped countries in other parts of the world, and not only the underdeveloped countries, but also countries like New Zealand, which, after all, is not in so very different a case in its dependence upon this country to take its main exports.
If we wish to see that happening, we can no longer simply say: "All right.
480
We will give the Commonwealth a little Commonwealth preference here and there, we will dole them out a little assistance in one form or another, but otherwise we shall go on as we were." We know now, as the noble Lord, Lord Eccles, said, in connection with agriculture, the new look towards this problem of how to deal with the primary producer in the Commonwealth; and I sincerely hope the valuable and good lessons we have learned from the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement will be followed, not only for economic reasons but for the important social and welfare reasons as well.
6.41 p.m.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I know that there are many speakers after me, and I will be brief. I agree with many noble Lords that this debate should not be thought of as a memorial service. At the same time, I profoundly disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, in looking at it as a cause for rejoicing. To me, the end of the Brussels talks is a serious economic and political setback for this country, for Europe, for the Commonwealth and, indeed, for the Western world. We and most of the other countries of Europe were seeking the means of getting together, particularly on a political and economic basis, which would have buried the rivalries and misunderstandings of many centuries. Something like that must involve long negotiations, and eighteen months was no long time for such negotiations. But this high purpose, the unity of Europe, has been shattered, and we are back in the tragic days of power politics in Europe. If proof of that were needed, I think it would be shown by the action of General de Gaulle immediately after the breakdown of the talks, when he, without consulting any of his colleagues in the Six, asked Denmark whether she would join with him. That, surely, is old-fashioned power politics and not in the spirit of to-day. I think it reveals a serious situation.
I would, first of all, touch on what I consider should be done on the economic front. I do this because if you have not a strong home economy, then your chance of having any real influence in the political world is very small. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, and others, that

481
the first and most important thing for us is to be efficient at home. One of our great boasts has always been that we are a great industrial nation; and this is true; but I suspect that of the great industrial nations our tariffs on manufactured goods coming into this country are far higher than anyone else's, and that is a situation of which we cannot be proud. Therefore, the first thing we have to do to get efficiency is to slash our tariffs. I suggest that we might do this in the "Kennedy round", or perhaps we can do it in bilateral arrangements with Commonwealth or other countries. But that we do it is, I am sure, essential.
In doing this, there is something else that we must do at the same time—namely, give every encouragement to our exporters. Various noble Lords have given some indication of how this might be done. I would only say that if, in giving encouragement to our exporters, somebody in GATT challenges our action, we should say to them: "What is the purpose of GATT? GATT is to increase trade. We are doing just that. We have slashed our tariffs and for the time being we have to take these measures to live and to increase our exports." I should hope that it would not come to this, because our purpose in doing so would be obvious. In this I feel very much with the noble Lord, Lord Eccles, and the noble Lord, Lord Walston, that particular arrangements might be possible, either with the Commonwealth or on particular commodities to help us forward.
One point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Eccles, that I wish to echo, and that was when he spoke of the question of devaluation. To me, devaluation is no cure of our economic ills; it is indeed the exact opposite. Devaluation is a palliative, occasionally necessary when the patient is very ill; but it is no fundamental or basic help towards efficiency. If you have the temporary advantage of devaluation, then industry and the workers for the time being, as it were, are sheltered from the need to be efficient. One achieves nothing by it except suffering, and I would say it is almost a dishonest purpose in relation to the Commonwealth. So I hope we shall not think of devaluation as a possible answer to our troubles.
482
Let me now turn for a moment to the political side. What are we to do in Europe? Here I am not going to mention the Commonwealth or the United States, because in anything that we do I know we shall always have their goodwill and their interests in mind. What I suggest is that we must work out with our friends in Europe, whether it be the Five out of the Six or the majority of the EFTA countries, something positive which keeps us together. The original concept of the European Economic Community was to have an economic base, and from that base to build up to a political unity. That is denied us. Now we must try to go from the top down, as I see it; that is, to work at the political concept and hope that over a period of time this will flow downwards also into the economic side. So far as I know, there is nothing in the Treaty of Rome which prevents such political working together.
The question is: what form should this take? The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, in a letter to The Times, and various other people have made suggestions as to what might be done. The Foreign Secretary mentioned such bodies as W.E.U., NATO and EFTA and general bilateral arrangements. I have no particular brief for one or the other. I have some doubt about W.E.U., because that is old bones, and I think it is difficult to revive old bones. Anyhow, it is a restricted body, only of seven of us, whereas I think we want, if possible, to include one or two other of the European countries. To get it extended for that purpose, with France in her present frame of mind, would be difficult.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, if I may intervene for one moment, I do not think the suggestion was made by anybody that W.E.U. should build up into a kind of new political unity, but rather that through W.E.U., which includes ourselves and the Six, it might be possible at some stage to discuss these new possibilities.
THE EARL OF PERTH: In so far as anything is discussed on this subject, I am all for it; but I personally should like to see us try to build something new and novel which would enable the other nations of our mind as to the importance of the unity of Europe all to come together.

483
Now what can one suggest? There are various possibilities. One that occurs to me is that the various Foreign Secretaries of the nations who are so inclined could undertake—and I emphasise the word "undertake"—to meet together, say once or twice in a year, to discuss the problem of European unity. Because Foreign Secretaries are very busy people, I would suggest that they might have these meetings at, say, a week-end. I know from my own experience that there is a European institute of private bankers which meets twice a year at week-ends to discuss problems of common interest, and they are careful to choose the place of their meeting at a pleasant place, let us say Italy in the spring, or some such place, so that as well as business there is some degree of pleasure in it. Perhaps if the Foreign Secretaries were to meet as a club, as it were, to this end, it might have some value.
It would not be necessary to have any elaborate machinery attached to this club. There would need to be a small secretariat whose purpose would be to see that none of the nations undertook steps which would make European unity at a later date either difficult or impossible. That would not rule out arrangements we might make whether with the Commonwealth, with EFTA or with the United States in the meantime, but would avoid doing something which would stop progress the day when one could resume the talks. It would be, as it were, a Foreign Secretaries' club, with the purpose of the ultimate unity of Europe. That is just one thought. There are others which easily could be considered. The point I want to emphasise, and what I believe is essential, is that at this moment we should capitalise and have a concrete and positive form in which we could turn the goodwill of all our European friends, who are distressed at what has happened and who are anxious to see us alongside them in the future, to good purpose.
6.53 p.m.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, last year France achieved an end to the war in Algeria, and many of your Lordships—I expect all your Lordships—shared the intense relief that I felt when that bitter, bloody business was brought to a conclusion. No one of lesser stature or lesser authority than
484
General de Gaulle could have achieved that end. We must remember, however, that the ending of the Algerian war was an intense pain for France. We must not think of it in terms of our very dignified surrender to our former Colonies of devolution of responsibility. Algeria was an integral part of France and of French history, and there were 1½ million persons of European origin living there.
Ten days ago, I listened to a broadcast—not the one in everybody's mind—on the Third programme entitled "France Looks at Algeria". I do not know whether the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, heard it. I hope somebody in the Foreign Office paid attention to that broadcast. Nearly all the distinguished Frenchmen who participated in that programme spoke of the loss of Algeria as "la blessure"—the wounding. They spoke of France being in mourning for Algeria. Those wounds are healing; but a wounded man is a sensitive man, a man who has a claim to have his feelings respected, and who will resent disrespect for his feelings. At this moment it is quite unusally important that we should mind our manners and our dignity, and perhaps have in mind some of our old friendship when we are dealing with the French. I do not think that is a wholly irrelevant commencement to a speech on the present situation.
To come to the Press Conference at which General de Gaulle expressed his veto of our entry into the Common Market, there was no one more sad at that Conference than I was, unless it be my noble friend Lord Gladwyn. But I regretted the phrase the noble Lord, Lord Eccles, used, which suggested that General de Gaulle was paying off old scores. I do not think that is fair. I do not think it is constructive to regard his action in any such terms as those. The General mentioned at least two arguments to which we ought to pay attention. He reminded his hearers that England was an island—and so we are. In my lifetime England has become a much less insular place than it used to be. Still, we have to-day a great many insular traits. The General quoted Sir Winston Churchill—not a bad authority to quote. He quoted Sir Winston to the effect that Britain would always in the last resort prefer maritime

485
interests to Continental interests. Perhaps the General was a little influenced by the fact that at that moment we were not quite fulfilling our NATO commitments, while a great part of our Army had just been placed on 72 hours' notice for the jungles of Malaya. I do not know that we can dispute the truth of the statement which General de Gaulle quoted.
We have to remember that it is substantially true to say of the United Nations, that only two, Britain and Portugal, have not yet succeeded in liquidating their overseas military commitments, while the great and largely battle-hardened army of France is at home and available for European purposes, and the well-armed, very well-equipped army of Germany is her ally. The General probably looked further. He knew that the state of opinion in this country was deeply and about evenly divided. I have had a document from a body called National Opinion Polls. Your Lordships have no doubt also received it. It shows that for two months—December and January, I think they were—opinion on the Common Market in England was exactly even. The "Don't knows" were decreasing, but they were joining in equal proportion with the friends and the opponents of the Common Market.
Some of us want England to be more European, and some of us do not. I do not think anybody wants Britain to be half-heartedly European, and that was the risk that we were taking and would have taken if, in our state of opinion then, we had entered the Common Market as a full member. We shall be discussing the Bahamas Agreement next week, but, of course, that had its effect upon the General's mind.
As for the NATO deterrent, to which allusion has been made, I think it would be very unwise and quite fruitless to hold any further discussions about the NATO deterrent in the absence of France. Unless France is coming into the NATO deterrent there will not be a NATO deterrent; and I do not think we shall get France in by making plans to which she has not yet assented or which she has not been invited to help form. However, General de Gaulle did, in the course of that Press conference, assure Great Britain in quite friendly terms that our trade interests could be cared for by a formula of
486
association. We have surely to pay a good deal of attention to that formula. I am very glad to say that the Lord Privy Seal, with his usual good sense, indicated that he was willing to discuss a formula of commercial association, and he made a fairly reasonable condition that it should be offered to us without too much delay and unanimously by the Six. I will return to that subject in a moment.
After the speech at the Press conference there occurred another episode in which the great granddaughter of King Edward the Peacemaker was denied the opportunity to play the ancestral rôle. I was not very content with that decision. A little later we had a statement by the French Minister of Information which mentioned the possibility of British association with the Community, in altogether less inviting terms. I do not know how we can reconcile the words of the French Head of State with the words of his Minister of Information. For my part I would rather trust the "boss". We are at least willing under some conditions to discuss the possibility of an industrial free trade area and some form of association with the Six, and I trust that our decision to sit quietly until we are approached does not wholly exclude the possibility of some discreet diplomatic initiative. I hope that it does not exclude what my noble and gallant friend Lord Robertson of Oakridge described as "quiet negotiation and proving". Even if you fold your arms you can still twiddle your fingers a little, and I suggest that is a consideration which may have its importance at the present moment.
Then we had the Geneva Conference of the EFTA Powers. On August 1 last year the noble Earl, Lord Home, reminded us that most of the EFTA countries had made their applications for association with the Common Market; so, incidentally, had the Irish Republic. I have not heard that those negotiations have been, or are likely to be, withdrawn. It was, of course, a profound disappointment to our EFTA partners that our application was refused. We have to be loyal to them—the Government have often said so—and we must remember that what would really suit them would be our association with the Community, an economic association, which would enable them to trade in whichever market suited them best. I am glad that the Conference

487
was successful in so far that a resolution of general tariff abolition was arrived at. That is very much on the good side, but it must be remembered that some awkward questions were raised there. It must be remembered that Austria, for special reasons, no doubt, kept a rather pregnant silence; and our Danish friends raised the question of butter. What a difficult Chateau Gaillard is the butter question! In the long run, is there not a likelihood that these Continental countries will feel the magnetic pull of the Great free trade market of the Community? It is the ambition of every trader to-day to load his own goods on to his own lorry and send it along a motorway to the headquarters of his purchaser, and that applies very strongly indeed to Denmark, Switzerland and Austria. It is very difficult for me, who has been in Basle and seen their great port, to envisage Switzerland permanently cut off from the Rhineland by a tariff barrier. I would suggest as a theme for meditation that in this age of ours, with the coming of the lorry and the motorway, a Continental age in commerce, and perhaps in other things, has arrived, and that the oceanic age of the past few centuries is departing.
My Lords, since then we have had another very regrettable incident to mar our relations with France. I do not want to say much about that because the French, so far as we can judge from their immediate reactions, have treated the matter with a quite admirable sangfroid. Perhaps I will imitate other speakers and leave unsaid many things I would say, but I do regret very deeply anything that mars those relations, particularly at this critical moment. I do not myself believe that we can turn our backs on Europe in any permanent sense; and even at a memorial service it is customary to mention the possibility of resurrection. What alternatives have we? I am not going to be either optimistic or pessimistic about the possibilities of increased Commonwealth trade. Some months hence we shall be holding an Imperial Economic Conference and we shall know more about it. I am never very optimistic about tariff reductions under the "Kennedy round". It is fortunate that President Kennedy has secured a certain freedom of action from his Congress, but it is always difficult to persuade countries
488
to reduce their tariffs, which they consider necessary for the protection of their industries.
But I am going to be, I expect, a very lone voice in pleading that we should not forget that France was our Ally in one war and that Free France was our Ally in another, and that we once had a cordial understanding with her—it was sometimes cordial; sometimes it was understanding. We should at least not quite abandon that hope; and even if sentiment does not enter into the matter at all, let us remember, leaving aside the rather foolish talk there has been about French domination of Europe and power politics, that France is the strongest of European countries, that she has an alliance with Germany, and that we shall do very imprudently if we allow too severe a breach to occur in our relations.
7.12 p.m.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, I have always found it very difficult to understand what all these enormous numbers of initials mean and I was therefore delighted to hear the translation of W.E.U. as "old bones". I find I have been a member of "old bones" for quite a period, and if, as a member of "old bones", I might venture a few remarks I will not keep your Lordships very long; it is getting rather late. I entirely agree with the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh: I think to allow ourselves to be jockeyed into positions where we display the grossest bad manners to, whatever else he is, certainly the greatest Frenchman there has been for a very long time, is deplorable. I cannot say that too strongly. Many of us do not agree with him, but that does not make any difference.
This debate has been described as many things, a memorial service and so on, but I do not so regard it at all. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, has forgotten the debt that my countrymen owe to the spider and the significance of the spider. I would say we have been indulging in a boxing match and we have been knocked out. That has happened to many of us who have boxed, but it does not stop our boxing again. I would go on from that and say that if Her Majesty's Government had decided that to go into Europe, provided we could get proper

489
terms, was the best policy, the fact that we did not get those terms does not alter the policy one jot or tittle; it still remains the best policy provided we can get the terms. It is perfectly true that we shall not be able in a year or two's time to go on with the negotiations where we left off. But if one adopts that school of thought we must do all we can to move in the same direction as the Six are moving themselves. We must endeavour to keep in step. We must endeavour to do nothing which will conflict with the possibility of later being able to get in at short notice. That, of course, presupposes that you agree with the policy, and I stand here as an unrepentant European in its widest sense. I was convinced before, after very careful thought, that the policy was right; I remain convinced. The mere fact that we have been knocked out has nothing to do with it at all.
Perhaps I may say a few words on the agricultural side. We started off with a good "wallop" of agriculture; it is a subject in which I am keenly interested, and I should like to enlarge slightly on that aspect. Mr. Pisani, who was (I think he still is) Minister of Agriculture in France says in general round terms—I will not bore your Lordships with all the figures—that there is no such thing as a true world market price. He gives overall figures that show that, in his opinion, from wherever he got his statistics, of the total temperate food produced in the world only 10 per cent. comes on to the surplus market or the world market. Again in general terms, he says that the price at which that surplus is sold is 70 per cent. of the production cost. That is putting everything together, and it is too late to do anything other than that now. But if that is true, the French attitude is that we are parasitically living off the backs of the suppliers of those commodities, who are selling their surpluses at the best price they can get. We are keeping the prices down, which is keeping our cost of living lower than that of France, who does not import much food. Thus we are getting an unfair advantage by having a cheaper cost of living in the industrial field. That may or may not be true, but he stated that in public as the French idea of what is going on.
If there is anything in that idea, I would suggest it is high time we stood
490
on our own feet. I would not challenge anybody who said that our system of support for agriculture was the best for us at the moment. I think it is. But I would say it is entirely unsuitable for the whole of Europe; and if we go into Europe, while we must protect our farmers we must regard ourselves as European farmers, and we shall have to move towards a system which will not be totally unsuitable for Europe. At the same time we must maintain price levels which will not be to the detriment of our own farmers.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, on that point—it is a very interesting point—how does it really work out? The noble Viscount refers to agriculture in the rest of Europe and how it compares with ours. But there is no nation in the world which imports the quantity we import. We go on importing food not only from the Commonwealth but from many other places, and there is no real reason, therefore, to compare us to the other countries of the Six in Europe in that respect. That is why farmers resent so much what has been said by the Minister of Agriculture: that whether we are in or out, whichever way it is, we shall not be able to go on as we have been doing.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, a great deal of what the noble Earl says, of course, is true, but West Germany is approaching us now as a very large importer. She is not of the same size, but she is approaching us. I do not know the figures. But the noble Earl takes the opposite view: that we should have nothing to do with Europe whatsoever. I based my remarks on the premise that we ought to go into Europe. We have not agreed on any particular policy, but we have agreed on a common policy unspecified. On a European basis we represent a very small number of producers—we have been described by the French as being insignificant, which I think is a little unjust; nevertheless among the European producers we represent a very small number. Therefore, if we are to go into Europe at all we must, I suggest, come towards Europe on this matter.
I have found that various members of the Scottish Farmers' Union in North East Scotland who are interested in this

491
subject have all been prepared, when told the true facts of the whole business as one can see it, and not simply that it was going to be to their advantage, to accept it: but not on the principle that it is going to be to the benefit of farming—it is not; of that I am sure. I am also sure that for a short period—at least, I hope it will be short—it will be to their definite detriment. I have always said so; I am saying so now. But it is still my opinion, in regard to the overall picture, that it is the right policy.
I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Walston, about commodity prices. That, of course, ties up with these figures of M. Pesani, if he is correct; and the commodity prices, however organised, would have to be based on a reasonable period of time to give adequate security, and would also have to bear a relation to the cost of production and not merely to the best price the buyer could get. I think that will be done by the Six, whether or not we do it. I suggest that we certainly should be in on that. As we are the largest importers anyway, I think that, clearly, we should take the initiative in arranging these prices and conditions.
There was one other point about which I wanted to ask the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, but he is not here at the moment. As I recollect, in 1939 farmers had the option to be assessed for taxation purposes, from which their return of income and so on is derived, under Schedule B. If I am correct, a large number of farmers were still being assessed under Schedule B in 1939. Although I am not quite sure about this, I think the position changed in 1940. If that is so, I should like to know how that tallies with the statistics which the noble Lord gave of the average overall income of a farmer of £112. If I am correct in regard to these Schedule B assessment returns, then of course it would not be reliable to compare them with an after-the-war figure. I am not sure whether I am right, and I should like to know.
On the general terms of this matter, I should say that, if we do decide to go into Europe, it is no good our going in with the attitude of mind: what are we going to get out of it? If we do it at all, we must do it with the attitude of mind:
492
to what level can we raise our collective standard of living? It is quite wrong to think that we shall get the benefit of this and the benefit of that at the expense of somebody else. If we are going to be European at all, we must do it properly and go there definitely with the idea that we are going to make this thing work, and not to hinder it in any way at all. In regard to the relevance of which organisation should keep alongside which, I confess that I just do not know—there are so many. But I should not put much favour in W.E.U. On the other hand, if it is a question of old bones, if you boil old bones you get glue; and if you grind them up you get fertiliser. So that by the combination of fertilising and sticking things together, we get roughly speaking what we want. Therefore, perhaps, W.E.U. is not such a bad bet, after all.
7.25 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I do not propose to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, in his earlier remarks, or the theme of the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, in spite of the fact that I have some French blood in my veins. I feel that no useful purpose can be gained by constantly harping on the failure of the negotiations to enter the European Economic Community, except in regard to such consideration as may be useful for planning for the future. In fact, useful results were achieved in Brussels during the discussions there. For instance, agreement was reached on arrangements for India, Pakistan and Ceylon. These are of obvious economic and political importance. I think, therefore, that it is encouraging that Dr. Hallstein should be now pressing for the early conclusion of a generous commercial agreement between the Community and those three countries.
I would also most certainly welcome the Commission's view expressed as follows:
"We shall not turn our backs on England. The door must not only be kept open, but solutions must be worked out to bridge the period before Britain becomes a member. An examination must be made of the questions which have arisen in connection with the negotiations for membership and which affect other countries."
Therefore, I can but sincerely hope that the strengthened British delegation, to which the Lord Privy Seal referred in another place a few weeks ago, will be

493
actively engaged in co-operation with the Commission towards that end. I welcome also the decision of Her Majesty's Government not to turn their back on Europe and to develop political contacts with France, the other five members of E.E.C. and, naturally, with the EFTA partners. As it was agreed between Mr. Fanfani and the Prime Minister in Rome that the Western European Union would appear to be the ideal platform for such discussions on a political basis, I sincerely hope that the five partners of France will persuade her not in any way to boycott attendance at such meetings of the Western European Union. I would agree to some extent with the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, that measures are certainly needed to lessen the tension which exists between France and this country at the present moment.
This, I fear, brings me to the recent remarkable blunder of the British Broadcasting Corporation—namely, that they should have allowed their delight at making a scoop to weigh so strongly in the balance that, as a responsible body, they should not have appreciated or cared for the political or diplomatic repercussions of their action. This seems to be—because the B.B.C. are a responsible body—exceedingly regrettable and reprehensible, and I do not know whether my noble friend intends to say anything on this matter.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I suggest that we ought not to import into this debate that particular incident involving M. Bidault.
LORD MERRIVALE: I am sorry if I have offended the noble Earl by referring to that matter. I did not mention M. Bidault, but was regretting the fact that a responsible body, a public corporation, in this country had taken an action which could only offend France.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: It has nothing to do with the Common Market.
LORD MERRIVALE: That may be, my Lords.
From an economic angle, I would agree with the Director General of the Federation of British Industries, Sir Norman Kipping, when he said, over the Brussels radio a few weeks ago, that
494
we had much to contribute and much to gain by joining the European Economic Community. He also went on to say that, in spite of the tariff barrier, our exports to those countries in 1962 had risen by 17 per cent. over 1961. That is a very good omen for the future. I was therefore delighted to hear the Foreign Secretary stress the need for efficiency, thereby assisting productivity and the lowering of costs in this country—in other words, as he put it, holding competitive prices. That, I presume one may take it, is the Government's theme for the years that lie ahead.
I should like to welcome the attitude taken by the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, which is to maintain trading contacts with the Common Market and also to develop contacts and liaison with the chambers of commerce of Europe as a whole—that is, in the Community and in EFTA. I think it is common ground we should take every advantage of the forthcoming GATT negotiations and the "Kennedy round". I would ask my noble friend who is to reply whether he would not agree that any cuts in America similar to those made by ourselves or our European partners would still to some extent be to our disadvantage, because in regard to a number of commodities their external tariffs are higher than ours. Therefore, would it not be possible not only to seek reciprocity but also a certain adjustment of tariffs? I think that a change of attitude on the part of America is needed, and it is needed along the lines hinted at by Mr. Selwyn Lloyd in his recent article in the Saturday Evening Post. This article was referred to in the Daily Telegraph on Tuesday, January 26, and its heading was most appropriate: "Allies of U.S. feel pushed about".
Having regard to the fact that this is National Productivity Year, I would refer to one industry which is well conscious of the need for efficiency. I refer to the transport industry, with which I have a number of connections, though not of a financial nature. No doubt your Lordships are aware of one organisation's efforts in this field to sponsor research and encourage action in order to raise efficiency and to lower costs. On this question of costs I think it right to mention that the cost of delays in relation to transport in the West

495
Midlands area alone has been put at £10 million per year. Recognising how the various causes of delays affect industry generally, and that they are a regrettable part of industry's costs, we should welcome the initiative of Road Haulage and Road Services in endeavouring to combat this evil. I hope that the British Railways Board are also taking this question very much to heart. Within the context of the part transport has to play in industry generally, it is interesting to bear in mind that, on average, there are seven different handling operations involving transport from the raw product to the finished product when it reaches the hands of the consumer.
In conclusion, my Lords, may I say how delighted I was to hear the Foreign Secretary stress Her Majesty's Government's desire for political co-operation with Europe and economic expansion? With a view to assisting industry to jump the Community external tariff barriers, I hope that Her Majesty's Government recognise the part which the transport industry can play, if assisted, in the reduction of costs—in other words, towards holding competitive prices. Furthermore, I hope that more city councils will emulate the efforts of the Corporation of Plymouth (your Lordships' attention was drawn to this matter by my noble friend Lord Colyton on February 14, 1961) to attract industries from overseas to set up factories in this country, as suggested by the Foreign Secretary.
7.40 p.m.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, it will be a satisfaction to those of you who have stood it out that the tip of the long tail is in sight, and I am the last speaker in the tail. Before I make a brief speech, I must take the opportunity of saying, as a farmer, how much I believe the farming and land-owning community of this country appreciate the services of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh. I have not had the opportunity of saying so before, but we were, and are, grateful to him for what he did. The feeling of all farmers has for a long time been that when the emergency is over any Government will let the farmers down. I think that the work done by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, and his
496
colleagues, was an achievement of convincing the townsman—95 per cent. of our population—of the importance of the prosperity of the countryman. That new bridge between town and country, which had not existed since before the abolition of the Corn Laws, was brought into being in 1947. It is quite plain that the other Party have kept it in being, have adopted a child which was not their own, and have continued to nourish it. For that, too, we are grateful.
I think that this fact also has a bearing on one of the aspects of the Common Market—namely, the entry of British agriculture into it. I have not been able to discover from anyone—not even from my lengthy correspondence with representatives of the National Farmers' Union—what it is they so greatly fear. Because the measures of guarantee to British farmers, made in 1947, were no greater than those which had been made, generation after generation, by French Governments to their farmers, although they did it in all sorts of ways. I have not been able to understand why there should be this fear on the part of British farmers to enter a Community where the farming community of France at all events, is so tremendously strong politically and has preserved its position and its prosperity for so many generations. That is an introduction, as it were, to what I should now like to do very briefly—that is, to take a kind of inter-planetary view of movements of European history.
Eighteen years ago in Lepanto, in Greece, some Greeks, wishing to show gratitude to Britain for having liberated them, made me an honorary member of the ancient and historic city. It was in that way, I suppose, that the smatterings of school history which I picked up during the First World War, and in other ways, brought me to a study of what Lepanto means in history. It was the final arresting battle at sea against the military aggressions of Islam, which had haunted Europe with fear for 900 years. That seems to me a singularly decisive moment, because it gave tremendous freedom to a movement which had already started a century before under Columbus and da Gama—the founding of overseas empires by European Christian States.

497
During the 400 years that followed Lepanto (which brings us up to the present time), eight European Christian nations founded empires overseas. The experiences of them all have been the same in one respect: that the point came when the children came of age and decided to be independent. That movement with us has taken place at a great pace during my active adult life—that is, from the independence of Ireland in 1922 up to 1962. During those 40 years the independence of our own dependencies, and of many others, has almost reached its completion, and we have reached the end, whether we like it or whether we do not, of half a thousand years of history.
As the Foreign Secretary rightly observed in his speech, it is not we who are responsible for the erosion of preferences; it is our children. That is a fact of which, it seems to me, we have to take account now; and we must regard ourselves at an historic turning point. In the decade in which we live the period of overseas colonial empires has come to an end. That is a fact, and the characteristic of our children is that, like others, they choose what is beneficial to themselves, irrespective of whether it is beneficial to their parents. That happens whether they are the children of the Ottoman Empire—the former "Sick Man of Europe"—or of the Portuguese, the Spaniards, the French, the Belgians, the Dutch or ourselves. It is the same story—the children are growing up.
It seems to me that what has happened during this period is that the European nations have established abroad wonderful developments in colonial unities, but they have failed to establish a unity between the metropolitan country and their dependencies, and have, between themselves, fallen into the most ghastly strife. As we look at the end of this period, it seems to me that a hundred and one things point to our return to an effort to unify Europe. Quite apart from many other attractions of such a course, there are two things which, from our point of view, seem to me desirable in connection with it. First, our children are so big and so numerous that I do not think we can provide them with the trade and aid which they require unless we enter a larger community. We are like the "old woman who lived in a shoe, and
498
had so many children she did not know what to do". It is time we got into a larger shoe. That is what seems to me desirable.
Secondly, there has been a return, not of the fear of Islam which has remained static since the time of Lepanto (when I say "static" I mean in the sense of military aggressions), but of a new and formidable fear. It is one which I personally cannot forget and cannot fail to appreciate, because I happened to be in those countries of Europe which are now behind the Iron Curtain—Greece, which nearly was; Albania; Yugoslavia; Austria, which was for a time; Czechoslovakia and Poland. One saw the process by which a military and atheist Communism established itself in countries which have a long historic Christian tradition. That menace is in front of us in two senses. If we are weak militarily it will take advantage of it; and, unless we are strong in all matters of welfare, it will overcome us in different ways.
My Lords, quite apart from the mechanical difficulties, there are obviously deep feelings and misgivings about joining Europe at all. During the last debate in this House in which I took part I was most impressed by the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, who, unless I was misled by political arts, appeared to me to speak from the bottom of his heart. His misgivings regarding the surrender of British sovereignty, perhaps even the question of the position of the Sovereign, was one of the things on which he harped. I know he addressed many questions to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack—at least, I am not sure whether that can be done; but in devious ways he obtained answers. I am doubtful whether they satisfied him. It was quite obvious to me that, although he was, and may be to-day, in the minority in this House who were against the Common Market, he spoke with feeling and echoed the misgivings of a great many people in this country.
From that time, I personally have felt that we are not ready, and that one thing General de Gaulle said was quite true: we are not ready because we are not united. Nevertheless, before I sit down I should like particularly to endorse what I thought were the extremely wise words of Lord Robertson of Oakridge, who said

499
that if we are going in, do not let us do anything to make it more difficult, but let us, if possible, take positive steps. Perhaps one of the positive steps that might be taken would be to divide France by showing the French farmers what they have lost by our not going into the Common Market. Because they have a tremendous influence, even with General de Gaulle.
7.52 p.m.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, we have come towards the end of a debate and, as so often happens on the occasions of these important debates, I have to get up in a thin House. We have not yet got the full loyalties of noble Lords to bring about their attendance during these debates right the way through, but I hope that from time to time, as we go on, we shall get better attendances. I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, who has just sat down, for what he said about my position in relation to the Common Market. I think he analysed me quite correctly on this subject. I am very much against going in on the conditions laid down in the Treaty of Rome.
On that point, I should like to go back for a moment or two to 1959—not so very long ago. On February 12, 1959, Mr. Maudling, then the Paymaster General, was speaking on this subject in the other place, and listed some of the reasons why it was unthinkable that the Government in this country were likely to want to enter the Common Market; and one of the reasons was Clause 138 (I am speaking from memory) of the Treaty of Rome. It is that and certain other similar clauses which so restrict what can be done in the exercise of the sovereignty of the British Parliament on matters which affect the daily lives of our individual citizens that it makes me fearful of the sovereignty position. Once you weaken the sovereignty position in this country in relation to a large, Catholic Europe, you may be tending to undermine the basis of the Act of Succession of 1689. I do not want to go into that in detail, but if anybody would like to come to my outside meetings on the matter I should be glad to welcome him and to have discussions on the subject.
500
The debate was opened by my noble friend Lord Williams of Barnburgh in his own inimitable way with regard to agriculture and its relation to the Common Market, and the dangers that we were likely to be in as a result. I am quite shocked at times to find noble Lords and members of the Conservative Party in another place also rallying to the help of their Government in spite of the fact that it is obvious that the Government have been full of "double talk". At one moment there is the undoubted pledge to the farmers. Certainly up to after the Election of 1959 there had never been the slightest suggestion that the British system of support of agriculture was going in any way to be jettisoned or amended or cut up. There is no mandate now from the country for the kind of thing which is likely to occur if the Government follow the statements made more recently by Mr. Soames, that it did not matter whether you went into the Common Market or did not, you could not go on having the same system as you have got now. That is what he said in effect to the farmers. How members of the Conservative Party can go on for week after week and month after month accepting such "double talk", which has still to be answered before the electors, I do not know.
I felt that the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, whom I always listen to with very great interest, was making some very stretched arguments in explaining the possible favour he would give to entry into the Common Market in spite of its lowering and reducing the standards of life of our own farmers. It seemed to me that he was bending over backwards to bring forward support for the Party in office at the present time.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Earl for one moment? I think I made it clear that at any rate I went quite a long way towards sharing the noble Earl's view on "double talk". I think my own Party and the Government have been less than honest. I have said so in public and I am saying it now. But I still do not retract what I said, that I think there will probably be a temporary lowering of the standard of the farmers; and I hope that it is for only a short time.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I am very much obliged As always, the noble Viscount is fair in debate, and he will not mind my having introduced that particular part of his speech to assist myself in the matter.
The other thing I want to point out is that the Government have never had a mandate from the people for entry into the Common Market—none at all. They have never put it to the electors. When it comes to the question of sovereignty, on that point, over and over again there have been statements—in 1956 by Mr. Macmillan, as well as a repetition by Mr. Maudling in 1959, and a most firm declaration by Mr. Thorneycroft, in 1958 or 1959—all against the possibility of our doing such injury to the Commonwealth and other institutions as would be likely if we went into the Common Market. I think it is an amazing thing that we should have come to the situation we were in last January, when Mr. Heath was going over for what proved to be his last main discussions and negotiations with the leaders of the Six.
I myself do not want to be associated with attacks upon General de Gaulle in regard to the part he played in bringing those negotiations to an end in January last. I think that he does not seem to have played up very well from the point of view of our application. He kept us on tenterhooks, apparently. But, on the other hand, we got no information from the Government. You want the British public to forget that Mr. Macmillan went to General de Gaulle himself on two occasions: and, on the last occasion, before he went on to see Mr. Kennedy in the United States, what did they say to each other? If you cannot give us the full text of the conversation, tell us at least what it was about, and where it was likely to lead. As soon as we begin to ask for particulars we are told there cannot be a post-mortem. Why not? If the situation in our country today is that of economic sickness, we want to get it cured. Why not have a post-mortem on these negotiations to find out what was wrong: either what was wrong with us and the view we take; or what was wrong in the Government presentation, whether in form or manner? We do not get the information. We ask for a White Paper. Scorn!
502
Again and again, we do not get the information.
When it comes to dealing with the problem, it is necessary to remember also the different attitudes that are being displayed by, for example, the Foreign Secretary here this afternoon; by Mr. Macmillan in his latest speech (the last one I read on February 11 in the other place); and by other members of the Government compared with their talk at Llandudno. At the Llandudno Conference Mr. Butler, Mr. Heath and Mr. Macmillan made it quite plain that they thought it would be almost the ruin of our economy if we did not go into the Common Market. Mr. Macmillan went so far as to say that we shall still be here; we shall have to go on, but we shall be weak. We are not in a position, says Mr. Butler, in another form of words, for our economy to stand up to it. We shall have to alter the basis of our economy if we do not go in.
What do they say now? Well, of course it is no longer the disaster that they foretold at Llandudno—where there was all the pressure organisation, the special representatives on the sea-front, the handing out by agents on behalf of the Common Market of the buttonholes with "Yes" on them, to work up the feeling for a day or two to make sure they would be able to get this through at the Llandudno Conservative Conference. Talk about double talk! Really, we ought not to be dealing with great matters of State on the basis on which the present Government have been dealing with them for the past four years. What a contrast to the Election of 1959! This country which, they say, is so weak that we can exist economically and progressively only if we go into the Common Market, was told in 1959 "You never had it so good".
What sort of case have the Government to put to the country themselves? Now it is to be a sacrifice for agriculture. According to Mr. Soames (I do not want to introduce again the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, who has always regarded it as more likely that the farmers would be worse off), if we do not get in then we are going to be worse off. Yet what a case Lord Williams of Barnburgh made to-day for what the farming community is doing for this country under the general scheme of support adopted! It

503
was an amazing catalogue of success. And in relation to its effect as a whole on our budgetary and economic position it was far and away more valuable in respect to the balance of payments than the actual cost of the public support.
In regard to the actual cost to the Budget, let me point out to the noble Earl who is to reply that if the Government had not gone in for removal of controls in connection with the subsidy scheme they would not have had to pay out agricultural subsidies at the rate they have done. One has only to watch the markets to-day to see the effect of a sudden movement downwards in the price of cattle. For the last two or three days this week it has been possible to buy fairly good quality beef on the hoof for 112s. to 125s. a cwt. Do you see these results passed on to the consumer? No! The present Government do not believe in controls: they put the larger cost back on to the general taxpayer, and the consumer does not get the benefit.
On the general position which would be likely to obtain under the Common Market, let me mention another point. I would refer, with respect to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, to the sovereignty position. Let me give a case. The Common Market countries have certain likeable and good objectives in relation to the general community. They want to see prosperity in this and that, and they want to set up social services and the like. So do we. But once you are in that Community the settled standard of life in the future for our people will largely be determined by the European Parliament. They can come to decisions affecting either the majority or the minority, and the British Parliament could not take any action at all, with regard to defending the standard of life, on this or that particular matter in this country. That is an amazing situation. That has never been fully explained or understood by the general population in this country to-day.
My Lords, having got a few of those things off my chest, let me also say here in what way I think the Government are very slow and stumbling. I dared to say, when the first announcement was made of the effect of de Gaulle's position, that no further negotiations could take
504
place; that that was a challenge to our greatness. What sort of steps have the Government so far taken to show that we are great in that respect and are really going to fight for the maintenance of our standards and the like? I cannot see any great indication that they are taking effective steps. I know they said they are going to have a meeting of the Commonwealth Premiers. That is so, but it keeps on being put back and back. But, if our condition was so economically sick as they say, an amazing urgency should be exercised instead of this shuffling along.
It is said that we have been steadily losing trade with our Commonwealth. It has fallen more, in my view, in the last two years, while all this Common Market situation has been talked about. In the early days of the suggestion of Common Market entry by us we did not even take the trouble to get into touch properly with all the Dominions and Colonies concerned. We sent out Mr. Sandys to make contact at short and late notice. I cannot see any more urgency being exercised at the moment by the Government. That is not our attitude on this matter.
I read very carefully the speech of the Prime Minister on February 11 in another place. I could not see any urgency in it. I saw a number of interruptions by my Leader, Mr. Harold Wilson. Let the noble Earl take count of the columns for the last fifteen minutes of that speech by Mr. Harold Wilson, because he thought it was his duty to put before Parliament what could be done now in these circumstances really to strengthen and to boost our economy. For example, there was a letter the other day in The Times in which the businessmen of this country were explaining how difficult it was to understand why at the present moment we are not taking any real steps to develop our trade with Eastern Europe behind the Iron Curtain. Why not? I know understandings may have been arrived at, which we have never heard about, between the leaders of this Government and the Americans about the supply of strategic goods, as they are called, to these countries; but can the Government tell me whether there is any difficulty about Western Germany supplying Eastern Germany? I was moved by the words of the noble Earl the other day

505
when he spoke about the terrible position created by the wall in Berlin. He said that this was one of the reasons why we do not do this, that or the other. But Western Germany does not stop exporting to Eastern Germany.
We find that Russia is having five freighters built in Japan and twenty special type cargo ships, while we haggle for months about whether we can take orders from Russia for ships, because they want to pay for some of them with oil. Seemingly there is a poor understanding of what we ought to be doing for the economic sickness of our country and to help reduce the growing unemployment we have seen in the last few months, which we all hope will be reduced as soon as possible.
If we take the Commonwealth, what cure can we apply to the situation of New Zealand? Already during this long-drawn-out period of uncertainty of nearly two years they have had to look for other markets. On this side of the House, those of us who have had experience of this matter know that a proper method of bulk purchase and long-term contracts would suit New Zealand, who depend so much—up to 90 per cent. in some commodities—on this country for their markets, and who fit in best with British agricultural production.
I am amazed at the ineptitude and lack of courage of this Government. If my noble friend Lord Attlee does not mind, I should like to tell a story about the time when he and I were down at Criccieth for a few days' holiday. We had been at a League of Nations meeting with David Lloyd George. That weekend the Foreign Secretary of the Chamberlain Government had been speaking in Lanark, just a day or two before Czechoslovakia was railroaded and overrun. David Lloyd George stood on top of a mountain with Clem—my noble friend Lord Attlee; I beg his pardon—and myself. He asked us what we thought. We both gave our answers. Then he threw his cape back over his shoulder and said, "Clem, Albert, believe me, this spineless crew will never raise a finger to save Czechoslovakia, and the British Empire will never recover from it."
We are very nearly as spineless to-day in dealing with these problems. After eleven years of Conservative Government
506
the Leader of the House comes along and says that we are now at the beginning of a new epoch in which we shall begin to lay the foundations for Britain 30 years hence. What have they been doing for eleven years? It is an amazing situation. Yet there remains the basic, inherent greatness in this nation of ours, if we can find the Government who will call upon it and use it. We were able to do that in times of greater stress, and surely we ought to be able to do it now.
I hope that in a few weeks' time we may get a better story from the Government about how they are going to treat British agriculture. When the debates come up, we shall be able to say: "By their fruits shall ye know them". We shall be able to judge then what is going to be the extent of the Government's efforts to obtain markets, either in the Commonwealth or in the rest of the world. We shall be able to know whether there is going to be a different spirit in trying to help the underdeveloped countries within our Commonwealth and perhaps one or two who have recently left us.
For ten solid years from this Table different colleagues of mine have pressed for proper aid to the countries who had been receiving grants under the Commonwealth Development Corporation, and only a few weeks ago did that Government finally come to the conclusion that they would have to do that, after all—this shuffling along Government, this weak Government, this "Stop and Go" Government. It is about time they pulled themselves together or left it to somebody else who can do a lot better.
8.17 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I share the regret of the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition that fewer noble Lords have stayed in order to listen to his magnificent tirade against the Government and the Party to which I belong. I should seriously like to say how much I admire the way in which the noble Earl sits through these often long debates, sometimes interrupting about some quite different point, and then winds up in such tremendous form as he has shown now. I did not know until he spoke this evening that he holds outside meetings somewhere else, too. It is a "new one on me". If, as he implied, his speeches are filled with even

507
more magnificent invective than that with which he has entertained us, I should like to have the privilege of hearing them.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I invite the noble Earl to come to the next Protestant meeting we hold?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I am most honoured and gratified by that invitation. As for me, I have had the perhaps not very enviable task, for more than four years now, of speaking to your Lordships on this subject. I began doing it in 1958 and I have done it more times than I care to remember. It is interesting to me to see how the burden of criticism has completely shifted during these four years. When I first spoke to your Lordships on the EFTA agreement, in a very fine debate we had in 1959, the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition absented himself from speaking then and subsequently on the Bill which I brought in in 1960.
The whole burden of the criticism against the Government then was that we were dragging our feet about going into the Common Market. I explained that the EFTA plan was intended to be a step towards that objective and that the main motive in forming this association of seven members—the Outer Seven, as they were called—was to make it easier for an ultimate association in which the whole of Europe would be united. I remember time after time in discussing this subject noble Lords opposite—and the late Lord Pethick-Lawrence, in particular—used to press me to say more about the steps which we were taking to realise this objective, which all the criticis at that time were agreed upon. We were taken to task very strongly for going too slowly and not pushing on fast enough in order to achieve an economically united Europe.
It was not until after 1961, when we actually made our application, that criticism on the other side began to express itself. We all recognise that the noble Earl, Lord Alexander of Hills-borough, has always been strongly consistent on this subject. But since 1961 criticism has grown, and I think it is true to say, as the noble Earl, Lord Iddes-leigh, implied, that in the country opposition to the Common Market has increased during these very long and protracted
508
negotiations. I think one of the reasons why it has increased somewhat is that it was obvious that the French were doing their best not to let us in on terms which we could honestly and reasonably accept. I think it was the long frustration and the protraction of these negotiations which caused feeling against the Common Market in this country to grow. In spite of that, we had a very patient negotiator in my right honourable friend the Privy Seal, Mr. Heath, whose magnificent performance is universally appreciated and whose patience and perseverance made it impossible for the negotiations to be broken off by us.
So, finally, the French President had to use this sledge hammer. Finding that if the negotiations had gone on, although there were still many points to be decided, they would have resulted in success, he decided that the time had come to end our application. I think the report which was issued yesterday in Brussels (I do not know whether when it is translated it will satisfy the demands which have been made for a more comprehensive report; probably not) shows generally that, in spite of the many outstanding questions which were in process of being dealt with, the negotiations, if they had not been broken off when they were, would probably before long have reached a successful conclusion.
The criticism during the last eighteen months, and now the retrospective criticism, which we have had to meet has nearly all been from exactly the opposite direction: not that we were dragging our feet and were too slow and reluctant in promoting European economic union, but that we were going too far and too fast, and we were letting down and abandoning the interests which we ought to have secured in these negotiations. The noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, made, I thought, in general, an excellent speech with which I found myself in strong agreement; he said a great many things which I should have liked to say, much better than I could say them. But even he went on to say that we had, as he put it, let down agriculture, the Commonwealth and EFTA. That, of course, is an allegation which we must rebut. We cannot accept that; we do not think it is true.
My noble friend the Foreign Secretary has dealt already with the question of agriculture; and it has been a great pleasure to your Lordships to hear two

509
noble Lords opposite who have had so much to do with agriculture, the Leader of the Opposition, who is himself a keen farmer, as many of us are, and the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh. I should like to associate myself with the tribute which the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, paid to the noble Lord. A great deal of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, was taken up in discussing whether the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, was a good Minister of Agriculture or not. I would say that if a vote were taken among all living ex-Ministers of Agriculture as to who was the best, they would all unhesitatingly vote for the noble Lord. I think all Parties and both farmers and landowners would agree that he did good work when he was in office.
What was the objective of the 1947 Act which he passed? I think it could be defined as a stable and prosperous agriculture, with a fair standard of living for the farmer. That is a principle which in all Parties we have always accepted and tried to put into practice. There was a change in 1954, or round about then, when we departed from the method of either direct or indirect Government purchase in order to secure the guaranteed price and substituted deficiency payments, which you may say is a more efficient or a less efficient method.
The noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition said a good deal in his speech about double-talk. I thought there was a certain ambiguity in his speech when he said that our agricultural policy had been an amazing record of success, and then in the next sentence said that we were robbing both the taxpayer and the consumer by not controlling all the agricultural markets. It may or may not be a good thing to control markets in certain circumstances; it may or may not be a better thing to have deficiency payments. Anyhow, our objective is the same—namely, a stable and prosperous agriculture. And our objective in the Common Market negotiations has been the same.
We know that the method we should have had to follow if we had joined the Common Market, would by 1970 have been quite different from our present method, and it is arguable whether that is better for the economy of the country and of Europe or not. I think
510
it would have depended a good deal on how high these tariffs were, and whether they might not have resulted in overproduction of some economic agricultural product, with the result of unduly high food prices. But the objective which we were following and trying to secure was the same objective of a stable and prosperous agriculture, with a reasonable standard of living for the farmer; and that is why we got agreement at Brussels on the principle that there would be a review of agriculture, and if this showed that the farmers were not getting a fair standard of living, action would be taken to put it right.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: My Lords, there is a point here which was raised in the presence of the Foreign Secretary. I do not know whether the noble Earl can clear it up. I rather suggested that while an annual review was agreed upon for each country within the Six which had ultimately to be dispatched to the Commission, there was no "shall" that the Commission should do anything about this annual review. If the noble Earl can tell us that there was something obligatory to make the Commission act once they received the price review, I will stand corrected.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am not sure that there was anything obligatory, in the sense of inserting in the Treaty of Rome a clause saying they would pay such a price, or anything like that. But, after all, what is the purpose of making any agreement of this kind? Why have a review, and why state that you will take action to put things right if the standard of living is not up to the mark?
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: That is our question.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: What is the point of having that if you do not do anything about it? Surely the real danger of this new method of agricultural support which we should have adhered to in the Common Market might have been that protection would have been put too high, in order to protect the relatively inefficient farmers in France and Germany. That would have been a bad thing for our economy, but it would not have lowered the standard of

511
living of our farmers or the receipt which they got.
I have had to deal with the Commonwealth on many occasions. I do not think it is an acceptable criticism that we have in any way let the Commonwealth down. In respect to some parts of the Commonwealth we had made very favourable arrangements indeed. One example was the agreement to abolish any tax on tea, which would have been of great benefit to India and Ceylon. We had made other special arrangements for these two countries, and we had secured the offer of some form of association for all the Afro-Asian and Caribbean parts of the Commonwealth who had recently become independent and who desired it, and for all our dependencies.
With regard to the White Commonwealth on the question of temperate foodstuffs, what we had done so far was to get agreement on the principle that there would be world commodity agreements. That is something which is desirable on many other grounds, too. One purpose of that was to try to get reasonable prices for producers of temperate foodstuffs among all countries, including the White Commonwealth. But the Six in Brussels agreed to say that they would have regard to the interests of Canada and Australia; and for New Zealand they agreed in principle that particular arrangements would have to be made about New Zealand butter. That was another of the points which had not yet been finally settled when the negotiations were broken off.
In regard to EFTA, I am not quite clear what the noble Lord was thinking of when he suggested that we had let EFTA down: because all the EFTA countries were engaged in their own negotiations. However, we were keeping in close touch with them. It was agreed that our application should be disposed of first, because it was much the most difficult. After we had made our agreement we were not going to join until they made their arrangements, too. Norway and Denmark would probably have become full members, and some of the others associates.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am sure the noble Earl will remember the disturbing thoughts of the Common-
512
wealth Prime Ministers when they were over here last year. Would he not also accept that there was considerable disquiet, right through the Commonwealth among business people and those people who have special regard to this country? Would the noble Earl not agree that, to set their minds at rest, the Government should again consider publishing the terms of these provisional agreements that had been made? It has been possible for the Commission to publish their side. I should have thought the Government ought to produce similar facts, not only to the country but to the Commonwealth.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: They were published in the White Paper which was made available during 1962. I do not want to quote at length from them, but they describe the principles which had been agreed upon. I think it would be true to say that although, naturally, some members of the Commonwealth, particularly the White Commonwealth, were at first apprehensive, they were beginning to realise the great advantages which they might ultimately have derived from our membership of the Common Market, had our application been successful.
What were our real objectives, our real motives for wanting to join? My noble friend Lord Stonehaven, who has apologised for having to leave to catch a train, said, rightly, I thought, that it is no good our going into the Common Market for selfish reasons. I think he is right. The reasons why we went in, and the reasons why we ought, in my submission, to have wanted to go in, were, to put it in a sentence, to strengthen the Free World, to strengthen our defence against aggression. That was one objective. Another was to strengthen the economic growth of the whole Free World and, finally, to strengthen the ability of all the advanced nations to help and aid those vast millions of people whom we were discussing the day before yesterday in your Lordships' House, in South America, Africa and Asia, who can never learn to appreciate and enjoy freedom unless we enable them to have a minimum economic security. That was the reason why we wanted to join and, as I have put to your Lordships before, that was the reason why the Communist propaganda machine had applied itself with such

513
tremendous strength of purpose to attack and discredit the idea of the Common Market all over the world. Now that we have received this setback, it is the Communists who are the gainers and who are rejoicing at this temporary failure.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I say that I admire the language of the defendants' advocate on this occasion, but it does not agree at all with what Mr. Macmillan and Mr. Butler said at the Llandudno Conference? It was said that we were going to be completely weak ourselves; we should not have enough. Mr. Butler said we should not have a wide enough economic base for us to be able to maintain our heavy economic industries. We were going to be hopeless without going in. That was the case put at Llandudno. The noble Earl has made a nice defence of the position and of our reasons for wanting to go into the Common Market, but they do not tie up.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am sorry, but I cannot for a moment agree with what the noble Earl has said. I am not going over the Llandudno Conference now, because I have a short speech of my own to make, which I hope to bring to its conclusion in a few minutes as it is getting so very late. I repeat that the chief gainers in the world from this temporary setback at Brussels are the countries behind the Iron Curtain, the Communist countries of the world.
What are we going to do in these circumstances? I should dike to say that I greatly appreciated the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, who wisely pointed out that we must not have any bitterness. That is very true. That does not mean that we must talk or act as if we thought it was a trivial affair. It is, however, I hope, not a mortal, but a grave blow which the French Government has struck against the Free World and its future, as we believe. But we must not have any bitterness. The first thing we must do is to keep in touch not only with the Five but also, if we can, with France. We hope, as my noble friend Lord Merrivale said, that in the W.E.U. the Five will persuade France to attend.
The object of that contact, which we must do all we can to preserve, at the meetings which the Lord Privy Seal is
514
now having with those of the Five who are willing to go on discussing matters with him, is not that we are anxiously hoping for some new proposal. In order to keep in with the rest of the Free World we must keep the Common Market countries informed in a friendly manner of everything we are doing outside, and whether that is going to lead up to some renewal of the project or not does not matter. We must try to keep the Free World united in the face of its adversaries.
Next, of course, we must try to accelerate the economic integration of EFTA, the Free Trade Association. We have already had one meeting about this at Geneva last month, where the permanent representatives were instructed to prepare proposals for a revised time-table providing for the more rapid dismantlement of tariffs between member countries with their final elimination during 1966. The Ministers also instructed their permanent representatives to seek a number of other ways in which EFTA co-operation might be further developed, and these matters are going to be considered further at the next meeting of the Ministerial Council in Lisbon on May 9.
Then, of course, we come to the Commonwealth. I will not go over everything which I think has been gone over before. We are having a meeting, not with Commonwealth Prime Ministers but with Commonwealth trade representatives, which will be held before the GATT meeting in May. My noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye, who has always been a strong and consistent advocate, as many of us have always tried to be, of more trade with the Commonwealth, said, taking up a remark that the Foreign Secretary had made, that if we are going to have to do some rethinking about our commercial policy—I think he said this in relation to GATT—why not start doing it now? I am all in favour of starting rethinking as soon as we can, but we cannot do it by ourselves. We have to do it in relation to somebody else. We know that since the war the Commonwealth has not been receptive to extension of the preferences which were made at Ottawa in 1932. On the contrary, they have been steadily eroding them. That is a matter for them. As my noble friend knows, we tried in 1957 with a proposal for free trade with Canada, but that was not acceptable for reasons which we well understand, and

515
I do not think we ought to delude ourselves by imagining that there is any practical possibility of anything approaching a free trade area even with the White Commonwealth. But that does not mean we should not do everything we can to promote trade by bilateral arrangements; and that we will certainly endeavour to do.
Then there is what is called the "Kennedy round", which is going to be discussed at GATT in May. Again, I think I have had to talk about that on two occasions lately, one of them the day before yesterday in the debate in connection with the world campaign against hunger; so I need not say much more about it now. But we have made it clear that we welcome the opportunities created by the forthcoming negotiations for the further expansion of world trade. There are two things about the Trade Expansion Act; one is the possibility of a 50 per cent. reduction on a large number of tariffs affecting many countries in the world; the other was the proposal for a 100 per cent. reduction on tariffs on commodities 80 per cent. of which are produced by America, Britain and Common Market countries. That, as your Lordships know, is now in danger of being frustrated. In spite of that, we hope that an agreement will be reached on these projects, and if it is not, then it will be for the Americans to decide whether they will alter the Trade Expansion Act so that the "Kennedy round" can be made effective by those countries willing to give effect to it, despite the fact that the Six may be prevented by any French veto from playing their part until (I think it is) January 1, 1966. But that is an objective which we must go for all out now: to get tariffs reduced in all parts of the world with which we trade and to reduce our own, both in order to increase the volume of trade and to stimulate our own efficiency.
May I say how much I agreed with everything, except what I have already mentioned, that the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, said, particularly about the need for increasing our own economic strength now? He said a good deal about the redistribution of industry with which I agree. I have often had to defend our actions in this matter to your Lordships. I had to bring in the Local Employment Act, and I am
516
very glad to defend that again because I think we have done a great deal. But I should be the first to agree that we have not done nearly enough. We must aim at establishing many new growth points in Scotland and the North-East of England, and at diminishing the growing congestion of industry in those parts of England with which the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, is more at home; which he himself said he would like to do.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Earl, and I do not want to detain him, because I know that he has to get away. I am obliged for what he has said, but does he not think it a pity, in view of these urgent economic and industrial matters that concern our own country, both as a country and in view of our position in the world, that the Government should undertake a major controversial legislative measure in this Parliament this Session, the London Government Bill, which has no relevance to the situation whatever and which really is an insult to the intelligence of the British public?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, not only may it have no relevance to the situation, as the noble Lord said, but I am afraid it is a subject on which I am relatively ignorant. I have to talk to your Lordships about quite a number of different departmental subjects, but, the London Government Bill is one which, so far, by one expedient or another, I have always managed to wriggle out of and leave to somebody else. One reason is that, much as I love debating with the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, I do not relish sitting in this House for three weeks arguing with him about local government. I even prefer the Foreign Office to that.
I was going to conclude by saying that I agree more particularly with my noble friend Lord Eccles in his remarks on economic growth. He compared our comparatively slow progress with that of the Communist countries. What was the reason? The reason he gave, I think, correctly: that the Communist countries are able to control the relationship between investment and consumption; they have their people at a level of consumption which we should think very harsh, and the result is they

517
have been able to put a great deal into investment; and their economic growth has been enormous compared with ours. Of course, if we could have the powers of a Communist dictator I daresay our growth would be much faster, too. If we could control everybody's income then the difficulty of our post-war economy which has hampered the steadiness of our growth would disappear.
But we cannot do that because we are a free country; and that is why our incomes policy, in my view, is so very important, not only to our economy but to the whole subject which we are discussing now. It is a matter of regret to us that the measures which we are trying to take through the National Incomes Commission to influence incomes policy are not more widely supported than they are by all classes of the community, because we believe that this is the main thing which is needed to promote our industrial growth and our industrial strength; and we believe that, as a result of the breakdown of the Brussels negotiations, the industrial strength of Britain alone is more than
518
ever important to the future of the Free World.
8.49 p.m.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: My Lords, I should like to express my profound thanks to all those who have taken part in this debate. I think your Lordships will all agree that this has been a day well spent. We have not secured all the information we should have liked, but perhaps it would not have done us much good if we had. I would also express my thanks to all those noble Lords who made such kindly and generous references to myself. The only practical way I can express my thanks is to ask leave to withdraw the Motion, as I do.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

LUCAS ESTATE BILL
Bill (in the form approved by the Personal Bills Committee) presented, and read 1ª
House adjourned at ten minutes before nine o'clock.