Sitting of 20 May 1963

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL
Read the Third time and passed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  MINISTRY OF AVIATION

    B.O.A.C. and B.E.A.
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Minister of Aviation whether he will institute a full inquiry, on the lines of the Beeching Report, into the operation of the British Overseas Airways Corporation and British European Airways.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation (Mr. Neil Marten): No, Sir.
    Mr. Digby: Is my hon. Friend aware that many people doubt whether the Corbett Report is nearly sweeping enough and are disquieted by the ser-
    2
    vices which B.E.A. renders to the domestic public in England? Is there not a strong case for considering the two Corporations together, the functions they are performing and the money they are losing?
    Mr. Marten: The current state of B.E.A. does not warrant an inquiry of that sort. It is expected that it will again show a profit in the current year. An inquiry into B.O.A.C. affairs is in progress, and my right hon. Friend's chief immediate concern must be to consider what is necessary to put it on a sound financial footing. The possibility of merging the two Corporations has often been discussed and it is naturally a matter to which we have given thought.
    Mr. Rankin: Is it not the case that up to last year B.E.A. had eight years of surplus trading on its routes? Is it not remarkable that very few hon. Members opposite said anything about that?
    Mr. Marten: I believe that is correct. The choice of whether or not to operate a route is primarily a matter for the commercial judgment of B.E.A., and I think that it has largely been right.

  Aircraft
  Mr. Shepherdasked the Minister of Aviation what machinery exists to review the aircraft requirements of the Services and the Air Corporations with a view to ensuring that, consistent with meeting domestic needs, aircraft are

  3
  designed with the object of securing the highest export potential.
  Mr. Marten: So far as transport aircraft are concerned, this is one of the functions of the Transport Aircraft Requirements Committee. For other types of aircraft, the Ministry of Aviation itself is responsible for ensuring that considerations of export potential are taken fully into account in the framing of operational requirements and development policy.
  Mr. Shepherd: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that this most important function is really being discharged at the level which ought to obtain? Does he realise that we cannot enter upon an unlimited number of projects and that it is, therefore, essential to go for those with high export potential?
  Mr. Marten: That is so, but I am satisfied that the new generation of British civil transport has a high export potential. The aircraft include the V.C.10, the B.A.C.111, the de Havilland Trident and the D.H.125. On the military side, there is, again, the V.C. 10, the Comet, the Beagle and others, all of which are exportable.
  Mr. Cronin: Bearing in mind that recent operational requirements for fighter and strike aircraft have made them so costly and complicated that it is difficult to find buyers outside this country, is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the Air Ministry has in mind the export potential of aircraft it orders?
  Mr. Marten: Yes. I am. I think that the Requirements Committee has taken fully into account the export aspect. But in military types there is a lot of give and take, and sometimes a requirement for our own needs cannot be compromised for the sake of export sales.

  London Airport
  Sir J. Langford-Holtasked the Minister of Aviation what is the average length of time between the arrival of aircraft at London Airport and the entry of their passengers into the Customs Hall.
  Mr. Marten: Between 15 and 20 minutes.
  Sir J. Langford-Holt: Would not my hon. Friend agree that the reputation of an international airport depends on two
  4
  things—first, the speed with which passengers are got through, and, secondly, the services it provides? Is he quite satisfied that the speed we provide in this country measures up to international standards? Has he any plans for increasing that speed?
  Mr. Marten: We are in constant contact with other international airports over this problem, and we are constantly considering it. I must point out that the airlines and not the airport management are responsible for getting passengers off the planes and transporting them and their baggage to the Customs Hall.
  Mr. Burden: Is my hon. Friend convinced that at peak periods the maximum clearance through the Customs is at present being obtained? Would not he agree that it would obviously help to clear the airport more quickly during peak periods if this matter were looked at from the point of view of congestion during those periods?
  Mr. Marten: This is one of the things we are constantly looking at. I hope that when No. 4 Passenger Building is completed this problem will be overcome.
  Sir J. Langford-Holtasked the Minister of Aviation whether he will replace the message stand at present in the Foreign Arrivals' Lounge at London Airport.
  Mr. Marten: A new sign has now been erected in No. 1 Passenger Building above the message stand to make its position more obvious. A new stand in No. 3 Passenger Building, similar in shape to the No. 1 Passenger Building stand, has recently been installed.
  Sir J. Langford-Holt: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that I am not complaining about the signing displayed but about the archaic sort of erection in the middle of the arrival lounge which is cluttered with little messages practically unreadable? Will not he look at the whole question of facilities in this lounge, which allows for the seating of only half the passengers who arrive on any two aircraft?
  Mr. Marten: The question of seating is a different matter. I visited this lounge only the other day, but I will look at it again in the light of the points my hon. Friend has put.
  Mrs. McLaughlinasked the Minister of Aviation if he is aware that passengers at London Airport experience long delays while waiting for their luggage from incoming aircraft; and if he will make a study of the layout of the buildings there, with a view to improvements in them to reduce these delays.
  Mr. Marten: The airlines are responsible for handling their passengers baggage at Heathrow. I do not accept the suggestion that delays are caused by the layout of the buildings.
  Mrs. McLaughlin: Is my hon. Friend aware that these delays exist and are causing considerable difficulty to passengers? On two recent occasions I waited for over forty minutes for baggage to come from the incoming aircraft to the passenger terminal building, and I can give my hon. Friend chapter and verse for these and other occasions when hon. Members have waited for over two hours when luggage came in at the European terminal instead of the incoming United Kingdom terminal. Is my hon. Friend really satisfied that passengers are receiving the attention they deserve, especially when they are making connecting flights, many of which are now lost because of this delay?
  Mr. Marten: I am extremely sorry if the hon. Lady has been so inconvenienced, and also other passengers apart from Members of Parliament. The average time taken for luggage to arrive at the building from aircraft is eleven minutes on domestic flights and nineteen minutes on international flights. As the hon. Lady knows, the airlines and not the Ministry are responsible for carrying baggage between the aircraft and the passenger building. Once it arrives at the building the baggage is carried by conveyor belt directly and without delay into the arrivals hall.
  Mrs. McLaughlinasked the Minister of Aviation what has been the saving to his Department by the transfer to the airlines of all responsibility for handling passengers' luggage from incoming aircraft at London Airport.
  Mr. Marten: None, Sir. The saving of cost was offset by the cessation of receipts from the airlines who had previously paid for the service.
  Mrs. McLaughlin: Does my hon. Friend realise that, without saving
  6
  money at all, this is causing considerable inconvenience to passengers because this service has deteriorated, and there is a great problem in respect of the handling of passengers' luggage satisfactorily? Perhaps the average time may be as low as my hon. Friend says, but certainly on the line from Belfast to London this has not been my experience in recent months.
  Mr. Marten: I recognise that at times of high peak travel, perhaps if an aircraft is delayed by fog, one may get this sort of bunching up. But the hand-over referred to in the Question followed the recommendations of the Select Committee on London Airports (1960–61) that all apron services at Heathrow should be transferred to the airlines. We are keeping this under review.
  Sir J. Langford-Holt: When my hon. Friend says that this is the responsibility of the airlines, is he quite right? Are not the vehicles and the drivers of the vehicles which transport the luggage both his property and in his employ?
  Mr. Marten: I understand not.

  Free Fall Parachute Descents
  Mr. Farrasked the Minister of Aviation if he will make the use of bariometric safety devices compulsory in free fall parachute descents.
  Mr. Marten: No, Sir.
  Mr. Farr: Would not my hon. Friend agree that if such devices were fitted compulsorily in free fall descents quite a number of lives might be saved? It is a common practice in America to have free fall parachute descents, and in this country, on 30th January last, if the bariometric safety device had been fitted one of the free-fallers would have been alive now.
  Mr. Marten: That was a military free fall and not the responsibility of the Ministry of Aviation. Civilian descents are very rarely from heights that require these devices to be used. If I may express a personal view as an ex-parachutist, I do not think that we should be too restrictive in regulations about this matter, for surely one of the attractions of parachuting, as with mountaineering, is that there should be a calculated flirtation with death.
  Mr. Farrasked the Minister of Aviation how many fatalities have occurred in the course of civilian parachute descents in the past three years.
  Mr. Marten: I understand, six.
  Mr. Farr: Does not my hon. Friend agree that six fatalities in civilian jumping in the last three years is quite a high figure? Despite my hon. Friend's declaration that he finds some stimulation in flirting with death, I would suggest that possibly it would be a good idea if he looked further into the existing regulations, tightened them up and bad one central authority with up-to-date regulations, so that the sport might be encouraged in this country?
  Mr. Marten: That may be. I gave it up a long time ago. The number of casualties and the number of civilian parachutists are so small that it is very difficult to draw any conclusion. I will bear in mind what my hon. Friend says and look at the last point which he raised.

  Jet Aircraft (Noise and Fumes)
  Mr. R. Harrisasked the Minister of Aviation, in the official testing of silencers for jet planes, what consideration has been given to the French Bertin silencer which is in use by Air France, which is mobile, and which diminishes noise by 30 decibels.
  Mr. Marten: The Bertin ground silencer is one of several designs now being evaluated by the Ministry of Aviation against an R.A.F. requirement.
  Mr. Harris: Is it not possible for the Minister to issue some statement, or possibly a White Paper, saying what is being done to investigate the possibility of reducing the noise from aircraft engines in view of the great importance of this to residents in constituencies around London Airport?
  Mr. Marten: We had a very full debate on this at the Easter Adjournment in which I made a half an hour's statement, and I also raised and dealt with the question of noise in winding up the Civil Aviation debate last Monday.
  Mr. R. Harrisasked the Minister of Aviation what steps have been taken by his Department and the London Airport authorities to alleviate the smell of paraffin in residential areas near
  8
  London Airport after some jet airliners have taken off, and to diminish the noise from the running-up of aircraft engines at night during the summer months.
  Mr. Marten: Engine designers are trying to remove the cause of paraffin smell after take-off by improving combustion in engines operating at low power and to a lesser extent at very high power which causes this smell. Meanwhile, all possible operating techniques and procedures will continue to be used to keep down these fumes. We have already achieved a substantial reduction in ground running at night, and this will continue to be subject to the strictest control.

  Fares
  Mr. Leeasked the Minister of Aviation whether he will make representations to the Governments of countries whose airlines are members of the International Air Transport Association in order to ensure agreements at Government level for fare changes agreed upon at the International Air Transport Association conferences.
  Mr. Marten: We have signified to the Governments represented at the recent London discussions our readiness to consider with them how far Governmental procedures for dealing with International Air Transport Association recommendations could be improved so as to avoid a repetition of recent difficulties.
  Mr. Lee: The House will be very pleased to hear that Answer. Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the present situation is a sort of lull before the war breaks into a hot war and that if we wait for that situation both sides will have taken up prepared positions and we shall then find the situation very difficult? Could not his right hon. Friend agree to take even more initiative in this matter and try to make a direct approach to the American Government in order to ensure that we get over these difficulties without a fracas such as we had last week?
  Mr. Marten: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's remarks, which we shall bear in mind. At the moment, the situation is that negotiations have not

  9
  been actually opened, but we have expressed our hope that they will take place.

  B.O.A.C. (Capital Assets)
  Mr. Croninasked the Minister of Aviation, in view of the fact that the then Minister of Aviation invited the British Overseas Airways Corporation and their accountants to represent the capital assets of British Overseas Airways Corporation in their 1958–59 accounts at a much higher figure than they originally intended, what is his policy with regard to advising the British Overseas Airways Corporation what figures they should put in their accounts.
  Mr. Marten: While not accepting the view of past events as described in the first part of the Question, my hon. Friend must be free, if he thinks it in the public interest, to ask questions or make suggestions on these matters. But B.O.A.C. are also free to accept or reject them as they see fit.
  Mr. Cronin: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will at least accept what was said by a noble Lord on behalf of the Government in another place. Bearing that in mind, is it not very unsatisfactory that the Government should be in a position to offer suggestions to the Corporation of which the Board is literally in the Government's employ and also bound to take general directions?
  Mr. Marten: It is for B.O.A.C. and its auditors to decide what figures they put in their accounts.
  Mr. Burden: Would not my hon. Friend agree that it would not be in the public interest to give B.O.A.C. or any other nationalised corporation any instructions which might have the effect of implying cooking of the books and that proper accounts must be made to the public, just as they are by commercial companies?
  Mr. Marten: The Minister is fully entitled under Section 5 of the Air Corporations Act, 1949, to rule as to the form of the accounts, but he may not rule as to the substance.
  Mr. Cronin: But is it not highly improper for the Minister to advise or invite—whatever word is used—the
  10
  chairman of the Board to represent the capital assets of British Overseas Airways Corporation at a much higher value than they really were? Does not that mislead the public?
  Mr. Marten: There was no intention to mislead the public. What happened in 1959 was that B.O.A.C. proposed to write down the value of certain capital assets in the balance sheet without bringing the adjustment through either the operating or the profit and loss account. The then Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Watkinson), considered this proposal indefensible, but invited B.O.A.C. to submit alternative proposals.

  British United Airways (London-Genoa Service)
  Mr. Croninasked the Minister of Aviation if he will make a statement on his negotiations with the Italian aviation authorities to obtain traffic rights for British United Airways between London and Genoa.
  Mr. Marten: Yes, Sir. The result of the negotiations was that the Italian Government have conceded to us the new route between the United Kingdom and Genoa in return for our agreement to changes in the conditions they impose on B.O.A.C.'s carriage of traffic between London and Rome.
  Mr. Cronin: Was not this agreement obtained at a cost of £50,000 a year paid by B.O.A.C., although that Corporation was not involved, to the Italian airlines, and a diversion of revenue of £350,000 a year from B.E.A.? Did not the Minister put pressure on the Italian Government, by cutting down the number of flights from Italy to England, to obtain this result? Although B.U.A. is an excellent airline, does not this amount to an obsessional desire to divert revenue to the pockets of private shareholders?
  Mr. Marten: That last statement is completely wrong. Whether B.O.A.C. will lose anything will depend on negotiations among the companies concerned, and I think that the worst which they may have to pay will be much less than the £50,000 which has been mentioned. In return we shall have gained a new and valuable route which would

  11
  otherwise have been the preserve of Italian airlines. All negotiations of this kind involve give and take. Each possible deal has to be judged on the basis of whether it advances our civil aviation interests as a whole.

  Renfrew Airport
  Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Aviation if he will make a further statement on the progress of his negotiations with Glasgow Corporation about the replacement of Renfrew Airport by a new civil aerodrome at Abbotsinch.
  Mr. Marten: I have nothing to add to what I said in reply to the hon. Member's Question on 6th May.
  Mr. Rankin: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in Glasgow we are all hoping for a successful conclusion to these negotiations, but in a way which will not impose too heavy a financial burden on the Corporation in view of the present high rating situation? After Whitsun, say, will the hon. Gentleman be able to make a further statement about these negotiations? Can we then look forward to Abbotsinch Airport being started in the year when the Government promised to have it completed?
  Mr. Marten: The answer to the first and third supplementary questions is "Yes". I hope to make a statement when we reassemble after the Whitsun Recess.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Before the hon. Gentleman makes a statement, will he keep in mind that if Prestwick were made the alternative to Abbotsinch many millions of pounds would be saved, that this is an airport which is fog-free and whose access to Glasgow could be so accelerated as to make the difference in time only a matter of minutes? Will he look again at the possibility of the choice of Prestwick with its many resources? If he has any doubts, will he ask the pilots who will have to land at Abbotsinch?
  Mr. Marten: As the hon. Gentleman may know, I went up there the week before last and personally looked into the three matters which he has raised. They are factors which are taken into general consideration, but I return to the point I made to the hon. Member for
  12
  Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) at Question Time last week—that if Glasgow Corporation wishes to have its own civic airport and to make a suitable financial contribution, it must do so.

  Prestwick Airport
  Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Aviation what proposals, in addition to the building of a high-class hotel, Sheraton's Motels Limited have placed before him for adding to the attractions of Prestwick Airport and increasing the numbers of passengers using it; and if these further proposals have been approved.
  Mr. Marten: Sheraton Motels' plans for the hotel at Prestwick Airport include various attractions for golfers. The company envisage arrangements for parties of golfers from North America to fly by charter aircraft to Prestwick and stay at the airport hotel. I welcome these enterprising ideas, which should not only help to ensure the success of the hotel, but generate useful additional traffic for the airport.
  Mr. Rankin: Does the hon. Gentleman accept the view that air passengers alone will not fully utilise the hotel with its 166 bedrooms? Will he give full support to the company's attempts to introduce attractions such as golf, in a golfing county and a golfing country, immediately adjacent to the hotel, with children's putting greens, swimming pools and all the other things to make Prestwick a first-class attraction?
  Mr. Marten: We shall give all the support we can towards making Prestwick Airport really profitable—those attractions and, I hope, others.
  Mr. Ross: It is very good to know that we are to introduce golf at the place where the first championships were held—several years ago. Can the hon. Gentleman tell me whether this is a firm proposal, whether it has been accepted and approved by the Minister, and when we in Ayrshire shall be able to see the projected plans for this new hotel?
  Mr. Marten: The proposal has been made and letters of intent have been signed. We are now awaiting the final details of contracts and checking up on the financial reliability of the purchasers.

  AW681 (Contracts)
  Mr. Edelmanasked the Minister of Aviation whether he has now concluded his arrangements for the allocation of contracts for the OR 351, otherwise known as the AW681; with whom these contracts have been placed; and whether he will give an assurance that the work in connection with these contracts will be primarily executed by the Whitworth Gloster works in Coventry.
  Mr. Marten: Contract negotiations with Hawker Siddeley Aviation Ltd., for the initial design work and project study in connection with the Hastings/Beverley replacement aircraft are in progress and should be completed very shortly. As my right hon. Friend explained to the House on 5th March, 1963, the whole resources of Hawker Siddeley will be available to the project. I understand it is their present intention that a substantial proportion of the design and development work should be carried out in Coventry.
  Mr. Edelman: I welcome that reply, but will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the rumours which have been in circulation—that the work may be diverted from Coventry? Will he also bear in mind that as 3,000 aviation workers in Coventry have already been made redundant this year, his statement will be widely welcomed, particularly as the whole future of Coventry's great and efficient aircraft industry depends on the bulk of the work on the AW681 being placed there?
  Mr. Marten: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have visited the factory and I saw the union leaders concerned. I will certainly bear in mind what he has said. It should be remembered that at this stage it is primarily for Hawker Siddeley to work out where to place its work.
  Mr. McMaster: Will my hon. Friend also bear in mind the Government undertaking to place part of the work with Short Bros. and Harland in Belfast? Will he see whether anything can be done to give that firm part of the design work in view of the threatened unemployment in the design team and the Government's 70 per cent, holding in that company?
  Mr. Marten: The Government gave an undertaking that certain work would be carried out there, but employment of the design team is a different question.
  Mr. Cronin: Is it the case that the Minister took two years to make his decision about Operation Requirement 351? Is that not why 3,000 people will be redundant in Coventry this year?
  Mr. Marten: It was not only one Minister but a number of Ministers who considered that there were a variety of tactical reasons why a certain design should be well studied before an order was placed. In that connection I am certain that the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition about exports to South Africa have not helped the aircraft industry as a whole.

  HIRE PURCHASE
  Mr. Marshasked the Attorney-General how many actions for the recovery of possession of goods let under a hire purchase agreement took place in 1951 and 1962.
  The Attorney-General (Sir John Hobson): The only figures available of actions for the recovery of possession of goods let under hire purchase agreements are of those brought in the county courts under the Hire Purchase Acts, 1938 and 1954. There were 17,614 of these actions in 1951 and 57,043 in 1962.
  Mr. Marsh: Would not the Attorney-General agree that a fourfold increase in the number of foolish but otherwise ordinary decent people who find themselves before the courts as a result of being bamboozled and pressurised by hire-purchase agents makes this a serious social problem, and is it not time that the Government looked at this rather dangerous feature of the acquisitive society which they have done so much to foster?
  The Attorney-General: There has been a considerable increase in the number of hire-purchase transactions since 1954, and proportionately the increase may not be as much as it sounds from the direct figures. The amendment of the law relating to hire purchase is a matter for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade dealt with this matter on 9th April.

  PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE

    Family Allowances
    Sir W. Bromley-Davenportasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance in how many cases during the last ten years appeals have been successful in respect of applications for family allowances where the applicant has failed to cash the relative orders within the prescribed period of six months; and how many have been turned down.
    The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. Niall Macpherson): Figures are available only from July 1959, when National Insurance local tribunals and the Commissioner assumed responsibility for appeals in family allowances matters. Since that date 20 such appeals have been partially allowed and 1,233 disallowed by the adjudicating authorities.
    Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: Does it not seem in some cases rather a waste of time to allow someone to appeal to the authorities when the authorities themselves are not allowed, by regulation, to grant the appeal in those cases? Would not it be simpler and cheaper to tell such people that there is no point in appealing?
    Mr. Macpherson: What, I think, my hon. and gallant Friend means is that the authorities cannot vary the period of six months, but if there is a mistake in the dates concerned, then they can allow the appeal, and in some cases they do so.

  Widowed Mother's Allowance
  Dame Irene Wardasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he will introduce legislation to extend the widowed mother's allowance to cover boys and girls who have obtained university places but have to wait until they become available.
  Mr. N. Macpherson: I have no statement to make on this matter.
  Dame Irene Ward: Would I be right in interpreting that reply to mean that I shall get a satisfactory statement if I wait long enough? Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have been agitating
  16
  about this for two years? Will he put a date to the time when he will be able to make a statement, in view of the fact that widowed mothers are at a tremendous disadvantage compared with married women and children who have two parents? When can we have a statement?
  Mr.. Macpherson: I am well aware of my hon. Friend's interest and concern in this matter, but I am afraid that I cannot say when a statement can be made.
  Dame Irene Ward: Cannot my right hon. Friend buck us up a bit?

  National Insurance (Retired Public Servants)
  Mr. Cordleasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will introduce legislation to exempt those who have retired from public service, either home or overseas, before the age of 65 years from the obligation of paying National Insurance contributions after their retirement.
  Mr. N. Macpherson: No, Sir. I see no reason for treating these men any differently from other insured men who give up work before reaching the age of 65.
  Mr. Cordle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are many thousands of Britons employed overseas on contracts in public or partly public service, such as universities and statutory corporations, who have previously worked here and feel compelled to keep up their National Insurance cards or else lose their retirement pay? Is my right hon. Friend aware that such people usually retire at 60 on gratuity or small pension, and often find it very difficult to get jobs here later? Will my right hon. Friend consider franking their cards at the retirement age of 60 when they get home if they cannot secure jobs?
  Mr. Macpherson: I am afraid that I could not do that, because the National Insurance Scheme rests on the principle of universality and, in general, men are expected to contribute from the age of 16 to 65. If retired public servants were to be allowed to opt out of the Scheme, then I think it would be difficult to refuse the same kind of privilege to other contributors, whether retired or not.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. D. Footasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he will introduce legislation to provide that, in future, persons who normally work or are deemed to work for a five-day week shall, when unemployed, draw unemployment benefit at the same rate as persons who normally work or are deemed to work for a six-day week.
  Mr. N. Macpherson: Under the law as it stands the rate of unemployment benefit is the same for everybody; one-sixth of the weekly rate of benefit is paid for each day of unemployment. The length of the normal working week does not affect the rate of benefit though it has a bearing on the number of days for which benefit is payable when workers on short time lose work for only part of the week. I have no proposals for changing these provisions.
  Mr. Foot: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that where there are a number of workers who are put on a four-day week, that is to say, are working short time, and there are others who are deemed normally to have worked a five-day week and some a six-day week, there is a difference in their treatment? Is not this an anomaly which ought to be removed?
  Mr. Macpherson: There are anomalies whatever one does, but the fact remains that a man who normally works five days a week gets the same benefit per week or per day off as the man who normally works six days a week.
  Mr. Mendelson: In view of the fact that short-time working is now so widespread, would not the Minister agree that men who are on a rota system, which is inevitable in a number of important national industries, are being unfairly treated because, determined by the start of the rota, they might be out of work or on short time for the same number of days as other workmen but will not be paid the unemployment benefit which is paid to their next-door neighbours? Is it not time that, instead of giving us a formal answer, the right hon. Gentleman should seriously look at the problem which is now causing grave concern in all our industrial areas?
  Mr. Macpherson: This question has been looked at very often, but the answer has always been the same. The point here is what are the normal working days and, as regards the benefit, if a man is off work he gets the same benefit whether he is normally employed for five days or six days, and if a man is off for a day he gets the same benefit for that day. It would be very difficult to have separate rates, one greater than the other, for a day of unemployment.
  Mr. Mitchison: Ought not the right hon. Gentleman to think of referring this question again to his Advisory Committee?
  Mr. Macpherson: I shall certainly consider that. I think I am right in saying that it has been referred before, but I shall consider it again.

  Ex-Service Pensioners (Accommodation)
  Mr. J. Hyndasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many limbless and paraplegic ex-Service pensioners have sought his help in obtaining ground floor accommodation; and what assistance he has afforded in such cases.
  Mr. N. Macpherson: I regret that statistics which would enable me to answer the first part of the hon. Gentleman's Question are not kept. With regard to the second part, while I have no power to afford direct assistance, my welfare officers do all they can, through their contacts with local authorities and voluntary organisations, to help war pensioners who are in trouble over accommodation.
  Mr. Hynd: The Minister is aware of the case I have in mind, where the welfare officers have done all they can but have been unable to achieve anything. The local authority in question, Hornsey, has made it impossible for this man to get ground-floor accommodation. Will the right hon. Gentleman look at this, not from the point of view of statistics, but from the human point of view? Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that after twelve years in power the Government find it an insoluble problem to provide a 1914–18 war limbless man with ground-floor accommodation or to help him to find such accommodation when he is prepared to pay for it?
  Mr. Macpherson: It was the hon. Gentleman who asked about the statistics. I would only say that in 1962 we referred about 1,200 cases to local housing authorities. It is local housing authorities who have the responsibility, under my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, and I am afraid that my responsibility does not extend to housing these men, although we do the best we can to help.
  Mr. Mitchison: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that this is rather scandalous? Ought not he to put his head closer to that of his right hon. colleague the Minister of Housing and Local Government and send a circular in rather strong terms to local authorities about these cases?
  Mr. Macpherson: I hope the House will not think that a great deal is not already done by local authorities as well as by voluntary organisations to find accommodation in these cases. One of the points involved is that not every limbless man wants ground floor accommodation.
  Mr. Hynd: Would not the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Ministry of pensions was originally set up to look after the welfare of people of this kind, and that during the term of office of some previous Ministers of Pensions the Ministry went as far as installing lifts to allow limbless men to get to their bedrooms if they could not find accommodation at ground-floor level? Will the Minister, instead of shovelling the responsibility on to local authorities, try to do something about this problem himself? All the resources of the nation can surely solve the problem of this kind.
  Mr. Macpherson: The fact is that it is the responsibility of local authorities to make necessary adaptations to houses. As I have explained, we do a great deal to help in this matter, and we have been helping this case by greatly increasing the man's war pension.
  Mr. Hynd: In view of the entirely unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

  Pneumoconiosis and Byssinosis
  Miss Herbisonasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how
  20
  many miners examined by the Pneumoconiosis and Byssinosis Medical Board were refused certification, giving the total number for the past five years and the percentage this represents of those examined.
  Mr. N. Macpherson: In the five years 1958 to 1962, 14,158 claimants for benefit under the Industrial Injuries Act were found not to be suffering from pneumoconiosis at their first examination by the Pneumoconiosis Medical Board; this represented 52 per cent. of the total of such examinations. In the same period, 6,348 claims were disallowed following a second or later examination by the medical board, that is 77 per cent. of the total of such claims. Statistics are not available of the number of individuals concerned, many of whom would have made more than one claim in the five-year period.
  Miss Herbison: Does the Minister not think from these figures that there must be grave dissatisfaction, particularly in mining and pottery areas? Is he not aware that many doctors in these villages, and many of the chest specialists in the hospitals, are quite certain that mistakes are often being made by the Pneumoconiosis and Byssinosis Medical Board in the diagnosis? Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that as the Minister responsible for these matters he should be doing something to try to ensure that there is greater confidence in the decisions of that board?
  Mr. Macpherson: The hon. Lady asked a Question about mistakes that were made a short time ago. It was found that the mistakes were not very great and that they worked both ways; it was found that on balance more people received benefit for pneumoconiosis when they did not suffer from it than did not receive benefit when they had the disease.
  Mrs. Slaterasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many pottery workers examined by the Pneumoconiosis and Byssinosis Medical Board were refused certification, giving the total number for the past five years and the percentage this represents of those examined, respectively.
  Mr. N. Macpherson: In the five years 1958 to 1962, 306 pottery workers claiming benefit under the Industrial Injuries

  21
  Act were found not to be suffering from pneumoconiosis at their first examination by the Pneumoconiosis Medical Board; this represented 36 per cent. of the total of such examinations. In the same period 28 claims were disallowed following a second or later examination by the medical board, that is 61 per cent. of the total of such claims.
  Mrs. Slater: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that the question of pottery workers having their claims disallowed is causing great concern in the industry? Is he aware that the coroner in north Staffordshire is always drawing attention to the fact that large numbers of people while they were living were not certified as having pneumoconiosis but on death were found from the post-mortem examination to have had the disease for a very long time? Could not the right hon. Gentleman get his Committee to look again at the whole problem of pneumoconiosis and consider whether some revision of the statutory regulations could not be made?
  Mr. Macpherson: This is really a question of diagnosis, and, generally speaking, the diagnosis reveals whether or not there is pneumoconiosis. About two-thirds of these cases do receive benefit under the Industrial Injuries Act.
  Dr. Stross: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, however, that there is a general view among pottery workers and miners that a minimal amount of silicosis—and I use the word "minimal" advisedly—is no longer recognised or accepted or certified? Why has this change taken place? why do we no longer have the 2 per cent. pneumoconiosis, as we used to have?
  Mr. Macpherson: I was not aware of that fact, but I will willingly look into it.

  Supplementary Pension Schemes
  Miss Herbisonasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many workers, apart from colliery workers, have a supplementary pension scheme under the powers of section 83(8)(a) of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1946.
  Mr. N. Macpherson: None, Sir.
  Miss Herbison: Is the Minister not aware that there are many workers who would like to have the same benefits as those who are in the mining industry?
  22
  Can the right hon. Gentleman do anything to try to get employers and employees together in other industries to bring about a scheme similar to that in the mining industry?
  Mr. Macpherson: This is a case where the industry itself has to take the initiative. Where there are special circumstances involving particular risks in an industry, it is always open to the industry to put up schemes under this Section of the Act for consideration by the Minister.
  Miss Herbison: But since all of them know that it is open to them to put up such schemes, could not the Minister do something to influence them to give greater thought to putting up schemes?
  Mr. Macpherson: We already have the Industrial Injuries Act. which covers the broad risks for everybody in industry. It is for a particular industry to consider whether there is a special risk in that industry to warrant a special supplementary scheme.

  National Assistance Supplementation (Scotland)
  Mr. Smallasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many persons in Glasgow are refused National Assistance supplementation, or are being paid less supplementation than the scale rate, because of the application of regulation 3 of the National Assistance (Determination of Need) Regulations 1948.
  Mr. Steeleasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many persons in Dunbartonshire are refused National Assistance supplementation or are being paid less supplementation than the scale rate, because of the application of regulation 3 of the National Asistance (Determination of Need) Regulations 1948.
  Mr. Willisasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many persons in Edinburgh are refused National Assistance supplementation, or are being paid less supplementation than the scale rate, because of the application of regulation 3 of the National Assistance (Determination of Need) Regulations 1948.
  Mr. Lawsonasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how

  23
  many persons in the area covered by the Motherwell office of the National Assist. ance Board are refused National Assistance supplementation, or are being paid less supplementation than the scale rate, because of the application of regulation 3 of the National Assistance (Determination of Need) Regulations 1948.
  Mr. T. Fraserasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many persons in the area covered by the Hamilton office of the National Assistance Board are refused National Assistance supplementation, or are being paid less supplementation than the scale rate, because of the application of regulation 3 of the National Assistance (Determination of Need) Regulations 1948.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): I assume that the hon. Members have in mind restrictions on National Assistance supplements to sickness or unemployment benefit, generally referred to as the wage-stop. Information relating to supplementation of sickness benefit is obtained on an annual sample basis only for the country as a whole, and separate figures for particular localities are not available. Information about supplements to unemployment benefit is also not available as asked for but a special inquiry early in March showed that the numbers of such supplements restricted at that date were:

  In Glasgow

  768

  In the area served by the Dunbarton and Clydebank area offices

  177

  In Edinburgh

  194

  In Motherwell

  68

  In Hamilton

  132

  Mr. Small: Does the hon. Lady recognise that these figures, according to information available to me, are rising fast and that they indicate that this provision falls heavily on people who, under the National Assistance (Determination of Need) Regulations, are not being equated with the normal standards which operate today? Will the hon. Lady now review the regulations with a view to scaling them up?
  Mrs. Thatcher: The figures are not rising fast; they are falling with the
  24
  fall in unemployment. This regulation has been inherent in the National Assistance provisions since their inception, and I see no reason to change it.
  Mr. Lawson: Is the hon. Lady satisfied that this regulation is being applied in each area with as much generosity, fairness and uniformity as in other areas? Is she aware that there are good reasons for believing that there is quite a wide margin of discrimination in some areas compared with others? Will the hon. Lady look at this?
  Mrs. Thatcher: We have tried to secure that the regulations are applied uniformly. The acid test is what the man concerned could get if he went back to work in that area.
  Mr. Bence: Is the hon. Lady aware that many workers are made redundant in a factory register at the employment exchange for a particular function—and I have an electricity wireman in my constituency in mind—but when they go for National Assistance they are classified as general labourers? As the scale is lower, they seem to be reclassified by the Board to their disadvantage. Will the hon. Lady look at that?
  Mrs. Thatcher: The Board has no power to do the classification. It has to consult the Ministry of Labour to see what kind of work is available at that time. I am aware that circumstances such as those to which the hon. Member has referred arise.
  Miss Herbison: Is the hon. Lady aware that, judging even from the figures which she has given, there are hundreds of people in Scotland, particularly, where wage rates are lower, who are now being asked to live and bring up their families on an amount of money which is much smaller than the Government think is necessary for a subsistence level? Since that has obtained particularly since the last two increases in the National Assistance rates, would the hon. Lady not agree that the time has come for the Minister to have this matter examined or to give it to his Advisory Committee in order to mitigate as much as possible the great hardship which the children of these workers are suffering under the week-stop rule?
  Mrs. Thatcher: The regulation is designed to ensure that people receive

  25
  no more money when unemployed than they would receive if they went back to work in such jobs as wore available that week. I believe that this is a reasonable state of affairs and that the National Assistance Board's officers do their best to alleviate hardship wherever it occurs.
  Mr. Rossasked the Minister of Pensions and National insurance what proportion in Scotland of married men, with a dependent wife and five or more children, are receiving either no National Assistance supplementation, or less than the scale rate, because of the application of the National Assistance (Determination of Need) Regulations, 1948.
  Mrs. Thatcher: I regret that no information relating to restrictions on supplements to either sickness or unemployment benefit is available in relation to families of a particular size.
  Mr. Ross: Will the hon. Lady ask the Minister to refer this whole question to the Advisory Committee? There is no doubt that hardship is being caused when people are paid less than the scale. She can hardly deny it if she has not got the figures. Will the hon. Lady do the first thing necessary and try to obtain some information about it, supplemented by the information she already has for the month of March? Does she realise the inconsistency in giving us the figures for March and pretending that they are falling because unemployment is falling, when, in fact, unemployment was rising in the month of March?
  Mrs. Thatcher: If the hon. Gentleman was drawing conclusions from my facial expression during the first part of his supplementary question. I thought that he referred to the National Insurance Advisory Committee, which, of course, is not concerned with National Assistance matters.

  Personal Case
  Mr. Prenticeasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he will reconsider his refusal to back-date to 1944 the war disability pension awarded to Mr. E. H. Sadler, of 243, Green Street, E.7, in 1962, in view of the fact that the medical evidence upon which his claim succeeded in 1962 was equally applicable in 1944 and in 1951 when his pension applications were rejected.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Lieut.-Commander S. L. C. Maydon): Mr. Sadler's application for arrears, as the hon. Member is aware, has been very carefully considered and my right hon. Friend is unable to vary the decision.
  Mr. Prentice: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that this decision seems to fall short of the fairness which we expect in cases of this kind? Will he acknowledge, first, that this man's disability has now been found to have been aggravated by war service, and one is entitled to assume, therefore, that it was aggravated in 1944 and thereafter; and, second, that this is not the ordinary case of a man not taking the trouble to apply, since he did apply in 1944 and in 1951, being turned down on a medical decision which has now been over-ruled? In the circumstances, will he look into the matter again?
  Lieut-Commander Maydon: I am aware of the facts which the hon. Gentleman has given, but I do not accept the implications. One of the principles of these claims is that a claim can be made at any time and, in consequence, we are normally unable to accept that arrears should be paid—in some cases over very many years. The principle on which we work is that, unless there is evidence that a man's claim has been delayed for reasons of physical or mental illness, or unless there are particular circumstances in which a medical assessment could have been gravely wrong, arrears will not be granted.
  Mr. Mitchison: But is not this grossly unfair? Apparently, this man applied on two occasions. Before he finally got his pension, he received two refusals which now, in the light of what we know, appear to have been unjust. Why penalise him for that?
  Lieut-Commander Maydon: There is no question of penalising the man. The hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that a disease in this sort of case is a continuing process; it may get worse or it may get better. This is one of the reasons why arrears can be paid only to the date of the application, and not further back. Otherwise, one might be basing the payment of arrears on purely hypothetical considerations of which there is no evidence or proof.
  Mr. Prentice: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

  GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SERVICES

    High Unemployment Areas
    Dame Irene Wardasked the Minister without Portfolio what action he is taking to make better known the facilities available to industrialists in the areas of high unemployment.
    Mr. Rossasked the Minister without Portfolio whether he has completed his study of publicity for the development districts.
    The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. W. F. Deedes): At my request, the Central Office of Information has commissioned S. H. Benson, Limited, to assist with professional advice in the study which I have arranged of means by which publicity for the development districts might be fostered. It will review the present publicity arrangements in conjunction with the organisations concerned, and we shall then consider what further action should be taken.
    Dame Irene Ward: I thank my right hon. Friend for that valuable piece of information. How long does he think it will be before we shall have this reappraisal and some action on the matter, which is very urgent?
    Mr. Deedes: I have already had a preliminary report. I hope that the Main report will be done in a matter of, possibly, weeks. We shall not have any avoidable waste of time.
    Mr. Ross: We are obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has done and we welcome that he has taken up a suggestion first made from this side of the House that something more could be done about publicity, particularly overseas. When the review is completed, will it be made public, and shall we have an opportunity to discuss it further with him?
    Mr. Deedes: I should like to look at the report first. I hope that it will be a very candid report. When I have seen the terms of it, I shall decide whether to publish it.
    Mr. R. W. Elliot: In his review, will my right hon. Friend take due note of an article appearing in today's Newcastle Journal entitled "Trading Estates are the Unsung Success Story of the North", and will he note particularly the report in that article of a recent statement by the chairman of the Industrial Estates Management Corporation for England, Mr. Sadler Forster, in which he said that a very biassed and unbalanced picture of the North-East had been presented and had resulted in a false impression of unrelieved gloom being given to the rest of the country?
    Mr. Deedes: That is precisely the sort of problem I have in mind, and it is what we shall try to remedy.
    Mr. Shinwell: Why have the Government taken so long to undertake this vital task? What has the Minister done personally to bring to the notice of industrialists either in this country or abroad the very useful facilities available in my constituency and in County Durham?
    Mr. Deedes: The Board of Trade has already done a great deal overseas with publications to bring to the notice of overseas people what is available in these districts. We now want to look at the whole picture from the point of view of domestic as well as overseas manufacturers.

  HOSPITALS

    Hospital Engineers
    Sir C. Taylorasked the Minister of Health whether he has received the report of the study group on the work, grading, training and qualifications of hospital engineers; and what action he proposes to take in this matter.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health (Mr. Bernard Braine): Yes, Sir; I cannot yet add to my right hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) on 10th December last.
    Sir C. Taylor: When will my hon. Friend be able to add to that reply?
    Mr. Braine: My right hon. Friend hopes to deal with the matter quite soon.

  Sterile Syringe Service
  Mr. Pavittasked the Minister of Health by what authority a regional hospital board has declined to provide a sterile syringe service in hospitals where authoritative medical opinion has declared that failure to provide such a service is hazardous to patients; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. Braine: Provision of this service is approved policy. It is being progressively implemented in all regions.
  Mr. Pavitt: How can the Parliamentary Secretary explain that the service has been denied in certain hospitals? Is there not an anomaly if on drugs the Minister, quite rightly, stands by the right of the doctor to prescribe what he wishes while, at the same time, when the consultant service in the hospitals demands a sterile syringe service, this is excluded on grounds of expense in certain cases of which I can inform the hon. Gentleman?
  Mr. Braine: There is no anomaly. I said that this policy has been pressed ahead as fast as possible. The priority has to be decided in relation to other priorities by hospital management committees and regional hospital boards. I remind the hon. Gentleman that a centralised system is usually economical but it is not the only method of providing adequately sterilised syringes.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH

    Drugs
    Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Minister of Health what discussions with interested bodies have taken place relating to amending legislation on the subject of medicines, drugs and poisons since he received the report of 'the working party in July, 1962; whether a draft Bill has been prepared; and when legislation may be expected.
    Mrs. Butlerasked the Minister of Health when he expects his review of the law relating to drugs to be complete; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Braine: I have nothing to add to my right hon. Friend's reply on 4th April to my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore).
    Mr. Robinson: Why is the Ministry dragging its feet? Is not the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the Cohen Sub-Committee stated that in its view legislation was urgently needed and, apparently, the Cohen Committee has not been informed that a working party's report had been in the Ministry for very nearly a year?
    Mr. Braine: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that my right hon. Friend is not dragging his feet in this matter. My right hon. Friend and the Secretary of State for Scotland are pressing ahead as quickly as possible both with consideration of the working party's recommendations for legislation and with establishing the voluntary scheme proposed by the Cohen Sub-Committee.

  Migraine
  Mr. R. W. Elliottasked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the need for a clinic for the treatment of migraine sufferers in the north-east of England; and what steps he will take to set one up.
  Mr. Braine: No, Sir. Doctors have the means to treat migraine in whatever way they judge best.
  Mr. Elliott: Is my hon. Friend aware that many people who suffer from this appalling complaint are of the fixed opinion that there is concentration on treatment rather than on cure? Will he recommend to his right hon. Friend that he extends his powers not only to agree to the setting up of clinics attached to regional hospitals but to insist that these clinics be established?
  Mr. Braine: There is no reason why doctors should not hold special clinics for patients with migraine if they think that this is the best way of organising treatment. Specialist advice is available from consultant physicians and neurologists at hospitals, including hospitals in Newcastle.
  Dame Irene Ward: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that patients in the north of England suffering from migraine have had to come down to the Putney Migraine Clinic at their own expense in order to get proper treatment and cure? When will my right hon. Friend—I do not blame my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary—really see sense in

  31
  this matter? He talks a lot of nonsense about the whole thing.
  Mr. Braine: I hate to disagree with my hon. Friend, but I do not think she listened to what I said previously. Specialist advice is available from consultant physicians or neurologists at hospitals, including those in her own area of Newcastle.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)
Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. lain Macleod.]

SUPPLY
[18TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Considered in Committee.
[Sir ROBERT GRIMSTON in the Chair]

VOTE 1. BOARD OF TRADE
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £4,461,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31at day of March, 1964, for the salaries and expenses of the office of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade and subordinate departments and agencies.—[£2,230,000 has been voted on account.]
Whereupon Motion made, and Question, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again—[Mr. Redmayne]—put and agreed to.
Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

CONSUMER PROTECTION
3.33 p.m.
Mr. George Darling: I beg to move,
That this House, recognising the need to protect consumers from unfair and undesirable trade practices and to promote better trading standards, regrets Her Majesty's Government's failure to introduce appropriate measures and take vigorous administrative action to safeguard consumers' interests.
Hon. Members will see that the Motion is drawn very widely. If I may labour the obvious, that is because this is a wide subject. We are all consumers, about 50 million of us, and we are shoppers. Last year, we spent about £18,000 million in the shops and stores. We also spent money outside the shops and stores eating in cafes, restaurants and canteens. We drank in hotels and public houses. Some of us have cars and use garage services. We use laundries, shoe-repairing shops and other services of that kind. We travel and use transport services. We buy or rent homes and use gas, electricity, water, telephone and postal services.

33
What we want to ensure is that all these trading activities and the services we use shall be governed by rules which will guarantee us value for money, honest services and reliable information. I am sure that all consumers want protection from unfair or undesirable trade practices. We want to know precisely what we are buying. We do not want to be misled or deceived by dishonest advertising, or false labelling of goods. We are asking that this enormous business of making and selling goods and services of all kinds shall conform to acceptable codes of trading practice.
Many of us would prefer to have voluntary rules, voluntarily accepted, because the vast majority of manufacturers and traders are honest and reliable and desire to improve their trading standards all the time, but experience has shown over the last two or three decades that the honest trader needs legal protection from the dishonest competition of rogues and swindlers just as much as consumers need protection. Therefore, we believe that Parliament has a duty to provide and lay down trading rules wherever they are needed. For this purpose we need advice to carry out our duties fairly and effectively, advice from a consumer council and from reputable trade associations and other bodies.
There is nothing new in laying down rules for the conduct of traders. We have been doing it for centuries. Over the last hundred years we have had basic rules, some excellent basic rules such as those provided by the Sale of Goods Act and the Weights and Measures Acts. We had to introduce control of food and drugs, of hire purchase and protection for trade marks, and so on. We have now reached a point at which it is perfectly clear that most of the rules we have for the conduct of trading are completely out of date. They have not kept up to date with the extraordinary developments in trading practices during the last quarter of a century.
Our shopping habits are changing. We have supermarkets and self-service stores. We have new methods of making, processing and packaging goods. We have many new commodities that were not known before the last war, such as manmade fibres and new forms of electrical appliances for the home. We have new drugs and an enormous increase in
34
chemical products for use in the home. We have to revise the rules to meet new conditions.
Our main complaint against the Government is that they have been far too dilatory, far too indifferent and far too much influenced by trade interests to take the vigorous action which is needed to protect shoppers and shopkeepers from the harmful trading practices which have cropped up during the last few years. The Government Amendment which is to be moved to the Motion exposes their lamentable record. All the Government can think of to boast about is that they are in the process of establishing a Consumer Council. They have not yet finished that job, for there are three vacancies still to be filled. If that is all they intend to do, they should get out of the way and let a more vigorous and radical Government get on with the job.
The Government seem to be blithely indifferent to the fact that our trading rules are out of date and that as a result our trading standards are often far from satisfactory. We have lagged behind most other Western countries in, for instance, our rules about food handling, rules about labelling of products, and so on. Because of the neglect by the Government customers are far too often exploited by tricksters and swindlers. The Government have done little or nothing over the last twelve years to check false advertising, misleading labelling of goods and deceptive packaging. We tried to deal with this when considering the Weights and Measures Bill. We tried to get rid of fraudulent packaging by many manufacturers who put too little into a large-size container which is labelled "jumbo" or "large economy" size and so completely deceive the customer. The Weights and Measures Bill was so drawn that this was outside its scope.
The Government have done nothing about "phoney" guarantees, about worthless guarantees, when in many cases the customer who signs the guarantee signs away his common law right and is worse off, if he has something to complain about, than he would have been if he had had no guarantee at all. The Government have done nothing about switch sales and about such swindles as door-to-door carpet selling, or about the fraudulent "scholarship contest" racket, where the

35
perpetrators pose as students and try to persuade sympathetic housewives to subscribe to magazines.
One of the worst features of these frauds is that all too often they are promoted by Americans who come over here to practise their rackets because they have been banned in their own country and we lag behind in our provisions. There are the doorstep sales of encyclopedias by salesmen who dishonestly pretend that they have the backing of local education authorities; there are hire-purchase deals which no one in the House can defend; and there are travelling salesmen who book village halls to sell cheap carpets at inflated prices with quite dishonest descriptions of those carpets.
These and many other frauds have been going on for a long time. The Board of Trade knows all about them. It has had stacks of complaints, but does little or nothing about these things. In fact, the Government's masterly inactivity in this field has given to many people the impression that there are great legal difficulties in the way of getting things put right, that it is not easy to make new rules, and that we should have to have an army of inspectors to carry out the rules.
This is sheer nonsense. We need very little new legislation to deal with all these swindles and rackets. What we need is an alert and determined Government. For instance, all that is needed to stop the doorstep and itinerant salesman's rackets is a legal requirement that all advertisements, in newspapers, in handbills or on posters, must carry the registered address of the advertiser. They get away with it now because nobody can trace them. If that legal provision were laid down and the person who offended against it were dealt with in the courts, we could, I think, begin to get rid of these rackets quickly.
Again, to stop false advertising and the deceptive labelling of goods ought not to be difficult, because we already have a model law on the Statute Book which deals with this very problem. It is Section 6 of the Food and Drugs Act. If the provisions against false advertising in that Act are satisfactory for food and drugs, why cannot we extend them to all other goods? If they were extended to other goods, we should, of course, need
36
vigorous administrative action to make sure that the provisions of the Act were carried out; and the record suggests that that is something which we shall not get from this Government.
In fact, some of us have a suspicion that the Consumer Council, about which the Parliamentary Secretary will start boasting shortly, has been set up in part as an excuse for doing nothing, because if the Government take it upon themselves to refer these apparently difficult problems to the Council for advice, a long period will elapse before anything is done. We have grounds for this suspicion in the Government's record—a deplorable record.
For example, let us take the Weights and Measures Bill. Ever since 1951, everybody in this country who is interested in this section of our trading operations has known very well that a new Measure was needed. It is twelve years since we received the excellent Report of the Hodgson Committee, advising us how the weights and measures rules should be reformed. Twelve years after that we have the Weights and Measures Bill, which is making its way through Parliament. But even if that Act is passed this Session, it will have been fifteen years before anything is done to carry out the proposals, adapted to modern circumstances, of the Hodgson Committee.
Weights and measures legislation is only one part or consumer protection. The Food and Drugs Act was very greatly needed, but it took about five years to amend the out-of-date legislation and to produce the consolidation Act which we have now. Even so, the provisions for the hygienic handling of foodstuffs are largely ignored, because the Ministry of Agriculture has forgotten that it is also the Ministry of Food and takes very little action to make sure that our foodstuffs are handled properly. This may be one of the reasons why the incidence of food poisoning is far too high.
Incidentally, I do not know whether hon. Members are aware that we let an unfortunate provision go through when we passed the consolidation Act. Of course, as it was a consolidation Act, we could not amend it. Hon. Members will be surprised to know that the Minister of Health has no power to take action against the false advertising and misleading labelling of drugs. The Act puts

37
the responsibility on the public health authorities, the local authorities, and expressly cuts out the Minister from taking any action.
Another important question concerns safety standards. Hon. Members probably know that there are more deaths and accidents in homes than on the roads. It was left—we do not complain of this—to two Private Members' Bills to give the Government power to lay down safety standards for potentially dangerous appliances and goods. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir G. Nabarro) dealt with oil stoves and my hon. Friend the Member for Bilston (Mr. R. Edwards) brought in the more comprehensive Act which would give the Government power to introduce safety standards over a wider field. But in spite of repeated requests from coroners, from local authorities, from health experts and from consumer associations of all kinds for more safety standards, we still have only one safety standard laid down under this legislation, and that is for oil stoves.
To show the Government's attitude about these things and how indifferent they are I remind hon. Members that a week or so ago they received a circular from the Home Office saying:
"Members of Parliament…may find it helpful to know that the subjects dealt with by the Home Office are now allocated between The Joint Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State in the following way:".
The circular gives a long list of things which are looked after by the hon. Lady the Member for Melton (Miss Pike) and a long list of things looked after by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse).
I agree that the police, civil defence and the fire service are important and should come at the top of the list, but there is no reference to safety standards as such. There is a reference to safety in the home among the subjects to be looked after, although the Consumer Protection Act goes wider than that. It seems that the Home Office is restricting its application. It gives the subject such a low priority that it ranks after betting and gaming, liquor licensing, the State management scheme and the protection of animals. If the Home Office had taken it one stage further it would have been among the "Other miscellaneous Home Office matters" at the bottom of the list.
38
Those are some of the reasons why we complain about the Government's inactivity. But during the years in which the Government have done almost nothing, the public have awakened to their lack of proper protection against a whole range of malpractices. The Government have been compelled to take note of public disquiet and demands for action. They set up the Molony Committee with wide terms of reference, which the Molony Committee itself reduced. The Committee decided that it should not inquire into services, laundries and garages, and so on, into price control, into resale price maintenance, into food and drugs, into marketing schemes or into the consumer councils of public industries.
The Committee also left out weights and measures, but that was on the assumption that the Government would do something on that subject without further advice, though the Molony Committee was worried about the way in which the Government act even on the best advice. In paragraph 8 it sums up our views of the Government, by saying:
"If our recommendations are accepted in whole or in part, we trust that in the interest of the consumer their implementation will not suffer the monumental delay which has characterised the treatment of the Hodgson Committee Report."
For all practical purposes, 300 pages of legalistic argument in the Molony Report have produced five recommendations and an order of priority for implementing them. The first is that a Consumer Council should be set up with strictly limited powers; secondly, that there should be amendments to the hire-purchase Acts; thirdly, that the Merchandise Marks Acts should be amended; fourthly, that the Sale of Goods Act should be amended; and, fifthly, that there should be some control of seals of approval.
When the Report appeared with these not very ambitious proposals, the Board of Trade spokesman in another place proudly announced that the Government had moved swiftly and had immediately accepted the recommendation to set up a Consumer Council. Swift action from this Government is a startling innovation. We could not believe it, and we were right. We had the promise of swift action ten months ago, and the Consumer Council has not yet been totally appointed. We have the chairman, the

39
secretary and seven members, but there are still three vacancies to be filled. I must admit, however, that the Council is shaping up much better than we expected, and I hope that, in filling the last three places, the Parliamentary Secretary will impress on his right hon. Friend that working-class housewives should not be unrepresented.
I must confess, too, that I have doubts about having a Civil Service secretary of the Council, because the Council should be, and should be seen to be, completely independent, free to criticise the Government as it must be free to criticise traders, manufacturers, trade associations, and so on. I should have pressed this objection strongly if the secretary had not been such an unusual and forthright civil servant.
We wish the Council well. We will see how it goes, and at the first opportunity we will widen its terms of reference. But I warn the Parliamentary Secretary that if the Council produces the kind of bromides which we usually get from the Board of Trade in response to complaints and criticisms, it will have to face a storm of protest.
Here I must protest myself at the President of the Board of Trade's lack of frankness in setting up the Council. Incidentally, we fully understand why he is not here today, and there are no criticisms on that score. The right hon. Gentleman has made only one statement in the House about the Consumer Council and about which, as I say, the Parliamentary Secretary will soon boast. That was contained in two sentences during the Second Reading of the Weights and Measures Bill. The terms of reference and the name of the chairman were provided in a Written Answer to a contrived Question set down for the purpose. The name of the secretary and other details were given in a Press statement. The seven additional members were announced in a Written Answer last week.
Until we put down our Motion, we have had no opportunity of discussing what is, according to the Amendment, a major piece of Government policy. I must, therefore, ask the Parliamentary Secretary to answer one or two questions about the Council that we have not so
40
far been allowed to put to him or to his right hon. Friend.
Has it been made perfectly clear to the members of the Council that they are completely independent of the Government and that they can say what they like at any time they like and can criticise the Government just as much as they like? How often will they meet? If the Council is to do its work properly, it will have a very full agenda. If it meets only once a month, or something like that, I cannot see how it will get on with its work and finish it in reasonable time.
Will its range of activities be so restricted as to keep within, say, a leisurely monthly meeting? Has the Parliamentary Secretary any idea of the problems that the Council will work on and the order of priorities which it will follow? Why must services be excluded from its activities? If it cannot examine the conduct of laundries, garages, travel agents, and so on, who will do the job?
Why should these be left out of the kind of examination which we think it proper for the Council to give to other forms of trade? Does the President of the Board of Trade intend to refer such important questions as the amendment of the hire-purchase Acts to the Council? If that is what the Parliamentary Secretary proposes this afternoon, I shall personally register a very strong protest. This is much too urgent a job to be left to a leisurely inquiry of the kind which I think we shall get from the Council. I will not ask any more questions, because I am sure that my hon. Friends have some to ask.
It has taken the Government a year to set up the Consumer Council. If this is an indication of the speed at which they propose to work, and if it takes them a year to implement each of the Molony Committee's five recommendations, it will be 1967 before anything is done to prohibit worthless guarantees. But, of course, we expect a change of Government, which will act much more swiftly. In fact, such an incredible delay as seems likely is a strong argument for getting rid of this indolent set of Ministers.
In my view, the Molony Committee's recommendations are sound as far as they go, except on hire purchase. I am afraid that, in view of an article which

41
appeared in the City column of The Times, my remarks on this matter, although brief, will have to be a little longer than I previously intended. Everyone agrees that our system of getting goods on hire purchase is full of faults. It is not straightforward hiring and it is not straightforward purchasing. It is an illegitimate mixture of the two. It turns traders into moneylenders and moneylenders into traders. I do not think that we shall ever have a satisfactory system of buying goods on credit until we have completely separated the moneylender from the trader, except, perhaps, for small transactions.
The present law, the 1938 and 1954 Acts, give some legal protection to the buyer, the dealer and the financier, but it is limited to transactions under £300. This is an indefensible limit these days. It cuts out, for instance, most motor car transactions and puts many other transactions outside the protection of the law. The Molony Committee, in my view, was quite right to propose that there should be no financial limit on such protection as the law provides.
However, the law, even for these smaller transactions, is open to very serious objections. My hon. Friends here and in another place have tried to amend it. First, it was opposed by the Government on the ground that we should wait for the Molony Report, even though the Bill which my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Mr. W. T. Williams) tried to introduce turned out to be very much in line with the Molony Committee's recommendations. In another place, the Government blocked a Private Member's Bill which was actually based on the Molony Committee's recommendations which provided for a 72-hour cooling off period for doorstep transactions and which proposed to raise the £300 limit to £1,000. It was blocked on the ground that the law was in such a shambles that it needed comprehensive improvement. I agree. We cannot any longer tinker with the 1938 Act, because the law is hopelessly out of tune with the times.
In many cases, the so-called hire-purchase charges, the interest that has to be paid, and so on, are disgracefully excessive. They cannot be defended. Last week, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) was given leave to introduce a Bill to limit the
42
charges to 50 per cent. of the sale price of the goods. We have got into a sorry state when we calmly accept that a 50 per cent. interest charge is an improvement on some of the out-rageous impositions of hire-purchase dealers.
Another big fault in the law is that it encourages dealers to persuade and press customs into taking on hire-purchase commitments that they cannot really afford. The county courts are cluttered up with defaulters. There may well be an even bigger number of people whose goods have been snatched back from them without a court order, because the dealer can take them back without a court order if less than one-third of the hire-purchase price has been paid.
The figures given today at Question time by the Attorney-General show that there must be scores of thousands of people who have entered into hire-purchase commitments and paid out money and, merely because they have got into arrears for a time, have nothing whatever to show for it. What they thought were their goods have been repossessed and they have nothing for their payments.
The situation is far worse, however, for anybody who gets into arrear with his payments if the agreement is for a figure above £300, that is to say, if the value of the goods plus the exorbitant hire-purchase charges exceeds £300. In these cases, the customer's goods can be seized if he is only one day in arrear on his payments. They can be seized at any time. A motor car, for example, can be taken away from a man in the street without a court order. I have had reported to me instances of cars being taken back even though the customer had almost completed his payments; he had only a month or so to go before the care was his, and he has no redress. The law offers him no protection.
I know that reputable finances houses deplore that kind of blatant robbery. If they deal with a customer who gets behind in his payments through sickness, unemployment or something like that, they usually try to help him; they certainly do not snatch back his goods. There are, however, as many disreputable people in this business as there are

43
reputable people and it is fortunate for the public that the reputable ones have most of the trade.
Even so, there is an undesirable element even in the transactions of the reputable firms when they are dealing particularly with cars, and that is the secret commission which they have to pay to dealers to get their business. The Molony Committee strongly criticized these commissions. They inflate the charges, put up prices and, moreover, do not appear in the agreements.
I am a layman in these matters, and I have had to seek expert advice, but with all the considerable advice that I have had, I cannot see how it is possible to amend the Hire Purchase Acts and end up with a wholly satisfactory Measure. The 1938 Act was itself imperfect. It was a compromise and was certainly never designed to control the enormous hire-purchase business that has grown up in recent years and which now runs at about £1,000 million a year. This is too big a trade to tinker with.
I do not think that we can get the law straight unless we start by accepting the simple proposition, which is at the basis of this form of trading, that the customer wants to buy goods and cannot afford to pay cash. He does not want to hire them. If he did, he would enter into a hiring agreement. He wants to pay a monthly sum for a reasonable period until he has cleared off the transaction.
The question which we have to ask ourselves is what is the best, least expensive, fairest and most secure arrangement that we can devise to cover this kind of transaction. It is clearly not hire purchase. For one thing, the charges are too excessive, hire purchase is expensive and many honest customers and traders in the hire-purchase business have to inflate their charges to cover the bad debts which have been promoted by other people. Moreover, the goods do not belong to the buyer until he has finished paying for them. They can be snatched away from him under legal provisions which nowadays cannot possibly be defended, and hire purchase often puts a big burden upon the traders, too, which they have to share with the finance houses, many of whom, I feel sure, dislike the system as much as I do.
44
It seems to me that the best arrangement, if the customer is in a position to adopt it, is not to enter into a hire-purchase agreement, but to go to his bank and borrow the money, to pay cash for the goods and repay the loan to his bank out of income with interest charges that work out at about one-third, or at least less than half, of the hire-purchase charges that he would pay if he entered into a hire-purchase transaction.
The solution to the hire-purchase problem, therefore, as I see it, is to provide facilities to customers to borrow the money that they want so that they can pay cash to the trader. If the customer has no substantial balance at the bank or the institution from which he gets the loan, he should be allowed to pledge the goods which he has bought as security for the loan. This is the American chattel mortgage system, which works satisfactorily.
The reason why I have become interested in that system as a solution to the many problems that all hon. Members have to face when constituents bring their hire-purchase problems before them is that I had the opportunity of witnessing a car sale in the United States on these chattel mortgage terms and it seemed to me to work extremely well. It is a system with many advantages over hire purchase. It compels the bank or the lender to press the customer not to undertake commitments that he cannot afford. It ensures that the customer gets value for money, because the bank or the loan institution will not lend money for the buying of worthless goods and it takes the trader out of the money-lending business. He becomes a cash trader except, perhaps. for small transactions. In this system, it would be much easier to prohibit dealers' commissions.
Obviously, if that system were to replace hire purchase, as I hope it will, the lending side of it could not be restricted to the banks. The finance houses would have to come in as moneylenders, which is their function now. It would not mean a big change in their case, except that they would have to open offices where loans could be arranged. Co-operative societies, friendly societies and other savings institutions would be given the opportunity to become registered as loan institutions. Indeed, one of the conditions that should be laid

45
down if the system is adopted for registering lending institutions is that they must also provide facilities for savings accounts, in the same way as building societies have both depositors and customers for mortgages. Strict rules would, of course, have to be laid down.
Captain Walter Elliot: The hon. Member seems to be advocating that, under this system, if the borrower defaults the banks would take over the goods and, perhaps, sell them. Is that what he is advocating?
Mr. Darling: It would depend upon circumstances. Somehow, the bank would have to deal with a defaulter in the same way as it deals with a defaulter on an overdraft. If the banks had defaulters, it might be that they would have to make arrangements somehow to get the goods or to take other goods, as is often done already under court orders, to be sold to cover the debt. If the lending of money were tightened up as I suggest—because a hire-purchase arrangement is a lending of money, although in a roundabout way—I should expect there to be many fewer defaulters. They could be cut down considerably in number. These, however, are technical problems which would have to be worked out.
But none that so far have been brought to my notice seems to be insoluble. In fact there is only one problem of any substance involved in the administration of this kind of scheme, and that is where to draw the line for the smaller transactions, which I think should continue on the basis of credit trading—not hire purchase.
I do not think that I need develop this, because, as far as I can discover, the law on credit trading, in England and Wales at any rate, is not unsatisfactory and the shopkeepers who go in for it—that is to say, the smaller transactions—seem to keep a pretty tight control on the transactions. They usually give credit terms only to their regular customers, and the interest charges are generally reasonable. But, of course, if any tightening up is to be needed, this can be done in the amending legislation. This also goes for hiring and rental agreements. I believe that the main criticism of rental agreements is that they are allowed to go on for too long, and I see, Mr. Speaker, that I am in danger of doing that myself.
46
May I, therefore, appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary—I do not expect a detailed reply to this proposition today—to have a speedy and comprehensive inquiry into the chattel mortgage system, and measure its advantages and disadvantages against whatever proposals he may have for amending the hire-purchase laws? I also appeal to him not to send this to the Consumer Council, not to get it wrapped up in what is inevitably the Council's initial work which may take a considerable time to sort out.
Finally, I should like to explain briefly how we propose to deal with the administration of consumer protection when we occupy the benches opposite, which will not be very long now. After the hire-purchase laws have been reformed or replaced with better legislation, we think that very little new legislation will be needed. We shall clean up misleading advertising, false labelling and deceptive packaging by appropriate amendments to the Merchandise Marks Acts. [Laughter]. I see that the Minister of State, Board of Trade has obviously not yet read the Molony Report; otherwise, he would see that this proposition is very simple.
We shall clean up "phoney" guarantees and worthless seals of approval on the lines recommended by the Molony Committee. We shall make the Consumer Council a vigilant and vigorous watchdog of consumer interest. We shall make it responsible for advising manufacturers and customers on the need for standard, informative labelling, which is something which ought to have been dealt with years ago, and for supervising consumer legislation, examining consumers' complaints and advising the Government generally.
Above all, we need a Government Department that is primarily concerned with consumer protection, and we think that this is best located in the Board of Trade, a Department which would take over responsibilities—for example, for safety standards, food and drug labelling and food hygiene—which now fall on other Government Departments which have shown that they are not really interested in their duties.
We cannot accept the proposal that consumer advisory bureaux alone should be the local agents of the Consumer Council. The bureaux do very good work. We want them to continue and

47
to extend so that they can help consumers to sort out their problems. But they are too weak, too patchy. They do not appear everywhere in the country to be fully effective. Moreover, we cannot ignore the local authorities, as it seems that the Government are going to do judging from the statements that we have had on this subject. Local authorities have statutory duties in this field—for instance, for weights and measures, public health, enforcement of food and drugs regulations, enforcement of the Merchandise Marks Acts, and the Shops Act.
We should like to see local authorities bringing all these activities together into a public control service—I object to the title, but it has grown up—as some have already done. We should like to see in each local authority a civic information service, as many have already established, which would give advice to customers who have complaints and grievances which they want dealt with. Above all, we want to encourage consumers to take a real interest in their own welfare, to join and take part in the work of consumer groups such as have been set up by consumers' associations and cooperative organisations, all of which we commend.
But, important as these voluntary activities are, and urgently necessary as the streamlining of national and local administration may be, we shall not make much progress towards ensuring a fair deal for all consumers until we have brought up to date and improved the rules for which we in Parliament are responsible; and to make real progress in modernising the laws and regulations, as the dismal record of this Administration has clearly proved, we urgently need a change of Government.
4.16 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. David Price): I beg to move, to leave out from "standards" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
"welcomes the action of Her Majesty's Government in establishing the Consumer Council as a major first step in implementing the recommendations of the Final Report of the Committee on Consumer Protection".
I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) upon the extensive knowledge
48
which he has shown of this important subject of consumer protection and on the constructive manner in which he has approached the subject, as well as on some of the constructive proposals which he has put before us. As for the final flourishes, the hon. Member was, of course, merely following the conventional rubrics of an Opposition Front Bench speaker in moving a Motion.
The choice of the subject of consumer protection by the Opposition for today's debate is welcomed by the Government. We are very happy to discuss this important subject. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has asked me to apologise to the House for his absence today. He would have liked very much to have been with us but, as the House will know, and, as the hon. Member for Hillsborough was gracious enough to point out, he is attending a very important meeting of the G.A.T.T. in Geneva.
As the hon. Member for Hillsborough rightly observed, consumer protection is a vast subject, and if I were to do complete justice to it I would find myself speaking at inordinate length. This I do not wish to do. Therefore, I ask the House to recognise that the inevitable omissions from my speech will not be due to ignorance or lack of concern on my part, but rather out of consideration for many hon. Members who may wish to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. My right hon. Friend the Minister Without Portfolio, who is to reply to the debate for the Government, will endeavour to repair my omissions.
This is a subject, as the hon. Member for Hillsborough pointed out, on which we can all claim to speak from firsthand knowledge since we are all consumers. It is also a subject upon which I suspect many of us have our own pet theories. But, as a Government speaker, I have to resist the temptation to air my own theories. Subsequent speakers, of course, will not be so inhibited and I hope that we shall hear many constructive, if occasionally "off-beat", proposals during the debate.
We ought to be clear that although the subject of consumer protection is very much "in" at present, there is nothing new about it. In some form or other we have had consumer protection for a very long time. We have to go back to

49
the early Middle Ages to trace the beginnings of our own consumer protection law. There has been a steady development and extension of such laws ever since. I had something to say about this on the Second Reading of the Weights and Measures Bill, earlier this Session.
To identify why and how we should improve our measures to protect the consumer, I should like briefly to remind the House of some of the major Acts already on the Statute Book, and which give the consumer a very substantial range of protection. This state of affairs is neither revealed nor admitted in the Opposition's Motion, although the hon. Member for Hillsborough did make some passing references to it.
Hon. Members opposite often speak as if they have only just discovered the existence of the consumer. I do not want to be ungenerous; possibly they have, but in consequence they seem to assume that no one else has ever visited the unknown land of the consumer before them. The fact is that we have on the Statute Book many very important Measures.
First, we have measures of protection against false quantity. The regulation of weights and measures has existed in some form or other in this country from the earliest time. In the view of the Molony Committee,
"a uniform system of weights and measures…is plainly part of the basic vocabulary of consumer protection."
This Session we have been engaged on a new and comprehensive Bill to bring our weights and measures legislation up to date.
Secondly, there is protection against false and misleading trade descriptions. The concept of protecting the consumer in this way is not new. The oldest of our current Merchandise Marks Acts—that of 1887—replaced an earlier one of 1862. We have been building on these ever since. We now have no fewer than nine Merchandise Marks Acts on the Statute Book. Then there is the Trades Mark Act of 1938. The Sale of Goods Act goes a long way to regulate the relationship between buyer and seller, and civil remedies of rescission and damages are available at common law in cases of innocent misrepresentation and fraud.
Moreover, as the hon. Member said, we have an important Food and Drugs
50
Act, which regulates in a variety of ways the sale of food and drugs in order to safeguard the health of the consumer. It was of this Act that the Molony Committee commented:
"It is difficult to conceive of more far-reaching provisions and powers than this Act contains for the protection of the consumer against unfit or deleterious food and drugs."
We have a number of Acts to protect the public against unsafe or dangerous articles. For example, the Road Traffic Acts made it an offence to use or sell a car which is unroadworthy, and the Consumer Protection Act, 1961, which implemented the interim Report of the Molony Committee, empowers my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to require, in the interests of safety, that goods should comply with prescribed specifications or carry prescribed warnings.
The Hire Purchase Act, 1938, as amended by the 1954 Act, gives protection to a hire purchaser in a prescribed way where the hire-purchase price does not exceed £300. I could go on listing further examples of consumer protection in existing legislation, but I have said enough to dispose of the suggestion that nothing has been done in the past to protect consumers, or that past Governments have not cared. What we intend to do, and are doing, is to build on past experience to meet current and future needs.
At this point it may be asked why we need to do more. Where are the gaps in the current range of Measures for protecting the consumer? How should they be filled? In our view, there are two central reasons why, in the conditions of the mid-1960s, we must do more.
The first lies in the enormous technological advances which have been made, particularly since the war, in many fields, which have had their repercussions on the world of consumer goods. In other words, the need for further consumer protection is the result of the remarkable increase in the range of consumer products now on sale. It is, in fact, the result of a higher standard of living. Our need for protection against deception or disappointment is intensified proportionately to the complexity of the goods we buy.
In spite of the substantial progress which we have made, we probably have a

51
greater need today for accurate information, which can readily be understood, about the nature of goods offered for sale. The object of requiring more information to be given is to help us to spend our money to our best advantage and to derive the best service from such goods.
At the same time, we must recognise that it is not the duty of the State to lay down the way in which people should spend their money. We cannot, and should not, attempt to legislate for wise spending. In any case, we could not hope to agree as to precisely what is the wisest way for a family to spend its income. We must stand firm upon the rights of a person to spend his income as he thinks fit—provided that it is upon legitimate things—and upon the principle of consumer choice. Once we depart from that principle we are on the slippery slope which ends in the quartermaster's store.
The second reason why we must reconsider the adequacy of our measures for consumer protection is, in a way, a logical development of the first reason. In the past, it has been recognised to be the duty of the State to lay down some sort of legislative framework for fair trading practices, within which traders should compete. This is still the duty of the State. This framework is essential if prices are to be fair.
It is the duty of the State to endeavour to maintain the equivalence of power in the market at all stages, from the producer of the raw materials, though the manufacturer, the wholesaler, and the retailer, to the consumer. Today, we are concentrating on the consumer, but in our enthusiasm for the consumer we should not overlook the fact that the other parties—the producer, the manufacturer, the wholesaler and the retailer—have their rights, too, which, in the interests both of sound economics and of natural justice, must not be ignored.
But there is a special reason why the Government should concern themselves particularly with the consumer. The consumer has, in general, had little public voice with which he can speak, or make his wishes and his grievances known. Producers, manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers, on the other hand, are organised to a greater or a less degree,
52
and are, therefore, in a stronger position to make their voices heard. The Government and this House have, therefore, had to assume the responsibility of thinking and speaking for that very large and ill-defined body which we describe as "the consumer", and which Mr. Robert Millar referred to rather unkindly in his recent book as "the affluent sheep". This argument is one of degree, and not of absolutes. Numerically and cumulatively, the potential power of the consumer is enormous, as many a trade bankruptcy will testify.
But even among unorganised consumers the wind of change has been blowing. I think that the House would agree that one of the most significant developments of the last decade has been the emergence of a "consumer movement" in this country. Probably none of us could identify at what point in time this began to take place, or what precipitated it. The fact remains that the consumer has at last assumed an identity, and is acquiring a public voice.
I am sure that the whole House would wish to join me in paying tribute, first, to the valuable pioneer work done in this field by the British Standards Institution. Although essentially a body established for the purpose of drawing up industrial standards, B.S.I., both through the formation of its Women's Advisory Committee, in 1951, and of its Consumer Advisory Committee, in 1955, took on the task of spokesman for the consumer, not only in the preparation of standards for consumer goods, but also in the more general sphere of advising and helping the aggrieved consumer to obtain redress.
We should acknowledge the campaign fervour of those who, in 1957, spontaneously founded the Consumers Association, whose speed of expansion has itself been a testimony to the growing awareness of consumers throughout the country that they must learn to speak for themselves. I pay tribute to those hon. Members on both sides of the House who have done so much to get the Consumer Association into the position which it now occupies.
The growing strength of the consumer movement has recently manifested itself in the local consumer groups which have sprung up over the country and have now federated themselves into a central body.

53
We welcome all these developments. Lastly, we must remember the much less publicised work done ever since the war years in the citizens' advice bureaux, to help the uncertain and uninstructed to cope with their individual consumer problems. I shall have more to say about the citizens' advice bureaux in a moment.
We should also acknowledge the part played by the Press, and especially the women's magazines, in helping and encouraging the general public, to which we all belong, to be better informed, more alert, more discriminating and more imaginative buyers.
Mr. A. E. Oram: Before the hon. Member leaves the subject of consumer organisations, I am sure that he would wish to mention that vast consumer organisation, which has existed for over one hundred years, of consumers who have got together and helped themselves by serving themselves.
Mr. Price: As I was going through the list I remembered the Co-operative movement. For a long time this has been so much an established part of the landscape that I hardly felt I needed to draw particular attention to it, as a novel development, which consideration does apply to the bodies to which I have referred. But I fully acknowledge that the Co-operative movement has been in this field for a long time.
This brings me to the Molony Report—the final Report of the Committee on Consumer Protection. As my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has said in the House on a number of occasions, the Government are very grateful for the way in which Mr. Molony and his colleagues have tackled this work, and for the valuable and far-reaching set of recommendations which they have put forward, and with which the Government are in broad agreement. I repeat that the Government are in broad agreement with the recommendations of the Molony Report, and intend to implement them.
Mr. John Rankin: When?
Mr. Price: Wait for it.
The central feature of the Molony recommendations was the establishment of a Consumer Council—a recommenda-
54
tion that was promptly and publicly accepted by the Government. We are now in the last stages of setting up the Consumer Council. My right hon. Friend has already announced the name of its chairman, its director and seven of the other members. He hopes to announce the names of the remaining three members shortly—
Mr. Norman Dodds: Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell us why it has taken so long, because people are very disappointed?
Mr. Price: If the hon. Gentleman will look at the Molony Report he will see that it visualised that the Consumer Council would take some time to set up.
Perhaps I might here say a little about the Government's concept of how the Council should work. We have seen criticism that it will be ineffective, and without "teeth". It is the Government's intention that the Council should be a completely independent body, operating vigorously within the terms of reference which the Molony Committee proposed. I can assure the House—the hon. Member for Hillsborough almost invited me to give this assurance—that the Council will not be subject to any Government direction in carrying out its programme of work, and there will be no complaint if, in the course of that work, it finds itself in the position of criticising the Board of Trade or any other part of the Government.
My right hon. Friend, in approaching those whom he has invited to serve, has made it quite clear that this is the Government's intention. We are determined that the members of the Council shall not feel themselves inhibited from expressing their collective opinions forthrightly and without pulling any punches. Nor is it our intention that they should be a creature of the Government of the day. As for the detailed questions asked by the hon. Member for Hillsborough about how often the Council would meet and what its priorities would be, I think that it would be a denial of our desire that the Council should be a completely independent body if we were to lay down when it was to hold its meetings and in what order of priority it should undertake its work.
We have also seen criticism of the terms of reference of the Council and particularly about those matters which, it is

55
alleged, have been excluded from its functions. The Council's terms of reference follow faithfully the functions proposed by the Molony Committee in paragraph 855 of its Report as being
"…collecting information about consumer problems, considering what, if any, action is required, and promoting that action."
It may be suggested during the course of the debate that there are other matters with which the Consumer Council should deal, but which were not covered by the Molony recommendations. For our part, we feel that the terms of reference given to the Council by my right hon. Friend will keep the Council well occupied—certainly in its early days. However, we do not wish to restrict the Council's work, nor do we claim that we can foresee every new consumer problem that may arise in the future. Consequently, if the Council, once it has got under way, were to find that its terms of reference appeared to exclude a matter of vital consumer interest, my right hon. Friend would, naturally, be prepared to consider extending its terms of reference to include such a matter.
My right hon. Friend will have a little more to say when he winds up the debate, but it might help us subsequently if I were to say now that we do not see services in support of goods being excluded by the terms of reference. I would refer the House to paragraph 875 of the Molony Report, which states:
"When the time and occasion arises for the Council to look at consumer services we think its field of activity should be voluntarily, if not positively, confined to services linked with the supply or treatment of articles e.g. coal, electricity, laundry, motor car repairs. Services such as national health, welfare and transport would be excluded."
As we have conceived the terms of reference, therefore, all those services that are in support of the sale or treatment of an article would already be included, but my right hon. Friend will be prepared to add to these thoughts, when he winds up, in respect to any comments that hon. Members may care to make.
I turn to the exclusions. There are three of them, and these, again, are those recommended by the Molony Committee, namely, a national complaints service, comparative testing and law enforcement. After careful study of the Committee's reasons for recommending
56
such exclusions—they are contained in paragraphs 850 to 854 of the Molony Report—the Government came to the conclusion that the Committee's reasons were sound and that its recommendations should be followed. Nevertheless, I am aware that there has been some criticism that the Council will not operate a national complaints service and will not undertake comparative testing.
The overwhelming reason for keeping the national complaints service outside the Council's terms of reference is one of cost. The Molony Committee gave its opinion that the
"…administrative effort and the cost would be astronomical, and the expense out of all proportion to the value of the benefits secured. To give the job to a Consumer Council would be to invite it to make wasteful use of public funds, and to expose it—as a publicly-supported body—to undue pressure to pursue unjustified claims by irate taxpayers".
We accept those reasons.
I recognise, of course, that were the Consumer Council to undertake this work it might be of some marginal assistance to us as Members of Parliament in dealing with our constituents' complaints, but I think that the House would agree that in this respect our opinion might be said to be not entirely objective. However, the citizens' advice bureaux are already in existence, and of proven helpfulness in dealing with legitimate complaints.
To exclude comparative testing may, at first sight, seem odd, but when one looks at it more closely it is clearly undesirable that in a free society public money should, under normal circumstances, be used for the purpose of guiding the public as to how to spend its money over the normal run of consumer goods where the question of danger or health does not arise. As the Molony Committee puts it:
"It is manifest to us that it is not a proper function of such a body to discriminate, however delicately, between the products of different manufacturers. Nor do we think that the consumer would relish being told what to buy by any official body."
I must here say something about the citizens' advice bureaux.
As the House is already well aware, the Molony Committee envisaged that the bureaux might, because of their very great experience in this field over many years, act as a nation-wide link between the Consumer Council and the individual

57
consumer. The Government have accepted this recommendation, and the National Committee of Citizens' Advice Bureaux has said that it is prepared to take on the task which the Molony Committee suggested it should undertake.
The Molony Committee also drew attention, quite rightly, to the fact that at present there are gaps—sometimes quite substantial—in the coverage of the country by the citizens' advice bureaux. The Government are, therefore, making funds available to the National Committee to help it with its central promotional efforts to extend its consumer advisory work. The National Committee is now, I understand, well ahead with its preparations to bring about this expansion. Individual citizens' advice bureaux, are, however, set up by local interest and financed by local funds. My right hon. Friend will shortly be getting in touch with local authorities individually to enlist their help in strengthening existing bureaux and establishing new ones where none exists at present.
Having set up the Consumer Council—
Dame Irene Ward: Before my hon. Friend goes further, can he give us a little more information about the part to be played by the citizens' advice bureaux? What additional staff is to be provided so that the ordinary run of the advice given by the bureaux is not seriously interfered with? What money are they to get? Will my right hon. Friend make it quite clear that the burden is not to fall on the ratepayers? We want a fuller explanation of what is to be done to help the bureaux in the big task that they have to undertake?
Mr. Price: I have explained, during my remarks—
Dame Irene Ward: But not very satisfactorily.
Mr. Price: —that we are making funds available to the National Committee of the Citizens' Advice Bureaux. In the current year the grant is to be £27,000 but, as the bureaux progress, we are prepared to discuss each year what the appropriate figure should be. This is the initial figure to get them launched.
Having set up the Consumer Council, where is the next priority? As the House
58
will know, the Molony Committee had its own order of priority, to which the hon. Member for Hillsborough referred. This, we have broadly accepted. This means that, having set up the Consumer Council and having taken steps to enlarge the citizens' advice bureaux service, we turn to amendments to and improvements in the hire-purchase laws.
The Government have already announced in another place that they accept the principles embodied in the recommendations of the Molony Committee. two of the most important of which—and, again, the hon. Member referred to them—relate to hire-purchase contracts concluded with door-to-door salesmen, and extending the range of application of the existing Hire Purchase Acts. As the House knows, there is at present a £300 limit. We have been working hard on these proposals and I can assure the hon. Member for Hillsborough that the establishment of the Consumer Council will not delay us in our work here, and that as soon as possible we shall be putting our own legislative proposals before the House.
I think that the hon. Member will agree that his proposals amounted to virtual abolition of hire purchase as we know it and the substitution of a chattel mortgage scheme. I should just like to draw the attention of the House to the conclusion of the Molony Committee:
"Our conclusion is that the framework of hire purohase law. as generally understood and applied, and as amended in accordance with our recommendations…is capable of serving the consumer well. We do not think that abuses or weaknesses have been exposed in law or practice that cannot be cured by bringing all consumer transactions within an amended Act"
I find a good deal of wisdom in this. None the less, I was extremely interested in what the hon. Member for Hillsborough had to say and I can assure him that we shall look at his proposals with interest, but also critically. My right hon. Friend may say more about the chattel mortgage scheme if this is a point which is followed by subsequent speakers.
The third priority given by the Molony Committee was to its proposals for amendment of the Merchandise Marks Acts. These are perhaps the most complicated of all the recommendations in the Report. Our present legislation is in itself complex. We have no fewer

59
than nine Merchandise Marks Acts on the Statute Book already, and to implement the Molony Committee's proposals will involve us virtually in scrapping the legislation we have already and introducing new and comprehensive legislation. This will, of course, cover many of the points about false advertising which the hon. Member raised. This we are prepared to do and intend to do.
It will, however, take time; not least, Parliamentary time. Meanwhile, we have to consult both consumer and trade interests and give careful consideration to their comments. The House may be interested to know that in this respect we have already approached about 200 organisations and our consultations are continuing. This fact alone, I think, belies the Opposition's charge of administrative inaction—unless, of course, the Oppositon suggest that we should not have consulted any of these bodies.
In our view, it would be wrong to try to rush this part of the Molony Committee's recommendations for the simple purpose of being able to say we have put them into effect quickly. When we pass new legislation on merchandise marks it will be with us, and will affect our economic life, for many years to come. We must, therefore, be sure that we get it as right as possible and that the ensuing legislation is not only intellectually elegant but workable in the shops and markets of the nation.
Equally, the House can be assured that the Government will not delay in carrying on with their preparations on all these matters. The same applies to the Sale of Goods Act, which is closely related to both hire purchase and the Merchandise Marks Acts and to the Committee's recommendations about seals of approval and about minor alterations to the Trade Marks Act.
The hon. Member for Hillsborough did make some mention of advertising and, tempted though I am to reply to him, I shall leave the subject to my right hon. Friend. However, I cannot help observing the recent conversion of the Labour Party to the social value of advertising. It is not for me to say how successful the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) will be as the brand image of the Labour
60
Party, but I wonder whether, in being converted by Madison Avenue, the right hon. Gentleman, seeing its political value, may also have been converted to the cult of personality.
There are many other aspects to consumer protection that I should like to touch on, but I have spoken long enough. I have shown the House that consumer protection is not a new idea, that much has already been done over the years to protect consumers, that the Government recognise that, owing, above all, to the changing nature of products and of marketing practices, more has yet to be done, and that. far from being inactive, as the Opposition Motion suggests, we are, in fact, doing a great deal not only by setting up the Consumer Council but by preparing amending legislation to meet the needs of the day. We have a clear list of priorities and propose to make a thorough job of each in turn.
We welcome the establishment of a Consumer Council as a major first step in implementing the recommendations of the Committee on Consumer Protection. Give us the votes and we will carry on with the job.
4.45 p.m.
Mr. J. Grimond: The consumer's best friend is a free market. Competition not only allows him or her to exercise choice; competition also protects the consumer from exploitation. But, of course, that is not all the story of consumer protection. The market has to be kept free, the consumer has to be protected against fraud and near fraudulent practices, against misleading packaging, against unfair trade in various forms. But in all such cases as protection of the consumer we should look right at the start to see what has gone wrong, why the consumer needs protection, and how far we can help him by abolishing certain of the impediments to a fair and free market.
I was interested in many things which the Parliamentary Secretary said. I was interested in his defence of the Government's delay, though I did not think it entirely convincing. I was interested in what he said about the need for the Consumer Council, and on this I agree with him. I think there is need for a Consumer Council. I am glad that the

61
Government have set one up. I wish they had done so sooner, and I have certain criticisms to make of the particular form of this Council.
But why is it wanted? I would say principally for two reasons: first of all, to inform the consumer and to enable the consumer to shop more skillfully; and secondly to watch the effect of monopoly or semi-monopoly or restrictive practices or fraudulent or unfair or deceptive practices which have already been mentioned.
I am not convinced that we should slavishly follow the recommendations of the Molony Committee. The Government have been inclined to. I would hope that the Government would have some ideas themselves on this subject, but so far they have followed the Molony Committee at every stage.
I want to restrict my remarks almost entirely to this question of the Consumer Council, and the first point I would make is a simple one, that it must be a consumers' council, As I see it, it is not intended to strike a balance between consumers and producers. Certainly there is a producers' interest as well as a consumers' interest, but this Council is a consumers' weapon. I would say, too, that it is not even concerned primarily with what may be called the national interest. It is concerned to protect the consumer.
We can draw a lesson here from what has happened over the nationalised industries. In my experience, the consultative committees of the nationalised industries have not in the eyes of the public done their job, because they are too closely associated with those industries. In some of those industries the same people actually sit on the Board of the industry and on its consultative committee, and the public feel that this is like being represented in court by an advocate who is also appearing for the other side. I do not deny that they may do some other good jobs, but the public want the bodies which are set up to protect their interests as consumers to be free from identification with the producers and suppliers. I see, though, that this does make it difficult to set up such bodies, because, as has been pointed out, consumers are unorganised and essentially individual.
62
Another difficulty is that the type of people to whom the Government's mind has no doubt been turning are not representative of the consumers. They do not suffer from many of the troubles which ordinary consumers experience. They are privileged. When travelling, for instance, these people are perhaps richer, and may have expense accounts and free travel passes, like Members of Parliament. It is essential to have on the Council people who are really able to feel where the shoe pinches for the ordinary person. That is not the case at the moment. The Government could have made a much better job than they have done over the appointments to the Council.
I want to be frank about this. I am not attacking personalities; far from it. The chairman of the Council, Baroness Elliot, is my step-great-aunt-in-law. I have a vested interest in her. I have the highest regard for her. I can assure hon. Members from personal experience that her housekeeping is of the highest. I am told that it is not always done by her, but that shows the value of delegation. So do not let hon. Members think that I am prejudiced.
Let us look at the members of the Council. They are eminent and able people. But one is closely associated with the retail trade. Another is a director A.E.I.of and Hotpoint. Manufacturers have, of course, an interest in consumers. A master of foxhounds has an interest in foxes and wants to keep the stock up. Manufacturers want a good body of consumers. But there is not a complete identity of interests here. I do not believe that consumers will feel that people, however eminent, excellent and able they are, who are apparently associated with the supply side are exactly the people who will press the consuming point of view.
Going on, we find someone who is associated with the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers. I am sure that he is a good man, but there will be a conflict of interests over shop hours. The union has some 3,000 members, many of whom are employed in the co-operative society. I would not say that that was a union in which the position of the consumers was completely accepted. A conflict may arise, and this may lead to difficulties. There is a businessman-don,

63
and then there is Lord Peddie, an able man, who is a director of the Co-operative Wholesale Society. I find it difficult to know why the Government chose these particular people for this particular purpose. I know that the co-operative society is historically, and to some extent now, a consumers' association, but many consumers do not nowadays look on it as being on the same side as they are when it comes to discussing the type of problem which the Consumer Council will have to discuss.
There is also Miss Betty Ackroyd, a great and able public servant, but I do not think that a civil servant is the right person to be a director of this Council. The Civil Service is inextricably associated with the Establishment, with running things as they are. It is trained to the idea of pointing out to Ministers the difficulties in any suggested change, and it is not trained in making a row. On the contrary, it is a diplomatic body trained to keep out of difficult controversial matters.
It has been suggested that the Consumer Council is a poodle. I do not think so. It is an imposing body, and I think it will look like a large friendly St. Bernard dog. It will dispense brandy widely to all complainants and will certainly be as helpful as possible. But I doubt whether it will have the bite really to get its teeth into controversial problems as it should.
What makes me also doubt the Government's complete sincerity, in spite of what the Parliamentary Secretary said, is the amount of money made available to the Council for salaries and other purposes. In this respect the Government have not followed the Molony Committee. They have fallen behind its recommendations.
Before I turn to the work to be done, should like to put two questions to the Government, and I should be grateful for answers. Apart from accepting the recommendations of the Molony Committee and saying that they will do something about hire purchase, what else have the Government in mind? I was interested in what was said about the Merchandise Marks Act. My constituency has suffered for a long time over this matter, and in respect of the Patent Acts, because of the use of the
64
name "Shetland" by all sorts of people in order to sell goods to which that name does not apply. This is not directly the point, but I should be glad for some information about what ideas the Government may have over this.
Another point is that the Government have for some time had an inquiry going on into the subject of resale price maintenance. It is impossible to discuss consumer protection without mentioning that subject. When will the Government make up their mind about it, and when they have done so, do they intend to tell the House?
To come back to the Council, what ought it to tackle? The Government have said that they want it to be independent, but they must give it terms of reference. They have done that, but I should like more precise information about how the terms of reference are to be interpreted.
In my view, prices are still the things that worry most people in this country. There has been a tendency to justify high prices by saying that with them one gets extra packaging or servicing. But many of the most deserving people—old-age pensioners, for example, and people with families—are interested in the prices of goods. A problem of the type which puzzles people today as consumers—and one which they would like the Council to examine—is why the price of bread goes up when the price of flour goes down. It would be good if the Council inquired into this sort of problem, which is disturbing the housewife.
Today people are finding that, partly through the development of mergers and the growth of monopolies, they are rather being told what they ought to have. I have received some complaints lately, for instance, from people who say that they are having homogenised milk delivered to them more or less arbitrarily. That may not be true, or, if it is, there may be good reasons for it, but that is also the sort of problem that I should like to see the Council tackle.
With regard to services, the Government said that they would follow the recommendations of the Molony Committee and that the Council would, as I understand it, be entitled to inquire into services connected with the sale of goods. Why should it not be left to the Council to see what the public

65
mind about services is and to have complaints sent to it? If the Council wants to do it, why should it not be able to examine all sorts of services not connected with the sale of goods, from bank charges to burial charges? What is the objection to it if that is the sort of thing that worries the public?
I take it that the Consumer Council will not have any power to examine complaints against nationalised industries except in cases where they provide goods. What is the Council going to be allowed to do in that respect? Is coal to come within its remit? Is it to be allowed to discuss and make recommendations about resale price maintenance? Will it be allowed to discuss and make recommendations about shops' opening hours? I am told that in some parts of the country there are complaints that new stores cannot be opened because of certain provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act which hamper the change of use. If that is a genuine complaint raised by the public, will it be within the Committee's terms of reference? However independent the Government want the Council to be, we are entitled to hear from the Government more precisely what terms of reference the Council will have and what scope in its inquiries will be allowed.
I am disappointed with the Council as it is set up. But there are three more members to come, and I beseech the Government to appoint people who can make a row—controversial figures. I should also like to see on the Council people representing sections of the community whose budgets are quite different from the middle-class budget, the budget of what are broadly called, perhaps wrongly these days, working-class people—pensioners, and so on. These people are in a quite different field and are interested in different consumer problems than, say, Members of this House, and they should be represented.
My last point is that on the producers' side today a good deal of money is being spent, and rightly so, on research and propaganda. The Government must ensure that this Council is provided with an absolutely first-rate research organisation which can compete with the research done on the producing side, independent and under the control of the Council, but
66
up to standard and provided with adequate funds to make sure that the Council can really represent the consumer, and that when it does so on controversial matters it will be able to do so effectively against the very powerful producing interests in the country.
5.0 p.m.
Dame Edith Pitt: I do not agree with the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) in his criticism of the members already appointed to the Consumer Council. I think it is essential, when we are thinking in terms of protecting the consumer, that we should have the contribution of all those who supply the goods, that is, the manufacturer, the distributor and the person who buys them at the end of the line.
I would add one point to those which the right hon. Gentleman listed as being a frequent source of complaint from the people he knows, and I think that he is very right to bring the debate down to this level of the average man arid woman with a limited budget which they want to deploy as usefully as possible. The most frequent complaint which I hear from housewives is that prices rocket up after a period of bad weather, such as after the last winter, and that then it takes very much longer for them to start coming down again. Indeed, some of them never come down to the previous level. This is the point of our debate and I hope that we shall keep it in mind in the course of subsequent speeches.
I enjoyed the opening contribution of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling), and I thought that he put his case very reasonably. He certainly did not dismiss all manufacturers as rogues or all advertising as unnecessary. But he never once mentioned the average shopper, the real consumer, the person on the end of the line. This is what I should like to talk about, because. I believe that to women at any rate shopping is a joy. They like it. Men hate it. They always hope that someone else will do it for them. As I say, to a woman it is a pleasure to be able to go round the shops, even window gazing at times, and I think it socially good for them that they should have this outlet and contact and be able to go round the shops in order to try to obtain the maximum value for their money.

67
I think—and this is a digression which has a bearing on my own train of thought—that we made a mistake in. our housebuilding immediately after the war. We built the houses first, because that was the necessity, and the shops followed. It made for a great deal of loneliness and unhappiness for women simply because they were divorced from the ritual of going round the shops.
The position today, when thinking in terms of consumers, is conditioned by the fact that we have come a long way from those immediate post-war years. We have left behind post-war scarcity. We now have an abundance of goods in the shops, a wide range and choice of goods. Because of this, especially, consumers are subjected to a great deal of high-pressure salesmanship, both at home and in the shops. They are also subjected to all the pressures these days of television advertising.
How often my small shopkeeper friends tell me that they have to stock a particular commodity which then, probably, stays on their shelves for a long time simply because there has been an intensive campaign on television and the consumers come into the shop without really knowing the name of the product and ask for "Some of that thing advertised on the telly" All these pressures are continually operating.
I do not wish to be critical of advertising. I think that it is a very necessary thing in these days when quantity and choice are becoming so extensive. We should never know of the new goods coming on to the market unless they were advertised. We have long ago left behind the days of my mother's generation when it was very frequently said "A good thing will sell itself." Now we need to be told how many good things there are available for our choice.
There is another point in today's position of prosperity, the capacity to buy and the wide choice of goods in our shops. Too many shoppers, particularly the younger married women, have too little knowledge of what is available. I am thinking in particular not of something mentioned in the Molony Report. I wish that more women understood the names of various joints of meat. I think that this is a legacy of the war and postwar years, but they really do not know.
68
I was in a butcher's shop fairly recently, and the woman being served prior to me said to the butcher, "What can I give them for a change, butch? They have had steaks and they have had chops and they do not like sausage." Where does one go from here? I wish that that good lady could have had sufficient education to know what good meat she could buy, probably at much less expense than steak and chops, if only she knew of the choice available to her.
I think, perhaps, that education ought to be part of our discussion today, but how to fit in that particular course I should not like to venture to suggest. Something along these lines is already done in the town women's guilds and voluntary organisations like that. Perhaps this is a point for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education. It could be given greater emphasis in some of the domestic science courses than it receives at present.
I think that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary made an important point when he stressed the necessity of providing accurate information because, again, I am sure, this is now part of the need when we are thinking in terms of consumer protection. I should like to see much more plain marking of goods, a fuller description of goods, and, as have already said, further education to be available to the housewives who are particularly the ones who buy regularly. For this reason, I was glad that the Weights and Measures Bill included proposals to have the weight shown on commodities, because if the weight and content are shown, I think it would do away with some of the guesswork. I hope that it might also do away with some of the inducements to buy particular goods.
I will not take up the time of the House by quoting the classic case of detergents, but I noticed in the grocer's this week that on all the various boxes displayed there was an inducement with every packet of detergent. It ranged from a free carnation to two packets for the price of one. I should like—and I am sure that I speak for the housewives—the real value to be in the commodity that I am buying and not in the extras. If I may spare a moment for the men, their main objection is to the tube of toothpaste which contains a 6d. when they buy it. They would rather have in

69
the toothpaste the full value of the money they are spending.
I think that information for the benefit of shoppers should be given in the simplest possible terms. I am sure that any consumer advice that can be made available is excellent in that it can save money. Almost any commodity could be bought more cheaply if people had the fullest advice on the goods in that range. It would prevent people from wasting their money on inefficient or badly made products. Some electrical appliances tested by Which? recently were shown as not even safe. This again is where information is needed. But Which? can do what the purchaser cannot do—test half a dozen varieties of a product. Hence the need for more information.
It is a very useful journal and the information it gives is very helpful to many people. Perhaps it has a wider circulation than its owners realise, because all the subscribers I know pass it on to their families and friends. Thus, its information is made know over an ever-widening circle. However, I think also that the information is given in rather highbrow terms. I want something which comes down to the more ordinary and realistic level of the average shopper.
I have sometimes wondered whether we should not urge the Government to issue their own publication giving information about consumer goods. But I have come down on the side of some of my hon. Friends, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart), who produced a booklet called Choice and came to the conclusion, in considering the question of whether the work of giving information should be subsidised by the Government, that the manufacturer who was honestly proud of his product would have a legitimate grievance if his money paid in taxation were used to decry, on arguable evidence, his own product. I think that view is the correct one.
But if we do not do it by means of a Government magazine, we should encourage the dissemination of information through other sources. Therefore, I welcome the fact that the Consumer Council has been set up and that its terms of reference include providing advice and guidance, particularly through the citizens'
70
advice bureaux. I have a great admiration for the work of these bureaux, but let us not, again, lose our sense of proportion. Information and advice to consumers will only be part of a very wide programme of work which the bureaux do, and therefore they will need to be helped in order to extend their range. To use these bureaux has the advantage that there will be somewhere local to which people can take their complaints. They do not want to write to a remote council in London, hut to be able to drop in somewhere in their own localities.
The very name "Citizens' Advice Bureau" sounds helpful to the average shopper. It is a friendly name and does not suggest a remote body. I wonder how these bureaux will cope with the problems in rural areas. I hope that some of the money my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said was to be made available might be used to extend the services of the bureaux in the more remote rural areas.
It comes down to this: I believe that a large part of the answer in consumer protection lies in education. I do not think that the Government can legislate for everything. Nor do I subscribe, and never have done, to the theory that the gentleman in Whitehall knows best. He does not. There is nothing to replace the sound common sense of the average shopper. But, with such a wide variety of goods, more information should be made available to the shopper, and I think that if the new Consumer Council does obtain this information and make it available, it will spread and gradually make people more critical and more selective.
I do not believe that it is always wise to buy the cheapest article in any particular line. I think that it is sometimes worth paying more in order to get the more durable article. But again, one needs information in order to be able to make a choice. Thereafter it must always be a case of using one's own judgment.
But mistakes can be very costly, especially when a major item like electrical equipment, furniture, or a new carpet is involved. That is why I stress the need for information. But I still come back to the point that personal choice is the most important thing when considering the sale of consumer goods. conclude by referring hon. Members to

71
recommendation No. 210 of the Molony Committee's which stresses:
"Consumer vigilance must always remain of first importance…"
For that reason, I welcome the Amendment, in which the Government state their view that the setting up of the Consumer Council is the first major step. I wish to see expansion and development but not by way of strict Government control or legislation. That is not the way to help people who live in a free society to make a free choice. Given education and information, I am quite sure that the average shopper will be well able to obtain the maximum value for the money she is to spend.
5.16 p.m.
Mr. A. E. Oram: I shall resist the temptation to go shopping with the hon. Lady the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame Edith Pitt) and deal with the detailed points she mentioned. I want to follow the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) in dealing with the somewhat broader aspects of consumer interest, particularly with the question of the right administrative machinery needed to ensure that the consumer is properly protected.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the Government ought not to follow slavishly the Molony Committee in this matter. The Molony Committee took a very modest view of the scope of its task and was equally modest in the recommendations it made. Consumer interest is a very much broader thing than the Committee had in mind. I do not blame it for defining its task within rather narrow limits, and certainly within those limits it did a good job of analysis and exposition and its Report is extremely valuable. But this debate ought not to be, and I hope that it will not be, confined to these limits, and, certainly, the Government's responsibility is not to be conceived as being within them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) reminded us of some of the important matters which the Molony Committee excluded from its consideration. I remind the House again how important these exclusions were. To start with,
72
the Committee decided to deal only with goods and not with services. It jibbed at what it called
"…such complex and far-ranging investigations…"
which would be involved if it looked into services. But, as other hon. Members have said, the consumer is facing increasingly sophisticated world in which the nature of the services he has to choose from is as important, very often, as the nature of the material goods he uses. I hope that the new Council, inadequate though it is, will at least endeavour to tackle the problem of services which the Molony Committee left untouched.
Then the Committee decided—perhaps rightly from its point of view—not to deal at all with the question of prices. It excused itself for not dealing with resale price maintenance because the President of the Board of Trade had set up a committee to make a fact-finding inquiry into it. But one cannot think of the welfare of the consumer without dealing with the question of prices, and the Government must face the facts of what is happening in terms of the cost of living. Since 1956, the cost of living has gone up 17 per cent. at a time when the terms of overseas trade have moved in our favour to the extent of 14 per cent. Something is wrong in that situation, and I believe that resale price maintenance plays a not insignificant part in what is happening in the cost of living.
Why has the President of the Board of Trade not published the findings of the Committee which he set up? Is it that the facts reveal that the consumer is getting a very raw deal, and that the Government do not intend to do anything about resale price maintenance, and therefore they prefer to keep this information in their own pigeon-holes in the hope that the consumers will ask nothing more about it?
I believe that the Government are duty bound to this House and to the public to publish the fullest possible range of information on this important subject of prices. There is the constant threat hanging over the head of the consumer of the rise in the price of food. Bread is going up in price, suger is going up. We are to have a debate on Wednesday on agriculture and perhaps the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will then say

73
what he has decided to do about passing the deficiency payments burden on to the shoulders of the housewife. We shall perhaps learn something about that.
Incidentally, why is there no representative on the Government Front Bench of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? The Parliamentary Secretary said that he had received an apology, which we all understand, from the President of the Board of Trade; but did he have an apology from the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? There is not even a signature on the Government's Amendment of a representative of that important Ministry. One side of its functions is, or ought to be, the protection of the consumer. I have no doubt that in his guise as Minister of Agriculture, the right hon. Gentleman will be here on Wednesday when the interests of the farmers are being discussed. But he is Minister of Food as well, and he ought to be, or someone on his behalf ought to be, present during this debate when the interests of the consumer are being discussed.
I think that this is part proof of what was said from these benches in 1955 when the Ministry of Food was merged with the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. We said then—I remember that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough among others who made this point—that in this merging the interests of the consumer would become submerged beneath the interests of the producer.
The Molony Committee decided, conveniently from its point of view, to exclude from its consideration the whole range of economics where statutory consumer councils or consultative councils exist. In other words, the whole of the agricultural marketing boards and the whole of the nationalised industries were outside its purview. Here again, when thinking of the interests of the consumers the House is not entitled to leave these things out of its consideration, because these are a most important part of the whole consumer interest.
It is well known, as the Leader of the Liberal Party made clear, that these consumer committees set up under Statute are completely inadequate to the task which they ought to be doing more effectively, largely because they are not
74
sufficiently independent from the boards whose work they are supposed to criticise. Does anyone in the House, for instance, really expect that the transport users consultative committees are likely to be an effective force in stopping or seriously modifying the Beeching Plan? If it is to be stopped, it will be stopped through politics, through a change of Minister or of Government, rather than through any countervailing power which the consultative committees may bring to bear on the matter.
In recent history of transport we have in British Railways a classical illustration of the weakness of the consumer. I was amused when the Parliamentary Secretary quoted the amount that is to be put at the disposal of the citizens' advice bureaux for their consumer protection work. The figure of £27,000 struck me as being not very different from the salary of one producer-minded executive, Dr. Beeching. This shows how completely out of proportion the whole question of consumer protection is in the minds of the Government.
Other important exclusions from the Molony Report were the whole of food and drugs legislation and the whole of weights and measures legislation. The fact that the Molony Committee did not consider those things does not mean that we ought not to consider them. They are important issues in which the consumer interest is very much at stake.
To leave out the things which I have mentioned—all consumer services, all food and drugs, all weights and measures, all agricultural marketing, all resale price maintenance and all price policy—is to leave out of consideration at least four-fifths of the consumers' interest in society. I am not complaining about the Molony Committee having imposed those limitations upon itself. I can understand that it felt that the investigation of a narrower problem would probably be the best thing, but I complain about the way in which in considering consumer protection the Government hide behind the limitation which the Molony Committee sketched. The Government's responsibilities in this matter are much wider than those which the Molony Committee described.
While I do not complain about the Molony Committee having made these limits. I do complain that it used this limited concept of consumer interest as

75
a standard by which to judge one of the most important proposals put before it by the Co-operative movement and mentioned today by my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough that there should be a newly constituted Government Department, with a Minister at its head, whose concern would be the promotion of consumer interests throughout the economy. The Molony Committee dismissed this with a word. It used the word "grandiose". Of course, this is a grandiose conception if all that one has in mind as needing to be done are the limited jobs which the Molony Committee had in mind. If one has it in mind to do only one-fifth of a job, a full-blown Ministry is not necessary, but if one has a proper concept of what the consumer interest in society is and if one sets off to do the whole job and to do it well, nothing less than a properly constituted Department of Government is necessary.
The Committee gave no reasons for its view. Indeed, it gave no evidence of having thought this matter through. A point which it obviously missed was that a new Ministry set up as we advocate would not involve the establishment of a vast new network of administrative machinery. To a very large extent it would be co-ordinating bits and pieces of machinery which already exist but which are now spread through other Ministries. It is true that it would need local agencies, but in the town hall there is a good deal of local expert knowledge vested in people such as the weights and measures inspectors and health officers and so on who, properly co-ordinated could be a powerful local instrument of consumer protection.
In putting forward these proposals, the whole Co-operative movement conceives of consumer protection as needing to be tackled on a vastly greater scale than anything we have seen hinted at in what the Government are proposing. It is ironic that the Molony Committee and now the Government, in setting up the proposed Consumer Council, are preventing it from doing three of the most worth-while things for consumer protection—testing, receiving complaints from individual consumers, and making sure that the law is enforced. It has been one of the great weaknesses, about which we have complained, that in terms of
76
the Merchandise Marks Acts and so on the Board of Trade has not been sufficiently vigorous about pursuing people who have offended against the existing law. We need much more vigorous agencies which will see that the law is enforced on behalf of the consumer.
Naturally, those of us who think in the terms which I have described are very disappointed by the very minimal effort which the Government are making in these matters. However, I suggest to those hon. Members who agree with this concept of a new Ministry that they should not be too discouraged, though they may need to be a little patient. I have discovered that there was a time when the productive worker did not have a Ministry, when there was advocacy for a Ministry, and yet in debates such as this the productive worker was given as scant and as little and as grudging attention as the consumer is today.
It took 30 years of advocacy that there should be a Ministry of Labour before eventually that Ministry was set up. I have been looking in the Library at the Report of the Royal Commission on Labour which finally reported in 1894. The famous Mr. Sidney Webb was advocating the setting up of a Ministry to combine those parts of the administrative machinery which were in a variety of other Ministries but which were concerned with the welfare of the productive worker. It was a very similar argument to that which we are now putting forward in connection with the proposals for a Ministry for Consumer Welfare.
On that occasion, a minority of the Commission, four trade union members, issued a minority report urging that the Ministry of Labour should be established. More than 20 years later it came. Perhaps it would be worth my while reading through that recommendation.
Mr. William Shepherd: Can the hon. Gentleman say what the establishment of the Ministry of Labour has to do with this debate?
Mr. Oram: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not listen to the earlier part of my speech. I am pointing out that a Ministry of Consumer Welfare is needed and I am giving an illustration from history of how the Government of the day were lust as reluctant and lust as

77
conservative in their refusal to establish a Ministry of Labour as the present Government are in their approach to matters of consumer administration. In deference to the hon. Member's impatience, I will not read the whole recommendation, but I will continue the comparison because it is important.
No one now doubts the value of or need for a Ministry of Labour. If it is necessary to have a Ministry concerned with the interests of the productive worker, if it is necessary to have a Ministry concerned with the needs of the farming population, if it is necessary in the Board of Trade which is a Ministry concerned with the businessman's problems, it is equally necessary that there should be a Ministry concerned with consumer interests.
Just as it is now commonplace and commonly accepted that in every main town there is an employment exchange to which the productive worker can go to seek advice about his employment, so equally there should be a centre with equal status, with equal finance and with equal staffing where the consumer, the shopper, can go to get advice. I do not believe that the citizens' advice bureaux will be adequate for that sort of job.
It is not suffieiently realised that the standard of living in the home does not depend merely upon the wage which is brought home. It does not merely depend on the contract between the worker and the employer. It also depends on the goods which those wages buy—the contracts between the shopper and the shopkeeper. That is as important as the question of what the wage earner takes home.
To make another comparison, the Ministry of Labour is rightly concerned with industrial training. The hon. Lady the Member for Edgbaston pointed out the tremendous need for consumer education. I agree with her, but I do not believe that we shall get the sort of consumer education which she regards as necessary until we have adequate Government machinery which can provide consumer education in the same way as the Ministry of Labour provides industrial training.
The Ministry of Labour is concerned with the health and safety of workers in factories, but, as my hon. Friend the
78
Member for Hillsborough pointed out, accidents in the home are as great as those elsewhere and there should be a Ministry one of whose prime purposes would be to deal with safety in the home. There is a Ministry responsible for this now—the Home—Office but this is only a minor part of its responsibility. If we had a Ministry with this as one of its main jobs, we should feel happier about the job being done effectively.
This range and strength of administrative machinery are entirely necessary if the consumer is to he protected as he should be. Instead we are to have this Council, completely inadequate in terms of finance, in its concept, in terms of the power it will have, and in terms of the jobs it will be called on to do. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party compared it with a homely St. Bernard doe. The simile I use is that; it is like a penny whistle, whereas what we want is a full orchestra. We need a full orchestra for consumer protection, but we are to have this penny whistle. We hope that, at least the tune it plays will be melodious, but I am sure that what the Government are proposing is completely inadequate in the face of the enormous task of protecting the consumer interest in society as a whole.
5.41 p.m.
Mr. Philip Goodhart: Until I opened my newspaper this morning I imagined that we might be hearing a lot about false advertising claims in this debate, but, having looked at certain advertisements, I am not surprised that this subject has taken a minor part in our discussions.
1 thought that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) was a little unfair when he pointed directly at the Leader of the Liberal Party when speaking about people defaulting on hire-purchase agreements. I found the right hon. Gentleman's speech extremely good, and I follow him in his hopes that the Consumer Council will not try to take a balanced approach on all these topics but will speak out on behalf of the consumer and let the balance be struck elsewhere.
I join the hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Oram) in hoping that we shall soon hear the Government's proposals on resale price maintenance and

79
exactly what their inquiries have uncovered. One must remember that these are tremendously complicated matters and that a certain delay is justifiable.
One of the reasons why we have had such a tremendous growth in the power of the big retail chain stores and supermarkets is that they have been able to extract very large discounts from manufacturers. For instance, someone like Mr. Wolfson can go to the manufacturer of one type of refrigerator and say, "I can offer you a tremendous outlet for your goods. There are a large number of refrigerators on sale in the market, many of which are pretty good, but if I happen to choose yours this can be of tremendous advantage to you. I therefore demand a substantially larger discount than you give to the small trader in the High Street." This is what happens, and the small trader finds himself at a tremendous disadvantage.
If resale price maintenance is swept away willy-nilly, there is a danger that in a large section of the consumer durable market the small shopkeeper will find it impossible to keep going unless one introduces legislation on the lines of the Robinson Pattman Act in the United States of America, which makes the giving of discounts illegal. On the other hand, this is becoming such an integral part of our commercial practice that the introduction of such legislation here would be an act of major surgery about which we would have to think a great deal before introducing it.
The hon. Member for East Ham, North was a trifle unkind in his remarks about the Molony Committee, no doubt because it quite rightly objected out of hand his ideas for the setting up of a consumer ministry. The Committee has done a remarkable job, which could not be done by any collection of civil servants within the Ministry itself. This project had to be tackled by an outside organisation.
The Molony Committee was in orbit round this subject: it did more than twenty-two orbits round the whole field of consumer protection. It kept going for nearly three years. During that period, except for the production of one interim report on safety, the Committee was in less communication with the world than the last American astronaut during his twenty-two circuits.
80
When one sets up a body of this kind to recommend on a complex matter there is a danger that, because of the length of time that it is necessary to devote to these technical subjects, there will be a sort of blight on action taken by the Government. If we set up highly qualified committees in future I hope that it will become the practice to ask for interim reports on matters that are of current interest.
For instance, during the last Session I introduced a small Bill on the subject of seals of approval. This is not a subject of vast importance, and so it is difficult to find a place for it in the legislative programme. In fact my proposal was not as radical as those contained in the Molony Committee's Report; but if in that time there had been some possibility of discovering the Molony Committee's views on the subject it might have been possible in the available Parliamentary time to get some useful legislation on to the Statute Book.
The answer given by the Attorney-General this afternoon shows that the problems of hire purchase have not grown in the last two years. It ought, therefore, to have been possible to ask the Molony Committee to make this subject its first priority and produce an interim report on it. We could then have saved a year or perhaps more in the introduction of legislation to deal with this highly important trading issue. Indeed, I hope that the Consumer Council, now that it has been set up, will not consider from scratch the whole question of hire purchase but will be asked and will state its views on details of this important matter now that a Bill is being drafted.
I hope, also, that the Council will look very closely into the whole question of services. I am sure that the average shopper does not consider that he or she is being cheated in the grocer's shop, or in the vast range of shops, but when it comes to the repair of a television set or a motor car and some of the other complicated machines with which we deal today, there is a feeling of distrust. Last summer I was driving along a bumpy road when the wheels of the car began to vibrate much more than they should have done. I went to a garage where, after the car had been tested over some bumps, I was told that the steering geometry was faulty. I was asked £12 for

81
having it put right. I had no idea what steering geometry was or whether £12 was a proper charge for putting it right. I immediately had a feeling of distrust as I wondered what on earth the man was talking about.
I was discussing this not long ago with the proprietor of a garage, a friend of mine, who said that it was quite wrong to think that there were many black sheep among garage proprietors. We then got on to the subject of electricians. He told me how when a lorry was driven past a house all the lights in the house flickered and finally went out. An electrician was called and he said that the house needed rewiring. The occupier was alarmed and thought that this would cost him a great deal of money. A guest in the house asked for a screwdriver. When this was produced the guest used it and the lights immediately came on again. As a result the garage proprietor was quite convinced that all electricians are completely fraudulent.
It is difficult to find the correct answer to the problem of restoring trust in services. It is perhaps easiest done hi garages because the A.A. and the R.A.C., two very large consumer protection bodies, are already in existence. They can do a great deal to restore confidence if they take an active role. It is much more difficult to restore confidence about television repair services. It is difficult to see a television set owners' protection society being set up to ensure that proper standards are maintained, but there is enormous scope for the Consumer Council to take action.
There is also room for the Consumer Council to do a considerable amount of its own research. The Molony Committee has taken a very negative view of research. It is silly for such a body as the Consumer Council to go round asking questions about goods. One does not want a large number of Government servants asking people whether they would buy a better mousetrap if one were available. This is something for the shoppers to decide for themselves. But when it comes to the representation of consumer interests on the consumer councils of the nationalised industries, which have already been mentioned, and which is directly within the scope of the Consumer Council as finally set up, it seems to me that a certain amount of research and the use of survey techniques are necessary. It is asking for
82
trouble to have the present arrangements whereby when we look for a consumers' representative we take some large Liberal lady and plonk her down by herself in the council and expect her to represent consumers. What we must do is to find out what the consumer wants. There is great scope here for the use of social survey techniques.
It is in private enterprise that the greatest strides have been made on the technical side of consumer protection. The Consumers' Association has been mentioned. I am a member of its council. It can be argued that the material contained in the magazine Which? should be spread much more widely. One of the difficulties is that the testing of consumer goods is not an exact science. I will not say that it is in its infancy, because the baby has grown to a very large size in the last six years since Which? was launched. This is an area of research where by simplifying the findings too much one can make them inaccurate by leaving out the qualifications, and the question of how far one can go in the qualifications is difficult to decide.
There is now a fresh wave of local interest in new consumer goods. This is a matter of great importance, because local consumer councils can talk at the local level and have their views published in the local Press. They can create a row about local issues. This is of great importance, because it is of relevance to individuals in the very place where they do their shopping. I look forward to a great debate between a national Government-financed and Government-appointed Consumer Council and these clusters of small consumer councils which have come into being on their own without any major sponsorship from anybody.
I was impressed to note that not in the 45 minutes of the very able speech of the hon. Member for Hillsborough or in the speech of the hon. Member for East Ham, South was there a single reference to competition. In fact, competition affords the best protection to the shopper in this country. The women of this country are infinitely better dressed today than they were ten years ago, but this is not due to any regulations we have had about the number of stitches required in the making of skirts; it is due to the fact that a number of highly skilled merchants have been fighting for customers as hard

83
as they can. It is competition, and still more competition, which is the customer's best protection in this country.
6.1 p.m.
Mr. George Lawson: Until his concluding observation, I found myself in almost complete agreement with everything said by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart). His concluding observation, it seemed to me, was quite contradictory of what he said in the earlier part of his speech. Shortly after he began, the hon. Gentleman spoke of price maintenance and suggested that, if price maintenance were in any way undermined or abolished, this would quite likely wipe out the smaller shops which are giving valuable service. The hon. Gentleman concluded by telling us that competition afforded the principal protection to the consumer. I cannot reconcile those two arguments.
Mr. Goodhart: Fair competition. I suggested that, if the large shopkeeper were able to obtain his goods so much more cheaply than could the small shopkeeper, there would be unfair competition against the small shopkeeper.
Mr. Lawson: Always, the justification for that attitude comes back to the question of what is fair competition. Competition in price is a very important matter for the consumer, and one would expect the consumer to be given some kind of protection in the absence of competition in prices. Yet this is what price maintenance means. I take the point about the smaller shop, but there are many other factors. If the hon. Gentleman relies so strongly, almost exclusively, as he appears to do, on the virtue of competition, he should think more carefully about his earlier observations.
Mrs. Patricia McLaughlin: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that there is tremendous competition within resale price maintenance? If there is not competition, recourse can be had to the Monopolies Commission, the Restrictive Practices Court, and so on. There is competition in resale price maintenance between many types of manufacturer.
Mr. Lawson: This is what we are always told. If one looks back to the history of British industry and commerce over the past fifty years, one will find that the constant endeavour of industry
84
and commerce has been to escape from competition and to protect itself from competition in all manner of ways. It is a myth that hon. Members opposite believe in competition. No doubt, they think that they believe in competition, but one has only to see how they and their supporters behave to see a constant pre-occupation with ways and means of protecting oneself from competition.
However, this is not the line I wish to follow at this stage. I merely tell the hon. Member for Beckenham that I have had to scrap what I had earlier thought to say to him if I were fortunate enough to be called to follow him because of the contradiction between his opening and closing remarks. Apart from that, there was much which I endorse, and in that spirit I turn now to the matters which seem to me to be of major interest.
The Parliamentary Secretary, in that smiling and confident way of his, said that consumer protection was no new thing. He went back to the Middle Ages, telling us that, over the years, we had built up and still further built up our consumer protection. I imagine that the hon. Gentleman thinks of himself as a person with considerable scientific training and, probably, he thinks of himself also as a person with a certain amount of historical understanding and knowledge. If he goes back to the Middle Ages, he will find a very different state of affairs. The protection then was very much a matter of small guilds protecting themselves. This was quite understandable and excusable.
Coming forward to the beginning of the last century and thereafter, there developed and became established the attitude that the best thing for the people as a whole was maximum competition, the idea being that, if only everyone would get on with it as best they could, everyone would profit to the maximum. This, of course, particularly favoured the powerful and was hard on the weak. In the eighteenth century, laws were passed which were supposed to equalise bargaining conditions between employer and employee. They were disregarded, with the connivance of the Government. This, too, is a matter of consumer protection, buying and selling one's power to work.

85
In fact, when the idea of leaving it all to the businessman, leaving it to competition within private enterprise, became the established attitude of mind of the people who made our laws and set the prevailing atmosphere of morality, and so on, it was found that very many people could not manage at all and consumer protection was reintroduced in regard to matters we are almost aghast to think of now but which were previously left to the voluntary action of private people such as those of whom the hon. Lady the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame Edith Pitt) spoke.
The Co-operative movement came into existence, among other things, to protect the consumer from sand in the sugar and all sorts of short weights and sharp practices. The consumer had to be protected by the Truck Act against being compelled to buy where his boss wanted him to buy. But these protections were not happily given. There was no benevolent Conservative Government looking round in the interests of the people and saying that we must legislate here and there to give protection. Such improvements as there were at the time were fought over inch by inch, all the way.
One has but to think of the protection of the child from the abuses of forced labour which children had to undertake. This, again, is a matter of consumer protection; people were selling and buying something. The protection of children, too, had to be fought for. We had to fight for protection to ensure that we did not buy diseased meat. In every town the protection of weights and measures and all these other things had to be fought for.
These things could never be left to the voluntary action of well-meaning people. There were plenty of well-meaning people, but there always were sufficient people who were not well meaning. There were always sufficient people to take advantage of what laws there were, or of the absence of laws, in order to get round the difficulties and do the best they could for themselves, irrespective of the cost to others.
Consumer protection has today become a matter of vast importance, and the law lags very far behind the needs of our situation. The law lags behind here just as it does in taxation, the various devices for escaping Income Tax being always
86
ahead of the Inland Revenue. I speak here, of course, not of the ordinary person who pays tax on P.A.Y.E., for every penny he earns is accounted for. The "Smart Alecs" and those who are well off can always find ways and means of getting round it.
The Parliamentary Secretary preened himself on the fact that his Government had done so much. Let me remind him of a practice which has been established in Scotland and which has been brought to the notice of his Department time after time by my hon. Friends and myself. It concerns a firm in Scotland called Napiers. The practice it followed has in some respects been eliminated, but that is not because of the virile protective action of the President of the Board of Trade and the Government. This firm was utilising all the devices, fakes and trick advertisements which deceive the people. It called the system a "personal credit scheme" and it escaped the Hire Purchase Act and the Moneylenders Act. When we brought this matter to the notice of the Government they said that it was not covered by those Acts.
In 1959, I tried to bring in a Bill to bring this practice under the Moneylenders Act. The endeavour to do that was too late. This position still remains in Scotland. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) said, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) sought permission to bring in a small Bill which would limit the amount that such traders can extract to not more than 50 per cent. of the initial price, not more than half as much of what the initial price was said to be. Any hon. Member from Scotland can tell the Parliamentary Secretary that there are many people there still suffering under the iniquitous practices which were allowed to go on for so long. The law is not back-dated. Agreements entered into some time ago are still valid.
Many people such as the person my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian had in mind have already paid more than half the price and have still to go on paying. Many come to me and asked me to explain this. Speaking from memory, I think that they have said, "The initial price for a television set was £75 and I have paid £115. Shall I still owe £30?" I go into it and show them

87
how this comes about. It was perfectly legal, at least so we were assured, but to my mind it ought never to have been permitted.
This firm got away with it for a long time. It charged 2 per cent. compound interest per month on the initial sum. A shop manager came to me and accused me of doing him out of his job. I told him that he was charging more than 24 per cent. per annum. He refused to believe it and I spent an hour trying to get him to see than even at simple interest 2 per cent. per month was 24 per cent. per annum. He could not see it, yet he is supposed to be explaining the system to customers.
Compound interest doubles in three years. Even the proprietor disputed that 2 per cent. compound interest doubled in three years. That sort of thing went on and it was only through the introduction of a Private Member's Bill that it was, in part, limited. Similar practices still go on. The Parliamentary Secretary ought to recognise that large numbers of our people cannot read long legal documents. They can make no pretence of understanding them. They should be given some protection against signing such documents and putting themselves into an impossible position.
I wrote to the hon. Gentleman on 18th February. I thank him for handling this matter. I wrote, not about a hire-purchase deal but about a hiring of a television set. This practice is widespread. I wrote to the hon. Gentleman about an old-age pensioner who came to see me. He had entered a transaction in the early part of this year to hire a television set. He thought that he was hiring it for 10s. a week. He signed a document of which I have a copy here. It is in very small type of two foolscap pages, plus another page which I shall mention later. A number of people persuaded him to hire the set saying that they would help him to pay 10s. a week, but they later dropped out of the agreement. He wanted to get out of the agreement.
My wife is hiring a television set for which 10s. is paid week by week. She and I know that we can get out at very short notice but this old man discovered that he had signed an agreement to hire a set for a minimum period of three years
88
and he could not get out of that agreement.
I wrote to the firm, which is a successor of Napiers and is called Scots-vogue. I told the firm that it should recognise the man's difficulties and that he wanted to terminate the agreement. The reply was that he had signed and nothing could be done about it. The old-age pensioner came to me a second time and I wrote a second time. Then the firm virtually told me that it was none of my business. I wrote to the Parliamentary Secretary and someone from the Board of Trade went to see the set. It was found that it had been manufactured more than three years ago and the Control of Hiring Order, 1960, did not apply in any way.
I quote the final paragraph from that letter:
"Apart from this, the terms of hire are a matter for agreement between the customer and the trader and, much as I sympathise with Mr. Finlay's circumstances, the Board of Trade have no power to intervene."
I sent a copy of the agreement to the hon. Gentleman. If ever an agreement was one-sided this it is. It does not permit the hirer to terminate the agreement until or unless three years have elapsed, and he has to pay 10s. a week all the time.
The firm stipulates:
"The owners reserve the right to terminate the agreement at any time should it be considered by them that it is no longer economical to service the article and in that event the renter shall have no claim whatever against the owners."
The owners can terminate the agreement virtually at a moment's notice if the article is no longer economical for them to carry it on. That is a one-sided agreement. It specifies that the owner shall keep the set in working order, but there is written into the agreement that "the renter shall have no right or title to suspend, reduce or delay the payment of the rental before mentioned"—
that is 10s. a week—
"during any time which the article is not functioning or is in the owner's premises for repair."
But the owners undertake that in the event of necessary repairs taking more than three weeks to execute, they will replace the article with another.
In other words, according to the agreement which has been signed by this old-age pensioner, he can be deprived of his

89
television set for three weeks. The repairs need not be made in less than that period, but he has to pay his 10s. every week just the same while the set is not functioning. The owners may take it away, and they have three weeks' grace during which to return it to him repaired or to provide him with another set. This is a fantastic position. No sensible person would sign an agreement of this sort if he understood this sort of thing.
In addition, the person hiring the set must pay the money to wherever the owner says the money shall be paid. When this old fellow hired the set there was a shop belonging to the firm in my constituency. The shop no longer exists, and the old chap has to send his money week by week to the firm in Ayr. He has to pay money for the stamp and the duty on the postal order. Hon. Members may say that that is a trifle, just a few coppers, but it is a big item for the old fellow living on his old-age pension. The firm no longer has a repairs service in Motherwell or near my constituency. if the old fellow wants to have the set repaired he has to telephone to Edinburgh. He has been given an Edinburgh telephone number. This is covered by the agreement. One sees that the terms are grossly unfair and one-sided.
This firm operates on the same basis as when it was Napiers. It insists on a guarantor. Some poor chap, perhaps a son-in-law or a friend next door, is asked, "Please sign this statement to enable me to get a television set". He signs it without thinking—and he has signed a guarantee that he will be responsible for all the moneys which may become owing by the person getting the set. Moreover, should the guarantor die, the debt will be passed on to his estate. His next-of-kin will inherit this debt. That is written in twice—the provision to pass on the debt. Many of these people have no idea what they are undertaking—not the faintest idea that they are pledging their income.
There may be other firms such as this, although I hope, and do not think, that there are others in Scotland. There are certain practices which have always puzzled me. In his letter to me of 18th February the hon. Member said:
"The terms of hire are a matter for agreement between the customer and the trader and, much as I sympathise with Mr. Finlay's cir-
90
cumstances, the Board of Trade has no power to intervene."
But the hon. Gentleman will agree that if the old fellow defaults on his agreement, the power of the law will be behind Scotsvogue to see that the agreement is implemented.
If the Board of Trade and the Government have no concern with the nature of an agreement entered into in such circumstances, then they should have no concern to see that the agreement is implemented by law. If these things are outwith the law, or if there is no protection, and if the Board of Trade is not concerned with the matter, why should the law be used in this way? If it is argued that an agreement is a private business, it should be left to the private firm to get its payment as it can on the basis of private associations. But the law can be utilised in many ways. In Scotland, a man's wages may be stopped. In this respect, the law in Scotland differs from that in England. His wages may be stopped on the basis of a debt. His property may be sold to pay such a debt. He can be taken to court and he will have court fees to pay.
A man asks me, "I have paid £110 and I find that I have £30 or £40 still to pay on something which costs £75. How is this?" I look at the statement. I may find in such a case that the man has been in court and that a guinea or £5 has been put down as court fees. These are all added to his debt. This is a fantastic position.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to recognise that in this business of buying and selling the parties are vastly unequal. There is some sense in the argument of competition if the parties are equal, but there is no equality in circumstances of this sort. A great many people can scarcely read at all, and it is fantastic to expect them to read a closely typed document. I know that it is difficult to say that we should protect people from their own folly, but we must try to do so, and that is not being done.
The hon. Member must not show the self-satisfied expression which he showed when opening the debate. We are very far behind the man who wants to engage in sharp practices. It seems to me that if we are setting up a Consumer Council

91
we should try to bring into existence a body which will do something to rectify the ill-balance which exists in our society today and to put some organised force against an organised force.
This cannot be left to the education of the people. By all means educate the people, but we shall never sufficiently reach a large proportion of them. We must also recognise that the smart fellow is educated, too. Indeed, he has had more education, and he is all the time thinking how he can out-do the public and how far he can go. That is business, whether hon. Members opposite like it or not.
The great bulk of firms are good, honest firms, but standards are not always set by good, honest firms but by others. If we are to have a Consumer Council of any value it must be able to act and not have to depend on citizens advice bureaux. I have nothing against these bureaux, but the Consumer Council must have access to effective means of checking these devices.
I deplore the fact that the Consumer Council in effect repudiates any suggestion that it will do the testing. Why not do, on a much more effective scale and a larger scale, that which "Which?" is trying to do? We do not leave the food inspectors in a position in which they cannot go into a shop to sample the goods. We do not leave the inspector in the position in which he must wait to receive a complaint about poisoned food before he can enter a shop. He is checking all the time.
If we are to have an effective Consumer Council we must have a body which is able to check, check and check again and to keep its eye on what is happening over the whole field of consumer interest, with ability to sample here and there. I am sure that the honest firm will welcome this kind of thing. But no firm should be in a position in which it feels that it is in no danger at all of such checking. It is the likelihood, or even sometimes the remote possibility, of someone coming into the firm to make a check which is important. The very fact that the Consumer Council repudiates this rôle of doing the checking puts a big question mark upon the Council.
I am not concerned with the relatively well-to-do. They have their lawyers and
92
means by which to protect themselves. I am concerned with the large number of people who do not have those facilities—largely, those who are inarticulate. Very many of our people cannot argue their case. Sometimes, they can scarcely come to the point. How are they to be expected to understand difficult legal documents? We must put them in the position where this is not necessary. The Consumer Council must exist for their protection. If we can be assured that this is what the Council will do and that some of the weaknesses which have been pointed out will be dealt with, I shall be much happier. Otherwise, I will feel that my hon. Friends are right in the terms of their Motion.
6.31 p.m.
Dr. Reginald Bennett: The whole House will have followed with sympathy the accounts given by the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) of abuses and evasions in what appear to be straightforward contracts between people. We have listened with horror to some of the examples cited by the hon. Member. He made one point, however, which conflicts with what was said in the Molony Report. The hon. Member complained that indebtedness was passed on to an estate at death, whereas in paragraph 534 of its Report the Molony Committee recommended that a hire-purchase agreement should not necessarily be terminated at the death of a customer.
Mr. Lawson: I am sure that the hon. Member does not want to misrepresent the position. What the Molony Committee said was that when an article had been nearly paid for, on payment of the few pounds remaining it should remain with the family.
Dr. Bennett: I accept that the hon. Member was talking about hiring and not a hire-purchase agreement, but there is great scope for discussion of the subject before we can get equity between the different parties, especially in the world of hire purchase.
What we are trying to do is to give courage to the good operators and, as far as we can, to deter and stop the bad ones. I have given a little study to the subject of hire purchase since the publication of the Molony Report and I have looked with interest at the Bill which

93
was introduced in another place to amend the hire-purchase law of 1938. I was not impressed that the attempts, which were, no doubt, meritoriously made, to improve the law had any substantial hope of achieving what they set out to do.
That Private Member's Bill recommended a "cooling-off" period of something like 72 hours after doorstep sales. I am sure that under the present law that would be an appropriate and proper amendment. The Bill also proposed, however, to increase the existing £300 limit for hire-purchase transactions to £1,000. The hon. Member for Motherwell knows, as we all do, that the Molony Committee specifically rejected that proposal as being completely unrealistic. It would have set an arbitrary line which could be crossed by small amounts of percentage, interest or even Stamp Duty, which might make a difference to whether a hire-purchase agreement for a motor car, for example, was above or below whatever arbitrary limit was set. I certainly came to agree with the view of the Molony Committee that it would be wrong to have an arbitrary figure. Either there must be no limit, or it is best not to mess the present situation about. I am coming more to the view that it is best not to mess it about.
I have long held the view that hire purchase has nothing whatever to do with hiring. It never has had. We need to recognise this fact and to modernise the law. To the best of my knowledge, the idea of hire-purchase stems from Ellen Wilkinson's Private Member's Bill which became law in 1938. I suspect that as a Private Member's Bill it was drafted in such a way to disturb as little as possible the existing law. Private Members' Bills are usually circumscribed because the repeal and amendment of the statute law is not a very popular subject for a Private Member's Bill.
There are two Acts—the Bills of Sale Act and the Moneylenders Act—which would have had to be cut about a fair amount, and I certainly do not regard it as being beyond the competence of this House today to change the law to permit a straightforward moneylending operation for people to be able to buy goods on credit. The Bills of Sale Act contemplated a situation in which people who
94
were very poor and wanted to raise money by pledging their property would sell their goods on a certain basis to "raise the wind". It never contemplated a well-off society whose members would buy goods in respect of their own personal credit, rather than try to "raise the wind" in a state of desperation.
The Moneylenders Act also imposed certain restrictions on moneylenders, such as a prohibition on advertising. When, however, nowadays one sees the personal loan schemes of the big joint stock banks being advertised, what sense does all this make? We have outgrown the whole legal structure surrounding transactions of this type. Both of those two Measures were devised long before the present modern system as we know it.
Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: Does the hon. Member know anything about the interest charges under the Moneylenders Act which became applicable to hire purchase in 1948, not under the terms of hire purchase, but under the terms of long-term and short-term credit, as distinct from hire purchase? The hon. Member must not omit long-term and short-term credit trading as part of what is commonly known as hire purchase.
Dr. Bennett: I am impressed by the hon. Member's intervention and I accept it. I was not trying to score off moneylenders, or to put the Moneylenders Act out of court. I was saying that the provisions of both Acts were largely things of the past and that we want a completely new look at this whole matter.
With that in mind, I was pleased when the Government announced in another place that the amendment of hire-purchase legislation was no ionizer a matter for action by a Private Member's Bill but was now a subject for Government legislation. I certainly welcome this and I am sure that the House hopes that this will be a first step on the road to producing the necessary legislation.
But then we have to consider what the legislation should be, and I repeat that I do not believe it should consist of chopping about the hire-purchase legislation as it already exists. We ought to recognise, as the hon. Member for Hillsborough has said, that we are considering an operation for purchasing articles on mortgage, so to speak. similar to the

95
way in which people purchase houses on mortgage. I believe that that parallel is far closer than has been generally recognised.
I believe that if we do this, we shall achieve one advantage which is referred to in paragraph 437 of the Molony Report:
"He"—
that is, the customer—
"would be surprised to know that the law attaches different implications dependent on which mode of payment he adopts and that his position is less secure if he pays cash."
It goes on to say:
"…the anomaly arising from the divergence between the two branches of the law is much more marked nowadays. We do not think it ought to remain."
Bluntly, in paragraph 431 the Report says:
"the law should be the same on sale and hire-purchase."
This may not be a mammoth point, but I suggest that we substitute for "hire purchase" the principle of simple sales with credit, and we should consider the matter from the point of view of ordinary small credit sales, moving over to the bigger scale for which chattel mortgage would be required. We would need, therefore, to have new legislation amending these two older Acts in order to produce the machinery for chattel mortgage, or perfectly ordinary loans for mortgaging against goods other than bricks and mortar.
I believe that there are enormous advantages here. For instance, one advantage of such a principle which is not to be despised is the fact that a finance company would no longer be concerned with the title to the goods. It seems to me to be a fantastic state of affairs that a finance company should be described as the owner from the moment that the agreement is signed. The finance companies themselves would, surely, be happier only to have a lien on the goods up to the extent of the amount due to them. This would stop the notorious "snatch back" activities which we all deplore and which are carried out by the more disreputable companies would be the owner of the goods and
It would also mean that the customer would be in a position to sell them at
96
the best price that he could get. Under the present hire-purchase arrangement, if the purchaser is unable to keep up the payments the articles go back to the supplier and the customer is breaking the law if he sells the goods. They are then sold at a knock-down price because the sale is forced. I think that there would here be a substantial advantage in changing the law.
The negotiations under such a new framework would be direct between the customer and the finance house. In other words, the dealer would not need to know that the customer had to borrow any money. This would be a very good thing, and, in addition, we would cut out any prospect of these disgraceful "backhanders" which are known particularly in the motor trade, where finance houses have been compelled by pressure to allow up to 15 per cent.—
Mr. Darling: Twenty per cent.
Dr. Bennett: I think that they piously hoped for a limit of 15 per cent.—in the form of commission. It is hardly necessary to add that in such a transaction, if conducted in the form that I am advocating, the costs would be a great deal less, and this is a factor which has been mentioned by more than one speaker. I do not think the finance houses would be likely to weep in being able to reduce their costs in this way.
Another advantage, which would not perhaps be so attractive to the Government as it would be to other people, is that any chattel mortgaging under this system would be strictly parallel to house mortgaging. The payments would not be hire instalments. They would be in the form of interest. They would, therefore, presumably receive favourable consideration by the tax inspector, and I feel there is a great deal to be said for protecting the customer against the tax inspector.
There is another thing which we need not shed any tears about, and of which I am sure many people would be glad to see the last. We would be able to free the county courts from being cluttered up with all these cases, because the falling in of a deal under this system would be merely a matter of selling at the best price, the financing company taking what was due to it and allowing the owner, the customer, to have the

97
rest. This would be sheer common sense and in sharp contrast to the world of make-believe in which hire purchase is shrouded today.
That is my view of this subject, and I hope that it will find favour in the eyes of hon. Members. We have come to a point where we are in a strong position to change a specific type of legislation. If we do not do so we shall carry on botching these transactions with the same imperfect Molony said that hire-purchase legislation, suitably amended, can serve the public well. If it can, perhaps we need not repeal the hire-purchase legislation. Let the other system get going alongside it and see which one wins. That is the most sensible way of ensuring that what we so urgently desire comes about.
I have other points to raise, but think that they would be best left to some other occasion. I leave the House in possession of these few ideas, and I hope that hon. Members will think well of them.
6.47 p.m.
Mr. Robert Edwards: I hope the hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett) will forgive me if I do not dwell on some of the arguments that he has submitted in connection with hire purchase. I was rather surprised, however, at his complacency about the subject, particularly in the light of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson).
As I listened to the recital of these dreadful hire-purchase agreements my blood began to boil. If only a few hundred people in Scotland are subjected to this calculated exploitation, this seems to me to indicate an urgent need for legislation to wipe out these modern brigands of our society who are causing so much frustration and hardship.
Dr. Bennett: I think the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) said that these dreadful examples, of which we are all aware, tend to come close to the point where we cannot protect people from doing foolish things. People should certainly have redress, and if the structure of the law is wrong we should alter it, but when people sign agreements which do not make sense it is difficult for us to legislate to stop them.
Mr. Edwards: Sometimes old-age pensioners want to buy a television set. They are given long and detailed documents, and when they are told by the salesman "This is a straightforward deal", these honest folk, who have never done anybody out of anything in their lives, take the salesman's word as his bond. They are honest people. They think they are entering into an honest transaction, so they sign the document. People must be protected from frauds and exploitation of this nature.
It is a scandal that our society does not deal with the minority of these modern brigands who exploit people—usually the poorest people. The intervention of the hon. Member seems to justify the remarks that I was making about his contribution.
Dr. Bennett: I prefaced my remark by saying that hon. Members on both sides of the House wanted to see legislation which would deter this sort of racket and would encourage honest dealing.
Mr. Edwards: I do not want my contribution to degenerate into a debate between two hon. Members, but the hon. Member said, "Let us not make any changes in the hire-purchase law. Let hire purchase compete with this new idea of a chattel mortgage system." He concluded with an observation which indicated—if it meant anything—that he was not in favour of any change in the law.
We were given ample evidence of fraud by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Mr. W. T. Williams) in his Bill to reform our hire-purchase legislation and, in a recent Ten Minute Rule Bill, by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), and my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell gave us overwhelming evidence of the need for urgency in making a change in the law relating to hire purchase. However, it was not my intention to dwell on the subject of hire purchase. I want to get to the fundamentals of consumer protection and welfare.
The Government have had eleven years to do something to protect the consumer against exploitation and misleading advertisements and against the new hazards in their homes which arise out of faulty machinery and equipment. They have had eleven years to protect

99
the consumer against the dreadful dangers of the new drugs that have caused nightmares in the lives of thousands of pregnant mothers and have brought into the world little children who are deformed and who will never be able to lead a normal life.
When we consider the many new problems, difficulties and hazards that arise in modern life, we cannot but conclude that the Government's suggestions to deal with them are very feeble. I have little faith in the Consumer Council. It is a very feeble weapon indeed to deal with some of the great problems that now need to be dealt with if we are to protect the consumer. There are far too many professional committee sitters appointed to this Council. We want live wires—people who are full of indignation and who believe in social protest. We want people who are aware of the problems of the ordinary people. We do not want the professional people who constantly seem to be pulled out of retirement or the Civil Service to man these committees.
Our society is fundamentally a producer society. It is organised almost at every level to protect the producer. The Federation of British Industries is now calling together all the producer organisations which protect the employers' interests in order to form one centralised organisation of producers so that they can act together. The Trades Union Congress is now dealing with the problem of creating new structures for its movement in order to centralise its activities. I am the general secretary of a trade union, but I am also a producer, as are the members of my trade union. On the producer side, therefore, we have two vast concentrations of power, organised deliberately to protect producers' interests. If consumers' interests are to be protected we want organisations which are powerful enough to balance the present overwhelming power of the producers.
The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) talked about the need for competition. He thought that this afforded the best protection to consumers, and he praised the activities of the Government in this respect. But it was he who submitted an excellent Bill last Session with the object of rationalising guarantees
100
so that consumers could place some reliance upon them—and it was his Government who rejected it. The Government gave no assistance whatever to the passage of his excellent, though modest, Bill. Similarly, the Government would give no assistance to the Bill which my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington introduced, and when I introduced a modest Bill entitled the Fair Trade Practices Bill the Government would not look at it. They said, "We will have to wait for the Molony Report." My Fair Trade Bill sought only to deal with misleading advertising. Many of the rackets and frauds that now take place in our society are possible only because the people who are responsible for them are able to advertise. If they were not able to advertise in the Press, on the hoardings, on television and by circulars, nobody would know about the services they are supposed to offer and the goods they wish to sell.
If we brought in legislation to deal with misleading advertising, we should go a long way towards eliminating the present patent medicine racket, by which 400 preparations of no medical value are sold over the counters of our chemists' shops. These witches' brews, the cost of which are contained in their corks and bottles and not in the contents thereof, are able to be sold only because of expanding and misleading advertising. If such advertising were banned we should be able to get rid of the so-called hair clinics, which promise treatment which will give a bald person a lovely mop of hair.
In every woman's magazine I see advertisements for slimming garments—plastic garments which are put on various parts of the anatomy and which, it is claimed, cause the wearer to lose inches and pounds. This is a fraud from beginning to end. It is condemned by the medical profession, and it can do great harm to teen-agers. Yet, in our civilised society, we allow every woman's magazine to advertise garments of this nature which do not fulfil the promise of the advertisements. We need simple legislation to give the advertising profession, or trade, or whatever it is, some kind of sanction against the minority of advertisers who defy every decent standard it sets up.

101
To say that competition is the consumer's greatest protection is nonsense, because our society is based on the elimination of competition. Year by year we have take-over bids, with the Government refusing to take any action to prevent them. The classic example was I.C.I. and Courtaulds when, far from refusing to take any action, the Government refused even to inquire into the deal. I hear an hon. Member say that that deal did not come off, but now controls 36 per cent. of Courtaulds.
I.C.I. has exclusive control of the patents for the manufacture of nylon and Terylene, and has eliminated all competition in synthetic textiles. We have only to look at half a dozen shops in any of our main thoroughfares to find that we have very little selection at all. In each shop we find the same mass-produced goods, and it is extremely difficult to buy a present that has any value at all, or any attraction.
That is a development in our society. Great power is moving more and more into the hands of a few hundred businessmen and, of course, the Government are of the party of the business men. It is strange to hear hon. Members opposite talk about competition being the one protection of the consumer when they themselves encourage this greater concentration of private industrial undertakings. However, I am letting my thoughts flow, so I will only say that consumers need to be protected in a number of directions.
They need to be protected in their rehousing. In the next twenty years, six million houses will be built, and it should be our duty to see that they are fit for people to live in. We need legislation to protect those who purchase new houses, and also to protect the older occupiers from the jerry builder who repairs—plumbing, electric lighting, and so on. A great deal of sub-standard work is being done today, and a great deal of jerrybuilding. It must be halted. Unfortunately, it can be halted only by Government action and legislation. Of the 140,000 houses built privately, literally thousands are sub-standard and jerrybuilt.
We know from our own constituents that this real and urgent problem is increasing. In an estate in my constituency I found that five houses had actually fallen down. They were built
102
over a disused mine. Some of the occupiers are tied up with mortgages, yet have nowhere to live. In some houses in another estate, the doors would not close and in others they would not open. The garages were not fit for use. I myself pulled a brick out of the wall of a house that had been completed only three months earlier.
I visited an estate in Surrey consisting of houses that cost £6,000. They will be permanently damp because of the whole structure of the roof. I talked to an old lady who, in the first three months of her occupation, had spent £180 to keep her home free from dampness, and in the first few years had spent nearly £700 to have a leaking roof put right. She cannot do anything because the builder has gone bankrupt. Like thousands of others in a similar situation, she has no redress whatever.
I do not think that the Government really mean business in protecting the consumer. They have had ample opportunity in the last eleven years to do something fundamental, and to set up a council that really means business. To deal with the great new problems of consumer protection and welfare, we need a Minister of Consumer Protection with a Department having the special job of watching the new problems arising in our modern complex society, of issuing a constant flow of reports to the Departments concerned, and introducing the half-dozen new, modest Bills required to give the consuming public the protection it certainly needs increasingly in our modern society.
7.8 p.m.
Mr. Gordon Matthews: I welcome the publication of the Molony Report and the formation of the Consumer Council. I also welcome the idea that consumer protection should be brought right down to the locality through the medium of citizens' advice bureaux, but I am disappointed that such a small grant is to be forthcoming for their formation. They lack publicity, they lack funds, and they are very scattered and patchy throughout the country. Even to provide the premises necessary for them we shall need more money than the amount at present envisaged.
Publicity, too, is important, and will cost money if we are to make these

103
bureaux a success. Publicity is needed, particularly amongst the younger age groups, but that is not all there is to it. Professional or semi-professional staff will be needed to operate the bureaux, which must also have specialised organisations behind the scenes to which they can pass the various consumer problems coming their way. They will have to be organised in depth, and I hope that the reason for the Government suggesting such a small sum is that they are not yet in a position to outline the machinery that will be necessary behind the scenes to make the bureaux effective. I hope that a little later this evening my right hon. Friend will be able to give an assurance on this point.
As I see it at the moment these advice bureaux, where they are established, are doing some very useful work, but they are duplicating a lot of the work which is being done by other voluntary or statutory authorities. This is something which will have to be straightened out. The various functions will have to be defined, sectionalised and specialised, I believe.
For instance, take the numerous family problems which come along. Obviously, many of them have not much to do with consumers' problems. They surely would be better referred to the Family Welfare Association or the Marriage Guidance Council, or a specialised body of that kind. I think that I am right in saying that about one-fifth of the problems which come to the citizens' advice bureaux at present have anything to do with consumers' problems, and these are mainly questions of hire purchase and of credit in one form or another. I do not want to waste the time of the House in talking about hire purchase, because it has already been dealt with adequately by other Members, and it is an extremely important matter.
I should like to suggest that in the early stages in developing these advice bureaux we should endeavour to put the existing bureaux in first-class order before we start to open up new ones elsewhere, if, in fact, we are to be limited for funds. I thoroughly approve the idea of using the citizens' advice bureaux as channels for information and complaints, but I should like to see them backed up by
104
having the Board of Trade or some other centralised authority—but I think that the Board of Trade would be best—to supervise national advertising and also to enforce safety standards. These are, to my mind, things which ought to be dealt with centrally on a national basis.
Then I should like to see the independent testing organisations registered. They have been doing excellent work. I myself feel that the Molony Committee was a little bit unkind to the Good Housekeeping Institute, and there ought to be another look at that, because I should like to see some kind of testing organisation connected with every trade, to give eventually coverage to all kinds of commodities and services. I should also like to see the registering of guarantee seals and certification marks so that there is some recognised machinery which the advice bureau can go to as soon as they pick up a complaint.
Then there is the idea of enforcement. I recognise that this is not included in the terms of the Molony Report, but I think that every encouragement should be given to men like Mr. Roger Diplock, of the Retail Trading Standards Association, who has been so active in enforcing the Merchandise Marks Act which has helped honest traders throughout the country. The same thing might be done with regard to the Sale of Goods Act in preventing manufacturers from limiting their liabilities by means of bogus guarantees. The Hire Purchase Act and the Food and Drugs Act could be dealt with in similar ways.
I should like to make a plea, in contrast to what has been said by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), and say that the Consumer Council and advice bureaux would be more effective if they were to include people representing interested parties. I myself have had a great deal of experience in the retail trade, working amongst public-spirited retailers who have taken an active part in trade associations and chambers of trade and other such bodies. The majority on the Council and the other committees should be genuine consumers, but I believe that a minority of public-spirited men who know the problems of the merchandise being discussed would be helpful and would strengthen the advice bureaux

105
and committees which deal with these matters at local level.
I suggest, too, that the policy should be to offer advice only, and not to endeavour to help people to make their choice. I think that the essence of it is that people should be educated to make their own choice and that the education of consumers is the most effective form of their protection, because there is no other way of protecting a man from being penny wise and pound foolish than that of educating him to be more sensible. There is no other way to ensure that the weak-willed will not buy when he does not really want to. There is no other way than by educating people about these things so that they may use common sense. I would say that the education of the public is probably the least expensive way of protecting the public and certainly the most reliable in the long run.
I think that it is a good thing sometimes to allow people an opportunity to make mistakes, even when it comes to purchasing things, in the hope that they will make their mistakes in making small purchases, and that then, from the experience which they gain from those mistakes, they will be wiser when it conies to some of the bigger purchases which one has to make later in life. I believe that by paying the penalty of making small errors we probably do, in fact, learn more effectively than in any other way.
So I should like to see consumers' education. I believe that it is just as important as protection in other forms. because no public authority, however enlightened it may be, can really dictate what is the right balance between price and quality when one is buying something. Nobody can really tell the individual what is most suitable for his needs. Price and quality have so many different meanings for different people. What is best for one householder is not necessarily good for his neighbour, and common sense alone can produce the answer, and the final choice must rest with the individual.
We have got to guard against too glib a use of the phrase "consumer protection", because I believe that the consumer's best protection is a form of self-help. Give him the information, teach him to use his common sense, and then let him do the choosing.
7.17 p.m.
Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: There were some things I liked about the speech of the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Matthews), and I refer to one in passing, namely, the question of trade marks, as I want to make my first point on the problem of trade marks. When I consider the establishment of the Consumer Council I wonder what its function will be. I wonder what it is going to do. I wonder what powers it will have and how effective it will be.
The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned the Merchandise Marks Act and the hon. Member for Meriden also mentioned trade marks. In 1933 an Order in Council provided that the country of origin must be stamped on every separate part of an umbrella coming into this country from abroad. The result has been that the shopping public have known immediately whether the umbrellas they were purchasing were British or of foreign manufacture. This has been a subject of great difficulty. Indeed, there have been several prosecutions because umbrellas have come into this country without a stamp of the country of origin. Woolworth's were prosecuted in 1961. The case went to the Appeal Court before three judges. Woolworth's lost the case.
One wonders whether or not the influence of some of the bigger retailers has played its part in the advice which the Board of Trade receives about the orders which are made, for in April of this year an order was made—an emergency order, it is true, for 12 months—which laid down that an umbrella need only be stamped on the handle with the country of origin. But that may be loose. Anyone can imagine what can happen when an umbrella needs only to carry the stamp of country of origin on a part which is not permanently affixed.
Our umbrella manufacturers and the individuals who make umbrellas are grievously concerned. What will the Consumer Council do? What will the Board of Trade do? Will the Board of Trade accept the advice of its committee which has recommended an emergency regulation, or will it accept the advice of the Consumer Council? I address those questions to the Parliamentary Secretary, and I thank the hon. Member for Meriden

107
for helping me to raise the question of trade marks.
There is something else which could be mentioned along with the problems which should be put to the Consumer Council, in respect of which I should find it difficult to say categorically that it would arrive at a recommendation, or, at any rate, one which would be effective. We have a great deal in the way of protective clothing in this country. Miners buy special boots for their work, and grocers and butchers buy special aprons and smocks. I could go through a whole list of such garments, but it will be sufficient to say that some of this protective clothing is subject to Purchase Tax. If in the interests of safety in industry the Consumer Council begins to examine the protective clothing situation, I believe that it will inevitably condemn the imposition of Purchase Tax.
I will give an illustration to prove my point. The national Consumer Council may be a reflection of local consumer councils. The consumer council in Sheffield last week issued a statement in which it advocated that Purchase Tax should be removed from protective clothing. But Purchase Tax is not a problem for a consumer council. It is the problem of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. May we know from the Government who will be responsible in respect of the recommendations of the Consumer Council and whether we may expect them to be put into practice?
I have been very interested in the discussion which has taken place so far. I should like some of those who have spoken to have been employed in some of the jobs that I have had to do in the past. They would then not have made the speeches they have made today.
One of the country's problems in terms of credit trade is not so much hire-purchase for cars, washing machines, refrigerators and so on, but ordinary day-to-day short-term credits conducted by about 600 check credit firms. In addition, there are direct credit firms which are not only themselves providing credit but are actually selling their own goods to the consumers. That is direct credit; the other is check credit. It would be a good thing for the Consumer Council to examine check credit trading.
108
An agreement arrived at by the Board of Trade under an Order in Council in respect of short-term and long-term credit allowed a charge of 1s. in the £ on short-term credit for twenty weeks. I was concerned with the negotiations and know something about the matter. Ever since then the check credit firms have charged 1s. in the £ as poundage. Every one of the firms which do not charge any poundage at all or charge only a very small amount is to be found, I should say, within the Co-operative movement, and that is to the eternal credit of the Co-operative movement.
The rate of is. in the £ for twenty weeks represents £2 12s. a year, which comes as close as possible to the allowance for the moneylender of 48 per cent. But that is not all. These people
"toil not, neither do they spin"
Yet, in addition to that, about 20 per cent. is being given to the man who provides the finance with which to buy motor cars. But these people get a rebate of from 12½ per cent. to 17½ per cent. from the poor old shopkeeper. If hon. Members talk about consumer protection in distribution, they ought also to talk about protecting not only those buying the goods but in some cases those who are selling the goods.
There are shopkeepers who are tied hand and fist by the operations of check trading companies. They do not get their money until thirteen weeks after the transaction is completed. If an average of 12½ per cent. has been applied, they have 2s. 6d. deducted from the money which they get. If one begins to reckon that up in terms of profit to the check trading companies over a twelve months period—percentages are usually taken on an annual basis—it comes to nearly 1,000 per cent. These matters in relation to the credit trade should be examined.
There are other things which ought to be examined. At the moment I am very interested in the price war between the petrol companies. I do not mind how they cut one another's throats so long as they do not cut the throats of ordinary consumers. If the reductions which result from the price war in petrol are genuine and sincere, there will be no complaint from me. But if the early

109
signs are that the price war is to continue, then I should think that the Consumer Council will have more than its hands full in dealing with the petrol problem alone. We have hundreds of small gas ages. Pipes are being laid from the worst quality and medium quality tanks into the best pumps. It is claimed to be cheaper petrol, a reduction to meet the challenge of petrol from the Sahara and the Soviet Union. In reality, it is merely the old grocer's trick of mixing two commodities, charging the same price and saying that he has actually reduced it.
If the Consumer Council examines this problem aright, I believe that it cannot but conclude that every petrol pump should have stamped on it the octane nature of the spirit it holds. If that is done, it may avoid a great deal of falsification and something which is often very closely akin to trickery.
I believe in hire purchase, but we must ensure that a reasonable rate of interest is charged and avoid the accumulation of interest values. We should ensure that interest is calculated on the basis of the calendar month. Unless we do that, we will never cure the fundamental difficulties of hire purchase.
Hire purchase and credit trading cannot be eliminated. Even if that were a good thing from the point of view of pounds, shillings and pence, a good many shopkeepers would go bankrupt while many people, I am sorry to say, would be unable to get goods they badly needed. Let the Consumer Council get its claws into reality. Let us have an assurance that it will have power behind it and that it will be able to deal not only with the simple problems I have pointed to, but with the hundreds, indeed thousands, of problems arising in our complicated system of distribution.
7.33 p.m.
Mrs. Patricia McLaughlin: We have heard a number of very interesting contributions to the debate. One thing which has emerged clearly is that on both sides of the House the point of view of the consumer is carefully considered and that we are all of one mind in trying to achieve the best means of giving the consumer a fair deal. I welcome the opportunity to discuss this important matter, for it is something which
110
affects in our daily lives everyone in the country.
I am pleased that Lady Elliot of Harwood has been appointed chairman of the Consumer Council. She is fearless and will be determined to see that the task she has undertaken is carried through satisfactorily. However, I am a little disturbed that it is not a full-time appointment. At least, at the beginning it is surely necessary to have a full-time chairman and, if possible, at least some members serving full-time, in order to get through what must be a very large quantity of material and matter before the Council starts on its priorities and the way in which it intends to work.
What exactly will the Council do? We have heard about it in general terms from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. It will carry out what was laid down in the general terms of reference. When the terms of reference state:
"to consider, after consultation where necessary with other affected interests, the action to be taken to deal with such problems, or to further or safeguard such interests and to promote that action."
I presume that this means everything, including legislation. I would like clarification of that point, however.
I hope that it will also be made clear what the Council is to do in terms of positivity. I would deplore it if there were any question of a negative approach, of snooping, or of reducing the Council merely to the job of carping at manufacturers and creating further differences of opinion and understanding between consumers rather than trying to match the needs of the consumers with the competitiveness, fairness and the rights of honest traders of whom there are so many.
Because of this, I am glad that there is to be no national complaint service, for that would take this idea out of the context of dealing with a thing where and when it happens. A complaint will be made locally, understood locally, although I hope that, if there are a number of complaints about a certain item from all over the country, it will be possible for some action to be taken by the national Council. But I am glad that it is not necessary first to refer a matter right up the line.
I am particularly anxious to know how much the Government are impressing on the Council that it must use

111
strong firm teeth in what it does. It must grasp problems sharply and deal with them as positively as possible. How will it be able to enforce the things it suggests otherwise than by legislation? There must be other ways. How much direction will it be given? Will it be thrown the whole problem and left to get on with it? If that is so, as part-timers the members of the Council will not be able to get their jobs done satisfactorily.
The Council must not give the impression of being dowdy and old-fashioned, or of being merely preventive. It must be positive. It must deal with the rights of both sides of industry and in the light of consumer needs. It must draw those needs together and not separate them. There must be the possibility of research, or of calling upon research organisations to help, to find out what is needed.
This does not necessarily mean testing goods, but in finding out public reaction and the ways in which the public wants things to be done. Otherwise, it will take too long to get to the heart of the matter. The Council must find out how to get the best service for the consumer, including the best after-sales service, and to get explanations, which are also very important to the public. Long delays in any of these matters will cause larger troubles.
We have heard about many problems worrying consumers. The longer they are left unchallenged, or to go by default, the greater they become. We want to feel that the Council can get its priorities right, settle down to the job and begin to find channels through which it can work satisfactorily. We are all consumers and are all very much concerned. We must particularly emphasise the fact that we are trying to create a race of common-sense consumers, people with more knowledge of their needs and of what they are buying.
It is true that the younger generation is more discriminating. I am always impressed by the fact that the younger shoppers seem much more intelligent than I was at their age. They are out into the world at a much earlier age. They have everything thrust on them by the time they can read. They think much more about what they are buying than their parents do. We must foster this
112
attitude so that they will become commonsense consumers able to choose carefully and well for themselves.
We have wholesalers, manufacturers and retailers who are, in general, geared to trying to serve the public satisfactorily. It is the minority of them who cause the difficulties, and these are the people on whom we must use the preventive approach, if at all. We must never do anything to prohibit the development of new trade and new products. In this, of course, we must keep before us the positive approach.
It is value for money whether it is a 6d. article, a £6 article, or a £600 article that is important. It is value for money in the context of what we are buying, and this is where, I believe, the majority of the traders today try to do their best. It is those who fall down on it who give the rest of the traders a bad name.
This is important today in the context of our trade abroad. We have to send things abroad that are the best possible value for money. In some cases the buying public abroad is more discriminating. Many housewives in this country go out to work and have, as I know from experience, very limited time in which to do their shopping. They do not necessarily have time to peer at all the vegetables and poke at all the various pieces of meat, which seems to be allowed more on the Continent that it is here.
They do not have time to argue with the salesman, and in many cases they are not perhaps such favoured customers. On the Continent, the customer is the important person. But whether that is because the housewives on the Continent take more time, or their husbands are more particular, or whether it is because the national characteristic here is not to be too fussy, our average housewife is inclined, I think, to take what will do.
We have some very discriminating people, but we want more people who will not take the article that will do, but take the particular one which is right for their purpose. They need more help and knowledge in deciding this. The various ways in which they can get more knowledge are by knowing that there are standards available for many of these items. Labelling should be available, and, if it is not available on the various commodities, they should

113
buy only those which have labels understandably marked or the kite mark system of the British Standards Institution.
Let 113 take, first, the standards generally. The Molony Committee was able to report at length on standards, and in one case, for instance, children's shoes, it recognised that the standard set up in 1953 is generally regarded as inadequate. Ten years ago this standard was arrived at after much controversy and today I understand that the manufacturers do not want to reorganise it. Since then there has been a great deal of change.
Despite the fact that we still use traditional materials, there are many new materials. Higher standards should be demanded and if the standards are to be acceptable they have to be modern. One of the objections about standards for domestic items is that, first, there are too few standards, and, secondly, it is far too long before they are reviewed, and brought up to date.
We have to be careful that if we have standards they mean something and that they will not mislead the consumer. Today, I believe that to accept the B.S.I. standard of children's shoes would be to accept a very low minimum indeed. This is not satisfactory, although there are other B.S.I. standards which are very good and up-to-date.
On the question of labelling, there is need for regular review. Manufacturers of textiles, in particular—and the Retail Trading Standards Institution has been mentioned—have their own set of laundry marks and labels for their own trade use alone, and these, I believe, are very satisfactory indeed. There are other labels, some copied from the Continental system and some developed by individual firms. Where these are clear and understandable they are very valuable and helpful.
But when there are many man-made fibres and the blending of these fibres with all the new types of dyes, finishes, and synthetic furs which are put on manmade fibres, the consumer has a very raw deal unless it is clearly stated what should be done about cleaning. I shall not weary the House about this, because people can find this out quite simply from the 'Women's Advisory Council, the B.S.I., the citizens' advice bureaux, the Women's Institute, and so on.
114
So many garments are spoilt by the wrong kind of cleaning; not because of the cleaners but because there is no label to tell them what to do. Because a garment has been washed when it should have been cleaned, and vice versa, it has been ruined and is virtually unusable. This kind of thing should not happen in our modern times, and it is one of the things which is being gradually improved. The new Council will have to seek a definite line on these matters. While we are encouraging our own manufacturers, makers-up, retailers, and so on, to go in for proper labelling, stating what should be done clearly and simply, we are importing a whole mass of textiles with no marking on them. We do not know what the standards are, what the quality is, or anything about them.
We cannot expect our manufacturers to spend time and money on research, producing good labels telling us what to do, hoping, at the same time, to educate consumers to do exactly what they are told to do on the label, without giving some protection to the trader against all these imported goods without labelling or marking. This will defeat the object. We must somehow or other find a means of making this kind of labelling a set standard which is usable. I believe that in time the minimum type of labelling ought to be made as far as possible enforceable.
We have today many individual trademarks. We have companies which say, "I always put a full statement of everything on my materials or garments". People selling a far wider range of items say, "My trade mark, my brand name, is my guarantee of the fact that you know who made it, you know the standard to expect and you know that if anything goes wrong we will, under the guarantee, put it right or repair it for you".
I do not want to get involved as to whether one loses one's rights under the Sale of Goods Act, because this has already been discussed, but, generally speaking, reputable manufacturers honour their guarantees. However, we must challenge the right of any producer to make poor goods of any category. When we have given them a satisfactory background on which to work and a definite demand, then we know that we can write

115
the poor, the sloppy, the rotten type of producer completely off our market and in this way the standard will improve and not only our home consumers will gain, but the variety of goods in competition will be as good as possible.
On the question of imports, there is a European Bureau of Consumer Unions, which sits in Brussels and which is working actively and on which we need more representation. We need to keep abreast of what is happening in Europe, America, Sweden, and our Consumer Council will have to follow all this colossal number of standards being set up internationally and followed by other countries. The result must me looked at and a great deal of research must be done before any active steps can be taken here. I hope that we shall hear something tonight of the priority which is in the Government's mind, because it would not be fair to hand to the Committee the entire responsibility for consumer protection and to say "Get on with it".
Safety is one of the most important of the matters concerning a consumer, but it is often a consideration which is left to the last. Designers look for the right styles and the right colours and the best way to sell a product, but the safety element is often forgotten although it is of paramount importance. Earlier, I mentioned the disadvantage of having standards which were not enforceable. There was a 1952 British Standards Institute standard for oil heaters, but it was completely out-of-date when we came to have a new standard because it was found that oil heaters no longer used the very old-fashioned wick but had become the radiant type with inherent dangers which neither manufacturers nor the B.S.I. had recognised earlier.
Because of the emergency, B.S.I. had to work out a new standard very hurriedly—hurriedly for B.S.I.—and produced a new standard in about one-third of the time usually taken. Manufacturers had been happily working to the old standard which bore no relation to new styles of oil heater which could cause accidents when placed in a draught. When the Oil Burners (Standards) Act, 1960, became law, the difficulty was wiped out because the Government were able to enforce safety regulations as they saw fit. What I want to know now is whether matters
116
such as these will be drawn to the attention of the Council and whether it will be able to give its opinion on many outstanding safety matters about which many of us are concerned.
For instance, the interim Report of the Molony Committee was produced in a hurry because of the oil heater problem, but the question of the flammability of textiles was largely skated over and no definite recommendations were made. The British Standards Institution brought the manufacturers and designers and other interests together and eventually came up with a very poor standard of flammability, far below that which one would like to see. Nevertheless, it is a standard, but it is only voluntary. The majority of manufacturers making non-flammable materials suitable for nightwear and party wear and garments for other occasions when dangers from flammable materials can arise have often been unable to get their goods on the market, perhaps because they have had a poor advertising campaign, having spent the money on research, or because the amount of advertising which they have done has not got through to the public. Apart from that, the materials are dearer because they are sold in smaller quantities.
The Molony Committee got out its interim Report in a hurry, but it afterwards admitted that it did not even contact some of the leading firms which make the chemicals, or the materials which would ensure safety for dangerous materials, such as untreated winceyette; and the Committee's final Report paid but little more attention to this serious problem. We are being inundated with untreated winceyette from various foreign countries, and large quantities of other dangerous materials are coming in. The garments bear no labelling or other kind of marking to tell a mother that she is putting her child in danger if she buys such a garment or material. That state of affairs will continue until clear labelling has to be affixed to all types of material sold in this country.
Another example is electric blankets. Under pressure, the B.S.I. has produced a new standard. Electric blankets are like the gentleman with the beard—those which go on top are left on and those which go under are turned off. But there is no question of compulsion and there will still be people who will be

117
duped into buying electric blankets which do not measure up even to that standard. Because there is no compulsion, there will be many more accidents with blankets which are unsatisfactory. So we have to ask whether the attention of the Council will be given to this matter.
Pressure cookers, electric fire lighters and spin driers are among the many other articles for which a standard would be of tremendous help and great value to the consumer and at the same time protect the unwary and the unknowledgeable. The British Electrical Approval Board has brought out its own seal of approval which the majority of reputable manufacturers are now using. It is very good as far as it goes, but it does not cover imports. It is impossible to import an oil heater which does not measure up to the safety standards, because those standards are compulsory, but there is no compulsory standard for imported electrical equipment. We have to have some sort of definite line to be followed by every organisation. It would give help and guidance to the manufacturer so that he would know what he was expected to do, and he would know that other manufacturers had the same commitment.
Among the many other items are toxic and corrosive substances, as was mentioned in the Molony interim Report. So many goods and containers are potentially dangerous in the homes—fluids and other things which we use for keeping our homes lighter and brighter and many of the aerosols for doing away with insects. Many of these substances are not correctly labelled. We need far more information to be supplied with them and I hope that the new Council will consider this aspect of consumer protection.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham. Edgbaston (Dame Edith Pitt) spoke about education and said that consumers needed more knowledge. I suggest that we need efficiency. Efficiency is the key, because it is in the efficiency of the manufacturer and the seller and buyer that we shall find the answer.
Incidentally, I am very sorry that Shopper's Guide is now to close down, so that only Which? will be left. I understand that B.S.I. set up Shopper's Guide with part of the money used by the
118
Government for consumer protection. I would like to know why has let it slide out of its hands in what seems to be a rather slipshod fashion. It has now been passed on to someone else, presumably because it was not paying its way. Which? does very valuable work, but I am afraid of what will happen in future when there is no alternative to it. I believe in competition and I think that there is room for two consumer magazines.
The loss of Shopper's Guide will be greatly felt in the months and years ahead. Shopper's Guide did not attempt to produce a "Best Buy", as Which? does. On the other hand, Shopper's Guide produced the facts and figures and left the choice to the consumer. Although the consumer might buy something a little less valuable than the best buy, it might be more suitable for the individual. It is a pity that we are to lose this magazine on which we had built such high hopes and on which so much work had been done. It was a very useful magazine. Surely there is still testing work and education to be done which could never be done by one magazine alone.
Most of the hire-purchase companies are reputable, and do a very good job, but we must wipe out those which are not so reputable. We must remember that although for every one disgruntled or badly treated consumer, there are 100 who are well looked after, the 100 who are well looked after are usually looked after just well enough. There is room for a great deal more efficiency, but we cannot get that efficiency from the manufacturers and the consumers unless they know where the co-ordination is. That is the great challenge facing the Consumer Council.
If the members of the Council make up their minds, positively and determinedly, to do their job, they will do a good job, but if they carp and cavil and compromise they will be useless. Manufacturers and consumers and all of us must work to produce the answer. It will not be easy, but I hope that the debate will have cleared some of the lines. I hope that the citizens' advice bureaux will have direct contact with the Council and that there will be none of the peculiar red tape which may be necessary in the Civil Service proper. I hope that in time we shall have a new look in our approach

119
to consumer matters, so that it is not the consumer on one side of the fence and the manufacturer on the other, but both working together to produce the best they can for the benefit of the consumer, which, in its turn, will increase our trade abroad.
8.0 p.m.
Mr. Norman Dodds: I have sat through almost every minute of this debate, and that has had its disadvantages as well as its advantages. From the point of view of it being a disadvantage, I have had a headache for the past hour and a half. From the point of view of it being an advantage, I can now look back on the debate and say with confidence that the Government can have derived little pleasure from it. Hon. Members on both sides have expressed doubts about whether the Consumer Council will do the job that it is intended it should do.
In opening the debate for the Government, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade made it clear that from his point of view there was very little idea about what might be done. His speech was in sharp contrast to the brilliant analysis made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling), who for many years has made a detailed study of this subject and certainly showed up the threadbare speech of the Government spokesman. I echo what my hon. Friend said. We hope that the Minister who winds up the debate will give us some information to enable us to decide whether the instrument which is to be set up is one in which we can have confidence.
The final report of the Molony Committee was issued in July last year, yet this is the first opportunity we have had to debate it. If it was felt that this was an important report, I would have thought that efforts would have been made to bring this matter before the House long before now. The Parliamentary Secretary, who is always courteous and very efficient, did his best, but hon. Members on both sides are far from satisfied with his explanation. I fear the worst, and I got this feeling when I heard the Parliamentary Secretary going right back to the Middle Ages and talking about consumer protection. I could not help thinking then that we were still in the
120
Middle Ages, and it was my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough who made it clear that the consumer's only hope of this problem being tackled efficiently lies in the Labour Government taking over and putting in charge of the problem someone like my hon Friend the Member for Hillsborough.
The Government Amendment
"welcomes the action o Her Majesty's Government in establishing the Consumer Council as a major first step in implementing the recommendations of the Final Report of the Committee on consumer protection".
If it takes as long to implement the final recommendations of the Molony Committee as it is taking to implement its first recommendation, that of setting up a Consumer Council, I am afraid that I shall not live to see that.
When the Parliamentary Secretary was challenged about this, he gave no explanation of why it has taken so long to take this step, and he therefore cannot blame us if we have come to the conclusion that this is a smokescreen to keep the consumer quiet. The Observer in its issue of 29th July, 1962, said:
"The Government has at last discovered that to scratch a consumer is to find a voter."
Once again we are getting near a general election. It is time that some promises were made, but are they to be implemented? I therefore ask the Minister who is to wind up to be more explicit than the Parliamentary Secretary was in opening the debate and to answer some of the questions asked by the hon. Lady the Member for Belfast, West (Mrs. McLaughlin). I should be much more confident of the outcome if at the Board of Trade, or speaking on behalf of it, we had my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Winterbottom), who showed that he had a good idea of what is needed for consumer protection.
Who can be satisfied that this Consumer Council can do the job? I do not think any hon. Member is satisfied that a part-time chairman can cope with all the problems that have to be overcome. Further, a salary of £1,000 is quite inadequate for this appointment. I am not saying that there is not a citizen in the country who would not do his best even if he received no salary, but this small sum gives us some idea of what the Government think of this job. They

121
propose to pay £1,000 to the chairman, yet they do not mind splashing money around on many other items. I remember the Questions and Answers about Army boots. The Government lost £1¼ million in the most stupid transactions that were ever carried out. That money was written off as a! no account, but protecting the consumer is an entirely different matter. The Parliamentary Secretary said that he accepted most of the recommendations of the Molony Committee. What about its recommendation on the salary to be paid to the chairman? The Committee recommended a salary of £3,000.
Ten months after the publication of the Report the Consumer Council has not yet been set up, and we have not had the dynamic action we were all expecting. The Minister will no doubt say that we have to be careful; that we have to take time to get the right people, but why is it that the Government waited until the final report was published before starting to look for suitable people to do the job? Did they think that the Committee's inquiries would never reach finality? Why did they not set about getting some idea of the sort of people who would be needed to do the job before the final Report was published? Because of this we can have no confidence whatever that the Government have shown the necessary dynamism in tackling the problem. I for one never expected it from this Government under whom racketeers and profiteers have flourished for the last eleven years. Our only hope lies in a change of Government at the earliest possible moment, and I believe that this is coming.
I pay tribute to the person who has been appointed chairman. She is an exceedingly able person, but there are grave doubts about the appointment of Miss Elizabeth Ackroyd as the first director of the Council. There is a feeling that this will not be an independent board which will ensure that things are done to protect the consumer. We want a lot more information before we can have the necessary confidence in the board and this view is held not only by Members on this side of the House. The Financial Times of 2nd April, 1963, said:
"In certain fundamental respects the Consumer Council as constituted seems to fall short of its creator's intentions.
Its financial grant for the first year is £60.000, or less than half what Molony sug-
122
gested should be its budget by the end of the second year. The chairman is to be paid only £1,000 a year instead of the £3,000 put forward as the right sum for an important halftime post."
The article also criticises the appointment of a civil servant.
I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that he look at the booklet, Ministry of Consumer Welfare, produced by the Co-operative Party. The suggestion contained in it was dismissed by the Molony Committee as a grandiose notion. What does the Molony Committee suggest? It sees great virtue in the suggestion that the activities of different Government Departments touching the consumer might be advantageously coordinated and possibly centralised. I suggest that this is one of the strongest arguments for the establishment of a specialised Ministry. This was the idea advanced by the Co-operative Party, and I believe that nothing less than a Ministry of Consumer Welfare will do the job.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bilston (Mr. R. Edwards) has made several attempts in recent years to help consumers. All his suggestions have been rejected. There is a great need for research. There is a great need for some organisation with some teeth in it, and the Consumer Council does not seem to fit the bill in any shape or form.
One of the proposals is that the citizens advice bureaux should be given the job. The Parliamentary Secretary did not make a great deal of that, but the facts suggest that a great deal more must be done before these bureaux could ever begin to touch the problem. I do not believe that they can do the job. This does not mean that I do not appreciate the work they do. I know many of them and I pay them the highest tribute. They are doing a wonderful job now, but I doubt whether in this respect they could do what we would ask of them.
I understand that there are 420 local bureaux scattered patchily over the country. Three-quarters of the staff are volunteers and many of them are women. It is said that the maximum need is for a further 90 bureaux, but if there is to be a bureau in every town of 10,000 or more population to cover each catchment area a further 400 bureaux are needed. This is a tall order. I ask hon.

123
Members to remember the loss of £1¼ million on army boots which I mentioned earlier, and I emphasise that to do this work the Government give the National Council for Social Services £27,000. Even if they had magicians on the job they could not create an efficient and independent organisation in those circumstances to match the present activities of the trade unions and the associations acting on behalf of producers. It takes a pretty tough man to say at the Dispatch Box that he really believes that this job will be done now. I thought that the Parliamentary Secretary's argument was exceedingly threadbare.
The second recommendation related to hire-purchase laws. If I thought that the Government had really studied the problem I might feel that something was going to be done. We are told that there will be changes in the hire-purchase laws, but cannot we be told something more about them? In January, 1961, in a debate on this subject, I drew attention to some scandalous cases. I mentioned how it was possible under the law governing hire purchase for a finance company to re-possess a car and sell it for £45 and then charge the hirer £90 for repairs. This sort of story continues. There is need to give much more thought to hire-purchase conditions.
In these days there is a great deal of redundancy and short-time working, but tens of thousands of decent ordinary people have bought motor cars believing that in a prosperous society they would be able at least to obtain a car to travel to and from work. After the Beeching Report has been implemented many other working people will want to a buy a car if they are to get about at all. But the situation in the hire purchase of cars is a matter of legal robbery which has been going on for a long time. Why are the Government holding back if they have any time for the consumer at all?
My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) brought a most scandalous case to our attention, and I should like to give a classic example to bring the matter up to date. It has been said many times that there is protection for the purchaser of a car costing up to £300 under legislation passed in 1938 and 1954, but beyond that figure there is legalised robbery of which the Govern-
124
ment must be well aware. The law enables companies to sell cars which they repossess to a nominee at a low price. If we all believed that companies which repossess would not play a dirty trick it would be all right, but the law is wide open. They can resell a car which they sold only twelve months earlier for £400 for as little as £45 to £50. If an aggrieved person goes to court he can ask for the names, but agreements can be made in such ways that they will stand up in a court of law.
The classic case which I have in mind is that of a constituent of mine who bought a car in June 1961. The total cash price was £416 15s. He paid down £104 15s. and the balance left was £312. Hire-purchase charges of £74 17s. 7d. brought that up to £386 17s. 7d., which he agreed to pay by 30 monthly payments of £12 17s. 11d. This man paid right at the beginning of the month for 19 consecutive months and then his wife lost her job and the following week he too become redundant. He then wrote to the finance company to say that he could not keep up his payments. He had already paid a great deal of money.
My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell said that there were people who could not read and write, but I would emphasise that there are others who can, and I should like to read to hon. Members the words on the "green card" which my constituent was given. Clause 8 on the card says:
"If before the expiration of two-Thirds of the term the hiring be determined or the Owners retake possession of the goods under the provisions hereof the Hirer shall pay to the Owners by way of compensation for depreciation of the goods in addition to any other sums payable hereunder such sums as with the total previously paid for rent hereunder shall make up a sum equivalent to two-thirds of the Balance as set out in the Schedule hereto."
Therefore, having paid 19 payments out of 30 the purchaser believes that by paying the 20th sum he will have paid two-thirds of the cost of the car according to the agreement. But not on his life. There are other tricks to be played.
This man, having written that he could not keep up the payments, the firm took possession. Where a man writes to a finance company saying "I cannot pay" the courts have held that he is breaking his agreement, not exercising the right to terminate it. If he exercises that right,

125
expressing himself in different words, he has to pay only two-thirds, but because he is honest enough to tell the company that he cannot keep up the payments he is considered to be breaking the agreement.
Hon. Members may think that there is something wrong and that I have failed to ascertain the facts, but I have had a lengthy correspondence with solicitors and the managing chairman of one of the biggest finance companies in the country so as to get the facts down in black and white. These show that the law is in such a shocking state, as a result of decisions made in the House of Lords, that the finance companies can do practically anything they like when it comes to repossessing. In fact we have a situation where if a man is honourable and says that because his circumstances have deteriorated he cannot continue to pay he is in a worse position than the man who refuses to pay any more instalments and whose car is repossessed. I have the card here if anyone wishes to see it, but this is what is said by the finance company in a letter to my constituent:
"Further to our representative's recent visit to your address, we confirm that the 1956 Vauxhall Velox has been collected as requested and has now been sold".
Although it cost £416, the finance company says that the best possible price which could be obtained was £75, and it adds:
"We must hold you responsible for the remaining balance and your proposal as to how you will liquidate this amount would be appreciated."
The two-thirds did not apply.
In a further letter, the finance company argued that the House of Lords had held that a hirer who was not exercising an option to terminate the agreement but declared his inability to pay was in breach of the terms of the hiring contract.
A later letter says:
"We understand that you maintain that you are not liable to make any more payments under Clause 8 of your contract. However, we would respectfully point out that as the cash price of the vehicle was over £300 this is not covered by the Hire Purchase Acts and therefore you are liable for payment of the full outstanding balance after the sale of the vehicle".
Then the solicitor comes to the rescue of the company and says—I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to take particular note
126
of this because it is the law which is wrong and, if the law is not altered, these things can go on—
"It would obviously be inappropriate for me to comment by way of implied criticism on the recent decisions which the courts have given, but in trying to apply them in practice, it is proving extremely difficult to formulate a rationalised approach and I am quite certain that the courts in coming to some of the decisions they have reached recently could not have been aware of their full implications when the decisions were applied to every-day practice".
That is an indictment of the law. Such is the state of the law that the solicitor for a finance company says that the courts could not have known when giving some of its decisions what the consequences in practice would be.
When the law is in a state of confusion, it operates, with very rare exceptions, to the advantage of the finance companies, which have the money and legal skill to browbeat the hirer. Some of the people I have tried to help in this way are in great distress. They have lost jobs and are in such a situation that, as some of them have said, they feel like suicide. People like this cannot go to the courts to fight. Time after time, they are beaten by a decision in law which is said to apply to their case. It has been shown that, whether the courts decide that the hirer has broken his agreement, or ended it in accordance with a right given by the agreement, the finance company does not lose and it often gets more money than the hire-purchase transactions cost.
The managing director of the firm wrote to say:
"As far as finance companies are concerned, it must be accented that the recent decisions have left the legal position in some confusion, and, as Lord Denning pointed out in his judgment in the Financings case, a hirer who genuinely wishes to exercise his right to terminate an agreement in accordance with the terms he entered into may find himself liable to pay a much larger sum than another hirer who simply defaults, leaving it to the finance company".
This is what I complain of. Through bad luck having overtaken him, even after having played the game for nineteen months, an ordinary decent person who tells the company that he cannot carry on and honour his agreement finds himself, under the law, having to pay back every penny of the balance between what he has paid and the value of the car, despite the two-thirds minimum payment under the agreement. Therefore, whether a person

127
can read or not, there are those who need to be protected, and this is the Government's job.
There have been references to the Merchandise Marks Act. Some years ago, I took a great interest in this and found out from the Board of Trade how many times it had instituted prosecutions. I was astonished to discover what I regard as the ineffectiveness of the Board of Trade in prosecuting even though there were many cases which called for it. Whoever is dealing with consumer protection, there must be a greater sense of urgency. There must be a greater desire to ensure that the producer gets a square deal. Whatever the Government do, this Government or the next one, it must be understood that, in this country's best interests, the consumer must at long last have somebody on his or her side against the powerful corporations. Consumers must have a square deal. They have not had it yet, and there is no sign that they will get it under this Government.
I echo the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough. This Government have had nearly twelve years to do something. They have done nothing. The sooner they get out, the better it will be for the ordinary man and woman who, in 1963, deserve much more protection than they have had these past twelve years.
8.26 p.m.
Mr. William Shepherd: The hon. Member for Dartford—
Mr. Dodds: The hon. Gentleman should get up to date. It is not Dartford and has not been for six years. It is Erith and Crayford.
Mr. Shepherd: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I think that he has spoken in the interval and I ought to have known that his constituency had been changed. When the hon. Gentleman rose, he said, with a sense of grievance, that the debate had given him a headache. If it is any satisfaction to him, I can tell him that I now have one.
This has been a field day on the benches opposite for the co-operative societies. I find it rather ironical to have "Co-op" to the left of us, "Co-op" to the right of us, and "Co-op" in front of us, because, of all retail organisations in this country the one which needs the
128
greatest geeing up is the "Co-op". If this discussion today does something to that very desirable end, I shall have a real sense of satisfaction.
I strongly approve of the setting up of a Consumer Council, and I hope, as most reasonable people do, that its powers will be sufficient to be effective. We shall have to see how it goes and play it by ear.
I wish to put the subject of today's debate into perspective. On the one hand, we have had a host of allegations from hon. Members opposite about the wickedness of trade and commerce. On the other, there are people in business and advertising who are quite unmindful of their responsibilities and who resent the reasonable efforts which this House and people elsewhere are making to put business on a more satisfactory footing. If evidence of this is wanted, I will quote part of a journal which is sent to me in the course of business by a firm called Brunning Advertising. This is what is said about the efforts of the community to improve business arrangements:
"Now we are going through a moralising phase. Politicians of all shapes, sizes and colours are wallowing in a warm bath of anti-commercialism. Alongside their vote-catching activities there runs a so-called voluntary structure of consumer protectionism, much of which is dictated by busybody interference."
That is the comment of an advertising agency which has grown substantially over the past six or seven years and which sends me this journal with the idea of getting my custom. I wrote to the chairman and complained about this article and he was good enough on this occasion to reply and to say that he supported what had been said in the article. We have one attitude of mind on the part of business which is harmful to what we are seeking to do, while, on the other hand, we have the views of those who want to condemn all business for the shortcomings of a few.
The situation is, I suggest, unsatisfactory today, because on the whole conditions in the United Kingdom have been better than in almost every other country in the world. Our goods have been of good quality and our traders have been honest so there has not been the need to enforce in this country the standards which other nations have found it necessary to enforce. In the

129
same way we have not found it necessary to enforce standards about retailing experience. I do not know of any retailer who is trained and forced to train, whereas in other countries that is a regular practice. We are moving from a period in which we had little or no ordered protection, for the simple reason that on the whole our business is conducted on a satisfactory footing.
When some hon. Members opposite talk about exploitation, let them remember that on the whole the cost of goods sold in shops and stores in this country is lower than in any other country. If hon. Members like to go to the International Association of Departmental Stores they will find that the markets obtaining in the United Kingdom are probably the lowest of any country. Take the case of a simple thing like chocolate. If one buys a bar of chocolate on the Continent one is surprised at the cost. The answer is simply that the vendor gets 50 per cent. profit, whereas in this country the vendor gets 25 per cent. profit.
We ought to recognise that, on the whole, in this country there have been good moral standards in business and the cost of distribution has been lower than in any other country. Why should we now move to some form of protection on a statutory level? One of the reasons is that we have the invasion here of American methods of business, some of which have been wholly undesirable—"phoney" clinics, "phoney" dance halls and high pressure salesmanship. All these things have created a relatively new condition which is harmful and in which it is necessary to seek some statutory protection for the consumer.
I do not want to give the impression that it is only the trader who ever cheats, however. The country is full of consumer cheats. Some horrifying stories have been told today about what some traders have done. I wonder what would happen if certain traders, even Co-op. traders, were to recount to the House their experiences with consumer cheats and the incredible ingenuity, the complete lack of any sense of decency, the inveterate lying which goes on among consumers who think that any trader is fair game for their malpractices.
When we are talking about consumer protection let us remember that there are consumer cheats and that they are very
130
nasty, disagreeable people. Unfortunately, there are many of them. I do not want to dwell on this for too long because, in the main, the public are honest and the trader is honest. There is a narrow margin on both sides which makes it necessary for us to take some action.
One hon. Member said that he did not think that consumer associations were of very great value. I do not agree. I think that their effect has been greater than most people imagine. It has caused manufacturers to have regard to the details and the design of their products. That has been of benefit to the people of this country and also of immense value to our export trade. There is no doubt that in this country six or seven years ago many consumer products, particularly durable consumer products, were very unsatisfactory in minor detail, in finish and consistency. The fact that very well-known firms were seen in the reports of Which? to be guilty of most remarkable lapses had a very salutary effect on the quality, type and standard of goods produced. We should congratulate the consumer associations on the work they have done.
It is not enough merely to be an intelligent buyer. There are plenty of products which the most intelligent buyer cannot fully assess merely by looking at or handling them. There are plenty of products in which the value is not inherent in their appearance. It is desirable to have consumer associations doing this work for the public. One hon. Member suggested that services should be dealt with by a consumer council. There is a lot to be said for that view. We tend to neglect services in our legislation. For example, it is not possible even today to deal with services in monopoly. The Restrictive Practices Court cannot deal with services.
It is time that we dealt with services, but I do not relish the task of individuals who have to deal with the determination of services. For example, how would one deal with complaints about a service which is very widespread today—women's hairdressing? Who is to judge whether the work is well or badly done, whether the style is according to the wish and desire of the customer?
Mrs. Harriet Slater: I would.
Mr. Shepherd: I run away from that. I should not like to be drawn into it. I appreciate that there is a case for consideration and that we should bring services within the scope of the Monopolies Commission.
The hon. Member for Erith and Cray-ford spent some time discussing hire purchase. I agree with him that the £300 limit is absurd. I support the Molony Committee in the view that it should be eliminated entirely. I am glad that we have now reached a situation in which we shall have legislation to deal with these malpractices. I am disappointed and sorry that the hire-purchase organisations have not themselves had enough wisdom and foresight to enforce some of these changes without legislation having to be enacted. It would have been a good thing from their point of view if they had tried to do something to protect the consumer when he needed to be protected.
I am glad that the idea of a 72-hour pause is to be enforced. That is essential, because high pressure salesmanship at the door has become a menace. Thousands and thousands of women are forced, by one means or another, into signing agreements which they had no real means of fulfilling and this, in the end, means disaster for everyone concerned. I hope that the Government will realise that hire-purchase business has its value, but it is important that it should never get out of hand. We must never allow hire purchase without a deposit. No-deposit trading is one of the worst forms of trading that could be conceived. It is no good for the man or the woman who buys the goods, for the man who sells the goods or for the man who makes them, and it is no good for the country. I hope that the time will come when we shall have legislation which will cover the question of deposits in respect of all traders.
A point about hire purchase ought to be borne in mind by hon. Members opposite who quoted percentages of returns on money. This is not the question. If one sells an article for £10, and the payment is spread over a year, the interest on that money is insignificant compared with the administrative cost. Even entering the transaction into a ledger, or doing it on a machine and sending out reminders and receipts, is a very expensive proposition. In fairness
132
to hire-purchase firms, it is not enough to consider merely whether a given percentage is high or low. We must bear in mind that in most cases administrative costs are much higher than the cost of the money.
One of the reasons why trade is sometimes not as satisfactory as it should be is the power of advertising. In many ways the power of advertising is too high. It could be reduced in two ways and I should like to see it reduced in two ways. First, it could be reduced by more intelligent buyers who will not be fooled by "Whiter than white" and all that nonsense. If we had more intelligent buyers, the power of advertising would be diminished.
Secondly, it could be diminished by more intelligent sellers. The old craft of the shopkeeper has almost passed away. He has become a hander-on of pre-sold goods, and he fulfils what is almost entirely a mechanical function. This is no good for the small shopkeeper, who is hopeless against the "big boys" if he is merely the hander-on of goods which are pre-sold. As has been said, the prize positions in every high street in England are occupied by the same 20, 30 or 40 firms. The ordinary small shopkeeper cannot exist against this sort of competition. But if he were a man who knew his craft and who would not necessarily push only the branded product but gave the consumer the benefit of his advice, then he might be able to get an edge over the big multiple stores which now enjoy such a monopoly.
Mr. Herbert Butler: How is that done with 1 lb. of sugar?
Mr. Shepherd: The hon. Member knows that it cannot be done with 1 lb. of sugar, but even he knows that 1 lb. of sugar is not the only commodity sold in the United Kingdom. We can do with more intelligent shopkeepers—and more intelligent Members of Parliament.
Advertising has its disadvantages, and I am rather worried whether the Advertising Standards Authority which has recently been established will do the job which it is intended to do. The maintenance of standards in advertising is a moral issue. Up to now there have been six or seven different bodies, trying to maintain six or seven different standards.

133
As the morality of a newspaper varies with the increase and diminution of its circulation and revenue, this has not been an easy task for any of them. I am driven to the conclusion that the only effective way of maintaining adequate standards in advertising is by some form of statutory authority set up by the Government and even having some Government representation on it.
I have had a recent case in which the Advertising Standards Authority clearly countenanced an advertisement going into a weekly newspaper, Reveille, because it was a very large advertisement, about an 8-in. double or treble column, and refused an advertisement of the same kind but of a very small nature. It is simply not good enough for the Advertising Standards Authority to bow to that sort of thing. If the Authority is to mean anything it must stand for what it believes to be the proper standards of advertising irrespective of the financial pressure which may be exerted on members of the Authority, and it must do better than it is apparently now doing.
After some experience of trying to raise the standards, I reached the conclusion that it will be no good until such time as we have a statutory authority which is able to lay down a standard which must be compulsorily accepted by all the papers. If any variation is allowed, and as long as one big periodical is able to say, "Why should we go without revenue when the other periodicals take it?", we will never get a satisfactory standard established.
I do not share the feelings of some hon. Members that the Consumer Council will not be effective. It is merely a co-ordinating body and it depends upon how well the component parts of consumer protection play their part. It is quite conceivable that if we could get the advertising side tidied up, if we had legislation dealing with the malpractices in hire purchase and we had effective competition, the situation would be largely remedied.
I am surprised that hon. Members opposite complain that competition is not the answer. Competition is the answer if we have intelligent buyers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mrs. McLaughlin) said, the younger element is much more intelligent than its peers in matters of purchasing. It is more
134
intelligent altogether, but in matters of purchasing' it is much more intelligent. If we have a Consumer Council, with the various ancillary elements working for and through it, together with an intelligent buying public, we shall get among the highest standards in the world.
I repeat, however, that the great majority of traders, manufacturers and advertisers are honest, decent people who are trading fairly and squarely. It is only a minority who damage the national reputation. I am convinced that by the steps taken by the Government in setting tip the Consumer Council, the work of the citizen's advice bureaux and the other ancillary organisations, we ought in the next decade to be able to eliminate the existing minor defects.
8.47 p.m.
Mr. W. T. Rodgers: The Motion refers to the lack of positive action on the part of the Government. If I may introduce a note of disharmony at this stage of the evening, I do not believe that this Government or any other will take positive action as long as they use the Molony Report as their text.
In the first place, the Report is practically unreadable. It is a monument to the worst Victorian prose, the sort of English which should never appear in an official document. It is not, however, the language which matters, but the tone, and the tone is at best cautious, restrained and conservative. For a large part of the time, it has overtones of Samuel Smiles and his "Self-Help".
The key sentence of the Report appears in paragraph 849, in which the Committee states that
"We are well aware that any addition to the apparatus of bureaucracy is open to criticism and requires a powerful case to justify it. We have found after careful deliberation that such a case exists."
For the Molony Committee, therefore, the new Consumer Council is an addition to the apparatus of bureaucracy. I should like to know whether this is the Government's approach or whether they take a more positive view of its functions, welcome its establishment and believe that it is not simply a watchdog in this very conservative and unenterprising sense in which the Molony Report uses the phrase.
The Report reaches heights of pompous paternalism when it discusses comparative testing. It is quite true that it

135
has some pleasant things to say about the Consumers' Association. It admits that
"comparative test reporting is a very useful aid."
It is fair in this respect but condescending.
But may I draw attention to paragraph 383, which says:
"…such reports are, we believe, of immediate value only to the section of the community which has the necessary intellectual and critical capacity to use them wisely; and we are as conscious of the dangers as of the advantages of disseminating them—in present or in simplified form—to consumers of lesser wisdom."
If the Minister can find a phrase which excels that in pompous paternalism, I should like to know what it is.
Later Molony talks about the importance of consumer education and refers to the importance of using all the methods of mass communication to inform the consumer. This is a very good idea. Let us use all the methods of mass communication, but, in view of this opinion, surely the Report might have been expected to say how important it is to use television and radio for these purposes. It might have said that the use of radio and television to give publicity to comparative test reports was "an exciting prospect", "a bold attempt", or, if I may use language more appropriate to the Report, perhaps "a welcome endeavour".
In paragraph 384 it says:
"…we cannot but view this venture with a certain amount of trepidation."
Well, the language is right.
"We hesitate to say whether it would be beneficial to the consumer for commercial television to follow suit before the soundness and value of the B.B.C. programmes has been established."
This is the approach of the Report throughout—cautious in the extreme and not welcoming the things which ought to be welcomed if this is really the beginning of a new consumer movement.
Look again at what the Report says about the Consumers' Association, the publishers of Which? It draws on reports published in Which? in a number of cases, and it mentions comparative testing as "a very useful aid". I should have thought that after all this a pat on the back, if not a really big
136
hug, for the Consumers' Association would have been appropriate.
But I draw attention to paragraph 388 headed "Qualms about constitution". It starts as follows:
"It must also be said that we view with a certain amount of misgiving the Association's oligarchic and self-perpetuating form of government."
That is surely the prize sentence in the Report. Dealing with the consumer and the need to protect him, it says:
"The concentration of so much power in so few hands must inevitably give rise to concern…"
What about the power concentrated in the hands of the British Motor Corporation, E.M.I., Unilever and I.C.I? These are surely great concentrations of producer power, and these corporations spend as much in a year on advertising alone as the total income of the Consumers' Association. This is an extraordinary view.
When the Report goes on to consider the question whether a Consumer Council should be responsible for comparative testing, it says:
"We consider it undesirable…"
and then comments that a significant minority of taxpayers would not like it. Presumably this is a sufficient reason, that a body of taxpayers would not like the idea of a Consumer Council undertaking comparative testing.
The result of comparative testing is not that an individual is told what he has to buy. No instructions are given to consumers; they are merely informed. Free choice remains. A consumer can choose a product which is shown to be inferior. There may be a very good reason for his choosing such a product; he may not have the resources to buy that product which is given as the "best buy". I do not see that it is a question of giving directions to consumers, and I see no reason why comparative testing should have been so positively excluded from the terms of reference of the Consumer Council.
We must get the philosophy of this matter right. I believe that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) who said that organised force had to be placed against organised force. This is the simple truth of the producer-consumer equation. There is an alternative—the alternative of restriction. It is argued by some of my hon. Friends

137
and others that there should be strict restraint on advertising, but if we find that control or restriction has its disadvantages, countervailing force surely is what ought to be provided.
Here again, towards the end of the Report, the Molony Committee says that the Council should not be a "partisan mouthpiece". But what else is it supposed to be? It is supposed to represent and speak for the consumer. Is it meant, somehow, to embody the consumer and the producer at the same time and, out of this curious compromise, yet do the things which the Parliamentary Secretary said it should do? It must be a partisan mouthpiece.
This does not mean that it should be irresponsible. But it should speak hard and strongly. In this respect I agree with the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). I do not like commercial representation on the Consumer Council. Its members are honourable and able men and women, but consumers should be represented by people who have only a consumer capacity, and are not linked in any way with the retail trade, or with manufacturing industry. This is a mistake, and I hope that in the future it will be remedied.
I have not the opportunity to explain in detail how much I agree with the remarks made about the amount of money available to the Consumer Council and to citizens advice bureaux, but I remember that in rejecting the idea of a complaints council the Molony Committee said, in its usual fashion, that it would cost too much. Apparently complaints cost between £4 and £5 each. It would mean that £27,000 would have to be divided by £4 or £5, and this would mean that the bureaux might have to deal with 6,000 complaints a year. That would amount to 10 complaints for every constituency represented by an hon. Member. Surely that makes nonsense of the whole idea that citizens advice bureaux could possibly do this job.
I had hoped that the outcome of the inquiry which began when the Molony Committee was set up would be a Government decision that we require to make a positive move forward in representing the consumer in his widest sphere. I remember that about thirteen years ago a pamphlet was written by Dr. Michael Young, who was largely responsible for
138
the starting of the Consumers' Association, entitled Small Man—Big World. This, surely, is the overall question, of which the matter of the Consumer Council is an aspect.
In the world today accumulations of power, whether commercial power or the power of officialdom, are increasing. This is part of the penalty that we must pay for the larger scale on which we operate. Perhaps it is the penalty both for greater affluence and more and rightful Government intervention, but if this is the case the small man must be looked after. The small man, who does not know the ropes; who cannot write a letter; who is faced with questions that make him afraid, and with which he does not know how to deal, must be helped. This is part of the case for the Ombudsman.
I know that this is not what we are now discussing, but the theme of the consumer protection movement ought to be, "small man—big world"—and the small man needs helping. The verdict that will be passed on the Government's decisions will be how far the Consumer Council, with this in mind and with this as its theme, rises above the dismal Report produced by the Molony Committee.
9.0 p.m.
Mrs. Harriet Slater: The debate has ranged over many subjects, and has proved that the time has arrived when we need to tighten up the laws and methods by which the consumer can be protected—and I use the word "consumer" in a very wide sense. We tend to think of the consumer as the woman who buys groceries, drapery or household commodities when, in fact, she is the person who buys anything she needs whether it be an article or a service. The debate has also shown that we need a new view of the whole problem, and a greater willingness on the Government's part to assume more responsibility than they are, apparently, prepared to take at present.
The Parliamentary Secretary said that it appeared when we on this side chose this subject for debate we had suddenly discovered that there were consumers and a consumer problem. I must tell him that it is because many hon. Members of the House and outside it have for many years realised that there is a consumer

139
problem and a need for consumer protection that the Government were finally forced to appoint the Molony Committee. It has been the work of those in the Co-operative movement, of women's organisations, of trade unions and other bodies that has proved the need to take up this problem.
The Parliamentary Secretary also told us that the Government intended to do something about hire purchase and that there were gaps in what could be done for consumer protection, but when asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) how much consumer protection work the Consumer Council would do, he gave us the impression that it would work just as and when it was required to do so. That is not the kind of attitude we need in a modern age.
The Molony Committee had very many representations made to it by individuals, oral evidence from well over 250 organisations, written statements from all kinds of people—traders, people interested in consumer problems, town clerks, amongst whom I am very proud that my own town clerk had something to say, scientific workers, the T.U.C., women's organisations, women's guilds and women's advisory committees. It made a great number of recommendations—some of them, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. W. T. Rodgers) has said, being parsimonious—but the only two recommendations about which the Government have decided they can do anything at present is that setting up the Consumer Council and that recommending local work being done through the citizens' advice bureaux.
If we compare what the Government are prepared to give to the Consumer Council and for local work through the National Council of Social Service with the approximately £500 million spent last year on advertising, we find that the Government recommend for consumer protection work a grant of not one-thousandth part of the amount spent on advertising. In the light of that, and in the light of the kind of advertising which is taking place at the present time, and to which the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) referred, how can we really think that the Government have any real intention to implement even Molony, never mind adequate pro-
140
tection of the consumer, and how can there be any hope on the part of the masses of the consumers that the Government really are taking any vigorous or effective action in their proposals tonight or in the carrying out of these recommendations?
The so-called affluent society about which we hear so much from the Government, the "never had it so good" life we are all living, supposedly, at the moment, just fails absolutely completely unless the consumer gets value for money. We maintain in many fields the consumer is just not able to get value for money. The hon. Lady the Member for Belfast, West (Mrs. McLaughlin) said that what we wanted today was to breed a new generation of intelligent shoppers, and I think it was the hon. Member for Cheadle who said he thought that the young people today were more intelligent shoppers than our generation or our parents' generation.
I suggest that our parents' generation had to be intelligent shoppers, because they had not got the money to be anything else but intelligent shoppers. They had to make the money go round and make their small amounts do a lot of work. So what we need is not just breeding or educating intelligent shoppers, but we want to see that they have the facilities not only to be intelligent shoppers but to get a fair deal for the money which they have to spend.
The Molony Committee refers to lots of places where protection is necessary, none of which we need to go into in detail. There is the question of textiles. The Parliamentary Secretary referred to the magazines doing a job. There is one thing which the magazines do, and that is try to encourage women to be glamorous and to buy glamorous things. And what of some of the glamorous things they buy? Take, for instance, curtains. They do not always match up to the glamour in the advertisements in the magazines. Many women have bought curtain material which shrinks in the first wash, or gets holes in it, or has not colour fastness. It is protection against that sort of thing which the consumer wants—not just buying by glamour, but by value.
We come to furniture. When I had to buy my furniture when I was a young married woman I had a small amount of money to spend, but I got value for

141
money. Perhaps I did not get a lot of polish, a lot of veneer, but I got durability. I was not obsessed by advertising such as goes on nowadays.
Then there is the question of household goods, which, as the hon. Gentleman will remember, I mentioned in our debates on the Weights and Measures Bill. There are questions such as the sizing of blankets and towels and sheets. I was as a meeting the other week when a gentleman suggested that today many of these things are sold by "cellophane subterfuge": they are so wrapped up that one cannot really feel whether they are good or not. When I went to buy sheets when I was young, or my mother went to buy sheets, we rubbed them to see how much lint was in them, whether they would wash well, whether we were getting merely pieces of rag, or what would stand up to the wear we wanted it to do. We used to do the same with shirts, to see whether they had got lint in them.
Today, one would have to be a very awkward customer to ask the people behind the shop counter to take the things out of the cellophane bags so that they could be given that kind of testing. The Molony Report does say that in many cases the consumer is a confused consumer who will only be helped by external aid. On the question of household commodities, the Report says that the requirement to see that there is proper sizing and measuring
"is so easy to fulfil that if widespread compliance is not achieved in the near future, compulsion should be actively considered."
But I do not think that the Government intend to try to enforce action by compulsion.
Then we come to the question of labelling. The hon. Member for Belfast, West went into great detail about this. Paragraph 139 of the Molony Committee's Report says that it will not generally be adopted without compulsion. Are the Government prepared to bring in compulsion to enforce labelling on important household commodities and clothes? The hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Matthews) suggested that the consumers' best friend was self-help, and said that perhaps it would not hurt them if they made mistakes. It is a very serious mistake if someone buys a carpet for £100 and then finds that
142
because of wrong labelling it is not the right size for the room.
Mr. Matthews: I made it clear that it was a good thing if people could learn by making small mistakes so that later, when they came to a big purchase, they would have learnt the lesson and would not make mistakes.
Mrs. Slater: As a consumer, I do not want to learn through even small mistakes, never mind big ones. It depends upon one's values what a small mistake is. If an old-age pensioner buys a coat in a sale for £5, and has made a mistake, it is a very serious mistake. It would be a serious mistake for me if I bought a carpet for £100 and found that it was not the right size for the room. The Scunthorpe Co-operative Society has undertaken the labelling of carpets in order to protect consumers. It has done this voluntarily. This is the sort of thing the Government should insist upon—making it compulsory if it is not done voluntarily.
There is also the question of food and drugs. I notice that the Molony Committee excluded them. I have a shrewd suspicion that the Government are also prepared to exclude them. But today we live in an age when it is sometimes extremely difficult to know even what food we are buying. All kinds of dyes, colouring matters and chemicals are added. About 30 colourings and dyes are approved under the Food and Drugs Act, but a very responsible person has said that not all of them have been tested to see whether they are safe. Yet we allow manufacturers to continue to add these substances which make our food appear better. Because of this we may be condemning many people to suffering side effects of the chemicals.
There is a very common food commodity—I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds) would have mentioned this—of which we must consume many thousands per year in this House. I refer to sausages. In this country, we consume 400,000 tons of them each year. It represents 3 per cent. of all food buying. Yet there is no standard, and the Government have no intention of laying down one, for the meat content of sausages or pies. We were told that in the House only last week. Food analysts have said that they have to report adversely on the meat content of one in

143
five of the sausages tested. If ever there should be consumer protection, it should certainly be in regard to food.
Take the problem of the chemicals used in agriculture and the effects which they have on our food. A tremendous amount of consumer protection needs to be done here, and I suggest the Council could start on that if nothing else. We should have many more safeguards. Our public health inspectors do a great job but they, too, are limited, because very often they only find out about these things when there has been a drastic and dangerous mistake.
Then there is the question of imported food, over which there is little control. Those of us who serve on health committees very often encounter the problem of how to deal with it. The Food Standards Committee, appointed in 1947, does help Ministers to make regulations but I disagree with the Molony Committee when it claims that this is really effective. What is needed is quicker and safer action.
The consumer also needs protection against many aspects of drug sales. We live in the age of the pill. One can get a pill for everything—to go to sleep, to keep awake, to make one better or to make one worse. But the questions to be asked about every drug are: is it safe? Does it do what it professes to do? We can have accidental or criminal poisoning, addiction, side-effects and unjustified claims associated with drugs. The consumer is entitled to know what the composition of a drug is, to be warned against misuse and overdoses, and to have adequate directions as to use.
At present, however, the Government do not seem to have a real determination to tackle this problem adequately. I know that the Minister will point out that there is a committee dealing with food and drugs and that we had a White Paper on drugs recently. But we only get this sort of action when there has been a tragedy like the thalidomide cases. Then we all get into ferment about it. But the fuss dies down and nothing more is done until a further tragedy occurs.
The hon. Member for Cheadle mentioned what happened to him, and made a very pertinent point about advertising.
144
There is colossal power in advertising. It is no good saying that no amount of advertising will continue to sell a bad article. The case is that no amount of advertising ought to be employed to sell a bad article. Today, the whole point of advertising, whether it be on television, in the Press, or in pamphlets shoved through our doors, offering a penny or twopence off something, is to aim at breaking down the resistance of the consumer.
Another aspect of advertising is one to which the National Union of Teachers drew our attention last week, when it published a little pamphlet called, "A Teacher Looks at Advertising". It is a very good pamphlet. This pamphlet comes from a group of people who are concerned with the standards of values of our younger people. It points out that most of the advertising which is directed to young people aims at appealing, first, to the sex instincts, and, secondly, to the love of material possessions. It makes the point that such advertising is directed at these young people at the most difficult part of their lives, adolescence, when they are easily influenced, when a girl wants to look as nice as the girl round the corner and when a boy wants to impress. The pamphlet then goes on to discuss advertising of smoking and drinking. The N.U.T. has done a good job in showing the power of advertising over young people.
The Government give half an impression that they are prepared to do something about slick salesmanship—the sort of thing where one is told, "You have been selected to receive goods on approval". Then the poor woman gets the goods and finds that if she wants to send them back she must do so at her own cost, even though she did not want them in the first place. As Molony says, the door-to-door salesman is a great social evil.
The hire-purchase agreements to which my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) referred are something about which the Government ought to be concerned. After all, they tell us that we have a better standard of living than ever before. Let them see that the people really have that standard by not being deluded and robbed when they try to get some of the things which the

145
Government have told them they ought to be having.
I want to deal with the question of the Government's proposals. The Government have proposed, and are now in the course of setting up, a Consumer Council. They are hoping that at least it will quieten some of us, or quieten the public, into believing that they are really doing something about consumer protection. But, as already pointed out, some of the representatives on this Council have not an idea of how ordinary people have to do their shopping and how much they get with their money. There does not seem to be any effort to put ordinary people on the Council.
I am not talking about the professional woman, because I do not believe that some of the professional women are the kind of people we want on it. We want the ordinary housewife and the ordinary man shopper—the Parliamentary Secretary often told us in connection with the Weights and Measures Bill that it was not only the woman shopper but the man shopper who was concerned. Let us have some honest to goodness working people on the Council who really have to know how to make the money go round. I hope that for the last few people whom he has to appoint to this Council the Minister will look for those who can keep the others up to scratch to see that they are really tackling the problem.
Unless very much more power is given to it, the Council will be extremely weak and ineffective. It is said that it will collect information about consumer problems and will consider what action, if any, is required and then make attempts to promote that action. We believe that this Council should not be a part-time body, as at present proposed, but that it should be a full-time body, because the job which it has to do is full time, and, unless it it itself, its work cannot be done effectively.
I understand that the lady who is to be the chairman was offered £3,000 a year for the job, but said that she had not enough time to do that amount of work and was, therefore, prepared to accept £1,000. That is a very bad start for the Council. We believe that it should have trade panels which it could call in for consultation with a larger association to receive and discuss its reports. We hope that it will work in close co-operation with all the bodies
146
concerned with consumer problems, and I would have hoped that it would have had the ability to do testing and research work.
If the Council does not and cannot bring in other bodies to do it how will it know that some of the things considered have the qualities professed? I would hope that it would also be able, more effectively than appears to be the case, to be able to advise the Board of Trade on amending legislation if necessary. Unless these powers are given to the Council, it will be weak and it will not get to grips with the problem and it will have no effective control.
I may cause trouble as a result of what I am about to say, but I now deal with the local level. The Government and the Molony Committee have proposed that the citizens' advice bureaux should be the persons at local level to do consumer protection work. I do not believe that. There are not enough of them and they are often in the wrong places. If they are to cover their areas effectively, many more bureaux will have to be established. I have great respect for the work which the citizens' advice bureaux do, but only one-fifth of their work is consumer protection and they did not start to do anything about advising on consumer protection until the Government took this decision.
The local work should be done by the local authorities, the only bodies who can do it effectively. Local authorities should set up committees with representatives from the watch, health, housing and other committees in any way responsible for consumer problems. Such a committee should co-opt people from all kinds of organisations in the authority's area who are interested in these problems, and that committee, in the town hall, should be the body to which the consumer would go for protection. At one time we left it to voluntary bodies to give advice on rent cases, but we had to set up rent offices in town halls for people to get advice on rent cases. In the same way we should have a statutory body with power to protect consumers.
The Government have said that they hope that local authorities will give financial aid to the citizens' advice bureaux, but if the local authorities are to pay they should be responsible. The Government propose to give the citizens' advice bureaux only £27,000 and local

147
authorities are to have to pay the rest, another way in which the Tory Government are putting on local rates a burden for which they should be responsible.
As my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Oram) said, there should be a Minister for Consumer Welfare, or a Department of the Board of Trade with a junior Minister responsible for consumer problems. The Labour Party has promised that when we are returned this is one job which we shall do, so that the shopper will get a fair deal. The Government have not taken any vigorous action to implement the proposals of the Molony Committee or actively to start to give a fair deal to the consumers who need it so badly. The Amendment says that the Government have taken a major first step. It is a minor first step and what we want is an intention to do a massive job.
9.30 p.m.
The Minister Without Portfolio (Mr. W. F. Deedes): This debate, which the hon. Lady the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) has just concluded for her side with distinction, will have left us in no doubt as to the scope and range of the subject under discussion. Clearly the potentialities of consumer protection are practically limitless, and so is the task of the Minister who has to wind up the debate. In preparing myself for this debate, I was reminded of my very few experiences playing roulette. There are 36 numbers which may come up. There are rather more in this topic. To back them all is unprofitable, and I seem to have made a small stake on about half the board.
We owe a debt to many hon. Members on both sides of the House who have obviously given this debate the fruit of much time and special study of this subject, and the best return that I can make is to spend as much time as possible in answering their ideas and not in proffering anything of my own. This is a tempting field for ideas, but perhaps I might begin by saying this in general; consumer protection, as the Molony Committee said, may be an amorphous conception that cannot be defined, but it is recognised now, and every speech that has been made in this debate from both sides has recognised it, as an indispensable social service in the 'sixties—
148
I do not know about the 'seventies—and there is no argument about that.
The argument is how this service is best fulfilled; how much should be left to the consumer himself or herself; how much can be best done by voluntary bodies and other organisations; and how much ought to be regulated by statute and be the responsibility of the Government? A sensible apportionment between those three spheres is really the problem which runs through nearly every chapter of the Molony Committee's Report, and it has run through most of this debate.
Listening to the debate today I have had some insight into the principal dilemma which must have confronted Mr. Molony and his colleagues—that there is no lack of proposals on how the consumer should or may be safeguarded. The greater part of this enormous Report, which we have all admired, some have read, few have assimilated, is really taken up with examining and sifting these ideas, and inevitably a large number are rejected. That in itself has been the subject of some criticism.
In effect, we have had two main streams of criticism. First, that the Government have not been swift enough or vigorous enough in implementing—Molony and I shall come to that because it is indeed the substance of the Opposition Motion—and, secondly, that the Molony Report itself is deficient. It has even been described, I think wrongly, as defeatist; that it was wrong to drop the idea of a Ministry; wrong not to accept more public expenditure; wrong to limit the responsibility of the Consumer Council; wrong to omit testing, and so on.
On all those matters, hon. Members have expressed their own ideas. I think that Molony had respectable reasons for rejecting many of these apparently attractive notions for limiting the field of action, and I believe that we are right to reflect this. As the Molony Committee made clear, these measures do not aim to relieve the consumer of the duty to look after himself or herself. The Committee said that no system of protection could avert all the consequences of folly, or eliminate every possibility of hardship, and I would have thought that there would have been no real disagreement about that.
Elsewhere the Committee makes clear, and I think that this has not been made

149
clear in every speech today, that action must not merely be justifiable. Action if it is to be effective has to be practicable and enforceable, and that very often is where the problem starts. I think that that goes very near to the heart of this problem.
A clear duty lay on the Molony Committee, and I consider it now lies on the Board of Trade or the Government Departments involved here, to balance the need to protect the weak, which is not denied, against the evils of proliferating regulations and restrictions which may not only curtail the freedom of the honest majority but which must either remain largely unenforced. and that is bad law, or will require contingents of officials to enforce them. It is not complacent to stress that, because that really ought to be, and is, a sovereign principle in deciding what legislation it is appropriate to introduce.
The growing need for this social service, as the Molony Report stresses, is clue to the immense changes of recent years in manufacture, materials, techniques, and ranges of choice. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) acknowledged this. These changes, we had better realise, will continue just as fast in the future. There is one new factor, which perhaps the Molony Report did not mention, but which is certainly for rejoicing and not for lament, and that is the greatly increased purchasing power of the consumer. More today have more money to spend on goods beyond the necessities of life than ever before. This, of course, imposes a new social obligation upon us. We accept that. The argument is how it should be accepted.
A great many speeches today have referred to the Consumer Council, and rightly so. It was the most considerable of the Molony Committee's recommendations. The hon. Member for Hillsborough said that he thought it was shaping up better than he had expected, but we have had a certain number of criticisms and a great deal of doubt expressed, and I think that I should try to meet some of them. I can assure the hon. Member for Hillsborough, and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) who raised this point, that the Consumer Council will be free to be critical and outspoken. I have thought that the characters of the chair-
150
man and the director would be reassuring on that point.
The further criticism is made that the Committee's terms of reference are inadequate. My instinct tells me that in what is already prescribed the Council is not going to want for work. Our view on whether the terms of reference are adequate or inadequate depends on what we think the Council's main function ought to be. The Molony Report put it in two lines:
"collecting information about consumer problems, considering what, if any, action is required, and promoting that action."
We have accepted that definition, and in my view we have a first-class team to implement it. They will be backed—and this answers a question asked—by a staff of at least twenty to thirty for a start, but this will have to be treated as we go along. The suggestion that a civil servant has been appointed as a director as a kind of Government stooge is not an acceptable one, and I do not think that it is one that anyone acquainted with the new director would readily entertain.
As to the point made by the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds), there is certainly a difference between what the Molony Committee recommended on payment and remuneration and what we are proposing. The Committee envisaged a chairman with heavy and more or less continuous responsibilities giving half his time to the Council. We take the view that there should be an adequate and competent secretariat under a high-ranking director. Given this, the chairman would not need to give so much time to the work and we thought that an honorarium would be appropriate. I see nothing contradictory of the Molony Committee or of good sense in this. The Molony Committee foresaw the need for a competent secretariat with a head who would need
"an appreciable but not readily definable status."
In other words, the Committee did not specify exactly what the head should be. It added "director rather than secretary", and that is what we have provided.
The Molony Committee put the Council's need financially at £125,000 a year, after two years of its existence, and it suggested that the subvention ought to

151
build up to this level over that period and would then be adequate. I should have thought that £60,000 estimated for the current year, which is somewhat short of the financial year, was not unreasonable, contrary to the suggestion made by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland.
There have been references to the citizens' advice bureaux. I am sure that the hon. Lady the Member fox Stoke-on-Trent, North accepts that this was a recommendation of Molony, and it did not propose that the local authorities should shoulder the work. There are now 420 of these bureaux in existence. I think that there is a gap of about 90, mainly in the rural areas. This will be one of the first things to remedy, and it is for this purpose that the sum of, I think, £27,000 has been provided, in order to get the machinery going.
Turning to the range of duties likely to fall on the Council, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame Edith Pitt) thought that there should be more information for the average shopper. I am sure that she is right there, and this will emphatically be one of the functions of the Council. My hon. Friend thought, as others, including my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Matthews) did, that education will have an increasing role to play. I envisage the Consumer Council, by one means or another, not least by publication, going a long way to meet this requirement. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mrs. McLaughlin) that the Council will be positive. It will have priorities, and in those priorities we shall take the closest interest. My hon. Friend was perfectly right to say that this cannot all be lumped on the council without guidance, and we do not expect that to happen.
More than one speaker has regretted that services were excluded from the Molony Committee's Report. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) referred specifically to this. We are all familiar, as Molony acknowledged, with shortcomings in the repair of fairly complicated goods, and for most of us disappointment is aggravated very often by total ignorance of the mechanism involved. In terms of its own inquiry, Molony saw no satis-
152
factory solution here, and in two paragraphs explained why it had to omit it from its inquiry.
On the other hand, in paragraph 875, the Committee gave reasons for thinking that the Consumer Council's field of activity should be voluntarily, if not positively, confined to services linked with such things as laundry, motor car repairs, and, it added, coal and electricity. We have accepted this. Thus, in this sphere of activity, that is, services, the Consumer Council will embrace the nationalised industries.
It is not unfair to add on the subject of services that there are firms, and they predominate, which will carry out these services and repairs honestly and reliably and for a reasonable price. What is said elsewhere in the Report about the virtues of competition and competition as the customer's best friend certainly applies in this respect.
The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. W. T. Rodgers) and the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) both expressed disappointment that consumer research, a subject which has been attracting a great deal of public attention recently, had been excluded. The Molony Committee described this as a consumer luxury and not an essential feature of a system of protection. It gives good reasons for this view. I shall not go into the matter at length, but I think that the question might be asked: is it desirable that a Government-sponsored body should engage in testing products for the purpose of guiding the public on how to spend its money? Would the customer relish being told what to buy by an official as opposed to an unofficial body?
One or two speeches from the Opposition implied that our scale of approach here is inadequate and put forward the idea of a Ministry of Consumer Protection, of which some of us have already heard a great deal from a particular quarter. The hon. Member for Erith and Crayford and the hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Oram) both spoke in favour of this. The Molony Committee looked at the idea and rejected it. We are sure the Committee was right. I do not believe that the great part which voluntary organisations ought to and will play in this work would flourish under such a Ministry.
I acknowledge what my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden said about such

153
bodies as the Retail Trading Standards Association. It does not do the subject justice to omit the long list of organisations working on voluntary lines in advertising, retail labelling and the rest which are achieving measurable results, although not so fast as everyone wants. More than one Government Department is involved, and it is possible that the coordination could be improved. I hope we shall achieve it, but that in itself is not sufficient justification for having an entirely new Department.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Bright-side (Mr. Winterbottom) asked who would be responsible for the recommendations of the Consumer Council. The answer is: the Government Department to whom the recommendations relate or, where it is involved, the industry or voluntary body concerned. He asked: would the voice of the Council be heard? Its composition apart—and no one has attempted to dismiss that as negligible—there are compelling reasons why it should be heard. I think the course of much of today's debate—I say this in all sincerity—will greatly fortify the Consumer Council when it starts its work, because everything said from both sides of the House today has indicated that it has to be strong and has to be given every chance to do its job properly.
The Government, like the Molony Committee, regard this as a principal instrument in consumer protection. They are to publish an annual report, which I envisage will become the subject of future debates in this House. I can assure the hon. Lady the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North that the Consumer Council will emphatically not be a tranquillizer. The Molony Committee seemed to be aware that to overload the Consumer Council with all the ideas which some people would like to inflict upon it would defeat its usefulness. It will not only be able to act but also to give advice. A great deal of its work, we envisage, will be persuasive, in particular on quality standards.
Hire purchase, which is second in the list of Molony and our own priorities, has been mentioned in a number of speeches, absolutely justifiably. I understand that there are today 8 million agreements and the credit debt is around the £900 million mark. As the hon. Member for Motherwell observed, not all the 8 million debtors have read the little
154
writing. The Molony Committee put this reform as second priority, and so do we. The Molony Committee proposed three main steps, the extension of present protection to all consumer transactions by raising the £300 limit—this of course would bring in motor cars—the imposition of a cooling—off period in which the customer who bought the goods at his home, not in a shop, would have the right to withdraw from the contract, and—this answers a point made by the hon. Member for Motherwell—a uniform law for Great Britain. This would bring Scottish law into line with that of England and Wales.
All this is desirable and a great deal of it is complex. Everything which was recommended in this sphere, together with a good many other suggestions, has been fully discussed already with the interested parties, and these consultations are very nearly complete. Comprehensive legislation on hire-purchase is being prepared and it will be promoted as soon as possible.
The hon. Member for Hillsborough was good enough to suggest that we might like notice of the subject of chattel mortgage which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett). I shall avail myself of this kind offer. It is a technical subject, and I should weary the House if I gave the problem in relation to the existing law particularly for the consumer under the alternative of chattel mortgage.
Some of the things said by the hon. Lady the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North embolden me to say a word on a subject which I do not think has been raised in the debate—quality control. The Molony Committee referred to this and said that there was no doubt that a higher standard of quality control would give the consumer far less cause for complaint, adding,
"The essence of this important idea lies in the attainment and maintenance of a specified standard of product."
In a world of automation, that is a very important subject, and I notice with interest that Lord Marks, of all men alive probably the best qualified to talk about quality control, referred to it in another place recently. I mention this because Lord Marks acknowledged the amount of work which the Department of Scientific

155
and Industrial Research has done and the amount it could help industry in this all-important field. D.S.I.R. has some 50 research stations which were estimated by Lord Marks to cover two-thirds of our national production. I do not think that this is a point to be made lightly, because this is at the point of origin. This is where quality begins. I know, as does anybody else who buys his shirts from Marks and Spencer, that the development of quality merchandise is a speciality of Lord Marks. I think that as the resources of D.S.I.R. became more widely recognised and more widely used this would meet at the earliest stages one of the main roads to better service for the customer.
A debate of this kind, concentrated on problems of consumer protection, is bound to dwell heavily on examples of bad trading practices—not to put too fine a point on it, cheating. But it would be a mistake to suggest that this social problem arises mainly because of a decline in trading standards and trading morality in this country. There is nothing in Molony to justify that assumption. This problem arises not so much from failure as from success, not from poverty but from prosperity—prosperity, I may say, after twelve years of this Government. The achievement of modern manufacture in bringing within the range of many a bewildering choice of items formerly the prerogative of the few is an advance which I should have thought would bring the acknowledgement of some voices among hon. Members opposite. Of course this produces problems, but I believe that it is permissible to see some of these problems in the right perspective.
Molony asserted a firm belief in the probity and honourable standards of the great mass of British manufacturers and traders. I am sure that this is right and, after a debate such as we have had today, we ought to recognise it. I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West mentioned it in her speech. With all respect and with due acknowledgement to hon. Members, on both sides, who have given a great deal of time to probing abuses in this field, I think it will not be disputed that such field work can give a less than fair impression of our industrial and commercial standards. A country which lives upon exports for a livelihood must be careful to strike a fair
156
balance. Cries of stinking fish are apt to be heard overseas.
I come, finally, to our stewardship in implementing the recommendations of the Report. The Molony Committee laid down its legislative priorities and we have followed them. The first is the Consumer Council. As to the delay, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford, the Molony Committee pointed out that because, on the most favourable view, the assembly of the Council's personnel and the organisation of its efforts would take a considerable time, it should come first. Secondly as a legislative priority is hire purchase, about which I have described what we will do; and lastly, the merchandise marks law, which will involve new and comprehensive legislation. It is misleading to underrate the amount of preparatory work and the amount of parliamentary time which some of these Measures will take when they come before us.
It bears stressing—and this is the point of the Amendment—that the Consumer Council was seen by the Molony Committee as a major organisational reform and was so described. It is the largest of the reforms advocated by the Molony Committee and it is now under way.
In these circumstances, I question the terms of the Opposition's Motion and ask whether they are justified or whether they have been substantiated in the course of this debate.
Mr. Darling: Yes.
Mr. Deedes: I shall not make heavy political noises about it. Oppositions have to do such things; we all know that. The Government, however, have a responsibility for striking the right balance in all this, a balance between helping those who need help and hindering those who trade on our behalf, between the protection of the consumer against fraud and protecting the consumer against the consequences of his or her own folly.
It is absolutely certain—this debate has made it abundantly clear—that we shall never succeed in striking a balance which pleases everyone, but I am certain that we are nearer to the right line than some of the proposals—not all of them—which have come from the benches opposite, which is why I ask the House to reject the Opposition's Motion and to support the Government's Amendment.
Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question.
The House divided: Ayes 176, Noes 234.

Division No. 116.]

AYES

[9.59 p.m.

Albu, Austen

Herbison, Miss Margaret

Pavitt, Laurence

Allen, Schelefield (Crewe)

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)

Hill, J. (Midlothian)

Peart, Frederick

Bacon, Miss Alice

Hilton, A. V.

Pentland, Norman

Baird, John

Holman, Percy

Prentice, R. E.

Barnett, Guy

Hooson, H. E.

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Beaney, Alan

Houghton, Douglas

Proctor, W. T.

Belienger, Rt. Hon. F.J.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

Bence, Cyril

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Randall, Harry

Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

Hunter, A. E.

Rankin, John

Benson, Sir George

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Redhead, E. C.

Blackburn, F.

Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

Reid, William

Blyton, William

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Reynolds, G. W.

Boardman, H.

Janner, Sir Barnett

Rhodes, H.

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A.G.

Jeger, George

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

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

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Bowen, Roderio (Cardigan)

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Bowles, Frank

Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Boyden, James

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)

Braddock, Mrs. E.M.

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Ross, William

Bray, Dr. Jeremy

Keiley, Richard

Royle, Charles (Salford, West)

Broughton, Dr. A.D.D.

Kenyon, Clifford

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Bulter, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Short, Edward

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Lawson, George

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Carmichael, Nell

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Cliffe, Michael

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Skeffington, Arthur

Collick, Percy

Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

Craddock, George (Bratffbrd, S.)

Lubbock, Eric

Small, William

Crosland, Anthony

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Snow, Julian

Cullen, Mrs. Alice

MacColl, James

Spriggs, Leslie

Dalyell, Tam

McInnes, James

Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

Darlingn, George

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Stonehouse, John

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

Stones, William

Davies, Harold (Leek)

McLeavy, Frank

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

Davies, S.O. (Merthyr)

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

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

Deer, George

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

Swain, Thomas

Delargy, Hugh

Manuel, Archie

Taverne, D.

Dempsey, James

Marsh, Richard

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Diamond, John

Mason, Roy

Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

Dodds, Norman

Mayhew, Christopher

Thornton, Ernest

Donnelly, Desmond

Mendelson, J. J.

Tomney, Frank

Edelman, Maurice

Millian, Bruce

Wade, Donald

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Milne, Edward

Wainwright, Edwin

Edwards, Waiter (Stepney)

Mitchison, G. R.

Warbey, William

Fletcher, Eric

Moody, A. S.

White, Mrs. Elrene

Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

Morris, John

Whitlock, William

Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

Moyle, Arthur

Wigg, George

Forman, J. C.

Mulley, Frederick

Wilkins, W. A.

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

Willey, Frederick

Galpern, Sir Myer

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

Williams, Ll. (Abertillery)

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

O'Malley, B. K.

Willams, W. R. (Openshaw)

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Lianelly)

Oram, A. E.

Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

Oswald, Thomas

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

Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

Paget, R. T.

Winterbottom, R. E.

Hannan, William

Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

Woof, Robert

Harper, Joseph

Pargiter, G. A.

Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

Hart, Mrs. Judith

Parker, John

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Hayman, F. H.

Parkin, B. T.

Mr. Charles A, Howell and

Healey, Denis

Mr. McCann.

NOES

Agnew, Sir Peter

Bishop, F. P.

Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

Allan, Robert (Paddingon, S.)

Black, Sir Cyril

Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

Allason, James

Bossom, Hon. Clive

Cary, Sir Robert

Arbuthnot, John

Bourne-Arton, A.

Clark, William, (Nottingham, S.)

Atkins, Humphrey

Box, Donald

Clarke, Brig Terence(Portsmouth,W.)

Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

Cleaver, Leonard

Barlow, Sir John

Braine, Bernard

Cole, Norman

Botsford, Brian

Brewis, John

Cooke, Robert

Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

Bromley Davenport, Lt. Col. Sir Walter

Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

Bell, Ronald

Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

Cordeaux, Lt. Col. J. K.

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Cos & Fhm)

Browne, Percy (Torrington)

Cordle, John

Berkeley, Humphry

Buck, Antony

Corfield, F. V.

Resins, Rt. Reginald

Bullard, Denys

Costain, A. P,

Biggs-Davison, John

Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

Bingham, R. M.

Burden, F. A.

Crawley, Aidan

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

Cunningham, Knox

Kerr, Sir Hamllton

Rees, Hugh

Currie, G. B. H.

Kershaw, Anthony

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Dalkeith, Earl of

Kimball, Marcus

Renton, Rt. Hon. David

Dance, James

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Leather, Sir Edwin

Ridedale, Julian

Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.

Leavey, J. A.

Roberts, Sir Peter (Healey)

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

Roots, William

Doughty, Charles

Lilley, F. J. P.

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Drayson, G. B.

Lindsay, Sir Martin

Russell, Ronald

du Cann, Edward

Linstead, Sir Hugh

Scott-Hopkins, James

Eden, Sir John

Litchfield, Capt. John

Sharples, Richard

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carehalton)

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

Shaw, M.

Errington, Sir Eric

Longbottom, Charles

Shepherd, William

Farey-Jones, F. W.

Longden, Gilbert

Skeet, T. H. H.

Farr, John

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

Smithere, Peter

Fisher, Nigel

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Stanley, Hon. Richard

Foster, John

MacArthur, Ian

Stevens, Geoffrey

Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

McLaren, Martin

Stodart, J. A.

Gammans, Lady

McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

Gardner, Edward

Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

Storey, Sir Samuel

Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)

McMaster, Stanley R.

Studholme, Sir Henry

Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

Macpherson, Rt. Hn. Niall (Dumfries)

Summers, Sir Spencer

Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

Maddan, Martin

Talbot, John E.

Goodhart, Philip

Maitland, Sir John

Tapsell, Peter

Goodhew, Victor

Markham, Major Sir Frank

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

Cough, Frederick

Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest

Taylor, Sir William (Bradford, N.)

Green, Alan

Marshall, Douglas

Teeling, Sir William

Grosvenor, Lt. Col. R. G.

Marten, Nell

Temple, John M.

Gurden, Harold

Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

Thomas, Peter (Conway)

Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

Mawby, Ray

Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S)

Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

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

Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

Hastings, Stephen

Mills, Stratton

Tilney, John (wavertree)

Hay, John

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Morgan, William

Turner, Colin

Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward

Nabarro, Sir Gerald

Tweedsmulr, Lady

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Hicks Beach, Maj. W.

Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

Vane, W. M. F.

Hlley, Joseph

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Vickers, Miss Joan

Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

Osborn, John (Hallam)

Wakefield, Sir Wavell

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

Page, Graham (Crosby)

Walder, David

Hirst, Geoffrey

Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

Walker, Peter

Hobson, Sir John

Partridge, E.

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

Holland, Philip

Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

Wall, Patrick

Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John

Peel, John

Ward, Dame Irene

Hopkins, Alan

Peroival, Ian

Webster, David

Hornby, R. P.

Peyton, John

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

Whitelaw, William

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

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

Pilkington, Sir Richard

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

Pitt, Dame Edith

Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

Hughes-Young, Michael

Pott, Percivall

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Hulbert, Sir Norman

Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

Wise, A. R.

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Iremonger, T. L.

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

James, David

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

Woodhouse, C. M.

Jennings, J. C.

Prior, J. M. L.

Worsley, Marcus

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Proudfoot, Wilfred

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Pym, Francis

Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

Quennell, Miss J. M.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Ramsden, James

Mr. Chichester-Clark and

Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

Mr. Fiolay,

Proposed words there added.
Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House, recognising the need to protect consumers from unfair and undesirable trade practices and to promote better trading standards, welcomes the action of Her Majesty's Government in establishing the Consumer Council as a major first step in imple-
160
menting the recommendations of the Final Report of the Committee on Consumer Protection.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Proceedings on the Lords Amendments to the Protection of Depositors Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Green.]
PROTECTION OF DEPOSITORS BILL
Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 12. (CHANGE OF BUSINESS.)
Lords Amendment: In page 11, line 6, leave out from section to "shall" in line 8.
10.10 p.m.
The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Alan Green): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
It may be convenient, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to take certain other Amendments together with this one, as they all hang together and are consequential the one upon the other. Those Amendments are: in line 22, at end insert:
"(2) The Board of Trade may by statutory instrument make regulations with respect to the form of any notice required or authorised to be delivered or given under the foregoing provisions of this Act."
In line 23, leave out "this section" and insert "subsection (1)".
In line 37, leave out "this section" and insert "subsection (1)".
In line 45, leave out "this section" and insert "subsection (1)".
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): Yes, if the House pleases.
Mr. Green: These Amendments extend the power to make regulations, prescribing the form of notices, to all notices which the Bill requires to be delivered to the Registrar of Companies or sent in writing to depositors or prospective depositors. The notices delivered to the Registrar will be put on public files, and they should, therefore, be in such form that the public can readily identify them for what they are.
Secondly, the notices sent to depositors or to prospective depositors are concerned with matters that can be complicated and should, therefore, be in a form which ensures that they contain the right information and set it out as clearly as possible.
These Amendments are designed to secure that the law has the power to ensure this clarification, and I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) will agree that they are in line with undertakings that I gave
162
—and for which, I think, he asked—that we should make all these matters as clear as possible to the prospective depositor or, indeed, to the actual depositor when the time comes to implement the Bill.
Mr. G. R. Mitchison: That, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, seems to be sense.
Question put and agreed to.
Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 21.—(AMENDMENT OF PREVENTION OF FRAUD (INVESTMENTS) ACT 1958.)
Lords Amendment: In page 17, line 27, at end insert:
"(2) In the proviso to subsection (3) of section 14 of the said Act of 1958, for the words from 'any arrangements' to the end there shall be substituted the words 'any such arrangements as are mentioned in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of the last preceding section'."
Mr. Green: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment was introduced by the Government at the Report stage in the House of Lords. The need for it arises from an oversight. Clause 21 made two Amendments to the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act, 1958. The second of these Amendments concerned the substituting of a new paragraph for the existing paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of Section 13. The words of the existing paragraph are repeated in the second half of the proviso to subsection (3) of Section 14 and should, therefore, have bean replaced by the new version of Section 13(1,b). The Amendment, which is purely consequential on this second Amendment made by Clause 21, does this by making the second part of the proviso refer back to Section 13(1,b).
Mr. Mitchison: We are only too glad that the Government appreciated this minor mistake, even if at the last moment. We wish that they could sometimes do the same for their major mistakes.
Question put and agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT
Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pym.]
Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes past Ten o'clock.

MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  B.E.A. (Electronic Equipment)
  B.E.A. (Electronic Equipment)
  PROFESSOR HURWITZ
  PROFESSOR HURWITZ
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Sickness Benefit (National Assistance Supplementation)
  Sickness Benefit (National Assistance Supplementation)
  Unemployment Benefit (National Assistance Supplementation)
  Unemployment Benefit (National Assistance Supplementation)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Paratyphoid (Yorkshire)
  Paratyphoid (Yorkshire)
  Imported Liquid Egg
  Imported Liquid Egg
  Nurses and Midwives
  Nurses and Midwives
  Assistants, General Practice (Salaries)
  Assistants, General Practice (Salaries)
  Fluoridation (Water Supplies)
  Fluoridation (Water Supplies)
  Salmonella Paratyphoid B
  Salmonella Paratyphoid B
HOSPITALS
  Consultants (Merit Awards)
  Consultants (Merit Awards)
EMPLOYMENT
  Youths, Bathgate
  Youths, Bathgate
  Disabled Workers, Bathgate, Broxburn and Bo'ness
  Disabled Workers, Bathgate, Broxburn and Bo'ness
  Wellesley Colliery, Buckhaven
  Wellesley Colliery, Buckhaven
  Building Trade Operatives
  Building Trade Operatives
  Commonwealth Immigrants
  Commonwealth Immigrants
  Immigrants from Eire
  Immigrants from Eire
  KATANGA
  KATANGA
  GREEK NEWSPAPERS (STATEMENT)
  GREEK NEWSPAPERS (STATEMENT)
  MEKONG RIVER DEVELOPMENT SCHEME
  MEKONG RIVER DEVELOPMENT SCHEME
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Sugar
  Sugar
BRITISH ARMY
  Fork-Lift Trucks
  Fork-Lift Trucks
  Trooper Greenall (Court Martial)
  Trooper Greenall (Court Martial)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Estate Agents (Speculative Property Transactions)
  Estate Agents (Speculative Property Transactions)
  Commonwealth Citizens (Admission to United Kingdom)
  Commonwealth Citizens (Admission to United Kingdom)
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Independent Television Authority (Chairman)
  Independent Television Authority (Chairman)
  Independent Television Authority (Restrictions)
  Independent Television Authority (Restrictions)
SEYCHELLES
  Satellite Tracking Station
  Satellite Tracking Station
EDUCATION
  School Leavers, Swansea
  School Leavers, Swansea
  Teachers' Salaries (Member's Letter)
  Teachers' Salaries (Member's Letter)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Coventry (Boundary Extension)
  Coventry (Boundary Extension)
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Gas Industry (Structure)
  Gas Industry (Structure)
SCOTLAND
  Direct Grant Schools, Glasgow (Incomes)
  Direct Grant Schools, Glasgow (Incomes)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Bananas
  Bananas
ROADS
  North Orbital Road, Denham (Pedestrian Subway)
  North Orbital Road, Denham (Pedestrian Subway)

Preamble
The House met at two of the clock, The LORD MERTHYR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lincoln

HIGHWAY GOODS INSPECTION AND TRAFFIC MOVEMENT
2.5 p.m.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lord, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any knowledge of any occasion within the last five years on which highway authorities have found it necessary to ask weights and measures authorities to instruct their inspector to pay more regard to the needs of traffic movement when stopping coal lorries on the highway.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have no knowledge of any such occasion. This information could be obtained only by consulting each of the many authorities concerned, and I do not think I should be justified in doing this.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: I thank the noble Lord.

INSPECTION OF GOODS ON THE HIGHWAY
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what evidence was supplied to the Board of Trade by the Ministry of Transport concerning the suggested withdrawal of the right, held by inspectors of weights and measures for seventy years, of stopping vehicles on the highway.]
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, it is not the practice to divulge interdepartmental correspondence, but I can say that the Ministry of Transport regard the power as out of keeping with present-day conditions on the roads and with the powers of a great many other officials who carry out enforcement work. It dates from a time when vehicles and road conditions were vastly different.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: Yes, but is the noble Lord aware that it is not the slightest use making a statement like that, having on these two occasions when I have asked for specific information, given me none at all? Does the noble Lord not realise that, before the many interests concerned can accept this attitude of the Ministry of Transport, some actual information must be given?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I think that in a matter of this kind in the

3
situation with which we are faced to-day, we must be guided by matters of principle.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: Yes, but does the noble Lord realise that most of the interests concerned in this matter—by which I mean institutes of weights and measures, local authorities and the trade itself—do not agree at all with what is being put forward? And does he not feel that the Government must give some actual reason for that decision?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, the noble Baroness put down a Question relating to the Ministry of Transport view of this matter, which I have endeavoured to answer. It may well be that other people concerned in other ways do not agree with that view. But I think I have answered the Question properly.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I do not wish to weary the House, but may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that I did not ask for the views, but what evidence had been supplied by the Ministry, and so far we have heard of none.
LORD CHESHAM: No, my Lords, I think I came quite clean on that point. I did not refer to evidence. I endeavoured to convey to the noble Baroness what was the gist of representations which had been made from the Ministry of Transport.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, while welcoming the fact that at last the Ministry of Transport are going to be guided by questions of principle, apparently because they have no facts, may I ask whether they would not be influenced by the fact that nearly every important local authority—the city of Glasgow, the city of Birmingham—is most perturbed about the present situation, in which they are going to lose these powers, and feel that it will lead to a great increase in undetected thefts and crimes?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, naturally I was aware that people are disturbed about this, otherwise I am sure that the noble Baroness would never have asked the Question. But on this particular matter I do not know
4
what the noble Lord would wish me to add to what I have said. I will briefly say that there have been reiterated from all sides of your Lordships' House, again and again, the various factors which have to be taken into consideration in considering traffic conditions and road congestion: and that, basically, as I endeavoured to indicate, has produced the representations from the Ministry to which I have referred.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, could my noble friend tell me what action an inspector of weights and measures is now supposed to take if he sees a coal cart on the road and he has reason to believe that it is carrying bags of coal with less than 1 cwt. for delivery? What action is he supposed to take?
LORD CHESHAM: I think that that is really extending the matter into a debate outside the terms of the Question.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, is it? I understood it was the case that, when inspectors stopped a vehicle, it was either to check the weighing machine or possibly to check a sack of coal, or something else such as the noble Lord has suggested. But when they are about to approach the vehicle and it moves off, then presumably, according to the Ministry of Transport, there is nothing they can do. Does it not weaken the detecting power of the inspector if something is wrong?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I imagine that it would be so if an inspector no longer has a right to stop a vehicle anywhere and everywhere that he pleases. But I would ask noble Lords to remember that there are many other classes of inspectors who could also quite well use this right which they have not got.

PREVENTIVE DETENTION
2.10 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 will announce their decision on the recommendations of the sub-committee of the Home Office's Advisory Council, regarding the system

5
of preventive detention, and, in particular, whether they accept the recommendation that the system should be abolished.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, my right honourable friend has already, as the noble Lord is aware, given effect to the Council's interim recommendation that all preventive detainees should, subject to good conduct, be eligible for release after serving two-thirds of their sentence. Legislation would, however, be required to give effect to the Council's main recommendations that preventive detention should be abolished and that the powers of the courts to deal with persistent offenders by long sentences of ordinary imprisonment should be strengthened. My right honourable friend is not yet in a position to make a statement on these matters.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, can the noble Earl say when his right honourable friend will be in a position to make a statement and, if it is a favourable one, whether legislation will be introduced? Secondly, is he aware that, despite the practice direction of the Lord Chief Justice, many Judges are still sentencing men to preventive detention for petty offences? Does he not think it inadvisable that this should continue, particularly when his Department is taking steps to empty preventive detention prisons and use them for other purposes?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord's first supplementary, of course my right honourable friend fully recognises the need for reaching a decision as early as possible on these very important recommendations. When a decision is reached, and if a decision were favourable, legislation would, as I have said in answer to the noble Lord's original Question, have to follow but I do not think that it would be right, or, indeed, protocolaire, for me to give any indication as to when that legislation might follow. On the noble Lord's second supplementary, perhaps, with the permission of the House, I may look into the point which he has raised, and having done so, communicate with the noble Lord and, if necessary, through him, the House. I should much prefer on that not to give a snap answer to-day.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that reply. I think that it would be advisable in any reply he makes that it should be communicated to the whole House on this important matter. Would he ask his right honourable friend whether, irrespective of legislation, he could announce his decision on the main findings of the Committee? This might be of help in influencing Her Majesty's Judges with regard to the second part of my previous Question.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should like to bear that point also in mind.

TRANSATLANTIC AIR FARES
2.15 p.m.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: 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 will make a Statement on the dispute over the Atlantic air fares.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, your Lordships will be aware that my right honourable friend the Minister of Aviation spoke quite extensively on this matter last Monday in the course of his speech in a debate on civil aviation during Committee on Supply in another place. This dispute, which Her Majesty's Government greatly regret, arises from the disapproval by the Civil Aeronautics Board in the United States of a proposal to increase the ordinary return fares on transatlantic services by about 5 per cent. This proposal had been agreed unanimously by the airlines, including the United States airlines, at a Conference of the International Air Transport Association last September and October at Chandler, in the United States. It was part of a complicated package deal which included also the continuation of the North Atlantic and the extension to the rest of the world of cheap seasonal and other promotional fares. It thus reduces the cost of air travel in certain directions while raising it in others.
The Civil Aeronautics Board's disapproval of the increased return fares was announced on a provisional basis on February 12 and confirmed, despite

7
representations made by airlines and other Governments, on March 18th—only two weeks before the new fares were due to come into force. This late action by the Civil Aeronautics Board threw a great part of the world's fare structure into disorder and caused confusion to airlines, travel agents and the public.
We tried to resolve the situation and took the initiative in arranging discussions in London at which the United States and Canadian authorities, as well as those of European countries, were present. We offered to restrict our approval of the agreed fares to a matter of months to enable Governments to consider the situation, and we expressed our readiness to take part in inter-Governmental discussions to consider how to improve the machinery for agreeing fares. The United States' representatives were unwilling to compromise on the fares, but agreed to the meeting in principle. Consequently, we and other European Governments informed the Americans that we must introduce the Chandler fares and require the United States airlines to apply them also.
The Americans said that in the circumstances they could not object to any action which the European countries might reasonably and legitimately take to safeguard their positions. But when, in company with the European countries, we formally required the American airlines to adopt the Chandler fares, the latter, acting on instructions from the Civil Aeronautics Board declined to comply and continued to operate at the lower fares, thus violating the conditions of their operating permits. Her Majesty's Government thereupon made diplomatic representations to the United States Government. This was on Monday of last week. On Tuesday the Civil Aeronautics Board modified the instructions given to the United States airlines and authorised them to charge the Chandler fares where they would otherwise be subject to penalties for violation of foreign countries' laws. The United States airlines are now complying with our requirements, as, we understand, they are with those of a number of other European countries. We now hope that it will be possible for arrangements to be made soon for the inter-Governmental conference, to which the United States authorities have agreed, to meet and discuss
8
the whole question of I.A.T.A. and its relations to Governments.
I should like, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government to emphasise that in taking the action we felt to be necessary, it has been not because we favour higher fares as a policy, and not because we want to enforce them on unwilling American airlines. Nor are we in favour of rubber-stamping the airlines' decisions. Far from it. We have simply endeavoured to promote what we and most other Governments concerned felt to be the most practicable and reasonable interim arrangements, and to avoid unilateral decisions. We are fully prepared, and always have been, to enter into inter-Governmental discussions on these matters with an open mind and have urged the United States Government to convene a meeting for the purpose as soon as possible.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am grateful for the detailed statement which the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, has given the House, and I am bound to say that in my view the Government have been quite right in this matter. There will be a considerable wave of opinion in this country if the American C.A.B. can do this sort of thing when an agreement has been properly obtained in the particular international conference concerned. I do not think this need apply only to the C.A.B., but also to other matters of the kind. I am glad, on the whole, that in this matter, with all the necessary conditions that have to be met by promoters, whether national or private, on these routes, the Government are not always willing to give way, if they sometimes do, to what they call free competition.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I am obliged for what the noble Earl has said. I think that our attitude is in the general interest of the travelling public and that, on the whole, they stand to gain from the proper operation of these arrangements. It is quite possible that the arrangements need a little improving, but I think the way to do that is by proper international agreement and conference and not by unilateral action.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, one of the incidental points worries me a little. The Government

9
are agreeing with the United States Government, or seek to agree, that the international agreement shall apply in countries where the country concerned resists the United States' original intention. That is to say, if the country resists it, the international agreement applies. I gather that if they do not resist, if some country gives way, the United States can do what it likes. I agree with my noble friend Lord Alexander of Hillsborough that here is a case where the Government have not assented to free competition, which is contrary to their general philosophy; but if they see the light once, they are to be congratulated. But I cannot follow this point that if a country gives way, then the United States C.A.B. can do what it likes about reinforcing the provisions to which we, very rightly, I think, objected. The Government have been right to do this, but I am worried about that point.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I am not absolutely certain that I have taken the noble Lord's point clearly. I took it to be that if any one country gave way on this matter, they would cut the whole thing loose, so to speak.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: For that country.
LORDCHESHAM: For that particular country, my Lords, it may be so; because these things are also regulated by a series of bilateral agreements between the various countries supplementary to what is arranged through the International Air Transport Association. While it might happen in the case of that country, I do not think it is likely, because almost all other countries—certainly European countries—are of the same mind as we are.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I do not quite understand that. I think my noble friend's point was that if one other country broke loose, then the American C.A.B. would feel they had the right to do what they liked.
LORD CHESHAM: Yes, my Lords, if that particular country gave in, so to speak, to the pressure—which we have no intention of doing. But it would not affect the position regarding the other countries.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, did the Minister say when the next Conference of either I.A.T.A. or the Governments would be held, because I think we can get into some difficulty? As noble Lords recognise, there is a difference of opinion about high rates for services and low rates for services. Can the noble Lord say that we are not in any way jeopardising our position in Europe where, I believe, B.E.A. are looking for lower rates in order to fill their aircraft, and that the dispute at present is merely with regard to the Atlantic services?
LORD CHESHAM: Yes, my Lords, because any question of prejudicing Europe or elsewhere does not arise, because it is part of a complicated "package deal" which I could not begin to explain at the moment.

LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL
2.24 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD AIREDALE in the Chair.]
Schedule 6 [Amendments as from 1st April, 1965, in Highways Act, 1959]:
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved, after paragraph 61, to insert:
"62. After section 214(9) there shall be inserted:
(10) A highway authority in Greater London may acquire by agreement or compulsorily any land for the purpose of the provision of substituted sites or facilities for the owners, lessees and occupiers of land acquired for any of the purposes for which land may be acquired under the provisions of this section or for effecting an exchange of such land."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment. Its purpose is that the Greater London Authority shall have power to acquire, by agreement or by compulsory purchase, any land for the purpose of providing substitute sites or facilities. We on this side of the House regard this Amendment as one of considerable importance. One of the great problems in relation to road development

11
and widening schemes is the type of compensation that should be paid to individuals or businesses which may be affected. In some cases, mere cash compensation is sufficient; but in the case of businesses which may wish to continue, obviously cash compensation alone will not be fair or may not give justice to the person displaced. We feel that, in the case of the Greater London Council, where it is found necessary to displace a business they should be able not only to offer cash compensation but if, in justice, that is not sufficient, to provide an alternative site for the displaced business.
The London County Council, under their General Powers Act of 1958, have the same powers, and it is interesting to note that in this particular Act there are four or five sections on this subject. Four of them have already been included in the Highways Act, 1959. The terms of my Amendment are those in the London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1958, and if we were to include these same words in this Bill it would mean that what is now the power of the London County Council would be on the Statute books for the new Council. I recognise that it is just possible, under Clause 84, for the powers for which I ask to be granted to the Greater London Council; but the advice that I have received is that it would more likely require a ministerial order. The Greater London Council might have the power so far as the inner boroughs are concerned; but so far as the outer boroughs are concerned it would have to be by ministerial order.
I have consulted with a number of my friends on this matter, and we believe that this matter is of such tremendous importance that the full power should be given to the Greater London Council. It is for that purpose that I beg to move this Amendment. I believe that the time-lag in getting development in roads, because of the need to satisfy those persons displaced, would be very much shortened if the Greater London Council were in a position not only to give cash compensation but, if necessary, right and just, to provide alternative sites for those who were being removed. It will not be possible, as I know from the experience of myself and others, for the Council to
12
provide these alternative sites unless we give them the power of compulsory purchase. This is a matter of very considerable importance and I beg the Government to accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 148, line 19, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Shepherd.)
LORD CHESHAM: I am very glad to say that I completely agree with the noble Lord as to the importance of this matter and the desirability of its being done. I hope that he will accept that and I need say no more about the principle, which I accept. I must, however, draw his attention to a matter of procedure; and that is that the Amendment he is putting down to be inserted in this Part of the Bill would unfortunately not achieve what he wants. It is purely a procedural matter and nothing else. I would draw his attention to Clause 16(2), which states that any amendment made to the Schedule must be either
"consequential on other provisions of this Act; or…designed to apply in relation to highway authorities in Greater London, in appropriate cases and with appropriate modifications, provisions of that Act applicable to comparable authorities elsewhere".
His Amendment in this place does not fall into either of those categories, so if I were to accept it here any action taken would probably be ruled ultra vires later if anybody wished to resist such an order. In fact the way to do it, as it arises from a Private Act, is under Clause 81. What I will do is to give the noble Lord a very definite undertaking that my right honourable friend will transfer these powers to the G.L.C. and also to the London boroughs by order under Clause 81. That is definitely going to be done; and if the noble Lord will accept that that is the way to do it, and not by means of this Amendment, perhaps he will see his way to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD SHEPHERD: In view of the assurance that Lord Chesham has given, I shall certainly respond and withdraw this Amendment. Naturally, I shall consult those parties interested in the matter to see whether they feel that the Minister's assurance meets their particular fears. I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
LORD CHESHAM: Before the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment, perhaps, as a finishing touch, I should say that it

13
will be under Clause 81 read with Clause 84, which he mentioned.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Schedule 6, as amended, shall be agreed to?
2.34 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: I beg the Committee's pardon for rising at this stage to deal with a matter that occurred on Thursday evening. The Committee will remember that at 10.30 p.m. I asked the Government's assistance to adjourn the debate on the grounds of the fatigue that was being experienced by a number of noble friends of mine on this side of the Committee—and that was not surprising considering that we had been four very long days in Committee.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: It has knocked out the Lord Chancellor.
LORD SHEPHERD: I do not know about that. However, on the advice of my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth, I responded to the appeal made by the Government Chief Whip, and we agreed that we would go on to 10.50 p.m. At 10.51 or 10.52, according to Hansard, another Amendment, No. 119, was called. I must admit that I was not anticipating it; but the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, rose and informed the House that it was a drafting Amendment for clarification. I had a note to the effect that I should resist that Amendment, but in the particular circumstances I failed to react. That is my responsibility; but the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, said, when he moved the Amendment, that it was a drafting Amendment for clarity. I certainly acquit the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, of any suggestion that he was misleading the Committee. We know him well enough to know that he would not do so. But the advice I had before the Amendment was moved, and have had since, is that the Amendment is certainly not drafting, in that it changes the provisions within the Bill.
May I put it in this way? In another place on March 21, the Government, in Standing Committee F, moved an Amendment to Schedule 6 which read as follows:
"in relation to a metropolitan road and to any highway to which an improvement is carried out by the Greater London Council…"
14
This Amendment was moved by Mr. Corfield, and, because of the guillotine arrangements then in force, it was not discussed; but I think I am right in saying to the Committee that this was in fact an Amendment agreed between Her Majesty's Government and the London County Council. Briefly, it was to ensure that the Greater London Council would have power relating to roads which were of a borough character entering into metropolitan roads.
This Amendment was passed by another place. The Bill then came to your Lordships' House in Committee, and the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, in his Amendment No. 119A, removed from the agreed Government—London County Council Amendment (if I may put it that way) the words,
"…and to any highway to which an improvement is carried out…"
It is my understanding, from the advice I have received, that, by the deletion of these words by the Government Amendment on Thursday, the position is that the Greater London Council (which, under the Government Amendment in another place, would have had power to deal with the width not only of metropolitan roads but also of borough roads entering metropolitan roads) will lose their power in relation to those roads that enter a metropolitan road.
This is a very major point, because we well know—it has been accepted in your Lordships' House, and was recognised by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, also on Thursday—that the flow of traffic from these borough roads into the metropolitan roads can have a serious effect upon the management of the flow of traffic in the metropolitan roads. My submission is that the Amendment that was moved on Thursday night was not a drafting Amendment, but that it has a material effect, or may have a material effect, in regard to the Greater London Council's responsibility for the flow of traffic on the metropolitan roads. My advice is that this was not a drafting Amendment.
I do not know the circumstances in which the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, moved it. He may feel that it is a drafting Amendment; and that, perhaps, is what he will say when I have sat down. But we on this side feel that the original Amendment which was in the Bill when it came to your Lordships'

15
House represented, in fact, the right attitude for the Government to take. That meant that the Greater London Council, which is the traffic authority for the whole of London, should have similar powers, particularly as they are the highway authority for metropolitan roads, to deal with the width and the line of those roads which play a very important part—the roads which bring traffic into metropolitan roads. I felt it right to raise this matter at this stage, and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Chesham—because I have given him notice of my intention to raise the matter—could give us the information now.
LORD CHESHAM: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for more than one thing. I am grateful for the notice he gave me of his intention to raise this matter because of the doubt that he felt in his mind. I am also grateful to him for having acquitted me of any intention to mislead the House in this matter, because that is certainly something that I would not do. Had it not been that my understanding was, and as I shall explain to your Lordships still is, that this is a drafting Amendment and does not deal with a point of substance, I should never have moved it at that late hour, when we were about to adjourn, but would have left it until to-day.
Naturally, I have looked at this again carefully and I find that in fact it does not delete any point of substance in the Bill. The point is a complex and obscure one and I am not in the least surprised that the noble Lord and his advisers should have some misunderstanding about it. May I be frank with your Lordships and say that originally we ourselves had some misunderstanding on the matter? The only thing that I can do to give the noble Lord the information he wants is to go slowly and as simply as I can through the matter and spell out every step of the argument.
The Amendment is concerned with the application of Section 76 of the Highways Act, 1959, to the new London authorities. That section confers power on the appropriate authority to vary the relative width of carriageways and footways. The definition of "appropriate authority" in subsection (4) of the section is complicated but, for practical purposes, it is the local authority and not the
16
highway authority. If the local authority is not also the highway authority, as, of course, in almost all cases they will be, it has to get the consent of the highway authority. It is easy to apply that section to the London boroughs who are local authorities. Under the second part of the Amendment to Section 76, which is contained in paragraph 27 of the Sixth Schedule, it is made clear that the local authority of the area in which the highway is situated—that is, the London borough concerned or perhaps the Common Council—will be the "appropriate authority" to exercise the power.
We accepted—and the noble Lord agreed—that the Greater London Council should also have the power of variation in respect of metropolitan roads. This means that we have to spell out in the Amendment to Section 76 that the "appropriate authority" for metropolitan roads is the Greater London Council. I trust that the noble Lord is with me so far.
LORD SHEPHERD: The Greater London Authority is the highway authority responsible for metropolitan roads.
LORD CHESHAM: That is right. I have explained why it may be different, but the Amendment makes certain that the Council is the appropriate authority. Paragraph 27 of the Schedule also contains the words "and to any highway to which improvement is carried out by the Greater London Council". These are the words which I moved to leave out in Amendment No. 119A the other night, because the Greater London Council will not have power to carry out an improvement to any highway other than a metropolitan road and it would seem to be misleading if these words were left in Schedule 6, because they might imply that the Council had power in relation to some other road.
I think I was justified in describing the Amendment as a drafting Amendment for clarity. Here is the nub of the whole affair. It is possible that the noble Lord and his advisers have been misled into believing that the Greater London Council have power to improve roads other than metropolitan roads, because in Clause 16(3) the Council are given power to construct a new highway which will not itself be a metropolitan road but

17
which communicates with such a road. Although they have power to construct such roads, they will not become the highway authority for them, because, after construction, that responsibility will pass to the borough council concerned. Any improvements that may then be made to the new side roads will be the responsibility of the borough council, and the Greater London Council will not have power to improve them.
I think that in this context the words deleted are not necessary. Even if the noble Lord may find it a little difficult to follow at the moment, when he comes to look at what I have said, I think he will find that I was correct in describing it as a drafting Amendment for clarity. Although the clarity is perhaps a little difficult to discern in the argument, I think that when he comes to consider it, the noble Lord will see that there is certainly no removal or deletion of anything of substance by this Amendment.
LORD SHEPHERD: I can see the difficulty. What the Government regard as drafting is what they themselves originally intended when they moved the Amendment in another place.
LORD CHESHAM: I should have said that the Amendment in the other place was related to the need to give the Greater London Council power to vary the width of carriageway on metropolitan roads.
LORD SHEPHERD: Yes, but the Amendment also related to any highway to which improvement is carried out by the Greater London Council.
LORD CHESHAM: I said that that is a trap into which we also had fallen.
LORD SHEPHERD: The Government may regard it as drafting, but I think I was entirely right not to regard it as drafting and to look at the Amendment with suspicion. But the Government have now made their intention clear. I think it is right that the Greater London Council should have power to vary the width and line of borough roads, not metropolitan roads, which may have a serious effect on the flow of traffic. In the present circumstances, I do propose to press the matter, but I shall look at it again carefully and may put something down on Report stage.
LORD CHESHAM: May I suggest that in his consideration the noble Lord should
18
also look at the powers to do what he wants by agreement which are contained in Section 251 of the Highways Act, 1959, because I think that there already exists powers to cover what he has in mind?
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Metropolitan roads]:
2.50 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM LORD CHESHAM moved to insert in the list of metropolitan roads:

"A.305…

Junction with A.307 (Richmond)

Junction with A.310 (Twickenham)"

The noble Lord said: It might be convenient if I speak to Amendments Nos. 121 and 122 at the same time. They add to the schedule of metropolitan roads Richmond Bridge, A.305 and A.301, which is the route on the western side of the Thames from Richmond south to Hampton Wick. The general intention in the selection of metropolitan roads is that all Thames bridges and the roads leading to them (with the exception of the City bridges) should be the responsibility of the G.L.C. The maintenance of Thames bridges presents special problems and, in fact, within the inner area the L.C.C. are already responsible for the day-to-day maintenance of them. Richmond Bridge was the only other Thames bridge not included in the original schedule of metropolitan roads, because A.316 and Twickenham Bridge, a short distance to the north, provide a by-pass to Richmond for East-West traffic.
The omission of Richmond Bridge from the Schedule has, however, been commented on, and on reconsideration the Department has decided that it is right it should be included. The metropolitan roads, as selected, form a continuous network of routes which only terminate at the boundary of Greater London, their junctions with a trunk road or with another metropolitan road apart from roads leading up to the City bridges. This continuity reflects the fact that they are routes for through traffic. It would be inconsistent to include Richmond Bridge alone as a metropolitan road without also providing a continuation of the route. The route along A.305 and A.310 to Hampton Wick has thus been included, being a through route for North-South traffic crossing Richmond Bridge. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 154, line 9, at end insert—

("A.305…

Junction with A.307 (Richmond)

Junction with A.310 (Twickenham)")

—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 154, line 19, at end insert—

("A.310…

Junction with A.305 (Twickenham)

Junction with A.308 (Hampton Wick)").

—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CONESFORD LORD CONESFORD moved, in the reference to Route No. 3216, after "Clapham Common" to insert "excluding the whole of the centre island of Sloane Square". The noble Lord said: This is a simple Amendment, as I think Members in all parts of the Committee will agree, to retain for the local authority, Chelsea (it will, of course, be part of a larger London borough), one of their best-known and precious open spaces. Let me assure the Committee that it is possible for Her Majesty's Government to accept this Amendment without any injury to the matters which they hope to secure by making this a metropolitan road. I am not questioning that the road North from Chelsea Bridge along Lower Sloane Street and then Sloane Street should be a metropolitan road; I am merely asking that this important open space, which is important to the life of Chelsea and, indeed, to its history, should remain the property of and under the protection of the borough.
Chelsea has taken great trouble in the past over the use and layout of this open space. It has acted throughout under the advice of the Royal Fine Art Commission, and the square now, with its trees, its war memorial and its fountain is of great importance in local feeling. It is also a place that is used on various public occasions—ceremonial parades on Armistice Day and so forth. On all these matters the Royal Fine Art Commission were consulted. The local authority has repeatedly protected the amenities of this square from various encroachments that have been threatened from time to time. As I say, the whole object of the Amendment is that this open
20
space shall remain the property of and under the protection of the London borough, and it is not designed to cause any difficulty to Her Majesty's Government or to the use of the highway. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 156, line 35, column 3, after ("Clapham Common") insert the said words.—(Lord Conesford.)
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: I should like to put a point to the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, with whom I do not want to disagree, because sometimes we do agree, and I value that. Does he mean here, when he says the central island, the central island only, and not the roadway or highway which surrounds the central island? If he means the latter, then I think it is an easier proposition.
LORD CONESFORD: The noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, is quite right. I fully concede that the road around is part of the highway and will be a metropolitan road. My Amendment refers entirely to what I may call the central part enjoyed by the pedestrians.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: I accept that explanation, and I am glad the noble Lord has been able to give it. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary, when he replies—not that I have any doubts about the noble Lord's correctness in the Amendment—to say that the noble Lord's drafting of the Amendment is consistent with the highway around the central island being not under the borough council, but under the other authority, as the noble Lord has assured the Committee that he does not wish anything but the central island to come under his Amendment.
LORD SALTER: I should like to add a word or two to what my noble friend has said. In the first place, I would say that the interpretation that my noble friend has given in relation to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, is certainly also that which is given by the local borough council and conforms with what they wish. They fully recognise that the traffic around the central island would not be affected by this Amendment.
My noble friend has explained some of the reasons why this central island has in

21
a very special degree the affection and interest of those who live in the neighbourhood. I should like to add, as one who also lives in Chelsea, my testimony to the interest and affection for this central island which is felt by those who live in Chelsea. Perhaps I may also add that my own feeling is strengthened by the fact that I have perhaps longer nostalgic memories of this square than anyone else in the Committee. Nearly forty years ago that great series of plays by Bernard Shaw was produced for the first time, and I happened to live then, as I do now, in the immediate neighbourhood and to witness them all. It was a great series which introduced a new era in drama, in theatrical production and in acting.
LORD CHESHAM: First of all, I am able to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, that the drafting is consistent for the purpose which my noble friend Lord Conesford is endeavouring to achieve. We have been thinking for some time that a central island of this nature was an integral part of the highway and, therefore, should form part of a metropolitan road. It is, for instance, part of the normal road for pedestrians crossing Sloane Square, to which they are directed by pedestrian crossings. There is the possibility that at a later date the G.L.C. as highway authority for the surrounding metropolitan road may require to provide pedestrian subways or possibly affect it in some other way to do with highway improvement. But for the reasons which my noble friend Lord Conesford has put forward—very nearly all the reasons, but not quite all—we have to recognise that Chelsea has a special interest in this Square and, therefore, that the Amendment should be accepted.
In saying that, there is one thing I ought to make quite clear. There is this possibility that at some future date (which may be, for all I know, dim and distant) some highway improvement will require some alteration to the Square. If in the course of doing that there was not agreement between the G.L.C. and the borough council, it might be necessary for the G.L.C. to apply to the Minister, under the provisions of Clause 17 for an order declaring the island, or part of it, to be a metropolitan road. Of course, if such art application were made, the Minister would have to consult the borough council and, if requested by
22
them, would have to hold a public inquiry before he made up his mind. Then, if there was a case, the Square, or part of it, might become a metropolitan road.
I say that only because I think it would be, to say the least, unfair to accept the Amendment without pointing that out to my noble friends. Provided they have that in their consciences, there can really be no objection to accepting the Amendment and leaving the responsibility with Chelsea for, perhaps, a very long time.
LORD CONESFORD: I should only like to thank my noble friend very much. I should like to thank him not least for the warning he has given me that perhaps we ought to look a little critically at Clause 17, when we come to the Report stage. Nevertheless, that is not intended as a threat. I let Clause 17 go without any challenge, and I am glad that Her Majesty's Government have found it possible to accept this Amendment, which I know will give great pleasure in Chelsea.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD had given notice of his intention to move to leave out Schedule 7. The noble Lord said: I do not in any way take back my objections to Schedule 7, but in order to expedite the convenience of this Committee, I will not move the Amendment now but will come back to it on Report stage.
Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 21:
Housing powers in Greater London
(4) Without prejudice to the powers of a London borough council or the Common Council, the Greater London Council shall be a local authority as respects the whole of Greater London for the purposes of the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act 1899, Part V of the Housing Act 1957 (as regards housing accommodation both inside and outside Greater London), section 9 of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act 1958 and section 13 of the House Purchase and Housing Act 1959; but the Greater London Council—
(a) except—

(i) for the purpose of the carrying out by them of the provisions of a development plan within the meaning of the Town and Country Planning Act 1962 relating to an area of comprehensive development; or

and in Schedule 2 to the Land Compensation Act 1961 (which relates to the payments to be

23
made on the compulsory acquisition of houses as being unfit for human habitation) alter paragraph 2(1)(e) there shall be inserted—
(f) an acquisition by the Greater London Council under Part V of the Act of 1957 ".
3.4 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, in subsection (4), to leave out the word "Part" where it first occurs, and to insert "Parts III and". The noble Lord said: This Amendment goes with Amendments Nos. 126, 127 and 128. This is, I hope, some inducement to the noble Lord to accept this Amendment, because by accepting the one we dispose of four Amendments at the same time. The purpose of the Amendment is to give to the Greater London Council concurrent powers in dealing with slum clearance under Part III of the Housing Act, 1957, in the same way as the London County Council have concurrent powers at the present time. In fact, there is an amicable arrangement between the London County Council and the metropolitan boroughs by which the London County Council take the burden of slum clearance. It deals with the larger areas and assists the metropolitan boroughs in dealing with the slum areas; and the metropolitan boroughs also deal with individual slum houses.
The Bill takes these powers away from the Greater London Council, although it preserves them for a limited period. I can only think that this has been done under a misconception or misapprehension as to what the real slum problem is. There is no doubt, in the minds of those who understand the magnitude of this problem, that the new borough councils will find it impossible to deal with the slum clearance problems in their own area. That is not to say that some of them will not, but those where the slums are greatest, where the burden is heaviest, will find it quite impossible, within a limited period, to deal with the problem without the aid of the London County Council. The aid of the London County Council consists in placing, at the disposal of the new London boroughs a large pool of housing, some 100,000 of them, which are outside the area of the new Greater London Council. These could be made available to the new London boroughs for rehousing people displaced from the slums. This would be useful, indeed
24
invaluable, for such areas as Stepney and Poplar, East Ham and West Ham, Tottenham, Leyton, Croydon and other new London boroughs of that kind, where the burden is still exceedingly heavy, and where it is quite unlikely that the slum problem can be dealt with within a reasonable time.
Moreover, it is assumed here that the slum problem is a static one and that it can be dealt with in a limited period; but, as the noble Lord will be aware, every year there are new dwellings which come to the end of their life and which become fresh slums, and the problem is an unending one. If you say that the normal lifetime of this type of house is 100 years, then next year houses which were built in, say, 1863 will have become fit for demolition. This will go on indefinitely. There is a large type of house which has hardly been dealt with at all. I refer to the large blocks of flats which were built in the year 1860 or 1870, where there are no bathrooms, and none of the normal facilities which we expect to-day, and which will be exceedingly difficult for the London boroughs to deal with. There are some 4,238 of these dwellings which were built before 1900 and are now 63 years old and which are, many of them, ripe for demolition. Of course, as each year goes by there will be more of them. There are a large number of dwellings in London which contain three or four storeys which are of the same type, and which are let out in multiple occupation. There may be four, five or even six families living in one house, and when you demolish that house you have to provide separate accommodation for each family.
As I say, this is a burden which many of the new London boroughs will find it impossible to deal with. It is evident, therefore, that the Greater London Council should have the same indefinite concurrent powers, in dealing with housing and slum clearance, that the London County Council have at the present time. On the figures that have been given to me I understand that the London County Council have dealt with more than twice as many slum dwellings as all the metropolitan boroughs put together. That is some indication of the needs of the Greater London Council in dealing with this problem. On these facts alone there is an overwhelming case for entrusting

25
the concurrent powers to the Greater London Council. But there is another side of it altogether: that is, that many of the large slum sites lend themselves not merely to redevelopment for housing but for other purposes. For instance, some are needed for open spaces, some for factories in which to rehouse nonconforming users and some for schools. It does not follow that the site, when existing buildings have been demolished, will be available for new housing or, when new housing has to be provided, that it would be provided within the borough itself, which in many cases is already congested.
I know that the Bill provides facilities for one borough to build in the area of another, with the consent of the other, but that is not going to work. London is a continuously developed area and, generally, overcrowded, and no London borough is going to allow an adjoining one to increase the overcrowding in its own area. It will have its own problems to deal with. As I see it, most of the accommodation that will be available to rehouse people from slum dwellings will have to be on the Greater London Council estates. Therefore, while the Bill provides for London boroughs to go outside their own area, that is not really a practical proposition.
I do not want to talk about my own experience in these matters, but I have had six years as Chairman of the London County Council Housing Committee and I know some of the difficulties. I feel that if we are to make a concentrated effort in dealing with our slum problem work, we must give the Greater London Council these powers, which they feel they ought to have and let them deal with the problem concurrently with the London boroughs. In the past, the arrangements, as I know, have always worked most amicably. There has never been difficulty between the London County Council and the metropolitan boroughs in apportioning the respective responsibilities, and I see no reason whatever why There should be any difficulty hereafter as between the Great London Council and the new London boroughs.
I feel that the noble Lord would be well advised to give serious consideration to this question. If he is not able to accept these Amendments to-day, I hope that at least he will agree that this is a
26
matter which ought to be discussed quite seriously between now and the Report stage. Either the discussions could be between the officers of the London County Council and the Ministry, or, if he is so disposed, I shall be happy to discuss the point with him and the officers of the Ministry as well. But I feel that we should be making a profound mistake not to give the Greater London Council these concurrent powers. After all, it is a matter of machinery there is nothing political about it, and we are all out to see that this slum problem is dealt with as quickly as possible.
There is one point that I should like the noble Lord to consider, because I am sure it will be made over and over again. It is assumed that, because each of these London boroughs will have a population of 200,000, they will, therefore, be self-contained, comparable with some of the larger county boroughs throughout the country, and quite able to manage their own affairs. But there are some very big differences. In the first place, a county borough has land surrounding it—in the majority of cases vacant land on which it can build. Most of these London boroughs will not have any adjoining land. As I have said before, they are given powers to build in adjoining boroughs with the consent of the adjoining borough, but that will not produce very much in the way of housing because these areas are all congested. Greater London is going to be one continuous built-up area and no London borough will, therefore, in any way be comparable to the existing county boroughs. In many cases, too, they will not be comparable financially. The county boroughs, especially the larger county boroughs, all have their civic centre and large shopping facilities which attract people from all around, and have high rateable values which provide a good income. In the case of the London boroughs, the really big shopping and the high rateable values are in the West End of London and not so much locally. Therefore, they will not be in as good a position, even financially, for dealing with their problems as cities like Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, which would be comparable. For all these reasons I hope that this series of Amendments will be given the most serious consideration. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 32, leave out ("Part") and insert ("Parts III and").—(Lord Silkin.)
LORD SHEPHERD: May I support my noble friend in this Amendment, because it is of tremendous importance to slum clearance and the proper dispersal (if that is the right word) of residential accommodation in Greater London? The evidence is that since the war the main burden of slum clearance and the finding of new accommodation for those persons who lose their slum premises has undoubtedly fallen on the London County Council. I believe that the figures show that from 1945 to 1960 18,488 families have been rehoused by the London County Council, as compared with 6,465 by the metropolitan boroughs. This is not to say that the metropolitan boroughs were reluctant to deal with their own slum clearance: there was no question of reluctance on their part; but for many they had considerable problems, not only the shortage of land within their area but, as I understand, because, where they had to bring down slum property, land was not always available for rehousing.
I believe that the standards now required for new houses and flats mean that where a major block of slum flats in London is pulled down, only 50 per cent. of the land space that becomes available can be utilised for new building. This has meant that slum clearance plans in some boroughs have been facing opposition even from those people who live in the slums, with the result that there has been slowness in dealing with slum property. The metropolitan boroughs have had to pass on this major responsibility to the London County Council. They have had a wider area, 117 square miles, in which to operate and from which to find the land for rehousing. The Government have said that they wish to make the metropolitan boroughs the housing authority in their areas, and that they will be responsible for the slum clearance within their areas. I well believe that in the case of many of the boroughs this will be possible, particularly in those areas such as Croydon and Mitcham which have not a great deal of slum property to deal with. But in the case of some, those in the East End of London, where slums are real hard facts, I do not believe those
28
boroughs on their own will be able to tackle the problem.
We feel, and there is undoubted evidence from the past, that it requires some bigger authority with a wider horizon, with an architect's department, which the Greater London Council will have, with its major development plan and its responsibility for finding the right accommodation; and also, obviously, in later cases, where the position gets desperate, they will be able to deal with the overspill outside the Greater London area. This type of authority is the only one that can tackle the slum problems in the smaller parts of London where it has been found impossible for the borough itself to deal with the problem. I do not believe that three boroughs each with its inherent slum property is going to be in a better position to deal with this than one borough on its own.
I accept that, if two boroughs with no major problem were being married to one authority which had slum property, perhaps the task would be a great deal easier. But in this amalgamation of local authorities there are quite a number of authorities being brought together which all share the identical problem. I cannot believe that the bringing together of three authorities in a similar plight makes the position any different. The evidence is that the London County Council, whether it liked it or not, has been the main instrument for dealing with slum clearance. If you are abolishing the London County Council, then, for the sake of those people who live in slum property in these boroughs, provide an organisation which is capable and which has the resources for dealing with it. I do beg the Government to consider with all sympathy the Amendment moved by my noble friend.
3.24 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD HASTINGS): As the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said when he moved this Amendment, this is a question of machinery; there is nothing political about it. We clearly wish to try to get the most effective machinery for tackling the general housing problems of Greater London. Noble Lords have concentrated

29
their remarks solely upon slum clearance and upon that facet of housing as seen from the point of view of the London County Council. I think it fair if I remind noble Lords what the existing situation is in the country as a whole and in Greater London. As noble Lords opposite know very well, the housing authorities in general are county boroughs and county district councils, and the L.C.C. is the only county council with Housing Act powers. We really have to decide whether or not the new authorities are to be the primary housing authorities, as indeed in the rest of England and Wales the county district councils and county boroughs are; and again, whether the present L.C.C. powers are to be transferred wholesale to the Greater London Council.
We feel strongly that housing powers are very much part and parcel of the personal services which will be the responsibility of the London boroughs. Your Lordships will remember that the Royal Commission's Report said, in paragraph 785:
"Our conclusion is that housing is so closely connected with personal health and welfare that it must be essentially a borough service."
It went on in the following paragraph to enumerate some of the very personal aspects of housing, and I do not think any noble Lord would really disagree with the desirability of a local borough being, by and large, master in its own house in respect of housing powers, which are so much part of its welfare services.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, anticipated my argument about the size of the boroughs, and of co arse I am bound to point out that they will be on an average somewhere round the 250,000 population mark, and they will, to that extent, be more powerful and better off. In spite of all the other points which the noble Lord made showing that they are not strictly comparable to say, Leicester, which has about the same sort of population, because they form part of a huge conurbation, we feel none the less that they are fully capable of being the primary housing authorities and exercising all their own powers in their own territory.
LORD SHEPHERD: Would the noble Lord not agree that in the case of Leicester they have a greater opportunity
30
to expand beyond their existing boundaries to do slum clearance, and therefore it is not necessarily a fair comparison?
LORD HASTINGS: I have really conceded that point. That is what I was thinking of when I referred to the noble Lord's remarks. That aspect of matters we have looked after by giving to the Greater London Council, supplementary housing powers under which the Council can build anywhere within Greater London, with consent, and also outside Greater London in respect of overspill. Whereas Leicester can arrange its own overspill, if the previous Amendment had not been withdrawn I should have been able to argue (and I gather that noble Lords opposite must agree; otherwise, they would not have moved the Amendment) that the Greater London Council are the best authority to handle these vast problems of overspill, as they now spill well beyond the Green Belt, and industry, as well as houses, is being moved; and the two must be co-ordinated. Therefore, this wider aspect of the housing and slum clearance problem is, we think, very largely looked after by the powers of the Greater London Council for dealing with overspill. We therefore feel that we should make the local boroughs the primary housing authority.
The next question is whether, in spite of that, the borough councils should share any powers with the Greater London Council. We feel that it is very desirable to make a clear division between powers. That is why we have given the Greater London Council, purely on the ground of efficiency, exclusive powers for acting under the Town Development Act in respect of overspill. We wish to try to avoid unnecessary overlapping and to prevent any possible conflict between the authorities, which can too easily arise and for which we think there is really no necessity. And we have all along tried to avoid the semblance of a two-tier system where the Greater London Council might in respect of borough council affairs be able to override them.
We have, as I said, already made an exception in the case of overspill, but we have completely separated the powers so that they will not overlap at all. I think it is worth remembering that, in so doing, we deprived the outer London boroughs of powers which they in fact already possessed in respect of overspill.

31
These they will possess no longer. I think there are perfectly logical reasons for doing that. But if we were to follow the noble Lord's idea, we should also be depriving these outer London boroughs of control, which they have hitherto exercised exclusively in their own areas, of all other housing powers including slum clearance, and I really do not think that they would welcome that at all. We have to consider the feelings of these boroughs who are in fact dealing with their problems satisfactorily.
There may be difficulties. I can think of Willesden—obviously, a housing authority outside the county area—which is a difficult one. Nevertheless, it has been exercising its own authority and, because of the other parts of the Bill, we feel that it should continue to do so; and we should have to think hard before depriving these outer London boroughs of the powers which they at present possess. Whether the inner boroughs feel quite differently about this question of overlapping powers or authority within their area, I do not know; I rather doubt it. Noble Lords opposite have certainly been speaking to the point of view of the London County Council. Whether that is agreed by the individual boroughs within the L.C.C. area, I do not know, but that is perhaps beside the point.
When we come down to this problem of slum clearance I think it divides itself fairly clearly into two: the actual demolition of the property and the rehousing of the people who lived in the demolished property. As the noble Lord mentioned, the new London boroughs will have extensive powers for building anywhere in Greater London. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said that that would not work out because all the areas are so crowded that they cannot find room. It has happened—I admit not often—that one borough has grown into the area of another. But in addition there are new powers, in subsection (10) of this clause, which for the first time allow boroughs to help each other by agreeing, when they are building in their own area, to take tenants from another area on payment of contributions. So there is that possibility, too, for the separate boroughs. After they have made every effort to rehouse in their own area, outside their own area by building, or outside their own area
32
by agreement to enter into tenancy arrangements—after all that, then the Greater London Council come into the picture, with their supplementary powers. The Council in fact have a duty to help all the boroughs to organise a pool of names, as it were, and to try to place them in the L.C.C. estates which the Greater London Council will inherit, and in the new buildings which they themselves will in due course put up. In addition, they have the further duty to plan overspill schemes beyond the Green Belt for the movement of people and industry from different borough areas.
So there are all these powers in respect of the rehousing of the people, and I do not think that noble Lords opposite can truthfully claim now that the problem lies in the rehousing of the people after clearance. It may be that they will maintain that there is physical difficulty in actually getting the areas demolished by the boroughs themselves—and I will come to that point. It is true that the London County Council have been responsible for twice, or even more than twice, the number of clearances in the administrative county area than have the metropolitan boroughs themselves. I think I am right in saying that a great deal of that would have been in connection with L.C.C. estates outside London, whether quite near the boundary or even under the town development schemes, and a good deal of the population would have moved out altogether.
LORD SILKIN: May I be clear on this? Is the noble Lord speaking of actual slum houses which have been demolished under what is now Part III of the 1957 Act, or under the earlier Acts? I take it that he is not referring to dwellings that have been built? I am speaking of slums?
LORD HASTINGS: I agree that a number have been demolished, but some of the people who lived in them will have gone outside London so that there was an additional reason for the L.C.C. doing this clearance twice as much as the metropolitan boroughs have. The Greater London Council will have exactly the same powers in relation to overspill population. That is the point I was trying to make. As for demolition, I understand that in the next five-year period there is a programme of 20,000 unfit houses to

33
be demolished in the present L.C.C. area, and three-fifths of that number is to be handled by the action of the London County Council themselves. No doubt this is a problem that the noble Lord has particularly in mind. I think that here I should direct your Lordship's attention to the fact that immediately after this Bill comes into effect and the Greater London Council is set up, it will continue to exercise the powers which the London County Council at present hold under the Housing Act, including its powers in Part III. Subsection (5) of this clause allows the Greater London Council to continue with the L.C.C. plans, and it has been put there for the specific reason about which noble Lords opposite show anxiety, that we must maintain momentum and must not let them slacken off.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Does that include new schemes, or only the existing ones?
LORD HASTINGS: It includes new schemes, slum clearance schemes.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: The Greater London Council can continue indefinitely with slum clearance under concurrent powers with the boroughs?
LORD HASTINGS: That is not the intention.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: That is what you said.
LORD HASTINGS: The intention is to continue for a while to make quite sure that the programme does not slacken, and there is going to be a period when the Greater London Council will have to make its overall plans for rehousing in London which will take place, by and large, in the outer London boroughs obviously, where there is some room, and outside London altogether. They have got to do building within the Greater London boroughs, by consent, as we know, and it will take time to work out these schemes. In that interim period it is the intention that they should, in respect of slum clearance in the L.C.C. area, but not outside that area, continue acting under Part III powers to make sure that the present slum clearance drive shall not be relaxed or diminished in any way at all. That is the purpose of subsection (5).
I hope that that will allay noble Lords' anxieties and help them to realise that
34
the Greater London Council will be able to help the inner boroughs over the hump or the worst of the slum clearance problem before really coming on to the clear division of powers which is laid down in the Bill for the future, on the grounds that we believe that it is much more healthy in the long run that the primary housing authorities should be the London boroughs. I think that there should not really be any difficulty in this, because it is in the interests of both the London boroughs, the inner boroughs in particular, where the problem is at its most acute, and the Greater London Council to co-operate in this business. Even after the Greater London Council are limited to powers under Part V of the Housing Act, I think by that time the plans will have been made sufficiently far ahead not to have any trouble about declaration of unfitness orders and that sort of matter; but in the meantime we intend to continue these powers precisely so that the slum clearance programme shall not abate in any way. I hope that that will answer the noble Lord's problem.
3.40 p.m.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: The more one hears the Government's impressions of this problem, both here and in another place, the more alarmed one becomes. I very much doubt whether the Ministry of Housing and Local Government understand the problem or have picked up experience about it. There was a Minister of Housing and Local Government a few years ago, Dr. Charles Hill (who I think was Minister in 1961) who within two days told two totally different stories about slum clearance. The Labour Party published a propaganda sheet, part of which was headed, "Maybe on Tuesday", and which quoted Dr. Charles Hill as saying at Scarborough, on November 7, 1961:
"Within ten years the great majority of authorities should have eliminated all the known slums. That will leave some 50 towns and cities with a substantial hard-core problem."
But the very next day—and this appears in the sheet headed, "Never on Wednesday"—he said, in a Written Parliamentary Answer:
"The best estimate I can make is that if in the whole of Great Britain we could continue building at the rate of about 300,000 houses and flats a year, we should over the next twenty years"—

35
not ten as he said before—
"meet the needs as we at present see them, though even then I do not think that we should replace all the slums."
It is an extraordinary Ministry that can let its Minister get away with two contradictory statements, one day after the other—but, to do the Civil Service justice, it may be that the first statement was the Minister's own fault.
The reply of the Parliamentary Secretary to-day indicates that there is a complete lack of understanding about the problem. My noble friend Lord Silkin said that he did not want to talk about his own work as Chairman of the London County Council Housing Committee. That was modesty on his part, and I will merely say that as Chairman of that Committee he did a first-class job of work. The Parliamentary Secretary is afraid that there will be friction between the Greater London Council and the boroughs if they are given concurrent powers. I have checked with my noble friend, and in fact he does not remember, nor do I, any material difference of opinion—certainly no public row, between the London County Council and the metropolitan boroughs—over housing. I remember that Woolwich, the borough in which I live, and which at that time had a very good borough council—and still has—had a policy (it has since modified it) of not wanting anybody but Woolwich Borough Council to undertake housing within the borough area. Well, they were a competent and progressive lot; we understood, and we said, "All right", and Woolwich got on with the job. It was the houses that mattered, not the authority that built them. I think that Bermondsey took the same view.
It is a curious thing that relations on all matters between the London County Council and the metropolitan boroughs rapidly improved, even with Conservative boroughs, after a Labour majority was elected. Instead of there being friction between the county and the boroughs about housing there was friendship and co-operation, the only issue being who could do a particular job best in the particular circumstances of the case. Our relations were harmonious, not only with the Labour boroughs but with the Conservative boroughs as well.
36
The noble Lord queried whether the metropolitan boroughs would agree with us. I would say that they do, and that they do not agree with the Ministry. Certainly in the case of metropolitan boroughs, where they have had substantial and material housing experience, they have found it helpful, because not only is the job got on with more quickly if both authorities are engaged upon it, but also the financial burden which would fall upon the boroughs is eased by part of its falling upon the greater authority. The noble Lord might have a point on one thing. It might be that the City of London and the City of Westminster, who make very substantial contributions towards the London County Council rate, and who will do so towards the Greater London rate, see a chance of transferring that burden from the central authority to the borough authorities. I could understand that, but the Government's obligation is not to listen to the City of London or the City of Westminster about their particular problems, even though Westminster has done some pretty substantial work in the provision of housing. They must listen to the people of London, to the needs of London as a whole.
I do not agree that these problems come technically under personal services, as that term is commonly understood. Of course, there is a personal effect and a personal aspect about housing and slum clearance, but so is there about the rebuilding of schools, as there is about highway improvements. I would not regard housing as in the same category as, for example, maternity and child welfare or infectious diseases—that is to say, as a personal service. Consequently, I think the noble Lord, with every respect to him, has the matter all wrong and has been briefed badly about it.
He also asked: what will outer London say? I will tell him what outer London ought to say. They ought to have noted the substantial work that has gone on by co-operation between the county council and the boroughs in London and they ought to welcome a similar arrangement. I know that the county district councils of the County of Middlesex were against the Council's getting housing powers, although a number were ready for the Middlesex County Council to have powers to build outside the county. But they were wrong. The absence of

37
powers on the part of Middlesex County Council has meant that dealing with the housing problem in that county has been slower and less adequate than it would have been if the county council there had adequate power as well as the districts.
Nor must it be thought that this problem is confined to the County of London. The London County Council and the metropolitan borough councils are clearing the slums in each five year period; they are dealing with the increased number of slums that have come to exist, and others as well. By contrast, figures taken from the Government's own publication Slum Clearance, Command 9593, which was presented to Parliament in November, 1955, indicate that some authorities were unable to deal with a large majority of their slums during the 1956–60 programme. These are outside the County of London: some in the County of Middlesex, some in Essex, and one in the geographical County of Surrey. In Tottenham the estimated number of unfit houses was 2,189, and the number out of that figure not being dealt with in the programme of 1956–60 was 1,224. The percentage of those which were not being dealt with, as compared with those which were being dealt with, was 56.
This is the Department's own White Paper. Has the noble Lord read it? I understand he has. I should like to cross-examine him on how far he has read it, but this is not a court of law, although it should be a court of justice, a court of enlightenment. But he comes here and says, "This is a problem peculiar to the County of London; outside London the country districts can get on all right." With that 56 per cent., obviously Tottenham—I am not blaming the council; it is a difficult borough—is not getting on all right, and it would have got on better if the County Council of Middlesex had had concurrent powers.
For East Ham—this is the present County Borough of East Ham, in Essex—the estimated number of unfit houses is 2,580, and the number not being dealt with is 2,180–84 per cent. not being dealt with. I should be very slow in blaming the County Boroughs of East Ham, or West Ham, to which I will come. They have both got thorough Labour majorities: so big that I wish they were perhaps not quite so big. They are too big. But it is
38
not that they would not do it. No Labour majority on a council would not do it if it could. It is because they are left on their own, isolated; and the problem of rehousing the slum dwellers of those places must be terrific. In West Ham there are 2,854 unfit houses. The number not being dealt with is 1,659, or 58 per cent. Leyton 1,500 unfit houses; number not being dealt with, 1,320–88 per cent. In Croydon—a Conservative borough and a county borough—the estimated number of unfit houses is 705. That is a relatively light problem. This is a Conservative borough: I concede that point to the Government. The number not being dealt with is 522, or 74 per cent. Croydon may have less of an excuse than these heavily-populated, poorer boroughs, and it may be a matter of policy there, too. How can the noble Lord, who has mastered, read and thoroughly digested this White Paper to which I have referred, come here this afternoon and say something which flatly contradicts the actual contents of the Government White Paper itself?
It is not merely a matter of rehousing the slum dwellers. We must remember this: my noble friend Lord Silkin will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that in some slum areas there are houses with only two storeys but which are so congested that when the borough council or the county council provide high flats in place of those slum houses and leave reasonable air space around the flats, it may be that on that site they cannot rehouse as many people as lived there before. My noble friend confirms that. Now what is a poor, congested borough—and some of these are poor boroughs—to do, faced with problems of this sort? We must remember, too, that they have not got to deal only with the actual rehousing of the people: they have education services to look after, which are incidental to it and in which new building may be required; they have residential (and the residential are the most important), open space, roads, health, industry and commercial problems. All that has to be taken care of. If the boroughs have not been able to handle this problem on quite as big a scale as the London County Council, it is not a matter that we are boasting about at the expense of the boroughs, or with the idea that the boroughs will be apologetic about it because the County Council has

39
done better. It was because the County Council was in a better position to handle some of these problems, especially in the bigger areas, and had a great pool of housing accommodation to which people could be removed. Without this there will be enormous difficulty to many, if not all, of the individual London boroughs.
Now this is all utterly elementary. I cannot make out why Ministers put up with this Department. I do not understand it. The Prime Minister ought to do something about it—redistribute the powers, or something like that. Because they are consistently advising Ministers wrongly, unless I am to believe that the Department which advises the Ministers is right but the political prejudices of the Ministers make them go wrong. That may sometimes be true, but I do not believe it is so in this case. I believe it is the Department's advice which has gone wrong.
So it is a big and complicated problem, and when you come to a big clearance area you must provide for all these things. You must provide particularly for industry that may have to be demolished in the course of the clearance, not only in the interests of London, not only in the interests of employment but in the interests of the industrial property owner himself or the property renter. Because, poor chap!he gets a notice that his premises are going to be demolished under a clearance order—it cannot be helped; the public interest requires it—and he may be in a very great jam as to where he is going to rebuild his factory. It may well be that he can solve it, but, on the other hand, it may be that he cannot; and then the London County Council could come along and say, "All right, brother, we will help you out. We have sites A, B and C on which you can build, and we will help you to do it. We will give you facilities". In that way it is good for the manufacturer that these concurrent powers should exist. But to think that all this big and complex problem can be solved within an individual borough, whether it be in London or whether it be in any other part of Greater London, is to show complete, tragic, unfortunate ignorance of the great human problem that has to be met in these matters.
40
Now it is said, "Well, it will be all right. If borough A has not got space in which to build new property it can build in another borough". I am not sure the Minister did not say it could build outside London.
LORD SHEPHERD: No.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: That is not so. Then I am wrong. I do not want to get him wrong. He has enough to suffer for as it is. But when one takes these boroughs and thinks about it, one sees that it is an almost impossible thing. Every borough has a waiting list for housing. I doubt whether there is one in Greater London that has not a waiting list for houses bigger than the supply of housing it has got, or is likely to get for some years to come. Borough A receives an application from Borough C, D, E, or F. What does Borough A say to itself? "We should like to help our friends of the other borough, but we have this waiting list, and if we dare to let somebody else build houses in our borough or if we dare to let them transfer their applications for tenancies to us we shall face a dreadful row among the ratepayers and citizens of our borough." So the political pressure against their doing this will be inevitable, substantial and effective.
Now I want to see the slums go. I want to live in a city where every slum has gone—and it can be done. But remember, as my noble friend said, you are not only clearing the slums that are: you have to be ready to deal with the slums that are growing up every year as time goes on. I want to see them go. I love this city so much that I want the disgrace of slums to be got rid of as soon as we can. I honestly think that the Government are utterly wrong about this matter. Concurrent powers work in the county of London, and there is no reason why they should not work elsewhere. They may take a bit of getting used to for a few years, but other areas will get used to them all right. They have worked well in London; and I appeal to noble Lords from the bottom of my heart, with deep sincerity—I appeal to noble Lords irrespective of their politics—to think of the slum dwellers. Think of the young married people, or people who are about to be married, and who cannot get housing accommodation for some time to come.

41
Some of the saddest letters I have had when I was a Member of the other place—and I still get letters as if I were the Member of Parliament for the United Kingdom—were about housing; and the most sad were from young people who had been married for one or two or three years and living with their in-laws. They were not able to get on with their in-laws; and others are the same. It is very natural. Fortunately I can get on very well with my mother-in-law; she has been staying with us for some weeks. But they are not all as good as my Lancashire mother-in-law.
These people are living in crowded conditions: they may have to get two meals and to double up in the kitchen; frictions arise and some of the men and women who wrote me were desperate. Sometimes a man could not live with his wife; there was no room for him. It is a real, deep, tragic human problem. And that was notwithstanding the vast housing programme of the London County Council and the metropolitan boroughs to whom also I would pay tribute for their contribution to the solution of the problem. I beg the Government to have a heart. Do not let Party politics determine the attitude of noble Lords opposite. Let them think about these people, about the slums and about new housing that is wanted for these young married people. I beg noble Lords to have a heart above Party politics and vote for this Amendment which will enable the housing problem, not only in the County of London but in Greater London, to be dealt with more efficiently and more speedily than can possibly be the case otherwise.
4.3 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: I earnestly support the plea of my noble friend on this particular Amendment. Until five years ago had the honour to represent two London boroughs right in the heart of London where these problems were particularly acute. They were the boroughs of Shoreditch and Finsbury. There it was not just a case of slums but, through bombing and other reasons, the two boroughs had virtually to be rebuilt. Both Shoreditch and Finsbury are competent housing authorities as will be proved by reference to the official statistics. It can be seen that in relation to population Shoreditch has built more housing than any other metropolitan
42
borough; and the borough of Finsbury comes second. There was never any question of friction between those two housing authorities. They and the London County Council were building flats as fast as possible. The only question that ever arose was, "Can you do it more quickly?". No Member of your Lordships' House who has knowledge of areas of that kind can possibly vote against this Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, said there was nothing of Party politics in the Government policy on this subject. That may be true; but it is equally true that there is nothing of reality in the policy the Government put forward.
I would just ask the Committee to consider what happens when a compulsory purchase order is made; when the date is announced and a particular block of property is going to be pulled down on the given date. There are, of course, a great many families living in that property. As has been said, there will be more families than can be rehoused on the same site even though eleven-storey or fourteen-storey blocks are built; even though the density is increased above the normal limit, they cannot all be rehoused there. Some of these families will have lived in that property for many years. Others will have been there for only perhaps a few months before the actual date of the compulsory purchase order. But it is the duty of the local authority, whether it is the borough housing authority or the London County Council, to rehouse all the people who are in the property at the date of the compulsory purchase order.
As my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth indicated, this question of rehousing is one which arouses the strongest feelings I have ever experienced among people; and it was my lot not merely to have letters from them but, every Friday of every year, to see about 40 or 50 of them. I saw not only young people but people with growing families who lived in hopelessly overcrowded conditions. It was my duty to explain the rules and to impress on them that the rules were fair and that in due course—it might be a matter of years—when their turn came they would be fairly dealt with. When you come to a compulsory purchase order you deal with a variety of people, some who have been in the

43
property for a number of years and some who have been there only a few months. Therefore, inevitably, you get suspicions or rumours or feelings that the housing list has been abrogated—somebody is jumping the queue; somebody is being dealt with more quickly.
So far as the London County Council are concerned—and it would be the case with the Greater London Council—they have vastly more housing accommodation and, what is more important, a far greater variety of housing accommodation than is available to any single enlarged borough under this Bill. What used to happen—and it still does—was that the London County Council would be able to offer not a sub-standard flat but a pre-war flat, not one of the newest and best, to those people being rehoused out of slum clearance properties whose claims were less than others. That is not going to be possible with one of the Greater London boroughs; and one of the Amendments we are now considering, Amendment No. 128, asks the Government to agree that not only can the London boroughs and the Common Council of the City of London rehouse any person from another of the boroughs, but also the Greater London Council should be able to do that.
This seems to me to be absolutely essential, otherwise you are going to have countless unnecessary problems arising and a great deal of dissatisfaction and accusations of injustice because here we have this Greater London body with a vast amount and a very great variety of different types of property, and if they are joined with the others in being able to house people from another authority—and I am referring in particular to Amendment No. 128, which is one of those we are now considering—then obviously you are going to make the matter very much easier. It is not only a question of slum clearance. Even now, under existing conditions, it is possible in some London boroughs for you to write, for example, to a Lancashire borough to ask whether they will house somebody from this area. It may take years, but they will do it if somebody in a council house there wants to come here. But that is a thing which is exceptional and may take a very long time. That is the kind of thing which the noble Lord is suggesting can be done under the new Act. I agree it can be done,
44
but it is a long and difficult process, as I am well aware, having had to try to do it many times, whereas through the Greater London Council it can be done fairly simply because they have so many of these cases. Often when a young family has been persuaded to go out to an L.C.C. estate, it may be that, through a change of circumstances, necessitated by work or domestic changes, they may want to move back again. There are constant movements of this kind. And the Amendments which we want the Government to accept will not merely be better administratively and relieve misery; they will also make for greater mobility of people from one district to another and from one house to another. The Government are constantly reminding us how changes in employment mean that, if people want to continue to be employed, there must be greater willingness to move house. This is an example of how the Government can make it easier, instead of insisting that it should be as difficult as possible. Whichever way we look at this problem—from the point of view of administration, from the point of view of industrial mobility, or, above all, from the point of view of the people we ought to be thinking of, those who badly need rehousing—these Amendments should be accepted. If they are not, it will only show that on this matter the Government are completely divorced from reality.
LORD SHEPHERD: Before the noble Lord replies, I should like more information on the points he made. I do not want him to have a pained look on his face, because he made a very disappointing speech. First of all, the noble Lord said that, having taken away the overspill powers of the outer boroughs, they would object strongly if further powers were taken away from them, as proposed in the Amendment. Let me make it clear that the Amendments take no power away from anyone. The boroughs will retain the powers the Government have given them. All we seek to do is to give the Greater London Council concurrent powers. I hope the Minister will accept that as a fact and withdraw his suggestion that we are in any way proposing to reduce the powers of the outer boroughs.
The noble Lord also said he hoped that the boroughs would be able to stand on

45
their own with regard to slum clearance. Can he give any indication when that will be—in ten or fifteen years' time? He has only to go four or five miles from this Palace of Westminster to see slums as bad as he would find in Glasgow and Liverpool. He suggested that the boroughs would be able to help each other. Is there one of the inner boroughs which has a waiting list of less than ten years? Is there any major outer borough, like Croydon—I agree that some of the smaller ones are not so badly placed—with a waiting list of less than five years? How can these boroughs provide accommodation or space for other boroughs outside? The suggestion of the Minister hardly bears examination. Can the noble Lord also say what extra resources will become available to the three boroughs with slum properties to deal with their slum properties?
The noble Lord said that he wished to get away from two-tier government. Perhaps on paper the arrangement that exists between the L.C.C. and the metropolitan boroughs looks as if it were two-tier government; but both are prepared to work together and to face the problem as partners, as my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth, has described, with the bigger council taking more of the burden. This is what we should like to see with the new authority which is being created by the Government. There should be a partnership between the Greater London Council and the new boroughs which are being set up.
LORD WALSTON: With all respect to my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth, it seems to me that the strongest argument in favour of this Amendment came from the lips of the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, himself. If I understood him correctly, he said that the existing powers enjoyed by the L.C.C. under the Slum Clearance Act were to be retained for a period "to help over the hump of Slum clearance", but after that had been done, there was no need for them any longer. If we want efficient handling of housing, we must give power to the central authority. It is only when we do not have that overriding need any longer that we can revert once more to the less efficient, but from the point of view of local government more attractive, method of leaving the powers to the borough council. With that I will not argue. I
46
am inclined to agree with it. From the point of view of local democracy, the more power you can give to the local authority and the less interference there is by a higher authority, the better. I would certainly agree with the noble Lord that if we want efficient action, there must be a centralised, overriding authority to manage this infinitely complex problem, which cannot be dealt with on a local basis but which obviously transcends the semi-artificial and historic boundaries of local authority.
The argument really hinges on whether at the end of the five-year period we shall have solved the housing problem. Shall we be sufficiently over the hump that we can coast down on to the plan of a housing surplus, or shall we still have a housing shortage? I think that anyone who has listened to the arguments put forward and to the quotations from the late Minister of Housing, Dr. Charles Hill, will not doubt that, far from the housing problem being solved in five, or ten or twenty years, it will still be with us.
As I say, the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, has put forward the best argument in support of this Amendment. And if any noble Lords are in doubt about whether Party loyalty will constrain them to support the Government on this matter, I would point out that we again have the argument of the noble Lord that this is not a Party matter. This is purely a question of efficiency and what is the best method of achieving results. Therefore we have the argument that centralised authority is the best method of achieving results. I sincerely hope that noble Lords opposite and noble Lords on this side also, will not regard this as a Party matter, but will think of it purely from the point of view of experienced local administrators, business men and men of the world. I hope they will support this Amendment, which demonstrably is going to give a more efficient and more rapid solution of the housing problem, which, as has been so eloquently put by my noble friends, is not merely a matter of bricks and mortar but also a matter of the people who live in the houses.
LORD BURDEN: I should like to say a word or two in support of the Amendment moved on this side of the Committee. I suggest that this is not merely an

47
administrative problem. If it were, these Amendments would not have been stressed with the vigour which has been shown and by the number of speakers who have supported them. Behind these Amendments, what I call the administrative machinery, are great human problems. I suggest that the problem of housing for London is unique. Just consider the everyday position. A man may live in Poplar, but he may well work in Hammersmith. There is a clearance scheme for Poplar. If there was this Greater London authority, able to look at the problem as a whole, there would be more hope for the man in Poplar, his wife and family, who have been looking forward for years when the clearance scheme for Poplar comes into operation (or it could be any other place) obtaining accommodation somewhere nearer to his place of employment. But to confine the area of operation to the council that does the clearance and rebuilding is, so to speak, to freeze the population of one of these boroughs to the area in which they reside. Is that a good thing for social amenity or social contentment, when the hopes which a family has shared for many years are dashed by this piece of administrative machinery which the Government are introducing in this Bill?
The problem, so far as London and its housing is concerned, is, as I have said, unique. It cannot be compared to the problem in a place such as Leicester, because of the distances which men and women in London have to travel to their work. If in this Bill it is provided that the boroughs can enter into arrangements between themselves in regard to rehousing, what objection can there be to amicable working arrangements between the new boroughs and the Greater London Council in solving the problem? On behalf of the people of London who have been waiting for five, ten or fifteen years for accommodation, I would beg for something more than hiding behind the problem of administrative machinery. Loosen up; get the flexibility and provide for that mobility which is so necessary in this great city if there is to be the social peace and contentment which we all desire.
LORD HASTINGS: I have just one or two short points. I think the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, would like to
48
know that the waiting list for the L.C.C. is 53,000, which at the present rate would mean a building programme of fifteen years. But, as I said, the transitional powers are going to be continued in respect of that area.
LORD SHEPHERD: Has the noble Lord any figures for the boroughs?
LORD HASTINGS: No, I am afraid not. The noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, gave some figures and complained about the rate in Middlesex, but I understand that the latest figures show that they aim to clear their slums in the current five-year programme. We have all been talking about rehousing; that is what noble Lords opposite have emphasised. I would repeat that the problem is rehousing on slum clearance. The Greater London Council have all the powers of the L.C.C. for that purpose, and under subsection (6) they will gather information in a more complete, comprehensive and integrated fashion for the whole of Greater London than has ever been gathered before. They will have that degree of flexibility which the noble Lord, Lord Burden, wants to see in respect of rehousing. This is a rare problem, and full powers are taken under the Bill for the rehousing of the slum population.
LORD SILKIN: I have listened carefully to the two statements made by the noble Lord, and I must say that, except that this happens to be an Amendment which emanates from this side of the Committee, I can see no reason at all why it should be refused, or at least considered. After all, it is conceded that there is a slum problem and that it cannot be solved within a limited period. That is conceded, as my noble friend Lord Walston reminded us, by the fact that it is proposed to continue the functions of the London County Council for an indefinite period or until such time as the Minister directs that they shall end. That being the case, what is the argument against giving the Greater London Council concurrent powers? Obviously, if the Greater London Council and the boroughs work together they will be able to carry out the operation much more quickly than if the boroughs do it alone. It is not merely a question of rehousing—and I do not want to repeat all the arguments I have put forward. I

49
would concede that it is possible for the London boroughs to go to the Greater London Authority for housing to help them out of the pool that they possess. But it is the whole machinery of slum clearance that is involved. As I know only too well, there is a limit to what a borough and its officers can do in the way of carrying out the mechanics of slum clearance—the representations, the surveys, the inquiries that are necessary and so on. Surely, if the Greater London Authority is willing to help, they should be given the power to do so.
The noble Lord said that the boroughs would not need the Greater London Authority. But that argument is defeated by the very fact that there is already provision in the Bill to continue the powers of the L.C.C. Surely it would speed up things if the Greater London Authority also were given the powers. The noble Lord also said that it was not necessary that the Greater London Council should have the concurrent powers; that these were large authorities, with an average population of 200,000 or thereabouts. But he will bear in mind that, when you take these larger authorities, they have in each of them the accumulation of the slums of the previous authorities which are joined together.
For instance, if you take borough No. 2, it is, of course, a more powerful borough than the individual metropolitan boroughs, but it will contain the slums of Finsbury and Islington which will make its task very much bigger. The same applies to Borough No. 4, Hackney, Snoreditch and Stoke Newington. Of course, it is a much larger borough, with are infinitely greater number of slums. So you go right through the list, and you find that the problem has become bigger. Even a larger borough will have proportionately a much bigger problem. There is some argument as to whether this is a question of machinery or of administration. Is seems to me that the question is merely how the slums of Greater London can be more quickly disposed of. I should have thought that the case which has been put forward from this side is conclusive: that we have two authorities prepared to do the work, with the machinery of the two authorities involved, and that we should make use of that.
The final point made by the noble Lord was that it was undesirable that two
50
authorities should be doing the same kind of work. In theory, perhaps, yes; but my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth has already indicated how smoothly this dual control has operated in the past. I would suggest that if this Amendment does not quite meet the case, it might be possible for the Greater London Council at any rate to come to the help of the London boroughs and assist them in their work, not only by providing the pool of accommodation—which they can do already—but also by carrying out the machinery, where necessary, of designating slums and carrying out the work.
If, therefore, the noble Lord were prepared to look at this again and consider whether some alternative could be devised to utilise the assistance of the Greater London Authority in this work of slum clearance, somewhat in the way suggested by this series of Amendments, I should be prepared to have the matter reconsidered at a later stage. If the noble Lord is adamant about it, the only thing we can do is to divide.
LORD LATHAM: In the course of the consideration of this Bill the Minister has made many unconvincing statements. But surely the ones that he has made this afternoon are the most unconvincing, and every supplementary intervention by the Minister makes the situation more confused and worse. The Minister started off by saying that this was a matter of machinery. Suppose that be the case. What we are seeking is to get the most efficient machine to deal with this human problem—the most efficient and the most efficacious. I submit that we have made the case for having a Greater London Council with concurrent powers. The Minister said that this proposal, if extended to London, would need to be extended nationally. I thought the whole case for this Bill was that the local government of London was unique, and that it needed a Royal Commission, in the first place, and then special legislation of this sinister character. Yet the Minister seeks to justify this absurd proposal, this absurd piece of inadequate machinery, by saying that if it were conceded to London, it would have to be conceded nationally.
It is not the case that we are seeking to deprive the London boroughs of any

51
powers in housing. We are seeking concurrent powers. In short, we are seeking that what has proved to be successful in the past should be continued, as regards slum clearance and housing generally, in the future. We understand from the Minister that the powers at present possessed by the London County Council are to be temporarily, but only temporarily, granted to the Greater London Council. But, as I understand it, no duty is cast upon that Council to provide any housing accommodation. The temporary powers which it is proposed to give them will be applicable only to the London County Council area, only to the inner boroughs: they will not apply generally over the whole of the Greater London area. It is absurd, of course, to suggest that if our proposal were accepted it would result in there being a two-tier authority. That is just nonsense. There would be two authorities
Resolved in the negative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.46 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved, in subsection 4(6) to leave out "subsection (7)"
rities with concurrent powers, the cite helping the other, the two acting In partnership. It seems to me that this proposal is a proposal for a machine which will enable the problem of slum clearance to be dealt with in a satisfactory and rapid way, and I should like to join with my noble friend Lord Silkin in the hope that either the proposal may be accepted, or the Government may be willing to look at the matter again.
LORD HASTINGS: I am afraid that I can only tell the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that I will consider his remarks. In the meanwhile, I am afraid I cannot give him any undertakings or accept his Amendment.
4.40 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 125) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 37: Not-Contents, 59.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Henderson, L.

Shepherd, L.

Airedale, L.

Kennet, L.

Silkin, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Latham, L.

Sinha, L.

Amulree, L.

Lawson, L.

Somers, L.

Archibald, L.

Longford, E.

Stonham, L.

Attlee, E.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Summerskill, B.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Meston, L.

Walston, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Williams, L.

Champion, L.

Ogmore, L.

Williams of Barnburgh, L

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Rusholme, L.

Williamson, L.

Faringdon, L.

St. Davids, V.

Wilmot of Selmeston, L.

Greenhill, L.

Shackleton, L.

Wise, L.

Hanworth, V.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Mansfield, E.

Aldington, L.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Margesson, V.

Ampthill, L.

Furness, V.

Merrivale, L.

Atholl, D.

Goddard, L.

Mersey, V.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Milverton, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Grenfell, L.

Monsell, V.

Bossom, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Boston, L.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Newton, L.

Chesham, L.

Hastings, L.

Palmer, L.

Conesford, L.

Hawke, L.

Runciman of Doxsford, V.

Cottesloe, L.

Hereford, V.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Craven, E.

Howe, E.

Salter, L.

Denham, L.

Ironside, L.

Soulbury, V.

Derwent, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Spens, L.

Devonport, V.

Jessel, L.

Strathalmond, L.

Devonshire, D.

Lambert, V.

Swinton, E.

Dunleath, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Eccles, L.

Long, V.

Twining, L.

Ferrers, E.

Lothian, M.

Wigram, L.

Forster of Harraby, L.

Lyle of Westbourne, L.

and insert "subsections (7) and (10A)"
The noble Lord said: This is a paving Amendment with the later Amendment which I am going to move on behalf of the Government, No. 128A, so I should

53
imagine that noble Lords would like to know what is going to follow before accepting the paving Amendment. No. 128A accepts the substance of part of an Amendment which noble Lords opposite are moving on Schedule 8 (Amendment No. 152). The main difference is only one of presentation. We feel that it is more appropriate to insert the provision here in Clause 21 than in the Schedule. It refers to paragraph 10 of the noble Lords' Amendment, No. 152. It allows that the Greater London Council can come to arrangements with councils just outside the boundaries of Greater London in contra-distinction to arrangements under the Town Development Act, 1952. It will enable them to come to amicable and mutual arrangements with the authorities on the boundaries of Greater London in respect of helping over housing for the London boroughs and making contributions for doing so.
It will be of limited use because it will mean building in small areas, perhaps towns, which happen to be within the Green Belt, and, therefore, there will be no question of making a great use of it; but the powers are of some use now to the London County Council and it is intended that they should be continued. I hope, as it falls in with the noble Lords' Amendment, that they will be agreeable to it. At the moment, of course, I am moving paving Amendment No. 125Z. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
page 28, line 13, leave out ("subsection (7)"), and insert ("subsections (7) and (103)",—(Lord Hastings.)
LORD SILKIN: This does not go the whole way that we should like under the Amendment that we have later on which the noble Lord says is in the wrong place. When we come to it we may have a word to say on it. But, so far as it goes, we are prepared to accept this Amendment and we will have another look at it in due course.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.50 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved to add to subsection (5):
"and different days may be appointed under this subsection for different purposes."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment refers to subsection (5) of Clause 1,
54
which was referred to during the course of the long discussion we had on Amendment No. 125 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, when I said that the Greater London Council would have transitional powers which are now possessed by the London County Council. We are adding to the end of the subsection that those powers may be exercised in different ways and may be brought to an end on different days in respect of different purposes. That is clearly because not all the powers are going to be necessary as long as the others.
I do not know whether noble Lords wish me to give a further explanation in any detail, but one thing I could mention by way of illustration is this. We have had a long discussion of Part III; I need not mention that again. But the powers of Part V of the Housing Act, 1957, which are going to be given to the Greater London Council are to be subject to the system of consents when they build in other boroughs—that is, consent by the other boroughs. When the Greater London Council is able to build, it will be able to build inside London but only with the consent of the London boroughs. If there should be some disagreement, which I do not think would happen often, if at all, the Minister would decide. But this is in the interim; they would continue to have unfettered powers in the transitional period to build inside and outside London until such time as a system of consents has been worked out. When this time comes this Amendment will be brought into effect and the Minister will say, "Now your powers under Part V will be subject to consent".
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: This means that at that point the powers of the Greater London Council will be materially lessened as compared with those of the L.C.C., because the L.C.C. are now able to build without consent and can engage in compulsory purchase.
LORD HASTINGS: That is so, in theory. We felt it right to put this system of consents into the Bill. But there is, of course, the overriding power of the Minister, if there is any disagreement as to whether that particular area should be used by the borough council for its own needs or by the Greater London Council for the general needs of London.
LORD LATHAM: Is this temporary power to be exercisable over the whole of Greater London or only the inner area of London?
LORD HASTINGS: This will be in respect of the whole of Greater London. Therefore we are laying it down that the powers will lapse gradually, and the Minister is taking power to say that the Greater London Council shall give up certain powers for certain purposes on a particular day, and not all its powers. That is all this Amendment does. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 26, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Hastings.)
LORD LATHAM: Could we add "and a different policy"?
LORD SILKIN: If we accept the policy laid down in subsection (5)—which we have not; we have just voted against it—but accepting that policy, then I suppose the words that are intended to be added are not unreasonable. But if we let this go, it must be clearly understood that we are not thereby accepting what is contained in subsection (5): that the powers that are given to the Greater London Council are to be temporary and can be withdrawn by the Minister presumably at any time. I should like to come back to that. Although he may have different times in which he withdraws the powers, there is no provision here for consultation with the Greater London Council or with the London boroughs before he actually fixes the date. It may well be that both the London boroughs and the Greater London Council will be prepared that the arrangement, if it must be done on that basis, should continue; but there is no provision for consultation. While we cannot object to this Amendment, we do not think it goes far enough or is entirely satisfactory, and I hereby give notice to the noble Lord that he will be hearing more about it at a later stage.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: This is also a paving Amendment for an Amendment introducing a new subsection (10A). That is on page 29, line 25, and that is the Amendment I have just been talking
56
about, No. 128A. it is a paving Amendment for the same thing. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 3, after first ("and") insert ("without prejudice to subsection (10A) of this section").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: This Amendment fills a gap. The Housing Repairs and Rents Act, 1954, and Section 2 of the Housing Act, 1957, required all housing authorities to submit to the Minister for his approval their proposals for clearing unfit houses. Clause 21(8) as it stands requires the London boroughs made up of the metropolitan boroughs to have regard to the proposals submitted by those authorities jointly with the L.C.C. to the Minister, but leaves the outer London boroughs with no such obligation. This obligation is now by this Amendment laid on them. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 10, leave out from ("submitted") to ("but") in line 13 and insert ("before 1st April 1965 under the Housing Repairs and Rents Act 1954 or section 2 of the Housing Act 1957 by any existing council to whom section 3(1)(b) of this Act applies or jointly by the London county council and a metropolitan borough council").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: This is an Amendment to which I have already referred: it meets part of the Amendment of noble Lords opposite under Schedule 8 I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 25, at end insert—
("(10A) The Greater London Council and any of the following other councils, that is to say, the Common Council and any borough or urban or rural district council whose area lies outside but adjacent to or in the vicinity of Greater London, may enter into agreements for the provision by the Greater London Council of houses outside the London boroughs to meet the special needs of that other council, or for the provision by that other council of houses within their area to meet the needs of the Greater London Council, and for the payment in either case of such contributions as may be agreed by the council needing the houses to the council providing them.")—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 22 [Applications for, and facilities for exchange of, housing accommodation]
4.59 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved to omit all words after "maintain", in subsection (1), down to the end of subsection (3), and to substitute:
"in such form and manner as they think appropriate records showing the needs for the time being of Greater London with respect to housing accommodation.
(2) Any applicatior for housing accommodation maintained by a housing authority in Greater London—

(a) if the applicant is resident in a London borough, whether or not the accommodation is sought in that borough, shall be made to the council of that borough; or

(b) in any other case, shall be made to the Greater London Council who may, if they think fit, transmit the application to such of the London borough councils as they think appropriate,

and shall include information on such matters as the Greater London Council may require for the purposes of their functions under subsection (1) of this section.
(3) Each London borough council shall establish and maintain a register of all applications duly made to them under subsection (2)(a) or transmitted lo them under subsection (2)(b) of this section which are for the time being outstanding, and shall furnish to the Greater London Council such particulars in such form as the Greater London Council may require for the purposes of their functions under subsection (1) of this section—

(a) of any such application as aforesaid; and

(b) of the steps taken by the borough council to satisfy the needs of persons requiring housing accommodation maintained by that borough council.

(4) Subsections (2) and (3) of this section shall apply to the City as if it were a London borough and the Common Council were the council of that London borough."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment, which covers the first three subsections of Clause 22, has been put down as a result of an undertaking given in Standing Committee in another place by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that the Ministry would consult expert opinion with a view to reframing subsection (3). It had been said that the clause as previously drafted was too complicated and too rigid. The present Amendment is the result of discussions which have been held between the Department and representatives of the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee, the Association of Municipal Corporations, the
58
Urban District Councils Association and the London County Council. The representatives of all those bodies are agreed that this Amendment will provide the basis for satisfactory arrangements for the handling of applications.
The Greater London Council have a duty to see that the housing needs of Greater London as a whole are met, and the object of this clause is to enable them to derive the maximum information in the most convenient way from the applications for houses which are made to the London boroughs. The clause seeks to solve the problem of how to channel applications to the London boroughs so that, while there is no duplication, the essential information is extracted for the London boroughs and the Greater London Council about what sort of houses are wanted for what sized households, for what reasons, and in which part of London the houses are sought. It is, of course, a well-established principle that local authorities are solely responsible for the selection of tenants for the housing under their control, and it must be stressed that the clause does not touch the responsibility of the London boroughs, who will select their tenants and keep their own housing waiting list in whatever form they wish and based on whatever criterion they choose. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 32, leave out from ("maintain") to end of line 15 on page 30, and insert the said new words.—(Lord Hastings.)
LORD CHAMPION: This Amendment is certainly better than the clause as it now occurs in the Bill, but despite the powerful bodies that have been consulted on this matter, I must admit that I am still left in some little doubt as to what is to happen in one case. Paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of the Amendment says:
"if the applicant is resident in a London borough, whether or not the accommodation is sought in that borough, shall be made to the council of that borough;".
Therefore, if I live in Kensington and I want to submit an application for one of the outer London boroughs, I must submit it to Kensington. That is quite clear. Subsection (3) refers to the other case, and I should imagine that, living as I do in South Wales, if I wanted to come into London I would apply to the Greater London Council, which would

59
then transmit the application to the appropriate borough or boroughs. The only thing which worries me a little about this detailed instruction in this Amendment is what does a London borough do with an application for a house outside its own boundary? So far as I can see, no provision is made for the actual transmission of the application by that borough to the other borough where the applicant wishes to live. This may appear to be a trifling point, but it struck me, when I read through this Amendment, that we have set out the machinery for all the circumstances I can think of except for the transmission of the application in the case cited in subsection (2)(a).
LORD SHEPHERD: Before the noble Lord replies, could he help us on this point? All these authorities will have waiting lists and the names will be submitted to the Greater London Council. The question of priorities will arise, and the length of time that a name has been on the list. Will the Greater London Council be aware of the general position within the boroughs, including the length of waiting time, and can they take that into account, or will it rest entirely upon the Greater London Council, who may say "We have 500 houses and we intend to apportion them equally over all the boroughs"? Will there be some apportionment according to the need and the length of the waiting lists?
LORD HASTINGS: The idea of the scheme is to avoid duplication. To take Lord Champion's point first, if people were allowed to apply in more than one borough that is where duplication would come in; but the idea is that the Greater London Council should be the central exchange bureau, as we might describe it. The London boroughs will send all the names up to the Greater London Council, telling them at the same time their own situation, the numbers for whom they are going to provide in their own boroughs; but the Greater London Council will be able to sift through the whole register of people and then, if there are special applications to live in another borough, they will get into touch with that other borough, and the individual boroughs will not have to bother each other about it.
LORD CHAMPION: I can well see that the Greater London Council will be the clearing house for applications, and that is a sensible arrangement. I just wondered where, in this Amendment, the London boroughs are instructed to send the applications. The remainder is so detailed that this perhaps ought to be provided for.
LORD HASTINGS: The noble Lord did not ask another question, did he?
LORD CHAMPION: I did.
LORD HASTINGS: I was not quite clear about the question.
LORD CHAMPION: I merely wanted to know where the instruction is contained in this Amendment that the applicant within the borough shall forward it on to the Greater London Council.
LORD HASTINGS: The applicant does not forward it; the borough forwards it.
LORD CHAMPION: Under what instruction does the London borough then send on this application to the clearing house which is the Greater London Council? There are all sorts of other instructions about the transmission of this sort of thing, but, so far as I can see, there is no instruction for this to be done, although it may be hidden there somewhere.
LORD HASTINGS: I am afraid I cannot pick up that point immediately but I will try to let the noble Lord know in a moment.
In answer to a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, everybody who wishes to have a house will apply and the local boroughs will be obliged to register the application, irrespective of the length of residence. I understand that at the moment some people cannot even register if they have not been resident long enough to get on to the waiting lists. The point is that we should get the overall needs of housing throughout London, and therefore length of residence would have nothing to do with the application. It will obviously, however, have a great deal to do with allocation, in the London boroughs, and it is also one of the factors that will be taken into consideration when the matter gets to the Greater London Council. It will be

61
shown on the application forms, so that they will arrange their allocations in accordance with need.
LORD SHEPHERD: Then the Greater London Council will be the decisive factor as to how their pool of housing is distributed, from the information provided by the boroughs.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: What we shall get is all this coming and going, and to'ing and fro'ing, and duplicating, if not triplicating; and at the end of the year we shill find out how many unsatisfied applicants for houses there are. But under this scheme of the Government, whereby there is to be a divorce between the Greater London Council and the borough councils of the concurrent powers, whereby they will be smashing that up in a short time, we shall know how many people are without houses—everything will be lovely, except that we shall not have provided the houses. Is that not right?
LORD HASTINGS: No. I do not put it like that. Thee idea is to have a complete picture of the situation so that we may deal with it.
LORD SHEPHERD: But there is no duty on the Greater London Council to deal with it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 23 [Transfer of land held for housing purposes]:
LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM moved to leave out subsection (6). The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to correct a weird and wonderful thing done by the Government on Report stage in another place. An Amendment was there moved by the Government. The subsection referred to enables a charge to be made on inhabitants of inner London—I stress that: inner London only—in relation to assets which will be taken over by the Greater London Council and which may be used again for the benefit of the inhabitants of Greater London as a whole. The introduction of a charge on one section of the inhabitants in relation to a function administered on behalf of all sections should be resisted, and indeed we are resisting it. If the principle were to be applied on any equitable basis in relation to all functions of
62
the Greater London Council within the area of Greater London, if the principle implicit in the subsection were accepted, it would be logical to charge only the inhabitants of outer London with the cost of providing assistance to the severed counties. But there is no provision to that effect in Clause 68, and similar considerations apply in relation to parks and open spaces under Clause 58. We therefore consider that the Greater London area should be treated as one complete unit from its inception, and that charges should be levied on a uniform basis throughout the area.
The practical accounting difficulties which would be created would not appear to justify the introduction of the principle of making special financial arrangements for selective services. In short, apparently all are to share the benefits, and one section only is to meet the costs. Surely, that is a new conception of local government. Why should the inner area of the County of London be punished by bearing the whole cost of services enjoyed not only by the residents of the county of London but also by the residents of the outer areas, including the Greater London area? I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 39, leave out subsection (6).—(Lord Latham.)
LORD HASTINGS: This subsection provides that any deficit on the Greater London Council's housing revenue account shall be chargeable only on the inner London boroughs in the first year of the Council's life, and then shall be gradually spread over in the way laid down. This subsection was introduced on recommittal in another place as a result of an undertaking given by the Minister in Committee, and it met Amendments on roughly similar lines which were put down not only on the Government side, but also by Mr. Skeffington from the Opposition. It seems quite fair.
The object of the Amendment was to deal fairly, because, after all, the tenants of houses which will be inherited by the Greater London Council from the London County Council will largely come from the former metropolitan boroughs; that is to say, the new inner London boroughs. Therefore it was felt quite right to secure that any deficit on housing revenue account on the part of the Greater

63
London Council in the early years should at first fall more on the inner London boroughs, whose citizens were getting the benefit, and only gradually be transferred to the shoulders of the ratepayers of Greater London as a whole.
I do not know that noble Lords will consider that particularly unfair. If one looks at the transitional table over the seven-year period, which appears in subsection (6) on page 32 one will see that the proportions will taper from six to one, until they become one to six. The left-hand column refers to the special rate which shall be charged in respect of the houses taken over from the L.C.C. The figures in the right-hand column refer, not to a special rate to be levied only on the outer boroughs, but to the general rate which will be levied on both inner and outer boroughs. So at the end of the period, although it may not seem so from the subsection, the load is being spread evenly over all the ratepayers.
LORD SHEPHERD: If the Government say that at the end of the day the burden shall be spread, could the noble Lord say why that should not apply from the beginning? When one creates a new corporation one brings into it all the assets and liabilities, all the gains and all the losses. The Government's case, by the creation of this Greater London Council with this new area, is that this will be for the benefit of all sections, the outer boroughs as well as the inner boroughs; that all will gain by it. Therefore, in spite of the quotations given by the noble Lord opposite of the support which came from a rather peculiar set of circumstances, I cannot see why a burden which will arise from this Government Bill should be placed more unfairly on those in the inner boroughs than on those in the outer boroughs. If the Government believe that because of this Bill there are gains to be had for all, should not that burden be borne from the beginning by all sections?
LORD HASTINGS: I do not think we agree, because, after all, all these houses which are to be taken over from the L.C.C. by the G.L.C. are being used for the housing of people from the inner London boroughs—the old metropolitan boroughs. That will continue to be the case when they are taken over. It is
64
really only when the Greater London Council begin building new estates that the tenants of such estates will then be taken from the whole of Greater London. In the meantime, the London County Council have to make up the deficit on the special housing revenue account, and they do so by levying a rate on the metropolitan boroughs for that purpose. It therefore seems reasonable that the G.L.C. should take over the obligation. The G.L.C. will have to balance the deficit on the housing revenue account, and it seems reasonable that they should continue the practice followed by the L.C.C. So that until the situation begins to even out, and the new housing estate comes in and the G.L.C. can make more accommodation available for people outside the metropolitan boroughs, there should be a period when the levy should continue, as it does now, for the first year and then become less. It seems to be generally agreed that a period of between five and ten years is reasonable, and we have taken seven years as a fair compromise. All the boroughs will then have this levy for the housing account evenly distributed upon them.
LORD LATHAM: I described the action of the Government in this connection as being weird and wonderful. It really is, especially in view of the explanation given by the Minister. The Minister did not say whether the accommodation referred to is going to be exclusively available for and used by the inhabitants of the inner London area. It is the case, of course, that the London County Council have to make a contribution to the special housing account, a contribution which is related to the measure of subsidy which the London County Council receive. If the Minister says that the assets which are to be taken over, in respect of which a charge is to be made, are to be available for the use (as I understand to be the case) of all the inhabitants of the Greater London area, then it seems to me, whatever may be the arrangements as regards the special housing account, that they should all contribute to the cost. I really cannot understand why that is not the case. However, having regard to the statement made, that this Amendment was put down on the Report stage with the concurrence of the representatives of the Opposition,

65
I will see to it that the matter is looked into, and meantime beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Local planning authorities]:
5.22 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "subsection (4) of this section and to". The noble Viscount said: This is really a paving Amendment for the point of substance which appears in Amendment No. 134, but I think it would perhaps be convenient to the Committee if I were to try to discuss the two together. One of the strange things about this Bill, to me, with great respect to those who drafted it, seems to be the order in which various points of great importance occur. One of these is the part with which the Committee has already dealt—that is, the traffic and transport part—which I would have thought, logically, would have been better placed after the planning part, which the Committee is now discussing, so that it can be seen that traffic is to be fitted into the planning and not vice versa. But, be that as it may, that stage has now passed.
However, here there seems to be a very strange example of the same thing. There are two stages in town and country planning. First of all, there is the matter of preparing a development plan and having this approved by the Minister. Then, the second stage comes when an application is before the local planning authority. They have to decide how to deal with it, land the first thing that they are required by law to look at is the development plan—and, it is true, any other material circumstances. In this Bill we have development control before development plan, and from this, I think, arises a very great deal of confusion about the two-tier planning that is to take place, under this Bill, in London.
The Committee will remember—if I start where I think the beginning should be, with the development plan—that the Greater London Council first of all make their strategic plan and submit it to the Minister, and thereafter the various London boroughs make their local and more detailed development plans which have to fit in with the Greater London
66
plan. They then go up to the Greater London Council for their consideration, and finally they have to go to the Minister as well, and are approved or not by him. In any case, at that stage the complete map of London is set out in full, with the two authorities having worked together to produce the thing which they think is best.
The difficulty about subsection (4) of Clause 24, if I understand it rightly, is that the Minister is taking powers to take completely away from the jurisdiction of the boroughs certain areas (which, of course, we do not at this moment know, but which will be laid down in the Regulations) for the purposes of planning control—that is, after the development plan has been approved—and is giving them instead to the Greater London Council. I am not for one moment objecting because this Bill has a two-tier system. I think that is right. Nor am I in the least objecting that the two-tier system is going to work under this Bill in exactly the same way as delegated planning control works in any number of planning authorities in England and Wales to-day.
Of course, there must be cases—and they are dealt with in outline under subsection (6) of this clause—where a specific application should be called in, and in my Second Reading speech I think I mentioned on this point some of the things which I should be very glad to see called in—high buildings, for instance; perhaps buildings of importance surrounding the Royal parks; certainly cases where the development plan is to be departed from. But in subsection (4) the Bill goes much further than this, in taking out complete areas. My noble friend Lord Conesford has more radical views still on this particular point, which I am sure he will explain to the Committee later; but, at any rate, even as it stands now, the Minister could perfectly well, if he so thought fit, take out of the jurisdiction of the boroughs the whole of Central London. He could take out any part of it, big or small, and it would simply be a matter to be dealt with by regulation.
What follows from this? Suppose he were to use this power extensively. In another place a new clause was put into this Bill, which is now numbered 72, which required as a matter of law that

67
the London boroughs should all appoint borough architects, one of the most important of whose functions will be to deal with the day-to-day planning applications which come in to them from the people who want to develop sites in their area. If you have a large and important borough like the one which will include Westminster or parts of Marylebone, or, indeed Holborn and Finsbury, or the City of London, all of whom will have these statutory architects, and if some or all of the area which these men are dealing with is taken away from their control and given to the Greater London Council, surely they will have nothing left with which to deal at all. It will be a complete waste of time appointing them, and it will be a complete waste of their salary, too.
The other side of the picture is this. If you have large areas, or even comparatively large areas, which are going to be dealt with not by the borough council, as is the general case under this Bill, but by the Greater London Council, that Council would have to do as the London County Council does to-day and employ a large staff of officers who will have to deal with the small details of all the applications which come in as to these excepted areas. They will have to say what sort of shop front there should be, what the elevation should look like, what the materials should be and all the other small and detailed things—important, it is true, but small and detailed things; and this is really quite inconsistent with the Greater London Council's position as the strategic planning authority, which is what it is under this Bill.
That seems to me to be the situation if you take it as far as it might be taken under subsection (4), and that is why I am very concerned. I should very much like to know what Members of the Committee think and what my noble friend Lord Jellicoe is going to say. It seems to me that the real answer to this problem is this. If you put things in the right order, the Greater London Council are going to make out a strategic development plan. Surely it will be within their duties when they are doing that to take account of the really important sites in London: perhaps Piccadilly Circus or the Bank, places which are
68
of national importance, which everybody minds very much about, and about how they are developed.
Part of that development plan which the Greater London Council will prepare will be the statutory written statement. I do not believe it is in the least beyond the power of the people who write the written statement for development planning, to put down in black and white in that statement the important matters they wish to have dealt with in those vital national sites. If that is done, the details ought to be able to be left to these well-paid, competent and most authoritative borough architects; but if anything comes up that offends against the principles in the planning and written statement prepared by the Greater London Council, that automatically will be a departure from the written statement and development plan and that will be one of those things I would envisage being called in in any case under subsection (6) of the clause.
Therefore, if these things were put in the right order I cannot see why there is any necessity for subsection (4) at all. I do not believe it will bring anything of substance to the power the Minister has already taken under subsection (6), and will tend to inflate the Greater London Council and to lead them to do things which they ought not, and do not need, to do. I therefore hope the Committee will think that this subsection is really quite otiose and ought to be struck out. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 29, leave out the said words.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
EARL JELLICOE: We have now embarked so far as this Bill is concerned on the ocean of planning, and I am afraid your Lordships may discover, so far as this question is concerned, that you have gone to sea in a sieve. I must candidly confess that this is a sphere which I find difficult and esoteric—unlike the rest of the Bill which is simple and straightforward. Given the difficulty of this matter, I am only too conscious that a lot of the running is likely to be made by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, or by experts of his calibre. I am also only too acutely conscious that there are two daggers, friendly but sharp, poised behind me in the persons of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville

69
of Culross, and the noble Lord, Lord Conesford. I must confess that I, personally, approach this part of the Bill with considerable caution and will keep my head down low into my brief. That said by way of explanation and mitigation, I shall now plunge in medias res.
Subsection (4) makes it clear that, apart from any delegation to the boroughs or the City under subsection (5), the Greater London Council will deal with applications for planning permission for such classes of development in such areas in Greater London as may be laid down by regulations. Your Lordships are doubtless clear that, broadly speaking, in providing for this we have followed the recommendations of the Royal Commission. The Royal Commission looked into this aspect of London planning very carefully and thought that there would be types of development or particular areas of London where the wider views of the Greater London Council should be brought to bear. They mentioned matters which my noble friend has mentioned—high buildings impingeing on a familiar sky-line, historical areas lying in the heart of London, large buildings which may, though not necessarily in the heart of London, throw up particular employment or traffic problems, and the impact of traffic matters generally in relation to planning.
I submit that there is at least a prima facie case for looking at certain classes of development in certain areas of London with an especially careful and attentive eye. I would have thought that there was also at least a prima facie case for considering such types of development, especially in central areas, in a context wider than that of the borough. An application to build a tall hotel or a tall office block in the heart of London can be regarded, I think, not only as a local affair and a borough affair but as a matter of national and regional and, indeed, of international importance; or so I would judge having listened for some eighteen months with attention to what the noble Lord, Lord Bossom, has said on this subject. That is the basic justification not only for this subsection (4), which my noble friend would like to strike out, but also for subsection (6).
Having said that by way of introduction, I should like now to turn to some of the arguments which he has
70
advanced for striking out this subsection of Clause 24. I think the first thing he said was to suggest that we have drafted this Bill in an odd way in that we have put the cart of planning control in front of the horse of development planning. I would grant that he has a precedent here for his argument in the Town and Country Planning legislation where the development plan comes before development control. But I think that is primarily a matter of form and I would, in any event, like to draw my noble friend's attention to subsection (2) of this clause which puts the Greater London Council into the Bill as the overall strategic planner (to use his own phraseology), and does it right at the start of the planning section, and does it in such a way as to cover both development planning and development control. So I suggest that, at least to that extent, my noble friend's argument falls.
My noble friend has also argued that this subsection is unnecessary in view of the fact that the Greater London Council will be able to strike out of a particular development plan those bits which they may judge incompatible with the Greater London Development plan, because of the power which is embodied further down in this clause in subsection (6). I think, and I will be arguing this as we go along with Clause 24, that subsection (6) is a desirable provision and a desirable reinforcement, but I do not think that it can or should be held to take the place of subsection (4). Under subsection (6) the Minister can prescribe types of development on which a borough council must consult the Greater London Council before giving their decision, and it is true that by such means the Greater London Council would certainly be brought in on the sort of matters likely to be covered by the regulations which will be made under Clause 24(4). But under subsection (6) machinery they would be brought in only after the borough council has spent time considering the application. I suggest that may well be undesirable with development which is of real regional or national significance as certain development in the heart of London may be.
The Greater London Council will undoubtedly consult the borough council before they take such a decision under the subsection (4) machinery in such matters. I would argue that there is no good reason to keep applications at borough

71
council level while that council is making up its mind. I would suggest there is all the difference in the world between the Greater London Council handling an application ab initio and handling it, as it were, on the bounce from a borough.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I very much dislike interrupting but I do wish to follow the argument. The words of subsection (6) are that these particular applications have to be referred either to the Greater London Council or to the Minister before they are dealt with by the local planning authority. It seems to me, although I am not sure I am following the argument, that under that subsection they go first of all to the higher authority before they are dealt with. That would be the speedier way.
EARL JELLICOE: I do not think that that is so. They will go through the Greater London Council, but the inferior body (though this is a phraseology I would not myself use), the body dealing with the narrower range of problems, the borough, may well have to put a great deal of work in on this matter in the initial stages, in informal working dealings with the potential developer and his architects. An example is the Knightsbridge Green proposal, where for a long period of time there have been informal L.C.C. initiatives at working level. It is that type of thing I have in mind.
I feel that with more significant types of development, especially at the heart of London, there is a great deal to be said for our adopting a machinery which enables the Greater London Council to be brought into this whole operation right at the start, before the borough council may have crawled over an application with the potential developer and his architects. In this sort of case there is a lot to be said for getting this type of application straight to the Greater London Council before the positions that have been adopted become too rigid, before the development has "jelled".
My noble friend has also suggested that if we keep subsection (4) we shall be excluding boroughs, or certainly those which may be in the area covered by subsection (4) regulations, from a lot of important work. He fears that thereby we may diminish the keenness and quality of the work for their planning and architectural departments. He referred
72
to the provision which has now been made in the Bill for borough architects. I would suggest to my noble friend that he might bear two points in mind here. The first is that no one is more anxious than my right honourable friend that the new boroughs should be able to make a really worthy architectural contribution to the London of the future and he will have that very much in mind when drawing up his regulations, in consultation with the boroughs and the Greater London Council.
I would also ask my noble friend to recall how much development and building is going on at the present time, not least at the heart of London, and to remember how intensive that building is in value and how much demand it makes on the time of qualified architects and planners; and, in the light of these considerations, that there is bound to be plenty of work for borough architectural and planning teams in central London areas as well as for the Greater London Council's architectural and planning team, even if we retain subsection (4), as I hope we shall. Perhaps I could add, by way of conclusion—and I apologise for speaking at some length to this Amendment, but we are here embarking on planning—that I should have liked to be able to say rather more about the type of regulations which my right honourable friend has in mind.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
EARL JELLICOE: As I hear from the support which I have received on that point, that would have met some of my noble friends' wishes, but I am afraid that at this stage, at least, there is little I can add to what has already been said about this subject in another place. It is obvious that my right honourable friend has taken, and will take, careful note of the Royal Commission's views here. He has already taken steps to consult a wide variety of professional and local authority associations, including the L.C.C., on the possible content of any regulations to be made under this subsection. He has had, not surprisingly, a rather varied response. Some would wish him to go in the direction which my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross is pressing. Some would wish him to go along the lines which my noble friend Lord Conesford is pressing. But I think that at this stage he is bound to wait for the appointment

73
of the new authorities under the Bill, so that they can be properly consulted when they are elected. But what is clear is that the machinery laid down in Clause 24 is both wide enough and flexible enough to cover all the suggestions which have been made and which I think are likely to be made to him.
Most critics of the Bill have felt that we are giving the Greater London Council insufficient say in development proposals, especially at the heart of London, and I suspect that we may hear that view expressed forcibly and cogently in a moment or two by my noble friend Lord Conesford. Personally I believe that we have held the balance here about right and that the flexibility which we have written into Clause 24 is desirable. But the exclusion of subsection (4) will radically upset the balance, and I cannot ask your Lordships, in spite of my noble friend's advocacy, to accept his Amendment. I hope that, until he has had time to consider this matter further, he will not wish, at least at this stage, to press it.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My I ask whether the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, is going to speak on this Amendment—because his Amendment is really a direct negative? if we are ready to dispose of this Amendment before Lord Conesford's speech, presumably speeches of a more general nature should follow Lord Conesford's Amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: It is not possible for more than one Amendment to be called at the same time, but it is possible for several noble Lords to speak on that one Amendment and include arguments which relate to a subsequent Amendment. It is possible to debate two Amendments together.
LORD CONESFORD: I have considered this, of course, but, as at present advised, I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee that we should keep the two Amendments quite separate. I think that any other suggestion would be introducing great confusion. I am sorry, because I appreciate some of the points my noble friend has in mind.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Jellicoe and certainly should like to read carefully what he has said. I hope,
74
though, that he will not mind my chiding him mildly on what he said by way of reply to my Amendment. First of all, he ignored the major argument I put forward and followed it up by putting two bad points. I did not in any way retract from the recommendations of the Royal Commission in saying that there should be special things dealt with by the Greater London Council, and I went out of my way to say I agreed with that. This is exactly the sort of case of which I was thinking. So, when I was speaking about a development plan and the control that could be gained from that, I was thinking exactly of what Sir Edwin Herbert said in his Report.
My noble friend will remember that what I was putting to him was that arrangements for special control can be dealt with in the development plan and in the written memorandum before it even comes to the question of an individual application in one of the areas of which he is thinking. I hope he will seriously think about that, because it did not seem to me that he was meeting at all the point I was making.
May I ask him to think about two other points? The first is the question of procedure. My noble friend said that the words "before they were dealt with by the local planning authority", in subsection (6), mean that obviously there will have been lengthy and detailed examinations of an individual proposal by the borough council and the would-be developer. Is this really likely to be the case? One of the matters which would certainly be dealt with under subsection (6), I am told, would be departures from the approved development plan. Is it really likely that a developer and a borough council will spend a lot of time in collaborating on something which they know very well is in complete contravention of what the Minister has already said, and on which they know will have I to go to the Greater London Council for their views, and perhaps also to the Minister? Surely it is more likely, in those circumstances—and so, too, in the case of high buildings and other controversial matters of that kind—that the Greater London Council will be brought in, as my noble friend wanted, at the earliest possible stage. I hope that my noble friend will hear that in mind, because it seems to me that the point he put is most unrealistic.

75
The second thing that seemed to me to be questionable was when he went on to tell your Lordships that it would be all right for the borough architects, because in these central areas a great deal of building is going on, and it is of such importance and value that a lot of time and trouble has to be spent on it. Of course it is—provided it is not in one of the special areas. If these special areas comprehend so much of central London that the borough architect in Westminster, or the City, or Holborn and Finsbury, has all the important places taken away from him, he will be in exactly the position that I was describing. I think it is a pity that my noble friend cannot say more about the areas that his right honourable friend has in mind to put into these regulations. I hope that he will be prepared to consider those points again, because I think they have some force. However, I will fall in with what he has suggested by reading his speech, and for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.53 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD LORD CONESFORD: moved, in subsection (3), to leave out all words after "respects" down to and including "Common Council" and to substitute:
"the area of any London borough outside the Central London Area hereinafter defined shall be the council of the borough, and as respects the Central London Area shall be the Greater London Council".
The noble Lord said: In the discussion of the central area we now come to one of the principal planning points, of which I spoke in the debate on Second Reading and, indeed, in the debate on March 14 of last year. I think it will be for the convenience of the Committee if we take Amendments No. 132A and 133A together.
The subject of planning, as my noble friend Lord Jellicoe has said, is one of extreme difficulty and complexity, but I shall try to keep my submissions as simple and as straightforward as I can. My major proposition is this: it is absolutely essential that a single development plan should be prepared for the whole of the central area. On this I strongly agree with the Royal Institute of British Architects. In mentioning the R.I.B.A., I would remind the Committee that I am
76
not speaking of hostile critics of the whole idea of this Bill. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, in moving the Second Reading, called attention to the approval given by the R.I.B.A. to a great deal of the reforms embodied in this measure. But the Institute's criticisms of the planning powers are the criticisms of technicians, speaking with an expert knowledge of the subject. If laymen were seeking to build a ship, they would take some notice of the advice of engineers and naval architects. If we are laying down the planning machinery for one of the greatest cities in the world, we should surely take some notice of the advice of the greatest experts.
When I read the planning provisions of this measure I am bound to say that I found them extremely complicated and difficult to construe. Giving them the best attention I could, I came to the conclusion that, on the whole, they were not workable. But I hope that I should have had sufficient modesty not to press those views, had I not found them to be shared by the greatest experts in the country. I am going to quote two short statements from these experts. The first is from Mr. Lionel Brett, who is Chairman of the Town Planning Committee of the R.I.B.A., and who gave the views of that body at the meeting with my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government on January 10 of this year. I might say to any noble Lord interested in this subject that this particular issue of the R.I.B.A. Journal contains the best series of statements in a single volume to be obtained on this whole problem. I will quote the second of the criticisms that Mr. Lionel Brett made. He said:
"Second, the Bill appears to make no effective provision for the planning of central London as a whole. We do not, of course, know what regulations the Minister intends to make, and the Bill would enable him to make an order defining an area of central London within which certain classes of application would be dealt with by the Greater London Council. We would like to know what the Minister intends to do, and we would like to see his intentions written into the Bill and not left to ministerial order. But, even assuming he makes such an order, the most extraordinary confusion will remain. Central London, as it is now handled by the L.C.C., will be divided between five boroughs and the City of London, each of which will be required by the Bill to prepare a separate development plan. This, we think, is grotesque, and the Bill as drafted only makes sense if

77
the Government does not intend to permit the G.L.C. to plan central London. In our view there must be not six separate development plans for the six central boroughs, but one comprehensive development plan for central London, to be prepared by the Greater London Council in consultation with the boroughs. Public building within this central area should be done, as it is now, concurrently by the G.L.C. and the local borough council."
That is my first quotation. I believe in the doctrine there enunciated completely, and I commend it to the Committee.
The other is a more recent statement, also made in the presence of the Minister. It was made, in fact, at a supper discussion of the Architecture Club, of which I have the honour to be the President, by the President of the R.I.B.A., Professor Sir Robert Matthew. This is what he said:
"This leads to my second point concerning central London. The Government have invited the R.I.B.A. and other bodies to suggest the kinds of town-planning applications that should be dealt with by the Greater London Council. The regulations which may be made would ensure that certain kinds of applications—such, for example, as those likely to create large numbers of jobs, or those for very high buildings—are not dealt with locally in a way that could make nonsense of the Greater London Development Plan. But it is hard to believe that regulations of this kind could effectively solve the whole problem of central London. It is in the centre that London has its unique quality as capital city, focal point both of country and of Commonwealth. It is in the centre, within the area touched by all the main railway terminals that the greatest national developments take place. It is an area where all the problems of the metropolis are tied together in a single knot, where borough boundaries have no physical significance at all and a single comprehensive plan is needed. To require each of the central boroughs (and the City of London) to prepare separate development plans is surely wrong, particularly if by regulation the Minister is going to refer the major applications to the Greater London Council. We did suggest at one time that them should be a central London borough, and many still argue for this, but if it is not desirable, then we can see no alternative to giving the planning of central London to the Greater London Council, as the only local authority that can plan the centre in the interests of the metropolis as a whole."
Those are two quotations from men of the very highest authority in the country. They are supported by Sir William Holford, perhaps one of the greatest town planners now living. I beg the Committee and the Government not to disregard advice of such disinterested force.
Let us remember that we are dealing here with one of the greatest urban concentrations in the world, with an intensity of use unequalled anywhere outside Manhattan. We are laying down a machinery utterly unlike any machinery that has ever been tried or succeeded anywhere else. The central area of a great city must be planned as a whole. I could invite the attention of the Committee to great examples of town planning in the past, and to important examples of town planning now taking place. If your Lordships want a great example of town planning in the past, there is the replanning of Rome by Pope Sixtus V from 1585 to 1590. As a result of his work, the plan of the centre of Rome still, broadly, stands. It is absolutely essential that the plan for the centre of a great city must be conceived architecturally in three dimensions from the start.
I come from the historic case of Rome to a very relevant case at the present time, and that is what has been taking place in the last few years in the City of Philadelphia, a very good example of the successful improvement of a great city at the present time to meet modern needs, not least the needs of traffic. One body must take the initiative, as in other capital cities. That is being done both in Washington and in Canberra. In making its development plan a London borough, however able and however disinterested, can deal only with one artificial fragment of the centre. I have read and studied all the statements that I have been able to find of Her Majesty's Ministers on this subject. A series of Amendments, with the same general abject as those I have in mind, was moved in Committee of another place by my honourable friend Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth. The whole discussion occupied only a page or two. The Minister made a very sympathetic reply, saying he was considering all those matters about the regulations—which he is still considering—and the Amendments were withdrawn.
The only other discussion of any length was certain criticisms that I and my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross offered on Second Reading, and the very useful reply made by my noble friend Lord Hastings at the beginning of the debate on the following day. That is

79
the best and most complete statement of the whole policy of the Government on this matter that has yet been made. I have carefully studied it. He dealt with the work that would be done in planning, both by the Greater London Council and by the London boroughs.
Use has frequently been made in these discussions of the term "strategic planning" in describing the proper sphere of planning by the Greater London Council. When people use the word "strategic", I am never too confident that I know what they are talking about. But in order to make it quite clear what I am talking about, I want to substitute for "strategic planning", "three-dimensional planning". Having read the speech of my noble friend Lord Hastings, I came to the conclusion that, whatever else the Greater London Council were expected to do, they were not to indulge in any three-dimensional planning. They were to suggest the roads and communications and certain things, but three-dimensional planning was to be left to the boroughs, if I understood it correctly. On the 19th of next month it will be exactly 21 years since, as Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Planning, I gave an address to the Town Planning Institute on three-dimensional planning. I confess that if I had then prophesied to the Town Planning Institute that 21 years after the date on which I was speaking a measure would be introduced in Parliament laying down that there should be no authority at all who would consider the three-dimensional planning of central London as a whole, I should have been thought to be talking the wildest nonsense. And it is nonsense; because if this plan that the Greater London Council are to prepare is to deal with three-dimensional planning, then there will be a tremendous duplication. But if it is not to deal with three-dimensional planning, then the plan it produces will certainly not be good enough.
I beg noble Lords to make themselves familiar with what has been done in Philadelphia and elsewhere in the planning of the centre of great cities. Let me give one example where, even for communications, it is necessary that the Greater London Council should think in three dimensions. All the leading
80
authorities on traffic in the great cities know the importance for the centre of the segregation of traffic on different levels. There are cities which are being reconstructed in England where our town planners are bearing this in mind. It is absolutely essential, if we are to have a worthy reconstruction and planning of our capital, that the centre of London should be considered as a whole.
The Bill and the Amendments to this clause tabled by my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross and myself give three different solutions—if indeed they are solutions; or three different plans. There is the plan of the Government embodied in the clause as it stands; there is the plan of my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross to leave out subsection (4) and there is my own plan for creating a central London area. These plans have one thing, and one thing only, in common: every one of them differs from the recommendations of the Royal Commission. Let me first come to the difference, the admitted difference, between the Government's plan and the recommendation of the Royal Commission. My noble friend Lord Hastings made this quite clear in his speech on the occasion to which I have referred. The Greater London Council are to be the local authority for preparing a development plan, but that is not to include, as I have said, any of the details because there are to be a series of separate plans by the boroughs and the city. This is not at all what the Royal Commission recommended. If I might quote the paragraph from the speech of my noble friend Lord Hastings [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 248 (No. 72), col. 1216]: he said that the Greater London Council would be
"a body with very wide and real powers. But, at the same time, the borough councils and the Common Council, nearer the ground, will be responsible for the detailed planning of their areas."
And I should like noble Lords to mark these next words:
"In this respect the Bill differs from the Report of the Royal Commission, who recommended that the Greater London Council should be responsible for all development plan work."
The noble Lord then went on to give the Government defence that
"…clearly it is an advantage to spread detailed work of this kind in order to get it done in a reasonable time."

81
Some of the best planners do not think that the scheme of the Government will lead to any acceleration in producing the necessary plan, but if it did, the acceleration would be bought too expensively if the price were that the centre of London was not to have a development plan prepared by a body planning it as a whole. That is where the Government differ from the advice of the Royal Commission.
Now we come to my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross; and remembering how he and I saw eye to eye on all the traffic provisions, I regret that we do not see eye to eye on this clause. But the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross would take out of the Bill the only alternative method to defining a central area which the Royal Commission suggested for securing special treatment of the central area. For that reason I could not support it, though I appreciate his point, that you might get most, but not all, of the express terms of the recommendation by directions under subsection (6).
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: By putting it into the written statement of the development plan.
Lord CONESFORD: Nevertheless, the noble Viscount differs from the recommendation of the Royal Commission because the Royal Commission clearly recognise that there are special problems of the central area. Their Report states objections to defining it, as I attempt to define it, but it does say that areas should be defined by the Minister. Therefore the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross conflicts with the recommendation of the Royal Commission. And so, I must frankly admit, does mine: because I define the central area. And I may say that there is no magic in the definition; I have used for my definition a description of what is the existing central area in the practice of the L.C.C. in dealing with their area, or what they treat as a central area; and though my definition might be improved on, it gives an idea to the Committee of what I have in mind.
I differ also from the Royal Commission because I would define a central area and say in the Bill what is to happen to it. But I think I differ from the recommendations of the Royal Commission less than either the Government or my noble
82
friend Lord Colville of Culross, because what I enthusiastically support is that we must have a single development plan for central London prepared by a single body. On that point the Commission agree with me. For that reason I say that my proposal is at any rate nearer to that of the Royal Commission than either of the others which are before the Committee. That is the point of principle I have endeavoured to make clear, and I think that is the point of principle which it is the duty of this Committee to decide. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 32, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 33 and insert ("the area of any London borough outside the Central London Area hereinafter defined shall be the council of the borough, and as respects the Central London Area shall be the Greater London Council").—(Lord Conesford.)
6.17 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: I should like to support the noble Lord in his Amendment. I think he has used every possible argument that could be brought forward, and I am not going to repeat anything he said. He said it in a most eloquent manner which I could not match. But in my judgment it is desirable that there should be one authority dealing roughly with the part of London that is set out in the Amendment No. 133A. It is an area which has been recommended by the R.I.B.A., and it contains most of the important buildings and thoroughfares of London, which ought to be looked at and developed as a whole and which other-wise would be in danger of being redeveloped piecemeal.
The noble Lord said that there was no magic about the particular area which he set out, and I agree with him although in certain respects I think it could be changed to advantage—for instance, some of the railways stations are not included. But I think that is a matter of detail, and if the Government were prepared to accept the principle of the Amendment then I think we could get together and discuss how wide should be the area to be dealt with The real case for the Amendment is that we are desirous that this area, which is one of the most important in the world, containing some of our priceless buildings and historic areas, should be considered not piecemeal but as a whole. I know the Bill provides that, broadly, the Greater London Council

83
should prepare a development plan for the whole of London, which would include this area, and that the details should be filled in by the local authority. But it is exactly in the detail that the problem arises.
What one fears is that the London boroughs concerned may interpret the filling-in process, the detail, an completely different ways; and although it is possible to co-ordinate, for the Greater London Council would have a voice in it, that is a most unsatisfactory way of dealing with it and it would be much better that the whole of this area should be dealt with by one authority; that all applications for development should come to it and it should consider, as in the case of Piccadilly, whether this is an area which should be redeveloped over a larger field or whether any particular proposal for development should be refused because it might conflict with something that is proposed to be done at a later stage. You have a number of pieces of development which would be on the boundaries of various of the new London boroughs and difficulties would arise there, and generally I feel that in view of the great historic importance of the area which is delineated it should be dealt with as a whole by one authority, both in the making of the plan and in the implementation of it. The noble Lord has dealt with the matter so thoroughly and adequately that there is very little I wish to add to what he has said, but we strongly support the Amendment in principle.
6.22 p.m.
LORD SALTER: I rise to support this Amendment. I am extremely glad that both my noble friend Lord Conesford and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, made it clear that in supporting this Amendment we are not binding ourselves to the precise detail of the definition of the central area which is included in the second Amendment. That was the only posible doubt I had as regards my noble friend's proposal. I think it is beyond question of great advantage that an authority as wide as that of the G.L.C. should have, with regard to this particular central area, a more concentrated responsibility than it has with regard to the whole of London. This is an area of such tremendous
84
importance to the city and all who visit it.
The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, referred to the case of Rome and a number of other principal cities of the world. I should like to add one more. I happen to have paid a visit a fortnight ago to Paris, and there I revived the impressions and reflections I had made on many previous visits, and, indeed, during some years of residence. With the question of town planning in my mind, both because of this Bill and also because until a few days ago I had been President of the Town and Country Planning Association for some years, I came back with one reflection more deeply in my mind than any other. That is, the inestimable advantage it has been to those who live in Paris and those who visit Paris that there should have been an effective general authority which could control building in the whole of that great and beautiful central area of Paris. No one can build a house of a height which is not in conformity with the general level of the houses in that region; so that the kind of beauty, added to other forms of beauty which can be preserved only by height uniformity, has been effectively preserved.
We cannot go quite so far in that respect as Paris has been able to with such an authority for a very considerable time, but undoubtedly a special responsibility for the Greater London Council will go much further than any other arrangement to give us the kind of advantage which you see in this supreme form in a capital like Paris. A good deal of the argument has been put not only by my noble friend Lord Conesford and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, but also by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, in opposing the Amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross. There is, of course, one difference between his argument and the argument of my noble friend Lord Conesford, that is that he relies upon the powers of subsection (4) of Clause 24. I do not myself think that in a matter of this essential importance it is enough for us to rely upon the Minister of the time. We do not know who he may be or what may be his views at the time when the important decision has to be made. I think we ought to have the extra source of reliability which the embodiment in the Bill my noble

85
friend's Amendment would secure; with it we could be confident that there will be an adequate and efficient consideration of the plan as a whole of the vital central area of this great metropolis.
VISCOUNT GAGE: As an amateur town planner in the Provinces, I feel considerable diffidence in discussing the affairs of another authority, but in a sense we are all interested in the central part of London, and as Members of this House have been asked to express our views on various Amendments. We have dealt with Lord Colville of Culross's suggestion that there should be no central area, and we are now dealing with Lord Cones-ford's idea of a large, defined central area. Then we have the Government's suggestion, which really seems to amount to giving the Minister wide powers to do what he thinks best, on which we should be much more able to judge if we knew what he did think best.
With this choice before us I must confess I tend to be guided, perhaps wrongly, by my own experiences, which are now rather lengthy, in two-tier planning, and I think I can summarise this by saying that in my experience two-tier planning works, but it works only if there is considerable co-operation between the two tiers. You can make all sorts of conditions about delegation, and leave boroughs or other authorities much power or little rower, but, whatever happens, they have powers in other directions, particularly housing, and once they get into a thoroughly obstructive frame of mind, which can easily happen, they can be very obstructive indeed.
As opposed to all-purpose authorities, where, if there is a difference between two committees, the Council can take the overriding decision, where there is two-tier government the only person who can decide ultimately the Minister. This co-operation, in my experience, is important enough in negative planning when you are telling private enterprise what they can or cannot do, but it applies particularly in positive planning where you must get something done—redevelopment of central areas, and so forth—and it is very easy to reach the position where, after years of argument and negotiations, you have nothing to show for it at all except a large pile of paper and quite a lot of frustrated feelings. That is one important point.
86
In connection with slums we have been hearing about the human problems, but there is also a human problem in connection with this planning machinery. Notwithstanding all the delegation that we enjoy in county councils we still tend to get bogged down in matters of detail, and of course these include negotiation about propositions put up by the housing authorities themselves. It seems to me that, if we have all this difficulty with a population of 400,000 people, the same difficulty might arise in greater measure with a very much bigger population and with a much larger number of boroughs than we have to deal with.
I personally agree that there is a strong prima facie attraction about Lord Conesford's conception of a central area being planned as one. I do not profess to understand precisely the intention of the Bill, but I thought that was the function of the Greater London Council. Perhaps there is a difference of opinion about what is covered by the word "planning". It may, of course, include nothing but zoning and the remainder has to be filled in under what the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, described as three dimensional architectural planning. Although I agree it is an attractive idea, because we have seen some surprising things happening already, I would certainly welcome the feeling that the centre of the Metropolis was being planned as a whole, although in view of my own experience I am wondering whether the scheme would work as it is presented. Would it be possible for one authority to deal with all the multitude of applications which might be expected, possibly not from large residential populations but a large business population?
I should imagine, as we tend to get down in detail, that possibly the Greater London Council in their dealings with this area might also tend to get into some difficulty. Those are my fears and it may be that the Government's proposals are really the best we can find to deal with these conflicting points of view.
I should like to see the central area properly planned, in regard both to zoning and to architectural three-dimensional planning. I want something to happen. I do not want the thing to get bogged down in controversy between these quite large boroughs which have already expressed a good deal of doubt as to

87
whether this is going to work, and I do not want the people dealing with this to get bogged down in a lot of detail. I must confess I should feel very much happier about this if we could have a little more explanation from the Government as to what this somewhat mystical subsection (4) of Clause 24 really means. Perhaps as we continue with the Bill we may get a little more information, or are we going to be told that it is quite impossible during the passage of this Bill to get any information as to the real intentions of the Minister?
LORD WALSTON: The noble Lord, Lord Salter, has very rightly pointed out the result of having town planning on a grand scale in Paris and he might have added, and by implication he did, that if one wished for a monument to lack of town planning one only had to look around in our own City of London. As one looks back it is fantastic, with a country like our own which has had, and still has, some of the greatest architects in the world, that a city with a river running through the middle of it, with open spaces and ancient parks, should have, over the course of years, produced this extraordinary higgledy-piggledy mass of buildings, streets, offices and the rest of it which make up the City of London and the whole conurbation. Surely that in itself must be sufficient argument, if any were needed, to reinforce that of the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, that if we are to avoid a perpetuation of that and to overcome some of the errors which have been made in the past, if we are to hope to produce a great, beautifully planned city, there must be an overriding central planning authority for the whole Greater London area.
It is not as if, in this country, we were lacking in town planners. We have many, Sir William Holford being one of the foremost in the whole world. Look at Coventry as only one example of town planning, and the great results that have been achieved there!It seems to me inconceivable in creating a plan for a new Greater London area that the Government could possibly be content with this form of decentralisation and consultation of an amorphous and not clearly defined kind, between a whole series of authorities. The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, said at the beginning of his speech that nobody in his senses
88
would build a ship without consulting naval architects and engineers, but perhaps he had forgotten the earlier remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe. He stated, with his customary honesty, that he was embarking on the ocean of planning, not in a ship which had been designed by naval architects but in a sieve and I think, my Lords, that that is probably the answer to this whole question.
EARL JELLICOE: I wonder if I might interrupt the noble Lord for a second. I was not referring to the Bill in this respect as a sieve; I was merely referring to my inadequacy properly to expound it.
LORD WALSTON: I would certainly not accept the noble Earl's explanation that he is inadequate to expound the Bill. I think he is the able navigator put into a highly unseaworthy craft. I do not wish to elaborate these points at greater length. As the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has said, the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, has said everything in a most cogent manner. But while I was listening to him one point came to my mind and it has recurred when I have listened to other noble Lords who have spoken on both sides of this question. We are dealing with a mater of really vital importance to the future of the Greater London area. It is not a Party matter, it is not a matter where noble Lords can say, "The experts in my Party have decided this. I will follow their advice". It is a matter where there is room for wide variations of opinion, and as the speeches we have listened to have shown, that variation exists on both sides of the House.
During the course of this discussion there have been between thirty and forty of your Lordships listening to the arguments put forward on either side. I do not think I would be far wrong if I say that, should a Division take place, there will be something nearer to seventy to eighty noble Lords who will record their votes. It seems to me that, apart from those who have already studied this matter carefully and are experienced in it, it is a great misfortune that a decision of this kind should be taken by noble Lords without their having listened to the arguments which have been expressed on both sides, and which are strong. For that reason it will be more

89
by luck than good management, I am afraid, if the right decision is arrived at.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Before the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, replies I hope your Lordships will for give me if I say one or two things arising out of this Amendment. I hope the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, will consider it some small comfort, if the question should come to a Division, to know that he will have my support against the great Goliaths who have spoken. First of all, in reply to what the noble Lord, Lord Walston, has said, if—and I do not think this is so—at any rate the central area of London has been made the more higgledy-piggledy and the more of a mess since 1947 under the Town Planning Regulations and Acts as they are now, this is because there has been a central planning authority, and not in spite of it.
LORD WALSTON: I was not suggesting that the damage has been done in the last ten or fifteen years. The damage has been done over the last 200 or 300 years.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: In that case, with great respect, the noble Lord, Lord Walston, is reckoning without his noble friend's Town and Country Planning Act. Apart from that, if the Amendment of my noble and learned friend Lord Conesford were to be carried, it goes so much beyond what I think is right that I think I must support my noble friend in any Division that should take place. It would be saying—and I think this must be remembered—that the following London boroughs simply could not be trusted to deal with the situation on the ground when it comes to a planning application. The metropolitan boroughs of Westminster, Paddington and St. Marylebone could not be trusted, nor could the metropolitan boroughs of Hampstead, Holborn and St. Pancras, as well as the metropolitan boroughs of Finsbury and Islington; then, further down the list, Bermondsey, Camberwell and Southwark—part of the South Bank comes within them—and then Lambeth and part of Wandsworth; then there is the City as well. It seems to me that those boroughs are going to be great and responsible boroughs with far-sighted councillors and fine officers to help them run their affairs. Over and above that, the provisions
90
in this Bill to supervise them if they should go wrong are very considerable indeed.
When we come on to deal with development plans, the provisions of Clause 25(4) relating to the borough development plans make it quite clear that these go to the Minister to be co-ordinated, with any observations thereon by the Greater London Council. So there will be two people to see that the point the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, made is not offended against, in that two boroughs on either side of the boundary do not agree what the general principles should be. Then Clause 27 also provides that if the local development plan involves a departure from the Greater London development plan, then even before it goes to the Minister at all the G.L.C. can veto it. So that with the size, the importance and the trustworthiness of the boroughs concerned, and with the checks and safeguards which are written into the Bill already, it is quite unnecessary to cut up the area of Central London and to deal with it in the way that my noble and learned friend suggests. If my noble friend Lord Jellicoe will not take my Amendment, I will support the Bill as it stands.
EARL JELLICOE: I think that we have had a useful discussion on this Amendment. I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said, that this was not adequately discussed in another place, as it is an exceedingly important matter. I have listened with interest, attention and respect to a number of noble planners. My noble friend Lord Conesford is one; so is the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, as we all know; so is the noble Lord, Lord Salter, as I very well know; and so, indeed, is my noble friend Lord Gage, who was planning in the Soviet Union (as I read the other day) in the 'thirties. We have also had very useful contributions from the noble Lord, Lord Walston, and my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross.
In passing, I should like to say that when Lord Salter was speaking about planning at the heart of Paris, and how they had avoided high buildings with their unity of control, the Eiffel Tower did slip into my mind. I wondered how, with these great defences, that managed to get where it is; but let that pass.
LORD SALTER: It is not part of a row of houses, and is a very different thing from what we are thinking of here.
EARL JELLICOE: I am not resting my argument on the Eiffel Tower, which is a very nice and jolly object. I shall be asking your Lordships not to accept my noble friend's Amendment. Before I do so, I should like to make one thing quite clear, and that is my right honourable friend is no less concerned than my noble friend Lord Conesford to do all that a legal Statute can do to make London not only a better place in which to live, but a better place to look at. I do not think that, on principle, there is anything here which divides us.
I should now like to come to the reasons why I cannot give the Government's blessing to my noble friend's Amendment. With his Amendment the power of the Minister to prescribe classes of development and areas for which applications are to be dealt with by the G.L.C. in Clause 24(4) would remain—certainly as I read his Amendment; but with his Amendment this power would operate only outside his central area. Within that area the G.L.C. would be the controlling authority for all development. My noble friend's Amendment would divide that central area by Statute.
I would remind your Lordships that the Royal Commission went into this whole matter carefully. They came to the conclusion, rightly or wrongly, that the definitions of the central area which they had studied and set out in their map were unsatisfactory. The main difficulty that they saw in defining the area was that London was undergoing a period of rapid change, a process of urban renewal which they thought would, if anything, be accelerated; and I think that they were right about that. Therefore, they said if any definition were now attempted to-day for a central area they had great fear that in a few years' time it would be found to be unduly restrictive, and that we might well fail to put something into that definition which should be caught by it. For those reasons the Royal Commission recommended that my right honourable friend should take power by order to designate a central area and to specify the types of application within that area to be dealt with by the G.L.C.
Clause 24(4) of the Bill, broadly speaking, adopts that recommendation. In this
92
respect I would claim that what we are doing in the Bill—right or wrong—is much closer to the Royal Commission recommendation than what my noble friend Lord Conesford has suggested. The Royal Commission came down specifically against prescription of a central area. Clause 24(4) makes no specific reference to a central area, but, clearly, the case for unified control in such an area, which has been put forcibly to your Lordships, must be one of the matters which the Minister will have to consider when deciding on the use of these regulatory powers. I would suggest that it is far better to proceed in the more flexible way provided in the Bill than to try to define, as my noble friend does, by Statute and now, a central area. Regulations can be amended, so any prescription in that way can be adjusted to suit changing circumstances, and London is changing very fast at the present time.
LORD SILKIN: Am I to understand that the noble Earl is accepting the principle of unified control over some areas? What he is objecting to is the definition of a particular area for this purpose.
EARL JELLICOE: I am certainly objecting to the definition by Statute now of a particular area. I am saying that the possibility of unified control over a central area is certainly one of the things which my right honourable friend will wish to consider; and I am quite certain that he will consider it in the light of the arguments advanced in this Committee this evening when he comes to make the Regulations. But, of course, he will be consulting the whole range of authorities whose views he will also wish to consider.
May I just turn to the disadvantages of defining an area, or perhaps elaborate on them for a second now? It was pointed out in another place, I think—and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has mentioned it—that the "Lord Conesford central area" would exclude almost all the main railway stations, the Royal Mint and the Tower of London. It may or may not be right to exclude these important areas, important either by way of geography and economics, as the railway stations are, or important by way of history, as the Tower of London is. But I would suggest it would be far better to try to determine this matter after consultation with the authorities to

93
be set up under the Bill, and to embody those consultations in specific regulations, than for us in our wisdom, or in our lack of wisdom, to try to draw the boundaries here and now by Statute.
My noble friend's Amendment would also place all development control—and I stress the word "all"—in the central area with the Greater London Council. Again, I would remind your Lordships, if I may, that the Royal Commission did not go so far as this. They thought it would be better to specify from time to time particular types of application within specific areas which should be dealt with by the G.L.C., but they were not suggesting that all applications should be dealt with by the G.L.C. Here again I think that the Royal Commission and the Government are right, and that my noble friend, with respect, is wrong. All through this Bill we have been anxious to try to preserve the G.L.C. overall as the strategic authority—and I make no apology for using the word "strategic"; I think it is perfectly clear what we mean here by that term.
It will not be able, I suggest, to carry out its function effectively—and here I entirely agree with what my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross said—if we clutter it up to deal with a mass of detail and, very often, quite unimportant matters of development control. It would be quite wrong, in my view, to lay down that this great Council should concern itself, for example, with whether a shop in Victoria Street should be used for a particular purpose; but that is precisely the sort of responsibility which my noble friend, if he gets his Amendment accepted, will foist upon the Greater London Council. I do not know whether he wants that. All I can tell him is that that is the effect of our accepting his Amendment, and I, for one, think that it would be wrong.
I think that the noble Lord, in his Amendment, tends too much to overlook the local characteristics of the different areas, even towards the heart of London; and certainly, if his Amendment is carried, I think one result would be to reduce a great deal the quality and the virility of the new borough councils. Here again I must say how much I agreed with my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, whom I was opposing just now. I believe that these boroughs can be
94
really effective, not only their councillors and their aldermen but also their officials. I should not wish to diminish the authority of boroughs in that respect, and I think, again, that if my noble friend's Amendment is accepted in its entirety that is likely to be one of the consequences.
I would feel quite differently about this if there were not already very full provisions in the Bill enabling the Greater London Council, sometimes with the Minister in the background, to control and guide the main lines of development in London (and not only, of course, in the central area) and to ensure that local development harmonises with the broad strategic plan which they will have to draw up. My noble friend's Amendment is specifically addressed to the question of development control because of where it comes. My noble friend queries that, but this clause of the Bill with which he is dealing in this subsection is related to development control. I was going to say that my noble friend expanded his remarks beyond the field of development control. I am not quarrelling with that, but as he has done so, and raised the whole question of unified development planning, I feel I must touch on that aspect in my reply and show how, at five stages at least, the Greater London Council will be able—not only in the central area, although very much in the central area—to exercise control over the development planning.
The first stage is the Greater London plan. In the Greater London plan, it will be able to lay down the factors of regional importance for the central area which the boroughs, in making their own local development plans, will have to take into account. Secondly, the local development plans: the borough plans, where they run into the central area, must accord with any such general prescription. As to the third stage, I would emphasise to my noble friend that the Greater London Council will inevitably be drawn in, sucked in, to the preparation of these local development plans. That will, of course, demand co-operation between the two planning tiers. I should hope and I should anticipate that we shall get that co-operation. I think it is absolutely essential, as my noble friend Lord Gage said.

95
Fourthly, the Greater London Council can give the Minister their views when they pass on the local development plans to him. They have to go through him. But, of course, they can also send back to the boroughs any local plan which goes against the principles laid down in the Greater London development plan. Fifthly—this is the fifth and final stage—the Minister himself can make any amendment to the local development plans to bring them into line with the greater plan if he so desires, in consultation, of course, where necessary with the Greater London Council. I do believe that those five stages are very important weapons which will enable the Greater London Council to ensure that the plan for the centre is in accordance with their own strategic concept for the centre.
To pass now to the development control, to which I think my noble friend's Amendment was more properly directed, there are again at least four stages which have the same effect. First, any development which would fall under the umbrella of the Clause 24(4) machinery would be dealt with by the Greater London Council. Secondly, other matters of more than local significance could and would be referred to the Greater London Council under the Clause 24(6) machinery. Thirdly, if there were a development application which represented a substantial departure from the Greater London development plan, it would require to be referred to the Minister under the Clause 24(6) machinery. Finally, there is the Clause 27(1) machinery, to which my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross referred. Given all this, I really do not see why we should not be able to secure really first-rate modern urban development right at the heart of London, and development which, broadly speaking, will fall within the concept of the Greater London plan.
As I said in reply to my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, I think that here—it is perhaps a rash claim, because this is an exceedingly difficult and complicated matter, but this I would claim—we have the balance about right. But, just as the acceptance of Lord Colville of Culross's Amendment would upset that balance in one direction, so, by the same
96
token, acceptance of Lord Conesford's Amendment would upset, and totally upset, the balance in another direction. Because I believe this; and because I believe it is better in this admittedly difficult but very important field to rely upon the more flexible machinery which is written into the Bill; and because I believe there are very substantial safeguards which I have tried to outline to the Committee, I hope I may be able to carry your Lordships with me in asking you not to accept my noble friend's Amendment.
I would say in conclusion one thing. I agree that we all have, and rightly so, the future of central London very much at heart. I do not think this is in any way a party matter. Most, or some, of us are Londoners and we all know the central London area extremely well. I should very much hope that my noble friend would not press this matter to a Division.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: I have listened to the Minister of State, Home Office, with great care; he is always worth listening to with great care. But the more he went on the more I was convinced that the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, as between the two arguments, was right and the case that the noble Earl was putting for Her Majesty's Government was wrong. The central area of London is a very important area, and even if one allows for the bias that the Government have in favour of the London boroughs, to give them everything possible in the way of functions, and the Government bias against the Greater London Council to give that body as little as possible, here the balance of argument is eminently on the side of the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, and his Amendment.
Let us look at subsection (4) of Clause 24. There it is laid down:
"In relation to development of such a class in such area of Greater London as the Minister may by regulations prescribe the Greater London Council shall be the local planning authority for all relevant purposes of the Planning Act other Than the reception of applications for planning permission…"
Then it goes on to say that they should be addressed to the borough who will require to send it on to the Greater London Council, and then in respect of these defined categories of structures and

97
the area defined the Greater London Council, subject to appeal to the Minister, can proceed.
The noble Earl said in the course of his argument that it was wrong to define the Central London area. In the first place, the Minister will have, under subsection (4), an obligation to define an area administratively but outside effective Parliamentary supervision. He may have, at least, an order or a statutory instrument—I have forgotten which. In that position all you can do is vote for or against, whereas, in our judgment and, I hope, in that of the House, this area should be defined by Parliament and not left in the air to be defined by the Minister by order or regulation as the case may be. My other point is that the noble Earl does not want the Greater London Council to be bothered with town planning consent about a shop in Victoria Street. It need not be. The Greater London Council can delegate matters of lesser importance to the borough and, indeed, I think some matters are delegated now. They can do it under this legislation and under the Act which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, brought in.
So it is a choice between giving general power to the Greater London Council, subject to it, if it wishes, delegating part of it to the borough council; or giving it without Parliamentary supervision to the Minister, who again will proceed to make an area and to classify the matter which will come before the Greater London Council, and leave others to go to the borough. In either result, the end can be much the same. Therefore, the choice is between Parliament's deciding what this area would be and Parliament's deciding what the powers of the Greater London Council shall be. I think the Amendment which has been moved is reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
It has been argued, I think by the noble Earl, that the area here may be imperfect; that the Tower of London is left out. The Tower of London is in the metropolitan barouah of Stepney, which is outside the City. I presume that is the noble Earl's point. There is nothing to prevent making an Amendment on Report stage whereby any minor troubles of that sort are put right. If the Minister wants to modify the area, that can be done by a Government
98
Amendment on Report stage. But I do not think all the London boroughs will be really able to deal, or that the London public will take it that it is right to filet these local authorities deal, with matters of such vast importance as the future of central London. They will want, I think, the Greater London Council to deal with it.
Having listened very carefully to the greater part of the debate, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, is right. I presume, having moved the Amendment, he cannot accept the Government's assurance, if they can give such an assurance, because they are in opposition to this Amendment. Therefore I would advise my friends and the Committee generally to support the Amendment and to press it with all possible vigour. I think it is of real importance to the interests of London and ought not to be so objected to by the Government.
LORD CONESFORD: I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Jellicoe very much for the details of his reply. I know that he will not expect me to be satisfied by his answer to the main point of my Amendment; but since that has been misunderstood a little by my noble friends Lord Gage and Lord Colville of Culross, perhaps they will forgive me if I make one thing clear. I put down these two Amendments and not any of the consequential Amendments which will certainly be involved if, as I hope, my principal Amendment is accepted. What I want to say at once to my noble friends Lord Gage, Lord Jellicoe and Lord Colville of Culross is that I am not mainly concerned with development control.
What troubles me about the Bill as it stands, in the absence of my Amendment, is that the proper development plan will never come into existence, because the formation of any development plan for central London ought to be done by a single body. Once that plan has been adopted I should not mind at all trusting some of these great boroughs in dealing with applications. There are various ways in which that matter could he dealt with, but this so called strategic plan of the Greater London Council will never deal with many of those three-dimensional matters with which it is absolutely vital that the planning of any great city shall deal.

99
My noble friend Lord Jellicoe dealt with all the various controls that would enable something very bad that conflicted with the general plan of the Greater London Council to be stopped. But we are not concerned only with stopping what is bad: we ought to be concerned with promoting what is good. And the promotion of what is good must depend on one body considering what is required for Central London, just as has been done in Philadelphia by a single
7.20 p.m.
LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM moved to add to subsection (3):
"together with a copy of the application and such other information relating thereto and to the decision as the Greater London Council may reasonably require".
The noble Lord said: Now that we have moved into the field of town planning, perhaps it is appropriate that I should make a declaration of interest—namely, that I am a director of a company dealing with properties and their development. The purpose of this Amendment is principally procedural. It is designed to secure an adequacy of information for the Greater London
100
body and in every great and famous city in the world that has made a success of planning. It is for these reasons that I feel it necessary to press this Amendment.
7.11 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 132A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 29; Not-Contents, 48.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Faringdon, L.

Shepherd, L.

Airedale, L.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Silkin, L.

Albemarle, E.

Henderson, L.

Stonham, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Latham, L.

Strang, L.

Archibald, L.

Lawson, L.

Summerskill, B.

Attlee, E.

Longford, E.

Walston, L.

Burden, L.

Lucan, E.

Williams, L.

Champion, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Williams of Barnburgh, L.

Conesford, L. [Teller.]

Salter, L. [Teller.]

Williamson, L.

Crook, L.

Shackleton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Derwent, L.

Ilford, L.

Aldington, L.

Devonport, V.

Jellicoe, E.

Ampthill, L.

Devonshire, D.

Jessel, L.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Dunleath, L.

Lambert, V.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Blackford, L.

Ferrers, E.

Long, V.

Bossom, L.

Forster of Harraby, L.

Lothian, M.

Boston, L.

Fortescue, E.

Luke, L.

Brecon, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Margesson, V.

Carrington, L.

Gage, V.

Mersey, V.

Cawley, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Milverton, L.

Chesham, L.

Grenfell, L.

Monsell, V.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Newton, L.

Colyton, L.

Hanworth, V.

Runciman of Doxford, V.

Craven, E.

Hastings, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Denham, L.

Hawke, L.

Wigram, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Council. Clause 24(3) of the Bill provides that a copy of every decision made by the London borough councils and the Common Council shall be sent to the Greater London Council. This will be of some value to the Council, but the decision alone, although perhaps in respect of a major development, could be very brief in form. The application will often contain important information not shown in the decision—that is the gravamen of the whole thing—which will assist in analysing the trends of development. For example, a decision on an application for a change of use may indicate only the proposed use and not that which is being discontinued. The total floor space in a new office development would not necessarily appear in a decision, but would be shown on the drawings

101
accompanying the application. The clause does not require drawings to be sent with the copy decision, nor is it considered necessary to require them.
The Amendment, therefore, seeks to ensure that the Greater London Council should receive a copy of the application and other relevant information which could be set out in brief form. It is considered that this probably would be of great value to the Greater London Council in assessing future planning policies, particularly in relation to planning standards, such as car parking, plot ratio, and density of building. The Amendment is merely an extension of the requirement in the clause that a copy of every decision should be supplied to the Greater London Council. I hope that the Government will be willing to accept what is clearly a desirable Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 42, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Latham.)
EARL JELLICOE: I quite understand why the noble Lord, Lord Latham, feels that it would be right for the Greater London Council to be kept fully in the picture about what is going on, by way of development, in the boroughs. The Royal Commission dealt with this point, and the Bill as drafted follows their recommendation. It has been indeed our intention in framing this legislation to do so in such a way that the Greater London Council will in fact be in touch with what the boroughs are doing. That is why the concluding words of Clause 24(3) require a borough to send a copy of their planning decisions to the Greater London Council.
That being so, I am not really clear, despite what the noble Lord has said, whether his Amendment would really serve a useful purpose. I should have thought that in most cases, at least, a copy of the decision would have told the Greater London Council most of what they wanted to know, and if they wanted more information about the particular development, having seen the decision of the borough, they could always ask for it. I should have thought, again, that given the sort of relationship between the boroughs and the Greater London Council which we expect to be established, the borough council concerned would not be "sticky" about providing that information.
102
I gather, too, from what the noble Lord said, that what he may have mostly in mind here is the sort of statistical information which may not necessarily appear in a decision but which is, at the same time, useful to the Greater London Council when they have in mind broad planning consideration. But there is no reason, so far as I can see, why the Greater London Council should not be able to obtain information of that sort from the boroughs through the machinery of Clause 26(1), under which they can require surveys to be carried out by the boroughs from time to time. I gather that some doubt has been expressed about the efficacy of the use of this power for this particular purpose, but I am assured, and I can assure the noble Lord, that it is quite adequate for this purpose; and this would, of course, be made crystal clear when the necessary circulars go out to the local authorities following the passage (I hope I am not anticipating) of this Bill.
I would suggest, therefore, that the Amendment is not needed, and I also have some doubt about whether it is really desirable. There is already some danger in the existing provision that by requiring the Greater London Council to receive a copy of every planning decision we are exposing them to an avalanche of paper. The Amendment would further increase the weight of that avalanche. I think we must, throughout this Bill, be careful not to clutter up the machine with unnecessary paper. I was on the point of using another phrase, but my noble Leader told me that it would be unparliamentary.
For those reasons, I must confess that I do not feel any passionate enthusiasm about this Amendment; but, by the same token, I must equally confess that I am not totally and irretrievably opposed to it. If noble Lords feel strongly that we should write in this extra requirement on the boroughs, then I, for one, having made my own reservations about it clear, shall not wish to dissuade your Lordships from so doing.
LORD SILKIN: I must say I am rather surprised at the way the noble Earl has dealt with this matter. He must realise that in many cases mere receipt of a decision does not give the Greater London Council adequate information. Then he says that they can write and ask for it.

103
On the other hand, he is saying that he does not want to add to the amount of paper. If the Greater London Council really require this information, and if the receipt of a decision is of any value to them, they will inevitably want to see what the application is. The noble Earl by his process is certainly adding far more to the amount of paper involved than if the boroughs straight away automatically gave the Greater London Council a copy of the application as well as of the decision and any other material documents. In those circumstances, I feel that this Amendment is fully justified. The noble Earl said that he does not feel passionate about it, and I do not suppose we do either; but as we think it is right, if he is prepared to accept it, we need not say any more about it, but move on to other pressing business.
EARL JELLICOE: I do not want to take up your Lordships' time, but what I said has been a little misunderstood. What I was endeavouring to say was that I did not think on every decision it would he necessary for the Greater London Council to have the application as well. Having seen the decision, they would realise that it was the type of planning case where they would want to see the application. I also added that if they wanted further statistical information I thought they could easily secure that under the machinery of Clause 26(1). Having said that, I should like to come back to what I said at the end of my reply: that if the general feeling of the Committee is in favour of placing this additional requirement upon the boroughs I should not wish to oppose it, and should be willing to accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL JELLICOE: I think we have reached the time for supper and, therefore, I beg to move that the Committee be adjourned during pleasure until 8.30.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended at half-past seven and resumed at half-past eight.]
LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM moved in subsection (4) to leave out "Minister may by regulations prescribe" and insert
"Greater London Council after consultation with the London borough councils and the Common Council and, with the consent of the Minister, shall prescribe".
The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment of some considerable importance, for it goes to the roots of the organisation of planning and control of development. We have been repeatedly told, in support of the provisions of this Bill, that they are based upon the recommendations of the Royal Commission. I now pray in aid that the submissions which I am going to make in support of this Amendment are based upon the recommendations of the Royal Commission and that there is equality between the two contending parties.
The Royal Commission recommended that application should normally be dealt with by the London boroughs, but that certain types of application, and applications in certain areas, should be dealt with by the Greater London Council. The Commission considered it to be important that the Minister should have the function of designating any of these special areas and of specifying also, from time to time, which types of application should be dealt with by the London boroughs and which by the Greater London Council. They thought it to be in the best interests of all concerned that the Minister should take the responsibility for such a decision rather than that the Greater London Council should be in a position to dictate to the boroughs—a sentiment which most of us, I think, would in the proper circumstances share.
The Commission gave some valuable examples of the types of application which they considered should be dealt with by the Greater London Council, such as for tall buildings which would alter an historic skyline, buildings which would greatly increase the number of office jobs, buildings proposed to be sited at historic points, and buildings which would involve the major replanning of highway accommodation even to considerable distances away from the site of the buildings. After giving such examples and referring specifically to the central area, which, in revelant connection, we have been discussing earlier

105
on this evening, the Commission Report states, and here I quote:
…nor have we found it possible to produce any definition which satisfies ourselves. The reason is that we envisage London as undergoing a period of rapid change, a process of urban renewal, which will, we believe, be accelerated during the coming generation. Indeed, we cannot see any possible solutions to London's problems in which a large degree of urban renewal does not play a part. If we were to attempt a definition today of the central area or the type of planning application which needs to be dealt with centrally, we have great fear that our definitions would be in a few years' time found to be unduly restrictive upon the Greater London Boroughs or, on the other hand, to have missed some development which is not suitable to be dealt with by a Borough alone. Life has a way of rendering definition; obsolete."
The Commission indicated here a very important point which we should like to stress, the need for as much flexibility as possible in the division of the development control function as between the London boroughs and the Greater London Council—a matter which, as I have said already, we have this evening been discussing. Ministerial regulations as proposed in the Bill are not considered to be a sufficiently flexible instrument for dealing with such matters of detail in a situation which may be constantly changing. Experience has shown that it is very difficult to secure any amendment of regulations, and that even when this is possible a long period of time is invariably involved in the process. The Times leader of December 6, 1962, commenting on the Bill, said as follows:
"Ministerial regulation is too inflexible a way of determining which developments being of particular importance should fall to the Greater London Council for consideration."
It is also considered that the Greater London Council, as the planning authority charged with the responsibility for looking at planning of the London area as a whole, will be in much the best position to judge the sort of application and area which is beginning to become of more than borough significance in the context of Greater London as a whole. The Minister will, in the nature of things, be in less direct contact with new trends in what the Commission recognise as a period of rapid change likely to be accelerated during the coming generation. It is essential to tackle new situations when they first emerge. It is much more difficult later. It is considered that the procedure proposed in the Amendment
106
would be more effective and more efficient than that proposed by the Bill, as it will be much more flexible and capable of being quickly adapted to new circumstances. To meet the Commission's point that the Greater London Council should not be in a position to dictate to a borough, any proposed action by the Greater London Council in this way has been made specifically subject to consultation with the boroughs and the consent of the Minister. In these circumstances, I beg to move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 2, leave out from ("the") to the end of the line and insert the said new words.—(Lord Latham.)
EARL JELLICOE: I do not dissent from what the noble Lord, Lord Latham, said about the importance of this Amendment, and it is certainly clear-cut. It would place the responsibility for prescribing these regulations under subsection (4) of Clause 24 fairly and squarely on the Greater London Council, rather than on my right honourable friend. To be, I hope, equally clear-cut in reply, I should like to tell him straight away that I do not think this would be right. In the first place, I was surprised to heat the noble Lord, Lord Latham, pray in aid the Royal Commission in this respect. I was surprised for two reasons. In the first place, the Report of the Royal Commission has not much been prayed in aid from the Benches opposite during our discussion of the Bill.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: It is legitimate for the noble Earl to claim that he has a monopoly of the Royal Commission, which he nearly had, but that is no reason why we should not quote it when it suits us.
EARL JELLICOE: I would not, of course, deny the right of noble Lords opposite to quote the Royal Commission when it suits them. I was merely saying that I was surprised, given the tone of their past references and also because of what the Royal Commission have said in this respect. As the noble Lord, Lord Latham, said, they went into this matter extremely carefully and came to the conclusion that it was right to vest this particular responsibility in my right honourable friend. I should like to quote here what the Royal Commission have said. It is the

107
last two sentences of paragraph 774 of their Report which the noble Lord, Lord Latham, in part paraphrased. What they said was this:
"We think it is important that the Minister should have these functions because in effect their exercise would be to remove certain powers from the borough to the Council for Greater London. We believe it is in the best interests of all concerned that the Minister shall take the responsibility for this decision I rather than that the Council for Greater London should be in a position to dictate to a borough."
They were talking there precisely on this question of the prescription of regulations covering the matters which are covered by Clause 24(4) of the Bill, at least as I understand it.
My second reason for believing that the noble Lord is wrong here is that, as in other matters, I believe that the Royal Commission were right in this respect. In some respects, at least, I think that the planning of the central areas of London is a matter of more than local importance. I said that in reply to Lord Colville of Culross's Amendment and I repeat it, because I believe that in some respects the planning of the central areas is a matter of at least regional, perhaps national and perhaps even international importance.
I should like to take as examples the planning of Piccadilly or of high buildings round the Royal Parks. As I do not wish to prejudge what my right honourable friend will say in this respect, I do not say that these particular things will be covered in his regulations, but this is the type of thing which will be covered; and if the concern of your Lordships for these matters is any yardstick, then, indeed, they are ones of national importance. It might be thought, and I, at least, most certainly consider, that in matters of that sort the responsibility for promulgating and, if necessary, for varying the regulations should be one which would be fairly and squarely placed on the responsible Minister.
LORD LATHAM: Without any intervention at all of the Minister?
EARL JELLICOE: I think it could be placed fairly and squarely on the Minister in this respect, but I would agree that there should be close consultation before he takes that decision,
108
not only with the boroughs but also with the Greater London Council. My third reason is this: usually in this matter we try to preserve a balance, and it is not an easy balance, between the boroughs and the Greater London Council. We are trying to get their respective responsibilities on to the right basis, and I feel it is right that the Minister, having heard the arguments on both sides, should weight the balance. It is proper that he should do so rather than that one of the interested parties should do so in this type of matter.
The fourth reason—here I was very surprised to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Latham, was saying—is that in a matter of this sort there is a great deal to be said for allowing Parliament to have the last say. This point the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, argued with great cogency when speaking to my noble friend Lord Conesford's Amendment before supper, but as I understand it—I may be wrong here—the noble Lord's Amendment will take this responsibility away from Parliament. As I see it, these regulations would not necessarily be subject to Parliamentary approval if we were to accept his Amendment.
LORD LATHAM: But they could be subject to Parliamentary approval. My Amendment does not prevent their being so regarded and dealt with.
EARL JELLICOE: It may be it does not. I should like to look at that particular matter, and I will undertake to do so; but I think that it would be far better if Amendments of this sort, if they are going to be subject to Parliamentary approval—as I think they should be—should be promulgated by the responsible Minister, and not by a local authority.
LORD LATHAM: If they were Parliamentary they could not be prescribed by a local authority, could they?
EARL JELLICOE: That is precisely what I was fearing. That is why I thought that the responsibility should vest in the Minister. This is a point I should like to look into. I am speaking quite "off the cuff" in this respect and am not speaking with the knowledge and the experience of the noble Lord, but this was precisely the point that was worrying me here.

109
There is no desire on our part to cut the G.L.C. out of consultation on this matter. We regard this whole question of planning the central area of London and planning in regard to this particular type of application which the Royal Commission had in mind as a matter of the very greatest importance, and it is certainly not our desire that on such matters the Greater London Council should be in any way excluded. As I have already mentioned in speaking to the Amendments moved by my two noble friends Lord Cones ford and Lord Colville of Culross, it is certainly my right honourable friend's intention here to enter into very full consultations both with the G.L.C. and with the boroughs before he promulgates these Amendments. But—and I come back to this point in conclusion—I feel that it is right to place fairly and squarely on the Minister, after due consultation with the local authorities concerned, the responsibility of promulgating these Amendments. It is for those reasons that I would ask your Lordships not to accept this Amendment.
LORD LATHAM: I gather the noble Earl says that this matter is relevant to the matters he had undertaken to consider with his right honourable friend? If that be the case, cannot this be considered in connection with those matters
LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM moved, in subsection (4), after "prescribe" to insert:
110
in which an undertaking to that effect was given? If that were so, I should be willing to withdraw the Amendment.
EARL JELLICOE: I am sorry, but I think that the noble Lord may have misunderstood me. I do not think that I had undertaken to look into this particular matter with my right honourable friend.
LORD LATHAM: I was asking you to do so.
EARL JELLICOE: Quite frankly—and I think that I must come back to this—I feel that the arguments I sought to adduce for placing this responsibility on my right honourable friend are in fact conclusive. It is right, I think, that the responsibility should rest with him. Much though I should like to fall in with the noble Lord's wishes here, in the light of the arguments so far advanced I do not think I would be right to do so.
LORD LATHAM: As you are unable to accept that proposal, I must press the Amendment.
8.50 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 134A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 19; Not-Contents, 37.
"and in relation to any application under section 43 of the Planning Act which may involve such development".

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Faringdon, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Henderson, L.

Shepherd, L.

Archibald, L.

Latham, L.

Silkin, L.

Attlee, E.

Lawson, L.

Stonham, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Longford, E.

Summerskill, B.

Champion, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Williams of Barnburgh, L.

Crook, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Derwent, L.

Ingleby, V.

Albemarle, E.

Devonshire, D.

Jellicoe, E.

Ampthill, L.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Lansdowne, M.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Fortescue, E.

Lothian, M.

Boston, L.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Margesson, V.

Brecon, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Milverton, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Grenfell, L.

Newton, L.

Cawley, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Somers, L.

Chesham, L.

Hampden, V.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Cholmondeley, M.

Hanworth, V.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Colyton, L.

Hastings, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Conesford, L.

Ilford, L.

Wigram, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 135. Its purpose is to

111
ensure that the Greater London Council shall deal with any applications made under Section 43 of the Planning Act which may involve development of such a class in such areas of Greater London as the Minister may prescribe in a regulation to be made by him under Clause 24(4) of the Bill. Section 153 enables anyone proposing to carry out any operations on land or to make any change in the use of land to have it determined whether development of land is involved. If the Greater London Council are to deal with planning applications, or set in prescribed class of development, they should also have the power—and this is the importance of the Amendment—to decide whether any particular proposed operation falling within such class would constitute or involve development, and to give a determination accordingly.
Section 43(1) of the Planning Act provides that an application for such determination may be made as part of an application for planning permission. It would be illogical and undesirable for one planning authority to deal with one part of an application and then pass it on to another local planning authority to deal with the other part of the same application. If, nevertheless, something on these lines is envisaged by the Ministry, the position could arise where a borough might determine, in a matter of some consequence, that no development was involved, whereas the Greater London Council might not have taken this view and might have gone on then to refuse permission for the application.
Applications for determination can also be made separately from an application for permission and on occasion are made consequent on the receipt of a planning refusal. They would still be received in the boroughs in the first instance, but if the operation proposed falls within one of the prescribed classes or areas, the application should be forwarded to the Greater London Council for determination. Shortly put, it is a matter for resolving the course and nature of the procedure. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 2, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Latham.)
LORD HASTINGS: As the noble Lord said, Section 43 of the Planning Act provides
112
machinery by which anyone can find out whether planning permission is required for something they wish to do. They apply to the local planning authority. Often the request is accompanied by a planning application asking for permission, if permission is required. The majority of these applications will be for small things, generally change of use, with which the borough council can appropriately deal. But the Amendment as moved would send all these applications, without exception, to the Greater London Council, and I do not think that that is quite what the noble Lord intends. He is referring to the class of development alluded to in Clause 24(4). Even in that respect the borough council is left to do the initial sorting out and to send on what is necessary to the Greater London Council. Therefore, I do not think it could possibly be a reasonable suggestion to send all applications under Section 43 to the Greater London Council on the chance that some might involve such development. We feel that a borough council is perfectly capable of sorting this out for itself.
On the other hand, if the noble Lord wishes to confine the cases under Section 43 which would be sent to the Greater London Council to the few matters which would specifically concern Clause 24(4) of the Bill, then we feel we could accept this Amendment in principle, but we should wish to find some different words in order to make clear that the scope of the Amendment is limited to these particular cases. We do not wish to load the Council with all applications under Section 43, but would be willing for borough councils to have the obligation to send on to the Greater London Council those which are limited to development under Section 24(4). My advice is that words to that effect could he found. If that is also the intention of noble Lords opposite, we should be willing to put down the appropriate Amendment at Report stage.
LORD LATHAM: I am much obliged, and in reliance on that statement I am quite willing to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD MOLSON: May I ask a question on drafting? The Amendment says, "which may involve such development". Does that not apply to what is provided for in subsection (4)? Is my noble friend correct in suggesting that the Amendment

113
as drafted would include all minor matters? Do not the words, "such development" apply only to those cases which, if they did not come under Section 43 of the Planning Act, would already be contained in subsection (4)?
LORD HASTINGS: On first reading the Amendment I had hoped that that was the result, but my advice is that it is not so, and that because of the words "that it may involve" everything would have to be sent to the Greater London Council to determine whether it involved such development or not.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.5 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION LORD CHAMPION moved, in subsection (4), to leave out words after "made to them" down to and including the words "local planning authority". The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 136 and 137 go together. This afternoon your Lordships have shown such a mastery of the 226 sections and 15 Schedules of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962, that in relation to this Amendment it is necessary for me to remind you of only Section 42 of that Act. This section makes provision for development of land owned by a local authority which is also the local planning authority for the area in which the land is situate. An application by such an authority for planning permission to develop that land, as I understand it, has to be made, not of course to itself, but to the Minister, who shall have power to grant such an application unless the proposed development has been dealt with by the regulations expected to be made under the Act, or the development is entirely in conformity with the existing development plan.
The purpose of these Amendments is to provide that the Greater Landon Council shall be treated as the local planning authority for the purposes of its own development. Under the provisions now in the Bill, the Greater London Council would have to apply to the London borough concerned for planning permission to carry out any development necessary for its statutory functions, even if such proposed development were entirely in conformity with the development plan. For it is the case that under this Bill the borough councils are to be the local planning
114
authorities for the reception of application for planning permission. The London borough council, on the other hand, would not need to seek planning permission provided its proposed development did not involve a substantial departure from the development plan and was not in a class or area covered by the regulations to be made by the Minister under this clause.
I am aware of the fact that the Minister may by regulation except certain classes of development or areas from the requirement making it necessary for the Greater London Council to seek planning permission from a London borough council. What we are seeking to do by these Amendments is to try to ensure the recognition of the Greater London Council as a highly responsible authority, whose planning function must be of metropolitan significance. We think it can be fairly assumed that any development the Greater London Council would make of its own land would be of a wider significance than purely a borough one. The Greater London Council as a local planning authority may be expected to treat its own development as being in accordance with proper planning principles. It ought, therefore, we say, to be in precisely the same position as every local planning authority in the country in relation to the development of its own land. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 10, leave out from ("them") to ("but") in line 14.—(Lord Champion.)
LORD HASTINGS: The noble Lord, Lord Champion, is perfectly correct, of course, in putting the position as he has: namely, that local planning authorities can give themselves permission, provided they refer to the Minister anything which is a substantial departure or a departure likely to cause injury to amenities or is otherwise development likely to raise controversy. But in the case we are dealing with, the local planning authorities are, or will be, the new London boroughs, and they will be in the position which the noble Lord opposite and I have described.
This Amendment and the next go together. In this clause the Greater London Council is to be the planning authority in respect of special development which has been nominated by my

115
right honourable friend under Clause 24(4). But we do not see why all the operations of the Greater London Council should be done as though they were the subject of local planning permission by the Greater London Council. We feel there is no case for this. The Greater London Council will be building in the areas of other local authorities for housing. It will have statutory obligations in respect of the inner London area for schools and for metropolitan roads, but there is no reason why it should not go through the London borough in order to get planning permission in the regular way. It is not a superior body, and we do not wish to put it into that position. The Government's view has always been that this is not a two-tier system and that the division of powers should be perfectly clear. The Greater London Council will have quite specific powers in relation to planning but they are not to be overlapping powers with the local borough councils.
For instance, if we take a nationalised board it might be said that that is a matter of importance, but it has to go through the ordinary planning authorities in order to get planning permission, and we do not think there is any case for making the Greater London Council its own planning authority in respect of any operation it undertakes anywhere in Greater London. I think the borough councils could reasonably complain at having matters taken out of their hands solely because the Greater London Council is the developer, irrespective of the nature of the development. I can see that this is a fundamental difference between the two sides, and there is no prospect of my being able to accommodate the noble Lord in respect of this matter. I think the only case in which the Greater London Council should be its own planning authority is that laid down in Clause 24(4).
LORD CHAMPION: The noble Lord has said that the Greater London Council is not a superior body. As I understood the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, he told us when replying to an Amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, that it is to be the body responsible far strategic planning and therefore clearly will have an overall significance in this regard. I do not think his instancing of a nationalised board is a good one. The
116
board of a nationalised undertaking quite clearly is not a planning authority in the same sense as the Greater London Council will be. The Greater London Council has clearly a definite planning function and would not do anything which would depart from the overall plan which it has itself assisted to prepare, or has prepared. I must say that I do not regard the noble Lord's reply as satisfactory, but I do not feel that this is an Amendment upon which we should divide. I therefore propose to ask leave to withdraw it and consider this matter further between now and the Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, in subsection 6(b), to leave out "or to the Minister". The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 138 and with it will go, I think conveniently, Nos. 139, 140 and 141. Subsection (6) of Clause 24 empowers the Minister to make regulations regarding applications which come in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (6) and for the giving of directions by the authority to whom such applications are to be referred. That is to say, these are cases where it is thought that the borough councils should not deal with the applications without their being referred, as in the clause as drafted, to the Minister or to the Greater London Council. The assumpton is that these are applications of some importance—because they conflict with a plan, or because they are major matters which we discussed earlier this afternoon and which ought to be dealt with by the Greater London Council and by the Minister.
The short point of my Amendment is that all these matters should go, in the first instance, to the Greater London Council, who are, after all, responsible for the overall plan. Therefore any application which is sufficiently important to justify its being taken out of the hands of the borough council is one of which the Greater London Council ought to be aware. The whole series of Amendments that I am putting forward would create the position that every such application would be referred simultaneously, to the Greater London Council and to the Minister, who would give the Greater London Council an opportunity of expressing their views and would ultimately come to a decision.
I am trying to condense the substance of these Amendments, but the object, as I understand it, is to give the Greater London Council not only knowledge of any application of the kind I have described (which may be at variance with the plan, or may involve matters of great importance which will involve their being informed of such applications), but also the opportunity of making representations and expressing their views. It seems to me a perfectly sound thing to ensure that the body responsible for making the overall plan should know of any proposal which is intended to vary it. It was suggested. I think, in another place that these variations may be very slight. That may be so; but, even so, I think that the Greater London Council ought to be aware of them and ought to be able to make representations on them. After all, what is a slight variation is, in a great many cases, a matter of opinion, and no harm will be done if they have this opportunity in all cases. For these reasons, which I have put very shortly, I beg to move Amendment No. 138.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 40, leave out ("or to the Minister").—(Lord Silkin.)
9.20 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: I am very grateful to the noble Lord For the brevity with which he has moved this Amendment. There is one point I should like to be clear about in my mind straight away; that is, whether we are taking this Amendment and the Amendments linked fairly closely to it together. If that is the way the noble Lord would like me to deal with this, I shall try to deal with them under the same umbrella.
LORD SILKIN: If the noble Earl deals with them all together, I must reserve the right to come back to any particular Amendment; but, as he said, they are all on the same point.
EARL JELLICOE: I entirely agree with the noble Lord, and I quite understand the reservation he has made. Although respecting the brevity with which he has moved this Amendment, I feel it would be helpful if I were to state briefly the reasons which have led us to write paragraph (b) on machinery into this subsection of the Bill. I think it might be helpful ever if it takes a minute or two. We have done this because we
118
have wished to import into the new London machinery the provision which is operating generally elsewhere. As noble Lords know, my right honourable friend has required, or his predecessors have required, planning authorities to notify the Minister of any application they propose to approve which is a departure from a development plan, if it is a substantial departure or one which seriously damages amenity. This subsection will also enable the Minister to require other kinds of application to be referred by a borough council to the Greater London Council.
Your Lordships will see from paragraph (b) of this subsection that certain cases will fall to be referred to the Greater London Council under the regulations to be made under this part of the clause. The sorts of thing which my right honourable friend has in mind here are, for example, developments affecting a metropolitan road or some other development which might have important traffic control implications. The category of cases which would be referred to the Minister under this paragraph are those which involve substantial departures from a local development plan. The object of this double line of reference, if I may so term it, is that, while the Greater London Council would fall to be consulted on matters of more than borough significance, there will be other matters which do not carry such significance but where nevertheless it may very well be desirable that the public, or interested members of the public, should be able to express their opinions; and that would be the main object of providing for reference to my right honourable friend.
What would the position in this sort of category be? The Minister will have approved the development plan after a local inquiry. If the planning authority wished to approve something which substantially departs from it, the Minister is told under this procedure, so that if he thinks an inquiry should first be held he can calf in an application and arrange for the necessary inquiry. The purpose of making this distinction is not to bring the Minister as opposed to the Greater London Council into the decision making process, but rather to enable him to initiate the inquiry machinery and bring the public in where this is felt to be

119
necessary. In such a case I hope that I should carry your Lordships with me in suggesting that there is no point in referring an application of that sort to the Greater London Council, or for providing, as I think the noble Lord's Amendment is intended to provide, for the application to come through the Greater London Council to the Minister. The Greater London Council will not have the powers to trigger off an inquiry, and to introduce them as a step on the way to the Minister would have as an inevitable result a certain slowing up of the whole planning machine. I would suggest that it would be a mistake for us gratuitously to import into the machine an element which would have that effect, since delays in planning are among the accusations which are most constantly made against the whole of our planning machinery.
I would also suggest that it would be a mistake to clutter up the Greater London Council with work which is not the sort of work with the larger strategic implications which we feel should be their proper concern. We must remember that the departure from a local development plan may be quite substantial, may affect amenity and may well arouse a lot of local interest, and indeed opposition; but although it may do all those three things it may not be a departure from the Greater London development plan and it may have no larger significance whatsoever. In such cases I would suggest that it is best that the reference is left straight to the Minister, as is provided for in the Bill.
Having said that, may I, in conclusion, again remind your Lordships that if the departure from the local development plan involves a departure from the Greater London development plan, or is in some other way of wider regional significance, then it will already go to the Greater London Council under the regulation-making powers provided elsewhere in the Bill? In fact the Bill provides ample machinery for bringing to the attention of the Greater London Council all those things which are of real concern to them in their regional planning capacity, and I think there is little case for cutting out the separate channel provided for in this part of paragraph (b) of subsection (6)—the separate direct channel between the borough
120
council and the Minister on other, lesser, local matters. For these reasons I suggest that your Lordships should not accept Amendment No. 138.
I am not certain that I am in order in so doing, but if I may speak briefly to Amendment No. 139 under this general umbrella, I would just say that I think on this Amendment there is not very much between the noble Lords opposite and myself. As I understand it, that Amendment seeks to ensure that before giving directions the Minister should consider any Greater London Council representations, and also that he should notify the Greater London Council of any directions which he may have made.
LORD FARINGDON: May I ask a question of the noble Earl? I do not quite understand this. Is the Minister going to receive any form of representations from the Greater London Council which will enable him to operate in this way? If the application is not going to the Greater London Council, how is the Minister to know what their view is?
EARL JELLICOE: Since I see this is a little complicated, I think it might be better if we could come back to Amendment No. 139 rather than try to catch it under this particular umbrella. I had hoped that it would be possible to deal with them both at the same time, but if we do I think we shall get rather involved. I would suggest—and I am now restricting myself to Amendment No. 138, and placing myself more within order—that for the reasons I have attempted to give, your Lordships would be right not to accept it.
LORD SILKIN: I am sorry the noble Lord is so unreceptive. In the first place, the clause, as it stands, is rather vague. Paragraph (b) of subsection (6) says
"in the case of an application falling to be dealt with by a London borough council or the Common Council, to the Greater London Council or to the Minister".
Who decides to whom the application goes? It is perfectly vague. I was suggesting that the words "or to the Minister" should be cut out, because that is covered by paragraph (c). But if you allow it to stand in the Bill, it is really making a nonsense. Does it mean that it is to go to the Greater London Council? Does it mean that it is to go to the Minister? Or does it mean both? Who

121
is to decide? I really think the subsection needs clarification in any case. I would therefore suggest that the noble Earl might very well reconsider paragraph (b) and make his own meaning clear. I have tried to make clear what I thought ought to be its meaning, but as it stands the wording is not at all clear. I think the best way of dealing with it is for the noble Earl to give an assurance that (b) will be looked at again, not only with a view to making it clear but also in the light of the Amendment that I have moved.
EARL JELLICOE: I should like to be as responsive as I can to the noble Lord here, because I personally found the greatest difficulty in interpreting to my own satisfaction the precise meaning of this particular subsection. I think that the answer here is that the precise determination of what should go to the Greater London Council and what should go to the Minister will be provided for in the regulations which are to be made under subsection (6). That is a point I should like to be able to check upon.
I should also like to say—without in any way departing from the substance of the case which I have sought to put before your Lordships this evening, because I think there is real substance in the main point I was making—that there are certain matters which will be quite unnecessary, and indeed undesirable, for the Greater London Council to be troubled with. Without departing from the substance of that, I should like the chance of seeing whether the precise division of functions here could not be more easily provided for from a drafting point of view.
LORD SILKIN: Would the noble Earl, when considering the drafting of it, also consider whether it would not save a great deal of trouble if, in the long run, the Greater London Council were informed of all these applications, which in any case involve a departure from the plan? If they are trivial, then no further action will be taken by the G.L.C. If they are important, they can make representations to the Minister. It does not follow that in every single case they would find it necessary to make representations. I hope the noble Earl will take that point into account: and, without asking him to reply, I will withdraw the Amendment on the assurance
122
that he will at any rate look at this paragraph (b) again.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.35 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: Amendment No. 139 provides simply that, before making any such directions, the Minister will consult the Greater London Council. I think it would be wise in any case that he should do so; and I do not think it is necessary for me to develop the argument. What I am asking is exactly what the Amendment says. Any wise Minister, before issuing directions, consults with the authority who are going to be affected by it, and all that I am asking is that it should be definitely stated in the Bill that they should be so consulted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 2, after ("with") insert ("and before giving any such directions as aforesaid in relation to any application mentioned in the foregoing paragraph (c) the Minister shall consider any representations made by the Greater London Council as to the manner in which the application is to be dealt with and shall notify the Greater London Council of any direction so made by him").—(Lord Silkin.)
EARL JELLICOE: Could I first, in replying, deal with the point which I deferred and which the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, raised? It is my understanding that, so far as Amendment No. 139 is concerned, we are here dealing with an application which would already have been referred to the Greater London Council, because it is an application of the sort covered by the Minister's regulations specifying which applications should be so referred—that is, regulations which would have been made under paragraph (b) of subsection (6) of Clause 24. So it will already have come within the Greater London Council's purview.
That said, I wish to remind the Committee that, under the clause as it stands, the Minister gives directions to the referring council. In the kind of case which we are talking about, that would be the authority which had referred the case to him—namely, the Greater London Council. As I understand it, the noble Lord's Amendment would seek to ensure that, before giving directions, the Minister would consider any representations made to him by the Greater London Council, and also would notify them of any directions made by him. Now I think I can

123
satisfy him—at least, I hope I can—that this is already provided for in the Bill as it stands. In the first place, the Greater London Council will be free, quite free, to say whatever they like when they pass the application to the Minister, and they would of course say why the application should be approved and what there is about the particular application which has led them to send it to the Minister. There is nothing to stop them from doing this, and I should have thought that, on any matter to which they attached importance, they would in fact be bound to do precisely this.
So far as notification of the Minister's decision is concerned, I would merely point out that the clause already provides that the Minister will give any directions direct to them, so they are bound to be notified of the Minister's decision. I therefore feel that the substance of what the noble Lord wishes here is already provided for in the Bill as it stands.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I wonder whether my noble friend could just clarify this matter a little further to me. As I understood him to say earlier when he was referring to paragraph (b) of subsection (6), there may be cases which are referred straight to the Minister from the borough council without going through the intermediate stage of the Greater London Council. This seems to me to be the same point as appears in the last two lines at the bottom of page 33, where there is envisaged the case of the referring council going straight to the Minister without in the meantime going to the Greater London Council.
Now in the case of a planning application, or something of that nature, which is called in, under the normal county system, where there is delegated planning, the proper planning authority, who are the county council, would have full cognisance of the facts of the case and would be able to make their representations to the Minister. If there is going to be a series of cases where the G.L.C. are missed out, I feel, with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that they must at any rate have an opportunity to appear in front of any inquiry which takes place, and make any representations that they think fit. I wonder
124
whether the wording in this clause as it stands really covers this point.
EARL JELLICOE: I think it covers this point, because I sought earlier on Amendment No. 138 to show your Lordships that there were certain types of application where it was quite proper that the Greater London Council should be by-passed; and I am not saying "bypassed" in the sense that they should be deliberately circumvented, but am referring to where the application is of such a type that it is not of immediate concern to the Council. I assume that we are dealing here with that type of application which is precisely what my noble friend had in mind. I would sense that we are in this particular matter in fairly deep planning water and, if the noble Lord would permit me, I should like to have a close look between now and Report stage at the remarks made to the Amendment, because I will not hide for one moment that I find this a difficult part of the Bill and I should like to have the chance of seeing whether I had understood it aright. I hope I did.
LORD SILKIN: I should be glad to withdraw the Amendment on that understanding. I understand that the noble Earl is saying that my Amendment is actually covered in the clause. I do not think it is, but I should not like to lay heavy odds on it, and neither would he. I think it best that we should both have a look at it again. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, after subsection (6), to insert:
"( ) Where by virtue of regulations made by the Minister under section 42 of the Planning Act an application for permission is required to be made to the Minister by the Council of a London borough or the Common Council, as the case may be, a copy of the application shall be sent to the Greater London Council at the same time as the application is made to the Minister and the minister shall consider any representations made by the Greater London Council as to the manner in which the application is to be dealt with."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is designed to deal with cases where a local planning authority proposes itself to carry out development which involves a substantial departure from the development plan. In such case the authority

125
is required to submit an application to the Minister, who grants or refuses permission, but there is no obligation on the Minister to inform the Greater London Council or to give them an opportunity of making representations. The Amendment is designed to ensure that in the case I have referred to, the Greater London Council should be informed of the application at the same time as the application is made to the Minister; and that the Minister should be required to consider any representations made by the Greater London Council. That seems to me to be a self-evident proposition. Where a borough is seeking permission to depart from the plan in a material sense—a plan which is made by the Greater London Council—it seems self-evident that the Greater London Council should be notified about the application to depart from it and given information about it, and should have the opportunity of making representations. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, lime 9, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Silkin.)
EARL JELLICOE: We are here in the area of Section 42 of the Planning Act. That section, together with the regulations in a circular which flowed from it, requires the planning authority to inform the Minister of any development they wish to carry out which amounts to a departure from the development plan and which is substantial or likely to damage amenities. The effect of the noble Lord's Amendment is to require a copy of any such application to be sent to the Greater London Council so that they can send their comments to the Minister. I can well see the purpose of this Amendment. If its object were to make certain that the Greater London Council knew of borough projects which have a significance which go beyond the borough, the larger matters which in our scheme of things are designed to come under the umbrella of the Council, then I think I can assure the noble Lord that this is adequately covered in the Bill as it stands.
Where a borough wishes to carry out a development of special or regional significance of the kind covered by regulations which my right honourable friend intends to make under Clause 24, then it will be the Greater London Council itself and not the borough which will be the
126
local planning authority. Thus it would be the council itself which would have to seek the Minister's approval under Section 42 of the Planning Act and, of course, it would know all about the issue from the start.
Going back to my earlier argument, I think there is no point and some harm, as we see things, in bringing the Council into planning issues which are of purely local significance. A borough housing scheme, for example, may well involve a controversy as a departure from the local development plan, but I can see no point in involving the Greater London Council at all, as the Amendment would do, unless the project concerned had a wider significance. To take another example, a borough may wish to convert a room of a private house from residential use to use as a council office. This might annoy somebody in the neighbourhood and there might well be a great local rumpus about it. In that circumstance, it might be highly desirable for the borough concerned to invoke Section 42 machinery; but surely this is not the sort of matter with which the Greater London Council should in any way be concerned.
I do not want to reiterate what I have been saying, but this will merely clutter up the planning machinery. If it is a matter about which, for one reason or another, the Greater London Council is exercised, and if, as a result of the invocation of Section 42 machinery, the Minister decides to institute a local inquiry, the Council would be perfectly entitled to give evidence at that inquiry. By the same token, there is no reason at all why the Minister should not consult the Council on any matter of this sort which had been referred to him by a borough, if he felt that there was a regional or wider significance in the matter. While not unsympathetic to the purpose behind this Amendment, I do not feel that I can advise your Lordships to accept it.
LORD SILKIN: Here I think we are in fundamental disagreement. In my view, as the authority responsible for the overall plan the Greater London Council ought to know of any matters that come within the scope of this Amendment. The noble Lord thinks that there are some cases where it is not necessary. Who decides whether it is an important application or not? Who decides in what cases the Council will be notified

127
and in what cases they will not be notified? He says, quite glibly, if he will forgive the expression, that they will be informed in important cases, but there will be trivial cases where they will not be. Who defines what is important and what is trivial? You can have quite a big argument about the matter which may take up much more of the time and energies of the local authorities concerned than by simply making it a routine matter—and there will not be a great many of these things—that the Greater London Council should be informed in all cases.
I hope that the noble Earl will be prepared to look at this matter again. I am not asking him to give an undertaking, because I will come back to it at a later stage. However, I hope that on reconsideration he may feel either that some means can be devised by which the trivial can be separated from others or, as the Amendment lays it down, that all cases should be referred to the Greater London Council.
LORD LATHAM: The noble Earl mentioned as an example an individual building to be reconstructed or replaced. Could not this proposal be limited to area development rather than individual premises or buildings? For instance, would it not apply to the development of a town centre?
EARL JELLICOE: I am not a Parliamentary draftsman, and I speak subject to correction here, but I think the proposal could be limited in order to cut out the individual application or the very minor one not dealing with matters of area significance. But that is not the Amendment with which we are at present dealing. So far as the specific question which the noble Lord has put to me is concerned, I think that what I was saying would certainly cover an area development by a borough council which did not happen to be either of regional significance or involve a departure from the Greater London Development plan. Provided it did neither of those things, then my argument would still stand, and I think I am meeting the difficult case here.
LORD LATHAM: Stand on the basis of the present Amendment. The Amendment could be adjusted on the lines indicated.
EARL JELLICOE: What I was saying was that I was trying to meet this argument on its most difficult point, where there would appear to be an important development in the hands of a borough council, but a development of a type which did not have a wider significance (though I should have thought that an area development of a central area would have such significance), and which also did not amount to a departure from the Greater London Development plan. Then I would suggest that a development of that sort undertaken by a borough council could well be under Section 42 and should be submitted direct to the Minister. I am not certain that we are diverging on principle here, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, suggested, because I think a development of this sort would almost inevitably, first, be of regional significance, and secondly, would involve a departure from the Greater London Development plan if it had not already been written into the local development plan.
LORD FARINGDON: I do not know whether the noble Earl will reconsider this, but it seems to me that the Greater London Council as the guardian of the strategic plan ought to be in touch with all variants of the plan, even though it be on a lower level. It seems to me difficult to know what would be a purely local variant of a local plan which would have no influence on a general plan. I should have thought it was desirable that the Greater London Council should always be kept informed of all changes of plan at any level. It seems to me that little nibblings away might easily in the end vitiate very seriously the main strategic plan. I hope the noble Earl will look at this matter again.
EARL JELLICOE: I was anxious not to elevate this (as I thought the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, did) into a great dispute over principle. If I correctly understand what the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, has said, it has now been de-elevate from a point of major principle. I do not think we are discussing a point of major principle, and if the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, would see fit to withdraw this Amendment, I am quite prepared to have another look at this point. But I do not think, especially if we are dealing with the Amendment as drafted at present, that I could come

129
back at Report stage and say, "On re-examination, this appears right"—that is, if we are dealing with the matter as drafted.
LORD LATHAM: If the noble Earl deals with this on Report stage, I hope it will not be on the basis that the Amendment as drafted is immutable.
LORD SILKIN: If the noble Earl is able to distinguish between one kind of case and another which comes within Section 42, and any other kind of case, I should be perfectly prepared to consider that and see whether he can distinguish between what is a serious departure and what is not. I think he will find it very difficult. It is for that reason that the Amendment is drafted to make it a requirement that all departures should be notified to the Greater London Council. It did not seem to me to be a very onerous duty, because I cannot visualise borough councils constantly making departures from their plan or seeking to depart from the Greater London Plan. It would not involve this enormous amount of work and cluttering up to which the noble Earl has referred. However, he has promised to think about it again, and certainly I am not wedded to the words of this Amendment. In these circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.57 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, after subsection (6), to insert:
"( ) The Greater London Council may deal with any particular application falling within paragraph (b) of the last foregoing subsection, and in relation to any such application that Council shall be deemed to be the local planning authority for all purposes of the Planning Act other than the reception of the application."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment falls into the category of those I have been discussing earlier—that is, from No. 138 onwards—because here we are seeking to provide that where an application is referred to the Greater London Council the Council should have the right to call in the application and deal with it as if the application had been originally made to the Council. It seems to me that this is the most convenient way of proceeding, rather than for the Council to give directions to the London borough concerned as to how it is to deal with a particular
130
application. Once it comes within the category of an application which has to be referred to the Greater London Council, surely the simplest way and the method in the best interests of general planning is for the Greater London Council to deal with it as if the application had been originally made to them—in other words, to call it in. This is all part of the structure of this particular clause, and I hope the Minister will see his way to give this Amendment consideration. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 9, at end insert the said subsection—(Lord Silkin.)
EARL JELLICOE: I am just as anxious as noble Lords opposite that we should get this Part of the Bill as right as we can. The matters which we are discussing may well appear to be rather dry and legalistic, but beneath all this legalese what we are really discussing is the shape and skyline of the London of the future. We all know how important these legalistic forms can be. We all know, for example, how much difference has been made to the shape of the London sky-line over these decades by the question of whether or not the 10 per cent. shall be judged on the cube or on the square. Therefore I entirely agree that we should not let these things go by lightly. So I hope, having said that, that noble Lords will believe me when I say that we are just as anxious as they are that we should get this as right as we can at the present time, and also that the Greater London Council, as a strategic planning unit, should be given by us planning teeth sharp enough to bite effectively on those planning applications which should properly concern them.
However, I do have doubts here again about this particular Amendment. In the first place, I should have thought that a lot of the matters about which noble Lords opposite are concerned will fall to be dealt with under the Clause 24(4) machinery. Given that machinery, I assume—and I have been reinforced in this assumption by what the noble Lord has said—that the purpose of this Amendment is to enable the Greater London Council to call in any application referred to them under Clause 24(6) machinery rather than, as the Bill provides, to give directions to the boroughs

131
as to the way in which such applications should be handled.
I do not think that this change is really necessary for two reasons. In the first place, there is the Section 24(4) machinery under which the Greater London Council will, from the start of planning applications which have this wider significance, be the planning authority pur sang. Secondly, I do not think that it is necessary since the Greater London Council, at least as I understand it, would be able to do, under Section 24(6), by way of direction, all that they could do by way of "call in". For those reasons—and I should like to put this as briefly as possible—I am at this moment not disposed to feel that we should accept this Amendment. At the same time, I have all through found great difficulty in this particular subsection (6) of Clause 24. If we are looking at these other matters under this subsection, I am perfectly prepared, although I must safeguard myself by saying without commitment, to have a look at this particular issue as well.
LORD SILKIN: I am very much obliged. I join with the noble Earl in finding some difficulty in subsection (6) and as this is an Amendment to subsection (6) I think it is sensible that if the noble Earl's Department is going to look at it again they should also look at it in the context of this Amendment. I should like to say, perhaps in apology to the Committee, that I did not develop this at any length because I felt that the right solution was that the whole subsection should be looked at again. But I could have given a great many examples of cases where I should have thought it was right that the Greater London Council should be able to call in in matters of the greatest importance. I deliberately did not wish to bore the Committee at this late hour, and I do not propose to do so now, but I should like to suggest that in this further consideration—and as the noble Earl said, this is very important—it might be wise to have consultations about it. I do not mind with whom; with me, if you like; at any rate, I am available if the noble Earl feels that I can be of any use. Certainly there should be consultations, possibly with the London County Council, or anyone else the noble Earl thinks right, between now and Report stage. There again I am sure the
132
noble Earl cannot give a decision here and now, but having made that suggestion I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.6 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved, after subsection (7) to insert:
"7A. Any reference in Part III of the Land Compensation Act 1961 to the local planning authority shall be construed in relation to land in a London Borough or the City as a reference to the borough council or, as the case may be, the Common Council; but that council shall consult with the Greater London Council before issuing a certificate under section 17 of that Act in any case where an application for planning permission for any development to which the certificate would relate would fall to be dealt with by the Greater London Council."
The noble Lord said: The Government feel that some clarification is needed as to whether the Greater London Council or the London boroughs should be local planning authorities for the purpose of issuing certificates of appropriate alternative development under Section 17 of the Land Compensation Act, 1961. It may be argued—and I suspect from the noble Lord's Amendment to this Amendment that it will be argued—that since the Minister may prescribe particular cases of development application which must be dealt with by the Greater London Council, the Greater London Council should therefore deal with all application certificates under Section 17. On considering this matter, however, we have felt that on the whole it would be best to lay the responsibility on the London boroughs, since they will be responsible for the preparation of the detailed local development plans which will be the main framework for development control, and they will deal with most of the planning applications.
The Minister, of course, will from time to time prescribe particular classes of development for which planning permission must be handled by the Greater London Council. However, it is not possible to classify applications under Section 17 of the 1961 Act in the same way, and hence it is proposed that where the authority proposes to give a certificate for development that would fall to be considered by the Greater London Council, then in those cases, and those cases only, the authority must consult with the Greater London Council.
Therefore, I beg leave to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 18, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Hastings.)
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved, as an Amendment to the Amendment, to leave out, "in any case where an application for planning permission for any development to which the certificate would relate would fall to be dealt with by the Greater London Council." The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment to the Amendment. The Government acknowledge the need for the Greater London Council to be consulted in particular cases. The object of this Amendment is to ensure that in all cases where a certificate is to be granted by a borough the Greater London Council should be consulted. The authority's function is a matter of determining what alternative zoning might have to be made, which is essentially a matter for the development plan authority, the Greater London Council.
It is considered that, as the authority responsible for the master plan, and for giving observations to the Minister on proposals in all the local development plans (and I think the noble Lord would accept that), the Greater London Council should be consulted before any certificate is issued for a development not in accordance with the provisions of either the Greater London development plan or a local development plan. We accept the general principle of the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hastings. We feel that there will be only a few occasions when a borough would not, in fact, have to consult the Greater London Council. We feel that it would save a good deal of dispute that might arise, and would be safer and better, especially in view of the small number of cases where certificates would be issued without consultation, and also because the Greater London Council is the development authority, that the development authority should be consulted in all cases where a certificate is issued by a borough. I beg to move.
Amendment to Amendment moved—
Leave out the said words.—(Lord Shepherd.)
LORD HASTINGS: I have listened to what the noble Lord. Lord Shepherd, has said. He feels that only a few of
134
these cases under Section 17 would not have to be referred to the Greater London Council. Our feeling is that there would be much unnecessary paper work involved and most cases would relate to development which would not fall to be dealt with by the Greater London Council. I do not wish to be dogmatic on this matter. Of course it is a question of zoning, and particular uses and certificates for residential development might cut across some zoned metropolitan road, or something like that. There are many cases one can think of. I feel that in this particular case the matter would bear looking into further, and if the noble Lord will accept my Amendment—which at least puts into the Bill the substance of the matter we wish to see there—then in relation to the particular words he wishes to leave out, I will consider the matter further and let him know, in rather more detail than I am able to now, and after a better examination of this problem, what we feel is the best thing.
LORD SHEPHERD: I am quite willing to do that. We have accepted the principle of the Government Amendment. We feel that it is unnecessarily restrictive, and I hope the noble Lord will consider the rather inadequate words that I have used. I could have spoken at far greater length and in detail to support my case, but I purposely kept my remarks short. The position is important, and I hope the Minister will see our point of view and will be able to concede our point. I beg leave to withdrawn my Amendment to the Amendment.
Amendment to Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SILKIN: I understood that discussions were going on with a view to terminating at this point, which might be convenient. The next Amendment may take a little time.
EARL JELLICOE: That is my rather belated understanding, too, and in view of that I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

OIL IN NAVIGABLE WATERS BILL
10.13 p.m.
Brought from Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

FORESTRY (SALE OF LAND) (SCOTLAND) BILL
Brought from Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) BILL
Brought from Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
SHERIFF COURTS (CIVIL JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE) (SCOTLAND) BILL
Brought from Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
LUCAS ESTATE BILL [H.L.]
Committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL
Brought from Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at a quarter past ten o'clock.