Sitting of 18 February 1964

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

    Hampton Court Palace (Son et Lumiére)
    Mr. Clive Bossomasked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he will make a statement on the possibility of staging a Son et Lumiére at Hampton Court Palace during the summer months.
    The Minister of Public Building and Works (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): I can now agree in principle to the staging of Son et Lumiére at Hampton Court Palace. I am considering what arrangement might be made for this summer.
    Mr. Bossom: While we welcome this news, may I ask the Minister if he will look into the possibility of staging a river pageant and periodically illuminating the Palace when Son et Lumiére is not there? Lastly, could not more use be made of this historic royal palace by Government hospitality, using the banqueting hall and the Cumberland suite when it is restored?
    Mr. Rippon: I will certainly consider any proposals of that nature which may be put forward. I know that the Lord Chamberlain is as anxious as I am that we should make the best possible use of this Royal Palace. I am certain, too, that it would be a good setting for Government hospitality from time to time, and that will apply also to the Cumberland suite when it is completed.

    Building Work (Programming)
    Dr. Brayasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what arrangements exist for advising other Departments of the amount of building work
    996
    which can be undertaken each quarter or each year, in each area or region, without overstraining the resources of the building industry in the area.
    Mr. Rippon: My Ministry co-operates closely with other Departments in the formulation of annual and longer-term building programmes.
    Closer programming depends upon obtaining more detailed information about local loads on the construction industries. With the industries' agreement, I have started to collect new statistics, which can be analysed by locality. This information will be included for the first time in the quarterly statistics due to be published in May.
    Dr. Bray: Is the Minister aware that there is still no great confidence in future full employment in the building industry in certain areas of the country either during the winter or in the years ahead? Will the right hon. Gentleman treat this matter with a little greater urgency so as to ensure that areas of high unemployment particularly will get this work?
    Mr. Rippon: I am not aware of the position as stated by the hon. Member.

    National Building Agency
    Mr. Templeasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what progress he has made in the establishment of the National Building Agency.
    Mr. Rippon: I have appointed the Agency's board of directors. I am pleased to say that Mr. Thomas V. Prosser, Managing Director of Wm. Thornton & Sons, Ltd., Liverpool, has accepted appointment as Chairman and Managing Director, and Mr. A. W. Cleeve Barr, Chief Architect of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, has accepted appointment as Deputy Chairman and Chief Architect. These appointments are full time.
    I have also appointed twelve part-time directors. With permission I will circulate their names in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    In making these appointments I have sought to ensure that the board will broadly reflect the views of those who will be most closely affected by the Agency's work.
    Mr. Temple: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the appointment of Mr. Thomas Prosser, who is extremely well known in the building industry and highly respected, will give very great confidence to the industry? Would my right hon. Friend like to give an assurance to the House that there is no intention of the National Building Agency itself engaging in any form of building, and would he also tell the House whether he has had specal regard to amenity problems in his appointments?
    Mr. Rippon: I am indeed glad that Mr. Prosser has agreed to undertake this public work. I am sure that he will enjoy wide confidence. I made it perfectly clear in the White Paper which I published at the end of last year that the Agency will not itself build or contract. I certainly hope, however, that it will do a very great deal to ensure more efficient building—not only faster and cheaper building but better building—and I am glad to say that the Director of the Civic Trust is one of the people who have agreed to serve as part-time members of the board.
    Mr. C. Pannell: Even as it is, is the Minister aware that the National Federation of Builders and Plumbers Merchants already thinks, presumably, that the powers given to the Agency are far too great, but that, in contradistinction to that, we on this side of the House think that this is the foundation of something which can be improved by the Government to come and that the National Building Agency should have the power to build in those cases where it is in the national interest to do so?
    Mr. Rippon: As it is a Conservative Government which is to come, I am sure that the Agency will grow in strength. It is true, perhaps, that a number of people have been misled by the hon. Member and his hon. Friends into thinking of this as creeping Socialism, but this horse is a much better breed than the lumbering Clause 4 carthorse which the party opposite is endeavouring to bring up to the starting post. I do not think that the Agency should have the powers which the Opposition would like to give it.
    Following are the names:
    Mr. John Bedford. O.B.E., Chairman and Managing Director of Debenham's Ltd.
    General Sir Geoffrey Bourne, G.C.B., K.B.E., C.M.G., Formerly General Officer Commanding Berlin, Commander-in-Chief, Middle East Land Forces and Commandant, Imperial Defence College.
    Mr. Peter Dunican, M.I. Struct. E., Partner in Ove, Arup and Partners, Consulting Engineers.
    Mr. Victor Feather, C.B.E., Assistant General Secretary, Trades Union Congress.
    Mr. W. Sinclair Gauldie F.R.I.B.A., P.R.I.A.S., Member of the architectural firm of Gauldie, Hardie, Wright and Needham of Dundee.
    Mr. S. Johnson-Marshall, C.B.E., B.Arch., A.R.I.B.A., Partner in the architectural firm of Robert Matthew and Johnson-Marshall, formerly Chief Architect of the Ministry of Education.
    Mr. Leslie Lane, F.R.I.C.S.. M.T.P.I., Director of, he Civic Trust, a Senior Vice President of the Town Planning Institute, formerly Planning Officer of London County Council.
    Mr. Kingsley Longstaff, Clerk to the Castle Ward Rural District Council.
    Alderman J. B. Maudsley. C.B.E., Maidenhead Borough Council. Chairman of the Executive Committee of Non-County Boroughs for England and Wales.
    >Dr. J. W. Macfarlane, Ph.D., Wh. Sc., M. I. E. E., M. I. Mech. E., F.R.S.E., D.L., J.P., Chairman, Planning Committee, Renfrew County Council and the immediate Past President, Association of County Councils in Scotland.
    Alderman F. A. Small, C.B.E., D.L., J.P., Chairman, Nottinghamshire County Council.
    Mr. Peter Trench, O.B.E., T.D., B.S.c, J.P., Currently Director of the National Federation of Building Trades Employers.

    Prison Building (Development Group)
    Mr. Compton Carrasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what steps he is taking to improve the methods of prison building.
    Mr. Rippon: I have just reconstituted the development group for prison building in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department. Substantial improvements have already been achieved in prison building and I intend to ensure that we keep pace with the rapid advance of thought in the field of penology.
    Mr. Carr: Will my right hon. Friend be paying attention to the provision of outside walls, which cost so much, and to the possible replacement of them by other means of containment?
    Mr. Rippon: I can assure my hon. Friend that nothing will escape our attention.
    Mr. C. Pannell: Is the Minister aware that if he wants a shocking example of what must never happen again he need only look at Armley Gaol, in my constituency, which is surely an offence to all civilised standards?
    Mr. Rippon: Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I have never seen that gaol. However, I will certainly look at it if he feels that it is important that I should.

    Building Industry (Firm Price Tenders)
    Mr. Boydenasked the Minister of Public Building and Works, in view of the long-term wage settlement in the building industry, what consultations he has had with the building industry regarding the desirability of adopting a system of firm price tenders three years ahead.
    Mr. Rippon: Since the wages agreement was made have discussed without commitment the period for firm price tenders with some representative bodies in the building industry. I have explained that I will not consider this matter further until I have received the final report of the Banwell Committee on the Placing and Management of Contracts for Building and Civil Engineering Work. Meanwihle my policy remains as stated in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) on 11th December, 1962.
    Mr. Boyden: Will the right hon. Gentleman press on with this? Does not he agree that the building contractors owe an obligation to the Government to keep prices stable, particularly since the Government agreed not to use the building industry as an economic regulator? What now prevents the industry from helping the Government?
    Mr. Rippon: There are arguments both ways on this. I believe that the industry is very willing to co-operate with the Government, but I will look into the matter when I receive the final report of the Banwell Committee.

    Downing Street Site (Contractor's Fee)
    Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what was the final fee paid to the contractor on the Downing Street site; and what was the original figure.
    Mr. Rippon: The original fee payable to the contractor for Downing Street and the Old Treasury was £ 15,000. The contractor has claimed an increase in the fee which is being considered.
    Mr. Hamilton: Did not the original contract provide for a fixed fee and was not the implication of that that risks were being taken by both parties to the agreement? Does it not follow that if the contractors have contracted a bad risk and lost thereby, this is surely what they could expect? If the boot had been on the other foot, does the Minister think that the contractor would have come back to him and offered him some money because he had got more than the amount to which he was entitled?
    Mr. Rippon: While my Ministry is negotiating with the contractor over his claim it would be improper for me to rehearse the arguments.
    Mr. More: In view of the misunderstanding that there has been on this matter, would my right hon. Friend make it clear to the House what exactly is meant by the "Downing Street site"?
    Mr. Rippon: It covers Nos. 10, 11 and 12, Downing Street and the Treasury building.
    Mr. Bellenger: In spite of what the right hon. Gentleman says, is he aware that there is a great deal of feeling in this House and outside that the cost of these repairs has been exorbitant? As the right hon. Gentleman is now engaged in negotiations, will he try to see that the price is much more reasonable than the public have hitherto been led to believe?
    Mr. Rippon: This is an argument about a contractor's fee. All I am saying is that whatever the merits of the argument, either from the point of view of the public or the contractor, it would be wrong for me to discuss them now.

    Scotland (Purchases)
    Mr. Manuelasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what was the total cost of the furniture purchased by his Department in Scotland for the three financial years ending March, 1963; and what was the total cost for the above three years of furniture purchased in England.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Public Building and Works (Mr. Richard Sharpies): The figures of furniture purchased are £·5 million in Scotland and £18 million elsewhere.
    Mr. Manuel: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the main furniture firms in Scotland are located in development districts and that we have in Scotland 7 per cent. of the total furniture workers in the United Kingdom? Does he not agree that it is shocking that we should have this minute proportion of the work, and will he do something so that we are given at least some parity, particularly in areas of high unemployment?
    Mr. Sharples: One of the difficulties is that a number of firms in Scotland which make furniture have written saying that owing to the amount of work they have in hand they are not able to tender.
    Mr. Manuel: If that is the case, why did a Written Answer which I received from the Minister of Labour yesterday show a reduction in the total number of workers employed in the Scottish furniture industry compared with previous years?
    Mr. Sharples: I can only answer from the point of view of the invitations to tender which have been sent out. The answer which we have received from a number of firms in Scotland—and I have with me quite a large number of letters from Scottish firms—is that they are unable to tender because of the work they have in hand. One of these letters is from a firm in the hon. Member's constituency.
    Mr. Manuelasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what was the total cost of all manufactures used by his Department in Scotland for the three years ending March, 1963 and what amount of that cost was paid to Scottish firms.
    Mr. Sharples: I regret that this information is not available.
    Mr. Manuel: Will the Parliamentary Secretary ask his right hon. Friend why this information is not available? Is not his Department bound to receive the accounts of payments made to Scottish firms? Is there not an accountancy department in the Ministry containing more than 1,000 workers and would not the work of separating the figures be comparatively easy? Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the Government are now paying lip-service to regional development? If there is to be regional development in Scotland and elsewhere there must be some regional accountancy. Will the hon. Gentleman streamline his Department and so keep pace with Government statements regarding regional development?
    Mr. Sharples: I think that the hon. Gentleman underestimates the complexity of the Question he asked, which was for the total cost of all manufactures. I am sure that he realises that this covers a very wide variety of goods, including a vast range of building components. If the hon. Gentleman puts down a Question about specific items I will do my best to find the answer for him.

    Palace of Westminster (First-Aid Personnel)
    Mrs. Slaterasked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he will move for a Select Committee to inquire into the provision of first-aid personnel in the House of Commons premises.
    Mr. Sharples: No, Sir.
    Mrs. Slater: Is it not about time that further consideration was given to this matter? Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that to obtain even a thermometer the other week for one of my hon. Friend; I had to spend quite a long time and do a considerable amount of running up and down corridors and stairs to find one? Is he also aware that the conditions in this House are as antiquated as they are in some other parts of the building—as antiquated as some people apparently want to keep this building? Is it not time that we had available people with first-aid qualifications to whom hon. Members could go in case of emergency?
    Mr. Sharples: The majority of the police who work in the House are trained in first aid. The hon. Lady's Question refers to moving for a Select Committee. That would be a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House to consider.
    Mrs. Slater: In which case will the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. and learned Friend to give this his consideration? Is he aware that some people, particularly some of the young girl secretaries, would prefer to go for treatment to someone other than the police, good as the police are—[Interruption.]—not because they are afraid of the police, but because they happen to be young girls. Is it not time that they were able to go to someone who was really trained in first aid?
    Mr. Sharples: There are medical facilities very close indeed to the House, and we should take that into consideration.
    Mr. C. Pannell: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that such facilities as we have in this House arose from the recommendations of a Select Committee, the Stokes Committee, of 1953–54? This was one of that Committee's many recommendations? Is he further aware that the small room by the Cromwell Statue was put into order at that time, and that it is about 10 years since those improvements were made? Is it not time, bearing in mind the number of people who work in the House, that we realised that none of the facilities available in the House come up to the minimum requirements that any of Her Majesty's factory inspectors would insist upon? Will the hon. Gentleman look at this matter, if necessary in consultation with the authorities of the House, to see whether something more up to date can be provided?
    Mr. Sharples: I am certainly prepared to look at this matter in conjunction with the authorities of the House, but the question of personnel trained in first aid is a matter for the House.

    Office Accommodation, London (Civil Servants)
    Mr. Liptonasked the Minister of Public Building and Works how many additional square feet of office accommodation have been made available to
    1004
    civil servants in the London area during the past year.
    Mr. Rippon: The net addition in office accommodation made available in the past year to civil servants in the London area—excluding the Post Office—was about 300,000 sq. ft.
    Mr. Lipton: How does the right hon. Gentleman square up all these square feet with the Government's alleged policy of reducing the number of civil servants and Government office accommodation in London?
    Mr. Rippon: This is something of a jigsaw. The principal additions this year are 110,000 sq. ft. at Eland House for the Department of Technical Co-operation—which I think the hon. Gentleman has seen—and 175,000 sq. ft. for the Board of Trade in Victoria Street. When the Ministry of Defence completes its move into its new accommodation, we shall give up about 185,000 sq. ft. in Queen Anne's Mansions, and elsewhere. The House will also wish to bear in mind that when we do provide new accommodation for staff, whether it be a new building or merely fresh premises, we try to raise the standard of the accommodation.

    Geologists
    Mr. Smallasked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he will state the number of fully-qualified geologists in his Department.
    Mr. Sharples: We do not employ fully qualified geologists as such, but several scientists employed in soil engineering have university degrees in science, which include geology either as a main or subsidiary subject.
    Mr. Small: Since there is a reservoir of technical skill in the Department, has the hon. Gentleman's Minister considered forming a link between a study group and a geological survey preceding the construction of a Channel Tunnel?
    Mr. Sharples: I should certainly like to examine what the hon. Gentleman says before I reply to it.

    Channel Tunnel
    Mr. Smallasked the Minister of Public Building and Works to what extent his Department will be involved

    1005
    in the construction of the Channel Tunnel.
    Mr. Rippon: The arrangements for the construction of the tunnel have still to be worked out by Her Majesty's Government and the French Government.
    Mr. Small: As this will be an historical landmark and an engineering event, does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that even at this early stage he should lake a deep interest in the construction of the tunnel?
    Mr. Rippon: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Clark Hutchison: Will my right hon. Friend do his best to see that no Government money is spent, or wasted, on such a ridiculous idea as a Channel Tunnel?
    Mr. Rippon: No, Sir.
    Mr. C. Pannell: The Minister rather brushed off my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun (Mr. Small) with a somewhat smart reply, but does he appreciate that, as his is the major building Department representing the Crown, the question of a geological survey is very necessary? Can he inform the House at the earliest possible moment how far his Department will be implicated in this project? Obviously, he will want his Department to be implicated, because there is too much money involved here for the project to be farmed out to various private firms of contractors. Might I further inquire whether the ignorance of his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Clark Hutchison) is shared by the Front Bench opposite?
    Mr. Rippon: I do not call it brushing off the hon. Member when I agreed with him completely.
    Mr. Rankin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the disappointing answer given by the Minister to his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Clark Hutchison), I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Shipyards (Building Components)
    Mr. Millanasked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he will make an up-to-date report on the success
    1006
    of his plan for the production of building components in shipyards.
    Mr. Willisasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what further development has taken place in the endeavour to utilise the capacity of shipyards to supplement the building industry.
    Mr. Lawsonasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what progress has been made in the scheme for the production of building components in shipyards.
    Mr. Rossasked the Minister of Public Building and Works how many shipyards in Scotland are engaged in implementing his plan for the production of building components and what is the extent of their operations in this respect.
    Mr. Rippon: I understand that seven shipyards in Scotland and a number in England have entered the building field to a modest extent. As I explained in my Answer to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) on 3rd December last, the commercial initiative for further diversification on these lines must rest with the firms concerned.
    Mr. Millan: While we are all very glad to welcome the progress so far made, and while we appreciate that this is something that rests very largely with the commercial initiative of individual shipyards, may I ask, nevertheless. whether the progress is not rather disappointing? Is the Minister satisfied that his Department, through the inquiry centres, and in other ways, is giving to the shipyards the kind of technical assistance they need to get started in this field?
    Mr. Rippon: I should certainly welcome further progress, and the officers of my Ministry are more than willing to give all the technical help they can to all who might be concerned in this matter.
    Mr. Willis: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many shipyards outside Scotland have entered this field? Would he expand a little further what he means by "modes"? Is this scheme really coming up to what the Government expected?
    Mr. Rippon: It has provided a service which. I think, has been fairly well used.

    1007
    It is very hard to identify how many people have read the report I have issued, and taken some action. I cannot give the specific number of shipyards in England, but there are certainly a number in the North-East that have made very extensive arrangements for making factory-built houses or components.
    Mr. Lawson: Will the right hon. Gentleman take it from us that we are very happy about the efforts being made in this connection; that we welcome them, and seek to press him to continue and to expand them? To what extent is he capable of using, for example, the National Building Agency in giving advice to the shipbuilding yards, bearing in mind that those yards are entering into something that is not their field at all, and that the commercial initiative required in shipbuilding and that required in other fields are quite different, and that this type of advice as well as the other is required?
    Mr. Rippon: I appreciate the hon. Member's point. Certainly, the National Building Agency, whose services are available to both public and private authorities, will be able to help in some respects. Meanwhile, officials of my Ministry are there to give technical advice but, as I explained when we first discussed this, we have to bring together not only the shipyards but, say, the local authorities or other customers, and perhaps a builder as well, to help with the marketing.
    Mr. Ross: Can the Minister indicate how many men are employed on these projects in the yards in Scotland? Has he yet been able to form any idea whether this work is being regarded as a permanent fixture, or is being looked on rather as a temporary stop-gap?
    Mr. Rippon: I think that many shipyards would, perhaps, rather see themselves building ships, but appreciate that they have a good deal of spare capacity and that it is useful to diversify. I cannot give the exact number of men engaged, but there are three yards in Glasgow doing this work, and yards at Leith, Fife, Aberdeen and Greenock are also doing this work.
    Sir C. Osborne: Does this rather new and novel development in traditional shipyards mean that we have accepted
    1008
    that the shipyards will never again be used for their primary purpose of building ships?
    Mr. Rippon: I do not think that that follows at all.
    Mr. C. Pannell: May I repeat a question that I first put to the Minister when this matter was first raised? Since this proposal was first mooted, has he set up any organisation or made any efforts in his own Department to see that these yards get customers, bearing in mind that in the early days of production there is bound to be certain price disparity because other factories are often better laid out to do this work? Does he appreciate that this industry needs nursing during the trial period if it is to compete commercially?
    Mr. Rippon: The hon. Gentleman will remember that I set up special inquiry centres at Glasgow, Newcastle and Manchester and, earlier this year, the shipyards in the North-East were invited to a conference on industrialised building which Newcastle University convened at my suggestion. So we are trying to bring everyone together.

    Banqueting House
    Mr. Goodhewasked the Minister of Public Building and Works when he now expects to be able to open the Banqueting House to the public.
    Mr. Rippon: Since the Royal United Service Institution vacated the Banqueting House it has been possible to make a closer inspection of the work needed to prepare it for opening to the public. I have now decided that it would be better to repaint the areas of ceiling round the Rubens panels, and so make it unnecessary to close the hall later for this purpose. I now expect the Banqueting House to be opened to the public by the late summer.
    Mr. Goodhew: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether this hall will be used for Government entertaining and if so, whether it will be possible, with or without the aid of geologists, to have a tunnel from here to the royal wine cellar?
    Mr. Rippon: I think that we had better concentrate on one tunnel at a time.
    Mr. C. Pannell: In view of the adverse report yesterday from the Kitchen Committee, may I ask whether there is any truth in the rumour that that Committee will take over this hall to try and get rid of its deficit?
    Mr. Rippon: Whatever the Kitchen Committee wants to do, it is not going to do that. The hall might be available for Government hospitality or for other functions of a special nature, such as small concerts.

  TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION

    Federation of British Industries (Conference)
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation what broad conclusions were reached at the Federation of British Industries conference at which his Department participated; to what extent the United Kingdom Government are assisting the positive recommendations of the conference; and through which Government Departments this is to be done.
    The Secretary for Technical Co-operation (Mr. Robert Carr): The Federation of British Industries has not yet formulated its own views or the conclusions reached at its conference, and until it does so it would be premature for me to discuss them.
    The Ministry of Labour, the Board of Trade and my own Department which are all concerned with training in industry are however in close touch with the Federation of British Industries.
    Mr. Swingler: Am I to take it that the right hon. Gentleman's Department is discussing the matter with the Federation of British Industries? Are representatives of developing countries also involved? Were they invited to the conference and are they also participating in discussions about what the Federation of British Industries proposes to do?
    Mr. Carr: My Department is certainly in touch with the Federation of British Industries, as I have said. Representatives of developing countries are not involved, for the simple reason that the object of the conference is to discuss our own organisation in this country for
    1010
    receiving these trainees, which of course is a matter for internal organisation.
    Mr. G. M. Thomson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a good deal of anxiety about the inadequacy of our arrangements for in-service training for people from developing countries? Can he assure us that every step is being taken by the F.B.I. and the developing countries to try to get a satisfactory solution of this problem?
    Mr. Carr: I am aware of the need and I hope than we shall get improvement in this field, as in training generally, when the. new legislation on training comes into force.

    Tanganyika, Uganda and Zanzibar (Farmer Civil Servants)
    Sir E. Erringtonasked the Secretary for 'Technical Co-operation how many former civil servants of British nationality who served in Tanganyika, Uganda and Zanzibar, respectively, are receiving pensions in respect of such service; and what contribution to such pensions is being made by the British Government: by way of basic pensions and pensions increases, respectively.
    Mr. R. Carr: The number of former British overseas civil servants in receipt of pension: from the three countries are: 2,100 from Tanganyika, 1,800 from Uganda, and 250 from Zanzibar. Her Majesty's Government are contributing to these pensions through the Overseas Service Ai Scheme to the extent of £31,000, £27,000 and £2,000 per annum respectively. In addition they are providing pension supplements at an annual cost of £29 000, £20,500 and £5,000 to the pensioners from each of the three countries.
    Sir E. Errington: I thank my right hon. Friend for that information. Has he considered the possibility of rationalising these pensions so that there are not, as there are at the moment, considerable differences between the actual pensions received?
    Mr. Carr: I should like to consider that matter.

    Technical Experts (Commonwealth Countries)
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation in what

    1011
    Commonwealth countries the 2,500 technical experts placed by his Department since its foundation are working; how many are engaged in teaching in each country; and on what terms they are employed.
    Mr. R. Carr: Over 2,300 of the 2,500 technical experts mentioned have been recruited to serve in all the developing countries and territories in the Commonwealth, and about 730 were for educational appointments, mostly as teachers. Their geographical distribution will be circulated as a table in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    About 1,800 were appointed under the Overseas Service Aid Scheme and some 300 under regional programmes of technical assistance. The remaining 200 were recruited but not financially assisted by my Department.
    Mr. Swingler: Whilst thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that information, may I ask whether he would not regard it as desirable that these technical experts who go to developing countries should work there on the same terms and conditions as citizens of those countries with equivalent qualifications? Would it not be a constructive thing to ensure that if they are to be paid additional allowances those are paid in the United Kingdom and that these people are not paid more than equivalent citizens in the countries in which they work?
    Mr. Carr: The fact has to be faced that if we are to persuade people to leave this country, and indeed other countries, and give up their home-based careers and serve abroad for a period, we may have to pay quite substantial inducements for them to do so. To the best of my knowledge, the present rates are thoroughly acceptable to the developing countries concerned.
    Mr. G. M. Thomson: That was not the point about which by hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) was asking. My hon. Friend was suggesting that these people ought to be paid at a higher level than equivalent people in the developing countries but that an element in that payment should be made at home. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the West Germans do this and that it helps to avoid some of the difficulties in
    1012
    developing countries? Would the right hon. Gentleman look at the matter again?
    Mr. Carr: I will certainly look at it again but present arrangements, as far as I know, are very agreeable to the developing countries.
    Following is the table:

    Education Appointments: July, 1961-December 1963

    Aden

    26

    Bahamas

    5

    Barbados

    1

    Basutoland

    1

    Bechuanaland

    3

    British Guiana

    4

    British Honduras

    1

    B.S.I.P

    7

    Brunei

    1

    Ceylon

    1

    Falkland Islands

    13

    Fiji

    5

    Gambia

    4

    Ghana

    2

    Gibraltar

    3

    G.E.I.C

    1

    Hong Kong

    21

    India

    5

    Kenya

    137

    Leeward Islands

    1

    Malaya

    6

    Malta

    7

    Nigeria

    8

    Northern Rhodesia

    56

    Nyasaland

    32

    Pakistan

    10

    Sabah

    20

    St. Helena

    1

    Sarawak

    7

    Seychelles

    3

    Sierra Leone

    3

    Swaziland

    9

    Tanganyika

    105

    Tristan da Cunha

    1

    Uganda

    215*

    Windward Islands

    3

    Zanzibar

    3

    Totals:

    731

    * This figure includes 44 new Graduates from Britain now taking the Diploma of Education course at Makere College (University of East Africa) in Uganda, some of whom, on completion of their course, will teach in Tanganyika or Kenya.

    Appointments (171) under Commonwealth Educational Co-operation arrangements are not included because they were not made directly by the D.T.C., although supported financially by it.

    Ghana (Ex-Civil Service Pensioners)
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation if he will make a statement about the progress of discussions with the Ghana Government on the increased taxation levied on overseas pensioners.
    Mr. R. Carr: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave on this subject on the 11th February. The number of pensioners affected by the Ghana tax measure is approximately 1,500.
    Mr. Wall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that statement is not entirely satisfactory and does not cover cases of British pensioners now living outside the United Kingdom? Will he take up their case with the Ghana Government? Is he aware that the sense of security of all pensioners has been rather shaken by this event? Would my right hon. Friend look again at the question of taking over all pensions contracted up to the time of independence and offsetting that amount by a commensurate reduction in overseas aid?
    Mr. Carr: On my hon. Friend's last point, I would have hoped that the outcome of these negotiations would have increased the sense of security and confidence in the ability of the British Government to look after the interests of our pensioners. I cannot hold out any hope to my hon. Friend that the basic responsibility for the payment of pensions will be altered. On the first point I understand that a procedure similar to that applicable to Ghana pensioners in the United Kingdom will operate in relation to countries with which Ghana has a double taxation agreement. There are some arrangements with other countries as well.
    Mr. Wade: Do I understand that in the case of countries where there is no double taxation agreement in existence the new agreement with the Ghana Government will not apply?
    Mr. Carr: Pensioners resident in those countries will be liable to Ghana Income Tax at the non-resident rate unless, and this is an important proviso, they prove by certificate from their local tax authorities that their pension is taxed in their country of residence, in which case the Ghana resident as opposed to non-resident rates will apply. I think that that will cover those pensioners.
    Mr. Wall: Will my right hon. Friend circulate the list of countries where double-taxation agreements apply?
    Mr. Carr: Certainly, Sir.

    Medical Aid to Developing Countries (Report)
    Mr. Boydenasked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation what progress has been made in implementing the Porritt Report on Medical Aid to the Developing Countries.
    Mr. R. Carr: All the recommendations of the Porritt Working Party accepted by the Government are being actively pursued. To give two examples: we shall shortly award the first of the 25 special bursaries for post-graduates from overseas; and arrangements for the 18 lectureships at the London and Liverpool Schools of Tropical Medicine have been completed, and the first two posts filled.
    Mr. Boyden: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many doctors and sister-tutors have been seconded?
    Mr. Carr: I require notice of that question.

    Technical Assistance
    Mr. Oramasked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation if he will make a statement about the channels available to him for inviting rather than awaiting requests for technical assistance.
    Mr. R. Carr: While it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government and the wish of the Governments of the developing countries themselves, that we should only provide assistance in response to their requests, close consultation is maintained with them regarding their development needs and the type of assistance we have available. The chief responsibility for this rests with British Embassies and High Commissions, but it is frequently supplemented by visits by the technical advisers attached to my Department and by other experts we send out for the purpose.
    Mr. Oram: Is the Minister satisfied that all is being done that should be done to make the authorities in developing countries aware of the kind of assistance that is available through his Department? May I cite as an example of a good piece of work in this direction the circular which the right hon. Gentleman recently issued, on the advice of the Advisory Committee on Co-operation, about facilities here for receiving

    1015
    Commonwealth co-operators? May I urge the right hon. Gentleman to take similar action in respect of other parts of his Department's work?
    Mr. Carr: I have this matter constantly in mind and I looked into it particularly on my recent visit to Asia. I hope that my Department will go on improving the work in this direction. I am grateful for what the hon. Member has said about it.

    Developing Countries (Secondment of Employees)
    Mr. F. Noel-Bakerasked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to make it easier for public employees to work on secondment in developing countries without loss of seniority or pension rights; and what discussions he has had with employers' organisations and trade unions with a view to achieving the same object in respect of private employees.
    Mr. R. Carr: Standing arrangements for seconding civil servants have recently been improved. A working party is examining means of facilitating the secondment of local government officers. There are special arrangements for teachers and for staff of nationalised industries and statutory boards.
    In respect of private employees, I have had discussions with some individual firms and organisations including the Federation of British Industries and the British Iron and Steel Federation. I have not as yet had direct discussions with trade unions; but there is a trade union member on the Council for Technical Education and Training for Overseas Countries and the National Union of Teachers is represented on the National Council for the Supply of Teachers Overseas.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: May I take it from that reply, which will be received with some satisfaction, I think, by a number of my hon. Friends, that the right hon. Gentleman attaches the very greatest importance to enabling people, perhaps in the 40–45 age range, in the middle of their careers, to go out and do service overseas without losing opportunities here at home when they come back, since it is not only in the interest of the
    1016
    developing countries but in the interest of their employers when they return?
    Mr. Carr: Yes, indeed.

    Teachers
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation what steps he is taking to increase the numbers of British teachers taking up teacher-training posts in the developing countries.
    Mr. R. Carr: An increase in this important field will depend on increased demands from overseas Governments, because we are meeting current requests satisfactorily. One of my educational advisers has just attended a conference designed to encourage the development of teacher training in East Africa. The informal Advisory Panel mentioned in my reply to the hon. Member of 23rd July has been asked to give special attention to improved methods of aid in this field.
    Mr. Thomson: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that he told me recently that out of 542 teachers sent under secondment schemes only about 30 had gone to teacher-training courses and, perhaps, an unspecified number, about whom he did not know, had also gone to do such work in an indirect way? Is not this a failure of the kind of educational planning which we are undertaking, and cannot the Minister do something to ensure that the people we do send overseas go to really sensitive points where the service they give can have maximum effect?
    Mr. Carr: I certainly want to encourage aid of this kind, but it does depend on the overseas Governments. We are taking measures to try to get the right sort of requests.

    British Officials (Developing Countries)
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation if he will state the net increase or decrease in the number of British officials serving in developing countries over the past three years.
    Mr. R. Carr: From 1961 to 1963, there was a decrease of approximately 700 in the numbers of British officials

    1017
    recruited by or on behalf of the British Government, or assisted by British funds. This excludes the increasing number of volunteers.
    Mr. Thomson: Does not this make nonsense of the figures which the Prime Minister gave the House in the recent Commonwealth debate, suggesting that we were increasing our scale of technical assistance to the developing countries? Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that we have more accurate figures on this subject in future?
    Mr. Carr: The figures given by my right hon. Friend were absolutely accurate. If the hon. Gentleman will read the whole paragraph in context, he will see that the increase my right hon. Friend was referring to was the increase in the annual rate of recruiting. This is definitely increasing, I am glad to say, and I hope that it will continue to do so.
    Mr. Worsley: Can my right hon. Friend say how this figure compares with the effort of other nations?
    Mr. Carr: I have no exact comparisons, but I believe it to be bigger than that of any other country, with the possible exception of France.
    Mr. Thomson: In view of the need for a country like Britain to give a lead in this matter, will the Minister undertake to do a good deal better than this and try to beat France?
    Mr. Carr: I think that international league tables in this matter can become rather an absurd obsession. We are giving a lead. Our technical assistance is increasing rapidly, and I hope that it will continue to do so.

    Middle East and North Africa
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation how many people sent overseas by his Department to the Middle East and North Africa have a working knowledge of Arabic.
    Mr. R. Carr: Since July 1961, 20 people sent by my Department to countries in the Middle East and North Africa are known to have had knowledge of Arabic at the time of appointment.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is the Minister aware that there is a certain amount of concern about Arabic teaching in this country, especially in the light of emigration from the London School of Oriental and African Studies from which six members have left for America in the past three years?
    Mr. Carr: The latter point is not my responsibility. As far as my Department's appointments are concerned, our recruitment now is almost entirely on contract for short-term appointments, and it is obviously difficult in these circumstances for people to learn Arabic for one or two years' service.

    Volunteers (Inspection of Work)
    Mr. F. Noel-Bakerasked the secretary for Technical Co-operation what steps he is taking to inspect the work of British volunteers and their projects in developing countries; and what reports he proposes to publish about them.
    Mr. R. Carr: Staff of the voluntary societies which send out the volunteers make overseas visits for this purpose.
    British Embassies and High Commissions keep in touch with the volunteers and their work and the British Council looks after the volunteers sent out by one of the societies, namely V.S.O.
    Projects are settled by the Lockwood Committee and my Department in consultation on the request of overseas Governments.
    With regard to reports, I recognise the interest of the House in this matter and I will be consulting the Lockwood Committee.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Does not the Minister agree that the bodies which he mentioned in the first part of his Answer, admirable though they are, are not always ideally qualified for inspecting work of this kind and there is a case for technically qualified inspection for this purpose? Is he aware that not only the House of Commons but the public at large is interested in and entitled to the fullest reports on the work of these volunteers both in order to ensure that knowledge of what they are doing is widespread and to encourage sufficient volunteers in the future?
    Mr. Carr: The object of some of the recent arrangements I announced is to increase public knowledge and understanding. As regards inspection, we must bear in mind that we have no right to inspect these posts. The volunteers work for the Government of the countries to which they go. Continuing contact is, of course, kept by our own British posts abroad.

  ATOMIC ENERGY PROGRAMME (POWELL COMMITTEE)
  Mr. Albuasked the Prime Minister whether he will make arrangements for the technical and economic considerations on which the Powell Committee's Report on the Future of the Atomic Energy Programme will be based to be made available to Parliament.
  The Prime Minister (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): No, Sir. As my right hon. Friend the then Prime Minister said in reply to a Question about this Committee on 11th. July, 1963, details of the work of Cabinet Committees are not normally disclosed.
  Mr. Albu: Is not the Prime Minister aware of the increasing concern at the mystery surrounding this Committee, especially in view of rumours now circulating about the intentions of the Generating Board? Is he aware also that firms in the manufacturing industries have been asked to give evidence to the chairman of the Committee, although they do not know the terms of reference of the Committee or the names of the rest of the members? Is it not time that Parliament was given some information on this very important problem which greatly affects our country's future economy? Will the Prime Minister consult his right hon. Friend who, the other day, told me that he would consider the point?
  The Prime Minister: The Report is based on information which was obtained in confidence and, therefore, the Report cannot be published. On the other hand, when we have studied the Report, we shall support our conclusions by argument and justify our arguments to the House. I shall consider with my right hon. Friend what facts can be supplied to the House.
  Dame Irene Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, so far as I, at least, am concerned, there is a great deal of mystery surrounding the operations of the Atomic Energy Authority? For seven years, it seems to have been examining the nuclear reactor project for marine application, without success. We were told that we should be selling our nuclear power stations to the world, and this certainly does not seem to have been right. Is it not about time that we knew what this body was doing and that the mystery surrounding it should be exploded? I am not at all satisfied with the answer.
  The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend may not be satisfied with the Answer, but this was a Question about a mystery surrounding a Report, not the Atomic Energy Authority.
  Mr. Crossman: Will the Prime Minister consider giving us more information, in view of the fact that we are having leaks and counter-leaks from the A.E.A. and from the C.E.G.B., with a vast amount of irresponsible information coming out? Have we not a right to know in the House of Commons something about these huge organisations with hundreds of millions of £s of capital engaged?
  The Prime Minister: I have said that I shall consider with my right hon. Friend what can be made available to the House on which we can base a judgment. What I cannot do is to publish the Report, because it was a Report to the Cabinet.

  MINISTERS OF THE CROWN
  Mr. Milneasked the Prime Minister if he will make it a condition of the appointment of Ministers of the Crown that they shall declare to him the positions in industry held by them at the time of appointment which they are then relinquishing; and if he will publish the information so obtained in a Sessional White Paper.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir, since I do not see what purpose such a condition would serve.
  Mr. Milne: Is the Prime Minister aware that the secrecy surrounding the subject of Question No. Q1 is far

  1021
  exceeded by the secrecy surrounding the subject of this Question and that he ought to be a little more forthcoming since there are indications already that this is information which the country should have? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Government are already being linked with the 1918 Government which Keynes described as a group of hard-faced businessmen doing well under Tory rule in Britain?

  MINISTERS' SPEECHES
  Mr. Loughlinasked the Prime Minister how many Departments of State employ persons to write speeches for Ministers; which Departments so employ such persons; what are the individual salaries paid; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. Benceasked the Prime Minister what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government regarding the official employment by Departments of speech writers for Ministers.
  Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Prime Minister what are the qualifications of persons employed as Ministerial speech writers.
  The Prime Minister: No Department employs a speech writer as such. The provision of speech material on Departmental matters is undertaken as required by civil servants at a number of salary levels. In some Departments this work is centralised in the Information Division.
  Mr. Loughlin: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Lord President of the Council, Minister for Science, Minister for Sport and Minister for Education has begun—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—I am interested in the fish, not the worm. Is the Prime Minister aware that his right hon. Friend has advertised for a speech writer as distinct from someone in his Department supplying him with a brief? We accept that the right hon. Gentleman needs a speech writer, but does the Prime Minister consider that, if he appoints Ministers who are so incompetent that they cannot write their own speeches, the British taxpayer should bear the additional financial burden of them?
  The Prime Minister: Speech writing would be only a very small part of this gentleman's duties, but it had not occurred to me that anybody could possibly write my right hon. Friend's speeches.
  Mr. Bence: Since speeches are to be written by people recruited by the Departments, are we to understand that in future the OFFICIAL REPORT will follow the practice of the B.B.C. and at the top of each speech put "Script by Denis Norden and Frank Muir"?
  The Prime Minister: I should like hon. Members opposite to know that, if they want to obtain these services and know the facts on any of these matters, the Departments are only too willing to give them I sometimes wish that they would avail themselves of this opportunity.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Prime Minister aware that there has been considerable public interest in an article called "The men who write Sir Alec's Speeches" which appeared in a leading Conservative newspaper? It was said in this article that the phrase used about the Leader of the Opposition, that he was" a slick salesman of synthetic science", was not the Prime Minister's phrase at all but that it was supplied to him by a gentleman imported from the United States of America at considerable expense? Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that this article refers to this speech writer as being left of centre, whereas the editor of the Spectator has described the Prime Minister as being right of centre? Are they trying to kick the ball in different directions? Does the Prime Minister realise that there is a strong demand from the spectators that the two of them should be sent off the field?
  The Prime Minister: I am very interested that the hon. Member should have noticed this phrase. Has he anything better to suggest?
  Mr. H. Wilson: As one who writes his own speeches, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the national—
  Mr. J. Wells: On a point of order. How many rooms are available in this House to the satellites of the Labour

  1023
  Party to do the speech writing for the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues?
  Mr. Speaker: It is hard enough to make progress with the Prime Minister's Questions without having "points of order" of that kind raised.
  Mr. Wilson: I was about to ask the Prime Minister, first, whether the national interest would be better served by ceasing to import speech writers and ceasing to export scientists. Secondly, in view of the extremely grave balance of payments figures published today, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us who was responsible for writing that part of his script which said that the economic position had seldom been stronger?
  The Prime Minister: On the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I think that he is going to America soon. I hope that it is not because he does not find any opportunity for his talents here.
  Mr. Wilson: Yes, Sir, but will the right hon. Gentleman now answer the second part of the Question? Will he say who was the speech writer or brief writer who led him into saying that the economy had seldom been stronger when he must have known the serious trade gap figures, the most serious, I think, ever recorded in a single normal month?
  The Prime Minister: The economy is certainly very strong, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman would be very rash to draw a general deduction from one set of figures.

  MILITARY SUPPLIES (PURCHASE BY PRIVATE COMPANIES)
  Mr. Marshasked the Prime Minister if he will take steps to prevent the purchase of military supplies from the three Services by private companies and their subsequent export to areas of international tension.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I do not consider this is necessary since such supplies are already subject to our export licensing procedures.
  Mr. Marsh: Is the Prime Minister aware that a number of people have
  1024
  in their possession, and I have also, copies of photostat documents of receipts for the export of 20,000 rifles to the Yemen last year, and that British business men, including Intour Limited of Bexleyheath, Kent, and John Dawson Ellis, have admitted that these rifles were exported to the Yemen last year? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the Government should do something about this?
  The Prime Minister: Not unless I see much more evidence than the hon. Gentleman has given me. If he makes these sorts of accusations, he must support them by facts, and I want to see them before I answer the question.
  Sir A. V. Harvey: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be more appropriate if the Government dealt with the question of the export of rifles from other countries to Cyprus rather than to the Yemen?
  The Prime Minister: The latter matter is not in our control except in so far as arms exported from here are concerned. All I can say is that our export licensing system makes certain that arms do not go out to other countries, the purpose of which we disapprove. I know of no evidence that these rifles have been exported to the Yemen.
  Mr. Marsh: I have in my possession a photostat copy of a receipt for payment for 2,500 Lee Enfield rifles, shipped by Sabena to Saudi Arabia, and photostat copies of contracts for 20,000 rifles shipped to the Yemen. These documents have been available to the right hon. Gentleman as well as to me. The people involved in this include Mr. John Dawson Ellis, who was also responsible for shipping 100 Valentine tanks to the Middle East in 1956, about which the Government did not know. Should not the Prime Minister start looking into this matter?
  The Prime Minister: I know quite well that no rifles have been exported to the Yemen. I wish to see the evidence which the hon. Member has, but, on the present information which I have, it cannot possibly be true.
  Mr. Bellenger: Will the Prime Minister treat this matter more seriously? It is a question not of export licences, but that any arms which have been supplied

  1025
  to the British forces should be disarmed by being destroyed rather than sold secondhand anywhere else in the world.
  The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well concerning rifles that from the time of the First World War, Enfield rifles have been sold to Belgium and other countries—that is well known—but nothing has been exported from this country except a few rifles to Belgium, which did not go to the Middle East. That is what the hon. Gentleman is insinuating.
  Mr. Marsh rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member is rising to give notice, I will hear him, but not for another supplementary question.
  Mr. Marsh: On a point of order. 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 earlier possible opportunity.

PRIME MINISTER AND PRESIDENT JOHNSON (TALKS)
The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:
Mr. STONEHOUSE: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his discussions with President Johnson.
Mr. A. HENDERSON: To ask the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on his recent talks with President Johnson.
Mr. EDELMAN: To ask the Prime Minister what request he made to President Johnson regarding the threatened boycott in the United States discriminating against certain types of British motor car as a reprisal for the sale of buses to Cuba.
Mr. RANKIN: To ask the Prime Minister whether he has reached complete agreement with the President of the United States on the next steps to be taken towards achieving a further reduction in armaments.
Mr. MENDELSON: To ask the Prime Minister whether, during his recent talks with President Johnson, he raised the American threat to blacklist
1026
British-owned ships if they were to carry buses from the United Kingdom to Cuba as part of their lawful carrying trade.
The Prince Minister (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): With permission, I will now answer Questions Nos. 7, 14, 20, 22 and 23 together.
I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the text of the joint communiqué issued after my talk with President Johnson.
Mr. Storehouse: While thanking the Prime Minister for that reply, which does not add to anything that the House has already seen—we have already had an opportunity of reading the stale platitudes of the joint communiqué—may I ask him two questions? First, what did the Prime Minister say in America about British participation in the mixed-manned force; and, secondly, did he make any protest about the provisions in the American Foreign Ail Bill which prohibit aid to any country which engages in trade with Cuba?
The Prime Minister: On the mixed-manned force, I said to the President exactly what I have said to this House: that we could not make up our minds whether we should join such a force until we have seen the conclusions of the Committees which are sitting on this matter in Paris and in Washington. It is not for me to protest to foreign Governments about their own legislation.
Mr. A. Henderson: May I ask the Prime Minister whether agreement was reached that first-step proposals for physical disarmament should be put forward at Geneva, including a proposal for the freezing of production of nuclear vehicles and also the abolition of obsolescent bombers?
The Prime Minister: These matters, which I would put in the general bracket of anti-surprise attack and measures of that kind, were certainly discussed. My right hon. Friend is going to Geneva, on, I think Monday, and will put forward the British proposals.
Mr. Edelman: On a matter of immediate concern to my constituents, will the Prime Minister confirm that while defending the right of British

1027
industrialists to freedom of trade with Cuba, he obtained at the same time an assurance from the President that no British ships carrying peaceful goods will be blacklisted?
The Prime Minister: I have no doubt that the American Government have no intention of a boycott of this sort.
Mr. Rankin: Does the Prime Minister recollect saying last night on television that partition for Cyprus would he the worst of all possible solutions? Will his circulated reply tell us what will be the best of all possible solutions for Cyprus and how it will be achieved?
The Prime Minister: That question might be put down to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
Mr. Mendelson: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Leyland Bus Company has concluded a deal to ship 450 buses to Cuba, which will bring a great deal of work to a number of constituencies, including my own? Is he aware that the American authorities have threatened to blacklist any British-owned ship carrying these buses to Cuba? Is he aware that under the contract drawn between Leyland's and the Cuban authorities, Leyland's have the duty of carrying these buses to Cuba?
Is the Prime Minister also aware that Leyland's will have to engage ships from East Germany and pay in foreign currency for the shipment, thereby losing valuable trade to shipping in this country and having to pay in valuable foreign currency? Did the Prime Minister raise this matter with the President when he was in the United States?
The Prime Minister: I do not think that the hon. Member should anticipate all these troubles. I have no reason to believe that the United States Government would in any way support a boycott of British goods?
Mr. Shinwell: In the Prime Minister's conversations with President Johnson, did the President give any indication that there might be an occasion when the United Kingdom might be the subject of aggression in the European zone when the United States would not, inconsistently with its obligation to N.A.T.O., come to the assistance of the United Kingdom? I ask this in view of the right hon. Gentleman's statement
1028
that we require to continue with the independent nuclear deterrent in the United Kingdom because there might be such an occasion when the United States would not come to our assistance.
The Prime Minister: The United States Government, as far as I know, does not challenge in any way our right to retain ultimate control over our own nuclear arms.
Mr. Shinwell: Answer the question. Do not run away from it.
Sir T. Moore: The right hon. Gentleman should not get cross.
Mr. Shinwell: Shut up. Will the Prime Minister answer the question?
Mr. H. Wilson: To try to elucidate what the Prime Minister said in answer to two previous questions, can he tell us—because there was a little noise and I could not hear the last word of his answer—whether he said that there was no reason to think that the American Government was behind an unofficial boycott of British goods or of British ships'? Did he say "goods" or "ships"?
The Prime Minister: Goods.
Mr. Wilson: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, whether he has not, perhaps, misunderstood the two questions put to him by my hon. Friends the Members for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) and Penistone (Mr. Mendelson), since they were asking not about the unofficial boycott of Triumph Herald cars, and so on, but about the blacklisting of British ships which have been to Cuba or of British ships owned by companies who have had ships going to Cuba? Since the right hon. Gentleman took a great deal of credit for what he said about trade, and we supported him—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Of course we did; that has been the position of both parties for years—will he tell us whether he made any protest about the blacklisting of British ships, and if so, what reply he got?
The Prime Minister: We have constantly told the American Government that freedom for shipping is of cardinal importance to the United Kingdom. The measure which the United States has adopted is to prohibit the carriage of

1029
United States Government cargoes in ships of any nationality which have called at Cuban ports since 1st January, 1963. This decision was taken before the question of buses raised by the hon. Member arose. It is true that some British ships have had difficulty in United States ports, but I am bound to add that the difficulty that British ships have suffered up to now has been because of the opposition of the United States trade union and not of the United States Government.
Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am not quite sure whether I should ask for your guidance when the Prime Minister deliberately evades answering a question. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is not a point of order."] Hon. Members are wasting their time. The matter is between me and yourself, Mr. Speaker. My point of order is this. In view of the deliberate evasion by the Prime Minister in not answering a question, I give notice that I will raise the matter during the defence debate.
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman requires any guidance from me to give notice.
Text of Joint Communiqué by the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom following discussions held in Washington, D.C., February 12–13, 1964.
On February 12th and 13th, the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom met to discuss matters affecting the interests of their two countries and the welfare and security of free people everywhere. The United States Secretary of State, the Hon. Dean Rusk. and the Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom, the right hon. R. A. Butler, also took part in the talks.
President Johnson and Sir Alec Douglas-Home welcomed this opportunity of holding their working meeting since they assumed the leadership of their respective Governments. Underlying their talks was the determination that the pursuit of peace should be unfalteringly maintained.
They consider this pursuit of peace with security, in co-operation with their allies, their primary task and responsibility. The conclusion of the partial Test Ban Treaty in 1963 marked an advance on the road to the peaceful resolution of the problems which divide East and West. The President and the Prime Minister think it essential to go forward from there and continue with their
1030
friends the search for other ways of reducing tension, with its risks of war and its crushing burden of armaments. They hope that the Soviet Union will examine with the greatest seriousness the proposals put forward at the Geneva Conference and elsewhere by the United States and the United Kingdom, aimed at bringing about effective and controlled disarmament. In particular, the Prime Minister welcomed the proposals made to the 18-nation Disarmament Conference by the United States in President Johnson's message on January 21st.
Both Governments will continue to give their full support to the United Nations and will work in close step to enable it by statesmanship and institutional improvement to fulfill its responsibility and satisfy the hopes of mankind
But each Government recognises that no progress can be made without a strong and united Western Alliance prepared to defend its interests against threat and intimidation. The defence commitments which both countries share with their allies in N.A.T.O. will be maintained. It is within the Atlantic framework that the United States and the United Kingdom are conducting their examination of mutual defence problems, including force goals and are also considering the proposal for a multi-lateral nuclear force. Similarly, the widest possible political and economic cooperation in Europe within a broad Atlantic partnership remains a common aim of United States and British policy.
The President and the Prime Minister reviewed the events of recent months during which sudden tensions in many parts of the world have made unforeseen calls on the resources of the United States and the United Kingdom. The two Governments are responding to these calls whilst at the same time taking all political action that is open to them to diminish the causes of tension. Each Government recognises the value of the contribution that the other is making to the common task.
The Prime Minister and the President gave special consideration to South-east Asian matters and o the problem of assisting free States of the area to maintain their independence. Both Governments stressed the value of the defence agreements which they have concluded there, and of the establishments which they maintain in the area. The Prime Minister re-emphasised the United Kingdom support for United States policy in South Vietnam. The President reaffirmed the support of the United States for the peaceful national independence of Malaysia. Both expressed their sincere hope that the leaders of the independent countries in the region would by mutual friendship and cooperation establish an area of prosperity and stability.
The President stressed his concern at the present situation in the Caribbean area and the subversive and disruptive influence of the present Cuba regime. The Prime Minister fully recognised the importance of the development of Latin America in conditions of freedom and political and economic stability. Both expressed their belief that a valuable contribution can be made by Europe to this end.
Both Governments reaffirm that in all these fields their aim remains solely to achieve and safeguard the integrity and stability of the countries of the free world on the basis of full independence. The President and the Prime Minister agreed that the task is, however, not only that of establishing and preserving the peace, but of expanding international trade and promoting economic growth for all. To this end, both pledged their Governments to act affirmatively and decisively to promote the success of the forthcoming Kennedy Round of trade and tariff negotiations.
In view of the importance that both the President and the Prime Minister attach to such meetings, they have determined to continue to maintain close and continuous personal contact.
February 13, 1964.

CYPRUS (SECURITY COUNCIL DEBATE)
Mr. P. Noel-Baker Mr. P. Noel-Baker(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he intends to represent Her Majesty's Government in the Security Council during the Council's discussions on Cyprus.
The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. R. A. Butler): No, Sir. I have every confidence in the ability of the United Kingdom Permanent Representative at the United Nations.
Mr. Noel-Baker: We all have confidence in Sir Patrick Dean, especially those who have seen his work at first hand, as I have, but, with all due respect to Sir Patrick, may I ask the Foreign Secretary to consider that the lives of thousands of British soldiers and civilians will be at stake if the situation in Cyprus should develop into serious fighting?
Will the Foreign Secretary also bear in mind that an official, however eminent, who has to telegraph home to the Secretary of State for approval of everything he says, cannot have the authority to negotiate the sending of an international force or the long-term settlement that will be needed? Will the right hon. Gentlemen therefore reconsider the matter and go to New York himself as soon as possible, staying as long as necessary?
Mr. Butler: No, Sir. I adhere to the terms of my original Answer. I went to New York and interviewed not only Sir Patrick Dean, but also U Thant, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, on Wednesday last week. I was per
1032
fectly satisfied with the plan which might develop and since then we have received full information of the activities of U Thant and I am in close touch with Sir Patrick.
The meeting of the Security Council takes place later this afternoon and I am quite satisfied that, as Sir Patrick has done all the initial work, it is quite right that he should continue to represent us.
Mr. Noel-Baker: This is a very grave crisis. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider that the nation will judge, the Government's many protestations of loyalty to the United Nations by the part which they play, and which he, as Foreign Secretary, plays, in the discussion of what is a grave crisis for Cyprus and for the Commonwealth and a very serious test for the United Nations?
Mr. Butler: We are determined to see that the United Nations machinery has the utmost chance of making a success of this challenge. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is a very serious situation, but I am perfectly satisfied that the arrangements we have made are the right ones for the purpose.

COMPLAINT OF PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker: I understand that the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) wishes to raise a complaint of privilege.
Mr. Wigg: I wish to raise with you, Mr. Speaker, a matter involving a question of privilege.
Last night, the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Aviation told the House that today the Public Accounts Committee was meeting to consider what has now become known as the "Ferranti affair". The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
"My accounting officer is appearing before that Committee tomorrow."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th February, 1964; Vol. 689, c. 970.]
That part of Eskine May which deals with this subject leaves the House in no doubt on the matter. I will not weary the House by reading out in full the relevant passage, but only the first and last sentences on page 119. It deals with the premature publication of Committee proceedings. [Interruption.]
Hon. Members: Order.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that those who are interrupting, including those hon. Members who shout "Order", will allow me to hear what is being addressed to me.
Mr. Wigg: The section of Erskine May which deals with this matter leaves the House in do doubt about the circumstances in regard to disclosure. Therefore, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will quote from page 119, from the section the crossheading of which reads:
"Premature Publication of a Committee's Proceedings or Evidence."
It states:
"By the ancient custom of Parliament ' no act done at any committee should be divulged before the same be reported to the House '."
The last sentence of this passage reads:
"The publication of proceedings of committees conducted with closed doors or of draft reports of committees before they have been reported to the House will, however, constitute a breach of privilege."
Therefore, there can be no question but that, if a matter is divulged from a Committee's proceedings, it constitutes a breach of privilege.
I have given the Minister of Aviation notice of my intention to raise this matter. I do not want to make too heavy weather of it, but it is very important that the correct procedure should be established and I suggest that there is here a prima facie case for consideraation by the Committee of Privileges as to where the line should be drawn. I have already established that divulgence of proceedings of a Committee is a question of privilege, but there is also the question whether the calling of witnesses and a statement that a Committee is: to meet on a matter brought before it constitutes part of those proceedings.
The only guidance I can find which throws any light on this is in HANSARD
1034
on 17th May, 1960, in a Ruling given by yourself. This Ruling was given at Question Time and was not a considered Ruling. It was in terms which are not very definite. The first words you used were:
"It is probably all right…"
and later you used the words:
"…I suppose, we cannot indicate in this House any proceedings before the Committee before it has reported …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th May, 1960; Vol 623, c. 1074.]
In these circumstances, as you yourself were indefinite on the matter then, and as Erskine May is quite definite, I submit that it is of the utmost importance to establish this point, not to exact any penalty from the Minister of Aviation—who, I am sure, spoke in good faith—but so that the House knows where it stands on this subject.
If the interjection by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister is considered of no account, then the House must consider the converse. Supposing an hon. Member or the Press got to know that Ferranti's was to be brought before the Public Accounts Committee, and the statement was made, "Ferranti's brought before Committee ", there would be uproar. If we are able to depart from the principles laid down in Erskine May we shall no, know where we may end up.
I do not wish, as I have said, to make heavy weather of all this, but it is a matter which the House may wish to clarify in order to enforce its own rules and to understand what they are. After due deliberation, you may well consider, Sir, that the case I have made out is prima facie one of breach of privilege.
Mr. Speaker: Whether heavy weather or light, it is my duty to decide whether or no the iron. Gentleman has raised a prima facie case of breach of privilege. I will take 24 hours and rule tomorrow.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  HIRE PURCHASE (No. 2) BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.48 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Edward Heath): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  At the end of 1963, outstanding instalments under hire purchase and other credit instalment business totalled £954 million. Private and commercial vehicles and caravans accounted for £451 million of this and household goods for £397 million. The House will agree that these are very large figures. The turnover is also very rapid. The amount of new credit extended in 1963 was £818 million.
  These figures are some indication of the higher standard of living now being enjoyed in this country. But experience has shown that the consumer needs protection in hire-purchase transactions. The basic Hire Purchase Act in England and Wales was passed in 1938 and some right hon. and hon. Members will certainly remember, a quarter of a century later, that this was Ellen Wilkinson's Act. It still stands as a landmark.
  The Act dealt, in particular, with the worst evils of the "snatch back", which had been very common in relation to furniture and household goods. With minor amendment in 1954, the Act has served well but the protection it affords is now needed over a wider area of trade and the present Bill sets out to remedy this. There may be different views in the House as to how this should be done, but I think that the principles will commend support in all parts.
  The Bill is largely based on the recommendations of the Molony Committee. There have been suggestions, with which I should like to deal now, that we are, by this Bill, only tinkering with something which is basically unsatisfactory and that we need an entirely new legal approach dealing in realistic terms with the facts of buying and selling where the customer has not got ready cash; indeed, a suggestion
  1036
  that we ought to make a fundamental reform.
  When I foreshadowed the introduction of the Bill, in a statement in the House in November, I also said that more fundamental questions were involved, that we were studying these, and would welcome the views of finance houses or any other bodies concerned. That is what we are doing. But I should like to make this point. The question is not a very simple one. It is not just a matter of consolidating or amending a few obsolescent Acts. The hire-purchase laws, as they exist at the moment, provide a code of protection for the consumer, which is an effective code, and which the Bill will make better.
  For any new system we should have to devise comparable safeguards, and to achieve, once again, the proper balance between the different interests concerned in any of these transactions. That is the problem on which we have to focus our attention if we are looking to a different way of dealing with it—what some would term a more realistic and fundamental reform.
  In the meantime, I suggest to the House that there is no reason for leaving the law relating to hire-purchase in an unsatisfactory state, where that is so, and where we have practical proposals for improving it. That is the purpose of the Bill. It is, of course, bound to be rather technical in nature, but I do not propose to deal with the technical details on Second Reading, and perhaps we could leave that to the Committee Stage. I propose to cover the main principles of the Bill.
  Part I amends the hire-purchase legislation of England and Wales. At present, this applies to agreements where the hire-purchase price, or, in the case of a credit sale agreement, the total purchase price, does not exceed £300, or, in the case of livestock, £1,000. The Molony Committee recommended that the Acts should apply to all consumer transactions. We have not specifically incorporated this recommendation of the Molony Committee that the Acts should apply to all consumer transactions.
  We felt that there were difficulties of definition here. For example, it would have excluded from the protection of

  1037
  the Acts people like the owner of a one-man shop. Therefore, we have adopted a different approach. What the Bill does is to raise the limit to £2,000 in all cases. This, in effect, embraces the great majority of all consumer transactions. We considered that this was a more effective approach to the problem and, at the same time, would achieve the objective of the Molony Committee.
  While the Bill was under consideration in another place, the Finance Houses Association represented to us that practical difficulties would be caused under this arrangement for transactions which were purely commercial. For example, where a business acquires plant on hire-purchase terms. An Amendment was introduced to meet this, which we accepted, and the Bill now excludes from the scope of the Acts all agreements where the hirer or the buyer is a body corporate. The result is in line with what the Molony Committee recommended, but it avoids any possibility of confusion or doubt about whether any particular transaction will or will not be covered by the Acts.
  This is a very important practical consideration. The main effect of raising the limit to £2,000 will be to bring in most motor vehicles which are subject to hire-purchase agreements, except, of course, where they are being hired by companies, for the reason I have just explained.
  The limit refers to the hire-purchase price, but, as a rough guide, any car costing less than £1,600 for cash will be covered by the Bill. This is a very important extension of the scope of the legislation, and, again, it is in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee.
  May I remind the House of the basic safeguards of the existing Hire Purchase Acts. First, the hirer is protected against the repossession of the goods except under a court order once he has paid one-third of the hire-purchase price. The court also has power to make a postponed order, and so it can give a hirer in difficulties a further opportunity to pay up by instalments which the court considers reasonable.
  Secondly, the hirer has the right to terminate the agreement and return the goods. His maximum liability is to make up what he has already paid to
  1038
  one-half of the hire purchase price, or to the amount due to date under the agreement f that is higher.
  On the question of the extension of this second right to motor car transactions, I full realise that this has caused some discussion. The alternative which has been advocated, not only by the finance houses concerned, is what is called the true measure of damages principle. Under this, if the hirer does not go through with the agreement, his liability would be the difference between what the goods realise when he returns them and the amount which is outstanding.
  The Molony Committee commented on this and said that, in theory, it would produce a more equitable result, but it also said—I quote from paragraph 548 of its Report:
  "Such a provision would inevitably lead to disputes as to whether the true value had been obtained on realisation, with subsidiary issues as to the necessity to spend money on repairs, etc."
  For this reason, it preferred the simpler restrictions which exist in the present Act. Under this, all parties know what the hirer's maximum liability is at any time. There is no delay or uncertainty and no possibility of dispute or deception.
  This is of primary importance in this field of consumer protection, where the strength and the expertise of the parties are very often unequal. I hope that any discussions which we may have on this point, either on Second Reading or in Committee, will be carried on in practical teams about the consequences of adopting the procedure in the Bill or alternative suggestions, because it is essentially on the practical considerations that safeguards of this kind must be judged and stand or fall.
  The next change to mention, simple though it is will help to avoid hardship in those cases in which a man or woman commits himself or herself to a hire-purchase agreement without realising what he or she is doing. The Molony Committee was very concerned about this and suggested that the hirer's signature to the agreement should have to be in the special place—a box, clearly marked—with clear words to warn him that if he signed he was offering to

  1039
  commit himself to a hire-purchase transaction. This we have provided for.
  It was also strongly urged in another place that the consumer would understand his commitment better, plainly set out as it is, if he were immediately given a copy of whatever he signed. I will confess that the Government had doubts about this, which is why it was not embodied in the Bill in the first place. We felt that the risk of creating consumer safeguards was that they became so complex that they confused the consumer and thus defeated their own purpose. Under the existing provisions of the 1938 Act, the customer already receives a copy of the hire-purchase or credit sale agreement after it has been completed. The case for another statutory copy is fairly evenly divided. That was our conclusion on weighing up the arguments.
  Mr. Dan Jones: How could another copy lead to confusion?
  Mr. Heath: We felt that it would lead to confusion in the circumstances in which it would often be given, but we felt that the argument was evenly balanced but that it would be right to provide that he should receive a copy of what he signs immediately, even if it is only an offer. That is now embodied in the Bill.
  Another new safeguard, which, in principle, is simple, is that the consumer shall have the opportunity to reflect and change his mind, if he so desires, if he signs the agreement at any place other than trade premises. This means any place except premises where goods of this sort are normally sold, or the offices of finance houses. The House will appreciate that this new safeguard is aimed at the door-to-door salesman who puts pressure, perhaps undue pressure, on customers in their own homes and induces them to sign binding agreements.
  The Molony Committee received many complaints about this practice and so, I know, have many hon. Members on both sides of the House. The complaint often is that the salesman gets the housewife on her own, and gets her to sign before she has a chance to talk it over with a relative, her husband, friends and advisers. Sometimes, of course, all the members of the family
  1040
  are present together and are unable to resist the sales talk or the sales pressure, but, on reflection, they realise that they do not want the article, or that, even if they do, they cannot afford the payments and that they have entered into commitments beyond those which they can carry.
  Under the Bill, the hirer will have the right to cancel an agreement simply by writing a letter. A copy of the agreement must be posted to him and, following the day of its delivery, he will have three days in which to send off his cancellation. This is the period for thought and reflection. He will be entitled to the return of any deposit he has paid. Of course, if he wants to do this within the remaining three days from the day on which he receives the notice, he can do so, but from the day on which he receives the notice he has three days for consideration and in which to cancel the agreement and obtain a refund of his deposit. This safeguard take up the whole of Clauses 4 to 8, but I am sure that the principle will command widespread acceptance.
  It has been suggested that these provisions are unnecessarily wide. I agree that we should keep interference with normal trade practices—normal trade practices—to a minimum, but unless this safeguard is simple to understand and invoke, I do not believe that it will work. Of course, there has been the opposite suggestion that, far from restricting it, we should broaden it and apply it to all hire-purchase agreements wherever they may be completed. This would mean interfering with a very large number of commercial transactions being carried out normally in shops to which the purchaser has voluntarily gone. The salesman who over-persuades people in their own home is a different case, which justifies an exceptional solution such as we have set out in the Bill, even though it takes up a number of Clauses.
  Mr. D. Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman sure that this will not hit the hundreds of reputable credit dealers? There are such people.
  Mr. Heath: Those who are not reputable are a very small minority, as most people with experience would agree. We have to strike a balance, and I think that we have done so. This is a slightly

  1041
  longer period than the Molony Committee recommended, but we think that it is practical and clear and easy for everybody to understand.
  Before leaving Part I of the Bill, I should like to mention one or two more changes. One deals with a matter to which the Law Reform Committee drew attention in its tenth Report. At present, a person may enter into a hire-purchase agreement because of what the salesman tells him about the goods in question. If it turns out be a false statement, he may have no remedy, because his contractual relationship is with the finance company and not with the dealer who told the story and whose information proved to be false. The Bill gives him the remedy, because it deems the dealer to be the agent of the owner or seller in respect of any representations which he makes about the goods.
  This could have a considerable effect on improving the treatment which hire-purchase customers receive. No doubt the finance houses will ensure that the dealer in his turn recompenses them if anything he has said involves them in any loss. This provision will also have the effect of causing the finance houses to be particularly careful about the dealers from whom they accept business and will, therefore, have a double benefit.
  Another change which the House will welcome is the provision that if the hirer dies, the finance house cannot terminate the agreement and take the goods away from his heirs regardless of everything that he has paid. Most finance houses would rightly claim that they do not do this and that if the family can keep up the payments, the finance house is glad to allow the agreement to run its course. This is perfectly true, but the fact remains that most hire-purchase agreements contain provisions which enable the finance house to terminate the agreement and recover the goods if the hirer dies. The Bill will ensure that the heirs have the same protection through hire-purchase legislation that the hirer would have had.
  I should like to make two general comments about the courts, one of which has been raised in public discussion. Actions under the Act for repossession of the goods where more than one-third
  1042
  of the hire-purchase price has been paid are automatically within the jurisdiction of the county courts. In Committee, we shall be bringing forward proposals for enabling them to deal with actions for the return of the goods where less than one-third of the purchase price has been paid. It has been suggested, consequently, tint to extend the scope of hire-purchase legislation in the way we are now doing will overburden the county courts and cause delays.
  Naturally, we have examined this very carefully and we have taken the appropriate advice. We are satisfied that, by and large, the county courts will be able without difficulty to absorb any increase in cases. Naturally, this is a position which we shall have to watch carefully when the Bill becomes law.
  Mr. William Hannan: Has the right hon. Gentleman also been advised about the position of the Scottish courts, which are also overburdened, aid has he been told about the alterations at the Glasgow courts? Can he assure me that he will inquire into the situation?
  Mr. Heath: I can give that assurance. Those responsible for the courts will watch very carefully in both countries to ensure that there is not any overburdening. The very suggestion of overburdening implies that this legislation will mean many cases coming before the courts, and some of the provisions will not work that way. However, we shall watch the situation very carefully.
  There are some other detailed improvements for the protection of the consumer which were suggested in another place and which we have accepted in principle. For example the terms of hire-purchase agreements are not to be printed in such small type that nobody can read them. Nor is an oversight about making a payment when it is due to prejudice the hirer without his being given a warning and a week in which to make good his omission. In Committee, we shall bring forward proposals to deal with those matters.
  Part II is very important, because it deals with the Amendment of the Scottish law relating to hire-purchase and credit sales.
  Mr. William Ross: Hear. hear.
  Mr. Heath: At present, there is a separate Scottish code which is based—
  Mr. Ross: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Heath: I think that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) will agree with everything I have to say—on the Hire Purchase and Small Debt (Scotland) Act, 1932.
  By 1938, when the English Act was passed, our experience showed the way to more comprehensive safeguards for the consumer. Some of these have since been incorporated in the Scottish code, but the law of England is now more detailed and more comprehensive in this respect, as I think hon. Members will agree. In particular, the powers in the courts of England to make postponed orders to help a hirer who has run into difficulties are not paralleled under Scottish law, but there is one respect in which the Scottish law is rather more favourable to the hirer. In Scotland the minimum amount which the hirer must pay if he wishes to terminate the agreement is one-third of the hire-purchase price. In England, as I mentioned earlier, it is half the hire-purchase price, so in this respect the Scottish law is more favourable.
  The Molony Committee recommended that, as far as possible, the same code should apply throughout Great Britain, including the minimum payment of half of the hire-purchase price, which, on the face of it, looks as though the Scots are losing something here, but I think that in the new circumstances of the Bill this can easily be exaggerated, because the ceiling is now being raised to £2,000, which is an essential element in the Bill. whatever rights Scottish consumers have at present, they do not extend above £300, so they will get the advantage of the extension in any case.
  The Bill's effect on the Scottish consumer must be looked at as a whole. The English Acts will apply to Scotland, together with the amendments and extensions introduced by Part I of the Bill about which I have been talking. Any differences which remain arise solely from differences in Scottish legal terminology and Scottish practice. The position of the Scottish consumer taken as a whole will therefore be very much better than under the existing Scottish legislation. I think that the new safe
  1044
  guards and the greater discretion which the courts will have will far outweigh the fact that the Scottish consumer's rights in relation to an agreement for less than £300 will be diminished in the way which I have just described.
  Mr. Ross: We are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that explanation, because no one reading the Bill would have been able to understand anything about it. Has the right hon. Gentleman studied the Schedule which applies to Scotland? Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that because of the way in which it is drafted Schedule 2 is virtually a Bill in itself? Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to ensure that the pledge given by the Leader of the House, when we saw him to discuss the shocking way in which Scottish law is being dealt with, is carried out, and that this Schedule will be considered by the Scottish Committee?
  Mr. Heath: Any undertaking given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House will be observed. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is disappointed with the Schedule. We thought that by reprinting the Schedule for the purpose of applying the 1938 English Act to Scottish law we were greatly facilitating the reading of the Bill by the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends. I am sorry that he has not appreciated that, but we shall try to meet his request. I am sure that the Leader of the House will carry out any undertaking that he has given, and I shall be happy to do what I can to help.
  Mr. Ross: We do not like having to read English Bills to discover what the Scottish law is.
  Mr. Heath: I refrain from further comment.
  Part III deals with problems which are familiar to many hon. Members. What happens is this: a man is offered a second-hand car; he buys it, and pays for it. Later, it emerges that the car is still the subject of a hire-purchase agreement. Legally, the purchaser has no right to the car, because it belongs to a finance house, and that finance house can take it away from him.
  In practice, it allows him to keep it if he pays off whatever is outstanding

  1045
  under the hire-purchase agreement, but that may not help, because he has paid for the car once, and the outstanding balance may be substantially beyond his means, apart from the fact that he is paying twice for the car. His only remedy is to try to find the man who sold him the car and attempt to get his money back. Very often this proves to be a forlorn hope.
  We decided that the way to deal with this situation was to bring in the scheme embodied in Part III of the Bill. The Minister of Transport is empowered to make regulations under which a man who is acquiring a car under a hire-purchase agreement will receive from the finance house a licensing card which he will use when he renews the car's licence. The car's registration book, what we term the log book, will be kept by the finance house. Thus, a man who is acquiring a car on hire-purchase will have a licensing card and not the log book until the purchase has been completed, when it will be sent to him.
  Under this scheme anyone who is offered a car by a person who can produce only a licensing card will have fair warning that the car is still subject to a hire-purchase agreement, and that he should not part with his money. If a finance house fails to keep the log book, and as a result it gets into the hands of the hirer, the innocent buyer will have a good title to the car. The finance house will have to go after the fraudulent hirer to get its money back.
  Mr. Donald Wade: if the log book has been forged, and the buyer buys in good faith and then finds that the car is owned by a finance house, will he have any remedy? I am aware that he will have rights against the vendor, and it may well be that the vendor will have committed a criminal offence, but generally in these circumstances vendors disappear. Will the buyer have any remedy under the Bill?
  Mr. Heath: I understand that in those circumstances the position will remain unaltered. It will be the same as for fraud in the existing situation. The Bill makes no change in the present provisions in that regard.
  In another place an alternative method of handling this problem was proposed. Before this scheme was
  1046
  devised for the Bill we had many consultations in an endeavour to find the simplest and most practical way of dealing with the problem. The principle proposed in another place was that the loss through such transactions would be borne by an indemnity fund which would be financed by contributions from the finance houses and other concerns who let cars on hire-purchase.
  I should like to assure the House and those who are interested in this matter that we are, fully prepared to explore this alternative, but I must make one thing quite clear, namely, that we are prepared to do so only if the innocent purchaser would, in our opinion, still derive as good protection as we believe he would get from the scheme in Part III of the Bill. I must make that plain to the various organisations who are considerng and negotiating about this matter. It, between now and the Committee stag, the finance houses can satisfy us that there is a better practical alternative than this, well and good, but I cannot emphasise too strongly that we intend to deal with this problem, and that we intend to deal with it under the Bill.
  Finally, we come to Part IV which amends the Advertisements (Hire-Purchase) Act, 1957. Again, what we are doing is based on the recommendations of the Molony Committee. The purpose of the 1957 Act was to prevent the inclusion in advertisements of information which may mislead the consumer about the cost of obtaining goods on hire-purchase terms, and in this respect the Committee drew attention to the two deficiencies in the present Act.
  First, the Act requires in certain circumstances that an advertisement shall include the cash price, the amount of the deposit, the amount of each instalment, and the number of instalments, but what it does not do is to require the two total figures to be shown, one if the consumer buys for cash, and the other if he buys by hire-purchase, and, therefore, the Bill will require advertisements to show both these totals.
  Secondly, advertisements sometimes show the hire-purchase charge as a rate of interest. For example, they say that easy terms will cost only 5 per cent. But this bare statement—a rather attractive one—can conceal a rate of interest which

  1047
  is in fact very much higher. Traders are not compelled to quote interest rates in advertisements, but if they wish to do so in future they will have to quote a rate of interest which is calculated in accordance with the Bill, and under a formula shown in the Schedule. Comment may be made about the formula, but I do not think that it is complicated, or that it will be difficult for the trader to apply.
  Mr. J. T. Price: This is an extremely important point. I am not satisfied that the advertisement Clause will give proper information to the purchaser as to the real rate of interest that he is being charged on certain transactions. I accept the Minister's assurance that it is his intention to ensure that that information is given, but a slick operator will get round this by not stating the rate of interest at all, but by merely stating the number of payments to be made over two or three years, or whatever is the term of the contract.
  I have often taken the trouble to work out the actuarial equivalent of advertised rates of interest. The true rate of interest has often been between 30 per cent. and 40 per cent., whereas the nominal rate has been shown as a much lower figure. I should like this provision to be strengthened so that the true rate of interest on hire-purchase transactions is always revealed to the purchaser.
  Mr. Heath: No doubt we can consider that at a later stage. This clearly makes him state the true rate of interest if he includes a rate of interest in the advertisement, and it will also mean that the two total sums will have to be stated. Some may argue that this gives a clearer indication to the purchaser of the difference in price involved in the two forms of transaction. We have dealt fully with those two aspects.
  The Bill is essentially a practical Measure for consumer protection. It makes changes where experience has shown that they are necessary. The cases where this protection will be needed in practice, however, are undoubtedly in a minority. That does not make them any less important, but in fairness to all concerned with such transactions we should emphasise that they are in the minority. Many of the safeguards which the Bill introduces are already part of the normal
  1048
  commercial practice of many traders. This is, nevertheless, a useful contribution to the protection of the consumer.
  We have tried to hold a balance between the interests of purchasers, on the one hand, and traders, on the other. I hope the House will agree that at this stage the Bill gets the balance right. It is obvious from what the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) has said that when the Bill becomes law it will be appropriate to consider the consolidation of legislation dealing with hire purchase, and I hope that this can be done. It is our intention to put the work in hand as soon as the Bill is passed. That would be for the convenience of both traders and hon. Members.
  Looked at more widely, the Bill should be regarded as part of the Government's general policy for strengthening the position of consumer protection. We have already had the Weights and Measures Act. Last year we set up the Consumer Council, to which the Molony Committee gave its first priority. Its second priority was the improvement of hire-purchase legislation, and that is contained in the Bill that I am now putting before the House on Second Reading. After that, the Molony Committee suggested there should be a revision of merchandise marks legislation and a consideration of its own proposals about the labelling of goods, the revision of the law on the sale of goods, and so on. We mean to deal with the Committee's other proposals as quickly as we can, because we recognise the need for the protection of the consumer in modern conditions.
  As the country's standard of living rises, the public buys a much wider range of goods. These goods are becoming increasingly complex and difficult for the ordinary shopper to judge, although there are ways in which he can be helped, by private institutions and organisations. At the same time, trading methods in our more advanced economy are becoming more complex and varied, and, therefore, there is a task for the Government to do in introducing legislation of this kind. There is also a task for Parliament to do, in considering, helping, advising on, and producing Measures which will govern this economy.

  1049
  The Government's task is to create a framework within which each consumer and trader is free to buy and sell to his best advantage. The rules must be clear, effective and workable. That is what we have tried to achieve in the provisions we have set before the House in the Bill. The rights which these rules confer and the obligations they impose must also be clear-cut and indisputable. It is against this background that I commend the Bill to the House.
  Sir Eric Errington: Will my right hon. Friend say whether the Bill will be retrospective in effect?
  Mr. Heath: There are interim provisions in the Schedule for dealing with that point.
  4.24 p.m.
  Mr. George Darling: I am sure that the whole House will join me in thanking the Minister for the clear explanation that he has given of the terms of the Bill. His explanation, although somewhat incomplete, was much clearer than the Bill itself. I know that the right hon. Gentleman will not mind my saying that he, in common with other hon. Members, has had the great advantage of the decks-clearing operation in another place. This is one occasion when we can sincerely thank their Lordships for helping us to understand a very difficult piece of legislation.
  We welcome the Bill, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not read into our welcome any note of enthusiasm. He has pointed out that this is not the hire purchase Bill that we have long been asking for. Neither is it the Bill that the Government promised us. I am not referring to the right hon. Gentleman's statement of last November, but to the statement given to us three years ago, when the Government rejected a Private Member's Bill. This is not the comprehensive reform of the hire-purchase law for which we have been pleading and arguing for many years, and for which—as the right hon. Gentleman knows—harassed county court judges have also been pleading.
  Despite what he said, I believe that we are failing in our duty by confining ourselves—as we must, on this occasion—to this somewhat limited and restricted Measure. We should be spending our
  1050
  time dealing with all the other weaknesses, faults and omissions in the hire-purchase law, which the Bill ignores. Speaking as a layman, my view is that the passing of the Bill will make the administration of hire-purchase law even more difficult than it is today—and that is saying a lot. It will make things more difficult for the customer, the trader, the finance companies and, above all, the courts.
  We agree that it will remedy many abuses, and for that reason we welcome it; but it will make hire-purchase law almost incomprehensible. With due deference to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine), who will deal more adequately than I can with the legal issues, I believe that the Bill will make the law a paradise for lawyers and a nightmare for everybody else.
  The Bill is very complicated, and appears to me to have been very hurriedly drafted. In fact, it is clear from what went on in Committee in another place that even the right hon. Gentleman is not quite sure how some of its provisions will work out. As far as I can see there are a dozen or more vitally important proposals which, instead of making the existing complicated legal rules clearer, will make them rather more obscure.
  In spite of the proposals contained in the Bill we are leaving a great deal of what I call, in layman's language, the application of the rules of hire purchase not to the statutes but to the common law, and we will still depend in far too great a measure on the decisions of the courts. One of the basic objections to this piecemeal legislation is that we still need consolidation of hire-purchase law, and with this piecemeal approach we shall make it far more difficult to obtain that comprehensive, up-to-date, clear and concise law on hire purchase and credit trading which has been urgently needed for many years.
  The main provisions of the Bill could have beer brought into force many years ago, for the Private Member's Bill which my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Mr. W. T. Williams) introduced three years ago contained the main provisions that are now in this Bill—provisions for raising the legal limits of protection, for giving customers a

  1051
  cooling-off period in respect of doorstep transactions, for legible and straightforward forms of agreement, and for ensuring that finance companies should be responsible for any misrepresentation by dealers who act as their agents.
  In point of fact, those proposals were put forward on several occasions long before my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington introduced his Private Member's Bill. There was no need for the Government to wait for the report of the Molony Committee, as we said time and time again while the Committee was sitting. These reforms had been advocated for years by people who had studied hire-purchase law far more intensively than that Committee was able to do. We could have put them in an amending Bill years ago and by now we could have had a comprehensive consolidating Measure such as was referred to by the Minister.
  The Government, however, preferred delay. They told us to wait for the Report of the Molony Committee and they gave us a promise. They said that if we would wait until the Committee reported there would be a comprehensive Measure to remedy what the lawyers, judges, customers, traders and social service workers had been criticising for so long.
  It is clear that despite the promise of three years ago the Government were not ready to produce a Bill this Session. It was not mentioned in the Gracious Speech and I believe that it would not have appeared but for the fact that, in desperation, another Private Member's Bill was introduced in another place. It was the Bill introduced by Lord Peddie which forced the hands of the Government. So we have what I would describe as an inadequate, ill-drafted Measure on which some of us will have to spend a lot of time during the Committee stage, as the right hon. Gentleman has more or less promised we shall, in an attempt to remedy its defects and weaknesses, following the considerable efforts made in another place to improve it. That is why we do not exactly give the Bill an enthusiastic welcome.
  We can more or less give approval to one or two provisions in the Bill without qualification. The first is the raising of legal protection for transactions under
  1052
  £300 to cover transactions of up to £2,000. I agree that the right hon. Gentleman was right to reject the approach of the Molony Committee in this regard. Had he followed the advice of the Committee, we should have been involved, as he said, in trying to define what is a consumer sale. Goodness knows, we shall have sufficient difficulty in trying to define some of the terms of the Bill in a practical form so that traders and customers may understand what is the legal definition. I should hate to become involved in an attempt to define a consumer sale in order to leave out the industrial arrangements for credit trading.
  The £2,000 limit will catch almost all car sales, which is what we desire, and, clearly, it will catch practically all sales of household equipment. I do not think that it will catch many of the industrial credit sales not conducted by companies, which are, of course, excluded from the Bill. But we ought at this time to point out to the public that the £2,000 figure includes the hire-purchase charge so that anyone considering the purchase of a £2,000 car on hire purchase will not come within the protection afforded by the Bill as drafted. There will be some tricky borderline cases, as there were in the £300 limit. I am glad that the Bill gives authority to the Minister to raise the limit by statutory order if experience shows this to be necessary.
  This, at any rate, is a substantial spreading of the proper legal protection over transactions which are now quite unreasonably excluded, and will stop some of the worst abuses in hire-purchase transactions. As the right hon. Gentleman said, one of the worst is the unjustified "snatch back". To understand how some dealers operate, especially in the car trade and how they have exploited our failure—do not let us run away from this—up to now to provide equal protection under the law for buyer and seller in transactions above the £300 figure, I will quote a letter from a lady which I received only last week.
  It is one of many letters which I have received since I became involved in this business. I will leave out the name or the firms concerned, because I want to raise the case immediately afterwards in another connection. The lady writes:
  "We have a desperate problem…The position is this; two years five months ago, we bought a Mini-Minor from"—

  1053
  then she mentions the name of a garage—
  "and paid a deposit of over £100 and the balance of £14 7s. 6d, in monthly payments to the finance company"—
  and the name of the company is mentioned.
  "We have paid over £400 and as far as we are concerned have paid regularly and the last payment was on January 14th. We paid our payments in exactly the same way as we did when buying our first car from another firm who gave us a high rating credit status card on completion. To our horror a man came to our house on Friday, February 7th, at 8 o'clock in the evening, from a firm."
  Again the name is mentioned, and I have checked that it is a firm of inquiry agents which goes in for this kind of business.
  "He said he had authority to seize the car. I said it was nonsense, when I showed him our credit, thinking it was a mistake. He seemed puzzled at first, then said that even if we had been a few days overdue he was entitled to take the car. I called my husband who wart to phone the police and the man got into the car with master keys. My husband tried to stop the man, who shouted to passers by that my husband was trying to take his car. He said he would slash the tyres and tow the car away. Eventually, he got away. We went to see the police C.I.D., who were most kind and helpful in every way and phoned the firm for us on Monday. The firm said that by some peculiar calculation they made us one month in arrear. We had no notice…and are perfectly capable of paying all the repayments with ease."
  The letter goes on to say:
  "When we bought the car 7,000 miles was registered on the clock, but in the car was the previous owner's service card with nearly 14,000 miles registered…We have heard nothing from the firm and do not know what to do next and are afraid of making a mistake in law."
  This is the important point—
  "Can you help us as to who to consult and what to do next?"
  This is the kind of deplorable behaviour that we have allowed to go on and which we could have checked years ago. We have let it go on for far too long. I do not know how many honest purchasers of cars are robbed in this way, but if it is only one it is one too many. I am told, and I believe it, that reputable finance companies do not go in for these dishonest, swindling tricks.
  Mr. Arthur Tiley: This is such a shocking case that I think the House ought to know the name of the company.
  Mr. Darling: I will explain in a moment why I have not mentioned names.
  When we examine, discuss and perhaps reshape the Bill we ought to keep in mind the fact that not only must we lay down and reasonable rules for reputable dealers and finance companies and their customers, but also we must make sure that we put the disreputable firms out of business. Let us make no bones about it, by our failure to clean up the hire-purchase rules in the past we have encouraged the practices which now we condemn. The so-called finance company which behaves as I have described should not have been started up in the first place. It would be very interesting to find out who finances this kind of company. I think that we should try—
  Mr. Ellis Smith: May we have the name of the company?
  Mr. Darling: Wait a moment. Allow me to explain how I see some of them coming into being. I have made some inquiries about this case and this is why I have not quoted names.
  I have reason to believe that the garage company, the car seller, has a franchise arrangement with a reputable well-established finance company. But what seems clear, if this is so, is that it has been exploiting the reputation that this arrangement gives it for honest dealing—to pass some of its hire-purchase business to this thoroughly disreputable outfit. That is because it gets a bigger commission for doing so. The reason I do not give names is that the inquiries have not been completed, but as soon as they are completed I will give the names in Committee.
  The point is—we cannot run away from this—that we have to insist that the commissions should be stated on the hire-purchase agreement, because in the end the customer has to pay. We ought, in the Bill, to limit the rate of commission which can be charged. We ought to work, if we can, for the complete abolition of dealers' commissions. I do not want to labour this case. We shall come back to it in Committee and we shall stop this sort of deplorable behaviour by the Bill. This is what part

  1055
  of the Bill is for, but the snatch-back, the unjustified repossession of goods, is not the only malpractice that we are in duty-hound to prohibit.
  Some of the worst practices are dealt with in the Bill, as the right hon. Gentleman explained, but the more I study the Bill and the more I study the debates on it in another place the more doubtful I am whether its provisions are really satisfactory and whether the best methods are being adopted to stop the practices we want to prohibit. I shall mention a few of the provisions which, it seems, should be looked at again. I take to begin with the cooling-off period. There is general agreement, which was endorsed by the Molony Committee, on the need to give some sort of extra protection for householders who are subjected to high pressure salesmanship on the doorstep, but it is not only the slick pressure to get people to sign agreements which they cannot afford that we are concerned about.
  Some of these doorstep agreements, to put it mildly, are very misleading. The Bill, I agree, attempts to stop this part of the operation, the misleading documents, by laying down what shall and what shall not be in the agreements. It has been generally agreed, also, that the best way to stop the slick salesmen is to give the customer time for reflection and in many cases time for the harassed housewife to consult her husband. Incidentally we ought to look a little more carefully at the effect of this cooling-off period on credit traders who regularly visit householders in the course of their business.
  The Bill provides four days in which the potential agreement can be cancelled. This is what we have been asking for, but it has been put to me that this apparently admirable arrangement could open the door to worse abuse. I am told that a slick salesman could seize on the four-day period which under Clause 3 might be extended if he is to go in for a little postal arrangement also, but I shall leave that for a moment.
  The salesman could exploit it by leaving whatever he is trying to sell with the housewife, telling her that she can look at it and try it out, that she need not sign for it if she does not want to. He will go back after a few days, he will call again and refuse to take back the
  1056
  washing machine, or whatever it is, on the ground that in using it the housewife has damaged it. He will point to scratches, or one or two minor defects, which were on the machine before he left it, and claim that the housewife is responsible for those defects and she must sign the agreement whether she wants to do so or not.
  In such a case, of course, the householder should refuse to sign any agreement. She should allow the salesman to take her to court if he is prepared to do so, which, of course, is unlikely. But the ordinary person has a built-in prejudice against being involved in legal action, for very good reasons. It is this horror of legal proceedings which the slick salesman will exploit. In Committee, we should try to plug up this loophole if we find that there is a loophole, but the Government should do something more. They should prepare, not only to help the householder beat off the slick salesman on the doorstep, but should prepare—or perhaps it would be better to ask the Consumer Council to prepare—a clear and concise booklet explaining the customer's rights under hire-purchase law, written in simple terms.
  The Government should make it a condition that this explanatory booklet must be handed to the customer before any kind of hire-purchase or credit trade agreement is signed anywhere, not only on the doorstep but also in a shop. I do not want to add a single penny to Government expenditure by this suggestion. The hire-purchase dealer should pay for the booklet, which we should compel him to give to customers. Of course, the customer will pay in the end. This is done in the United States of America. I have seen some of the documents issued by some States in the U.S.A. I think that it is done in Canada and I have grounds for believing that it is also done in Australia. I see no reason why we should not do it here.
  I turn to one or two of the points which the right hon. Gentleman raised, and on which, if he does not mind my saying so, I have some slight differences of opinion. First, there is the very difficult problem of how to assess the true measure of damages incurred when a hirer terminates an agreement and returns goods. As the Bill stands, the

  1057
  hirer can end the agreement at any time and return the goods, but he will have to pay the instalments due on them plus the amount, if need be, to make up to one-half the hire-purchase price. It seems that this provision can be very unfair to the hirer in certain circumstances.
  Suppose that for very good reasons he is compelled to cancel the agreement fairly soon after it starts on something which does not depreciate quickly in value, in other words, an article which has a fairly high second-hand value, such as a camera. To pay half the price in those circumstances is an utterly unfair imposition. This is argued, as probably the right hon. Gentleman knows, in the Law Society's memorandum on the matter.
  On the other hand, to cancel an agreement on something such as a car, which depreciates in value quickly, would mean that the car owner can, in some circumstances, be heavily out of pocket even on the 50 per cent. arrangement. Nevertheless, I think the balance of hardship as the Bill stands will fall on the customer in most circumstances. I am not very impressed by the arguments put forward by the Government spokesmen in another place to retain the provision in the Bill as it stands, although I would support the rejection of Lady Burton's new Clause if only on the grounds of excessive length. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we have to be essentially practical here; this is a practical problem.
  The solution I would offer—and I have not consulted my hon. Friends about it and, therefore, it may not work, as, very often, my ideas do not—is that the 50 per cent. condition for ending the contract should be the maximum amount. I know that this applies in the Bill, but it is not stated clearly enough. If we say that in all circumstances it is the maximum rate of damages, so to speak, someone will have to come in somewhere in each case to decide what the figure for damages should be within the 50 per cent.
  This proposal, at first sight, could be ruled out—this argument has been advanced—because it is indefinite and would call for judgments outside the terms of the Bill. Let us be realistic, which is what the right hon. Gentleman
  1058
  invited us to be. As I see it, only about half a dozen trades will be seriously involved in this problem. The motor car trade will be, obviously. Television, radio, record players, tape recorders, etc., will form another group. Other groups will consist of furniture, household appliances—for instance, washing machines—cameras and photographic equipment, and perhaps one or two more.
  What is wrong with the Bill as it stands is that all these goods that these various traders sell are being treated alike, whereas they are all different. Their rate of depreciation is different. I do not think that we can possibly assume a level of uniformity for the purposes of the Bill which does not exist. I believe that the correct approach is to tell the recognised and reputable trade associations in these trades that they must submit a fair and reasonable formula for assessing the true measure of damages in their individual trades.
  There is plenty of time for the exercise. It we put the requirements into the Bill, asking for regulations on this, and if the Bill is passed within the next two months, as we hope it will be, the trade associations will have eight months before the Bill becomes law in which to produce in each case a formula acceptable to the Board of Trade and then subsequently, because the Orders will have to come here, acceptable to Parliament. If they fail, or refuse to produce a workable formula, they must accept the consequences which are at the moment in the Bill. If a hirer thinks that the 50 per cent. rule is too harsh, he can go to the courts for a more reasonable assessment of what he owes the finance company.
  We can discuss this proposition in Committee, but I am sure that this is a more practical way than trying to get something written into the Bill, a detailed pro vision such as the proposed new Clause, moved in another place, which cannot possibly apply in all circumstances as they would apply in the case which the movers of those Clauses clearly had in mind, namely, the motor car case.
  Mr. David Weitzman: I am impressed by my hon. Friend's argument about the variation in the rate of depreciation. Is that not the strongest

  1059
  possible argument that the only true way to deal with it is the ordinary measure of damages at common law?
  Mr. Darling: That is what we fall back upon. If nothing else were done, I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that that is what we should fall back on. If we could find a formula that acts quickly and fairly in all cases so that there is no need to go to the courts, it would be far better all round.
  Sir E. Errington: The different usage to which these goods are put must also be borne in mind. The man who drives a motor car into the ground in 18 months is a different proposition from a man who drives in the way that the hon. Gentleman drives.
  Mr. Darling: That is true. I do not want to go over these Committee points, but I point out to the hon. Gentleman that this is a problem which car dealers themselves have to deal with almost every day when selling second-hand cars. They have a schedule of prices for secondhand cars to take as their basis, and they vary their prices according to the condition of the car. If we could work out a formula on that basis, so much the better, However, these are Committee points which we must face up to in Committee.
  One thing is certain. We must remove from the law the offensive provision which is now there under which the hirer who defaults on his agreement is better off than the hirer who honestly gives notice to terminate it. We must get rid of the equally absurd situation in which, as now happens, there are three different interpretations of damages, depending on who ends the agreement or whether the hirer defaults.
  I turn to the other parts of the Bill which I promised to deal with. Obviously, we approve the provision to protect the heirs of a hirer on his death. This was a very sore problem in Scotland. I hope that some of my hon. Friends from Scotland will purseue the matter to find out whether the Bill remedies a situation about which they have long complained. While I am on Scottish matters, may I say that the device adopted in the Bill to extend the English law to Scotland, with some modifications, seems to me to be a very
  1060
  extraordinary precedent. I do not know of it being done quite like this before. Schedule 2 is, in fact, the 1938 Act lifted out and put into the Bill. If any further evidence were needed to show the need for a new comprehensive consolidated Bill, we have it in the fact that the Government were compelled to adopt this device.
  Thinking of the Committee stage, I sincerely hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) will go ahead and press for the Scottish section of the Bill to be considered by the Scottish Standing Committee.
  I have three further comments on the contents of the Bill. First, Part I do not think that we can accept the proposal as now stated in the Bill to deal with hire-purchase frauds arising from cars that are in the process of being bought on hire purchase and then sold to an innocent third party. Somehow or other, as I see it—I am not a lawyer—we must attach a title of ownership to the car as it passes from the garage to the finance company to the customer. To use either a logbook or a licence card for this purpose as a certificate of title seems to me to be an arrangement which is wide open to abuse.
  There are already thousands of logbooks around to which no cars can legally be attached. The cars have been dismantled or destroyed. It is the simplest thing in the world to forge a logbook, if one can get hold of the type of car which suits the logbook. It will be even easier, I should imagine, to forge a licence card. I am told that some of the "wide boys" in this business have already engaged printers to produce forged cards, even before the Ministry has designed them.
  There are other serious technical objections to which the Minister referred. We can leave them to be dealt with in Committee. Personally, I am attracted to the idea of basing an arrangement to deal with this on the Finance Houses' Association indemnity fund arrangement, provided that, whatever we do, the innocent customer must have full legal protection. In Committee we may be able to deal with this point satisfactorily. I am told that there are relatively few cases of this kind of hire-purchase fraud. This was explained in

  1061
  another place. I am sure that we do not want the enormous sledge-hammer of Part. III to crack what may turn out to be a very small nut.
  My next comment concerns the advertising section. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on at last providing—we pressed for this in 1957—that not only must the advertisement show the cash price, the deposit and the hire-purchase instalments, but it must also clearly show the total hire-purchase price: all four items must be in the advertisement. Even though it may be easy to poke a little fun at the complicated formula for calculating the true rate of interest or hire-purchase charge as set out in Schedule 3, this is a welcome innovation and I am very glad that the Consumer Association's proposal for this has been accepted.
  My third comment concerns something not mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman—rebates of hire-purchase charges when a hirer settles an agreement in cash ahead of time. In such cases, in my view, the hirer is entitled to a rebate on the hire-purchase charges, and we shall put down Amendments in Committee to make sure that he receives a fair rebate.
  Finally, let me quickly sum up our attitude to the Bill. We welcome it for what it does and criticise it for what it fails to do. We are also very critical of this piecemeal approach to the improvement and modernisation of the hire-purchase law. When the Bill gets on to the Statute Book we shall have four Acts of Parliament governing hire-purchase and credit transactions and a great deal of common law still to be relied upon to make confusion worse. All this statute law—the four Acts of Parliament—are built up on a slender foundation, because the 1948 Act was not a perfect Act by any means. It was a private Member's attempt to remedy abuses in hire-purchase trading.
  Until we face up to the fact that all legislation affecting buyers and sellers of goods—and that legislation is increasing every day; this is the third Bill in the last month that deals with buyers and sellers—urgently needs a basic, clear, concise, modern law of contract as a firm foundation, we shall never get the rules clear and satisfactory. But we must take the Bill as it is, and we can
  1062
  assure the right hon. Gentleman that we shall do all we can in Committee to improve it where it can be, and needs to be, improved.
  5.2 p.m.
  Sir Eric Errington: I should, first of all, mention my own position, which is that of a director of a finance house, but I would make it quite clear that do not speak in any sense as representing either the finance house or the Finance Houses Association and that such ideas as I have are those which I feel personally.
  The first and most important thing which, I think, was said by my right hon. Friend is that there is to be an attempt, after this Bill has gone through, at a consolidation Act. I am extremely worried to hear that, because I do not believe that the basis on which we are now proceeding in this Bill, though the Bill has what I might describe as considerable interim merits, is the way to deal with the general consumer credit position.
  I would like to have heard that this was, as I say, a Bill to meet certain clear abuses and that it was in the mind of the Government to produce a Bill that would deal with consumer credit on a much wider basis. That, of course, would involve the ending of the Bills of Sale Act, which would enable title to be given as security in a way that at the moment it cannot be given. It would also involve considerable amendment of the Moneylenders Acts.
  However, I am satisfied in my own mind that in future the way in which this method of getting credit will be based will be on the individual, as it is very largely in other countries, particularly in America, where, of course, the proportion of consumer credit is very much larger than it is in this country. I hope that that will be considered again, because I am sure that it is the way to deal with the matter. We should then have credit ratings which, I believe, is of value in dealing with matters of this kind.
  I now pass from that to deal in a little more detail with the question of repudiation of the hire-purchase agreement. The law as it stands is very difficult. It has, I think, been decided in one case that failure by a hirer to pay

  1063
  one or two instalments does not amount to repudiation, but if the hirer merely writes a letter, and says that he is unable to pay the instalments, that is repudiation of the agreement.
  The question arises, when agreements come to an end either by repudiation or termination, as to what ought to be done. In that connection I should mention—which I do not think the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) mentioned—that there is, of course, a minimum payment clause which may not be as much as 50 per cent. of the total hire-purchase cost. I believe that the way to deal with the measure of the loss is to look at it from the point of view of the amount of the unpaid balance of the hire purchase price less (1) the value of the goods and less (2) the option fee, which is only nominal, for the exercise of the option and (3) any discount for accelerated payment due to the payment being made before the termination of the agreement at its full time.
  A difficulty arises under the hirer's rights to determine the contract. He can do that by paying the amount stated in the minimum payment clause which, as I said, may be under 50 per cent. But it is open to the court to find that that is, in fact, a penalty and should not be recoverable. That produces the position referred to by the hon. Member for Hillsborough. It produces a position where a hirer may be better off if he breaks a contract rather than if he terminates it. He may pay the amount up to 50 per cent. only if that is not found to be a penalty?
  The more one looks into this question of repudiation and termination of hire-purchase agreements the more one is convinced that there must be some method of arriving at the true value of the property concerned. If we look at the position that arises when the owner desires to terminate, then we see that there ought to be some rule under which he notifies the hirer that his failure to keep up the instalments will involve the termination of the agreement if he does not remedy the situation by a certain date. Seven days, I believe, has been suggested as a basis, but I should have thought that a longer period than that would be right.
  1064
  After the transaction has been determined then, of course, the owner, that is, the person who has advanced the money—the finance house or otherwise—has power to abandon the security and recover the unpaid balance. But, of course, the unpaid balance is a matter of question, and until a decision has been arrived at as to what that amount is one cannot arrive at a figure that is fair as between the parties. The payment up to 50 per cent. was no doubt quite a reasonable computation under the old conditions where the limit was £300. However, when one is dealing with £2,000, which involves a payment of up to £1,000, more careful consideration would seem to be required, to arrive at the true measure of loss.
  I have been searching my mind to see whether there is any way in which something like the Order 14 procedure might be possible in the High Court in these cases. If these cases are all going to the county courts I realise the difficulty that there is bound to be there, with the amount of work involved in these matters. I am sure that something not quite on the lines of that suggested by the hon. Member for Hillsborough might be devised, for the question of finding the real loss is absolutely essential if one is to get a satisfactory result from the Bill as it stands.
  I would like to damn the Part III procedure with faint praise. The first thing about it that strikes one is that it is a cumbersome procedure. It is also expensive—although no one will mind that because people always seem to think that the finance houses have plenty of money. They should realise that it is only our stock in trade and that we cannot fritter it away. This procedure will involve considerable delay because all the necessary transactions must be at a distance in the sense that there are three parties all at different places. It is considered that the delay to complete the transfer of ownership will be 11 days at the very least.
  When one realises that there are nearly 5 million motor cars in this country and that a great proportion of them are the subject of hire-purchase agreements one can assess the considerable difficulty involved in this matter. That might be got over, but the use of the logbook is another difficult question. It is always possible to fake

  1065
  a logbook. It has been done time and again and on a good scale it sounds a most excellent racket for anyone who has not thought of it before.
  I sincerely hope that some arrangement will be made that does not involve what I think is an invitation to trouble in connection with fraudulent treatment. I am bound to confess that there are some people who are capable—in the motor car business and, to my sorrow, in the finance house business—of taking advantage of such an opportunity.
  I have been asked to mention something relating not to motor cars but to ordinary businesses, the furniture shop or store, for instance, which does its own financing. There are advantages in simplicity in this sphere and it has been suggested to me that the ordinary order form, which is filled in in considerable detail—and this would apply to the person dealing only with such a store—should be given to the customer and on it should be listed all the articles he has selected, totalled up to the cash price, to which should be added the credit charge, then the total price should be written and below that should be a sentence signed by the customer.
  I has been pointed out to me—though it could be supplemented by a subsequent agreement—that the sentence should be as simple as this:
  "I understand that if I enter into a hire purchase agreement for the above mentioned goods to the total hire purchase price of £…, that after paying a deposite of £…I will be required to pay…instalments of£…"
  If a copy of that were given to the customer that would be a great advantage because there would be a certain degree of expense and complexity saved to the ordinary store doing business in this way and the copy of such a form signed by the customer would be of help for them to take home and think over.
  Something which has never been suggested before—and this is my own idea and I will be interested to see if there is any answer to it—is that we live in an age when I sometimes wonder whether some of our legislation is not too grandmotherly and whether we look after people who should, in this world, learn to look after themselves to a greater extent. We must exist in this state of affairs, but I do not see why
  1066
  it should not be required that a statement should be made by anyone seeking to enter into a hire-purchase agreement to supply particulars of all their outstanding hire-purchase liabilities.
  It is so easy to slip into these things. Often people with very little capital resources, put with substantial wage packets, enter into hire-purchase agreements these days without fully realising the number and amount of hire-purchase agreements they already have. It is only when tragedy, e.g. unemployment or death, strikes the household that they become completely unstuck. Would it not be possible to make a provision that before the documents in an agreement are finally completed the proposed hirer should give the details of his or her outstanding hire-purchase liabilities? I am convinced that if that were done many people would draw back and not enter into something that might become to them a terrible cross to bear should bad luck overtake them.
  I am sure that the Bill is of value within the limits I have indicated and I hope that it will receive thorough consideration and emerge a better bill from Committee.
  5.19 p.m.
  Mrs. Harriet Slater: The hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) said that the finance houses were poor; certainly by no means as wealthy as some people imagined. He will not expect my hon. Friends to believe that. He later said that the time had come when we should stop being grandmotherly in our legislation.
  Sir E. Errington: Too grandmotherly.
  Mrs. Slater: The fact that we have had to introduce this Bill means that because we have not passed sufficiently grandmotherly legislation in the past many people have been defrauded by some clever people in the business world.
  We welcome this Bill, but I very much regret that the Government have taken so long to introduce it, and no one can convince me that it has not been produced just because Lord Peddie took the opportunity of reintroducing his Bill in another place. It is also to be regretted that, in spite of the Molony Report, the Government did not do more a long time ago because, even now, it is quite obvious that the Molony

  1067
  Report will only be implemented in stages.
  We have gone far beyond the grandmotherly days when we were told that we must never buy anything unless we could pay for it. We are living in a completely new age when people are not prepared to wait until they have saved enough money to buy something on the spot. I am old-fashioned, but it may be that those people are right who are no longer prepared to save until they can buy outright a washer, a refrigerator, or even a motor car.
  One thing that stands out quite clearly is that the Bill has had to be introduced to protect people from slick salesmanship. We have for long been telling the Government that something should be done about that. We all know from our constituents or from letters that some of the greatest hire-purchase tragedies are the result of slick salesmanship on the doorstep, through mail order, and even in some shops—we do not say that every trader is disreputable, but there are undoubtedly some shops in which slick salesmanship is pursued.
  The cooling-off period will apply only to door-to-door selling, but I am still not quite sure that there should not be a cooling-off period in respect of transactions in shops, too. We all know of the fancy-looking shop, with the salesman hovering behind the door. He asks some couple looking in the window, "Would you not come in and look round? There is no obligation to buy." Before the poor souls know where they are they have succumbed to the come-into-my-parlour tactic, even though they may not have intended to make a final decision to purchase that day. It is not just politicians who need to talk well—some salesmen have to learn to do the same thing, and they can often get people to enter into an agreement before they know where they are. We should look again to see how far we can protect customers from this kind of salesmanship.
  I am sure that a man and wife who are on proper terms talk about their problems before spending money. The wife probably says," It's about time I had a washer "or" Don't you think we
  1068
  should have a fridge '?"or" We need some new furniture"—
  Mr. Tiley: No, the wife says, "We want a ' fridge' ".
  Mrs. Slater: I am not a Yorkshire lass. A couple look at the price and the quality and see the terms that are offered—particularly in the case of furniture. A woman usually knows what kind of washer or cleaner she wants, but with furniture there can be a doubt, and these people need to look very carefully and compare prices and terms. Here, again, the slick salesman ought not to be able to talk them quickly into signing an agreement. We should look at this aspect again in Committee.
  Hire purchase is growing rapidly in this country. It may not have reached the same height as it has in America, but we must remember that this country is not as big as America. Nevertheless, this type of business is rapidly growing here. There seem to be only two things that make people realise that when they sign a hire purchase agreement they have undertaken certain legal obligations. People can be brought up very sharply against that fact when, because of illness, unemployment, or the like they cannot meet their obligations, and then, perhaps, find that they have not properly read the terms of the agreement.
  Whether we like it or not—and I am sure that some of us may be a little guilty ourselves sometimes—many people fail to read an agreement, especially when it is in complicated language—
  Mr. Ellis Smith: And small type.
  Mrs. Slater: Some steps are taken in the Bill to remedy that kind of thing.
  Further, we still have much to do to educate people in the facts of this kind of business. I should like to see hire-purchase trading taken as part of civics in all secondary modern and senior schools, not only in colleges of commerce—and taken by both boys and girls. It is not only women who make mistakes in this respect—
  Sir E. Errington: The hon. Lady has a big job on.
  Mrs. Slater: We have taken on big jobs before and have done something about them. I should like to see boys

  1069
  and girls at school taught this form of trading so that when they go into the world, and particularly when they become adults, they are not faced with situations that ought never to have arisen.
  We all welcome the raising of the amount to £2,000, but we need to warn people who intend to enter into hire-purchase agreements that it is not £2,000 in cash but includes the hire-purchase charges. I am afraid that many people when thinking of buying an expensive car, or something like that, will be brought up sharply when they find that the amount is not £2,000 but something less.
  Financial writers have said that this provision will make the finance houses much more careful about the kind of people to whom they lend money. I will welcome that, because I believe that as this business has grown there has also grown a tendency not to bother too closely as long as the money has been available and there has been an easy return on it. In addition, those doing the financing have had many safeguards in the terms of the hire purchase and the reclaiming of the commodity. If this makes the finance houses more careful, the Bill will have achieved some good.
  The Bill provides that Section 3 of the Hire-Purchase Act, 1938, is to apply only if a credit-sale agreement exceeds £20 instead of £5, but I wonder whether a figure of £20 is high enough. I do not suppose that there are many hon. Members opposite who pay only £20 for a suit. I am sure that many of them pay a great deal more. People buy suits on credit-sale, and many other articles are bought at a price exceeding £20 under this system. One of my hon. Friends was concerned whether, if funeral expenses came under this provision, anybody could be buried for a sum of only £20.
  Dr. Reginald Bennett: And pay later.
  Mrs. Slater: We might also consider in Committee the question of the marking of credit-sales cards. A case was brought to my notice last week of a person who entered into a credit-sale agreement with a mail-order business.
  1070
  She sent off a monthly payment but did not have the card returned and, therefore, her only proof of payment was the postal order counterfoil. It was a great worry to her, because she did not want to get into debt and she knew that if she missed one payment the article could be taken from her. If failure to return the card continued over a fairly long period the sum represented in payment could be quite considerable. I hope that in Committee we shall consider the question of how such a person is to be safeguarded. On this same point of the sum not exceeding £20, it must be remembered that a person might have other undertakings. Some people join a credit club with more than one firm. The question arises whether the sum of £20 covers those other undertakings.
  I am sure that we all welcome the cooling-off period provided for in the Bill. It is a good thing that no slick salesman can enter a house and talk the occupier into having some commodity. Fortunately, the provision applies to the salesman who, knowing that the householder has children, tries to sell educational books. The case was cited last week of the practice of making a telephone call and saying to the householder, You have been selected". When the salesman arrives at the door he says that he has the books in his car and asks whether he can leave them with the householder so that he or she can look at them.
  Many people are afraid to tell the salesman in the first place, "You take them away. I do not want to look at them." In the second place they are afraid that they must sign the agreement because the books have been left with them. They believe that in law they have entered into an agreement to buy them. It is good that, under the Bill, although the goods can be left, there is provision for a cooling-off period.
  Even within the cooling-off period, however, there is the question of how the damage which may be alleged to have been done to the goods after they have been left with the householder is to be assessed. A householder might find that a knitting machine which had been left with her had been returned from somewhere else with imperfect needles and had never been put in order. The house

  1071
  holder tries to use it and the seller then says that she has damaged the needles. The would-be customer would have great difficulty in proving that the damage had been done before she received the machine.
  This is a special difficulty with furniture. It is the easiest thing in the world to deliver furniture which has been scratched, or a chair with a badly fitted leg, and then when the purchaser decides not to buy to allege that the damage had been done while the goods were in her possession. It is difficult to avoid responsibility for the damage. It is equally difficult to assess what true damage, if any, has been done.
  I welcome the fact that the Government have accepted the recommendation of both the Molony Report and the Consumer Council that the hire-purchase form must carry words within a "box" which show clearly that the customer is signing a hire-purchase agreement. This is absolutely essential. I remember a case where a person signed an agreement but did not afterwards receive a copy. When she believed that she had met all the payments under the agreement, she suddenly found that the form was not for hire-purchase but for rental. Fortunately, in this case we were able to engage a good lawyer at little cost. He appeared in the county court and ensured that that practice on the part of that firm was stopped for all time. If, as provided in the Bill, the form is returned to the purchaser, he or she knows exactly what has been signed and many of these difficulties can be put right.
  I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to inform the House whether the cooling-off period for the mail-order business is four days, seven days, or eleven days. I am not a lawyer, and I find great difficulty in understanding some of the phrases in the Bill. I believe that a little more than four days should be allowed in the mail-order business.
  I welcome the new provisions in the Bill relating to guarantors. Unfortunately, many people enter into an agreement to be a guarantor, especially for things like motor-scooters. The poor souls do not know that they have taken the responsibility for the debt if the youth concerned decides that he has spent ail his spare money and he will not
  1072
  pay the instalment. I welcome the fact that under the Bill the guarantor will be made aware of what he is undertaking and his potential liability.
  My next point relates to motor cars. When we discussed the Weights and Measures Bill, we talked about the "racket" by coal dealers, but I do not know whether there has not been a bigger "racket" in the sale of second-hand cars. In view of all the difficulties, I am sure that even with the provisions of the Bill we shall by no means be safeguarding the purchaser against a slick person who finds the selling of secondhand cars a very profitable business. At least, an attempt is being made to safeguard the buyer of particularly a secondhand motor car.
  Another point which might be examined concerns proof of posting of the agreement which now has to be sent. I have had a lot of difficulty with one or two constituents who do not think that the Post Office sends their pool betting coupons in time, with the result that they do not win, and the blame is always put upon the Post Office. I do not want any doubt concerning proof of posting to arise because of any argument of that kind. We shall need to consider carefully what constitutes proof of posting on account of both the trader and, if the purchaser decides upon cancellation, on the consumer's side, too.
  There will be many points to discuss in Committee. The Committee stage will be difficult for a lay person like myself. We know the problems which arise because consumers are not dealt with as they should be, but traders also might have difficulties which cause problems. When we come to the legal jargon, which is still used in many Bills, some of us will find difficulty. This is a Bill in which we shall have to tie up some of the points which arise.
  I reinforce the suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough that the Board of Trade should consider issuing a document which explains the terms of the undertaking which a person has entered into. Recently, I have been trying to get the Board of Trade to do something about explaining both to traders and to consumers the implications of the Weights and Measures Act, but the Board of Trade has said that the task is difficult. It is, however, the people in the Department

  1073
  who have to meet the difficulties. They say that the traders themselves must do some of this. As a co-operator, I know that the Co-operative Union has been forced to issue explanatory leaflets to its members.
  I hope that when we discuss this point after the Bill is passed, the Board of Trade will not put up the same sort of argument concerning difficulties in producing a document to explain the obligations, the implications, the terms and even the charges which are made against the consumer. I should like to think that the Board of Trade would do this without asking the consumer, even indirectly, to pay for it, but I shall not quarrel about that as long as an explanatory leaflet is given to the purchaser. We are often told that we follow America, and some of us sometimes think that we follow America in ways in which we should not, but this is an instance when we might follow the example of some of the American states.
  I welcome the Bill because it is one step further to getting consumer protection. It is a little step further, but, nevertheless, a step, in implementing some of the recommendations of the Molony Committee. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade and the Government, if they are in office much longer, will not take as long to implement other provisions of the Molony Report.
  5.45 p.m.
  Dr. Reginald Bennett: Like the hon. Lady the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) and, I am sure, everybody in the House, I welcome the Bill. I go further and say that I welcome the open-minded attitude towards it by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. I have followed closely the passage of the Bill through another place, and it has been visible that there was adaptability on the part of the Government. I am sure that that can give nothing but pleasure to all of us on the Government as well as on the Opposition benches. I must declare an interest in the hire-purchase industry, which, I trust, will not be taken to undermine my judgment but may provide me with a little more insight into what is a fairly complex industry.
  1074
  I have been saddened, as other people must also have been, that we are adding to this patchwork of legislation, as my right hon. Friend so handsomely acknowledged. We are perpetuating an absurdity, because hire purchase is, let us face it, a sort of legal fiction. I certainly have not heard of anybody who has ever tried to hire anything by hire purchase. It is rather silly that we should continue through the decades to perpetuate this term, which is entirely meaningless and which, as we have heard, stem; simply from the handicaps under which a private Member labours when trying to produce legislation in that it was not possible, in 1937 or whenever it was, for the late Ellen Wilkinson to undertake changes in the Sale of Goods Act or the Moneylenders Act in private Members' business on a Friday. We could now have been stronger and changed the whole position somewhat.
  It is retrograde to build upon such shaky foundations. Even if we are putting Act up)n Act, they are all on such a tiny base that the whole thing seems slightly absurd, because only this country and countries which have derived their legislation from it use the term "hire purchase" or have this concept.
  Nevertheless, I admit that until we have a thorough review of the whole credit system, we must welcome the Bill, because it is the best Bill that we have. It is encouraging to know that my right hon. Friend is busy collecting the voices on methods of more profound legislation on credit and on advances against chattels. I only hope that we live to see action as a result.
  The ideal of the Bill is unexceptionable. It is to protect the weaker party in a deal while keeping "interference in normal trading practices to a minimum", as my right hon. Friend so succintly said. The Bill provides new safeguards which are much needed, and I am glad that the Government are so ready not to enforce safeguards where they are not needed. This has been conspicuous in the passage of the Bill in another place, where, for example, we have seen the exclusion of bodies corporate from the provisions of the Bill and we now have the inclusion of finance offices as well as showrooms under Clause 4(5). This was an Amendment which I never thought would be accepted so readily. I am very pleased that it has been

  1075
  accepted, and I only hope that there are not many loopholes for fly-by-night accommodation office addresses purporting to be finance offices.
  There are many other matters in the Bill about which the Government are still showing flexibility of mind, notably Part III, which is clearly unpractical, because it is specifically known that a motor-car log book is not a document of title and we cannot make it so at this late stage. I agree with the safeguards which Part III seeks to provide, but this does not seem to me a practical way of going about the matter.
  As the hon. Member for Hillsborough said, there is one subject on which the Bill is wholly inadequate. In another place the whole House was against the Government on it. I hope that that will not have to be the case in this House. It concerned the conditions of the termination of an agreement under the heading, familiarly known by all who have been delving into this matter as the "true measure of damages". The magnification of the scale of sums covered has warped the equity of the Bill. The £50 maximum was rough justice. The sum of £300 makes it very rough justice. But the maximum of £2,000 makes it outrageous. This settlement of 50 per cent. is a sort of judgment of Solomon. It is legally nice, but who finds half the baby fair? It may be all right perhaps when it is "only a little one", but surely that is not so with today's huge infant. This must be modified.
  I agree that the Amendment put forward in another place was unpractical. However, it was very ungallant of the hon. Member for Hillsborough to damn it because it was "too long". It was prodigiously long, but, even at that length, it would not have worked. I agree that the Government should not accept uncertainty. I do not honestly believe that the protestation of the Government spokesman in another place that it would introduce doubt and uncertainty was altogether well based. I am glad that my right hon. Friend is ready to consider anything practical—and he stressed "practical". I trust that we in this House will put forward Amendments to the effect which I have indicated which will be practical and
  1076
  which my right hon. Friend will find acceptable. Would it not be a terrible disgrace if this House and Government were not in fact capable of arranging this matter?
  We shall have much to do in Committee. I will not say more about other parts of the Bill because the Committee stage will absorb any amount of our loquacity on this subject. I regard the Bill as an earnest effort towards finding an interim solution, and I hope that this House, with the hearty co-operation of the Scottish Standing Committee, will help to make it workable.
  5.52 p.m.
  Mr. David Weitzman: When my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Mr. W. T. Williams) presented his Hire-Purchase Bill, and when the Second Reading debate on that Bill took place in December, 1961 he put forward a number of suggested reforms strangely similar to the essential reforms in this Bill, particularly on what I called in that debate "the pay pause", or what has since been called the "cooling-off period", and on the point that dealers should be considered in law the agents of the finance company so that they might be liable for misrepresentations made by the dealers.
  That Bill was talked out. It was not even examined in Committee. It was not allowed a Second Reading. The Minister of State, Board of Trade, who sponsored this Bill in another place, was then Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, and he was particularly energetic in his efforts to ensure that the Bill was talked out. He criticised severely the two main points which I have mentioned. In his words concerning the housewife, the cooling-off period meant to him
  "a serious weakening of her sense of responsibility."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th December, 1961; Vol. 650. c. 1780.]
  The effort to make the dealer the agent for the finance company so that the finance company might be responsible for misrepresentations made by the dealer was, in his view, a doubtful one, to say the least.
  Now we have the spokesman for the Government eating his own words. He introduces a Bill which adopts both

  1077
  those suggestions, except that instead of the cooling-off period being 48 hours it is now four days. We are thankful for this death-bed repentance by the Government. Perhaps it is a belated repentance made in a desperate effort to prevent their death. One can only say how much better it would have been if the Government had supported the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington.
  Over two years have passed since the Second Reading debate on my hon. Friend's Bill. One wonders how many cases of hardship might have been avoided and how many deluded housewives might have been spared some misery and suffering if only the Government had acted then to deal with what everyone recognised was an evil. As my hon. Friend said at the time, the reason put forward as to why the Bill should not have a Second Reading was, "Let us wait for the Molony Report. This comprehensive Report will go to the roots of the hire-purchase system and will deal with it exhaustively." That was the excuse put forward, and the Government have lamentably failed to deal with the matter.
  I, too, welcome the Bill as far as it goes, but there are a number of points that I desire to make. The 1954 Act applied to agreements under which the hire-purchase price, or, in the case of a credit sale agreement, the total purchase price, did not exceed £300. This Bill raises it to £2,000. The Molony Committee's recommendation was that all consumer hire-purchase transactions should be brought within the Bill, and it put forward its recommendation for reasons which are well set out in the Report. The Molony Committee thought that there should be no limit.
  The Government have rejected that recommendation. I know that some of my hon. Friends agree with them. I recognise that there is a difficulty, particularly in the proposed definition of a "consumer sale," but it seems to me a little illogical to lay down a limit of £2,000, or any limit at all. if there is to be legislation on contracts of this kind, what is the reasoning behind laying down a £2,000 limit? Why not £3,000, £5,000 or any other figure? The
  1078
  same reasoning applies to these figures as it does to the figure of £2,000. I think it would be worth while to look at this point again to see whether it would be wiser not to have a monetary limit.
  Mr. Dudley Williams: I see the point which the hon. and learned Member mikes, and I think that there is some substance in it, but, since the Molony Committee was concerned only with protection for the consumer, what sort of article is likely to come outside the limit of £2,000? I should have thought that £2,000 was a pretty high figure.
  Mr. Weitzman: My argument is that if it is necessary to have legislation on contracts of a certain kind, the same reasoning applies equally to other contracts. There is no magic in the figure of £2,000. The Molony Committee went into this in detail and, having done so, it made a recommendation. All that I am saying is that it would be wise to examine this problem in Committee and see whether it would be better to pass this legislation with no limit in it at all.
  Under the 1938 Act, if the hirer wishes to terminate the agreement and return the goods, he may do so provided that he makes up what he has paid to half the hire-purchase price or pays all the instalments due to date if they amount to more than half the hire-purchase price. I cannot help feeling that the Government have neglected the opportunity to try to resolve the somewhat chaotic state of the law which results from a number of decisions in our courts. There have been references to this already. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) referred to the present state of the law.
  Often, hire-purchase contracts will have penalty clauses in them. I need not go into detail, but, as the hon. Member for Aldershot pointed out, under comparatively recent decisions in our hire-purchase law, the honest man is the man who suffers as compared with the possibly dishonest man because, in the case of the honest man, the courts will hold that the penalty clause applies whereas in the other case the courts will hold that the penalty clause does not apply and they then proceed to deal with the question of damage. As I pointed out in the debate on my hon.

  1079
  Friend's Bill in 1961, the situation is quite extraordinary.
  I will take a simple example to show how the system of paying up to half the amount in the hire-purchase agreement works. Let us suppose that an article is sold on hire purchase, the total price payable being £360 payable by 18 instalments of £20. After paying one instalment of £20, the hirer wishes to terminate the agreement. He returns the article—let us suppose that it is a car—and he pays £180, that is, £160 plus £20, making up half the purchase price. Thus, the owner after one month receives back the article plus £180.
  I have taken an extreme case. As has been said, it may well be that rough justice is done by keeping to half the purchase price in the case of amounts under £300, but when one takes it up to the limit of £2,000 and contemplates what the hirer will have to pay in meeting half the purchase price in those circumstances the rule is seen to be absurd on the face of it.
  I know that some of my hon. Friends may disagree, but I make this point as strongly as I can. Why should there be a departure from the ordinary rule at common law that, when there is a breach of contract, the person claiming damages should prove the amount of damage? I have never understood why. It is said that keeping to half the purchase price gives a rough and ready way of doing things and, from a practical point of view, it is a good way of proceeding, but, clearly, there are cases in which injustice is caused. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) made a very good point when he reminded the House that different types of article coming under hire-purchase contracts were subject to different rates of depreciation. How absurd the rule requiring half the purchase price becomes, on the face of it, in these circumstances.
  We already have the rule at common law. A person bringing an action for damages because the other party has committed a breach of contract has to prove his damage. He puts to the court the material facts as he knows them, and the defendant can put forward the facts which he desires the court to take into consideration. The court then decides what the amount of damage is.
  1080
  I submit that, on the face of it, this is the only way to deal with this matter. Indeed, as was said by the Minister in another place, the consideration here is as between the principle in the Bill and what is called the "true measure of damage". I hope that in Committee we shall go into the matter in detail and put right what I am certain will lead to injustice if it remains as it stands.
  Now, a few words about what is called the cooling-off period. I welcome this provision, but I offer two points of criticism. Clauses 4 to 8 give the hirer or buyer the right to cancel a hire-purchase transaction or a credit sale transaction exceeding £20 within four days if the documents are signed at a place other than trade premises. In other words—I think that the Minister himself used this example—it relates to the activities of the salesman who goes from door to door, and the consumer is given an opportunity for reflection and can change his or her mind. It certainly does not apply to any bargain made at trade premises where the goods are normally sold.
  I appreciate the need to guard the gullible housewife against the persistent salesman, but why is the Bill restricted as it is? I have had, as other hon. Members will have had, many complaints from persons who have entered shop premises perhaps to make a small purchase and who have been induced or tempted by a salesman into making a hire-purchase agreement for something which they did not really want and could not afford. The housewife may be just as gullible in shop premises as on her doorstep. In my view, there is a strong case for extending this provision.
  Of course, the Government's answer is that we must be very careful not to interfere with trade, that there must be a limit to this sort of thing and we should not interfere with people in shop premises carrying on business. But are not we trying to protect the weaker class against the stronger? Most tradesmen are honourable, honest people and the need does not arise, but hon. Members know that there are many "flashy" shop premises with goods exposed for sale on the hire-purchase system and there are many salesmen, or some salesmen,

  1081
  at least, who do tempt housewives in the way I have suggested. Why should the housewife be protected only if what is done is done on her doorstep and not in the shop? I hope that this question, too, will be gone into carefully in Committee.
  Clause 9 provides that the dealer is to be the agent of the seller in respect of representation as to the goods, and I frankly say that this will be of tremendous value to the hirer, particularly in cases when the dealer, as he often is, is a man of straw. Clause 11 deals with implied conditions as to merchantability. These are two matters which I myself pressed on the House in December, 1961, and I am glad that the Government have adopted them.
  Clause 14 prohibits the owner, when one-third of the hire-purchase price has been paid from recovering the goods on the death of the hirer except by going to the courts. I welcome this.
  Although some may differ from me on this, I am glad to see the provisions enabling regulations to be made requiring the retention of the vehicle registration book by the owner and providing for the issue of licensing cards. This is a difficult question. I remember being personally concerned in a case in which many log books had been forged by certain people and distributed all over the place. I realise that there is a problem here. But on the other hand, if we are looking for a safeguard, it has often been said that in car transactions the log book is really the document of title and as such should be retained by the finance company and a licence of some kind issued in its place. If this proposal is considered insufficient, we might look at the proposal that, in addition, the finance companies should have a scheme through which innocent hirers could be paid compensation in such cases.
  There is another provision about which I feel a little doubtful. In another place the Government inserted a Clause excluding bodies corporate. That sounds attractive because one thinks automatically of large companies. There are, however, many small companies. A man and his wife might form a company, for instance. There are also partnerships—these are not bodies corporate—of a
  1082
  very large kind. The Government are excluding all bodies corporate—even the small limited company but the members of a partnership are included. The position should be re-examined. It may be satisfactory—I do not venture a firm opinion tonight—but we should look at it carefully to see whether the Government have found the right solution on this matter.
  Many other Clauses will require careful scrutiny, and Amendments can be made to improve the Measure. I welcome the Bill but regret that it has been introduced so late in the day and is not the comprehensive overhaul we had been promised.
  6.12 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Tiley: It is always very grand to follow a barrister. It gives me a feeling of self-esteem to be operating in that rarefied atmosphere. I always feel that hon. Members should be paid time and half on these occasions. I am surprised, however, that the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) takes issue with my right hon. Friend on the methods by which hire-purchase agreements may be terminated and the critical values arrived at.
  I suppose that the hon. and learned Gentleman, being a lawyer, wants everything to be done in the courts. This is natural because he thinks that it is only in the courts that complete justice can be obtained. But, if we can, we should remove from the courts all unnecessary work, and I hope that in Committee we shall bear, his point in mind, for the insurance companies, for instance, settle thousands of claims every year in connection with the values of bills without seeking legal advice or going to court.
  This is a good Bill. It comes from a good Government and follows a succession of good Measures over the last 10 or 12 yean. It amazes me how the Government keep up the pace with such freshness. Having said that, I am sure that all hon. Members opposite will agree with everything else I shall say.
  This is a difficult and technical matter on which to legislate because we are trying to pro ect the most ignorant people in our country against some of the most

  1083
  evil operators. Indeed, clever people will already be working out ways to get round the Bill, and we must not forget that there are a lot of slick buyers. For every slick seller there is a slick buyer somewhere.
  I would like an assurance that the point put by the hon. Lady the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) will be pursued. The protection of the guarantor is a very important issue which can easily be forgotten. The saddest case I have encountered since I entered this House was that of a widow, a cleaning woman with five or six children. One evening she was called in by a neighbour with whom she had been friends for a long time and was asked to sign a form. She was told that she was merely helping her friend to get a coat. The friend later disappeared and, of course, the coat went with her.
  My constituent found herself in court. She is a simple woman with a large family to look after and she works very hard in doing so. Here she was faced with the responsibility of paying the outstanding balance on the coat. However, in view of her impoverished circumstances, the court ordered her to pay about Is. a week. I want to be certain that the guarantor has equal protection with the customer and that he will have the same time limit for reflection so that other people can advise him.
  The dreadful thing about the guarantee signed by this lady was that it went on for ever. Incidentally, I inspected that guarantee with a solicitor whom I myself paid because the House provides no facilities for that sort of thing, even if it provides speech writers. But that is a digression. We found that the guarantee went on for ever. It did not finish with this one transaction. There was no time limit to it and it was not attached to the value of the coat. The buyer could have obtained another £100 worth of goods and my constituent would still have been guarantor. If the Bill does not already contain protection for guarantors, I hope that my right hon. Friend will prepare something for the Committee stage.
  The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) made the interest
  1084
  ing point that we might persuade finance houses to create a pool out of which they could compensate those unfortunates whom we know too well—the people who lose their cars after purchasing them because they are found to belong, in fact, to a hire-purchase company. This sort of thing bears heavily on the family involved because it is a matter of hundreds of pounds. A compensation pool is working well among insurance companies. The motor insurance companies created it to deal with claims outside the technical part of insurance policies. It has worked satisfactorily for years. If the finance houses could follow suit to deal with victims of forged registration books, this would save a great deal of misery.
  There is one point about a purchaser being given a licence card while the hire-purchase company retains the logbook. It means that a person is telling the clerk behind the counter that his car is on hire purchase, and this is something one likes to keep to oneself. It should be simple to persuade the finance companies to adopt the idea of a pool. We must not forget that they always have the right of recovery against the thief if he has any money. That is their right also in the motor insurance pool.
  Having made this short speech, I am in no doubt that I shall be on the Standing Committee dealing with the Bill. That is one of the tragedies of the House if one has no more sense than to speak on Second Reading. In addition, there do not seem to be many of my hon. Friends to pick from. However, it will be an interesting Committee because from both sides we shall be working to make the Bill better. I wonder if my right hon. Friend will promise that we shall not do three half days a week in Committee.
  6.20 p.m.
  Mr. William Hamilton: I have a good deal of affection and respect for the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Tiley) who has just made a typically humorous speech—an earthy speech, if I may say so—delivered in a fruity North Country accent which I like to think that I share with him. I hope that I can bring the same kind of down-to-earth approach to what is a very serious problem. The Secretary of State for Industry and Trade must have

  1085
  been somewhat alarmed at the rather tepid enthusiasm on his own side for the Bill. It may be a foretaste of what is to come when he tries to introduce legislation to end resale price maintenance.
  Reference has been made to various attempts over several years to tackle this very serious social problem. The attempts have been predominantly from this side of the House and not least by Scottish Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) introduced in July, 1959, a Bill on personal credit schemes which were peculiar to Scotland. But the Government treated the Bill in the typically cowardly way in which they approach these problems by allowing him to introduce it and then refusing facilities for its consideration by a Committee.
  On 28th January, 1960, my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell sought an Adjournment debate on the same problem. I am glad to see the Solicitor-General for Scotland here, because he will know the firm to which reference has repeatedly been made in the House—Napier's, of Ayr—which, I think, must be one of the most unscrupulous traders in the whole of Britain. Hon. Members on this side have over the years tried to get the Government to deal with that problem but have always met with obstacles on the ground that to do so would involve complicated legislation. I am not so sure that this Bill will be the answer to it.
  Before I come to the Scottish problem, I want to refer to a point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman), who referred to the cooling-off period and the attitude of the then Minister of State, Board of Trade, when my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Mr. W. T. Williams) introduced a Bill which provided for a cooling-off period of 48 hours and the then Minister of State talked about this leading to a serious weakening of the housewife's sense of responsibility. After the Minister had been sent—buried alive, politically speaking—to another place, where he now operates as Lord Drumalbyn, he asked the other place to accept the principle not of a two-day cooling-off period but of a three-day plus cooling-off period. He used startling words.
  1086
  Lord Drumalbyn talked about the Committee accepting this in principle, and said:
  "I think that there will he no objection in principle to these proposals. The activities of unscrupulous salesmen have caused unhappiness in many families."—[OFFICIAL REPORT; House of Lords, 10th December, 1963; Vol. 253, c. 1143]
  It was the same man who said two years before that this would lead to encouragement of irresponsibility on the part of the housewife. That shows how wonderfully concentrating the imminence of a General Election can be on the Tory minds. They can turn around when it suits their convenience.
  I question very much whether the cooling-off period is long enough. There are—this point was emphasised in another pkce—some transactions which involve the husband being away from home for much longer than that period. Members of Parliament are away for a whole week. If the wife of my hon. Friend the: Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) enters into an H.P. agreement on a Monday and he goes home on the Friday and finds she has signed the agreement, I am not sure what happens there. I would hate to be in his wife's shoes.
  Mr. Ross: I would want to know where she got the money for the deposit.
  Mr. Hamilton: I put this proposition so that the Minister can realise that there are these difficulties concerning haulage men and people of that kind.
  The question of not applying this cooling-off period to business premises needs careful consideration. I can anticipate a situation in which a slick salesman—these salesmen can be an awful pest at people's doors—with a car, says, "If you jump into the car I will take you up to the shop and you can sign there". He might leave the goods at the house and take the housewife in the car to the shop where she signs the agreement, and that makes it legal. There is no doubt that the salesmen will already be on to getting round the law. I see no reason why the cooling-off period should not apply equally to business premises as it does in the household itself.
  I often go shopping with my wife, with no firm intention to buy, and one might quite well get inveigled into signing a document in a shop and find

  1087
  oneself with a legal disability as a result. I do not agree that there should be discrimination between the cooling-off period when an agreement is signed in a house and the no cooling-off period when it is done on business premises.
  I think that most hon. Members realise that no legislation, however comprehensive, can protect completely a person from his own foolishness, or from the wiles of salesmen who go round from door to door. The damnable part of it is that sometimes these salesmen operate in new housing estates, or in new towns, where the predominant proportion of the population is of young people setting up homes, who are very susceptible to the kind of sales talk that goes on. The salesmen do not go so much to the owner-occupier areas, where people are very heavily committed with house mortgages. They go the housing estates and new towns, where young couples are paying rent and are desperately anxious to get all the durable consumer goods that they can in very quick time. They are very susceptible to these salesmen. I do not know how we can protect them from the door-to-door salesmen. It is an extremely reprehensible trade, and I wish that we could legislate to stop it, or, at least, to get it under control.
  Let us make no mistake; the more unscrupulous of these firms usually have the most highly skilled and competent legal advice. There is no doubt about that in Scotland. They have better advice that the Scottish Office has—which is no commendation of the legal advice given to Napier's. They have won more cases against the Scottish Office than they have lost, because they have known very well how to get round the law.
  My hon. Friends know it to be true that in Scotland the abuses and exploitation of hire purchase have been proportionately much higher than has been the case in England. One of the reasons for that has been that the Scottish law on the subject has been weaker and easier to circumvent. To the extent that the Bill remedies those weaknesses, we welcome it, even though we do pay a penalty, which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned.
  However, I speak on behalf of all my hon. Friends when I say that we must
  1088
  strongly object to the way in which this is being done. To make an enormous change in Scottish law in a matter of fundamental importance and to do so by a Schedule to an English Bill is scandalous treatment of Scotland. The effect is to apply to Scotland the 1938 English Act as modified by Part I of the Bill. This represents a tremendous change in Scottish law made in a Schedule of 15 pages.
  As the hon. Member for Bradford, West said, when one speaks in a Second Reading debate like this, one is committed to the Committee. That is the penalty for opening one's mouth on Second Reading. This means that we will have perhaps three or four Scottish Members on the Committe who will have to wait until we reach the Schedule at the end of the Committee stage. There will then be pressure on us from our English colleagues to keep quiet. They will tell us, "We are fed up with the Bill". We shall be able to move Amendments to the Schedule, but there will not be any of those celebrated debates which we have in the Scottish Standing Committee on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill"—and very interesting debates they are. There will be a similar debate on the Schedule, but on the Clauses the Committee will be deprived of those pleasures.
  I should like the right hon. Gentleman to do with this Schedule what has already been done with the Schedule to the Police Bill, which applies to Scotland. The Leader of the House was very forthcoming in accepting the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, and the result is that the Scottish Standing Committee has had a full and fair discussion of the Scottish provisions of that Bill. We would like the same treatment with this Bill. It would provide the Government with a very convenient get-out for their Countryside and Tourist Amenities Bill, which has run into considerable opposition in Scotland. It would give them an excuse.
  Mr. Ross: I know that my hon. Friend has been in the House most of the day, and is anxious to get on with his important speech, but may I tell him that the Government have already decided to dump that Bill.
  Mr. Hamilton: That makes it all the more appropriate to send this Schedule to the Scottish Standing Committee. It would be possible to spend much more time on it. If the Government do not do so, I can tell them quite frankly that we shall expect to have at least the Scottish Law Officer on the Committee to deal with Schedule 2. As a layman, like the hon. Member for Bradford, West, I find it extremely difficult to understand that Schedule. In fact, I find it almost completely incomprehensible and in Committee I might have to ask the Solicitor-General for Scotland to explain it, sub-paragraph by sub-paragraph.
  For instance, at the bottom of page 36 there are the words:
  "Subsections (3) and (4) of the last foregoing section shall apply in relation to a creditsale agreement to which this Act applies under which the total purchase price exceeds £20 as it applies to a hire-purchase agreement, with the substitution for any reference to the hirer of a reference to the buyer and for any reference to paragraphs (b) to (e) of subsection (2) of the said section, of a reference to paragraphs (b) to (d) of subsection (2) of this section."
  I have no doubt that that is crystal clear to the Solicitor-General for Scotland, but it is not to me and we shall want to make sure that he gives a full and clear statement of exactly what that and many other things in the Schedule mean.
  The Schedule will lead to a dreadful amount of confusion in Scottish law circles and among retailers and consumers. I underline the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling), who made a brilliant speech and who had obviously done his homework. He did not need a speechwriter; he wrote his speech all himself. I suggest, in all seriousness, that there should be an "Everyman's guide to H.P. law in Scotland", available in all shops likely to engage in this kind of anxiety.
  My greatest anxiety, which is shared by all of my hon. Friends and which was eloquently mentioned by the hon. Member for Bradford, West, is the liability of the guarantor. We hope that the Solicitor-General for Scotland will make the position abundantly clear and will show that the effect is completely to end the kind of activity in which Napier's has indulged. Under that scheme, innocent people have been subject, and are still
  1090
  subject, to the most wicked and ruthless exploitation. Almost every Scottish Member of Parliament has had cases of enormous hardship brought to his attention. The 1932 and 1954 Hire Purchase Acts and the Advertisements (Hire Purchase) Act, 1957, have been evaded by what has been called the "personal credit scheme" operated by this firm.
  As the hon. and learned Gentleman must know, it has operated on the basis of a charge of 2 per cent. per month at compound interest. In an Adjournment debate in January, 1960, which he initiated, my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell quoted a case of a person who had agreed to pay £99 for a television set, plus operating costs. The set went wrong and was out of action for several months. The dealer refused to come and co anything about it. Naturally, the person who was buying it refused to continue paying his instalments. Napier's was adding 2 per cent. each month to the outstanding debt and the last time the consumer wrote to my hon. Friend he had paid £51, but had reduced his debt only £13. In other words, up to that point he had paid £38 in interest.
  It may be that the hon. and learned Gentleman will say that this kind of extortion was ended by the Credit-Sale Agreements (Scotland) Act, 1961, which was brought in by the late Sir James Henderson Stewart, then the hon. Member for Fife, East, the Government being under pressure, predominantly from this side of the House. However, I am not so sure that the problem of the guarantor has been dealt with, and it is that which still causes concern.
  Under Napier's arrangements, the guarantor's obligation extended beyond the grave. It was an open-ended commitment which the guarantor made, what my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough described as revolving credit. There are some people in Scotland today—I am not saying that there are thousands, but there are very many—who will be paying to the end of their days as a result of the Government's neglect to deal with this problem.
  I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I quote him again, but he has been extremely active in putting forward the problem as it has appeared to him front his correspondence, and as

  1091
  it has appeared to many of us. He quoted the case of a local tramway man who undertook to purchase a television set costing £89. After this man had paid £31 19s. 6d., he died. His widow wrote to Napier's and told the company of her difficulties. The company wrote a nice letter in reply saying that it was very sorry to hear of the death of her husband, but added that it would now have to get after the guarantor and make him pay.
  The guarantor paid £61 up to the time of writing to my hon. Friend, which means that £93 was paid for a television set which cost £89, but the guarantor was then told that he would have to pay another £26. I do not know the end of the story, but that was certainly extortion of the grossest kind.
  While the Credit-Sale Agreements (Scotland) Bill was being considered in Committee the Lord Advocate said:
  "There is a wide measure of protection in respect of credit sales to the guarantor under Section 3 of the 1938 Act, which the Bill seeks to apply to Scotland."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 22nd June, 1961, c. 14.]
  I want a categorical and unequivocal assurance that from now on there is no prospect of any guarantors being subjected to the kind of exploitation to which they have been subjected for far too long under the existing Scottish law.
  I did not agree with a lot of what was said by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington), but I agreed with him on one point. I do not take the view that hire-purchase should be made too easy for consumers. It is very easy to over-commit oneself. My wife does a certain amount of social work in the East End of London, and finds that many of the problems of child care and child neglect in that area are due directly to over-commitment on hire purchase; and this is true of Scotland too. Indeed, I think that a committee of inquiry into this problem would be well worth while.
  It is easy for people to over-commit themselves, because the risks run by traders are almost non-existent. The position is probably worse in Scotland than in England, because in Scotland wages can be arrested for H.P. commitments. This means that the trader runs hardly any risk at all. He knows that if he gets a signature, whether it is a
  1092
  good risk or a bad one, he can cover himself by arresting the person's wages at source. He can arrest wages right down to 35s. a week, irrespective of whether the man has a large family, a small family, or no family at all. The situation was remedied to a slight degree by a Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel), but it is still a serious problem, and one to which the Government ought to bear in mind.
  I give the Bill a tepid welcome. As one hon. Gentleman opposite said, it is the best Bill that we have, and, therefore, we have to put up with it. We commend the Government for their timid step towards the modernisation of the law on this subject, but we look forward to the day when we shall get a comprehensive Bill which will deal with the problem as it ought to be dealt with, namely, as a major social issue. I end by appealing to the Minister to ensure that Schedule 2 is considered by the Scottish Standing Committee.
  6.45 p.m.
  Mr. Dudley Williams: I apologise for being out of the Chamber for some time. I was present earlier this afternoon, but, unfortunately, I had to leave to deal with some urgent business. I shall not detain the House for more than a few moments, and I apologise to my right hon. Friend for not being able to be present when he winds up the debate because I have other urgent business with which I must deal.
  I am not happy about the proposed increase in the limit to £2,000. It will cause considerable difficulties for some of the smaller finance companies. As my right hon. Friend knows, there are a number of these small companies who do a useful job. If they are subjected to a limit as high as this, a lot of them will be driven out of business, or they may even decide to abandon the practice of hire-purchase and go in for some other form of financial assistance, such as contract hiring of lorries, and so on, which I do not think would be so desirable as allowing them to continue with their normal hire-purchase business.
  The present limit of £300 is a considerable sum, and I think that it covers most of the articles which are purchased by the housewife. I think that pushing

  1093
  this figure up to £2,000 will cause great difficulties for some of the smaller hire-purchase companies. It is said that various associations were consulted before this limit was introduced. My information is that they were consulted, but that they did not agree to this figure.
  I also think that it will be unfortunate, to say the least, if the dealer is made an agent o; the seller. It seems to me that they perform two separate functions, and I would not have thought that it was right for the financier to be made the agent of the seller. He finances the purchase of the goods, but often he is not present when the sale takes place and is not aware of the representations that are made by the owner of the article to the hirer.
  I am not happy about the state of affairs which will result from the introduction of this Measure. One thing that is likely to happen is that it will not be so easy to purchase articles on hire-purchase as it has been in the past. In my view—and I believe that it is the view of many people engaged in this kind of business, which I am not—is that this wilt result in a substantial increase in the charges for these facilities, and I do not think that that will be to the advantage of the hirer. I think that he has to pay quite substantial sums now, but if the risk to the banker or the financier is increased, undoubtedly he will raise his charges.
  Those are the points that I wished to raise, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will deal with them tonight.
  6.50 p.m.
  Mr. Cyril Bence: There is something in the argument about hiring being substituted for hire purchase. We have heard that "hire purchase" is a very unfortunate expression. It is a nonsensical one, in fact. I thought that instead of people purchasing motor cars there would be an increasing tendency for them to hire a car by the month, running it for 12 months and then replacing it with another. I thought that the practice of buying even consumer durables would decline, because of the many weaknesses in commercial transactions under the general label of what we call hire purchase.
  The Bill is evidence that in our modern society special measures of this
  1094
  sort have to be taken to protect the average citizen, who now buys a variety of very complex products in respect of which—quite within the law and without any deliberate cheating—he is liable to be deceived, exploited or led into considerable difficulties. We are protecting him not from dishonest traders but from a commercial system which is quite legitimate. That is why I regard some of the Bill's proposals as being inadequate. We are permitting not foolish but honest people to be deceived in undertaking these commercial obligations.
  We have heard about interest rates. We know how deceiving they can be. A person buying a product may be told that he i paying only 5 per cent. interest, whereas he is really paying anything from 40 per cent. to 55 per cent. This is within the law. People who engage in this business are not crooks; this is ordinary commercial practice. It is the usual form of compound interest at work.
  Sir E. Errington: I do not agree that everybody charges anything like 40 per cent. or 50 per cent. for these facilities. It is not right to say that it is common commercial practice.
  Mr. Bence: Whenever Scottish hon. Members on this side of the House have mentioned the case of Napier's, in Scotland, we have been told that the firm is acting within the law and is merely pursuing the normal commercial practice of the credit system. If the hon. Member says that this is not common commercial practice but is unjust commercial practice, why has not something been done about it? I still believe that the Bill provides further evidence that even with operators working within the present commercial system the consumer stands in an unjust and unfair relationship with the producer, distributor, and financier.
  Another thing that it shows is that money is made much easier by financing a product than by manufacturing or distributing it. Between the wars many companies manufacturing consumer durables went to the wall, while the Dominion Trust was growing fat. It still is. One of the finest ways to make money is to get into the 5 per cent. business. It is easier to make money

  1095
  that way than by doing the hard, practical engineering work involved in manufacturing products. My heart will never bleed for the finance houses. I have always thought that they made far more money out of our economic system than did those who produced the goods. I have never heard of any of them going bankrupt, but several firms with which I have had dealings in the past 40 years have gone to the wall.
  Many of the matters that I want to raise are not covered by the Bill. The first concerns several unfortunate cases of which I have heard. I give one as an example. A retired gentleman bought a radiogram and owed £80 on it. Unfortunately, he knocked over an oil heater and had a fire, as a result of which his set was destroyed. It was not insured. When a person buys a motor car he has to take out insurance if he intends to take that car on the road, and a person who buys a house on mortgage has to take out insurance against fire and flood. My hope is that it will be possible for a system of compulsory insurance against fire and flood to be introduced in the hire purchase of consumer durables. I do not know whether that would be practicable, but I hope something like it can be done.
  Mr. Darling: Does not my hon. Friend agree that it would also be worth considering the possibility of insuring a hirer against unemployment, sickness and an inability to carry on his repayments?
  Mr. Bence: Yes. That is an extension of the same principle. In Committee am sure that hon. Members will have this point in mind.
  My other point concerns the leaving of models for demonstrations. I have never had a model left in my house. I have worked in the light engineering industry and in the production of consumer durables all my life, and I have always been sceptical about models being left. I have seen so many wonderful advertising campaigns in housewives' journals, where there has been a tremendous pressure to get models on the production line and out on to the market as soon as possible.
  I would never accept a demonstration model on my premises. Models which
  1096
  are sent out for use by salesman should be clearly marked, and they should not be sold as new models. I hope that this point can be dealt with. It is quite wrong for a salesman to be able to go around with a demonstration machine that has developed a fault. The machine may not have had to pass the various factory tests. The salesman may take it from house to house and he may give five demonstrations in five different households, and at the end of the line a householder may purchase it.
  This practice can lead to no end of difficulties for purchasers. I should like to see the leaving of models for demonstration purposes completely forbidden. If the salesman wants to demonstrate his machine he should arrange for a taxi to take the prospective purchaser to his showrooms, where the model can be demonstrated. I hope that in Committee a way will be found to put an end to this business.
  Manufacturers take an enormous amount of trouble in printing leaflets showing how their machines work. They print well-illustrated brochures, with diagramatic illustrations of their machines, showing all their possible uses. All the details are covered, and the address of the agency and all other information is given. But the product is really sold by a finance house, which has never done anything to help or advise the purchaser about the product. It has never given him a clear exposition of the way in which the hire-purchase agreement works, and what it entails.
  Sir E. Errington: Do not the manufacturers put their name on their product?
  Mr. Bence: They may put their name on it, but what has that to do with the question? There may be a booklet giving instructions about how the machine works, but when a person signs a hire-purchase agreement he should also be provided by the finance company with a booklet showing exactly what are the terms of the agreement. I hope that that point will be considered.
  It is possible to go into a distribution house and see machines at a marked-down price of as much as 20 per cent. These machines are offered for sale on easy hire-purchase terms, but very often that type of machine has gone out of

  1097
  production and people who buy them will find that they cannot obtain spare parts. Several of my hon. Friends referred to the mail order business. I heard recently of a person who bought a machine which had a lot of extras thrown in, but the purchaser found it impossible to get the machine serviced. I know of cases where machines have been out of operation for a period of months because servicing facilities were not available. But the purchasers were obliged to go on making the hire-purchase payments for all that time.
  My attention was drawn to a case involving the purchase of furniture. I know nothing about tapestry of the kind with which this furniture was covered, but my wife was of the opinion that the upholstery of this suite might have contained some material which was not clean. When the suite was installed in a room the heat from the room affected some greasy material in the upholstery and caused a stain to appear on the tapestry. The purchaser lost the use of the suite after having paid money for it. The manufacturers said that it was not their fault and there was a great deal of difficulty for the purchaser.
  We must make provision to protect people in such circumstances. It is not always the case that people act stupidly. A high pressure salesman can persuade people that if they do not buy the product which he is selling they will be acting foolishly. I object to people talking about the foolish housewife. It is easy to tell the average young wife that she is acting intelligently by purchasing some product.
  Mrs. Slater: And not only a woman.
  Mr. Bence: Yes, men too.
  Why should the cooling-off period relate only to doorstep sales? Why should not there be a similar provision in relation to sales at exhibitions like the Furniture Exhibition at Earls Court or the Ideal Home Exhibition? Are the places where these exhibitions are held commercial premises? The stands are occupied by top salesmen. I have been to exhibitions at Olympia in the old days in connection with the light engineering industry and I have done a bit of it myself. The best technicians and engineering salesmen are engaged to sell products at such exhibitions. Why
  1098
  should these sales be excluded? There is the Ideal Home Exhibition, the Dairy Exhibition and similar functions. Why should not there be a cooling-off time after an exhibition? Many of the sales made at such exhibitions are like the conversions which took place at the old evangelical movement meetings which were held in South Wales when I was young. A lot of peculiar phenomena happened at such religious revivals.
  If a car is purchased through a hire-purchase agreement, the purchaser will receive a licence card and not the log book for the vehicle. But suppose only the four tyres on a vehicle have been bought on hire purchase. Suppose that only the engine of the vehicle is being purchased in that way or, it may be, the battery or even the gear box. Is that motor car to be regarded as an article being obtained on hire purchase? How much of the vehicle must be on hire purchase before the car can be regarded as being obtained on hire purchase? If only the engine is being obtained in that way, will the log book be removed? This appears to me to create an extraordinary situation. If after this Bill becomes an Act I buy a motor car secondhand and I park it by the side of the road, it would be an absurd situation if a dealer could take the four tyres from the wheels because they were on hire purchase. That is the kind of situation I should like dealt with. Although the Minister, in introducing the Fill, dealt with its provisions precisely and effectively, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) will continue with the research work which obviously he has undertaken and will see to it that Amendments are put down for the Committee stage of the Bill to deal with points such as I have mentioned. I think that the guarantee system should be wiped out completely. That is a shocking business. Hire-purchase companies are doing very well and they should take a chance with the people to whom they give credit. They should not ask that the loan be guaranteed by a friend or neighbour.
  7.10 p.m.
  Mr. Eric Fletcher: I think it obvious from all the speeches made today that this Bill is capable of a great deal of improvement in Com

  1099
  mittee. It is very tempting on the Second Reading of a Bill of this kind to refer to detailed points which will inevitably arise in Committee. A great many of them have been canvassed by my hon. Friends and suggestions for Amendments have also been made from the benches opposite. I hope to resist the temptation to deal with what are purely Committee points and to make a few observations on the principle of the law which we are discussing.
  I have no doubt that it is a common experience for all of us—certainly all of us on these benches who see constituents at regular intervals—to have heard of numberless cases of innocent, unfortunate, honest people who have suffered great injustice and hardship as a result of the present operation of the law relating to hire purchase. We are amending the law on hire purchase because as it stands it is very unsatisfactory. It is worth examing from what the unsatisfactory nature of the law arises. I think that it arises from two important principles embedded in the law of England.
  The first is the undue importance given in the last century to the doctrine of freedom of contract. It has all too readily been assumed, as law reports show, that there is freedom of contract between contracting parties. There has been a slavish adherence to the so-called principle of sanctity of contract. What the common law ignores is the complete inequality in the status of different contracting parties. The law has already had to intervene in a great many spheres, such as the carriage of passengers, workmen's compensation, relations between master and servant, in order to redress the injustice which would result from freedom of contract.
  Precisely the same principle justifies the hire-purchase law which we are today seeking to improve. We have to face the fact that there is no equality of contract between the slick, able, evocative businessman trying to sell some goods and the housewife or her husband trying to purchase some furniture or a motor car. It is therefore necessary that the law of England should introduce safeguards and provisions for the protection of those who cannot protect themselves
  1100
  when, necessarily in the civilisation in which we are living, they have to enter into contracts of that kind.
  Secondly, the present unfortunate nature of the law seems to result from a very technical decision which generally goes, if my hon. Friend will forgive me, by the Latin tag: Nemo dat quod non habet, which means that no one can give what he has not got. The legend is that the purchase of goods on hire purchase is in reality no more than a purchase of goods by the buyer or a sale of goods by the vendor. It is merely a transaction in which the payment for the goods, instead of being made once and for all at the outset, is made by instalments over a period of time.
  The operation between the two parties was originally conceived to be a transfer of property between the owner to the purchaser, the person who acquired furniture and put it into his house or the person who bought a motor car. But then the law said, if that is the result, if it is a real sale and the buyer acquires the property, although he has not paid for it he can transfer the property to third parties. In that way certain dishonest people transferred property which they had not acquired. The result was that in those circumstances the vendor who was quite innocent was left without redress.
  Therefore, the system grew up by a circumventing of what was ordinarily a sale by instalments into a bargain which had the legal result of not being a sale at all but a hiring. The original object of hire-purchase agreements was exclusively to prevent the property passing to the purchaser until the last instalment had been paid. It was that technical rule which was the origin for the growth of these complicated hire-purchase documents. I suppose that, in a sense, it is right that a person should be bound by a document he has signed, but it is common knowledge and every day experience that, unfortunately, a great many people who sign hire-purchase contracts do not read them.
  That is wholly regrettable and there have been a number of occasions on which I have had to point out to some unfortunate person who has been the victim of some unscrupulous rogue or scoundrel that as a matter of law he or she had no redress, and I only wished

  1101
  that they had read the document before signing it. I am sure that in the forefront of the remedies which we are seeking in this field is the necessity of doing all we can to make sure that people who enter into these contracts shall read them—or certainly have a much better opportunity and inducement to read them than they have at present—and are not bound by them until they have had an opportunity of reading them.
  Therefore, I welcome, as of paramount protection the requirement that people entering into hire-purchase agreements should as a result of statute law have the right to obtain a copy of the document and not be bound by it unless they have a copy. I hope that the provisions of this Bill will be strengthened in order that the contract which they sign is in such a form as to bring home to them far more clearly than is the case at present the nature of the contract they entered into. I have heard that there will be a box for signature and certain information. That could be of considerable importance. I should like to see a notice at the top of the document with the warning, "Do not sign this until you have read it through".
  I am sure that something must be done to stop these unscrupulous salesmen suggesting to innocent people, "All you have to do is to sign on the dotted line" and then afterwards, to their regret those innocent people having the document enforced against them. Some people say it is foolish to sign documents without reading them, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) that it is not only foolish people who do so. I am sure all of us have been guilty of that slackness at some time or other. But when hon. Members of this House sign documents which they have not read they are usually dealing with people whom they can trust.
  The difficulty in this matter is that one of the most regrettable facets of contemporary civilisation and the capitalist system of society under which we live its that so many people are prepared to take unscrupulous and dishonest advantage of the law for their own enrichment. That practice, which is so widespread, requires us to adopt the most stringent precautions for the protection of the public.
  1102
  It is for this same reason, that people, foolishly or not, sign these documents without reading them, that I also attach great importance to the cooling-off period, as it is called. I would like to see it extended from four days to seven days. I would also like to see it made applicable not only to contracts signed on he doorstep or in a buyer's house but also to contracts signed in a shop, or at Earl's Court, or wherever it may be. A person signing one of these documents should not be bound by it until there has been a locus poenitentiae, an opportunity of reflection, of reading, it, and then of cancelling it, if he wants to, without any loss.
  There hive been—I suppose there always win be—a number of cases in which frau occurs and, as a result, one of two innocent persons has to suffer, either an unpaid vendor or a bona fide purchaser of goods who finds that he has purchased c. motor car or something else from somebody who has not got a title to sell it. The law reports are full of cases in which, as a result of some fraud on the part of a third party, two innocent parties argue as to where the loss should lie.
  I should very much like to see the practice adopted which I believe applies in the United States of America and in parts of the Commonwealth, which allows the courts in such circumstances to divide the loss between the two innocent parties. There is high judicial pronouncement in favour of such a change in the law, and it would merely bring this aspect of the law into line with the changes about contribution between joint tortfeasors, and so forth, which have been adopted in other spheres of the law.
  Since the whole subject centres round not only changes in the statute law but also changes in the common law, there is another aspect of law reform which I would very much like to see introduced, either in the Bill or at some convenient opportunity. In the restatement of commercial law' in the United States of America the courts are given power to decline to enforce an unconscionable contract. I am paraphrasing the exact terms. I would like to see something similar introduced into our legal system, because it is notorious, as the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) will agree,

  1103
  that whereas a good many traders are free from criticism there are unfortunately in our society a large number of quite unscrupulous traders who, if the law will allow them, are quite ready to take advantage of the law and enter into unconscionable contracts with people less well educated, less literate than themselves, and less able to protect themselves. It is part of our duty as legislators and of those interested in the law of England to protect the victims and to bring our law in this sphere into line with that in some other civilised countries.
  I welcome the fact that in the Bill the dealer will be made the agent of the seller. A great deal of the hardship and injustice which have occurred have resulted from the fact that hitherto the seller has been able to ride off from what I regard as his proper obligations by saying that he had no responsibility for any representations which the dealer made. Therefore, it is very salutary that in future the dealer will be deemed in law to be the agent of the seller, thus making the seller responsible for any misrepresentations of fact or for false warranties or false inducements made by the dealer to persuade the purchaser to make the purchase.
  I go further. I would also like to see the dealer made responsible as an individual for any false representations that he makes. I am not sure whether this is in the Bill. I will examine the Bill very carefully before the Committee stage.
  I go even a stage further. I would like to see the whole law of hire purchase equated to the law with regard to the sale of goods, so that a purchaser who suffers as a result of any misrepresentations has precisely the same rights. I would like to see written into the law of hire purchase the same kind of statutory warranties as to fitness, merchantability, and so forth, as are contained in the Sale of Goods Act. I see no reason why this should not be done.
  I entirely agree with what the hon. Member for Aldershot said about the damages which flow on cancellation or termination. It is ludicrous that, as the law stands at present, a purchaser is better off in some circumstances if he breaks his contract than if he terminates it by honestly writing to the seller and
  1104
  saying, "I am sorry. I have lost my job and I canont afford to pay any more instalments". There are cases in the law reports—the hon. Baronet knows this; I have no doubt that the Minister does—in which a person who has had the honesty to write and say that he has fallen out of a job and unfortunately cannot go on with his agreement has been victimised, whereas if he had just failed to pay the instalments and had broken his contract he would have been better off. The Court of Appeal has extended itself as far as it can to try to interpret the facts in any given case so as to make it appear as a breach of contract and not a cancellation. This paradox and absurdity must be put right.
  On this aspect of the law I personally am not at all happy about Clause 1 in its extension of Clause 4 of the 1938 Act. It must be more just that, when there is either a termination or a cancellation, the damages to which the seller is entitled are the true measure of his loss and not some arbitrary written in figure. Hitherto, the law has produced a great deal of injustice when there is a measure of damages written in of half the value. This was so when the limit was £300. Now that the limit is to be raised to £2,000, the number of cases in which real injustice will be caused by the retention of Section 4 in its present form will be very considerable. This provision must be changed.
  My last point is as regards the ambit of the Bill. The Government have rejected the advice of the Molony Committee that there should be no limit of amount and that the 1938 Act should apply to all consumer goods. On the whole, I agree with the Government's decision not to accept the recommendation of the Molony Committee by confining it to consumer goods. There is something to be said for having a limit, but I do not agree that £2,000 is necessarily the right one. The only reason that I understand for having a limit at all is to exclude certain large-scale contracts—engineering and other contracts—which would necessarily be right outside the scope of hire-purchase arrangements. The conditions under which hire purchase operates now make it preferable, I should have thought, that the existing limit should be nearer £4,000 to £5,000 than £2,000, otherwise

  1105
  I can foresee many cases in which, on the purchase or sale of a motor car, arrangements will be made by dealers to bring the amount involved just outside the limit.
  I appreciate that the President of the Board of Trade is facing this difficulty by putting in the Clause power by Order in Council to extend the limit. I hope that he will reflect on this because it is always difficult to change an Act shortly after it has been enacted by an Order in Council. It would be more satisfactory to face the reality of the situation now and to make the limit £4,000 or £5,000 rather than leave it in this form. I am sure that we will be able to improve the Bill in Committee.
  7.32 p.m.
  Mr. James Dempsey: The Bill is concerned with the important question of standardising the law governing hire-purchase trading. I hope that Part II of it will be assigned to a Scottish Standing Committee, because there are peculiarities in the Scottish law. Faced with the changes suggested in this Measure, hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies will wish to consider in detail the degree of protection to be given to consumers. I appeal to the Minister to ensure that a Scottish Standing Committee is allowed to look at this aspect of the hire-purchase problem in greater detail.
  It has been suggested that when a hirer terminates an agreement in England he must bear 50 per cent. financial responsibility to the supplier. In Scotland, it does not work that way. I understand that in Scotland, when a hirer decides to terminate an agreement, he is responsible for one-third of the purchase price of the commodity or one-third of the instalments due, whichever is the higher. This is one reason why hon. Members who represent constituencies north of the Cheviot Hills should examine the practical application of the Bill upon Scots law.
  I also appeal to the Minister to consider abolishing the guarantor provision, which is a sore point with many people. I once knew a guarantor who was unaware of the fact that the amount which he had guaranteed had not been paid. One morning, in the early hours, he awoke to find himself in the arms of
  1106
  a policeman and, ultimately, had to serve a prison sentence because he had guaranteed the payment of a sum of money on a hire-purchase account.
  Only recently I interviewed a person who thought that a man whom he had guaranteed for a certain sum was such a fine personality, an industrial executive, that he had seen no reason why he should not guarantee this fellow for the purchase of a motor car. He discovered, however, that the person had used an assumed name and was not an industrial executive and, as a result, the innocent abroad was compelled to meet the cost of the deficit on the car. Even under the guarantor system it is said that the guarantor must be a householder. This man was not. He was a sub-tenant, but, despite not being a householder, he was held responsible and had to pay several hundreds of pounds towards the account. I am visualising a system under which the guarantor provision can be abolished.
  It is all very well to say that people are supposed to read forms before signing them. If one trusts someone one may be a little careless in reading documents. That happened in the case I have just mentioned. If a firm decides to enter into a hire-purchase agreement with a consumer, then the firm electing to undertake that risk should bear some responsibility. It should certainly not be placed on the shoulders of someone other than the consumer. If an economic risk is involved the firm must come to terms with the consumer and, in the event of default, any payments due should be obtained from the consumer. This guarantor business is an anachronism and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will eliminate this element in existing and suggested hire-purchase agreements.
  I have always considered that guarantors and consumers require some protection. I have always believed, particularly from the point of view of Scotland, that one must be extraordinarily careful because the stage can be reached when not only wages but salaries are withdrawn. Two guarantor constituents interviewed me recently, one of whom had had his salary arrested for a £300 guarantee regarding a motor car, payments for which had not been made.

  1107
  These two gentlemen were members of the managerial staff of a firm and I can assure the House that when a situation like this arises in Scotland there can be serious consequences for the employee.
  Many firms in Scotland will not employ someone if he has got into such economic difficulties. It is not unusual for a top man to be sacked on the spot because it is considered that he is setting a bad example by having his salary confiscated for the payment of a debt. My hon. Friends and I have in the past told the present Minister and his predecessor of examples in Scotland, revealing the inadequacy of our present hire-purchase legislation and credit-sales regulations.
  Each case which we have cited has come from the same notorious firm, Napier's, of Scotland. I happen to represent a constituency which is overburdened with Napier cases. My heart is broken week after week at having to meet some of the decent people who have become the innocent victims of the Napier squeeze. Only recently I interviewed a man who met with an injury at work. Because he was living on industrial injuries benefit he was unable to maintain his rate of payments and, as a consequence, with every month that elapsed Napier's added 2 per cent. to the balance of the debt which this consumer owed—so much so that while this man had purchased goods to the value of £80, when I saw him he had paid £123 but still owed another £31. That is an example of the avaricious extraction by this firm, and unless this Bill is effective in preventing this kind of rapacious practice being continued we shall not be facing up to our responsibility as a House of Commons.
  This is a burning issue north of the Border. As the Minister knows, we have a very high rate of unemployment in North Lanarkshire at present. This firm has been known to allow people to run into arrears, and then confiscate the television set, titivate it up a bit, polish it, and put it on sale again as a new set. We want an Act that will stamp out such an outrageous attitude towards consumers. The consumers I have in mind are ordinary working men and women who do not have a hope of furnishing a house, or of buying a tele
  1108
  vision set, or a washing machine, without hire purchase, so it is obvious that the Bill must give them maximum protection against such avaricious firms as Napier's.
  The so-called high-pressure salesmanship on the doorstep is nothing unusual, but we also have it in the shops, and I was somewhat annoyed to find Molony concentrating on doorstep high-pressure salesmanship, but overlooking the shops. People living in counties gravitate to the big cities at the week-end, just as we gravitate to Glasgow. In such big cities the people are unknown to certain monopoly traders, with the result that the high-pressure sales system operates, and consumers sign on the dotted line before realising what they have committed themselves to.
  Again, just as we have very good traders in the shops, so we have some good doorstep salesmen—they are not all slick, not all high-pressure salesmen. There are some respectable persons among them. But if we accept the principle of protecting the public from the high-pressure salesman on the doorstep we have to apply the same principle to the shops.
  Here, I speak as an ex-shop assistant. Locally, people know the shopkeeper and he knows them, so there is no danger of smart-Alec techniques of the kind of which I am speaking—there is that mutual understanding between them. We ought to consider extending this principle to certain shops—it goes far beyond the commodity displays, not only at Olympia but in the Kelvin Hall, in Glasgow. We, as a House of Commons, should dedicate ourselves to protecting the consumers in every possible way, and I should like a tougher line adopted in regard to an extension of the 72-hour pause to shops.
  I do not know exactly what is involved in credit sales south of the Border, but north of the Border it can cause a lot of trouble to the shopkeeper and inconvenience to the consumer, and it might be decided that £20 is not really a very high maximum. Most workers nowadays put in a five-day week, and some shops are not open on Saturdays while others are open only half a day. A wife cannot sign a credit-sale agreement; the agreement is between the debtor—the husband—and the supplier—the trader. In these circumstances, the

  1109
  trader has all the trouble of form filling and of making special appointments, perhaps late at night, to accommodate the householder who cannot possibly attend during the day to sign the agreement. This not only creates inconvenience for both parties, but means more paper work and more form filling in general for the supplier. That being so, the maximum amount would well be put at more than £20.
  Another aspect of door-to-door trading is the supply of educational books. People in Scotland have signed for the supply of educational books which have later been found to be unsuitable for their children's standard of education. The fact remains that the consumer has already undertaken to have the books, and to pay £x for them. When these companies have been appealed to to terminate the arrangement, and recover the books, we have found them to be very obstinate. Some, indeed, have compelled ordinary working-class households to meet the cost of books in no way suitable to the children's education. We should look at this vexed question when we discuss hire-purchase and credit sales, because I should like to see a very strong line taken to protect not only adult consumers but the children who are the victims of swindles by having thrust upon them books that are of no advantage.
  The Bill is a step in the right direction. It is long overdue but obviously, to judge from speeches made on both sides of the House, it falls short of the protection for which we would like to legislate for the United Kingdom as a whole. I hope that arising out of our deliberations the Minister will be willing to have second thoughts on some of these suggestions. My great regret on becoming a member of a Committee is often to realise the unwillingness of Ministers to have second thoughts and to allow greater minds to be brought to bear on Bills of this nature.
  I hope that the fate of the Committee on this Bill will be somewhat different and that the Minister will not be unbending in willingness to listen to the experience of all hon. Members. If the right hon. Gentleman shows signs of that willingness and indicates to the Committee his intention to co-operate, I believe that the legislation which will
  1110
  follow from the Committee's deliberations will give consumers much greater protection in future from all sorts of malpractices in the distributive trades.
  7.51 p.m.
  Mr. John Stonehouse: Like all my colleagues who have spoken in the debate I welcome the arrival of the Bill, but it is an example of the extraordinary death-bed repentances of the Conservative Party as we approach a General Election. Although there was nothing about consumer protection in the Queen's Speech not very long ago, we have had a whole series of proposals from the Ministers concerned, particularly in the Board of Trade.
  We have heard that we are to have a White Paper on monopolies. The Government have given their blessing to a Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) to control trading stamps. The Government have made that extraordinary and sudden decision to do something about resale price maintenance, which is provoking so many conflicts on the opposite side of the House and among the Conservative supporters in the constituencies.
  Now we have this Bill, which was undoubtedly introduced because the noble Lord, Lord Peddie in another place decided to introduce his own Bill and force the Government to take action. None of these matters, of so much importance to consumers, were mentioned in the Queen's Speech, and therefore we can only assume that they have been brought in to do a little slick salesmanship and window-dressing to try to get the consumers' votes at the election.
  Actually the Bill is a promise for the future, because there can be no action in relation to it until 1st January next year. On the other proposals which have been brought forward there is little likelihood of anything effective being done before the General Election, and then, do doubt, we shall have to wait for months before we see any actual effect on prices or on consumer protection generally. I do not think that we would have had this extraordinary apathy about the interests of the consumer if we had had a Minister of Consumer Protection who was wholly

  1111
  responsible for this matter. At the moment it is just part of Board of Trade activities. Even if there had been a Minister of State directly responsible in the Board of Trade he would have been able to give far more attention in past years to these problems of consumer protection than has been given.
  These measures, as I have said have been brought to Parliament because the Government are trying to put on a good show for the electorate generally and to represent themselves as the consumers' friend, but I do not think that the consumers will be misled. They will say that if these measures are needed now they were surely needed 12, 8 or 5 years ago, or even three months ago. They will ask why the Government did not act long ago and why they have failed to act until we are right on the threshold of an election.
  One of the reasons why hire purchase is one of the problems that perplex our constituents and is the cause of many hundreds of complaints that we receive from time to time—and in my case hire-purchase complaints are almost as serious as complaints about housing—is that people sign agreements which they do not understand. There are clauses in the agreements which are not made clear to them when they sign. Individuals have undertaken commitments which are far beyond their resources and are paying rates of interest which they did not appreciate when they signed the agreement. There are also the tragic cases where the wage-earner in the household dies and the widow finds that the goods for which the wage-earner contracted to pay are snatched back by the finance houses. I am glad that the Bill will go some way towards helping to deal with these tragic cases.
  We should try to remove the shroud of secrecy which surrounds hire-purchase transactions. There is a great deal of mythology and mystery about them. They are almost mystical. We need to give a flood of information to the consumer so that he or she can understand exactly what is being paid for when there is a contract to buy on credit. There has been a sellers' market in credit and the consumer has had to take what he or she could get, often paying high interest rates because the trader or the finance house concerned could hold out for high
  1112
  rates. Consumers have not been able to play off one against another and often they have not appreciated exactly how much they have been paying because the whole operation has been shrouded in secrecy. When it is a case of so much down and so much per month or per week over a long period the average customer does not go to the trouble to work it out. Customers do not know how much interest they pay for the credit facilities they receive.
  I hope that when the provisions in the Bill come to be worked out they will mean something to consumers and will give them a better idea of the rates of interest they are paying. I hope that the Board of Trade will listen to the case put, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater), that brochures and pamphlets should be published on this subject so that at the point of sale and in the citizens' advice bureaux and in the town halls the general public can pick up attractively produced and interestingly written material which will describe their rights when they enter into hire-purchase contracts or any other credit arrangements. There is a great deal of ignorance about this type of transaction.
  It is extraordinary that when families buy their groceries they will often go from one cut-price shop to another to save 1d. or ½d., but when it comes to buying a consumer durable like a refrigerator or a television set they are often prepared to pay £5 or £10 more in interest charges rather than go to the trouble of finding out whether they can have these credit facilities cheaper somewhere else. I believe that they do this because they are overawed by the transaction when the salesman puts the hire-purchase form in front of them and they are buying an expensive commodity for the home. They do not have time to think it out and they do not have proper advice on the transaction.
  I hope that the Minister will accept that the Government should be responsible for providing information in the form of material which the customer can easily read and understand so that he is informed of his rights.
  I feel that the work of the citizens' advice bureaux could be enlarged for this purpose. Many of them are doing excellent work in these matters already, but

  1113
  there are many towns where they have not been established, Although we are very glad to meet our constituents and hear their complaints, many Members of Parliament are troubled by complaints about hire-purchase transactions and the like which could well be dealt with by the citizens' advice bureaux if they were properly set up and financed. Perhaps we should also consider having consumers' advice bureaux, making quite clear that it was advice to the consumer which they would give.
  I am glad that there is in the Bill provision for a cooling-off period. I do not go all the way with my hon. Friends who have suggested that the cooling-off period should apply in the shops as well as in the home. If I may make a marginal point, it is not the doorstep salesmen we are concerned about; it is usually the sitting-room salesman, who, by his slick salesmanship in the front parlour, is able to persuade a family, over a cup of tea, that it is in their best interests to sign the agreement which he offers. Very few agreements are actually signed on the doorstep.
  There is a world of difference between a transaction discussed in the sitting-room or front parlour and a transaction discussed in the shop. When customers go into a shop, they have made a conscious decision to go out and buy a particular article. Usually, they go from shop to shop, and they are well able to form scone assessment of the quality and worthiness of the goods which they see. I agree that in many shops there are slick salesmen, but I do not believe that we shall be able to protect all consumers for all time against the slick salesman. This is something which consumers must do for themselves, and it is one of the reasons why I hope that we shall have more information in the form of brochures and leaflets to enable people to know their rights when they go into the shops.
  If I were to make a compromise suggestion, it would be that we have a cooling-off period provided for in the Bill on all transactions in shops over a certain amount, say, £500 or £300. A major purchase is something into which a family may be tricked but from which, on reflection, they may wish to withdraw. Perhaps we should deal with this type
  1114
  of transaction. If someone wishes to go into a shop and buy a television set because he wants to see a football match the next day or tune into a party political broadcast that evening, then, provided that the shop wishes to go through with the transaction, the customer should be entitled to have the set there and then. Why the heck should not he have it delivered that day? Why should we interfere with the freedom of such customers who want to go ahead with a transaction on the particular day? Provided that tie shop is ready to go through with it, there is no reason why such comparatively small transactions should not be completed there and then.
  Sitting-room sales are another kettle of fish altogether. Very often, the salesman turns up without any appointment at all. The housewife sees something which looks very attractive and makes an inquiry. She expects that, within a day or two, she will receive some communication through the post and be able to sit round the fire with her husband and talk about the prospect of buying a washing machine, a refrigerator or whatever it may be. Then, instead of the material arriving through the post, very often it is the salesman who turns up. He comes with a lot of glib talk. The housewife is very friendly, she gives him a cup of tea, and, before she knows where she is, she has signed a hire-purchase agreement, committing herself to something the extent of which she really does not know.
  We discussed this problem in the House some years ago when we were worried about the practice, then very widespread, of switch-selling, the advertising of low-cost secondhand goods and switching from these to more expensive new goods. There was a real scandal about this, and, although the Board of Trade did not act—it was very slow about doing anything although the problem was put to it on the Floor of the House time after time—the Newspaper Proprietors' Association, I all glad to say, acted by refusing to accept the advertisements of switch-sale firms, and most of them have now gone, nit of existence. One firm known as Vactric, which continued the technique on a very large scale, has gone out of this business altogether because its trade was largely based on the dishonest technique of advertising a cheap com

  1115
  modity for a few £s and then persuading the customer, once she had admitted that she had the deposit for a more expensive article, to switch her purchase to a new article, which the salesman then had delivered that day so that she was committed to the deal.
  I welcome the cooling-off period because it will prevent that sort of situation arising again. It is important not only in relation to switch-selling between secondhand articles and new articles but also in relation to the switching which is now going on in many consumer durables which are sold through advertising in the Press today. I am thinking particularly of the John Bloom organisation, which has had a tremendous boom—or should I say "bloom"—in the past few years, with a fantastic expansion of its trade. I understand that this organisation's salesmen are instructed to sell a large proportion of higher cost articles. The more expensive machines have to be sold. The cheaper ones are the ones which the customers write in for, but it is the job of the salesman, for which he is trained, to persuade the customer, once he gets on the doorstep or in the front parlour, to buy the more expensive machine. This is yet another example of switch-selling, though I do not pretend that it is nearly as serious as switching from secondhand really low cost goods to new goods.
  I believe that the cooling-off period will deal with the problem. If the customer knows—this is crucial—that he has the right to cancel the contract within four days, he will certainly act accordingly if, on reflection, he thinks that he has been swindled. The crucial point is that the customers should really know. What guarantee is there that they will know? How many will study the correspondence which comes to them through the post? How many will really go through the agreement?
  I hope that the Board of Trade will consider seriously the suggestion which I have made. If a simply written attractive handbill can be delivered to the customer at the same time as he makes his purchase or signs the contract, he will have three days to study it, and, during that time, he will have the chance to realise what his rights are and act on them if he wishes. This will prevent the
  1116
  practices to which we have been referring.
  I hope that the Minister will comment on the practice prevalent particularly in the car trade of finance houses paying excessively high commission to salesmen to persuade customers to go to a particular finance house. This was referred to in Monday's Financial Times in an article headed,
  "The Evil that got left out of the H.P. Reform".
  That is not the headline which I should like, but that it what it was, and the article was written by Lombard. I quote:
  "It must be counted remarkable that, although its sole purpose is to provide the public with better protection against abuses of the deferred payments system, the Hire Purchase Bill now before Parliament makes no attempt to do anything about something that is almost certainly the biggest evil in this sector of the consumer credit field today—the payment of excessive introductory commissions by finance houses to dealers at the public's expense. It must be counted even more remarkable that the Board of Trade has sought to justify this regrettable omission mainly on the grounds that these payments are basically no different from the commissions applied in other parts of the business field and do not necessarily affect the cost of hire purchase to the public."
  The article goes on to show that many of these commissions are as much as 40 per cent. of the hire purchase charge and can amount to £22 on a three-year contract involving £700.
  Do the Government agree that in Committee something should be done about this practice which is making the customer pay twice over in commission, particularly to car dealers, who get a commission when they sell a car and when they arrange a hire-purchase transaction? Many purchasers of cars, particularly second-hand cars, go to a dealer with the intention of paying cash, but the dealer persuades them to buy the car on hire purchase since the commitment may be £10 or even £20 higher because the customer is buying through hire purchase. As a result the customer pays two commissions to that dealer—one for the car and one under the hire-purchase agreement. Customers are paying much more than they should pay.
  The extent of hire purchase is growing all the time. Outstanding commitments will probably reach £1,000 million in the next few months. In 1958,

  1117
  they amounted to only £556 million. The figures show that a major proportion of the trade in household durables is done by hire purchase. In 1962, out of a total expenditure on household durables of £860 million, £350 million worth of the business was done on hire purchase. It is obvious that this is a major subject and that it is becoming an increasing part of the retail trade and that it will continue to be extremely important.
  I hope that customers will become as interested in the amount that they pay for credit as they are in the amount that they pay for groceries. I welcome the new developments in competition in groceries in the last few years. No doubt consumers have saved a great deal of money as a result of this competition. I welcome the Government's belated decision to abolish resale price maintenance because I believe that it will make a contribution to lowering prices. I hope that customers will take advantage of the increased competition which will come in the non-food sections of trade as it has come in the last few years in food, but I hope also that they will take an interest in the relative costs of hire-purchase agreements and the difference in cost between hire purchase and other ways of obtaining credit.
  I hope that instead of seeking hire-purchase agreements many customers will consider going to a bank for credit. Banks should extend their facilities, as I know many of them are anxious to do, to more and more wage earners so that they can get credit facilities through the bank at a lower rate of interest than they have to pay under a hire-purchase agreement. I know that the Co-operative Wholesale Bank does a very good job in this respect. We want the municipal banks and the trustee savings banks also to be able to give these facilities. We want the regular wage earner to regard a banking account as the key to getting credit facilities at a lower rate of interest rather than to enter into a hire-purchase agreement, which tends to be, and is bound to be, more expensive.
  I was glad when the Consumers Association some time ago did a survey on hire purchase. It arrived at a conclusion which showed that co-operative societies provided the cheapest hire-purchase transaction. I hope that custo
  1118
  mers will look at the sort of surveys done by the Consumers Association which are published in Which so that they can where they can get the best deal. They can choose between the different hire-purchase agreements available to them, the different shops and finance houses and also consider whether they should go to a bank for these facilities.
  Obviously, credit will play an increasingly large part in our retail trade. There is no objection to it on principle, although I agree with the point made, in the debate that there is a danger that many households will get themselves over-committed, which is a dangerous situation for them. I think that they can avoid that by having proper education on the facilities available for credit so that they can relate the commitments which they undertake to their weekly income.
  I think that, on the whole, we welcome the bill. We are glad that it has eventually arrived, although it is a death-bed repentance on the part of the Conservative Party. We look forward to amending and improving it in Committee so that it goes on the Statute Book as part of the action which needs to be taken by Parliament to protect consumers.
  Mr. W. Hamilton: On a point of order. You will have noticed, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) was the fourth consecutive speech from this side of the House and that no fewer than three speeches have been made from this side by Scottish hon. Members.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Order. It is not a point of order to criticise the Chair in selecting who is to speak.
  Mr. Hamilton: Further to that point of order—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No, it is not a point of order.
  Mr. Hamilton: Further to the point that I raised—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member has a point of order, will hear it, but the point that he thought was a point of order was not a point of order and cannot be pursued.
  Mr. Hamilton: It is difficult for you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to assess whether it is a point of order when you stop me in midstream. I was about to go on to say, if you had allowed me to do so, that there had been three Scottish speakers from this side—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. It is not admissible to criticise the eye of the Chair on a party basis, a national basis or any other basis.
  Mr. Hamilton: On another point of order. I was not attempting to criticise the Chair at all. What I was saying, as I think I am entitled to say, was by way of introduction to the point that I wished to make. Three Scottish hon. Members from this side have taken part, and I make no criticism of the Chair in pointing that out. All that I wish to say is that we have not had a speech by a Scottish Law Officer.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member will allow me to rule in what I believe is a correct way and in the tradition of the House. The point that the hon. Member has raised is not, in my judgment, a point of order.
  Mr. Darling: On a point of order. As you know, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, there is a very important Scottish section in the Bill and some of my hon. Friends from Scotland have raised important Scottish points. During the debate, a Scottish Law Officer has been present and we understood that he was to reply to the Scottish points which had been raised. Whether it concerns a point of order or not, I think that we all protest against this behaviour.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Membe would be perfectly in order to make the point which he has made by means of an interjection in the course of the debate, but it is not correct to put that point to the Chair, because who is the Government spokesman at a given moment has nothing to do with the Chair.
  Mr. W. Hamilton: Further to that point of order. May I ask you a simple question, Mr. Deputy-Speaker?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: A fresh point of order?
  Mr. Hamilton: Yes. We know that there is a common practice for the Chair to have a list of speakers, to which it is not committed in any way, but can you tell us, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, as Scottish hon. Members, whether the Law Officer of Scotland gave you an indication that he wanted to catch your eye?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Memberis not entitled to ask me that question and he would not expect a reply.
  8.20 p.m.
  Mr. A. J. Irvine: Overall, the debate has shown that the Bill is welcome, but it has also revealed that some suspicion attaches to the timing of its appearance. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) has just said, the Bill has all the appearance, not having been mentioned in the Gracious Speech, of something which has been brought forward as the result of a quickly taken decision because it was regarded as embodying a theme appropriate for an election year.
  The Government should not underestimate the strength of the criticism which they will meet on this score in the country concerning this and other Measures. The Government sometimes gives the impression of thinking that attacks upon them for their timing of Measures like this because of electoral considerations are part of the by-play of politics which they can easily shrug off, but this is not so. When Measures are brought forward in an election year which could, and should, have come earlier, or at least been intimated earlier, the public mind draws the obvious inference and this is harmful to the Government. There is no doubt about that.
  As has been pointed out during the debate, a large part of the provisions of the Bill could have been quite practically and very usefully brought forward even before the Report of the Molony Committee. I think it right, therefore, to mention that suspicion attaches in a serious fashion to the timing of the Bill.
  Factors of the kind to which I have referred have also a harmful effect upon the contents of the Bill. This was revealed by the speech of the Secretary for Industry and Trade when moving the

  1121
  Second Reading. The right hon. Gentleman has been courteous enough to explain to me and to my hon. Friends why he cannot be present at this stage of the debate, but I hope that in his absence one can fairly make the point, as I seek to do, that his introduction of the Bill on Second Reading revealed and illustrated the piecemeal approach of the Government to this whole problem.
  The right hon. Gentleman put the Bill forward, indeed, as a piecemeal Measure. He indicated clearly, as I understood, that it was the intention at a later stage to have a comprehensive piece of legislation dealing not only with hire purchase, but with sales generally. That struck me as an extraordinary confession to make, because one asks whether it is intended, after a quite short interval of time, to have some sort of more comprehensive or consolidating legislation which would have the effect that parts of the Bill which is now before us would become out of date and irrelevant. Is that the intention? If it is not the intention, what will be the advantage at all of having the later projected legislation, to the extent at least that that comprises a treatment of hire-purchase problems and hire-purchase law?
  As I have tried to suggest, the kind of factors which surround the appearance of the Bill and its timing are harmful to the contents of the Bill itself. It means that the Bill is not in every respect as comprehensive as one would wish and that its proposals do not synchronise with other steps which the Government are taking. This is well illustrated by some of the legal issues which arise under the Bill, and I should like to give what I think are fair and reasonable examples of this.
  The Law Reform Committee has been invited to consider whether, as to the transfer of chattels, the rule that no one can give a better title to property than he himself possesses should be modified. That is currently an interesting question under reference and receiving consideration from the Committee or from those who are making preparations for the consideration of the matter by the Committee.
  That question is one which many of us would have welcomed being taken up at an earlier date—I think that I
  1122
  can speak for both sides of the House in saying his. In the case of Ingram v. Little, in 1960, reported in 1961(1) Queen's Bench, Lord Justice Devlin, as he then was, suggested that in the field of innocent purchasers of goods from persons without title to goods or with a defective title, there were narrow distinctions in the developing common law which might give rise to injustice. The learned Lord Justice went out of his way at the end of his judgment to say that this was a matter which he regarded as appropriate for consideration by the Law Reform Committee.
  The House will recognise at once that this whole issue, which is currently before the Law Reform Committee and was treated by a Lord Justice some years ago as an appropriate matter for such consideration as it is now receiving, is relevant to and overlaps the provisions of Part III of the Bill. The whole object of Part III, as I understand it, is to protect the person who, in good faith, acquires a vehicle from a hirer who either has no title to it or only a defective title.
  Although I am ready to listen carefully to any contrary argument, I see no distinction in principle between the case of the sale a car to an innocent purchaser by a hirer who is a party to a hire-purchase agreement and the case of an innocent purchaser of any article from someone who has either not got a title or has a defective title to it. Thus, the Government are introducing legislation affecting this principle in a most important respect at the same time that the Law Reform Committee is engaged in considering it. That is not good government. It illustrates the lack of liaison and appropriate interrelations between Government Departments on this subject.
  The recommendations of the Law Reform Committee are all too often dependent for their implementation on the hazards of Government time or on those attendant upon Private Members' Bills and the chance that an hon. Member will pick up a point made by the Committee if he is fortunate in the Ballot. But here is a new hazard where action on a matter is, in effect, taken ahead of a recommendation of the Committee. The Bill has many other points which are of interest to lawyers and

  1123
  which will, no doubt, give rise to interesting and, I hope, constructive consideration in the Standing Committee.
  Tonight, I shall simply draw attention to one or two matters which strike me as being important, particularly so after listening to the debate. First, there is the all important question of the financial limit. It is, perhaps, a rather narrow limit. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) wanted it to be removed, while my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher)—whose speech I had the misfortune to miss—recommended, I understand, that the limit be raised.
  My hon. and learned friend expressed the view that there was no logic or merit in a financial limitation. In doing so, he revealed a view somewhat different from that expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling). Naturally, personal reactions differ in such matters, but, for my part, it is surely significant that the Molony Report recommended that the protective legislation affecting hire purchase should apply to all hire-purchase agreements irrespective of the price involved. I understand that that view is shared by the Law Society. In disregarding the recommendation of the Molony Committee on this matter, the Government are taking upon themselves an important responsibility. This matter needs careful watching and will no doubt give rise to interesting discussion in Committee. It is quite true that there is provision for the ceiling to be raised by Orders in Council, and it is further true that having no limit involves—this was the point on which my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough laid chief emphasis—the difficulty of defining consumer sales. The Molony Committee attempted, in paragraph 469 of its Report, such a definition. It is, unfortunately, a point which raises difficulty. But reason and logic, now that hire purchase is so extended and social and economic factors have so altered since 1938, would seem to me to run rather counter to the concept of a financial limit.
  I cannot but be impressed by the consideration that at present-day prices £2,000, particularly relative to vehicles, is not an exceptionally wide limit. It
  1124
  represents, we are told, a cash price of a little over £1,600 where there is a deposit of 20 per cent. and instalments spread over a period of three years. That kind of price level is representative of a fairly wide range of transactions in vehicles, and it will be possible for vendors in that price range of vehicles, if they want to avoid the safeguards of the Bill, to raise the price beyond the £2,000 hire-purchase price limit by adding, perhaps, minor but attractive accessories to the car.
  That is the kind of danger that is likely to attach to the concept of a financial limit. I think that this all-important and central matter will probably deserve very careful inquiry at later stages of the Bill.
  I think that the cooling-off period is a good idea in principle. But what is the proper period seems to be a debatable matter. The object is really to get at the slick salesman who, in effect, traps the housewife at home, when her husband is away, into an agreement much more onerous than was known or realised at the time. I am not sure how far the housewives in Edge Hill would agree with the concept that they are all that less capable than their husbands of resisting the blandishments of salesmen.
  Be that as it may, it must be recognised that the four-day cooling-off period provided by the Bill is not long enough to protect large numbers of families from this hazard arising when husbands are away, which is regarded as being a chief source of danger and difficulty. Seamen are an obvious example. Others are long-distance lorry drivers and locomotive men lodging at the end of long-distance journeys. They will often not have enough time to win any protection under this head.
  Different opinions have also been expressed about the correctness of confining the advantage of a cooling-off period to documents signed at a place other than the appropriate trade premises. My hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) and other hon. Members have expressed their anxieties on this score. The point is that slick salesmen can operate in shops, garages and showrooms as smoothly as on the doorstep or in the parlour. It seems irrational that there should be no cooling-off period

  1125
  when the hirer is over-persuaded into an agreement by such a salesman on business premises.
  One has in mind in this connection the case of the hire purchase of furniture. All too often it will occur that a husband and wife going from one shop to another find themselves, at the end of the day, tired and weary and easily over-persuaded into an agreement for the hire purchase of a suite of furniture, or something of the kind, which they will regret. There is no logic in the separation of slick doorstep and parlour salesmanship from slick salesmanship in the shop, and when law and logic part company there is often trouble; this is a case where they threaten to do so.
  I want, in passing, to mention the important provision in Clause 9 which has the result that the dealer is to be deemed to be the agent of the owner when he has made representations about goods during negotiations antecedent to the hire-purchase agreement. We will have to go into this in Committee. I would have thought that this does not give the complete protection in this respect for which some of us had hoped. Arguments have been put forward in favour of making the dealer a party to the hire-purchase agreement. None the less, we have to bear in mind that in this connection the Government have adopted the recommendation of the Law Reform Committee in its tenth Report which was presented to Parliament in July, 1962, and which was published under the heading, "Innocent Misrepresentation". It was a powerful and distinguished Committee, as everyone will agree, and in those circumstances I hesitate to take a view different from that which has won the day. However, it is important to remember that there are those who think that it is desirable to go further than Clause 9 does.
  In Committee, we shall have to investigate whether this proposed provision in Clause 9 will have any adverse or derogatory effect on the liability which may now sometimes attach to the dealer in respect of representations made by him to the hirer and which amount to collateral warranties within the ambit of decided cases.
  It will be important to investigate further, at later stages of the Bill, the whole difficult and interesting matter
  1126
  which can best be described as the "measure of damages point" affecting the rough justice of 50 per cent., and the question whether a fairer and more equitable method of dealing with damage as a consequence of terminating agreements can be arrived at.
  There is also a whole host of separate points affecting the law of hire-purchase in Scotiand—referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) and other hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies—which will require very special attention. It is clear to me from listening to this debate—as it must be to other hon. Members—chat hitherto not only have there been important differences between the law of hire-purchase affecting Scotland and that affecting England, but that there have also been peculiarly distinctive experiences affecting hire-purchase in Scotland which may call for special attention and perhaps distinctive remedies.
  It is true of the law of hire-purchase, as of so many other branches of the law, that, as the object is to get at the tiny minority of dishonest persons, the vast majority of decent dealers and companies have to pay a price. We seem to be involved in a field in which that is peculiarly true, and, inevitably, we shall be told that the Bill's provisions will often get in the way of the smooth running of hire-purchase by perfectly honest parties.
  In particular, it is said that Part III will be cumbersome in its effects. When I first studied that part of the Bill, I thought that it contained a rather neat and tidy series of propositions, but I am bound to say that the representations which I have received since are very much to the effect that the consequences of an effort to work out Part III are likely to be confused and difficult. We shall inevitably be involved in considering criticisms which can apparently be made from the practical point of view against the proposals in Part III. The main objection seems to be that it will take so long to come into effect because there is no provision for the calling in of log book s, and that, by the same token, no safeguards are offered to innocent purchasers of cars currently subject to hire-purchase agreements.

  1127
  There is also the question to be pursued under this head of what is the objection to, or difficulty standing in the way of, a separate document of title in respect of a motor vehicle, which can follow the vehicle or go from owner to owner and be what a logbook is not now, a real, true, and effective document of title. What both sides of the House are concerned to do in this respect is to give such protection as we can to the innocent purchaser. But if a rogue hands to a purchaser who is innocent in every sense a document which is held out and represented to be a document of title and which is not one, the transaction is almost bound to be tainted. We cannot legislate for perfection in this matter.
  But as between the different proposals which have been made—the licensing certificate proposal in the Bill; the logbook proposal, and the concept—the comparatively unexperimented-with concept—of a true document of title, I would have thought that the document the production of which would be most likely to prevent innocent purchasers being trapped would be a real document of title. It may be thought that these are important but relatively narrow questions, which are more appropriate for consideration at a later stage.
  What we have here is a Bill with many merits, brought forward at a time and in circumstances which make it rather suspect—a Bill which is not lined up, as it should have been, with wider provisions affecting closely related matters of law, and one which gives rise to a veritable throng of questions, many of them legal ones of great interest and wide import, which some of us may hope to consider usefully later in Committee.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Mr. David Price.
  Mr. George Lawson: On a point of order. Are we to get someone to reply on Scottish questions, Mr. Deputy-Speaker?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I know nothing about that.
  Mr. Lawson: Further to that point of order—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member will not go fur
  1128
  ther on that point of order, because I hoped that I had made it clear that it is not a point of order for the Chair.
  Mr. Lawson: The Bill affects Scotland, and I am asking you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, as a person who can guide us on the rules of the House, whether or not we are to get any kind of reply on questions affecting Scotland from the Minister, who, you may recall, walked out the other night without even taking—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. It is not a matter for the Chair to decide who may or may not speak on behalf of the Government. The Chair has no authority and no responsibility in the matter, and I cannot help the House or the hon. Member on that point.
  Mr. W. Hamilton: On another point of order. Would I be right in assuming that if, when the Minister concludes his speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) then seeks to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, you will call him to make the speech that he would like to make on a point of order?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: There is a lot of presumption there. The House will be aware that the debate can continue until 10 o'clock, and if the hon. Member rises there is a chance that he will catch the eye of the Chair.
  Mr. Bence: On a point of order.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Will the hon. Member assure me that it is a point of order? So far no points of order have been raised, and this is really an abuse.
  Mr. Bence: It will be for you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to judge whether it is a point of order. I think that it is.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the hon. Member rises on what he believes to be a bona fide point of order I will call him to speak.
  Mr. Bence: I think that it is a bona fide point of order This matter has been raised before. I appreciate that the responsibility for Ministers being in attendance to reply to a debate is the responsibility of the Leader of the House. Can you advise me, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether we can send for the

  1129
  Leader of the House in order to see whether he can arrange for the Solicitor-General for Scotland to be here?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No. I hope that hon. Members will not go further on this point. It has been clearly ruled upon. It is not the responsibility of the Chair to decide who shall speak on behalf of the Government. I cannot help the House on that point.
  9.0 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. David Price): I would remind the House that this is a United Kingdom Bill and, so far as I know, Scotland is still part of the United Kingdom. It does not seem unreasonable, therefore, that one of the Ministers from the Department responsible for the Bill should wind up the debate. As the House will have observed, my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General for Scotland has been listening carefully to what has been said—
  Mr. Hamilton: When?
  Mr. Price: For the greater part of the debate.
  The hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) thought that the introduction of this Bill was rushed. I would remind the hon. and learned Gentleman and the House that, during a most interesting debate on consumer protection which took place in the House on 20th May, I gave an undertaking that the Government had accepted what I might call the Molony "batting order" of priorities for introducing new or amending legislation pertaining to consumer protection. The order is given in paragraph 913 of the Molony Committee Report and, having set up a Consumer Council, the next thing was to introduce a Hire-Purchase Bill. I said last May that the Government would be introducing such a Bill as soon as possible. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) will recall that I said that. If hon. Members think that this Bill was suddenly produced because a noble Lord in another place introduced a Private Member's Bill, they have little idea of how long it takes to prepare such a Measure and I do not know what I was doing in the early part of last autumn.
  Mr. Stonehouse Mr. Stonehouse rose—
  Mr. Price: No—
  Mr. Stonehouse: There is plenty of time.
  Mr. Price:—I wish to finish the point which I am making and then I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  In support of his general argument, the hon. and learned Member for Edge Hill pointed out that the Law Reform Committee's examination of the whole question of "good title" was not yet completed. I assume the hon. and learned Gentleman would want us to hold up the Bill until it was completed, or alternatively, he has overlooked the fact that the time at which we should consider whatever recommendation is made on the question of good title would clearly be when we are amending the Sale of Goods Act. I will now give way to the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse).
  Mr. Stonehouse: If this Bill has not been rushed and if these matters have been the subject of consideration by the Board of Trade for a long time, why were not they mentioned in the Gracious Speech?
  Mr. Price: I do not answer for what goes in the Gracious Speech as the hon. Member will know. In any case, the Government do not have to refer in the Gracious Speech to everything which they propose to do—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—of course not, and anyway I did not write the Gracious Speech.
  We have had an interesting debate, and I think the House will agree that, in the main there has been support for the Bill. A number of helpful speeches have been made. But, on the whole, the arguments have veered towards Committee stage points, which is inevitable in a discussion on a technical Bill. I was delighted to have the support of the hon. Member for Hillsborough, who welcomed our formula for the true rate of interest. The hon. Member for Hillsborough and my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett), as well as a number of other hon. Members, raised a wider issue and asked why we should not do away with the concept of hire

  1131
  purchase and reform the whole thing. If I may say so kindly, the hon. Member for Hillsborough spared us his speech on chattel mortgages which we have heard before.
  My right hon. Friend said that we are studying the fundamental issues involved, and we shall welcome positive and practical proposals. It is not enough to talk in general theoretical terms and use political and economic analogies. We have a hire-purchase system which is working and, if we are completely to change it, there must be good and positive reasons for such a change and people must be absolutely clear about how a new dispensation would work.
  Dr. Bennett: Is not it reasonable that we should be able to form some new mechanism for credit purchases without necessarily having to make one mechanism take the place of the other? Could not the two mechanisms easily be made to work alongside each other?
  Mr. Price: I think that my hon. Friend has in mind, perhaps, reform of the Moneylenders Act, which would make it possible. I can see merit in that, and we would welcome positive proposals from any hon. Member.
  Since the hon. Member for Hillsborough raised this matter in the early summer in the debate on consumer protection, I have made a number of inquiries. I have not found quite the steam behind the general case for a change as hon. Members who today have given their views on the need for this reform would suggest. Any structural change would have to contain at least as adequate protection for the consumer as is afforded by this Bill, which extends protection further than it has been given hitherto. I am sure the House would agree on that, and this what we have to keep in mind.
  I listened with interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington), but I thought that he was carrying a little far some of the proposals he made on personal credit. I can see a new form of classification of citizens in relation to our personal credit rating. I cannot help feeling that some of us
  1132
  might find ourselves with a rather low personal credit rating.
  Sir E. Errington: Whether the question of credit rating arises or not does not really matter. What is important is whether the Government are prepared to consider the question of chattel mortgages, involving as it does the Moneylenders Act and the other Act which deals with the question of bills of sale. There is nothing difficult or awkward about dealing with those matters. If the Government and my hon. Friend are serious in the suggestion that something should be done about that, of course it can be done, but the Government must do it.
  Mr. Price: I think my hon. Friend must go a little further. It is not enough to say that we should move over to chattel mortgages and personal credit. I shall be willing to discuss specific matters on which my hon. Friend thinks the law is deficient. I make that offer to any hon. Member who likes to come forward with proposals, but I must re-emphasise that we would have to have the same degree of protection as we are gradually building up in respect of hire purchase in any change we made with a shift towards chattel mortgage or anything else which took its place.
  We must remember that the great advantage of hire-purchase, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mr. Slater) pointed out, is that people who are not immediately credit-worthy or have not got the cash are provided by hire-purchase with a way of buying before they have saved goods which they want and which they find more convenient to have now.
  The hon. Members for Hillsborough, Aldershot, Gosport and the number of other constituencies have thrown doubts on Part III and the question of dealing with motor cars sold to innocent buyers. As my right hon. Friend said in his opening speech, we are determined to cover this case. We are quite willing to consider alternative arrangements. So far no one has come forward speaking with unanimity for those who would have to carry them out, but they may yet arrive. We are not prepared to have a voluntary system to take the place of what we propose here, unless it will work. This arises over the

  1133
  proposal about an indemnity fund. We must have this tied up. I am sure the House will agree that any alternative proposal, which we are perfectly prepared to consider, must provide the protection for the innocent buyer which is afforded by Part III of the Bill. If we can get that, we are prepared to consider it. We are determined to provide this protection for the innocent buyer.
  Mr. Darling: When I suggested that we might take over what the Parliamentary Secretary has called the voluntary scheme, I had in mind that the Board of Trade would take it over—call it nationalisation, if you like.
  Mr. Price: There are various suggestions. We will go into them in Committee. I stated the Government's broad approach to this problem.
  I was personally grateful for the generous comments of the hon. and learned Member for Edge Hill, who seemed to find Part III a little more elegant than certain other hon. Members. The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) and the hon. and learned Gentleman threw doubt on the £2,000 limit and thought that it would be better either to have no limit at all or to have some other figure. I was glad of the comments of the hon. Member for Hillsborough on this subject. We found that consumer hire purchase transactions cannot be adequately defined for statutory purposes, particularly with an eye to them having to be implemented. We therefore decided that the right thing to do was to implement the intent behind the Molony Report. The proposal in the Bill to raise the money limit to £2,000 seemed to us to be about right. As the hon. and learned Gentleman himself pointed out, we are asking for power in the Bill to raise the figure, if it proves to be inadequate.
  This means that the vast majority of retail transactions are covered. This will be true even in the case of motor cars, which was the great deficiency when the limit was £300. Even allowing for the fact that this is the total hire purchase price and not simply the cash price of the car, I am informed that this takes one into a category of motor car which I personally am not in, in that it can enable one to buy one of the cheaper Jaguars. This seems to
  1134
  me to cover most of the people who need to be. protected. I am inclined to think so, at any rate. I should be inclined to doubt any argument to the effect that those who can afford to buy a 3·4 Jaguar are consumers who need to be protected, but I would listen to the argument with interest.
  Mr. Weitzman: The Parliamentary Secretary said that he thinks that most of those who need to be protected will be covered. Why not cover all?
  Mr. Price: I think it probably will cover all of them. There must be some form of definition, and it seems to us that a monetary figure is the most convenient form of definition. It must be borne in mind that we feel, unlike Molony, that we ought to extend this protection to some of the smaller traders. This is particularly true when they come to buy motor cars. We feel this is about right.
  A number of hon. Members, starting with the hon. Member for Hillsborough and running through several speeches, were concerned about the broad issue of the true measure of damages. This question was considered by the Molony Committee and it agreed that in theory the true measure of damages principle would achieve a more equitable result but came out in favour of the continuation of the existing provision in Section 4 of the 1938 Act. The Committee pointed out that a true measure of damages scheme would invariably lead to disputes as to whether the true value had been obtained by the sale of the vehicle. We have had evidence tonight in some speeches of sharp practice on the part of dealers and one or two finance houses. We therefore take the view that this would give a very great element of uncertainty and might well open up a big field for exploitation, if one cares to use that word, of the innocent hirer. As the House knows, there is a great deal of room for argument about the second-hand value of any motor car. A dealer may say that the normal price is X but that the market is bad and than: he can get only half X. The hirer who has ended his agreement would find himself in considerable difficulties in trying to prove that the dealer had not got him a fair market price for his second-hand car.

  1135
  In another place an Amendment was moved to include the true measure of damages principle, but it was admitted that that Amendment did not cover all the details which would have to be included. We are now seeking to produce certainty in respect of vehicles, bringing them within the scope of the Act, and we want to get away from the situation of agreements at present lying outside the scope of the 1938 legislation; and the 1938 Act would affect the vast majority of motor cars. As we will, no doubt, go into this matter again in Committee, I will leave the subject there for now.
  The hon. Lady the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North, the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) and the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) raised with varying degrees of enthusiasm the question of whether the cooling-off period should not be universal. The abuses we are trying to deal with by the cooling-off provision concern principally the high pressure salesmanship exercised unfairly on the consumer in his home. There is general agreement that this is a social evil which must be dealt with; and the safeguard which we have produced is simple and deals with the problem adequately.
  There may be the odd abuse in shops, but we do not feel that this amounts to a major evil. We believe that it does not justify drastic steps being taken and the extending of the cooling-off provision to agreements signed at retail trade premises. It is interesting to note that the Molony Committee stated on this subject in paragraph 524 of its Report:
  "The conclusions we draw from these perplexing and conflicting considerations is that it is not practicable to restrict hire-purchase business negotiated at retail establishments. It is a reasonable view that the need for further protection is not so marked in the case of persons who go to shops or showrooms, presumably because of their self-inspired interest in the articles on display. If a small minority ought to be restrained for their own benefit from entering into hire-purchase transactions, this cannot be achieved without disproportionate interference with the legitimate concern of the greater number, and the trader."
  I was interested in the comments of the hon. Member for Wednesbury on this
  1136
  subject and, if I have not got him wrong, I came to the conclusion that he was supporting the view taken by the Government. In the context of the cooling-off provision, the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) raised the question of agreements signed by hirers at Earl's Court, agricultural shows and so on, and wondered whether they would be subject to the cooling-off period. The answer is "yes". This covers the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) who spoke about a clear three days which, in practice, will often be four days.
  Mr. Stonehouse: When the hon. Gentleman speaks about agricultural shows, will there not be some problem in defining exactly what is a shop? How will the Minister draw the line of distinction?
  Mr. Price: They are, I think, trade premises, although we can go into that in Committee. If my memory serves me right, they are defined as trade premises.
  The hon. and learned Member raised the question of merchant seamen and the length of the cooling-off period, but if we were to accommodate every merchant seaman or arctic explorer then, instead of having three clear days—which, I think, can often in practice be nearly four days—we would have an unlimited period, which would make nonsense of any attempt at definition and precision—
  Mr. Irvine: I was not recommending a provision to cater for the seamen, but I thought it right to draw attention to the anomalies that attached to the proposals.
  Mr. Price: I do not really think that there is an anomaly, except that it may be said to be an anomaly to try to get any precision into one provision. Each individual case is different, and one has to put forward a proposal that seems reasonable and covers the vast majority of cases.
  The hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie thought that the £20 lower limit for credit sales should be rather higher. The £20 was recommended by the Molony Committee in respect of the cooling-off period, and it also seemed to

  1137
  us to be appropriate that this provision of the 1938 Act, where a £5 lower limit had been hitherto applied, should be changed because of the change in the value of money since then. There have, however, also been representations that that figure is too high but, on balance, we think that £20 is reasonable, that it will protect the consumer where necessary and will not interfere with the vast majority of credit sale transactions. I know that it will interfere with some transactions of over £20, but the majority of articles sold on credit sale are individually less than £20 in value. I would here pay tribute, as did the hon. Member, to many of the credit sale traders.
  The hon. Member for Hillsborough, the hon. Lady the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North, and the hon. Member for Wednesbury all asked for booklets, pamphlets or some other type of guidance to consumers about their rights. On behalf of the Government I can give an undertaking to the House that we will look into this matter, and see how it can best be affected. I must tell hon. Members that we would not be keen on writing in a legal obligation that some particular pamphlet had to be given every time a hire-purchase transaction was entered into but, on the broad point that consumers should be made aware of their hire purchase rights, we would agree entirely with the hon. Members who raised the matter. I am inclined to think that probably our best approach would be to have a discussion with the Consumer Council. I hope that, at this stage, the House will feel that to be an adequate assurance.
  The hon. Lady the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North spoke of the length of the cooling-off period in the mail order business. The cooling-off period for a hire-purchase transaction made with a mail order house is precisely the same as that for any other hire-purchase transaction. It is timed from the arrival of the hire-purchase agreement from the mail order house in just the same way as if it had come from a local motor car dealer.
  A number of hon. Members have referred to guarantees. The hon. Member for Coatbridge particularly disliked guarantors. This Bill deals with guarantees and guarantors only to the extent of giving guarantors certain rights they did not hitherto have with regard to
  1138
  receiving documents. As I understand it, there is nothing in any of our hire purchase legislation that sets up guarantors by law. I understand that this practice has grown up largely as a result of minors wanting goods on hire-purchase terms, where the finance companies will not give them agreements, and where in uncle, a brother, a cousin offers to stand guarantee for the payment of the hire-purchase price. This clearly can be for the convenience of many young people. I think that the provisions in the Bill which will give the guarantor the right to be informed at each stage will help to protect kindly and well-minded guarantors from giving their guarantees too freely. Anyway, this is a point which we can go into in a little more detail in Committee.
  The question of dealers' commissions was mentioned by hon. Members and in particular by the hon. Member for Wednesbury. Among the strong practical arguments against prohibiting dealers' commissions the most convincing is that we see no way by which a prohibition could be effectively enforced. This applies also to the limiting of commissions, although I think that theoretically that case is weaker because these commission; are either bad or not. The practical consideration is that it would be difficult to get evidence that payments had been made if traders wished to conceal them, because they could easily be made in cash or even in kind. Even where there was evidence of payment this could be presented in such a way as not to relate to a particular transaction or commission.
  Dealers perform services to finance houses, and being a guarantor is one of them, for which they are entitled to be remunerated. Such payments could easily be concealed behind commissions for introducing business. Again we could go into this in Committee, but I thought that the House should know my first reactions here.
  The question of Napiers was raised in the debate. I understand that the Credit-Sale Agreements (Scotland) Act, 1961, has greatly alleviated the position from 1961 onwards so that all the complaints, of which my hon. and right hon. Friends at the Scottish Office are aware, which seem to have been made after 1961, all relate to pre-1961 contracts,

  1139
  that is contracts entered into before the Act was placed on the Statute Book. Hon. Members will be aware that protection is given under the Bill which will carry further the restriction under the 1961 Act on the sort of activities which this company has been undertaking.
  My right hon. Friend emphasised in opening the debate that the Bill is, above all, a practical and down-to-earth Measure. Large numbers of ordinary people enter into hire-purchase transactions every day. The system fulfils a need and serves a useful purpose, but safeguards and protection for the customer are necessary. The existing law has stood for a quarter of a century. The Bill extends its scope and amends its provisions in ways which experience shows to be desirable, but where existing safeguards are satisfactory the Bill does not interfere with them. It follows that many of the points made in the course of the debate have been points of detail. This is not to imply that they are unimportant but that they are by their very nature more suitable for us to thrash out in Committee.
  The objects of the Bill have commanded broad general support, and where criticisms have been made they have been promoted by constructive motives and a desire to frame the Bill to achieve its main purpose. We shall have every opportunity to consider these points in Committee. At the same time, I would ask the House that we should guard against over-elaboration. We must strike a balance. We want to protect the consumer where he needs protection, but we must remember that the trader and the finance house have legitimate business to carry on and we must not interfere unnecessarily with normal business transactions, with the serious risk that we enact safeguards so complicated that they may defeat their own purpose in that they will not be understood by traders and still less by consumers.
  It is equally important that we so frame our legislation that the private citizen can understand the protection which is available. I ask that, when we consider the provisions of the Bill in detail, we bear in mind at all times the importance of arrangements which are
  1140
  in the end as straightforward and as easily understandable as possible.
  The Bill will introduce some new safeguards to deal with particular abuses. The great majority of hire-purchase and other credit instalment business is already conducted in a proper way, to the benefit of all parties, and to much of this business the passage of the Bill may bring little practical change. However, there have been cases in the past, as we all know, in which hire-purchase transactions have resulted in hardship to consumers. I am confident that the changes in the law which the Bill will make will deal with circumstances of that kind, and I therefore commend it to the House.
  Sir E. Errington: Will my hon. Friend deal with the question which I raised regarding the disclosure of other hire-purchase commitments by people at the time of entering into hire-purchase transactions?
  Mr. Price: My first reaction to my hon. Friend's proposal is that it would not be a suitable one for the Bill. It should rather be a matter for the hire-purchase finance houses themselves to be a little more careful about those to whom they choose to afford their facilities. However, if my hon. Friend cares to give me more detailed proposals, I shall examine them with the care that his opinion always deserves.
  9.26 p.m.
  Mr. George Lawson: have no wish to detain the House, but there are one or two points affecting Scotland which could be clarified a little more than they have been so far before we give the Bill a Second Reading. Perhaps the Solicitor-General for Scotland, who has listened to most of the debate, may be able to help. There is no intention on my part or on the part of my hon. Friends representing Scottish constituencies to make the passage of the Bill difficult. We welcome it. Our complaint, which was raised earlier and which I repeat now is that the Clause and Schedule dealing with Scotland, which are a Bill in themselves, ought properly to go before the Scottish Grand Committee. I hope that this point will be heeded and that we shall have an opportunity of dealing with it in our Committee. We have already shown that

  1141
  we can deal with these matters expeditiously.
  Hire-purchase abuses have been particularly rampant in Scotland over a good many years. I agree that the Credit Sale Agreements (Scotland) Act, 1961, which was introduced by the late hon. Member for Fife, East achieved certain very valuable results. I welcomed it. If I say that we have pushed for a very long time for this kind of legislation, I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will think that I am not claiming too much.
  I take, first, the question of guarantors. I wonder how much the Government are aware of the abuses which have been practised. I am convinced that many people sign documents which make them guarantors thinking, and, indeed, being so informed, that they are doing no more than witnessing a signature. Quite a number of people, whom I have believed, have told me this. They have, as they thought, witnessed a signature but have then found that they were committing themselves irrevocably to meeting an obligation. This was a particularly harsh obligation as it was exercised until quite recently in Scotland inasmuch as it was not merely an obligation to meet the cost of a given article but was an obligation to meet a given sum of money, described as a credit, sometimes as much as £200 or more, which could be drawn upon, partly repaid and drawn upon again, the guarantor, in truth, guaranteeing this sum of money virtually for all time. Some very tragic cases in the operation of the system have been brought to my notice and the notice of my hon. Friends.
  There may be circumstances in which it is desirable all round that someone should act as guarantor, but I am doubtful whether it is sufficient to give such people a document telling them what their position is. I have some of these documents here. I find great difficulty in understanding them. They call for very close attention and very many people are incapable of understanding them. I am prepared to accept that under the Bill there will be greater clarity in matters of this kind, but I believe that we must do very much more than is proposed in the Bill if we
  1142
  are to ge rid of this abuse of the guarantor.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) said, these matters are taken beyond the grave. I had a case in which no sooner had a man died than the widow received from a company a statement saying that: it regretted his death but that it proposed to insist on the guarantor meeting the obligation. It is written into these documents that these obligations go beyond death. This is surely taking the matter much too far. We know about slick salesmanship and pressure salesmanship, and so on, and that in many cases, although not always, people are induced to enter into these transactions and are then told, Get somebody to witness your signature". The signature is witnessed and the fellow next door, quite unsuspecting, finds himself saddled with an obligation.
  We had a case in Scotland in which the hirer who had undertaken an obligation, finding himself deeply in debt, cleared out of Scotland and came South and the guarantor was left to carry the burden by, perhaps, having his wages stopped week after week. Often when a man's wages are stopped he loses his job because the firm will not put up with this kind of thing.
  We must as far as we possibly can protect people from themselves. People will do foolish things. It is not enough to say that they should understand the law. We should do our utmost to protect people from this kind of thing. I am not saying that there should be no guarantor in any circumstances. We must ensure that there is strong protection against this type of abuse. If a firm sells goods, why should it not assure itself of the creditworthiness of the person to whom the goods are sold? People who are fairly well off and who go into a furniture dealer's shop to buy a suite of furniture are not normally called upon to produce guarantors. They are trusted, although there are probably more bad debts among such people than among the people to whom I am referring.
  A firm should accept much more responsibility in finding out whether the person to whom it is selling or hiring goods can meet the obligations which he is undertaking. To get rid of the

  1143
  guarantor of small sums of money would at least go very much further than the Bill goes. I ask the Solicitor-General for Scotland to tell us that the Government intend to put an end to the abuse which goes on in Scotland.
  I welcome the fact that we are now so shaping the law that any firm which sells articles on a hire-purchase basis must make known the total amount of the interest charge on an annual basis. This gets rid of the worst abuses of which my hon. Friends have spoken of the 2 per cent. per month compound interest which doubles the cost in three years.
  The manager of one of these shops once came to me to say that I was taking away his livelihood because I was exposing this kind of thing. He tried to explain that 2 per cent. compound interest was a very generous rate. I could not get the fellow to understand that even at simple interest rates, 2 per cent. per month was 24 per cent. per annum, and he was a manager who was supposed to explain to people coming into the shops how the scheme worked. It is a very good thing that we are to get rid of that type of statement and are to have an honest statement of interest in terms of so much per annum.
  I still have doubt, however, about what are called operational charges. There was a widespread practice of charging not interest but what were called operational charges. Many people did not know that they were being charged interest. It was marked on their books as operational charges. As the law is now to be framed, will operational charges of that sort be cut out? They were, of course, interest charges in a disguised form. I hope that whatever name might be used, this type of practice will not be possible, so that a person knows the initial cost of the article and what it will cost him or her when it is finally bought on a hire-purchase basis. The total cost should be known right away. Possibly, fewer people will buy articles on this basis when they see how much more they are charged for them than if they had bought them the other way.
  One of the great difficulties in dealing with the firm of which my hon. Friend
  the Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) has spoken—Napier's—was
  1144
  that the kind of transaction in which it engaged was not hire purchase or credit sale but was called personal credit. It is true that the law has been changed so that most transactions of this kind have been brought under the category of credit sales. For a long time, however, this firm escaped the law in the sense that it was dealing not in hirer-purchase or credit sale transactions. The firm would say to a person, "We will open what is equivalent to a bank account for you and give you credit up to say, £200. You will be able to draw upon this credit to that amount. You can always pay it back."
  My point is not whether that would be regarded properly as a credit sale and come within the law but what would be the position if a finance company—I have in mind the Woodfield Finance Company, which was Napier's under another name—makes credit available to a person, virtually giving a loan on the basis of something like the charges which we have been discussing, and the person then uses that credit note to go to one of the shops to buy an article? This is a point of difficulty and I am in doubt. If the Solicitor-General for Scotland is in doubt tonight, I do not blame him.
  Let me put the point as clearly as I can. Suppose that a concern by another name, if it were a finance company, makes credit available to, say, a Mr. White, gives him a note to the effect that he has credit up to a certain amount and then he goes to a certain shop and purchases a television set out the basis of the credit note. But Mr. White is, of course, dealing with a finance company and has to pay it perhaps exorbitant rates of interest on very harsh terms.
  This type of transaction may easily arise because the means of operating it exist. Will it be covered by the Bill? I hope that it will. But if it is not, then that is all the more reason why this part of the Bill should be remitted to the Scottish Grand Committee, so that hon. Members with a fair knowledge of this subject can consider means of stopping the abuse.
  9.40 p.m.
  The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. D. C. Anderson): I ask the indulgence of the House, customarily given to an hon. Member making his first speech in the Chamber.

  1145
  The Scottish aspects of this Bill which have been raised by a number of hon. Members may be summarised into four groups First, the arguments seeking to ensure that protection for guarantors was adequate; secondly, the feeling that the Bill should adequately deal with the possible activities of the Scottish firm which has been criticised thirdly, the question why the Scottish provisions, under which the purchaser can terminate the transaction by paying up to one-third of the instalments, should be given up in favour of the English provision which, on the face of it appears to be slightly more onerous to the purchaser; fourthly, the question of which Standing Committee should consider the matters affecting Scotland.
  I can assure hon. Members that, during the Committee stage, a Scottish Minister will be present when Scottish matters are under discussion and that, consistent with my duties as Law Officer to advise in other Committees, I shall be happy to make myself available when the Committee is discussing the peculiarly Scottish provisions of the Bill.
  Several hon. Members made comparisons with the Police Bill, the Scottish provisions of which have just been considered in Committee. The position is quite different, however. The Police Bill preserves almost in its entirety the existing Police (Scotland) Act, 1956, and contains many Scottish applications and provisions. This Bill by contrast repeals a very small body of existing Scottish legislation on this matter contained in Acts with a very small amount of legis taion in them, such as the Hire Purchase and Small Debt (Scotland) Act, 1932, and the Credit Sale Agreements (Scotland) Act, 1961, and substitutes the provisions of the Hire Purchase Act, 1938, as amended by this Bill, and with the further provisions of this Bill.
  The Molony Committee recommended that the law of Scotland and England should be assimilated on this matter, and so it is apparent that the conditions under which we approach this Bill are very different from those under which we approached the Police Bill. Moreover, the provisions of the Bill are very different in the way they are drafted and are not nearly so unfavourable to Scotland as some hon. Members have indicated.
  1146
  Anyone wishing to ascertain the new form of the Hire Purchase Act, 1938, in England would require to do some work with scissors, paste and ink in order to apply the provisions of the Bill. But the work has already been done for Scotland by the parliamentary draftsmen by virtue of the third part of Schedule II. I concede that a certain amount of reading to and fro will be necessary to ascertain the remaining Scottish provisions, but a similar amount of reading to and fro will be necessary south of the Border.
  With regard to the firm whose activities have been criticised, the position until 1961 was that the credit-sale agreement activities it engaged in had virtually no statutory restrictions, with the exception of those imposed by two temporary Orders which existed during the latter 1950s and under which two successful prosecutions were obtained against the firm. There was only a short gap between the ending of the second of those temporary 13rders and the passing of the 1961 legislation which applied the powers of the Hire Purchase Act, 1938, to Scottish credit-sale agreements. Since then, complaints related to agreements in Scotland have been concerned with those entered into prior to the 1961 legislation. The position will be still further improved for the purchaser in his dealings with this firm and in general over the whole range of this type of trade by the new provisions now to be brought into force.
  The position of the guarantors was rightly questioned. Existing Scottish legislation—and the print of the 1932 Act which I have in my hand is very thin—has somewhat scanty provisions relating to guarantors. However, these have been amplified by the present proposals and I can confidently forecast that the effect on guarantors of the activities which have been criticised will be still further reduced.
  This is not the time nor the place to go into details, but I will give one example. Clause 17 introduces valuable provisions protecting guarantors which Scotland did not have before. Even where a guarantor is not mentioned as being specifically protected under the Bill, where the Bill provides that an agreement shall be void in certain circumstances, for example, where certain information is not inserted in particular

  1147
  documents to be made available to the purchaser and the principal agreement becomes void, then the guarantor's agreement will fall with it. I mention that to make the point that specific mention of the guarantor being protected is not an end of the matter and that the common law comes in where an agreement is expressed as void.
  In those circumstances, I commend the Bill to the House.
  Mr. Lawson: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman deal with what is perhaps the most difficult matter of all, the question of the finance company making money available on credit?
  The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I must say, frankly, that the Bill does not deal with a practice which has been attributed to the firm in question and which is that of lending money to clients to enable them to purchase goods from other firms. A Scottish court has ruled that this practice, although it has a resemblance to money lending is not money lending within the terms of the Moneylenders Act, 1900. In so far as this method of trading gives rise to the abuses which have been alleged, it is not a matter for the Bill, which is concerned with the transfer of various kinds of goods under hire-purchase, conditional sale and credit sale agreements.
  Moneylending is a separate matter. There is this alleviation to be found in that this method of trading, although a prominent part, is only proportionately a very small part of the activities of this firm. However, I must be frank and say that this activity is outwith the scope of the Bill.
  9.54 p.m.
  Mr. William Ross: It falls to me to extend to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General for Scotland the congratulations of the House on having survived his maiden speech. He has done it with coolness, clarity and lucidity, terms which we do not always associate with speeches by Scottish Ministers. I sincerely congratulate him on the job that he has done. We could not expect that at this late stage the hon. and learned Gentleman would go over the complicated legislation with which we have later to cope, I hope in the Scottish Standing Committee. However,
  1148
  he did a splendid job in dealing with the background to the Bill, including the problem of guarantors.
  I shall not go on to the next part of the customary procedure when following a maiden speech and express the hope that we shall hear the hon. and learned Gentleman often. I know quite well that we shall hear him tomorrow and hear him more than once. We who are members of the permanently sitting Scottish Standing Committee have heard him speak there with considerable help and advantage to that Committee. He comes the last in a long line of Solicitors-General for Scotland and Lords Advocate of his party. When they are not here, we wish that we had them and, as soon as they arrive, we wish that we had not. If he maintains the standard which he has achieved tonight, he will be at least that bit different. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman was wrong in what he said about the background to the Police Bill and the background to this Bill. The Police Bill followed a Royal Commission Report; this follows the Molony Report.
  I am sorry that the Leader of the House is not present. I think that it would be wrong now to embark on questions relating to the actual contents of the Bill. Not that it would matter very much, because Scottish Members have often had the experience of making speeches without the Minister responsible having the courtesy to listen to them. It is perhaps as well that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade is present to hear my speech on this Bill, but I shall not give the hon. Gentleman what he really deserves from Scottish Members.
  I am concerned about the fact that the Bill does not lay down clearly intelligible Scottish legislation in respect of hire purchase. The Bill contains only two Clauses which are applicable to Scotland—Clauses 21 and 22. Clause 21 extends the principal Act, that is the 1938 English Act, to Scotland, and sets out which of the Scottish Measures are to be amended. Never before have I seen a piece of legislation which incorporates both English and Scottish law in this way.
  Clause 21 says that the 1938 Act, as amended by various sections of the Bill, shall extend to Scotland subject to
  "(a) the modifications set out in Part I of Schedule 2 to this Act, and

  1149
  (b) the addition of the provisions set out in Part II of the Schedule, being provisions corresponding to the provisions enacted for England and Wales by Sections 2 and 3(1)"—
  not of this Bill, not of the 1938 Act, but of the 1954 Act—
  "and sections 1(3) and (4). 3(4) and (5) and 20(7) of this Act."
  In addition, we have Clause 22 which amends the previous law applicable to England and Wales for translation into Scottish law, and Schedule (2) reprints a whole Bill for Scotland. If this Schedule is not considered in the Scottish Standing Committee, it will mean that the Schedule will go in as a whole on the Question that the relevant Clause stand part of the Bill, and we shall not have an opportunity to discuss it in detail. That will result in a legislative farce, and I add my protest to those made by my colleagues.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

  HIRE PURCHASE (No. 2) BILL [Lords]

    HIRE-PURCHASE [MONEY]
    [Queen's Recommendation signified]
    Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 88 (Money Committees).

  Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session, to amend the law relating to hire-purchase and credit-sale, and to make further provision as to the registration and licensing of mechanically propelled vehicles in relation to vehicles let or agreed to be sold by way of hire-purchase or conditional sale, it is expedient to authorise—

  (a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the sums so payable under Section 22 of the Vehicles (Excise) Act 1962 which may be attributable to any regulations made by virtue of provisions of the said Act of the present Session relating to the registration and licensing of vehicles, and to any provision made by the last-mentioned Act as to expenses incurred in the performance of functions under any such regulations;

  (b) the payment into the Exchequer of fees paid in pursuance of any such regulations.—[Mr. D, Price.]

  Resolution to be reported.
  Report to be received Tomorrow.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That the Proceedings on the Episcopal Church (Scotland) Bill [Lords] may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Redmayne.]

  TENANCY OF SHOPS (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Bill referred to the Scottish Grand Committee.—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

  EPISCOPAL CHURCH (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]
  10.1 p.m.
  Sir John Arbuthnot: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  It may be a surprise to some hon. Members that this Measure comes forward as a Bill rather than as a Church Assembly Measure, since it is being initiated, in part, to assist the next batch of Revised Canons to be put forward for the Royal Assent. Since the Bill deals with the Episcopal Church in Scotland, however, it could not be a Church Assembly Measure, and it therefore comes forward in the form of a Bill.
  The present position is that a duly ordained minister of any province of the Anglican Church outside England may minister in a church or chapel of the Church of England for a period of no more than seven days within three months, without reference to the Bishop. The Episcopal Church in Scotland, however, is excluded by Section 6 of the Episcopal Church (Scotland) Act, 1864, which limits such ministrations to no more than one in three months.
  This Act was an attempt to lighten the previous disabilities imposed on the Scottish Episcopal Church in the eighteenth century. I feel that hon. Members will agree that it would be only right that that situation should now be brought into line with that which is prevailing in other provinces. That is the sole object of the Bill.
  10.2 p.m.
  Sir Colin Thornton-Kemsley: As a member of the Episcopal Church in Scotland, I want briefly to support the Bill. The

  1151
  rector of the church which I attend in Scotland, although a Scotsman, was previously vicar of a parish in Leeds. The vicar of the church that I attend in Chelsea, when I am in London, although an Englishman, was formerly curate of the Church of St. John the Evangelist, in Edinburgh—a church where the present Bishop of Aston, in England, was at one time himself rector.
  There are many other examples, but one which comes very near home is that of Canon Alan Don, who, as most hon. Members will remember, was a much-loved Chaplain to successive Speakers of this House of Commons. He was a Scot—a man whose beautiful speaking voice will long be remembered by those of us who knew him—who was Provost of the Cathedral of St. Paul's, Dundee, at one time.
  My former bishop in the diocese in which I live in Scotland—Eric Graham—Bishop of Brechin, who died only a few weeks ago, was a former Principal of Cuddesden. Finally, the late Bishop of Thetford, the greatly loved "Pat" Leonard, was for many years Provost of St. Mary's Cathedral, in Glasgow.
  So we of the Episcopal Church in Scotland, being in communion with the Church of England, are very much involved one with the other. We help one another and I hope that we are travelling along the same road. For this reason, I warmly welcome the Bill.
  10.5 p.m.
  Mr. Forbes Hendry: I hope that I may be forgiven for taking up the time of the House at this late hour in speaking as a member of the Episcopal Church in Scotland, but it may be of assistance to hon. Members if I give a brief explanation of the history of that Church.
  The Episcopal Church in Scotland is a native Scottish Church and has had a continuous existence since the Reformation. At one time it was the Established Church, but it ceased to have that status principally because of its affection for the House of Stuart. When the Stuart dynasty ceased to occupy the throne and William of Orange became King, the Scottish Episcopal Church could no longer take the oath of allegiance to the reigning sovereign. From the seventeenth cen
  1152
  tury, not the eighteenth century, as was said by my hon. Friend, the Church has suffered a whole series of disabilities which this legislation will, in some measure, help to remove.
  For many years the Church suffered the most dreadful persecution. Penalties of all sorts were imposed on its priests and bishops. It was not until the eighteenth century and after the death of the Young Pretender that these disabilities were, in part, removed. Some still remain, and it is because it is an attempt to remove some of those remaining disabilities that I welcome this Bill.
  The Episcopal Church in Scotland is an integral part of the world-wide Anglican Communion, but it has suffered disabilities not suffered by other provinces in America, Africa and elsewhere. In those provinces priests of the Church can officiate in the churches of the Church of England without the consent of the bishop to a greater degree than is permitted to priests of the Scottish Province. That seems quite unfair and uncalled for in these days of increasing friendship between integral parts of the same Church, and indeed between different Churches. For that reason this legislation is to be welcomed.
  I ask my hon. Friend to consider whether the Church of England could not encourage an even greater measure of relief for the Episcopal Church than is envisaged in this legislation. There are other disabilities contained in other legislation which ought to be removed. One is represented by an extraordinary power possessed by a bishop of the Church of England who is entitled, without assigning any reason whatever, to refuse to allow a priest of the Scottish Church to accept an incumbency in the Church of England. I suggest that some further provision of the sort might be introduced. With these and other reservations which are more suitable for discussion during the Committee stage, I wish to support the Bill.
  10.10 p.m.
  Mr. A. Woodburn: In view of what has been said about the Episcopal Church in Scotland and the persecution it suffered in the past, the House would be misled if it were thought that there was a one

  1153
  sided persecution. As a matter of fact, this is a relic of a civil war which went on for 200 or 300 years, in which Scots died in defence of what they thought the liberty of religion.
  I am quite sure that we all welcome a Bill which will blow away the last embers of the civil war by getting rid of disabilities which are still imposed on the Episcopal Church in Scotland, but in claiming credit for the Episcopal Church hon. Members who have spoken might also have claimed credit for the American Revolution. The Scots Presbyterians, driven out of their own country into Ulster, were later driven by the terror of Episcopacy of the Presbyterians in Northern Ireland to America. The Episcopal Church at that time would not recognise marriages of Presbyterians and the Presbyterians had to come back even to Ayrshire and Stranraer to hold services during the time of James II. Literally thousands of Ulster Scots were driven by this persecution to America.
  They formed the backbone of Washington's Army. They formed the backbone of the American Revolution. According to Theodore Roosevelt, they were the spearpoint of the Scots who drove the Indians back. Having fought the Irish, they were well skilled in fighting the Indians and, having taken Ireland from the Irish, they were quite able to take America from the Indians. Theodore Roosevelt points out that the Scots were the pioneers who moved westwards.
  Sir Spencer Summers: Is that "How the West was Won"?
  Mr. Hendry: Before the right hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) leaves the Americans he should recollect that the first bishop of the Episcopal Church in America was consecrated by a Scottish Episcopal Church bishop because no bishop of the Church of England was prepared to consecrate him.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Order. Perhaps it would be as well to bear in mind that this is a very small Bill which we are now considering.
  Mr. Woodburn: It is a small Bill, but it deals with hundreds of years of history and winds up to some extent an episode of which we can be partly
  1154
  proud and partly ashamed. Not only did they drive forward and drive the Indians sack, but wherever the Presbyterian Army went in America they founded a church and then a school.
  Since Scotland was the place where after the Reformation democracy established the first public education for ordinary people, it was they who carried education with the Church right through America. The famous colleges of America—Princeton, Yale, Harvard—are relics of this Scottish Presbyterian Church school development in America. Therefore, hon. Members when claiming credit for the Episcopal Church can also claim credit for the emancipation of America from the English.
  Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that Yale was, in fact, founded by a Welshman, Elihu Yale?
  Mr. Woodburn: He probably was a Presbyterian. We are quite willing to give credit to our fellow Celts.
  The point is that the inspiration came from the persecution of Presbyterians in Ireland in revenge for the persecution of the Ep scopalians. We can claim credit for the Church in America. In winding up this history of the Civil War in Scotland we have to remember that there was persecution on both sides. It was a sad episode in Scottish history and kept back the development of ordinary people for generations, but out of it came great good. Education spread from Scotland to Africa and all over the world. We can be proud today that some of our best exports were good men and good principles which have helped to civilise the world.
  10.15 p.m.
  Mr. William Ross: This is indeed a very important occasion. It is amazing to one who has studied a little of the history of the Scottish Church and the Scottish Episcopal Church to find an Englishman prepared to sponsor a Bill that removes—
  Sir John Arbuthnot: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I am as Scottish as he is.
  Mr. Ross: Mind ye, ye wouldna ken it by the way the fellow talks. I have no

  1155
  doubt that the hon. Gentleman is a member of the Episcopal Church of England—a member of the Church of England. It would be more accurate for me to say that it is amazing to find a member of, and one probably speaking on behalf of, that Church prepared to remove one of the remaining existing penal qualifications or disqualifications in respect of the Episcopal Church of Scotland.
  One hon. Member mentioned what had happened in relation to the Scottish Church, which was a native Scottish Church and which had resisted for over 1,000 years the efforts of the English Church to dominate it, so much so that on the passing of the penal laws in the eighteenth century, following the Jacobite Rebellions and when the Scottish Church found that it could not drink to or pray for or ask blessings on a Royal Family that they did not think was the legitimate Royal Family, these penal laws stated that no meeting of more than five Episcopalians under the Scottish régime would be recognised.
  To get over this, many of the Scottish Episcopalians brought in from England English-ordained ministers. Others went to the garrisons of English troops which were stationed at Fort William, Fort Augustus and other places. They legalised their activities, or proclaimed their legality, by calling their Church what it is still called today—the English Church. It was not nationalisation. It is true to state that thereafter Bishop Skinner himself stated that the English Episcopal Church had a vested interest in the retention of these penal laws, and indeed did everything to prevent their removal, because it would mean the re-establishment of native Scottish Episcopacy.
  It is well within the scope of this debate on Second Reading for us to be reminded that in, I think it was, November, 1783, Samuel Seabury came from the United States—let it be remembered that things had happened there, too, that did not endear them to the Establishment South of the Border—to seek consecration as a bishop so that they could control the government of their scattered community. He was refused all over England. He had been a student at Edinburgh University. He travelled to Aberdeen and was consecrated there in the back room of the house of Bishop
  1156
  Skinner. If anyone likes to go today to the Cathedral in Aberdeen, he will find one aisle on which there are the arms of the then States of the United States, and I believe that the High Altar too was donated by the Episcopal Church of America.
  Some of these penal laws were removed in, I think it was, about 1794, but there were some strange remnants. One of the remnants is still in force at the moment. I do not know how these lawbreakers from Scottish Episcopalianism proclaim themselves here tonight, because one of the laws said that they should not any more than once in any one year—is it once or twice a year?—submit themselves to being present at a gathering where the blessing is not asked upon the Royal Family. Indeed, it may be that one hon. Member opposite should be imprisoned for at least two years. It is worth remembering that this applied to the Prime Minister as well. I thought at one time of raising this during the Kinross and West Perthshire by-election, but I felt restrained. I did not want to embarrass the right hon. Gentleman in that way.
  As I have explained, these things are still in existence and it is really all part of a struggle between Churches and, of course, the desire of the English to dominate the Scots. I am glad to see that the Leader of the House has come into the Chamber. He should have been here earlier, when I was carrying on a part of this battle; when we were talking about Scottish legislation. We have spoken about this before. Having just come in, the right hon. and learned Gentleman probably does not know what is going on in relation to hire purchase and how Scotland is being treated, particularly the dignity of Scottish law.
  I must leave that for another time. What we are now doing is sensible and I am glad that it is being done. It represents another measure of freedom for the Scottish ordained Episcopalian ministers. As a good Presbyterian, I am glad to see two parts of the Episcopalians getting on a wee bit better.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Sir J. Arbuthnot.]
  Committee Tomorrow.

  CHURCH TRAINING COLLEGES (LOANS)
  10.24 p.m.
  Sir John Arbuthnot: I beg to move,
  That I he Church Commissioners (Loans for Theological Colleges and Training Houses) Measure 1964, passed by the National Assembly of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
  This Measure has passed through the Church Assembly with no opposition. It follows the lines of the Measure of 1931, which enables the Church Commissioners to make similar loans for Church training colleges. The need for a Measure at all lies in the fact that the loans are not made on the security of the colleges but are simply on the security of an undertaking by the Assembly to repay the capital and interest over a period of years. The market rate of interest is charged, so that the making of such loans can have no adverse effect on the incomes of the clergy.
  Question put and agreed to.

  INCUMBENTS AND CHURCHWARDENS (TRUSTS)
  10.25 p.m.
  Sir John Arbuthnot: I beg to move,
  That the Incumbents and Churchwardens (Trusts) Measure 1964, passed by the National Assembly of the Church of England, be presented to Her Ma testy for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
  This is rather complicated legal business. I t met with some opposition in the Church Assembly, largely, I think, because members did not fully understand it.
  Its effect is to place the capital assets of these trusts in the hands of the diosean authorities, a permanent body having perpetual succession, and thus to safeguard them. At the same time, incumbents and chuchwardens will have exactly the same responsibilities for management as they have always had. The only difference is that for major transactions they will require the consent of the diocesan authorities.
  A further advantage of this Measure is that, under it, it will be possible to
  1158
  apply for exception of these trusts from registration under the Charities Act, thus saving incumbents and churchwardens considerable labour and expense. The Measure has been drafted and dealt with throughout in close consultation with the Charity Commissioners. It applies only to ecclesiastical trusts, and not to we fare trusts, which are also frequently held by incumbents and churchwardens.
  The Measure has been recommended by the Ecclesiastical Committee of both Houses as expedient and that it should proceed.
  Question put and agreed to.

  CHURCHWARDENS (APPOINT-MENT AND RESIGNATION)
  10.26 p.m.
  Sir John Arbuthnot: I beg to move,
  That the Churchwardens (Appointment and Resignation) Measure 1964, passed by the National Assembly of the Church of England, he presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
  Much of the law relating to the appointment of churchwardens is contained in the Canons of 1603. Consequently, craft Canons dealing with this matter were included in those put forward by the Commission in 1947. When these came to be discussed, however, it was realised that there were a number of unresolved difficulties consequent on the considerable changes that have taken place in the last 360 years. It was therefore thought desirable to postpone consideration of these Canons until a Measure had been passed which would iron out some, if not all, of these anomalies.
  This Measure does nothing very revolutionary, but it does meet some of the questions, such as: how does a churchwarden resign? The Measure lays down the number and qualifications of churchwardens. At present, churchwardens need not be members of the Church of England. The Measure now provides that they must be actual communicant members of the Church of England, except where the bishop shall otherwise permit. The Measure also makes it clear that the office of churchwarden is vacated if the churchwarden

  1159
  ceases to reside in the parish or to have his name on the electoral roll. It also provides for appeals in the case of arguments or disputes, for which there is at present no provision.
  At no time was there a division on the Measure in the Assembly, and the Ecclesiastical Committee has reported upon it that it is expedient and ought to proceed.
  Sir Spencer Summers: Perhaps my hon. Friend would answer a question on the new qualifications for churchwardens. Doubtless the name of any individual would be brought forward only if he had past experience and was a communicant member of the Church, but if, during his year of office, the individual failed to communicate, are we to understand that he would thereby be automatically precluded from having his name brought forward in the subsequent year.
  Sir J. Arbuthnot: I understand that that need not necessarily be so, as it
  1160
  is possible for a bishop to permit people to be churchwardens who are not members of the Church of England. There have been cases where, as there were insufficient communicant members of the Church of England of sufficient ability to be churchwardens, public-spirited members of other Churches have consented to act. I therefore think that the answer would be "No."
  Sir S. Summers: I am not sure that I agree. If I may clarify the point I made in the context of a person being deemed to be a communicant member, is it a question of once and once only? Is it a question of once in a certain period? What is the criterion, rather than it being a matter of members of other churches being suitable persons to fill a vacancy? Does being held to be a communicant member rely on any question of time, or is it merely a matter of once in the past?
  Sir J. Arbuthnot: Once a year.
  Question put and agreed to.

  ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORY, PEMBREY
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Finlay.]
  10.31 p.m.
  Mr. James Griffiths: I desire to call attention to the decision of the War Office to close down the Royal Ordnance Factory at Pembrey at the end of this year. The factory is situated in my constituency, and the workers there are drawn from my constituency and that of my noble Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George). Communities in both constituencies will be affected by the closure and, even more, by what happens to the factory and the premises in the future.
  There is a very strong feeling in the area that Pembrey and the other areas immediately affected have been very badly treated by the War Office. I will explain why. During the First World War a very big Royal Ordnance Factory was built in Pembrey, and workers were drawn from many parts of Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom. A promise was given during that war that the factory would be kept in production at some level after that war was over. As a result of that promise, many developments took place, particularly in Burry Port. For example, the Welsh Housing Association built 200 houses in one of the attractive housing areas, an area now known as a garden suburb.
  After the war, the War Office, or whatever authority was responsible at the time, closed the factory and sold it for scrap. Scrap merchants knocked it about and extracted whatever metal they could. At that time it was very profitable selling scrap. But the debris was left behind, leaving the place an unsightly mess. The result was that Burry Port, which had expanded and built up its services during the war, suffered grievous unemployment in the 20s and 30s. There was a period when the unemployment rate there was 85 per cent.
  When the Second World War came, the War Office returned to exactly the same site, even clearing the debris left previously, and built another Royal
  1162
  Ordnance Factory. It is that factory, which has served this country in war and peace, which is now to be closed.
  I want to say a word about the record of this factory. During the war and the years immediately afterwards it had an excellent record. That will be admitted on all sides. It was efficient in production. The industrial relations were among the best in any Ordnance Factory or other industrial establishment in the country. The workers showed very great loyalty and cooperation. The factory was among the first of the industrial establishments to suffer from enemy bombing. It was bombed in daylight in July, 1940. Ten workers wore killed and a large number were injured; but not a moment's production was lost. I cite that as one example among many of the cooperation of the workers during the war.
  After the war, when the Labour Government were returned to power, the factory was maintained in production for many years after 1945. During that time between 1,000 and 2,000 workers were employed there. This meant a great deal to the economic prosperity of the area and of Burry Port, Kidwellty and Pembrey in particular. We quite understand that changes are made in matters of defence, and that it was found that producing explosives would not of itself have maintained the employment which had hitherto been maintained in the factory. Then something else happened. It was discovered by the War Office that there was an opportunity to do good business for the nation by bringing shells and bombs full of explosives to the factory.
  Part of the factory was given the job of clearing out the explosives from the shells and making the steel available for scrap. It was a very risky and dangerous job and some of the men engaged on this work lost their lives and others received injuries. But they did it with remarkable efficiency and co-operated in every possible wary. I think the Under-Secretary of State for War would agree that the War Office made a handsome profit out of it. I know something about steel and scrap, and if the War Office had not made a handsome profit then the Public Accounts Committee would have looked into the matter.

  1163
  I mention those facts very briefly because I want to give my hon. Friends an opportunity of taking part in the debate. The factory has answered every call made upon it and has given full cooperation to the Government. It built up a wonderful team of scientists, engineers, artisans and workers, and it has been acknowledged on all sides that it was an efficient factory. Now changes have come about, and they will come again.
  Over the last two years the number of men employed at the factory has been gradually reduced. There are now approximately 400 people working at the factory, and I want to say a word about those people. They will be out of a job before the end of the year. I will say a word about their record and about their age groups, because I think that both are very important.
  Of the 382 men actually employed at the turn of the year, 105 of them have given from 20 to 26 years' continuous service; 53 have given from 15 to 20 years' service, and 134 from 10 to 15 years' service. They are fine men and splendid workmen. After 10, 15, 20 and 26 years' service to the nation, both in war and peace, they are now to be pushed out. When this final 382 come to be dismissed at the end of the year, what is going to happen to them? Will the Under-Secretary of State tell us that?
  I will give their age structure. I understand that 92 of these men are between 60 and 65 years of age; 100 of them are between 55 and 60; 56 of them are between 50 and 55, and thus 248 out of the 382 are aged 50 and over. They are going to be rendered unemployed in an area which is still certified by the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Labour as an area of high unemployment.
  To put these men on the road after these years of service in an area where for a man over 50 it is almost impossible to get a job is a very serious matter. For this reason we are very anxious indeed about the situation that will arise at the end of the year regarding these men.
  I wish to put very simply to the Under-Secretary of State—I hope I may have another opportunity to return to the matter when we debate the Army
  1164
  Estimates—why, if some Ordnance Factory had to close, it should be Pembrey. That is a fair question. Why should Pembrey have to suffer once again as it did after the First World War? I gather that it will be moved to Bishop-ton in Scotland. I should be the last to say a word against Scotland in her desperate need for work, but if this is the Government's planning—moving work from one scheduled area to another—it is not what we mean by industrial planning. It is said that part is going to Scotland and part to Bridgwater, which is not scheduled. Why Pembrey? It is not on the grounds of efficiency or on the ground that Pembrey does not need the work.
  If it is to be closed, what is to happen to the factory? We understand that the War Office propose to put it up for sale and that offers have been made for part of the factory and have been turned down. I do not want to deal with that tonight. It will be adding injury to insult and insult to injury if this place once more is closed down as it was at the end of the 1914–18 war.
  I should like the War Office to consult the Board of Trade on the matter. We have put to the War Office over the last two years and to successive Secretaries of State for War and Presidents of the Board of Trade that it would make an admirable trading estate. It is a splendid site with good rail communications with Swansea, Cardiff and London and—on the basis that the central Wales line would be kept open—with Central Wales and right through Wales to Birmingham. The ports are nearby and there are good roads. There are excellent services available—roads within the factory, water, gas, electricity, and all that is required. Here is a ready-made trading estate in an area which badly needs industry. I am told that almost overnight it could be turned into a factory for fertilisers—and how badly the world needs fertilisers. What a shocking state of affairs. We have a factory which could be turned to the production of fertilisers at a time when the hungry world cries out for them—and it is not being done. There is no end to what could be done here.
  I hope that the Minister will continue to provide employment for these men

  1165
  until the Government are ready to provide them with alternative employment. I hope that he will not push them out on to the market saying, "We have done our best but we cannot sell you".
  I pay tribute to these men and I stress that they and this community have a very strong case. I speak for them in telling the Parliamentary Secretary that we expect the Government, out of gratitude for what these men have done, to look after them and to keep them in employment. Out of regard for this community they should see that this splendid factory on this splendid site, with all these services available, is not scrapped but is used to the benefit of the nation and of the community.
  10.43 p.m.
  Lady Megan Lloyd George: I want to add a word or two to what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) and to emphasise how much this matter concerns my constituency. The R.O.F. at Pembrey draws its workers from a very wide area, which includes Kidwelly, a very hard-put town in my constituency. The R.O.F. has made an important contribution to the area over a number of years. At its peak it provided 1,000 to 1,500 jobs and even now, at the very low ebb which it has reached, it is providing work for about 400.
  In answer to questions put by my right hon. Friend and myself, in December the Under-Secretary of State said that the entire position in the area had improved considerably over the last few months. We rejoice that this is so and we hope that the improvement will not be temporary. The hon. Member went on to say that he hoped very much that it would be possible to provide alternative employment for those who became redundant as a result of the closure of Pembrey. I hope that he will tell us where this alternative work will come from and, in particular, where it will be found in Carmarthenshire. I do not know whether he expects that these men and their families will uproot their homes and go elsewhere, perhaps even over the Border, as so many in that area have had to do before. Certainly the jobs are not available in Carmarthenshire.
  1166
  There is at the moment unemployment in the Llanelly area, including Pembrey and Kidwelly, of 1,337, and I am sure that the Under-Secretary is enough of a realist to know that it will not be possible to absorb these men in an area where the figure of unemployment is of that nature. Only a new industry can take the place of the R.O.F. in that part of the country. The Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary have acknowledged that the War Office has an obligation in this matter towards its employees in Pembrey. They have said it to my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) in the House and when we have met them on an earlier occasion.
  I ask the Under-Secretary to tell us how the War Office is going to carry out that obligation. He will say no doubt, with justice, that it is not the function of the War Office to steer industry to Pembrey or anywhere else. We realise that, but it is for the War Office to exert its influence and bring pressure to bear on the Board of Trade if that obligation is to be honoured, otherwise it is just so much paper to be torn up.
  I hope that the Under-Secretary will take very seriously the suggestion put to him by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly that the Board of Trade should take over this site and develop a trading estate there. It is a valuable site, as my right hon. Friend has said. It was considered as a possible site for the giant steel mill now established at Llanwern. It is an ideal site for development. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give to the workers at the R.O.F. and to the towns of Kidwelly and Pembrey some lope that the Government will at least honour their obligation and pay the debt which they owe to these men who have rendered signal service to the country.
  10.47 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for War and Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Peter Kirk): I am very grateful to the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) and the hon. Lady the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George) for giving me this opportunity of going into some little more detail than I was able to do in Question and Answer in December on the very difficult

  1167
  question of the closure of the Royal Ordnance Factory at Pembrey.
  I ought to start by saying, as I am sure the House will be aware, that having to take this sort of action gives the War Department no pleasure at all. We are only too well aware of the immense service rendered by the people who have worked at Pembrey in two world wars. One of the reasons why I am grateful for this opportunity to speak for a few minutes is that I am conscious of the fact that considerable distress was caused by the earlier decision in 1918 to close down the factory. We hope to avoid anything of that nature occurring again this time.
  The right hon. Member for Llanelly asked, very fairly, why it had to be Pembrey. The answer is that it is one of the four factories in the explosives group of the Royal Ordnance Factories, the other three being Bishopton, Bridgwater and Ranskill. The primary purpose of Pembrey, as opposed to the other three, was to provide capacity for the manufacture of T.N.T. During the rearmament period about the time of the Korean war stocks of T.N.T. were built up to a high degree, indeed to such an extent that we have now, and have had for many years, long inactive, quite enough for foreseeable future need. The factory also had capacity, which was active, for the phosphorus filling of ammunition and other minor chemical activities which it was convenient to carry on in association with the main activity. But the major rôle of Pembrey always was, in its secondary reincarnation, if I may put it that way, the manufacture of T.N.T.
  For some time before the closure was announced in April, 1962, the main work of the factory had been, as the right hon. Gentleman said, not the manufacture of explosives at all but the break-down of surplus ammunition, and it was only because of this that Pembrey was kept going for as long as it has been. Indeed, it might be said that it has been fortunate in surviving until now the impact of the major contraction of the Royal Ordnance Factories which was begun, as the House knows, in 1957. Had it not been for the significant and somewhat fortuitous buildup in the amount of surplus ammunition calling for break-down, the factory
  1168
  might well have suffered redundancies, if not complete closure, at an earlier stage.
  In 1962, the amount of ammunition break-down work was steadily declining, and there was no prospect of any improvement in the situation. As regards the factory's main original activity, explosives, the capacity of the factory was quite out of scale with the foreseeable requirements for T.N.T. There was no prospect at all of getting production orders for high explosives which would have justified retaining the large plant at Pembrey. Accordingly, the Departmental review of defence manufacturing capacity, which, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, went on between 1960 and 1962, reached the conclusion that the most economically efficient course would be to make alternative arrangements for the future production of T.N.T. on the very much smaller scale which is now required as part of the total capacity of another factory. This would mean that the explosives capacity of the R.O.F. Pembrey would be abandoned and that its residual activities should be dispersed as required. I hope that that explains to the right hon. Gentleman why the decision was taken.
  Mr. Douglas Jay: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why the Government could not have closed down Ranskill, which is in a fully employed area, and transferred the work from there to Pembrey?
  Mr. Kirk: These factories are not strictly comparable one can make certain types of explosive at one factory and not at another. I think that that would be the reason for it. Pembrey was geared to this particular explosive.
  Mr. Jay: Has the hon. Gentleman considered or investigated whether it would have been possible to make a transfer from Ranskill to Pembrey?
  Mr. Kirk: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the whole question of the Royal Ordnance Factories has been reviewed more than once since 1957, when the policy of the then Ministry of Supply was announced. Ranskill was certainly taken into consideration.
  I come now to the question of how we are disposing of the factory, what

  1169
  we shall do with the site, and, lastly, the most important question of the labour force.
  Both in letters and at Question Time, we have told right hon. and hon. Members opposite that we have decided to offer the factory as one lot in December, 1964, probably by public tender, and it will, of course, be widely advertised. We did try, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, to sell the ammunition breakdown area separately, even though it was contaminated, but none of the offers which we received came up to what seemed to us to be a suitable figure. In any case, we felt that the sale of the ammunition break-down area as a going concern was just acceptable only so long as there were firm and long-term employments prospects and only as long as the contaminated area was to be used only for ammunition break-down. But it would have meant handing over to a private concern land in a contaminated and possibly dangerous state. This could have resulted in serious disaster should an accident have occurred. We have had unfortunate experience in relying upon unsupported promises of future employment possibilities which, in the event, could not be substantiated. We could not, in the absence of firm prospects, continue to overlook the other factors at Pembrey.
  A lesser but important consideration was that the continued use of the site for ammunition break-down would have meant a serious depreciation in the value of the rest of the factory and might even have deterred prospective purchasers completely. For these reasons—finance, employment and safety—the tenders received for the ammunition break-down area were unacceptable. Decontamination of the whole site is now going ahead so that the factory may be offered in a safe condition in one lot at the time of closure.
  Mr. J. Griffiths: If the War Office cannot find a private enterprise firm to take it over, will it then be handed to the Board of Trade to be worked as a trading estate?
  Mr. Kirk: I shall certainly consult my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade about that point, but at present our plan is to put
  1170
  it up for sale as a whole lot in December.
  The moat important point, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree, concerns the existing staff, to whom, as I have said in the House, we fully recognise an obligation. Since the closure of the factory was announced in April 1962, nearly two years ago, its labour strength has been reduced from about 1,000, including about 200 non-industrial staff, to less than 500, including 100 non-industrial staff.
  By April, the strength will be reduced to 450 and by October to 330. Of the present strength of the factory of just under 500, some 370 are established, including 70 non-industrials, and of the established employees, upwards of 100 are more than 60 years of age. These, of course, will be entitled to retire can the superannuation which they have earned. Established employees under 60 who wish to remain in Government service will be offered alternative jobs, but here, of course, we have the difficulty that there is scarcely any Government work available in the neighbourhood of Pembrey. There are suitable jobs available in other parts of the country, but we know from experience that people do not generally wish to up sticks and move with their families, even though other jobs would be available for them.
  Perhaps I should now outline the steps which the Department will take on behalf of those who become redundant. Established employees retiring at the age of 60 or more will receive the pension and lump sum payment which they have earned. Those aged between 50 and 59 who do not wish to take up other Government work will have the pension and lump sum which they have earned put into cold storage until they reach the age of 60 to safeguard it for them, so hat if they move into other employment, they will still have the pension and lump sum which they have earned. Those who are under 50 and who cannot get other Government work locally and who wish to leave the service may qualify for terminal grant—this also applies to those who are over 50 and who wish to leave the Government service, of course, but it is assumed that they will want to have

  1171
  their pension and lump sum frozen, for that would be worth more—and those who are unestablished will get a gratuity for five or more years of service.
  Although the level of unemployment in the Llanelly area was higher in December—the last month in which I have absolute figures—than the average for Great Britain, 3·3 per cent. as against 2·2 per cent., only a small number of those under the age of 60 who have left the R.O.F. since the closure was announced are still registered with the Ministry of Labour as unemployed. The Llanelly area is a development district and the full benefits of the Local Employment Acts are available to any firms setting up or expanding there, and new jobs are expected to become available in the coming year with the expansion of industries in the area. In consultation with the Ministry of Labour, we are making every effort to assist any redundant employees to find suitable jobs in local industry.
  Employment prospects in the Llanelly employment exchange area, which includes Pembrey, are, on the whole, encouraging. There are currently more than 1,300 jobs in prospect including 900 which are exclusively for male employees resulting from developments in a wide variety of industries. Recruiting by Fisher and Ludlow will continue to help the employment situation for some time, and jobs will also arise in light engineering, mining machinery, electronic components and other industries. The fall in the number of workers wholly unemployed from 6·7 per cent. last February to 3·3 per cent. at the end of the year reflects to a large extent the jobs which have already materialised there, and we expect these developments to continue.
  There are still some 16 good industrial sites in the Llanelly area which are easily accessible, ranging in size up to 13 acres—leaving out the R.O.F. site. In the last twelve months, 55 industrialists have had their attention drawn to the area by the Board of Trade's office in Wales and 15 have visited the area. Firms setting up or expanding in the area are entitled to the free depreciation and other financial assistance given
  1172
  under the Local Employment Acts and since April 1960 the Board of Trade has offered more than £5,500,000 for projects in the area, estimated to provide more than 4,600 jobs. Llanelly has plenty of good sites for industry and we are confident that industrialists will continue to be attracted there.
  The Board of Trade—and I emphasise that this is primarily a matter for the Board of Trade and not for the War Department—is also doing its utmost to interest industrialists in taking over the R.O.F. itself. Its office for Wales has mentioned it to industrialists on suitable occasions and some of the 15 whom I mentioned and who have visited the area in the last year at the Board's suggestion have seen over it. The Board can give assistance in adapting a factory which in its present condition might not be wholly suitable for other means of employment. There are, of course, a limited number of industrialists whose needs will be met by a factory of this kind without extensive adaptation being necessary, and the Board of Trade is being pressed to find a purchaser likely to provide as much continuing employment as possible.
  It is generally felt—though, as I said, I shall ask my right hon. Friend to look at this again—that the adaptation of the factory as a trading estate would cost too much in relation to its possible future use by industry and the employment which will be created. And even when adapted it will still be attractive only to specialised industrialists, but the War Office and the Board of Trade are keeping in close touch on all these points, and will continue to do so.
  As I said, both in answer to questions in December and at the beginning of my remarks, we recognise in all cases where we have to close a R.O.F. that we have a very considerable obligation to the employees, and in this special case we recognise how strong that is. I hope that what I have said will at least convince the right hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend and I are very conscious of the problems of this area. We are doing everything we can to ensure that suitable alternative employment will be available to everybody, and we are very encouraged by the fact that nearly all those who have left so far—and they are more than half of the

  1173
  total employees there—have found alternative employment.
  There is a problem, particularly with the older employees. This is a problem which we have found with all R.O.F. closures, but we hope that it will be possible to ensure that they are suitably catered for.
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned, at one minute past Eleven o'clock.

PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Knightsbridge Barracks
  Knightsbridge Barracks
  Post Office Headquarters
  Post Office Headquarters
  Whitehall Area
  Whitehall Area
  Government Office Building (Fire Loss)
  Government Office Building (Fire Loss)
  Hampton Court
  Hampton Court
TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION
  Ghana (Ex-Colonial Service Officers)
  Ghana (Ex-Colonial Service Officers)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Public Lavatories (Turnstiles)
  Public Lavatories (Turnstiles)
  Garage Premises, Penarth
  Garage Premises, Penarth
  Riverside Works, Dagenham
  Riverside Works, Dagenham
  Swimming Pools
  Swimming Pools
  Stevenage
  Stevenage
  Land, Biggin Hill
  Land, Biggin Hill
  Caravan Sites
  Caravan Sites
  Coastal Towns (Sewerage Disposal)
  Coastal Towns (Sewerage Disposal)
HOUSING
  Rent Rebate Schemes
  Rent Rebate Schemes
  House Building
  House Building
  Rates (Unoccupied Properties)
  Rates (Unoccupied Properties)
SCIENCE
  Scientists
  Scientists
  Atomic Energy Commission (Scientists and Technicians)
  Atomic Energy Commission (Scientists and Technicians)
  Radio-telescope, Chilbolton
  Radio-telescope, Chilbolton
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Gambling (Taxation)
  Gambling (Taxation)
  National Savings Certificates
  National Savings Certificates
  P.A.Y.E. (Surtax)
  P.A.Y.E. (Surtax)
  Company Taxation and Dividends
  Company Taxation and Dividends
  Toll Bridges
  Toll Bridges
  Civil Service (Administrative Class)
  Civil Service (Administrative Class)
  Bulletin for Industry and Looking Ahead Broadsheets
  Bulletin for Industry and Looking Ahead Broadsheets
  Council Houses (Building Expenditure)
  Council Houses (Building Expenditure)
  Retail Prices and £ Sterling
  Retail Prices and £ Sterling
  Estate Duties
  Estate Duties
  Unestablished Civil Servants
  Unestablished Civil Servants
HONG KONG
  Immigrants
  Immigrants
SWAZILAND
  Constitution (Referendum)
  Constitution (Referendum)
ST. HELENA
  Colonial Service Officers (Salaries)
  Colonial Service Officers (Salaries)
  Teachers
  Teachers
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT COUNCILLORS
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT COUNCILLORS
  NEW UNIVERSITIES (DAWLEY)
  NEW UNIVERSITIES (DAWLEY)
  UNITED NATIONS (PEACE-KEEPING FORCE)
  UNITED NATIONS (PEACE-KEEPING FORCE)
  NEWSPAPERS (MERGERS)
  NEWSPAPERS (MERGERS)
  GENERAL ELECTION (POLITICAL PARTIES)
  GENERAL ELECTION (POLITICAL PARTIES)
  AID TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
  AID TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
CYPRUS
  International Force
  International Force
  British Forces (Command)
  British Forces (Command)
  PRIME MINISTER (LANCASHIRE VISIT)
  PRIME MINISTER (LANCASHIRE VISIT)
  CUBA
  CUBA
ROYAL NAVY
  H.M.S. "Implacable"
  H.M.S. "Implacable"
COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES
  Loans
  Loans
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Fatstock and Meat Marketing (Report)
  Fatstock and Meat Marketing (Report)
  Fluoroacetamide
  Fluoroacetamide
EDUCATION
  Tanganyika Mission (Report)
  Tanganyika Mission (Report)
  Aided Primary Schools, Carlisle
  Aided Primary Schools, Carlisle
  Froebel National Foundation (Teacher's Diploma)
  Froebel National Foundation (Teacher's Diploma)
INDUSTRY, TRADE AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
  Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland and U.S.S.R.
  Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland and U.S.S.R.
  Industrial Development Certificates (Sudbury and Woodbridge)
  Industrial Development Certificates (Sudbury and Woodbridge)
  Resale Price Maintenance
  Resale Price Maintenance
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Cremation Regulations (Medical Certificates)
  Cremation Regulations (Medical Certificates)
  General Election
  General Election
EMPLOYMENT
  Sudbury and Woodbridge
  Sudbury and Woodbridge
SCOTLAND
  Countryside and Tourist Amenities Bill
  Countryside and Tourist Amenities Bill
  Emigration and Depopulation
  Emigration and Depopulation
ROADS
  Unadopted Roads, Biggin Hill (Vehicles)
  Unadopted Roads, Biggin Hill (Vehicles)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Leicester
The Lady Kinloss—Sat first in Parliament, pursuant to the Peerage Act, 1963.

WATER RESOURCES BOARD
2.35 p.m.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is to be gained by delaying appointments to the Water Resources Board.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD HASTINGS): My Lords, the Board has to be in operation by the time the river authorities, which are to be established under the Water Resources Act, 1963, come into existence. This, it is hoped, will be in the autumn. There is no question, therefore, of the appointments having been delayed. My right honourable friend will ensure that they are made in good time.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Although it is not his Department, I think he must be aware that the interim Waterways Board have asked for consultation with other water authorities no fewer than three times. Would he not think, therefore, that an earlier appointment of some experts on these subjects would be a wise thing?
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I think that the noble Earl's supplementary almost refers to his second Question, which he is going to put in a moment, but I can assure him that there is going to be no delay in appointing the Water
754
Resources Board. It will be appointed as soon as possible.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, is the noble Lord not aware that already, in February, there is a great anxiety about future water supplies? No doubt he has heard the announcement on the wireless news of the position in Nottingham, which is perhaps a little more favourably placed than the Eastern counties farther South. The water shortage is already great, yet almost towards the end of what is going to be described as the driest winter for a hundred years nothing seems likely to be able to be done until the Government have appointed the people required to be appointed under the Act which the noble Lord mentioned. Something ought to be done about this now.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I must point out that it was made clear, during the course of the Bill which is now the Water Resources Act, that it was never intended that either the new river authorities or the Water Resources Board should be appointed by now. There are still river boards which are functioning in the usual way, and there is no reason to suppose that there is any exceptional crisis on account of the lack at this moment of the appointment of a central Water Resources Board.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord, but would he not consult his right honourable friend as to whether he could make a statement to this House on the present situation of water supplies, and what is being done about it?
LORD HASTINGS: Yes, my Lords, I will certainly do that.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLEhad given notice of his intention to ask the following Question:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they recognise that the water problem would benefit from periodic conferences between the Waterways and the Water Resources Boards which have many similar duties.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg leave not to ask the second Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

ALBERT BRIDGE TRAFFIC AND NEW FIRE STATION
2.38 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: 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—

(1) what is the estimated increase of traffic along Oakley Street that will result from the proposed tidal flow across Albert Bridge;

(2) whether they have taken the increase of traffic along Oakley Street and King's Road into consideration in siting a new fire station near the junction of these roads;

(3) whether the area to be served by the fire station includes any area south of the Thames; and

(4) if so, by what route fire engines from the station will cross the Thames during the period when Albert Bridge is given over to northbound traffic.]

EARL FERRERS: My Lords, It is estimated that the proposed tidal flow arrangements for Albert Bridge will increase the traffic in Oakley Street by some 150 vehicles an hour during the morning and evening peak periods. This represents increases of 21 per cent. and 15 per cent., respectively. The siting of this fire station is the responsibility of the London County Council as fire authority. I understand that the site was purchased in 1940 and that the order for work to commence was placed in June, 1962, shortly before the tidal flow proposals were announced. I understand that the area to be served by the new station is wholly to the north of the River Thames, except for purposes of support. On occasions when support is given South of the river, this would principally be to the area between Battersea Park Road and Albert Bridge Road, and for this purpose appliances can conveniently use Battersea Bridge.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I thank my noble friend for his Answer and ask him this? Is he aware that 1,400 vehicles an hour are already passing along this part of the King's Road at peak periods before the increase that he mentions? Secondly, do the Government
756
still intend to have tidal flow traffic over Albert Bridge and to open this new fire station? And, if so, are they satisfied that these two proposals together make sense? Finally, is their satisfaction shared by the fire authority?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, my noble friend asked a number of supplementaries. With regard to the last one, the fire authority are satisfied that the arrangements of the tidal flow will not impede the services which they will be called upon to give. I have forgotten the other three questions—would the noble Lord be good enough to remind me?
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, my first question was whether the Government were aware that 1,400 vehicles an hour were already passing along this part of the King's Road before the increase mentioned in my noble friend's original Answer; and my second was whether the Government propose to proceed with both these schemes and, if so, whether they are satisfied that together they make sense.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, of course, the flow of vehicles along King's Road has been taken into account. The object of taking the tidal flow across Albert Bridge is in order to increase the movement of traffic and, if it is increased, presumably that would facilitate the movement of fire appliances.
THE EARL OF SANDWICH: My Lords, is not the tidal flow under Albert Bridge and not across it? How does it come about that my noble friend Lord Cones-ford, who hates neologisms, uses this form?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I would not be able to answer the last question of my noble friend, but with regard to the first, of course, it entirely depends on what method of transport one is using.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, is the noble Earl not aware that his first Answer means that the increase of traffic in Oakley Street amounts to one vehicle per second? When these changes are decided on, are the views of the inhabitants of the area considered? Because this means virtually that life will not be worth living for the people in Oakley Street.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, before any alterations of this nature are brought into operation a number of different points of view are taken into account, one of which is the movement of traffic, and I have no doubt that in this instance another is the representations which have been made by the people who live in Oakley Street.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, is it not a fact that the fire authorities are sufficiently worried by the prospect for them to be asking that they should be able to work the traffic lights from inside the station?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I do not think the fire authorities are usually the people responsible for working traffic lights.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, can the noble Earl say whether the Chelsea Metropolitan Borough Council, which I think is the local authority concerned, has concurred in this new scheme?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the fire authority is the London County Council.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, I know that; but with respect I was not talking about fire. I am talking about the highway and the points of possible congestion to which attention is drawn by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, in his Question. The Chelsea Metropolitan Borough Council, if I remember rightly, is the highway authority. Has it concurred in this scheme of the Ministry of Transport?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I have not at the moment the information which the noble Lord requires, but I will certainly find out and let him know.

BRITISH AIR ATTACHÉ IN TOKYO
2.45 p.m.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: 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 consider reviving the post of Air Attaché at the British Embassy in Tokyo.]
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, this matter is at present under active consideration.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, while I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply, which of course means anything or almost nothing (perhaps that is slightly unfair), may I urge him that this matter should be pressed on with? May I also ask whether he is aware that this situation has happened before, in Latin America, where we lost the chance of re-equipping many of the Service and civilian fleets there owing to the withdrawal of Air Attachés, who were subsequently put back there, of course, after the horse had bolted.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am sure that my right honourable friends will bear in mind these South American considerations which my noble friend has mentioned, but I think it would be wrong for me to try to anticipate the collective wisdom of their final decision on this matter.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask whether this decision is likely to be taken before the Service Departments are put into an entirely different position with the Minister of Defence under the new orders? How long have the representations of the particular Service Departments been before the Minister of Defence?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think I can assure the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition that this matter is being pressed forward with a good deal of energy.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend, as there was an Air Attaché at least in 1960 in Tokyo, on what grounds our Air Attaché was withdrawn from that city?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think he was withdrawn in June last year because his normal tour of duty had expired.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, if his normal tour of duty had expired, what about his replacement?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, this is one of the matters at present under consideration.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, what is the reason for this enormous urgency? Is it the coming Election? Everything now is exceedingly urgent. You have had ever since last June to get this done.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I do not think I can, or indeed should, add anything further.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Why not?
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I think I can help the noble Lord opposite. There is a Naval Attaché now who doubles the rôle of Naval and Air Attaché. That is the point. The fact is that the Air Attaché having returned home, and a Naval Attaché having taken his job, Naval is talking to Air, and it does not work; somehow, we lose contact.

NATIONAL PROVIDENT INSTITUTION BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and referred to the Examiners.
NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
WENTWORTH ESTATE BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and referred to the Examiners.
CHICHESTER RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS (LOANS FOR THEOLOGICAL COLLEGES AND TRAINING HOUSES) MEASURE, 1964
2.48 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LEICESTER: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper. I do not think that it will be necessary to detain your Lordships for
760
any great length of time. The Church Assembly has recently embarked upon a programme of modernisation and improvement of the theological colleges and establishments for the training of women in the pastoral work of the Church. The greater part of the cost will be provided by grants made to the colleges by the Church Assembly. The money is to be raised by the Central Board of Finance by loans, the servicing of which will be a charge on the Church Assembly Budget. The Church Commissioners, who are at present lending considerable sums of money to the Central Board of Finance for similar capital expenditure on the Church training colleges for teachers, are willing either to make further loans for the purpose of theological colleges or to guarantee borrowing from other sources up to a limit of £1 million, if they are given the necessary statutory authority. The object of the Measure is to provide that authority. Money so borrowed will be repaid over a period of years and interest will be payable at current rates. Therefore, there is no question of diminishing the income of the Commissioners which would otherwise be devoted to the maintenance of the clergy.
I should like to add a personal word. It so happens that I have spent a great deal of my own ministry in theological colleges, and I know that until the most recent years the whole of the provision of theological colleges has been left to private enterprise. This Measure is really part of a rather belated conscience on the part of the Church that the Church as a whole should undertake some responsibility for the provision of these institutions. The Measure met with no opposition in the Church Assembly, and I trust that your Lordships will find no difficulty in passing the necessary Resolution. I beg to move.
Moved, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919 this House do direct that the Church Commissioners (Loans for Theological Colleges and Training Houses) Measure 1964 be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(Lord Bishop of Leicester.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

INCUMBENTS AND CHURCHWARDENS (TRUSTS) MEASURE, 1964
2.51 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LEICESTER: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion, which also stands in my name. By the Parochial Church Councils (Powers) Measure, 1956, the property of the parochial church council is, generally speaking, vested in the diocesan authority. It can be acquired only with the consent of the diocesan authority, and certain transactions, such as selling and leasing, also require the consent of that body; but subject to these safeguards, parochial church councils remain managing trustees. In many parishes both funds and real property are held by incumbents, by churchwardens or by incumbent and churchwardens acting together. There are three reasons why it has been thought desirable that the position with regard to these latter trusts—that is, those in the hands of incumbents or of incumbent and churchwardens—should be brought into line with that relating to those of parochial church councils.
In the first place, there are legal difficulties, in that the churchwardens or the incumbent and churchwardens are not a corporation, and, strictly speaking, whenever there is a new incumbent or a new churchwarden there should be a new appointment with a transfer of the trust property. In practice, such an instrument is rarely executed, and difficulties can, and do, occur if and when real property comes to be sold. In the second place, the absence of adequate supervision causes trusts not uncommonly to be wrongly administered or even lost sight of altogether. But the immediate reason for bringing this measure forward is the Charities Act, 1960. It is proposed to seek exception from registration under Section 4 of that Act for all charities which are vested in a diocesan authority, and it would be greatly advantageous to all concerned if the charities vested in incumbents as churchwardens could be included in any excepting regulation which may be passed.
The object of this Measure is, therefore, to place trusts in the hands of incumbents and churchwardens upon the
762
same footing as those already held by diocesan authorities for parochial church councils. The diocesan authority will then become a little more than a Custodian Trustee, while responsibility for management will remain in the hands of those who are at present managing the trust. The Measure provides that property does not vest automatically on the passing of the Measure, but on a vesting declaration made by the diocesan authority. It is the duty of the trustees to inform the diocesan authority of trusts covered by the Measure, but there are provisions to meet the case where the diocesan authority becomes aware of the existence of trusts of which it has not been otherwise notified. The opportunity is given to the trustees, the incumbents and the Charity Commissioners, to make representations, and subject to them the diocesan authority can make a vesting declaration which may apply to more than one item of property or more than one body of trustees, thus, it is hoped, considerably reducing the expenses.
I must tell your Lordships that this Measure had a difficult passage through the Assembly, and was given final approval, on a Division, by 265 votes to 102 votes. I think it is fair to say that a good deal of the opposition resulted from a failure properly to understand the somewhat complicated provisions of the Measure. The Measure has been drafted and dealt with throughout in close consultation with the Charity Commissioners, and has been favourably reported upon by the Ecclesiastical Committee. I trust, therefore, that your Lordships will be prepared to pass the necessary Resolution. I beg to move.
Moved, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919 this House do direct that the Incumbents and Churchwardens (Trusts) Measure 1964 be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Bishop of Leicester.)
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, might I be allowed to ask the right reverend Prelate one question? I can understand their difficulties in some of the circumstances he has described, but who is responsible to-day, under the Union of Benefices Measure, for sites which are now vacant,

763
churches having been pulled down, sometimes in main shopping theatres, where the capital value is great, but apparently not yet disposed of? Who are the trustees? It cannot surely in this case be the incumbent or the churchwardens of the particular parishes concerned. Who deals with this matter, once those parishes have been abolished?
THE LORD BISHOP OF LEICESTER: My Lords, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the Church Commissioners are the really responsible body. I would not profess to speak about the subtleties of each situation, but I know myself, in dealing with vacant sites in my own diocese, that it is the Church Commissioners who act as the final umpire.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Perhaps the right reverend Prelate will send me confirmation of that.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask the right reverend Prelate a question? The Church Assembly has decided that women should be admitted. May I ask him why, in the middle of the twentieth century, they are to be admitted only in a subordinate manner? I should like to know the answer.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LEICESTER: My Lords, that question seems a long way removed from the Motion, but if an answer is required I have no doubt that the custom and practice of large sections of Christendom is the place to which the noble Lady should look for a explanation.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

CHURCHWARDENS (APPOINTMENT AND RESIGNATION) MEASURE, 1964
2.58 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LEICESTER: My Lords, I beg to move the third and last Motion standing in my name. This Measure arises due to the revision of Canon Law which has been occupying the attention of the Convocations and the House of Laity for some considerable time. The law relating to the appointment and resignation of church-
764
wardens is in part contained in the Canons of 1603, and in part in the Common Law. It is in many places by no means clear, and it was therefore thought desirable to attempt to remove the obscurities before proceeding further with new Canons to replace those of 1603. The Measure lays down the number and qualifications of churchwardens, but provides that its provisions cannot over-ride a Private Act, Statutory Scheme, or custom to the contrary.
At present, churchwardens need not be members of the Church of England. The Measure now provides that they must be actual communicant members of the Church of England, except where the Bishop shall otherwise permit. Under the present law, in the absence of a custom to the contrary, the churchwardens are chosen jointly by the minister and a meeting of the parishioners or, if they fail to agree, one by the minister and the other by the meeting. Where there is no minister the meeting chooses both. In practice, there is often no attempt at a joint choice, but it was thought desirable in this Measure to make the law clear. I think your Lordships will be aware that in a very large number of parishes the two churchwardens are, in fact, chosen respectively by the incumbent and by the people respectively. Although that is not provided for in the Act except as a kind of emergency procedure, I have no doubt at all that in a very large number of cases custom will continue to do things in that way.
This Measure also gives the churchwarden the right to resign, provided that the minister and any other churchwarden consent and the Bishop accepts his resignation. That would be a considerable convenience, because even when churchwardens have left the district it has been impossible for them to vacate their office until the next annual church meeting. The Measure also makes it clear that the office is vacated if the churchwarden ceases to reside in the parish or to have his name on the electoral roll. The Measure also provides for appeals in the case of arguments or disputes for which there is at present no provision. The Measure was never regarded as a controversial one. At no time during its passage through the Assembly was there a division, and it has been favourably reported upon

765
by the Ecclesiastical Committee. I hope therefore, that your Lordships will be willing to pass the necessary Resolution. I beg to move.
Moved, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Churchwardens (Appointment and Resignation) Measure, 1964, be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Bishop of Leicester.)
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords I am much obliged for the explanation. I sometimes think that the ways of Ecclesiastical Law are beyond the understanding of most; they do not seem to fit in. We had a very hurried and disjointed debate recently, last May or June, upon a Church Measure, and there we were dealing with a State Church setting up an entirely new legal system under which all the appeal members to be put upon ecclesiastical courts, in particular, were to be communicants of the Church of England. Now, apparently, in this much more minor Measure there is to be a provision that churchwardens must be, of course, communicants of the Church of England, and, I should think, in most cases must reside in the parish, but so far as I can see, it is to be left to the Bishop to approve anybody else he likes. What inconsistencies these are! It is a pity these matters are not considered much more deeply before they are brought to the House. Now, by the Bill passed last year, we have lost the eight of the ordinary citizen to go to the Privy Council about matters in which he is interested regarding State Church Law, but in this case it is to be left to the Bishop to decide what is to be done about a particular churchwarden.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, may I, following up the question asked by my noble Leader, ask the right reverend Prelate in what circumstances it is thought that a Bishop would approve the appointment as a churchwarden of a person who is not a member of the Church of England? In relation to what my noble Leader has said, I ask this question as a former churchwarden and as a former member of the Ecclesiastical Committee.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LEICESTER: My Lords, I must not be drawn into a discussion of the Measure that was previously debated and decided, although I can well understand that the noble Earl might have anxious thoughts about some part of that particular Measure. But I can only commend this Measure to your Lordships. I think the gravamen of the noble Earl's question, or criticism, was that there was something inconsistent or superficial in this provision for a Bishop to allow someone who is not a member of the Church of England to be a churchwarden. I think that really was also the point behind the question of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. If your Lordships really desire to know, the fact is that in some very small communities there are hardly any likely candidates for the responsibilities of churchwarden, and in some cases—one, at least, is known to me personally in my own diocese—a member of another Church, out of general concern for the building and the institution of a church to which he personally does not belong, has been willing to be churchwarden in it. That is what is intended in this Measure.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: It seems difficult to understand this in the case of a church that apparently has almost no congregation. You close down in cases in which I have been interested, in dealing with appeals of churches which are in populous areas; yet, just to suit the kind of case you refer to, you can take a separate action and appoint as churchwardens people who are not members of the Church. As I say, the inconsistencies of Ecclesiastical Law pass my comprehension.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LEICESTER: My Lords, I feel it only right and fair that a definite procedure should be laid down, not so much by the Church as by the law of the land, whereby churches can be considered for closure and eventually for being pulled down. That process goes on, and it is in fact being done from time to time. But all the while the church is there it has to be cared for, and because there is an insufficient number of people with the necessary qualifications to take on the responsibility of churchwarden it in no way follows that a Church is not being used.

767
I do not know how far it is customary in your Lordships' House to debate these matters in any detail, but I feel that those brief replies at least are due to the Church on this occasion.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

LICENSING BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

DEFENCE (TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS) BILL
3.06 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl of Jellicoe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Transfer to, and discharge by, Secretary of State and Defence Council of certain statutory functions]:
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved, in subsection (1)(b), to leave out "Navy Board" and to insert "Admiralty Board". The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment I am afraid that it will be necessary to repeat a portion of my speech which I gave on the Second Reading of the Bill, in order to make clear the point I raise in this Amendment and also for the benefit of your Lordships who were not able to be present on that occasion. The intention of this Amendment is to substitute the words "Admiralty Board" for "Navy Board" in Clause 1, followed by two consequential Amendments.
I really cannot understand why Her Majesty's Government should offer any resistance to this Amendment. It cannot in any way interfere with their ideas of integration, and I hope that at this stage they are prepared to accept this Amendment or at least to consider the Amendment again. I have previously suggested to your Lordships that we must be on our guard against the tendency of planners to forget the greatly different roots and great traditions of the
768
Armed Services. I would say that this applies particularly to the Royal Navy. There is a fundamental difference between the Navy and the other Armed Services. A soldier has loyalty to his regiment—although I believe there are to-day those in some quarters who would like the regiment system to disappear and be replaced by a corps of infantry. In the Navy the advent nowadays of short-service commissions of only some eighteen months means, of course, that it is becoming increasingly difficult to build up a similar loyalty to a unit such as one of Her Majesty's ships. I maintain that something higher is required which the sailor can look up to as a focus for his loyalty, and this must be the Admiralty.
I would repeat what I said on Second Reading: that the word "Admiralty" goes back many centuries into the shadowy mist of the past. It is also a collective term for the Royal authority vested in the office of the Lord High Admiral. This was the case whether the Lord High Admiral was an individual as, of course, he was for many years, or whether the office went into commission, as we know to-day, as Lords of the Admiralty. Throughout the Royal authority has been maintained, and with Her Majesty resuming the office of Lord High Admiral there will be a continuity of the Royal authority exercised through the collective term "Admiralty", now to be changed for no apparent reason to "Navy Board". It is so easy to discard the old name and throw it away, but how many years will it take to build up the new one? I earnestly commend this Amendment to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 10, leave out ("Navy Board") and insert ("Admiralty Board").—(Lord Teynham.)
LORD COLYTON: I rise to support very briefly my noble friend's Amendment. Unfortunately, owing to a longstanding business engagement in Germany I shall have to leave from London Airport in a few minutes and shall therefore not be able to be present at the end of the debate. I would, however, most strongly urge the House to pass this Amendment, the arguments for which

769
seem to me to be conclusive, as much from the practical point of view as from the sentimental and historical angles. The practical importance of retaining the term "Admiralty" was fully demonstrated by my noble friend in his speech on February 4 and he has repeated some of the arguments to-day. There can be no question whatever that the abolition of this name would have a damaging effect on morale in the Royal Navy, and I imagine it would also be repugnant to the majority of those working in the Admiralty itself.
On what might be called the sentimental side, I feel sure that the disappearance of this great historic name of "Admiralty" would also come as a shock to the great mass of the British people. They would ask themselves why this was done, and would find the arguments in favour of this step adduced by my noble friend the First Lord and by my right honourable friend the Minister of Defence in another place in Committee on December 5 very weak and unconvincing. With all respect to the other two Services, I venture to say that the general public know and perhaps care very little about the Army Council or the Air Council, and the minor changes involved in this Bill in that respect would cause little criticism or interest. On the other hand, I feel that people in this country and, indeed, throughout the Commonwealth would be much distressed by the abolition of the ancient name of "Admiralty" which has played such a part in our history. We may even remember Kipling:
"If blood he the price of admiralty,
Lord God, we ha' bought it fair!"
It is on this historical side that I should like to say a word or two this afternoon. The conception of the Court or jurisdiction of Admiralty goes back to the dim ages, certainly as far back as the reign of Henry I. As related to the fighting Navy, we first hear of the appointment of a Lord High Admiral in the person of John, Earl of Somerset, in 1406, under Henry IV. The term "Admiralty" itself appears on the second page of the first volume of the Black Book of the Admiralty, which your Lordships will find in the Library, written in Norman French, Latin and English, somewhere between 1440 and 1460. Again, according to Clowes' History of the Navy,
770
when the Navy was reorganised under Henry VIII in 1546 the Admiralty Office or Board was formed under the Lord High Admiral, who was described as Minister of Marine, for purely naval and operational matters. The Admiralty Board had no fixed abode at that time and met at the Lord High Admiral's house or even afloat.
At the same time Henry VIII also set up a Navy Board, which consisted of civilian officials and was entirely concerned with questions of supply. This Navy Board—the term now suggested to be revised—continued right down to the Crimean War when its inefficiency led to its abolition and the absorption of its functions by the Board of Admiralty. It is not a term, I would venture to suggest, which commands any great respect or meaning in the Navy or in the country. It seems to me that, as my noble friend said, the change is unnecessary as part of this great reorganisation of our defence machinery, which I think we all support. The new name which is proposed in this Bill, moreover, constitutes a far greater change so far as the Navy is concerned than it does in the case of the other two Services. I strongly hope that Her Majesty's Government will think twice before abolishing this great and honourable name, by accepting the Amendment that stands in the names of my noble friends and myself. I would make a special appeal to my noble friend the First Lord and to the former First Lord who sits beside him to accept this Amendment, and I feel sure that if they do so it will be a decision which will be popular as well as wise.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I also rise to commend this Amendment to your Lordships' House. I myself can see very little merit in change merely for the sake of change. Nor do I see merit in change in a case of this kind merely to obtain uniformity. As my noble friend has suggested, the word "Admiralty" has been in use for hundreds of years and has, I believe, a better reputation than that of the late and unlamented Navy Board. Further, many other Navies are governed by Navy Boards but, as I understand it, only in this country by an Admiralty. So far as the maritime nations of the world are concerned, that body which governs our

771
Navy is known as "the Admiralty", and if we change to Navy Board presumably the Admiralty in future will be known as the British Navy Board, to distinguish it from the Canadian Navy Board, the Australian Navy Board and no doubt from others. For these reasons, as well as those advanced by my noble friends, I sincerely hope that your Lordships will accept this Amendment and so preserve this ancient and honourable title for that body which in future will govern the British Navy.
LORD SOMERS: I also support this Amendment. I am constantly dumbfounded by this wave of desire for simplification of terms and names which seems to have swept through our country—so that even those who are mentally retarded, I suppose, can understand them. I can assure Her Majesty's Government that the Board will not work any better for having a simple name. I am tempted to believe that they would have called it Sea Board had it not been for the fact that that name was already used by the South Eastern Electricity Board. I sincerely hope that the very ancient and very honourable name of "Admiralty", which has inspired so many people not only to love the Navy but also to join it, will be retained.
LORD AMPTHILL: I rise to support my noble friends in this Amendment, both on the grounds of tradition and on the grounds of practicability. My noble friends who have already spoken have covered the grounds of tradition so fully that I will not repeat them. But the word "Admiralty" has one meaning all over the world; it is the Admiralty here in Whitehall. I have served with French, American and Dutch naval officers. They always spoke of "the Admiralty"—meaning our place in Whitehall. They did not say, "your Admiralty", or, as they might have to say now, if this Bill is passed in its present form, "your Navy Board". In our previous debates on this subject we had some discussion on the practicability of the Admiralty Fleet Orders, confidential Admiralty Fleet Orders, Admiralty charts and all the rest; but nobody has mentioned Admiralty Chart Depôts all over the world used by all the navies of the world and the Merchant Navy as well—and
772
exceedingly useful places they are. During the Second World War, Admiral Cunningham, in Algiers, was served by the Admiralty Chart Depôt in Gibraltar which supplied different Allied Fleets in the Mediterranean. It did a wonderful job, and everybody knew it as the Admiralty Chart Depôt. I reveal to your Lordships that we on Admiral Cunningham's staff also used it to supply ourselves with an occasional case of sherry. I remember an occasion when a ship sailed into Algiers harbour and made a signal to the commander-in-chief:
"Have three cases of charts for you. One is leaking."
That is a signal that we did not show to the late noble Viscount, Lord Cunningham of Hyndhope.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Before the First Lord of the Admiralty replies, in what is approaching his last use in the House of that great title, I should like to say that, having served as First Lord of the Admiralty altogether for nearly nine years—the longest of any elected Member of another place in the history of the Admiralty—I am shocked at the temerity of the Government in introducing such a change as this. I am perfectly persuaded that had a Socialist Government made this proposal, all the Party now opposite would have wanted to tear us limb from limb.
This is an astonishing decision to make. I am quite well aware that the noble Earl may say "Ah, but then this term 'Navy Board' was once in use for a time"—although it was not for long —"in the days of the famous Sam Pepys." Perhaps that is so; but both before and after that date the British Royal Navy made a place for itself in the world which has never yet been matched. I listened to the Secretary of State for the Navy of the United States of America in the Royal Navy College, where we entertained him during the war. We did not ask him to say it, but he said, "This is the greatest institution of its kind in the world, and what it has turned out is the greatest." He said that the White Ensign of the Royal Navy was a major factor in keeping the world from world wars, and he said, "We in America must take a greater share in part of the great work that they have been doing and will continue to do."

773
This is in accordance with the term "Admiralty".
I am glad that the noble Lord, who first served under me as a Captain in the Royal Navy not so many years ago, has raised the question of charting. From all the things which have been introduced by the Government during the last twelve years which have led to financial failure the charting establishments of the Navy are exempt. I was able to point out from time to time that not only were we able to erect new premises at Taunton and continue to widen our services to the world, but we did it at a profit to the State. International maritime law is practised in the Court of Admiralty in this country in numbers of cases covering all nationalities. I think it would be a great retrograde step for this term now to be abolished simply as a matter of verbal convenience, to make all three Service Departments conform to the name of a board. We do not mind the use of the term "Board" but it must be "Admiralty Board". I am going to invite as many of my honourable and noble friends as agree with me to come into the Lobby to support the Amendment moved from the other side.
3.24 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: I think it might be convenient if at this stage I were to state the Government's view on this matter, as my noble friend Lord Carrington will also be speaking later. I should like to say how grateful I am to noble Lords who have put down this Amendment, because I know that they have the interests of the Royal Navy greatly at heart. I am grateful for another reason: that they have given me an opportunity of explaining to your Lordships in rather more detail than I was able to do earlier, the reasons behind the Government's approach to this matter. My noble friend Lord Colyton described my arguments on Second Reading as "thin and unconvincing". I hope that my arguments on Committee stage may be rather more convincing. They will, I fear, be rather fatter, and for that reason I shall not be able to deal with this matter with quite the brevity with which my noble friends who have spoken on this Amendment have done.
774
First of all, I must remind your Lordships of what this Bill really is all about. In the circumstances of contemporary warfare, when everything moves so fast, and when almost every military intervention depends on the intimate co-operation of all three Services, we believe that our defence policy requires a stronger and more integrated central direction. It is our belief—and this belief underlines the Bill which we are discussing—that this object is best achieved by establishing a single unified Department: one Ministry concerned with defence, instead of four Ministries or Departments—Defence, Admiralty, War Office and Air Ministry, who are at present concerned with defence matters. Of course, my right honourable friend the Minister of Defence already has considerable powers, but in the last resort many of these powers are in essence co-ordinating powers. At the present time, as my noble friend Lord Swinton pointed out on Second Reading, he is often more the arbiter between the conflicting Services and their claims than the real and absolute controller of defence policy.
As I see it, the essence of the new set-up is that the political head of this new unified Ministry should become not a sort of referee between the three Services, but the effective captain of a truly inter-Service team. That is what we are getting at. To this end, the Government have proposed, and the Bill embodies, two main constitutional changes. The first is that the statutory powers for the defence of the realm which are now vested in the existing Service Ministries should be vested in the Secretary of State for Defence; the second is that a Defence Council will be established to exercise the powers of command and administrative control previously exercised by the three Service Departments. Under the Secretary of State and under the Defence Council there will be three Service Boards—the Navy Board, the Army Board and the Air Board—to exercise, on a one-Service basis, those functions which are devolved upon them by the Secretary of State for Defence and by the Defence Council. That general set-up was not, I think, challenged in another place. Moreover, despite the nostalgic glances

775
a little bit backwards by the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, on Second Reading, it was not, I think, challenged on Second Reading in this House.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, would the noble Earl allow me to interrupt him? I think we are starting again on a Second Reading debate. We have already debated this. With the greatest respect, I would suggest that the noble Earl devotes his remarks to a reply to the particular Amendment, otherwise this debate will go on for a long time. He is already beginning to make remarks in a wider context to which some of my noble friends may wish to reply.
EARL JELLICOE: I think that the noble Lord is being a little unfair. I think it was perfectly valid and legitimate for me to sketch in the general background before coming to the immediate points, because the general background is extremely relevant to the particular argument which I am now going to adduce. I should now like to explain why, in the Government's view, given the proposed new organisation, it would be wrong for us to call the new Navy Board the "Admiralty Board", as this Amendment proposes.
I would remind your Lordships that "Admiralty" as defined by Statute—the Interpretation Act, 1889—is "The Lord High Admiral of the United Kingdom for the time being, or the Commissioners for the time being for executing the office of Lord High Admiral of the United Kingdom." I do not deny that, as my noble friend Lord Colyton pointed out, the term "Admiralty" has a wider and, indeed, more ancient connotation than this. But the particular functions of Admiralty to which this Amendment is addressed are those discharged by the Board of Admiralty, as defined in this Statute of 1889. That is the legal position. What happens under the new set-up to the responsibilities at present discharged by the Board of Admiralty? Because of the historical associations of the office and the desire to perpetuate its name, Her Majesty has consented to continue to assume the title of Lord High Admiral, but the functions of Admiralty, as distinct from the title, will be transferred, under the new set-up, either to the Secretary of State for Defence or to the Defence Council. That was why I
776
thought it right to sketch the background of this matter; because it is extremely important: this is where the functions are going.
It is true, as I explained on Second Reading, that important responsibilities, especially in the field of management, administration and discipline, about which the noble Earl, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, was concerned, will be conferred upon the new Navy Board. We must have continuity and, as my right honourable friend put it in another place during discussion of the Bill there, we must keep the shop open for business. But although the new Navy Board will be discharging many of the responsibilities at present exercised by the Board of Admiralty it will not be doing so—and this is the important point—in its own right. The responsibilities which it will be discharging will be those specifically devolved upon it by the Secretary of State or by the Defence Council. Therefore, constitutionally it will be a very different animal from the animal which at present exists, and over which I have the honour to preside—the Board of Admiralty.
The principle may be right or it may be wrong—and so far as I know, it was not challenged on Second Reading or in another place. But if the principle is accepted; and it is cardinal to this Bill, I suggest that it would be wholly inconsistent to retain the title "Admiralty" for this new Board. We are in fact making a real and substantial change here, and, that being so, it would be wrong for us to obscure or fudge the issue by retaining something closely akin to the old title. It would also be confusing. This new Board would possess in its own right none of the powers of the present Board of Admiralty; but if we retain the name "Admiralty" the new Board would inevitably be identified, not only in the public mind but also in Whitehall, with the present Board of Admiralty, and this would be bound to make for confusion.
I now venture on to rather more delicate ground. There is a rather special reason why I feel that it would not be in the Navy's interest for us to depart from the term Navy Board and to opt for Admiralty Board, as the movers of this Amendment would like us to do.

777
The War Office and the Army Council are to disappear; the Air Ministry and the Air Council are to disappear. Speaking very parochially, I cannot quite bring myself to regard those titles as quite so old and as glorious as those of Admiralty and of the Board of Admiralty. But those bodies mean, and have meant, a great deal to the two Services concerned. I realise full well that those who are moving this Amendment have the interests of the Royal Navy just as much at heart as I have, but I should like to put it to them that it might well not be to the advantage of the Navy for us to appear to go into this new organisation on a basis of what I would term incomplete equality with the other two Services. If your Lordships persist with this Amendment there is a danger that the Navy might appear to the other two Services as being the odd man out. I do not wish to labour this argument unduly, but I know that it is one that weighs with professional naval opinion, and it is therefore a factor which your Lordships should at least weigh. I would not put it higher than that.
I should feel very differently about this if I did not myself feel that the Navy Board was a distinguished, honourable and fitting title. Historically, the old Navy Board, going back, as it does, to the time of Henry VIII, pre-dates the Board of Admiralty. The Board of Admiralty existed in that form, of the Lord High Admiral being in commission from Charles I in 1628. This is an historical point which I could perhaps argue out with my noble friend Lord Colyton later. Your Lordships will recall that Samuel Pepys was Clerk of the Acts of the Navy Board before he became Secretary of the Admiralty. It is true that the Navy Board has not been in existence for some time, but it is not true that it went out with a whimper in the Crimea War. I do not know where my noble friends have got this piece of historical fiction from, but in fact the Navy Board was abolished by the Admiralty Act of 1832. So if there was a nigger in the Navy woodpile at the time of the Crimea War it was not the Navy Board. From the point of view of history, I can see no harm in reverting to this old and distinguished title, Navy Board.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, I apologise for intervening but would my noble friend remind the House what were the functions of the Navy Board?
EARL JELLICOE: The function of the Navy Board involved matters of management affecting the Royal Navy. I do not wish to prejudge what the functions of the new Navy Board are going to be, but they will certainly include that broad function. That is another reason why I believe it is perfectly fitting that this new Board should be called the Navy Board. In any case, if we are going to move away from the title "Board of Admiralty," I, for one, would much prefer to go back to its old title of "Navy Board" than to adopt this hybrid "Admiralty Board". I would entirely agree we must not be iconoclasts in this matter. It would be absurd to abolish old and honourable names just for the sake of change, and I have sought to explain the real and solid reasons for our choice.
If some of your Lordships feel—and I have detected this from what has been said this afternoon—that we are intent upon abolishing old titles just for the fun of it, I would remind your Lordships that it is precisely because we agree we should make the minimum disturbance of tradition that my right honourable friend proposes, perhaps against the grain of logic, to retain the great titles of First Sea Lord and Second Sea Lord. It is precisely for that kind of reason that it is proposed to retain names such as Admiralty Arch, Admiralty Flag, Admiralty House, Admiralty moorings—and, as the noble Earl, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, will be glad to hear, Admiralty charts. We are also to retain Admiralty Notices to Mariners and Courts of Admiralty.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: You are giving us the case.
EARL JELLICOE: The noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, says I am giving him the case. I am not giving him the case. The point here is that, for example, the Admiralty Chart Depôt will not change its function. But the Board of Admiralty is going to change its function. The Navy Board is going to be a different animal altogether. There is a Naval vessel—I am not quite certain I know what it is—called an Admiralty

779
spud pontoon. After April 1 the Admiralty spud pontoon will do precisely what it does now, and there is therefore no reason at all why it should change its title.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: The noble Earl will agree that the functions of the Navy Board as proposed under the Bill will be different from the functions of the Navy Board associated with the name of Samuel Pepys, which surely was more in the nature of a supply organisation than otherwise.
EARL JELLICOE: It had a great deal to do with supply, but it also had a great deal to do with the actual execution of the administrative side of Naval policy. This is certainly going to be one of the functions with which the new Navy Board, whatever title it has, will be very intimately and vitally concerned.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: May I say, on this change of attitude, that I welcome very much the idea that the two senior officers should be First Sea Lord and so on. But the appointment of First Sea Lord is made by the Admiralty, in which there is a Board of Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty. As a matter of fact I was greatly honoured to-day to receive an invitation to a dinner at Greenwich, to take farewell of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty. But abolishing the Lords Commissioners, and keeping the title of "First Sea Lord" is just as bad as dropping the name of "Admiralty" from the Board.
LORD COLYTON: Far worse.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I consider that the present First Lord of the Admiralty has given his whole case away, and I think the whole House will recognise that fact.
EARL JELLICOE: I was careful to preface my remarks in this respect by saying that this was somewhat against the grain of logic, precisely because my right honourable friend was so anxious to preserve these particular and very distinguished titles. But, following the noble Earl's interjection, I would merely hastily add that I hope very much that he will be accepting the invitation which he has just received. May I say (because I think this is rather important),
780
that I am most anxious that the name "Admiralty" or "Royal Naval" should be retained for the Admiralty outside establishments—important establishment like the Admiralty Surface Weapons Establishment and the Admiralty Underwater Weapons Establishment. There are about 40 or 50 establishments of that sort. I must go carefully here, because I do not wish in this matter to shelter in any way behind opinions other than my own. But I should like to emphasise that such soundings as I have taken of naval opinion, and, indeed, of civilian opinion in and around the Admiralty, have certainly led me to the conclusion that there is a much stronger desire among those who serve the Navy to retain the word "Admiralty" for establishments such as these, these very important outside establishments, than there is enthusiasm for the retention, or for the adoption, of this hybrid "Admiralty Board".
Finally, I would say that I agree entirely with those other Lords who have expressed the view that in the last resort men are much more important than names. If I believed that by refusing to accept this Amendment I was in any way diminishing the loyalty of those in the Navy to the Naval Service, then I, for one, should not support the Bill as it stands. My noble friends have, I think, argued that the loyalty of Naval officers and ratings past and present is focused to some extent on the Board of Admiralty. But this has not always been so. Perhaps I might bring to your Lordships' recollection two extracts from the correspondence of a famous Admiral of the Fleet, Lord Fisher. In 1900 he wrote that:
"The intense ignorance of the men at the head of affairs in the Admiralty is what frightens and appals."
And, again, in February, 1916, in a letter to my father he wrote:
"Balfour can now put the case for Admiralty lethargy and apathy without you being there to refute it."
Of course things have changed for the better since then, thanks to the administration of First Lords like the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition, the noble Earl, Lord Longford, my noble friend Lord Selkirk and my noble predecessor Lord Carrington. But, more seriously, I would express the view—and it is a view which I hold strongly—that

781
the loyalty of the officers and men in the Navy is basically to the Navy itself.
May I, in conclusion, very briefly summarise my argument, which is really three-fold? In the first place, I believe that in this Bill we are making an important change in our constitutional arrangements for defence. The functions at present exercised by the Admiralty are being transferred elsewhere. Given that, I think it would be wrong to retain the title "Board of Admiralty". Secondly, if we are going to make a change, then I believe that the title "Navy Board" is better and more fitting than that suggested in the Amendment. Thirdly, and lastly, I do not believe that this change of title will in any way impair the efficiency of the Royal Navy or the loyalty of the officers and ratings who serve in it. I can assure your Lordships that it gives me no particular pleasure to advise your Lordships against accepting this Amendment. The name "Admiralty"—and, more so, what lies behind it—means as much to me as I think it does to any other Member of your Lordships' House. I should therefore not advocate the retention of this title "Navy Board", unless I believed, and, indeed, believed rather strongly, that this was both right and in the best interests of the Service that I represent.
3.46 p.m.
EARL ATTLEE: I find the noble Earl's argument entirely unconvincing. The suggestion that the titles of various offices should have some reference to function may be all very nice, but it is not of course what happens in practice. We have in this country historical precedents. Why should we not embody them in the names we use? We have the Chancellor of the Exchequer but he does not play chequers now. I suppose we have abolished the Lord High Treasurer's Office. The old Lord Treasurer, no doubt, never imagined that the Lords Commissioners exercising the functions of Lord High Treasurer would be from the Government Whips. But we are always having these changes, and always getting more and more dull. I like these old names. I like the picturesque names like "Master General of the Ordnance". I suppose that the Government would call him Minister of Gunnery, or something like that. I do
782
not think there is any need whatever to try to bring us down to the level of some newly formed State which adopts these dull epithets. In this particular case, the name "the Admiralty" embodies very ancient traditions. During my life I have not liked the word "Board" very much: it had a curious Victorian smack about it—like the Poor Law Board. I much prefer the Army Council to the Army Board, and I was Vice-President of the Army Board nearly 40 years ago. I like these names, and the longer they last the better liked they are. I object very strongly to any attempt to play down our old historical names, and to adopt something which might refer to a newly set-up State with no traditions.
LORD AILWYN: I listened with the closest interest to my noble friend the First Lord, and, as usual, he exercised his well-known charm and persuasion to try to justify what I believe to be a very thin case. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, that he has not made out his case, and I am bound to say that I am unconvinced. I rise in a very few words to support the Amendment. I believe that the Government have been unimaginative and rather unclever in this matter. One would have expected them to do all in their power to preserve wherever possible old honoured titles and traditions in fact, almost to lean over backwards in order to minimise the feelings which are bound to be aroused—feelings of nostalgia or frustration, that might be expected to follow these drastic changes in organisation. They were bound to bring feelings of that sort at the top. Instead of that, the Government seem almost to have gone out of their way to destroy utterly—I would have said needlessly and quite pointlessly—such fundamental matters as this time-honoured name of "Admiralty". There is a quite deplorable lack of vision here, an absence of discernment—in fact, if I may so put it, a lack of finesse.
In addition to the retention of the word "Admiralty", I should very much have liked to see the preservation of that honourable title, "First Lord of the Admiralty". I know I cannot discuss that, because it does not arise on the present Amendment, but one cannot but sympathise with my noble friend the First Lord in the melancholy task

783
which falls to his lot at this time. One can almost hear the bones of the old sea captains of the past, not least those of the illustrious and never-to-be-forgotten father of my noble friend the First Lord, under whom I had the honour to serve a half-century ago, stirring uneasily in their graves at this unhappy and hurtful proposal of Her Majesty's Government. I beg the Government to think once more on this matter.
LORD SHACKLETON: May a member of another Service join in and say straight away to the First Lord that I cannot really believe that the Royal Air Force will suffer such acute feelings of inferiority as to be unable to co-operate with the "Admiralty Board"? I think this oversensitivity on the part of the Admiralty, although in many ways admirable, is misplaced. The First Lord deployed as good a case as was possible. Indeed, I thought he made an extremely able case; and, for those of your Lordships who accept the principles behind the Bill, to which he referred, he destroyed the argument for the change by admitting that there was no logic in the retention of "Admiralty".
There are some noble Lords who do not like any of this change. I think I go further than some of my noble friends in accepting the principle of the new Ministry of Defence. But the history of the word "Admiralty", to which there has been much reference this afternoon, is far too varied for us to be bothered about the precise contemporary meaning that has been applied to the "Board of Admiralty". May I also refer to Sir William Laird Clowes's great History of the Navy?—and although my own personal connections are mainly with the Royal Air Force, I may say that he happened to be a cousin of mine, and therefore I was brought up on his great book. He makes very clear that the history of this word and its meaning has changed and developed. I suggest that the First Lord would have done better to consult, not his friends in the Navy but someone like Professor Richard Hoggart, who understands linguistics, and who could have pointed out to him that language is a living thing, that the meanings of words evolve and that it is perfectly acceptable to give a new use to a word which
784
already has six or seven meanings. It was Bacon who, in 1626, wrote:
"For Admiralty or Navy I see no great question will arise."
No great question does arise: the reorganisation of our defence forces will go on.
Although I am not as emotionally committed as many of your Lordships are to this particular proposal, I would urge the Government very strongly to accept the feeling of the House in this matter. It is, I think, pretty certain that if the Government resist this Amendment they will be beaten in a Division. I therefore suggest that the First Lord has done his best, that he has done a very good best, but that the case is not good enough; and I hope he will now accept this Amendment.
LORD CONESFORD: I think the balance of argument is rather closer than has been represented. Both "Admiralty" and "Navy" are very splendid words. I sympathise entirely with what the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said about what a great pity it is to do away with some of these ancient titles. In fact, I wish that the sailors who have spoken so eloquently to-day had backed me more, as did the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, when I objected nearly four years ago to the proposal that a "leading signalman" should become a "tactical communication operator". I remember asking the then First Lord, who I see has put his name to this Amendment, whether he could assure us that a naval officer would never again make a signal but would "operate a tactical communication". I so far forgot myself as to remind him [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 211, col. 120]:
"that for centuries our sailors have been masters of terse and vigorous English",
and to ask him whether it would not be better to
"honour this tradition instead of wallowing in gutless verbosity?"
The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, who was not then in the Government, asked the very pertinent question whether an Admiral would be called a "leading personnel operator".
Having said that, I can see the force of the First Lord's observations to-day. I should greatly prefer, for instance, "Board of Admiralty" to "Admiralty

785
Board", but it would have the disadvantage, such as it is, of being slightly misleading, if we consider how very different its functions are from those of the new Navy Board. I am, however, very much impressed by the fact that all the sailors and ex-sailors who have spoken feel very strongly that the name "Admiralty" should be retained. I rather agree with two of the speeches that have been made from the Front Bench opposite, that there are no great demands of logic either way, and I think that there are some advantages in supporting this Amendment, which will at least ensure that this important question is considered in another place.
LORD ALPORT: May I add very shortly to what noble Lords have said with regard to the value of the Amendment before the House? I speak completely objectively, having had no connection whatever with the Navy in the past. I am sure it is a misconception on the part of the noble Earl the First Lord, when he believes that there may be some feeling of distinction between the Navy and the other two Services if the Admiralty Board is entitled to retain its old name whereas the Boards controlling the other two Services are not. The Army, if I may speak for them in a very modest way indeed, have never, I think, felt any sense of jealousy of the special position occupied by the Navy among the Services of the Crown. Indeed, we have always been proud of that and have derived some advantage from it, because I remember that at the War Office we knew that if we could get an allowance agreed to on behalf of naval officers it was the best argument we could advance for obtaining the extension to Army officers as well.
Therefore, on these grounds, I think, there are strong arguments in support of this Amendment. Indeed, it follows an institutional principle of British life. We have on many occasions faced changing functions among our institutions, but have always maintained a continuity of value in our public life by maintaining old designations and names. Frankly, I see no reason at all why it should not be done in this case, and I hope that the Minister will accept it and that the House will support this Amendment.
LORD SOMERS: May I ask my noble friend Lord Jellicoe why he does not go the whole way and call this House the Lords Board?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: May I say one or two words? I am glad that my noble friend Lord Conesford drew attention to the appalling re-naming of certain offices which took place during my period of office. When I found it on the Paper I was no less appalled at this than he was. But it demonstrates that sometimes naval officers are not wholly wise in the selection of terminology of certain high offices. I will only say to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, that I do not think it is simply a question of nostalgia; it is not simply this point. The name "Admiralty" is known all over the world. You would miss something which would never be replaced.
I do not know—and, as a matter of fact, none of us knows—just what they want these Boards to do. We do not know whether they are a false prop to the Services, or whether, in fact, there is a genuine determination to have some decentralisation of this enormous organisation. I hope it is the latter; but if it is the latter then they want to have all the fortified strength that they can. I hope sincerely that the noble Earl will think about this. There was the suggestion that the Admiralty Board might draw allegiance to itself and take allegiance away from, perhaps, the new principle on which the pentapod is being developed. I do not know whether this is true: I am much more concerned about the outward appearance of this great Department. We do not want to do anything to make the task of the Minister of Defence more difficult than it will be. I believe that this Amendment will help, rather than make it more difficult.
4.2 p.m.
LORD ROBERTSON OF OAKRIDGE: Roses, they say, smell much the same however you label them. This Amendment has been put forward by a group of noble Lords whose opinions, especially on naval matters, are always listened to by your Lordships with great attention. They support their argument by speaking of tradition and morale; and those are both things which we all value greatly; certainly I would claim to do

787
so. They put forward their plea on behalf of the Royal Navy. It does not matter what profession or Service one comes from, I am sure every man and woman in this House and outside has real pride and love for the Royal Navy and would wish to do anything within reason that was asked for on behalf of that Service. So, for anybody to stand up this afternoon and resist this Amendment takes, shall I say, a good deal of courage. I heard the noble Lord, Lord Somers, say that anybody who did that must be mentally retarded; and that may be the trouble with me. Certainly I feel that it is a brave thing to do, in the tenor of this debate at the moment, particularly coming from me, a mere landlubbing "pongo". But I would say this, in extenuation of my crime: that I would take exactly the same view if it had been a question relating to an Amendment to retain the title of the Army Council.
I have heard it said this afternoon that one should not mind about the disappearance of the title of the Army Council. That is as may be. It is a point on which there might be two opinions. But I am not putting forward my view as a soldier. I have not been in communication with any soldiers on the subject: nor am I aware that there is any jealousy on the part of the soldiers towards this Amendment. I doubt if there is. I have been told—it is only a rumour and no more, and I hope I am in order in saying this—that the proposal for retention of the title of the First Sea Lord came from the soldiers. I do not think there is any jealousy on the part of the soldiers towards this Amendment, but I feel bound to speak against it, and I am encouraged in my reckless path by the fact that the noble Earl the First Lord—and a Jellicoe—has spoken against it. He has done what I think was extremely necessary to do; that is, to remind your Lordships what this Bill is about. He has done it, so I need not do so; but I ask the Committee to bear in mind the wisdom of his words on what this Bill is about.
The fact is that the conditions of war have changed fundamentally since the last war was fought; and there are many people who do not seem to appreciate that point. What was right in the last war is not necessarily right now. In this connection I am aware that I am speak-
788
ing against something that was said by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, during the debate on Second Reading; but I feel very strongly that if there has been a complete change in the conditions of war then one must be careful about pressing for the retention of things of the past simply on the grounds that they worked well in the past. We need a change in organisation and, as the White Paper says, we need
"an organisation in which defence rather than single Service considerations would be paramount".
That is something new. Hitherto we have had soldiers, sailors and airmen each arguing from the point of view of his own Service and hoping to arrive at a compromise.
We want a complete change of organisation; and the Committee will agree that what is more important is that we need a change in mentality; that is what is involved. Keep former names and you will run the risk of keeping the former mentality. This was a good mentality in its day; but we need a change, and we need to show that we have made a change, and we need all to see that a change has been made. That is why, it seems to me, it is right to change the name. We all hate to break with tradition; we are a people greatly attached to our traditions; and those surrounding the Royal Navy are among the strongest and dearest of all. But there comes a time in history when one has to be careful about traditions, when one can become a prisoner of traditions, when for the sake of tradition one resists necessary changes. I think we have to be careful about that. There come times when one should break with tradition and endeavour to build up a new one. I think this is one of those times.
It has been argued by many noble Lords this afternoon that the Amendment is right for the sake of morale. I have said before that I do not want to underestimate the importance and value of morale; but whose morale are we thinking about? I have not had as close contacts with senior officers in the Royal Navy as some of those who have supported this Amendment have had; but I am not without some contacts, and I listened without surprise to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, when he told us that he did not think there was any great enthusiasm for the Amendment

789
among those officers. That confirms what I have heard. Indeed, I have heard it said that they do not care about it too much, not because they fear jealousy from the other Services, but because they do not want to give the appearance that the Royal Navy are "dragging their feet" over this new organisation and over the great changes that it will imply. As to the officers and ratings of the Royal Navy and their morale, I find it difficult to believe they will fight their ships less skilfully and less bravely because the focus of their loyalty is a Navy Board instead of an Admiralty Board. I find it difficult to believe that it will make that difference in battle; and, after all, that is what loyalty is about. The only test of loyalty that is worth while is what happens in battle, and I find it difficult to believe that it will make that difference.
The Government have already made a number of concessions on this Bill. A long time ago, when the Bill was being drawn up, they agreed that the First Sea Lord should retain his title. Although the Chief of the Imperial General Staff was to drop his rather grandiloquent title, the First Sea Lord was to retain his. That has been accepted, and good luck to him! Then, when this Bill was under discussion in another place, the Government agreed that the titles of the three Ministers who are to have special responsibilities towards the three Services should be modified in some way to increase their status, a concession which undoubtedly gave great pleasure to that body of opinion which, as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, rightly said, exists and which does not really accept the rightness of having a single political department in charge of defence. It gave great heart to those people. The Government made these concessions, but I, for one, hope that the Government will now draw a line to concessions of this sort, which seem unimportant in themselves, which are urged upon us with arguments that, as it were, touch the heartstrings, that bring back nostalgic memories and touch our pride, yet which are really unsound in themselves. I hope that the Government will draw the line, or they will end up with a Bill that does not mean very much.
LORD KENNET: Only two reasons have been adduced against this Amendment: first, that it might make the Army and the Air Force jealous—and this point has not been supported by noble Lords associated with those Services; and, secondly, that when demoting an organisation, as this Bill proposes to do in the case of the Navy Board or Board of the Admiralty, it is wrong to keep the same name. You must change it, in order to rub it in. I would remind the House that various other organs in our history have been demoted over the years. The Monarchy was sharply demoted in the 17th century, and we did not find it necessary to re-christen the King "the hereditary President." This House itself, at the beginning of this century, was sharply demoted, and we did not find it necessary to re-christen it the Board of Parliamentary Revision. I think that, once we begin with this principle that when we move anybody down one in the scale of power, we must give them a new name, we shall never get anywhere and may, indeed, make future such moves difficult.
LORD FORBES: In view of the feelings of the House, may I ask the Government to make a tactical withdrawal, which would not be regarded as a retreat?
4.13 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CARRINGTON): I have listened with great interest to the debate on the Amendment moved by my noble friends behind me, and I have listened with sympathy to what they have said, since I know very well that they have moved this Amendment with the idea of preserving and continuing the important and historic title, "Board of Admiralty" or "Admiralty Board" which is held in such high esteem. I think that they have made a formidable case. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I intervene for a short time, but since we have heard from the First Lord of the Admiralty, and from all available ex-First Lords, I think it right that I should not remain silent, lest it be thought that I was at variance with my noble friend the present First Lord. I had the honour to be First Lord of the Admiralty for four years, and there can be no-one, not even the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition, who is prouder than I am of his connection with the Royal Navy or

791
more determined to see its tradition and heritage maintained. I hope, therefore, that my noble friends who have promoted this Amendment will acquit me of any motive other than to serve the Royal Navy if I say one or two things on the other side of the case.
My noble friend the First Lord has explained that the Board of Admiralty is really the Lord High Admiral of the United Kingdom for the time being or the Commissioners of the Board for the time being for executing the office of the High Admiral. There is a distinction, as he has said, between the Board of Admiralty and the term, "Admiralty". This ancient and honourable body is greatly respected, but I confess to having doubts whether my noble friend Lord. Teynham and others are right when they suggest that the Board of Admiralty has ever been, or ever can be, the focus of loyalty in the Royal Navy. Certainly, my experience has been rather more like that of Lord Fisher, who thought that the average officer and rating might greatly have respected some of the individuals on the Board of Admiralty, but that the Board of Admiralty itself was generally regarded as a rather remote body of men, who made irrevocable decisions based on what was considered the most inadequate and out-of-date evidence, long after decisions had to be taken and months after they ceased to have any relevance. This may be rather a harsh view, and I do not go along with it; but I do not believe that the change of term from Admiralty to Navy Board would have much effect on the uniformed members of the Royal Navy. I think that their loyalties go much deeper than that.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, that the real crux of the matter seems to be that it was decided by the Government, with the agreement, I think, of most competent observers—certainly of noble Lords on this side of the House, and I think also of more noble Lords on the other side than might at first be generally supposed—that the time had come to reorganise our de fence set-up. It was felt that, now that the Services were irrevocably joined together, the separateness of their organisation was a hindrance rather than a help. And, as my noble friend reminded your Lordships,
792
this Bill provides for a single unified Department in place of the four Ministries that now exist, with a Secretary of State to be in charge of the three Services. The Defence Council will take over largely the duties of the Board of Admiralty and of the Army and Air Councils.
These are far-reaching changes. The Admiralty, as we now know it, will disappear, and an entirely new outlook will be necessary among those who work in the Service Departments and will now find themselves working in one new Defence Department. I do not know—I think that it is arguable—whether this drastic change should be recognised by a change of title, and I am not sure that the name "Admiralty Board" should be kept just for the sake of retaining the word "Admiralty". Because, like my noble friend Lord Conesford, I am not sure that I like the suggestion for "Admiralty Board" better than "Navy Board". But if your Lordships insist upon this Amendment, why should not the other two Services ask that their previous titles be reinstated? If that were to happen I think that there would be a danger that the purpose of this reorganisation would be forgotten and that once again the Services would tend to revert to their old independence.
I remember that Lord Fisher, who has already been mentioned by the First Lord, once described the Board of Admiralty in the following terms:
"That mysterious body, the Board of Admiralty, without a body to be kicked or a soul to be damned. Admirals and all are involuntarily compelled to an obedience to and a boundless faith in that mysterious force above them, so ubiquitous that while regulating the length of a shoelace at Portsmouth, it castigates the Admiral of a distant Fleet, reminding one of the elephant's trunk, which can as easily pick up a pin as tear up an oak tree by its roots."
I wonder whether the Board of Admiralty, with all its historic connections and its great associations with our history, when it ceases to exist, when it loses its power and becomes, to all intents and purposes, a shadow of its former self—I wonder whether we should not rather see it disappear and start again, with a new, yet ancient and honourable title.
Those are the arguments on the other side. But I think, having listened to what your Lordships have said, there is

793
no doubt that the majority of the Committee feel that the word "Admiralty" should be retained in some way or another. I think, as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has said, that if we went to a Division the Government would be beaten. I know that my noble friend the First Lord would be happy to have conversations with the Minister of Defence between now and the next stage of the Bill to see whether anything can be done to meet the point of view which your Lordships have expressed, and I wonder whether my noble friend who moved this Amendment would consider withdrawing it on the Committee stage. I cannot say that anything can be done, because I have not the authority or power to do so. But I can represent, as I will, and as I know my noble friend the First Lord will, the sense of opinion of your Lordships in Committee about this matter. If my noble friend will withdraw this Amendment, I will most certainly do that.
LORD SILKIN: I hope that the Amendment will not be withdrawn. I think the noble Earl will be strengthened in his representations, when he makes them, if he has the feeling of this Committee behind him. At present, all he can say is that he has heard a number of speeches. I think he ought to have the decision of the Committee, and then he can go back and will be in a much stronger position to make representations to his right honourable friend.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: I hope that my noble friend will accede to what the Leader of the House has suggested. I have seldom known an appeal of that kind made by any Leader of the House to be rejected by the Mover of an Amendment of any Party. When the appeal is made by a Leader in whom we have such confidence and for whom we have such affection, I think it would be very odd for this Committee not to accede to it. I would just add this. I am not going to argue the merits of this for one moment (I said a few things on the last occasion), but I think that the argument is pretty nicely balanced. I feel—and I appeal to Members opposite, and those who have been Ministers—that it is really an impossible position for a Minister who is not the Minister in supreme charge of a particular
794
measure to take a critical decision immediately in Committee. We have always recognised that where the leading Minister is here, then the thing is put to him, and, in my experience, on both sides no Minister in that position has ever failed to give a firm decision. But neither the First Lord nor, as he said, the Leader of the House is in that position in regard to this Bill. We know that there will be perfectly sincere representations made. After all, we all turn up here, and it is just as easy for us to vote next week as it is to vote to-day. I think it would be a reasonable thing for my noble friend to withdraw the Amendment now and to let it come back to us on the next stage of the Bill.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Before any decision is taken in this matter, I may say that I appreciate the spirit in which the noble Lord, the Leader of the House, has put up his proposition that he would have his Government reconsider this matter in the light of the debate to-day, but it is the province of the mover of the Amendment to say whether or not he will withdraw. I do not think I have ever been in a debate in your Lordships' House where the majority feeling has been more adequately expressed than it has been this afternoon. We have no guarantee at the moment from the Leader of the House that the will of the Committee as expressed this afternoon will be accepted. I think the noble and gallant Lord who moved the Amendment will have to consider this. I hope, too, that before withdrawing the Amendment he will consider that, in any case, we should be notified beforehand that the Amendment will be put down again on Report, so that those who have supported it today may reassemble and vote on it at that stage I think it would have been much better and wiser for the Leader of the House to accept the view of the Committee and then take the case to his Government.
LORD SILKIN: Can we have an assurance that there will be a Report stage?
THE EARL OF SWINTON: It can be done on Third Reading.
LORD CARRINGTON: As the noble Earl says, it can be done on Third

795
Reading. I may say that, in saying what I have said, I have no intention of trying to outsmart noble Lords on the other side. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, is not suggesting that.
LORD SILKIN: No.
LORD CARRINGTON: Of course, there will be the opportunity to divide. I should have thought, from the point of view of the noble Lord who moved the Amendment, that if the Government were prepared to accept the Amendment (I can make no promise, but I will ask my right honourable friend to reconsider it) there would perhaps be more chance of his getting his way.
LORD TEYNHAM: I appreciate very much the views which have been put by the First Lord and by the noble Lord the Leader of the House, but I feel that I must have a strong recommendation from the Leader of the House to the Minister of Defence that this word "Admiralty" will be kept: otherwise I feel I must reserve the right to move the same Amendment on the Report stage. On that condition, I am quite willing to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Consequential and transitional]:
4.27 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON LORD SHACKLETON moved, in subsection (6), after paragraph (a) to insert:
"(b) 'future service authority' means the Secretary of State charged with general responsibility for defence, the Defence Council, the Navy Board, the Army Board or the Air Force Board, if Her Majesty is pleased to make the arrangements described in section 1(1) of this Act."
The noble Lord said: I rise to move the Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Alexander of Hillsborough. The purpose of this Amendment is to find out what really are the Government's intentions (perhaps I might have the attention of the First Lord on this) in regard to the Joint Staff that are going to exist in the new Ministry of Defence. On this we have found it difficult to establish exactly what the Government are hoping to do. There is a great suspicion—and, indeed,
796
it has been pressed strongly by noble Lords who have been critical of this particular Bill—that one of the chief results will be the establishment of an enormous machine, a Pentapod, filled with tens of thousands of staff officers, and that there will also be a duplication of some of these Services in the old War Office, Air Ministry and Board of Admiralty buildings.
The noble Earl the First Lord knows that, on the whole, I am in favour of the proposals in this Bill, and I am not debating the entire question which we dealt with on Second Reading. However, we have very little information, and I should like to draw the attention of the First Lord to what was said by Mr. Thorneycroft when this question was debated on a Motion on the White Paper. He then said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 682 (No. 159), col. 571]:
"The numbers will, I admit, be about 25,000 in the future"—
this is in regard to the headquarters—
"if we take all the Service Departments together. We shall have to study whether we can reduce staff, but the number will start at about the same. I attach importance to reductions of staff where they can be achieved."
Then he went on to say something which is not relevant to my main argument, but in fairness, I will quote it:
"But the savings there are nothing like as big as savings which could be secured if we get the operational requirements right and get real control over cost effectiveness studies, estimates and the rest."
I grant the force of that argument. It might be worth while seeing an increase in the size of the staffs if a gain in efficiency was going to result. But the Minister of Defence at that time indicated that he was hoping to get reductions of staff.
Let us now look at what has happened. We have to-day—and it is only a few minutes ago that I was able to get it—the Defence Estimates. I did not know they were published. I tried to get them in another place, but they did not have them. Obviously we are more efficient down here. We find that there is going to be a very big increase. The amount of money that will be spent under the Ministry of Defence's Central Vote on Headquarters and Outstations, goes up by £2 million. When we look at the

797
actual numbers of headquarters organisation, we see that the Central Defence Staffs go up from 757 to 1,484, and the Defence Secretariat from 282 to 534. The Central Defence Scientific Staff goes up, and the Common Services go up from 39 to 445, making quite a considerable increase in the total salaries and wages. In the absence of all the Votes, it is not possible to make a direct comparison, but when we look at Vote 3 in the Army Vote on the Army Department Headquarters, where we should reasonably expect, as a result of these transfers, to see a reduction (and I would especially draw the First Lord's attention to this point) we see an increase. We find the same thing in regard to Air Force Department Headquarters.
I do not know whether these figures are as a result of increased pay, because I have not been able to break down the numbers, but the fact remains that, at a time when the Minister of Defence had initially said that he hoped he would see a reduction or, at least, that it would remain about the same, we see quite a big increase. It is possible to argue that there will be a big increase for a period of years, and that it will be subsequently reduced. But I would ask the Government to "come clean" on this, and not to start talking about possible savings when in fact there are going to be considerable increases.
The purpose of this Amendment is to establish what is going to result in regard to this matter. The Government may not have been able to answer these questions at an earlier stage, but the new Bill will be coming into force within a few weeks and it must now be possible to see the sort of pattern of organisation. Concern was expressed that when the joint operations centre was set up, there would be duplication in the Service Departments, and I would instance particularly the operational Departments. In fact, is the Air Ministry still going to retain its War Room? How would it operate? I think we ought to hear from the Government on this subject, and I hope we shall be able to get a satisfactory explanation of the increase which is already apparent from the Defence Estimates 1964–65. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 35, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Shackleton.)
LORD SHEPHERD: May I, in a few words, support my noble friend in this Amendment? He spoke of the figures which are now available in the Defence Estimates, and about the obvious increases there may be in Whitehall. Many of us have had experience in the Services. The noble Earl opposite well knows that headquarters over the years tend to grow. The noble Earl had service in the Middle East, during the War, and he may well remember that when the Eighth Army, as it then became, was desperately short of officers in the field, there was never any question of a reduction of the headquarters in Cairo.
When I was in Singapore last year, where we have a new set-up, an integrated headquarters, I expected to see a proper form of co-ordinated headquarters, with the various headquarters staffs of the three Services integrated. What in fact has happened? The noble Earl will know this to be true, because it is an Admiral who is Commander-in-Chief. The headquarters side of each of the Services has remained exactly as it was before we had this combined headquarters; they have remained basically the same. What has happened is that you have superimposed a new set-up over these three Services, with more officers, more men, more signals equipment and more transport.
We all support the bringing of the Services together, because we believe that this will, or should, bring efficiency. But I do not believe it is right that the numbers of our headquarters should grow, as we know they have grown, unless there is a very special reason for them to do so. If this Amendment were accepted, or at least the principle behind it, then where the numbers at headquarters grew above the figure which is suggested in the Amendment, the Secretary of State would have to make a case for it. I believe that in many instances within the Services these headquarters have grown without a case having to be made to the Minister responsible for that Service. They have grown little by little, without anybody appreciating it. We anticipate that this may be so.
This Amendment relates merely to the first two years. The first two years of the life of this headquarters will be

799
important, because it is during that period that the principle (shall we call it?) will be established. The figures which the Ministry of Defence consider adequate for those two years I think will become the permanent establishment. I hope the Minister can give us some assurance on this matter.
LORD SHACKLETON: I should have made clear that I was speaking, with your Lordships' permission, to the whole of this group of Amendments, and not merely to the one that I moved.
LORD ROBERTSON OF OAKRIDGE: Might I briefly support in principle what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has said: namely, that the numbers we are likely to see in the new Defence Staff appear to be very great and are clearly due to the fact that the Government have chosen to work upon what one might call the principle of cohabitation rather than integration. As an immediate step, that may be a necessary or a tolerable thing to do. I myself have some doubt whether it is good to deal with this matter by an Amendment to this Bill. This is an enabling Bill and does not go into detail of what is to happen. That will be explained later, and it may be that a formal Amendment to this Bill on this subject is a rather heavy way of dealing with the point. But I think there is a case for asking the Government to tell us in which way they are proposing to go, and what steps they are going to take to reduce these swollen staffs to something that is more in tune with the revolution in organisation for which we are looking.
EARL JELLICOE: I feel that I should make it clear straight away that I am not at all opposed to what I think to be the principal objective behind this Amendment. The new Ministry of Defence will inevitably be a very large Ministry, and we all wish to prevent the leviathan from swelling still further, save for some very good reason. We are all too perfectly familiar with the operation of Parkinson's Law, and any of us who has any Service experience, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, pointed out, knows how quickly these things can grow unless one is quite determined from the start to keep the thing down to size.
That said, I should like to add that I tried to make it clear at Second Reading that it was wrong to assume that, by some
800
mysterious process of growth, the number of staff in the new Ministry as at April 1 this year would be larger than the numbers of the four Ministries combined a year ago, at April 1, 1963. There is some very complicated arithmetic here and I think I should get into very great difficulty if I tried to explain it across the Floor of the House, but I should very much like the opportunity between now and Third Reading to explain what is in the Estimates by letter, if I may, to the noble Lords who have just spoken. But the position is this. I can renew the assurance that there is, in fact, going to be no overall increase over the 1963–64 figures, despite the appearances of the Estimates. What has happened is that the 1963–64 figures for each Service Department have been adjusted in order to simplify the comparison between the two years for each Department separately, and this gives the misleading impression that there has been an overall increase.
EARI ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Either there has or there has not.
EARL JELLICOE: In fact, there has not. I should like to explain this point in more detail. It is excessively complicated and one needs to be something of a senior wrangler to digest these particular figures. That is why they are not in the Estimates, despite the appearances.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Surely Government figures for Parliament ought not to be presented in a form that only a senior wrangler can understand? Why should they not be presented in the Paper in a form which speaks for itself?
EARL JELLICOE: I think the noble Earl, the Leader of the Opposition has a point there, if I may say so. That is for the present, but I can renew the assurance that there is not an overall increase. As for the future, I would merely wish to remind your Lordships that my right honourable friend made it clear in another place that, once the new Department is going, it will certainly be his aim to reduce staff and not to allow increases; and he believes this will be possible as a result of the greater efficiency due to improved business methods and also to some rationalisation. As your Lordships know, there is going to

801
be some rationalisation—and it is written into the White Paper—across-the-board in certain areas. This has already been decided on. Headquarters Signals, Intelligence and Public Relations are three, and there are other possible areas. I would not wish to be tied down, but the kind of things concerned are lands and operations of motor transport of the various Services. There will be fields for economies which may be won here. That at least is the aim of my right honourable friend, and I can certainly confirm—and am glad to do so—that this is his very firm aim.
That said, I wonder whether I could briefly address myself to the Amendment itself. I know that it is in something of the nature of a probing Amendment, or I take it to be so, but I should like to say why it would be difficult to accept if it were more than a probing Amendment. In the first place, there is no precedent, so far as I know, for limiting in this way by Statute the numbers employed by specific Government Departments, and I do not believe that the fact that there is no precedent for this is a fluke. There is, in fact, a very good reason for this lack of a precedent: that it is surely right for the Government of the day to have freedom to adjust the size and shape of Government Departments to match changing circumstances.
I would have thought that principle applied with particular force to this particular Ministry which is likely to be faced with sudden emergencies. I do not think I need elaborate on what sort of sudden emergency, but I might merely say that I do not believe it to be a remote possibility, in the troubled circumstances of the world to-day, that we might be faced with a grave and sudden emergency abroad which necessitates an urgent increase in the number of our Central Defence Staff. Surely, in such an emergency your Lordships would not wish the freedom of action of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence to be fettered in the way proposed by the machinery in subsection (2) of the new clause. That emergency could take place in the first two years which this clause covers.
I would feel differently if there were not plenty of controls already. As your Lordships know, numbers of staff are
802
controlled, in another place, through Estimates; that is, of course, a money control. Nevertheless, the Estimates show the related staff proposed in some detail and the scope for variation as a result is really pretty limited. Then there are the Departmental controls, and, last but not least, the Treasury control; and those of your Lordships who have tried to get staff increases through the eye of the Treasury needle know how effective that Treasury control can be. I do not wish to labour this particular point, but there are of course technical deficiencies in the particular Amendment; I would not wish to rest heavily on these deficiencies. I hope I have made it clear that I am certainly at one with noble Lords opposite in their desire to ensure that this new leviathan is kept down to size. More important, my right honourable friend is at one with them in that very firm objective. But I am not able to advise your Lordships to accept this particular technique of achieving that objective.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I am much obliged to the noble Earl for his reply to this Amendment. I am quite prepared to accept the charge that this may have been a probing Amendment, but I am quite sure that he understands the difficulty, in going into a Committee on a Bill of this nature, of getting an Amendment which could really secure the provisions you want. This is an enabling Bill and we are placed in a very difficult position if we want to put into words our exact objective. We felt that we were completely justified in putting down this Amendment in its three sections because of the nature of the statement originally justifying the Bill—the White Paper that explained to us what is going to happen in actual organisation and the distribution of powers and of accommodation. It was quite clear, for example, that instead of a Ministry of Defence being one of real co-ordination, it was to be turned into a unitary power of defence, housed in a special building, and was going to have at least about 25,000 people of one sort or another on its staff. It was also clear that in certain respects duplication was bound to take place.
I have always argued myself, as the first Minister of Defence in peace time, that it was never necessary to have a separate Chief of Staff advising the

803
Minister. I did not need it, and the Secretary of State does not need it any more than I did then. You have your three Chiefs of Staff; they are there, they meet together and they decide who, for the particular year, is to be their chairman. I found no difficulty at all in doing the business in that way and, of course, of having the opportunity myself, whenever I desired, of taking the chair at the Chiefs of Staff Committee. There is no need for this extra work. I wonder how many are on the staff of the Chief of Staff. I have not the slightest idea at the present moment; I have not been able to look it up in detail. But when you come to the reorganisation of the civil as well as the military side, then the thing grows.
The noble Earl says: "Think of the difficulty; all those who have been in power in the past know how difficult it is; it is like getting it through the eye of a needle to get something through the Treasury". Is it? Did they not hear about Ferranti? Have they not heard about the enormous expenditure of £251 million in one certain Department, partly civil and partly war, air navigation. Wasted! This Government has been able to put money through the Treasury like a flowing millrace. And the Budget now is—I will not say double, but getting on for nearly double what it was twelve years ago. And this Defence Department comes along now with an Estimate this year of over £2,000 million. Is it difficult to get money through the Treasury? The record of the Government as a whole makes it appear that is quite a wrong assumption.
When you come to look at the detailed analysis as to how it would work, you will have in the Ministry of Defence not only a separate Chief Staff Officer, with his military and civil staff serving him, but in respect of every Department covered—that is, the Defence Science Department, and each of the three Service Departments—a duplication in the central office. That will include the three opposite numbers to the Permanent Secretary of the Department he is going to serve in the Central Ministry; Admiralty, War Ministry, Air Ministry—all three will have to have duplications of staff, at the very highest salaries, to do the job that still has to be done for them at the base in the Service Departments. Who is going to
804
take the place in the actual central department of the present Accounts Officer? And you are going to duplicate him in the Ministry of Defence. Why? And you may rest assured that this experience, which I say will be expected to happen under the White Paper, will be repeated in other Departments as well. Therefore, we had to fall back upon this method, in which I was greatly assisted by my noble friend.
We talked over the difficulty of bringing it up on this Bill—how we could have a probing Amendment on an enabling Bill, to make sure that this was properly discussed, and that there should be some check in the Houses of Parliament upon how money is unnecessarily wasted by the duplication of work. And it would not be the first time that a so-called amalgamation had merely become the building of an empire: you need only look at big business for that. There seems to be no special reason for the Government, which has to go to the taxpayer for all its money, to be put in the position of the take-over bidder. You should have a very much better idea of things like that. There will not be any chance for the Government to have resources like some take-over bidders, who will perhaps sell out buildings and land they take over and then lease them back to the shareholders. You cannot do that in Government finance, but you can go on building an empire of people you have to pay for. And you create it and push it up until you have a cost account with the actual amount of defence rendered out of all proportion to common sense.
Here we are now, with the three Services very much reduced. This was the settled pattern under the Ministry of Defence in 1957; it was going to show an immediate economy a year afterwards of £100 million, merely by wiping out National Service and by substituting for our general defence in the main nuclear power. You would be able, we were told, to get along nicely on a voluntary basis in the three Services. What has happened? Can the Government explain it to us to-night? What was the Budget in 1957? Ask your secretaries to tell you now. And ask what the Budget is going to be in the current year—£2,000 million-

805
plus. And we are asked to approve an organisation now which would undoubtedly unnecessarily increase the personnel, especially at the top, in dealing with management of the new system. I hope that, unless we get a better explanation than we have had yet from the noble Earl, we may persuade enough Members of the Committee to show their opprobrium in the Division Lobby. I do not want to divide, but unless we get something better, I think we ought to do that.
LORD SHACKLETON: May I press the noble Earl the First Lord to overcome these mathematical difficulties? It is, of course, always possible in a Defence Estimate or any similar document to put simple notes to explain figures which are difficult to understand. But I cannot understand how it is that the Ministry of Defence, the central part, has increased in terms of senior staff by, say, 40 people, and yet for the senior staff at Air Force Department headquarters we still find exactly the same number of Air Commodores—or, rather, there is one Air Commodore less, one Air Vice-Marshal less; but there are still five Air Marshals and two Air Chief Marshals. Surely some have moved over; and if they have not, where does the Defence Staff of the new headquarters come from? Have they been taken from other units, from Service units, or have they had to create new posts of Air or Flag rank to fill these posts? This is why one is so concerned about this set-up. We should have no desire to press this Amendment to a Division if we felt that the Government could explain this point. It may be necessary. Let them say, "Yes, there is going to be an increase, for the following reasons". But here we have figures which suggest that there is an increase, and I should have thought it was possible to explain the reason.
What worries us is that the Air Ministry (and they may have very understandable reasons) maintain a war room, Assistant Chief of Staff of Air Operations with all his directorates; and, in addition, there is to be a new central headquarters doing the same sort of thing. This is where we get very technical again. Is the line of communication going to be through the Service
806
Department headquarters, or will it go straight to Command? It does suggest that this particular reorganisation—and I am grateful for the views of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge—is a bit of a paper tiger. They have produced something which is going to produce greater efficiency, and we hope economies, and all that is happening is that we are getting the principle of cohabitation instead of real integration. I think the Government ought to tell us clearly how they are doing it.
5.0 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: I should like again to compliment noble Lords opposite on the ingenuity with which they have framed their probing Amendment and also the persistence with which they have probed. On the question of the total staffs I trust that the noble Lord will accept the assurance I have given him, that there is not going to be a net increase. I have made it perfectly clear that I should be willing to go over the figures with him and noble Lords opposite in detail. If they are not satisfied, there is no reason at all, so far as I know, why they should not put this Amendment down again at our next stage. I assure them that I will communicate with them in advance of that, although there will be only a short time.
That said, I should like to speak on a couple of points which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has just mentioned. I was not certain of the precise part of the Estimates which he was quoting, but I think the explanation for what he was saying lies in the first sentence of paragraph 32 of the White Paper:
"The Naval, General and Air Staffs, with the joint Service staffs of the present Ministry of Defence, will together constitute the Defence Staff."
Thus, for instance (transferring it to the Navy), the present Vice-Chief of the Naval staff, or the present First Sea Lord, will be a member of the joint Service unified staff, but he will also be the single Service channel and will retain that single Service responsibility. Therefore, to answer the second specific question which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, put to me, so far as operational control is concerned (I speak subject to correction, but I am virtually certain that what I am saying is right), on single Service matters, when they

807
affect merely one Service, the operational chain of command will be from that Service to the field. Where it is a joint Service matter, then it will go out through the joint Staff, but the single Service chain of command will still remain for single Service matters.
With regard to the points which the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition has made, may I just take up one or two which are in my mind at present? He has criticised the retention of the Chief of the Defence Staff in the new set-up. I have, in fact, written to him to-day to explain the Government's intentions in this particular field. I would say merely that, if that is a criticism, it is of course a criticism of the existing set-up. There is at the present time, alongside and over the three Chiefs of Staff, an existing Chief of Defence Staff. This is not an augmentation or increase in staff.
The noble Earl also referred to, and slightly pulled my leg on what I have said about, difficulties of getting increases through the Treasury. There I was talking about staff increases. I am sure that, as Minister responsible in his time for so many Departments, he will agree with me how difficult it is to get the Treasury to assent to staff increases. I was limiting myself quite specifically to staff increases when I was replying to that question.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I think that if I totted up the increase in the staff in the Ministry of Defence since 1950 the figure would be quite astonishing.
EARL JELLICOE: I shall be glad to look into that. The noble Earl also asked me who I thought would exercise the financial control—who would take the place of the present accounting officer in the present Service Ministries. As is pointed out in the White Paper, it is clear that there will be a separate Vote for each particular Department. The Navy Department of the Ministry of Defence will have a Vote, and the accounting officer for that Vote will be the Second Permanent Under-Secretary for the Royal Navy. He will be the successor to the present Secretary to the Admiralty. That is the position. So far as the particular Service is concerned. I do not think that this will
808
make a vast change from the present position.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Do I understand, taking the Admiralty as an example, that all the accounts every year will have to be gone through primarily in the Ministry of Defence as such, and not in the Service Department, whatever that service may be called in the Naval sphere? Is the basic work of the accounting officer to be within the Service Department? How otherwise will the accounting officer in the Ministry of Defence be able to deal with the whole of the accounts? As I understand it, there is a duplication there which has not so far been explained in the speech of the noble Earl.
EARL JELLICOE: I think these would be brought together in the Defence Secretariat; but in the preparation of the Vote for the particular Service and the particular Department, the Second Permanent Under-Secretary concerned will be responsible, as I understand it, ab initio.
I appreciate the reasons why noble Lords have put down this particular Amendment, but I would ask them, whether they are satisfied or dissatisfied with the answer which I have given, not to press it, because if they do, I feel bound to say that I shall have to rehearse to your Lordships all the technical limitations which attach to it. I would assure noble Lords opposite that, whatever they may feel on this question of staff economy, I have sought to explain that there is not going to be a net increase. I hope that they will not press this particular Amendment, which is, technically, highly deficient.
5.7 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: I do not want to prolong this debate. I am as well aware as is the noble Earl of the technical deficiencies of this Amendment. It is, however, not unusual to have an Amendment of this kind in order to raise a particular matter. I reckon now that our case is a good deal better than I thought it was when we started. I think it is quite unforgivable to have a matter of this kind in such a state of obscurity that it is not possible to put it before Parliament. It is a mere coincidence that the Defence Estimates

809
came out to-day and that I was able to find evidence of what I suspected. I admit that there are various explanations (such as "deduct ten officers by March, 1965"), but there is no attempt to pull the facts together in the statement on Defence.
I do not want to go into a defence debate, because we shall be coming to the Defence Estimates. Unless the Government can give us more information we are going to be in grave difficulties. Parliamentary control will slide away completely—we know that Treasury control works only in a certain way, and then, in two years' time, the Public Accounts Committee will have something nasty to say and it will be another Government who will get the blame for it. In the circumstances, I do not feel inclined to withdraw the Amendment.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: We will not withdraw at the moment. What I am perturbed about is that I am not getting clear answers. May I start again on the question of the Accounting Officer? Is it to be understood from what the noble Earl said that each present Permanent Under-Secretary to the Service departments will personally be transferred to the Ministry of Defence in order to act as the principal Accounting Officer for the Service he has left as a Permanent Under-Secretary? Is that the position? Otherwise, who is, what will his rank be, and what will his duties cover? Will they include his being an Accounting Officer, and will he in each of the Service departments take the place of the officer who has left? I am bound to come to the conclusion from the White Paper that there will be duplication. I have had no clear answer on this. If I do net get a clear answer, then we ought
to divide the Committee, not on the merits of the Amendment before us, but on the fact that we have not got this matter cleared up.
EARL JELLICOE: I find myself in some difficulty here, because it seems to me that the general framework is perfectly clearly explained in the White Paper.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I have read it.
EARL JELLICOE: I am sure the noble Earl has read it, but I would assure your Lordships that paragraph 59 says:
"The Permanent Under-Secretary of State will be responsible for co-ordinating the views of military, scientific, and civil administrative staffs. In this he will be assisted by the Second Permanent Under-Secretary of State (Defence Secretariat) and by the appointment of a Deputy Under-Secretary of State (Programmes and Budget). The latter will control a part of the Defence Secretariat which will be responsible for the full scope and content of the defence programme and the Defence Budget."
The Second Permanent Under-Secretary for each of the three Services will work closely with the Deputy Under-Secretary of State (Programmes and Budget) in drawing up that part which specifically concerns him and will be the Accounting Officer for that specific Service. It does not seem to me that this involves a duplication.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: It does.
EARL JELLICOE: I find it difficult to follow the noble Earl here.
5.13 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents 26; Not-Contents 60.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Hobson, L.

Shepherd, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Inman, L.

Silkin, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Kennet, L.

Summerskill, B.

Champion, L. [Teller.]

Latham, L.

Taylor, L.

Chorley, L.

Lindgren, L.

Walston, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Morrison, L.

Williams, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Rusholme, L.

Williamson, L.

Gardiner, L.

St. Davids, V.

Willis, L.

Henderson, L.

Shackleton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Albemarle, E.

Derwent, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Allerton, L.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Lansdowne, M.

Ampthill, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lothian, M.

Atholl, D.

Dundee, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Auckland, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Merrivale, L.

Bessborough, E.

Falkland, V.

Molson, L.

Blakenham, V.

Ferrers, E.

Newton, L.

Bossom, L.

Forbes, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Boston, L.

Forster of Harraby, L.

Sandford, L.

Braye, L.

Fortescue, E.

Sandwich, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Selkirk, E.

Buccleuch and Queensberry, D.

Gosford, E.

Somers, L.

Carrington, L.

Greenway, L.

Spens, L.

Chesham, L.

Grenfell, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hanworth, V.

Suffield, L.

Conesford, L.

Hastings, L.

Swinton, E.

Craigton, L.

Hawke, L.

Teynham, L.

Crathorne, L.

Hereford, V.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Daventry, V.

Horsbrugh, B.

Vestey, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Ingleby, V.

Wynford, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

BRITISH NATIONALITY BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES ACT, 1923, AMENDMENT BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
FIREWORKS BILL
Brought from the Commons; read la, and to be printed.

DIVORCE (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
5.25 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, this Bill deals with some rather fine points of divorce law and, I am afraid, is a very different matter from the subject that has just been before your Lordships. As is probably known to the House, the law of divorce in Scotland has always proceeded upon rather different lines from that in England and has been dealt with by
812
separate legislation. For the same reason, the Report of the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce, which is contained in the White Paper Cmd. 9678, presented in March, 1956, contains separate recommendations for Scotland from those which it made for England.
The Bill to which I am asking your Lordships to give a Second Reading this afternoon puts into effect some of the most important recommendations which the Royal Commission made for the reform of the law in Scotland—that is to say, the most important that have not already found their way into law by one means or another. The Bill contains a number of instances where the law in Scotland is being brought into line with that already existing South of the Border. There are two or three reforms which are peculiar to Scots law, dealing with matters which do not arise under English law but which, nevertheless, will bring Scots law very much into line with that of England; and there is one innovation which was recommended by the Royal Commission both for Scotland and for England but has not yet arrived in this country. I think, however, that it is merely an extension of a principle which is already accepted on both sides of the Border, and I hope, therefore, that it will not be objectionable from that point of view. As this Bill is being introduced into your Lordships' House and the matter is technical and complicated, I think I should be doing wrong if I did not explain as quickly as I can, but nevertheless, I hope, with a sufficient amount of detail, the provisions of this Bill.

813
My Lords, Clause 1 is the equivalent of Section 1 of the Matrimonial Causes Act of last year which your Lordships passed; and, in fact, as the drafting of the clause shows, in Scotland it is really more a matter for the removal of doubt than a substantive change in the law. The law at the moment is that if a spouse commits a matrimonial offence and the other party to the marriage, knowing of the offence, later has sexual intercourse with the offending spouse, then there is a presumption raised in law that the innocent spouse has condoned the offence; and condonation is a bar to divorce. But as the law stands at present, the strength of the presumption is thought to be different according to whether it is the husband or the wife who is concerned. If it is the husband who resumes intercourse in this way with an offending wife, the presumption that he has condoned the offence is at the moment irrebuttable. If, however, it is the wife who is condoning or might be condoning the husband, she can rebut this presumption by saying that the act did not in all the circumstances amount to the full forgiveness and reinstatement which condonation involves. I think that this is an unjust and out-of-date distinction. It has been removed in England, and Clause 1 allows to the husband the same privilege as the wife at present has, to rebut the presumption of condonation, if he can, by evidence before a court.
Clause 2 is the equivalent of Section 2 of the same Matrimonial Causes Act of last year. Fourteen members of the Royal Commission, and your Lordships' House and Parliament in the English Act last year, thought that there should be a trial period of the two parties to a marriage living together after an innocent spouse has discovered that her partner has committed a matrimonial offence, and that this trial period might have the effect of saving the marriage. The difficulty of such a trial period at the moment is that if it takes place it might very well make subsequent divorce impossible, because of the same doctrine of condonation about which I have already spoken; that is, in the case of cruelty or adultery. In a case where desertion might be pleaded later a trial resumption of marriage would, of course, start the
814
three-year period of desertion running all over again.
This clause gets out of these difficulties by allowing one genuine period of three months—not one month as the Royal Commission recommended, but three months, as occurs in the English Act—during which the spouses may try to salvage their marriage, and this trial period will be without prejudice to any subsequent divorce for adultery, cruelty or desertion if the experiment fails. There is one addition that I think ought to be made to this clause of the Bill, because if your Lordships approve the new ground of divorce which occurs in Clause 4(1)(b)—that is to say, intolerable conduct—then I think that a trial period in these cases ought also to be allowed. It is my intention, if this Bill is given a Second Reading, to move the necessary Amendment at the next stage to allow for that.
My Lords, Clause 3 raises a purely Scottish point, but if the clause is passed into law it will bring the Scottish law into line with that in England. In Scotland, in order to get a divorce for desertion, a pursuer (that is the petitioner, in English terms) has to show that he or she has been willing to have the defender (the respondent) back throughout the whole period of the three years upon which he or she is relying as constituting the period of desertion. This is an historical legacy, but I think that not only is it now unfair but it leads in many cases to what might technically be perjury—and I shall give your Lordships an example of each of those instances.
It is unfair in the sort of case, which I believe is one on record, where a wife deserted her husband and within the three years of the desertion period went to America, where she got a divorce and remarried. The husband, who for some reason sued in desertion, was asked whether he was prepared to have his wife back throughout that three-year period, and he said, honestly, that he was not; that when she remarried that was the end of his intention to have her back. In that case the court had no alternative but to refuse his decree. The case where something very near perjury arises is the sort of case where the wife is asked by her counsel for what period she was prepared to have her husband back, and she replies, "Until

815
my lawyer told me that the three years was up". My Lords, neither of those can be good public policy, and I think that it is right that the opportunity for that sort of situation should be removed from the law. But your Lordships will note that the clause does provide that a pursuer will not succeed in getting a divorce, even now, if a genuine and reasonable offer by the defender to return has been refused.
Clause 4 deals with two new grounds for divorce. The first is wilful refusal to consummate the marriage, and the second is a doctrine which is almost equivalent to the English doctrine of constructive desertion. The first introduces for the first time in Scotland wilful refusal to consummate the marriage as a ground for divorce, and I think very little need be said about this. It is a ground for nullity in England, but I think it is more logical that it should be a ground for divorce, if we are tidying up the law, because, of course, it does depend upon an active course of conduct by the defender in such cases.
My Lords, the second part of this clause—subsection (1)(b) and subsections (2) and (3)—introduces intolerable conduct as a new ground for divorce. As I said, I think the effect will be very much the same as the present Ground in England of constructive desertion, but the machinery is a little different. I am not quite certain that the wording here is quite right, and it may be that here too some Amendments will have to be put down at the Committee stage. But the elements of this new ground for divorce, as your Lordships will see, are in the clause itself. First of all, the intolerable conduct—this is subsection (3)—is
"… conduct of a grave and weighty nature on the part of one spouse, which is such that the other spouse cannot in the face of it reasonably be expected to continue to adhere"—
which is the Scottish term for "live together". There is a ground for divorce if there has been such intolerable conduct on the part of the defender in consequence of which the pursuer has refused to adhere to the defender, and has persisted in that refusal for a period of not less than three years.
It is intended to read this clause with Clause 7(2), which provides that mental
816
disorder or lack of malicious intent on the part of the spouse guilty of the intolerable conduct shall not be a defence. I shall come on to that clause later, because it is a very important one. Your Lordships will see that there is a further provision in subsection (2) which is a safeguard in cases where a genuine offer to amend the offending conduct has been made, because, if this has been unreasonably refused, it can be a defence to an action raised under this particular subsection.
There are two criticisms that I think might be made of this provision. The first is that it is not right to exclude as a defence the whole of the mental disorder or unusual temperament on the part of the defender in quite the general way that it has been in Clause 7(2), and that this might be rather more narrowly defined in the Bill, for reasons which I think I can explain to your Lordships later. The second criticism possible is that the definition in subsection (3), where the word "reasonably" occurs, does not altogether make it clear that where the intolerable conduct upon which the pursuer relies has been provoked by the pursuer himself, then he should not be able to rely on his own provocation to found a divorce. It is intended that the drafting should cover this by the use of the word "reasonably" in subsection (3), but it may be that it ought to be made more explicit.
Equally, my Lords, there is the corollary that in subsection (2) there does not appear to be very clear mention that, in the case of the pursuer who is in receipt of an offer by the defender to amend his ways, there is the need that he, too, should be under a requirement to amend any provocation of which he himself has been guilty. It is covered, I think, by the word "unreasonably" in subsection (2), but if this is not altogether clear I intend to put it right at the Committee stage. It is rather a difficult point, and if your Lordships can assist in getting this drafting correct I should be extremely grateful.
Subsection (4) of Clause 4 brings in the ordinary property and aliment provisions which occur in all the other grounds for divorce under the Divorce (Scotland) Act, 1938. Clause 5 is the innovation of which I told your Lordships, and it provides another new ground for divorce—that is to say, where

817
"the defender is a person suffering from mental deficiency of such a nature that he has violent or dangerous propensities, and … there is no reasonable likelihood of his recovery from those propensities".
The rest of the clause contains safeguards for the defender, to see that he is not unjustly put upon in these circumstances, and also a substantial machinery provision.
I think, my Lords, that the exceptional hardship that this type of violent and permanent mental deficiency brings is so analogous to that arising from incurable insanity that the relief granted already in the latter case ought to be extended also as the Royal Commission recommended to cases of mental deficiency. I believe that very small numbers would be involved, in any event, although that is not necessarily a criterion. But I further think, my Lords, that this is very largely necessary only because of the greater accuracy in diagnosis of mental illness which exists nowadays, and it might well be that not long ago some of these people would have been considered insane rather than mentally deficient. My Lords, if there are questions on this clause I shall be very glad to answer them, but I think it is all quite clearly set out how the change is to work, and I hope that your Lordships will agree that it is a good innovation.
Clause 6 is also an attempt to bring Scottish law into line with the law South of the Border. The existing law in Scotland is that in a cruelty case the pursuer has to satisfy the court that at the time when the action is raised he or she needs protection from the defender. This view is inherent in the present law, because it was an essential element in the decree of separation á mensa et thoro which in turn, under Section 1(1)(c) of the Divorce (Scotland) Act, 1938, was made the foundation for divorce on the ground of cruelty; and therefore this doctrine has sifted through into the law of cruelty to-day. I think that in England, since the judgment of my noble and learned friend Lord Hodson in the case of Swan v. Swan in 1953, which is reported in the Law Reports, Probate Division, at page 258, the protection element in English law has now been so disapproved of that it will not be raised again.
818
It is true that that case has, I believe, been recently overruled on its substantive decision, but I do not think anybody doubts that in England the protective element at the time the action is raised is no longer a matter that is going to be taken into account. But, in Scotland this is not so; and as I understand it, the requirement for protection at the time that the action is raised is still something to which the law has regard. The reason for the change is, I think, one of policy. Where the defender has injured the pursuer's mental or physical health or has adopted conduct that has caused real apprehension of such injury, the pursuer should be able to rely on the past occurrence and not also show the need for present protection; particularly in cases where there is no need for present protection—in cases where the defender is under some form of restraint. In those cases, as the law at present stands, it is impossible to give a divorce on the grounds of cruelty because there is no need to do so for the present protection of the pursuer.
I think the protection doctrine may very properly remain as a cause for judicial separation in Scotland, as now; but the idea of bringing it in in cases of cruelty seems to me to be an instance of mixed thinking. I think cruelty grounds of divorce in Scotland should be shorn of this complication, as they have been South of the Border. I am not sure that this is not the most important of the aspects of the Bill, when one comes to look at Clause 7(2), because here, too, there is a further complication in the law of cruelty for divorce; and your Lordships will hear about that in a moment. If I have oversimplified this matter in some way it may be again that there is room for improvement; and your Lordships may be able to suggest a way in which I should define this simple idea in clearer and simpler terms. If so, I shall be glad to listen to them.
Clause 7(1) deals with another purely Scottish point. In Scotland, hitherto, desertion has been treated as a refusal by the deserting spouse to adhere to the innocent spouse. Your Lordships will remember that Clause 3 dealt with the innocent spouse's duty equally to adhere to the defending one, but this is the other way round. If, however, as the

819
law at present stands, the innocent spouse commits adultery during the period of desertion (three years) that ends the deserting spouse's duty of adherence to the innocent one. Thereafter, there is no possibility for the innocent one to get a decree on the grounds of further desertion. This bar operates, whether or not the deserting spouse knew of the innocent one's adultery, and, indeed, whether or not it affected his decision either to desert in the first place or to continue his desertion.
Subsection (1) of Clause 7 proposes to abolish this technical and, I think, obsolete rule; and it will make adultery a defence in future only where the defender can show that it was a cause of his original desertion or a cause of his continuance in desertion. I hope, therefore, that that will bring the matter up to date. I think the only other word I should say on that is that, when considering this matter, it should be borne in mind that in Scotland there is no such thing as a discretion statement. Consequently, the deserting spouse would not be likely to rely on the innocent one's adultery, about which he would, of course, not know unless he had been influenced by it; and I think it would be a satisfactory outcome if this subsection is passed into the Bill.
I have already said several things about Clause 7(2). This is also an implementation of the Royal Commission's Report and recommendation. Perhaps I ought to start with its application to cruelty. Your Lordships will see that it abolishes, in the case of cruelty and intolerable conduct, for the new grounds I have introduced, the defence of mental disorder or lack of malicious intent towards the pursuer. I think there are two grounds why this should be done. One of them is the ground of policy and the other is because the same thing has now happened, so I understand it, in English law. On the grounds of policy, to start with, if it is not so much the future protection of the innocent spouse that should be the criterion, but rather the actual or apprehended injury in the past, then I think it must be the right approach to rule out as a defence, really as a subordinate and not so important fact, the consideration that the defender
820
was at the time under some mental aberration; because the fact that he was so does not in any way destroy the pure fact of the injury or apprehended injury to the pursuer that took place in the past.
The same applies in the case of intolerable conduct. In that regard there was never any question of future protection to muddle the issue at all. I very much agree with the policy that the Royal Commission preferred in paragraph 256 of their Report, when they said:
"On the one hand, where the wife (say) is still fearful of further injury were married life to be resumed, and all affection for her husband has been destroyed by the cruelty suffered, ought the remedy of an immediate divorce to be denied to her? On the other hand, where acts, though cruel, have been done by a man who was insane, ought he to be penalised by an immediate divorce without any waiting period to allow for the possibility of his recovering from the mental illness which alone has been responsible for the cruelty complained of? In our view, preference should be given to the interests of the injured spouse. We recommend, therefore, that insanity"—
as a defence should be done away with.
There is also the English law; and two very recent decisions which have been made by your Lordships' House in the case of Gollins v. Gollins and Williams v. Williams which were decided last year. I see that my noble and learned friends Lord Reid and Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest are in their places. They both took part in those decisions. As I understand it, what has now happened is that the English law has been clarified, overruling past cases on two points. First, it has been laid down—and on this my noble and learned friend Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest dissented—that in future in a case of cruelty insanity shall not be a defence; and the other case, the one of Gollins, it has been decided that it is no particular matter that the offending spouse had no malicious intent, and was not aiming his cruel conduct at the other, but that cruelty could none the less still be held to have taken place. I think there has been adopted a much more objective test with special regard to the circumstances of the case in both these matters.
There are other grounds which might be put forward as relevant: unusual temperament on the part of the offending spouse; some mental disorder not reach-

821
ing a degree of insanity, but nevertheless having an effect on the subject. These matters, as I see it, are not a defence in England, or in Scotland, and it is the intention of this subsection of Clause 7 to assimilate the whole of this field with those existing subjects. In other words, it shall be open to the court to decide—upon the circumstances of the case, including insanity or including lack or presence of malicious intent—whether or not cruelty has taken place. I hope, therefore, I have sufficiently clearly drafted this subsection to bring the Scottish law into line with the English in the two decisions I have mentioned; and I hope also that the policy behind it will have your Lordships' approval. Clause 8 deals with a technical consideration. It empowers the court to award interim aliment—alimony—in cases of desertion or intolerable conduct, in circumstances where there is a technical complication due to the court's insistence on adherence. This insistence is now being removed, and consequently the court will have a power which it is thought it might very well not have had before. Clause 9 defines some of the matters which occur in the Bill.
I hope that your Lordships will forgive me for having taken up so much time in explaining this Bill; but as your Lordships will have seen, it is not a straightforward matter. If I can clear up any questions that noble Lords may have upon it, I will willingly try to do so, but I hope that on the principle, at any rate, I have satisfied your Lordships that this is a desirable Bill which should be given a Second Reading. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
5.51 p.m.
LORD REID: My Lords, I think that we should congratulate my noble friend on his enterprise in tackling this rather thorny subject, and I am sure that we are all very much indebted to him for the clear way in which he has expounded the provisions of the Bill. It introduces a number of changes, and some of them are much more important than others. For my own part, I would accept them all in principle. Some I am not very enthusiastic about. Some, I think,
822
certainly ought to be introduced. But I would not oppose any of them, subject to certain drafting alterations, to which I shall refer in a moment.
Clauses 1, 2 and 3, and the first part of Clause 4, seem to me to be unexceptionable, subject to the Amendment to Clause 2, to which my noble friend referred; but the second part of Clause 4 is a much more important matter. I must say that I had some doubt about it, when I read the clause first, because, in my view, the drafting is much too rigid. I do not think that one would oppose the principle—which is the introducing into Scotland of the English idea of constructive desertion.
After all, what happens when two spouses fall out? One of them is generally guilty of intolerable conduct. It may be that the guilty spouse leaves and deserts the other; but perhaps more often the guilty spouse stays and, in effect, drives the other out of the house. On the face of it, the innocent spouse is the deserted spouse; but, of course, that is not the reality of the situation. The reality is that the fact that the spouse guilty of intolerable conduct has broken off the marriage and has, on the face of it, deserted the other is a mere accident. The availability of a remedy ought not to depend on that accident. But what the clause does not sufficiently allow for, I think, is the fact that very often the blame is distributed. You cannot say that one of the spouses is solely to blame. Indeed, the one who is apparently mostly to blame in the later stages may have a very good excuse. Provocation is by no means unknown. And it would be quite wrong that a spouse who has provoked the other, so that the other has behaved in an intolerable way, should then be able to turn round and say, "You have behaved badly. I want a remedy against you". That would be refused in England, but I do not think it would be refused under the drafting of the clause as it stands at present.
Then there are the very difficult cases where you find that the spouse who has been behaving badly has temperamental or other excuses, or perhaps may be ill for a period, and you have to make some allowances. It is always a difficult question how much allowance you are going to make for the spouse who has some

823
excuse for his or her conduct. Here, again, I do not think that the Bill is sufficiently flexible to deal with that point. But my noble friend has indicated that he is very willing to consider Amendments, and if it would assist him in any way, I should be very willing to collaborate with him, and I hope, looking at the way in which he has presented his case, that it would not be difficult to find an Amendment for the Committee stage which would be acceptable to everybody. On that basis, I think that Clause 4 is a good amendment to the law of Scotland.
Clause 5 I do not object to. It looks, and it is, very complicated; and I think that some day we shall probably have to look again at all the provisions with regard to divorce for insanity. They are very complicated, and I think that they need tidying up. But I would not suggest that this is the right Bill in which to try to do that, and I think that my noble friend is well advised in retaining the present rather unsatisfactory arrangement for divorce for insanity and merely adding on mental deficiency as an alternative.
Clause 6, I am bound to say, puzzled me very much, when I first read it; but having listened to my noble friend, I think that his object in putting it down is a good one, though I am sure that the clause as it stands is liable to misconception. It is much too elaborate for the object which he has in mind, and I think that a much simpler clause would meet the whole point and would not be subject to the misconceptions which I feel sure would arise if the clause were passed in its present form.
What my noble friend is not seeking to do—and rightly—is to alter the nature of the acts which are required to constitute desertion; nor is he seeking to remove the present very necessary limitation that you cannot get a divorce for desertion unless you can show that your health either has been injured or is in danger of being injured. I think that experience shows that what may seem a rather illogical limitation is, in fact, a very necessary one; and what this clause seeks to do is to take away, if it exists at present (I am not sure), the necessity that the pursuer shall have to
824
show that he, or generally she, requires protection when the matter comes before the court.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My noble and learned friend did say desertion. I am sure it was a slip, and that he meant "cruelty".
LORD REID: Of course, my Lords, this clause is dealing with cruelty. I am much obliged to my noble friend. The point is that the pursuer may have to show that he or she requires protection when it comes before the court. Logically, again, that is sensible. Because why give a person a divorce for cruelty, if it is clear that that cruelty is not going to be repeated? After all, divorces are to protect the pursuer. But there is this to be said. Some defenders are not merely cruel; they are also rather plausible rogues, and if you give them a chance of saying, when the case comes to the court, that they are now reformed characters, that may be believed. I think that if they have been guilty of cruelty, it is well to weigh the scales the other way; and what my noble friend is doing in this clause, although again it might appear a little bit odd, is, in fact, removing what can be a substantial source of injustice. Therefore, I would agree that this should be passed, if we can find a better and simpler form for the clause.
I do not think Clause 7 is necessary, but I see no objection to its inclusion; and there may be one or two other small, points, but only small points, which require examination. I hope my noble friend does not think that in criticising the drafting of the Bill I am criticising him in any way, because I have some suspicion that perhaps the drafting may not be his own personal work. I think he will probably be able to pass on the suggestions which I have made to someone who can assist us both when it comes to settling the new form of these clauses. Subject to satisfactory Amendments being devised, as I feel sure they can be, I would warmly recommend this Bill to the House.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD CRAIGTON): My Lords, I think your Lordships would wish me to intervene quite briefly at this stage. It is now a well-established tradition

825
in Parliament that divorce legislation is a field in which private enterprise flourishes. Your Lordships will remember that the first major change in modern times resulted from the efforts of a very Private Member in another place, Sir Alan Herbert. A year later, in the Divorce (Scotland) Act, 1938, there was similarly a private effort. So I would like most warmly to welcome this new upholder of this sensible tradition, and to add my congratulations to my noble friend, both on his enterprise and for the way in which he has spoken to-day.
The Government would be duty bound to intervene, if that were necessary. But, as with previous Bills, this one is concerned with adjustments within the established framework, and in such matters a Private Member's Bill provides a convenient opportunity to test the view of your Lordships' House.
The Government also have a responsibility for ensuring that what Parliament wishes to enact is in workable form. The Bill seems to us to be in such a form. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, has made some proposals, and no doubt my noble friend will give them careful consideration. I am sure that he is grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his offer of assistance. I can offer, in the spirit in which he mentioned the matter, that we, too, will be very glad indeed to give any assistance we can in framing Amendments.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I am grateful for the support the House has given to this Bill. I am well aware that there are probably defects in the drafting, but with the assistance both of my noble and learned friend Lord Reid and of my noble friend Lord Craigton I feel there should be no difficulty in getting them straightened out. Since all the variety of matters in the Bill seem to be acceptable in principle, I think I need say no more at this stage, except to thank the House for its reception of the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

EXPORT GUARANTEES BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
SHIPBUILDING CREDIT BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

FAMILY ALLOWANCES AND NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL
6.5 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee. — (Lord Drumalbyn.)
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD STRANG in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL BARONESS SUMMERSKILL moved, after Clause 3, to insert the following new clause:
Repeal of earnings rule for widow's benefit
". Section 17(3) of the National Insurance Act 1946 (earnings rule for widow's benefit) is hereby repealed."
The noble Baroness said: If the Committee will permit me, I will take the three Amendments which stand in my name and the names of my noble friends together, as the second and third are consequential on the first. The purpose of this Amendment is to abolish the earnings rule for widow's benefit. The noble Lord will recall that on the Second Reading of the Bill I devoted myself to this matter, and to-day I will be as brief as possible. I was very critical of the continued application of the earnings rule to certain grades of insured workers. Although I said that, having regard to changed circumstances since the introduction of the National Health scheme, the earnings rule should be omitted altogether, nevertheless, I am prepared to limit my argument on this occasion to the need to abolish the earnings rule in regard to widows.
It seems to me, on reading the Bill again, that the case has been almost conceded. Each time the Government come here I think their conscience compels them to increase the amount of disregards that the widow can earn. Because the Government have been compelled to

827
recognise the injustice of penalising the widow by increasing the amount of her earnings which is disregarded. I hope your Lordships will be sympathetic to this Amendment. Indeed, public opinion is so alive to this injustice that the fourth Private Member's Bill on precisely this point is now on the Order Paper in another place.
I do not want to be guilty of tedious repetition, but I would remind your Lordships of the special case of the widow. She is called upon to carry the burden of the wage earner and the home-maker. Surely, the whole trend of our social legislation has been to help the least well off. Yet the widow, suddenly bereft of a husband, a prey to anxiety and loneliness, fearful of the future and completely insecure, is at that time subject to an earnings rule calculated, in my opinion, to obstruct and harass her. I say that this particular woman, the widow, should have our special sympathy. The Government should say, "We will make every effort to make her path a little easier." But, nevertheless, they produce a Bill of this kind and introduce the earnings rule.
Surely the position of the widowed mother demands our utmost sympathy, and to penalise her by applying the earnings rule is to discriminate against the fatherless child. On Second Reading I described the position of a fatherless child in this country and reminded your Lordships that there are nearly 1 million fatherless children. I will not develop that, because no doubt in your own lives your Lordships know of widows who have children to support. I also emphasised on the Second Reading of the Bill the sheer shortsightedness of this policy when women's labour, and particularly of women of this kind, is needed in a variety of ways. I say "women of this kind" because they have a great deal of free time, their husbands having gone, and indeed they want to fill up that time. The need for these women is so urgent in the social services and in the homes of our country that no obstacle should be put in the way of their offering their services.
The noble Lord may say, "It is no job for the Ministry of National Insurance to do this". But I would remind him that on more than one occasion in the Social Service departments I have heard the case argued by
828
a Minister for taking some step because it would ease the needs of another Ministry, it would help another Ministry. In this case, I say these women are wanted in the institutions, the hospitals and the homes. They are wanted for the aged, and to introduce a provision which will obstruct these widows from taking jobs seems to me utterly short-sighted.
The noble Lord did not reply to a point—and I would repeat it again—that I made on the Second Reading of the Bill. I would recall to noble Lords that the Minority Report of the National insurance Advisory Committee—and that, of course, is the Committee which advises the Minister—said:
"Elderly women refuse urgently needed work so as to be on the safe side. Their attitude is if we do not earn anything, they cannot get us'".
The Report also said:
"There is evidence to suggest that the present system of rules is accompanied by widespread deceit and evasion".
This was said by Professor Titmuss, a professor in London University, who chooses his words carefully. I do not want to elaborate this point, but I would remind noble Lords that there is no doubt that a widow with children, perhaps very hard up, is tempted to evade the law. This is known by the family, and there are children who know that mother is tempted to evade the law in order to make a little more money. I do not regard this situation as very helpful.
To abolish the earnings rule for widows would cost £6 million. But the Minister did not object to it on those grounds. He argued that, if we abolish the earnings rule, it would create anomalies among retirement pensioners. I think it is significant that his objections were not related to the creation of anomalies among widows. After all, if there were objections on that point, he should object to anomalies among widows. Of course, an argument on that basis would have been absolutely absurd, for the scheme is riddled with anomalies, and I think the noble Lord would agree with that. I mentioned this on Second Reading, and said that the basic assumptions must be examined. The scheme is riddled with anomalies, and if this causes

829
another it would make very little difference.
The Minister contended that to abolish the earnings rule now for widows would create ill-feeling between widows and spinsters later on. If ill-feeling does exist between women, ill feeling must certainly exist between widows, because a widow whose husband died at work is treated differently from the widow whose husband died on his way to work. If a widow goes to work to help her children, she is subject to the earnings rule, but if she remains at home and receives the same amount out of investments, she is not subject to any rule. Then there are widows whose husbands died in the Armed Forces, or as a result of an industrial injury. These widows are exempt from the rule. As I have said before, I am only too pleased that they should be. But here are the anomalies. Why single out those widows whose husbands have died from natural causes? Because, surely, the needs of their children are precisely the same as the needs of the children of other widows. Then there is the case of the widow part of whose income comes from her own earnings, and part from unearned income. The part from unearned income is not taken into account.
I have given your Lordships five or six kinds of widows, and shown that anomalies certainly exist. As I said before, there are nine categories of widows. When he wound up, the noble Lord said he thought there were three categories, but with three sub-divisions in each. So I think your Lordships will agree with me that there are nine categories of widow. I can quite understand why the Minister has been compelled to relate his argument, in opposing the Amendment asking for the earnings rule to be abolished, to the hypothetical anomalies which might occur years hence. I would ask your Lordships to consider the justice and humanity of this case. Surely, the earnings rule should no longer be applied to widows. This is not only in their own interests or the interests of their children, but in the interests of the community, which needs these women quite desperately in some place.
830
Therefore, I hope your Lordships will support the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 3, insert the said new clause.—(Baroness Summerskill.)
LORD SOMERS: I am afraid I shall be considered rather a rebel against my own side this afternoon, but I should like to support this Amendment very strongly. In this country we have pretty well achieved equality between the two sexes, but not absolutely, and this is one of the outstanding examples where we have not done so. One must remember that, although the word "widow" implies an elderly person, it is possible to be a widow at only 25 or some such age. A young widow with, perhaps, three or four young children, who must all be educated, has a very heavy burden upon her shoulders. She may be a professional woman who wants to pursue her career, but she may not, as the Bill stands at present, earn more than a certain amount. Or, of course, she may be an elderly person who is not capable of earning very much, who has not got very much money and, therefore, is in a bad position so far as support of any kind is concerned. I think that in all justice we should consider people who are unable to earn their own living, and consequently unable to be of use to the nation.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD DRUMALBYN): I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, for the kindly way in which she has moved this Amendment. She showed her very deep interest in the widows, and I think it is an interest which we all share. However, I think we ought to consider exactly what the effect of the Amendment would be. It would exempt women receiving widows' or widowed mothers' pensions from the earnings rule, and about one in seven of these widows have their pensions so adjusted. It does not mean they all lose all their pension, but one in seven have them adjusted. It would not exempt all widows from the earnings rule. The widows exempted would be widows who have children under 19 living with them and, secondly, widows who were over 50 and under 60 at the time when their husbands died or when they ceased to be

831
entitled to widowed mothers' allowance. The widows not exempted would be widows drawing the retirement pension and earning more than the earnings limit. These would include women widowed after reaching 60. Others of these widows not exempted would previously have been drawing widow's pension and would have transferred to retirement pension when they retired from full-time work. They then become retirement pensioners and cease to draw widow's pensions.
So among the effects of the Amendment would be, first of all, that if, when a widow retired from her job, she then continued to do part-time work, she would be subject to the earnings rule. That is, if this Amendment went through, so long as she drew the widow's pension she would be exempt from the earnings rule and if, when she retired from her job, she continued to do part-time work, she would be subject to the earnings rule. Secondly, a widow over 60—and I think this is a point worth considering—still earning £50 a week in her business or profession and receiving a widow's pension would be free from the earnings rule, whereas a widow over 60 when her late husband died would get practically no pension if she went out to work and earned over £10 a week. That would certainly be an anomaly.
Thirdly, a widow whose husband died when she was just over 50 would get full pension no matter how much she earned and would not have to pay National Insurance contributions. This would be the effect. She would not be subject to the earnings rule and she does not have to pay National Insurance contributions, whereas the widow whose husband died when she was just under 50 would get no pension and would have to pay National Insurance contributions until she was 60. In my view, the contrast there would be so harsh that it would be impossible to keep the age 50 qualification. Indeed, wherever you fixed the qualification age, the contrast would obviously be exceedingly harsh and it would seem almost impossible to have an age qualification at all. I am talking at the moment of widows, and not widowed mothers, who obviously get widowed mother's allowance, no matter when they are widowed, if they have children dependent upon them.
832
The contrast, as I say, would be very harsh and, indeed, might make it necessary to revert to the old unconditional widow's pension payable irrespective of age.
At the present levels of benefit, if they were still to remain in force, the cost of allowing a widow's pension to all widows, no matter when their husbands died, would be of the order of £30 million a year. When such a pension, an unconditional pension, available to all widows irrespective of when their husbands died, was paid before 1948, the level was 10s. The present equivalent of that is under 19s. in terms of modern purchasing power. But the Act last year provides that widowed mothers who are subject to the earnings rule shall retain at least 26s.
This Bill is designed primarily and principally to assist widowed mothers. The Amendment shows that noble Lords opposite, and my noble friend, too, believe that it would not be possible to exempt widowed mothers from the earnings rule without also exempting the widows t and there is good reason for their thinking so. For when a widowed mother ceases to be entitled to widowed mother's allowance, most of these widowed mothers being then over 50, and ceasing to be widowed mothers, they at once receive widow's pension. If widowed mother's allowance was exempt from the earnings rule and widow's pension was subject to it, the widows who from one day to the next become subject to the earnings rule would certainly feel perplexed and probably aggrieved. So the noble Lady seeks to exempt both widowed mothers and widows. But much the same thing will still happen, if this Amendment is carried, when the widow passes from widow's pension to retirement pension. She will then become subject to the earnings rule, and the result will certainly be a demand for the abolition of the earnings rule in time.
The noble Lady, when she spoke earlier, wanted to see the abolition of the earnings rule entirely. But this Amendment concentrates on the abolition of the earnings rule for widowed mothers and widows. While to abolish the earnings rule for widows only would cost £6 million a year, to abolish it altogether would cost over £100 million a year.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: That is for retirement pensioners. I am not asking for that, I am asking only for widows. So I hope the noble Lord will not feel that the £100 million has any relevance to this debate.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am afraid that I must insist that it has, because what I am arguing is that it is not possible to retain this concession only for widows and widowed mothers; it is bound to be extended also to the wider field. In that event the cost would be very substantially increased. It would be over £100 million. The reason for that is because the earnings rule is the essential support of the retirement condition. If people could earn as much as they liked without its having any effect on their retirement pension, it would be impossible to avoid paying the pension in full as soon as a person reached pensionable age—that is, 65 for men and 60 for women. In other words, the pension which is paid as of right to men at 70 and to women at 65 would become payable as of right five years sooner, no matter what they earn.
I think that one is bound to observe that that is obviously not particularly selective. Moreover, it would be very costly. For these 400,000 people who go on working after reaching pensionable age and have postponed their retirement would then become eligible for the pension at what is called the "minimum pensionable age". What is more, these people earned increments to their pensions, and there would be no point in paying increments to people who postponed their retirement if they were already receiving full pension. So increments could no longer be earned, and 1½ million people are receiving increments at the present time. I am not saying that it would not be possible to make adjustments of one kind or another. I am arguing the consequences of this Amendment The cost of the Amendment in itself, as the noble Lady said, would be in the order of £6 million a year, which is as much as the cost of the Bill as it is, and so it would practically double the cost of the provisions in the Bill. The Amendment is indiscriminate. The noble Lady said (I took down her words): "The trend of our
834
social legislation is to help the least well-off". But this Amendment is indiscriminate. It does not select those widows who are most in need, and we believe that in general it is the widow with dependent children who is most in need. We believe that the best way of helping them is through the child allowances, as has been maintained by the Advisory Committee.
I would again remind your Lordships—because this is a point about which there is a good deal of misconception—that the child allowances are not subject to the earnings rule. That is why we have in the Bill raised the child allowance to 37s. 6d., so that a widowed mother who has three children and works part-time earning £4 a week will have £9 benefit, or £13 in all. This is a fairly typical wage, I should think, for a woman who is working part-time; and there are many, of course, who believe that in many circumstances a woman with a family should not work more than part-time. If she does work full-time and has to employ somebody else to look after the children (I pointed this out on Second Reading), then the amount paid to the person for looking after the children is deductible from her earnings before her allowance is subjected to the earnings rule. If this same woman with three children works full-time and earns £8 a week she will have £16 10s. in all. If she earns £11 or more, she will still get £6 18s. 6d. benefit if she has three children and £5 1s. in addition to what she earns if she has two. Those are very great advances, of course, on what has ever been available before.
The noble Baroness suggested that the earnings rule was an obstacle to women offering their services. It is, of course, undeniable that many women, if they are within a particular bracket of earnings which is just going to make them subject to the earnings rule, will obviously think twice about whether they want to earn more and so become subject to the earnings rule. A widowed mother would be left with 26s. That is to say, she may lose a maximum of 41s. 6d. out of her allowance. As for the widow herself, apart from the widowed mother, I should have thought that this possibility would not act as an obstacle, except within a comparatively

835
small bracket; and I should think there is some deterrent effect. This was all looked into by the Advisory Committee, when they made their Report in 1956; nevertheless, the majority maintained the view that widows should not be exempted from the earnings rule so long as this was a general condition of the scheme.
The noble Baroness says that there is widespread deceit and evasion, and that women are tempted to evade the earnings rule. I have no great experience in these matters, but to judge by the number of inspectors one has whenever one has any kind of insurance, I would say that in any matter of insurance there is always danger of evasion and deceit. It seems to be almost inherent in the idea of claims; it is, I am afraid, part of human nature. And that is why one has inspectors and the like. I do not think this is an argument that can in any way be convincing.
The noble Baroness talked about anomalies, and referred to the fact that there are two entirely separate schemes, apart from the National Insurance Scheme—that is the War Pension Scheme and the Industrial Injuries Scheme. Both of these schemes, of course, have an entirely different history and an entirely different background. The noble Baroness says that it seems strange to separate out one kind of widow whose husband has died from natural causes. But the War Pension Scheme is not a contributory scheme; it is a totally different kind of scheme. It is one where we all recognise that very special conditions apply—the men themselves under discipline, particular kinds of service and a particular background. This is quite different from the kind of conditions which exist in the National Insurance Scheme. Then again, the Industrial Injuries Scheme has its own entirely separate background. That represents compensation for injury suffered, or for death, in the course of and arising out of employment. There are many parts of the schemes that are totally different from the National Insurance Scheme, and what I said on Second Reading still applies: that there is no logic in picking out simply one item from those Schemes and saying that in that item—namely, the absence of the application of an earnings rule the third scheme, the National Insurance
836
Scheme, which is totally different, should be brought into line. Why on that item alone? The Schemes are different; the background is different; and the Schemes are not all contributory. In the Industrial Injuries Scheme no contribution record such as is required under the National Insurance Scheme is needed before a person is entitled to the benefits.
The noble Baroness accused the Government of "tinkering with" the National Insurance Act. What we are doing is to increase the benefits for a particular section of the community which is universally recognised as among the most deserving. This is the principal purpose of the Bill. That is a straightforward action. We are taking it in ways for which there are highly respectable precedents. But it is she, I submit to your Lordships, who is seeking by this Amendment to tinker with the Act, for not only would the Amendment make a change which is at variance with the principle on which the Act is based, but it would create further anomalies and, in practice, would not work out fairly between one widow and another.
I believe that in the Bill as it is drafted we have gone a very long way to help those who we believe most need help. I believe that we have done it in a balanced way, and one that is well in keeping with the terms of the Scheme. The day may come when we shall revise fundamentally the whole National Insurance Scheme. But here I would make a word of caution: that we are dealing with pensions, and we have always to remember that we are dealing with something which is essentially of long-term. People have been paying out this money and they expect in the long run to get certain benefits for themselves. But in this Scheme nobody is being denied a benefit to which he is entitled. The earnings rule does not deny anybody a benefit for which he has paid, because the terms of the policy—and this should by now be well understood—are that the benefits are payable in the absence of earnings. This is the fundamental point of it. It is for these reasons that we have provided in this Bill something that we believe to be much better than the abolition of the earnings rule; and because this proposal is at variance with the principles and

837
would, as I say, create further anomalies, and would not work out fairly between one widow and another, I ask your Lordships to reject this Amendment.
Remaining clauses and Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL
House in Committee (according to Order).
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

CUMBERLAND COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
6.51 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR LORD TAYLOR rose to move, That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that they should not pass Clause 69 without special attention, and, in particular, should have regard to whether it is in the public interest that non-infectious diseases should be made notifiable. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the first of the Instructions standing in my name on the Order Paper. I had intended to initiate a small debate on both Instructions together, but it so happens that
On Question, Whether the said new clause shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 18; Not-Contents, 44.

CONTENTS

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Gardiner, L.

Shepherd, L.

Attlee, E.

Hobson, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Iddesleigh, E.

Summerskill, B.

Champion, L. [Teller.]

Latham, L.

Taylor, L.

Crook, L.

Lawson, L.

Williamson, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Shackleton, L.

Willis, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Craigton, L.

Hanworth, V.

Albemarle, E.

Crathorne, L.

Hastings, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Daventry, V.

Hawke, L.

Ampthill, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Hereford, V.

Atholl, D.

Derwent, L.

Horsbrugh, B.

Audley, B.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Lothian, M.

Bessborough, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Blakenham, V.

Falkland, V.

Molson, L.

Boston, L.

Ferrers, E.

Newton, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Forster of Harraby, L.

Remnant, L.

Carrington, L.

Fortescue, E.

Suffield, L.

Chesham, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Swansea, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Gosford, E.

Teynham, L.

Conesford, L.

Greenway, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Cowley, E.

Grenfell, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

the first relates to an opposed Bill and therefore will go to an appropriate Committee for examination in a different way from the second, which is not opposed. Therefore, I propose to move the first one and to discuss it, and then later the second Instruction, so that we can deal with them separately.
I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the terms of the Instruction and to the method by which it has been drawn. I have tried to avoid giving a categorical instruction to the Committee, in the sense of asking them to take any action without first examining the Bill. I am asking them in fact only to examine a clause very carefully to see that it is right and proper and appropriate to the particular Bill in which it is inserted. I shall do the same with the second one. I hope the Committee will examine the clause very carefully, and I hope that they will examine the Promoters of the Bill to see why they have drafted the clause as it is now drafted. As it stands, I must confess that I think the clause is a mistake. I also think that, as it stands, it raises a matter of some national importance.
The clause is designed to make certain non-infectious diseases notifiable in the county of Cumberland. The effect

839
on registered medical practitioners will be that when they see these diseases they will be required to notify the medical officer of health that they have encountered such cases and where the diseases have happened. As your Lordships are aware, certain diseases are already notifiable, and have been for many years. These are the ordinary infectious diseases and the diseases due to industry. They are notifiable for obvious public health reasons. In the first case, they are liable to spread to other people; in the second case, they are notifiable because their causes are associated with work, and because other people may suffer in a similar way unless the matter is corrected. From time to time new diseases have been added to the schedule of infectious diseases which are notifiable, but before this was done there has always been strong positive evidence that it was desirable.
Clause 69 of the Cumberland Bill seeks to do three things. First, it seeks to make leukæmia a notifiable disease. Secondly, it seeks to make coronary thrombosis a notifiable disease. Thirdly, it seeks to allow the Cumberland County Council to proclaim any other disease notifiable after approval by the Ministry of Health. This, so far as I know, is something that no other local authority in the country has sought to do. I ask the House to ask the Committee to find out why Cumberland wishes to have these very special provisions, and, unless there are very strong reasons in favour of them, I hope the Committee will reject the clause and strike it out.
First of all in regard to leukaemia—and your Lordships are all too familiar with this disease, which has recently been much in the Press—I can think of only one conceivable reason why Cumberland is seeking to make leukæmia notifiable. There is in Cumberland the atomic energy station at Windscale, and it may have been thought that there was some connection between this and an increased risk of leukæmia. But what a strang thing to do! In fact, all cases of leukemia that occur are very quickly known to the authorities. They are, I think without exception, admitted straight away by doctors to hospital, for the purpose of treatment, and they at once get on to the cancer register. The cancer register is a nationally maintained list of
840
all cancer cases, which, of course, includes all leukemia cases, so that these cases are in fact already effectively notified—not merely for Cumberland but for the country as a whole. Even if this were not the case, they would still be notified, since they are all fatal, and on death are automatically notified on the death certificate; and the results of the analyses of death certificates appear in the annual reports of every medical officer of health throughout the country.
As a statistical exercise—and this is the only reason I can conceive for Cumberland wanting to have leukæmia made notifiable—it is meaningless to suggest that this should be done. Cumberland is a very large county with a relatively small population of 220,000, so that the total number of cases of lcukæmia occurring is very small indeed. In consequence, a single extra case of leukemia in the course of the year will produce a surprisingly large percentage fluctuation in the picture. Therefore, no trends will be visible from a statistical study of such a group. I am at a complete loss to understand why Cumberland wishes to make leukemia notifiable. Moreover, there are certain technical difficulties about this, though they are so technical that I do not propose to go into them. They involve the accurate definition of leukæmia—which does not appear to have troubled the Cumberland County Council when they invite doctors to make these notifications.
On the question of social reasons, is it conceivable that there are some special social reasons why doctors should notify leukemia in Cumberland? I cannot think that there are, and I can only imagine, if this were so, that every kind of fatal disease should be notified to the Medical Officer of Health, because leukemia differs in no very great respect, socially, from other noninfectious fatal diseases. Therefore, I can see no justification for this from the point of view of social considerations. So I think that it is up to the Cumberland County Council to present a very strong case indeed for making leukæmia a notifiable disease, before the nation should depart from its well-established practice of not making noninfectious diseases notifiable.
The second disease that they seek to make notifiable is coronary thrombosis.

841
I am again at a loss to know why they should have picked on coronary thrombosis in Cumberland, except for one possible conceivable reason, and that is that it has been suggested by some medical statisticians that where the water is very soft there is an increased incidence of coronary thrombosis. If this be so, I can only again suggest that this is a very poor way of trying to study it. The notification of coronary thrombosis presents incredible difficulties. With an ordinary infectious disease it is pretty easy, as a general rule, to decide if the patient has got it and the doctor can take the necessary steps. The diagnosis of mild attacks of coronary thrombosis presents very great difficulty indeed, and sometimes fatal attacks are wrongly diagnosed before death and only after death on autopsy is the correct diagnosis made. Moreover, many people have recurrent attacks. They have an attack of coronary thrombosis one year, then go for a few years, have another attack and then a further attack; and the Bill does not say whether each attack is to be notified or whether when a person has had it once, subsequent attacks should not be notified. So I venture to suggest it is a pretty meaningless piece of work.
The third thing for which Cumberland asks is power to extend this notification to other diseases. If, in fact, Parliament grants this power to Cumberland we may be quite sure that other local authorities will ask for similar powers in respect of other diseases. So we shall have the extraordinary picture of many different diseases being notifiable by doctors in each of the counties which has brought in a Private Bill and has had some special reason, or thought it had some special reason—because if there is a good special reason then it is a very different matter. We should have a chaotic situation if this practice were to spread.
Notification is a very valuable public health tool. It is one of the ways by which we have prevented the spread of infectious disease, and it must not be blunted by being used foolishly, for purposes whose value is in doubt, or just for pure medical curiosity. Its effectiveness depends entirely on the co-operation of the general practitioners, because unless they can see a good, common-sense reason
842
why they should notify a particular disease they will not do it. It is true that there is a 40s. penalty if they do not notify, and a 2s. 6d. fee if they do notify, but so far as I know no doctor in the history of Britain has ever been charged with failing to notify a case of infectious disease and been punished under this section. Incidentally, the Cumberland clause repeats this 40s. penalty and 2s. 6d. fee in the case of leukaemia and coronary thrombosis, and, indeed, for any other diseases that are added to the list.
That is the case, my Lords. My attention was drawn to this clause almost by chance. I was very surprised, indeed, when I saw it and I felt it was my duty to bring it to your Lordships' attention. I could have raised the matter on the Second Reading of this Bill but, as your Lordships know, Second Readings of Private Bills are taken before Public Business and it seemed much better to move an Instruction to the Committee asking them to pay special attention to the clause. I hope they will pay special attention to the clause and that your Lordships will agree to my Instruction, bearing in mind that we are not telling the Committee what to do; we are merely asking the Committee to examine the clause very carefully. If we did not do this, of course, it would not be examined at all because this particular clause is not opposed. We are asking, therefore, that it shall be very carefully studied and that the proposers of the Private Bill will have to make a very strong case indeed for adding this burden to the general practitioners of Cumberland when the information is already available in some cases, or will have no meaning in others. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that they should not pass Clause 69 without special attention, and, in particular, should have regard to whether it is in the public interest that non-infectious diseases should be made notifiable.—(Lord Taylor.)
7.7 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): My Lords, the Cumberland County Council Bill is what is known as a general powers Bill—that is, it deals with a number of different subjects—and this Bill is an opposed Bill, in the sense that there are Petitions

843
against it. There are actually four Petitions against this Bill, but none of those Petitions deals with this Clause 69. Therefore one can say that Clause 69 is an unopposed clause, and for the purposes of this evening's debate let us treat it as such. But, my Lords, that does not mean that this clause will necessarily be allowed in any event, as I shall explain in a moment. That does not follow because—and I should like to make this perfectly clear to the House, especially in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said a moment ago—every clause in every Private Bill is scrutinised, whether or not it is opposed. It is scrutinised by somebody, and if it is not scrutinised by a Committee at least it is scrutinised by learned counsel who advises me on these matters.
LORD TAYLOR: I am so sorry, my Lords. I should like at once to withdraw the misleading remark I made. I did not intend to mislead the House.
LORD MERTHYR: I am much obliged to the noble Lord, who I am quite certain did not intend to mislead the House. But I was going to say this in any event, and I should like the House to appreciate, that although clauses of Private Bills may not be heard of very much by your Lordships, they are in fact, behind the scenes, always looked at, and are always read very carefully by at least one individual acting in an official capacity, and if need be they are scrutinised by a Committee. It is therefore true to say that every clause comes before some Committee of your Lordships' House—which Committee is another matter.
I should just like to say very briefly, because I want to help the House if I can, what would happen, first, if this Motion were not passed and, secondly, what will happen if it is passed. If I can do that, I hope that I have done my duty on this Motion.
My Lords, if this Instruction were not to be passed to-night, Clause 69, since it is unopposed, would not go to any Committee upstairs, as we say, but would be dealt with downstairs by me in what is called an interview. An interview takes place on every opposed Bill. No matter how many clauses are opposed, there is always an interview unless, of course, the whole Bill is opposed upstairs. But where there are
844
some unopposed clauses there is always an interview, and that takes place after the Select Committee have dealt with the opposed clauses. At the interview, there are the Parliamentary agents for the Promoters of the Bill and, where necessary and where appropriate, representatives of the Government Departments concerned with the Bill. There are also available written reports on the Bill by the Government Departments concerned—that is, those Departments which are interested; and in a general purposes Bill such as this which has 132 clauses, a number of Government Departments would no doubt be present and would make reports, and might oppose some of the clauses.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord—because this is extremely interesting—if he can indicate whether, at this interview, when the agents of the Promoters are present and when there may be a dispute (say, in this case, on this particular clause), the Promoters, through their agents, can produce witnesses to substantiate the reasons why the clause has been included?
LORD MERTHYR: Yes, my Lords, they can. The Promoters can ask to call witnesses for their side at the interview. For example, in this case the county medical officer of health would probably he there, and would be called and heard, if appropriate and if necessary. Undoubtedly, yes.
Now, my Lords, there is no precedent for this clause, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, rightly said, and in all cases where clauses are unprecedented then, at the interview, I am particularly careful to inquire into the clause concerned. There is machinery in your Lordships' House, with which I will not trouble you to-night, by which we know exactly how many precedents there are for every clause in every Private Bill. I could produce whole tables of figures if I wanted to; but for this clause there is no precedent, and the mere fact that it is unprecedented switches on the red light, if I may use that expression, and I would in any event—and I would emphasise "in any event"—ask the Promoters to justify (that is the magic word) this clause, and would then see whether they could justify it. Argument would then follow,

845
and most likely the Promoters would show cause why this clause should be passed into law.
There would then be further argument, probably, and if the representative of the appropriate Government Department (in this case, I think it would be the Ministry of Health) had reported against the Bill—I do not know what the Department are going to say in this case; I have no idea; I have not seen any report yet; it is too early—then he also would be heard, and, of course, the written report on the clause would be available at the interview. So the noble Lord need have no fear, and the House need have none, either, but that even if this Motion were not passed to-night, this clause would certainly be examined.
Now, if the Instruction is passed, what difference will there be? Clause 69 would then go upstairs merely because this Bill is opposed; and therefore there would be a Select Committee—unless, of course, the other Petitions were withdrawn. The mere fact that there would be a Select Committee indicates that the appropriate Committee to deal with this clause would be that Committee. So there is a change in the procedure which would be effected by the passing of this Motion; but that is, I think, the only change that it would effect. The Committee upstairs, having dealt with the clauses which were opposed by the four Petitioners, would then proceed to look at this clause.
One difficulty is that they would be obliged to do so ex parte, by which I mean that there would be counsel for one side but no counsel for the other. In that respect, the procedure would be different from what it is on the opposed clauses, where there are counsel for the Promoters and counsel for the Petitioners. Here, there would be counsel for the Promoters but no counsel for the Petitioners, because there are not any. Incidentally, may I just remind the House that this clause could have been opposed, but has not been? I suppose there are bodies or persons in the country who could have opposed this clause had they wished to, because all the proper notices are sent to every possible interested party. So the Committee upstairs would examine this
846
clause, but would have to do so ex parte.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one question on this? In doing so, would the Committee have regard to the remarks which are made here in the Chamber? Because that is the vital question so far as we are concerned: that the Promoters should be examined on the points which we have raised, or are raising, this evening.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I do not think there is anything to compel the Committee to read the Hansard report of to-night's debate, but I apprehend that they probably would do so. One must bear in mind, however, as I have said already, that one side are represented by counsel and the other are not. But I should think that very likely—of course, we do not even know who the Committee are going to be yet—they would bear in mind what has been said. Possibly, some of them are here listening at this very moment.
I might be asked: what about the Government Departments concerned? How would they fare upstairs? A Government Department cannot petition against a Bill, but they can report either for it or against it, or in a neutral way: they can "report upon it" is the correct expression, I think. A representative of a Government Department can be heard by the Select Committee if the Select Committee so require it. It is a much more formal procedure upstairs than it is downstairs; but I can tell your Lordships that if the Select Committee wanted to hear the representative of a Department they could do so, but they cannot hear any other evidence. There is no power in a Select Committee to call witnesses. Upstairs, witnesses can be called only by a party to the proceedings, either the Promoters or the Petitioners, as the case may be. But there is a Standing Order which allows a Select Committee to hear the representative of a Department.
My Lords, there it is. There is nothing else that I can usefully say, but I am at your Lordships' disposal if there are any other questions you wish to ask. I would end by saying that no great difference will be made whether this Motion is passed or not passed. I

847
would add that I have no objection to it in form, and that, with the exception which I have already mentioned, it will make very little difference. The only difference will be that the argument will be upstairs in the one case and downstairs in another.
7.20 p.m.
LORD BRAIN: My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has drawn attention to this clause, and I can entirely support what he has said. He dealt with the matter so adequately that there is little I need add. But I should like to deal briefly with two points, the first a scientific one and the other more general.
The noble Lord has pointed out the difficulty arising from attempting to notify coronary thrombosis. Coronary thrombosis is a state in which there is a clot of blood in one of the coronary arteries supplying the heart; and it leads to symptoms because it damages the heart muscle by cutting off the blood supply from part of it. Exactly the same effect can be produced by disease of the coronary arteries without any clot forming at all; the cardiologists say that they often find it impossible to determine in any particular case whether or not in fact there is a clot; and they regard it as of no practical importance in dealing with the patient. So to ask that coronary thrombosis should be notified is really to select arbitrarily a pathological diagnosis which covers only a part of the field of coronary heart disease; and, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said, it may be impossible to establish it with any certainty. It would lead to the greatest practical difficulties for doctors to have imposed on them the obligation to notify coronary thrombosis.
The next point, the more general one, is that this clause does, of course, infringe the principle to which the medical profession attach a great deal of importance: that the doctor shall not divulge without the patient's consent anything he learns about his patient. As the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has said, the public interest may have to over-ride that consideration—for example, in the case of infectious diseases or industrial intoxication. But I can think of no reason of public interest why it should be necessary to notify coronary thrombosis. The same applies, as the noble Lord has said,
848
to leukæmia. I feel sure that the medical profession would be extremely disturbed by the suggestion that they should infringe this fundamental principle of the medical profession without there being any clear public reason why this should be done. I hope that these points will be given careful consideration by the Committee. Unless some other reasons are brought forward in support of this provision, I hope that the Committee will reject the clause.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I ask a question of the noble Lord, the Chairman of Committees, in this matter in the light of the speech that has just been made? As I understand it, this Bill will go to his office, and it will be part of his duty to examine it. In reply to an earlier question, he said that the Promoters of the Bill would have the right to produce witnesses and call evidence. The difficulty that I see here is that there may be two disputes: first, whether a doctor should divulge the information; and, secondly, whether the particular diseases would be known to the doctor, at least in the case of thrombosis.
When the noble Lord considers this clause, obviously he will have to consider whether there is a precedent to it. If there is a precedent, it will be easier to judge; if there is no precedent he must obviously make up his mind whether, for the national or local good, this clause should be allowed to go through. Would the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees be able, as Chairman of Committees, to call in expert advice to see whether the evidence of the case that has been made this evening in regard to the practical difficulties of thrombosis diagnosis is valid? I am not disputing the evidence of the two previous speakers; but in fairness to the local authority who are promoting this it would be interesting to know to what extent the noble Lord, as Chairman of Committees, could go to examine the practicability of their proposal. On what grounds would he make his decision?
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, if I may say so, that is a very difficult question to answer. So far as I am aware, I have no power to call in outside expert evidence. I have already said that the Promoters would no doubt have with

849
them at the hearing their own witnesses, in the shape of the medical officer of health and so on. But I would mention that I have the power to refer any Private Bill to a Select Committee, and it might be possible in that way—possibly even if it be a roundabout route—somehow to procure expert evidence; although I think there is a Standing Order which says that a Select Committee cannot call evidence on their own account. As your Lordships know, a judge in a court of law can summon witnesses without either side calling them; but that cannot be done by a Select Committee. I am afraid that I have not answered the noble Lord fully; but I take the point. I should like to look it up and perhaps answer him later, if I can.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, would it be open to the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees to invite noble Lords who are eminent members of the medical profession to sit with him and assist him, in the case of the unopposed Bill, to determine this matter?
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, it is not the practice to do that. Whether there is a power to do it, I cannot say, offhand. I will look it up. It is not the practice; in fact I have never known a case of that happening.
7.26 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH (LORD NEWTON): My Lords, I do not think it will be necessary for me this evening to express any opinion on the merits of Clause 69. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, that it ought to be given special attention. I do not mind, from the point of view of my Department, whether that special attention is given in Committee upstairs or at the interview as described by the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees. I am certainly not opposing Lord Taylor's Motion for this Instruction. No doubt he will make up his mind, having listened to what has been said here, whether he wishes to continue with his Motion. We have noted and are considering this clause; and we are considering whether or not to submit a report on it. If the noble Lord's Motion is carried and if the clause then is considered in Committee upstairs, we shall
850
of course be very glad to produce evidence to the Committee if that proves to be the wish of the Committee.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, I am fairly sure in my mind that I should like the clause to go to a Committee upstairs. It is not that I think for one moment that the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, would not arrive at the right conclusion; but I should like to feel that three or four heads had a look at this rather difficult problem, and not just one head, wise though that head be—particularly because we may feel that we do not want to return to this matter and we should like to leave it. Therefore I hope very much that my Motion will be acceptable to your Lordships and that the Bill will go to a Committee.
There is one other point that I should like to make to the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees, who has been very helpful in explaining this rather difficult matter. Is there a verbatim report of the evidence given to a Committee upstairs on clauses such as this; and is it available to your Lordships? I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, is nodding his head—so I gather we may take it that such a report would be available. If it were to go to him in Chambers downstairs, as it were, would there then be a verbatim report? —the noble Lord indicates that there will be no verbatim report. That is an additional, strong reason why we should ask that this Motion should be accepted so that we, as well as the noble Lord, may study the evidence.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
7.30 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR LORD TAYLOR rose to move, That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that they should not pass Clause 36 without special attention, and, in particular, should consider whether it is desirable that medical practitioners should be compelled, with a penalty in case of non-compliance, to report to the local authority all cases of housebound handicapped persons living alone. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the second of my Instructions. I

851
understand that this is not an opposed Bill. Newcastle upon Tyne, in the course of their Bill, have inserted Clause 36, which introduces something quite new, but on similar lines to the matter we have just been discussing. They wish to make certain social conditions compulsorily notifiable.
Newcastle upon Tyne are asking that doctors should have regard to four things when they visit their patients and when all four stars are in conjunction (as it were), then the condition shall be notified. They say that the first thing is that persons must be residing alone in a dwellinghouse in the city; secondly, that they must be substantially handicapped by age, illness or injury or congenital deformity; thirdly, that they must be permanently handicapped—it is not enough to be substantially handicapped for a time; and, fourthly, that they must be unable to leave the dwellinghouse without physical assistance. Given these four conditions, the doctor is compelled to notify the Medical Officer of Health of the existence of such people, whether or not such people wish the matter to be notified.
This, again, is an entirely new principle in British public health and in British laws, so far as I know. One can see at once what the Promoters are after and I have a good deal of sympathy with their objective, though not with their proposed method. A number of local authorities keep registers on a voluntary basis of house-bound elderly people and this is an excellent thing to do. They ask the doctors and other social agencies in the town to let them know of housebound elderly people. They collect the list together and, as the names come in, the health visitors can visit these people in their homes to deal with any problems that arise. I have no objection to this. I think that it is an admirable arrangement and something that we should do everything we can to encourage. But the situation proposed for Newcastle is quite different.
With compulsory notification, the patient does not have to give permission to the doctor. The doctor does not have to say to the patient, "Do you mind my letting the medical officer of health know you are housebound and
852
disabled permanently, living alone and without physical assistance?" No, the doctor is bound by law, once this goes through, to notify the Medical Officer of Health, even though the patient strongly objects. And there are a number of elderly people living alone and housebound who nevertheless get on perfectly all right and who strongly object to the compulsory notification of their condition to the Medical Officer of Health.
Yet there is an enormous number of cases where notification can be very helpful, indeed. My suggestion is that this is something which really ought to be done by voluntary organisation between the Medical Officer of Health of the city of Newcastle and the general practitioners of the town. I cannot believe that if the general practitioner approaches them in a proper way and helps them, they will not help him in every case where he in turn is able to help these housebound elderly people. But to make housebound disability a compulsorily notifiable condition, with the usual rewards and penalties—a 2s. 6d. reward to the doctor when he notifies and a penalty of 40s. if he defaults—is really nonsense. For one thing, it is quite unenforceable. Doctors in Newcastle, unless they wished to, simply would not take any notice of it.
It so happens that I know the conditions of general practice in Newcastle upon Tyne very well, and very tough they are. There is an enormous amount of ill-health in working-class areas, many of which are under-doctored. In other words, doctors are working very hard indeed, and if they are called upon compulsorily to notify old people who are housebound, I am afraid that they might react rather badly and not co-operate, whereas, if they are asked nicely by the Medical Officer of Health I cannot believe that they will not be willing to help. So I hope very much that the Newcastle upon Tyne Corporation may think again about this clause and may not press it, but may try to achieve what they are seeking by taking administrative action. And the best administrative action they could take is that recommended in the Gillie Report—to attach a health visitor to every group of three or four general practitioners to

853
work with them. This, I am pleased to say, is something that local authorities are increasingly doing, and wherever they are doing it it has been working successfully. It enables the local authority to know every case of housebound elderly or handicapped people who are not getting help, and it certainly avoids a lot of unpleasantness which may arise through health visitors calling on people who have neither the need nor the desire to be called upon.
I hope, subject to any advice that the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, may give us, that your Lordships will accept my second Motion and will instruct the Committee to pay special attention to this clause, to see whether the Promoters have in mind something which I have not thought of. If they have an overwhelming case, well and good, but unless they have an overwhelming case, I hope very much that this clause may be omitted.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that they should not pass Clause 36 without special attention, and, in particular, should consider whether it is desirable that medical practitioners should be compelled, with a penalty in case of non-compliance, to report to the local authority all cases of housebound handicapped persons living alone.—(Lord Taylor.)
7.38 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEESMy Lords, there is just a little more that I should like to say on the Newcastle Bill, because it has at least one difference, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has already said. This is merely a general purposes Bill, like the Cumberland one. The bulk of the Bill deals with the Town Moor at Newcastle, but there are some clauses of general interest and added for different purposes. The Bill, unlike the Cumberland Bill, is an unopposed Bill, by which I mean that there are no Petitions at all against it.
Again, may I say that medical organisations, had they been so minded, could have petitioned against this Bill. May I say here, on the point raised this evening about expert evidence, that the best way of putting expert evidence before your Lordships' House is by calling it before a Select Committee, and the way
854
it is done is for expert witnesses, of whom a great many frequent your Lordships' House upstairs, to be called by the Promoters of the Bill, or by the Petitioners who oppose the Bill. The absence of expert evidence on this Bill is due simply to the fact that it is an unopposed Bill. Had it been opposed, it would have been different and expert evidence could have been given on both sides.
Although I said that it would be difficult to call expert evidence in the absence of a Petition against the Bill, I am reminded that after hearing the debate or argument downstairs, I could adjourn it for witnesses to be asked to come from outside. But much the best way of hearing expert evidence is to have a quasi-judicial hearing, which a hearing upstairs undoubtedly is.
May I say quite shortly that, if this Motion is not passed, this clause would be considered by the Unopposed Bills Committee of this House; and there is no doubt that, there being no precedent for this clause, the Committee would require the Promoters to justify it. The same procedure would then be followed as I have outlined for Cumberland. If this Motion is passed what happens then? Two things could happen. Either the clause would be considered by the Unopposed Bills Committee, being the Committee to which the Bill is referred, or, if I exercised my powers under the Standing Orders, which allow me to do so, I could send the clause upstairs to a Select Committee, in which case the clause, though unopposed, would be treated as if it were opposed. I have power to do that under Standing Order No. 92. Your Lordships may ask which I would do. I would say that my intention has been to consider everything that has been said to-night before deciding that question. I will certainly undertake to do that and then to decide what would be the best course in the interests of all concerned. I think that is all I can add. I am sorry to have addressed the House twice, but as there is a difference between the two Bills I thought I was justified in doing so.
7.42 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I think I should first make it clear that I am not speaking in any official capacity within my Party. Some time ago I was

855
asked by the Newcastle upon Tyne Corporation, in view of the original Instruction that my noble friend placed on the Order Paper, to explain their point of view. I think, in some ways, it is a good thing that my noble friend has drawn our attention to this particular matter, and I would thank him very much for the terms of the Motion that is now before the House. It draws our attention to what I think is one of the greatest evils that we have in our social system to-day—namely, the results of old age.
For some, old age is a period in which they can enjoy with satisfaction the experiences and achievements of their lives. Some can sit with their children and grandchildren around them, spending the last few years of their life in the best of all circumstances. But there is another side to the coin: those many thousands of old people who live very close to subsistence level, and short of the money which gives them the opportunity of buying the few things that are creature comforts, such as coal and the like. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Taylor is as well aware of them as I am, or any other Member of your Lordships' House is. It is that side of the coin that I should like to have in mind in considering the provisions that the Newcastle Corporation seek within this Bill.
If we just take statistics alone, in 1961 there were in this country 5½ million people over 65; 30 per cent. of them—or 1,650,000—were over the age of 75; and I do not think there is any doubt that this number continues to grow. However, I should like to think, in particular, of Newcastle. Newcastle, as my noble friend Lord Lawson will agree, is not part of the affluent South-East of England. It is condemned with a large amount of slum property; and I think your Lordships will find that many of the old people for whom this provision has been inserted will be found in these old premises of Newcastle, most of them with outside lavatories, certainly no bathroom, and no doubt all with a form of slippery stone step which is very dangerous to an old person. In Newcastle there are 31,000 persons over 65, of whom 10,000 are over 75. In the city alone there are nearly 7,000 women over the age of 60 who live alone. Those figures are taken from the 1961 Census,
856
and I have no doubt that they have increased since that time.
My noble friend Lord Taylor said that doctors co-operate in notifying the authorities when it comes to their knowledge that old people are in need of attention. But in the case of Newcastle (and I would not put this as any reflection on the doctors of the neighbourhood; because, as my noble friend said, they are understaffed in that area), every winter many old people enter hospital, ill-nourished, cold and unkempt, quite apart from their medical ailment; and in many cases the position of these old people has been unknown to the local authority. I had a personal experience not long ago—not dealing with Newcastle, but it rather illustrates the problem—of an old lady of 83 who had lost her husband and her son during the war, and who was living at home and suffering from a severe heart ailment. The doctor sought to get her into hospital, but I understood at the time that she was not exactly a medical case, in the sense of requiring hospital treatment. This old lady lived in a house all by herself, right through the long night, without attention. I do not know why the local authority was not notified, but, as I shall show, under the National Assistance Act, 1948, the local authority have a duty to act when they have been notified. This illustrates the type of case to which the Newcastle Corporation are directing their attention.
In Newcastle, apart from the local authority, there are many welfare organisations that co-operate, and are willing to co-operate. But what the authority and the voluntary bodies want to know is the vital information about those persons who are in need of attention. My noble friend Lord Taylor spoke of the voluntary basis. I should much prefer it to be on a voluntary basis. I cannot help but reflect that, in the case of National Assistance, we know that many old people who are in need of National Assistance do not go to the National Assistance Board, because of their pride. They feel that they are asking for charity, although we well know that this is not a charity, but their right. I suggest that they would be willing to take National Assistance if somebody from the local authority or the Board responsible, when they knew that the person was in difficulties, went to the

857
home and said, "This is your right". But it is quite a different thing for the old person to knock at the door and say, "I am in need of attention".
Take the case of loneliness. I think it would be even harder for an old person to go to the local authority and say, "I am lonely; I am unable to look after myself." I believe that that is something the old person would resist to the last. This is one of the reasons why I think that the voluntary appeal does not meet the case. It is true that neighbours and relations could do it. But even relations have a feeling of pride: they would not like to think that they had to go to the authority and say that their mother or father was in need of care and attention. It would be quite different, however, if the local authority came and said, "We know; we have heard; we are sorry. This is what we can do." I think we want a change of emphasis in this relation.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, may I interrupt my noble friend for a moment? What I was suggesting was that notification by the doctor should be a voluntary act. Is my noble friend objecting to that, or not? It seems to me that the doctor could very properly persuade the patient to allow notification, and the patient would probably not object. It is much better for the doctor to do it as a voluntary act as between willing customer and willing doctor, rather than that both parties should be compelled to do it.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I will reply to that, because I think it is a very serious point. But may I deal with the case of this voluntary registration so far as Newcastle is concerned? They had approximately 32,000 people over 65 at the 1961 census, and at present 11,000 are registered. Not all those 11,000 are persons who are in need of care and attention. They have been registered because of their age, and no doubt visits are made by the local authority through its officers. But there is undoubted evidence of the fact that there are many of whom we are not aware, and who are in need of attention.
My noble friend asked me whether I should not prefer the voluntary system by which the doctor would notify. Certainly I should. I think I would have
858
advised the local authority concerned here to amend their provision, because I agree with my noble friend 100 per cent. that if a person refuses and tells his doctor that in no circumstances is he to be notified, then it is right that no notification should be made. But the power of the doctor is considerable. The doctor does not say to an individual, "I think you ought to go to hospital. Will you please go to hospital?" He does not put it in that way. He puts it in such a way that the person must have very strong objection to going to hospital to refuse. In the same way, if the doctor were to say, "I think you are an individual who is in need of attention", he could put it in such a way that the resistance, unless it was something of very great principle, would not apply.
The local authority do not ask for this provision in any sort of bureaucratic attitude. They do not wish to see wholesale registration. What they would like to know are the names of the persons who are in special need of care. They believe that if this information were available to them, they could use their existing health services far more economically. They could obtain better co-ordination, and perhaps make far greater use of the system and the welfare organisations which are in existence. I do not think the local authority are asking for greater powers, except, of course, that this lays the duty upon the doctor rather than as it is laid under the National Assistance Act, 1948. That Act, if I may refresh your Lordships' memory, in Section 47, lays a duty upon the medical officer of health, where a person is in need of care and attention and is not prepared to go to hospital or to a home, and if he is satisfied that the person requires treatment he goes to the Ministry and gets an order. Therefore, I suggest that here there is a duty laid upon a local authority to see that persons who are in need of care and attention have the services available for their care and attention. Parliament, in its wisdom, has given a power that where a person so objects he may give evidence in front of the magistrates, but the magistrates may make an order. Further, in the same section, if a person wilfully disobeys or obstructs an order, he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on

859
summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £10.
Parliament of the day felt that some compulsion was necessary in the interests of the individual. I have endeavoured to make the case that in the case of Newcastle there may be a need for some compulsion on the doctors to notify the authority when people need care and attention. I must say that I should much prefer the voluntary system, but obviously the local authority feel that this is not sufficient. In the case of Newcastle, I understand that consultations have taken place with the local medical committee, and that it has been discussed and approved by them. This will indicate—and I would not put it higher than that—that there have been discussions with the local doctors, and that they have approved this provision. I may go further and say that the consultant physician in charge of the Newcastle-upon-Tyne geriatric department is also in favour.
It would seem, therefore, that the Corporation, when they decided to bring in this provision, carried out some consultation with the local medical service and that they have agreed to it, or approved it. When this clause goes to the office of the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, or upstairs, I hope the full problem will be understood and examined by the Committee. It may be that the Instruction which the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has placed on the Order Paper may place this particular provision in jeopardy. We shall have to see. But I am quite sure of this: that if this provision goes, we shall not be as we are to-day. Our attention has been drawn to a serious social evil. Here is a local authority that has tried to find some way of improving its social service. If Parliament rejects it as being the wrong way of doing it, then a direct responsibility will lie upon the medical profession, not only in Newcastle but in the country as a whole, and upon Her Majesty's Government. Therefore, if the noble Lord's Motion for an Instruction has served no other purpose, it has served a most useful purpose in that respect.
8.2 p.m.
LORD BRAIN: My Lords, once more I should like to support what the
860
noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has said. I have listened with great attention to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and I can see the attractiveness of the point of view which he has put forward. It is the attractiveness of administrative efficiency. But one can pay too high a price even for administrative efficiency. I think it would be too high a price if it led to the undermining of confidence which one should expect between patients and doctors. Either the thing is compulsory or it is not, and if it is compulsory it is no good representing it as a doctor persuading the patient that he should go and that it is in his interest to go. The confidence in professional secrecy has more than one root, but one obvious root I think is illustrated by this point: that the provision of this clause might well be self-defeating.
As the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has said many of these old people are very independent-minded and they may get it into their heads, quite wrongly, that they do not want a compulsory visit from a representative of the local authority. That might lead such patients not to call in a doctor, when it gets about that if they have the doctor he will notify their position to the local authority. I think that is a practical point of great importance. I feel quite sure that the right way to approach this problem is, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has said, by the method of voluntary co-operation. If the authority have services to offer which are to the advantage of the patients, and if they make this known to the doctors, I am quite sure that doctors will be only too glad to avail themselves of those services. I hope that when the Committee consider this clause, they will appreciate these difficulties to which I have drawn attention and will not take a step which I am sure would be regarded by the medical profession generally as the thin end of the wedge and as violating this very important principle of confidence between doctor and patient.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I was not quite clear whether the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, was opposing the Motion of his noble friend Lord Taylor and, therefore, saying, in effect, that Clause 36

861
of the Bill should not receive special attention. But, for my part, I will agree with the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, that it ought to receive special attention. But here again I express no preference as to exactly what form that special attention should take.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I make it clear that I do not oppose the Instruction? I think it should go forward. The purpose of my speaking, I fear at considerable length for this time of the evening, was to endeavour to put the Newcastle Corporation's point of view and the reasons for their provision.
8.5 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, I should like to thank all your Lordships who have taken part in these two little debates, particularly my noble friend Lord Brain and my noble friend Lord Shepherd. I think he very fairly put the point of view of the Newcastle Corporation. I should like to reiterate that I think this is the wrong way of trying to do the right thing, because I know perfectly well that the easy way out of a situation is to try to put it into an Act instead of providing a service. If the Newcastle Corporation provides enough health visitors and can get those health visitors and general practitioners co-operating, this problem does not arise. It has not arisen—at least this solution has not been suggested previously—and the much better solution is the co-operation between the G.Ps and health visitors. What the noble Lord, Lord Brain, said is absolutely right: if there is a service available to the people and the general practitioners know it is there, they will not be slow in coming forward, because all they want to do is to see their people healthy. I think that what the people in Newcastle desire can and should be achieved, and it should be Newcastle's pride that this is achieved by voluntary effort and voluntary co-operation and not by introducing this compulsory principle.
I have argued my case. I think, on the whole, that you will feel that you would like to accept this Instruction and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, will, when he has considered all things, decide that this clause should go to a Committee, my concern being that it should be very
862
carefully examined and, as will have emerged, that this is perhaps a more difficult one than the previous one. There are more obviously two sides to the problem and my concern is that we should have a report from the Committee of their solution. I am not quite sure which of the methods of the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, will achieve that desired result, but I hope he will bear it in mind. I hope very much that your Lordships will accept my Instruction and that we shall be able to get the matter very carefully and objectively considered in Committee.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SURGICAL BELTS
8.7 p.m.
LORD CROOK LORD CROOK rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in order to help the sick and aged, and in the interest of economy of administration, they will take effective steps to secure that arrangements are made for the cleaning of the surgical belts supplied to patients by the hospitals. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am sorry to detain your Lordships for a few more minutes to ask this Question which is on the Order Paper in my name, again a Question dealing with the aged and the sick. In the course of moving among people in my own home area I discovered that first one firm and then another had ceased to cause any work to be accepted in their shops for the cleaning of surgical belts, and I wrote to the Sutton and Cheam Hospital, Sutton, which is mainly responsible for the patients whom I knew, to point out that after months of attempting to secure service from any other dry cleaners than the one which was first referred to by that hospital, I was in the situation that I could find no other cleaning firm to provide it. Indeed, in an area from Kingston to Croydon it was impossible to find a shop of one of the cleaning firms to do so.
I believe this is due to some fear on their part about faulty cleaning, but that I do not know. This is no help to the patient, who is given a belt and told to have it cleaned from time to time, and that it must be cleaned only by dry cleaning; but who then in fact causes the belt to be subjected to washing powders and detergents and to be put into a

863
washer or spin-drier. This deteriorates the belt and, as I pointed out, causes a replacement of the belt to be necessary at a very much earlier date. It probably causes the belt to be unfit to be worn either by reason of the deterioration in the washing, or even because the detergents themselves might cause a skin irritation.
I suggested that this was a position which the hospital authorities might put to the Ministry of Health. It was not for me to judge whether the hospital authorities or the Ministry should take steps to do something about it. The hospital authorities sent a copy of my letter to the Ministry, saying it was true that patients were finding it impossible to get firms to clean their belts, and that a surgical fitter who attended the hospital had told the officials there that he knew that the same difficulties were being experienced in other hospitals. The almoner of the hospital, writing to the Ministry of Health at Blackpool, pointed out that
"… makers do not recommend that belts should be washed at home, because unless they are dried very quickly the steels are liable to stain the material. Moreover some of our patients live in old people's homes, bedsitting rooms or small flats and have not the facilities to wash and dry their belts. Removable steels are not considered satisfactory, as patients can remove them at will and may not wear them."
The reply came back from the Assistant Director of Supply at the Ministry of Health, and I am bound to say, as one who has had long experience of the Civil Service and the excellent service it gives and its great co-operation, I have never in my life seen a more unhelpful or useless letter sent out by an officer of a Department. He says:
"There is no provision in the National Health Service for the cleaning of these supports but some contractors will undertake this work by private arrangement if patients request them to do so.
"Patients who do their own cleaning, either of choice or because they are unable to get any cleaning firms to do it for them, are not advised to put their belts in a washing machine or a spin drier, nor should they use a strong detergent.
"A recognised method of cleaning is to lay the garment flat and gently scrub it with a soft nail brush, using hot soapy water. This can be done with the steels, etc., in position, but where practicable it is advisable to remove them."
I do not know whether to call that a case of telling grandmother to go and suck eggs, or a complete and utter failure to recognise what had been said in the letter he had received. He says that some contractors will do this work, but the whole point of the letter sent to him was that there were large numbers of patients wanting help from someone in the Ministry because they could not get firms to clean them. He says they are not advised to put belts in washing machines. He was told that that was the reason it was being raised, in order to stop their doing that. Then he says:
"A recognised method … is to lay the garment flat and gently scrub it with a soft nail brush …"
Who recognised it? Recognised by the doctors who forbade it, or by the firm who made them, who forbade it and who put it in writing? Or recognised only by the gentleman sitting in Blackpool, who, without any consideration, thought he would give his own good advice?
He had been told the makers did not recommend that belts should be washed at home because the steels were liable to stain. He ignored some of the people in old people's homes, bedsitting rooms and flats who had not any facilities at all. Similarly, he went on to suggest that steels should be removed, where practicable. If he knew anything about the subject he would know that most of these steels are completely fixed and sewn in, with all the corners capped in leather; it is done deliberately to stop patients from taking steels out. The one thing doctors and physiotherapists are afraid of is that belts are such painful and annoying things that people will think of taking the steels out. He had been told that removable steels are not satisfactory, but he was good enough to suggest that they should be taken out.
I hope I am going to get, as I normally do from the noble Lord who is to reply, a much more helpful attitude than was shown by this reply, divorced as it was from any knowledge of the problem, not even recognising the facts that were put in the letter sent to the Ministry, making no attempt to solve the problem of the aged and sick, people who have great appeal to your Lordships and in whom I know the noble Lord

865
the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health has great interest. It is not for me to say whether the solution should be one or the other, whether it should be some attempt to make arrangements for some firm to take the belts to be cleaned or whether the hospital authorities throughout the country should themselves undertake it. I say it is no good doctors prescribing the belts and saying that they should be cleaned and how they should be cleaned, with the steels left in, and then to get an unhelpful attitude such as is revealed in this letter.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, I want to add only one word, and that is to support my noble friend Lord Crook heartily in everything he said and to ask the Minister whether there is not some sort of service for washing colostomy belts and how far such a service could be available for washing ordinary surgical belts. These people are very often arthritic and find the greatest difficulty in scrubbing and cleaning the belts themselves, and if the facility could be generalised in that way it would be a help.
8.16 p.m.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, the noble Lord's Question asks the Government to assume the responsibility of arranging for the cleaning of surgical belts supplied by the National Health Service. This is obviously not a matter which lends itself to very lengthy debate, at any time of the day or night, but it is no bad thing that it has been raised in your Lordships' House, since the fact that it has been raised is evidence—if evidence is needed—that we who sit here are not as out of touch with stark reality as our detractors would sometimes have the world believe.
The noble Lord's request could be met in either of two ways. The first way would be to compel all laundries and dry cleaners to undertake the task (at present some refuse to do so) and make noncompliance a punishable offence. I suggest that would be an intolerable limitation of commercial freedom, and I am quite certain that Parliament would not countenance it. Moreover, having examined a number of these belts I accept unhesitatingly the recommendation of the manufacturers that they
866
should not be washed or cleaned by mechanical means. The second way would be for the National Health Service to do the cleaning. I have studied my Minister's duties under the National Health Services Acts, and I am quite certain that he has no duty to be responsible for the ordinary routine care of any appliance supplied by the National Health Service, though he does accept responsibility for repairs. But repairs are not ordinary routine care. The only exception is the cleaning of wigs, because that requires a special process which cannot be undertaken in the ordinary way.
If the National Health Service were to be responsible for the cleaning of surgical belts the annual cost to the taxpayers would be more than a quarter of a million pounds, and there would be a further bill, which we could not avoid, for cleaning other appliances, such as colostomy and ileostomy belts, to which the noble Lord, Lord Taylor referred, elastic hosiery and brassieres. With great respect, the cleaning of a surgical belt is a perfectly simple operation, provided that it is done before the belt gets too dirty, as it obviously ought to be, and as the manufacturers recommend. And the evidence we have in my Department is that most wearers do their own cleaning or, if they are sick or elderly, have it done at home by those who look after them.
I must admit that I had never seen a surgical belt until the noble Lord's Question appeared on the Order Paper. But as soon as it did I sent for samples, including a dirty one—the technical description is "soiled". I washed it, following the instructions of the manufacturers; that is to say, I squeezed it thoroughly in warm soapy water, rubbed it lightly with a nail brush where most soiled, carefully rinsed it in clean tepid water and avoided intense heat in drying it. I should think that this is a very easy operation to perform in one's own home; but I had to perform it at the Ministry of Health at the Elephant and Castle. I found a cubby-hole with a sink and water, but there was no table or draining board. However, my resourceful Private Secretary produced a tea tray, and he held the tray while I washed the belt upon it. I have the result here. With all due modesty. I

867
do not think it is a bad effort for a beginner. The creation of iron mould through the rusting of the steel supports is a slight nuisance, though I found I could get rid of most of it by rubbing with half a lemon dipped in salt. However, this nuisance does not often arise, because most of the manufacturers already produce belts with removable steels, contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Crook, evidently believes. Moreover, we in the Department are considering amending the specifications of all surgical garments to provide that all steel supports must be removable. We are also considering with the manufacturers the use of materials other than steel.
Finally, I consulted my wife. She says that all women, whether or not they send most of their washing to a laundry or dry cleaner, always wash certain articles of apparel themselves. After fifteen years' experience of married life I was not surprised to receive that information.
Until the noble Lord raised this matter we did not know that any problem existed. Indeed, my Department have
868
been unable to find any record of a complaint by a wearer. I am told that the manufacturers receive comparatively few dirty belts for repair. This seems to suggest that the great majority of wearers have little difficulty in arranging for their belts to be cleaned or washed or in doing the job themselves and, as I said earlier, our information is that most people do the job at home or have it done at home for them. I am further advised that it is probably better for the belts to wash them at home than to send them to a dry cleaner.
LORD CROOK: My Lords, I have no right of reply.

HAVEN MARINE TERMINAL COMPANY BILL [H.L.] LIFE ASSOCIATION OF SCOTLAND LIMITED [H.L.]
Committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes past eight o'clock.