Sitting of 14 July 1964

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [Lords]
  Read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT

    Public Conveniences (Hygiene)
    Mr. Pounderasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he will introduce legislation to empower him to see that local authorities require a high standard of hygiene in public conveniences.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield): I would refer my hon. Friend to the replies I gave to the Questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Waltham-stow, East (Mr. J. Harvey) on 8th June, and by the hon. Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) on 9th June. My right hon. Friend does not think legislation is required.
    Mr. Pounder: I am aware of the Answers which my hon. Friend gave to those hon. Members, but is he not aware that although a very high standard of hygiene is maintained by some local authorities in conveniences under their control, this standard is certainly not uniform and that a recent survey showed that in some areas less than one-third of the conveniences in those areas were above a reasonable standard and that less than half had wash basins? In
    996
    view of the vital importance of maintaining a high standard of public hygiene, is not my right hon. Friend prepared to look at the matter again?
    Mr. Corfield: No, Sir. I am absolutely convinced that it is essentially a matter both for local administration and local enforcement. As my hon. Friend will be aware, my right hon. Friend has undertaken to issue advice on the matter, and I am quite certain that the pressure of public opinion on local authorities will be much more effective than legislation, which would be very difficult indeed to enforce.

    Somerset River Board
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs why there is no Dorset representative on the new Somerset River Board, in view of the fact that a large area of Dorset is included in the new authority's area.
    The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir Keith Joseph): Dorset will contribute only 2 per cent. of the Somerset river authority's precepted income; the Act requires local authority members to be allocated having regard to rateable resources: and that is why Dorset has no member on this authority.
    Mr. Digby: Is it not a fact that there are to be no fewer than 27 members on this new authority and that the whole of one Dorset U.D.C., the whole of an R.D.C. and part of another R.D.C. are all in the area of this board? Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is some resentment caused by the feeling that their future is being determined and that they are having no control over it?
    Sir K. Joseph: The Act lays down that local authority members, who are to form the majority on the board, shall be elected according to rateable resources. Dorset has five members on the Avon and Dorset river authority.

    West Dorset Water Board (Water Rate)
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs by how

    997
    much the water rate in the area of the West Dorset Water Board exceeds or is less than the average.
    Mr. Corfield: My right hon. Friend regrets that it is not possible to relate the water rate in the West Dorset Water Board's area to a national average; an average could not be calculated from the information which he receives.
    Mr. Digby: Is not my hon. Friend aware that it is rather high, making all allowances for very special problems in that area, and, that there is a certain amount of local disquiet about it?
    Mr. Corfield: Yes, I appreciate that the charges in the West Dorset Water Board's area are high, but, as my hon. Friend knows, this is largely due to the very high capital investment which has been necessary. My hon. Friend will also be aware that my right hon. Friend has recently made an Order for the extension of the area and for the inclusion of a number of other water undertaking authorities which, in the long run, will have the effect of cheapening the water supply in the whole of the area.

    Property Development (Trees)
    Mr. Loughlinasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he is satisfied that the present legislation which prohibits the felling of trees in cases of property development is adequate; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Corfield: Yes, Sir. Local planning authorities can control felling by means of a tree preservation order under Section 29 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962. They can also control development to ensure that it does not necessitate felling trees it is desired to preserve.
    Mr. Loughlin: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that there seems to be some weakness in the present position, because there has been a multiplicity of cases where trees have been felled against the orders made by local planning authorities and then, when the developers have been prosecuted—I quote a case in Gloucester recently—the fines which have been imposed have been infinitesimal, even farcical, and in the Gloucester case, as the hon. Gentleman will know, the developer was fined £1
    998
    after defying the local planning authority.
    Mr. Corfield: Yes, I am aware of that case. Nevertheless, that is a matter for the magistrates who tried it. Whatever legislative alterations were made, there would have to be a court to enforce the order, and it would be quite wrong for a Minister to interfere with the jurisdiction of the court.

    Unmade Roads
    Mr. Loughlinasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will seek power to enable him to take the initiative in solving the problem of unmade roads in local authority areas.
    Mr. Corfield: No, Sir. This is essentially a local problem which the local authorities are best placed to deal with. My right hon. Friend thinks the initiative should remain with them.
    Mr. Loughlin: I appreciate the present position, but in some areas this is a really serious problem. May I quote the Forest of Dean, where there is an enormous number of unmade roads, normally referred to as "forest tracks", and where by the nature of the area it becomes impossible for people to obtain access to their homes? Will the hon. Gentleman inquire of the Gloucester County Council why nothing has been done in relation to the Edge Hill site as well?
    Mr. Corfield: I am always willing to make inquiries, but I am absolutely certain that this is basically a question of priorities, and local priorities at that, and it must be for the Gloucester County Council as highway authority to decide those priorities in any particular part of the county.
    Mr. Loughlin: Will the Minister have a very close look at this, because I can assure him that many hundreds of my constituents are suffering under intolerable conditions, particularly in the winter, because of the failure of the Gloucester County Council to take action in this matter?

    National Parks (Derelict Land)
    Mr. Boydenasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs how much

    999
    derelict land there is in the National Parks and areas scheduled as of outstanding natural beauty.
    Mr. Corfield: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave him on 7th July last.
    Mr. Boyden: Now that the Parliamentary Secretary admits that he has not sufficient information about the location or size of this problem, will he give an indication of what information he intends to obtain and, more important, whether his Department proposes to revise the methods for dealing with this very serious problem?
    Mr. Corfield: Revising the methods is another question. The problem at the moment is that the information we get is shown on development plans which cover different periods for different areas, so it is not possible to relate the information to the position overall on any particular date. It was to that that the circular was directed.

    River Authorities (Establishment)
    Mr. C. Johnsonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will now make the necessary orders establishing the new river authorities provided for by the Water Resources Act, 1963; and when he expects such river authorities to exercise the functions to be assigned or transferred to them.
    Mr. Corfield: My right hon. Friend and his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have now made orders establishing all the river authorities except that for the Lancashire area which will be made very shortly. It is contemplated that the authorities will begin to exercise their functions on 1st April, 1965.

    Isle of Sheppey
    Mr. Bostonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what plans he has to amend the proposals in the South-East Study and White Paper, so that the Isle of Sheppey can be brought into the revised plan and form a major part of it.
    Mr. Corfield: The Kent County Council has made proposals of this nature in the statement of its views on the Study
    1000
    which it has submitted to my right hon. friend. Its views will be taken into account when final decisions on the Study proposals are reached.
    Mr. Boston: Is the Minister aware that people will be relieved to hear that the matter is being considered? Does he recall that the Kent Development Plan, which was published in November of last year, very strongly urged the incorporation of Sheppey in development in the Kent area and that that Plan was published some months before the South-East Study was published on 19th March of this year? Therefore, does not the hon. Gentleman feel that a great deal of time has elapsed and that the moment has come to make a more positive statement?
    Mr. Corfield: My right hon. Friend has, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, already indicated that he is prepared to approve the town map which allows for an increase in population from 16,000 to 41,000 and the allocation of very large areas for industrial development.

    Ecclesiastical Buildings (Preservation Orders)
    Mr. Dribergasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if, in view of the recent decision of the High Court that a rectory house is to be deemed an ecclesiastical building and is therefore excluded, under Section 30(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1962 from those classes of buildings on which building perservation orders may be made, he will introduce amending legislation which will enable him to make preservation orders on ecclesiastical buildings of special historic or architectural interest.
    Mr. Corfield: Since the exemption operates only while the building is in use for ecclesiastical purposes, my right hon. Friend is not clear that any difficulty is likely to arise.
    Mr. Driberg: Is that not rather a vague Answer? While it may be true that no difficulty is likely to arise because we can assume, for example, that the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's would not be so wicked as to pull down the Deanery and sell the site to a developer, is it

    1001
    not a fact that if they wished to do so, or if something similar were to happen, the right hon. Gentleman would now have no legal way of preventing it?
    Mr. Corfield: A vague Question almost invariably gets a vague Answer. However, I understand the situation to be that, in order to circumvent the position, the Ecclesisastical Commissioners or some other Church body would virtually have to knock the house down as the parson walked out of the door; and although an unlikely happening, I will discuss this matter with the Church authorities.
    Mr. Driberg: Since the Joint Parliamentary Secretary likes precision and not vagueness, will he take note of the fact that my Question was a very exact one and asked for amending legislation, with precise references, and will he also note that they are not called "The Ecclesiastical Commissioners" but "The Church Commissioners"?
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Mr. MacColI: When discussing this matter with the ecclesiastical authorities—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and I use the expression "ecclesiastical authorities" in general terms and not referring specifically a particular body—would the Joint Parliamentary Secretary also have discussions with his right hon. Friend the Minister for Public Building and Works to find out what effect the decision has had on the eligibility of parsonage houses for the historic buildings grant, since this affects their preservation?
    Mr. Corfield: Yes. I will certainly take that into account.

    South-East Study (Berkshire County Council and Newbury)
    Sir A. Hurdasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what has been the outcome of the preliminary discussions he has had with the Berkshire County Council and other local authorities on the proposal made in the South-East Study for creating a new city in the Newbury neighbourhood; and what arrangements he has in mind for ensuring that local knowledge and opinion are fully considered in a more detailed survey before any decisions are reached.
    Sir K. Joseph: I have not yet received the observations of the Berkshire County
    1002
    Council and Newbury Borough Council following the preliminary discussions to which my hon. Friend refers. I understand, however, that the County Council may propose a joint study of the development possibilities in a somewhat wider area. I would certainly give any such suggestion careful consideration.
    Sir A. Hurd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Berkshire County Council last Saturday passed a resolution saying that while it did not accept, on present evidence, the need for a new city in the Newbury area, it was willing to enter into consultations for a closer survey to take place with my right hon. Friend's Department and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to see whether additions to the existing towns in the area might better meet the needs of the situation and overcome the local anxieties about what a new city would mean to us?
    Will he accept from the whole House our congratulations upon adding yet one more member to the population of the South-East this morning?
    Sir K. Joseph: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his personal remark.
    Without committing myself until I have seen the terms of the proposal being made, I can assure him that the project he has in mind will be most sympathetically considered.

    Greater London Boroughs (Principal Officers)
    Mr. J. Harveyasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what guidance he proposes to issue to Greater London boroughs with a view to ensuring that they should act as good employers in the appointment of their principal officers.
    Sir K. Joseph: The advice of the London Government Staff Commission on the procedure to be followed in making these appointments has already been sent to the London borough councils. Its essential purpose is to ensure that these authorities first seek their chief officers from staff affected by the reorganisation of London government; but the final choice among suitable candidates must in each case rest with the council itself.
    Mr. Harvey: Will my right hon. Friend agree that a good employer would give special weight to such factors as local knowledge, experience, length of service and seniority, and would it not be helpful in some of the problems with which these new authorities are faced, consequent upon amalgamation, if he were to issue some clear guidance on these points?
    Sir K. Joseph: I think that I have passed on scrupulously the guidance provided by the London Government Staff Commission, which was set up for that purpose. Certainly, the points my hon. Friend mentions are among those to be taken carefully into account by the employing authorities, but I must, in the last resort, leave the discretion to them.

    Land, The Hartlepools
    Commander Keransasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs how many acres of land are available for industry in Hartlepool and West Hartlepool, respectively.
    Mr. Corfield: About 50 acres in Hartlepool, and about the same in West Hartlepool.
    Commander Kerans: Will my hon. Friend assure me that there is sufficient land available in large contiguous areas so that large industries, such as the car industry, can come there in future?
    Mr. Corfield: I understand that this area includes a number of very large sites, and that several hundred acres are available to the south in the Stockton district as well. I have no evidence that shortage of available land is in any way inhibiting the establishment of industry in this area.

    Flood Relief
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will introduce legislation to enable him to initiate schemes for providing compensation for the relief of residents in areas affected by flooding.
    Mr. Corfield: No, Sir. Insurance cover against flood has been readily available at modest cost since the severe floods of
    1004
    1961, and my right hon. Friend sees no need for legislation.
    Mr. Brockway: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in Slough, because of the overflowing of two lakes in a neighbouring area, there has been widespread flooding, with the destruction of carpets, clothes, bedding and everything else? Is there not some means of granting compensation in such cases, and would the Parliamentary Secretary consider applying it to the Slough cases?
    Mr. Corfield: Of course, the precedent is before the floods to which I have referred, and before insurance companies were generally able to afford the cover I mentioned. But what the hon. Member is asking is that those taxpayers and ratepayers who insure their own goods should be required to step in for other people who do not, and I do not really think that that is a very strong case.
    Mr. Brockway: But is it not the fact that this kind of act of God, which is entirely unexpected, is not something that is insurable?
    Mr. Corfield: No, that is not so.

    Redhill Comprehensive Development Area
    Sir J. Vaughan-Morganasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he is aware that inconvenience is being caused by delay in giving approval to the Redhill Comprehensive Development Area; and when he expects to give his decision.
    Mr. Corfield: Yes, Sir. But the difficulty is that this comprehensive development proposal incorporates the diversion of two trunk roads A.23 and A.25.
    My right hon. Friend is discussing the issues with his right hon. Friend, the Minister of Transport and he will give his decision as soon as possible.
    Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: Will not my hon. Friend agree that as this is a very large area he could give at least an interim decision concerning all those parts which are not affected by the line of the proposed diversions?
    Mr. Corfield: I understand that the question of giving a decision on part

    1005
    of these proposals is full of legal difficulties, but my right hon. Friend will certainly endeavour to give a decision as soon as he possibly can.

    Oxted and Limpsfield Town Map
    Sir J. Vaughan-Morganasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs when he expects that a decision will be given on the Oxted and Limpsfield town map now before him for his approval; and whether he is aware that the delay in giving approval is holding up progress with the scheme for by-passing Old Oxted.
    Mr. Corfield: My right hon. Friend's decision on this town map is not likely to be given until early next year.
    He is, however, prepared to deal with the by-pass proposal separately and has told the Surrey County Council so. If it agrees he hopes to be able to issue a decision on this shortly.

    Aircraft, Wales (Supersonic Tests)
    Mr. Watkinsasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what action he has taken in respect of the telegram sent him by the Welsh Tourist and Holidays Board on 2nd July about the proposed supersonic testing in Wales during the holiday period, which will result in interference with the Board's efforts on behalf of the industry.
    Sir K. Joseph: I have written to the chairman of the Board explaining that the proposed programme of tests are similar to that carried out in previous years; these did not give rise to complaints from anyone associated with the tourist industry, or cause any undue inconvenience, intrusive noise or damage. Therefore I have no reason to think that the future programme will do otherwise.
    Mr. Watkins: Is the Minister aware that far more tests are to be undertaken within the next 12 weeks than ever before and that there are already serious complaints from farmers and holiday-makers? We, like the right hon. Gentleman, want to encourage more holiday-makers to come to Wales but if, as it is intended, they have to put up with
    1006
    these bangs they are less likely to come to seek the peaceful atmosphere of Wales.
    Sir K. Joseph: I think that the hon. Member has become mistaken in some way. The programme is not larger than before and the only danger to tourism in Wales is exaggerated reports, such as the hon. Member might be giving rise to, which would keep holiday-makers away.
    Dr. Bray: Is there not a genuine difficulty here on which the right hon. Gentleman should take action in that the distribution of test areas as it affects the population is a matter on which he is in a better position to judge than the Minister of Aviation? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the responsibility should be his rather than that of another Ministry?
    Sir K. Joseph: That is a different question, but I do not feel that the hon. Member is right. My right hon. Friend is perfectly well aware of the distribution of population when making his decision.

  HOUSING

    Three-bedroomed Houses (Average Tender Price)
    Mr. Boydenasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what is the latest average tender price for three-bedroomed houses as approved by him; and how this figure compares with that for the same date in 1963, 1959 and 1951, respectively.
    Sir K. Joseph: The latest figures relate to the first quarter of 1964, when the average tender price for a two-storey three-bedroom house, adjusted to a standard area of 900 square feet, was £2,210. The figures for the corresponding quarters of 1963, 1959 and 1951 were £2,047. £1,489 and £1,173.
    Mr. Boyden: Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed the reply that I received yesterday from his right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works that the price of bricks increased by 18 per cent. between May, 1960, and May, 1962, by a further 7 per cent. in the next year, and by a further

    1007
    7 per cent. the year after that? What steps is the Minister taking, in conjunction with his right hon. Friend, to try to keep this inflationary effect on building costs down?
    Sir K. Joseph: The steps the Government are taking are to encourage local authorities to place, where suitable, five-year contracts, to join in groups to get the maximum benefit from large buying power, and to adopt, where suitable, competitive building systems as well as traditional systems.
    Mr. Ridley: Is it not true from the figures my right hon. Friend has given that the cost of such accommodation has in fact risen less over the 13 years than the average increase in earnings and wages?
    Sir K. Joseph: Yes; my hon. Friend is quite right. House prices increased by 88 per cent. between 1951 and the first quarter of 1964. The average earnings of manual workers increased between 1951 and October, 1963—the latest available figures in the Ministry of Labour statistics—by 104 per cent.
    Mr. Boyden: Would it not be better if the Minister concentrated on some of the other major causes of inflation, such as high land prices, interest charges and the matter I raised, rather than constantly denigrating the building workers, whose efficiency has increased very much and who deserve the rates they get?
    Sir K. Joseph: No; I think that my hoc Friend's supplementary question supports the view that people can afford to buy the houses or to rent the houses, despite the rise in prices.
    Mr. Stainton: Would my right hon. Friend also inform us whether an important aspect of this problem is that of productivity? Have not wages on sites virtually doubled since 1951, whereas output per man hour has risen by significantly less?
    Sir K. Joseph: That is another question, of which I should like to have notice about housing. The building industry has raised productivity, certainly in housing within my field, substantially in some areas, and we hope mat this trend is continuing now.
    Mr. M. Stewart: In giving figures of average earnings will the Minister remember that they are earnings and not wage rates and that the figure of earnings which keeps pace with house and rent prices is often maintained only by working very long hours?
    Sir K. Joseph: Yes, I will remember that: but will the hon. Gentleman remember that the price of houses and the movement in the price of houses includes some improvement in the standard of equipment that goes into these houses. This has happened particularly over the last three years.

    Waiting Lists (Residential Qualifications)
    Mr. John Hallasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will call for a return from local authorities to discover how many of them have given effect to one of the recommendations of the Central Housing Advisory Committee in its report on residential qualifications issued in 1955 that local authorities should give newcomers points for time on the waiting list of another district in lieu of residential qualification.
    Mr. Corfield: No, Sir. This is one of many suggestions which my right hon. Friend and his predecessors have commended to the attention of housing authorities. But responsibility for the management of local authority houses is reserved by Statute to the authorities themselves, and it is not for him to intervene in the detailed exercise of this responsibility.
    Mr. Hall: Would not my hon. Friend agree that there are quite a number of cases of persons who, through no fault of their own, are forced to move from one local authority area to another and, in consequence, find themselves each time at the end of the housing queue? Is not this a matter to which the attention of local authorities should be directed rather more forcibly than it is at present? Should not they be asked to give effect to this recommendation?
    Mr. Corfield: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that it is much to be preferred if there is no residential qualification at all, but in areas of considerable pressure from immigrants

    1009
    from outside the area there is a case for local authorities which feel that their existing residents should have some degree of priority.
    Mr. H. Hynd: Although one wishes to preserve the principle that the Government should not interfere with local authorities more than is absolutely necessary, would the Minister agree that where a local authority is not doing its duty properly it is then for the Government to intervene?
    Mr. Corfield: Yes, but I do not think that this is a case where a local authority can be said not to be doing its duty properly.

    Subsidies (Review)
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will now make a statement on his review of housing subsidies.
    Sir K. Joseph: I cannot add to the reply given by my hon. Friend on 2nd June.
    Mr. Allaun: Since the review is due shortly, in reaching his conclusions will the Minister bear two points in mind? First, it is the Government's doubling of interest rates that has doubled council house rents and, secondly, it is not the tenants who are being subsidised so much as the financiers?
    Sir K. Joseph: No, I cannot bear those points in mind, either in the form in which they are put by the hon. Member or exclusively. The point I will bear in mind is that it is the duty of the Government to see that people can be decently housed by local authorities, regardless of their means—and there is no evidence whatever to show that this is not the case today.
    Mr. Lipton: Is the Minister not prepared to review the whole position in the light of the very alarming figures which have been released by the Town and Country Planning Association and which show that the right hon. Gentleman has grossly under-estimated the magnitude of the problem?
    Sir K. Joseph: A later Question appears on the Order Paper on this subject. The hon. Gentleman's imputation is completely wrong. This Question is
    1010
    about housing subsidies, about which a review is going on.
    Mr. M. Stewart: Will the Minister at any rate relieve the anxiety of those local authorities which fear that he may be using as soon as he can his powers under the 1961 Act to refuse or abolish existing subsidies?
    Sir K. Joseph: There is absolutely no evidence of any intention in my mind of that at the moment.

    Improvement Grants
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs in how many houses in Great Britain and in Salford, owner-occupied and landlord-owned, respectively, baths, inside water-closets, and hot water systems have been installed by means of standard improvement grants since the scheme started.
    Mr. Corfield: In Great Britain up to 31st March last 139,500 privately owned houses were provided with baths, 131,000 with water-closets and 153,000 with hot water systems, with the help of standard grants. For Salford the figures were 179 baths, 171 water-closets and 170 hot water systems. I cannot say how many of these houses in Great Britain and in Salford were owner-occupied, or let; but about three-quarters of all standard grants to private owners were for owner-occupied houses.
    Mr. Allaun: Are not those numbers pitifully inadequate compared with the one-in-four families living in houses without a bath, as revealed by the latest Government figures, and does not that fact reflect a very odd kind of affluent society? In view of this, will the Parliamentary Secretary write to local authorities asking them to submit to him their proposals for area improvement schemes and telling them that there are compulsory measures available to them where landlords are obdurate?
    Mr. Corfield: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Housing Bill is about to complete its stages through Parliament. There will be circulars issued in that connection, but I will see that his point is borne in mind. However, I would remind him that the best test is to judge the number of improvements against the number of houses capable of

    1011
    being improved; and in the Salford area, for example, the existing slum clearance programme covers 19,000 dwellings, which is very little short of the total number of houses in the borough which do not have baths, and is very much in excess of those without other facilities.
    Mr. Gower: Apart from houses which have been improved with the aid of grants, has my hon. Friend any figures to show the considerable number of houses which in some areas have been improved without grants but by the owners themselves?
    Mr. Corfield: I have no exact figures but I have no doubt that a considerable number have been so improved.
    Mrs. Slater: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary know that in many local authority areas—I cannot speak for Salford but I certainly can speak for Stoke-on-Trent—there are a large number of houses with 15 and even 30 years life left to them yet where the figures of improvements are appalling, showing that landlords are not measuring up to the provisions of the Act? Since landlords are now able to get greater assistance than was available to them previously, what pressure is the Minister bringing to bear on them to see that they improve their houses rather than try to get their tenants out so that they can sell their property at inflated prices?
    Mr. Corfield: The hon. Lady must have been absent for the greater part of this Session—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—or she would know about the Measure which has as a major purpose the giving of compulsory powers to local authorities to force landlords to make these improvements.
    Mrs. Slater: On a point of order. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to withdraw that remark, because if any hon. Member has a record of attending this House and Standing Committees and taking part in our deliberations, I should have pride of place on the list.
    Hon. Members: Withdraw.
    Mr. Speaker: It is not out of order.
    Several Hon. Members—
    Mr. Corfield: I am perfectly prepared to withdraw. I think I am entitled to remind the hon. Lady that she must
    1012
    know about the provisions of this Measure, on which we have spent many hours, and the fact that those provisions will do what she is asking.
    Several Hon. Members—
    Mr. Speaker: We must get on.
    Mr. Allaun: On a different point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that the Parliamentary Secretary made a mistake when reading one of his answers. He just told me that there are 1,900 houses in Salford without baths. He must know that the figure is over 30,000. He must, therefore, have made a mistake.
    Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. I cannot correct Ministers' answers in relation to the facts.
    Mrs. Slaterasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs how many houses in Stoke-on-Trent, owner-occupied and landlord-owned, respectively, have received improvement grants since 1949.
    Mr. Corfield: In Stoke-on-Trent 3,720 improvement grants were made to private owners from 1949 to 31st May, 1964. Of the 2,538 made since 1960, when separate records began to be kept, 2,220 were to owner-occupiers, 318 to other private owners.
    Mrs. Slater: Does not the hon. Gentleman now realise that this figure is much below what it ought to be? Does he realise that we are not merely concerned with what will be the law after this Parliament but with the law as it is now? Does he consider that 7 per cent. of tenanted houses is sufficient improvement? Cannot he do something between now and October to urge these people to get the job done?
    Mr. Corfield: No, I do not consider it sufficient, and that is why we put the provision into the Housing Bill, but the hon. Lady will appreciate that one cannot use the power of the Bill until it becomes an Act.

    New Houses (Fireguards)
    23. Mrs. Hartasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what steps he has taken to ensure that every new subsidised house has fireplace fittings for

    1013
    the fixing of fireguards, in view of the evidence in the recent British Medical Association Survey on Accidents in the Home that in 65 per cent. of cases of burns due to a fire, fixed fireguards were not in use.
    Mr. Corfield: Local housing authorities have on several occasions been advised to provide fixtures for fireguards in accordance with the appropriate British Standard.
    Mrs. Hart: Has the hon. Gentleman any indication of how many local authorities have taken his advice? Is he aware that, as far as I know—and certainly in most of the new towns of Britain—this advice has not been taken? Is it not clear that something further should be done in ensuring that the proper standard is adhered to, especially in view of this recent survey?
    Mr. Corfield: I will not bore the House with the details, but I have a large list of occasions on which this was brought to the notice of local housing authorities. But if the hon. Lady has evidence on the lines she suggests, I will certainly consider how I can make local authorities more aware of the problem.

    Council Houses, West Ham
    Mr. A. Lewisasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs for the building of how many council houses Ministerial permission was requested, and for how many houses permission was granted in each year from 1945 to date, in the County Borough of West Ham; what was the total cost of the houses in each calendar year; if he will state the average cost for each type of stated house, the cost and the actual cost of repayment for the money borrowed; and if he will publish these details in HANSARD.
    Mr. Corfield: I will, with permission, publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the available information about programmes requested and approved, and details of numbers of dwellings in tenders approved for these years. I regret that information about the total and average costs of the dwellings concerned could not be extracted without a great deal of work, and that my right hon. Friend has no
    1014
    information about the cost of repayment for the money borrowed.
    Mr. Lewis: Will the Minister take it from me that the figures show a drastic increase in the cost of these types of houses? As the Government have declared their intention, if elected, to reduce prices, increase the purchasing value of the £ and reduce the cost of living, can the hon. Gentleman tell us why the prices of these houses and the cost of interest repayments have gone up so much? These things vitally affect the prices of houses. What is the reason for the increases, and when does he intend to reduce these costs?
    Mr. Corfield: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, of course, that the value of money depends not only on rising prices but on rising earnings, which have already been the subject of some discussion this afternoon.
    Following is the table:

    WEST HAM COUNTY BOROUGH

    Housing Programmes and Tenders approved

    Calendar Year

    Programme requested

    Programme agreed

    Dwellings in Tenders approved

    1945

    (a)

    (a)

    473

    1946

    1947

    (a)

    (a)

    490

    1948

    (b)

    (c)

    121

    1949

    (b)

    (c)

    178

    1950

    (b)

    350

    352

    1951

    (b)

    350

    213

    1952

    (b)

    350

    310

    1953

    (a)

    (a)

    407

    1954

    (b)

    889

    889

    1955

    (a)

    (a)

    561

    1956

    (a)

    (a)

    757

    1957

    (a)

    (a)

    507

    1958

    1,027

    735

    679

    1959

    749

    749

    568

    1960

    761

    761

    598

    1961

    (a)

    (a)

    675

    1962

    1,162

    722

    477

    1963

    (a)

    (a)

    840

    1964 (6 months)

    (a)

    (a)

    807

    Notes
    (a) No programmes were submitted or agreed for these years.
    (b) For these years, programmes were settled on the basis of allocations and not on programmes submitted by the local authority.
    (c) For these years, programmes were settled on a July to June basis and are not therefore comparable with the tenders approved.

    Overcrowded Dwellings (Evicted Persons)
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will issue a circular of advice to local authorities on the best course of action when persons are evicted from overcrowded dwellings and there is no accommodation in which to rehouse them.
    Sir K. Joseph: It is the duty of housing authorities to consider the housing needs of their districts and make provision accordingly. I have no evidence that evictions due to overcrowding are a general problem, but where a family is evicted and no other accommodation is immediately available for their rehousing, they must come for the time being into the care of the welfare authority.
    I am sure that housing and welfare authorities generally are well aware of their responsibilities and the courses of action open to them, but if the hon. Member has any particular difficulties in mind I will gladly consider any information he can give me.
    Mr. Brockway: Is not the right hon. Gentleman very well aware of the difficulties I have in mind? Does he not know that in Slough there are 40 cases of eviction from overcrowding now before the council, with no accommodation whatsoever in which the people can be placed? When does the Minister intend to face up to this crisis in the towns of the South-East which are now overcrowded and which have no possibility at all of accommodating their citizens, and where no young married couple can get a house or a flat? When does he intend to do something about it?
    Sir K. Joseph: I am not aware of the 40 cases—or, indeed, of any number—in Slough, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give me details. But it is true that local authorities faced with evictions due to overcrowded multi-occupied houses have effective powers with which to deal with the problem. I will communicate with the Slough authority this afternoon to make sure that it fully understands these powers.
    Mr. Paget: Is effective power much use without effective houses?
    Sir K. Joseph: The effective powers to which I refer are powers, in the last resort—once the present Housing Bill has received the Royal Assent—to apply a control order to the property or, in some cases, to take over the property by compulsory purchase order.
    Mr. Brockway: But when there is no accommodation available, how can the local authorities possibly provide for these people?
    Sir K. Joseph: Because the point is that the accommodation from which the people have been evicted would, by this means, be made available for them.

    Co-ownership Housing Associations
    27. Mrs. Butlerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs when he expects the model rules for co-ownership housing associations to be available to co-ownership groups wishing to establish such associations.
    Sir K. Joseph: I expect the model rules and other documents for co-ownership housing associations to be available later this month.
    Mrs. Butler: Since this is a comparatively new idea in this country and needs special encouragement, is it not most unfortunate that embryo societies that have been trying to get going have been frustrated in this way? Can the Minister speed things up, and issue the rules in a few days? I understand that they are all ready.
    Sir K. Joseph: I regret the delay—it has been a complicated legal matter to get the rules ready—but the interested associations have had guidance from the National Federation which has enabled them to get going.

    Milner Holland Committee (Report)
    Mrs. Butlerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs in view of the extent of homelessness in London, if the Milner Holland Committee intends to make an interim report on this aspect of its inquiries before the House rises for the Summer Recess.
    Sir K. Joseph: No, Sir. I understand that the Committee does not feel that it

    1017
    could make a useful report until it has received and considered all the evidence which it has called for.
    Mrs. Butler: Is the Minister aware that the situation of the homeless in London is getting steadily worse? There are now 1,200 homeless families, and there are expected to be 10 times that number if the drift to the South-East continues. Since the new London boroughs will have to take over responsibility in this matter, and are making their plans already, is there any way in which this report can be brought forward so that the new London boroughs can have the evidence and advice of the Milner Holland Committee on which to base their plans?
    Sir K. Joseph: I believe that the Committee regards homelessness as a very important, but only one, strand in the complex problem it is considering. The Committee is working as hard and as fast as it can, and the report will therefore emerge as quickly as is practicable.
    Mr. A. Lewis: Will the Minister say what he means by the report emerging as quickly as is practicable? Does he think that it will be in his hands probably before the date of the General Election, and could we have it so that we can discuss it during the election? Will the right hon. Gentleman try to expedite the report?
    Sir K. Joseph: No, Sir. I have asked for the report as soon as possible. I am told that there is a strong probability of its being available by the end of the year, if all goes well.

    Housing Act, 1957 (Schedule II)
    Mrs. Barbara Castleasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he will amend Schedule II to the Housing Act, 1957, to extend the provisions for supplemental compensation to cover houses acquired by the local authority after 1965.
    Sir K. Joseph: I am considering the position that will arise after 12th December, 1965, when the concession ends, but I cannot hold out the prospect of any general extension of the provisions.
    Mrs. Castle: Is the Minister aware that in a town like Blackburn, where
    1018
    about 25,000 sub-standard houses are due for eventual clearance, it is quite impossible for the local authority to acquire before 1965 all the houses which would qualify for full market value under Schedule II? Since the majority of these houses are owner-occupied, and their owners have sunk their life savings in them, is it not most unfair that the local authority should not be allowed to pay for them the actual value where, as in the case of Blackburn, the authority is anxious to do so?
    Sir K. Joseph: I have undertaken in my Answer to consider the whole question, but I must point out that the concession applies to people who bought their houses before 1955 and that by 1965 they will have a minimum of 10 years' and possibly a maximum of 26 years' use of the property, but I have undertaken to look at the whole matter.
    Mr. Prentice: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the points raised by East Ham Borough Council on these matters? May not those be typical of local authorities which have big schemes under review? Where there is delay because of pressure on the inquiry system in the right hon. Gentleman's Ministry may there not be a case for a special concession to carry forward the supplemental compensation?
    Sir K. Joseph: There are always problems at the boundary whenever an arbitrary line is taken, but I will certainly bear the hon. Member's point in mind.

  INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE (REPRESENTATIONS)
  Mr. Pentlandasked the Prime Minister what recent representations he has received from industrial and commercial sources about the country's current economic and political position; and what has been the nature of his reply.
  The Prime Minister (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): The nature of my replies must depend on the nature of the representations.
  Mr. Pentland: Is the Prime Minister aware that concern has been expressed by certain financial and commercial interests about the country's political

  1019
  position particularly with regard to the timing of the General Election? In order to avoid speculation about outside pressures being brought to bear upon him, can we take it that before the House rises for the Summer Recess the right hon. Gentleman will make an announcement about the date of the General Election?
  The Prime Minister: I do not think that I am susceptible to outside pressures, and now that the hon. Member has disclosed his question I hope that he will put it on the Order Paper.
  Sir C. Osborne: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the present economic position is the finest this country has ever known?
  Mr. Pentland: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the pressures to which I am referring concern the reference made last week by the noble Lord, Lord Poole, to the General Election? Can the right hon. Gentleman clarify that assumption by Lord Poole?
  The Prime Minister: I could not possibly have detected that from the Question on the Order Paper.

  COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS' MEETING
  Mr. Stonehouseasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference; and to what extent agreement was reached on the policy to be pursued by the United Kingdom Government towards Southern Rhodesia.
  The Prime Minister: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will await the communiqué to be issued at the end of the Conference.
  Mr. Stonehouse: Is not the Prime Minister aware that there has already been at least one official communiqué referring to the position of Southern Rhodesia? Has he accepted the advice of the other Prime Ministers and is he willing now to take on the responsibility on the part of the United Kingdom for guiding this territory towards majority rule?
  The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Member had better wait and see.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: While we must await the communiqué, and while the question of Southern Rhodesia is primarily one for Southern Rhodesia and the United Kingdom, may I ask whether it is not gratifying that the Commonwealth Prime Ministers, of all races and continents, should have given such a constructive discussion to the social, economic and cultural advancement of their peoples, and is not the whole Commonwealth grateful for the lead which has been set by my right hon. Friend?
  The Prime Minister: I very much hope that we are making good progress with the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference, but I think that we had better await the communiqué before I say very much more.
  Mr. Bottomley: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the people of Britain believe in majority rule irrespective of class or creed? In those circumstances, should not Her Majesty's Government see that majority rule prevails?
  The Prime Minister: I was asked if I would make a statement and I said no, not before the communiqué.

  SPAIN (ECONOMIC, DIPLOMATIC AND MILITARY RELATIONS)
  Mr. Stonehouseasked the Prime Minister what official machinery exists to co-ordinate the policies and actions of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development and President of the Board of Trade, and the Secretary of State for Defence in relation to United Kingdom economic, diplomatic, and military relations with Spain.
  The Prime Minister: The Cabinet.
  Mr. Stonehouse: If it is not out of order, may I thank the Prime Minister for at last agreeing to answer this sort of Question? Before the right hon. Gentleman made his electioneering speeches in the country on the supply of frigates to Spain, was he certain that an order had been placed and were the negotiations about the supply of arms to Spain merely a preamble to discussions for Spain to be

  1021
  admitted to some military alliance with us? Where does the Prime Minister draw the line? Is he now prepared to supply any sort of arms to Spain?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. There is a Question on the Order Paper which I hope to answer if hon. Members will let me come to it. On this Question, we had no reason to suppose that there was not going to be this order, and a great many other orders would probably have followed. The Spanish people desire to buy British. I do not really know how hon. Members opposite have the face to raise this question again.
  Mr. Hastings: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that what is really necessary is some machinery to co-ordinate the ideas of the Leader of the Opposition? Is my right hon. Friend aware that there were most promising negotiations for the supply of steel products which had nothing to do with these frigates, and they have suddenly evaporated since the Leader of the Opposition made his intervention'.' Is it not probable that this event has done much to negate the effect of the British Trade Fair this spring?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I am bound to say that I have been profoundly disturbed by these developments, and I think that a great weight of responsibility rests on the shoulders of the Leader of the Opposition and other hon. Members opposite, in that when everyone else is striving to increase exports right hon. and hon. Members opposite are doing their utmost to discourage them.
  Mr. H. Wilson: Since the right hon. Gentleman is always telling us how strong the economy is, may I ask him whether he is saying that after 13 years of his Government's rule, full employment and our balance of payments depend on the sale of frigate plans to Spain? If this is so, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many jobs have been lost and how many millions of foreign exchange have been lost by the Government's refusal to permit the sale of peaceful merchant ships to the Soviet Union and a peaceful atomic reactor to Rumania?
  The Prime Minister: The question of Soviet Union ships must depend upon an order coming from the Soviet Union. No
  1022
  order has come. In reply to the first supplementary question that the right hon. Gentleman asked me, I do not say that the whole of our future depends upon one—[Interruption.] If hon. Members opposite do not want to listen, I quite understand why they do not. The whole of the trade of our country does not depend upon one order, but here is a new market in which we can make inroads, and the right hon. Gentleman has effectively seen that it is closed to us.
  Mr. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman really telling us that General Franco has decided the outcome of the election, even if the right hon. Gentleman has not? Secondly, does the right hon. Gentleman deny that his Government vetoed the sale of merchant ships to Russia and more recently—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We want to make better progress with the Prime Minister's Questions, and we cannot unless we listen.
  Mr. Wilson: Does the right hon. Gentleman further deny that the Government vetoed an oil-for-ships deal with the Soviet Union? Finally, is it not clear from evidence accumulating day by day that the Prime Minister rushed in a bit early on this and that, following the leak from Government sources to the Daily Express, there were interventions by American and other sources? Is it not clear that the whole thing was a put-up job?
  The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is doing his best but he has—[Interruption.]—It is not my responsibility if these Questions are going on and on. I am going to answer the right hon. Gentleman's question. I am entitled to say that he made a deplorable mistake, and he knows it. We are only too anxious to trade with the Soviet Union but this must be on an ordinary commercial basis. The Government do not veto trade with the Soviet Union. Indeed, we have shown this year that we have done a great deal of trade with the Soviet Union and we intend to do much more.
  Several Hon. Members—
  Mr. Speaker: The House will have to find another occasion to debate this matter. We must get on.

  ARCRAFT NOISE (SCHOOLS AND HOSPITALS)
  Mr. R. Harrisasked the Prime Minister if he will set up a committee consisting of representatives of the Departments of Aviation, Housing and Local Government, Health, Home Office, and Education and Science to investigate the effects of aircraft noise in establishments such as schools and hospitals, and to recommend the appropriate action to be taken by different Departments for the sound-proofing of establishments under their control.
  The Prime Minister: I do not think that anything would be gained by setting up an interdepartmental committee. One school and two hospitals in Middlesex have already been designed with specific provision against aircraft noise and the Ministry of Health has circulated general guidance to hospital authorities on protection against noise.

  MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
  Mr. A. Lewisasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the growing practice of Ministers making policy statements after the House of Commons has adjourned for a Recess; and whether he will arrange for any Ministerial statements which are due to be made in the next few months to be brought forward so that these can be made to the House of Commons before the Summer Recess.
  The Prime Minister: The business of the Government continues during Parliamentary Recesses. As I said in answer to a Question on 12th December last, statements of Government policy are made in Parliament when Parliament is sitting.
  Mr. Lewis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we have noticed for years past that immediately the Recess takes place the Government start making announcements? Can he give us an assurance that any statement which could be made before the House goes into Recess will be so made, particularly the statement which is expected relating to an increase or adjustment in retirement pensions? Could we not have it this week or, at any rate, before the
  1024
  House rises for the Summer Recess instead of waiting until the Summer Recess?
  The Prime Minister: I believe there is a Question dealing with pensions on the Paper for answer by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance tomorrow. I think that will stand. Any statements which can be made before the Parliamentary Recess will, of course, be made.
  Lord Balniel: If Conservative Ministers are not to make their statements during the Recess, will my right hon. Friend arrange for them to make their Ministerial statements as soon as possible after the next Parliament assembles?
  Mr. Shinwell: I suppose the right hon. Gentleman would not express any policy during the Recess in order to advance the political prospects of the Government? Can we have his assurance to that effect?
  The Prime Minister: The Government's fortunes are advancing so quickly that there is no need to do so.

  FOREIGN SECRETARY (SPEECH)
  Mr. Wyattasked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Foreign Secretary at Brayford North, Lincoln, on 7th July on foreign policy represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Wyatt: As the Foreign Secretary in his speech repeated the false charge that in some mysterious way the Labour Party destroyed the deal over the Spanish frigates, will not the Prime Minister agree that what really happened was that because of the premature disclosure in the British Press, authorised by the Ministry of Defence, that negotiations were going on, the Spanish took umbrage and went back on the negotiations? Even the Ministry of Defence spokesman said that the announcement was supposed to be made in Madrid. [Interruption.] I can wait until hon. Members opposite have finished. I can understand their not wanting to ascertain the facts. They are immensely discreditable to the

  1025
  Prime Minister and his Government. Will the right hon. Gentleman agree to publish a White Paper setting out all the facts about the negotiations and stating exactly what happened, what orders were given and when they were withdrawn?
  The Prime Minister: These were commercial deals. Whatever hon. Members opposite suspect, they were deals between our shipbuilding and engineering industries and the Spanish Navy. It is not for me—[Interruption.] I think hon. Gentlemen opposite must be feeling extraordinarily guilty about this. If it is a question of insults, it is not for me to interpret the position of the Spanish people or of the Spanish Government. The right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members opposite offered a gratuitous insult to a proud people, and they have also put an effective end to an ordinary commercial deal.
  Mr. F. M. Bennett: Since there seems to be so much furore about all this, can my right hon. Friend tell us how much pressure he has received from the Opposition for a Supply Day debate on this subject which would particularly give to those hon. Members opposite who have first-hand recent experience of conditions in Spain an opportunity to express their views?
  The Prime Minister: We have not heard much about that yet.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Foreign Secretary admitted that there was a premature disclosure on this matter by the Government? Will he say whether the Ministry of Defence began by confirming that there was an order and then failed to deny it, and could he also tell us whether, from about 1961, this kind of negotiation with the Spanish Government has taken place, off and on, and that this last one was no more real than the previous ones in the last two or three years?
  The Prime Minister: Not only was this one real but a great many others would have been real, too. If right hon. and hon. Members opposite had not made such a continual noise during the past 10 minutes, I should have answered the Question on this subject later on the Order Paper.
  Mr. Swingler: In view of the time and the Prime Minister's expressed intention to answer Question No. Q8, a Question he had redirected to himself after having first transferred it to the Minister of Defence, will you, Mr. Speaker, say whether, in these unusual circumstances, you would give the Prime Minister permission now to answer Question No. Q8?
  Mr. Speaker: The position is that I do not make pronouncements of that kind. I merely say whether I have had such a request. I have not.
  Mr. Fernyhough: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: I do not want to discuss the matter.
  Several Hon. Members—
  Mr. Speaker: I will explain what is happening so that there will be no need for anyone's indignation. I called the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) in the belief that he wished to ask a supplementary question on the Answer now current. He responded in other terms, but I reserve to him the right to ask a supplementary question should he wish to do so now.
  Mr. Swingler: May I then, Mr. Speaker, ask a supplementary question which is perfectly relevant to the answers which have just been given?
  Will the Prime Minister now answer Question No. Q8 as to what action he is taking about the premature disclosure of information on the negotiations with Spain, as confirmed by the Foreign Secretary? Who was responsible for the leak? Who was responsible for telling the Daily Express on 8th June that the deal was going through, and what action is the Prime Minister taking about it?
  The Prime Minister: If hon. and right hon. Members had listened a bit earlier, they would have heard the answer long ago, but if the hon. Gentleman wants me to answer his Question, I can tell him that the Answer is "No, Sir". Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, if you were to allow a supplementary question on that, it might be in order.
  Mr. Bellenger: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is the right hon. Gentleman answering a supplementary question from my hon. Friend or is he answering Question No. Q8?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme asked whether I would answer his Question No. Q8 on the Order Paper—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to straighten this. There is a state of some confusion. The last operation was that I called the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) to ask a supplementary question on Question No. Q6. He did so, and the Prime Minister answered it. There can be no question of answering Question No. Q8—[HON. MEMBERS: "He did."]—unless I understand what was just said to be a request to answer Question No. Q8 after the hour of 3.30.
  The Prime Minister.
  Mr. Speaker: Very well.

  MINISTRY OF DEFENCE AND FOREIGN OFFICE (DOCUMENT)
  The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
  Mr. SWINGLER: To ask the Prime Minister if he will move to set up a tribunal under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, to investigate the premature disclosure by Ministers or public servants of a document dated 8th June circularised to certain Press officers of the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office.
  The Prime Minister: For the convenience of the House, may I answer Question No. Q8?
  The Answer is, "No, Sir".
  Mr. Speaker: We are now straight. Mr. Swingler.
  Mr. Swingler: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. We now know where we are.
  First, why did the Prime Minister transfer this Question to the Minister of Defence in the first place?
  Mr. Speaker: That question is out of order, but I do not want to stop the hon. Gentleman asking something else.
  Mr. Swingler: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Foreign Secretary who said on 15th June that there was a premature disclosure about the negotiations with Spain, and are we to understand
  1028
  that he is taking no action about it? Third, how did it come about that a Ministry of Defence spokesman was quoted in the Daily Express of 9th June as saying that the deal had gone through? Can the right hon. Gentleman explain that?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, certainly I can. The Navy public relations organisation had a manuscript note for use if, and when, agreement had been reached and announced. The brief was a purely internal document, not circulated outside the public relations organisation. The public relations officer knew that agreement was imminent and understood from the trend of questions put to him by certain correspondents that agreement had been reached. In this circumstance, he said what he did.
  Mr. Ridley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is nothing whatever reprehensible about the conducting of these negotiations being known, and there is no reason whatever why they should not have been made public?
  The Prime Minister: I said that earlier. My hon. Friend is quite right. All of us thought that the agreement was about to be concluded. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Indeed, I have no doubt myself that it would have been. This officer simply made a mistake. Correspondents put questions to him in a certain way which is not unknown to right hon. and hon. Members.
  Mr. Healey: Is not this a highly disreputable matter? Is the Prime Minister aware that on Monday the Secretary of State for Defence told the House, in response to a question from me, that no agreement was reached and that negotiations were going on with several other Governments besides the British Government? Is it not absolutely clear that in this case the Government caused one of their officials to make a false statement to the Press—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and that the whole of this story has arisen not out of the commercial interests of this country but entirely out of a desire on the part of the Prime Minister to have General Franco as his running mate in the election?
  The Prime Minister: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not make that kind of accusation. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite may have their standards.

  1029
  We do not act on those standards. The negotiations proceeded with the Spanish naval authorities after the disclosure in the Daily Express, and it was not until the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition intervened that they were cut off.
  Several Hon. Members—
  Mr. Speaker: We cannot debate this now. Let us get on.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Mr. M. Stewart: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you received any request from the Minister of Housing and Local Government to answer Questions No. 36 and 37 at the end of Question Time, since these Questions refer to a report by a responsible body which brings into question both the competence and the good faith of the Government?
Mr. Speaker: No. I have received no such request.
Mrs. Castle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is a matter on which I would like your help. Some days ago, I tabled a Question to the Prime Minister asking him what reply he had sent to a letter addressed to him from one of my constituents, Mr. Melling, Secretary of the National Federation of Old Age Pensions Associations, in which Mr. Melling asked that the Government should give facilities for the passing of the Public Service Vehicles (Travel Concessions) Act 1955 (Amendment) Bill, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short).
To my astonishment, I was informed by the Prime Minister that he had transferred that Question to the Minister of Transport. We are well aware of how anxious the Prime Minister is to avoid awkward questions, but is it not unprecedented, even in his tenure of office as Prime Minister, for a Question to be transferred about a personal letter from one of our constituents? How could the Minister of Transport answer a Question about a letter which was never addressed to him in the first place?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady will, I hope, understand—because it would get boring by repetition—that the transfer of Questions does not raise a point of order for
1030
me. I do not have responsibility for it. It becomes an abuse of points of order if it is raised with me time and again. I hope that we can now stop the practice, because we have had a lot of it lately.
Mrs. Castle: Further to your reply, Mr. Speaker, which seemed to include a rebuke to me. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] We know that hon. Members opposite do not want the Prime Minister to answer Questions.
May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to an answer you yourself gave in the House last Thursday when my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) asked you what the position would be if a Question which would have been out of order if it had been put to a Minister in the first place was then transferred to him after being put down to the Prime Minister? Would it not have been quite out of order for me to have tabled a Question to the Minister of Transport asking him what reply the Prime Minister had given to my constituent? Did you not, last Thursday, promise to look into this point?
Mr. Speaker: I will look at it. There is no subtlety about this. I rule on the regularity or irregularity of a Question when it arises for my decision. What the hon. Lady is contemplating is such a situation which she says would arise as a result of a transfer, but that does not arise for my Ruling now.
Mr. Bellenger: I think that the House is not quite clear about this, Mr. Speaker. Certainly, I am not. I think that the matter should be elucidated for future events, when, perhaps, we have a different Government. Question No. Q8 to the Prime Minister today was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) after the end of Question Time. You permitted that because the Prime Minister said that he was willing to answer it. But when my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) asked for Questions Nos. 36 and 37 to be answered, you said that you had had no indication from the Minister of Housing and Local Government that he was prepared to answer. What is the rule about insisting on answering Questions on the Order Paper after the end of Question Time?
Mr. Speaker: The sequence in this instance was that I called the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme to ask what I thought he was doing—a supplementary question to Question No. Q6. The right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) will recall that the scope of the answers to Question No. 6 had run rather wide. I did not appreciate that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme was asking Question No. Q8 in time to stop him. I agree that he went on, irregularly and improperly, to ask Question No. Q8, at which point I stopped him and got him back to a supplementary question on No. Q6.
The second point arose in this way: the Prime Minister, on his feet in the presence of the House, asked leave to answer Question No. Q8 in the middle of that exchange. I treated that as an application for leave to answer it.
Captain Litchfield: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I refer to Questions No. 39 and 40, standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Commander Pursey), which were not reached for oral answer? Is it not a breach of the customs and courtesies of the House for an hon. Member to make, in the form of a Parliamentary Question, imputations reflecting upon the integrity of a most honourable official in another Member's constituency, who cannot answer for himself in this place, and without the hon. Member concerned having received any notice?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order for me. There are a great many things in the House for which I do not have responsibility—for instance, the well-known but to me undisclosed activities of the Whips.
Mr. Wigg: While it is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that you have no responsibility for the transfer of Questions, would you take into account, in curtailing Questions on a particular matter like the Spanish frigates deal, the amount of manoeuvring going on by the Prime Minister and his colleagues in order to prevent the truth about this bogus deal being known?
Mr. Speaker: In what is called curtailing Questions, I will do my best at all times to carry out what I believe to be in the best interests of the House.
Mr. M. Foot: Mr. Speaker, you told my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), when she asked you about the transfer of Questions, that it was not a proper question to be asked of you and was, therefore, out of order. When my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) asked a supplementary question of the Prime Minister on the transfer of Questions you also ruled that out of order.
I submit to you, Sir, that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, when he asked the Prime Minister why he had transferred a Question to the Secretary of State for Defence and then redirected it to himself, was putting a perfectly proper question. If it was not proper, and was out of order, then the Prime Minister or any other Minister appears to be protected from any question about the transfer of Questions which you yourself have always insisted is not a matter for you. If it is not a matter for you, who is it a matter for?
Mr. Speaker: It is out of order to question a Minister about his reasons for transferring a particular Question. I would rather consider framing the precise reasons—although I can indicate them in general now—and give an express Ruling on those reasons for that being our rule. If the House agrees, I will state the reasons at a convenient opportunity.
Mr. Gordon Walker: At the same time, Mr. Speaker, could you give a Ruling on this further point? Supposing a Question is transferred and becomes out of order because it is addressed to the wrong Minister, at what point would it come within your cognisance as regards whether or no it is in order? Would it come within your cognisance at the moment of transfer, or at the moment it reached the Order Paper?
Mr. Speaker: I speculate here in reply to the right hon. Gentleman. It would be the first time I have become aware of it in its new state. I cannot say precisely what the answer would be: presumably, it would be when it appeared on the Order Paper addressed, if I may put it this way, to the transferee Minister.
Mr. Lipton: On a point of order. Question No. 68 was originally addressed to the Prime Minister, but was transferred to the Foreign Secretary. It is

1033
quite clear that you, Mr. Speaker, have no power in the matter. But the Foreign Secretary has not asked permission to answer the Question. Over that, of course, no one has jurisdiction. Would you arrange for the withdrawal of this Question from the Order Paper, because a written reply from the Foreign Secretary on this matter will be quite worthless to me?
Mr. Speaker: That would seem a good reason for not occupying the time of the House in withdrawing it. That can be done at the Table.
Mr. W. Hamilton: On a point of order. If I may pursue the point of order initially raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), you will recall, Mr. Speaker, that last Thursday I raised with you the issue of a Question which I had put down to the Prime Minister, asking him how many Questions he had transferred from his Department to others in the last six months. I did not then know the reason why the Table Clerks sent me a card to say that the Question had been transferred, but I subsequently discovered that it was you who had declared the Question to be out of order.
Would you be kind enough to declare to the House the reasons for that? If we cannot ask the Prime Minister the reasons for his transferring of numbers of Questions, does not that put the House in an extremely difficult position? Are you aware that in the two months from 7th May to 9th July, the Prime Minister has answered 84 Oral Questions and has transferred 98—figures given by the Departments themselves?
Mr. Speaker: I spent some time considering the hon. Member's Question, because it puzzled me. I believe that it fell under the heading of the other Question to which I referred—asking a Minister his reasons for transfer—and I do not think that Ministers can be asked that.
Mr. Mendelson: Further to this point of order. Apart from the general problem, which affects many hon. Members from time to time, how is the individual Member to be protected if he puts down a Question to the Prime Minister, which then appears in print as addressed to the Prime Minister, so
1034
that the hon. Member assumes that it will be answered by him, but then, on the day when the Question ought to have been answered, the hon. Member receives a note from the Prime Minister telling him at the very last moment that he is not to answer the Question and has transferred it?
When you are considering the general problem and the reasons for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, would you also consider how the individual hon. Member can be protected in such a situation?
Mr. Speaker: No. I cannot assume any responsibility for transfer. I have said it a great many times and so have my predecessors. I am very sorry, but I cannot do that.
Mr. Wigg: On a point of order. Without in any way wishing to add to your burdens in this matter, Mr. Speaker, if you are to make a statement would you be kind enough to have a look at the facts in relation to this Question about an inquiry into what has happened about this Spanish business? Many of us hold the view—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member cannot make a speech about facts under the guise of a point of order.
Mr. W. Hamilton: I want to pursue a little further a matter which I regard as very serious. The Question which I sought to put to the Prime Minister was purely statistical. It concerned information which must be available in the Prime Minister's office. If we are not to be allowed to get that information, we cannot decide for ourselves whether there has been a change of policy in the matter of switching Questions from the Prime Minister to other Departments. I should have thought that that Question was very much in order and very much to the point.
I want to get absolutely clear the reasons why you, Mr. Speaker, are refusing Questions of that purely statistical nature rather than of policy involvements.
Mr. Speaker: I will explain to the hon. Gentleman, but I had better include it in my formal Ruling. I did explain that after much reflection I thought that his purely statistical Question

1035
came into the category of the others which I conceived to be wrong.
Mr. Mitchison: When you are giving your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, would you please try to help me? If I want to put down an out of order Question to a Minister, is the only way I can do it to put it down to the Prime Minister and let him transfer it? Is that the only way in which I can get it on the Order Paper?
Mr. Woodburn: When you give this ruling, Mr. Speaker, which will be rather important, would you make clear whether the House has any right to ask Ministers Questions, because this now seems to be in doubt? Is it purely a matter of courtesy whether Ministers answer Questions? Need they answer Questions? Can they treat the House with contempt if they so desire?
Mr. Speaker: So far as order is concerned, they are under no obligation to answer, but I have no doubt that the House would deal with them if they adopted that policy.
Dame Irene Ward Dame Irene Ward rose—
Hon. Members: You have just come in.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The House invites the Chair to serve it in this office. It must treat it with reasonable courtesy and not burden it with either not quite accurately points of order, or so much noise that it cannot hear a point of order addressed to it. I hope that the House will bear that in mind.
Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order. When you are considering this matter, Mr. Speaker—and I should say that I have been sitting at the end of the Chamber and no doubt everybody's eyes were turned on you and not on me—will you bear in mind that I am perfectly satisfied with the arrangement for the Order Paper and the way in which Ministers answer Questions?
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that the fact that the hon. Lady is satisfied raises a point of order for me.
Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order. When a previous point of order was raised, Mr. Speaker, you stated that a Minister was under no obligation to
1036
answer Questions. It is part of our statutory procedure that there should be an hour devoted to Question Time. Does that not imply that Ministers are expected during the period that is allotted to Question Time to answer Questions addressed to them? Was it not a mistake on your part when you said that Ministers were under no obligation to answer Questions?
Mr. Speaker: As far as the Chair is concerned, as a matter of order they are not. I did not say more than that. It is quite true that a Minister can decline to answer a Question and be in order. That is all I am saying. Let us think about getting on to our business.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that it is the generally accepted view of back benchers that they are entitled to question the Government, but are not necessarily entitled to question individual Ministers? The principle of joint responsibility makes it clear that individual Ministers can answer for the Government, without specifying the Minister. Joint responsibility means that the Government must answer through a spokesman, but the House is not entitled to demand that an individual Minister should answer.
Mr. Speaker: Yes.
Mr. Paget: I want your guidance, Mr. Speaker on how Questions imputing that somebody has sold the plans of the equipment and armaments of our frigates come into the rule against imputing criminal conduct on behalf of another Member. On the latest decisions, I thought that the selling of the plans of our arms involved a criminal sentence of about 30 years. I wonder how these Questions are in order on the basis of the rule that imputing that sort of criminal conduct is against our rules of order.
Mr. Speaker: Because in my view they do not make that imputation.
Mr. Manuel: While you are examining the subject of switching Questions, will you take into your reckoning another facet of the problem, Mr. Speaker? On two recent occasions I have had Questions—
Mr. Speaker: Order. If it is a matter of transfer, it does not arise for me. I hope that I have made that clear.
Mr. Manuel: I want to deal with my point of order. On two occasions I have had Questions accepted by the Table Office as being in order for certain Ministers. The Department which the Minister concerned has controlled has taken up the matter with the Table Office and said that the Question was not in order and should be switched to another Department.
Mr. Speaker: It is not for the Department to say whether it is in order. The Department indicates transfer, and I have repeatedly said that transfer does not raise a point of order for the Chair.
Sir R. Dudley Williams: May I put in a plea for private Members?
Mr. Speaker: No. The hon. baronet cannot put in a plea for anything. He can rise to a point of order if he wants to do so, but not otherwise.
Sir R. Dudley Williams: That was only the preface of my remarks. I was going on to say—[HON. MEMBERS: "Object."] I thought that I would get the House in the right mood.
Hon. Members: Object.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the House will have the courtesy to allow me to hear the point of order.
Sir R. Dudley Williams: I am glad that I have been able to get the House in the right frame of mind.
May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that we have very limited facilities for private Members' business. I am referring not to private Members' legislation, but to the discussion of Private Members' Motions. Today is one of the rare occasions when we can discuss Private Members' Motions. May I put it to you, Sir, that we should terminate these points of order and get on with discussing the Motion entitled "Vehicles for those Injured in Industry"?
Mr. Speaker: I cannot terminate points of order. I have to hear what they are and to deal with them, if they
1038
are proper. I trust that the House will ensure that they are not improper points of order.
Mr. Grimond: As many points of order have been raised covering a very wide field, could you, Mr. Speaker, for the convenience of the House, state what particular points you are prepared to rule upon? Will you rule on whether we can question the Government on the transfer of Questions? Will you also rule on the point, which seems to me of importance, about all Questions being put down to the Government in general and answered by any Minister? If that is so, it seems anomalous that we divide the week into the responsibilities of different Ministries. For the convenience of the House, can you tell us exactly what you will rule upon?
Mr. Speaker: I will rule upon the impropriety of asking a Minister for reasons for transferring a given Question and, on the same basis, the wider one that the Question of the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) involved for me to consider, namely, a statistical question developing out of that line of thought. Those are the two things.
Mr. Wainwright: May I raise a very strong point of order? Am I right in believing that you, Mr. Speaker, are of the opinion that there is a strong feeling in the House against the Prime Minister transferring Questions? Last week, I asked—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot make a speech about that, or invite my opinion on any topic of that sort.

SCOTTISH AFFAIRS
Matters of Forestry in Scotland, of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Report (Command Paper No. 2306), and of Agricultural Research in Scotland, being matters relating exclusively to Scotland, referred to the Scottish Grand Committee for their consideration.—[Mr. Selwyn Lloyd.]

INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS PROTECTION (SCOTLAND)
4.4 p.m.
Mr. Forbes Hendry: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to safeguard the position of independent schools in Scotland, and to protect the right of parents to freedom of choice.
If, at one time, I had been told that I should be appealing to a predominantly English House of Commons for protection of our Scottish educational traditions, I should not have believed it. We in Scotland have always been proud of our educational traditions. We have always felt, possibly with too much conceit, that where we led England followed. It is for that reason, and that reason only, that I feel confident in appealing to my colleagues from England and Wales and Northern Ireland for support in the predicament in which we find ourselves. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Scotland?"] I have no hesitation in saying that my Scottish colleagues will, for the most part, support me.
I appeal to my colleagues from across the Border on another ground. I have made a discovery about the intentions of right hon. and hon. Members opposite, if they should ever become the Government of this country, which I think the country is entitled to know. We hear a great deal from hon. Members opposite about the country being entitled to know. It seems that they let the country know in a way that shipping companies and railway companies let their passengers know the rules and regulations which apply to the journey. We are all aware of what is printed on a railway or shipping ticket about people being subject to all the things in the small print in the hope that nobody will read the small print.
We have been treated by hon. Members opposite to a document called "Signposts for the Sixties", which has been widely circulated throughout the United Kingdom. It is very interesting and contains a great deal of information, but it leaves out a great deal of other information which, I think, the country is entitled to know. I have discovered that, besides "Signposts for the Sixties", hon. Members opposite have issued another document called "Signposts for Scotland". It is almost identical in form to the first
1040
one. It is headed "The Labour Party", and the only difference on the cover, apart from the title, is that it costs 9d. instead of 6d. Whether that is intended to make it more difficult for people to acquire it I do not know. All that I can find out is that the Library copy has been out for several days and is almost unprocurable. I understand that it has been borrowed by an hon. Member opposite.
As I say, "Signposts for the Sixties" is a very interesting document. From page 29 to page 32, there is a great deal of verbiage on the subject of the independent schools which boils down to nothing, because on page 32 we find:
"It would be wrong at this stage to lay down a detailed blueprint for the future rôle of the public schools—both because the next few years may well see a radical change in educational requirements and because the resources available in each of them will require careful assessment."
In other words, the Labour Party has not made up its mind. That is what the people of the country, especially those in England and Wales, have been told.
If we turn to the other document, we find an entirely different picture. There are two references to education. One is full of the usual sort of thing about slum schools. I do not know where they are, but possibly hon. Members opposite do. On page 19, there is a very interesting supplement to "Signposts for the Sixties" which states:
"Fee-paying schools form a very small, but nevertheless privileged, sector of our Scottish system. We intend to end this educational privilege".
In other words, in this document which has a very small circulation, printed by the S.C.W.S. in Glasgow and costing 9d. instead of 6d., we find something which hon. Members opposite are trying to hide from our colleagues in England and Wales.
I think that I am performing a public duty by telling the House exactly their intentions. This is not a document which has been published by a few hotheads in Glasgow, because it is headed "The Labour Party". We find from page 2 that the document is published by the Labour Party and that it has received the endorsement of the National Executive. The country is entitled to know about this, and I consider it my duty to tell the people exactly what they may expect if we have the misfortune of a Labour Government coming to power.

1041
What does this amount to in Scotland? Hon. Members opposite say that this is a very small matter in Scotland; but it is not. We have great public schools in Scotland. For instance, we have Fettes, which produced the previous Leader of the House. We have Gordonstoun, probably a more famous public school than any other in the world. We have Merchiston, Glenalmond, a very famous school, instituted by Mr. Gladstone, and Loretto.
However, these are not the schools which worry me, because a very important part of the educational system in Scotland consists of fee-paying schools, in accordance with our Scottish tradition that every boy, not matter who he is, whether the son of a duke or a labourer, is entitled to the best education that he can get and is entitled to it free if he cannot afford to pay.
It has always been part of Scottish tradition that if a boy's father could pay, he should pay to the best of his ability. That has been the guiding light for many fathers in Scotland for many generations.
Mr. Charles A. Howell: Can boys get into Gordonstoun without paying?
Mr. Hendry: Of course they can. I was educated at Stirling High School, the Scottish equivalent of the ancient English grammar school. In the 1920s, parents who could afford to pay were invited to pay a modest fee. My father prided himself on paying the fees. I know that many other boys and girls were there whose parents could not alford to pay. They were there on equal terms with me.
That happens throughout Scotland even now. In the City of Aberdeen, there is the famous Robert Gordon's College, of 1,100 boys. Every year, 63 places are put at the disposal of the education authority. This is an invaluable contribution. Quite apart from anything else, it saves the rates in the City of Aberdeen no less than £60,000 a year. If the parents of the boys who go to this school can afford to pay, they are proud to do so.
If they did not pay these fees, what would parents do with the money? They would probably hire a television set,
1042
which they cannot afford. The strange thing is that the fees for a boy at Robert Gordon's College amount to almost exactly the same as the rent of a television set for one year. Many parents in Scotland, as in England and Wales, deprive themselves to give their sons a better education than they themselves have had—and why not? If a mother is prepared to go without a new coat for five years so that her son can have a better education, why should she not do so? Why should she save the money and spend it at bingo halls instead of seeing that her son gets a better chance in life than he would otherwise have? This fundamental human freedom, which has been enjoyed by parents in Scotland and in England and Wales for many generations, is to be done away with.
When speaking about fundamental human freedoms, it is interesting to listen to hon. Members opposite praising the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That is very largely lip-service, because here we have this declaration in "Signposts for Scotland". If, however, we turn to Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, passed by the General Assembly of the United Nations, we find that
"Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children."
That is one of the fundamental human rights declared by the United Nations. But, evidently, the sponsors of "Signposts for Scotland", who support the United Nations, so they say, seem to forget this important point.
The Bill which I seek leave to introduce contains two main Clauses. One seeks to safeguard the independent schools and to ensure that they receive the protection which they have always had under the common law of Scotland. Clause 2 would declare for the avoidance of doubt that the declaration of the United Nations is part, and will remain part, of the law of Scotland. Clause 3 would apply the Bill to Scotland only. If, however, any of my colleagues from England and Wales would care to put down an Amendment to extend the Bill to the whole of the United Kingdom, I shall be happy so to apply it and to give its benefit to the whole of the United Kingdom instead of to Scotland alone.

1043
Our fundamental freedom in Scotland—the freedom of parents to choose the education for their children, which has gone on from time immemorial—is in danger and I appeal to the House for this protection.
4.14 p.m.
Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: I rise to oppose the Motion. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) has picked out from "Signposts for Scotland", a document which well deserves his attention and that of every other Member opposite, one sentence which he has then proceeded to erect into a threat to something in the Scottish way of life.
The sentence which the hon. Member quoted was, of course, correctly quoted:
"We intend to end this educational privilege"
That one sentence puts briefly what we think about something which has been stated more fully, more clearly and more explicitly on many occasions. I direct the hon. Member's attention to the fact that what we intend to end by this sentence is privilege. That is the operative word in the sentence. If the hon. Member wants to know rather more about what we think about these matters, and about what we intend to do, he will find any number of references in the statements which have been made over the years, either orally, as reported in the Press, or written in documents.
I give the hon. Member an instance which puts fairly clearly one of the essentian points connected with the argument which he has put:
"Labour believes that in a democratic country parents must have the right to provide for the education of their children outside local authority schools if they so desire."
We can add to that the other rights to choose their own way of educating their children. This has been made clear and explicit time and time again by my right hon. and hon. Friends in the House and elsewhere. No threat is involved, but there is a strong feeling on our part against privilege, whether in education or elsewhere, and a strong desire to end it.
The hon. Member has mentioned two different types of school: Fettes and Gordonstoun, on the one hand, and Stirling High School, which, in his day,
1044
was fee-paying, and other fee-paying schools under the control of education committees. These are two quite different types of school. We propose to take no forcible steps about either of these types. Our intentions about the public schools are well known, because they have been much discussed. We intend to try by agreement with them to get the public schools to work more closely with the ordinary State education system. This applies on both sides of the Border.
As to fee-paying schools which are under the control of education committees, we do not think that the charging of fees in these schools is a sound principle. We would prefer those education committees to make a change, but we will not hold a pistol to their heads and say, "You will make a change, or else". We propose to make these changes, if we can by persuasion. We consider that these changes are desirable in the national interest.
What is concerned here is not the freedom to which the hon. Member has referred, but privilege. A number of the ways in which it expresses itself are well known to the House, but I will take an example which is, possibly, well known. Nowadays, the Public School List involves quite a number of schools which get public money as well as schools which are independent. Public schools in the wider sense have received money from a body called the Industrial Fund during the last few years. I have not had time to check its full title, but it is concerned with the strengthening of science departments in public and direct grant schools.
During recent years, those schools have received sums of money to strengthen, or sometimes to recreate their science departments, sums not of £5,000 or £10,000, but of £50,000, £100,000 and, in some cases, if my memory is right, twice that amount. They are enormous sums. Like so many of the privileges that these schools enjoy, this is an intelligent, sensible and, in many respects, admirable thing to do. All the major schools and a great many of the minor schools have benefited from it. But the State schools have had nothing like this kind of help. The Industrial Fund said, "Ministers ought to provide, as we are doing, for the schools under the State

1045
system". Ministers have not, of course. This is privilege.
Let us take another example, that of the existence of the Public Schools Employment Bureau, an admirable institution in its own way. But what does it do that the ordinary local employment officers cannot? My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) went to Eton a little while ago to address the boys there by invitation. He chose as his subject coal mining as a career. I am not aware that the Bureau managed to persuade many Etonians to go down the pits to work as a result of that speech. But it has its effects elsewhere.
This is a privilege. When the hon. Member talks about it simply in terms of the freedom of the parents, he is, of course, quite wrong and mistaken. Let us imagine someone in the position of the ordinary parent trying to put this freedom into effect—perhaps one of the hon. Member's constituents in West Aberdeenshire. Let us imagine, for instance, the local postman going to the hon. Member, as his Member of Parliament, for advice, trying to get his Member of Parliament to encourage or discourage him about sending his son to Fettes. The hon. Member would explain to the postman, "It will cost you only about £500 a year". The postman may think, "After all, the Postmaster-General is so generous to us that I shall have at least £1 or 30s. left to keep myself and the rest of my family". Freedom for the parent—nonsense! That is not the kind of phrase which is justified in the slightest.
The whole point about these institutions is that they were created so that the people who had money would be able to buy certain privileges for their children. There was a time in Scotland when the tradition of education was quite different. There was a time when, under the influence of John Knox, one thought of a school in every parish, and there was a time when that parish school attracted to it in the normal course of events the son of the laird as well as the son of the ploughman. I do not know what course the hon. Gentleman would want the education system in Scotland to follow in the future, but I can guess.
We want a return to the system in which the son of the laird goes to the same school as the son of the postman. The hon. Gentleman apparently wants to preserve the system arising largely out of the Industrial Revolution of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries by which when one has made money one can find various ways, including educational ways, for removing one's children from the ordinary ruck of competition. In so far as an education system is to have any effect of a social or sociological kind, any effect apart from the mental and moral training of the individual, we should prefer a system which has not a divisive effect on society but a unifying effect on it. For that reason, I oppose the Motion.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):—
The House divided: Ayes 140, Noes 129.

Division No. 133.]

AYES

[4.24 p.m.

Balniel, Lord

Cooke, Robert

Gammans, Lady

Barber, Rt. Hon. Anthony

Crawley, Aidan

Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan

Barter, John

Critchley, Julian

Gower, Raymond

Batsford, Brian

Cunningham, Sir Knox

Green, Alan

Biffen, John

Curran, Charles

Grosvenor, Lord Robert

Biggs-Davison, John

Currie, G. B. H.

Gurden, Harold

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

Dalkeith, Earl of

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Bourne-Arton, A.

Dance, James

Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

Box, Donald

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

Braine, Bernard

Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Brewis, John

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

Drayson, G. B.

Harvie Anderson, Miss

Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

Duncan, Sir James

Hastings, Stephen

Buck, Antony

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

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Burden, F. A.

Emery, Peter

Henderson, Sir John (Cathcart)

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Errington, Sir Eric

Hiley, Joseph

Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert (Mitcham)

Farey-Jones, F. W.

Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

Hirst, Geoffrey

Cleaver, Leonard

Freeth, Denzil

Hocking, Philip N.

Cole, Norman

Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

Hogg, Rt. Hon, Quintin

Hollingworth, John

Maddan, Martin

Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

Hopkins, Alan

Maitland, Sir John

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Russell, Sir Donald

Hulbert, Sir Norman

Marshall, Sir Douglas

Seymour, Leslie

Hurd, Sir Anthony

Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

Skeet, T. H. H.

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Maude, Angus (Stratford-on-Avon)

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

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Mawby, Ray

Spearman, Sir Alexander

Jennings, J. C.

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Stainton, Keith

Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith

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

Stanley, Hon. Richard

Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

Miscampbell, Norman

Stevens, Geoffrey

Kerby, Capt. Henry

Montgomery, Fergus

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

Kershaw, Anthony

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Studholme, Sir Henry

Kimball, Marcus

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

Kirk, Peter

Nicholls, Sir Harmar

Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

Kitson, Timothy

Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

Tilney, John (Wavertree)

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Percival, Ian

Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

Tweedsmuir, Lady

Leather, Sir Edwin

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Vickers, Miss Joan

Leavey, J. A.

Pitt, Dame Edith

Walker, Peter

Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

Pounder, Rafton

Ward, Dame Irene

Lilley, F. J. p.

Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Litchfield, Capt. John

Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)

Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (SutnC'dfield)

Proudfoot, Wilfred

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Longbottom, Charles

Pym, Francis

Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

Loveys, Walter H.

Quennell, Miss J. M.

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

McAdden, Sir Stephen

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

Mr. Hendry and Mr. Anderson.

MacArthur, Ian

Renton, Rt. Hon. David

NOES

Ainsley, William

Hart, Mrs. Judith

Paget, R. T.

Albu, Austen

Hayman, F. H.

Panned, Charles (Leeds, W.)

Alldritt, W. H.

Healey, Dennis

Pavitt, Laurence

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)

Peart, Frederick

Bacon, Miss Alice

Herbison, Miss Margaret

Pentland, Norman

Beaney, Alan

Hill, J. (Midlothian)

Prentice, R. E.

Bence, Cyril

Hilton, A. V.

Probert, Arthur

Benson, Sir George

Holman, Percy

Randall, Harry

Blyton, William

Houghton, Douglas

Rankin, John

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

Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)

Reid, William

Bowles, Frank

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Reynolds, G. W.

Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Bradley, Tom

Hunter, A. E.

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Bray, Dr. Jeremy

Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Brockway, A. Fenner

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

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

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Ross, William

Carmichael, Neil

Kelley, Richard

Short, Edward

Castle, Mrs. Barbara

King, Dr. Horace

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Chapman, Donald

Lawson, George

Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

Collick, Percy

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

Craddock George (Bradford, S.)

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Small, William

Cullen, Mrs. Alice

Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

Snow, Julian

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Loughlin, Charles

Sorensen, R. W.

Dempsey, James

McBride, N.

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Diamond, John

McCann, J.

Spriggs, Leslie

Dodds, Norman

MacColl, James

Steele, Thomas

Driberg, Tom

Mclnnes, James

Stonehouse, John

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

McKay, John (wallsend)

Stonehouse, John

Edwards, Rt. Hon Nees (Carephilly)

Mackenzie, Gregor

Stones, William

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

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

Stross, SirBarnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)

Manuel, Archie

Swingler, Stephen

Fernyhough, E.

Marsh, Richard

Symonds, J. B.

Finch, Harold

Mason, Roy

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Foley, Maurice

Mayhew, Christopher

Wainwright, Edwin

Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

Mellish, R. J.

Warbey, William

Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

Watkins, Tudor

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Mendelson, J. J.

White, Mrs. Eirene

George, Lady MeganLloyd (Crmrthn)

Millan, Bruce

Whitlock, William

Ginsburg, David

Milne, Edward

Wilkins, W. A.

Gourlay, Harry

Monslow, Walter

Winterbottom, R. E,

Grey, Charles

Moody, A. S.

Woof, Robert

Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

Mulley, Frederick

Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

Hamilton, William (West Fife)

Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Hannan, William

Oliver, G. H.

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson and

Harper, Joseph

O'Malley, B. K.

Mr. Hoy.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Forbes Hendry, Mr. D. C. Anderson, Commander Donaldson, Miss Harvie Anderson, and Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison.

INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS PROTECTION (SCOTLAND)
Bill to safeguard the position of independent schools in Scotland, and to protect the right of parents to freedom

1049
of choice, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 188.]

DISABLED INDUSTRIAL WORKERS (VEHICLES)
4.34 p.m.
Mr. Charles A. Howell: I beg to move,
That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to introduce arrangements forthwith to supply, on the same basis of entitlement, workers in industry who have suffered serious disability arising out of and in the course of their employment with the same types of road vehicles as are now supplied to disabled ex-Service men.
Mr. Speaker, are you proposing to call the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Lady the Member for Chislehurst (Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith)?
Mr. Speaker: Yes.
Mr. Howell: I am not prepared to accept the Amendment. It adds nothing to my Motion, it has no connection with it, and it has no bearing upon it. The Amendment is obviously in order, but it seeks to do something different from what the Motion seeks to do.
We often hear the expression "The luck of the draw". On this occasion I do not regard the luck of the draw as something personal. To me, this is the achievement of an ambition to leave the world a better place than I found it. This Motion is an example of British democracy, where the strong protect and look after the weak. It is an English characteristic that we even help lame dogs over stiles. I am certain that all able-bodied Members in the House would try to help an injured person, even though they had no first-aid qualifications for doing so. One of the things which has encouraged me enormously is that a number of hon. Gentlemen opposite have congratulated me not only on being successful in the Ballot, but on my choice of subject. I take some comfort from the fact that the House as a whole believes in protecting and helping those who need such help and protection.
I do not intend to attack the Government. I do not intend to attack individual Ministers as such. The fact is that a conglomeration of Ministers have a responsibility in this matter,
1050
and that very few people know who bears the responsibility for making the final decision. Various Ministers have either a moral or a legal responsibility, and perhaps it might help those about whom I am concerned if I list the Ministers whom I regard as having a responsibility in the matter.
The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance has a legal responsibility, because he is the sole custodian of the Industrial Injuries Act. As a trade union official, I was closely connected with the working of this Act before I came to the House. The Minister of Health also has a legal responsibility, under the National Health Service Act. The Minister of Labour has a moral responsibility, because the people about whom I am concerned should be his concern. He should be concerned with their welfare, not only when they are working, but, more important, when they cannot work, or when they have difficulty in getting to work. Finally, there is the Prime Minister himself, who presides over the Cabinet which decides Government policy. Later, I shall refer to the policy-making aspect of this problem.
The sting of the Motion is in the tail, because it calls on the Government to provide those who have suffered serious disability during the course of their employment
"with the same types of road vehicles as are now supplied to disabled ex-Service men."
For a short period the right hon. Lady the Member for Chislehurst was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. I do not like to be offensive to any hon. Member, let alone to the right hon. Lady, but I cannot for the life of me understand why she did not do something about this question when she was at the Ministry. Apart from the honour that was bestowed on her, she did not leave the Ministry with many medals. She would, however, have received a medal as big as a banjo from the miners and others in the condition to which I am drawing attention if she had done something to help them.
What the right hon. Lady seeks to do passes my comprehension. She seeks to
"extend the categories of persons who are entitled to invalid vehicles."

1051
As far as I am aware, everybody is included somewhere. The right hon. Lady proposes to extend the categories of people entitled to these vehicles, but, if her Amendment were accepted, they would be precluded from being supplied with motor cars. I am trying to ensure that these people are provided with motor cars as opposed to petrol-driven tricycles. I cannot, therefore, see the point of merely extending the categories of persons entitled to be supplied with invalid vehicles.
If any people have been forgotten she should have provided for them when she was in the Ministry, and not waited until an Opposition Member succeeded in the Ballot and brought the matter forward. In fact, the Government have been resisting the pleas of the T.U.C. and all the trade unions concerned year after year in connection with this matter.
When the T.U.C. went to the Minister of Pensions—the Minister who is specifically charged with responsibility under the Industrial Injuries Act, and who has the right, under Section 75 of that Act, to provide vehicles for disabled people—he declined to do anything, on the ground that this was the responsibility of the Minister of Health. This is the sort of thing that we were discussing earlier this afternoon, in connection with the rights of Members. One of the first things I learned when I came here was that we create Acts of Parliament, but other people interpret them—the judges, and so on. Interpretation is not for us. But it seems as though the Government interpret these Measures. It would seem that all Bills should contain the provision "subject to Cabinet approval, alteration or modification."
Although, under a certain Act, a Minister may be charged with responsibility, we often find that that responsibility has been transferred, as in the case of Questions this afternoon. Under Section 75 of the Industrial Injuries Act the Minister of Pensions is responsible for providing these vehicles, but we find that in reality the Minister of Health is responsible. He is taking on this job, on Government responsibility.
I do not think that any hon. Members opposite would want to sneer at the T.U.C., and think of it as a collection of
1052
ignoramuses. It is a body of intelligent individuals. But the T.U.C. has been as puzzled as I have been on many occasions in trying to discover which Minister is responsible under the Act. I am no different from other hon. Members. I am not alone in having received a reply from a Minister to whom I have written saying, "Sorry, this is not my Department." This sort of thing must have happened to hon. Members on both sides of the House. The T.U.C. found themselves in some difficulty when they tried to do what I am trying to do today.
I have referred to the Industrial Injuries Act because the provisions of Section 25 can be implemented tomorrow if the Government so wish. There is no need for any amending regulations, or for any regulations at all. The necessary provisions are inherent in the existing Act of Parliament. If, in reply, the Minister says, "I cannot do this for the people about whom the hon. Member has been talking because other people will be left out if I do," I appeal to him to bring everybody in. Let them all come. They are all welcome, as injured people. These people are entitled not only to our sympathy, but to our help. We are told that a little help is worth a lot of sympathy. I am trying to provide it.
I am convinced that Section 75 gives the Government the right to act immediately. That is why the Motion contains the word "forthwith". It is an old railway trade union term meaning "immediately ". I do not know what the Scottish term is; I believe that it used to be "outwith". There will be no dubiety in anyone's mind that what I am after is the immediate implementation of existing provisions.
The T.U.C. wrote to the Minister of Pensions and was told that this was a matter for the Minister of Health. The Minister of Pensions deals with the Industrial Injuries Act and the Minister of Health with the National Health Service Act, yet both Ministers have the same conditions in their hands. The Minister of Health has been doing a very good job of work. I know of dozens of cases throughout Britain in which people have been given a new life by the provision of these vehicles.

1053
But the first condition is that these people must be crippled, or must at least have lost the use, either temporarily or in considerable part, of both legs. Alady in my constituency has one of these motorised vehicles. Without it she is completely house-fast; she cannot get about at all. She tells me that with it she can do work with the W.V.S. and with the Girl Guides, and can lead practically a normal life. But without that vehicle she would not be able to do it. She would not be able to afford it. Here I wish to pay tribute to the generous way in which the Ministry of Health has been dealing with many of these cases.
Mr. Norman Cole: I am not unsympathetic to the principle of the Motion, but the position is a little complicated. I am here to be instructed. The hon. Member keeps referring to a vehicle. He might mean one or the other of two vehicles, with both of which we are familiar. Will he tell us whether he means a carriage or a motor car—because their allocation is made on different conditions.
Mr. Howell: I expected the hon. Member to support me. He is wrong in referring to two vehicles. There are three. The Act calls them appliances. It empowers the Minister to provide them. They can consist of two forms of invalid tricycle—motorised or electrically driven. I want there to be no mistake about this; I do not want to eliminate either the motorised or the electrically-driven tricycle. What I want the Government to do is to provide small motor cars where they will satisfy a particular need. Both the motorised tricycle and the electrically-driven tricycle have parts to play in this situation.
Yesterday, I drove through London with my wife. She said, "I do not know how anybody dares to drive through this traffic". She is not a good traveller. But if she were injured, and had lost the use of both legs, and needed a vehicle, she would never want a motor car. She would take an electrically-driven tricycle, because it moves at a slower speed. There may be times when, for physical or psychological reasons, the type of vehicle required is a slow moving one. In such a case it could be an electrically-driven vehicle.
1054
On the other hand, there is the person who is entirely alone and independent and who does not want any help. We call such people stubborn, or even pigheaded. They would probably want the petrol-driven motorised tricycle.
On the other hand, there are people who need assistance to get out of a vehicle. With the exception of war disabled people no one is provided with a motor car. I want the numbers to be extended. I want everyone who could use it to the best advantage to be able to obtain a small motor car, but to get this Motion on the Order Paper I have had to refer only to the industrially disabled. The Minister of Health, according to provisions of Section 75 of the Industrial Injuries Act, must be entitled to provide vehicles. Surely he can say, "I concede this and I will put the matter into operation immediately."
I am not decrying tricycles. They have been used successfully and I am not asking that they should be taken away. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not tell me that motor cars supplied to the disabled have proved a failure. If he is unable to say that, why cannot their use be extended to everyone else? Heaven forbid that they should be taken away from the disabled. The Government might question the cost, but where does the money come from to supply war disabled people with their vehicles? I suggest that it comes from the War Pensions Fund.
The tricycles provided for patients under the National Health Service scheme are paid for under the scheme. Many of the industrial disabled were told during the war years that they were fighting on the home front and were serving their country in exactly the same way as if they had been in the fighting forces. I do not wish to decry the war disabled. I do not think we can do sufficient for them. But if the use of these cars by war disabled people has proved successful that is an additional argument for providing them for the use of the industrial disabled and everyone else.
I am concerned about the attitude of the Government. The present situation was decided before the Minister took office. I do not know whether he thinks that things cannot be changed. At first,

1055
injured persons had invalid carriages which they could propel themselves and it was logical, with the evolution of mechanical transport, that petrol-driven and electrically-driven vehicles should be provided. Surely it is obvious that now we should think about giving them petrol-driven motor cars. Why does not the Minister do so? It cannot be lack of money, because there must be money which could be used under the provisions of the legislation for industry. We have been told that there is a large surplus.
The Minister told the T.U.C. that the provisions in the Industrial Injuries Act relate only to the provision of cash benefits. I do not think that that was ever intended. In my opinion, the wording of Section 75 is explicit and allows for the provision of appliances, etc. I would go so far as to say that the provisions of Section 75 would enable a Minister to use money for education and training so that accidents might be avoided. But if we are faced with the consequences of an accident we are under an obligation to provide the victim with the best appliance possible.
I do not know whether the Minister has up-to-date figures of how many people would be involved. I have done some research and the latest figures which I could find—they are 12 months old—indicate that 15,000 people use these vehicles and 2,500 of the vehicles are electrically driven. It is, therefore, fair to assume that very few people are enamoured of an electrically-driven invalid tricycle, or that 12,500 are petrol-driven.
I should give credit to the Minister because these people who have vehicles are provided with a shed in which to house the tricycle. Repairs and maintenance are carried out. The provision of 14 gallons of petrol affords some relief from the increase in the petrol tax. A National Health Service patient may have his motor car changed or adapted so that he can use the controls. But the Government are not too generous. The patient is allowed £70 once every five years, or he can have only one car in five years. That kind of allocation would not go down very well with those people who operate expense accounts and have a car every year. If the
1056
patient decides that his tricycle does not allow him to be accompanied by his wife, and he wishes to have his own motor car, he has to return the tricycle and the shed. I imagine that a number of people have paid themselves for the adaptation of a motor car rather than lose the use of a tricycle for going to work. They can then use the car at weekends.
I feel that the previous experience of the Minister before he assumed his present office will make him sympathetic towards my argument. I hope that I am pushing at an open door, or, at any rate, one which is not locked. Like myself, the right hon. Gentleman would appear to be in good health. At least, we are ablebodied and ought to see what we can do for those who are less fortunate. Many people think that we should be giving these disabled people something for nothing if they were provided with a motor car so that they could go out accompanied by their wives. If a man is totally disabled he cannot lead a normal life.
We have only to ask ourselves how would we feel if we suddenly lost the use of both legs. Our normal lives would end. If a man can go out occasionally with his wife, at least he has a vestige of a normal life. We ought to provide him with an opportunity to carry out, to some extent, a normal life. If there is any criticism that if we give a motor car to a disabled person he will take his wife out in it, then all I can say is, "For heaven's sake, why not?" Many of the disabled need the assistance of their wives when they get out of a car. I could cite case after case, but I will refrain from doing so because of the lack of time. But I beg of the Minister to enable these people to have something like a normal family life.
There is also a psychological reason. If a man is seen anywhere with one of these tricycles he is identified immediately as a disabled person, but if he is seen in a mini-car no one thinks anything about it. Why should we brand these people as second-class citizens because they have something wrong with them? After all, when we see disfigured people, it is probably more of an embarrassment to us than it is to them. Therefore, both psychologically and sociologically everything is in favour of my

1057
Motion that, where possible, we ought to supply the industrially disabled with exactly the same type of vehicle, and under the same conditions, as that supplied to the war disabled. What is good for one is good for another.
I am sure that no one in the war disabled class would want to consider himself as a privileged person. I am sure that they would all want the industrially disabled to have the same benefits that they are getting. I believe that 100 per cent. of them would say, "I cannot see any reason why anyone should be denied the right of a motor car such as we are getting".
What is the economic position? The basic cost of a mini-car is only £370 and, with conversion, it would cost probably another £40. The basic cost of a tricycle, according to the latest figures that I have, is approximately £325, so the difference is only £85, and that figure may have changed considerably during the last 12 months. To provide these people with the best would cost only another £85, and over a period of five to even 10 years the annual cost would be negligible.
I have been checking figures on the cost of maintenance. I find that in January, 1963, the Automobile Association published figures of the running costs of cars of less than 1,000 cc. The exact figures are £52 8s. a year. A month later, the Ministry of Health published the figures of the cost of maintenance of an invalid tricycle and the figures were £60, so the cost is £7 12s. more than for a small motor car.
Incidentally, I have not mentioned that the war disabled who have these motor cars get an allowance of £65. There is nothing in the Motion about that, but if the Minister of Health feels generous he can say, "I will not only give the hon. Gentleman what he is asking for, but give him something more". If he does that, he will have my best thanks.
Most of us, when we buy motor cars, have to consider the running costs. We know that there are small cars on the roads, today that would be adequate for the people who are crippled, and which run for 70 miles on a gallon of petrol. The cost would be reasonable, even with the price of petrol as it is today, including the terrific tax which the Government have put on it. I see no reason
1058
why all invalid carriages, whether motor powered or electrically driven, should not be exempt from tax. We had a debate some time ago about C.D. plates. I understand that people genuinely entitled to C.D. plates do not pay any tax. They do not pay Income Tax. I do not want to stop that—there may be a good reason for it—but if they can have this privilege, why cannot people who are crippled be exempt from car tax?
I believe that some tricycles under 6 cwt. are tax free, but I do not know of any motor cars that are tax free. What I am seeking is that the right of the war disabled to have motor cars should be extended to the industrial disabled under Section 75 of the National Insurance (industrial Injuries) Act. I should be delighted if the Minister would say, "There are some who are outside that Act and I will include them all."
It may well be that there is a need for each of these types of vehicles—the motor car, the petrol-driven tricycle and the electrically-driven tricycle. I say that we should keep them all for those who need them, but I do not see any reason why we should restrict the benefit of the motor car to the war disabled, who have obviously proved the value of this type of vehicle. My Motion covers the existing Act of Parliament and it is for that reason that I use the argument in favour of the industrially disabled under the Act.
If there is anything in the British characteristic of helping those most in need, I would not say that these are the people in most need today, but I would say that they are the people who are in need of a facility which we in this House and the Government have the right already to give them. All I am asking is for the Minister of Health, on behalf of the Government, to accept that responsibility and extend the facility of a motor car to every disabled man or woman who needs one, so that he or she may become again a useful 100 per cent. citizen. Let us be proud of the scheme that we have created and which we could operate for the benefit of everyone.
5.10 p.m.
Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith: I beg to move, to leave out from

1059
the first "to" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
"extend the categories of persons who are entitled to invalid vehicles."
First I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Charles A. Howell) on his good fortune in the Ballot and on choosing a subject which is of great general interest to both sides of this House. Although he said that he was not going to attack hon. Members on this side of the House, in the next sentence he attacked me. Perhaps I should remind him that since 1950 the number of pensioners' cars was very considerably increased by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health and that I happened to be at the Ministry at that time.
We all have the greatest sympathy with people suffering from handicaps which limit their mobility and make it difficult for them to lead a normal life. I hope very sincerely that the Minister will be able to reconsider some of the present categories who have this provision and meet some of the pleas put forward from time to time on behalf of those who so far have fallen outside the provision of vehicles for disabled persons.
Where I differ from the hon. Member is that his Motion challenges, and quite violently challenges, the long-standing principle, widely accepted in this country, of the priority given to war service pensioners. Secondly, and of much greater significance—this is more particularly the reason why I have put down the Amendment—although the hon. Member has endeavoured to suggest that he would bring in everyone concerned, we shall have to vote on the Motion as it stands. As the Motion stands it would create a new and exclusive priority among one section of civilians, a priority which has not hitherto existed.
The hon. Member protested that he thinks that the priority given to war service pensioners to have cars is untenable, yet the Motion would hive off one section of the civilian population and give them priority over other civilians equally disabled even at the same time and in the same accident. He complained about people being branded. He was less than just to the record of this and previous Governments in their provision for disabled persons. We have very good reason
1060
to be proud of our record over the years in providing vehicles for the disabled. To the best of my knowledge no other country in the world provides such comprehensive assistance in transport for the disabled as we do. In many countries the provision of vehicles is solely for war-disabled. No provision is made for civilian disabled. In practically every country the provision is far less generous, and certainly less comprehensive in maintenance and payments, than in this country. It is only fair to my right hon. Friend the Minister that this should be said.
In this country the old war pensioners' tricycle was replaced in 1948 by the then Labour Party Minister and a limited number of cars were supplied. The figure was then limited to 1,500 and it subsequently rose to 2,100. I think that it was my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) who made the provision that all war pensioners who qualified should have a motorcar whereas otherwise they had been provided with an invalid tricycle. Of these cars, I think there are about 4,000 in circulation. As the hon. Member for Perry Barr said, for those who are not war pensioners there is a single-seater invalid tricycle.
I may be a little out-of-date in my figures. I think that the hon. Member said that he did not know how many war pensioners opted to have a tricycle rather than a car. In my days at the Ministry I think that the number was about as high as 10 per cent. Nevertheless, I think it important to recognise, as the hon. Member quite clearly admitted, that these vehicles are provided free of charge and are insured, licensed and maintained by the Government. The hon. Member very fairly mentioned the other facilities for storage and the like and the contribution for a certain quantity of petrol.
It should be borne in mind that the tricycle today is a very different creature from the open, far more frail vehicle which was in circulation in 1948. Many of the refinements found on modern motorcars have been incorporated in the specially designed vehicles for disabled drivers. I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his Department on the intense work which has been done and the consistent surveys made to meet the particular needs of particular drivers and to tailor the vehicles to their use.

1061
The hon. Member spoke about driving in London by a disabled person. I pay tribute to the very low accident rate of the drivers of invalid vehicles. I think that this stems from two reasons. The first is the driver's own care, caution and courtesy on the road. The second is that, apart from their own careful driving, there is an instinctive road courtesy and consideration shown to them by the ordinary road user. He may be hasty and ill-tempered in relation to the ordinary driver, but an instinctive courtesy is shown to those driving invalid vehicles. The "road hog" will roar past me, but he will quite happily and instinctively give way to the driver of an invalid vehicle.
I have always felt that the limited mobility and often slower reactions of disabled drivers is compensated for by the fact that they are identifiable and are, therefore, given courtesy and consideration by other drivers. This is one of the greatest protections which they have on the road. I have always opposed those who say that there should be no mark on the vehicle identifying it as belonging to a disabled person. This is one of the greatest protections they have, because instinctively other drivers give way to them and go out of their way to make their course safer.
The hon. Member for Perry Barr wants us to set aside, or to challenge, a tradition which, I think, is common to every country which has a war pensions scheme by which the war disabled have priority. I think that it has always been held that a man injured when fighting for his country, who probably has been sent to foreign climes, demands something over and above that which should be applied to the civilian. Secondly—and here I come to my chief reason for the Amendment—the Motion would mean that only those who are beneficiaries under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, and who are employed, would benefit by the application of the Motion if it were accepted.
There could be a case of two men similarly injured in the same accident, but differently classified in relation to employment. A younger man who was employed would get a car, but a self-employed man, perhaps with family responsibilities, would not get one. They might be victims of the same disaster, but they would be treated differently, and all
1062
retired people would be excluded from this provision. However great our sympathies with the disabled, and whatever extensions are made to the service—I shall come to some extensions later which I hope my right hon. Friend will favourably consider—it cannot be right to divide the civilian population into categories which are such that the executive chairman gets a car but the local newsagent does not. That would be wrong in principle, and it would create the very situation among different sections of the community about which the hon. Member complained when he said that there should be no priority for war pensioners. The Motion seeks to provide two classifications of civilian pensioners.
I believe that there are 16,000 tricycles in service. However much we may wish to extend the provisions, as outlined in the Motion, the cost would be not inconsiderable. The hon. Member mentioned Section 75 of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act. I remember this from my days in the Ministry of Health and in the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. It was the provision put in as a stop gap in case there was a time lag between the coming into force of the National Health Service Act and of the new Industrial Injuries Act. In fact, it never had to be used and there never was that gap. We have explained this at many meetings with hon. Members and representatives of the T.U.C. and others at Ministry conferences.
Mr. Charles A. Howell: Would the right hon. Lady tell the House whether the T.U.C. ever agreed with her in that interpretation?
Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith: I did not have to wait for agreement because the interpretation had long been given by hon. Members opposite when they were in office. The provision was included and explained at that time as a provision to meet a need if the National Health Service Act were not passed in time.
Mr. Howell: I am sure that the right hon. Lady does not want to mislead the House, but she has not left the Ministry all that long, and I understand that the T.U.C. has been back to the Ministry every year and has disagreed with this interpretation. The T.U.C. has claimed that Section

1063
75 gives the Government the right to provide appliances. The right hon. Lady said that we must stick to the words of my Motion when we debate it. She must stick to the words of the Industrial Injuries Act. Irrespective of why it was done, the words were put in the Act.
Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith: The hon. Gentleman misinterpreted what I said. I have never denied that the Section in the Act could be used in the manner which he suggests. I said that it was put there merely as a stop-gap to cover what was always intended to be covered by the National Health Service when it came into operation. It was a Government of the present Opposition who provided that these vehicles should come under the National Health Service and that payment for them should come undr the National Health Service rather than under the Industrial Injuries Act.
This cannot be the limited problem which the hon. Member suggested it to be. First of all, there are 16,000 current users. It is true that not all of them would opt for a car, but many people who have not applied for a tricycle, because they themselves run a car, would, naturally and quite rightly, opt to have a free car rather than one for which they themselves pay. The number would be correspondingly increased.
There are also those who have not a tricycle because they cannot control it. They would immediately opt for a car where they could have a nominated driver, as is a right under the regulations for war service disabled. The demand might well run into double the 16,000 vehicles we have at the moment. The Minister undoubtedly gets a special contract price for these vehicles, but we should be grateful if he would give us some idea of the cost of the proposals in the Motion.
I know that the cause of the disabled person demands our greatest sympathy, but the very substantial commitment which would result from the Motion changes two long-established principles. The hon. Member describes the provision for war pensioners as an anomaly, but his Motion merely creates another anomaly. We must bear in mind that there are many disabled people with equally serious claims on the service.
Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I am not clear about the right hon. Lady's intentions. Does she intend to include those who are mentioned in the Motion as well as some others, or does she intend to exclude some of those mentioned in the Motion?
Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith: I am about to come to the additions which I should like my right hon. Friend to make and which I think at this point it would be fair to ask him to make. I will not keep the hon. and learned Gentleman long in suspense.
There are many disabled people with equally serious claims who are quite incapable of using a vehicle of any kind. We have to weigh up the claims of these people against the considerable cost which would arise in respect of a comparatively limited number of people who, I believe, at present are not unreasonably provided for by the service given by the Ministry. It is important that we should bear their needs in mind. If the requests made in the Motion would involve very substantial costs, then we must consider whether we are justified in allocating this amount of money solely to a section of the community already not badly provided for.
I should like to ask my right hon. Friend whether he would consider adding some classifications which so far do not come under the provisions for those entitled to a free vehicle. These have been mentioned by hon. Members on both sides of the House in debates in the past. Some of these concessions would alleviate a great deal of hardship.
I have in mind those people who are very seriously disabled, but who have not lost their limbs. Because they have not a locomotive disability so as to fall into that exact classification in the strict sense, they are not included in the scheme at present. There are people with serious heart or lung affections which make any extensive exertion very hazardous. They do not qualify for a vehicle because they are not limbless, they are not paraplegic; they do not come within the classification which justifies their being provided with a vehicle. Would my right hon. Friend look again at the categories which qualify for invalid vehicles to see whether they could be extended to those who, on medical evidence, are warned

1065
against the exercise of walking and who, at the moment, cannot obtain a vehicle under the present classification?
Similarly, there are many people who are so incapacitated that they have not the physical capacity to drive a car. Many of them are provided in their homes with a wheel chair; they are either pushed around or they wheel themselves around. But these people are in an even worse position than those who are capable of using a vehicle, because they cannot get out even into the garden unless somebody pushes them there.
Would my right hon. Friend consider whether these people should have the use of a small electrically or mechanically-propelled chair if they are not capable of handling a car or tricycle? This would at least enable them to go around their homes, out into the garden and even along the street, although they could not go further afield because they could not have a car. Could not my right hon. Friend extend the category to people often more severely handicapped than those who at present are given a vehicle, or, in the case of the war pensioner, are given a car?
Mr. Mitchison: I have listened to the hon. Lady with great attention and with much sympathy, but I have not yet got it clear in my mind. Does she intend to include by her Amendment all the people mentioned in the Motion, or does she intend to cut down the number in some way, even including, perhaps, some other category?
Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith: I do not accept the category laid down in the Motion, because it would create a one-sided priority among civilians. I am suggesting, however, that my right hon. Friend should increase the overall types of civilians or pensioners in certain categories. I do not go as far as the hon. Member for Perry Barr, but I am asking for specific concessions which I think are reasonable and which are, in fact, not covered by the hon. Gentleman's Motion. I am asking for new categories, but I do not go as far as the hon. Gentleman does in his desire to provide priority classes.
There have been very few cases where both the man and wife are injured, but there are some such cases and I have
1066
had experience of some of them. In cases where both the husband and wife are injured—I am thinking particularly of a case resulting from war injury—and where both have their own vehicle, could not my right hon. Friend stretch a point and let them have a car instead of two vehicles? Of course, they should have the option because it might be very important in some cases, particularly if they are both in employment, that they should retain their own individual transport.
I cannot believe that it would cost more to provide one vehicle instead of two. I think that these are commonsense proposals which would not involve vast additional expense, and I ask my right hon. Friend favourably to consider them.
In conclusion, I would again like to thank the hon. Member for Perry Barr for giving us the opportunity of this debate, although I strongly differ from him in his division of the priorities. I would also like to congratulate my right hon. Friend and his predecessors on the very full and comprehensive service which is given to the disabled in this category and the constant research which I know goes on to keep these vehicles up-to-date. I say frankly that I am one of those who has—and I say this quite unashamedly—no quibble about the priority given to war pensioners, and that I particularly deprecate the splitting of the civilian population into a priority and a non-priority class which would result from the passing of the hon. Gentleman's Motion.
5.34 p.m.
Mr. Ness Edwards: I will occupy the time of the House for only a short while. This is the fourth or fifth debate of this nature since 1951 in which I have taken part. The Minister has been warned time after time that there would be no peace in the House until justice was done to the paraplegics. The right hon. Gentleman has been warned that the matter will be raised time and time again until we have met the obvious need of those who suffer in this special way.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Charles A. Howell) on his speech and on having covered the ground in so comprehensive a way as to leave very little else for the rest of us to say. I

1067
was astonished at the right hon. Lady the Member for Chislehurst (Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith), who moved the Amendment and who has made it quite clear that she is against two-seater cars being provided for the paraplegics.
The hon. Lady objects to them having these cars on the ground that it would create a new priority. But we already create priorities. Of course, we cannot give all these people two-seater cars on the same day. There has to be some order about it. When these cars were first introduced for the war disabled it was then understood that they were category No. 1, that category No. 2 would have to be decided on and then category No. 3. I should have thought that that was the thinnest excuse on which to move the Amendment to the Motion so ably moved by my hon. Friend.
No hon. Member who represents a mining constituency in the House can be satisfied to leave this question until those disabled men in the mining industry get as reasonable facilities and amenities as this country can give them. The right hon. Lady talked about the division that would be created, but what about the soldiers who were combed out during the war and sent back to work in the pits and who then received their injuries in the pits? They became paraplegics. Had they remained in the Army and received injury they would have been provided with two-seater cars in precisely the same circumstances, but because they were working in the pits they were not entitled to receive them.
How about the firemen in the London blitz? How about all such categories? In providing two-seater cars for the disabled pensioner we created a category, and whatever we do, in any circumstances, we have to decide the order of priorities for these facilities. I have seen the paraplegics in the mining industry in South Wales. There are over 100 of them gathered together at Porthcawl. These are men who served their country. Many of them were sent back to the pits to produce the fuel needed for carrying on the war. They were not there of their own choice. They were sent back by their commanding officers. Yet these men are denied the facilities made available to their erstwhile comrades and who received exactly the same sort of disability on actual war service.
1068
I received a letter—which is really the only reason for my intervening in the debate—which emphasises the tragedy of these people. The letter states:
"On behalf of all disabled war cripples may I thank you for your grand fight to get us cars instead of these beastly little motor tricycles—they shake us to pieces. I was stuck on the side of the road when a lorry backed into me. He could not see me and I could not get out of his way. I fell into a deep ditch and might have been there all night only a van had taken the wrong lane and found me. A third time I started to go to the doctor at 8 a.m. and on the way back the engine failed me and I did not get home until after 6 p.m., wet through, and only the kindness of strangers got me home then. These all happened to me in only a short time and could all have been avoided if I could have had someone with me. Many of my crippled friends could tell you of worse things that have happened to them."
I would like to say this to the right hon. Lady. I know that she is not short of the milk of human kindness. We in this House know her virtues, and also, if I may say so, her shortcomings—politically anyhow.
There is a young man in my constituency who is just 25. He is single. He is courting. Every time he goes out he has to go out by himself. It is a tragedy for him that all his social life must be either in the house or when he goes out alone. We should be providing two-seater cars for people in this condition, if we call ourselves a civilised nation.
I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman will promise us tonight. He may promise something which the Labour Party will have to implement later. I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch), who has done as much for disabled people as any Member of the House, to give an undertaking when he intervenes that, if the Tory Government do not do something for paraplegics, the Labour Party when it is swept to power will see that it is one of its earliest Measures. Unless we do that, we are hypocrites. We must not ask the Tory Government to do what we are not prepared to do ourselves when we get the power.
I leave it with the Minister in this way. Do not make this another electioneering stunt. This question is too deep a human question to be made the sport of politics. If the Minister can do something, let him do it. If he cannot, the sooner the Tories are out of office and

1069
people who are prepared to act are in power, the better it will be for injured people.
5.42 p.m.
Mr. Norman Miscampbell: Sympathy has been expressed which I am sure is shared by every Member of the House. No Member of Parliament who sees these people in his "surgery" and talks to them can help being deeply moved. He must also understand the desire that they should have vehicles in which they can take out their families. I know that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Charles A. Howell) has considerable experience of this matter in his trade union activities.
I believe I am not speaking out of turn when I say that the Motion is a peg on which to hang a hat. I know that the hon. Member for Perry Barr is suggesting that everyone should be given a motor car, if possible. I bear that in mind in my next few remarks. It is perhaps worth our while to think for a moment or two of the difficulties involved in legislating piecemeal. If the Motion were accepted, there would be considerable anomalies between one man and another. Many other categories than industrial workers could have been used, and more profitably, to help the paraplegic, although it might not have been easy to move a Motion on the subject.
It is clear that the married man with a family is in an infinitely worse position than the single man. The older man may be in a worse position. On these grounds there might be justification for giving priority to married men rather than to those hurt in industrial accidents. Those injured in industrial accidents are not necessarily those who end up the worst off. It is perhaps not a sympathetic argument, but it is worth remembering that most paraplegics ex-industry have probably hurt their backs either by falling or through something falling on them. I know that I am generalising, but these people can normally satisfy the courts that there has been negligence on the part of their employers. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I admit that this is not so in every case.
Mr. J. J. Mendelson: It is necessary to know the facts.
Mr. Charles A. Howell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene for his education. A claim will not be conceded unless the plaintiff can prove that his employer was negligent.
Mr. Miscampbell: I am well aware of that. I add to my Parliamentary salary by trying to convince the courts of just what the hon. Gentleman has told me. I do not want to take this too far, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that in most cases—not in all cases, as I know only too well—when something has fallen on a man or when he has fallen he can get compensation. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I will not take it too far, because I am not arguing with hon. Members opposite on that point.
My point; is that with individual categories such as industrial workers one runs into situations of incredible anomaly. I go one stage further and say that in cases where there has been an industrial accident and where the injured men have convinced the courts that there was negligence the awards now being given are substantial. These are not necessarily the people who will be worst off. If this is conceded, faced with the difficulties of legislating piecemeal, one must decide whether every paraplegic, regardless of whether his condition arose from an industrial injury—no matter how it arose—should be entitled to a motor car. This may well be the argument.
If there are 15,000 paraplegics or people entitled to a car at present, and if nominated drivers were to be allowed, we might well be facing between 30,000 and 35,000 potential vehicles. Not everyone will decide to have a vehicle. Perhaps 80 per cent. or 90 per cent. will decide to nave one for convenience. There will also be those who have in the past provided their own cars. It may well be right to make a change now and say that everyone can have one. We all sympathise with the Minister who, faced with this demand, says that there are other ways in which the money could be spent more profitably. This is an argument on which the Minister must make us his own mind.
If it is not possible to let everyone have a vehicle, what amelioration should be offered today? What can one suggest the Minister might do without going as

1071
far as that? One step which should be taken is to say that men capable or earning sufficient money to provide a car of their own—
Mr. Mendelson: We seem to be having the same difficulty with the hon. Gentleman as we had with the right hon. Lady the Member for Chislehurst (Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith). Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House clearly whether he opposes the Motion?
Mr. Miscampbell: Certainly. If there is a Division, I shall go into the Lobby in support of my right hon. Friend's Amendment.
Mr. Mendelson: The hon. Gentleman has not answered my question. Will he tell the House clearly whether he is opposed to those who have been injured at work being included in the new category for this benefit?
Mr. Miscampbell: One knows very well that that is not a fair question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] In arguing this matter in the House today it is not necessary to take up the position, which we would all agree would be intolerable, of saying that they are not entitled. What we are entitled to ask is this. Are we to decide today to give a vehicle to everybody? It may well be right for the Government to say that they do not consider that the time has yet come when they can give a vehicle to everybody.
The Minister of Health (Mr. Anthony Barber): Will the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) tell the House whether he proposes to support the Amendment?
Mr. Mendelson: If the Chair will allow me to make my intervention, I will do so. Before I answer any questions, the hon. Member who has the Floor must answer his questions.
Mr. Miscampbell: I do not want to delay the House. I had thought at one time that it might be a partial help—a step in the right direction—if those who provided their own motor cars were given, not just the money to convert them to make them suitable for their own driving capacity, but might be given the whole cost of the vehicle. I realised, on considering this further, that that would probably create more anomalies
1072
than it would cure, because it would be tantamount to saying that those injured but still able to drive a car would be given that sum of money while those injured but unable to drive a car would get nothing. That would not be a satisfactory or even a partial solution to the problem.
I appreciate that the Minister cannot immediately answer all the questions put to him, but I hope that he will consider the possibility of the construction of three-wheeled vehicles capable of carrying two people. Such a conversion of a number of three-wheelers might be possible, otherwise I accept that it may not be possible for my right hon. Friend to concede all the requests being made by hon. Members. However, I hope that he will look sympathetically at the proposal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst.
5.52 p.m.
Mr. Bernard Taylor: The House is discussing a praiseworthy Motion which gives rise to great human problems. We are dealing not with numbers and statistics but with people, human beings, who, through war injury, industrial injury or congenital disability, need our help.
It should be remembered that acceptance and implementation of the Motion would bring an end to all discrimination in this sphere, although it would minimise it. When I read the terms of the Amendment moved by the right hon. Lady the Member for Chislehurst (Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith) I had some sympathy for it, but having listened to her remarks I regret to say that it is not designed to achieve what I thought was its aim. I submit that, whatever she has in mind, her Amendment would include only one or two further categories but would not solve the problem.
As I say, acceptance of the Motion would not end discrimination, but it would give greater freedom from isolation and boredom to a large number of people who at present are so immobile that they cannot go about with their relatives and friends and are deprived of the pleasure of even seeing the countryside. For these and many other reasons—which I could put forward if time permitted, but other hon. Members wish

1073
to speak—this should be regarded as an important human problem and we should give all the help at our disposal to these injured people.
I have been impressed by the information which hon. Members have received from a committee which is interested in the mobility of the disabled. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Charles A. Howell) submitted an unanswerable case why the Motion should have universal support and my right hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) raised an important matter, not for the first time, concerning the mining industry. For many years Motions have appeared on the Order Paper about the problem discussed by my right hon. Friend, but despite this and despite dozens of Questions put to Ministers we have received no satisfactory answer why this provision should not be extended to other disabled people.
Anxiety on this issue has been expressed not only in the House but throughout the country, and this matter has been the preoccupation of many organisations representing heavy industry, particularly mining, where there is a high incidence of accidents. It is interesting to note that although there are 24 million insured workers in Britain and although there are only half a million people employed in the mining industry, of all the reportable accidents which occur, one-third of them take place in mining. Is it any wonder that people like my right hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly and others who represent and are interested in mining areas should feel keenly on this subject and are impatient for something tangible to be done?
It is equally interesting to note what is stated in Section 75 of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1946. I do not accept the case adduced by the right hon. Lady the Member for Chislehurst, but she might be interested in these words which appear in that Section:
"The Minister may make arrangements to secure the provision and maintenance, free of charge or at a reduced charge of equipment"—
I take it that that could be interpreted to mean motor cars—
"and appliances for any person who, by reason
1074
of the loss of limb or otherwise, is in need of them as a result of any injury or disease against which he was insured under this Act … Any expenses incurred by the Minister under any such arrangements or otherwise under this section shall be paid out of the Industrial Injuries Fund."
Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith: I do not want to be misrepresented on this issue. I am not denying that that Section of the Act might possibly be applied in the manner suggested by the hon. Gentleman. I was saying that at the time of the passage of the National Health Act the fear was expressed that because of lapsed legislation there would be no machinery, until it was set up, by which the Ministry of Health would be able to provide these appliances.
It was always the intention—and this is on the record in the words of right hon. Gentlemen opposite when they were in office—that the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1946, should proceed on the basis that it was designed to provide cash benefits but would not normally be responsible for providing the physical pieces of equipment which it was always intended should ultimately be provided by the Ministry itself. That is on record in the words of Ministers of both parties. As I say, I am not denying that what the hon. Gentleman says might apply if the Section were used in that way, but the Ministry has always operated the vehicles side of this.
Mr. Taylor: The right hon. Lady is now moving her ground. She is now saying exactly the opposite to what she said originally. As I understood her, she was trying to tell the House that Section 75 was there to fill the gap between the operation of the National Health Service Act and the Industrial Injuries Act. Now she changes her ground. It was always anticipated, and the anticipation became a reality, that those Acts and the National Insurance Act should all come into operation on one day in July, 1948. Although 16 years have elapsed, very little if anything at all has been done about Section 75. It is true that it is an optional Section, but this Minister and his predecessors have failed to take any steps to operate this permissive Section.
Last Monday, the right hon. Gentleman, in answer to a number of Questions from both sides of the House, said that

1075
he would make a statement on this subject before the Summer Recess, and I join with my right hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. N. Edwards) in the hope that the Minister will make mat statement tonight. This is his last chance in this Parliament, and if he does not make the statement now his promise of last Monday will not be kept.
Replying on the same day to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert), the Minister denied the accusation that he was procrastinating, but the fact is that 13 years is a very long time for a Government not to do anything in such a matter as this, and I make a sincere appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. Over many years, I and many of my hon. Friends have seen so much suffering, so much frustration resulting from immobility—the inability to get about, and take pleasure in things in the countryside, and the like—and we know that the final point of frustration has almost been reached. I hope that at this late stage the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us that something is to be done.
I shall support the Motion. I do not propose to support the Amendment. What I would really like to see is provision made for all severely disabled people, whether their disability arises from war service, industrial occupation, sickness, disease, or is congenital. I am in favour of a universal application.
6.2 p.m.
Mr. Norman Cole: I, too, thank the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Charles A. Howell) for tabling this Motion. I know something of the personal physical experience to which he refers, and it taught me a lot of the background, and of the regulations and parts of Acts that make up the whole picture. The hon. Member has obviously done a lot of research, and I am grateful to him for his information.
I have been somewhat bewildered during the course of this debate, because we all seem to want the same tiling. The hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. B. Taylor) has just said that he wants to see these facilities extended to all who have need for them. The hon. Member for Perry Barr and others have expressed the same view, with which I entirely
1076
agree. Therefore, whatever side of the Chamber we may sit on, we are all pushing as hard as we can at the same door.
Nevertheless, the hon. Member for Perry Barr must not deny those of us on this side the right to show our sympathy in our own way. There is no special perquisite of expressing sympathy in such a matter as this. The hon. Member and his hon. Friends think that the best way to move the Government is to put down a Motion specifically giving priority to industrially injured people. We, on our side, are equally keen on what he is trying to do, but want something more comprehensive. In this matter, it is the House of Commons that is speaking, not any hon. Member, where-ever he may sit, and whatever results from the vote at seven o'clock will be a Motion from the House of Commons that the Government should take some action.
We think that the broader action asked for in the Amendment is more appropriate to action by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health. The hon. Member for Perry Barr thinks that his specific mention is the better way, but, with all respect to him—and I have had the pleasure of his acquaintance over many years—I believe that he is wrong. Specific mentions are not always appropriate in the House of Commons. It is sometimes better to give members of the Government a nudge.
A further point is that we do not want too late to explain to the many others why they are not included in this specific mention. The Motion is quite specific, and leaves out quite a number of categories. Therefore, though I have the same reasons and the same motivation as the hon. Member, I prefer the Amendment. The power to do something is contained in the various Acts. All that is needed is the will of the Government, and I think that the Amendment presents the best way of saying how we think that will should be exerted.
I imagine that my right hon. Friend deals with this subject on behalf of various Government Departments because it is a medical matter, and I pay particular tribute to the members of his Department, and especially to those in the regions, with whom I have had many

1077
contacts over the last 13 or 14 years. I have always found them sympathetic and helpful, and I pay tribute to them on behalf of those of my constituents who have benefited from their work.
As I listened to the hon. Member for Perry Barr I kept in view the fine tricycles which are now issued. I inspected one a fortnight ago. The user was full of praise for it. He thought that it was a grand machine. In the debate today I asked myself why these machines were so easily and specifically identified, because none of us wants to be distinguished from others by reason of a disability. I was prepared to ask my right hon. Friend to make them more like the three-wheeled vehicles which are in commercial production, but I then heard the point made in the debate that this identification of the vehicle helped other people to give the users some special courtesy on the road because they recognised not the driver, but the vehicle.
I should like to see my right hon. Friend conduct researches into the possibility of producing a more commercial type of vehicle and offer it to these people, because every man in liberty is entitled to his own psychology. The would-be user could be asked then whether he wished to have a vehicle which would be distinguishable on the road and thereby would give him a better chance to drive, or whether he preferred a commercial-type vehicle and to take his chance with thousands of similar vehicles on the roads. I know that there are some invalids who do not like to be so recognised, but there are others who do not mind and would be only too pleased to have special courtesy extended to them.
When I was talking to my constituent he said that it was a great pity that these three-wheeled vehicles are not quite wide enough to take a passenger. He said that there was just room for a slim passenger, but he was not supposed to take another person with him. There may be good reasons for this. I do not know the background, but if my right hon. Friend could do something to enable people who so wished to take a passenger with them it would be a reasonable thing to do and it would give great happiness to some users of these vehicles. If the present regulation is based on common sense, so be it, but if it is based
1078
on an archaic tradition let us take it apart and see whether it serves any useful purpose.
There has been talk in the debate about priorities and this is the whole point. We on this side are endeavouring to apply the only priority and that is the physical one. We cannot supply everybody immediately and at the same moment. This is the only priority which the Amendment would apply. The Motion would apply a priority restricted to a non-comprehensive class of society.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith) said that when she was in office one-tenth of the people who were entitled to have motor cars did not have them because they did not feel able to drive them. I hope that we shall keep that door open. It is quite understandable that in these days people might not wish to drive a car. Even some abled-bodied people have no desire to do so. I hope that those who prefer to have a three-wheeled vehicle as distinct from a four-wheeled car will be allowed to have their choice.
If my right hon. Friend feels that he can extend the opportunity of obtaining one of these vehicles to everyone who is disabled, from whatever cause, whether he is an employee or self-employed, ex-war or ex-industry, he will have my full support. In passing, I would make one point of criticism. I have had cause recently to make a reference to it in the House. It is that it is peculiar that at this time there should still be categories of people who, for some technical reason, are not entitled to full benefit from the Government although they are disabled. We should take a more absolute line about this. What matters to a disabled man and what should matter to us is simply that he is disabled, from whatever cause. To extend benefits to all may not be good business and probably is not good government, but it certainly is the right kind of attitude to take. I shall vote for the Amendment because I consider that the greater includes the less and where the less, speaking in terms of numbers, provides an invidious distinction it is important for us in giving instruction to the Government to make that instruction as comprehensive as possible and not make it apply specifically to one section of society.
6.16 p.m.
Mr. Albert Roberts: I have to declare at the outset that I have a vested interest in this subject. My brother who suffers from some form of sclerosis is using a tricycle and he has found it the most convenient form of vehicle, but we must bear in mind that whilst it may be convenient for the individual it certainly does not fulfil all requirements in the matter of family life. I must come out forthwith in support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) in his reference to the paraplegics, who are an army of mostly young men who have made great sacrifices.
My right hon. Friend mentioned their loneliness, but he failed to mention that their ability to procreate is completely gone and that it is essential in order to maintain the family life that when one of these young men goes out in the country or goes on holiday he should be provided with a vehicle that will enable man and wife to travel together. I was instrumental at one time in obtaining a vehicle for a young man. This opened a new world to him. He was able to mix in society and eventually to make a good living for himself. If there must be a priority in the provision of these vehicles I shall support the paraplegics, but we must also bear in mind those who are suffering from some form of sclerosis, from arthritis and from similar diseases.
It is argued that it is no more expensive to provide a vehicle which will carry two persons than it is to provide a vehicle for one person. If that is so and no question of economics arises, I cannot understand why the Minister is not more forthright. He represents a constituency in which there are a few paraplegics. I am aware of the arguments on both sides about the motorised tricycle and the motor car which will carry two persons, and if the difference in cost between the two is as was stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Charles A. Howell) I cannot understand what we are arguing about.
If we can spend or waste millions on such things as Blue Streak, why cannot we enable a section of the community to live the full life to which it is entitled? We have our priorities, but my heart goes out to all those people who are unable to get out and live a full married life.
1080
I hope the Minister will consider these representations and that he will take some action. It is a pity that we have to divide on an issue like this. It is a scandal to the House that we should have to divide. However, we must be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr for bringing forward this issue because we have been enabled to ventilate our views.
I trust that the Minister will be forthright and will be willing to meet the wishes expressed not just on one side of the House but on both sides, because this is a great human problem which must be resolved.
6.22 p.m.
Mr. Harold Finch: I heartily welcome this opportunity of congratulating and thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Charles A. Howell) on the able and sincere manner in which he stressed the need to provide motor cars for the disabled.
This is, of course, a human problem and, as one who has had considerable experience in the mining industry, I know of many tragic cases of persons who have sustained injuries resulting in partial paralysis. In the mining industry there are about 400 of these men who travel about in one-seater tricycles. They have to travel alone. They cannot take their wives or other members of their families.
This applies not only to the mining industry. There are many other industries, including the engineering and railway industries, in which men have become disabled. Many men have become paraplegic as the result of accidents arising in the course of their employment. They are unable to get about accompanied by their wives or children, unless they have a car. Many of these are comparatively young family men, and, unless the Government give them some hope, they are condemned to travel alone, in circumstances which, in my opinion, cannot be justified.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) has referred to some cases. I can quote a number of other cases, particularly from the mining industry. One has written saying:
"I hope, dear sirs, that you will be able to end this tragic loneliness."

1081
Another says:
"I have had to travel alone and if anything goes wrong I have to depend on strangers."
I could quote many other cases. There is something wrong and tragic about the situation in this age of scientific and social progress.
We have had excuses. The hon. Mem-Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) made excuses. He introduced the question of damages at common law. He said that some men are able to claim damages and get money. In how many cases does that occur? I tell the hon. Member for Blackpool, North that the bulk of the men that T refer to in the mining industry have sustained their accidents by a fall of roof, where negligence could not be proved. These men ran the danger of coal-getting underground and now they are half paralysed. Their hope has gone. All their ambitions, the life to which they looked forward and the education of their children have gone because of a fall of roof.
What can be said of the mining industry can be said of others. Paraplegia does not happen just to the man. It happens to his family as well. The whole of the family life is affected. The wife's whole outlook is changed. The income falls and the whole future has gone. We cannot pay too high a tribute to the wives, mothers and others who in so many cases display patience, tolerance and devotion to their menfolk. I know from experience what happens. A man has an accident. He is shocked and appalled by his condition. He is told that he will never be able to get about again unless he has a car or tricycle. He is distressed. He looks at his grim future. He is not only depressed. Often he can be very annoyed. It is only after a time, when he comes out of hospital and sees his wife and parents, that he starts to become accustomed to his condition. He makes the best of it. That is the time when a car would be so handy and beneficial. That is the very time when it could create happiness and comfort so necessary to an injured man.
I hope the Minister will be able to give a favourable decision and will not continue to deprive these paraplegic ex-miners and others of a motor car so that they and their wives can go out
1082
together. Quite apart from the question of happiness, the provision of a car would dispel a lot of worry and anxiety on the part of the wives. Sometimes a man goes out in a tricycle; it breaks down and he is a long time getting home. The wife worries about him. There are frequent breakdowns of this sort. I know of several in my own constituency. Bus drivers have had to pull up because of a stationary tricycle. The man in the tricycle cannot get out, and the traffic is held up.
I therefore hope that we shall get a more favourable reply in this debate. We have raised the matter time and again over many years. I think we raised it as far back as 1951 or 1952. Indeed, we have done more than that. The miners have said, "To assist our own people we will make a contribution for ex-miners if you, the Government, will help to maintain them. So keen are we that we will contribute to the extent of 50 per cent." I believe I am right in saying that that offer was made as far back as 1952, but there has been no response.
The Minister said in his reply on Monday of last week that he hoped very soon to review the whole position. But this issue has been debated in the House since 1952, before the present Minister was in office. We have been debating it all these years and now we are told that we shall very soon have a review of the position.
Mr. Barber: Either there was a mistake in HANSARD, which I think is unlikely because I read it, or the hon. Gentleman is mistaken. What I said was that we had almost completed the review that we were making.
Mr. Finch: They have almost completed the review. All I can say is that, on a matter of this kind, it is still too long to have taken until today to complete a review of this most important human problem.
On the question of cost, the Minister knows that tricycles are not as reliable as cars and they require more attention. Tricycles are not so well sprung. Their maintenance is very much a specialised business and there are long delays in getting repairs carried out. Initially, a small car might cost another £80 more than a

1083
tricycle, but what is the true position as regards comparative cost? A car lasts much longer than a tricycle. A small car might well be cheaper in the long run. I am fairly certain that it would be found that the cost of maintaining cars would be smaller than the cost of maintaining tricycles.
What is the issue? Small cars have proved satisfactory to paraplegic ex-Service men, and there has been little or no complaint about them. The cars have worked well for disabled ex-Service men. Why should there be this discrimination? We welcomed the decision to supply motor cars to ex-Service men, who deserve all the facilities we can give, but why the discrimination towards the injured miner or the man injured in industry?
The right hon. Lady the Member for Chislehurst (Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith) is, I suggest, confused on this issue. Her Amendment does not really express what I hope she intended, and she and her hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole) do not quite agree with one another. The hon. Gentleman said that he wished to include all paralysed people in this provision, but the right hon Lady did not say so and her Amendment does not say so If it did, we should agree with her We are quite prepared to agree that what we suggest should apply to all paraplegics, but the Amendment refers only to
"the categories of persons who are entitled to invalid vehicles."
What does that mean? In this debate we are referring to the provision of motor cars for paraplegic people who can use them We want this provision so that disabled people, if they so desire and are able to use them, may have cars to help them in their lives, but the Amendment does not suggest that, and we have not been assured by the right hon Lady that she means to include provision for the industrially disabled.
The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South said that he wanted all paraplegics to be included, but the right hon. Lady did not say that. If we could have her assurance that that is what she really means, we should have no objection and would urge the Minister to accept it.
1084
Already, by Section 75 of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1946, there is power for the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance to provide these cars. It could have been done long ago. That Section has never been used. What is the obstacle—money? I have already said that this is a matter of the happiness of the injured man and his family, and it would not cost as much as some hon. Members would lead us to believe. It is something which could well be done now. It has always seemed to me that Section 75 could be used. The Minister of Health, from his point of view, could say that his Ministry would operate it for a man who has a road accident, who has suffered from polio or from some other disability from natural causes. On the industrial injuries side, it could be used similarly to produce the desired result. Why the delay and the difficulty?
There is £288 million or more in the Industrial Injuries Fund now, and what we suggest would put no heavy burden on the Fund. We shall be interested to hear from the Minister exactly what the cost to the Fund would be to do as we suggest. May we have some idea of the cost for those who would come under the Minister of Health himself? There are the two categories. I am surprised that the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance has not used his powers under the Act long ago and that the Minister of Health, for his part, has not put a similar scheme into operation.
That is our case. We say that, after all these years, the time has come to provide these people with motor cars. If hon. Members opposite say that we should include all paraplegics, we quite agree. If the Minister agrees, let the whole House agree and let us get on with the job. We want the Minister's assurance this evening that something will be done forthwith. We are not concerned about political advantage. This is too great a human problem for political tactics. These men urgently need motor cars, and we beg the Minister to give us a favourable decision. But I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly that, if he does not, we on this side will do all in our power to see to it that paraplegics, the industrially injured and others, are provided as soon as possible

1085
with motor cars to give them the happiness and contentment which they deserve after sustaining accidents arising out of and in the course of their employment.
6.36 p.m.
The Minister of Health (Mr. Anthony Barber): Of all the various matters which may be raised on a private Member's Motion, and which concern my responsibilities, I agree with the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) there is none which evokes more sympathy or concern than the provision of vehicles for those who are disabled. Perhaps I may add, as a result of what I have learned only in the past day or two, that there are few people more entitled to speak on this subject than the hon. Gentleman, with all his experience.
In a sense, this is just one more facet of the problem which will always be with us, the problem of priorities and deciding where best we can direct the resources which are available and which, we must all recognise, will never be sufficient to do all we want to do. As our resources expand and enable us to do more, so our aims and ideals become more ambitious. It is one of the facts of life in a civilised society that compassion for those in need will always outstrip what can be done.
As the House knows, and as the hon. Gentleman will, I hope, agree after my intervention a few minutes ago, I have for some time been reviewing the provision of invalid vehicles for the disabled. This review has taken a considerable time, longer than I had hoped. It is a much more complex subject than many people realise. It is relatively easy to say in general terms what one would like to do, but it is not at all easy to decide what one ought to do, bearing in mind the needs of hosts of other people who are physically or mentally ill and who require and deserve more help of one kind or another.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Charles A. Howell) on his speech. In a few minutes, I shall have some proposals to put before the House, but, first, let me explain why I cannot advise the House to accept the Motion. The object of the Motion is to provide motor cars
1086
instead of the existing invalid tricycles for those men and women in industry who, in the words of the Motion,
"have suffered serious disability arising out of and in the course of their employment.".
As the hon. Member for Bedwellty said, Section 75 of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1946 gives the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance power to secure the provision of equipment and appliances for any person who needs them in consequence of an injury or disease against which he was insured under the Act. The hon. Member for Bedwellty said, "The Act is there. Why not use it?". I recognise that there were questions of priority in those days, but it is fair to point out that the Act was there in 1948, 1949, 1950 and 1951. I agree with the view taken by the Labour Government at that time not to invoke it, but, nevertheless, it is a point to make that the Act was passed in 1946.
Time and again in the past, Ministers have pointed out that this Section of the Act was designed merely as a safeguard against the possibility, which did not materialise, that there might be a gap in time between the beginning of the Industrial Injuries Act and the National Health Service Act. It has never been invoked and it has been accepted policy both by the Labour Government and by successive Conservative Governments that the Industrial Injuries Scheme should be limited to the provision of cash benefits. I am sure that is right.
Let us consider for a moment the merits of the proposal. Of course, I can see the great attraction of providing four-seater motor cars for all National Health Service patients who are seriously disabled. [HON. MEMBERS: "Two-seaters."] Two-seaters or four-seaters. With great respect to hon. Members, the Motion refers to vehicles supplied to disabled ex-Service men and these are four-seaters. If we were to supply cars to these other categories, they would be four-seater vehicles. As far as I know, there is not on the market a two-seater suitable for all disabled people. We are, therefore, talking about four-seater cars in this context.
The cost would be far more than most people perhaps realise. I will say more about that in a moment. But I must be quite frank and say that I really do

1087
not see why those who have suffered a disability arising out of and in the course of their employment should be singled out for preference. Surely many other categories of persons are equally deserving. What of the paraplegics? If the paraplegia was not the result of an industrial accident, then, under the terms of the Motion, they would be excluded. Why should they be? Again, what of the man who was disabled as a result of an accident on the way to work?
Then, if one were to single out some National Health Service patients for the provision of a motor car, surely one would give some thought to those disabled men and women with families.
Mr. Charles A. Howell: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to say that he will include—
Mr. Barber: If the hon. Gentleman will give me an opportunity I have some proposals to announce in a moment. They will take some little time.
Mr. Howell: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is misinterpreting me, though not, of course, deliberately. My reason for putting the proposal in this way is that there is money available under the Industrial Injuries Act—about £128 million—which could be used. If he wants to do better than that, then I would be most grateful.
Mr. Barber: It was open to the hon. Gentleman to put down a Motion asking us to supply motor cars for all those entitled to invalid tricycles. He did not do so, but limited it to this category. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] This is very important. If his suggestions were accepted the single man injured at work would be entitled to a motor car, but the family man who was disabled in any other way would still only qualify for a single-seater tricycle.
Mr. Finch: The Motion does not say this. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is supporting the Amendment.
Mr. Barber: I shall come to the Amendment in a moment. I am dealing first with the Motion.
As I was pointing out, I cannot believe that a proposal which would have such
1088
anomalies would be either right or would commend itself to the House. Consider, also, the case of those housewives who are at present supplied with tricycles and who have young children whom they cannot leave alone at home when they go shopping. Simply because they were not disabled as a result of an industrial accident, they would not qualify for a car under this proposal. I could think of many more such examples. I mention these few to convince the House that it would not be right to single out for special preference those injured in industry.
War pensioners have been mentioned. Quite rightly, I believe, our people and sucessive Governments have taken the view that some preference should be given to war pensioners who suffered their disablement while serving the country during war time. Neither the Motion nor the Amendment calls for the provision of motor cars for all seriously disabled National Health Service patients who qualify for personal transport.
The hon. Member for Perry Barr said that if I were prepared to do that he would go along with me; and I see his point of view. But if we were to provide for all National Health Service patients four-seater cars on the same basis as they are now provided for those disabled during the war, not only would we have to replace the majority of the 16,000 tricycles at present in use in Britain, but the total demand would probably increase by a further 30,000 drivers, because we would have to take account of those so seriously injured that they required a nominated driver, as is the case with the war disabled.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith) asked about the cost of providing motor cars for all National Health Service patients. The Government obviously looked into this in our review and we found that, over the lifetime of the cars, the additional cost would probably be in excess of £37 million. Whatever may be our ultimate goal, I am quite sure that there are other claims on our finances and resources which, at this time, should have priority. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Very well, I will mention some. There are not only the claims of people other than the disabled, but also the needs of those men and women who are seriously

1089
disabled but who, at present, do not qualify for an invalid vehicle of any kind.
The hon. Member for Perry Barr, in his very agreeable speech, said that he could not understand why my right hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst wished to extend the categories. He said that everybody is included somewhere. But this is not the case and never has been the case since the beginning of the National Health Service, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend, who spent more than five years as Parliamentary Secretary at the Ministry of Health, is right in saying that we should now extend the categories of persons now entitled to invalid vehicles.
I have been in close touch throughout the review with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance. We have reached the conclusion that the first priority is to extend the area of entitlement to an invalid vehicle. But, first of all, there are two small classes of disabled persons whose position commands special sympathy and for whom, because of their special position, I propose to make available motor cars instead of tricycles.
The first of these comprises those people outside the Armed Forces and the Civil Defence Service who were severely disabled in enemy air raids and were compensated under the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme. These men and women are regarded as war pensioners by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, but have not been regarded as eligible for cars since 1950. They were eligible before 1950. Those who are eligible for an invalid tricycle under our present rules will in future be provided with a car if they prefer one. There are 100 of them.
Secondly, there are the difficulties of those married couples who are both dependent upon tricycles. This matter has been brought to my notice by a number of hon. Members on both sides and I have decided that, in future, these couples will be given the option of surrendering their tricycles and being provided with a car. There are about 80 such couples. It will normally apply where both husband and wife are eligible for personal transport, but I would not exclude from consideration
1090
any cases where two members of one family—for instance, parent and son or daughter—living in the same house are both eligible for tricycles.
In all cases we shall have to satisfy ourselves that the provision of one vehicle instead of two would be to the benefit of both patients, because, of course, two tricycles provide more independent mobility than one car. I shall also look sympathetically at any case where one partner in a marriage is eligible for a tricycle and the other, although not so eligible, is blind.
I have already said that in my view additional resources might be better used to extend benefits to a greater number of the disabled rather than to provide a better vehicle for those who already have tricycles. I have in mind particularly those men and women who are not disabled in the ordinary sense of having some disablement directly affecting the legs, but who are virtually unable to walk because of a disability having an indirect effect on their legs. Many people who suffer from a disease of the heart or of the lungs are affected in this way and hitherto they have not been regarded as eligible for a vehicle, save in exceptional circumstances. I have decided to extend the present arrangements for the supply of tricycles, or cars in the case of war pensioners, to those patients whose very limited walking ability is attributable to what are called non-locomotor disabilities and who need a machine to get to and from their full-time employment.
I estimate than an additional 1,000 disabled persons, including about 100 war pensioners, will benefit from this concession. I hope that it will be possible in the future to make similar provision, by stages, to some patients in this category who are not in whole-time employment.
There are certain further classes of persons whom I want to help. I have always felt a special sympathy for those whose legs are not sufficiently affected by disability to bring them within one of our categories of eligibility, but who suffer the additional handicap of having lost both their arms, or having an equally grave disability of this kind. These persons will in future be considered for a vehicle.

1091
I also intend to relax some of the rules we have observed about the sort of employment regarded as entitling a disabled person to vehicles and those about the availability of public transport facilities. Many hon. Members will know what sort of cases I have in mind. These concessions will benefit a considerable number of people—probably an additional 3,000—but I must emphasise that some of them will inevitably have to wait a little time for a machine because, for obvious reasons, we cannot do all this at once.
Those who use the vehicles which are provided are, by the nature of things, very badly disabled, and it is right that we should do whatever we can to give them any extra comfort that is possible. From the end of this month I shall provide heaters in all new motor cars and arrangements will be made as soon as possible to fit heaters in cars already in use. We shall be getting in touch directly with the war pensioners about this.
I intend, also, to provide heaters in motor tricycles, but I cannot give a definite date for this until certain technical problems have been overcome. A heater has been developed which promises to be suitable for these vehicles and it is now being tested. As soon as I am satisfied that it is both efficient and safe—and I hope that this will be within a few months—I shall arrange for it to be fitted to both new vehicles and those already in use.
Mr. Cole: Will my right hon. Friend give some consideration to what I said about making tricycles a little wider and the opportunity of being able to carry a passenger? I do not want him to answer now, but will he give the matter consideration?
Mr. Barber: I have looked into this and find that it would be very difficult to convert existing machines so that they would take a passenger.
I have one final measure to announce and this affects the most seriously disabled of all—those patients who are not only unable to walk because of a disability affecting their legs, but who, because of weakness in their arms or hands, are also unable to propel themselves in a wheelchair. I am making
1092
arrangements for electrically-propelled indoor chairs to be provided for such of these unfortunate people who can be helped by this means to achieve some measure of independence—perhaps 2,000 people.
The additional cost of all these proposals is estimated, in the first year of operation, to be about £1¼ million. There are at present about 20,000 invalid vehicles. These new proposals will add probably another 6,000. The House will, I am sure, welcome these additional benefits for disabled persons. Arrangements are being made to deal with the applications which will be coming in and preliminary supply arrangements are already in hand. Those who consider that they will be entitled to benefit should, if they are war pensioners, get in touch with their artificial limb and appliance centre and, if they are National Health Service patients, they should arrange through their own doctor for an appointment with a hospital consultant.
There are in Great Britain at present about 4,000 cars and 16,000 tricycles on issue, and of the tricycles 2,500 are electrically-propelled machines. One hon. Member thought that these latter machines were supplied merely because patients preferred them, but in fact they are supplied to those patients who are so severely disabled that they are unable to control the ordinary motor tricycle.
So far as I know, no country in the world has an equivalent service for providing transport for the disabled. Such schemes as I know of—and during the course of this review we have, naturally, made inquiries about the type of provision made abroad—are confined to particular classes, generally the war disabled. In the United States eligibility is wider, but grants for the purchase of vehicles are restricted to war veterans and are given once only, with no provision for maintenance or replacement and barely covering the cost of the cheapest available car.
I am sure that the House will agree that while all of us would like to go further, these proposals represent an important step forward. I do not doubt that every hon. Member will instinctively feel, as I do, that it would be good if we could go further, but what I propose to

1093
do represents the most important extension of the categories of the disabled eligible for vehicles which has been made since the National Health Service came into being. Indeed, the categories of eligibility have remained virtually unchanged since the inception of the scheme.
I hope that in the light of what I have said the hon. Member for Perry Barr will not press his Motion. For the reasons I have given, to do as he proposes would be neither fair nor would it provide help where it is most needed. The right approach is that adopted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst, with all her experience in the Ministry of Health.
My advice to the House, including the Opposition, is, therefore, to reject the Motion and to accept the Amendment and, in so doing, to welcome the proposals which I have announced on behalf of the Government.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Martin Redmayne)The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Martin Redmayne) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
Question put accordingly, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question: —
The House divided: Ayes 192, Noes 230.

Division No. 134.]

AYES

[7.0 p.m.

Abse, Leo

Fletcher, Eric

McCann, J.

Ainsley, William

Foley, Maurice

MacColl, James

Albu, Austen

Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

Mclnnes, James

Alldritt, W. H.

Forman, J. C.

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Mackenzie, Gregor

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Galpern, Sir Myer

MacPherson, Malcolm

Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)

George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)

Mahon, Simon

Bacon, Miss Alice

Ginsburg, David

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

Beaney, Alan

Gourlay, Harry

Manuel, Archie

Bellenger, Ht. Hon. F. J.

Grey, Charles

Mayhew, Christopher

Bence, Cyril

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Mellish, R. J

Benn, Anthony Wedgwood

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Mendelson, J. J.

Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

Millan, Bruce

Benson, Sir George

Gunter, Ray

Milne, Edward

Blackburn, F.

Hamilton, William (West Fife)

Mitchison, G. R.

Blyton, William

Hannan, William

Monslow, Walter

Boardman, H.

Harper, Joseph

Moody, A. S.

Bottomley. Rt. Hon. A. G.

Hart, Mrs. Judith

Moyle, Arthur

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

Hayman, F. H.

Mulley, Frederick

Bowles, Frank

Healey, Denis

Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

Boyden, James

Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (RwlyRegis)

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

Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

Herbison, Miss Margaret

Oliver G. H.

Bradley, Tom

Hill, J. (Midlothian)

O'Malley, B. K.

Bray, Dr. Jeremy

Hilton, A. V.

Oswald, Thomas

Brockway, A. Fenner

Holman, Percy

Owen, Will

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Hooson, H. E.

Padley, W. E.

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Houghton, Douglas

Paget, R. T.

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Hoy, James H.

Parker, John

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Parkin, B. T.

Castle, Mrs. Barbara

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Pavitt, Laurence

Chapman, Donald

Hunter, A. E.

Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

Cliffe, Michael

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Peart, Frederick

Collick, Percy

Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

Pentland, Norman

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Cullen, Mrs. Alice

Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

Probert, Arthur

Dalyell, Tam

Janner, Sir Barnett

Randall, Harry

Darling, George

Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

Rankin, John

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Jeger, George

Redhead, E. C.

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

Reid, William

Davies, S. 0. (Merthyr)

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Reynolds, G. W.

Deer, George

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Rhodes, H.

Delargy, Hugh

Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Dempsey, James

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Diamond, John

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Dodds, Norman

Kelley, Richard

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Doig, Peter

King, Dr. Horace

Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)

Driberg, Tom

Lawson, George

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

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

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Ross, William

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

Short, Edward

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Loughlin, Charles

Skeffington, Arthur

Evans, Albert

Lubbock, Eric

Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

Fernyhough, E.

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

Finch, Harold

McBride, N.

Small, William

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Taverne, D.

Wilkins, W. A.

Snow, Julian

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Williams, D. J. (Neath)

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

Spriggs, Leslie

Thornton, Ernest

Winterbottom, R. E.

Steele, Thomas

Wade, Donald

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Stonehouse, John

Wainwright, Edwin

Woof, Robert

Stones, William

Warbey, William

Wyatt, Woodrow

Stross, SirBarnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)

Watkins, Tudor

Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

Swain, Thomas

Weitzman, David

Swingler, Stephen

White, Mrs. Eirene

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Symonds, J. B.

Whitlock, William

Mr. Charles A. Howell and

Mr. Mason.

NOES

Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

Gibson-Watt, David

Maddan, Martin

Allason, James

Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan

Maginnis, John E.

Arbuthnot, Sir John

Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

Maitland, Sir John

Ashton, Sir Hubert

Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Atkins, Humphrey

Goodhart, Philip

Marlowe, Anthony

Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)

Gower, Raymond

Marshall, Sir Douglas

Balniel, Lord

Green, Alan

Marten, Neil

Barber, Rt. Hon. Anthony

Gresham Cooke, R.

Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

Barlow, Sir John

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

Matthews, Cordon (Meriden)

Barter, John

Grosvenor, Lord Robert

Maude, Angus (Stratford-on-Avon)

Batsford, Brian

Gurden, Harold

Mawby, Ray

Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

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

Biffen, John

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Mills, Stratton

Biggs-Davison, John

Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

Miscampbell, Norman

Bingham, R. M.

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Montgomery, Fergus

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

Harvie Anderson, Miss

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Bishop, Sir Patrick

Hastings, Stephen

Morgan, William.

Black, Sir Cyril

Hay, John

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Bourne-Arton, A.

Henderson, Sir John (Cathcart)

Morrison, John (Salisbury)

Box, Donald

Hendry, Forbes

Neave, Airey

Brewis, John

Hiley, Joseph

Nicholls, Sir Harmar

Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

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

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Browne, Percy (Torrington)

Hirst, Geoffrey

Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Hendon, North)

Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

Hocking, Philip N.

Osborn, John (Hallam)

Burden, F. A.

Hogg, Rt. Hon. Quintin

Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Holland, Philip

Page, John (Harrow, West)

Campbell, Gordon

Hollingworth, John

Pannen, Normall (Kirkdale)

Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

Hopkins, Alan

Partridge, E.

Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert (Mitcham)

Hornby, R. P.

Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

Cary, Sir Robert

Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

Peel, John

Chataway, Christopher

Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

Percival, Ian

Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

Hughes-Young, Michael

Peyton, John

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

Hulbert, Sir Norman

Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

Cleaver, Leonard

Hurd, Sir Anthony

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Cole, Norman

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Pitman, Sir James

Cooke, Robert

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Pitt, Dame Edith

Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

Jackson, John

Pounder, Rafton

Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

James, David

Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

Cordle, John

Jennings, J. C.

Prior, J. M. L.

Corfield, F. V.

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otto

Coulson, Michael

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Proudfoot, Wilfred

Crawley, Aidan

Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

Quennell, Miss J. M.

Crowder, F. P.

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

Cunningham, Sir Knox

Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)

Currie, G. B. H.

Kerby, Capt. Henry

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

Dalkeith, Earl of

Kerr, Sir Hamilton

Renton, Rt. Hon. David

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Kershaw, Anthony

Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.

Kirk, Peter

Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Kitson, Timothy

Russell, Sir Ronald

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

Lambton, Viscount

Sharples, Richard

Doughty, Charles

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Shaw, M.

Drayson, G. B.

Leather, Sir Edwin

Skeet, T. H. H.

du Cann, Edward

Leavey, J. A.

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

Duncan, Sir James

Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

Spearman, Sir Alexander

Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Stainton, Keith

Errington, Sir Eric

Lilley, F. J. P.

Stanley, Hon. Richard

Farey-Jones, F. W.

Linstead, Sir Hugh

Stevens, Geoffrey

Farr, John

Litchfield, Capt. John

Steward, Harold (Stockport, 8.)

Fell, Anthony

Lloyd, R t. R n. Geoffrey (Sut'n C'dfield)

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

Finlay, Graeme

Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

Storey, Sir Samuel

Fisher, Nigel

Longbotham, Charles

Studholme, Sir Henry

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Loveys, Walter H.

Summers, Sir Spencer

Foster, Sir John

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Tapsell, Peter

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

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

MacArthur, Ian

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

Freeth, Denzll

McLaren, Martin

Teeling, Sir William

Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

Maclean, SirFitzroy (Bute & N. Ayrs)

Temple, John M.

Gammans, Lady

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

Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

Gardner, Edward

McMaster, Stanley R.

Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)

1096

1097

Thornton- Kemsley, Sir Colin

Wall, Patrick

Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Woodhouse, Hon. Christopher

Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)

Worsley, Marcus

Turner, Colin

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, 8.)

Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Vickers, Miss Joan

Wise, A. R.

Mr. Pym and Mr. R. W. Elliott.

Walker, Peter

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Mr. Redmayne Mr. Redmayne claimed, That the Question, That the proposed words be there added, be now put.
Question, That the proposed words be there added, put accordingly and agreed to.
Mr. Redmayne Mr. Redmayne claimed, That the main Question, as amended, be now put.
Main Question, as amended, put accordingly and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to extend the categories of persons who are entitled to invalid vehicles.

ADJOURNMENT
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Redmayne.]

NORTHERN IRELAND
7.9 p.m.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Henry Brooke): I hope that I may have the permission of the House to wind up this debate briefly later and reply to the points which have been raised in it, but it might be helpful to the course of the debate if I say a word or two at the outset about two important matters which received a good deal of attention when we last debated Northern Ireland affairs.
One was the proposal put forward by the Railways Board for the withdrawal of all passenger services between Dumfries and Stranraer and between Ayr and Stranraer. These proposals were of great importance to Northern Ireland because of the Larne-Stranraer link between Northern Ireland and Britain. The proposals have since been considered by the Scottish Transport Users' Consultative Committee, as required by the Transport Act, 1962—and I should mention that there is a Member for Northern Ireland on that Committee. The Committee reported to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport to the effect that the proposal
1098
to close the Dumfries line would cause extreme hardship to a number of users, particularly to long-distance travellers using the Stranraer-Larne service.
The Committee also found that the closure of the Ayr line would cause hardship to a variety of users, particularly, again, to those using the Stranraer-Larne crossing. In the light of the Committee's report, the Railways Board informed my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport that if he felt unable to agree to closing the through services to Stranraer it would be possible to introduce a scheme under which the Ayr-Stranraer line would remain open, the Dumfries-Stranraer passenger services would stop, but through traffic at present using the Dumfries-Stranraer line would be routed along a loop line via Mauchline to link up with the line between Ayr and Stranraer. The direct services between Stranraer and London would be preserved, the journey time remaining approximately as at present. The services for the considerable traffic between Glasgow and Stranraer would also be preserved.
My right hon. Friend, with the agreement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Government of Northern Ireland, has today announced that he proposes to withhold his consent from the proposal to close the Ayr-Stranraer line, except for the closure of certain small stations between Girvan and Stranraer, and to consent to the closure of the Dumfries-Stranraer line on the understanding that a satisfactory through overnight service with sleeper facilities will continue to be provided between London and Stranraer, using the Mauchline loop line.
These services will continue to connect with the steamer service to Larne. The Railways Board has informed my right hon. Friend that it will continue to carry parcels and perishable traffic on the Stranraer passenger service as at present.
The Mauchline solution will enable the Railways Board to achieve savings of £240,000 a year, as against a saving of

1099
£330,000 a year if both lines were to be closed to passengers as originally proposed. I believe that the House and the public will welcome my right hon. Friend's solution, which will preserve the essential needs of most travellers, including all travellers to and from Northern Ireland, and will at the same time save the Railways Board considerable sums of money.
The second announcement that I should like the House to hear at the outset of this debate arises from our last debate on Northern Ireland, when I said that Her Majesty's Government were ready to see that financial assistance appropriate to a major Northern Ireland industrial development project would be made available for the provision of a dry dock at Belfast substantially larger than the existing Thompson Dock, and capable of enlargement in further years so as to take the largest ships. I also said that the probability of a dock of vast proportions being needed in Belfast in the next few years seemed too small to justify what was then thought to be the very heavy extra cost.
Following my statement, the Belfast Harbour Commissioners, in consultation with the Northern Ireland Government, decided to obtain from a distinguished firm of engineering consultants a detailed survey and estimate for a dry dock of the type that the Government were prepared to support. The consultants' report was completed and made available to the Belfast Harbour Commissioners very recently—in fact, in the last week of June—and it has been considered with great urgency by the Harbour Commissioners, the Government of Northern Ireland and Her Majesty's Government.
The report shows that in view of geological and other considerations it should be possible to construct at Belfast within the level of available finance a dock of 150 ft. by 1,000 ft., which is an extremely large dock. It will be capable of taking vessels of approximately 150,000 deadweight tons. The report also shows that the difference in cost between a dock of this size and a smaller dock capable of being extended is much less than had been previously expected, and that the cost of future extension works to increase
1100
the capacity of a smaller dock would outweigh the initial difference in capital costs.
In view of this report, Her Majesty's Government see no reason why the Belfast Harbour Commissioners should not be authorised to invite tenders for the construction of a dock of this very large size. The House will appreciate that the final decision to begin the construction of this dock cannot be taken until tenders are received, at which stage questions of size in relation to cost and other financial aspects will naturally need to be looked at afresh. But I have every hope that the way ahead will now be clear. The cost of the dock will fall partly on the Government of Northern Ireland, partly on the Belfast Harbour Commissioners and partly on Harland and Wolff, who will be the main users.
This seems to me to be a favourable development, and the prospects are now set fair for going ahead with this major contribution to Northern Ireland's industrial capacity.
7.16 p.m.
Mr. Frederick Lee: It is a great pleasure to hear things which the Northern Ireland Labour Party and ourselves have advocated for so long placed being before the House as something like a blinding flash of intuition from the Home Secretary.
It was as long ago as 1955 that the campaign by the Northern Ireland Labour Party to get a dry dock in Belfast began. For years it was sneered at. It was regarded as quite unnecessary, and as purely a stunt. We received no encouragement from Government spokesmen to think that anything like this would be contemplated. Perhaps it was even worth postponing the General Election to hear this kind of thing from the Home Secretary now. We welcome the belated acceptance of the proposals which the Northern Ireland Labour Party and ourselves have been making for so long.
We have also raised the question of the Stranraer-Larne crossing on many occasions for a long time. It is remarkable how things which are at first deemed to be impossible are found to be capable of a solution when further consideration has been given to them. On behalf of my colleagues, I welcome the two announcements that the right hon.

1101
Gentleman has been able to make. But I submit that if only there had been a little more willingness earlier to listen to the voice of wisdom a great deal of the hardship and real suffering which many thousands of people in Northern Ireland have endured over the years might have been minimised.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the beginning of this great venture in building a dry dock may have consequences for Harland & Wolff which, at this point, we cannot estimate. In contracting for new work there is a requirement for maintenance to be accepted for a period of years. When the dry dock is available I hope that Harland & Wolff will be more successful, because of its maintenance policy, in obtaining contracts which otherwise it would not have been able to obtain.
Turning to the general state of the economy in Northern Ireland, we find that there is still a very high percentage of unemployment. The figure still runs at about 6½ per cent., which is equal to about 34,000 people being unemployed. I would remind the House that this is still the position in the middle of a pre-election boom. Already, we find that the economic pundits are discussing in the Press whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take measures to check the economy before the General Election. The right hon. Gentleman will try his utmost to get the election over first in the hope of a success—such as it may be—after which we may expect that the pre-election boom will, as usual, disappear and we can look forward to the lean years again.
Despite the fact that this boom is now causing trouble for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we see little response to this condition in Northern Ireland. This presupposes that as yet there are no grounds for hoping that fundamental changes have taken place in the economy of Northern Ireland. Indeed, this problem of depressed areas in many parts of the United Kingdom, in Northern England and in Scotland as well as in Northern Ireland, at a time when the rest of the area of the United Kingdom is experiencing boom conditions is one which of itself, indicates the complete failure of the Government to plan the economy of what is, after all, a comparatively small island
1102
as represented by the United Kingdom as a whole.
The fact that we are still no nearer to solving the problems in the worst places, such as in Northern Ireland, does not speak very highly for the competence with which the Government, here or at Stormont, have tried to plan their way out of what is now a permanent depression.
I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman one or two questions about the instruments which we have already at our disposal in Northern Ireland. What is now the kind of activities which we can expect from the Chandos Council? About nine years have passed since the Council was set up and it is ironical to recall that it was set up as an alternative to the proposals of the Labour Party for a development corporation for Northern Ireland. We have had nine years in which to judge the effectiveness of this kind of instrument and it seems to me that the time has come when we should agree that it has failed.
Now that we are getting so much of the Labour Party's policy accepted by the Government, it may well not be very long before we expect an announcement on the equally important proposals of the Labour Party for a development corporation or an economic council of some type in Northern Ireland. I was hoping that today the right hon. Gentleman would have been able to make an announcement on that point. If there is anything that he can say—we give him permission to speak again in the debate—about the stage which has been reached in the discussions on this matter, we shall be very glad to hear it.
I have commented on a number of occasions on the failure of the Northern Ireland Government to recognise the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. This has proved to be a great stumbling block to the setting up of an economic council for Northern Ireland. I understand that there have been protracted negotiations between the Government in Northern Ireland and the trade unions and that there is some hope that agreement will be reached. I fervently hope that it works out that way. I have always believed that the failure to recognise the trade unions was a very benighted and backward sort of attitude for a Government to adopt.

1103
In this instance it is the case that this has been a bar to the setting up of an economic council in an area of the United Kingdom where, in more than any other, such a council is needed. I should have thought that we could not afford to be without such a council. Yet we have had a negative and grudging attitude towards what I should have thought was a helpful and positive step to bring together those representatives of the employers, trade unionists and politicians who, if they work in harmony, could do so much to improve the economic problems of Northern Ireland.
The case need not be argued any further. The principles have been accepted. Indeed, after our last debate I think that even the Home Secretary, after he had told us that this kind of thing was Socialist planning and could not be accepted, suddenly discovered that the Northern Ireland Government were coming round to the idea so that the right hon. Gentleman, who had condemned it earlier, began to make the right kind of noises. As I say, I had hoped that today his conversion would have been completed. I hope that these negotiations will come to a speedy conclusion and that in the very near future we may be told that agreement has been reached and that a new and vital piece of planning machinery will have been set up in Northern Ireland.
I wish to refer to one or two of the industries in Northern Ireland which were not mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. I have been greatly concerned at the threat to the computer industry. I understand that there was a danger that two factories would have to close and that this danger has not yet passed. There has been a temporary agreement to continue. I should have thought that this kind of industry, which is the genesis of modernisation, is the kind of industry which it is so vital for us to have if we propose to attract new industry to Northern Ireland and to modernise the existing industries there. I hope that when the right hon. Gentleman replies to the debate he will tell us about the computer industry and whether I.C.T. is now in a better position, and whether we may take it that the two factories which were jeopardised will now remain open permanently.
1104
I could go further and say that what applies to Northern Ireland reflects the shocking situation of the computer industry in the United Kingdom as a whole. Twelve years ago we had great hopes of leading the world in this industry. We are now in the very gravest peril of a complete American monopoly in computers. This is largely because of the neglect by the Government. It will be a very sad day if such a monopoly becomes entrenched here. I understand that the Finance Department in Northern Ireland uses American computers and that they are also being used in its training schools. I am told that I.C.T. could have made these computers. We must be told why an industry which is based on Northern Ireland, which could produce these modern products of the scientific age, should be threatened with partial closure. This is a very serious charge and one to which I would like to know the answer.
Surely we have now reached the stage at which the failure of British manufacturing industry to adapt itself to modern techniques is something about which we should all be concerning ourselves. We cannot hope to improve our economic position, more especially where things are as delicately balanced as they are in Northern Ireland, unless we can get a more modern approach to industrial methods than the vast majority of our industrialists are showing.
When we see that much which could be such a vital element in industrial modernisation in Northern Ireland is now threatened with closure through the Government not using the products which could be made, nor, as far as I can see, attempting any educational work with the manufacturers themselves, then I believe that this is the very negation of planning in the sense that is now necessary if we are to make big inroads into the problem of unemployment and the closure of industries which we keep on seeing in Northern Ireland.
I cannot believe that this kind of neglect is caused by any lack of capital at the disposal of the Northern Ireland Government. I am told that they have at the very least well over £21 million in reserve funds. Surely this kind of capital would be far better used in the ways I am suggesting rather than merely stultifying,

1105
while there is no improvement in the economic position of Northern Ireland.
Let us look at the problems of steel in Northern Ireland. I know that there was talk some time ago about whether a small steel industry could be provided there and that this fell through. I am now told that much of British steel is being sold to foreign countries at a lower price than Northern Ireland employers can buy it. It seems to be a strange anomaly that parts of the United Kingdom greatly in need of steel cannot obtain it from the British steel industry at prices which are as low as the prices of the steel which the same industry exports to foreign countries.
I would have thought that it would pay the Government of Northern Ireland even to subsidise British steel, if necessary, and to stock it in Northern Ireland so that the manufacturers there could have the opportunity to compete effectively with foreign competitors who, apparently, are able to get British steel at cheaper prices than they can make it themselves. This is a point on which we should welcome information from the Minister.
For years there has not been a debate on Northern Ireland without the aircraft industry being the most important issue to be raised from both sides of the House. The position at Shorts is causing the gravest apprehension. I know that the Minister of Aviation was over there a short time ago and spoke of £55 million of public money being invested in different projects with Shorts and gave the impression that this was something well above average for the whole of the British aircraft industry. As I understand it, £40 million of that £55 million were invested in the Belfast transport aircraft.
That transport seems to be pretty well doomed to be an uneconomic product when the total number of orders is 10. We now hear that there is a possibility that some of the VC 10 cancellations by B.O.A.C. may well be going to the R.A.F., so that will be the end of any hope in the numbers of Belfast transports that we can expect the R.A.F. to take. Perhaps even more serious is that any hope of the Belfast being converted into a jet for the future would be very seriously jeopardised.
1106
As I say, I understand that £40 million of the Minister's £55 million have gone that way. Another £10 million were invested in the Seacat which, at one stage, the Government wanted to cancel. They are very consistent in the way in which they first of all invest and then cancel. This has been a very great export success and it accounts for a further £10 million of the £55 million. There is not, after that, a very great deal left from the Minister's "pantry" for Shorts. He was also arguing, as I understand, that Shorts could maintain labour forces much better than other sections of the aircraft industry. This is a very old trick. The fact is that when the Ministry argues that there will be 6,000 people in Shorts for years to come hon. Members forget the terrific rundown from 18,000 which Shorts once employed.
Although I am very apprehensive about other sections of the aircraft industry it is certainly the case that there has been no rundown comparable to that in other sections of the aircraft industry. I do not know whether the Minister of Aviation has discussed this matter with the Home Secretary. He committed himself quite categorically to a figure of about 6,000 in Shorts for years to come. I would put to him a straight question: what do the Government intend to do? So far as one can see from the programme that Shorts now has, there is not within that programme, and within a short time, scope for 6,000 people to be employed there. Already, the design team has been reduced almost to skeleton proportions.
It seems to me that the Government, having decided that Shorts would not go into the consortium and only the Government could decide, they penalised Shorts because it is outside. This seems to me both unfair and cruel. Therefore, I would not have thought that a debate of this sort would have been complete unless we could have more concrete suggestions for the future of Shorts than anything that we have had so far. Shorts were dealt a heavy blow by the decision to take the Bell helicopter as against the Hiller helicopter. We all know the rights that Shorts had in Europe for the Hiller helicopter, but that, also, was something which they were not able to get.
I believe that the time has come when we must look on the United Kingdom as a united kingdom. The idea that we can have a different standard for Northern

1107
Ireland from that in other parts of the United Kingdom is wrong. The only way in which we can possibly ameliorate the problems of Northern Ireland is by far closer integration of the economy of the United Kingdom as such.
A Labour Government would set up a national industrial planning board, with boards in the various regions, and, of course, Northern Ireland would be one of those regions. It would take the same share of development and expansion as any other part of the United Kingdom. We believe that this is the way in which we could encourage capital development in the science-based industries which are the only real future for an island, or two islands in this sense, almost bereft of indigenous raw materials. In the creation of industries, in which we export brains to the maximum and raw materials to the minimum and exploit the highly scientific methods of development which are now at our disposal, the "know-how" is here.
We know that the "brain drain" is now becoming a serious menace to our hopes of modernisation. I see no signs that the Government either here or at Stormont are taking anything like the necessary methods to stop the "brain drain" and to give the apprentices a far higher standard of apprenticeship than they now get so that they can become the craftsmen and technologists of a few years' hence. It is a tragedy that at a time like this we should have to be discussing economic failures by Governments which result in heavy and sustained unemployment when, instead, we should be discussing ways in which we could modernise new industries to face competition from the world.
I do not say that there has not been a great deal of money spent in Northern Ireland. The problem is that so many of the industries which have been set up have failed afterwards. There is an over-reliance on firms on the mainland which open auxiliary establishments and small factories in Northern Ireland. Then they begin to look at the heavier transport costs and, as soon as there is a little tremor in the economy, it is the factory in Northern Ireland which has to close. The time has come when the Governments here and in Northern Ireland must accept responsibility in these matters. It
1108
is not enough merely to say that we are trying to attract industry from Britain or anywhere else to Northern Ireland. If private enterprise does not do it, the onus of responsibility is on the Government to create new industries by new agencies.
Governments are elected to look after the people in their own areas. We need in Northern Ireland an economic council, using the best brains available from both sides of industry. We do not want to see the Government working on a rather stupid basis that if private enterprise fails there is nothing left to do. How is it that there can be Governments in this country and in Northern Ireland which will not accept responsibility? I hope to see the creation of such an economic council. I am sure that from one side or the other the demand will come that if private enterprise fails Government must step in and start new industries rather than depending on people going to Northern Ireland for a few months or a few years and then leaving again.
I have outlined what would be the policies of a Labour Government. We would look upon Northern Ireland as a region of the United Kingdom whose economy is vital and in need of modernisation just as that of any other region. It is our hope, indeed it is our belief, that the time is not distant when we shall have an opportunity to put these ideas into practice. I hope that the people of Northern Ireland will come along with us instead of sending hon. Members to this Parliament who blindly follow a Tory Government no matter how they turn the knife in the wound. I hope that they will send here Members who will give some assistance to those on this side of the House.
7.44 p.m.
Mr. Henry Clark: I shall not follow the wonderful boost for Ulster given by the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee). He trotted out all the woes of Ulster. His speech was no different from that which he made in the last Ulster debate, except that this time he referred to the Larne-Stranraer railway link. Last time he tried to produce an incredible fishing boat service between Donahadee and Portpatrick. At least he is taking credit for Dr. Beeching—but there are much more important things to discuss.

1109
The one most important duty I have is to thank my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for the announcement he made, which particularly affects my constituency. I thank him because he has been most assiduous in the last two years in pressing on his colleagues and British Railways the immense importance to the whole of Northern Ireland of the Stranraer railways. I thank him most sincerely. I also congratulate the Minister of Transport. He and British Railways have produced a most ingenious solution. It looks as if they are to replace two loss-making railways with one which should make a profit. He has earned the very best congratulations of the people of Northern Ireland for doing this, and I welcome the new scheme.
The one thing I am worried about is that the people of Galloway will suffer when their Dumfries railway is closed, people who with us in Northern Ireland throughout 18 months have campaigned to keep these railways open. I can assure them that anything we can do to help them to get a decent transport service we shall do.
There are two points on this question which I shall be obliged if my right hon. Friend will clear up. One of the most important aspects of the railway connections from Stranraer to Dumfries is that it allows tourists from the northeast of England to leave Newcastle at 8 o'clock in the morning and to arrive in their hotels in Northern Ireland at 8 o'clock at night, travelling throughout in daylight. Can we have an assurance that that will be possible when the new route is open? May we also have an assurance that while the railways will be saving £250,000 they will not put up the fares from Stranraer to London just because there is an extra 40 miles of railway?
I do not want to deal with the question of the dry dock. Other hon Members will no doubt catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and speak on that announcement which was extremely welcome. I move to the question which is always completely forgotten on the Labour benches in these debates. One never sees many Labour experts on agriculture present in an Ulster debate. I wish to talk about the small farmer who accounts for 99 per
1110
cent. of Northern Ireland's agriculture. The problem we have is one of small farms and intensive livestock production. Up to the end of June we had little to complain about as the weather has been good. There are two things, however, which we see as a threat to the future of small farmers. One is the factory production which is taking over the intensive livestock operations which have been the sheet anchor of the small farmers. The best example of this is the case of a farmer with 500 or perhaps 1,000 or 2,000 laying birds who with these can make a living on 25 acres. If egg production passes to the factory using half a million or a million hens and the small farmer loses his income from eggs he will be badly hit.
The same can happen with barley, beef and pigs. I ask that the question of protecting the small producer of eggs with a flock of 500 or 1,000 birds should be gone into thoroughly. Can the small producer be helped to compete against the multi-million egg producer?
There is an allied question to this, the price of feedingstuffs. In Northern Ireland small farmers with intensive livestock producers cannot provide their own feeding-stuffs. At the moment we are producing only a third of our requirements and we must import.
The Minister of Agriculture introduced his scheme for standard quantities and the Ulster Farmers' Union accepted this on the condition that it did not prejudice the right of Northern Ireland to get its feedingstuffs at the cheapest possible price. I am not prepared to say that this has happened yet, but there are reasons to believe that the costs of our feedingstuffs is turning out to be £19 10s. ex-Liverpool, which means that we shall get them on the farm at about £22 a ton, which is £2 or £3 a ton more than the equivalent cost in England. That must reduce the profits of Northern Ireland farmers and may even halve their income. I should like an assurance that Northern Ireland will be able to continue buying cheap feedingstuffs for our cattle, pigs and poultry.
I wish to speak to the point and as briefly as possible, because other hon. Members wish to take part in the debate. The problem of the small farmers cannot be solved simply by egg production and the provision of cheap feedingstuffs. This

1111
is a problem with which we have to live, and as years pass it will become more and more difficult to bring the standard of living of the small farmer up to that of the industrial worker, who has nothing like the same stake invested and puts in nothing like the same number of hours. I believe that something in the form of a new small farmers scheme is essential.
We must tackle the problem of land tenure and the size of farms. It is dynamite to touch land tenure in any country, and particularly in Ireland, but a lead must be given, and I believe that the lead and the money must come from here. We must look at the land tenure problem, and the problem of amalgamation and of the con-acres, and see whether we cannot make certain that the average small farmer in Northern Ireland has 45 acres and not 30 acres. Larger farms are evolving at present but we need something to speed up the process. I should like a lead from this country. We are ready for it, and if the lead is given I am certain that it will be followed.
7.53 p.m.
Mr. Hugh Delargy: One might get the impression from the sparse attendance today that hon. Members are not interested in Northern Ireland, but that impression would be false. Many more hon. Members would have been present for this debate had they thought that there was the slightest chance of anything new being said, but since they are all aware, as we are all aware, that nothing new will be said, they do not see why they should sit through a long debate and they find something else to occupy their minds.
Nothing new will be said by me. I have never said anything new on this problem for the last 20 years, and I have made quite a number of speeches about Northern Ireland over the years, many of them long and most of them argumentative and provocative, and in some quarters considered offensive. I am very sorry about that, but I have introduced the one subject which really matters in Northern Ireland—religion. No one else has introduced the subject of religion today. Apparently the feeling is that we should not introduce it.
1112
I read an article in The Guardian some weeks ago in which a man who used to be chairman of the Northern Ireland Labour Party said that when the last census was taken in Northern Ireland no mention was made about how many lefthanders there were or how many right-handers but that it was known to the very last man and woman how many dug with the left foot, how many with the right foot and how many did not dig at all—and we all know what that means in Northern Ireland.
Tonight I do not wish to be argumentative or provocative, or to mention religion, except possibly once in passing. One reason for that is that one gets tired of saying the same thing over and over again, just as people get tired of listening to one saying the same thing over and over again. All the speeches which I have made about Northern Ireland have achieved precisely nothing, and I do not suppose that anything I say tonight will do anything useful either.
I remember that during the last debate the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) accused me of having old-fashioned ideas about Northern Ireland. I freely confess that that is so. My ideas about Northern Ireland are indeed old-fashioned—and so are his, and so are the ideas of everyone who talks about this subject, and so are the ideas of almost everyone who dwells in Northern Ireland.
The moment one arrives in that fascinating province one is conscious of having taken a step backwards into the past. In some ways this is very charming and mentally very relaxing, but in some respects, too, it is sad and it is dangerous. But everyone one meets—and this is the case on both sides, irrespective of religion and politics—has these old ideas. They are people to whom old memories are still vivid, people to whom old prejudices and old fears, which should have disappeared years ago, are still new and fresh.
This is the cause of a lot of trouble. In fact, the more one reflects the more one realises that these old prejudices and fears are the main cause of whatever hardship and injustice there is in Northern Ireland. Without being too provocative this evening, I must say that there is a certain amount of hardship and

1113
injustice there. A deputation came here recently from the Nationalists. I cannot call them a Nationalist Party, because I do not think that there is a united party as such. There is a loose group of people who assemble and whose ideas are more or less shared by them all.
They come here to speak to hon. Members about what they alleged to be social injustices which are committed in Northern Ireland. They alleged, for example—and I must say that they produced a mass of rather convincing evidence—that even employment in Northern Ireland is governed by religious considerations. It is alleged that men are given jobs and families are allotted council houses by local authorities not according to need or to merit but according to religion. This happens nowhere else in the United Kingdom, and everybody must confess that it is a sad state of affairs.
I find it difficult to believe that this is done out of sheer malice, but I can understand that it could happen through old prejudices and these old fears which I believe to be thoroughly groundless. This fear, I might say almost phobia, spreads beyond the boundaries of Northern Ireland and over the whole country. This has been going on for a long time. I remember a rather light-hearted verse written in this connection by G. K. Chesterton 50 or 60 years ago:
"The men who live in black Belfast,
Their heart is in their mouth,
They're always seeing murder,
In the meadows of the south.
They think a plough's a rack, they do,
And cattle-calls are creeds,
And they think we're burning witches,
When we're only burning weeds."
It is a pity that this mentality exists today. This is plain in the lack of contact, for example, between the two Governments. I am told that the Government of the Republic made an approach to the Northern Ireland Government to suggest some co-operation in tourism and met a blank refusal. I am told that that is so, although I cannot vouch for it. The tourist industry is important to Northern Ireland because we know that potentially Ireland, north and south, is a holiday maker's paradise. Surely this is an area in which there could be great co-operation between the two Governments.
1114
My hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) mentioned the refusal to give recognition to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, although many workers in Northern Ireland belong to unions which are affiliated to the Congress. The only reason I have heard advanced is that the headquarters is in Dublin, which is a foreign capital. I cannot see much force in that argument. Surely they have relations with other organsations which have their headquarters in foreign capitals. Why should they refuse to recognise these unions which are affiliated to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions?
I still maintain that all this is based—this is the sole theme of the speech I shall make tonight without arousing any emotions—on old prejudices and old fears. I do not know what can be done about it. As I said earlier, all the speeches I have made have accomplished nothing at all, save only to annoy people, which I do not wish to do tonight.
May I make a suggestion to Northern Ireland Members, most of whom I know? I cannot think of one of them who would willingly condone an injustice. I hope that they will not think that I am being pompous, offensive or patronising about this. That is the last thing I want to be. Like the rest of us in the House, Northern Ireland Members have responsibilities to their constituents, even to those who did not vote for them. Some of their constituents are not getting their fair share of things. Hon. Members should be distressed about them. I am sure that they are. I know what difficulties face them. I do not suggest for a moment that they should make public speeches about it. I know that could be difficult and might not even be helpful.
However, they could do something privately. They have friends in the Government. They have friends on the Government-appointed boards. Perhaps they could discuss, even privately, these matters with their influential friends. Possibly they have done so already. I hope they will continue to do so. If this tiny little point which I have made is taken up by even one hon. Member opposite, the little speech I have just made will have accomplished far more than all the long speeches I have made about Northern Ireland in the past.
8.2 p.m.
Mr. Rafton Pounder: This is the first time that I have heard the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) speak, and I will certainly look up the poem of G. K. Chesterton which he quoted.
The news about the dry dock announced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary fills me as a Belfastman, and as a Belfast Member, with delight. I was not present when the last Ulster debate took place a year ago. I was not then a Member of the House. It was with tremendous interest that I read in the local Press at that time of the intention to construct a dry dock in Belfast. I do not pretend to be an authority on shipbuilding, nor, indeed, on dry docks. However, I have gone into the subject in considerable detail. I had the temerity, during the course of my by-election campaign last autumn, to suggest a dry dock of 150 ft. width.
Therefore, it is with tremendous delight that I learn that the speculative comment which I made a year ago is now to become a reality. With ships currently being built with a beam of 141 ft., which is the width of some of the recent Japanese tankers, it is very welcome news that the new dry dock will take account not only of the largest current ships being built, but also of ships which may be built during the next decade or two.
There was only one point made by the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) with which I would agree. That was his expression of regret at the current high level of unemployment in Northern Ireland. I agree with him there. However, it must not be forgotten that this level is declining and for the last two months has declined considerably and impressively. It is very important indeed that these figures should not be seen as an indication of a distressed or depressed economy, but rather, which they are, as the price which one must temporarily pay when an economy is changing from being predominantly agricultural to being industrial. It is, in fact, the price to be paid when one seeks to adapt oneself to the changes and challenges of modern technology.
Anyone present in Northern Ireland yesterday, on the occasion of the annual 12th July demonstration, could not have failed to be impressed by the very considerable
1116
sense of prosperity, contentment and general economic well-being which existed wherever one went. This is surely something which even the most casual bystander could not fail to have been impressed by. This is as good an indication of any of the current level of prosperity in Northern Ireland. It was, indeed, most heartwarming.
I agree that we cannot be satisfied with our present economic position until the unemployment figures have dropped very drastically. The way in which we can attract employment is by determination, not by crying wolf and bleating depression. There is nothing more demoralising or, indeed, infectious in the wrong sort of way, than an air of depression. Just as an atmosphere of confidence succeeds in breeding and expanding a sense of well-being, and of confidence, so an atmosphere of depression can beget a deep and distressing gloom. I must correct one thing said by the hon. Member for Newton. He gave the latest figure of unemployment as 34,000. It is, in fact, 32,000, but we shall not fall out over that.
Thirty thousand redundancies have been caused in the past few years in the major traditional industries of shipbuilding, linen and agriculture. It is significant that, if these redundancies had not taken place, and the wind of ill-fortune had not struck those three fundamental industries as it did, we should now be virtually an economy of full employment.
Another fact which must not be forgotten is that there are more people in employment today in Northern Ireland than at any time in our history. In fact, over the last 12 months these figures have increased by no less than 7,000, which is quite impressive in a province the size of Northern Ireland.
There are two acknowledged guides to national prosperity. One is the trend of population growth. The other is the trend of personal savings. These guides are widely accepted. To them I would add a third, namely, the trend in the number of Income Tax payers. The Ulster population is growing steadily, in sharp distinction, perhaps, to the other part of Ireland. Surely this is an indication of faith in our future prosperity.
Mr. Lee: Would the hon. Gentleman say that was an indication that China and India are the most prosperous countries in the world?
Mr. Pounder: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, that is not a valid point. There is a difference between a population eruption and that which happens in a progressive Western economy.
As to the second guide, which is the trend of small savings, the total sum being saved and put into the National Savings movement in Northern Ireland is growing steadily month by month, and this trend has continued uninterrupted for at least the past two years. Savings last year up to the end of October showed an increase of no less than £5 million as compared with the period to the previous October. In Belfast alone, the first 10 months of 1963 showed an all-time record of personal savings in the National Savings movement of £13 million, an increase of over £3 million or one-third, on the first 10 months of 1962. Although thrift has been a characteristic quality of the Northern Ireland people, this is, nevertheless, a fair indication of the economic state of Ulster.
Although successive Chancellors of the Exchequer have reduced the level of taxation and have increased personal and ancillary tax allowances during the last few years, which has resulted in an ever-increasing number of wage and salary earners not paying Income Tax, in Northern Ireland the number of taxpayers has increased by over 20 per cent. over the last five fiscal years.
Whichever of the three yardsticks one uses for measuring prosperity, Ulster emerges satisfactorily. Of course, there is more that can and must be done in the way of creating employment opportunities. That we seek constantly to do, but one thing is absolutely certain. Those who seek to portray Northern Ireland as a depressed and dispirited area of the United Kingdom are not only guilty of inaccuracy; they are also doing a great disservice to the industrial development of Northern Ireland.
Mr. Simon Mahon: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): Order. Had the hon. Gentleman sat down or given way?
Mr. Pounder: I had completed my speech and had resumed my seat.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: In that case, I call Mr. Bence.
8.10 p.m.
Mr. Cyril Bence: We have just listened to two extraordinary speeches from Ulster hon. Members opposite. First, the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Mr. H. Clark) began by praising his right hon. Friend for all the wonderful work he had done on behalf of Northern Ireland. There followed a great deal of criticism about the work that needed to be done for the small farmer, to improve the system of land tenure and to improve the activities of the Egg Marketing Board. He was also concerned about the provision of railway services between Newcastle and Belfast. The sum total of his speech was that the Minister had left more undone than he had done.
Mr. H. Clark: Are those problems unique to Northern Ireland?
Mr. Bence: The hon. Member represents an Ulster constituency and he cannot deny that he began by praising his right hon. Friend and went on to criticise the poor conditions in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Clark: Nonsense.
Mr. Bence: I do not object to his criticising the present conditions in Northern Ireland. He is only one of many hon. Members, including several on the benches opposite, to complain about conditions there.
Then we had the speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder), full of eulogies for Northern Ireland. He told us how tremendously prosperous a place it had become because of increased savings. I am sure that the thousands of people out of work there will consider it extraordinary that Ulster should suddenly have become such a prosperous province, simply because the country's savings—not their savings, let it be remembered—have increased by £5 million. It is a shame that they have not been able to share in the increase. I trust that the hon. Member for Belfast, South is aware that although, according

1119
to him, Northern Ireland is prospering, according to his hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North the general level of incomes has been reduced. Not only have the small farmers been losing a great deal of their earnings but unemployment has not significantly been reduced.
Mr. Pounder: I quoted figures of savings, but I did not say that those who had subscribed to the savings movement were necessarily all tycoons.
Mr. Bence: I was not saying that they were tycoons, just that the 90 per cent. of small farmers whose incomes have been reduced, according to the hon. Member for Antrim, North, and the thousands of people unemployed could not have contributed to the increased savings. The most amazing statement that the hon. Member for Belfast, South made was to the effect that unemployment in Northern Ireland was not a very large temporary price to pay for a change in the country's industrial development.
Mr. Pounder: I did not mean it that way.
Mr. Bence: The hon. Member cannot deny that he said that Northern Ireland was paying a temporary price.
Mr. Pounder: I did use the word "temporary". I admit that.
Mr. Bence: From 1951 to 1964 is a rather long temporary period, is it not?
Mr. H. Clark: We had it before 1951.
Mr. Bence: At least for 13 years Northern Ireland, relative to the United Kingdom generally, has been the weakest place from the economic and other points of view. I am merely saying that 13 years is a long temporary period for such a temporary price to be paid. We achieved a great deal when in office, but as soon as the party opposite took over the situation became gradually worse.
Mr. Clark: It did not.
Mr. Bence: It did, relative to the rest of the United Kingdom. Unemployment has been 22 per cent. in some parts.
Mr. John E. Maginnis: I trust that the hon. Gentleman will bear in mind the population increase in Northern Ireland compared with the rest
1120
of the United Kingdom, remembering that we must cater for a great many more school-leavers compared with the rest of the country.
Mr. Bence: That may be so, but it is no reason why the general economic situation in Ulster should have been running at a lower level of activity than the rest of the United Kingdom. That there are more school-leavers is not, in itself, a good enough reason for this lowered economic activity.
How can this trend be reversed if the Government in Westminster do little to help the efforts of Northern Ireland? For the last few years one noteworthy point of general agreement has been evident in the House; the fact that hon. Members on both sides, including those who represent Northern Ireland, have been unanimous in complaining at the way in which the Government have treated Short Bros. & Harland. There is general agreement that the Government's attitude towards this firm has been disgraceful.
Mr. H. Clark: Why?
Mr. Bence: Because they have failed to give Shorts essential continuity of work and adequate contracts and, when decent contracts have been awarded, the work has been withdrawn. I am not saying that this has not happened in other sections of the aircraft industry; just that to a place like Northern Ireland it has been particularly harmful. Who knows what part Shorts and the aircraft industry of Ulster will have to play in the next 20 years? Who knows the way in which the aircraft industry of the world will change in the coming years? Who knows what will happen after the elections in America? Shorts can play a great part in Britain's aircraft industry if it is treated properly. I understand that Her Majesty's Government hold about a 70 per cent. share in the firm. Despite this, and despite the fact that Shorts has an excellent labour force available, although it has been reduced over the years, no one in the industry in Northern Ireland is certain what will happen tomorrow, and the Government in Westminster must be held responsible for this.
I always take part in debates on Northern Ireland, and over the years I

1121
have heard hon. Members opposite complain about the situation there and the attitude of the Government. I believe that Northern Ireland should be treated like any other depressed area in the United Kingdom. We should think in terms of units, referring to Northern Ireland the way we refer to Scotland and other depressed areas. This should apply with special meaning to Ulster, and new industries should be established there. But, above all, we should ensure that for transport the cost per unit of production is relatively small.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy), I have listened to the same sort of speeches time and again, and my experience of British Governments is that they have to be told time and time again. It takes about 30 years for anything to sink into their heads. Historians have written that in the British parliamentary democracy it takes about 35 years for an idea to get from the back benches to the Departments. It will therefore take a long time for us to drive home this idea of pushing to the perimeter of the United Kingdom, not the basic industries, or what I would call the low-convertibility industries, but industries of which the computer industry is a notable example.
In that industry there are great skills and high techniques by which the raw material is converted from a very low value to a very high value, with the result that the transport cost per unit is not so heavy as it is in, say, the heavy engineering industry. This is very important. We have a plan for south-east England which will provide for further movement of population, but the population that moves out of Ulster—and out of Scotland—very often consists of the technicians, the draughtsmen, the industrial designers the experts, the highest craftsmen, and the situation can soon be reached, as is now happening on the perimeter of our economy, where desirable things cannot be done because the skilled men are no longer there.
One may well find a position arising in Ulster in which the very environment in which men can be trained has contracted, or has been destroyed—
Mr. Lee: Would my hon. Friend agree that a great deal of the training and skill that has come about there has been the
1122
result of what was done at Short Bros, and Harland?
Mr. Bence: I have no doubt that Short Bros, and Harland, with its industrial and technical base, is capable of tremendous versatility in its products.
Hundreds of the new products developed in the last few years by the National Research and Development Corporation, have been sold to the United States, but which could have been taken up by manufacturing units in Northern Ireland working as subsidiaries of the Corporation. Why has that not been done? Many of those products produced by N.R.D.C. have a very high convertibility from raw material to finished product, and I am sure that much of this could have been done in Northern Ireland—as it could have been done in Scotland.
In many respects there is a great affinity between Northern Ireland and Scotland. We in Scotland feel that the problems of the people of Northern Ireland are very similar because, like us, they are on the perimeter of the economy. Very little is being done to move into this important area these technical industries that demand high qualities of skill and have that very high conversion value that makes transport costs less significant.
The Home Secretary has listened to five years of pleading from some hon. Members opposite and from all those on this side who are interested in Northern Ireland. There is little time before the General Election for him to do much more than make the same sort of promises as were made before the last election, but I can assure hon. Members opposite that after October the ideas which we have expounded for the last 13 years will be applied to Northern Ireland, and I have no doubt that in three or four years' time the Northern Ireland people will realise the great difference between the one Administration and the other.
8.25 p.m.
Sir Knox Cunningham: I join in welcoming the announcement that the rail connection from London and the South and Glasgow and the North will remain open for the Lame-Stranraer route. This will give great satisfaction to the people of

1123
Ulster, as it is one of its gateways from Great Britain. I should also like to say how much I welcome the announcement of the building of a really big dry dock which will take ships of 1,000 ft. by 150 ft. beam. One is delighted to hear that announcement.
I hope that the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) will forgive me if I do not follow him. I think that he does, as he said, rather live in the past, because I can assure him that in dealing with my constituents I do so regardless of their religious or non-religious beliefs, and I hope that hon. Members in all parts of the House do the same.
Very considerable changes have been taking place in Ulster, and I should like to deal with the position in South Antrim which, incidentally, with an electorate of over 105,000 is the largest constituency in the whole of the United Kingdom. We are fortunate in Antrim in having an unemployment rate of only about 3½ per cent. Since 1959, some 17 new firms have commenced production there, and a further six firms have expanded with the assistance of the Government of Northern Ireland. Employment in these projects is about 6,000 and the figure is expected to rise to about 11,000. Twelve of the new firms and five of the firms that have expanded are in Government-built premises.
Those figures and facts are bare bones but, to speak from personal experience, I refer to the change that has taken place over all the area. I think, in particular, of a firm that has come from Europe-British Enkalon, which has started a factory in Antrim. The local authorities have assisted with housing and the firm is now established and giving good employment, and gradually an increased population will build up in the area. I think also of another European firm, Michelin, at Hyde Park. This firm has not yet started production—the buildings are just going up. I would not like the House to think that only firms from Europe are coming to Antrim. We have firms from Great Britain, such as the great firm of Courtaulds, whose factory has been in production for some years at Carrickfergus. It runs on three shifts, 24 hours a day, all the year round, and it has never stopped running since it
1124
started. It gives considerable employment in this area.
There is the I.C.I. factory at Kilroot and the new Carreras factory which is starting at Trooperslane, Carrickfergus. I understand that this is expected to give 2,000 jobs when in full production.
I should not like the House to think, after my referring to factories and firms which have come to Northern Ireland from Great Britain and Europe, that the indigenous firms have been outdistanced. They have not. Over the years they have been providing employment and many have been developing rapidly. I can think, for example, of the Everton Sheet Metal Works at Newtownabbey, a go-ahead firm built by Ulster men. It has its own private aeroplane for its sales staff in Britain, Europe and elsewhere abroad. These are a few examples of the rising prosperity for which one must pay tribute to the work of the Government of Northern Ireland, assisted by the Conservative and Unionist Government here and by the Northern Ireland Development Council, to which a somewhat slighting reference was made earlier in the debate. It is, of course, the skill and hard work of Ulster people who work in the factories, in management and on the floor which makes for the success of this development. Let there be no mistake about it, we in South Antrim have a success story to tell.
I hope that when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary replies to the debate he will be able to say something about the development of the new civil airport at Aldergrove. The old airport at Nutts Corner had a one-storey building. When the new airport at Aldergrove was designed it was no doubt thought to be adequate, but owing to the greater increase in air traffic and in the number of people travelling it becomes congested, particularly at the weekends if there are any delays in arrivals and departures and if, as often happens, there are a great number of visitors. It becomes physically difficult to move about. I hope that there will be some enlargement of the air terminal building.
As I have said, the building at Nutts Corner was on one floor but at Aldergrove arriving passengers have to travel

1125
up three flights of stairs and then go down a ramp before they reach their aeroplanes. This is all right for most people, but for the elderly it is difficult and one hopes that some arrangement might be made for at least a one-way escalator. There is also need for car parking facilities for people who travel to the airport not only from Belfast but from all parts of Ulster. Better arrangements should be made and an easier method of entering and getting out of the car park should be provided.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will say something on these small but important points because we are anxious to see Aldergrove made into one of the best airports in the United Kingdom. In my constituency we are achieving success. The development is rapid and the people are enjoying a much higher standard of living than they had in the past. We shall go on doing our best to see that this improvement continues and increases rapidly in the future.
8.34 p.m.
Mr. Eric Lubbock: I am sure that we are all delighted to hear of the large number of companies which have come into the constituency of the hon. and learned Member for Antrim, South (Sir Knox Cunningham) and of the prosperity which has resulted. The hon. Member told the House that the unemployment rate in his constituency had fallen to 3½ per cent. If his constituency is the largest in Northern Ireland and unemployment has fallen to that level, this obviously means that in the rest of the province the rate must be much higher than the 6½ per cent. quoted by the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee).
The other thing that I would like to say to the hon. Gentleman is that if he and others on the other side of the House continue to paint such a rosy picture of the economy of Northern Ireland, as they sometimes tend to do, naturally when they come to ask for something the Government will feel that their claims have a fairly low priority. Certainly this has happened in the case of Short Bros, and Harland, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence). The position of Short Bros, and Harland has been raised in the course of many years in this
1126
House and the situation is no better now than it ever has been. In fact, I understand that some redundancies have already taken place in the drawing office there, and it will be very difficult to keep this company in being as a complete entity even if it should continue to carry on sub-contract work on behalf of other companies.
I am sure we would all agree—for this is not a political question—that it would be an absolute tragedy for the economy of the province if an industry of this kind, which is based on new technology and in giving young people in Northern Ireland a valuable training which they would not otherwise have, were to be lost to the province. I hope the Government are thinking of every possible means of maintaining an aircraft industry in Northern Ireland and, as far as they can do so, by means of their own orders, keeping the factory going until a new aircraft can be designed and brought into production there.
As I understand it, after the existing orders for the 10 Belfasts are completed the company will be entirely dependent on whatever it can sell from its new Skyvan production which it hopes to start soon. I am glad to know that great efforts are being made by the company to sell the Skyvan overseas because I think this is an aircraft with enormous potential in under-developed countries. Incidentally, I should like to say how pleased I am to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation in his place. I am sure we are grateful to him for coming to this debate, and I trust that he will do whatever he can to improve the position of Short Bros, and Harland.
The Skyvan, as I said, has great potential in under-developed areas. It can take off on very short strips. It does not need a very sophisticated airfield. It might be worth while for the Government to make an offer to some of the under-developed countries with whom we are in aid relations, to give them some of these aeroplanese so that they can try them out for themselves. I know that in general we favour untied aid, but this is a kind of tied aid which was considered last year for the shipyards of the North-East and I do not see any reason why the same principle should not apply to aircraft produced by this company.

1127
I wish to refer to the subject raised by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy). I do not suppose anyone on the other side of the House will follow him in this subject, but I think it is rather important. Although hon. Members may believe that these old prejudices and fears to which he referred are groundless today, the visit of the Northern Ireland Nationalist Senators and Members of Parliament earlier this year gave to some of us evidence of practices which we found disturbing. My right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) saw this deputation, and so did 1. I do not understand why the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition refused to see the deputation, for to meet these gentlemen was in no way an endorsement of their political philosophy. I do not even know in detail what their political philosophy is, except that I gather that it seems to imply doing away with the border between the Province and Eire. However, I felt that the evidence they produced gave a prima facie case of discrimination in employment and housing and of gerrymandering the electoral areas at local government level.
My right hon. Friend tried to check these allegations and spoke to some of the Northern Ireland people about them, but he was unable to elicit a detailed refutation or confirmation of the figures which the Nationalist Senators had given him. I shall not weary the House with a recital of all the facts which they gave, but one I found particularly striking concerned the City of Londonderry—or Derry as the Nationalists prefer to call it. At the 1961 census, the total population of that city was 53,744, divided as to 36,049 Catholics and 17,695 of other religions. Yet the electoral boundaries there are so drawn that representation on the corporation consists of eight catholics and 12 of other religions. There is something very peculiar in the fact that the number of Catholic citizens is over twice as great as the number of Protestants yet they have 50 per cent. fewer seats on the corporation.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I think that the boundaries of local government
1128
constituencies in Londonderry are a matter for the Northern Ireland Government and nothing to do with the Government here. In that case it is out of order to raise that question. I do not think that it is the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom.
Mr. Lubbock: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for drawing my attention to that, and I do not wish to dispute your Ruling in any way, but the United Kingdom Government have reserved powers under the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, to intervene in matters which are delegated to the Northern Ireland Government. Questions which I have put to the Home Secretary on this subject have been allowed on the Order Paper. With great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I think that my present remarks must equally be in order. However, if you wish me not to refer to these matters, I shall, of course, bow to your Ruling. I had not intended to go into them in great detail.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman has asked Questions on the subject in the House, I certainly would not wish to rule him out of order.
Mr. Lubbock: Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I did not wish to do more than give just one or two examples, although I have a great many other facts and figures concerning local electoral areas which were brought to our attention by the delegation of Nationalist senators and Members of Parliament. As I have said, my right hon. Friend found it very difficult to obtain confirmation or denial of them.
I do not suggest that the facts and figures we were given are 100 per cent. accurate, but it is impossible for this detailed evidence not to lead to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case of discrimination by gerrymandering. The same goes for employment. Hon. Members opposite would not condone discrimination in employment on grounds of religion, and they will all say that, in considering people for a post with a hospital management committee or with a local authority, for instance, an applicant's religion should be entirely irrelevant. But this is not what happens, as detailed figures show.

1129
Picking at random from a leaflet which was left by the delegation, I take the example of Enniskillen, the principal town of County Fermanagh, where the Nationalists, or rather the Catholics—it is by no means certain that all Catholics vote Nationalist—make up 54 per cent. of the population. There are seven jobs in the town clerk's department, none of them held by Catholics. There are seven jobs in the borough surveyor's office, only one of which is held by a Catholic. There are 34 jobs in the Fermanagh education department and 28 jobs in the county surveyor's department, and there is only one Catholic in each department.
I am not suggesting that there should be a strict relationship in percentages of employment as between one religion and another throughout these different departments of the local authority. But it is quite impossible for such a distribution of jobs to arise completely from chance, and therefore I infer, if these figures are true, that there is discrimination on the part of the local authority in selecting applicants for jobs.
I am confirmed in that view by some public utterances by members of the Unionist Party. Senator J. Barnhill, quoted in the Belfast Telegraph on 9th January last, said:
"Charity begins at home, and if we are going to employ people we should employ Unionists.
I am not saying that we should sack good Nationalist employees, but if we are going to employ new men they should be Unionists."
That is a profoundly horrifying sentiment and one which hon. Members opposite, although they do not belong to the Catholic religion, would condemn as roundly as I do.
Even worse. When Miss Shelagh Murnaghan, M.P., introduced a Human Rights Bill in Stormont, no less a person than the Northern Ireland Attorney-General endorsed the principle of discrimination in employment. He drew the analogy that if a person who was an employer happened to be black and wanted to employ only coloured people he should be free to do so and, therefore, by implication, if a person happened to be of a particular religion, he should be allowed to employ only people of that religion. This is a point of view which could not possibly be
1130
held by anyone in Britain, and it is time that it was eliminated in Northern Ireland.
Finally, the representations concerned discrimination in housing. I will not go through all the examples given to us but in the City of Derry houses are provided both by the corporation and by the housing trust. The Nationalists admit that the allocation of houses by the housing trust is done fairly and on the basis of need and that the applicants' religion has nothing to do with it. But they claim that religious apartheid operates for the houses provided by the corporation.
The Nationalists say that Nationalists in Derry are only housed in certain sections of the city—this being connected with the gerrymandering I have mentioned. They also claim that, although almost every Unionist who has sought a house has been provided for, a backlog of about 2,000 Catholic applicants have not received houses.
I wanted to have this opportunity to lay these facts before the House and to give hon. Members opposite an opportunity to deny them if they are untrue. I hope that if they are untrue I shall be corrected, but I have grave doubts as to whether people would come all the way from Northern Ireland to ventilate these grievances unless there were some sound basis for them. In view of our ultimate responsibility in this House for the conduct of affairs in the Province, it is our duty to take notice of these grave allegations.
8.50 p.m.
Mr. Stanley McMaster: I should like, first, to say how very pleased I was to hear the statement of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary about the dry dock. The House may recall that at the end of the debate on Northern Ireland a year ago I asked my right hon. Friend whether he could say what would be the size of the dock which was announced during that debate and that I stressed that it should be large enough to take vessels of 150,000 tons which would be built in Belfast.
Although it has taken a long time to build this dock, as hon. Members opposite has said, Harland and Wolff will benefit from having a dock which

1131
is the most modern and up-to-date in the world and a great deal larger than we had originally hoped when the announcement of a year ago was made.
There has been an extensive programme of modernisation in Harland & Wolff. It has new craneage and prefabrication sheds. I hope that this dock will be complete with craneage which will enable it to compete with any shipbuilding yard in the world and to meet the severe competition which our shipbuilding and ship companies are now facing.
I welcome the announcement by the Minister of Transport earlier this week of the new attitude, to be incorporated in the Government's Bill, towards unfair shipping practices, particularly as adopted by the United States of America. I ask my right hon. Friend to convey to the Minister of Transport the feeling among our shipbuilders that any attitude which enables shipbuilders and shipowners to meet unfair competition from abroad, whether in the form of flags of reservation, flags of convenience, or subsidies in shipbuilding, will be firmly supported so that our shipyards and shipowners can continue to flourish and so that this maritime nation will benefit.
The decision to build the dry dock will enable Harland & Wolff to maintain its present position as the largest shipbuilding yard in the United Kingdom and perhaps in Europe. It will enable it to meet the foreign competition which it is now facing, particularly from the Japanese.
The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) referred to Short Bros. & Harland. I welcome the visit of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation to Short Bros, a week ago, and I am glad to see the Parliamentary Secretary attending the debate today. We were reassured by the Minister's visit and by his statement about the trend of employment in the future. Although if one picks one's dates, as the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) did, one can arrive at any conclusion about employment, the Government have given great assistance by spending £55 million on Short Bros. & Harland.
That is a very large sum of money. It has been spent on developing the Belfast,
1132
the large freighter aircraft in which I was privileged to return to London with the Minister and his Parliamentary Private Secretary. It impressed us, and I am convinced that it will impress everyone in the Armed Forces when it comes into service in a year's time. We shall be glad to see this large transport aircraft, with a hold more than 12 ft. square and capable of taking heavy equipment and tanks.
We would like now to see a jet version developed. I ask my right hon. Friend to pay particular attention to this request, and to see whether it is possible to undertake at least a feasibility study on the development of a jet freighter transport, because, as far as one can see, the transport needs of this country and of our Armed Forces will increase in the future so that we can protect our wide interests all over the world.
The 10 Belfasts at present on order will meet our needs for the next, five, six, seven, or perhaps eight, years, but after that there will be a need for another faster, more powerful and larger transport aircraft with greater capacity and greater range. The obvious solution to the demand for such a strategic as opposed to tactical transport is perhaps an aircraft based on the Belfast but powered by jet engines. As it takes many years—up to about 10—from the initial planning and feasibility study to the coming into service of such an aircraft, I suggest that the time is ripe to carry out such a survey.
In the meantime, we welcome the announcement by the Minister of Aviation, reaffirmed last week by a statement in answer to a Question in the House, that a substantial part of the work on the HS681, the small tactical transport being developed by Hawker Siddeley, will be carried out in Belfast, just as present work is being carried on there on the VC 10. We also welcome the announcement by the Minister in Belfast last week that more Canberra repairs are to be carried there.
I was shocked by the statement by the Leader of the Opposition on Seacat, which has lost us valuable exports from Northern Ireland. I shudder to think of what would happen to Harland and Wolff and to Short Bros., who contribute so much to our defence requirements, if the Opposition happened to win the next

1133
election. The loss of potential orders for Seacats for Spain represents a severe loss to the workers in my constituency.
I ask my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to look again at the problem of maintaining a balanced unit at Short Bros., because unless we have design work such as I suggested for the jet Belfast and the HS681 in Northern Ireland, we cannot maintain the type of balanced unit which is so essential to our economy. This is an essential industry with a high manpower content. The raw material requirement is minimal, and the transport cost of expanding our industry represents a very small element of the cost of the final aircraft, but the contribution to technical education and advanced electronics which a firm like Short Bros, makes is most important to industry and industrial development in Northern Ireland.
I therefore ask my right hon. Friend to use his best endeavours, as he has done in the past, to see that we have this balanced unit in Northern Ireland, supporting as it does its managerial staff, essential office staff, as well as the men on the factory floor who are engaged in production, repair, and other work.
I do not want to speak for more than a few minutes, as I know that several of my colleagues wish to take part in the debate. We all deplore the high unemployment figure of 6½ per cent. I think that the House agrees that this is far too high. The United Kingdom Government have taken steps, and I hope that they will continue their efforts, to share evenly the prosperity of the United Kingdom throughout the United Kingdom. I am assured that the increased estimate announced in Northern Ireland for expenditure on roads, on hospitals, and on schools, as well as by the announcement today about the dry dock—which represents about 44 per cent. of the gross national product at the moment—will be spread evenly, and will take account of the position in Northern Ireland just as it does of the position in Scotland and on the North-East Coast.
I also feel that existing Northern Ireland industries should be encouraged to develop and expand, and that the Government should exercise themselves, in consultation with the Government of
1134
Northern Ireland, in introducing measures to enable existing industries to develop as well as to attract to Northern Ireland new industries such as those announced by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Sir Knox Cunningham).
Much remains to be done. Hon. Members opposite have deplored the high unemployment figure, but the trend seems to be in the right direction—downwards. I ask the Government not to spoil the ship for a ha'porth of tar, but to give that final shove to the wheel which will finally deal with unemployment in Northern Ireland.
9.1 p.m.
Mr. Simon Mahon: One enters Northern Ireland debates with less trepidation than one does in Scottish debates. I do not claim to know Northern Ireland very well, but I have visited it many times. I have never agreed with the division of Ireland. It is important that I should say that. I was not born in Ireland. I had the honour of serving this country, as did my father before me, in public life, in peace and war. In humorous vein, although my mother did not come from Ireland, I had four Irish grandparents.
I therefore have an interest in the whole of Ireland and not least Northern Ireland. I had no intention of entering this debate, but I heard two of my hon. Friends speaking about the importance of discrimination. I have no intention of following the arguments of my hon. Friends; they made the point very well. No hon. Member opposite—and I believe that at the moment they are nearly all Northern Ireland Members—has denied the allegations that have been made.
Captain L. P. S. Orr: If the hon. Member is patient he will get a reply.
Mr. Mahon: I am sure that the hon. and gallant Member, with his great knowledge of Northern Ireland, will be only too delighted to tell us in detail what the position is in Dungannon, Derry or Portadown. I shall be delighted to listen to him.
I have not had the honour of meeting the Nationalists. I did not have the pleasure when they came over here. But I have written to them and have received

1135
an ordinary reply. It deals with the campaign for social justice in Northern Ireland. No doubt every hon. Member has received a copy of their statement. It complains about gerrymandering—giving houses away for reasons which are not British reasons; not because a house is needed but because the person involved belongs to a certain class of people or to a certain religion. If one does get a house one is given it either in a Catholic or a non-Catholic section. Is this really going on in Great Britain today?
After two world wars—after we stood, Catholic, Irish, Buddhist, Mohammedan, Welsh, Scottish, any nationality and any religion—against Fascism and Nazism, are we to be told by responsible people, without any denial, that this is the position in the British Isles today? I hope that an hon. Member opposite or a spokesman for the Government will assure me—and I am a democrat—that it is impossible for this to happen in these islands.
Recently, I had the pleasure of buying a record of the speeches of someone for whom I have a tremendous admiration, the late President Kennedy. Like myself, he had a great deal in common with the Irish people. It is regrettable that he did not come to Northern Ireland when he paid his visit to the Republic of Ireland before his tragic death. When President Kennedy was making his election speeches the question arose about his religious opinions, and I believe that he said—I hope that I am not saying anything that this great man did not say—that anyone who voted for him or against him because of his religious affiliations was wasting his vote and losing his franchise.
President Kennedy said that it was not relevant, because any decision that he made, any public decision, would be that of an American, of a free man and of a democrat. Would not it be fine if an hon. Member opposite would stand up and say, with his hand on his heart, that there is no discrimination in Northern Ireland either by the Catholics or the Orangemen?
I do not believe in discrimination, and I never have. We suffered from it once in Liverpool, but now it is as dead as the dodo. There is no Irish question in Liverpool
1136
today. We live amicably together. Houses are distributed according to need and full employment, or near full employment is what matters. If the people of Northern Ireland want to get rid of any discrimination they should work for full employment, because people cannot discriminate so easily when labour is needed. But if there is discrimination, we ought to be told. The Catholics, or the Orangemen, or the people of the Church of Ireland, should be told by the Government spokesmen whether, after the mass of evidence which must come from Stormont, the Government believe that discrimination is going on.
I have made my point and I am being perfectly honest. I said that I did not agree with the division of Ireland. How could I? I was brought up listening to the speeches of Robert Emmett and other Irish patriots, and if hon. Members opposite would permit I could go through every word of Emmett's speeches, although I am sure that they know some of the speeches. I speak about Emmett and Michael Collins. Every Irish patriot did not come from the South of Ireland. Most were not Catholics. Tone was not a Catholic. Emmett was not a Catholic. The first President was not a Catholic, Dr. Hyde. They do not discriminate there. The family name of the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) figures in a great deal of patriotic history of Ireland going back to the United Irishmen.
I do not believe that there is any discrimination in Southern Ireland. I do not know about Northern Ireland. To be fair, when I ask this question I am told that the Northern Ireland Government are eminently fair about grants for education, for Catholic schools and church schools of all descriptions. If they are so eminently fair in that respect, they must be trying and they must be men of good will. Why are not these men of good will, in an important position, able to control these irresponsible people who are getting Northern Ireland a bad name in so many ways?
This gentleman, Senator Barnhill, said some outlandish things. I thought I was listening to Senator Goldwater, and I am perturbed about that gentleman, but between Boyne Water and Goldwater there does not seem to be

1137
much difference when we think about this statement. Barnhill said in 1964:
"If we are going to employ people we should give the preference to Unionists. I am not saying that we should sack Nationalist employees, but if we are going to employ new men we should give preference to Unionists."
I remember my father telling me how hurt he was when he was a boy 12 years of age, struggling for a living on the Liverpool dockside as a ship's scaler— and there was no more patriotic a public man in this country in local government than my father; five of his sons were serving this country and some of them died for this country—to see notices on the docks saying "No Irish need apply". There were no notices saying that Catholics or Protestants need not apply.
I am very grateful, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for being able to make a speech for these few minutes in this House, because on many occasions since I have not been too well hon. Members opposite, not least among them the Members for Northern Ireland, have wished me well on many occasions. But I make this plea: surely after two world wars, when we fought for the things that we value, for anyone in these islands to discriminate on religious grounds is un-British and completely foreign to everything that we have stood for and worked for over the last century.
9.14 p.m.
Captain L. P. S. Orr: The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Mahon) complained that no one had made a reply to the allegations of discrimination which had been made and I hastened to assure him that I would. I had not otherwise intended to take part in this debate. It seems to me that we are in grave danger of getting away from the main point of the debate which is concerned with the twentieth century.
History was made in this 'debate. I do not know whether hon. Members noticed it, but today for the first time, I think, since the war, and certainly for the first time in the 14 years that I have been in the House of Commons, we have had an intervention in a Northern Ireland debate by a Liberal Member. This is something which ought to be recorded and noted. He did not stay very long and I am sorry that he is not
1138
here because I intended to reply to some of the things that the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) said. I think that what has been said by him, by the hon. Member for Bootle and by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) should not go without an answer.
It was delightful to hear the hon. Member for Thurrock intervening in an Ulster debate. My mind went back 10 years or more when we listened to his fiery, vehement eloquence, and today he showed himself extraordinarily modest and restrained. We appreciate the terms in which he spoke. His nostalgia for his native land leads him back to old times and leads him to rake over the embers of old controversies again. They are not relevant, as I shall proceed to show, and I hope to satisfy the hon. Member for Bootle on the same score.
All of us, wherever we are, would deplore—and the hon. Member for Thurrock did us on this side of the House the honour of saying that we would deplore—any suggestion of discrimination against any man on the grounds of his religion, certainly by the State and in almost every case by private individuals. It is possible, however, to conceive of a situation where discrimination by a private individual might possibly be justified. It may be possible, for example, where someone who has small children might want someone of his or her faith to be responsible for the upbringing of those children. It might not, therefore, be an improper form of discrimination to say, "I shall only employ someone of my faith to look after these children." There is nothing wrong in that kind of discrimination. That discrimination of itself is not necessarily an evil.
What is an evil is if discrimination can be shown to be practised by the State. The hon. Member for Orpington, who now unhappily has left us, quoted from some document he had been given by the Nationalist Party in Northern Ireland. Like many others, the hon. Member had to rely on words such as "I am told", and "I hear". Many hon. Members have had to rely on the same phrases. The hon. Member for Orpington listened to these people without understanding what everyone in Ireland understands perfectly clearly, that this is an age-old gimmick, the absolute stock-in-trade of the Nationalist Party in Northern Ireland.

1139
In this question of discrimination the Nationalist Party had got something with which to try to rouse or frighten its followers. The Nationalist Party is already disappearing. It has reached the stage of the dinosaur and will soon be at the stage of the diplodocus in the limbo of forgotten things. But the hon. Member, like so many Liberals, swallowed the lot hook, line and sinker.
Mr. Delargy: I do not know if the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) will be coming back to the Chamber, but not only the Nationalist Party but also the Belfast Telegraph, rather a Unionist organ, has more than once this year protested in editorials and leading articles against this discrimination. It does not take the trouble to prove it but takes it for granted and asks the Government to do something about it. Is that not true?
Captain Orr: I was talking about the hon. Member for Orpington and saying that this was a Nationalist gimmick.
Mr. Delargy: I am saying that the Belfast Telegraph said the same thing.
Captain Orr: That may be so. I said that the hon. Member for Orpington had swallowed hook, line and sinker what the Nationalist Party had said. I am delighted to see that the hon. Member has now come back. I had said that he made history today. I congratulated him on the fact that a Member of the Liberal Party, I think for the first time since the war, had intervened to help us on a debate on Northern Ireland.
Mr. Lubbock: I have been here only since 1962.
Captain Orr: I appreciate that, and his sojourn in the House is very short, because I doubt whether we shall see him again after the election.
Mr. Lubbock: What basis does the hon. Member have for that belief? Has he ever been in Orpington?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Order. We are not debating Orpington. What we are concerned with, surely, is Northern Ireland and the responsibility of the United Kingdom Government in Northern Ireland.
Captain Orr: I am very much obliged, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was about to suggest that we might return to the subject of the debate.
Mr. Lubbock: I did not leave it.
Captain Orr: The hon. Members for Orpington, Thurrock and Bootle suggested that the Government ought to take action on the question of religious discrimination in Northern Ireland and that they had some responsibility so to do. When your predecessor in the Chair, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, interrupted the hon. Member for Orpington and suggested that he should not be making that point, he ultimately accepted the hon. Member's argument that, in fact, he was in order. I therefore trust that I am in order if I reply to him, because it is important that he should be answered.
Mr. Delargy: I am sure that the hon. Member does not want to do me an injustice. I said nothing to the Government. I know that that is a waste of time, to start with. I made my personal plea to the hon. Members who sit for seats in Northern Ireland and to no one else.
Captain Orr: I am obliged to the hon. Member and I am trying to answer him. If I were allowed to get on with what I have to say, it might be more helpful.
The hon. Member for Orpington mentioned the only Liberal Member in the Parliament of Northern Ireland, Miss Shelagh Murnaghan. He mentioned the Civil Rights Bill. I do not think he followed what Miss Murnaghan did in a debate on this very subject, which took place at Stormont, the Northern Ireland Parliament, on 26th May. On that date the Nationalist Party, whose propaganda the hon. Member has swallowed hook, line and sinker, put down a Motion about discrimination. I must point out to the hon. Members for Bootle and Thurrock that the Labour Party put down an Amendment.
Mr. Mahon: Which Labour Party?
Captain Orr: The Northern Ireland Labour Party, which is affiliated to the hon. Member's party. It put down an Amendment—a very sensible Amendment, if I may say so. It read,
"… welcomes the improvement in communal relationships in Northern Ireland,

1141
congratulates all those who by positive action have contributed to this improvement …"
The Unionist Members —
Mr. Delargy: Finish the Amendment. That was only the preamble.
Captain Orr: I have it here if I can find it, and if the hon. Member wants it all, he can have it. It continues,
"… and is of the opinion that it is in the social and economic interests of all our people that this spirit of good will should continue to grow ".
That was the Amendment moved by the Labour Party and supported in the Division by the Ulster Government, by the Unionist Members and by Miss Shelagh Murnaghan of the Liberal Party. As always, the Liberal Party speaks with many voices.
Mr. Lubbock: I find nothing to quarrel with in the Amendment which the hon. and gallant Member has read.
Captain Orr: Nor do I, but earlier in this debate the hon. Member was quoting almost approvingly everything that the Nationalist Members had told him, whereas this Amendment, against the Nationalist Motion, was supported by a member of his own party.
Mr. Lubbock: Surely one can welcome some improvements which have taken place without thinking that they have gone far enough?
Captain Orr: I suppose that we must pass that kind of sophistry.
I come to the allegations which have been made. The first is in regard to housing, local authority boundaries and questions of employment. It must be noted, first, that 35 per cent. of all houses built in Ulster are private building. Most of them are subsidised. This is since the war. The Government lay down standards, but these regulations as to standards do not normally affect the location. I am not sure whether it was the hon. Member for Bootle who suggested that perhaps houses were sited in one place rather than in another for some religious reason. That does not apply to this 35 per cent. of our housing.
Sixty-five per cent. of our housing is local authority housing. Here the local authorities have absolute authority. The Ministry very rarely interferes with where a local authority sites its houses.
1142
Consequently, there is no reason to believe—the Ulster Government have no reason to believe, I have none, and none of my hon. Friends has any reason to believe—that anywhere local authorities have acted other than completely responsibly in the siting of houses.
I gather that some of the complaints are about the allocation of houses. One of the difficulties in Northern Ireland is that, although our housing programme is running now at a pretty favourable rate, we are considerably behind the rest of the United Kingdom in the number of houses that are available. Consequently, in the post-war period we have been gradually trying to catch up. We have had to make new arrangements with the Government here. We had authority to introduce in 1952 a new subsidy scheme to provide more houses. The pace of house building is going ahead.
Still there is overall a chronic shortage of housing. For example, only one house in five in Ulster is publicly owned. Consequently, if people are unable to get a house and if they happen to live in an area controlled by a Unionist authority, they naturally suspect discrimination against them. If they happen to be in an area dominated by a Nationalist party, they naturally suspect discrimination against them the other way.
The root cause of all the complaints about discrimination is the shortage of houses. We are doing our very best. The Ulster Government are doing their best. The new subsidy scheme, based not only on the cost of building but on the cost of the money itself, is having its effect. None the less, there is no doubt, as the Government genuinely believe and as we here genuinely believe, that this is the root cause of all the talk about discrimination in housing. Very few precise examples can be obtained.
Mr. Lubbock: Can I give the hon. and gallant Gentleman one precise example concerning Dungannon, where 194 houses have been built for normal letting by the council since the war? All those are said to have gone to Unionists and none to Catholics, while there have been as many as 300 Catholics on the waiting list. That is a precise example.

1143
Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman care to answer it?
Captain Orr: I have not got the figures for Dungannon. I do not have the figures for every town in Ulster with me. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that there is discrimination on religious grounds in Dungannon, and he will let me have details, I will certainly see that the authorities look into it. Nobody wants to see discrimination on grounds of religion. I honestly do not believe that it exists and, as I said, I believe that it is a gimmick of the Nationalist Party.
The hon. Member for Orpington raised the question of local authority boundaries. The Chair allowed him to develop this point and I hope that I will be permitted a short reply. The local authority boundaries in Northern Ireland are the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Government, under the respective Act. They were set up in 1922 and have not been altered since. When proportional representation came in the Government of the day set up an inquiry which was presided over by a county court judge. He took a great deal of evidence, although the Nationalist Party of the day boycotted the inquiry and refused to give evidence; and the boundaries were then laid down.
The local authority boundaries are based not simply on population but on rateable value, like the local government franchise, although it is not a universal one. It is precisely the same as the local government franchise which used to be adopted here, in that it is based on the principle that one must be a ratepayer to vote. Consequently, when defining the local authority boundaries, account was taken not only of population but of rateable value.
The hon. Member for Orpington also mentioned Londonderry, about which I happen to have some figures. When the three wards were constituted for Londonderry County Borough in 1936 a high population in the Waterside Ward was offset by an even higher population in the North Ward. The figures were, for the North Ward, two aldermen and six councillors with 5,469 electors and a rateable value of £105,824. In the South Ward, with two aldermen and six councillors, and 7,844 electors, there is a rateable value of only £63,000. In the Waterside Ward, with one alderman and three councillors,
1144
there is a rateable value of £35,079 with 3,632 electors.
Thus, according to the criterion of making ones boundaries in accordance not only with population but with rateable value, Londonderry is probably about right. There is no question here of discrimination on religious grounds. It is entirely a matter of a different basis for the calculation of dividing the boundaries of local government.
The hon. Member for Orpington also considered the question of local authority employment and made the case that the employment of persons was and could be decided on religious grounds. His comments deserve an answer and I can assure him that almost in all cases the appointment of officers is a matter for the local authority itself, but there are instances where the Ministry—I understand that this applies in a considerable number of cases—has laid down certain qualification regulations.
I have made inquiries on the other side, as I thought that this point might arise. The Northern Ireland Ministry, after the experience of quite a number of years, is perfectly satisfied that local authorities, by and large, have conscientiously tried to elect the most suitable candidates. Of course, if the choice is made by a Nationalist Council and a Nationalist candidate happens to be preferred, the defeated candidate and all his supporters are bound to say, "Religious discrimination"—and the same thing is bound to happen the other way round. I am perfectly certain that that is the case.
The only two cases I have ever heard cited date back to 1952. They are old cases, and they are usually cases where no appointment has been made since 1952. For example, I am surprised that the hon. Member did not ask about the Crown Solicitors, because this is one matter that his Nationalist friends put up from time to time. I am surprised that he did not ask about the medical officers of health—or would he like something said about them? Or about the police? Having heard so much of the old record, I am surprised that he did not produce the rest of it.
I hope that I have said enough at this stage, but if I have missed any particular

1145
point or failed to deal with any individual example I am perfectly happy to see that investigations are made, and so are the Government of Northern Ireland. The point is that in Ulster today the religious discrimination that undoubtedly existed in the past—and it was based on interference by the churches in politics—and the old bitternesses are dying. It is appalling that in a debate like this, concerned with the twentieth century, concerned with problems of finding employment for our people, concerned with trying to lay good economic foundations, this ancient prejudice should be raked over again.
It really is a terrible disservice to our country, but it is characteristic, anyway, of the Liberal Party, which has nothing to live on but the past and can never look to the future. At the next General Election—
Mr. Lubbock Mr. Lubbock rose—
Captain Orr: It is all right. I have a Liberal candidate against me at the next election and he will get the proper answer from the sensible people of Northern Ireland. And I will not give way—the hon. Member has made his speech. If he is will to dish it out he must also be ready to take it. I now hope that we can return to the main purpose of this debate, which is to try to provide employment and a reasonable standard of prosperity for our people.
9.37 p.m.
Mr. G. B. H. Currie: In the few minutes that are left to me, I should like to express my bitter disappointment that this debate, which started with such high promise, should have developed as it has done. I cannot blame the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) because he was careful to confine his observations to those having a bearing on the present industrial situation in Northern Ireland, and the lines that might be taken for the advancement of the Northern Ireland economy. He was good enough to say that both sides of the House virtually had a common interest in trying to do whatever was possible to develop that economy. The only bone of contention I would seek to pick with him is that, perhaps, he did not give sufficient reward by way of praise to the Government of Northern Ireland and
1146
to the Government of the United Kingdom for what has been achieved.
This problem of unemployment in Northern Ireland is not a new one. The hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) was good enough to remind the House of some of the basic factors which affect our economy over there. There are the complete absence of raw materials and the freightage costs which are added to production costs, first for the importation of the raw materials so that they might be processed, and then for their re-exporting to the markets of the United Kingdom and the rest of the world once they have been manufactured.
These are the basic factors which apply to all manner of goods produced in Northern Ireland, with two exceptions to which my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) referred. For the most part, the factories dealing with these exceptions lie in my hon. Friend's constituency. The exceptions are ships which can sail out once they are manufactured and aircraft which can fly out. These factors must be borne in mind when we consider the problems of Northern Ireland.
The achievements over the past two years have not been too bad, I agree that the present figure of unemployment, which shows some improvement, is still devastating. The latest figure for June, 1964, is 32,291, It has been referred to tonight as 6½ per cent. of the employable population. In March of this year the figure was 36,505 and in March, 1963, it was 45,184. There has been an impressive decrease in the number of unemployed. I hope that the decrease will continue.
Another figure which should be considered is the number of vacancies unfilled in industry. In March, 1963, that figure was 1,348. Today, the number is 1,420.
Mr. Archie Manuel: We always have the difficulty in the bad areas in Scotland that the unemployment figure does not reflect the true position because it does not include women who are not paying the full unemployment insurance contribution and are, therefore, not counted. I suggest to the hon. Member that likewise, in Northern Ireland, a fair proportion of unemployed women should be included.
Mr. Currie: I am grateful to the hon. Member, but owing to the lack of time 1 must try to condense what I have to say.
I am trying to point to the great need in Northern Ireland of technical training in industry and the creation of skill in those people who are unemployed so that they can be fitted into new jobs in new industry. In the United Kingdom industry is all the time becoming more and more complex. The skills which are now required are not possessed by the vast majority of our unemployed. It is clear that what is required is a widespread and costly training scheme so that our people can be fitted for new industry. I know of two industries which would have come to Northern Ireland from abroad had we been able to supply the necessary skilled operators for them.
In the limited time remaining I want to refer to the computer industry. This lies within my constituency and I must confess that I am worried about this industry. I make many visits to the factory. The trouble with the computer industry of the United Kingdom today, as I see it, is that we have had to modernise our equipment. We have had to convert from the valve to the transistor equipment, and we have not so far had the machines which are capable of doing this. Therefore, the basic units have been imported from the United States of America.
It would be wrong to stop this import because, after all, in Scotland there are factories engaged in the assembly of these units which are imported from the United States of America, so that the prohibition of the import is not the answer. What is required is technical education so that our operators can undertake the same job and, in fact, do a better job than our American competitors.
I apologise for dealing with these matters so abruptly.
9.47 p.m.
Mr. Brooke: If I may have the leave of the House to reply briefly to the points which have been raised, I should like to start by saying that the responsibilities of the Home Secretary towards Northern Ireland are some of the most interesting as well as the most important of his duties, and that it has been the greatest pleasure to me for two full
1148
years to be the spokesman for Northern Ireland interests in the United Kingdom Cabinet.
I cannot help adding that I am glad that at the end of two years, in June, 1964, unemployment in Northern Ireland was lower than it has been in any June in the last 10 years, except 1956 and 1960, which, I would like the Opposition to note, were the years after, and not just before, a General Election.
The problem that we have had to face in Northern Ireland is broadly the very heavy fall in agricultural employment, which is not confined to Northern Ireland. It is intimately connected with the modernisation of agriculture. Perhaps 20,000 jobs have disappeared there. Shipbuilding has lost 10,000 jobs, which again, is in line with the decline in shipbuilding employment in many other countries, and there has been a fall in employment also in the textile industry. As against that, the number of actual jobs provided by firms which have been assisted by the Northern Ireland Government to establish themselves there or to expand, which was noted in the Hall Report as about 48,000 in December, 1961, was up to 55,800 in March, 1964, and the future total, including developments now in prospect, is 74,600.
It is significant that the general engineering industry in Northern Ireland has expanded in terms of manpower over the past few years at the remarkably high rate of 10 per cent. per annum. The estimated expenditure by the Northern Ireland Government in its industrial development programme last year, 1963–64, was £17¼ million. This year, 1964–65, it is estimated at nearly £21 million. This seems to cut across the Opposition's suggestion that there has been no governmental activity in helping the unemployment situation there. The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) alleged that the United Kingdom Government gave very little help to Northern Ireland.
It is common knowledge that, although the United Kingdom Government cannot help directly towards the very substantial expenditure which Northern Ireland's industrial development programme involves, it is doubtful whether Northern Ireland could stand the strain of this if the United Kingdom Government did not support Northern

1149
Ireland to the tune of about £50 million a year by paying the agricultural subsidies and by contributing to the cost of its social services.
At present, Harland and Wolff's order book includes 10 merchant ships of over 10,000 tons totalling over 310,000 tons. Those include orders for three ships totalling 94,000 tons which have been placed with Harland and Wolff as the result of the Minister of Transport's credit scheme. These facts should be known.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) always, and rightly, draws the attention of the House to Short Brothers & Harland, in his constituency. In passing, I say how sorry we are that my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mrs. McLaughlin) cannot be present at our debate, as she always is. We greatly hope she will be well enough to return to the House soon.
I paid a visit, by no means my first, to Short Brothers the other day, when I was invited to speak at the prize-giving of the company's apprentice training school. That school is one of the most impressive industrial developments in Northern Ireland.
Opposition spokesmen seem to forget the amount of assistance which the United Kingdom Government have given already. There is the £10 million advanced, with the help of the Northern Ireland Government for the Belfast and the Skyvan. There is the sub-contract work which is being done by Short's at Belfast at a cost estimated to be nearly £2¾ million more than if it had been done in Britain, as it could have been. All this is of direct assistance to Short Brothers & Harland.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation, who himself was there just the other day, has no reason to waver from his hope that enough work will be available to Short Brothers to provide employment for a production labour force of close on 6,000 until the end of the present decade. As he has said, the difficult period is likely to be between the end of 1965, when the Belfast programme may be coming to an end, and the middle of 1967, when the HS 681 will be getting under way. Nevertheless, there are good reasons for
1150
believing that this trough, so to call it, can be filled up. One programme which will help in this connection is the conversion work on Canberra aircraft which will provide employment for a good number of extra people during this period.
The hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) intimated that the Labour Party could run British and Northern Ireland industries much better than the businessmen now in charge could do. I find that an improbable claim. The hon. Gentleman said that the Labour Party would have a plan, a plan to send industries compulsorily where they do not want to go and regardless of whether they could sell their products when they got there. That form of Government direction of industry is not a plan. It is an economic nonsense. The Northern Ireland Government are proceeding much more wisely by having set on foot the Wilson inquiry into the useful scope of economic planning and co-ordination in Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Government hope that this work will be completed in the autumn. I hope that it will be of great value. I am sure that it is a wiser approach than that adumbrated by the Opposition.
I am grateful for the speeches that have been made by my hon. Friends and their references to the Stranraer line and to the new and very big dry dock. I am delighted about that development. These are the elements which will be important to the economic future of Northern Ireland, not vague talk about economic planning which has never worked in the past and certainly will not work in the future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Mr. H. Clark) raised a number of farming points from his constituency, which he looks after so well. I will bring these to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North and my other hon. Friends will accept that this year's Price Review was favourable to the Northern Ireland farmers.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Sir Knox Cunningham) spoke, among other things, of the situation at Aldergrove. Air traffic there has increased and is continuing to

1151
increase faster than was predicted when the terminal building was planned and more passengers are passing through than was expected at this stage of development. That is a good rather than a bad thing for the future. But a scheme is now being drawn up to extend the terminal buildings and some of the facilities there.
I also have much sympathy with what my hon. and learned Friend said about elderly or infirm people. I would like to assure him that all concerned with management at Aldergrove are very willing for passengers to pass to their aircraft wholly at ground level without going to the first storey when, because of age or disability, they would prefer not to go upstairs to the passenger concourse. Car parking arrangements are also being examined by an expert of the Northern Ireland Ministry of Home Affairs and new parking plans will be prepared for the airport.
Much of the debate has been taken up, not very helpfully, by allegations of religious discrimination in Northern Ireland. Frankly, I think that there are more urgent matters to discuss than these allegations. It goes without saying that every hon. Member, of whatever party, deplores any discrimination of that kind. But the constitutional facts are that Section 5 of the Government of Ireland Act provides that, in the exercise of its power to make laws, the Parliament of Northern Ireland shall not make a law of a discriminatory kind on account of religion and the executive power of the Northern Ireland Government is similarly limited under Section 8(6).
If, therefore, any Act of the Northern Ireland Parliament or any executive act of the Northern Ireland Government is made contrary to this statutory prohibition, its validity can be tested in the courts. But it has been held by successive Governments in the United Kingdom, regardless of party, that the reserve powers in the Government of Ireland Act do not enable the United Kingdom Government to intervene in matters which, under Section 4, are the sole responsibility of the Northern Ireland Parliament and Government.
We all welcome to our debates on Northern Ireland my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder).
1152
He Spoke, rightly, of the sense of prosperity and general well-being in Northern Ireland. It is sad indeed that we still have 6½ per cent. unemployment there, but whenever I go to Northern Ireland I am conscious of the forward looking, hopeful attitude of everybody and I contrast it most vividly with what I can remember of Durham and South Wales in the days of depression.
The clouds of depression in Northern Ireland are being rolled away by the initiative of the people of Northern Ireland and their Government and with the steady and vigorous help of the Government of the United Kingdom. The sun is out now in Northern Ireland. I remember that when I was Minister for Welsh Affairs I was once asked what happened at the end of the rainbow, and I said that it ended, like other rainbows, in a crock of gold. That came true for Wales and, provided that a Conservative and Unionist Government remain in power here, it will come true for Northern Ireland, also.
It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

SUMMER TIME
10.1 p.m.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. C. M. Woodhouse): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of section 2 of the Summer Time Act 1947, praying that the Summer Time Order 1964 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 1st July.
As the Order this year introduces an innovation, it may be right for me to give a short explanation of its background. The Summer Time Acts of 1922 and 1925 provide that Summer Time should run from the Sunday after the third Saturday in April until the Sunday after the first Saturday in October, save where Easter Day falls on that Sunday in April, in which case Summer Time starts a week earlier. In 1947, an Act was passed which provided for Summer Time to be varied in any year by Order in Council. It is in pursuance of the provisions of Section 2 of that Act that the draft Order has been laid.
An inquiry conducted by the Government in 1959–60 showed that public

1153
opinion appeared to favour prolongation of the normal statutory period of Summer Time as laid down in the Acts of 1922 and 1925. After a full debate in December, 1960, Parliament approved the Government's proposal experimentally to extend the period for three weeks in both spring and autumn. This experimental arrangement, which was effected by the Summer Time Order, 1961, proved generally popular and subsequent Orders authorised its continuance during 1962 and 1963.
This year, to avoid Summer Time starting on Easter Day, an extension of seven weeks was authorised by the Summer Time (1964) Order, 1963. This earlier beginning of Summer Time appears to have been popular and we are, therefore, proposing that next year's extension should be of a similar duration.
It has been suggested that it would be more satisfactory to all concerned, and especially to those who compile diaries and timetables, if the periods of Summer Time were fixed for some years ahead, rather than annually as has been usual. My right hon. Friend thinks that there is substance in this proposal and he has, therefore, decided to include in the draft Order in Council provision for a seven weeks' extension of the normal statutory period in the three years 1965–67. The periods are from 21st March to 24th October in 1965, 20th March to 23rd October in 1966, and 19th March to 29th October in 1967.
Perhaps I should explain that if public opinion about Summer Time should alter between now and 1967, it would be practicable to modify this Order in Council at any time by means of a new Order in Council.
10.5 p.m.
Mr. Eric Fletcher: I do not think anyone would quarrel with this Order. As it is an innovation, the hon. Gentleman was right to explain why it takes a different form from previous Orders.
The House has always taken a great interest on when Summer Time should operate, and it is to be observed that hitherto Parliament has retained control over the times which are fixed each year. On the other hand, I think it is now generally recognised that it is to the
1154
convenience of a great many people to know in advance, perhaps at least more than one year ahead, what the Summer Time dates are to be. I understand that this is of particular convenience not only to those who manufacture and make diaries, but also to those, which I suppose includes most of us, who use diaries, and therefore are able to know when Summer Time operates.
Summer Time has become so ingrained in our social system in this generation that some of us are inclined to overlook what immense benefits it has conferred on the community, not only in providing much greater opportunities for many people to enjoy extended hours of sunshine for many months of the year, but in providing economic and industrial benefits involving a great deal of saving in gas, electricity and power of various kinds.
One should, I think, note that there has been a tendency gradually to extend the length of Summer Time, and I think that the Minister is right in saying that that is generally in accordance with the wishes of the majority of the citizens, although there are still sections of the community to whom the prolongation of Summer Time to later in the year produces some hardship. But this is essentially a matter in which the House should have regard to the general interest.
One observes that we have now got to the stage at which Summer Time seems to be in operation not merely for the summer months but for the major part of the year. For example, in the dates proposed for 1967, it seems to be an extension not merely of seven weeks but of eight weeks. Summer time will operate from 19th March to 29th October, which according to my calculations is 7½ months. I would have thought that we had reached the extreme limit of the period for which Summer Time was desirable, and I hope that we shall not drift into a situation such as obtains in France and other continental countries where Summer Time is in operation throughout the year.
I cordially support the Order and hope that the House will approve it.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of section 2 of the Summer Time Act 1947, praying that the Summer Time Order 1964 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 1st July.
To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

DELIVERY VANS (KEEPING OF RECORDS)
10.8 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): I beg to move,
That the Goods Vehicles (Keeping of Records) Order 1964, dated 25th June, 1964, a copy of which was laid before this House on 1st July, be approved.
This draft Order continues in force permanently the provision of Section 21 of the Road Traffic Act, 1962. The history of the matter is that Section 21 of that Act removed from the users of certain small goods vehicles the obligation to keep records of drivers' hours and other related matters which otherwise would fall upon them under Section 186 of the Road Traffic Act 1960.
The vehicles affected are C licence vehicles weighing no more than 16 cwt. unladen when on journeys within five miles of their base, that is to say, in general terms small vans on local delivery work. As the House will realise, the danger that drivers of small local delivery vans will exceed the limit is in practice very slight, so in the 1962 Act they were exempted from the general requirements that apply to other types of vehicles. However, as in the 1962 Act we were breaking new ground in this exemption and we could not be absolutely certain of what would happen, we decided in that legislation to limit the exemption to an experimental period of two years.
This period of two years lapses on 31st October, and so it is necessary to decide what to do next. We have taken some advice about this. We have asked the licensing authorities for carriers licences, whose staff enforced the hours rules, to let us have reports on the effects of the exemption. They have told us that there is no evidence of any abuse. The exemption has also clearly given a
1156
useful though perhaps small relief from unnecessary paper work to local small van drivers.
Another interesting point is that both sides of the industry agree that the exemption should be continued. In view of the success of this exemption for small local vans and its general popularity, therefore, my right hon. Friend considered whether this exemption might be enlarged to cover other classes and longer distances. It was suggested to him by one of the bodies consulted before he drafted the Order that these limits should be raised to 1½ tons and 15 miles, respectively, and by another body that they should be raised to 3 tons and 25 miles. My right hon. Friend decided against any widening at this stage, for the following reasons.
In the first place, the reports from licensing authorities showed that the incidence of hours offences among vehicles just over the 16 cwt. line, although small, was not entirely negligible. Some hours offences have been found among drivers of even the smallest goods vehicles working beyond the five mile radius. Secondly, either of the extensions proposed would materially increase the number of the vehicles affected. Over half the goods vehicle fleet is under 1½ tons, and over two-thirds is under 3 tons.
An extension on this scale, therefore, would produce the risk that some of the exempted drivers would offend without any possibility of detection, because there would be so many more vehicles. There would also be an indirect risk to enforcement, because the task of distinguishing over such wide classes of vehicle between those operating inside and outside their permitted distances would add greatly to the task of the enforcement officers.
The third reason why my right hon. Friend felt that it would not be right to extend this provision is that he is concerned at the extent to which it has recently been reported that the hours rules are being broken by some drivers. As the House knows, my right hon. Friend's Department is studying ways of intensifying enforcement in this field. Therefore, he did not think that this would be the right moment to have any relaxation.

1157
What it comes to is that although my right hon. Friend is willing to continue the existing exemption which has been shown to cause no danger, he does not think it right at the present time to take the risk of adding in any way to the difficulties of enforcement staff. All the evidence points to maintaining the status quo which has worked well for the last two years. I accordingly ask the House to approve the draft Order.
10.13 p.m.
Mr. R. J. Mellish: When the 1962 Act was going through the House, and was upstairs in Committee—I was a member of that Committee—my hon. Friends and I readily agreed to help the Minister in one or two experiments that he was making. We were very co-operative in the matter of road safety, and we also decided that the matter with which the Order now deals was a worthwhile experiment. If the Minister takes the trouble to read the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee's proceedings on that Measure he will find that we let the provision go through unopposed, with practically no debate.
But it so happens that this Order is introduced at a time when many of us have grievous doubts—and there are no party politics in this—about the abuses which are going on at the moment, especially about the keeping of records, not only by A and B licence holders, but, in many cases, by C licence holders. The Parliamentary Secretary has conceded that this was one reason why the Minister was loath to extend the permission over 16 cwt. He feared that abuse might follow.
If I understood him aright the Parliamentary Secretary said that this had been an experiment for two years and advice had been taken from licensing authorities which had no evidence that there had been any abuse. I do not see how those authorities could secure any evidence, because there are so few inspectors employed by the Ministry of Transport to check these vehicles. It is obvious that the situation has been hopeless for the last 18 months or two years and that there would not be sufficient evidence obtained to make a case.
What the hon. Gentleman is really saying is that there have been no prosecutions and that does not prove anything. It
1158
does not follow that because there have been no prosecutions there have been no abuses. Recently, the Minister started a "purge" among the heavy vehicles and he has been startled by what he has found. Reports about the conditions of vehicles and the way in which records are kept reveal that there is a serious state of affairs; at least, that is our opinion.
We should like to know how many C licences have been issued during the last two years. Last week, the Minister gave a figure of about 650,000 C licence holders, well over half a million. I do not know how many of these relate to 16 cwt. vehicles. The Minister did give some indication but I do not understand what he meant. Is it one-third which are 16 cwt. vehicles? Can the Minister tell us what owners are to be exempt from keeping records? If my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) were present he would have been surprised that the Minister is not continuing this as an experiment.
I am raising this matter in no carping spirit. My only concern is with safety and that the necessary records should be kept. There are many genuine C licence holders who ought not to be bothered about keeping records. We have reached a stage when the whole of the licensing system may well have to be changed in order to cater for the genuine C licence holder, the man with his own van who travels in a radius of 5 miles carrying goods from door to door. We are not referring to such people when we discuss the future of the transport industry. The Ministry has not a sufficient number of inspectors to carry out a proper inspection. It is an overworked Department and there should be more inspectors.
We do not intend to oppose this Order, but I have grievous doubts about the situation. I had hoped that the Minister would continue the present practice as an experiment. When we on this side of the House come to power, which, I think, will be in about two months' time, we shall look at this matter carefully, and, in consultation with the experts, we shall consider whether we can deal with the situation differently.
Mr. Galbraith: I thought that I should be able to agree entirely with all that was said by the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), but I cannot agree

1159
with his last remarks. He asked, very sensibly, why this should not continue as an experiment. The answer is that, unfortunately, the Statute does not allow us to do that. In the light of the evidence given by the licensing authorities, I think that a distinction could be brought.
When I was shaking my head in disagreement with the hon. Gentleman I was not referring to these vehicles. I think that the hon. Member thought that I was thinking that we were surprised that these vehicles drivers were exceeding the permitted hours and not properly maintaining their vehicles. I meant that this did not come as a surprise to us. We have had evidence. Obviously, we have not been able to catch all the offenders. The traffic examiners who are in close contact with what is going on in their areas may not be able to bowl out all the offenders, but they know that offences are being committed. The whole country is divided up into 12 areas. There is absolutely no evidence that the small vans under 16 cwt. working on a delivery
1160
basis doing rounds with milk, vegetables and so on are abusing this provision.
The hon. Member said that no doubt was expressed in the debate, but I understood that doubt was expressed as to the wisdom of this provision, I believe the unions questioned at that time whether these relaxations should be made.
Mr. Mellish: The unions were consulted, were they?
Mr. Galbraith: Yes, they were.
The hon. Member asked how many vehicles there were in this small class. In round figures, the number is about half a million. I hope that these further remarks may have settled any doubts the hon. Member may have and that the House will feel disposed to allow us to have the Order.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Goods Vehicles (Keeping of Records) Order 1964, dated 25th June 1964, a copy of which was laid before this House on 1st July, be approved.

A2 ROAD (DARTFORD)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pym.]
10.21 p.m.
Mr. Sydney Irving: In raising the problems of traffic and road safety on the A2 at Dartford, I am conscious that it is the Minister's intention to bypass this stretch of road completely with the improved A2. This is one of his five major schemes. The road will be diverted from the present position throughout almost the whole of its passage through the Dartford constituency. This project appears to have fallen very much behind schedule. The whole of the 42 miles were to be completed by 1967, but except at Swanscombe there is little evidence that this work is being undertaken.
I want to ask, first, what progress the Minister hopes to make with the scheme, and particularly when he expects the diversion through Dartford will be completed. It is clear that even when the new A2 is finished there will still be a very serious situation. The interim problem is dangerous enough to justify immediate action. The danger has been aggravated by the opening earlier this year of the Dartford Tunnel. There are two contributory causes to this. In his Press hand-out in February, 1963, the Minister described the present A2 as seriously overloaded, having a bad accident record, and an annual traffic increase higher than average. Because of the tunnel traffic, there has been a serious deterioration, and at a survey in June this year it was found that 32,600 passenger car units per 16 hour day were using this road. It may well be that the figure on the stretch of road I am talking about is greater than that, because the survey was taken at Cobham and it may be that some vehicles disappear from the road before they get to Cobham at the point where the survey was taken.
For some years the district councils and Kent County Council have pleaded that the Minister should ensure an adequate south orbital road should be constructed in time for the tunnel opening to carry traffic away from the area and not to
1162
complicate the already difficult problems which exist and have existed for some time. As far back as 1961 a delegation consisting of a number of hon. Members local to the area and of the district councils and Kent County Council waited on the Minister to ensure that the south orbital road would be constructed in time. Except for getting permission to draw a line on the map, that delegation got nowhere. The impression which some of us got was that the Minister was oblivious of the need for such a road at the time.
It seems obvious that if we build an expensive project such as the Thames Tunnel and neglect to provide communicating roads north and south, this is both shortsighted and a doubtful economy for which the Minister will have to pay dearly in future. On several occasions since that time I have warned the Minister about the consequences of his failure to provide such a south orbital road, and, unhappily, all our fears at that time are being realised and the confusion and danger grows steadily day by day.
The Minister must accept responsibility for this, and he must accept responsibility on another count. I have said that the traffic flow on that road before the construction of the tunnel was unusually high. Not only is all the additional traffic coming from the tunnel decanted directly on the A2, but the Minister has permitted the construction of a junction which must be at least 30 years behind the times. I also believe it to be an affront to all modern principles of traffic management. It is a 200 ft. roundabout with two slip roads leading on the north directly to the tunnel road, and when one comes up from the tunnel it is almost impossible to get a clear view of the traffic coming round the roundabout. This is because the motorist is coming up the slope and the roundabout is on a high level.
In addition, the motorist can proceed only east or west when he gets to the roundabout. If he wishes to turn right and to go east to London, he must cross the whole of the traffic flow coming from London and he must then filter, if he wishes to turn eastwards, into the natural flow of traffic on the other side of the roundabout. This violates every modern principle of traffic

1163
management of ensuring that traffic entering a main road does so with the natural flow of traffic and not against it.
I believe that this expensive folly will have either to be scrapped or to be severely modified if we are to have traffic running smoothly and to avoid the danger which is building up there. I should like to know, therefore, what the Minister proposes to do about the roundabout and when he intends to provide the south orbital road which will take some of the traffic from the tunnel away south, where it wishes to go.
In the meantime, and until we get the diversion of the south orbital road, there is an urgent need for interim safety measures at several junctions within a mile on either side of the roundabout. Less than a mile away to the west we have the junction at Low-field Street with the A2, which I understand is the black spot in Kent, Kent's No. 1 danger point. Here we very urgently need railings. We need a much more complicated phasing of the traffic lights system to allow the traffic which is not going straight across the crossing to have time to get clear before the lights change against it. My own view is that eventually we shall need a flyover at this point.
At Green Street Green Road we have a pedestrian bridge, and we are grateful that recently we have had ramps put on the bridge. This provides a temporary measure until such time as a further instalment of the tunnel approach road is built and subways are provided, but the traffic congestion at the junction is most acute because of the awkward character of the junction, and it is not uncommon to see, six, eight or nine cars standing in the centre of the road waiting to turn right. If one wants to get on to the A2 from Green Street Green Road or Park Road, it is a dangerous exercise not to be undertaken without police assistance. I believe that the junction will have to be completely reconstructed or that traffic lights will need to be provided and carefully phased to allow a proper filter system for the traffic going in each of the three directions in which it can possibly go from any one exit.
To the east, and not much further than 100 yards from the roundabout, there is the junction between Princes
1164
Avenue and the A2. This is the only vehicular access from a newly constructed estate which already has 1,200 houses on it. Cars wait like sitting ducks in the centre of the three-stream road, waiting to turn into Princes Avenue. Last August I was sitting in just such a position in my car when a heavy cable lorry crashed into the rear of my car and spun it round into the face of an on-coming eight-wheel paper lorry. The result was that my car was a complete write-off and I had a very narrow escape from death. Here again, only something which will interrupt the flow of traffic will provide safe passage for people either going into Princes Avenue or coming out of it. There is a long, straight stretch of road here and an incentive to motorists to speed.
About 200 yards to the east is a pedestrian exit from this estate, forming a natural crossing point for people going to the shops and bus stops in Watling Street. It is also a natural crossing for mothers with young children going at least twice a day to Brent School. It is now almost impossible to find shepherds to supervise these crossings, and it needs at least signs warning of children crossing; although eventually some form of bridge or subway will have to be provided. It is not good enough to say that these mothers with their children who are mainly aged five to seven, should have to leave the estate by exits further along the street, for this would add a half to three quarters of a mile to their journey—and considering the difficulties at the other crossings this might even add to the danger.
I will comment further on this question of children crossing the road because this problem is acute in other parts of my constituency. I am sure that this is a problem common to many hon. Members. On the A20 the situation is arising where it is impossible to get shepherds to supervise the crossings, even where there are panda crossings or other crossings on this busy road. It must also be remembered that it is stretching the resources of the police when they have to provide policemen to supervise these crossings. At three crossings—at West View, White Oak and Salisbury Avenue—there are about 1,000 children going to and from school each day, and although they are police

1165
controlled there is an increasing danger and I hope that the matter will be looked into.
A further 200 yards to the east on the A2 is the junction with Gore Road which, because of the curve in the road and the high speed of traffic in both directions, is equally hazardous. To the east there are the Bean crossroads which, because of the danger there, were not long ago remodelled to minimise the danger, but anyone going across the Bean crossroads will see the very serious danger that exists because, as the road to the east dips quickly away from the crossing, it is impossible to see fast westbound traffic approaching the crossing. Surely something can be done to cure this danger spot?
These are the urgent problems to which solutions are required at once. It is not good enough to say that the diversion and the south orbital road will release pressure on this road, for this is a questionable proposition, although to some extent it will help. Local and area traffic will, however, increase in the next year or two at a considerable rate and, even with the new project, will leave a dangerous traffic problem indeed.
In any case, local people cannot hope for any relief from this traffic pressure for at least another two or three years; that is, if the Minister is able to keep to his time-table, which is doubtful. Therefore, I submit that there is a desperate need and a dangerous situation, and I beg the Minister to say tonight that the Government realise the urgency of the problem, that a review will be put in hand at once and that some relief from these danger spots I have outlined will be forthcoming.
10.33 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): The subject we are discussing tonight involves one of the major trunk roads in the country which goes through the hon. Gentleman's constituency. The hon. Gentleman has been very industrious in bringing his constituents' interest in this road to our notice, has asked a great many Questions and written many letters, and tonight he has expressed, once more, his concern at the traffic situation.
I am glad that he has raised this matter tonight, because it gives me an
1166
opportunity to review the whole position and to tell the hon. Gentleman and his constituents how my right hon. Friend is progressing with his plans. It is a little over five years since the hon. Member asked the then Minister what proposals he had for alterations, diversions and improvements to the A2. He was told, in reply, that dual carriageways would be provided from the L.C.C. boundary at Woolwich to the start of the Medway Motorway; that is, the M2. At that time the Minister could not forecast when construction works were likely to start.
Since then, I am glad to say, enormous strides have been taken, and only three months ago my right hon. Friend was able to inform the hon. Member that work on the diversion of the A2 at Dart-ford is expected to start in the autumn of 1965. Work on the eastern section, between the proposed Dartford diversion and the western end of the Medway Motorway, has already started.
Traffic between London and the Kentish coastal resorts and the Channel ports is served by two trunk roads—the A2 and the A20. My right hon. Friend's planning had to take into account that when the Maidstone bypass was opened the A20 would take more than its normal share of traffic; equally, when the Medway Motorway was opened a great deal of traffic would be attracted back to the A2. My right hon. Friend, taking these factors into account, announced that major improvement of the A2 from the L.C.C. boundary eastward to the Medway Motorway would have high priority in his 5-year trunk road programme.
The total length of A2 to be improved is 16¼ miles. Over the greater part of this, the present road has only a single carriageway 30 feet or 40 feet wide. My right hon. Friend's proposals for major improvements are for an all-purpose road to be constructed to the highest modern standards with adequate sightlines and, in general, with grade-separated junctions. The proposed layout will provide dual 36 feet wide carriageways separated by an unbroken central reservation 10 feet wide in Bexley and at least 15 feet wide elsewhere. The volumes of traffic to be expected on the improved road require three traffic lanes in each direction throughout this length. The total estimated cost of this major improvement is about £13 million—something very big indeed.

1167
As I have said, work has already started on the eastern section and should be completed in less than two years from now, while my right hon. Friend hopes to start the building of the Dartford diversion in the autumn of next year. As part of that contract, there will be included the construction of the south orbital road from the present A2 to the diversion. My right hon. Friend is well aware that the south orbital road is a very important project which should be started at the earliest possible moment.
Quite a lot of progress has been made in planning the south orbital road since my right hon. Friend received the delegation to which the hon. Member has referred. My right hon. Friend has already published the proposed route from the Dartford Tunnel to the A20 trunk road, and he will publish further Orders under the Highways Act, 1959, for further sections of the road as soon as the preparatory work has been completed. So I really do not think that it was quite fair for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that my right hon. Friend was not interested in this project. He has, in fact, been as active as it is possible for him to be.
In its entirety, however, the south orbital road is a very expensive project, and it would not be feasible to build it at one go, because it stretches from the Dartford Tunnel in a semi-circle round to the Thames at Staines—quite a distance. So it will have to be built in sections, taking the most urgent parts first, and the hon. Member will be glad to know that, in the opinion of my right hon. Friend, the most urgent section in Kent after the part between the present A2 and the Dartford diversion will be its continuation to the A20. He plans to be able to start building this in the next extension of the trunk road programme.
All these road schemes will make a major contribution to improving the general traffic conditions in the area, and I hope that what I have said shows the hon. Gentleman that there are not any unavoidable delays.
After those general remarks, I should like to deal with some of the detailed problems which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, and which exist in the meantime. The first matter to which he
1168
referred was the roundabout, which he described as being of out-of-date design for the junction of the Tunnel Approach Road with the A2. He has complained that the motorist has to cross the whole flow of traffic from London going towards the Medway Towns before he can join other traffic approaching from the east going towards London. He has also said that drivers leaving the Tunnel Approach Road have inadequate vision of other vehicles in the roundabout. As to the first point, concerning design, the hon. Gentleman should remember that what he sees today at the roundabout is only a part of the final layout at this junction.
Furthermore, the main interchange between the traffic stream to which the hon. Member referred will in future take place not at this roundabout but at the junction of the south orbital road with the Dartford diversion. This will be a full-grade separated junction and will be built to the most modern standards as part of the Dartford diversion in a couple of years' time. The capacity of the roundabout will then be more than adequate for the volumes of traffic likely to use this interchange.
The other point which the hon. Member raised about the roundabout concerned the difficulties of vision. Although traffic leaving the tunnel is on an upgrade, as the hon. Member said, a level section has purposely been provided just before it joins the roundabout. The parapet here is only 3 ft. 6 ins. high and all but the very lowest of vehicles can see over it, and all drivers can actually see approaching vehicles through it. Apart from what the hon. Member said tonight, my right hon. Friend is not aware of any record of complaints about vision at the roundabout. The hon. Member may care to have another look at it in the light of what I have said.
The hon. Member also raised the question of the Lowfield Street junction, and he may have gone a little too far in saying that my right hon. Friend considered this to have the worst record in Kent. I should point out, for the sake of accuracy, that the figures which I gave the hon. Member last January in reply to his Question related only to the length of the A2 in his constituency. I am pleased to be able to tell him that

1169
there has recently been a marked improvement in the accident record at this junction. During the first six months of this year there were two accidents there resulting in two cases of slight injury, compared with 16 accidents and 21 injuries during the previous twelve months, and 13 accidents and 16 injuries in 1962. Therefore, there has been an improvement. Nevertheless, my right hon. Friend has considered what further improvements can be made at this junction and he has arranged for the layout to be modified and the phasing of the signals to be adjusted to assist right-turning traffic. As the hon. Member has said, it is such traffic that has in the past been the main cause of accidents at this point.
The hon. Member referred to the problems of drivers at the Green Street Green—Park Road junction. I am glad that he referred also to the ramps for the footbridge which my right hon. Friend has provided, with the assistance of a contribution from Kent County Council to the cost of improving this footbridge for schoolchildren with bicycles and for mothers with prams. But to redesign the whole junction to solve the problem of turning traffic would be very expensive. My right hon. Friend considers that he would not be justified in diverting from other most urgent proposals even some of his funds to this improvement.
The reason for my right hon. Friend's reluctance is that the situation will be greatly improved when the amount of traffic on the main road, the A2, is reduced by the construction of the Dartford diversion. Similarly, the cost of a complicated system of traffic signals at this point could not be justified in view of the limited time during which it would be needed. There is the further objection that the signals would be very close to the roundabout, and that is an added disadvantage from the point of view of safety.
As to Princes Avenue. I was sorry to hear about the accident in which the hon. Member was involved last summer. I am glad to see that apparently it has had no effect upon his health. My right hon. Friend is aware of the difficulties here, mainly for right-turning vehicles and for pedestrians from the large housing estate nearby who want to cross the trunk
1170
road. To deal with the traffic, my right hon. Friend's engineers have studied suggestions for islands to be sited in the main road. Unfortunately, they found that these would not prove satisfactory in this situation. Islands of about 15 ft. in width would be required and would have to extend over a considerable length to give adequate protection to turning traffic. Sufficient room for two lanes of traffic on either side on the trunk road would need to be maintained here and, unfortunately, there is no room for them. As the hon. Member knows, the junction is only about 130 yards from the roundabout and traffic signals within such a short distance as that would be unsatisfactory and perhaps potentially dangerous.
With regard to pedestrian problems, the hon. Member will appreciate that when the section of the south orbital road down to the Dartford diversion is constructed, the complete roundabout will include facilities for pedestrians crossing the trunk road.
The hon. Gentleman referred to a natural crossing point 200 yards east of Princes Avenue on Dovedale Road. It has no connection with the trunk road and there is, therefore, no problem for vehicles. But when the nearby estate was developed, an unclimbable fence was provided over a length of some 600 yards to stop indiscriminate crossing of the road, so the crossing to which the hon. Member has referred must be through an unauthorised gap in this fence. I can, however, tell the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend recognises the difficulties at Princes Avenue for drivers, and for pedestrians, whether they are authorised or not, at Dovedale Road, and he has instructed his engineers to re-examine the whole traffic pattern and the pedestrian problem on this stretch of the A2. He has asked them for their recommendations and he will then sympathetically consider, after consulting the local highway authorities, what alterations are possible.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the Gore Road junction, and here conditions are complicated by the proximity on the north side of the junction of Watling Street with the trunk road. No complaints of conditions here have been made to my right hon. Friend, but I am bound to say that any modifications

1171
would be quite extensive and would have to include the Watling Street junction. On the evidence at present available to my right hon. Friend, he considers that the cost would be unjustified in competition with other more immediately needed schemes.
Then the hon. Gentleman referred to the Bean Road crossroads, which was reconstructed by my right hon. Friend's agent authority, the Kent County Council, some two years ago. It is, of course, properly marked by double white lines. Suggestions have been received from local residents that a signal control might be provided, but my right hon. Friend's engineers have advised him that the volumes of turning traffic provide insufficient justification for signals, and anyway they would be on a straight road in open country which is a dangerous feature. Furthermore, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, the junction will be completely reconstructed as a roundabout forming part of the Dartford diversion in three years time.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the difficulties of people, mainly school children, on another road. Up to now we have been dealing with the A2, and I would now like to turn to the A20, on which the hon. Gentleman referred to the difficulties that children and old people may have in crossing the road at Swanley. There are three particular places where it has been suggested—I do not think the hon. Gentleman suggested it—that footbridges should be provided with ramps for the elderly, infirm and mothers with prams. This is a matter which has been raised with my right hon. Friend only a few days ago in a letter from the Swanley Parish Council following a letter dated 7th July that the council received from the north-west Kent division of the Kent Education Committee. So the hon. Gentleman has been very quick off the mark.
I should like to explain briefly what my right hon. Friend's general approach to this problem is. Footbridges are by no means the only solution, and sometimes they may be a quite unsatisfactory answer. It all depends on the particular circumstances of each case. If the use likely to be made justifies it, a subway
1172
may be preferable even though in general it will be more expensive than a footbridge. My right hon. Friend's engineers estimate that ramped footbridges at Swanley would cost between £5,000 and £6,000 each. Another factor which has to be taken into account is the time factor. On present indications it would take many months before plans could be prepared in detail, and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the bypass round Swanley would probably be in operation a year or so after that.
Now, a word about speed of construction, a subject on which the hon. Gentleman rather criticised my right hon. Friend. Unless unforeseen difficulties arise, I think that it would not be too optimistic to hope that the whole stretch of the A2 will be completed in the next four years.
I do not want to be outdone by the hon. Gentleman, who mentioned a great many roads, and, just to show that I, too, have done some homework, here are two which he did not mention-Shepherds Lane and Darenth Road. He will be interested to know that we are proposing to carry out modifications at these junctions as well. New controllers are to be provided and at Shepherds Lane improvements will be made to the layout of the junction.
Although this is, perhaps, not much consolation to the hon. Gentleman, what is happening in his constituency is happening in many other areas. It is part of the price which has to be paid for modernising our road system. While the transformation is being undertaken, the situation is, naturally, unpleasant, but I hope that I have shown that, so far as the road schemes are concerned, we are getting a move on. As regards the places which he mentioned, particularly Princes Avenue, Dovedale Road, Lowfield Street and the footbridges at Swanley, I hope I have convinced him that the re-examination of the traffic pattern in the area, including the needs of pedestrians, shows that my right hon. Friend is anxious to produce a solution which would be helpful not only to the hon. Gentleman but to his constituents as a whole.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes to Eleven o'clock.

HOUSING
  Liverpool
  Liverpool
  Slum Clearance (Site Value Compensation)
  Slum Clearance (Site Value Compensation)
  Town and Country Planning Association (Report)
  Town and Country Planning Association (Report)
  Compulsory Purchase Orders (London)
  Compulsory Purchase Orders (London)
  Factory-made Houses
  Factory-made Houses
  Bristol
  Bristol
  Private Houses (Building Cost)
  Private Houses (Building Cost)
  Milner Holland Report
  Milner Holland Report
  Rents
  Rents
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Burial and Cremation Laws
  Burial and Cremation Laws
  South-East Lancashire Review Area (Report)
  South-East Lancashire Review Area (Report)
  Sheffield and Gainsborough (Boundary Commission's Report)
  Sheffield and Gainsborough (Boundary Commission's Report)
  Atmospheric Pollution (Sulphur Dioxide)
  Atmospheric Pollution (Sulphur Dioxide)
  Land, Golden Cross (Planning Permission)
  Land, Golden Cross (Planning Permission)
  Synthetic Detergents
  Synthetic Detergents
  Chelsea (District Audit)
  Chelsea (District Audit)
  Local Government Employees (Service Pensions)
  Local Government Employees (Service Pensions)
  Washington Development Corporation (Appointments)
  Washington Development Corporation (Appointments)
  Land, Solihull (Planning Permission)
  Land, Solihull (Planning Permission)
  Erith Marshes (Development)
  Erith Marshes (Development)
  Clearance Orders, Manchester
  Clearance Orders, Manchester
  Rating Valuation Appeals
  Rating Valuation Appeals
  York and North Midlands General Review Area (Report)
  York and North Midlands General Review Area (Report)
  Water Resources Board (Appointment)
  Water Resources Board (Appointment)
MALAYSIA
  Defence
  Defence
MALTA
  Naval Dockyard
  Naval Dockyard
  Admiralty Floating Dock
  Admiralty Floating Dock
SOUTH ARABIAN FEDERATION
  Sultan of Fadhli
  Sultan of Fadhli
TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
  Loan Offer
  Loan Offer
BRITISH GUIANA
  Powers of Detention
  Powers of Detention
AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND
  British Migrants
  British Migrants
SWAZILAND
  Legislative Council Election Proclamation (Offences)
  Legislative Council Election Proclamation (Offences)
SOUTHERN RHODESIA
  United Nations
  United Nations
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Eye Baths (Tax)
  Eye Baths (Tax)
  Civil Service (Salaries)
  Civil Service (Salaries)
  £ Sterling (Value)
  £ Sterling (Value)
  Public Servants and Departments (Inquiries into Allegations)
  Public Servants and Departments (Inquiries into Allegations)
  National Product, Interest Rates, Profits and Dividends
  National Product, Interest Rates, Profits and Dividends
  Richard Thomas & Baldwins Limited
  Richard Thomas & Baldwins Limited
POST OFFICE
  Mr. Stokoe (Loss)
  Mr. Stokoe (Loss)
  Postal and Telecommunication Charges
  Postal and Telecommunication Charges
  Special Stamp Issues (Eisteddfod of Wales)
  Special Stamp Issues (Eisteddfod of Wales)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Kiosks, Wales
  Kiosks, Wales
  Automatic Exchanges, Wales
  Automatic Exchanges, Wales
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  East Anglia
  East Anglia
  Offshore Radio Stations
  Offshore Radio Stations
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Spain (Leander Class Frigates)
  Spain (Leander Class Frigates)
  Malta (Floating Crane)
  Malta (Floating Crane)
  5th Battalion The King's Regiment (Camp)
  5th Battalion The King's Regiment (Camp)
  Supersonic Flying
  Supersonic Flying
INDUSTRY, TRADE AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
  Rumania (Reactor)
  Rumania (Reactor)
  North-East Region (Firms)
  North-East Region (Firms)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Government of Ireland Act, 1920
  Government of Ireland Act, 1920
  Approved Schools
  Approved Schools
  Police (Assistance from Public)
  Police (Assistance from Public)
ROADS
  Dorset
  Dorset
TRANSPORT
  Aberavon (Bus Service)
  Aberavon (Bus Service)
MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  Elmdon Airport (Runway Extension)
  Elmdon Airport (Runway Extension)
  Sonic Boom Damage (Claims)
  Sonic Boom Damage (Claims)
  Supersonic Flying
  Supersonic Flying
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Neutrogena Soap
  Neutrogena Soap
  Corned Beef
  Corned Beef
EDUCATION
  Chislehurst
  Chislehurst
EMPLOYMENT
  Holidays with Pay
  Holidays with Pay
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Cost of Living
  Cost of Living
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Retirement Pensioners
  Retirement Pensioners
  Sickness Benefit (Claims)
  Sickness Benefit (Claims)
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Iron and Steel Board (Research Expenditure)
  Iron and Steel Board (Research Expenditure)
  Crude Steel Output (Information)
  Crude Steel Output (Information)
  Hire-rolling Contracts
  Hire-rolling Contracts
  Steel Production Processes
  Steel Production Processes
  Crude Steel Production (Continental Comparisons)
  Crude Steel Production (Continental Comparisons)
  Non-alloy Steel Sheets and Plates
  Non-alloy Steel Sheets and Plates
SCOTLAND
  Youth Training and Conference Centre, Carberry Tower
  Youth Training and Conference Centre, Carberry Tower
  Sanitary Inspectors
  Sanitary Inspectors

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

CONTROL OF AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS
2.36 p.m.
THE EARL OF CROMARTIE: 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, in view of the increasing destruction of birds and honey bees, they will set up a permanent body with full powers to analyse, pass or reject all chemical sprays, seed dressings and other poisonous preparations now being used in great quantities in agriculture and horticulture, before they are put on the market by firms who are making huge profits from the sale of such poisons and who at present are entrusted with the analysis and testing of these very dangerous products which in all probability will turn out to be destructive to man as well as animals.]
EARL FERRERS: No, my Lords. As my noble friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food informed the House on March 24 of this year, Her Majesty's Government do not at present see any necessity for departing from the present voluntary control system whereby manufacturers notify the Ministry of any new agricultural chemical they are proposing to market, and provide extensive data about it. Noble Lords will know that these data and all other available information are considered by the Advisory Committee on Pesticides and other Toxic Chemicals and its scientific subcommittee which includes independent members and experts in chemistry, toxicology and medicine, and members nominated by the Nature Conservancy.
106
No new chemical is cleared unless these Committees and the Agriculture and Health Departments are satisfied that adequate safeguards can be applied to protect men and animals.
I ought to remind your Lordships that although the scheme has so far worked well, the Government have asked the Advisory Committee to consider and advise whether improvements to and extensions of the present arrangements are desirable to provide greater protection.
THE EARL OF CROMARTIE: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his very full Answer, but I am afraid that it does not satisfy me. Nor will it satisfy a great many other people, including the College of Agriculture for the North of Scotland. I think this is a very serious matter. Are we going to wait until we have a real disaster before the Government take any steps to put some sort of control on these things, which are doing incredible damage all over the country?

FINANCIAL AID FOR OVERSEAS SPORTS EVENTS
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a comprehensive statement upon the progress made by the Advisory Committee, under the chairmanship of Sir John Lang, and upon the result of applications made for financial assistance to enable teams to take part in amateur international sports events overseas; and whether any such applications are still under consideration.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH): My Lords, since the Advisory Committee was set up, 33 applications have been received. Of these 13 have been approved and 5 rejected. Of the remaining 15, 2 have been postponed, with the agreement of the applicant; 11 are the subject of discussion with applicants, in order to clarify various features

107
of the applications, and 2 are under consideration by the Committee. The Committee is meeting regularly and is, I think, making satisfactory progress.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, in thanking the noble Earl for that Answer, may I ask him, first of all, this very simple question? May we take it that where decisions are still pending they will not be reached too late to take effect for the teams concerned?
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lady need have no fears in that respect.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: I thank the noble Earl. May I now ask him something of which I have given him a certain amount of detail? Is he aware that the International Hockey Federation has honoured four of our umpires by selecting them to officiate at the Olympic Games in Tokyo this year, but that their expenses will be about £450 each? In view of the fact that the hockey enthusiasts have raised about £1,000 towards the estimated total of £1,800 required, would he ask Sir John Lang's Committee to meet the balance?
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, as the noble Lady is aware, the Advisory Committee are not concerned with the Olympic Games. I do not think the Government can help umpires to proceed to Tokyo. A separate grant has already been made to the British Olympic Association towards the British costs of the Olympic Games, and it is for them to use the money as they see fit. I fear that Her Majesty's Government cannot meet any further costs in connection with the Games.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that, however hard one tries to be nice, one never seems to get anywhere? May I ask him whether he would not agree that it is a compliment that this country is the only one which has been asked to provide four umpires? Would he not further agree that it is most disheartening when people have raised £1,000 of the £1,800 required, that the Government still do nothing?
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, if the noble Lady would care
108
to put down another Question on the Order Paper, I will do my best to answer it.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I shall be delighted. I hope that is a promise.

REMOVAL OF DOGS' VOCAL CORDS
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the increasing practice of operating on dogs to remove their vocal cords, and whether they will consider taking steps to stop this.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD DERWENT): My Lords, I have seen recent articles in the national Press reporting that an increasing number of dog owners are having operations performed on their dogs by veterinary surgeons to sever their vocal cords in order to make the animals less noisy. I understand that an operation of this kind, if properly carried out by a veterinary surgeon, and followed by good nursing, need not cause undue suffering during either the operation or the healing of the wound. While I can well understand that many people may regard such operations as undesirable, I do not think that there are grounds for altering the law so as to prohibit them. If in any particular case it could be shown that such an operation caused unnecessary suffering to a dog, the owner and the person performing the operation could be prosecuted under the Protection of Animals Act, 1911.
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask whether he would not agree that it is time to stop this increasing mutilation of dogs in the interests of social convenience? I am not one of those cranks who would put dogs before children, or any other urgent issue; but I believe it is time this practice was stopped. Is it not true that we have at the moment tail-less dogs, sexless dogs, coatless dogs and dogs with their eye-teeth removed—all in the interests of social convenience?

109
Is it not true that we are assured that the dog is very happy after these particular operations? Shall we not soon reach the stage when we have dogs with their legs removed because it is awkward to have them running round the house?—and eventually we shall arrive at the stage where we have dogless dogs. Could not the Government introduce at least some regulation to indicate that these increasing mutilations of animals are cruel?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, barking dogs can be a statutory nuisance, and if a court so orders, if the matter is taken to court, the dog may have to be destroyed. We know that there have been cases where dogs have had their vocal cords cut, following complaints, rather than face an order of the court for the dog to be put down as a statutory nuisance. Perhaps I might add, for general information, the view of the Royal Veterinary College Hospital (which, of course, is part of London University) upon this matter. They themselves agree to remove vocal cords only in special circumstances, such as those I have just mentioned. They do not think that the dogs suffer, nor that there are psychological effects due to their being unable to bark. I understand that the hospital do these operations in all cases where the removal of a bark is the only alternative to a dog's being destroyed.
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that further answer, but would he tell me exactly how it is possible to get that particular piece of information from a dog?
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, as one who is always interested in anything concerning dogs, may I ask the Minister who told him that barking dogs were a statutory nuisance? Was it the national federation of burglars?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I did not say that anyone told me that they were a statutory nuisance. I said they could be a statutory nuisance.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask whether the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals have made any representations on this matter?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am not aware that they have made any
110
representations, but of course they are always on the lookout for any cases where such an operation has been done, except under the proper auspices, such as by the Royal Veterinary College, and if they hear of a case they do make inquiries. But, so far as I am aware, they have not approached us on this matter.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, while some of us may have some sympathy with the very exceptional case to which my noble friend drew attention, is it not a fact that this practice, in the absence of such exceptional circumstances, is, like factory farming, a disgusting example of the idea that human beings are allowed to do anything they like with animals?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I cannot say that I like the idea of the practice, but that was not the original Question. The Question was whether the Government were prepared to introduce legislation, and I am afraid the answer to that at the moment is, "No".
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, is there not a further danger that, if these experiments are successful, they may be transferred to human beings, even politicians?

EXTENDED HOURS OF SOUND BROADCASTING
2.45 p.m.
LORD SANDYS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any evidence—

(a) of popular demand for the broadcasting of music for twenty or more hours a day; or

(b) that broadcasting of music at unsuitable hours has, or is likely to have, a bad effect on mental or physical health, or, by increasing the stress under which people live, is likely to make accidents more frequent.]

EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I should like to remind the noble Lord that the White Paper on Broadcasting (Cmnd. 1770), published in July, 1962, recorded

111
the B.B.C.'s proposals for extending the hours of sound broadcasting and the Government's decision to authorise the extension. The B.B.C. have now announced that they can go ahead and have told my right honourable friend that this has been generally welcomed. They are satisfied that there is a substantial demand. As to the second part of the noble Lord's Question, there will always be some inconsiderate people who will turn on their sets too loudly. But I do not think that this would justify withholding the extra service from those who would like it and who will, in the great majority of cases, be considerate of other people. In those individual cases where they are needed there are remedies under the Noise Abatement Act, the Common Law and by-laws.
LORD SANDYS: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for his very full reply, would he not agree that that statement is at variance with the Wilson Report on Noise, which was approved by Her Majesty's Government?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, clearly if sets are turned on too loudly they can be a great nuisance and a cause of great noise. But on the whole they are not used too loudly, and where they are, as I have said, the citizen has a right under the Common Law or local by-laws.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that the increased broadcasting at night might in fact save accidents, by preventing sleepiness in night drivers?
EARL FERRERS: That is certainly one idea, but I do not have any statistical information to show that that is so.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, may I remind my noble friend that one of the most irritating things—he referred to the set being played too loudly—is for a set to be played very softly so that one can hear only about one note or so?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, of course the noble Lord then has the option of switching his set on a little louder so that he can hear a few more notes.

BEDFORD CORPORATION BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

EMERGENCY LAWS (RE-ENACTMENTS AND REPEALS) BILL
House in Committee (according to Order).
House resumed. Bill reported without amendment: Report received.

ANIMALS (RESTRICTION OF IMPORTATION) BILL
2.50 p.m.
House in Committee (according to Order).
House resumed. Bill reported without amendment: Report received.

ADOPTION BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

FINANCE BILL
2.52 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT BLAKEN-HAM): My Lords, this Bill is designed to carry forward the Government's policy of expansion without inflation. In moving the Second Reading I shall not spend time on the smaller proposals, although these are well worth while. There is, for example, the clause exempting from Excise duty vehicles modified for invalids; and there is also the clause increasing the exemption limits for people over 65. This will exempt some 120,000 old people from taxation; and many others will pay less tax. But these proposals have all been discussed in another place, and therefore I propose to examine the Bill against the nation's financial and economic requirements. I propose to look first at what was done

113
by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1963, because it was in the Budget of that year that the foundations of our present economic expansion were laid.
Everyone will remember that that Budget introduced very substantial reliefs on direct taxation, so injecting more purchasing power into the economy. Big incentives—the system of free depreciation for new plant and machinery—were given to encourage industry to expand, as your Lordships will remember, in areas of high unemployment. These measures, and the greatly increased investment and depreciation allowances announced in the previous November, were designed to strengthen and modernise Britain's industrial base; and there is no doubt that the Government's economic policy has achieved a very great success. There were some who accused the Chancellor of timidy in the 1963 Budget, but the Opposition in another place were not sufficiently sure of themselves to press at that time for the rejection of the Chancellors' proposals. I think that this was just as well because I believe, to the fair-minded, it can be seen that the Chancellor's judgment was right.
On any count that you like to take—real income, production, employment or exports—1963 was undoubtedly a year of rapid growth.
LORD LINDGREN: Not for the postmen.
VISCOUNT BLAKENHAM: Investment is rising rapidly now. The incentives to industry to expand in areas of high unemployment have proved effective. At the same time—and this, I think, answers the interjection—prices have remained encouragingly stable, and we have done better in that respect than many of our Continental neighbours. The June issue of the Treasury's Bulletin for Industry carried a diagram, based on O.E.C.D. figures, which showed that between the fourth quarters of 1962 and 1963 consumer prices increased much less in Britain than in Italy, France and Germany. Of the major industrial countries, only the United States experienced a smaller increase in consumer prices. This was a point which the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, will remember that he mentioned in our March debate; but, in interrupting him, I pointed out that for
114
several years in the United States unemployment has been running at well over 5 per cent. of the total labour force; and I would suggest to your Lordships who like to compare America with us that this is a high price to pay in human terms for comparative price stability.
As I have said, expansion without inflation is the aim of this 1964 Budget, as indeed it was for the 1963 Budget. But your Lordships will recognise that the nature of the problem has changed. As I explained to the House in March, earlier this year production was expanding at an annual rate of about 6 per cent. This rate was possible only because slack was being taken up in the economy. Now, instead of generating expansion, this year's Budget has to moderate it. We have to aim at a transition to a rate of growth which can be sustained at about 4 per cent. The central feature of this Bill is that it registers a decision by the Chancellor to bring in about £100 million of additional revenue through increased taxes on tobacco and alcoholic drinks. This will in fact convert a prospective deficit of about £30 million into a surplus of £70 million. In deciding upon this additional taxation, my right honourable friend had to do two things. He had to combat trends in public expenditure and to cope with the economic situation as a whole.
Public expenditure has been mounting heavily and, as your Lordships know, there will be a further increase this year. Consolidated Fund services are expected to cost £49 million more than last year's Estimate, and total Supply expenditure £410 million more. The biggest increase expected in Supply expenditure is £161 million for Defence, or nearly a 9 per cent. increase. But there are bigger—and, indeed, often much bigger—percentage increases in provisions for universities and colleges for advanced technology, roads and hospitals. The non-specific grants to local authorities—the general grant, of which about 80 per cent. is for education, and the rate deficiency grants—show an increase of £93 million. On the other side, reductions are expected in the cost of agricultural support and in grants to the British Railways Board. But I do not think anybody will disagree that a rising level of public expenditure is essential if this country is to stay in the forefront of the advanced industrial nations.

115
A major innovation in Budget technique was marked by the White Paper on Public Expenditure up to 1967–68, published last December. This showed a most ambitious programme, and, of course, is made possible by what has been achieved over the last twelve years. As my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his Budget speech [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 693, col. 266]:
"It will certainly involve, even on the most favourable possible estimates of the growth of gross national product, a continuing increase in the proportion taken by public authorities."
The first reason, then, for an increase in taxation this year is the rising level of public expenditure.
The second reason is, of course, the economic situation. The Budget is only one of the measures that a Government can use to keep the economy on the path of steady, sustained growth. Sometimes the situation allows for cuts in taxes, and sometimes increases are necessary. No Government worth its salt, Election year or no Election year, should hesitate to increase taxation when this is needed. The adjustment in taxation that is best calculated to achieve this aim is, of course, very much a matter for individual judgment. In choosing an increase of £100 million the Chancellor of the Exchequer steered a course between widely differing streams of advice. The moderating effect of this £100 million extra taxation must be judged along with the increase in bank rate from 4 to 5 per cent., which brought us into line with changing conditions in world money markets.
Some advocates of much stiffer increases in taxation have accused the Chancellor of taking a risk with the economy. I believe that among the many things about which the "Shadow Chancellor", the honourable friend of noble Lords opposite, indicated that he could not make up his mind was whether what the Chancellor was doing was a "risk" or a "chance". But I personally do not think that any such criticism is justified. All decisions involve some kind of risk. We are still waiting to hear—we may hear it in the debate this afternoon—what sort of decision the Opposition would have made. Because once again, as in 1963, the Opposition in the other place were
116
not prepared to ask the House to reject the Government's proposals, although I think it is true to say if their Amendments had been accepted the total of increased taxation would have been whittled down.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Viscount? He said he would like to know what decision the Opposition would have taken. I am not quite clear what sort of decision he is talking about. Would he particularise?
VISCOUNT BLAKENHAM: My Lords, I am saying merely that in another place no line of constructive policy was put forward indicating what the Opposition would have done, supposing they had been in charge of the nation's finances.
LORD SHEPHERD: The noble Viscount did say that he was expecting to hear this afternoon.
VISCOUNT BLAKENHAM: I have great faith in your Lordships, and it may be we shall hear a great many constructive suggestions, and I know we shall listen to them with interest. The point I was making was that they were not heard in another place.
As I was saying, the Chancellor did make up his mind, and I think the record shows that his judgment is sound. Let us make no mistake: this Budget is a consciously bold one. Boldness is, in fact, what is needed, because over-caution could have brought a serious setback in expansion. If further action is needed at any time to restrain the economy, then of course it can be taken. There are powers available for dealing with short-term situations, and one of the features of this Finance Bill is the renewal of the regulator in a more flexible form. This will allow one or more of five major blocks of indirect taxation—tobacco, alcohol, oil, purchase tax and the remainder—to be excluded from its use. This will mean, for example, that if at some period in the future it should be necessary to use the regulator there would not necessarily be a further imposition on the tobacco or alcohol duties. Also it will enable surcharges or rebates under the regulator to be applied at different percentage rates for the different blocks of taxation.

117
Exactly three months have gone by since Budget Day, and this is time enough for the economic situation to move on. The facts now emerging provide a test of the soundness of the proposals in this Finance Bill, and of the extent to which the aims of the Government's economic policy are likely to be realised. First, there is no doubt that expansion is continuing. On the latest information available, fixed investment and exports are both rising. Exports from March to May were 2 per cent. more than in the previous three months, and 5 per cent. more than six months previously. Public investment continues to rise quickly. In the twelve months to last May the number of houses started was well over 400,000. Private industrial investment seems to be rising; the signs are that the expected increase in manufacturing investment has begun, and that a rise in commercial investment has been continuing.
On the other hand, some kinds of demand are not rising as fast as last year. For example, retail sales—which account for more than half of all personal consumption—have been steady so far this year. Hire-purchase and other installment-credit figures are high, but there seems to have been no further growth in recent months. The car boom, which brought new registrations to over the one million mark last year, now seems to be levelling out. Stockbuilding increased quickly towards the end of 1963, adding very significantly to the pace of expansion. The signs are that in recent months stockbuilding has remained high, but that it does not seem to be changing much. On the supply side, industrial production from February to April is estimated at one per cent. more than in the previous three months. This is about half the rate at which it had been increasing earlier.
Imports have been very stable since January. From March to May they were one per cent. higher than in the previous three months. So, although Britain's economy is continuing to expand, we seem to have succeeded in moderating the pace a little from the very high rates which I mentioned of last year. Several commentators have noted that there is not the same scramble for labour that happened in the previous expansion, 1960–61. New plant, new machinery are enabling a
118
more productive use of manpower to be made. While the latest unemployment figures show, for the first time for a long while, more vacancies than unemployed, we must remember that we are reaching the peak of seasonal employment and that we are expecting an unusually large number of school leavers to become available in the near future.
In his Budget speech my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer called attention to certain built-in factors which tend to correct an excessive rate of expansion. I would suggest to your Lordships that the facts now emerging, patchy and incomplete though they necessarily are, confirm the soundness of his judgment. The recent survey by the Federation of British Industries stresses that there is still a good deal of spare capacity in industry. But, having said that, I should add that we still have to watch the situation very closely. We must be ready to act to avoid the kind of "over-heating" that would lead us back to the problems of the kind that we have met as a country before.
We have recently had the balance-of-payments results for the first quarter of this year, followed by news of a drop in the reserves in June. I expect that a number of your Lordships will be dealing with these figures during the debate, but the main factor in the balance-of-payments results—the movement of current account from the small surplus in the last quarter of 1963 to a deficit of £67 million in the first quarter of this year—is, in fact, directly attributable to the rapid expansion of the nation's economy. This was expected. It was recognised and expected by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he spoke on the Budget and indicated that
"in so far as we are paying for imports that are necessary for economic expansion, we are…entitled to regard this as a proper subject for financing through the use of our external credit, so long—this condition must never be overlooked—as our domestic economy remains sound."
He also pointed out at that time that the net outflow on capital account, recently comparatively small, would increase this year.
The combination of an increased capital outflow with a deterioration in

119
the current account inevitably means a worsening of the overall balance of payments this year. But this should give rise to neither alarm nor dismay. The Chancellor has said on a number of occasions that in fact this is the predictable accompaniment of a vigorous rate of growth, which I think all of us are committed to seek. The deterioration was foreseen, and we are ready to deal with it with greatly improved machinery designed for this purpose.
So far, as I have indicated, this year we have had an encouraging rise in exports. After their big increase, which was necessary to prime the pump and to provide materials for working up into exports, imports have remained fairly steady. As a result, the deficit on visible trade has been falling slightly. I think there are good prospects for further increases in exports. Market conditions have already improved in primary producing countries, so our exports to the sterling area have been doing well. Exports to EFTA countries have been rising steadily, and those to the Common Market now seem to be rising again after being steady since the middle of last year. Again, with economic expansion quickening, the United States is likely to import substantially more this year.
But I must again emphasise what I said in March—namely, it is the inescapable truth that, if Britain is to achieve sustained economic growth and a sound balance of payments, we must take full advantage of the expansion of world markets. At the centre of the Government's economic policy is the aim of increasing the competitiveness of our exports. Many problems arise here, but the chief one is to ensure that our costs and prices compare favourably with those of our competitors. I have already quoted statistics showing that over the past year consumer prices rose less in Britain than with our European competitors. We can take a certain amount of satisfaction in this, but I am sure most of your Lordships will agree that we cannot really relax for a moment on this subject.
By far the most significant of the factors affecting prices is the movement of money incomes, in wages, salaries, gross profit and other trading incomes. Here, the Government's unremitting
120
search for agreement on an incomes policy remains our object. I believe that all sections of the community accept the need for an incomes policy, and to this extent, therefore, progress has been made. But the problems are complex and full of emotion, and often full of prejudice. Members of the Party opposite are apt to claim that they have all the answers, but the other day I noticed a report in the Press of a blunt warning from the Joint Secretary of the Boilermakers' Society that the Labour Party could not count on automatic co-operation from the unions. So it is a problem which I think affects both political Parties. So far as we are concerned, we shall continue discussion in the National Economic Development Council with the unions and the management side of industry; and we shall continue the process of education and persuasion, because, obviously, agreement on incomes policy will bring benefit to each one of us. Meanwhile, we need restraint and responsibility on the part of everyone who has a hand in determining the level of incomes.
Our achievements over the past twelve years have been most remarkable, and I do not see why we should be shy of talking about them, despite the problems that we have to face in the future. These achievements are outstanding. Our production of goods and services has increased in real terms by one-third in this period. Investment has gone up even more. In 1963, investment in plant and machinery was two-thirds bigger in real terms than it was in 1951. Expansion of national production has also made possible a great improvement in our living standards. Over the past ten years the total of personal income left after paying taxes and National Insurance contributions rose by 36 per cent., in real terms. As your Lordships know, personal savings have gone up from little more than £100 million in 1951 to a record of almost £2,000 million last year. There are also about 2 million more people in jobs today than in 1951, and over the whole period unemployment has averaged no more than 2 per cent. Therefore, the evidence of this greater prosperity is clear for everyone to see.
Then as regards housing, while, of course, bad spots remain, British people are infinitely better housed to-day than they were twelve years ago. Last

121
year, as a nation, we invested in real terms over four-fifths more in dwellings than in 1951. As well as more modern homes, we have far better standards of comfort and convenience in them. I think this is well illustrated by the fact that consumption of electricity in the home has doubled since 1951. At the same time, there have been big improvements in education, health and other social services. Expenditure on the social services rose from 13 per cent. of our national product in 1951 to over 16 per cent. in 1962.
I am glad to say that we have not forgotten the poorer countries overseas. Our aid to developing countries has risen from £63 million in 1951 to £175 million in 1963–64. By far the greater part of this has gone to the Commonwealth countries. These are some of the considerable achievements to which we in Britain can point. I am not suggesting that they are due solely to the action of the Government; but I am suggesting that the Government have during these years provided the right conditions to give opportunities for our people to exercise their own individual talents.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount one question? I do not want to interrupt his peroration. How is it that other countries have made much more rapid progress?
VISCOUNT BLAKENHAM: Well, we can have a long statistical argument. I understand the noble Earl is not speaking in the debate. I would say that these things are difficult to measure. If you talk about the recovery in Germany, or about the recovery of France, following upon the devastation of the war, because that devastation was far greater than ours the figures are difficult to compare. One could have a long and complicated debate on it.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, we made much faster developments in recovering from the war and did so to an extraordinary extent in the export trade. In addition to having so much damage to deal with, we were up to 25 per cent. of the export trade by 1951.
VISCOUNT BLAKENHAM: The noble Earl's noble friend seems to be arguing to the contrary. I was about to finish my remarks by saying that I am quite certain
122
that if we keep our heads and continue as we have been going, there is a great, considerable potential in our country for further economic expansion. The Government—any Government—have a duty to ensure that the economy remains sound, and to create the conditions for further progress. The Finance Bill makes a necessary contribution to such a policy. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Blakenham.)
3.21 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Viscount is certainly well-liked in this speech, but I can only say that, with the resources at his command at the Conservative Central Office, he might have done better. Furthermore, he might have addressed himself to some of the serious issues which confront this country, instead of giving us a not very convincing account of what the Government have achieved. Some of his statements are very odd indeed. He said, for instance, that we are continuing expansion, the foundations of which were laid in 1963. Our complaint is that the Government should have started laying the foundations for expansion about twelve years ago. He also said that much of this large increase in public expenditure—I believe it is £500 million—was due to the increase in expenditure in the public field. This is obvious.
What we should have liked to see was some indication that Government policy over the whole field of the economy, in relation to exports, and, above all, in relation to international liquidity (on which the noble Viscount said scarcely anything at all), was properly conceived and was part of the policy which "Neddy" had set out. The noble Viscount's speech merely confirms my opinion that, except for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, no member of the Government reads the "Neddy" reports. The Chancellor does not need to because he presides over "Neddy". But there was such a difference between the presentation that the Government in their more serious mood favour and the presentation in the speech to-day, that it makes it difficult to start a serious debate on the economic situation of this country. Let me first say to the noble Viscount, when he asks what our decision is, that budgetary policy is not a decision. It is made up

123
of a whole series of decisions and is based on a whole series of principles. The criticisms which we have of the Government relate much more to the absence of any coherent and principled approach to the economic problems of this country.
After those few opening remarks—I had not intended to start off my speech on a polemical basis, but the noble Viscount has challenged the Opposition—I will try to differentiate between the noble Viscount's approach and the approach which I personally should be inclined to take, and which I think many of my noble friends take in the present situation. I should like first to consider the state of the economy. We have one big advantage these days in debating economic affairs in that there is no shortage of informed, and indeed authoritative, information on what is happening to the economy. The fact that it is authoritative does not necessarily mean that it will work out in the way the authorities think it will. But we have a great deal of information from Government sources, and we have the advantage of bodies like the National Institute of Economics and their Review, we have the Bank of England Review, and unlimited opinion expressed in the Press.
There is one point on which the House as a whole might agree, and it would have been a little nearer to the truth of the present situation if the noble Viscount had started his remarks by stating this fact. It is that this country is now committed to running certain risks for the sake of quick expansion. This is not my opinion; this is taken from the National Institute Economic Review, and I hope we can all agree that this is so. I hasten to say that in the short term I am in favour of our following this sort of policy, but we run a risk that if it does not pay off we shall have to go back to the "Stop-Go" policy. Here I am differentiating again between the short-term and the long-term. Our criticism of Government policy relates not so much to the short-term as to the absence of the right long-term policy—a long-term policy, which as to both monetary policy and industrial and general economic policy has been urged for a long time.
124
In looking back over the past few months, we have seen the sudden rise in expansion when the Chancellor took, and rightly took, a chance last year; and, on the whole, there was little criticism of the detailed measures in the short term. There was the bank rate increase last February, and whether it was done purely to bring us into line with international rates or was an indication of the desire to take the necessary steps in time, on the whole it has done no harm. But when we come to look at budgetary policy, it is astonishing that the noble Viscount is able to come to this House and say that the Chancellor, by his wisdom, has chosen the right level of taxation.
In last year's Budget he cut taxes by £260 million; there was a saving of £112 million (we were under-spent by that amount); and, furthermore, £51 million extra money came in. So, of this skillfully arrived at £260 million, he got £160 million for which he had not covenanted. If he had not got this, the economy would be running hotter than it is now. This year we have an increase in taxation of £100 million. This is neither here nor there in terms of the broad movement of tax revenue. It is possibly a not unreasonable figure. Most of the experts suggested that it should be twice as much, and I think that their guess would be no better necessarily than the Chancellor's. But to regard this as the most subtle and skilled budgeting is a bit "thick"! Last year the right honourable gentleman reduced direct taxation, and particularly surtax, by a larger amount, only to replace some of this money by an indirect tax, thereby increasing the regressive element in the economy. I know that there are powerful arguments as to the way tax should fall in terms of broad economic policy, but if we are to talk about an incomes policy—and we have a perfunctory reference to an incomes policy—budgetary policy must be designed to achieve the policy the Government want. In this respect neither last year's Budget nor this year's Budget has contributed much towards it.
Looking at the economy, it is true that industry is to-day a little more optimistic—though not excessively so—about business and exports. What the noble Viscount said about retail trade is perfectly true. It was a little surprising that he said that the hire-purchase debt confirms that the retail trade is running

125
away, when the hire-purchase debt, for the first time in our history, now exceeds £1,000 million. It just shows that it is possible to take the figures and argue them any way you like; but certainly this increase in the hire-purchase debt has not gone unnoticed. It is also true that at last the lag in private investment is beginning to disappear, and that private investment is beginning to rise. Of course, one of the most important figures, to which again I think the noble Viscount made no reference, is the sudden increase in these last few months in stock-building. This is of the most profound importance, both in judging the state of the economy and in relation to the balance of payments.
My Lords, I do not want to talk too long on the subject of industrial output. I had meant to agree that there has been an increase of 6 per cent. over the last year. It is, of course, possible to say that there has been an increase of 6 per cent. over the last three years; it just depends where one starts. But the figure has gone up about 6 per cent. in three years, and again I think it would have been fairer if the Government had related this increase in production, and regarded it as a sequel, to that disastrous period, the Selwyn Lloyd era at the Treasury. My Lords, even this increase of 6 per cent. does not yet bring us anywhere near hitting the "Neddy" targets that we have to achieve and sustain over these next few years.
I do not want to make too much of this, but there are signs that the economy is being overloaded. The noble Viscount said that the indications of employment figures suggested that the situation was not getting serious. I think that, if the noble Viscount looks at the position for south-east England and the London area, he will see that it is in fact pretty acute here. At the same time we still find pockets of quite serious unemployment in other areas. I shall have some brief reference to make to those figures, even though I acknowledge that the Government have taken steps, and steps which we support, to improve the position in those areas.
When we come to the trade gap—and here I think we could lose ourselves in the complication of the figures—the fact remains that the crude trade gap is running at a figure equivalent to about
126
£240 million. If we take the "visible" trade gap and the "invisibles" and the capital movements, the combined current and capital account which in the first quarter of this year was £158 million in deficit, we find that it is running at an annual figure of £600 million. This, I would remind your Lordships, is two-thirds of the total size of our present gold and dollar reserves, which of course are no larger than they were in 1951. We do not, of course, know whether that figure of £600 million will be the end figure, because there is this large and extraordinary so-called balancing item, on which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, on a Question by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, yesterday was specially asked to say something. The fact that the situation does not look so serious in the last quarter is due to this huge balancing item of £89 million. I appreciate that this is very difficult to explain, and nobody attempts to do so. When the Minister replied yesterday he said rather less about it than has been said on previous occasions. But it is a vast sum, and it was particularly large in the last quarter.
The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said yesterday that there was a tendency for it to be positive, especially in the first quarter. It is conceivable that it could be negative over the whole year. In 1963 it was negative to the tune of £129 million. To this extent any discussion on our balance of payments is extraordinarily difficult, because there are no precise figures and it may well be, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, said yesterday, that we cannot hope to get any closer. Government spokesmen are at the moment making rather a lot of the unreliability of figures. But all this suggests (and I say no more than that it suggests) that the economic situation in relation to the balance of payments is not necessarily a healthy one. The pound is bumping along at the moment. It may well be all right, but there is a possibility of quite a serious deficit by the end of the year.
This brings me now to this whole question of the sterling area and liquidity. The noble Lord said that the Government are, of course, prepared to meet deficiencies by specially designed machinery—I think he used those words—rather implying that this was

127
machinery specially designed by the Government. Of course, it is not specially designed national machinery; it is a measure of the improved international co-operation. This is a point on which I think all noble Lords, and all those interested in the economic progress of the country, would support the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has shown very considerable initiative. I previously said that it was a pity that something along the lines of the Maudling plan, in relation to which there have come to light some serious disadvantages, had not been acceptable.
The Paris "club" meeting has on the whole been disappointing, except for the proposal of an increase in Inter-nation Monetary Fund grants. Of course our stand-by is the International Monetary Fund, and the backing of the central bankers who have in recent months and years played a much more constructive part than has been played in the past. It is here that we look for help to get through what might be a difficult period. But nothing will alter the fact that the basic relationship between this country's economy and the sterling area is extremely unsound. It has been said that you need a better relationship between the superstructure of the sterling area and the infrastructure of our economy, and the whole sterling area has been described as an inverted pyramid.
I should like to draw attention to a quite admirable book that has recently been written by Christopher McMahon on Sterling in the 'Sixties, and it is worth considering whether the conclusions that he comes to are ones which we can reasonably accept. It is true—and I think this was implicit in what the noble Viscount said, although he put it in a purely partisan context—that the European Economic Community countries seem to be running into some kind of cost inflation of a sort with which we have been familiar. But on this I would say that it would be wrong to expect the E.E.C. necessarily to run into a really serious economic crisis. There are signs of a crisis in terms of prices; but, on the whole, I think the capacity of the E.E.C. economy to go on expanding is strong, and this is important from our own point of view.
Also, it is arguable whether we are nearer a workable incomes policy than
128
anyone else. This is the case when we take into account the date of the General Election, because I think there is not the slightest hope of the Government's achieving an incomes policy when they follow the budgetary policies that they follow to-day. It is no use the noble Viscount saying that they are using all their endeavours to bring an incomes policy about, and I shall have more to say on this. But, clearly, an incomes policy is fundamental to the successful management of this country, as was made very clear by noble Lords in the previous debate. I particularly remember the speech of my noble friend Lord Champion on the subject, and I will deal with this matter in a little more detail.
The point is, then, that we are stuck with the sterling area. There are prospects, with reasonable management and the right economic policies, of getting by, but when we look at the fact that the failure or success of this country in terms of balance of payments depends on a mere 3 or 4 per cent., a mere £300 to £400 million, against a total overseas trade of £7,000 million, it suggests that we are at the mercy of a particularly narrow and arbitrary factor. It would be perfectly possible to have a temporary, weak current account when the economy was strong. This is the very basis of the problem; and when the noble Viscount says, "Of course, the balance-of-payments situation is worsening because we are expanding more", as if this is a desirable thing, he is merely stating the problem which has bedevilled us ever since the war. It is in dealing with this rather than merely stating the problem that we are most interested. As I say, our future may depend, in the short term, purely on the level of stockbuilding that goes on in this country.
The first thing we need to do is to be realistic; and in this I think the present Chancellor has been more realistic than previous Chancellors. It is simply no use our thinking in terms of independent national power, any more than it is possible to think, in ultimate terms, of national military independence. My Lords, we are much more dependent on others. We are dependent on the I.M.F. facilities—and here again I would give a pat on the back to the Chancellor of the Exchequer

129
for the swap arrangements which have been introduced and which are available. But what is needed is a more purposive approach to the economy; and here, as I say, we have the advantage of the National Economic Development Council. I would say that the measure of progress in indicative planning, as set out in their documents, is quite encouraging.
But does Government policy conform to overall national needs? Here I should like to say what I think those are. First of all, budgetary policy must harmonise with the rate of expansion. In the short term I do not particularly quarrel with this Budget, although I do purely in this respect. Secondly, it must selectively help various parts of the economy—and here it does very little. Thirdly, we must get the right sort of social climate; and it is at this point that the Government fail time and again. That is why it is so futile for the noble Viscount to ask, "What is your decision?" Our decision is based on a fundamentally different approach to the management of the economy of this country.
On the first point, on the control of industry, I should like to suggest that it would be possible—and the Government have done a little of this, so they can have no grumble on the principle— to discriminate between industries, between firms and between areas. They have already begun to do something about it. There is discrimination, for instance, between the rate of depreciation; there is discrimination between the types of industry, and whether they be commercial buildings or whether they be factories. But while we do not want to encourage an autarchic situation in which to live within this island, or even within the Commonwealth, there is more that could be done to develop industry in order to give us the increased production that we need, and that we need to sustain. The Government have moved far away from the laissez-faire policy of the past, but we have not gone anything like far enough.
In case there is any misunderstanding, may I say that I am not advocating a revival of the Capital Issues Committee; but I am suggesting that more help of the kind that has already been given in the development areas could be given
130
for industry in the way of special allowances. More could be done by way of development contracts. For years, I think ever since 1952, the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy has been calling on the Government to make use of development contracts, and only now are they beginning to do so. There is probably scope for more actual partnership between Government and particular industries—and by this, in case noble Lords are inclined to pick on these words, may I say I am not suggesting nationalisation; I am merely saying that where Government money goes into an industry and where it is in the public interest to encourage that industry, it may well be, as in other countries, that there should be Government participation, at least in the profits; and certainly the Government will bear the losses.
We need a more coherent form of national planning. My noble friend Lord Taylor showed how the South-East England Plan was a negation of a planned approach to this nation's economy. What do the Government give us in dealing with this subject? They give us a fiddling little Bill on resale price maintenance, which they do not believe in themselves, which contains some absolutely unintelligible clauses, and which is intended to play a part in suggesting to the housewife that the Government are looking after them and stopping the prices from rising. Incidentally, the noble Viscount tried to suggest that prices have not risen. They have risen three points in the last twelve months. I do not know whether the noble Viscount was unaware of that.
VISCOUNT BLAKENHAM: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt, but I am sure the noble Lord does not want to misrepresent what I said. I said they have risen less than in certain European countries, and I actually named those European countries.
LORD SHACKLETON: I agree they have risen less, but I think it would have been fairer to give the full figures, and I shall have something to say about comparative price rises with other countries, as the noble Viscount has brought the subject up. The important thing, clearly, is that we need

131
a much more conscious approach to planning, and we need the use of budgetary policy in this matter. The first and most important need is an incomes policy. We shall not achieve a socially just society, we shall not get the co-operation of the trade unions—a Labour Government will not get the co-operation of the trade unions, perfectly rightly—unless we follow a socially just policy; but the trade unions know perfectly well that the present situation is unsatisfactory and is unfair. My Lords, I suggest that if we are asking people to forgo their power to raise their pay, then it is necessary that they should be satisfied that others are making similar sacrifices—and the tax system must be used for this purpose.
Here, again, the real trouble is that the present taxation system is on a very narrow base. It is weighted heavily against the salary and wage earner; and certain people escape very lightly from paying taxes at all. My Lords, the Government, whatever Government it is, simply must face this. There is not time to go through all the possible taxes. We know that "Neddy" said that a wealth tax—and this was at a meeting of "Neddy" presided over by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—might be a useful factor in growth. There might be selective National Insurance contributions. We know that the added-value tax and turnover taxation since the Richardson Report are now "out". But it is likely that we have to face a corporation tax; we may have to face taxation on capital gains; and there are other things.
I should like here to refer to the Richardson Report, in case it is suggested that this country is overtaxed. If we look at the figures, we see that the rate of tax in this country is 34 per cent. as opposed to West Germany's 41 per cent. and France's 41 per cent. But what is really striking—and I draw the attention of noble Lords to paragraphs 159 to 173 of the Richardson Report in which it is made clear—is that, whereas the marginal rate of tax in this country is probably comparable (it is not as high as in West Germany, but it is comparable to that in the United States and Canada), the actual rate of tax is probably very much lower. Indeed, it has been suggested that company taxation is somewhere around 35 per cent. as opposed to the 50 per cent.
132
in the countries I have mentioned. The system of capital allowances—and I quote Richardson—
"is generous by comparison with others".
Then:
"the rate is higher in this country than in others".
This country compares favourably when we look at the percentage rate of taxes by themselves; when we look at tax allowances given for favourable investment.
"Capital gains are in general",
says Richardson,
"treated as taxable income of companies by all countries except Canada and the United Kingdom."
One could go on quoting from this to suggest that, if we are to pursue an incomes policy, it is in this field that a major re-thinking on taxation is necessary. I am sorry that the Government have not considered Professor Malet's very interesting proposals for an incomes equalisation tax. It was published in the Observer, and in it is a direct correlation between the indices showing wage rates and the indices showing dividend rates. This might well be fundamental to achieving a satisfactory incomes policy.
I could go on at great length about the failure of this Government. The noble Viscount did rather "stick his neck out" on one or two things. He was talking about production. I did not intend to go back to these boring league tables, but I have them. The percentage increases in production between 1951 and 1963 for about ten countries show us to be at the bottom at 38 per cent. The figure for Belgium is 43 per cent.; for the U.S.A., 43 per cent.; for Sweden, 53 per cent. And these are countries which have not been devastated by war. Then the figures for Holland, France and Germany increase to an enormously greater degree. And the same with exports. In prices this country has, in fact, done rather badly in comparison with other countries over that period. The Belgian increase was 16 per cent.; for Canada it was 17 per cent.; for Germany, 22 per cent.; and for this country, 50 per cent. I cannot understand how the noble Viscount, in a serious economic debate, can attempt to produce the figures that he did related to the short term.

133
We know that the public debt has gone up and the gold and dollar reserves are about the same as they were twelve years ago. I have already referred to prices. Exports, as my noble friend Lord Alexander of Hillsborough said, went up by 75 per cent. in the first six years after the war, and in the last twelve years they have gone up by 33 per cent. The fact is that we are still working longer hours than the majority of the countries that we are competing with. This is the most astonishing figure of the lot, and if the noble Viscount wants these figures I can give them to him, but he should know them because he was Minister of Labour.
This is the moment, when there is a need to expand the economy, when there is a need to achieve a more just basis for the taxation system, that the Government choose to put £100 million taxation on tobacco and alcohol, and, incidentally, they used up a part of the regulator resources at their disposal. It is no good the Government saying that they can use them again. I do not believe that they would have the face to give another "upping", although they have the power. They have limited regulating resources. This is the moment, when our economy needs to be more efficient, that they choose to go to the nationalised industries to ask them to cut back in their investment programme. We know from "Neddy" targets that there must be a large increase in production of electricity and gas. We need more efficiency on the railways. And the only thing the Government do at the moment is to ask them to cut back. We will say this for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He is walking this particular tightrope with a surer foot than his predecessors, who were inclined to fall off it altogether.
My Lords, we are standing still. Certainly there is a short-term improvement, which we acknowledge; and in this respect we acknowledge the virtues of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer's policy, but there is still no sign of an approach to a rational incomes policy. The approach to planning is still a "fiddly" one; and, if we are to go in for the expenditure over the next five or seven years to which the Government have referred, we cannot achieve that, or our "Neddy" target, without
134
a much more fundamental and more socially-based approach to our economic policy.
3.55 p.m.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: My Lords, I am afraid I shall be putting a point of view rather different from those of the noble Viscount and the noble Lord who has just sat down. I want to do this as shortly as possible. I feel tempted to call this Bill insignificant, but then I recall that it imposes something like £100 million of additional taxation on a people already fed up with the burdens it has to bear. This quite simply is the purpose of the first four clauses of this Bill and of five Schedules attached to it. The chief reason given for this additional taxation is not so much that the money is needed to balance the Budget, but that some purchasing power must be "mopped up" to slow down the expansion of the economy from 6 per cent. to 4 per cent. Four per cent. is the maximum under the present methods of directing our economy that we are supposed to be able to afford without a strain on our balance of payments. Unfortunately the Government are again relying upon an increase in Treasury bills to balance the current account, increasing the national debt by the issue of these Treasury bills by some £200 million.
I need hardly say I do not accept what is called the "new approach", with emphasis on growth, as soundly based so long as there is no fixed standard of value to which our money is related. It may be called by those who believe in it a dynamic concept to look to the future objectives of the economy and the rate of growth needed to obtain these objectives, without preoccupation with a satisfactory cash balance of income and expenditure or concern with the national balance of incomes and expenditure. I am sorry, but to me this does not make sense, and I can quite understand that Mr. Cousins fights shy of co-operation in basing any prices or incomes policy on such a theory, irrespective of the Party from which it may come. The studies, to which the noble Lord who has just sat down referred, done at the request of member Governments within O.E.C.D. during the last two years on costs of production and prices and on policies for price stability,

135
show the improbability of any Government being able to find a way out of the difficulties in which they would become involved if they tried to solve the problem of runaway prices by regulations applied to wages or incomes of many varied types.
For a moment may I return to the ever-mounting expenditure disclosed in the Budget year after year? There may come a time when, on review, we might think that what we get for our money is not worth the cost we pay for it. But to judge this we need a simple account which everybody who does a personal housekeeping account can understand. I think it was either the second or third Chancellor of the Exchequer back (if I may put it like that) who promised both a simplified account and a simplified structure of taxation, which we were told was being studied in the Treasury. What became of these good intentions? That is the first question that I should like to ask the noble Viscount.
In 1958 the O.E.E.C., as it then was, made some suggestions for a common form of national account to be used in all European countries. Comparisons as between one country and another in Europe, based on the same form, would be very useful and might help to show up some injustices in our taxation programme. This brings me to the second question I should like to ask the noble Viscount. Has any consideration been given to the possibility of a common form of account in different European countries? Personally, I should like to see a consolidated account bringing in profit and loss from each of the nationalised industries. We cannot have a proper account without such a consolidated balance sheet.
The sooner the Government return to the practice of justifying their proposed expenditure and then confine themselves to telling us simply how they propose to raise the money, the better. In these days we are just told that we are committed to this and that expenditure; that the cost of these commitments has gone up, or that the population has gone up, or that the number of children in schools has gone up, or that the number of pills and drugs being taken has gone up; so there is no argument; expenditure must go up. It is all inevitable.
136
That is why I have been pleading for a simple account so that our expenditure under various headings could be reviewed. Personally I have never been able to ascertain clearly, for instance, how much of our military expenditure is due to decisions in NATO or whether there is any watchdog against waste in the expenditure of the combined national contributions to that organisation. I would suggest that a little more clarity on points like this is desirable in our accounts.
The remaining clauses of Part I of the Bill deal with our commitments within EFTA to make competitive conditions in the countries of the Association equal; that is to say, in so far as industrial production is concerned, because agricultural production is not covered, as we know, by this Treaty. I should like to ask the Minister, if he can tell us when he replies, whether any benefit has resulted to British consumers from this Free Trade Association and from the reductions of tariffs which have taken place between the EFTA countries.
Passing to Part II, which continues the income tax and surtax rates as before, I would suggest that at a time when savings are vital to Government policy and National Savings alone this year reached a total of £8,000 million, it seems to me incongruous that distinction is still made on the rate of taxation between income earned and income derived from savings at a level of the pre-war equivalent of something like £500 a year. In those circumstances, is it any wonder that anti-evasion clauses clutter up every Finance Bill; and if Opposition speakers think that those who are on P.A.Y.E. arrangements do not know a thing or two about tax avoidance they must sometimes turn a deaf ear to what they hear. I suggest that anti-evasion clauses might in future be reciprocal; that compensation should be payable when the Government pay out their obligations contracted some years before in currency which has deteriorated in the meantime.
We hear a lot from members of the Opposition about taxing increments of capital. If the value of money falls, as it has been doing, at a rate of some 25 per cent. over a period of 7 years, how is increment to be calculated? Of course, it is obvious that there can be no justice where there is no stable money.

137
When Government place in the hands of their citizens a currency the value of which they do not maintain, they forfeit, in my view, all claim to be the judge of commercial morality and honesty.
This brings me to the main point I wish to make to-day. To make the indictment clear, may I quote the index figures for consumer prices, to which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, briefly referred, as recorded by O.E.C.D.? As noble Lords will remember, a new start was made in Europe after 1948, when all Governments pledged themselves inter alia to maintain stable currencies. The figures I shall quote show the complete failure of their efforts. For Great Britain, starting with an index figure of 81 in 1950, it rose to 100 in 1953, and to-day stands at 133; an increase of just under 3½ per cent. per annum over the last ten years. In Europe only France had a worse record over that period. In Italy, after a remarkable effort of recovery, a serious deterioration recently set in, when the consumer price level mounted to the same figure as ours and to-day probably exceeds it.
My Lords, the Bulletin to which the noble Viscount referred takes a year which includes the last quarter of 1962 and three quarters of 1963, to show that over this particular period the position of Italy, France and Germany deteriorated more than it did in this country. It is much fairer, I think, to take the longer period to which I have referred. Because all European countries, with one exception, have more or less kept in line: actual devaluation has been avoided. All European countries have let their currencies slide downwards and because of this there has been no alteration in the exchange rates between them. The exception was, of course, Germany. On one occasion Germany was forced to up-value her currency to avoid a devalution by the rest; and it is now being suggested, in some quarters, that this process might be repeated "to save face" on the part of the rest of Europe.
To talk of growth or expansion or annual increases of 3½ per cent. earnings in such conditions is pure hypocrisy and instigates anarchy in the strong, who have sufficient bargaining power, despair in the weak. I sense that at last this is beginning to dawn upon Governments. Europe has been on the slippery road and there is
138
no way to restore sanity to our economy or justice to our workers until we have some standard by which we can test the value of the currency we are given.
For the past year a Committee of the International Monetary Fund called the Committee of Ten has been studying the question of liquidity and monetary policy. We should like to see the Report of this Committee as soon as possible. It is, I believe, to be presented at the annual meeting of the International Monetary Fund to be held in Tokyo in September. May I say that I hope that at that meeting the British representatives will stand with the representatives of France, Germany and the Netherlands, who seem to have become aware of the danger of putting expansion before stability, before it is too late to stave off a more rapid deterioration which threatens all our currencies.
The former managing director of the International Monetary Fund Mr. Per Jacobsson said, not long before his death,
"It seems to be a lesson of history that without stable money neither justice nor progress can be assured. Without it nations lose their self-respect and the esteem of other nations."
If the meeting in September makes it clear that it is monetary order that is needed to restore confidence rather than increased liquidity, Governments may get down to the problems they have to face to give their peoples a sound currency with which to go about their daily business. Surely this is the first duty of any Government. Until we have achieved this basic necessity, I shall continue to doubt figures based on a currency continually falling in the value of its purchasing power.
4.12 p.m.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, has done well to remind us of the importance of the value of money, and I hope later to make some reference to his remarks. But, in general, I should like to return to the more political tone of the two opening, and very interesting, speeches which we have heard.
Can one imagine a more difficult and daunting situation than to be a Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer in the year of a General Election which the Labour Party might conceivably win? For the time being he must expect foreigners to be cautious in their dealings

139
with this country, and some, at least, of our own exporters to remit their earnings less promptly than usual. Above all, he cannot hope to receive that help in putting across an incomes policy which would be accorded to him were we at the beginning and not at the end of a Parliament. I think history will show that, in these unenviable circumstances, Mr. Maudling has managed our affairs very skilfully. He has steered the economy into a period of sustained growth, greatly benefiting the areas of less than-full employment; and he has done this without running into a crisis on the foreign exchanges. Sir Stafford Cripps was not able to do that; and Mr. Hugh Gaitskell was not able to do it. We on these Benches may be forgiven if we doubt whether any future Socialist Chancellor of the Exchequer can do it.
Mr. Maudling has undoubtedly been helped by a cheerful circumstance, of which he no doubt took full account. Since he went to the Treasury the efficiency of British industry has increased much faster than at any previous time. This has been most obvious in the growth industries; but a sharp and widespread increase has taken place in the number of firms in all industries, which now deserve to be called a growth business. As a result of the shock of being shut out of the Common Market, and of the rigours of the credit restrictions imposed by Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, a great many companies began a successful search for economies. Very substantial advances in technology have been made, which no doubt owe a good deal to the general improvement in our technical education. I can give the House one sign of the times, which I do not think is an isolated example. A telegram from Japan was received the other day by a British fibre-making company begging them not to undersell Japanese fibres in world markets. That is quite a new situation.
I do not doubt for a moment that this spurt in efficiency, which I believe will continue, has much helped the Chancellor to expand the economy within the safety limits. The Budget and the Finance Bill seem to me to have gauged very accurately all this complex of influences in a pre-Election summer. The Chancellor should be congratulated on a shrewd estimate of what would be required.
140
But, looking further ahead, we shall still be faced by that baffling conundrum, how to maintain stable prices, full employment and free collective bargaining. Most people now feel that one of those three objectives must be in part abandoned. Which one should it be? To abandon stable prices (here I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester) would be to throw overboard all those virtues of thrift and steady living which we know to be morally right. It would be intolerable deliberately to bring about that demoralising situation. Full employment has equally strong claims to be cherished and defended. So we are left with the third objective, the free-for-all in demanding and getting increases in incomes. I agree with my noble friend Lord Blakenham that opinion has moved a long way on this third objective. To-day it seems pretty generally agreed that somehow we must keep rises in incomes within the limits set by the rise in output at costs which are competitive in overseas markets. The problem is how to do this fairly and in a free society.
In aiming at such a policy, a Chancellor of the Exchequer has two preliminary duties to perform. He must proclaim the need for the policy in words and actions which leave no doubt that he and his colleagues really believe in it. After a little hesitation, and especially after hearing the speech of my noble friend, I am sure we can now say that the Government are doing this in a convincing manner.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount whether, when he refers to incomes, he includes rents and profits?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, I do indeed; and I will come on to that point in a moment. Secondly, the Chancellor is responsible for the amount of money in circulation. As a student I was taught that purchasing power is a combination of the amount of money and the rate at which it changes hands. Therefore the Chancellor has to see that monetary policy helps, and does not hinder, a reasonable restraint in incomes. If there is too much money about, it is not human to expect employers and trade unions to abide by the rules of a reasonable incomes policy. The bargaining

141
power of labour is too temptingly strong; it is too easy to pass on rising costs, and it is too easy to make profits. Therefore, the Chancellor's first duty is to stop this situation from developing.
My own view—it is not much more than a hunch—is that Mr. Maudling has had to allow rather more money to get into circulation than would be prudent, were it not for the check to spending and investing imposed by the coming Election. It may seem, looking around, that there is plenty of spending and investing, but in fact there is also a great deal of money set on one side. If, as I feel confident, the Government win the Election, the Chancellor is going to have a considerable boom on his hands. But far better that than another dose of nationalisation, of higher taxation on the sinews of industry; and, worst of all, discrimination in taxation between one firm and another inside the same industry!
So much for the preliminaries for an incomes policy. Its success will never be assured by wise monetary management alone. There are also the moral and political issues which demand any Government's attention. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has said, in so many words, that his supporters would not allow the national interest to be brought in as a reason for restraint in wages, if the national interest is not also brought in in respect of dividends and profits. That is a condition which I fully accept in principle. But what I cannot accept is the ways and means by which Labour spokesmen say they would accomplish this all-round restraint in incomes.
I would invite the House for a moment or two to consider this very complicated problem. Of course, profits take many forms. When they are in the hands of individuals, no matter how they arose, they can be spent as income; and taxation is the proper instrument for dealing with incomes. We already have surtax and a capital gains tax, and though I much dislike the form of the latter tax, it is at least something that it has been accepted by Parliament in principle. I hope, therefore, that we can agree that taxation of all kinds of incomes—and I mean what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said in his intervention—must be seen to be fair if an incomes policy has any chance of success.
142
Where the Party opposite are doing harm, is in saying that they want to tax more heavily company profits as well as dividends and capital gains. Company profits are not readily susceptible to what one might call the "guiding light" technique. When the Chancellor says that wages and salaries ought not to rise by more than 3 or 3½ per cent. in a year, we know what he means in a rough and ready way, which serves a useful purpose. The Chancellor's figure acts as a guide in wage negotiations, although, of course, overtime earnings and fringe benefits can influence what actually happens. But company profits are very different. They vary far more widely than wages from one industry to another, and from one firm to another inside the same industry. The extent of this variation is not only inevitable, it is highly beneficial, since profits in a market economy are the impulse behind growth, and the nation needs growth in an increasing measure.
Even supposing we were foolish enough again to nationalise steel, the great bulk of all British manufactures would still come from the private sector. How, then, can the "guiding light" or a tax, which is the equivalent of the "guiding light", be produced for such widely assorted rates of profit as are earned by joint stock companies? It has been suggested that we should use an index of aggregate profits and then automatically put the profit tax up or down as that index falls behind or goes ahead of the index of wages and salaries. This idea was too quickly put on one side. It ought to appeal to those who fear that restraint in wages must lead to higher profits. This, of course, is by no means inevitable. If Mr. Heath's measures to make the economy more competitive really bite, then these profits will be harder to make in any case. But the idea has the attraction of linking some representative figure of profits with wages and salaries.
But I find here a really substantial difficulty. We do not know with any certainty what the real profits of industry are—by which I mean those profits which it would be fair to compare with wages and salaries. Companies report to their shareholders the profits which their auditors and the Inland Revenue officials will allow them to

143
declare. But the fact is that all too often, within the law, they can, and do, declare far more than they have strictly earned. Take, for example, the sums not distributed as dividends, but retained in the business. A favourite theme of Labour speakers is that these sums are added to the assets of the business, and are therefore deferred income which, sooner or later, will come into the hands of the shareholders, either in the form of bonus issue or higher dividends. In actual fact, this is not happening in a very large number of cases. A substantial portion of these retained profits do not increase the assets at all. They have to be used to prevent a decrease in the assets, which is a very different thing.
In our age technical change is so rapid that machines and processes must often, before they have been worn out, be replaced by quite different and very expensive new equipment—that is, if the business is to stay where it is, let alone make any further profits. I believe that careful analysis would show that not only substantial portions of retained profits, but also a good slice of the dividends paid since the war were not really earned in the way in which I have described. I think your Lordships have only to reflect upon the history of the shipping industry to know that what I am saying is abundantly true—and it would be true of considerable parts of other industries.
It follows that, before we think of using an index of declared profits as a comparable measure to the index of earnings, we ought to deduct from the declared profits the sums necessary to maintain a business where it is now. If we do not do that, the prospect for those employed in the business of further increases in wages and salaries must clearly be prejudiced. In my view, this would require more than simply allowing replacement cost for depreciation. It would have to take account of the fact that the more rapid technical change becomes, the more often a machine or a process must be replaced by something quite different, and costing very much more. How, then, could anyone who understands and really wants to see the application of science to industry talk about increasing taxation of company profits, as opposed to
144
income in the hands of individuals at this time?
The Labour Party have a split mind. They enthuse about science with all the fervour of new converts, and in the next breath they threaten to increase taxation on the very funds out of which the application of science to industry must be financed. I have looked up the record of the Labour Party on this subject and I should like to give your Lordships just a couple of quotations. In a booklet called Signposts for the 'Sixties, which I understand is the Labour Party statement of their home policy, we read on page 34:
"More of the tax burden should be shifted from earned incomes to the higher unearned incomes and company profits."
And, speaking at Swansea last January, Mr. Harold Wilson endorsed this statement, when he said:
"We should like to see a redistribution of the burden, between company taxation and taxes on the individual, to the benefit of the individual."
And perhaps it is worth noting that, earlier in the same speech, Mr. Wilson had said:
"The Budget will have to provide in the Budget surplus for some of the capital needed for new investment."
So we can take it that Mr. Wilson looks forward to higher taxation in total and to a larger share of this higher total coming from company profits.
I was not going to trouble your Lordships with the further aspect of company taxation that is in the Labour Party policy, but the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, referred to it; therefore, I should like to say a word about it. So far as I remember Mr. Harold Wilson's own phrasing, he said that a Labour Government would tax less the "energetic and enterprising" companies and tax more the "lazy and slothful" companies. I think that at least I have the adjectives right. Who would decide who is the sleepy man to be kicked when he is down and who is the prosperous fellow who could be allowed to keep more of his profits? I suppose it would be the gentlemen in Whitehall, about whom we used to hear thirteen years ago. We have almost forgotten them, but evidently they are to come back. Perhaps it would be Mr. George Brown, or the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, or

145
the noble Lord, Lord Bowden. They would go round British industry, and this is what they would be doing: they would be distributing enormous financial penalties and enormous financial favours as between one firm and another in the same industry.
This is not the same as singling out an area of the country where there has been higher than average unemployment and saying to all businessmen in that area, "We do not care whether you make this or that, whether you are large or small, or whether you have electronic equipment or not, but in order to give employment any firm in this area may qualify, if it fulfils certain conditions, for a Government grant". This is distinguishing between two taxpayers of the same kind and saying to one company that they will have to pay a higher rated tax than the other. That is too distasteful to contemplate.
Returning for one moment to the taxation of company profits in general, I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, who is to wind up from the Opposition Front Bench: which does his Party believe in—science and technology, or heavier company taxation? They must choose. If they say that they believe in modernising British industry, then they must relieve of taxation profits used for that purpose. If they say that they are going to tax company profits more heavily, which is indeed the official line, they must give up the humbug of championing science and technology. I hope that the noble Lord will give us a clear answer, because I can assure him that this is a problem which is disturbing the minds of ordinary business people, who find it a matter of great anxiety that these contradictory notions can be entertained by men who aspire to form the Government of the country. Britain lives on her industries and these are now threatened by heavier taxation. We ought not to rise for the Summer Recess without eliciting from the Opposition some further explanation of this damaging proposal.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, could he tell me in what way, either under this Government or a future Government, research is taxed? Because that seems to me to be an allowable charge. I have been following his argument with great interest
146
and wondered whether he was not advocating a differential profits tax.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord is familiar with industry. Let him just consider the difference in the sums which a firm spends on research, or should spend on research, and what it takes if the whole of one of their plants has to be taken out, scrapped and another one put back. If we do not do this, more especially in the chemical and growth industries, we have no chance of keeping up. The magnitude of money now required to keep a business really in the forefront of technical progress is tremendous. I have never thought much of the principle of differential taxation, as between distributed and undistributed profit, because I have felt that industry was not self-financing to the degree which I should wish; therefore I should not want to make it harder to raise new money in the market.
4.37 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, when the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, started the speech which he has just concluded he said a few words to the effect that, while he agreed with much that had been said by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, he was not going to follow him along those lines, but was prepared to take a more political line, as had been taken by the noble Viscount, Lord Blakenham, and my noble friend Lord Shackleton. It was just as well he put in these few remarks, because he certainly spoke very much as a politician and one to whom Her Majesty's Government have great cause to be grateful. He found it equally as easy to praise the things which had been done since the "Night of the Long Knives", which sent him from the Government—the foundations were laid in 1963, as I understood the noble Viscount, Lord Blakenham, to speak of them—as to speak of the promises of the Government, of which he had been a member and which followed a diametrically opposite line to the lines of growth and development in the areas of higher unemployment.
So, accepting that it is possible for the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, to travel both of these roads at the same time, it is not surprising that he should have taken what he himself called a political line. He said that he intended at the end

147
of his remarks to say something about the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, but in fact he did not come back to that at all. I am not surprised at that because the burden of the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, was the fact that during the last ten years the value of money had been eroded year by year, and the first of the three policies which the noble Viscount said the Government had considered was whether they should abandon the maintenance of stable prices. If the noble Viscount agrees with the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, that there has not been a policy of stable prices during the last ten years, obviously there would be no question of abandoning something that had not been maintained.
I must apologise to the noble Viscount, Lord Blakenham, because I heard only the last few sentences of his speech. Contrary to my custom of travelling by rail, to-day I decided to entrust my journey to B.E.A., and I did not arrive in London until about a quarter-past two instead of half-past seven in the morning. I was informed by my noble friend Lord Greenhill that there was not in the noble Viscount's speech any specific reference to Scottish affairs, although the general nature of his remarks could be taken to cover the economy of the whole of the United Kingdom. That is perhaps justification for my taking a particularly Scottish line, because Scotland has been recognised by the Government as being one of the areas requiring particular attention.
VISCOUNT BLAKENHAM: My Lords, if I can help the noble Lord, I did not refer specifically to Scotland, but I referred to the help that was given in the 1963 Budget to the areas of high unemployment, of which of course Scotland is a very important one.
LORD HUGHES: Yes, I gathered that, and I had in fact already made a certain reference to it when I referred to the noble Viscount's remarks concerning the laying of the foundations in 1963. Part of the foundations which were laid in 1963, of course, was the Budget of that year, which for the first time accepted the principle of a differential fiscal policy in relation to different areas of the country, and the abandonment
148
by the Government for the first time of the idea that what had to be done in London must of necessity be carried out in Newcastle, Glasgow and the Highlands of Scotland. I made no bones a year ago of saying that I was an enthusiastic supporter of the policies in the 1963 Budget. It would have been surprising if I had said anything else, because most people in Scotland and in the areas now called development areas had been clamouring for such a policy for many years, arguing that it was impossible to control the economy of the country if the areas of under-employment always received the same treatment as the areas of full employment or of over-employment.
My criticism of the Finance Bill which is before us to-day is the fact that the Government, even faced with the success which has attended the measures they so reluctantly took in 1963, have decided merely to stand still on those policies. If in 1955 or in 1959 the Government had gone to the country with a policy in which they said, "By 1963 we will lay the foundations of the new economy", one wonders what the result of the Election might have been. It is at least conceivable that it would have been different from the actual result; because, after all, during all these years the Government were maintaining that they were in fact creating the conditions which could make for full employment over the country.
I am not familiar with the figures for other development areas, but I have taken out some figures in relation to Scotland. In the figures I shall quote I shall discard in each case the odd hundreds and quote merely the round figure, so that it will be down a few hundred in each case. In Scotland in June of last year the number of unemployed, men, boys, women and girls, including those temporarily unemployed, totalled 94,000. In June of this year the figure was 70,000, and this has been hailed as a measure of the success which has attended the Government's efforts in Scotland following the Budget in 1963. Well, it may be that they are the reason for the drop from 94,000 to 70,000. But I would invite your Lordships to consider another figure, the figure of unemployment in Scotland in June, 1951. Let us compare what may

149
well prove the last June of a Conservative Government with what was the last June of the last Labour Government. We find that the figure of unemployment in Scotland in 1951 was 42,000. To give the percentages, the figure last year was 4·3 per cent.; the figure this year, 3·2 per cent.; the figure in 1951, 2 per cent.
There is another aspect to which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention—the number of jobs. It is not fair to consider just the number of people out of work, because there is another side to the picture; the number of people who are in work. One of the claims which the Government make is that up and down the country more people are working to-day than have ever worked before, and that is a contention that I accept. But it does not apply equally throughout the country. In taking the Ministry of Labour percentages, one finds that comparing June, 1964, with June, 1951, there are 3·1 per cent. more jobs after that period of thirteen years; in other words, the measure of the Government's success in Scotland is that jobs have gone up to the extent of only one quarter of one per cent. per annum. And if one took into account the figures which are so difficult to obtain, of the number of people who have migrated from Scotland during those thirteen years, then the comparison would look very sorry indeed for the Government.
When such prominent people as the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, so many years a member of Conservative Governments, can at the same time praise what was done by Mr. Selwyn Lloyd and praise the reversal of his policy carried out by Mr. Maudling, it is not surprising that we get something of this kind happening in places like Scotland. My only reason for specifically mentioning Scotland is that I am familiar with it and I can much more easily get the figures there; but we can repeat that sort of statement in regard to the North-East or Merseyside, Wales, parts of the West of England. The figures will differ in detail, but the trend will be the same. Some people like to have these things dealt with in percentages—we hear so much about 3½ per cent. growth rate or 4 per cent. growth rate as accomplished or desirable. To take the percentage increase in unemployment as between 1951 and 1964, the Government
150
have increased the percentage of unemployment in Scotland by 67 per cent.
It has never seemed to me that any great purpose is served by going back over old ground unless one intends to use it as the basis for what might be accomplished in the years that lie ahead. If I have any influence in the matter, I would hope to be able to express some of my own ideas of what might be done in the Scottish Office, assuming that it is a Labour controlled Scottish Office after the next Election. I would perhaps interpolate here that one of the things which amused me about Lord Eccles's speech was that he seemed to regard it as an especial hardship that a Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer should have to introduce a Budget in the year in which a Labour Government might be returned. I do not know which he would have preferred, that a Conservative Chancellor should not be required to introduce a budget in Election year or that it should be made illegal for the Labour Party to win the Election, but as neither is within the realm of practical politics we must assume that the Chancellor, when he framed his Budget, had regard to the Prime Minister's remarks, that we must always remember that there is to be an Election this year.
I have not the slightest doubt that people as loyal to Her Majesty's Government as the noble Viscount is would have found it equally easy to praise the Budget if it had increased taxation by £300 million instead of £100 million—and remember that was one of the figures talked about as a possibility before the Budget—or if another possibility which was spoken about had in fact emerged: reduction in taxation of £200 million. The essential thing is that one should be loyal and accept what emerges as being right.
I want to go on to what I hope will come out of the Scottish Office after October. In the first instance, I accept it as reasonable that we should go back to 1963 and accept what the noble Viscount, Lord Blakenham, said, that the foundations were laid then; because it was only in 1963 that the Government did in relation to the development areas those things which were being advocated by so many bodies up and down the country, irrespective of their political or non-political background. I agree with

151
him that 1963 saw the laying of the foundations of a new economy in relation to the development areas.
I should like, therefore, to proceed from 1963. I do not think it is enough to stand still. Some organs of the Press and some members of the Government became too complacent when, for instance, in last month's figures they found that once again the number of jobs unfilled exceeded the number of unemployed. That is perfectly true of June, in relation to the United Kingdom. But I happen to be chairman of a local employment committee, as the noble Viscount, Lord Blakenham, will remember from his previous Ministry, and I had figures given to me the other day in my committee which showed that in Dundee the number of unfilled vacancies is only one-fifth of the number of unemployed. There are five unemployed people for every job unfilled. Remember, too, that Dundee is not one of the Scottish black spots. The unemployment figures in Dundee are substantially better than the Scottish average, which means that those figures can be much worse in other parts of Scotland, and much worse in parts of the North-East of England and in other parts of the United Kingdom.
The Government have pinned their faith in Scotland on the policy of the redevelopment of central Scotland. The Highlands have been put off by the statement that another policy is to be forthcoming. Only last month we were told that it would be some eighteen months before the Paper in relation to the Highlands and the North-East of Scotland will be available. But even in relation to the central belt there are two distinct problems which emerge. The Government accept the principle within the development areas of growth points, so strongly advocated by the Toothill Committee. Growth points include the New Towns. They include places like Grangemouth.
But one of the disconcerting things about even an area such as Central Scotland is that many of the older communities have little to see in prospect from the unfolding of this policy. Small places in the Highlands of Scotland are even worse off in contemplation of their future. If I may cite Fife, the New
152
Town of Glenrothes is expanding rapidly. The policy of 1963 is helping them to get new industry into that New Town. But the surrounding small communities—places like Kelty, Cowdenbeath and Lochgelly have little to look forward to. There are isolated cases. Elliott Automation Limited have established a factory at Cowdenbeath, but it is only the occasional older community which has much prospect of getting new industry at all as things stand at the present time.
This is what I should like to suggest—not to Her Majesty's Government, because, just as sincerely as Conservative Peers think that the Government will win the Election, I believe that my Party is going to win the Election; so what I suggest is not something that the noble Viscount, Lord Blakenham, can put into operation, but something which I hope a Labour Secretary of State will take into consideration. I should like the policy of incentives in development areas carried still further. I should like special incentives to be given within those areas for the establishment of small industries in established communities. The community has an enormous investment in these places. Small communities of 5,000 or 6,000 people have many hundreds of thousands of pounds, if not millions of pounds, sunk in the public investment in houses, in schools and roads and so on.
We must remember that if, in a place with a population of 5,000, a small industry with a potential employment of only 100 people can be set up, it has exactly the same effect within that small community as an industry like B.M.C. or Rootes being set up in a large city—in other words, it is as good to that small community as an industry employing 20,000 people would be to the city of Glasgow. But many of the provosts in these areas are almost in despair, because, no matter what happens, they are unable to compete with the larger centres of population, with areas like Grangemouth and with the New Towns. Something special must be done to help them if, at the end of the day, we are not to write off a large part of the public investment in these communities.
The noble Viscount, Lord Blakenham, said at the end of his remarks—I am

153
paraphrasing them, but I think this is the gist of them—that he believes there is further room for economic expansion. I most wholeheartedly agree with that. There are so many parts of the economy of this country which are working under capacity. There are so many people who have either to accept jobs which do not make full use of their skills, or have to contemplate migrating to the South-East corner of the United Kingdom, thus adding to the problems of the people who are already there.
I should like to go a little further in relation to what I should like to see done. The Government have stated that they expect the nationalised industries to operate as commercial undertakings, and have laid down financial objectives. These industries are expected, if not immediately, in the course of time, to obtain a specified return on the capital invested in the undertaking. But one of the things which the Government have failed most lamentably to do is to accord to the nationalised industries the same rights as they accord to private enterprise.
Take, for instance, the new electricity undertaking which is being provided at Long Gannet by the South of Scotland Electricity Board, in co-operation with the National Coal Board, who, specifically for the purpose of serving this new power undertaking, are sinking a new colliery. Do either the Coal Board or the Electricity Board receive a 25 per cent. grant for the construction of the new buildings which are to be helpful in reducing unemployment in this growth area? Do they receive a grant of 10 per cent. of the cost of the plant which they are going to put in? I can see no justification for a Conservative Government to impose commercial responsibilities on nationalised undertakings, and then deny them the benefits conferred on commercial undertakings which are operating as private enterprise undertakings.
I would extend to the nationalised undertakings the same system of grants in development areas, and areas of higher-than-average unemployment, as are given to private enterprise. They would be even more advantageous, because, since the nationalised undertakings are basic, the benefits which would flow from the direct grants given to them could be spread throughout the whole of indus-
154
try. It could be reflected either in lower charges or in the prevention of increased charges, according to whether one cares to look at it in an optimistic way or in a pessimistic way. I have never understood why these things have not been done, unless it was that the Government were politically opposed to the nationalised undertakings and would not do anything to help them to function more advantageously.
I would enable the nationalised undertakings—and this is very much a matter of Budget policy—to borrow in exactly the same way as private enterprise does. I would not compel them to go to the Treasury in the most unfavourable circumstances. The most recent example of this was to fix an arbitrary dividing line of 25 years, and to say to one national Board, "If you borrow at 25 years you will pay 5⅝ per cent. on the money you get from the Treasury"; and to say to another, "If you borrow at 30 years, you must pay 6 per cent. on the money you get from the Treasury"; and then to expect them out of these conflicting figures to produce the same results in electricity charges. There is no need for Scotland, any more than other development areas, to come crying poverty to Her Majesty's Government. The resources are there to be developed if Her Majesty's Government will adopt a policy which permits that development to take place. It is encouragement that is needed, not charity. We do not need charity in Scotland, any more than the North-East or anywhere else in the country needs it. What we need is justice, the opportunity of making the fullest use of our own resources. If that is given, as I hope it will be under the next Secretary of State for Scotland, then I would say that we can be in complete agreement with the noble Viscount, Lord Blakenham, in referring to 1963 as the year in which the foundations were belatedly laid.
5.3 p.m.
LORD MELCHETT: My Lords, I should like to spring to the Government's defence straight away against what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has been saying about the nationalised industries and the availability of funds for them, with the possibility of their being given similar grants to those given to industry which is being established in development areas. I think that here the

155
noble Lord is probably labouring under a misapprehension. I must declare an interest, because I am a part-time member of one of the nationalised industry Boards, but in fact the nationalised industries, which are now being encouraged by the Government to run their affairs on a commercial basis, have access to borrowing from the Exchequer at 5½per cent. That is the rate which is fixed for nearly all of them.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord would suggest to the Government that they should make this rate available in Scotland, because it is not available there. The figure which I have quoted of 6 per cent. is the current rate being charged to the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board for loans of 30 years. The rate of 5⅝ per cent. is the rate which is being charged to the other nationalised Boards in Scotland.
LORD MELCHETT: My Lords, I stand corrected. Nevertheless, if the industries had to go out and borrow in the open market to-day the fact is that the first-class debenture rate in the City of London is 6₽ per cent. The point here is that there is no shortage of funds available to the nationalised industries in the basic undertakings—electricity, gas, docks and harbours—and they have the benefit of the capital allowances which are available also to private industry. So long as they are expanding fast, the chances of their paying any tax, as far ahead as we can see, is negligible.
It is undesirable, in my view, that we should extend into the area of the nationalised industries a grants system, in addition to all the other arrangements now available to them. The grants system has been devised to provide an opportunity to get the small businesses to go into the areas where they are needed. One might get some benefit from slightly reduced charges in these areas, but one would introduce a differential arrangement across the country which was unnecessary and which would be of very little advantage to the undertakings themselves.
I should like to take up another point raised by Lord Hughes. I am very sympathetic to the suggestion that we should try to get small businesses
156
established in these areas where there is unemployment and where the communities are small. A small company, as I think he said, employing a few thousand people can be just as valuable to that community as a company employing 20,000 people in the City of Glasgow.
LORD HUGHES: I said that the employment of 100 in a place of 5,000 was as good as 20,000 in Glasgow.
LORD MELCHETT: Very well: 100 then. But this proposition warrants close examination. In the first place, it is dangerous to try to persuade industry to locate itself in places which it would not naturally choose; because in the end not only have we to compete inside this country, but, looking at the next ten years, the great problem facing us, if we are going to maintain the much-advertised 4 per cent. growth rate, is to compete with our Continental neighbours. It is absolutely essential that industry should be established in places where it can work economically over a long period. We need to be extremely careful before we employ our limited resources of both capital and labour by locating industry in places where it will be unable to play its full part from here on.
I have great sympathy over the problem to which the noble Lord has drawn our attention, but the balance of national advantage has to be closely looked at. A case in point is Northern Ireland. Tremendous efforts have been made to attract industry to Belfast, and it is the fact that many people cannot operate economically from Belfast, in the competitive conditions in which they find themselves, which has made the flow of companies going over there and setting up factories disappointing. I thought that I would make those two remarks, arising out of the noble Lord's speech.
I am glad to support the Second Reading of this Bill. As the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, said in his speech, at this important moment, before Parliament rises for the Summer Recess, and with the General Election so near, one or two major factors in our economic life should be brought out, and the views of the two main Parties in the State should be defined as clearly as they can be.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, in opening the Labour Party's case this

157
afternoon was less than fair to my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He rather poured scorn on the fact that the out-turn of the 1963 Budget and the, so far, successful results of the Budget this April could not possibly be put down to the good judgment of the Chancellor, but was more a matter of luck, because the figures were marginal and other things were brought into account. But, of course, he did not go on to say that one of the main provisions of this year's Budget was the encouragement to small savings. The amounts of Savings Bonds and Savings Certificates which people were allowed to hold was increased, and the new National Development Bond was introduced in place of the Defence Bond. At a time when we discouraged spending by the collection of an estimated £100 million of direct taxation, it was an extremely important move that at that same moment positive steps were taken to encourage savings. One must give credit where it is due, and I consider that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer has been more than successful during the two years of his office and in the two Budgets which he has introduced. To be fair to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, he said something to that effect towards the end of his speech.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? I think that, if anything, I said rather too many favourable things about the Chancellor—at some risk to myself. What I was attacking was the extraordinarily comfortable feeling of complacent wisdom which emanated from the noble Lord's Front Bench, as if all this had been beautifully planned. I said that the Chancellor probably took the right decisions, but that there was a great element of luck.
LORD MELCHETT: My Lords, the noble Lord is entitled to his opinion, but I think we know that it was very well planned; it was not all luck.
It is very easy for noble Lords to look back over the whole twelve years that my Party has been responsible for the affairs of this country; to pick all the ups-and-downs and the difficulties we have been through, and say that we have not been sufficiently clever in planning and have not had sufficient foresight. But I think the noble Lord himself said
158
that we now have the most magnificent statistics. We have the university departments turning out much more accurate economic information, and the Treasury itself is better equipped and better advised. All this has been built up over the years.
In the early days after the war, and when the Conservative Party first came back to power in 1951, the information that is available to-day just did not exist. The policies and the practices that we are now putting into effect were untried. Not many years ago, most people, of all political complexions, subscribed to the general theory of "Stop—Go". Speeches were made from the Benches opposite suggesting at times that it was time for the Government to go a little more slowly; at other times that we should go faster. But all these things were relatively new and untried. It is much easier at this stage of the game for noble Lords to look back over this period and point out all the shortcomings—and short-comings there certainly have been. Indeed, many of us on these Benches have from time to time thought it worth while to point out some of the shortcomings in policy as it evolved. Nevertheless, as we stand here to-day this country is in an unprecedented condition of prosperity. If you look anywhere around the country, you see the general rise in living standards and the development of industry. This cannot be painted as the result of a long period of incompetent administration and failure. This I think needs saying, and needs saying very forcibly, at this time.
Great play has been made in the last two years of comparisons with the European countries. About two years ago everyone was pointing out the very rapid rates of growth in the E.E.C. countries compared to our own, and this aspect was touched on again by noble Lords opposite this afternoon. Certainly there are a great many difficulties in making these comparisons accurate, but I think noble Lords should not be in too great a hurry to draw conclusions from this.
Just look at Italy to-day. I do not want to criticise Italy; I think they have made a remarkable industrial advance. But it is a fact that they are facing the most tremendous problems, of a very similar kind to those which faced this

159
country during our earlier periods of expansion in the post-war years, and they have not yet themselves evolved the techniques for handling them. They have a runaway inflation, they have terrific pressure on their currency. A few years ago Italy was the main recipient of the outflow of American gold, exports were rising, production was rising. Now they are running into the same sort of difficulties which we have experienced. I think it is the greatest possible mistake to be too hasty in the short term in drawing comparisons of this sort, or at least drawing unfavourable conclusions in regard to the United Kingdom from these comparisons.
My Lords, I should like to say one word about the growth target and the growth programme for this country. We have now grown accustomed to the 4 per cent. per annum growth rate which has been set by "Neddy", but I am not sure that people have fully absorbed what is involved in maintaining a steady 4 per cent. per annum growth rate. For one thing, as is pointed out in the first "Neddy" Report, exports will have to go up by 5 per cent. per annum. Indeed, it has been estimated that in order to provide a satisfactory balance-of-payments account we shall probably have to double our present rate of exports in ten years. This will have to be done in spite the fact that we are outside the European Economic Community and that, as things stand at the moment, we expect that by 1967 the tariff barriers inside the Community will have been completely dismantled. We shall then face industries based in that area with a home market of about the same potential strength as the home market of the United States, and with the possibility of using that as a springboard for the main exports of the world in which we shall have to compete with them.
Leaving aside altogether what is going to be done about our getting into the Community—and here I must say I have grave reservations about what the Party opposite are likely to do if they are returned to power this year, because they do not seem to be too enthusiastic about linking up with Europe—there is deep concern among a growing number of people in this country about the attitude which is displayed whenever there
160
is a major effort to merge companies in this country, or to have further moves for rationalisation in industry inside this country. Faced with a situation, as we are, of having to increase our exports greatly if we are going to maintain our growth, and the fact that we are outside the European Community, it is in my view essential that the unit size of industry in this country is increased rapidly and drastically.
If your Lordships can bear with me for one moment, I should like to quote one industry as an example—the chemical industry. If you look at the list of the 50 largest chemical companies in the world, you will find that I.C.I. is third, which is very satisfactory from the point of view of this country. The next British company on the list is 18th and the next after that is 41st. In the seventeen above us there are no fewer than seven companies in France, Italy and Germany, and our third on the list is half the size of the smallest of those seven in Europe. The chemical industry, on the whole, is a science-based industry. I think it would be fair to say that in this country it is well managed, and one would expect it to be, on the whole, forward-looking and in the forefront of world developments. But I think it is not yet realised, even in the modern, expanding industries, the extent to which the competition is going to hit them in the next few years.
I think this is a matter on which industry itself, has up to a point, been dragging its feet a little, and certainly it is a matter on which Government ought to take a positive line and show initiative. It is extremely worrying that whenever a major realignment in this country is suggested—and I think this needs saying—fears are raised, particularly by Labour politicians, about monopoly, the public interest and so on, and there is a danger of these moves being frustrated. This is a most undesirable and dangerous attitude to take. On the same score—and I think it is very valuable for the House and the country to know firmly where the Labour Party stand on this point, also—there is a very great need for increased investment from abroad in this country. Recently, when the Chrysler company made an arrangement with Rootes, there was a great outcry from the Labour Benches in another place and a good deal of smoke was raised about

161
the desirability of arrangements of this sort.
I think people possibly overlook the extent to which some of our major industries at this very moment depend on overseas investment. We have great companies like the Ford company and General Motors' investment in Vauxhall's of Luton, all of which are major units in the economy. We have to realise that the big international companies, and particularly the big companies in the United States, are moving into Europe. If they do not come here, they will certainly go to the Continent. If the plant capacity is not put down here, it will be put down in Europe, and every vehicle, motor car or whatever it may be will be in direct competition, not only with our own companies but with jobs here in this country. We should be clear about this. It is no longer a practical proposition to take a parochial view and to say that we want to keep British industry largely controlled by British companies, and that we do not want interference from abroad, because with these large, direct investments come new products, expertise and new ideas of which, in my view, it is going to be essential for us to have at least our fair share if we are to be successful in the next ten years.
My Lords, I have probably said rather more on that subject than I intended, but there is one last point I should like to make before I sit down. As I think the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, mentioned during his speech, there is in the Labour Party programme, as far as we can see, a definite proposal to increase taxation, and almost certainly to increase company taxation. I think it is important to say at this stage that the rate of taxation in this country is already at a very high level. It does not compare unfavourably with that in other parts of the world, the other industrialised countries, but it is high; and if there is now a proposal to impose even heavier taxes, particularly on the earning and productive side of the economy, I think it will inevitably put us behind in the competitive, international race.
If it is necessary to raise revenue for even the most desirable new projects there may be in any political programme, I believe it is time we closely examined the existing expenditure to see whether all the expenditure with which we are
162
now faced, which was entered into ten, twelve or fifteen years ago, is still entirely socially desirable and can be substantiated economically. This country and the world has changed dynamically in the intervening years, and I believe we should closely examine whether it is really still necessary to subsidise people for some parts of their daily requirements—whether it be for housing or for other purposes—when their standard of living has been raised to a point where they could probably well meet this expenditure out of their own earnings. I think this is one of the things which should be very closely looked at.
On the same subject, I believe there is terrific scope for economy in the Exchequer expenditure, not so much in absolute terms of cutting down on desirable expenditure but in seeing whether we are getting value for money. I think the application of the same tests of efficiency to the expenditure of public money as those which have been devised for the expenditure of capital in industry could go a long way towards reducing the amount of taxation that we need to raise to maintain, particularly, the Defence services, the Health Service and some of the other major areas of public expenditure.
5.24 p.m.
LORD FRANCIS-WILLIAMS: My Lords, as I listened to the opening remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Blakenham, in this debate—and, indeed, as I studied the Government's economic policy all along—I was irresistibly reminded of an American friend of mine, with whom I lunched the other day, whose daughter is at Radcliffe—which, as noble Lords will know, might be described, perhaps not very politely, as the ladies' annex of Harvard. He had just had a letter from her, and she was in rather a state because, she said, "The great difficulty here is that all the boys at Harvard are suffering from a crisis of identities. They do not want to be like their fathers used to be; and they do not want to be like their elder brothers. They just do not know what they ought to be". As one looks at Conservative economic policy, one is forced to the conclusion that, having been required by circumstances to abandon the old simplicities of complete, uncontrolled private enterprise, they really do not know where they are

163
First, there was Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, who followed one course with immense loyalty and fidelity, only to find himself chopped down for doing what he had been asked to do. Now, from the wings, there comes the Old Testament voice of Enoch, calling the Conservatives to even more austere and proper Conservative courses; while on the other wing Mr. Butler, the best Conservative Prime Minister we have never had, still rotates round and round, brooding on the bold and brave days just after the war when, for a brief period, it looked as if he would be able to drag the Conservative Party into the twentieth century, and make it think in real terms of economic planning. The Prime Minister, of course, prances about midst all this, rather, I think, like that little baby antelope which jumps about on our commercial television screens, leaping from bandwaggon to bandwaggon, trying to persuade us that a product called, I think, "Babycham" is just as good as the real thing. In the middle of it sits the poor Chancellor, a rather lackadaisical mastiff who clearly cannot be quite sure whether he is intended to bite or wag his tail—whether, indeed, if he barks, somebody will not cut his vocal chords.
So we have a Budget which is really, as my noble friend Lord Shackleton said earlier, quite irrelevant to the general economic position which faces this country; which raises £800 million in the rather traditional Conservative way of hitting particularly at one section of consumers, but does practically nothing to solve, or to try to move towards solving, the basic problems of our economy. These, as we all know, and as this debate has again and again brought out, are, basically, twofold. The first is to avoid a balance-of-payments crisis such as was at one time feared likely to come in the autumn but which I personally do not believe is likely—not as the result of any particular courses that the Government have followed, but because I believe that we can probably now rely upon a good deal of co-operation from the Central Banks, and on assistance from the International Monetary Fund, which will reduce the likelihood of such a crisis.
Then there is the much more serious problem of getting the production going on a really stable and rising level—a matter which has already been discussed
164
in various ways, at some length, in this debate. Although it is sometimes apparently regarded vaguely as unfair to refer back to the fact that we have had thirteen years of Conservative government, and that this is where we are now, I would point out that what thirteen years of Conservative government have produced is a deficit of some £67 million in the first three months of this year. Taken in conjunction with our general capital outflow, this means, as I think my noble friend Lord Shackleton has already pointed out, an annual loss rate of over £600 million. It is a remarkable commentary on Conservative government, I think, that, when again this year we are faced with wondering what we are to do to avoid the possibility of balance-of-exchange problems and so on, it is the third time we have had exactly the same kind of problem in front of us.
On the export side, of course in absolute terms manufactured exports are still rising; they could scarcely do less in an expanding world economy. But our share of manufactured exports has fallen from 21·5 per cent. of the world figure, at the end of the last Labour Government, to less than 14·5 per cent. now. Some fall was to be expected, and was indeed inevitable, because at the end of the war this country had the great advantage of having a sane and sensible Labour Government with a well-considered economic policy which enabled it to get on its feet much more rapidly than other countries did. And it was able to do so with a great deal of co-operation from the trade unions and, let it be said, from much of industry. What our present position would have been now but for that stable recovery, that basic framework laid by the Labour Government for getting over the immediate post-war problems, I really must say I hesitate to think. But here we are; and although one would obviously expect some decline in our total share of world manufactured exports, even in the last three years it has gone down from 18 per cent. to 14·5 per cent. Really, this is not good enough. We are one of the historically great manufacturing and exporting countries of the world. We should do better than that.
"Neddy", after reviewing prospects for seventeen major industries between now and 1966, had to report that their

165
export estimates appear to be insufficient to achieve a satisfactory balance of payments. At the same time, imports, and especially imported finished manufactures, have been rising steadily and were up by 16 per cent. last year. In all the highly developed countries there is both the export and the import of manufactured goods, machinery and so on; there is a movement of trade between the two. All one can say is that we do not seem recently to have been as successful in ensuring that that balance is a reasonable one as have many of our rivals. When it comes to looking at the figure of increasing industrial production, we are way down compared with all the other main European countries. Not only is our increase only 38 per cent., compared with the 107 per cent. of West Germany, in the last ten years, but, as I think has already been noted in another place, for the first time since the Reformation the real wages of the West German worker are higher than those of the British worker, which really is a remarkable achievement for them.
It is surely essential that one should have a great deal more selectivity in deciding the economic instruments one will use to meet a situation in which we have to get rising production and rising exports without letting them run out of control. My noble friend Lord Hughes spoke with great force and, to me, with very great persuasion on the position in Scotland. Many of the measures taken by the Government are manifestly the use of too blunt an instrument to deal with a situation where the position differs greatly in different areas; where some areas are already very prosperous and in other areas there are still substantial pockets of unemployment. In some industries there is a high degree of efficiency and in others there is nothing like the same efficiency. I must say I was very struck, not only by the irrelevance of the Chancellor's Budget, but by the degree to which he still apparently relies upon so manifestly blunt an instrument as the Bank rate.
I was recently looking back—because I am interested in the period and was writing about and dealing with financial matters at that time—at the evidence given before the Macmillan Committee on Finance and Industry before the
166
Second World War and before we left the gold standard. There was an exchange between Lord Macmillan, the Chairman of that Committee, and Mr. Montagu Norman at that period, which reads almost as if they used the same words as would be used now in an exchange between my honourable friend in another place, Mr. Callaghan, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Lord Macmillan told Mr. Montagu Norman that one of the problems to which the Committee had been addressing themselves was whether the use of the instrument of the Bank rate, though it might be effective in achieving the purpose indicated—that is, to prevent a flow of gold out of the country—might not be accompanied by unhappy internal consequences.
"May you not be effecting".
he asked,
"an operation of value from the financial point of view which has nevertheless unfortunate repercussions internally by re-stricting credit and enterprise?"
Mr. Callaghan asked the same question of the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Bank rate was raised—after 33 years almost to the day—to 5 per cent. in February of this year. And he got almost the same sort of answer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer indeed seemed to be wearing, without having it taken in or tucked round properly, the mantle of Mr. Montagu Norman, which I personally thought had long been put away in the dustiest back room of the Bank of England. Really, my Lords, one cannot begin to measure up to the situation with which we are dealing to-day, when there are immense differences between areas in the country and when there are great differences between industries, by using blunt instruments of this kind. We must devise—and I believe a Labour Government would devise—much more selective instruments for dealing with economic problems.
The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, who spoke before me, had something to say about what he felt about the objections that had been raised by members of the Labour Party to the Rootes deal, because this represented a further influx of American capital into this country. Manifestly in a great industrial country such as our own, which in the past has

167
led the world in investing in other countries, we cannot start taking the attitude that foreign investment must not come here; but I think we have a very considerable need to look into where that investment is going and what is likely to be its ultimate effect on our society, and indeed on our industry.
Noble Lords may not be aware of the enormous extent of the flow of American investment to this country recently. In 1960 the United States Department of Commerce estimated that it had already climbed to around £1,110 million, and was growing at the rate of £170 million a year. Indeed, it has been estimated that it will go on at this rate for at least another ten years. The significant and, to my mind, disquieting fact is that the major proportion of this investment is going into consumer industries, which can be subjected to exactly the same kind of pressurised selling and advertising which exists in America and which has formed or is shaping American society in a way which certainly disturbs many of the most intelligent of the American people themselves.
My noble friend Lord Shackleton pointed out that the hire-purchase level in this country has for the first time exceeded £1,000 million, but this is nothing at all compared with what has happened in the United States, where the whole drive is to buy now, pay later, and increase consumption in every conceivable way. That surely needs to be looked at. The impact of this investment upon our social habits and economy must be considered against the background, for example, of the statement in the "Neddy" Report that, on the basis of growth, consumer expenditure can continue to increase more rapidly than in the past, but it will need to take a smaller share of the growing national product in the next few years to leave sufficient savings to provide for a rapid increase in investment.
I want to consider this point, instead of throwing up my hands like the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and other noble Lords of Conservative persuasion, when anybody says that we should think about what this American investment is doing and that the Government ought to be
168
considering how far it is likely to go, what are its advantages and disadvantages and what is going to be its final result on our social and economic life. The noble Lord in his analysis of the economic situation, seemed to be primarily concerned with arguing the case—and, of course, there is a case in many industries—for larger units and mergers. In many instances I do not think anybody would deny that case on economic and technological grounds, but surely—and this is the Labour case and always has been the Labour case—when there are these enormous units of industrial production, occupying so large and so central a place in the whole economy, it is essential that there should be a substantial degree of public watchfulness and, if necessary, of public control of their activities.
I suggest also that in those industries where we are failing, or appear from the import figures to be failing to meet modern demands, where we are having to import finished products and mechanised products which we could, on all grounds, apparently make here, there is a quite substantial case for setting up publicly-owned or public partnership companies which can run as pace-makers, so to speak, to try to set the competitive tone right. But, of course, the Conservative Government are so wrapped round in a cocoon of blue tape and so rigid in their approach to problems of this kind that they are quite unwilling to consider this. Indeed, as your Lordships will be aware, the Prime Minister referred recently to the "junkyard" of nationalisation. When one considers the great basic industries that are under national control, it is some "junkyard"! And when one considers all the skilled management, technical workers and skilled workers of all kinds employed in those industries, it seems somewhat regrettable that the Prime Minister, whose language and manners seem to have deteriorated quite a bit since he changed his station in life and left your Lordships' House, should use this kind of language—regrettable socially, and rather frightening economically, since it reveals a kind of irresponsible rigidity to the kind of pattern that a mixed economy ought to take, and really frightening when one considers the problems we have to face.

169
My American friend's daughter, with whose problem I began, regarding her friend's crisis of identity, finished her letter by writing:
"And so, Daddy, I think the only thing for me to do is to go to the country for a long time and try to find myself."
I recommend that advice to your Lordships and to the Government.
5.47 p.m.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, I think that the success or failure of the Budget can now be judged by what has happened since it was introduced last April. Even the Opposition have found it more or less impossible to be critical of what they have called the short-term point of view, though there have been dark hints about the long-term point of view. I go back for one moment to last April, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer found that he had to damp down a slightly overheated economy. He had to guess how much additional taxation he would have to levy to put the situation right. As we all know, he plumped for £100 million. The Opposition have been saying to-day that that was pretty easy; it was a lucky guess and the Chancellor really does not deserve much credit for it. But at the time there was quite a lot of criticism. Some people took the view that the figure was too low, but events have proved that the Chancellor was more or less right, and for this he deserves our congratulations.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, is the noble Lord talking about this year's Budget? How is he able to assert that it worked out about right, as we have not had the results yet?
LORD JESSEL: I assert it from what I see with regard to employment, trade terms and the general situation, not from any other point of view.
Another criticism was of the method of raising the money; should it be direct, or indirect, taxation, and, if the latter, why tobacco and alcohol, which are already taxed at fabulous rates? I believe that the tax on alcohol at the moment is something like 700 per cent. I think the Chancellor was right to go for indirect taxation, because two-thirds of our expenditure is on consumer spending, so that was the quickest way of applying a general brake to the economy.
170
I must confess that I wish he could have broadened his area of indirect taxation. We all have our own pet ideas for taxation, but I should have liked to see him putting a larger tax on gambling and betting. And why not a tax on restaurant accounts and hotel bills? We have all got used to paying them when we go abroad on holidays, and practically everybody goes abroad now. I believe the argument against this is the difficulty of collection. But we always boast that our Inland Revenue Department is the most efficient in the world, and if the French, Italians, Swiss and so on can collect this tax, I do not see why we cannot.
I have had no experience, like bankers, brokers and insurance people, in handling other people's money, but, in my opinion, this is a much easier way of earning profits than by producing goods for sale, where you have, besides the problem of finance, all the problems of materials, labour, transport, changes in customers' choice and the rest. It is the producers of goods who contribute to the bulk of our export trade. At the moment, it appears as if the prospects are reasonably bright for them, so one would gather from the most recent F.B.I. survey on trends, and that surely must reflect a little on the effectiveness of the Budget.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, talked about an incomes policy and said that in order to co-operate with the unions there must be a socially just policy. There is one point I should like to make arising out of that, because wages are obviously an important element in the cost of production. There is a growing tendency for workers in a particular industry to ask for a share in the results of increased productivity, which usually derives from no extra effort on their part but from heavy capital expenditure and the introduction of automation. I think that the community, as a whole, should benefit from this increased productivity by the lowering of prices. This would give something to everybody, and not only to those working in the particular industry. I should very much like to hear the views of thinking Labour politicians on this subject. The trade union view, I am afraid, is not difficult to guess. As I said at the beginning of my speech,

171
the Budget has proved a success, so far, in achieving what it set out to do, and I think it should be welcomed.
5.53 p.m.
THE EARL OF SANDWICH: My Lords, it is hot in this Chamber, and particularly on this sunny side, and therefore I will not weary your Lordships for long. Indeed, we have reached the time of year, and the time in the political cycle, when windy words are used to cool the fevered brow rather than subtle argumentation to nourish it. I am sorry that I came somewhat late into the debate and missed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, whose speeches are nearly always reviving. But I have listened to the other speeches which have come from the official Opposition, and I have not found anything very exciting in them to comment on.
The noble Lord, Lord Francis-Williams, seemed to be more "willing to wound" than "afraid to strike." He attacked American investments in the United Kingdom in a vague, ideological sort of way without stating what exactly was the mischief that was being perpetrated. I suppose that, like many others of your Lordships, at this stage in the political game he is nervous about stating what would be the consequences for the country of not allowing American industry to come here, just as one may not say what would be the consequences of not allowing the Royal Navy to advise the Spanish Government how to buy British ships: that is to say, increasing unemployment and lack of jobs.
The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, however, did speak about the location of industry in a minuscule way; that is to say, he seemed to want 100 industrialists to be employed in every village in Scotland. I can understand the passion of the ardent trade unionist for industry as such. He likes the shop floor, the hubbub and the bustle, the rolling castors or barrels, and the lorries roaring away at the back of the works. He would like to produce that not only in massive conurbations in the Midlands, the North of England and the West of Scotland, but also, seemingly, in every town and village of the country. If the noble Lord had told us that there were 100 potential skilled industrialists in a tiny Scottish
172
hamlet unemployed and eager to be absorbed into a new plant of this kind, it would have made some sort of economic and political sense. But again, the noble Lord was not prepared to specify, because, I suppose, of the ripeness of our political times. Vague generalities were all that came from him.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Earl. I did specify, and the places I mentioned will not feel flattered that "Hinch" that was, Sandwich that is, and Montagu that may well be, describes them as small hamlets. They are, for Scotland, comparatively large burghs. I mentioned places with populations of 5,000 to 10,000 people. It may be that in his Lordship's part of the world these are small hamlets; but in Scotland they are well-organised communities.
THE EARL OF SANDWICH: Let them be small Scottish burghs of 5,000 or 10,000 people. Are these burghs without any industry at all? Are these burghs with a considerable unemployment that does not fluctuate throughout the year, that is perpetual, and cannot be taken up? Are these burghs which do not give employment to one half of their population in other walks of life besides industry? However, I do not think we want to go back and cause the noble Lord to make another speech in justification of his views. No doubt he will tell us about them when we have, not a finance debate, but a debate on British industry.
In the first speech which I ventured to make to your Lordships, on April 10, 1963, I said that I thought our economy was moving into a delicate position. Nothing that has happened in the last fifteen months has made me reverse my views. The signs continue to multiply. In the past year, while industrial production has made a considerable advance of 7·7 per cent.—which ought to please even the noble Lord, Lord Francis-Williams—wages as a whole have risen by 4·1 per cent., and retail prices have increased by 2 per cent. That little position which I have just described is probably a better position than any which this country has attained to since the end of the war. But it is still indicative of steady inflation and steadily rising prices. The concessions

173
that were made in Mr. Maudling's Budget of last year injected £700 million or more into the economy; and while in this year's Budget the estimated revenue exceeds expenditure by £67 million, there is, nevertheless, a projected net payment below the line of £858 million, which injects that much extra purchasing power and has much the same effect as reductions in taxation.
In spite of recent rises in exports, and a small addition to our gold reserves—which we hope will be steadily built up, although we are approaching the dangerous time of the year when the reverse takes place—the balance-of-payments figures since Mr. Selwyn Lloyd's crisis measures were abandoned are, I regret to say, by no means satisfactory. The balance of current and long-term capital transactions has gone against us, from a positive figure of £34 million in 1961 to a negative figure of £26 million in 1963. The balance of monetary movements shows an even worse position: from a positive figure of £20 million in 1961, to a negative figure of £155 million in 1963.
The effects of our tightrope position are now beginning to show up in the classical way, as they have done at regular intervals since the end of the war. Last month's unemployment figure fell below the number of unfilled vacancies for the first time since September, 1961. The pipe-line of trades union wage demands is filling up, and official or unofficial strike action has been ordered by, or is in contemplation in, a number of industries. It is hard to say whether we can continue through the notoriously difficult autumn months without corrective measures being applied, but probably we can. The Chancellor has said that while in 1961 our borrowing arrangements were spasmodic and ad hoc, this year we have ample resources to draw upon—though I am bound to say that I do not think the country knows precisely what reserves these are, where they are located, and on what terms we can have access to them. Nevertheless, I imagine that we can draw on them without that famous bell wether, the Zurich banker, ringing the alarm bells throughout the international world.
So one's expectation is that the position is secure for this year, and for
174
a little time beyond. But it is a most precarious position, this steadily sailing into the teeth of the wind, this economic "brinkmanship" that we are going in for. Naturally, if we can hold to our course by supremely able pilotage, there is a lot to be said for charting the course. Continuous and full exploitation of our resources and manpower, without the disapproval of our customers and suppliers overseas, or of Governments overseas, is the best economic destiny we can hope for, though it does not, by any means, pass all the political, moral and social tests.
None the less, navigation in these waters is a very skilful and difficult business, and it makes me ask the question: what will happen to the old ship if we take on a new set of pilots on our way to port? Socialism in Britain was floated in 1945 on a gigantic American loan. Mr. Hugh Dalton was large in mouth and large in ideas. He "went to town" on the American loan. The loan was a feather-bed for every sort and kind of Socialist experiment. It effectively isolated the sensitive capitalist world from the crude and cruel operations being indulged in at home. Nobody knows that better than the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, who was in charge of the operations throughout. It allowed the Socialists to stamp about the country, wrecking the subtle antennae of reviving business after the war while they gorged themselves and the country on free tins of American Spam.
But, alas! for them, and mercifully for all the rest of us, this process cannot be repeated now. To indulge in the sort of major, radical reforms that Mr. Wilson has specified to the country—not to speak of that vast iceberg below the surface, six-sevenths of which is not going to be revealed to the country until after polling day—two things are needed. You need not only the cash, which the Exchequer could no doubt readily supply—£1,000 million below the line (what of that, if it is clear that it can be overcome by corrective measures?)—but something else as well. You need the positive approval of the external financial world, because if the margins are as narrow as they are now, if confidence is lacking, and support is withdrawn, there will be an almighty crash in the balance of payments. And that will come, not at the end of the

175
Socialist era, as it did in 1951, but right bang at the beginning, now, when they take office, or may take office, in October.
That, of course, is why Mr. Callaghan is so silent. He makes speeches in the country without very great effect. He is showing a great deal of inward nervousness. He goes a lot to his constituency. I suspect that he remembers, when he goes there, that he was a sailor; that he ambles down to the docks in Cardiff and looks out to sea, whistling across the Atlantic for the wind that he knows is never coming. Even at this late stage, three months before the Election, the Socialist Party appear to us, from little snippets of information that come out from time to time, to be in an intolerable state of internal ferment—the responsible centre caucus knowing that it is not going to be able to pay for the flights of fancy of its own gaudy wings. Therefore, it only remains for me, very humbly, to congratulate Her Majesty's Government on the economic "brinkmanship" that they are so skilfully displaying. It is one that is doubly virtuous: first, because it keeps the British people happy and fully employed, and, secondly, because it keeps the cupboard utterly bare of any possible sustenance for its enemies.
6.8 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, at this time in the afternoon the ground has been well covered by noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, and I shall therefore confine myself, I hope reasonably briefly, to two points. The first point with which I should like to deal is one of the major stumbling blocks in the path of arriving at an acceptable incomes policy, to which several noble Lords have referred during the course of the afternoon. The difficulties involved are formidable enough in all conscience, without aggravating them by confusing and distorting the basic relevant facts. We are unlikely to resolve these problems unless public opinion is better informed on the important issues, and we get the facts straight. I admit that upon some of these issues there are genuine differences of opinion in the matter of interpretation. Views which I may hold conscientiously and, as I believe, dispassionately may strike noble Lords opposite as something very
176
different, and I need hardly assure them that the converse is equally true.
However, leaving aside for the moment questions of interpretation, I should like to examine one or two facts which are readily ascertainable. The first is one which noble Lords opposite and their friends in another place have produced on a number of different occasions, that is, the propagation of the fallacy that in recent years profits and dividends have risen far more than wages and salaries have. If one merely looks at the total amounts paid under these two headings, I agree that that is true so far as it goes, which is not however very far. No valid comparison can be made unless the total amounts of wages and salaries are related to the numbers of persons to whom they are paid, and the total sums represented by interest and dividends are related to the amount of capital employed; otherwise you might as well argue that if you rent a TV set and subsequently decide to hire a second one, the consequential rise in the rental charge is wholly unjustified. The case which the Party opposite seeks to put forward on this matter proves nothing beyond the profound truth recently uttered by a commentator, whose name unfortunately I cannot recall, when he likened statistics to bikinis, with the observation that what they reveal is interesting, but what they conceal is vital.
My Lords, I may be venturing on dangerous ground after quoting this aphorism if I submit a few figures for your Lordships' consideration. If we take the twelve years starting in 1950, we find that wages and salaries increased in round figures by a little over 120 per cent., gross earnings of companies by just over 150 per cent., and interest and dividend payments by over 250 per cent. But we also find that the employed labour force rose by a little over 7¾ per cent., and the amount of capital employed by the average company by over 280 per cent. The actual amounts are an addition of £6¾ million to capital employed by the average company, and of a little over £300,000 in the gross dividends paid out to the average company's shareholders. This, incidentally, represents a gross return of just over 4½ per cent. on the additional capital which had either been ploughed

177
back into the business, or been subscribed in the form of new money, by the shareholders. I should perhaps interpolate that the figures I have just quoted are the averages for the Board of Trade sample of over 2,000 companies' accounts during this twelve-year period. I am indebted to the Financial Times for working out the arithmetic involved, and to Mr. Harold Wincott for incorporating the answers in recent articles he has contributed to that paper.
Thus we find that over this twelve-year period, on the one hand the percentage increase in the amounts paid out by the average company in dividends and interests was actually smaller than the corresponding figure for the additional capital employed; on the other hand, wages and salaries rose by some 120 per cent. during the period in which the employed labour force expanded by no more than 7¾ per cent. The inescapable, irrefutable and indeed only construction that the official figures are capable of bearing is that the relative percentage improvement in wages and salaries was considerably greater than the rise in interest and dividend payments. I do not intend to pursue this matter this afternoon because I am concerned only to explode a myth and with it, I hope, the case which has been constructed upon it.
My Lords, whether we like it or not, so long as the so-called private sector represents any substantial part of the national economy, profits must constitute the main source upon which growth is dependent. The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, has already referred to this point. But are we ever likely to succeed in developing our full productive potential if large sections of the community regard profits with suspicion and hostility? The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, attempted to lay the entire blame on the Government's fiscal and social policy, but I do not think this is either fair or accurate.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, would the noble Marquess tell me for what I laid blame on the Government?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: Blame for the failure so far to achieve a proper degree of co-operation leading towards an incomes policy. I hope that I have not misrepresented what the noble Lord said.
178
I am not standing here and maintaining that the present system is free from blemish or, indeed, free from abuse; nor am I pleading, as I might possibly be accused of doing by some, for a return to the economics of the jungle. But what I am saying is that until a better system has been devised—and noble Lords opposite have not produced one—it must be the interest of the whole population to strive to make the existing system work as well as possible. I am in no doubt that it could and would function better than it does now if it were better understood, and all concerned felt justified in co-operating wholeheartedly to generate the additional national wealth it could produce.
The historical background to this attitude of mind is familiar to us all, but for how long is this country doomed to carry this albatross around its neck, and for how many more generations are the sins of the grandfathers and the great-grandfathers to be visited upon their descendants? Have we not advanced to a point at which the greater part of this hoary mythology can be discarded and replaced by a more constructive and up-to-date outlook? I do not want to detain your Lordships longer, and it remains only for me to express my warm support for the Second Reading of this Finance Bill and, indeed, for the general policy which my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is pursuing.
6.18 p.m.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, the occasion to-day is one that really arises out of the two Parliament Acts which limited the powers of your Lordships' House over Budgets and Finance Bills, and, as a consequence, it has been found useful, at any rate in recent years, to widen this debate into an economic debate and not only a debate on the Budget or Finance Bill. I do not propose myself to deal with the problems of taxation or the details of the Finance Bill, but rather to deal with the wider question of the economic situation of our country.
I think that the debate has been useful and that some very good speeches have been contributed, including, for the greater part—and I say this with great pleasure—the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. In fact, I was saying to my noble friend Lord Shackleton before

179
the last ten minutes of the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, came along, "You know, I don't agree with all this, but Lord Sandwich is making, I think, a very capable and good speech." But then the last ten minutes of it came, in which the noble Earl went off the deep end, and his speech became somewhat wild and very extreme, and very, very Right-wing. In fact, my noble friend Lord Lindgren whispered to me, "This chap is becoming the Goldwater of the British Conservative Party." I said, "Well, George, I do not think he is as bad as that, but I admit that if he is not careful he will be on the way and will be mistaken for his American alias."
Indeed, the noble Earl said, not very nicely, I thought, and not very usefully, that the American Government or the American authorities provided the Labour Government with a loan to float Socialism. I can assure the noble Earl that if we had asked the Americans for a loan in order to float Socialism we should not have got the loan, not even from a Democratic Government. It was a commercial transaction, and the Americans very rightly considered it sympathetically, though there was some opposition to it in the House of Commons. In fact, I could only keep the boys happy by letting thirty go into the anti-Government Lobby, which pleased them and did not hurt us because our majority was adequate.
Remember that, at the end of the war—and I am not blaming the American Government for it—they had under the law of Congress to bring lease-lend to an end suddenly when hostilities ended. It was a terrible blow to our country and a very great embarrassment to the Labour Government because it meant that getting all the things we had got by lease-lend—which was a charming American term; I never know what it means; whether it is really lend-leasing or an American description of giving you something; I hope the latter—came to an end, and that was one of our great difficulties. In the circumstances, a little later, when we were financially embarrassed, as any Government would have been financially embarrassed at that time—my noble Leader reminds me that Sir Winston Churchill had said that Britain was bankrupt, and he was right—it was not unnatural, and it was not
180
ungenerous, that the American Government should give us the facilities of a loan to help us through our troubles. I will come back to our troubles and how we surmounted them later on, because, contrary to what the noble Earl and others have said, the Labour Government deserve a vote of thanks for the way in which they handled that terribly difficult transition from war to peace.
At the moment, as other noble Lords, including some opposite, have said, it looks as if industrial expansion is somewhat moderating; and I understand from the financial people and some economists that that may be a good thing. I must say I cannot quite follow why increased production should be inflationary. I dare say the argument is sound; it comes from people who know more than I do about these things. But it does seem a pity that when you increase production, which ought to enable you to live a better and nicer life, it has an inflationary effect. There are a lot of things about economics I do not understand. I have never understood, for example, why it is inevitable that if you have a great world war the cost of living, prices, have got to go up and the value of the £ go done, not only immediately—I follow that—but over years and years. It happened after the First World War and again after the Second World War—another dose of lower value of the £ and higher prices is maintained. I once sent for the gentlemen of the Cabinet Economic Office—the Economic Section of the Cabinet as it was when I was Lord President—and, having put to them the question, "Why is it that these things happen and that we can never get them right?", I put my legs up on a sofa and said, "Now, you chaps, answer me that". They did their best. It may have been due to my ignorance, but having had all of an hour's talk—I think, more than an hour—and questions from me, I still could not understand it, and still cannot to this day. But the ways of the capitalist system, like the ways of the Lord, are very marvellous and very interesting——
LORD HENDERSON: And devious.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Yes, that is very true. There it is. I still do not quite understand it. It is an

181
awful nuisance, this depreciation of the value, not only of the pound but of other standard currencies as well, and the increase in prices, which perhaps is one of the most disturbing economic factors with which we have to concern ourselves.
It is true that unemployment is less, and that is welcome, but the distribution of the working population, the distribution of unemployment, is still not what it ought to be. South-East England is booming; if ever there should be an inflationary area it is South-East England. The Midlands are booming. The North-East are having a thin time. So is Scotland, as indeed has been pointed out in the very able speech of my noble friend from Scotland, Lord Hughes. Parts of Wales are in trouble, and Northern Ireland, good Unionist-Conservative Northern Ireland, has got the highest unemployment rate of the lot. I have told them for years if they would only put three Labour Members of Parliament among the Tories they send to the House of Commons they would be taken more notice of by the British Government, whatever the Government's colour. I went and told them in the last Election; we did improve things a little. But there are twelve solid Tories there, and they have still the highest rate of unemployment in the United Kingdom. I would not say it serves them right, because I like the people of Northern Ireland, but I wish they would think about it more.
This distribution of unemployment is still a factor, and all the Government have done is to produce the Report on the South-East, under which they are going to accentuate that situation by encouraging more town development in South-East England and, presumably, more industry to come to South-East England—without a corresponding report, or a joint report, on these problems, not for South-East England alone but for the whole country. Let the story be recorded region by region and say what the Government are going to do. I think it was a terrible blunder to make that report, and it just shows the incapacity of the Minister of Housing and Local Government that he should have put the Department's name to it. He is not bad, but he is not as bright as he might be in this and other matters.
There is control of capital expenditure, which the Government engages in up to a point, but I notice that there is a dis-
182
tinction between the control of new capital expenditure in socialised industries as compared with private industries. There is a firm hand on socialised industries. There is very little hand at all in the control of expenditure by ordinary private enterprise industries. Not that I want to worry private enterprise out of its life or be interfering every hour of the day and night; they have their contribution to make to the economic well-being of the country. All I want to do is to encourage them, to inspire them to be competitive and not to be private unenterprise but private enterprise. There is the distinction: firm hand on publicly-owned industries and very light hand, if any, at times, on the privately-owned sector.
Incidentally, to take smaller issues, the Minister of Transport completely loses his sense of proportion at this time in bringing in an Order, when the roads are crowded with traffic and when commercial vehicles occupy a very high proportion of the road, to increase the size of lorries. I suppose it will be another blow at the railways, and he likes that. Why does he do it? There is no sense of economics in this. The money we are spending on television, all sorts of television, and sound radio is an indication that the Government are not considering the priorities or the relativities of importance. Of course there are fluctuations; there are fluctuations in the balance of payments, balance of trade, which are indeed a nightmare to any Minister in charge of economic affairs as the Chancellor of the Exchequer is. And we all sympathise with him, but the remedy is to get stability in these matters. Undoubtedly it is one of the disturbing and worrying things for any Government, and particularly for the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
My noble friend Lord Shackleton, in his able opening speech for the Labour Party—and it was—referred to the international league tables. He gave some figures. At the risk of boring the House I am going to repeat the figures—and, indeed, give them in full—because these are figures which the Government must face up to, and which, if I may say so, the noble Viscount, Lord Blakenham, did not face up to in the opening speech he made in moving the Second Reading of this Bill.

183
Over the years 1951 to 1963—which is not an unfair period to take: it is the lifetime of the present Government, though it has now gone into 1964—if we take industrial production, we find that in Japan the percentage increase for 1963 over 1951 was 397 per cent., and in Russia, 242 per cent. These figures for Japan and Russia are given in the United Nations Monthly Bulletin of Statistics. Of course, Russia is a totalitarian State, and we cannot be quite sure about the accuracy of her figures, but I have no evidence to suggest that they are not accurate. They are, presumably, figures given by that country.
In Italy the percentage increase is 171 per cent.; in Germany, 144 per cent.; in France, 103 per cent.; in Holland 96 per cent.; in Sweden, 53 per cent.; in the United States, 43 per cent.; in Belgium, 43 per cent. Britain (I say this with no pleasure; I say it with sorrow, because I am not in the least glorying over this) is right at the bottom with 38 per cent. And this figure has to be compared with Japan's 397 per cent.
THE EARL OF SANDWICH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question? Is he aware that the countries which he has taken with the highest totals were all shattered by the war?
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: So were we.
THE EARL OF SANDWICH: Not shattered by the war completely—by no means. By and large, the countries with the lower totals are those which were occupied, and therefore never fought, or were neutral throughout the war.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, with great respect, I do not think the noble Earl is right. Japan had some shattering with the atomic bomb. Russia had a lot, including a great German invasion. Germany had a lot of shattering from the British, as I well know. France did not have a lot of shattering. As a matter of fact, France capitulated rather quickly, with the result that she escaped a good deal of the bombing. She had a bit more from us, but not indiscriminately—it was on military, tactical points. Sweden, of course, was not in the war at all; and Belgium was knocked about in the beginning, but
184
I doubt whether she had such a knocking about as many other countries. Let it not be forgotten that we had a terrible lot of bombing. I know, because I was the Minister concerned with it in Civil Defence. Again, that was one of the problems the Labour Government had to deal with. So I do not think that the noble Earl's point, though I understand it, is good.
Exports in volume in this period from 1951 to 1963 show increases as follows. In Japan the volume of exports went up by 334 per cent. Again, Japan is at the top of the league. I know that it is a country with special economic circumstances, conditions of labour and so on; but it has done it. Then there are Germany, with 274 per cent.; Italy, with 270 per cent.; Holland, with 171 per cent.; Belgium, 133 per cent.; Sweden, 113 per cent.; France, 103 per cent.; Canada, 66 per cent.; the United States, 43 per cent.; and Britain, once again at the bottom of the league, with 33 per cent. This is a sad situation, and it does not warrant the complacent and self-congratulatory speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Blakenham, this afternoon.
Then we come to consumer prices, which, as I have indicated before, is a big factor in economic problems and in getting an incomes policy. The increases in consumer prices over the same period were: Belgium, 16 per cent.; Canada, 17 per cent.; the United States, 18 per cent.; Germany, 22 per cent.; Holland, 32 per cent.; Italy, 37 per cent.; and Britain (not at the most unpleasant point in the league this time, but 7 up in this case), 50 per cent., followed by three others—Sweden, 51 per cent.; Japan, 54 per cent.; and France, 68 per cent. These figures, except those for Japan and Russia, come from the O.E.C.D. General Statistics Bulletin of May, 1964, which I presume is authoritative.
My Lords, I do not quote these figures in order to rejoice, or merely for the sake of knocking the Conservative Government about. I do not like that attitude; it would be unpatriotic. I tell the House these facts with sorrow and regret, but with an indication that they do not show that all is well. So long as these facts continue, they show that a great many things must be materially wrong. There we are. The extent of

185
industrial production is of vital importance. Export volume is terribly important, because if you do not get your exports right, and if you do not get your imports right (though they are more difficult to interfere with) you can run yourself into balance-of-trade problems before you know where you are. Consumer prices are most significant for the welfare of the people: if you can get them level, it reduces part of the incentive to go for higher wages and income and other things. Moreover, it involves the value of the pound. One has no pride in the fact that the value of the pound to-day is much lower than it was in 1951, or probably, for that matter, to be fair, lower than it may have been in 1945. All of these things are important.
Added to these indications that all is not well with our economy, there is the question of land speculation, which is disgraceful—yet it is almost encouraged by Her Majesty's Government. Land values are going up, and lower middleclass people who on getting married are buying their own houses, are having to pay inflated prices for the land. Most of them voted Conservative. At Orpington, it went wrong. It may go either way—I do not know. Most of them are Conservative, or they used to be. It is rough on these young people, recently married, to have hanging around their necks a needlessly large debt of mortgage which they have to pay off, while at the same time hoping for a family to bring up.
We have full employment; and I am glad that that should be so. At the moment it is so full that I wonder that the people in the less attractive industries find people to work for them. When I fought elections, I used to be asked on the street corner and in the London parks: "Mister, who is going to do the dirty work under Socialism?" I said, "I will"—I do not mean "dirty work" in any political sense: I thought I would get that in before the noble Earl spoke! But the truth is that a lot of it is done by mechanical means. That has come to be true. But not enough. We are getting the dirty work done some-how, in one way or another. It is a marvel that we do, in view of the full state of employment which we rejoice in—in fact, in parts of the country there are more vacancies than there are un-
186
employed. But this is a new situation. Let it not be forgotten that in the period 1918 to 1939, after the First World War—indeed, probably before that—there was an assumption that large-scale unemployment was inevitable. As a result, the working people had a rough time.
From 1929 to 1931 there was a minority Labour Government. I was in it. We were overwhelmed by the unemployment crisis which Mr. Churchill (as he then was) said was the result of a world economic blizzard, though that did not prevent the Conservative Party from blaming us for the whole thing. Poor little things! We had not enough power or machinery to deal with the crisis. The economic machinery then at the disposal of the Government was miserable. And there certainly could not be any Socialism, as my noble friend the Leader of our side reminds me, except the London Passenger Transport Bill—and I did not dare to call that "Socialism". But certainly the Government could not go in for large-scale social measures for we had not a majority: we never knew when we woke up each morning whether we were alive or dead. It was a hard life.
Then Lord Keynes came along and taught many people a lot. The people in the Civil Service, the people in politics, and the country as a whole are permanently indebted to that great man for his economic education. But the machinery of Government was ill-equipped at that time—unemployment went in ups and downs, I admit. It went a bit lower after we went out—we were not thrown out—but we got a bit cheated afterwards. Then in 1939, well after the war had begun, I remember making a speech in another place pointing out that, notwithstanding the war, there were still a million unemployed in the country. It had become engrained that unemployment was inevitable. We did not believe it; we believe it still less now.
The Second World War improved the Government's economic organisation. It may be that the First War did, too, but at the end of the First World War it was scrapped by the Government of the day. At the end of the Second World War we did not do that, and that was one of the blessings of our coming in.

187
The economic organisation at the disposal of the Government was very much better at the end of the Second World War—it had to be, or we should have lost that war. We learned a lot of experience as Labour men, including my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition in this House, as a result of being members of Mr. Churchill's Government. The experience we gained was useful to the Labour Government that served from 1945 to 1951.
One of the outstanding achievements—and it was a new achievement—of that Government was that we brought about full employment; and it lasted, whereas after the First World War unemployment triumphed and there was depression which continued until after the Second World War. If I may say so, with all due humility and respect, it is monstrous that credit should not be given to the Labour Government for this major achievement in itself. Remember the drama of the transition which we had to face—because it was a drama.
As my noble friend Lord Alexander of Hillsborough reminds me, Sir Winston Churchill said that our country emerged from the war bankrupt. Our export trade was substantially gone; we were in wholesale debt, not only in the country but abroad, in the United States and elsewhere; we had had our railways, factories, houses, schools, and so on, smashed up, and they had to be replaced. That is why it is so ridiculous to compare the housing record of the Labour Government with the subsequent Conservative Government's record as to numbers. We had all the patching up to do, making things weatherproof and watertight. We had to face all that, as well as the demobilisation of millions of men from the Services, bless their hearts!; and we had to take care of them to the best of our ability. We had to reallocate them in industry and still get full employment. When is the House going to pass the vote of thanks to the Labour Government that we so deserve? We did all those things successfully, and full employment has lasted ever since; whereas mass unemployment had been with us since before the First World War right through to the Second World War.
188
When the Conservatives, unhappily for us, won the Election in 1951, we left them an economic situation and organisation on which they could build if they had the mind to do so. To some extent they have, and they have been able to prevent the worst abuses which existed in the country before the war. But we started it; we established it; we maintained it. Somebody, I think it was the noble Viscount, Lord Blakenham, said they had statistics and knew what the facts of life were. Who started the statistics? We did, in the Statistical Office and in the Economic Section of the Cabinet. My noble friend Lord Attlee knows this. We started the monthly digest of statistics and brought together massive statistics; we also started the Economic Survey which preceded the Budget, and a number of other things.
When Viscount Blakenham gets briefed by his Conservative Central Office he should have an instinct with him: remember, the Central Office may not be true. It is a wise precaution, because, after all, they have fought elections and I have found them some of the most extensive purveyors of untruth that I have ever known. I say that not abusively but as one who has had deal with it. I warn the Chairman of the Conservative Party organisation: take them with a grain of salt. Do not be afraid to cross-examine them. It is all very well for them to hand out the "dope" to the noble Viscount, but he has to stand up at the Box in this House, so let him be warned: be more careful.
My Lords, we have got full employment, but there are some other things we have not got. We have not got a steady, stable, progressive economic situation; in part it is, but there are ups and downs and "ons" and "offs". But if we have full employment and if we have prosperity, all of us, of all classes of the community, must try morally to live up to the obligations of full employment and of the other prosperous elements in industrial and commercial life. It is an obligation on all of us. One of the regrettable things about the industrial situation, and to some extent the political situation—I am not talking of one Party or another—is that the moral factor in all these things

189
is not sufficiently stressed. That is another thing we did in the Labour Government. I preached restraint of incomes at the Labour Party Conference when I was Lord President of the Council. I said, "If you go in for wages too quickly you will meet yourselves coming back with increased prices", whilst in no way challenging the right of trade unions to look after themselves. I drafted the speech, and thought I would get chucked out. But they applauded, the roof nearly went off, and it was a great success.
We must do more—including Ministers—in giving simple explanations of the economic facts of life, and also in urging that there are moral factors in this as well as immediate material factors of advantage. I admit that taxation is a factor which sometimes modifies it; nevertheless, if dividends and incomes of the well-to-do are excessively high it affects the minds of the work-people and makes them less willing to co-operate in an incomes policy, even allowing for taxation, which can be stiff on some people. There is the need for the Government to be fair between the various classes, and to be seen to be fair. In some of these things to which I will come a little later they have not been altogether fair all the way. But if these things are done, if there is fairness on the part of the Government and reasonable restraint on the part of the boards of directors and a sense of public responsibility which they ought to have, then there is also responsibility on the trade unions to be willing themselves to exercise restraint where it is needed in order not to upset the economic applecart and bring back on themselves, quite likely, higher prices so that what their people get out of it at the end of the day is arguable.
The working people are entitled to share in the advantages of automation; they are entitled to share in the increased production. That is a factor which must be kept in mind. But I want them to realise that every section of the community must make its contribution, if our country is to be economically secure and respected in the world. The unions take—I would not say excessive advantage, but some advantage of full employment; but, when that is said, my Lords, it must be admitted that the employers
190
in the days of heavy unemployment took advantage of that. That is remembered. These memories go back a long way. Not only would they not increase wages; they reduced them and enforced lock-outs to reduce wages. So that is part of the moral history of the business. But we must not forget that there is a relationship between wages, prices and profits.
So, in short, we need fairness by the Government, and the Government have not always been fair. In the case of their own direct employees they have been a bit stiff. In the case of private enterprise employees they have not been able to enforce their view, and this causes friction. The salaries of the higher civil servants—and I understand the case for it—have gone up very highly. The salaries of the chairmen of the boards of publicly-owned industries went up without argument, and almost without notice, by substantial sums a little while ago. Of course, these things are noticed by working people. So we need fairness by the Government, responsibility by the boards of directors, and responsibility by our brothers of the trade union movement as well. After all, what matters is Britain as a whole, the British people as a whole, the respect of other peoples for our country, and our belief that we are doing a capable job and a good job. It is in that spirit of enlightened love of country and enlightened patriotism that, for myself, I want all sections of the community to approach our economic problems.
6.53 p.m.
VISCOUNT BLAKENHAM: My Lords, I think we have listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, and I particularly agreed with many of the sentiments he expressed at the end. As usual I welcomed his avuncular advice on how I should run the Central Office. He is a very experienced politician, and it is very nice to get his advice free of charge, without even having asked for it. I admit that I approached this debate with some trepidation, because, although none of your Lordships seemed to realise it, today is celebrated in France as Bastille Day. I wondered beforehand whether this anniversary might encourage the Opposition to raise their passions, and whether we might be facing a debate of considerable controversy. But in fact this was not so. I should like to say to

191
the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, who had a few caustic comments to make about me, that I thought he approached the whole of this problem extremely objectively. I think the debate throughout has been an objective debate, and has been designed to throw as much light as possible on the needs and future of the country so far as the economy is concerned.
This is very different, certainly, from what has happened outside this House. I think it was only a year ago that Mr. Callaghan was wondering what sort of disaster was going to happen. He warned us in January that "some of the signs are not too encouraging", and "the Chancellor is trying to get firmer backing for an incomes policy to use as an alibi to both sides of industry, in case the economy should falter during the next few months." He generally contributed these comments to the Sunday Citizen, predicting that the Election was certain to come before the early summer, because if it was left any later the balloon would burst. None of this spirit was to be seen in any part of this debate this afternoon. I think I am right in saying—and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jessel—that there was very little criticism about the short-term effects of the Budget. The chief criticisms were based on the long-term approach, and there were various attitudes expressed about an incomes policy. I think that in an interjection the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, almost gave grudging approval to what the Chancellor had done in the short term.
I certainly did not wish to be accused of any discourtesy in not having made any comment on the balancing item, which was raised yesterday in your Lordships' House when I was not present. I did not add anything to what was said because there is very little I can add. My noble friend explained yesterday, in reply to a Question, that the balancing item represents the net total of errors and omissions throughout the United Kingdom balance-of-payments accounts. The item fluctuates in size and from positive to negative. Therefore we can only speculate about its nature, and it is not possible to forecast how it will behave in 1964. This is the position, though in
192
his answer my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn said [col. 5]:
"Recent improvements in the accuracy and coverage of the balance of payments figures have significantly reduced the average size of the balancing item."
He also said that further improvements are in hand, but at the moment there is really nothing more to add to what my noble friend had to say.
I was pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, at the end praised the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his initiative in proposals on international liquidity. It was fair of him to do this, because, as the House knows, a great deal has been done by my right honourable friend to press on in this field. The report of the Group of Ten is due shortly and is going to be considered at the I.M.F. meeting in Tokyo, which will be in September of this year, and I hope that progress will prove possible then. I can assure the House that the Chancellor will certainly do all he can to press ahead in this.
What we have to rely on—again, the noble Lord mentioned some of the items—supposing that we have to take action, is of course our reserves, our dollar portfolio, short-term assistance from European central Banks, the 500 million dollar swap arrangements with the United States, which the noble Lord mentioned, our stand-by of 1 billion dollars with the International Monetary Fund, and our drawing rights of 2,500 million dollars. As I think your Lordships will recognise, these amount to a very formidable series of fall-backs, supposing we have to make use of them.
I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, seemed to move in a somewhat contrary direction. He asked if Britain would put price stability before economic expansion. That was the theme of his speech. I would say to the noble Lord that the Government's policy is to seek to do both at the same time. We have repeatedly said that if we are to sustain economic expansion in this country our costs and our prices must be competitive. So it is not really a question of choosing between either price stability or economic growth. We shall not, in fact—and I tried to make this point in my speech—get economic growth unless we have reasonable price stability. Once again, it all goes back to exports; and

193
if our exports are not competitive, then all our hopes go by the board.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, also asked whether I could give some estimation of the benefits to consumers in the United Kingdom resulting from the EFTA Agreements. I am, sure your Lordships understand that this is not really something that you can measure, but the real benefit will come from the effect of our policy of a progressive reduction in tariffs on the competitiveness of our own industries and on the price of our own imports from the EFTA countries. Another point that the noble Lord raised with me was the simplification of Exchequer accounts. I think the noble Lord will remember that, about a year ago, I think it was, a White Paper was issued on this subject. The Government are continuing to give thought to trying to improve the public presentation of their accounts, and they will certainly continue to do so. I do not agree—and I think most noble Lords would be on my side on this—that we are being backward in improving information. I think the public is getting far more information—and this is a very good thing—about Government expenditure. Of course, I did mention in my own speech that there was the new practice of issuing a White Paper—the current one was published in December, showing our expenditure for the four years ahead, ending in 1967–68.
I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Eccles on a speech which all who heard it will agree with me was a first-class one. I think he did very strongly debunk (if I might use a rather unparliamentary word) the idea, floated rather gently by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, of selective taxation of individual firms and industries. I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, also skated very gentle over this——
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: I did not skate at all.
VISCOUNT BLAKENHAM: Very wise; the noble Lord did not skate at all over this side of the Labour proposals. They certainly are, so far as I know, written in their policy documents. Of course, my noble friend Lord Eccles is right. Whitehall is in no position to be judge and jury between individual firms or individual industries, and I
194
would certainly not choose Whitehall as the instrument to pick the winner. I think that this was very clearly brought out by my noble friend Lord Eccles, and I could not agree with him more. I also agree with him—and the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, did the same—that whatever noble Lords may say, heavier company taxation would have the effect that the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, said it would. It would penalise the very modernisation that we are urging companies to undertake. It would penalise companies putting larger sums aside for research into modern techniques which we must have. Private enterprise as well as the Government must see that research is continued at an increasingly high level, and you will not do that if you penalise companies by heavier taxation.
The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, welcomed the differential taxation proposals of 1963. He said that they were belated, and in the case which he made, as usual, very eloquently, he tried to give the impression that until those proposals had been put forward very little or nothing had been done for Scotland or the areas with high unemployment. This, of course, is less than fair. I am not going to dispute his figures, but he knows that the great problem of Scotland, of the North-East and of certain other areas has been the very rapid rundown of the older industries; the very rapid cut-down in manpower in the shipbuilding industry, the coalmining industry and the heavy engineering industry, much of which is, of course, located in the North. It was the contraction of the older industries which overtook the supply of new jobs, which of course was being carried out under the Local Employment Act long before 1963. But, still, I appreciate his praise of the action that has been taken.
In the debate, the noble Lord also raised the question whether nationalised industries are eligible for assistance in the areas of high unemployment, and he complained that they were not treated on a par with private enterprise. I think it was during the debate in this House on the Local Employment Bill last June that we said that the Government were prepared to consider applications for grants on the same conditions as for private firms under the 1963 Act, where there was a genuine choice of location

195
and where there was a genuine choice of going ahead or not—in other words, where the grant would act as a real inducement. This, I think, was made plain by the Government spokesman at the time. Nationalised industries are not eligible for loan assistance under the 1960 Employment Act, since, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, I believe, their loan requirements are provided for in separate legislation.
I was very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for emphasising, as he did, that this 4 per cent. growth target is really a very formidable target for us to have undertaken. Because we have set our hand to the plough, people seem to think that we ought to be aiming at 5 or 6 per cent. next year. As the noble Lord pointed out, if in the next few years we can achieve a steady growth of 4 per cent. we shall have done a magnificent job for the country, and to try to think in terms higher than that would be extremely unwise. I think the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, was absolutely right in stressing this point.
I regret to say that I had to be out of the Chamber during the speeches of my noble friends Lord Sandwich and Lord Reading. I gather that my noble friend Lord Sandwich had some hard things to say about the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Hughes and Lord Francis-Williams. I see they are both smiling. They may have smarted at the time, but they have probably recovered from the attack that the noble Earl made on them.
LORD HUGHES: Particularly as I realised that the interpretation of my own speech by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, was based on his ignorance of Scottish geography. He seemed to think that outside the four cities there were only hamlets. The noble Viscount, at least, has realised that that is not the case.
VISCOUNT BLAKENHAM: As I explained to noble Lords, unfortunately I cannot act as umpire on the subject, because I did not happen to be in the Chamber. I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, also, for congratulating the Government on what he
196
calls economic brinkmanship, and in ensuring that our people are kept in employment. Of course, this is a very difficult operation. I think the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, at the beginning of his speech, pointed out the obvious difficulties in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer found himself in framing his Budget. The main thing—and I think he will read this debate with great interest—is that there seems to be little doubt that noble Lords think that he has done about the right thing.
The noble Marquess, Lord Reading, pointed out that, in the last twelve months, wages had increased more than dividends. Of course, that is true. I also want to say something about prices, because the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, in his winding-up speech, gave a tremendous, high-blown apologia of the Labour Government of 1945 to 1951. It is not surprising he did, because he was a distinguished member of that Government; but I really think that his memory must be slipping a little. I should like to give a different version of what happened under that Labour Government. Of course they had immediate difficulties after the war. But that Government went on for six years and they could not take as an alibi the fact that they had to turn a war-time economy into a peace-time economy. This was something which certainly one would give them three years to do; but that does not account for what happened in the last three years of their administration.
We had a lot of talk about prices. In six and a quarter years of Labour Government the average annual rise in retail prices was 6½ per cent. In the first six years of our Government—and we were incommoded by the position that we took over—we managed to improve very considerably. Retail prices rose 4½ per cent. each year. In the last six years, retail prices have risen only 3½ per cent.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, would the noble Viscount not agree that, during the period of the Labour Government, the world's raw commodity prices rose very considerably, and during the lifetime of the present Government the reverse has been the case and world commodity prices have fallen? Would the noble Lord not also agree that this

197
is one of the difficulties of developing countries?
VISCOUNT BLAKENHAM: My Lords, broadly speaking, it is true that commodity prices rose for part of the period, but this does not account for the vast differences in the figures which I have just quoted.
The noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, ignores little facts such as that we did not devalue the pound during that time. When he talks about handing over to the Conservative Government "a ship under full sail", he must remember that when we took over in 1951 we were going through one of the worst balance-of-payments crises we have ever faced. He and his other friends had to leave office, and, fortunately for the country, they have not been returned since. These are very valid points to make in reply to the apologia which the noble Lord made.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH. My Lords, it was not an apologia; it was an affirmation, it was a boast. As I said in my speech, we had our crises. The amazing thing is not that we had a limited number of crises, but that in the situation we faced at the end of a very great war we did not have more of them.
VISCOUNT BLAKENHAM: My Lords, we were about the only country left after the war on both bread and meat rationing.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: My Lords, the noble Viscount is brushing over those post-war problems in so slippery a way that he might have been on a skating rink during these last thirteen or fourteen minutes. Surely the noble Lord has not forgotten that we went into the last war owing £7,000 million. We came out owing £21,000 million, and the Labour Government had to face all the destruction and problems created by the war itself. So far as prices are concerned, it is true they increased more rapidly between 1945 and 1951 than subsequently, because food was unobtainable in any part of the world, and the only real piece of joy about our food and prices was that we, at all events, as a Labour Government, produced an agricultural policy that increased food output by 30 or 40 per cent.
VISCOUNT BLAKENHAM: I know the noble Lord is proud of his agricultural policy, and I am not decrying it. But he rose on my statement that we still had rationing of bread and meat when other countries, such as Germany and France, had long since abolished rationing. They had Governments more capable of looking after them.
Having said that, my Lords, I should like to end on this note, which I think is the one which exercises all sensible and careful-thinking people, and that is the need for an incomes policy. The noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, said—and, as I said earlier, I think he is right—that an incomes policy must be seen to be fair, that every section must make its contribution; and he pointed out that this applied just as much to the unions as to the managerial boards or others. I am certain that it is this consciousness of the need for an incomes policy—that we shall not, in fact, get the growth we want unless we have the incomes policy—that is the most unifying part of this debate. I am certain that our policy as a Government will be to continue to seek an incomes policy. The fact that there are Elections ahead does not make this easy, but I am certain that once Election fever is over, and once a Conservative Government is returned to power again, we shall go forward with far greater success in achieving this policy.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, may I say that I am astonished at the answers made although they were delivered in a good tone and spirit. But the pound to-day is worth just over 14s., compared with what is was worth in 1951. You talk about the Labour Government devaluing the pound. You have dropped its value and increased the cost of living for people all through. We had a Budget of £4,190 million after having carried our share in the Korean war, and with a Defence Force which is double the one you have to-day. You are going to spend £2,200 million on the Defence Forces next year with only half the personnel in it that we had at the end of the war. I do not think the noble Viscount has given a very good defence.
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.

TRADING STAMPS BILL
7.13 p.m.
Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendments read.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received. I believe I shall be in order if at this stage I deal with four small points not covered by Amendments put down to the Bill, because they will not otherwise be ventilated, and I should like to make a little comment upon them. They were raised by noble Lords during the Committee stage and I promised that I would look at them.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, raised the first point. It was about the Companies Act, and he asked why there were different lists of provisions in the Protection of Depositors Act of last year and Clause 1 of this Bill. He mentions specifically certain sections related to the responsibility of members, debts, provision for winding-up, and if the number of members falls below the statutory minimum. The loss of private status which is achieved in the Protection of Depositors Act would require that the minimum number of members became seven instead of two. I think the privileges of private companies really stem from the fact that a private company does not offer its shares or debentures to the public for subscription; but a deposit-taking company does something akin to that, in that it offers its own shares and debentures for subscription in a way very similar to public companies. It is for that reason that these deposit-taking companies have been deprived of their special protection.
A stamp company seems to me to be in rather a different category. It does not subject the public to anything like the financial risk that a deposit-taking company does. I think that, on balance, it is right to limit the deprivation to the cases set out in Clause 1. The Jenkins Report has recommended that in future the minimum membership of a company should be two. I should like to think that this Bill is in advance of Government thinking or policy and accepts the recommendations of the Jenkins Report. That is an additional reason why we should not alter Clause 1 as it stands, because it would make a difference to some stamp companies, and if we took away this special exemption
200
some would have to alter their constitution. So, on balance, I think that it is probably right to leave the Bill as it is.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, raised another point, about what happened when a stamp company closed down in what he described as an area, and he suggested that a special provision should be put in to protect stamp collectors in such an area. The definition of the word "area" is an almost impossible task in this context. Again, on balance, I wonder whether the noble Lord would not agree that, with the possibility of cash redemption and the probability that with the stamps already collected a customer will probably get something quite nice out of the catalogue—or, if she has set her heart on something that needs two more books or so, that it is not without the bounds of possibility that she will be able to get stamps elsewhere—it is not worth what would have to be an elaborate new clause in the Bill to deal with that. I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising the point but, on reflection, I think that it is probably better to leave it as it is.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, who I am sure will be in his place in a moment, asked about the definition of the word "shop" and whether all the outlets for trading stamps would be covered. Of course "shop" applies only in Clause 6, which deals with catalogues and notices that have to be displayed. It is true that the definition as it stands might not cover 100 per cent. of the outlets for trading stamps, but in those cases not covered it would be probably difficult to display catalogues and notices in any event, and I am satisfied that the majority of places where stamps are given will be covered by this definition and that it will give the protection we desire. If a few outlets escape the net, I do not believe that the lack of a catalogue and notice will do irreparable harm. Again, I hope that the Bill can be safely left as it is.
The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, raised the question of copies of the catalogue, which are statutorily required to be displayed, becoming dog-eared, dirty and impossible to read. I think that to try to deal with this sort of thing in legislation is going a little far, and if common sense cannot prevail to the extent that

201
a shopkeeper who sees his catalogue getting into a sorry state will ask for a new one, I think that it is really impossible to deal with it. The noble Earl is not here, but I cannot imagine that he feels very strongly over the matter.
The last point I would clear up was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, who asked why a notice has to be put up in the case of every shop. Surely the noble Lord is anxious, particularly now that I have an Amendment down, which I hope will be accepted, to have the cash value of trading stamps put on the notices as well, to see that people know, before they go into a shop, the terms of the scheme in which they will be invited to participate. What is wrong with putting a notice outside as well as inside? I cannot see that there is any necessity to prevent a shopkeeper, as the noble Lord suggested, from putting a notice outside as well, or in the window, and I think that the words in the Bill are the right ones in that case. I hope that these points have been satisfactorily cleared up. I have looked at them but, on the whole, I think it is better to leave the Bill as it is. I beg to move that the Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for adopting this method of clearing up a number of points raised on Committee stage. I am sure that the House appreciates the difficulty of putting down Amendments to deal with them. I agree with the noble Viscount in his attitude to these points and accept what he says. I certainly agree that the noble Viscount, and many of us, on both sides of the House, are a good deal in advance of the Government in legislation. Our work would be infinitely easier if the Government would consider a little, but we shall see how far they can go on Report stage. I should like to thank the noble Viscount for his kindness.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 2 [Statements required on face of trading stamps]:
7.26 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD moved, after subsection (1), to insert:
202
"() The cash value of a trading stamp or the total cash value of trading stamps delivered by any person in respect of goods sold or services performed by him or on his behalf shall be not less than one-eightieth of the sum received for those goods."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I rise to move this Amendment, because I think we are all agreed that this Bill is concerned not merely with regulating stamp trading companies but with regulating stamp trading, in which the retailers play an essential part. During the Committee stage of the Bill we debated the importance of putting a minimum cash value for the redemption of trading stamps, and I produced a formula which my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross thought was too rigid and too complicated. He also criticised my proposal on the ground that my Amendment would not include the retailer, who was an integral part of stamp trading, and who might vary the number of stamps issued against the purchase of goods. This could penalise the trading companies. Therefore, I withdrew my Amendment and I have endeavoured to re-frame it to meet these criticisms.
I would remind your Lordships that in this business of stamp trading there are two main partners—first, the stamp company and, second, the retailers, who purchase the company's stamps and issue them against the purchase of goods. There is, of course, a third, if we include also the consumer, the buyer of the stamps. Therefore, whatever is contained in legislation must apply in all fairness to all the partners. The present Amendment, which is in a simpler form, would make the minimum cash redemption value roughly equivalent to the wholesale price of the goods bought by the trading stamp company, less 10 per cent. variation in price. This works out at 3d. for every 20s. worth of goods bought. It would also provide a ratio which would be able to deal with the variation of the value of money, due to inflation or variations in price, should they alter very much. The ratio of one-eightieth to the sum received for goods and services would be easily understood and would be constant. There is nothing to prevent a company or retailer from giving a higher redemption value, if they like, but they could not give less.
During Committee stage some noble Lords said they would be content to leave

203
the question of redemption value to the competition of one company with another. In the United States, where stamp trading is more widespread, there is virtually no competition. This is referred to by Mr. Jameson in his Report, in the footnote on page 8. No retailer is forced to take stamps but, if he does, then in my opinion he is an integral part of the stamp-trading operation and should be included in the provision of cash redemption. In relation to competition, there is a tendency, if small companies show signs of failing, for large companies to buy them out—obviously for the sake of the good name of stamp trading with the public and the retailers.
It is important that the companies should be strong enough to be able to meet all their liabilities. In the modern world, the tendency is for companies of all kinds to amalgamate into much larger units, and I think that often this acts to the benefit of the consumers and manufacturers, although one could qualify that statement. I therefore think it is quite possible that in five or perhaps ten years the number of stamp companies operating in the United Kingdom may be reduced. There are not a great many companies now, but there might well be only three or four or half-a-dozen of the well-known ones in control of stamp trading in future. Obviously, competition will be reduced still further. I think it is most important that at the outset of this new form of trading, with a new Bill going through Parliament, there should be no confusion in the minds of the consumer, the retailer or the stamp company that the cash redemption value exists, and a cash redemption value which is fair to the stamp company, the retailer and the consumer. The figure in my Amendment fulfils this object, and I hope your Lordships will see your way to accept it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 15, at end insert the said subsection.—(Baroness Elliot of Harwood.)
7.31 p.m.
LORD SAINSBURY: My Lords, I should like to support the Amendment moved by the noble Baroness. As I said on Second Reading, I believe it is extremely naïve to suggest, on the basis of the American example, that competition will ensure a reasonable cash re-
204
demption rate. I think the proposal in this Amendment of 3d. in the pound, which is half the average price paid by the retailer on his turnover to the stamp company, is essentially fair to the stamp company and cannot be attacked on that basis. What it amounts to is that the stamp company will get a similar profit on cash redemption as it makes when gifts are exchanged for stamps. I think this is essentially fair to the stamp company and a very necessary safeguard to the consumer.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I should certainly support this Amendment, so far as it goes, and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, that this is fair to stamp companies. But I am not nearly so sure that it is fair to the customers who go shopping. It seems to me a most extraordinary state of affairs that, the retailer having paid a certain sum for trading stamps which are then given to his customers, if his customers wish to redeem them for cash they receive a mere fraction of the price that the retailer has paid to the stamp company. The stamp company have done nothing whatever in the meantime to render any service to the person who is not interested in stamp collecting but merely wishes to redeem the stamps, and the stamp company have in the intervening time had the use of the money paid by the retailer for the purpose of running their business.
I wonder what your Lordships would say of a businessman who went to his bank for the purpose of obtaining an overdraft to tide him over in the running of his business and said to his bank manager: "I shall not be able to pay you any interest on the overdraft. Beyond that, I am not proposing to pay you back the full amount of the overdraft that is advanced to me, but I intend to pay back some fraction of the sum you advance." Suppose the bank manager replied: "Well, you have been a very good customer of ours for a number of years, and we might perhaps make an exception in your case and grant you, just for once, an interest-free overdraft. But we really do insist that you pay back the full amount of the money you borrow from us." And then the businessman replied: "Oh, but I cannot do that: that might ruin my

205
business." That is what the stamp companies say, I understand: that if they have to give full cash value in redemption for trading stamps it is going to ruin their business.
This seems to me to be a most extraordinary state of affairs. I should have thought that if stamp companies could not make a living by distributing stamps, or getting them distributed to people who wanted to collect them, and could make a living only by forcing them upon people who did not want to collect them, the sooner the stamp promoters in this age of full employment gave up that business and entered another that was rather more useful to society, the better. I do not think these gentlemen are other than resourceful. I imagine that they know a good deal about the grocery trade and have worked in fairly close alliance with the grocery trade for some time. I imagine that if they wrote a nice, polite letter to the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, he might be able to find them profitable positions in the grocery trade; and when they went home at the end of the day they might feel that they had done a useful day's work, really for the benefit of society, whereas, as things are, that is not a feeling which is uppermost in their minds when they get to bed.
In so far as it goes, I am willing to support this Amendment. But what I do not understand is why we cannot have this matter of cash values settled once and for all by the Board of Trade coming into it, agreeing to consider stamp trading schemes and deciding, according to the terms of each scheme, what is a fair cash value in each case. In the light of the fact that Parliament has, in its wisdom, said that there shall be a cash value in trading stamps, I do not know what is holding back the Board of Trade. They set up the Consumer Council, and the Chairman of the Consumer Council has been pleading all through the passage of this Bill through your Lordships' House for some way of getting the cash values of trading stamps properly established.
Is this going to be a matter of expense? Is the Minister going to tell us that it would take more than part-time work for one civil servant at the Treasury to "vet" trading stamp schemes and establish fair cash values? The Board of Trade have their regional controllers throughout the country. Could not these gentlemen and
206
their staffs perfectly easily go round inspecting from time to time to see that the Board of Trade's cash values were being properly observed in the interests of the customers? If the Board of Trade are interested in this matter, it is not too late. We could have an Amendment upon these lines at the next stage of the Bill in this House, and when the Bill goes back to another place, if they are in agreement, they can put the modest Financial Resolution into the Bill to make this matter workable; and if another place do not like it, then they can disagree with your Lordships' Amendment, send the Bill back, and your Lordships can consider the matter again.
I simply do not understand why the Board of Trade, having set up the Consumer Council and having heard all these pleas from the Chairman of the Consumer Council regarding the necessity of properly establishing cash values for stamps, remain completely reluctant, as they appear to be up to now, to come into this matter and lend their experience in order that there shall be proper consumer protection. That is what I understand the Government are after, just as much as the rest of us are. But, so far as it goes, I support the Amendment.
7.40 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am always at a loss to deal with the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, because he seems to be completely insatiable in his requirements that we should put upon trading stamp companies. We are considering an Amendment which would relate the value of stamps given by the retailer to the purchases from the retailer. The noble Lord now proposes that the Board of Trade should regulate the value of the trading stamp in each scheme. This goes far beyond anything that has been proposed so far.
We had earlier a proposal that there should be registration of stamp trading companies, which presumably would have been based upon the general respectability, reputation, and so on, of the individuals, the reserves that they could offer, and the like. This was not accepted, and the noble Lord now goes on to suggest that we should have each single scheme submitted to the Board of Trade, and that the Board of Trade, on some criterion which it is difficult to establish a priori, should say what is the

207
fair cash value in relation to that stamp, or, indeed, what is the full cash value. Sometimes he talks about the one, and sometimes about the other. This is a long way from the Amendment, and I would urge the noble Lord, while he is giving support to this Amendment, not to venture too far on the lines of suggesting that the Board of Trade should exercise complete control over the operations of the actual schemes and operations of trading stamp companies in this way, because this is what it would amount to.
I think we all know now how the finances of these schemes work. The individual company which is promoting the scheme, from what it receives from the retailer, provides the gifts that are to be offered. It also has to find its administrative expenses, its promotion expenses and, possibly, a bit of profit for itself. In addition, it is now to be asked to give a cash value for those who do not wish to exchange stamps for goods but are content to cash them after they have saved 5s. worth or more. This is the position we are in at the moment.
The noble Lady now suggests that there should be a specific relationship of one-eightieth between the value of the stamps that are delivered to the individual purchaser and the total purchases which that purchaser makes at that time, irrespective (this may be just a drafting difficulty, and I do not complain too much about it) of whether all those purchases are entitled to trading stamps or not. This was a point made by my noble friend Lord Redesdale at an earlier stage, though I have no doubt that this is something which could be corrected.
Surely the main point here is to justify why, in the particular case of trading stamps, and in no others, Parliament should put on the retailer an obligation to give a particular size of discount as a minimum. This is something which it does not do in any other form of trading. The difficulty is to justify the proposal that Parliament should say that retailers handling trading stamps must give at least one-eightieth as a cash discount. This seems to be a remarkable intrusion into trading practices, and I suggest that nobody has made out a firm case for such a requirement.
208
I can well understand the noble Lady's feeling—which was also made clear by the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury—that, unless there is a considerable amount of competition between trading stamp companies, there is some risk that the cash value which will be fixed by trading stamp companies will be derisory. But we do not share this view. The fact is that Parliament is laying on promoters an obligation to put the cash value on the stamps themselves, and I should have thought that, given that requirement, as a matter even of prestige the stamp trading companies themselves would not wish to put too low a value on those stamps.
Quite apart from that, I wonder whether my noble friend has considered this particular aspect of the matter. What she is doing here is relating the value of the stamp to the purchases. I quite see why she has done this: it is in order to get over the difficulty which was pointed out before, that it would not be possible to place on the promoter an obligation which he could not carry out, to see that the retailer gave a certain value. But what would happen as a result of this? It seems to me that the noble Baroness has been working on the basis that at the present time the relationship between the value of the gift and the general purchases—or, if you like, the relationship between the cost of the stamps to the retailer and his turnover—is a matter of 2½ per cent. But if the minimum value is fixed at a given fraction of one-eightieth, it means we are fixing for all time the minimum relationship and the value of the stamp, in terms of gifts and all the rest of it. Is this something we really want to do?
Do we want to have a fixed relationship, and to say: "For all time this is going to work only if the value to the consumer in terms of rebate is something of the order of 2½ per cent."? That would be the effect, as I understand it, of putting a minimum relationship which is designed to be 50 per cent. cash value of the stamp to the value of the goods that are available to the consumer ultimately. I wonder whether the noble Lady has considered that. I was talking about inflexibility in this at an earlier stage, and it seems to me that this would introduce a new inflexibility. Does the noble Lord wish to intervene?
LORD SAINSBURY: My Lords, I was trying to interrupt to seek elucidation. Surely this is related to what the retailer pays to the stamp company for the stamps. It is, in point of fact, at 3d. one-half the average price paid by the retailer to the stamp company in advance for the stamps. It seems to me, as I said earlier, that by putting this minimum value on the stamp you are ensuring a profitable transaction for the stamp company. So you are in no way penalising the stamp company by this.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I do not think the noble Lord has quite got the point I was trying to make—perhaps I have not made it clear. The point is simply this. If it is the case that the retailer who is using trading stamps pays 2½ per cent., and if the value of the stamp is to be fixed at a minimum of roughly half that, and this is established as the appropriate relationship, what you are doing is fixing the minimum amount that the retailer using trading stamps will pay to the promoter. I am asking if this is a reasonable way of doing it. I quite appreciate the noble Lady's difficulty, and I admire the way in which she has sought to get over it. But I think we are running ourselves into unnecessary difficulties if we try to establish a fixed relationship of this kind. I do not think anybody has yet justified putting on retailers, if they give a discount in the form of trading stamps, this requirement to give a minimum discount. I do not believe that that case can be made out, and therefore, I cannot recommend the House to accept this; Amendment.
LORD LINDSAY OF BIRKER: My Lords, I have recently spent some time in the United States, and my experience is that competition, which is considerable over there between the stamp companies, does not lead to any minimum establishment of a cash value. One occasionally sees stamps with a derisory value, like one-hundredth of a cent., printed on them. If you want to ensure to the consumer the right to get cash instead of having to take a gift, you must have some clause of this kind. The idea that competition will produce a gift in relation to the value of goods bought just does not work.
7.51 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I am very grateful for
210
what Lord Drumalbyn has said. Other noble Lords and my noble friend Baroness Elliot of Harwood have doubted whether the effect of competition will be sufficient to keep up the value of the stamp. I should like to say with my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn that I am not as pessimistic as they are, but it is no secret. I think, that I should have liked to find some method of achieving what my noble friend Lady Elliot is seeking by this Amendment. I promised that I would have another look at this point. May I assure noble Lords that I have done so. I derived a great deal of assistance from the officials of the noble Lady's Council, and at one stage I thought there was a glimmer of light, and that there was the possibility of a formula coming forward which was really quite hopeful, although drafting it would have been formidably difficult. I see, unfortunately, that the noble Lady's advisers have not been able to draft anything quite on these new lines, and the noble Lady has put down the Amendment which is now before the House.
It seems to me that I am guilty of having caused not inconsiderable confusion about this matter, for which I must apologise; and I do not think I am altogether guiltless of misleading the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury. May I make it quite clear what I believe this Amendment does? I believe that this Amendment relates only to what goes on in the shop which issues the trading stamps to the customer as well as giving him over the counter certain goods for which he or she pays. I believe that the whole ambit of this Amendment takes place between the retail shop giving the stamps and the customer. I do not believe that it has any bearing or is in any way intended to bite upon the contract, which is a totally different matter, between the stamp company and the retailer, by which the stamp company sells stamps in large bulk to the retailer, which I think is what the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, was thinking of.
Nor (and of this I am certain) is it possible to relate this particular Amendment to the transaction which goes on between the trading stamp company and the sources from which it buys the goods, probably at wholesale prices, which in due course go to the redemption centre and are exchanged for the

211
stamps collected by the collectors. I believe that this Amendment does not relate to that latter situation. First of all, the wording would be inapposite. I think quite a lot of the wording in it is not applicable to that situation; nor do I believe that the fraction of one-eightieth would be the proper fraction if that were what was intended. I believe that this Amendment relates solely to what goes on in the retailer's shop.
It is perfectly true that the Amendment which the noble Lady put down on the Committee stage was one to which I objected because I said that she was proposing to fine a stamp promoter for something which came only within the control of the retailer who issued the stamps to the public for the goods they bought, because only the retailer could ensure that the correct number of stamps were given and that some of them would not be put into the pocket of the assistant or be misplaced in some other way. The noble Lady sought to cure this, and has cured this, because the person we fine under this Amendment is not the stamp company at all but the retailer who issues the stamps to the public. This is my basic objection on principle. I am sorry if I did not make it clear, but this is where I feel that this Amendment falls down. All the other points which are made by noble Lords are merely symptomatic of the bad principle which I believe underlies this Amendment.
Why, as my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn has said, should there be a minimum on the discount which can be given by the retailer? Remember, it refers only to the retailer; it has nothing to do with the stamp company. Or, indeed, why should not a stamp company come along with a scheme which does not give 2½ per cent. discount in terms of goods redemption, but, say, a 1¼ per cent. cash discount? Why should these things be prevented? Again, why should it be impossible for the retailer to tailor his scheme so that he gives rather fewer stamps for goods which perhaps have a high tax on them—wines and spirits, or cigarettes for example? Is there anything in the principle repugnant in the retailer having that flexibility? I do not think so. I believe
212
that the noble Lady, in a valiant attempt to achieve a formula, which will do what I think everybody wants, has hit upon what I think can be described only as a device, and one which uses the wrong method.
The person who controls the cash face value of a stamp is not the retailer. It comes to the retailer with a cash face value on it. It is the stamp company who are in charge of this. They are the people who make the decisions about what is to be the cash value of the stamps, and all the other terms of the scheme. It must be upon them, and upon them alone, that the duty of putting the right cash face value falls. That is why I object to a device which attempts to do it through the retailer, and by means, if it goes wrong, of fining the retailer, whereas it may be the stamp company alone who are responsible and who should get into trouble if things go wrong. This Amendment, I am sure, is quite wrong for that reason.
I am very sorry to have to disappoint the noble Lady, but I cannot accept this Amendment. Although I agree to some degree with the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, that there might be other things that could be done, and that an Amendment might be put down, I do not think he will find it any easier to draft Amendments on this particular subject than the other people have done. I have tried very hard myself and I should like to see what the noble Lord could produce, because I am sure it would be very interesting. But I am afraid that even then there might be something wrong in it, particularly if a great responsibility were put upon the Board of Trade which would involve them with difficult and invidious matters of choice on the operation of which they would have no guidance from Parliament. It would be an unfortunate thing to do, to put the Board of Trade in that position without proper Parliamentary guidance. I do not see how we can overcome that particular difficulty.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I always dislike disappointing in any way the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, but I am afraid I shall not be able to give him the pleasure of my putting down an Amendment of

213
this kind in the Bill. It is quite beyond my capabilities.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I derive some relief from that, but I should have liked to see what the noble Lord would do. I am sorry about it, but I cannot accept the noble Lady's Amendment for the basic reason I have explained. I hope the noble Lady will feel that she can withdraw this particular Amendment, because, valiant though it is, I do not believe she is doing what she wants in the right way.
7.59 p.m.,
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, before the noble Lady responds, may I say one or two words? First of all, I think we are in considerable difficulty. I believe we are united in all four quarters of the House. Whether the centre is included in that, I would not know, but I am pretty sure that from the four corners of the House this evening we would join together in an attempt to find some way of protecting the consumer in these transactions. We could have achieved this, I think, if at the earlier stages of this Bill we had been able to persuade the Government in regard to registration and the laying down of requirements of the conduct of the companies.
In regard to the Amendment of the noble Baroness, I would agree rather reluctantly, I am afraid, with the noble Viscount that it does lay specifically on the retailer. I do not think one can construe the words differently. If that is the case, you would by Statute say to the retailer, "You must give what is in effect a statutory rebate if you undertake stamp trading". On this point I turned to my noble friend Lord Sainsbury and said, "If I were to produce a Statute which said that grocers had to give a 3½ per cent. cash discount on their sales, what would you do?" And before he could give a reply I said, "Obviously you would have to uplift your price in order to give the cash discount if in the past you were not giving the cash discount". This, of course, is the difficulty when you are trying to deal with a point by Statute. I personally agree 100 per cent. with the endeavours of the noble Baroness, and may I again compliment her because she has done sterling work on this Bill, not only for this House but for the Consumer Council, and I strongly suspect that the noble Viscount in his
214
own heart would like to see some provision.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I said so.
LORD SHEPHERD: Yes. However we are not able to find it, and I do not believe it is now even within the bounds of the ability and resources of the Consumer Council, in the time available between now and the end of the Session, to find the necessary foolproof words. We are also in the difficulty we were in the other evening. As we well know, on Private Members' Bills neither major Party has a Whip and in consequence the House, particularly at this late hour, gets rather thin; and if the noble Lady were to call a Division we should have what the Daily Telegraph described as the farcical position of the House not being counted out but no decision being arrived at. What the numbers would be I do not know, but I am sure we should not have a sufficient number of Members present. If that were the case, we should have to delay the Report stage again, and again delay the Third Reading.
There are a number of useful Amendments down which were agreed at Committee stage. There is one of considerable importance, either No. 4 or No. 5, by the noble Viscount or the noble Baroness; one of these, I presume, will be accepted this evening. This will be a major breakthrough. Therefore, the Bill will be considerably better than it was when it was introduced. It does not match up to what we should like, but it is an advance, an advance we have had to make on our own with very little encouragement from the direction from which encouragement should have come. I should rather regret it if in trying to go for what is a small point, an important but a small point, we ran the risk of losing this Bill.
I will be quite frank: I have changed my mind in regard to this Bill. Originally when I saw it I could not have cared less whether it was passed or not; it was of little significance. But it has been improved and I think it now has considerable worth, particularly if Amendment No. 4 is accepted. I therefore would ask the noble Baroness not to press this Amendment this evening. She has our support; I know she knows

215
that. But I would ask her not to press it for fear of losing the Bill. May I say to the noble Baroness that she will have her opportunities, perhaps in a few months' time, of bringing forward her own Private Bill, perhaps with this particular point in it and with others that the Consumer Council would have liked to see in this Bill; and undoubtedly there will then be a Parliament of a different political complexion which will look upon it with more interest and more sympathy than I am afraid Parliament of to-day will. Therefore, I think the noble Baroness need not despair if she does not succeed this evening; there is another day and another fight, and I am quite sure she will attain her victory in the end.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I will, of course, respond to the appeal of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and also the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. I will not press this to a Division. As the noble Lord said, it is late and there are few Members here to divide.
I should like to answer one or two points put particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, as to why I want to do something to protect the consumer, and why the Board of Trade, so far as I can see from his replies, has no interest in protecting the consumer. I think that is not at all what I should have expected. The object here is quite simple. This is a new type of trade. It has its pitfalls. The pitfalls, we are told, have already been discovered in parts of the world in which this practice is being indulged in. I was very interested in what was said by the noble Lord who spoke about his experience in the United States of America, where competition in the matter of cash value is non-existent. I have been told that, too, though I have not learned it from experience. Therefore, I want to do something to forestall some of these pitfalls.
The noble Lord has asked why I want to fix a minimum. I want to fix a minimum for the simple reason that if you do not fix a minimum you are absolutely at the mercy of people who are going to whittle the thing down to nothing.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I do not want to interrupt,
216
but I think it is important to get this matter right. I agree it would be desirable to fix a minimum cash value. I think the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, was saying he wondered whether it was desirable to fix a minimum discount in the shop which a person taking part in the scheme, a retailer, was bound to adhere to.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I think, if I may say so, the noble Viscount misunderstands me. The object of putting in a simple ratio of one-eightieth of 20s. was simply that if the value of money goes up or down this value will alter with it; you will still be dealing with 3d. in the 20s., and in so far as it is a fixture it seems to me a very low fixture and one worth having. It alters with the value of money or the price of goods. Therefore, it is not fixed in that sense. It is only fixed in the sense that the ratio is fixed. However, I do not want to argue this point again. That was the reason I wanted to have a minimum which would apply to retailers, and I think it should also apply to the stamp companies. However, we argued this just now and the noble Viscount does not think my Amendment would cover it. One cannot draft Amendments to cover everything.
What I find frustrating is that I was accused in the Committee stage of being unfair to the stamp companies. I have brought in something to cover the retailer, and I am accused of dealing with the retailers and not the stamp companies. I understood from my legal advisers that this Amendment would cover both. Apparently it does not, and I will not press it. But the frustration is very great, since on one day I am accused of failing to do something, and I do it on the next day and I am then told it leaves out what I did on the first day. It all could have been done—and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury—far more simply if we had a simple scheme of registration, which we wanted in the beginning. We have not got that, and now we have not got a minimum. We have got no safeguard for the consumer. I hope that at some future date we shall not be at all disappointed; and the Board of Trade in my opinion might feel a little ashamed of the fact that they have not helped in

217
any way to put a sound basis into this Bill. I am sorry to speak so frankly, but in fact that is what I feel, and I had better say what I feel. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3:
Redemption of trading stamps for cash.
3.—
(2) The holder may exercise his right under the foregoing subsection—
(a) by presenting the stamps at any reasonable time at the promoter's registered office, or
8.11 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE LORD AIREDALE moved, in subsection (2)(a), after "time" to insert:
"at a shop in which the trading stamp scheme is operated, or".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to secure that where customers wish to redeem stamps for cash they may do so in the shop where they get the stamps given to them, without, if the promoter of the scheme requires them, sending or taking the stamps to his place of business. I moved an Amendment along these lines on the Committee stage, but that Amendment made the retailer liable to redeem for cash equally with the promoter, who of course was liable to redeem for cash. I was told that this was unfair upon retailers, because the promoter might go bankrupt and then all the retailers would themselves be liable to undertake the cash redemption.
I have not been losing much sleep on behalf of retailers who may land their customers with a stamp trading scheme for a promoter who goes bankrupt, but I can see that some injustice may result if this happens, because inevitably one shop would be required to redeem more than its fair share of the stamps and other shops would get off more lightly, having to redeem less than their fair share. Therefore I have put down the Amendment on this occasion in this way. It still leaves the liability to redeem on the shoulders of the promoter, but nevertheless says that the redemption shall, if the customer requests or requires it, be conducted at the shop and not necessarily, if the promoter requires it, at his place of business.
I should have thought this was obviously convenient for shoppers. Parliament, in its wisdom, having said that there shall be an option to redeem for cash if the customer wants it, it should not be for the promoter of the scheme to place an obstacle in the path of the shopper by requiring the shopper to redeem not at the shop but at the place of business of the promoter. The shopper knows nothing about the promoter; they are total strangers to one another. The retailer is in continual contact with the promoter; the retailer has bargaining power with the promoter. The retailer can secure that the promoter meets his commitment to redeem for cash. There is no bargaining power as between the customer and the promoter. The shop is the obvious place where the cash redemption should take place, if the customer wants it to happen. That is the purpose of this Amendment, which I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 41, after ("time") insert the said words.—(Lord Airedale.)
LORD SAINSBURY: My Lords, may I say just a brief word? I think we are now swinging to being unfair to the retailer, because if I read this Amendment rightly it means that he buys stamps from the stamp company and then is under an obligation to redeem them for cash.
LORD AIREDALE: No. I must not make two speeches, but may I just correct this? That is what my last Amendment did on the Committee stage. What I am now seeking to secure is that although the cash redemption transaction shall take place in the shop if the customer wants it that way, the liability shall remain on the promoter, and the retailer is only the promoter's agent for the purpose of paying over the redemption.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, it is perfectly true that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale has cured the major defect in his Amendment of the Committee stage. I think he will also agree that it is quite true that I agreed with him then, as I do now, that a convenient method by which the customer can get his or her cash redemption would be to go to the shop where the stamps are sold. It is simply a matter of deciding whether to leave it to the voluntary

219
arrangements which I told the noble Lord I thought would come about, or whether this has to go in the Statute. If it goes in the Statute, every shop, or probably every outlet that issues these trading stamps, will have to be an agent for the trading stamp company and take on the cash redemption.
I am the last person to suggest that stamp companies will not have been "vetted", or indeed that any of these outlets for trading stamps will not have been carefully "vetted" by the trading stamp company, before the scheme is entered into. But the noble Lord's Amendment makes no provision for the transmission of the stamps or what would happen thereafter for the payment of the money to the customer, the collector of the stamps. I think that is something that ought to be in the Bill, and it is something which I feel would be dealt with carefully by any trading stamp company which used one of these outlets for stamps—one of the retailers—as an agent for dealing with this particular side of the business. I should like to leave it to the discretion of the trading stamp companies to make voluntary arrangements with the shops that they have decided should take on this side of the transaction. Although it is only a matter of balance and judgment I think, on the whole, it is better to leave it to the voluntary arrangements which I think will take place.
I would remind the noble Lord that on the first day of the Committee stage, when he was moving his Amendment, he said he would withdraw it in the light of what I had said about the possibility of voluntary arrangements being made between the promoter and the retailer. He went on to say that if before the next stage of the Bill there was a real and genuine possibility of a satisfactory voluntary arrangement of this kind coming into force, he would be satisfied. The noble Lord has put down this Amendment. I am certain that the House would allow him to make another short speech if he had evidence that satisfactory arrangements of a voluntary kind will not be made. If he has not got such evidence, I am puzzled by the noble Lord's reversion to this matter. Perhaps if he has evidence that this is not going to work satisfactorily he will give it to me, be-
220
cause I shall be interested to hear it; otherwise, I hope he will agree with me that, on balance, it will be better to leave this to voluntary arrangements rather than to make every shop an agent for the cash redemption.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, it was the noble and learned Viscount who told us about the voluntary arrangements which he hoped were going to be made. I did not raise that issue at all. I think I said it would be interesting to see what happened on the next stage of the Bill. It was the noble and learned Viscount who brought forward this matter and raised these hopes that there would be voluntary schemes. I do not think it was for me to search around for evidence or to take this up. I hoped to hear from the noble and learned Viscount at this stage that perhaps some of these voluntary schemes, which had seemed to be rather in the air at that time, might have come down to earth. I appreciate that only a few days have intervened, and perhaps one cannot expect much. I do not feel so strongly about this matter as I do about some of the matters in this Bill, and certainly on this issue I do not wish to risk losing the Bill. In the circumstances, I can only ask leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.19 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSSmoved, after Clause 3, to insert the following new clause:
Warranties to be implied on redemption of trading stamps for goods
".—(1) Subject to subsection (2) of this section, in every redemption of trading stamps for goods there shall be—

(a) an implied warranty on the part of the promoter of the trading stamp scheme that he has a right to give the goods in exchange,

(b) an implied warranty that the person obtaining the goods shall have and enjoy quiet possession of the goods,

(c) an implied warranty that the goods shall be free from any charge or encumbrance in favour of any third party, not declared or known to the person obtaining the goods before or at the time of redemption,

(d) an implied warranty that the goods shall be of merchantable quality, except that if the person obtaining the goods has examined the goods before or at the time of redemption, there shall be no implied condition as regards defects which the examination ought to have revealed.

(2) The foregoing subsection shall have effect subject to the terms on which the redemption is made, so far as those terms expressly exclude or modify the warranties implied by that subsection."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I think it would be for the convenience of the House in the debate on this Amendment to take in the Amendment of the noble Baroness which immediately follows it. As noble Lords will realise, the point is almost exactly the same, although the noble Baroness has more in her Amendment than I have in mine.
It will be fresh within the recollection of the House that this was a subject debated at great length on Committee stage. I undertook to have a look at this point again because the feeling, particularly among noble Lords opposite, was that although it would probably not be right at this time to introduce the whole of the Sale of Goods Act, nor to introduce certain parts of it to limit any form of contracting out—which is a matter that I think ought to be dealt with in the sphere of the Sale of Goods Act as a whole rather than in this Bill—nevertheless, certain provisions of the Sale of Goods Act, 1893, could with advantage come into this Bill, and there should be freedom for stamp trading companies to contract out of those warranties if they wanted to. But it would have to be apparent in the terms of the scheme, perhaps in the catalogue or by some other method, that they were contracting out. This would turn the red light on for anybody who wished to become involved with that stamp trading company. They would think that it was not quite such a straightforward company as it might be.
There is a great deal in this point, and I have therefore put down these Amendments. They are based on Section 8 of the Hire Purchase Act, 1938, as amended by Clause 11 of the Hire-Purchase Bill, which has been going through Parliament during this Session and which is soon to become an Act. That amends to a considerable degree the old Section 8 of the 1938 Act. There are four warranties in my Amendment. Three of them, (a), (b) and (c) come from Section 12 of the Sale of Goods Act; paragraph (d) comes from Section 14(2) of that Act and deals in rather greater detail than in that Section of the 1893 Act: with the idea of
222
merchantable quality. These warranties are not conditions, because in the type of transaction where the stamps are handed in and the goods are given in exchange, all at very much the same time, there would hardly be an opportunity for the condition to take effect before it turned into a warranty by the ordinary process of law. Therefore, all these are matters of warranty, and one could sue for damages in the ordinary way if they were not complied with.
It may be convenient if I deal with the differences between my Amendment and that of the noble Lady. First of all, the noble Lady in her first subsection has produced a contract for goods. This is another matter which was canvassed on Committee stage and I said I would look at it. I think that this is probably unnecessary in any event, because I believe there will usually exist in Common Law a contract between the stamp holder and the stamp company, and that some of the stamp companies are in agreement with this.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, does the noble Viscount say he thinks a contract will exist between the stamp holder and the stamp company in spite of the fact that there may be conditions which say that the stamp holder has no right under the issue of the stamp?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Yes, I think that is the case, but I will come to that in a moment. Noble Lords might like to look up a most charming case which occurred at the end of the last century, called Carlill v. The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company. This is one of the basic cases in the law of contract, and I remember it well as a law student. It is quite clear from the decision, both in first instance and in the Court of Appeal, that the elements of a contract are capable of existing in the type of situation which is set forth in a stamp company's conduct of its business. There is a clear offer to anybody who performs the conditions of the scheme by collecting the stamps and sticking them in the book. I think this ripens into acceptance of contract when the person fulfils those conditions and sticks his stamps in the book, and I think that the company will be sufficiently notified of acceptance if the person turns up with the stamps at the redemption centre. That

223
would be sufficient notification that he had taken their offer at its face value and performed the conditions; or, alternatively, it might be held in law that the stamp company had waived any requirement on the part of the collector to notify them that he had accepted their contract. There would be the doctrine of consideration and that would be fulfilled.
It would be advantageous to the stamp company to have the stamps accepted by the collector used, and probably publicised. Equally, the collector himself would be put to a certain amount of time and trouble in sticking them in the book and going to the redemption centre in due course. This fulfils the definition that I found in that case of consideration which was:
"Any action of the plaintiff from which the defendant derives a benefit or advantage or any labour, detriment or inconvenience suffered by the plaintiff with the consent, either express or implied, of the defendant."
If noble Lords consider that that is difficult, then perhaps when they read it in the OFFICIAL REPORT in the morning they will see that there is the element of contract present in most of these cases, although I will not say it is present in all of them. If that is so, I do not believe there is point in making a statutory contract where that is not the case. If it is a bad company which does not provide a proper contract for goods the likelihood is that, when the stamps have been collected and sufficient books filled up, the catalogue will have been changed and the goods available to the collector will be shoddy. In this case he would be better to go for the cash option which is already provided for in the Bill.
In regard to a contract on goods which can only take effect at the time when sufficient stamps have been collected to go and redeem one of the articles in the catalogue, I do not believe that to have that type of contract written into the Bill is going to give any extra protection at all. So I think the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, was wrong when he said in Committee stage that he did not think most collectors of stamps had any rights under the present system. I think that most of them have contractual rights directly with the stamp company.
224
There is the further point as to the title to the book and to the stamps. If there is a contract it does not matter a fig whether the holder of the stamps has ownership of them or not. Those stamps will be evidence of his performance of the offer which has been put out by the stamp company. That is enough. There is another point which justifies leaving the ownership of the stamps and the books with the stamp company: if they were not in the stamp company's ownership, it would be difficult for the stamp company to do anything about somebody who started to forge them—and tried to cash in on the genuine stamp company's scheme. Considerable opportunities for fraud might occur in that way, and they can be prevented if the ownership of the stamp books and the stamps is retained by the company. I am sorry to go on about this but I believe I ought to deal with these points for they are important.
The noble Lord raised the question of the second hand Hoovermatic. Nothing in the Sale of Goods Act will help on this: it will have to be left to a matter of contract anyway. If the goods were advertised in such a way as to lead the stamp collector to believe that they were new goods, and he or she redeemed them thinking that, and then they turned out to be second-hand goods, the remedy would lie, I believe, in the ordinary law of contract. Nothing we could import from the Sale of Goods Act or hire-purchase legislation is going to make any difference. Nor is there any note of a prohibition of such practice in the hire-purchase field. The Advertisements (Hire-Purchase) Act, 1957, does not deal with that matter, so there is no precedent. It supports me in the view that this would be dealt with by the ordinary law of contract. Where collectors go along to the redemption centre they will see the goods. They have not at that stage committed themselves to any contract; they are not bound to the stamp company to accept any Hoovermatic which turns out to be second-hand, and they can choose something else.
I do not think we can deal with this matter in this Bill although it is something people must look out for, in order to see they are not deceived. I may say in connection with that point that if a stamp company made a practice of giving

225
second-hand goods for redemption, when it appeared from its shiny catalogue that the goods were new, its name would become fairly disreputable in a short length of time, and I do not believe the company would find it profitable.
The last point with which I should like to deal, which is in the noble Lady's Amendment and not in mine, is that the noble Lady has attempted to stop contracting out of the warranties that are in her Amendment and in mine. I do not believe that this is the right place to do that. I think the noble Lady agreed with my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn on the Committee stage that an ad hoc arrangement of this kind, in advance of the general survey of the Sale of Goods Act in the light of the Molony Committee's Report, is not a good thing; and that it would be better to leave it, in the way the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, put it, as a "warning light" if a company tried to contract out, and not try to deal with a limitation on contracting out in this Bill. I hope, therefore, that my Amendment will be considered to do a sufficient amount to improve this Bill, and that the noble Lady—although, of course, I shall be very interested indeed to hear what she says on this matter—will not insist upon her Amendment. I say that because I think her Amendment has more in it than really ought to go in this Bill at the moment, and that mine is about right. My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 3, insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, it is very agreeable to be able to get up from this Bench and agree with something which the noble Viscount has just said, as we have both been working on the same lines—namely, to try to find an Act which will cover what we want and which has already been passed. The Hire Purchase Act, 1938, on the basis of which both he and I have been working, is already law. As your Lordships know, another Hire Purchase Bill has passed through our House, and some Amendments have been made to it. What I tried to do by bringing in more subsections than the noble Viscount has done was to make my Amendment rather broader, because we do not know at this early stage of stamp trading how it may develop.
226
Subsection (6) of my Amendment, which comes from the Hire Purchase Act, allows for future reform of this part of the law if it is required. All this is already on the Statute Book. It is a question of whether or not we should wait for the future revision of the Sale of Goods Act, which the noble Viscount has just mentioned. That is, of course, a point of view. I do not feel strongly enough to fight on this matter, although I think it is a pity, when there is an Act on the Statute Book, that we should have to stop now at this moment and wait for the Board of Trade.
I think this "Waiting for Godot" attitude is a pity. We have not got to pass any new legislation; it is already in the Hire Purchase Act, 1938. I understand that has worked very satisfactorily, and I think it could be applied immediately. So I consider that the noble Viscount's Amendment should have brought in this subsection to cover this point, which will now, as he rightly says, have to wait for the reform of the Sale of Goods Act. I think that if he could have seen his way to accept my clause and to forgo his, the point could have been covered immediately. I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will have to say about it. I suspect that Clause 2 is in the Bill because the Board of Trade do not want to bring in sections of the Hire Purchase Act, 1938, which would have the effect which I should like to see in the interests of the consumer.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, perhaps I may be permitted to answer that. I do not think the situation is comparable. As the noble Lady said, this limitation in the Hire Purchase Act dates back to 1938. In those days there was no Molony and there was no prospect of a general survey of the Sale of Goods Act, but now it is different. My noble friend, Lord Drumalbyn has said that this point will receive consideration, but I think that the circumstances are different. This is entirely my responsibility, but I think it is right to wait and not to put in that limitation.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, that is the only point on which I disagree with the noble Viscount. So if the House feels that Amendment No. 4, which he has moved, is the one which it would like to accept, I will not oppose it.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I have looked very carefully at Amendments Nos. 4 and 5, and, without appearing to be ungallant, ungentlemanly or ungenerous to the noble Lady, I must say that I prefer Amendment No. 4, so far as it goes, if only because it is briefer and, I think, clearer to those persons who may read the Act. But I hope that at an early stage in the next Parliament we shall see some legislation on the Sale of Goods Act and that this will cover not only this particular Bill but also the hire purchase legislation.
I noted what the noble Viscount said in regard to a contract. I am not a lawyer, but I presume that he was referring to a contract under Common Law, and that therefore any provision or agreement that a holder has accepted, merely because he has taken the stamps, will not in fact make the contract void. If that is the case, I will accept it. Therefore, I presume—and I am putting this point only for information—that in Clause 3(7) the words,
"Any agreement under which the rights conferred by this section on holders of redeemable trading stamps are surrendered or modified shall be void"
are there because we are giving cash redemption under Statute, and so it is necessary to write into the Statute that any agreement is null and void. If that is the case, then I do not need to detain the House any longer. My own feeling—and I have consulted with my noble friends on this side—is that we really prefer Amendment No. 4, although we should like later on to see some extensions.
I think we should congratulate the noble Viscount on his tremendous industry and ingenuity in producing this Amendment. Having given him credit, may we on this side of the House also take some credit, because it was three of us, plus the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, who very late called a Division? That gave us an opportunity on another day to consider the noble Lady's Amendment with fresh minds, together with the speech which the noble Viscount himself delivered setting out the issues. It was because we were then able to specify what we wanted and to agree that we have now got this Amendment. Therefore, all of us, except the noble Lords on the Government Front
228
Bench opposite, can be congratulated on this important step.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, as we are all fighting every inch of the way, I would just say one or two words about this matter. It really surprises me, if we are here to protect the consumer—and this is what I understand we are here for this evening—that this long Amendment of the noble Viscount says right at the beginning, in subsection (1)(a), that the promoter has a right to give the goods in exchange for stamps. I should have thought that what we were here to secure was that the customer had a right to receive the goods in exchange for stamps. But I suppose it is all right.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, this is a totally different matter. This is a question of title on the part of the promoter to give the goods. He is warranting that they do not belong to somebody else, and that he is entitled to give them. If it were a matter of creating a contract with the right to receive them, I would have drafted the Amendment in a totally different way. May I say that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, is very kind, but I have, of course, received a great deal of assistance from the Board of Trade on this. I could not have done it all on my own.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [Display of information in shops]:
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, this Amendment is also the fruit of your Lordships' discussion during Committee stage and, I think, the insistence of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that a certain alteration could with advantage be made to a proposal put forward by the noble Lord Lord Airedale. It provides that the notice in the shop which is required under this clause in the Bill shall also state the face value, the cash value, of a trading stamp which is being issued under this scheme. May I add that I have taken account of the point that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, made about the word "associate" in the advertising clause? If the Amendment as I have put it down is drafted in the way it is, then there will be no danger of conflict between the two. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 30, after ("notice") insert ("stating the cash value of the trading stamps issued under the scheme and").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
8.41 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE LORD AIREDALE moved, in subsection (1)(a), after "ascertain" to insert:

"(i) whether they are entitled to a cash discount in lieu of trading stamps on any purchase or other transaction, and the rate of such discount, if any, and

(ii)".

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is to encourage shopkeepers to give cash discounts in lieu of trading stamps to those of their customers who do not wish to become stamp collectors. One of the first things we were told about this Bill by the noble Viscount during our Second Reading debate, which seems a long time ago now, was that stamp trading is a form of deferred discount. I would say that it is a form of deferred discount involving a very considerable rigmarole which has to be gone through by stamp collectors.
I am not going to make another long speech about how long it takes to stick 1,260 stamps into a book. The fact remains that there must be a great many housewives, shoppers, who simply have not enough spare time to devote to all this fiddling about with stamps, but who nevertheless feel that they ought to be entitled in their trading with their grocer to terms as good as those received by those people are who have more time in which to go through all this rigmarole. It seems to me that no useful purpose whatever is served by a retailer handing stamps to a person who does not wish to collect them. He might just as well, it seems to me, hand over a discount equal to what the trading stamps cost him. Admittedly, if you are running a business, trading stamps may help you to attract new customers, but I see no object at all in annoying your old customers who do not wish to become stamp collectors. I should have thought the obvious thing, instead of foisting upon them stamps that they do not want, was to give them a discount equal to the price that you, the retailer, have to pay for the stamps.
My Lords, I think the superficial answer to this point is that if customers do not like stamp trading they can take their custom to some other shop that does not go in for this sort of thing. But I think that is, as I say, rather superficial. If your nearest petrol-filling station gives stamps, are you really to be expected to drive your car further, to the next nearest petrol-filling station that does not give stamps, in order to escape from the clutches of the stamp scheme? And are ladies who have been shopping at a particular shop because they like it, and because it sells the kind of things they like to buy, expected, when that shop starts stamp trading, to take their custom elsewhere, perhaps at great personal inconvenience, to escape the clutches of the stamp promoter?
LORD SHEPHERD: Would the noble Lord not agree that the lady who goes into a shop to buy goods where there are stamps, if she does not wish to take the stamps, merely has to refuse them?
LORD AIREDALE: She certainly can refuse them; but if she refuses them she will not get as good a bargain as her companion who has enough time on her hands to stick the stamps in the books. I should have thought it was not right that the busier lady, who has not all the time to spend in this rather hapless way, should not get as good a bargain. That, I think, is the answer to that.
LORD SHEPHERD: But does the noble Lord think that, by Statute, you can say to a retailer that he must give a cash discount? I should not have thought that it was possible.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Hear, hear!
LORD AIREDALE: If the noble Lord will read the Amendment, he will see that it does not tell the retailer that he must give a cash discount. What it says is that, on the notice to which the noble Viscount referred us on the last Amendment, the retailer shall state whether or not his customers are entitled to a cash discount. That means that, if they are not, the retailer will have to stick up a notice saying, "No cash discount in lieu of stamps".
I am hopeful that, when some of the more thoughtful of his non-stamp collecting customers read that, they will

231
start asking questions. They will say, "Why no cash discount in lieu of stamps? How much do you pay the promoter for these stamps? What is the point of foisting stamps on me? I do not want them. Why not hand me a discount equal to the price which you pay for the stamps, instead of foisting the stamps on me?". When this has been said to the grocer about twenty times, by twenty of his valued customers, I hope that he will begin to see that there is some point in not annoying his old customers, who do not want to collect stamps, and that he will stick up a notice saying that those who do not wish to collect stamps can have a 2 per cent. discount off their bills, equivalent to the amount which he was paying for the stamps that he was distributing to those others of his customers who did wish to collect stamps. That is the purpose and object of this Amendment. I hope it is not quite so silly as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, seems to think it is. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 31, after ("ascertain") insert the said words.—(Lord Airedale.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, there are no doubt many people—or, at any rate, some people—in this country who will follow beneath the banner held by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, and who will follow it to the degree of going many, many miles out of their way specifically in order to avoid trading stamps. I am sure many people will do this. On the other hand, there are undoubtedly a large number of people who do not take the same furious objection to trading stamps as the noble Lord does. He is attempting some gentle persuasion. By means of Statute, he is attempting to do something which in my view is a quite unwarrantable interference in what a retailer can do in his own shop. There is nothing in the world to prevent a retailer from doing something like this if he wants to—and, for all I know, some retailers may act in the way the noble Lord has foreshadowed. But I cannot see that it is the right thing to put in this Bill, and I believe that it takes the whole ambit of this Bill miles beyond the limit of the common-sense approach to this type of problem. The noble Lord has a point of view, but I really do not think
232
that we are justified in doing it in this way.
May I add this? The noble Lord really has an ulterior motive behind this. He puts it like this: that the retailer will be forced by public opinion or persuasion into giving a cash discount instead of the stamps. If the noble Lord is right, I think it would have been better to put down an Amendment which would have required the retailer to do that—because that is what the noble Lord is after; that is the real purport of what he is trying to do. That, I feel, is entirely objectionable; and if this is only a device to achieve it, then I feel the device is objectionable, too. I hope the noble Lord will not press this Amendment. I feel that it is quite wrong.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, if I were to press this Amendment to a Division I think that not only would there be no quorum, but I should lose it, even with the small number that are here. So I think I had better ask leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SHEPHERDmoved, in subsection (1)(a), after "transaction" to insert "including credit transactions". The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Shackleton, whom I think we can forgive for not being here, in view of the heavy pressure of the previous debate, I move this Amendment. Might I draw the Committee's attention to Clause 6(1)(a) which says:
"…there shall be kept posted a notice giving such particulars as will enable customers readily to ascertain the number of trading stamps, if any, to which they are entitled on any purchase or other transaction,".
The Amendment is to insert, after the word "transaction", the words "including credit transactions". I think it is quite clear that the purpose of subsection (1) is that the customer should know the number of stamps he should receive on a purchase, a purchase being the taking of an article in the shop. The "other transaction", of course, could include a number of things. I am told that stamps are now being given if you book a holiday or even your air passage through a particular organisation. So I would presume this is what is meant by the words "or other transaction".

233
There are, as I think the noble Viscount will agree, the cash, purchase, the credit purchase and even the purchase under hire-purchase agreement. In the case of cash purchases the matter is straight-forward; but when we get into the field of credit it may be more complicated. I have heard of instances where stamps were available on a cash purchase but not when the purchase was undertaken on credit or hire-purchase terms. I suggest that if we are to have a notice in the shop in regard to the number of stamps, then if the right to that number of stamps is lost because the customer purchases by credit or by hire-purchase agreement, he should be so informed. I think it would be in the interests not only of the stamp holder but of the retailer.
One must also consider another point. It is the custom in certain areas for people to buy vegetables or greengroceries over the counter and receive a bill on the second or third day of the month for the previous month's purchases. This is credit. Those people would have been given stamps for cash purchases; and I should have thought the persons who have credit agreements with the shopkeeper ought to be entitled to receive stamps when they pay their weekly or monthly bill, unless it is clearly so stated in the notice.
We must take into account, not only that this notice gives the number of stamps available, but the fact that the stamp company itself is undertaking publicity by notices in the dealer's shop. In fact, I would suggest that this is perhaps where the contract could well start: between the stamp holder and the stamp trading company. Because I should have thought the stamp company by its advertisements in the shop is, in fact, making an offer. I am thinking particularly of the Green Shield Company, which posts a notice saying, "Green Shield Stamps available here". I should have thought that that is, in fact, one of the beginnings of a contract. If that is so, and there is some variance in this offer because in the retailer's estimation stamps are available only for cash, and not for credit purchases, then I think it should be clearly stated. But my own feeling is that, if an offer is being made and a person is induced into the shop because stamps are available, then they should be available whether the goods are paid for by cash or by credit, so long as the
234
credit is agreed between the customer and the retailer.
There is one other point. I am not quite sure what would be the effect, if my suggestion was agreed to in principle, of the person failing to pay his bill within three or four days. Should the stamps be lost? I think there might be a case for saying that the understanding between the customer and the retailer has been broken because the customer has not paid on the due date. Whether that will stand up in law, I do not know. But I hope that the noble Lord will give an assurance that "other transactions" includes credit terms. If it does not—and I have some doubts whether the words would be so interpreted, because it is connected with purchase, and also because people have discussed "other transactions" in the terms of holidays and other services for which stamps are given—it might be wise to include the words "credit transactions" as I suggest in this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 33, after ("transaction") insert ("including credit transactions").—(Lord Shepherd.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I entirely agree with the point of view put forward by the noble Lord—at any rate, the principle of it. I think probably the noble Lord put this Amendment down as a probing Amendment to see whether the point was covered. I am advised that it is; and I would point out to him that "purchase" is defined in Clause 9(1) as including hire-purchase. Credit, of course, is a different matter. This would, I am told, be covered by the words "other transactions"; and in case some of those other transactions do not attract stamps is the whole point of putting in the words "if any" in Clause 6(1)(a), and I think it would be perfectly clear on the notice board.
The noble Lord elaborated this point and went on with certain combinations of things that might happen in the credit field. I hope the shopkeepers will put up and invent their own notices for this purpose, but also I hope that they will not put so much on in the way of possibilities that might occur, and cases to be taken into account, that the whole thing will be too much to read and therefore

235
stultify the whole object of the exercise. It may be that the shopkeepers will want to include terms of the way they operate their stamp trading schemes; but I would not encourage them to put all these complications on their statutory notice, because it is going to have the opposite effect to that intended—which is to clarify the issue in the minds of the shoppers. I assure the noble Lord that I have looked at this matter and I am advised that it is covered.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount. I think, after reflecting on what I have said, that it is true to say that if the retailer does not put anything on his notice the stamp holder would be entitled to receive stamps on credit purchases as well as on cash purchases. In any case, I thank the noble Viscount and beg leave to withdrawn my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSSmoved, in subsection (2), after "posted" to insert "in such characters and". The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is one that meets one of the other points that was made on Committee stage and is to ensure that the notice in the shop is clear and legible. I have found some words—or they have been found for me—out of the much-spurned Section 138 of the Factories Act, 1961, which my noble friend Lord Airedale did not care for very much the other day but which I hope will cover the point. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 38, after ("posted") insert ("in such characters and").—(Viscount Volville of Culross.)
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I cannot help feeling that this Amendment stems from the valiant efforts made from these Benches in another connection by my noble and learned friend Lord McNair, to secure that all kinds of notices and documents which are required by law shall be legible.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10 [Short title, extent and commencement]:
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, in subsection (3), to leave out
236
"(advertisements referring to value of trading stamps)" and to insert:
"warranties to be implied on redemption of trading stamps for goods)".
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I will now give my peroration, because this is really the last Amendment. This is a drafting Amendment, to bring the new clause into line with the administrative portions of the Bill at the end of the first year after the Bill becomes law, as I hope it will.
I should like to take this opportunity of thanking my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, who has given me great assistance throughout all the stages of the Bill, and my noble friend Baroness Elliot of Harwood, who I see is not in her place but who has done a great deal to draw these difficult problems to the attention of the House and to find solutions to many of them, and noble Lords opposite, on both the Liberal and Labour Benches, who have also been most fertile of ideas. I hope that if I have been too intransigent with some of the suggestions put forward, they will forgive me. At least they will be glad to feel that the Bill has been improved I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 15, leave out from ("section") to second ("of") in line 16 and insert ("warranties to be implied on redemption of trading stamps for goods)").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I gather from the remarks of the noble Viscount that he hopes there will be nothing to be said on Third Reading. May I say that I hope he will not be disappointed? May I express the appreciation of the House for the way in which the noble Viscount has handled the Bill, and not only in the Chamber, because some of us have had a good deal of conversation and debate outside and he has always made an effort to try to meet the points raised. We all appreciate the difficulties under which he has been working. We shall be glad to see the Bill returned to another place, where I am sure the Government will see that time is provided for the Amendments of this House to be considered. I hope that we shall shortly see it at a Royal

237
Commission and that the noble Viscount will be present to see it pass into law.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments; the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
SAINT GEORGE HANOVER SQUARE BURIAL GROUND BILL
Reported, with Amendments.
  TEXTILES: LABELLING OF FIBRE CONTENT
  TEXTILES: LABELLING OF FIBRE CONTENT