Sitting of 23 June 1964

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
  Read the Third time and passed.
  SAINT PAUL, PORTMAN SQUARE, SAINT MARYLEBONE BILL [Lords]
  Read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

  WEST RIDING COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
  [Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
  Bill read the Third time and passed.

  WORCESTER CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
  Read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [Lords]
  As amended, to be considered upon Thursday.
  NATIONAL PROVIDENT INSTITUTION BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time and committed.
  SAINT DIONIS BACKCHURCH CHURCHYARD (AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time and committed.
  CUMBERLAND COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

  PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALL (BRIBERY)
  Mr. Masonasked the Attorney-General if he has now received the report of police investigations into bribery in professional football; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. Dalyellasked the Attorney-General what report he has now received of police investigations into bribery in professional footballers; and what action he proposes to take.
  The Attorney-General (Sir John Hobson): Police reports were received by the Director of Public Prosecutions yesterday and are now under consideration by him.
  Mr. Mason: Would the Attorney-General agree that it is true to say that only one-third of this iceberg has really reared its head, that there must be more revelations to follow and that this will make a farce of the piecemeal investigations that the police have already made, especially when there was a revelation after they had allegedly completed their investigations recently? Will he impress upon the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Home Secretary the need for a national public judicial inquiry so that this matter can be cleared up once and for all, because I warn the Attorney-General that if this is not done some of the aggrieved players may, as the arch villain of the piece, Gauld, did, reveal more to the Press and consequently there could be a fresh outbreak?
  The Attorney-General: As to the investigations already made by the police, they have, of course, had to be very extensive, but they are, I think, on the matters that have been investigated complete. Fresh matters have been raised recently, and these also are under investigation. I am bound to say that if these matters are to be dealt with by the police, as I would think is the proper way, all those with information ought to supply such information to the police at the earliest possible opportunity. As to the question of a tribunal under the Tribunals of Inquiry Act, that, of course, is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: I am qualifying what I have to say because, as police court proceedings may take place, it would not be right to make any comments here, but, at the same time, will the Attorney-General now use his influence in order to treat this matter as one of extreme urgency?
  The Attorney-General: Yes, I am aware of the urgency of the matter and I am anxious that the consideration of the report should be as expeditious as it can be.

  HIRE-PURCHASE AGREEMENT (MRS. WRIGHT)
  Mr. Spriggsasked the Attorney-General if he will refer the complaint sent to him on behalf of Mrs. May Wright, a constituent of the hon. Member for St. Helens, about the illegal use made of minors by door-to-door salesmen employed by New Era Electrics of Blackpool, and the wrongful removal of property from her home, to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
  The Attorney-General: No.
  Mr. Spriggs: Is the Attorney-General aware that this case is about a widowed old-age pensioner who has been robbed of her goods by the agents New Era Electrics of Blackpool during her absence and that the signature on the hire-purchase document is that of a minor, a relative of this old lady who is a constituent of mine, and was signed during her absence, that I have made every endeavour to get this matter settled off the record and without publicity, but that the firm preferred to go to court even though it used the document knowing it to have been signed by a minor? Is it not the case that the Attorney-General is refusing to use his powers as a deterrent to stop these rogues from invading the homes of people throughout the country and making a fat living out of poor people? Will not the Attorney-General make a further statement as to his approach to this matter?
  The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman was good enough to send me the papers that he had. I looked at them with great care. I could not see that they revealed the commission
  202
  of any criminal offence. Had there been evidence to show that one had been committed, I would certainly have been willing to consider what ought to have been done, but I cannot launch criminal proceedings when there is no evidence. If the hon. Gentleman has evidence that a criminal offence has been committed, the facts ought to be investigated by the local police, and they can no doubt deal with this matter.

  MAGISTRATES (TRAINING SCHEME)
  Mr. Fitchasked the Attorney-General (1) if he will include compulsory visits to open and closed prisons, Borstal institutions, approved schools and detention centres in the training scheme to be introduced for newly-appointed magistrates;
  (2) if the compulsory training scheme for new juslices of the peace will include a refresher course for those magistrates already serving on the bench.
  The Attorney-General: My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has appointed an Advisory Council to advise him with regard to the training of magistrates. It will be for the Council to consider what facilities for training should be provided for those magistrates who are already serving on the bench. Visits by newly-appointed magistrates to the institutions to which the hon. Member refers will obviously be among the matters which the Council will have to consider.
  Mr. Fitch: Would not the Attorney-General agree that he and his noble Friend in another place could certainly bring before the Council the desirability of newly-created magistrates visiting places where they are likely to send offenders so that they at least have the practical knowledge of what open prisons, closed prisons and detention centres are like?
  The Attorney-General: I have no doubt that this point has not escaped the notice of my noble Friend, nor will it escape the notice of the Advisory Council, but I will certainly draw the attention of my noble Friend to what the hon. Gentleman has said.
  Mr. J. Wells: I recognise the wisdom of training magistrates, but may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to go very slow before there is any introduction of a procession of visitors to prisons and borstals? Although one has no desire to keep things secret, is he aware that it is very difficult for the staff of these institutions if there is an endless procession of half-interested and partly-interested individuals?
  The Attorney-General: There are already voluntary schemes under which magistrates and others visit these institutions. They are useful, but I quite recognise that it does create problems for those who are running, and those who are incarcerated in, such institutions.
  Dame Irene Ward: As a magistrate, may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether at the same time as these courses are arranged he will advise his right hon. Friend at the Home Office that magistrates' duties would be very much easier if remand homes, detention centres and proper courts for other things were provided, so that magistrates would know where they are when they are pronouncing sentences?
  The Attorney-General: My experience is that magistrates usually do know where they are. I recognise that there may be the necessity for the provision of some remand centres, but that is entirely a question for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

  PERSONAL INJURIES (LIMITATIONS OF ACTIONS)
  Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Attorney-General if he is aware of the hardship and injustice which is being caused because men and women suffering personal injuries who do not make claims or issue court proceedings within three years of an accident lose their right to claim under the Law Reform (Limitation of Actions) Act, 1954; and if he will introduce legislation extending the period of limitation to six years.
  The Attorney-General: No. Save in exceptional cases, there is no reason why an injured person should not start proceedings within three years. In those exceptional cases where he cannot reasonably be expected to know within
  204
  that period that he has suffered an injury that would justify proceedings, the Limitation Act, 1963, enables him to obtain leave to sue after the three years have expired.
  Mr. Allaun: Is the Attorney-General aware that this question arises out of the case of a constituent of mine who, having been knocked down by a van and having been off work for a fortnight, accepted £7 from the firm's insurers? Five years later she had to have a leg amputated, with no compensation except an ex gratia payment of £100 from the firm. Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman noted also the case in the Court of Appeal last week where a woman sunbathing in her hotel garden was run over by a car, again without the payment of any damages? Will the Attorney-General examine the 1954 and 1963 Acts and the Davies Commission's recommendations?
  The Attorney-General: I am, of course, aware that there are occasions when people are unlucky enough to accept a sum which is not in the end full compensation; but usually, if they act on sound advice, they will not accept sums at such times. If they take the advice of experienced solicitors, they will usually find that their interests are well protected.
  Sir B. Janner: May I ask the Attorney-General to reconsider this matter? Is he aware that a large number of decent people do not want to bring actions, unless they are compelled to do so? They wait for a considerable time. They eventually discover that there is an injury for which they should have claimed compensation. I appreciate that there are very exceptional cases in which a court will grant an extension, but does not the Attorney-General think that in these cases there should be as much right to sue within a six-year period as there is for a simple debt?
  The Attorney-General: This raises a difficult question. It was considered by the Tucker Committee, which reported in 1949 before the 1954 Act was passed. In general, I would not have said that people who suffered a personal injury were in a situation in which they could not make up their minds whether they ought to issue a writ only—only no

  205
  more, not to pursue it—within the period of three years from the time when they were injured.

  MR. ANDREWS AND MR. BLOOM
  Mr. Grimondasked the Attorney-General if he will instruct the Director of Public Prosecutions to take proceedings for perjury against Mr. Andrews and Mr. Bloom, who have made sworn statements that Mr. Lonsdale and Mr. Blake had frequent conversations together when in prison.
  The Attorney-General: No.
  Mr. Grimond: Does not the Attorney-General agree that this matter has been left in a very unsatisfactory state? Considerable doubt seems to have been cast on the veracity of the memory of these two gentlemen, yet, so I am told, though they have rendered themselves liable to prosecution, no prosecution has been started. Why is not the Attorney-General prosecuting them, if they are liable to prosecution? Have any inquiries been made of the Sunday Times, which apparently holds the sworn statements made by these men?
  The Attorney-General: The reason why I am not directing the Director of Public Prosecutions to institute any prosecution is that I have no evidence that the offence of perjury has been committed by either of the makers of the two statements. Mr. Andrews is reported to have conceded that the special instructions may have been issued to keep Lonsdale and Blake apart. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has confirmed that such strict instructions were given. As my right hon. Friend has already informed the House, he has had inquiries made by those who were at the prison at the time, and to the best of their knowledge and recollection Blake and Lonsdale did not meet. Therefore, there is not any available evidence in that case to show that the statutory declaration was false, or at any rate one cannot say with certainty that one can prove the falsity of that statutory declaration. Mr. Bloom's statement is purely a matter of hearsay of a conversation which he alleges he had with Lonsdale. The only way in which it could be proved that his statu-
  206
  tory declaration was false was, first, if he admitted that it was false, and, secondly, if Lonsdale were available to give evidence confirming that fact. Neither of those events has happened or seems likely.
  Miss Bacon: Is the Attorney-General aware that lie and the Home Secretary cannot have this both ways? I have asked questions on two occasions of his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. At first, the Home Secretary said that instructions were given to keep Lonsdale and Blake apart. Afterwards, the Home Secretary tried to imply that in fact they were kept apart. Is the Attorney-General aware that, although he might have no information, this statement was made in the Sunday Times by Mr. Andrews, and I have a letter from Mr. Bloom, which I can pass on to the right hon. and learned Gentleman if he would like it, staling that in fact what the Home Secretary said did not conform with the facts as he knew them. If these two men are making false statements—both of them have made affidavits—why is the right hon. and learned Gentleman so loth to take them to court?
  The Attorney-General: The only question I am concerned with is not to administer the criminal law for the purpose of discovering facts that hon. Members may want to know but whether either Mr. Andrews or Mr. Bloom should be charged with a criminal offence. I am not prepared to operate the criminal law except upon the basis that there is satisfactory evidence upon which proceedings should be started. That is the sole question for me. There may be other questions which other hon. Members may want to ask, but I certainly do not consider that I have sufficient evidence to put either Mr. Andrews or Mr. Bloom on a charge of perjury.
  Mr. Grimond: Will the Attorney-General answer my second question? Have inquiries been made of the Sunday Times, which holds these sworn statements?
  The Attorney-General: No. The Sunday Times has published substantial extracts from them, but if it wishes to submit any of the evidence to me I will certainly consider it.

  ACCIDENT CLAIMS (CONSULTANTS)
  Mr. Abseasked the Attorney-General whether he is aware that firms holding themselves out as accident consultants are behaving as ambulance chasers, are seeking out victims of motor and other accidents and inducing them to sign agreements to pay over a high percentage of any damages that may be recovered; and whether he will cause proceedings in maintenance champerty or barratry to be initiated against such firms.
  The Attorney-General: I have no evidence that would justify the institution of proceedings.
  Mr. Abse: Does that mean that the Attorney-General is totally unaware of the activities of a considerable number of firms, including Swann & Moore (Assessors) Ltd. of 33 Great Queen Street, London, and G. Wheeler of 119 Oxford Street, London, firms which are communicating within 24 hours of an accident taking place with the victim or relatives and inducing them to enter into signed agreements that they will pay over a substantial portion of any damages they may recover? Would not the Attorney-General, if I gave him more evidence—since he apparently is unaware of it—consider taking some action against these predatory firms which have been behaving like vultures, taking money away from people who could get good advice from their trade unions or free legal aid from solicitors without having taken away from them these substantial sums in a way which, unfortunately, appears to be happening on a very wide scale?
  The Attorney-General: I have not seen any evidence about the two firms named by the hon. Member, but if he will give me any information I shall be delighted to consider it. The only firm about which I have been informed and about which I have made inquiries of the Law Society was a firm which agreed to take a percentage of anything recovered without litigation. That, as the hon. Member will understand, creates some difficulties; but if he has any information which he considers is relevant to the commission of a criminal offence I shall, of course, be delighted to consider it.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Foreshore and Inshore Coastal Waters
    Mr. B. Harrisonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will advise the setting up of a. Royal Commission to investigate the ownership, control and development of the foreshore and inshore coastal waters similar to that on common lands.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Reginald Maudling): No, Sir.
    Mr. Harrison: Will the Chancellor look again at this matter, because with the increased use of the inshore waters and coastal areas for recreational purposes, along with the shortage of moorings and so on, it is becoming a real problem throughout the coastal areas trying to find out who owns and controls any area?
    Mr. Maudling: I understand that the present system is working quite satisfactorily, but if my hon. Friend has any evidence to the contrary I shall be glad to examine it.

    Decimal Currency System
    Mr. Lubbockasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what criteria he will employ in deciding the priority to be given in the public investment programme to the introduction of a decimal currency system.
    Mr. Maudling: The greater part of the public investment programme comprises continuing requirements such as housing, health, roads and education. For the rest we look at all relevant factors, including, in particular, costs and benefits.
    Mr. Lubbock: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, while he said in reply to a Question on 12th May that the costs and benefits of decimalisation must be weighed against those of many other things involved in modernising Britain, on 2nd June, replying to a Question asked by me, he said that the Halsbury Committee had described the benefits of decimalisation as incapable of being measured? If that is so. how can we possibly decide what the priorities should be for decimalisation in the public investment programme?
    Mr. Maudling: The hon. Member raises an ingenious point, but the real point is that we cannot measure exactly many of these things. We can, and do, form a judgment as best we can about the relative costs and benefits of particular projects.
    Mr. Proudfoot: Will my right hon. Friend use his influence to ensure that in the next Conservative Party manifesto decimal coinage is mentioned, and will he challenge the parties opposite to declare their policy in regard to decimalisation, just as the parties in Australia did?
    Mr. Maudling: That is hardly a matter of Ministerial responsibility.

    Cost of Living
    Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the fact that the cost of living is now at a record high level, what new policies Her Majesty's Government are now pursuing designed to reverse this trend.
    Mr. Maudling: The Government's financial policies are designed to combat the danger of cost and price inflation which is always present at a time of vigorous economic expansion. But success will depend also on co-operation by management and unions, especially in the matter of incomes policy.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is the Chancellor aware that, whatever the policy might be, it has been a shocking failure? Is he not aware that during both stop and go periods throughout the lifetime of this Government the cost of living has gone steadily up and that, since January 1962, food prices have gone up by Is. 8d. in the £, while housing rents have gone up by 2s. 9d. in the £? When might we expect a reissue of the poster, "Mend a Hole in the Purse"?
    Mr. Maudling: While not accepting the hon. Gentleman's statistics—which I doubt are entirely accurate—I must say that we have made considerable progress, and are continuing to make progress, towards keeping prices stable, both in absolute terms and relative to other countries in Europe.
    Earl of Dalkeith: Is it not a fact that during the lifetime of this Parliament prices in Britain have risen less fast
    210
    than prices in Holland, Germany, Italy and other European countries, and less than half as fast as in France and Japan, thereby making our rise in the cost of living the envy of our European rivals, which reflects a great deal to the credit of successive Chancellors in the last few years?
    Mr. Maudling: Certainly our prices recently have performed very well compared, for exmaple, with prices in other European countries. What is very important is that while our prices have risen, wages, salaries and social benefits have risen very much more.

    Eye Baths (Tax)
    Sir B. Jannerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that eyeshades and patches are exempt from Purchase Tax as are also certain non-proprietary eye lotions; and if he will arrange to extend such exemptions to include eye baths.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Alan Green): Some kinds of eyeshades and eye lotions are chargeable with Purchase Tax. Eye baths are chargeable as domestic toilet-ware, and I see no sufficient reason for altering that position.
    Sir B. Janner: What on earth is the use of exempting certain eye lotions if the right hon. Gentleman is not exempting the eye baths by which those lotions are to be applied? Is there any reason why an eye bath, which prevents or is intended to prevent and to cure eye difficulties, should not be exempt? Is this not all eyewash?
    Mr. Green: There is probably some eyewash about this on both sides of the House. Eye baths always have been taxable.
    Dame Irene Ward: Why?
    Mr. Green: They just always have been. I might ask hon. Members—who, I believe, first included eye baths in the Schedule—Interruption.]—I am merely stating the historical facts. It is a fact that eye baths always have been taxable. I see no particular reason for altering the position, but, of course, one will always look into these matters when they are

    211
    raised by hon. Members. However, I must repeat that at the moment I see no sufficient reason for altering the position.
    Dame Irene Ward: Silly.

    Balance of Payments
    Mr. Oramasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he made, when formulating his Budget proposals for 1963–64 and 1964–65, of the balance of payments surplus on an annual and a quarterly basis; and how the actual performance so far compares with these estimates.
    Mr. Maudling: The hon. Member will find in my Budget speeches what I can tell him about the balance of payments estimates which I took into consideration in formulating my Budget proposals. The out-turn for 1963 was published in the March issue of "Economic Trends" and that for the first quarter of 1964 will appear about the end of this month.
    Mr. Oram: Is it not a fact that during the first three months of this year the trade deficit was running at an average annual rate of about £360 million a year, and is not this a very serious situation indeed? Will the Chancellor avoid the habit, which some of his supporters in the Press and the House adopt, of spreading sunshine stories when there is an isolated good month? Is it not the case that the good months are good only compared with the others, which are atrocious?
    Mr. Maudling: It is a mistake to be either too cast down by the bad months or too elated by the good ones. As to the first quarter of this year, the figures will be appearing in a few days' time. We have never disguised the fact that in the early stages of a programme of expansion, as we are now experiencing, we shall have some difficulties with our balance of payments.

    Commonwealth Economic Conference
    Mr. Oramasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects the next Commonwealth Economic Conference to be held and, in view of the conflicts which have been revealed between the developing and developed countries attending the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, if he will take the opportunity at the Economic
    212
    Conference to raise the role which the Commonwealth can play in helping to resolve such conflicts.
    Mr. Maudling: There will be a meeting of the Commonwealth Economic Consultative Council in Kuala Lumpur shortly before the Bank and Fund meetings in Tokyo in September. It is customary for the host Government to propose the agenda, but if the United Nations Conference is discussed I will certainly bear the hon. Member's point in mind.
    Mr. Oram: Despite his right hon. Friend having had success at the eleventh hour at Geneva in finding a formula which brought a good deal of unanimity in the final declaration of U.N.C.T.A.D., were there not revealed during the course of the conference very deep differences indeed between the developing and developed nations, and is not the Commonwealth in a unique situation—in combining both developed and developing countries in one organisation—and in a very good position to take the right sort of initiative in solving this fundamental problem?
    Mr. Maudling: I am inclined to agree with the hon. Gentleman, and he will have observed that the success which my right hon. Friend had at the conference was very much attributable to the way in which he worked from the very beginning, and even before, in consultation with the Commonwealth countries.
    Mr. Turton: Would my right hon. Friend make it clear that these subjects will, we hope, be discussed at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers Conference at the beginning of July?
    Mr. Maudling: I cannot comment on the agenda for that conference or on that for the Kuala Lumpur conference, but these are obviously such important matters that I would be surprised if they were not discussed.
    Mr. Bottomley: The Chancellor has rightly said that it was for the host Government to suggest the agenda. This will be the case at Kuala Lumpur, but why cannot Her Majesty's Government suggest that an item on the agenda at the forthcoming Prime Minister's Conference should be this subject?
    Mr. Maudling: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and not for me, but I think the right hon. Gentleman can be certain that these matters will not be overlooked.

    Government Securities
    Mr. Duffyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce a security, in the form of a national equity, which would contractually commit the Government to pay an annual dividend which would be determined by the gross national product.
    Mr. Maudling: No, Sir.
    Mr. Duffy: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is great scope here for imagination on the part of a Chancellor of the Exchequer who wants to diversify the range of stock now available to investors, and especially Government stock, which is his responsibility? Is he aware that there is a special need to offer small investors in Government stock some measure of protection against current inflationary tendencies and at the same time offer them some hope of a share in future national prosperity?
    Mr. Maudling: These are very wide subjects, difficult to deal with in Question and Answer. The Question referred to a national equity. This is a misconception, because equity involves an element of risk which is not present in a Government-guaranteed security.
    Mr. W. Clark: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that savings are now 20 times higher than they were in 1951 and that these savings will increase, but only with the continuance of a Conservative Government?

    British Industry (Foreign Investment)
    Mr. Edelmanasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is satisfied that his powers are adequate to control foreign investment in British industry when the public interest requires that it should be so controlled; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Maudling: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Eldelman: But will the Chancellor of the Exchequer consider whether he is effectively exercising powers under
    214
    the Exchange Control Act which was introduced by a Labour Government? Is he aware that in his statement on 8th June ho said that the Rootes family and their associates will continue to hold 50 per cent. of the voting shares, but is it not the case that the Rootes family and its associates held only 56 per cent. of the voting shares and as Chrysler has now already acquired 30 per cent. of the shares, does not this suggest that Chrysler will become very shortly the dominant shareholder in the Rootes company?
    Mr. Maudling: No, Sir. I think that the hon. Member will find that the facts as I set them out are quite accurate.
    Mr. Callaghan: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether under the Exchange Control Act Chrysler is prevented from acquiring further securities because of a legal sanction, or is it because it has entered into an undertaking with the Chancellor or with Rootes not to do that?
    Mr. Maudling: Chrysler entered into an undertaking with me. Before I gave my Answer of 8th June I had required an undertaking of that kind, which was part of my sanction of the deal.
    Mr. Callaghan: Is it not a fact that if this undertaking were not kept through the sale by Rootes of shares to someone else there would be nothing in the Exchange Control Act to prevent Chrysler from purchasing shares and so acquiring control of Rootes?
    Mr. Maudling: I had thought of that one. I asked for and obtained an undertaking that the Chrysler Corporation would not acquire any more Rootes shares other than by means involving Treasury consent.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: If this kind of investment is such a good thing, why does the right hon. Gentleman impose any restrictions on it at all?
    Mr. Maudling: Of all the questions that have come from the Opposition, that is about the silliest I have heard.

    Geologists
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set up a committee to investigate to what extent

    215
    the size and distribution of the staff of geological experts at the disposal of Government Departments and publicly-owned industries and services are adequate and effective.
    Mr. Alan Green: No, Sir.
    Mr. Swingler: Is the Financial Secretary not aware of substantial evidence that if more geologists were employed, and if surveys were better co-ordinated, the Government and local authorities might save a substantial sum of money by avoiding mistakes in the construction of roads, hospitals, houses and other buildings, especially in areas of mining subsidence? If the hon. Gentleman is not acquainted with this fact, will he have a survey made of these areas to put himself in possession of considerable information?
    Mr. Green: I believe that the hon. Gentleman has a specific Question down to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, but I have no reason to believe that the existing numbers and distribution of geologists give cause for concern, and I cannot accept the implications in his supplementary question.
    Mr. Swingler: Will the hon. Gentleman consult those responsible for organising, say, the Geological Survey and obtain their opinion on the matter?
    Mr. Green: Concern has already been expressed about this matter and consultations have been taking place. I see no reason to believe that there is a shortage or a maldistribution of these people.

    Post-War Credits
    Sir W. Teelingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to revive the machinery of post-war credits to collect sums from young people under 20 to be held for them until they are either 25 or are getting married, whichever is the earlier, in view of the fact that they are earning money which they do not know how to spend.
    Mr. Alan Green: No, Sir.
    Sir W. Teeling: Why, Sir?
    Mr. Green: Well, Sir, we do not believe that this is the correct way of getting young people to save.
    Mr. Snow: Is not the proposal in the Question a gross infringement of private rights and are not the vast majority of young people perfectly responsible?

    Private Industry and Agriculture (Subsidies, Grants and Loans)
    Mr. Whitlockasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total amount of financial assistance provided in the form of subsidies, grants, and loans to private industry and agriculture since 31st March, 1951; and what sums have been returned to Her Majesty's Government in capital or interest.
    Mr. Alan Green: I am afraid that this information is not available in full. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT the total annual figures which have been published in the Financial Secretary's Memorandum on the Estimates for payments of financial assistance from 1958–59 onwards, and for receipts of capital and interest from 1961–62 onwards. The figures of receipts for the years 1958–59 to 1960–61 are not immediately available, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman and let him have them as soon as I can.
    Mr. Whitlock: Is not it a fact that something like £4,500 million in subsidy have been handed over to private enterprise in the last 13 years and that something like half that sum has been handed over since the last General Election? In view of the fact that this staggering sum of national assistance benefit has been handed over to private enterprise without any kind of control, does not the hon. Gentleman think it is time that the State had a voice in the affairs of concerns which are so heavily subsidised by taxpayer's money?
    Mr. Green: The hon. Member no doubt will like to know that the vast bulk of the money provided in this way has gone to agriculture. I have not heard any suggestions from hon. and right hon. Members opposite that agriculture should not be supported, and supported strongly. Perhaps the hon. Member would care to have a look at the figures before he comments so acidly on them.
    Mr. Prior: Is my hon. Friend not aware that these sums which go to

    217
    agriculture provide Britain with the cheapest food in Western Europe, give considerable help to our balance of payments position, and offer great social benefits to the country as a whole? Are we to understand from the supplementary question of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Whitlock) that the Labour Party would do away with these subsidies?
    Mr. W. Hamilton: In view of the Government's declared policy that State financial assistance should go only to those who need it, what steps do they intend to take to ensure that before farmers claim their subsidies they definitely need them? [AN HON. MEMBER: "Means test."] Of course, a means test. Is the Financial Secretary aware that this means test is applied to all National Assistance recipients, that it is applied to all recipients of welfare foods and all recipients of council house subsidies? Why should it stop there instead of being spread much further?
    Mr. Green: I admire the hon. Member's capacity to compare unlike with unlike.
    The figures are as follows:—

    £m.

    Payments

    Receipts

    1958–59

    …

    …

    262

    —

    1959–60

    …

    …

    301

    —

    1960–61

    …

    …

    358

    —

    1961–62

    …

    …

    465

    20

    1962–63

    …

    …

    380

    28

    1963–64

    …

    …

    444

    26

    1964–65

    …

    …

    437

    32

    Unearned Income
    Mr. Stratton Millsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total number of persons who have any unearned income; and if he will express this figure as a percentage of all taxpayers.
    Mr. Alan Green: I regret that this information is not available.
    Mr. Stratton Mills: Would my hon. Friend agree that approximately 4 million people, or about 20 per cent. of the taxpayers of this country, have an unearned income? Is not this a satisfactory and growing increase? In view of the large number of people having an interest in this matter, would my hon. Friend consider circulating "Signposts for the Sixties" to the taxpayer through the Inland Revenue?
    Mr. Green: I am not sure that I can justify spending taxpayers' money in that way.
    Mr. Callaghan: Will the hon. Gentleman ask his hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) to stop using this term "unearned income" when he is referring to the savings of a great many small people and they find the use of this term by Tory Party propagandists very offensive?
    Mr. Green: I cannot help it if the hon. Member is offended by certain phrases which may be used in the House, but if he prefers the term "investment income" I do not mind.

    Lightship Crews (Duty-Free Tobacco)
    Mr. Priorasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will cease to collect duty on cigarettes and tobacco consumed on lightships.
    Mr. Maudling: No, Sir.
    Mr. Prior: Will my right hon. Friend take another look at this matter? Is he aware that men who work on lightships work under very arduous and difficult circumstances, and that tobacco is almost part of the job—to keep them awake and happy? Would it not be possible, through Customs reliefs, to bring about an easy scheme to allow these men to have a certain amount of duty-free tobacco each time they go out to the lightships? Would he reconsider the question?
    Mr. Maudling: It is very hard to draw the line in these cases. No doubt these men have very arduous duties, but so have many others in different occupations. The line is drawn, at the moment, at ships going to foreign ports and to distant fishing-grounds. I will certainly look at the matter again, but I should not like to encourage my hon. Friend to think that I will make any move.

  TELEPHONE SERVICE

    Applications
    Mr. Gowerasked the Postmaster-General how many applications for domestic telephones remained unsatisfied

    219
    at the latest convenient date in England and in Wales, respectively; and how those figures compare with those of a year ago.
    The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Ray Mawby): Excluding those under inquiry or being met, the numbers of unsatisfied applications for telephone service in England and Wales at 31st March, 1964, were approximately 40,000 and 1,600, respectively. I am sorry that separate figures are not available for residence telephones. These waiting lists have remained virtually unchanged during the past year despite the record level of demand, which rose from 372,000 to 489,000 in England and from 16,000 to 20,000 in Wales. As the plans outlined in the recent White Paper "The Inland Telephone Service in an Expanding Economy" gather momentum, these waiting lists will steadily shrink until, by March 1966, they will have virtually disappeared.

  WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

    Educational Broadcasting (Discussions)
    Mr. Stratton Millsasked the Postmaster-General what has been the result of the discussions between Ministers on educational television experiments of the kind devised by the Independent Television Authority and Queen's University, Belfast; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Mawby: As my right hon. Friend said on 2nd June in answer to the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes), the discussions on educational broadcasting are still continuing.
    Mr. Stratton Mills: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Independent Television Authority has authorised quite a large amount of money for an experiment in this field? Can he explain why it is that if an experiment for pay television is allowed, perhaps for a less worthy cause, there should be such delay in authorising an experiment like this for educational purposes?
    Mr. Mawby: The inquiry that is being made has to look into many different points to decide what will be the whole
    220
    point of educational programmes. As one has to decide the aims" and purposes, who would produce the programme, who would transmit it, who would pay for it, one needs a little more time to come to a final decision on the matter.
    Mr. Lubbock: Cannot the Assistant Postmaster-General consider encouraging the Independent Television Authority to plan a series of programmes in Northern Ireland to show that the idea of basing political controversy on religious differences is foreign to British ideas of democracy?
    Mr. Mawby: The hon. Gentleman could probably do that better himself by paying a visit to Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Stratton Mills: Is my hon. Friend aware that one can rehearse a joke too much?

    Housing Estates (Piped Service)
    Mrs. Slaterasked the Postmaster-General if, in view of the high cost of a television aerial to obtain the new services and the extent of aerial required, he will introduce legislation to enable him to provide a piped service, especially on new housing estates, operating from a central British Broadcasting Corporation aerial.
    Mr. Mawby: No, Sir. I understand that the cost of a UHF aerial (including installation) is on average much the same as the cost of installing a VHF aerial. Piped services can, of course, be provided by relay companies or local authorities.
    Mrs. Slater: Does the hon. Gentleman know that this problem is facing every local authority because of the high cost of these aerials, which is between £30 and £40, and that we are handing to two large companies, in the main, Telefusion and Rediffusion, the monopoly of piping television to these people on housing estates? Does not he realise that this method of doing the work is taking away the freedom of the people in those houses to choose whether they want it or not and that Is. 2d. a week on their rent is a considerable charge for this service? Should not the G.P.O. be getting the profit rather than private enterprise?
    Mr. Mawby: I see the hon. Lady's point, because there will obviously be an increasing demand for a piped service or need for more and more aerials as more and more stations develop. It may be, therefore, that many more people will not want a complete Christmas tree on top of their houses. The difficulty is that we in the Post Office must, with our present resources, concentrate on developing the public telecommunications services. We are prepared to license both private companies and local authorities where they feel that there is a need to provide a piped service.
    Mr. Proudfoot: Has my hon. Friend worked out any estimate of by how much the licence fee would go up if this suggestion were taken note of?
    Mr. Mawby: No, Sir.
    Mrs. Slater: Does not the Assistant Postmaster-General realise that this is definitely a service which the G.P.O. should be giving to the public? Would not the profits which are obviously being made from this help in the other work which the G.P.O. is so anxious to do?
    Mr. Mawby: If there were any profits—
    Mrs. Slater: There must be.
    Mr. Mawby:—that might be so. But, as the hon. Lady knows, the difficulty in many spheres of public activity is that we are using all the capital that we have available, and at present we feel that with the capital that we have available in the Post Office we are more justified in developing the telecommunications services so that the nation gets the service which it really deserves.

  POST OFFICE

    Postage Stamps (Special Issues)
    Dr. Broughtonasked the Postmaster-General why a charge of 5s. 9d. is being made for the first day covers service by the Philatelic Bureau for the International Geographic Congress special issue of postage stamps when the value of the stamps is only 2s. 8½d., in view of the fact that the recent similar service for the Shakespeare Festival cost only 7s. 2d. for stamps to the value of 6s.
    Mr. Mawby: Because the standard of service we gave for the Shakespeare first-day cover was not as good as our customers wanted and what we should have liked to have given. With the new charge we expect, this time, to give them the service they want. For people who do not wish to pay the new charge, we are making the official envelope available unstamped at the price of 6d. so that they can prepare their own first-day cover.
    Dr. Broughton: Is it not the case that if postage stamps are bought from the Philatelic Bureau, the Postmaster-General is content to receive payment amounting only to the face value of the stamps, plus 3d. for postage, whereas if stamps of the forthcoming special issue, together with envelopes and the first-day-issue postmark, are bought, the charge for the envelope and servicing appears to be exorbitant? Is it not the case that the Postmaster-General is turning this very useful service into a profiteering racket?
    Mr. Mawby: No, Sir. As the hon. Gentleman knows, this was the first time we issued a full first-day cover where we were prepared to type the address and do the whole service, and all we endeavoured to do was to get a return that would cover our costs. In fact, with the demand there was for this new issue, the return did not cover our costs. This new figure we are now charging will, we hope, just about cover the costs on a normal issue.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Russians have a far better stamp than ours and do Shakespeare far more justice? Why is that?
    Mr. Mawby: I do not know

    Postmen (Injury by Dogs)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Postmaster-General how many complaints both of injury caused by dogs and of difficulty in delivering mail he has had from postmen during the last five years.
    Mr. Mawby: These matters are dealt with locally and central records are not available but we estimate that there are about thirty cases of sick leave a year due to dog bites.
    Mr. Sorensen: Has the hon. Gentleman taken any steps to inform householders

    223
    that unless they keep their dogs in order and prevent the postmen from being injured or frightened mail will not be delivered?
    Mr. Mawby: Our postmasters have full authority, after due warning, to withhold delivery to the premises of any householder who takes no notice of warnings that are given.

    London Postal Districts
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Postmaster-General if it is his intention to modify the numbering of postal districts when the London Borough of Waltham Forest is fully established; and what action he intends to take in respect of postal confusion arising from similar road names both in the area of that new borough and of other new London boroughs.
    Mr. Mawby: No, Sir; postal and local government boundaries do not necessarily coincide and we have no plans for altering the numbering of postal districts when the new Borough of Waltham Forest comes into being. I am not aware that similar road names are causing confusion at present; and we have no intention of making changes which would give rise to such confusion.
    Mr. Sorensen: Would not the hon. Member look at this again? Is he aware that in the Waltham Forest area there are six or seven different postal regions? In those circumstances, would it not be better to try to make the postal regions co-terminous with the boundaries of the new borough? Is he not aware that both here and in other new boroughs there are roads with exactly the same names and that in spite of differences of postal designation, confusion arises? Should he not, therefore, take steps to try to avoid it?
    Mr. Mawby: Our main aim obviously is to give a good postal service at a reasonable cost. There will be many occasions on which the postal and local government boundaries do not coincide. We do not feel that it is necessary always to make them coincide when it would mean many people changing their addresses on envelopes without getting a better service as a result. If the hon. Member could give me the names of the streets which are confusing, I will certainly look at the point. He
    224
    asked my right hon. Friend last year to look at it He has done so, and this Answer is based on the further consideration which he gave to it, following the promise to the hon. Member.

  HONOURS (POLITICAL SERVICES)
  Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister whether he will advise the establishment of a Royal Commission to investigate the procedure and practice of awarding official honours, and to make recommendations.
  The Prime Minister (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): No. Sir.
  Mr. Hamilton: A very disappointing reply. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is now a considerable degree of hilarious cynicism as soon as his own list is produced? If he will not set up a Royal Commission, would he not be well advised to scrap the whole disreputable procedure of giving political awards to party political hacks?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
  Mr. Ross: Will the right hon. Gentleman think about this matter again? It is really rather unfair to those isolated Scottish Tories who are not members of the "night shift".

  NUCLEAR WEAPONS
  Mr. Zilliacusasked the Prime Minister what agreement he has reached with President Johnson on a joint Anglo-American policy to preserve peace by maintaining nuclear superiority over the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
  Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Prime Minister what agreement he has reached with the President of the United States of America on a joint Anglo-American policy to preserve peace by securing nuclear superiority over Russia.
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentlemen's summary of Anglo-American policy is oversimplified and even misleading. Our agreement was most recently set out in the joint communiqué issued after my talks with President Johnson in February, and circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT on 18th February.
  Mr. Zilliacus: Does not the Prime Minister recall that in his speech during the weekend of 1st June he announced that in order to maintain peace it was necessary to preserve Anglo-American superiority in nuclear weapons? Is that the right hon. Gentleman's own unilateral doctrine? If so, how is it proposed to achieve it? Secondly, how does he propose to get the Soviet Union to agree, in a disarmament treaty, to accept the superiority of the West in nuclear weapons?
  The Prime Minister: What happens at the disarmament conference is to work out balanced arrangements with the Soviet Union. That is what we are trying to get.
  Mr. Hughes: As the Prime Minister told us last week that it is nuclear balance of power that keeps the peace, does he think that Russian possession of the atomic bomb has contributed to the maintenance of peace? Will he explain that to the Chinese when they say they want an independent nuclear deterrent to get them to the conference table?
  The Prime Minister: There is no need to explain to the Chinese. The Chinese are in process of acquiring a nuclear weapon at some time—I do not know when. But we have now reached the point where there is, I think, a nuclear power that each side recognises could do unacceptable damage to the other. The sensible thing then is to get together at Geneva to try to strike a balance which is agreed.
  Mr. Lubbock: Does the Prime Minister think that the possession of nuclear weapons by the Chinese will enable them to have a seat at the conference table, and what arguments would he use with the Chinese to persuade them not to develop nuclear weapons if that is the result of possessing them?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman, if he does not mind my saying so, should read the American and United Kingdom disarmament plans which make provision for a seat at the conference table for the Chinese.
  Mr. M. Foot: Does the Prime Minister think that his continued insistence that nuclear weapons have kept the peace
  226
  encourages people to believe that he is sincere in wanting to get rid of them?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I see no inconsistency between the two attitudes. I think that almost everybody recognises that it is the nuclear balance which has kept the peace. The question is whether we can achieve that balance at a. lower level.

  OFFICIAL HISTORIANS
  Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Prime Minister how many official historians he has appointed.
  The Prime Minister: None, Sir. The last appointment was in November, 1962.
  Mr. Hughes: Why is the Prime Minister so prejudiced against history and historians? Does not he think that he has a splendid chance to show that the Tory Government have nothing to fear and nothing to apologise for about Suez by letting us have the truth? Does he not believe that, even if he has no place in politics after the next election, he will have a place in history?
  The Prime Minister: I am beginning to think that the hon. Gentleman wants the job; but I think that it would be a very biassed history that he would write.
  Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Will my right hon. Friend consider paying historians on piece rates rather than by time? Is it not a fact that a great many of these official historians were appointed a long time ago and are happily soldiering on year after year without producing very much? Could my right hon. Friend bring some urgency into the matter by making their method of payment more attractive?
  The Prime Minister: I had not thought of that, but I am willing to consider any suggestions.
  Dame Irene Ward: Will my right hon. Friend appoint a special historian to write how the Labour Party managed to produce the nuclear bomb without coming to Parliament?

  CYPRUS
  Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Prime Minister if he will invite the Turkish and Greek Prime Ministers to London for discussions on the Cyprus situation, following their visit to Washington.
  The Prime Minister: I have invited the Turkish and Greek Prime Ministers to visit London. They have both accepted. Mr. Inonu expects to be here between 27th June and 29th June. The date of Monsieur Papandreou's visit has not yet been fixed.
  Mr. Henderson: In view of the fact that Her Majesty's Government are parties to the treaty of guarantee and the treaty of establishment of Cyprus, may I ask him whether he intends to have consultations with President Johnson on the proposals that the President is putting forward with a view to achieving a settlement of the Cyprus problem?
  The Prime Minister: I think that we had better see what proposals the President puts forward before answering that supplementary question.

  ABERDEEN, TYPHOID OUTBREAK
  Mr. Clark Hutchisonasked the Prime Minister if he will ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Minister of Labour and the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development to report to him on the effects on the Scottish economy of the typhoid epidemic.
  The Prime Minister: The outbreak of typhoid has been confined to the city of Aberdeen, where less than 3 per 1,000 of the population have been affected. In the few cases outside Aberdeen, the infection in all except two cases was contracted during a visit to Aberdeen and not passed on to others.
  Mr. Hutchison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many holidaymakers and, indeed, some businessmen have been cancelling their bookings in Aberdeen and elsewhere in Scotland? Does he agree that such cancellations are entirely unnecessary from the point of view of public health?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I hope that the reply which I have given will do something to restore confidence.
  Mr. Hector Hughes: Does the Prime Minister realise that the Scottish economy, particularly in north-east Scotland, has suffered grievously from the epidemic, which was through no
  228
  fault of its own and which was not indigenous to Aberdeen? What plans has the right hon. Gentleman to provide compensation for the business people and workers in hotels, boarding houses and shops who have suffered so grievously from this epidemic?
  The Prime Minister: I think that it is premature to make up my mind about this question yet. I gather that that is the view taken by the City of Aberdeen.

  CHURCH OF SCOTLAND TRAINING CENTRE
  Mr. Rossasked the Prime Minister when he received a communication from the Governors of the Carberry Tower Youth Leadership and Training Centre of the Church of Scotland on the subject of Government assistance to it; and what reply he has sent.
  The Prime Minister: I received from the Chairman of the Governors on 12th June a letter which was evidently sent to a number of hon. Members. I have asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to deal with it.
  Mr. Ross: Will the Prime Minister use his influence as Prime Minister, if not as a Scottish constituency Member, to ensure that this matter is dealt with sympathetically? Will he bear in mind the concern which he expressed last Thursday and the anxiety which he seemed to evince then to get a chance of doing something constructive? Will he also bear in mind mat the youth work of the Church has not been made very much easier by the willingness of Governments of which he has been a member to make more readily available to young people facilities for drinking and betting, and, now, by the unrestricted spread of gaming clubs?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman asked for a particular matter to be examined, and I will certainly have it examined. But, apart from the church organisations, there are many secular organisations, and we have to treat them equally.
  Mr. David James: Is my right hon. Friend aware that hon. Members opposite opposed the Obscene Publications Bill?

INDUSTRIAL INDEMNITY (NATIONALISATION)
3.30 p.m.
Mr. Neil McLean: I beg to move.
That leave be given to introduce a Bill to protect from future nationalisation those private industries which are in receipt of State subsidies or loans under the Cotton Industry Act 1959, the Shipbuilding Credit Act 1964 or the Fort William Pulp and Paper Mills Act 1963.
The purpose of my proposed Bill is to reassure those industries that the fact that they have received grants and loans from the Government for certain purposes in the national interest will not be used as a reason, should there be a Labour Government in power next time, for nationalising them or for the State taking control of them. It is generally agreed on both sides of the House that money given under these Acts to these companies has been of great benefit both to the industries and to the areas in which they are located.
These Acts are the actions of government in this country in which we have a mixed economy. Private capital and public money, or State capital, both have an essential part to play. This is so not only in this country, but in almost every modern country today, except in the Socialist world. Both State and private capital have to play their full part if the economy of a country is to flourish. This country is no exception to the rule. Whichever Government we have in office, it will have to deal both with State and private enterprise and to co-ordinate the activities of the two in the best interests of the country.
An important factor at this stage in our history is that although both parties face the fact that we have a mixed economy there is a fundamental difference between the two parties in approach to the running of the economy. If I understand it correctly, hon. Members opposite believe in Socialism. Going back over the years, the record of the Labour Party is a mixture of Christian humanitarianism and Marxism and of great service according to its beliefs, but the essential core of that philosophy is a belief in Socialism; and if the Labour Party abandoned its Socialism it would abandon its spirit and inner
230
drive. That is why the Labour Party, in spite of whatever economic reasons may arise, cannot abandon Clause Four. It is a fundamental fact of the situation.
I go further and say that I think that the Labour Party, when and where possible, would like the State to take control of various enterprises and industries and would like an extension of public ownership for its own sake. I do not accuse the Labour Party of being idiots. Where this approach is impossible, the Labour Party will come to terms with private industry. But by and large, and where-ever it can, it will extend public ownership and State control. That is its attitude, and there is nothing in this attitude about which it need be ashamed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I said about which the Labour Party need be ashamed, according to its ideas.
On our side, we believe that private enterprise functions in a beneficial way for the development of our economy. At the same time, when necessary, we have never been afraid of the State intervening in support of private industry and—here some of my colleagues will disagree—even of the State starting up an industry. On the other hand, hon. Members on this side of the House would do this only where we feel that it was really necessary. By and large, we believe that as much of the economy as possible, for economic, social and other reasons, should be left in private hands. That is the best and fairest way of developing our economy.
As far a 5 I understand, members of the Liberal Party—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"]—say that this fundamental difference in approach to our economy and to the whole social outlook is completely unimportant. They say that it does not matter whether one believes in Socialism and in the State running things or whether one believes in private enterprise and wishes private enterprise forces to run the economy of the country. They say that that is quite unimportant—and this is a good example of the contribution which they have to make to our philosophy.
Speaking as a Scottish Member, I would say that the Acts in respect of shipbuilding and the Fort William Pulp Mill have been and will be of great benefit to the Highlands in particular and to

231
Scotland in general. Hon. Members opposite are equally as keen to see them successful as we are. Perhaps I may add a word about the Fort William Pulp Mill, which is in my constituency. I hope that I shall be forgiven for doing so. This great project, which has been welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, will be of immense benefit to the whole of the Highlands. The Government have agreed to make available up to £10 million in loan and grant and another £3 million for houses and ancillary services. The company has gone into this great project, both for its own advantage and profit and, at the same time, for the benefit of the Highlands and the economy of the entire country.
There have, however, been a number of remarks by hon. Members opposite which have cast doubts about the future relationship between the State and these companies. The right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), in the debate the other day, said that if the taxpayers were being asked to put up their money for the Fort William Pulp and Paper Mill project they were entitled to a stake in the industry. On the face of it, that is a very reasonable statement, but it must be seen against the background of statements made many times by the Leader of the Opposition, who has made his views clear in the matter, which is that "State finance means State participation in the ownership and control and in the profits." If the remarks of the right hon. Member for Belper are taken in conjunction with those of the Leader of the Opposition, who goes a stage further, it means that the State would seek control of these industries both in the running of them and in their profits. Nevertheless, if hon. Members on both sides of the House support the Bill, we can reassure these industries that they will not be taken over by the State if the party opposite comes to power. I hope that they can be reassured.
These remarks about these industries must be seen against the background of the various statements made by the Labour Party in the past and in the present. I should like to ask the Labour Party one question. If the Leader of the Opposition becomes Prime Minister, does he intend, as many hon. Members of his party undoubtedly think, to seize the
232
commanding heights and to carry the revolution one stage further forward? Will he do that? Many people in his party support him because they think that he will. Is it his aim to seize the commanding heights and to carry the revolution one stage further politically? Or, on the other hand, will he act according to what he tells his friends privately in the City when he reassures them that he will not nationalise their industries and that they will be all right under the Labour Party? Does it mean that the men in the City are being fooled or that the back bench Members are being fooled?
Today, I am more concerned with the narrower subject of the Bill, in which we seek to reassure those industries under the three Acts I have mentioned that they will not be taken over, should there be a Labour Government, just because they have received Government funds and loans, and that State control would not be made a condition of any further funds and loans. I ask my hon. Friends on this side of the House and hon. Members opposite to support the Bill.
3.40 p.m.
Mr. Bruce Millan Mr. Bruce Millan (Glasgow, Craigton) rose—
Mr. William Hamilton: Congratulate the hon. Member on his "maiden" speech.
Mr. Millan: I rise to oppose the Bill.
I am not sure that the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. N. MacLean) made out an effective case for his Bill, but it requires some kind of answer. In the first place, the Bill is misconceived in principle. I do not believe that it is constitutionally sound for one Government to bind the actions of the next Government. Indeed, I do not think that that is possible. Even if the Bill were passed, I do not believe that it would be effective.
But I do not want to rest my case on that. The Labour Party's view on giving assistance to private enterprise has been repeated on a number of occasions. It is simple. Our view is that if large sums of public money are given in assistance to private industry, then the taxpayers, the Government, have the responsibility and, indeed, the duty to see that there is public

233
accountability. If profits are made from this enterprise, then the whole of the profits should not go to private enterprise, but the taxpayer should get a reasonable return. That is what is said in "Signpost to the 'Sixties", and it was made clear in the debate on nationalisation, which we had last week. In fact, the hon. Member has not addressed his mind to that question at all.
In his Motion the hon. Member mentions three Acts of Parliament. I shall say something briefly about each in turn. First, the Cotton Industry Act, 1959, was debated at great length in the House, and all the HANSARD references to the debate are available. Yet the hon. Member did not attempt to prove at any time during the debate on that Act that any hon. Member from this side of the House said that the cotton industry should be taken into public ownership.
We did not say that. That was not a commitment that we made and we have not made the commitment since. Therefore, again, as to the cotton industry the Bill is misconceived. What we said on the Cotton Industry Act was that if it were taken by itself, without other measures by the Government, it would not have the effect of reorganising and re-equipping the industry in the manner that the Government said they intended.
We have had confirmation of that view in the conclusion of the Fourth Report of the Estimates Committee, which reported in May, 1962, which, in its last paragraph, mentioned the purpose of the Cotton Industry Act and said that large sums of money had been voted by Parliament. It went on to say that the Committee
"feel bound to record their conviction that, failing a speedy and satisfactory solution to the related problems of imports, marketing, and the fuller use of plant and machinery, much of the expenditure incurred will have been to no purpose."
At the time when the Bill was going through, we said nothing about taking part of the cotton industry into public ownership.
As to the Shipbuilding Credit Act, again I challenge the hon. Member for Inverness to produce a quotation from HANSARD showing that we on this side at any time suggested that we were
234
committed to taking part of the shipping industry into public ownership. We did not say that. Again, therefore, the Bill is misconceived.
What we did say was that the assistance under the Shipbuilding Credit Act, 1964, came far too late and, what was more, was far too restricted. I am glad to see the hon. Member's interest in the shipbuilding industry which is associated with the Bill. I am not sure that he has ever expressed an interest in it before. The number of people employed in shipbuilding in Scotland went down from 54,000 in 1957 to only 38,000 in 1963. During that period, hon. Members on this side were pressing the Government to do something for the shipbuilding industry.
It is, however, the Fort William Pulp and Paper Mill that I want specially to mention, because, as the hon. Member has said, this project is in his constituency. The project is to cost £19 million and the Government are to provide about £10 million. What we on this side said, and I moved an Amendment to this effect in Committee on the Bill, was that the Government's participation in the project at Fort William should not be on a debenture basis at a fixed rate of interest, but that they should participate in the profits.
An Amendment to that effect was moved from this side of the House on the Report stage of the Bill. The hon. Member for Inverness, however, whose interest, again, I am glad to see in the project, was not present on that occasion. His interest was so intense that he was not present on Second Reading and he was not a member of the Committee which dealt with the Bill, even though the project was located in his constituency.
That whole project depends upon Government money. Who is supplying the timber? It is being supplied by the Forestry Commission, a State-owned enterprise. The water is being provided by the local authorities, by whom the roads are bring provided, also. The rail services, which Dr. Beeching was on the point of closing down just when the venture came forward, are also being provided by nationalised industry with public money.
I go further. It is an impertinence of the hon. Member for Inverness, of all

235
people, to seek to introduce his Bill. If it were not for State enterprise and public money, his whole constituency would collapse into economic depression. Not only does the hon. Member's constituency depend upon the very public services which I have mentioned, but it depends also upon hydro-electricity. Some of us on this side of the House have been fighting for the Hydro-Electric Board against the Government's treatment of it which we have had over the last two years. I do not recollect one occasion on which the hon. Member for Inverness gave us any assistance, although his constituency is vitally interested in the development of hydro-electricity in Scotland.
As an example of the dependence of the Highlands on State enterprise, I ought finally to mention that one of the first Bills which the Government intro

Division No. 113.]

AYES

[3.51 p.m.

Agnew, Sir Peter

Dance, James

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Anderson, D. C.

Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Arbuthnot, Sir John

Doughty, Charles

James, David

Ashton, Sir Hubert

Douglas-Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Alec

Jennings, J. C.

Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)

Drayson, G. B.

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Barlow, Sir John

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Barter, John

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

Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

Batsford, Brian

Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith

Bell, Ronald

Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Kershaw, Anthony

Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

Farey-Jones, F. W.

Kirk, Peter

Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Farr, John

Kitson, Timothy

Biffen, John

Fell, Anthony

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Biggs-Davison, John

Finlay, Graeme

Leavey, J. A.

Bingham, R. M.

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

Foster, Sir John

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Bishop, Sir Patrick

Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

Lindsay, Sir Martin

Black, Sir Cyril

Gammans, Lady

Litchfield, Capt. John

Bossom, Hon. Clive

Gardner, Edward

Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'n C'dfield)

Bourne-Arton, A.

Gibson-Watt, David

Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan

Longbottom, Charles

Box, Donald

Goodhew, Victor

Longden, Gilbert

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

Gower, Raymond

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Grant-Ferris, R.

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Braine, Bernard

Green, Alan

MacArthur, Ian

Brewis, John

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

McLaren, Martin

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

Maddan, Martin

Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Maitland, Sir John

Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

Marshall, Sir Douglas

Bryan, Paul

Harrison, Col. Sir

Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert (Mitcham)

Harwood (Eye)

Maude, Angus (Stratford-on-Avon)

Cary, Sir Robert

Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Channon, H. P. G.

Harvie Anderson, Miss

Mawby, Ray

Chataway, Christopher

Hastings, Stephen

Maxwell-Hystop, R. J.

Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

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

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward

Mills, Stratum

Cleaver, Leonard

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Miscampbell, Norman

Cooke, Robert

Hiley, Joseph

Montgomery, Fergus

Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

Moore, Sir Thomas (Ayr)

Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

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

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Cordle, John

Hirst, Geoffrey

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Corfield, F. V.

Hobson, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Morrison, John (Salisbury)

Coulson, Michael

Hogg, Rt. Hon. Quintin

Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

Holland, Philip

Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

Hollingworth, John

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Crawley, Aidan

Hopkins, Alan

Page, Graham (Crosby)

Cunningham, Sir Knox

Homsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

Curran, Charles

Hughes Halls", Vice-Admiral John

Percival, Ian

Dalkeith, Earl of

Hulbert, Sir Norman

Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

duced into the House after 1959 was the Highlands and Islands Shipping Services Act, 1960, the purpose of which was to provide Government money for building ships to maintain shipping services to the Highlands. That is another matter in which the hon. Member for Inverness has a vital constituency interest, but on that one, also, he did not speak on Second Reading, he was not on the Committee which dealt with the Bill and he did not speak on Report.
For the general reason that the Bill is misconceived, and, particularly, considering the quarter from which the Bill comes, the House should reject it.
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 191-Noes 135.

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Spearman, Sir Alexander

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Pitman, Sir James

Stalnton, Keith

Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Pitt, Dame Edith

Stanley, Hon. Richard

Vickers, Miss Joan

Pounder, Rafton

Storey, Sir Samuel

Walker, Peter

Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

Studholme, Sir Henry

Wall, Patrick

Prior, J. M. L.

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Ward, Dame Irene

Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Proudfoot, Wilfred

Teeling, Sir William

Whitelaw, William

Pym, Francis

Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley

Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)

Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)

Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Ronton, Rt Hon. David

Thompson, sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

Wise, A. R.

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

Woodnutt, Mark

Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

Tilney, John (Wavertree)

Yates, William (The Wrekln)

Seymour, Leslie

Turner, Colin

Sharples, Richard

Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

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

Tweedsmuir, Lady

Sir F. Maclean and

Mr. Neil McLean.

NOES

Abse, Leo

Hayman, F. H.

Oram, A, E.

Ainsley, William

Healey, Denis

Owen, Will

Aldritt, W. H.

Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)

Paget, R, T.

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Herbison, Miss Margaret

Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Hill, J. (Midlothian)

Pargiter, G. A.

Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)

Hilton, A. V.

Pavitt, Laurence

Bacon, Miss Alice

Holt, Arthur

Peart, Frederick

Barnett, Guy

Houghton, Douglas

Pentland, Norman

Beaney, Alan

Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)

Prentice, R. E.

Benn, Anthony Wedgwood

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Probert, Arthur

Benson, Sir George

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Rankin, John

Blackburn, F.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Redhead, E. C.

Blyton, William

Hunter, A. E.

Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

Boston, T. G.

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Rhodes, H.

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

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

Janner, Sir Barnett

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Braddock, Mrs. E. M,

Jeger, George

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Paneras, N.)

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

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

Ross, William

Callaghan, James

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Short, Edward

Castle, Mrs. Barbara

Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

Skeffington, Arthur

Collick, Percy

Kelley, Richard

Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Kenyon, Clifford

Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

Crosland, Anthony

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Small, William

Cullen, Mrs. Alice

King, Dr. Horace

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Dalyell, Tarn

Lawson, George

Snow, Julian

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Sorensen, R. W.

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Deer, George

Lipton, Marcus

Spriggs, Leslie

Diamond, John

Lubbock, Eric

Steele, Thomas

Donnelly, Desmond

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

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

McCann, J.

Stones, William

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

MacColl, James

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

Evans, Albert

Mackenzie, Gregor

Swingler, Stephen

Finch, Harold

MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

Symonds, J. B.

Fitch, Alan

MacPherson, Malcolm

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Fletcher, Eric

Mapp, Charles

Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

Foley, Maurice

Mason, Roy

Thornton, Ernest

Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

Mayhew, Christopher

Wainwright, Edwin

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Mellish, R. J.

Warbey, William

Ginsburg, David

Mltchlson, G. R.

Weitzman, David

Cordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

Monslow, Walter

Whitlock, William

Gourlay, Harry

Moody, A. S.

Winterbottom, R. E.

Grey, Charles

Moyle, Arthur

Woof, Robert

Gunter, Ray

Mulley, Frederick

Hamilton, William (West Fife)

Oliver, G. H.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Harper, Joseph

O'Malley, B. K.

Mr. Millan and Mr. Carmichael.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. N. McLean.

INDUSTRIAL INDEMNITY (NATIONALISATION)
Bill to protect from future nationalisation those private industries which are in
238
receipt of State subsidies or loans under the Cotton Industry Act, 1959, the Shipbuilding Credit Act, 1964, or the Fort William Pulp and Paper Mills Act, 1963, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday next and to be printed [Bill 169.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  MALICIOUS DAMAGE BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.1 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Henry Brooke): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This is the Bill which I said that the Government intended to introduce forthwith when I made a full statement to the House earlier this month on the "mods" and "rockers" disturbances which broke out at Whitsun at three seaside towns in the South of England. I made it perfectly clear then that such happenings cannot be prevented by alterations to the law alone. They go much wider and deeper and I have had valuable talks about it with more than one of my hon. Friends whose constituencies were concerned, including my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Sir W. Teeling) who, I see, has some suggestions of his own on the Order Paper.
  Though there is much else which needs doing, too, it is a primary responsibility of the Government to make sure that the courts have sufficient powers—powers to maintain law and order and powers to protect persons and property. This Bill is a short and simple Measure to strengthen those powers in the one direction where I think that they are not already fully sufficient. Governments alone cannot control or direct the behaviour of the young, nor would anybody wish it so. Governments can see that there are deterrents to irresponsible actions which hurt and harm others, and can see that appropriate methods of treatment and punishment exist, but the moral outlook of the society in which young people grow up is something for which each one of us must answer.
  We should all ask ourselves, the whole nation should ask itself, whether we grown-ups are setting the best example. Those of us who are parents must recognise the directness of our responsibility. Everybody who read the remarkable article which was published in The Times, shortly after Whitsun, must have been deeply disturbed by it. The Times, enterprisingly, interviewed many of the parents whose sons appeared in court after those Whitsun scenes. The article
  240
  revealed how little some parents knew about what their children were doing that weekend and how deeply shocked they were, when they found that their sons had been charged with hooligan offences and convicted.
  I know that parents do not want to interfere as their children grow up, and there is good sense in that. There is also good sense in saying to parents, "Do not cut yourselves off from your children's activities and interests as if they were things that no longer concern you once they leave school." The year or so after boys and girls have left school is very often a time when they really need the support of their parents most, though they may think otherwise. It is a turning point in life, a time of new strains and possibly new temptations. The connection between delinquency and the special strains and difficulties of adjustment at that time is one of the first subjects on which my Advisory Committee on Juvenile Delinquency has decided to concentrate.
  It is not enough for older people merely to condemn that Whitsun behaviour. We must try to understand the causes and find the remedies. We can also, I suggest, see what each of us personally can do to provide part of the answer. There are so many ways locally in which men and women, young or old, can help; through voluntary bodies and voluntary efforts; with youth clubs and sports clubs; by seeing that there are more opportunities for boys to do adventurous things without breaking the law and, perhaps most important of all, by trying by personal example to improve the image of the society in which these young people are growing. We should show that as a nation we have the will and intent to take constructive steps to fight and win the battle against delinquency.
  At the same time—and this is Parliament's job—we must not fail to make certain that irresponsible behaviour can be dealt with severely by the courts and that those who damage the property of others can be made to pay for the damage they cause. The Bill will strengthen the powers of the courts at a key point, the power to exact restitution from the causer of the damage, who may find himself having to pay a substantial fine as well.

  241
  I have thoroughly considered all the other possible measures which have been urged on me since Whitsun from one quarter or another. I am not going to reintroduce corporal punishment; to do so in the face of its unanimous rejection by my very strong Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders would be a strange line to take. It has been suggested that these young hooligans should be disqualified from driving, or that their motor cycles or scooters should be confiscated. I treated that as a serious suggestion and considered it seriously, but, for one thing, I saw formidable difficulties for the courts in deciding whether there was a relation between the offence and the use of the vehicle, when the vehicle might be parked a couple of miles away from where the offence took place. One could not confine anything like that to offences of hooliganism, because hooliganism is not defined in the category of offences known to the law.
  There is, in fact, a wide variety of offences with which these young people may be charged; under the Public Order Act, where we wisely increased the penalties by legislation last Session; or the Prevention of Crime Act; or the Malicious Damage Act; or the Offences Against the Person Act; as well as the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914, which the Bill seeks to amend. The Bill proposes to amend Section 14(1) of that Act so as to increase from £20 to £100 the limit on cases of malicious damage that may be dealt with by magistrates' courts. Section 14(1) of the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914, provides that a person who commits malicious damage to an amount not exceeding £20 may be prosecuted summarily.
  If the amount of the damage is £5 or less, the maximum penalty is two months' imprisonment or a fine of £5. If the amount of the damage is more than £5, but does not exceed £20, the maximum penalty is three months' imprisonment, or a fine of £20. In either case, the court may, in addition, order the offender to pay reasonable compensation for the damage caused up to the amount of the damage. In view of present money values, this £20 limit is unsatisfactory. It is unsatisfactory not only because the maximum fine is
  242
  limited to £20, but, more especially, because the power to award compensation is restricted to cases in which the damage is £20 or less.
  The effect of Clause 1(1) of the Bill is to amend Section 14 of the 1914 Act so as to permit proceedings under this Section in cases where the amount of the damage runs up to £100. This automatically raises the limit for compensation which the offender may be required to pay to £100; and the Bill also raises the maximum fine to £100. The Schedule to the Bill shows exactly how the provision in the 1914 Act will read if Parliament approves the Bill.
  It is intended that the Bill should come into effect immediately on receiving the Royal Assent. I hope that, with the help of the House, it will be in operation before the August Bank Holiday. It will apply only to offences committed after the Bill comes into force, as is secured by Clause 1(2).
  I believe that public opinion will approve the Government's resolve to deter the irresponsible types who go in for hooliganism by exposing them not only to fines up to £100, but to the likelihood, also, of being ordered by the magistrates to pay for the damage they have done up to £100. Their pockets will be at risk up to £200. This may make both them and their parents think.
  I want the Bill also to be a reassurance to the long-suffering public. They were long-suffering at these holiday places, for many of them had their Whitsun holidays or their Whitsun trade spoiled by these young fools. I want to reassure them by showing that the Government mean business. I can tell the House that the police have all their plans co-ordinated in case there is further trouble. The youths who were sent to detention centres because of their part in the Whitsun disturbances are up at six o'clock each morning and go to bed each night thoroughly tired out by hard work. At the detention centres they are being taught good behaviour and proper manners as well as discovering what physical exercise does. The Bill will enact the one change which is needed in the law to nuke sure that the courts have full powers.
  In the foreword I wrote to the Report on the work of the Children's Department

  243
  of the Home Office, which was presented to Parliament in March, I set out my longer-term views about delinquency. I repeated some of them in our debate on 27th April. I shall not lengthen my speech today by going over them again for they are on record. My Advisory Committee on Juvenile Delinquency has already set to work, and the Royal Commission on the Penal System also has a big task before it. Both of these bodies, I have no doubt, will have important contributiont to make on the long-term problem. But we must think responsibly about what we should be doing in the short run as well as the long run.
  The Bill represents the one change in the law which, I believe, it is right to recommend Parliament to enact here and now.
  Mr. Speaker: The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Sir W. Teeling) is not selected.
  4.14 p.m.
  Miss Alice Bacon: As the Home Secretary has said, this is a small Bill. It is also a hurried Bill, though a necessary one, in an effort to prevent on August Bank Holiday a repetition of the events on Easter Monday and Whit Monday of this year. At that time, some of the magistrates did fine very heavily, but I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there is a gap in the law which the Bill will fill.
  Even if there had been no trouble at Easter and Whitsun, it would be right for us to have this Bill before us, because it amends the 1914 Act and, as we all know, the value of money today is nothing like what it was in 1914. The Bill merely brings up to present-day values the fines which could be imposed under the 1914 Act. Twenty pounds then is about the same as £100 today.
  I hope, as the right hon. Gentleman hopes, that these increased fines will deter young hooligans from a repetition on August Bank Holiday of what happened on the two previous occasions. The House must do all that is possible to prevent such behaviour, to see that ordinary people can enjoy their holidays in peace and quiet as they wish to do, and to prevent young people from doing harm to both people and property.
  244
  I know that there are hon. Members who consider that there ought to be remedies other than the one proposed under the Bill. Some think that there should be a return to corporal punishment. Some think that the best thing to do with these young people is to put them in prison, in borstal, or even in the Army. Others think that a longer period on probation would probably do them some good.
  Like the right hon. Gentleman, I do not believe that corporal punishment is the answer. There is no evidence from the past to show that it has been a deterrent. When flogging for robbery with violence was brought to an end, the number of offences went down, not up. Moreover, I believe that there is a danger that, if we returned to corporal punishment for these offences, having regard to the type of person with whom we are dealing, there might be a tendency to show some sort of bravado; a flogging or a birching might even become a status symbol among these young people.
  The right hon. Gentleman referred to the article in The Times, on 22nd May last, reporting interviews with the parents of some of the young people who had been before the courts. I shall refer to some of the other matters in the article later, but I wish at this point to remind the House that one father said, according to the report:
  "I tried thrashing my boy a year ago when he came in very late. It hurt me more than him, and I thought it disgusting and degrading. At the end of it he went out again. He did not come back until about 4 o'clock in the morning. For weeks after that he was much worse."
  There we have an example of one of the fathers saying that he had tried corporal punishment and it had failed.
  What about prison, borstal and detention centres? It is true that some of these young people would benefit from a short period in a detention centre, but I hope that we shall not be sending them to prison or borstal. The young people whom we are now considering, the ones who go about as young hooligans, are not quite the same as the people who go about stealing and committing crimes of that kind. It would be utterly wrong to put this kind of person in prison, especially in company with the type of older prisoner who has committed crimes. I

  245
  hope, therefore, that magistrates will reflect carefully before sending them to prison.
  The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Sir W. Teeling) suggests in his Amendment, which is not to be called, that there might be some other kind of day centre to which these people could be sent. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we have already in various parts of the country attendance centres run by the police, notably in Liverpool, but also in London, Leeds, Manchester and many other towns. As I said in our debate on juvenile delinquency on 28th April, I was very disappointed that this attendance centre system had not developed nearly as much as I thought was necessary. In 1960, there were 41 attendance centres. By the end of 1963, the number had grown to only 52, and the number of orders made had risen from just over 4,000 to 5,800. I believe that we should have far more of these attendance centres and that those which we have should be expanded.
  For one thing, attendance centres are much cheaper. The cost per order in an attendance centre is less than £5 10s., very much cheaper than putting a young person in residential accommodation. In any case, as I have said on many occasions, taking young persons from their homes and putting them in some kind of residential accommodation should only be a course of last resort when the home is utterly unsuitable. I believe that this kind of residential accommodation for young people does more harm than good.
  As for the third course, probation, I do not think that the probation service, which is already overworked, ought to have these added duties.
  I disagree very much with the Amendment which the hon. Gentleman has put down, although on the principle of it, that he wants more than there is in the Bill, I agree with him, because, while I hope that the Bill will go through, I know very well that the problem will still be with us. As the Home Secretary pointed out, there is a short-term problem and a long-term problem. The question goes far deeper than the Bill now before us.
  On 27th April, we had a debate on the whole subject of hooliganism and
  246
  juvenile delinquency. Like the right hon. Gentleman, I have no intention of repeating what I said in that debate, when I and many others emphasised that parents had a responsibility, that society must set an example, and that events of this kind were to some extent a reflection of the kind of society we had as a whole. In my view, as I said then, there is not one cause and not one remedy. We can only try a variety of measures and see what will work.
  The hooliganism which takes place today, although it has reared its head in rather unusual ways in Bank Holiday assaults on seaside towns, is not a new problem. It is being expressed in a different way today, but this, I suggest, does no more than reflect the changed pattern of life. Yesterday, everything was much simpler than it is today. A few years ago, if there were any young hooligans, they ran around the streets where they lived, making a nuisance of themselves to their immediate neighbours. Today, they have motorcycles and scooters. Young people can move farther away, and they have much more money. The whole pattern of life has changed in this respect.
  The right hon. Gentleman has told us what the Government are doing. Committees and commissions are considering these questions and are advising him. I noticed that he gave an interview to the Daily Mail last week, which, on 17th June, reported what he had said about his long-term measures for combating hooliganism The article was headed:
  "Thank Heaven for Henry Brooke!"
  I must say that that is going just a bit too far. However, I read the article very carefully, and all I could see in it was that a committee was considering this, a commission was considering the other, an advisory committee was about to advise him on this and that. It is time that we had the results of some of the efforts which these bodies have been putting in.
  The problem of juvenile delinquency has been with us a long time. It is not something we have known about only in the past few weeks or months. The right hon. Gentleman, according to this article, went on to say that he was having a survey made of the kind of young

  247
  persons who had been making a nuisance of themselves at Whitsuntide and Easter.
  The article said:
  "It is astonishing that these questions have not been asked before. But, at last, the steps are being taken."
  It is indeed astonishing that these steps have not been taken and these questions not asked before. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, The Times had already interviewed a great many of the parents of the children who were before the courts at Easter and Whitsun. It did so very quickly. The article underlined something that I said in our debate on 27th April. I told the House then that I thought parents were not taking sufficient interest in what their children were doing in their spare time. If we read the interviews quoted in The Times we see that, time and again, that is the case.
  The article said:
  "From parents' stories it would seem that these youngsters used their home as a lodging house—for meals and sleep only.
  Parents seemed surprised when asked if their children ever accompanied them on their outings.
  A mother trying to rear her family single handed, said: ' Sometimes my boy doesn't get in until 3 a.m., but I've never asked him where he has been. He wouldn't like that.'
  Another mother, who said that her son had always had everything he wanted, added: 'He has had three cars since he was 17. His Dad helps him to buy them.'"
  Of course, all these young people were not like that. Another boy's mother told the Daily Herald that she hoped she would never see him again and that when he came out of prison he would go into "digs". This boy and his brother were sent to a children's home when they were babies because their mother could not house them. They did not see her again for 15 years. Now she was hoping that she would never see her son again.
  Thus, one cannot generalise about these young people. Some have been deprived and have had no chance at all, while others have perhaps been over-indulged by parents who thought it right to give them all the things they wanted including, in one case, three cars. We now have a shorter working day and more leisure. Work itself, with automation, is not physically so hard as it used to be, I am glad to say. A great deal of the work that these young people perform is mono-
  248
  tonous—sitting down doing one process all day long—and when they finish they look out for any enjoyment that they can get.
  I would like to emphasise that only a very small proportion of young people behave in this way. The overwhelming majority are making a very useful contribution to society and filling their leisure time with useful pursuits. But we must see what we can do to help those who cannot see anything better to do than make a nuisance of themselves by giving them alternative outlets for their energy and high spirits.
  Yesterday, we had a debate on leisure and sport. I believe that the Government have not done nearly as much in this respect as they might have done. They have not done as much as they should in the implementation of the Wolfenden and Albemarle Reports. I have a report here about girls climbing mountains. People are organising climbing expeditions to Snowdonia and other places. It is interesting to see that in Liverpool, which used to be perhaps the worst city for this kind of hooliganism, the situation is much better because of the growth of the "beat" groups. Instead of throwing stones through windows and damaging people's property, the youngsters are busy beating drums and strumming electric guitars. The answer has been found quite accidentally in that way. Perhaps Mr. "Billy" Butlin might be able to come forward with a bright idea for healthy competition for these young people.
  Although the young people involved in this trouble form only a very small percentage, the trouble they cause is out of all proportion to their numbers. I said on 27th April—and I believe this to be very important—that we should do much more to ease the break between school days and working days. I believe that it is at that point that one of the right hon. Gentleman's committees should be looking.
  Last week, a committee set up by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition under the chairmanship of the Earl of Longford, produced a report entitled "Crime—a Challenge to Us All". In this report the committee—I was a member—dealt at length with the problem of juvenile delinquency and how to

  249
  try to prevent it, because we realise that juvenile delinquents of today can so easily become criminals tomorrow.
  We suggested the setting up of a family service, with family centres and family courts, because we believe that we cannot separate the child from the family of which he is a member and that the Home Secretary and the local authorities ought to look at the family as a whole and not just at the child. That is why we set such great store on the family service, which would embrace the education, welfare and health authorities and the children's departments.
  Our proposals have been discussed seriously in most papers, with only one or two critics. One writer asked how we could be sure that our proposals would succeed. Of course, we cannot be sure that they would. No one could be sure. People who think that they have the answer to these problems are extremely foolish. Nevertheless, I believe that our report is a very valuable contribution.
  The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran)—whose articles I see twice a week, because a Yorkshire paper publishes them following their appearance in London—wrote last week about our proposals. His article was entitled "Pamper or Punish". I think that the article was very unfair, and the title particularly so. In many quarters there is a discussion of this problem of punishment and reform as if the two were opposites. I do not believe that they are.
  I am not against punishment. Small children have to be punished by their parents. Perhaps for bad behaviour they may be deprived of a little outing. They are not being punished for the sake of punishment, but so that they can know right from wrong. In other words, they are punished so that they can grow up in the right way. One can regard this punishment as a kind of reform of the young person. So I believe that punishment can be a part of reform, but punishment without any hope of reform, especially for the young, is purposeless and defeatist.
  I believe that a term of custodial treatment of any kind which is merely to punish the individual and which sends him out of the institute no better than when he went in is absolutely useless.
  250
  I therefore do not think it right to talk about punishment versus reform. Reform is the aim, but sometimes it can be brought about by punishment.
  The important thing is that, if parents need help in bringing up their children and young people, then the help should be there for them and that children and young people should receive the treatment best suited for them to make them useful members of society. I was very much struck by the words of Professor Radzinowicz, in a lecture to the Howard League for Penal Reform on 7th May. He said:
  "I sometimes wonder how far, in this sort of context, we should pursue arguments about the principles of punishment. What use is it to discuss exhaustively the relative weights to be attached to the various elements in punishment, when we can never really assess individual culpability or its equivalent in individual pain, when we have little idea of how far we are really deterring offenders, let alone others; when we know we often do not know how best to bring about reformation?"
  We do not really know all the answers to this.
  We on this side of the House support the Bill, but in doing so we recognise, as I know the right hon. Gentleman does, that much more is needed. We need to see that our young people grow up in the way we would like them to, but we must also remember that the way they grow up is a reflection on our society as a whole and that we have a responsibility not only to punish them where necessary, but to see that they do not do these things again. It is the responsibility not only of the parents, but of everyone in the community, not only to punish them, but to reform them and lead them on to be better members of society.
  4.35 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Morrison: It is with considerable trepidation that I ask the House to extend its customary indulgence to an hon. Member addressing it for the first time. I speak with mixed feelings, because one of my ancestors, a Member of this House, rejoiced in the nickname of "Old Morality". I hasten to add that I am not referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. J. Morrison).
  During the recent Devizes by-election many hon. Members will have discovered that I am now privileged and honoured

  251
  to be the representative of one of the loveliest constituencies in the south of England. For the past nine years this constituency was represented most ably by the late Mr. Percivall Pott. He was a modest and unassuming man, but his wide experience of agriculture and his great knowledge of local government earned him respect in the constituency and, I believe, in this House. His sudden death on the eve of his retirement came as a great shock to a very large number of people.
  It is my belief that the problems of delinquency and the necessary measures to prevent it vary considerably according to the basic environment. In the Devizes constituency we have a diversity of environment. We have the social problems of the industrial towns. Many of my electors live on the perimeter of Swindon, a fast-expanding industrial and residential area. In contrast, there are the rural areas of the Kennet Valley and the Vale of Pewsey. In further contrast, there are the historic Boroughs of Marlborough and Devizes. Thus, my constituency provides a fairly typical cross-section of modern England.
  I feel certain that my constituents in all these varying districts will welcome the Bill. They will do so because they share my anxiety at the increasing number of crimes of violence in which malicious damage occurs. There are, perhaps, two separate aspects worthy of consideration in examining the Bill. First, there is the effect of the Measure in protecting the potential victim, and, secondly, there is the effect in deterring the potential criminal.
  In considering the victims, the House should not for one moment underestimate the fear of many people, in particular the elderly and the lonely, when they read of the increasing number of crimes and of gangs of young people bent on wilfully damaging property and injuring people all to no purpose. There is a general feeling that penalties have not been severe enough, and there will be corresponding relief that they are now to be increased.
  I am delighted that the penalties which it will be possible to impose are linked with the principle of the criminal being made liable for compensating the victim for damage which he has sustained. Not
  252
  only does the person suffering damage gain retribution, and this is important, but the wrongdoer is struck by an embarrassing sense of personal responsibility which has a far more salutary effect than the normal payment of a fine.
  What of the Bill's effect on the potential criminal? The Bill has been provoked by the irresponsible behaviour of a small section of young people, and I emphasise again that it is an extremely small section. As someone who has been closely connected with education and who has taken a great interest in the Association of Youth Clubs in my own County of Wiltshire, in recent years I have seen a great deal of the age group which is associated with "mods" and "rockers", and I say without hesitation that I am full of admiration for the general fervour and spirit of these young people.
  I should like to remind those who harshly criticise the younger generation of the words of William Pitt in the House on one occasion, when he said:
  "The atrocious crime of being a young man … I shall neither attempt to palliate nor deny."
  Freedom from Hunger, World Refugee Year, and more locally, the close ties which Devizes Youth Club has with a home for crippled children, and the Christmas parties and treats arranged by other clubs for old folk, all have as their driving force young people applying their natural energy in fine and honourable work.
  Nevertheless, the fact must be faced that this generation has new problems and, at the same time, enjoys greater freedom than any generation before. The majority are better housed and better fed, healthier and endowed with greater energy, and they can earn a wage, almost from the day they leave school which allows them to cast off family ties and go their own way in life untrammelled by any economic worries. Freed from the enforced discipline of school, suddenly they have to rely entirely on self-discipline. I believe that in the long term this will breed a more responsible and mature society, but in the short term these young people are suddenly subjected to the pressures of modern life.
  It may be that many of them have never properly distinguished, or for that matter been instructed in, the boundaries

  253
  of good sense and it is not surprising, therefore, that some of them will overstep the mark and that some will cross the narrow line which divides high spirits and exuberance from hooligan behaviour unacceptable to society.
  It must be accepted that there is a hard core of delinquents, but next to these there is the fringe who are inclined to commit the same crimes as the persistent delinquents, but who react much more quickly and more favourably to common sense measures of prevention and cure. This fringe misbehaves not because it is basically criminal, but because it has nothing better to do and because it is easily misled. This is the section of the community which provides the greatest challenge to authority and which authority must do its utmost to contain and guide.
  These are the individuals who will find difficulty in solving the mental problem, either consciously or subconsciously, of what is right and what is wrong. I believe that their final decision is motivated to a great extent by the expectation of punishment or personal disaster. There is, therefore, a need for a powerful deterrent to influence the mind of the individual, and I think that one of the main additional causes of the increase of crime over the past years is that the deterrent power of the law has not been strong enough.
  Undoubtedly, this is the negative approach to the problems of the young, but on the positive side great advances are being made and better facilities for young people are being provided throughout the country. But a youth organisation will be far more successful if it has the facilities of a purpose-built centre, and as yet these are far too rare. One such centre at Stratton St. Margaret, in my constituency, is to be opened shortly, but it will be the first in Wiltshire. The Churches, too, are facing this problem and it is greatly to the credit of one of my local Methodist churches, that in Highworth, that it is investing more than £10,000 in a youth centre. Local authorities, churches and employers must all combine to improve facilities and to make more facilities available at an increasing pace.
  The advances which have been made are welcomed, but enlightened thought and theory take time and money to put
  254
  into practice in all areas, and those parts of the country which are covered by clubs and youth centres where young people can amuse themselves socially or constructively among their own age groups are strictly limited. The great diversity of youth organisations is sometimes forgotten. There are the Scouts and Guides, Red Cross, St. John's Ambulance Brigade, Y.M.C.A., youth clubs and young farmers, to mention just a few. All these are doing very fine work, but they greatly need more facilities and, even more important, more leaders.
  I only wish that some of the people who grumble and grouse about the younger generation would devote a little of their resources and money to help to provide these young people with a relief from that great creator of the delinquent—boredom. It should be remembered that there are many people who would be prepared to come forward if they knew where there was a need, or where they could get basic instruction in youth work. I urge the Government, therefore, to improve their publicity to attract the many volunteers whom I believe to be available.
  I welcome the Bill. I believe that it will be effective, that it is just and that it will deter. But it is not merely by strengthening the law that the problems of young people can be overcome. It is only by education and positive measures that young people can be helped to deal with the problems which assail them. I say with even greater enthusiasm that I shall welcome positive aid, for it is only with positive aid that legislation such as this will be less necessary.
  4.49 p.m.
  Mr. Alan Fitch: I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. C. Morrison) on his pleasant, humorous and well-informed speech, delivered with such quiet confidence. I am very pleased, and I am sure that other hon. Members are, that he is so interested in penal matters which many of us find so fascinating. I hope that we shall have the opportunity to hear him many times.
  As the Home Secretary has so aptly said, the Bill is short and simple and I hope that my speech will be short and simple in this best possible sense.

  255
  I think that the Bill is timely for two reasons: first, there is a great need for fines to be brought up to the general value of present-day currency; secondly, these fines must be severe enough to act as deterrents. I believe that the Bill will meet both cases.
  As the Home Secretary rightly said, we have a problem which cannot be dealt with by fines alone. It is a far more complex problem than that. It is to be hoped that if the Measure does not eliminate vandalism altogether in our parks, on our railways, at our seaside resorts, and indeed, at some of our inland towns, it will go at least some way towards decreasing it.
  One of the problems with which we have to deal today is that of an affluent society, which has given our young people more money titan any previous generation of young people had, and rightly so, but, unfortunately, some of them have not been able to find the best means of using this money in a period of ever-increasing leisure.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) said that only a minority of people engage in acts of vandalism. That, of course, is true. It would be very serious if the majority of people engaged in the sort of behaviour which we have witnessed recently, but I think that people are sometimes inclined to take the view that because it is only a minority, the problem is not very important. In fact, sometimes the term "minority" is used in a mitigating sense. I suppose that it was only a minority of Germans who persecuted the Jews, but the effect of that persecution was extremely serious and, indeed, evil. The fact that only a minority of our young people engage in this sort of conduct does not lessen the effect of that conduct on society itself.
  I am sure that it was only a minority of people who, on 7th September last year, while travelling in a train in the north-west of England, and in which there were more than 1,000 passengers, caused damage to British Railways amounting to £341. The damage was done by a small minority, but the effect was very serious. Again, no doubt it was only a small minority who, on 5th October last, caused damage to the
  256
  extent of £30 to another train in the North-West.
  On 16th November, damage to the extent of £19 was caused by these people. On 26th December, similar behaviour resulted in damage amounting to £25. I could go on quoting examples. It would be very interesting to know just how much damage has been done to British Railways' rolling stock since the railways were nationalised. It is wrong to say that because vandalism is carried out by a minority only we should not take it seriously.
  The pre-war youngsters—I was a teen-ager in the years leading up to the war—had very little money. It was impossible for most of us to buy motor cycles and rush off to the seaside. In fact, it was impossible for most of us to travel very far. But we had one thing which is not so evident today. We had a sense of purpose. I am not claiming any credit for the pre-war generation by saying that. I think that the issues which faced us in those days gave us a sense of purpose. Mass unemployment and the rise of Fascism, to mention only two things, gave most young people, however poor they were materially, something to fight against. Many of the energies and enthusiasms of the generation for which I speak were canalised against the menacing things in those pre-war days. I do not think that the issues are quite as clear-cut today, with the result that in some respects we have the reverse situation of young people with plenty of money but with very little purpose.
  One of our jobs is to find a purpose for our young people. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Sir W. Teeling), whose Amendment is not to be called, wants some kind of centre to deal with these young people. I shall be interested to hear how he would run such a centre, because I believe that the present set-up of approved schools and detention centres covers what is envisaged in the Bill. I agree with the Home Secretary, on this occasion at least, that what many of these young people need—because I do not believe that they are criminals at all, but are misguided—is a period in a detention centre where they can learn what discipline, good manners, and hard work mean.

  257
  I am not sure of the definition of a "rocker" and "mod." I should like to see groups of these "rockers", who, I understand, are the people who race off to the seaside on motor cycles, rushing off on the same motor cycles, to the same sort of places, not to engage in acts of vandalism, but rather to take part in such things as the Freedom from Hunger campaign. I believe that if we could infuse into our young people a sense of purpose which would enable them to make use of their enthusiasms, their energies, and even their motor cycles, we would go a long way towards solving this problem.
  Finally, I think that the magistrates ought to be a little more imaginative than they sometimes are. I am a magistrate myself, and I, too, probably suffer from the same shortcomings. Magistrates can, of course, impose heavier fines, which I agree are often necessary, but sometimes something more than a fine is needed. I am thinking of the Glasgow magistrate who ordered a youth who had been causing a lot of trouble at a football match—or perhaps it was on a football train—to report to his office every Saturday afternoon at half-past three, thus depriving him of doing something that he wanted to do. I think that punishments of this kind are well worth considering in addition to the fines which a court can impose.
  This is a timely Bill and I think that the public will welcome it. I hope that it will deter young people, or go some way towards deterring them, but that is only a negative attitude. Ultimately, we must instil into our young people a sense of purpose which, if I may say so with modesty, was more apparent in the prewar generation that it is today.
  5.1 p.m.
  Sir William Teeling: I should like to take the opportunity, as the first hon. Member speaking from tins side of the House since the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. C. Morrison), to congratulate him on a first-class speech and one of great thought. It is very encouraging for one of the older brigade like myself to see younger people taking an interest in this subject. It is easy to select one of the more glamorous debates for a maiden speech, but for my hon. Friend to choose this occasion is immensely encouraging.
  258
  I was also delighted to see out of the corner of my eye my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. J. Morrison) sitting here and listening to it. I can remember three occasions since I have been in Parliament when either fathers and sons, or mothers and sons, have been present when their sons made their maiden speeches. I am sure that no one could have been more pleased than my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury. I think that all of us on this side of the House agree that if my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes becomes as popular and as successful in this House as his father is he will certainly have done something very worth while.
  I asked my hon. Friend whether the great Lord Shaftesbury's family did not live somewhere in his neighbourhood, and they did. We must not forget that it was the great Lord Shaftesbury who took a great interest in those days in the youth movement and in the development and care of youth. That is something which is vital to us at the present time and will be a tradition from his neighbourhood.
  I think that we all realise that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has brought this. Bill in now because of the immense urgency of this subject. The Whitsun problems and troubles were particularly noticeable in areas such as my own, in Brighton, and that of the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. David James). We have both suffered a lot from this problem. Immediately after the events at Brighton I went to see my right hon. Friend and I was immensely struck by his up-to-date information and full knowledge of what was going on and of this problem. I explained to him how worried we were, especially from a financial point of view in a seaside resort such as Brighton, with the August Bank Holiday coming on fairly soon, and that we should like some kind of security there for the older generation who spend then-holidays in a town such as ours, and some protection for the hoteliers and boarding-house keepers. Not unnaturally, whatever is being done of an effective nature should not necessarily be shouted from the housetops, and there will be an unpleasant surprise, I hope, for any of the "mods" and "rockers" who go there on August Bank Holiday.
  On the other hand, this is not just a question of the police and of fines.

  259
  Later, other Bills must be brought in—probably not in this Parliament—which will do more to deal with this problem. In the meantime, I would warn my right hon. Friend that "mods" and "rockers" are not all fools. They know about the Bill. My right hon. Friend may think that the Bill will prevent them from going to Brighton on August Bank Holiday, but why should they not go there before the Bill becomes law? I do not think that they will come to Brighton, because we are ready for them; but they might go elsewhere.
  I have not forgotten that at the beginning of the war we were able to get a Bill through within a day or two. I am asking my right hon. Friend to see whether he cannot do something to get this Bill through more quickly than before the end of July. I am sure that he can with a little effort. I shall return in a moment to the question whether this Bill goes far enough. I think that something on these lines should be done. As this is such a narrow Bill it may go through all the quicker. If that is so, no one will be more happy than I shall be.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Fitch) and the hon. Lady for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) on many of the points that they raised, but to say that we are concerned only with a very small proportion of the youth of the country is not very helpful to us. There were no fewer than 5,000 young people at Brighton on the Bank Holiday morning and on the Sunday there had been only 2,000. The number of police there was extremely small in comparison. We tried to get police from other areas, but that was not possible because other events were going on in those places.
  It was very alarming for many people to know what was going on and to wonder whether something frightening might happen. Nothing frightening did happen. That was possibly due to two reasons. One was because the police were absolutely marvellous. Some of them were aged only 19 and they had to work for 14 or 15 hours without a stop. There was not one really dangerous incident during the whole time.
  The other reason was damage. In the main, the Bill deals only with
  260
  damage. There was practically no damage done at Brighton. I was in two or three of the different crowds and I listened to the conversation. I came to the conclusion that many of these youths were earning good money, in some cases as much as their parents—certainly far more money than they knew what to do with. Due to the Welfare State, or never having it so good, they do not have to pay for those things which, in former days, they would have had to pay for themselves, and they do not know quite what to do with their money. They go out and buy scooters or motor cycles, or get them on hire purchase, and that is about all that they can run to.
  They go to Brighton and other places and, having arrived, they have no more money left. There is nothing for them to do. They cannot afford to go to the cinema, or to this, that or the other. They probably have girl friends with them and they are absolutely foxed as to what to do. They are not criminals; they do not break anything up. They are not drunks, they go along the front. I saw one or two of them doing silly things to which their friends objected and their only answer was, "What the devil are we to do? There is nothing to do here." Then they all rushed off to the beach, not unlike the Gadarene swine, jumped into the sea, pushed others in and thought it all a great joke. They knocked down a number of old people. That is the kind of problem with which we are faced.
  Because I appreciated that it would not be in order in Committee on the Bill, I purposely framed my Amendment to include a reference to the question of increasing fines for attacking the police. To my mind it was the action of the police at Brighton which really saved the situation, yet the police receive very little in the way of compensation. I have a list dating right back to the 1880s in some cases and to well before the First World War in others, from which I gather that punishment for damage has always been roughly as follows: for wilful damage amounting to under £5, a fine of £20 or a sentence of three months' imprisonment; for being drunk and disorderly, a fine of £10—and, oddly enough, very few of the people of whom we are speaking are drunks; that is what is worrying the

  261
  brewers so much—and for possessing an offensive weapon, a fine of £50 or three months' imprisonment, or both. Under the Public Order Acts, insulting behaviour merits a sentence of three months' imprisonment, or a fine of £100, or both—and that sounds too much, in comparison with the others—obstructing the police, a fine of £5; throwing missiles, a fine of £2; obscene language, a fine of £2; and attacking the police, a fine of £20 or two months' imprisonment in default of payment of the fine.
  We must not forget that many of these youngsters are the sons or daughters of comparatively well-to-do people. All that is necessary in their case, once they are fined or threatened with a fine and placed on remand, is to get their parents to pay the fine, so that their little darlings can go free. There is no punishment for those youngsters at all. This is extremely unfair on the police. As I have said, there is a fine of £5 for obstructing the police, and that dates back many years. There are only three examples of such fines I know of. The first is pulling the communication cord on the train, in respect of which the fine is £5, and the second is spitting in a bus, in respect of which the fine is £2. The third is obstructing the police. None has been increased for over 50 years.
  We should do something for the police as well as dealing with the question of wilful damage, especially in view of the fact that, generally speaking, not very much damage is done. The hon. Member for Leeds, South-East mentioned Liverpool and the North. There we have had a particularly interesting development. As a result of the coming into existence of the Beatles and similar groups of musicians, the type of unruly behaviour of which we are speaking has been much reduced. It is very much less than in the South.
  The hon. Member for Wigan asked for my suggestions about camps. My original idea was that for a certain period these young people could be sent to some form of national camp. They would undergo something like the training that our National Service men went through in the old days, but there would be no military service. The desirability to avoid that sort of thing has been brought out by various hon. Members, and I was never one who thought
  262
  that these youngsters should go into the Army, in any case. My idea was that they should be formed into training camps and be trained for six months or a year.
  However, many theories are being put forward, including sending these young people in ships to different parts of the world. This has all happened before. I was interested in this subject before the war. I remember The Times sending me out all over the country and to the Continent to study the situation and to see what was being done in various camps. As far back as 1924 we had labour camps. They were voluntary camps, but people went into them because in those days we had many unemployed and there was a great need to help the young.
  Today, exactly the reverse situation exists. The young have too much money, and they do not know what to do with it. Something could surely be thought out on the lines of earlier projects. These schemes were tried out in Austria, and also in Germany and Italy. I know that many people would think of Nazism and Fascism in the case of the last two countries, but I must point out that these schemes were tried out before Nazism or Fascism began. They were very useful in that they enabled the youth of the country to help in various job which would benefit everybody. In my constituency there is a project known as "self-help building" the object of which is to enable poor people who have just got married to build their own houses, at a much cheaper rate than normal. Why not help these?
  I am against sending to prison the sort of people that were arrested in the Brighton disturbances. They are not evil boys and girls, and I do not think that they should be sent to prison, where they can mix with criminal types. We must try to work out schemes which will help these youngsters in the manner that I have suggested. On Saturdays, the Metropolitan Police give youngsters healthy physical training and drill, which does them a lot of good. I read in the Daily Express today of a magistrate who had the bright idea of making a boy who had stolen a lot of milk bottles go to all the people from whom he had stolen

  263
  them, pay back the money, and apologise. These punishments are not in the rules and regulations, but they are imaginative, and I am sure that many more magistrates could impose them.
  The other day I asked my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour to instruct some of our labour attachés in foreign embassies to see what is happening abroad, because this problem is almost as bad in Sweden, France, Germany and other countries. If we found out what those countries were doing about the problem it might be a great help to us.
  As I said earlier, we already fine fairly heavily for damage, and under the Bill we shall fine even more heavily. But a great deal of damage is not being done. What has developed is a hatred on the part of these young people for the police. That hatred exists throughout the south of England, and we must do all that we can to stop it. It it a great danger. Money is another problem. Youngsters between the ages of 15 and 24 are earning over £1,000 million a year. What steps, if any, are we taking to teach them how to spend that money?
  The Cardiff National Savings Society is very keen on this sort of thing and has had great success throughout Wales. It is doing everything it can to help solve this problem. My right hon. Friend has suggested that we should do little things among ourselves to help. I can remember that in the days before the last war one of the greatest encouragements in this matter was given by the then Prince of Wales. It is only appropriate to mention him on his 70th birthday. He did a tremendous amount at that time. There was an immense rally at the Albert Hall at which he presided and where he coined the phrase "doing the nearby thing".
  The nearby thing is just the sort of thing that we ought to be doing today. We know that Prince Philip is working very hard to try in every way to help youth movements in the country. It might well be that instead of suggesting that politicians, or civil servants, or people who might be considered by some to be as dry as dust, should run these things, we should, possibly, ask the Duke of Windsor to come back—he is not too old at 70, and his mind is very clear and active—to help us with this problem, which is not too big a one.
  264
  Someone has said that 90 per cent. of all youth are quite all right. Only 10 per cent. are in trouble, but most of these are not really wicked; but they are not quite certain what to do.
  If only we could try and get this out of politics. We know that from now up to the General Election it is unlikely that any other Bill on the subject will be introduced. At the moment, we are only raising the amount of money that can be provided if damage is done, but we know that in most recent cases very little damage has been done, although there is the danger of attack on the police; and that bitterness is felt against the police. Let us try and raise the amount of money, which has not been raised since 1912, that can be asked in fines from anyone who obstructs or assaults the police.
  There is the alternative of paying a fine or going to prison, and, therefore, the parents come along and pay the fines so that the boys and girls concerned, receive no punishment. We should remember, as I have said, that some £1,000 million is being spent by young people every year, and no one is really guiding them on how to spend it. All these are serious problems, much more than this Bill can help to solve, so, therefore, I ask my right hon. Friend please to think out a bigger one for later on.
  5.23 p.m.
  Mr. R. E. Prentice: The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Sir W. Teeling) has made a very large number of suggestions, into which I do not intend to follow him. However, I should like to take him up on the phrase he used towards the end of his speech, when he said that this matter should be taken out of politics. It is a phrase that is so often used about many problems, and, in my view, it is absolute nonsense.
  Any major social problem is a matter in which the Government and Parliament must be concerned. It may not be a party political matter, but it is a political matter in the wider sense, which is why we are debating these matters today. I think that it is an overworked phrase. It is a test of this Government and future Governments as to how they meet the problems with which we are

  265
  concerned. Most of us are groping among problems that we are only beginning to understand.
  I had not intended to take part in the debate, but I welcome the opportunity to do so after having listened to it so far. First, I should like to join those who congratulated the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. C. Morrison) on his maiden speech. I was one of those who went to his constituency in an effort to see that he did not come here as a Member of Parliament. Although we were disappointed in the result, I think those of us who have listened to his speech have been recompensed in that he spoke so clearly and with such knowledge on the subject.
  The hon. Gentleman said that his was a beautiful constituency. My mother was born in it and my grandfather worked ah his life in it as a farm worker. I have also many uncles and cousins working on the land there at the moment. Most of them, I believe, voted against him. I speak with some knowledge of the area and have memories of many pleasant times spent there.
  I join with those who welcome the Bill as far as it goes. It is a very modest Measure, as the Home Secretary said. It is welcome from the point of view of putting up the penalties and particularly for what it has to say about payment of compensation. I should have thought it was clear that one element that we want to increase in sentencing policy is that, where practicable, the offenders should be made to compensate the victims. That is a good thing from two points of view. The first is that it may help to bring home to the offender the seriousness of what he has done, and the second is that it provides some element of justice for the victim.
  I would point out that the victim in these cases will only get the benefit if the offender is caught—in far too many cases he is not caught—and if his arrest is followed by a sentence of this kind. The problem is that of compensating victims of crimes of violence. We are still waiting to hear from the Home Secretary about the amendments which he made in his tentative White Paper which we debated a few weeks ago. I hope that we shall hear more about this White Paper soon, including the date on which it is to come into effect.
  266
  I should like to join other hon. Members in venturing a few ideas on the wider issues involved, and I do that with a good deal of trepidation. There are more pompous speeches made and more pompous editorials written on the subject than on almost any other subject. It is a subject on which so many people think that they are experts. Some subjects are debated in the House, and outside, about which Members start by saying that they know very little or nothing at all and that it is a specialist subject. But this is the sort of subject on which everybody seems to think that he knows the answer We get people in the pub or in the bus queue pontificating on the answer.
  This is very foolish because that sort of approach fails to recognise how difficult and complicated these matters are and how difficult it is to arrive at the right answers. I agree with those who say that there is need for more discipline in the bringing up of some young people who lack discipline. This is one of the causes of the increase in juvenile offences. I feel sorry for children who do not get enough discipline and who suffer from a lack of it, but to say that children reed discipline is only to mention one of the many things that they need. While we could agree as a generalisation that there is need for more discipline in some cases, I think that concentration on that one aspect of it may draw attention away from others.
  Above all, what children need is to be brought up in a home where they will be loved and disciplined and where the parents will care enough to set them the kind of example and give the guidance which will help them to learn the difference between right and wrong and to make the right decision for themselves without difficulty as they grow older. This, of course, is what is lacking in so many cases. Here I wish to emphasise what my hon. Friend said in opening the debate about the proposals made by the Committee presided over by the Earl of Longford for family service units and family courts to help in these matters. I also was a member of that Committee I was brought on to it rather late because of the problem which it was discussing and, therefore, I can speak on the proposal without having been responsible for fomulating it in any way.

  267
  When we say so easily that parents should do more and that they are to blame, we assume too easily also that the parents themselves know what to do about it. After all, the young people whose conduct we are deploring are themselves going to be parents very soon—indeed, some are parents already—and very often it is the parents who need help and guidance where these can be made available to them. Therefore, constructive ideas for bringing together a number of welfare questions that already exist in the localities and for co-ordinating them as a family service can help with this kind of problem as well as with many others, and can help in many cases to provide a more stable home background which is obviously one of the needs in the situation that we are discussing.
  The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion said that this problem exists also in many other countries. It is one of the paradoxes of our times that in modern industrial societies, as they become more prosperous and as many of the old problems are beginning to be solved, there is an increase in the crime rate, particularly among young people. The United States, which has the highest standard of living the world has ever known, has had the most spectacular increase of all in juvenile offences.
  It is very difficult to get to the causes, but we must. There is a need for more research into these problems, not merely into the more immediate problems of sentencing and what policy should be adopted to deal directly and immediately with offenders, but also research into the social background and the reasons why modern industrial society, becoming more affluent, seems to have this trend.
  I venture only three suggestions to the House, and I do so very tentatively. I think that one reason is that modern affluent society has had as one of its features the relative decline of the influence of the Churches. I do not say This to start a theological argument. I merely say that the kind of conduct we are discussing is the antithesis of the Christian ethic, and many people have departed from the Church without finding any other kind of moral code to replace the kind of guidance mat their forefathers had from religion.
  268
  It is becoming commonplace in our society for some people to preach selfishness as a good thing in itself, even for parents to tell their children as they are growing up, "You must look out for yourself in life. You must make sure you are all right. You must not worry too much about others". That is the kind of advice we hear given. Criminal behaviour is merely the extreme example of it If one acts on that advice and takes it to its logical conclusion, it is logical to commit any crime one can get away with if one thinks that one can avoid being caught. What we need in society is a far greater emphasis on loving our neighbour and a far greater degree of kindess, courtesy and consideration and everything mat goes with it This is something to which a large number of people who are in no way criminals can contribute by improving their own conduct.
  Secondly, modern industrial societies have become societies in which people live their private lives. The hon. Member for Devizes spoke of people who could give some of their time helping to solve social problems. I wonder whether if this is not to some extent an aftermath of the war. I was a Service man myself during the war, and I remember that so many of my contemporaries were so "fed up" with the demands which were made on them through being taken away from their homes and families to become soldiers that a common expression amongst them was, "When I get out of this lot they will not get me to join even a stamp club".
  People coming home from the Services wanted to live their lives bound up with their jobs and their families. They wanted to be concerned with their homes and gardens, not with the outside world. It is those people who came back from the war in mat frame of mind who are the parents of many of the young people whose conduct we are discussing.
  What is needed is for a far greater number of good citizens to spend some of their time outside their homes and families in all kinds of voluntary movements. They could engage in such things as helping with youth clubs, helping a local church, or helping the Freedom from Hunger Campaign. One of the failings of our modern society is

  269
  that there is a lack of people to take part in all kinds of voluntary work. If more were prepared to engage in voluntary work, we should create a new ethic in society which would help to conquer this problem.
  The third thing I feel about our modern society is that, as we become more and more of a meritocracy, as we achieve in some ways more freedom of opportunity, life is often more unsatisfactory for those who get left behind. We are moving away from the old class divisions, and when we have a Labour Government, shortly, we shall move even faster from the old class divisions. That will be a good thing. Under the old class divisions, the man who did not do well ill life could often console himself with the thought that he did not have a chance.
  As our means of selection become more and more sophisticated, I think that life has less meaning and less attraction for those who fail to meet the tests. The boy who, at the age of 11, fails the 11-plus and goes to a secondary-modern school, who then, when he leaves school at the age of 15, fails to get an apprenticeship and drifts into unskilled work, is already, at a very tender and sensitive age, being labelled as someone who has failed to meet the requirements either of academic or skilled work.
  He leaves school at a time when he is energetic and has natural exuberance. He has very little opportunity for sport and physical recreation, compared with those who stay on at school. Educational inequality means inequality in sporting facilities also, a point which the House debated yesterday. Therefore, any rebellious tendencies the boy will have—most young people have some rebellious tendencies, and this can often be a healthy thing—are aggravated by being left behind to some extent at a very early age.
  Only a minority of young people go on from that to become delinquents. I am worried about those who do not become delinquents, those who, nevertheless, suffer frustration and a feeling of injustice from the causes I have mentioned. Some will become delinquents, and will be encouraged towards it by this sort of social atmosphere. In the argument whether one should be a "mod" or a "rocker", one of the feelings held
  270
  among "rockers" is that "mods" tend to be the rather goody-goody types, the ones who will dress well, the ones who will be more conventional and be in youth clubs, and that it is rather a brave thing to be a "rocker".
  One can understand how certain social pressures will work on young people and encourage that frame of mind, although I hasten to add that I am in a sense rather sorry that I introduced the terms "mod" and "rocker", because they have become so overworked. It is important to remember that many young people use these names for groupings among their friends without having any sort of criminal tendency.
  I have made these observations merely to show that I think that much more research is needed into the causes of these things and that the Government of the day—this is one reason why this is a political topic—should devote more resources to research, research into the more immediate questions of treatment and sentencing and into the deeper question of the social conditions of our time.
  I join in the argument which has gone on about the rôle of the Press. The Press has been condemned for the publicity it gave to the events at Easter and Whitsun at seaside resorts. I should have thought that the Press was bound to report those events. They were news, they were serious, and the Press was right to report them. I know that it is easy for people to lecture the Press on this, but I think that to some extent the Press should expect to have its faults pointed out, because it is very good at pointing out other people's faults. One of the things that the Press should do, I believe, is to give more attention to the exciting and constructive things that young people can do in so many other spheres.
  I have in mind the work done by local youth clubs which help elderly people, very often helping them with their gardening, or decorating the front parlours of elderly people who cannot manage to do that themselves. I have in mind the type of work which was done by young volunteers in cleaning up the Stratford Canal. I have in mind the work done by those young people who go overseas with Voluntary Service Overseas, International Voluntary Service, and other such bodies. This work is exciting and challenging. I

  271
  should have thought that it was also news and something which people would like to read about; It is important that this work should be publicised as well as other activities in which young people engage.
  I repeat that we are all merely groping with these problems. I think that it is probably a good thing that in the debate on the Second Reading of this rather narrow Bill we should venture a few tentative thoughts, in the knowledge that we have much more to learn.
  5.39 p.m.
  Mr. Edward Gardner: I wish to add my personal and warm congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. C. Morrison). All hon. Members on this side of the House admired the way he ran his by-election campaign. We also admired the way he ran at that campaign—with house to house canvassing, and so on—although some of us doubt whether that is an example which we should follow. I am sure that the whole House admired, without qualification, the excellent speech which he made this afternoon and the common sense which he applied to this subject.
  I agree with the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) that it is necessary, when looking at this subject of what to do with the person who goes out and commits malicious damage of the kind at which this Bill is aimed, to make up our minds that this sort of person is not necessarily—and, one prays, is far removed from being—a criminal as such. One must distinguish between dishonesty, which is the fundamental character of the criminal—be he a small-time criminal or someone who devotes his whole life to evil ways—and the sort of person who goes out in high spirits, undisciplined and irresponsible, and commits the sort of damage that is the grave subject of displeasure when young people go to seaside resorts and break up deckchairs, damage buildings and make hooligans of themselves.
  Every generation—indeed, every century—has had to deal with this problem. It is right that we should recognise that this is, in time, something that is timeless. Indeed, in the Victorian years the people who, no doubt,
  272
  were our great-great-grandfathers, or beyond that, had to deal with this problem. People went out and broke up sea walls, went into public parks and cut down and otherwise destroyed trees, went into people's gardens and damaged plants and trees and some of them rioting, demolished farm buildings and damaged churches.
  The Victorians took a very grave view of this. For throwing a stone on the railway line or putting a piece of wood in front of a train, for damaging trees in public parks and for damaging sea walls, such a person who committed these offences would expose himself or herself to a penalty of a lifetime of imprisonment. Even for tearing up plants in someone's garden there was a likelihood that a person would be sent to prison for as much as five years.
  Today, we must deal with the high spirits of youth. There is, I suppose, implanted in almost everyone, whether or not they like it, a spirit or a desire to destroy. One seized with this impulse is in some way catered for commercially and, for example, at fairgrounds one can throw as many wooden balls at as many pieces of crockery as one likes. However, when this impulse is undisciplined, added to the high spirits of youth, something goes wrong and one gets the sort of damage with which this Bill is designed to deal.
  How do we deal with it? Naturally, these young people can be sent to prison, but I do not believe that that is the way to punish them. I do not believe that imprisonment, by itself, is the proper answer. They should be treated by something that amounts to punishment, something that will deter others from following their example and something that is likely to reform them. I see great merit in detention centres and I am sure that this is a way of punishing these people which will not only make it an unpleasant example for others, but which will correct the people who are subject to this punishment and make it unlikely that they will again enter this type of folly.
  I see great advantage in fining them and I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Sir W. Teeling) that fining them does not do much good because the parents will probably pay the fine. I do not mind

  273
  if the parents pay. Indeed, I sometimes think that it would be a good idea if the parents could be fined separately and that punishment could be imposed on them. I see no harm at all in thinking that possibly the parents will be giving the money to satisfy the fine.
  The feature of the Bill, which I applaud, is the ability it gives to magistrates to make an order for compensation to be paid to the person aggrieved. This is by far the most effective way of teaching a person who commits damage that he has done something wrong, something that must be put right at his discomfort and to his personal cost. It is because I am so anxious to see this principle of the Bill exercised as often and as effectively as possible that I have one small but, I hope the House will consider, important reservation about the present form of the Bill.
  If a magistrate is to impose a fine on someone who merits such punishment, then to make certain that that fine is paid and that that form of punishment is not avoided, he can impose as an alternative a sentence of imprisonment. This, I should have thought, in almost every case ensures that the fine will be paid. But what happens in the case of magistrates who make an order that compensation should be paid by the defendant who has caused malicious damage to the person who has suffered from that damage?
  How is the court to be certain that such an order will be fulfilled? How is the money to be recovered if the defendant decides, having got out of court with a fine of, say, £20 or £50, that he will only pay the fine—we know that he will pay it because if he does not he will probably go to prison for six months or more—but will not pay the compensation to the person aggrieved? I can see nothing in the Bill as it is framed that will make certain that the compensation is paid in the same way as the fine.
  I would be very happy to know from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that I am mistaken in this, but it seems to me that at the moment all that can be done is to institute civil proceedings against the defendant and recover by way of civil proceedings the amount of compensation ordered by the magistrate, in the same way as if a magistrate, having
  274
  imposed a fine with an alternative of imprisonment, makes an order that the defendant should pay the cost of the prosecution. These costs can be recovered only by civil proceedings.
  I should like to see some machinery in the Bill whereby a magistrate ordering compensation to be paid to the person aggrieved can order as an alternative that it that sum of money is not paid within a time at the discretion of the magistrate the person against whom the order is made should suffer a term of imprisonment, in the same way as he would have suffered if he had not paid a fine. Apart from that one criticism, I approve wholly of the Bill and welcome my right hen. Friend's initiative in bringing it before the House.
  5.49 p.m.
  Mr. David James: Except for the General Election prognosis made by the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice), I find myself in complete agreement with hon. Members on both sides of the House who have delivered sincere speeches on this subject.
  Like everyone else, I am particularly glad to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. C. Morrison) on his maiden speech. He and I have suffered from the disadvantage of having our maider. speeches listened to by our fathers, although I was one up on him in that my father, as an ex-Member, was on the other side of a wall, as it were, under the Public Gallery. Incidentally, the late Mr. Percival Pott was good enough to congratulate me on my maiden speech four years ago. Therefore, although this is a melancholy occasion in some senses, I am glad to congratulate his successor.
  I was no in Brighton during the weekend to which references have been made, but I arrived there later to find a sense of horror and outrage felt by the people who live there. It was almost as if one had been to a city which, at least emotionally, had been recently hit by an earthquake, and as if all the conventions and values of life had been completely flouted. This was deeply felt. Consequently, this Measure will be welcomed by the people of Brighton.
  There are, nevertheless, silver linings to the cloud. One was the immediate and spontaneous outburst of gratitude to

  275
  the police for the remarkable job that they carried out. This was referred to in the magistrates' court within 48 hours and has been referred to today by hon. Members. I make no apology for referring to it again. There are 12,000 teen-agers in Brighton, but only a couple of handfuls of them were involved in any way and, therefore, it is right that we should continue to emphasise, even at the expense of boring each other, that this is a problem which concerns relatively few young people and that there is no greater disservice that we could do to young people in this country than to dissociate ourselves in some way from them and not regard them as a part of a living, growing organic community.
  I was in the Navy and was, fortunately, removed from these distinctions, but I was told during the war that when the Eighth Army went on leave in Cairo if an infantryman was found to be having a jolly evening in a "pub" it was considered a bad show, but if members of a well-known cavalry regiment were involved they were deemed to be "showing form". I hope that we shall not fall into the error of making that kind of distinction. The distinction that we can make, however, is that the only alarming aspect of the episodes in Brighton at Whitsun was the large number involved, because, if no one knows the cause, everyone knows that there are psychotic elements which enter into the behaviour of a crowd which do not arise, for example, after an ordinary rugger club supper.
  Many people fear the possibility that if this were to go unchecked we could have a situation like that appalling affair in Lima after a football match a few weeks ago. We like to believe that in this country we have temperamental advantages brought to bear upon us, presumably by our appalling climate, which prevent us from showing these emotions, but we cannot ignore the brute facts of human nature. We cannot forget that if a large group of young people are allowed to congregate then, sooner or later, a powder trail might be lit which would do far more damage to life and property than we have seen hitherto.
  It is for these reasons that I should like to see the mobility of young people
  276
  cut down where they cause trouble. In this connection, a most useful step was proposed by the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon). I am sorry that she is not here, if only because I should have liked to congratulate her on an outstandingly thoughtful and constructive speech on this subject. Certainly, the greater use of attendance centres would be an enormous disincentive and would go far to keep down the possibility of large numbers of young people getting together.
  Although we may not be able to do anything within the ambit of the Bill, I should like my right hon. Friend also to look more carefully once again at the suggestion that the driving licences of young people who get involved in this type of episode should be removed from them. My right hon. Friend has pointed out, quite rightly, that there is no connection between the commission of an offence and any sort of vehicle which may be parked some distance away, but this presupposes that the right to drive a 30 cwt. vehicle on the highway is absolute provided that one is 17 years of age, mechanically competent and sober at the time.
  We should not regard this as so little a matter of cause and effect that nothing should stop the relationship between the motor car owner and the highway. I should have thought that the one thing that a person to be considered competent to drive any vehicle should be expected to be these days is to be emotionally mature and not the sort of person who will get excited and be led astray and be persuaded by a "ton-up" character who passes him on the road, with a rush of adrenalin in the system, to go faster still.
  I ask my right hon. Friend to consider that there should not be an absolute relationship between the nature of the offence and the existence of the motor vehicle. First of all, this would keep down mobility and, as my right hon. Friend knows very well, there is a great deal of professional evidence to suggest that it is this mobility angle that most worries police authorities. It would cut down mobility and it would mean yet another test of whether someone is competent to drive a motor vehicle and that

  277
  is whether he is emotionally stable and old enough to do so.
  To deprive a person of his driving licence is a penalty which is particularly hard to bear. While I entirely agree with the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East that reform and punishment should not be considered contradictory concepts and that they are convergent, nevertheless if we exclude hanging, transportation, or sending to prison, or any of the other eighteenth century and early nineteenth century methods, it is difficult to think of penalities that can be applied.
  I am sure that increasing the fine and making people responsible for damage hurts them in a way which will prove effective, but experience shows that there is nothing that inconveniences the average man more than the possibility of losing his driving licence. Whether the offence is directly connected or indirectly connected with consuming purple hearts on the beach and breaking up property, I should like my right hon. Friend to re-examine the question of whether these offences can be kept down by hurting the offender in the place where it hurts most.
  I do not want to air any other views, although I think that many of the views that have been put forward from both sides of the Chamber have been extremely valuable. In the Bill we have all that we can possibly get in the short time which is available to Parliament. A more controversial Bill would certainly not have got through all its stages in time, and I would very much rather have a bird in the hand, politically speaking, for the August Bank Holiday, than even three or four birds in the bush in a Parliament of the future whose shape, unlike an hon. Member opposite, I shall not venture to predict.
  6.0 p.m.
  Mr. Daniel Awdry: I am sorry that the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) is not in the Chamber at the moment, because I am sure from what he said that he would agree that there is no place for party politics in a discussion on criminal law—party politics are best left out when we are discussing this subject—but I should like to make one small political point.
  The hon. Member said that he was a member of the committee that produced
  278
  the Labour Party's pamphlet "Crime—A Challenge to Us All". With very much of the thinking in that pamphlet I heartily agree. Hon. Members on both sides would like to see more done to temper justice with mercy, and to improve and modernise our criminal law practice.
  But in Chapter I, headed "Justice with Mercy", the following words appear:
  "The imbalance in our mixed economy, between the private sector (constantly reinforced and encouraged in the years of Conservative Government) and the far smaller public sector, combined with the exaltation of acquisitiveness already noted and the constant sneers at the nationalised industries, may well excite an immature mind to regard all property, public or private, as legitimate loot."
  That is complete and absolute eyewash. Is it really seriously being suggested that because half the country does not wish to see an extension of State ownership this encourages people to steal? It is nonsense. It reveals a background of political prejudice which, I hope, will not run through that party's thinking on this important matter.
  In the same chapter, one reads:
  "Of these evils, the external ones—poverty and squalor—are much less extreme than in the days of Dickens, but the gulf in living standards between the poorest and the best-off. is hardly more tolerable … This is relevant to our theme because the poor are more vulnerable to some obvious temptations than the better-off are; for the strain of their living conditions must tend to weaken their resistance to such temptations."
  The problem we are discussing now—malicious damage—is caused by young people who are not so poor; in fact, they are reasonably well off. Part of the problem is that they have not learnt how to spend their money sensibly or to use their leisure wisely.
  Having said that, I accept that our attitude to crime should be one of a balance between enlightened sympathy towards the conditions that cause the existence of criminals and, at the same time, sensible but fairly strong punishment for those who are selfish and do not respect other people's property. We must not be carried away either by over-sentimentality or by the extreme views of those who wish to bring back corporal punishment and other severe measures. I therefore welcome the Government's thinking on this matter.

  279
  My final word is this. In many magistrates' courts today, when defendants are fined they are given considerable time in which to pay. Immediately a fine is imposed a defendant will ask for time to pay. The court will ask him what obligations he has—what hire-purchase agreements he has, and then, in many cases, will give him considerable time to pay. A fine as a punishment would be far more effective if the method of payment were not made too easy by the courts. I hope that courts will explain to young people who have caused this considerable hardship that the punishment is meant to hurt, and that hardship is intended to be caused to them, so they will understand that this petty crime simply does not pay.
  6.5 p.m.
  Mr. R. T. Paget: I am sorry not to have been present at this debate for an hour—I had to do something else—but before I went I had the pleasure of hearing a delightful maiden speech from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Devizes (Mr. C. Morrison)—a speech in which we all shared his father's pleasure. He came to this House after winning a by-election against the stream, and his doing so was, I think, a tribute to the great services both of his family and of his wife's family, if I may say so, in Wiltshire.
  I deplore the amount of hysteria engendered by the scraps that took place between the "mods" and the "rockers". These young people are not criminals; they are not criminal types. There is nothing either particularly modern or particularly shocking in the fact that young men do today—and have, I think, as long as history is recorded—sometimes find that it would be rather fun to go out and have a fight. That certainly happened on "rugger" nights at universities. On 5th November, at Cambridge, people went out because they thought that it would be fun to have a fight—and did so.
  Earlier on, in the Middle Ages, this proclivity to go out and have a fight for fun was organised on what seems to me to have been rather sensible lines. On public holidays, an area would be declared a tournament area, and to that area those who wanted to fight could go. Battle took place with the first comer,
  280
  the loser lost his steam, was stripped of his armour and vestments and, at the end of the holiday, an auction of trophies took place outside the tournament area. I do not know that the right hon. Gentleman would consider fixing areas of beach as tournament areas in which these young chaps could work off their high spirits—I am afraid that it is an idea too sensible for adoption.
  What struck me about these particular occasions was, basically, the gentleness of what happened. In all these scraps, I do not know that anybody was entertained in hospital for even a couple of days. Was anyone seriously hurt? I believe that the casualty rate after a "rugger" night was much more serious, and much more severe. Indeed, my own impression of the modern generation is that they are far kinder, far gentler than we were, and they are much kinder to each other, both in the school age and in the adolescent age.
  We really should not mistake this sort of performance with criminality, any more than one mistakes a "rugger night rag" for criminality. Certainly, it is something that has to be controlled, and these young chaps must pay for the damage they do. In the sense that this Bill enables the courts to see that these people do pay for the damage they cause, plus something more, I am in favour of it. But I deplore the idea adopted by some magistrates and canvassed and applauded in the newspapers of sending young men of this sort to prison. That is a lamentable answer to this sort of performance. We have also had hysterical observations about sawdust Caesars. These people are nothing of the sort.
  Certainly there is a criminal element among young people. Certainly this is a serious and difficult problem. There is probably a higher percentage of criminality among young people today than there was in the past, but these young delinquents, or whatever we may like to call them, should not be confused with exuberant types on holiday. They are in a different class and need to be dealt with differently. The delinquent element is a major problem, and the question of how we are to deal with it requires a great deal more observation and imagination than is being shown. This problem is different from the problem created by weekend scraps.

  281
  That was what I wished to say, largely because of the exaggerated statements which have been made.
  6.11 p.m.
  Mr. Norman Miscampbell: Like every other speaker, I welcome the initiative of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in making the fines more realistic and making provision for proper compensation. We have listened to a number of views. As the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) said, everyone has a view about this matter, but it is very difficult to know the answers.
  When we consider the problem as a national problem, the most perplexing aspect of it is why very little of what happened in the South has happened in the North. Why is it that Blackpool was not visited by the same mobs which went to the southern resorts? Is this due to housing differences, as was suggested in an immediate reaction by the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown)? That can hardly be so, because I think we all agree that housing conditions in the North are worse than they are in the South.
  It has been suggested that in Liverpool the groups have taken up part of the slack. That again may be partially true. It may be true of Liverpool, but it cannot be true of other towns in the North. Is it due to a more affluent society in the South? Are there marginal differences in the income of people in the North and the income of people in the South? Is it due perhaps to the Liverpool "mum" or northern family life which appears to be holding together better in an age when it is being attacked? The trouble is that we simply do not know the answers to these questions and until we know them attempts to change the law are simply guesses or jumps in the dark.
  I agree that the most likely way of dealing with the present outbreak is the one which has been suggested today, namely, to increase the fines. Anyone who goes to the police courts must know that this is a long needed reform, but one's experience in the courts leaves one very much in the dark. We think that fines are the right way of dealing with this matter, but do we know how they are paid within the family? Are they
  282
  paid by the person who is fined? What is the effect of the fine? What is the capacity to pay of the person who is fined, not simply in the way in which the probationer officer tells the court that the defendant has a certain income? What is his job record? That may be known in part. It would help if there were research in depth into the background of these people who are getting into trouble We must learn the background of the people we are trying to reform. Without conducting a real inquiry into their family and financial background and the social effects which fines have on them and their attitude to the fines, we are only guessing at the answers.
  I urge my right hon. Friend to add to this excellent and correct step forward a determination to inquire into the background of these people so that when we debate this, matter again, as no doubt we shall, we shall have more knowledge and be more certain that what we are doing is right and realistic.
  6.17 p.m.
  Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: This has been a very interesting debate. I speak principally because I do not agree with some of the observations made by certain of my hon. Friends. I do not for a moment agree that matters relating to crime, the law and punishment are anything other than political matters. They are political, and strongly political. Secondly, I think that we are approaching an era when to quite a substantial degree they will be matters of partisan politics. That emerges strongly from the reasoned pronouncement of Lord Gardiner and his Committee—
  Miss Bacon: To which Committee is the hon. Member referring? Or is he confusing Lord Gardiner's Committee with Lord Longford's Committee?
  Mr. Rees-Davies: No, I am not I am concerned with Lord Gardiner, and I have in mind the Society of Labour Lawyers and other institutes of that kind which are helping him, as a member of the Labour Party, and his Committee. I am not thinking of Lord Longford's report, which is of an infinitely more limiting nature. I see a clear endeavour to make party politics out of this

  283
  matter. Far from making a complaint about it, I think that there is probably a divergence of view.
  I think that we on this side would be almost unanimously of the view that law reform and matters relating to it are matters of evolution rather than revolution. It may well be that that is not a view which would be subscribed to by Lord Gardiner. In matters of a more emotional nature—and they may be very important matters, such as the question of homicide—we may see quite a sharp divergence of view. Therefore, it cannot be said that matters of crime and punishment and conscience are not political matters. They are the stuff and heart of politics.
  Miss Bacon: I must put the hon. Gentleman right. When matters like capital punishment, corporal punishment and many other things have been debated in this House over the last few years, we on this side have had a free vote, whereas hon. Members opposite have had the Whips on to take them into the Division Lobby.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: That is not true. I tabled a number of Amendments to the Homicide Bill of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). I was campaigning for the retention of the death penalty when he was campaigning the other way. The votes went across the Floor of the House. Although it is predominantly true that members of the Labour Party were in favour of abolition, there was an entirely free vote. I think the hon. Lady is justified in intervening to this extent—that this matter has been the subject of very little partisan politics in the past. Little was done by the Labour Party about law reform until the Tory Party came into power. The Home Office, the present Home Secretary and others have campaigned vigorously for many of these matters of law reform and of changing the attitude towards crime.
  I see this Bill as fitting into a pattern of a far wider measure of reform by evolution which the Home Secretary and his colleagues are pursuing. It is a small Measure in itself, but it is part of a much wider pattern for those of us who have been closely associated over many years with the work which the Home Office
  284
  and successive Home Secretaries have been doing. My right hon. Friend's eminent predecessor was probably one of the greatest Home Secretaries, and my right hon. Friend has himself been undertaking great work in pursuance and furtherance of work done earlier.
  The important feature of the Bill is that it makes the criminal repay. It is not merely a question of the fines being increased, although they are being increased. What matters is that if somebody goes out to do damage by wanton behaviour he will have to repay the damage, to pay the compensation, himself. I entirely share the view of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Gardner)—I discussed the point with him—that it is of great importance that the repayment of compensation should be absolutely clear. It must be part of the penalty. It may be so in the Bill, but, if not, I hope that we can amend it to make sure that it is so.
  The purpose is that these people shall be fined so as to hit them in the pocket, and, secondly, that they shall pay for the damage which they have done. At the same time, we propose to compensate the victims of crimes of violence. Those who suffer through going to assist the police in the apprehension of someone else will receive compensation. In this we show a lead to the world.
  But what will happen when people go into detention centres or prisons? Since I last spoke on the matter, before the "mods" and "rockers" went to Margate, in my constituency, there has been a change. I know that Brighton, which is a much bigger place, had all the damage and that we had relatively little, with much talk and not very much harm. Be that as it may, the point which I want to stress is that there should be a repayment in respect of the damage done.
  This is all part of the direction in which we are trying to move—that when people go to prison they shall work in prison to repay the damage which they have done. I understand that trade union views are changing and that we shall be able to put people to work in prison and to train them properly. For years the trade unions would not accept this attitude, but at last they have begun to see the light—and I am delighted.

  285
  What is our aim? In the Bill it is to put up the fines, to encourage increased fines and also to encourage repayment. Thus, it begins to fall into the overall pattern—and we have another Bill for Second Reading shortly which follows the same general pattern that we begin to see.
  The hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice), in a speech full of charm and intelligence, fell into this trap: he said that this was all a matter of politics but not of partisan politics. I am sorry that the hon. Member has left the Chamber. He pointed out that we have not pursued methods of research. That would have been true if said some time ago, but today the picture has completely altered. First, we have the advantage at Cambridge University of the Criminological Institute and the valuable work being done by that study. My right hon. Friend is setting up a Royal Commission. A number of excellent working parties are going on in almost every field. There is an advisory committee on law reform and another on criminal law reform. There is a plethora of first-class committees, including one on juvenile delinquency. It cannot be said that we have not at least got all these parties working on the various forms of research we can possibly want to arrive at a conclusion. I agree that we have not yet received the outcome of all this work.
  Hon. Members know that if we ask lawyers to report on matters of law reform it will be a long time before we get the answer. A circular has to be sent to all the associations, such as the Bar Council and the Law Society, and other organisations, and their reply awaited. It is six months before we get it back, and after having received replies from the various associations there must be a report to the Minister and then to the Home Office for their conclusions before the matter ultimately comes to the House.
  Mr. Elwyn Jones: But where we have a unanimous recommendation of the Lord Tucker Committee on the taking of evidence in committal proceedings as far back as 1957 and no action taken to implement that recommendation even to this day, is not that an example of the need for some machinery of reform to be con-
  286
  tinually in existence to bring about change?
  Mr. Rees-Davies: No, I do not agree, because we had a report only six months ago which was implemented by a Bill from my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Sir H. Ashton). It is a question of where there is a will there is a way. In the matter to which the hon. Member referred there is no doubt that there were two views about that recommendation. There was no difference of view about the matter covered by the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford, and consequently it reached the Statute Book expeditiously.
  Provided that it follows the general theme that the criminal shall repay and the general rule of evolution rather than revolution, I am content. I want it to be on the record that if the Labour Party say that they believe in all these radical changes with a completely new machinery, then it will undoubtedly become a party political matter. I have no doubt that we should have continuing evolution in a modern society rather than revolutionary methods when we are dealing with matters of law reform.
  6.30 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Curran: I suppose that we can all welcome the Bill for two reasons. First, it is based upon affirming the principle of personal responsibility. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) that it is this part of the Bill much more than the increase in the fines that matters. We are seeking to make the people who engage in these disturbances personally responsible for what they do. It seems to me highly desirable that we should do that and that we should continue to do it in dealing with lawlessness in general.
  Secondly, the Bill is to be welcomed because it recognises, at least to some extent, the one new fact about post-war crime. I am not here to offer either blanket theories or blanket remedies for crime, but it is common ground that the one new fact about post-war crime is that, for the first time in our history, it is possible for young people to obtain incomes which make them independent of their parents. There has been a weakening of the family since the war

  287
  simply by the pressures of affluence and full employment. After all, the family never existed in a vacuum. Parental authority was always based ultimately on the economic foundation that the parents provided for the children and that the children had to go to the parents for support. In our post-war society, for the first time this is not the case with a great many teen-agers. They are able in the labour market to command incomes big enough to put them outside the control of their parents.
  That is something which the Bill makes an attempt to deal with by increasing the fines. It may well be a question of how much further we should go in coping with this new fact. It seems to me to be very much a question of whether we should allow young people who are not old enough to be citizens to enjoy the unfettered control of incomes on a scale which makes them economically independent while they are still in a state of immaturity. This, however, is a question which is marginal to the Bill. We are dealing with one aspect of the breakdown on parental control. There are other aspects of it which we should deal with, but we need not deal with them or discuss them here.
  There is behind this matter the larger question of whether crime among young people is increasing. There is no doubt that it is. However we may argue about the statistics, it is a fact that in spite of the removal of the social conditions which in the past were blamed for crime, crime continues to multiply. Nobody now can argue that crime is the product of poverty, slumdon, illiteracy or bad social conditions. Even since the war we have seen that as social conditions improve, so lawlessness increases. It is idle for anyone to suppose that the way to get rid of crime is to improve social conditions.
  Mr. Elwyn Jones: Does not the hon. Member have experience from the courts that obsolescent centres of cities are notorious breeding grounds still, particularly of juvenile delinquency? In any city where I have had the burden of responsibility on the bench, it has emerged at almost every sessions that centres of decay and slumdom inevitably breed crime. There is no doubt about it.
  Mr. Curran: I wonder whether the hon. and learned Member would be prepared to show that the incidence of crime can be correlated with slumdom. Would he be prepared to argue that in the areas where prosperity is high, there is little or no crime? It would be an interesting argument if the hon. and learned Member would care to make it.
  Mr. Emlyn Jones: What I venture to say is that areas of great poverty and slumdom are more likely to produce crime than areas of decent living conditions.
  Mr. Curran: I hope that the hon. Member does not suggest that I am trying to argue that poverty and slumdom are socially desirable and provide either a model gymnasium in which people behave well or the opposite of a gymnasium in which they behave badly. It cannot be argued in 1964 that having got rid of bad social conditions, we thereby reduce the volume of crime. I think that I can carry the hon. and learned Member with me to the extent that there is no correlation between rising prosperity and diminishing crime. Equally, it is not possible to blame the acquisitive society for the rise in crime.
  I do not know whether the hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones) is prepared to support some of his colleagues at least who tend to suggest that they can no longer blame poverty but that they can blame prosperity, who ask, in effect, how anyone can be surprised that crime increases when we live in the dreadful candyfloss world of "I'm all right, Jack" and who say that the development of acquisitive appetites by society is a process which produces crime.
  That explanation will not hold water either, because when we look across the Iron Curtain we see that although there is no acquisitive society in the Soviet Union, where the motives on which society is based are radically different from our own, the Soviet Union nevertheless appears to be facing a crisis even greater than ours. The Soviet Union has now been forced to introduce the death penalty, not only for murder but for a whole range of other offences, including forgery, arson, burglary, rape and even currency speculation. Faced as it is with the growth of crime, the Soviet Union has been obliged to go

  289
  back to methods which make it resemble England in the eighteenth century. How long is it since England put men to death for forgery? The Soviet Union is doing it now.
  I cite that simply to support my assertion that it does not hold water in logic to argue that the acquisitive society can be blamed for the growth in crime. I suggest that the experience of the totalitarian planned economies, which are run on a radically different basis from our society, demonstrates plainly that the causes of crime cannot be explained quite as simply as is suggested by people who think that the acquisitive society can be saddled with the responsibility. Any explanation of this kind—the explanation either of poverty or of the wickedness of the acquisitive society or any such explanation—is necessarily superficial.
  I invite the House to agree that, on the whole, there is a certain amount of evil in human beings and that the amount of evil in the world is rather like the amount of matter it is constant. The utmost that we can do by any kind of social change is to change the forms in which evil expresses itself. I do not believe that we shall ever be able to eliminate evil. That we shall always have to cope with it is a permanent fact, and the utmost that we can hope to do by any kind of legal or environmental change is to make the volume of evil in the world more manageable and less of a nuisance to society in general. What is possible is not anything like the exalted aim which some people preach of supposing that we can ultimately eliminate evil or eliminate crime. It is difficult for anyone nowadays to believe either in the perfectability of man as an individual or still less in the perfectability of society.
  We must content ourselves with a much more modest aspiration. We must seek only to ask, granted that the amount of evil in the world is constant, how we can arrange matters so that the evil causes the minimum amount of nuisance to other people. I suggest that if my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is able to devise methods whereby the volume of crime is made less of a nuisance to other people, he will be doing all that can be expected of him. I regard this Bill as a step in that direction because it insists upon personal responsibility for lawlessness. I wish that it had gone
  290
  further and had done something to insist on parental responsibility also.
  It seems to me highly desirable—I use the word "desirable" in the sense of wishing to maintain order and resist disorder—that when young people who are not old enough to be citizens get into trouble, responsibility for their delinquency should be placed not only on their shoulders and in their pockets but on the shoulders aid in the pockets of their parents.
  Mr. Eric Fletcher: Up to what age would the hon. Gentleman suggest that that should be so?
  Mr. Curran: As the law now stands, we do not regard anyone as a citizen until he or she is 21 years of age. I shall not argue it now, though I should be glad to on some other occasion, but there may well be a case for lowering that age. Nevertheless, so long as we run our society on the basis that people under 21 years of age are not competent to take the burdens of citizenship, we have the right to say that their parents must take those burdens for them.
  Mr. Fletcher: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that parents should in some way be responsible for the delinquencies of their children up to the age of 21?
  Mr. Currann: Certainly. As the hon. Gentleman will recognise, this is, to a large extent, a class matter in this country. A parent who has children who are university undergraduates would be quite prepared to say that he has some responsibility for what they do. He would be quite prepared to accept that responsibility because they are economically dependent upon him. I am suggesting that we ought to consider whether the sense of parental responsibility should be intensified in this country by means of making parents answerable for the damage or delinquencies committed by their children.
  Mr. Paget: Does the hon. Gentleman mean that he would make the parents automatically responsible for any damage that their child did, or does he mean merely that he would give the magistrates a discretion to order a payment from the parents?
  Mr. Curran: Obviously, one cannot make a blanket assertion that, in all circumstances, parents should be held liable.

  291
  I agree that one must have reference to the circumstances, but it seems to me that it would be a very good thing if we imported into our legal treatment of the matters we are discussing this afternoon the general notion that when damage is done by young people there are circumstances in which the courts can make the parents as well as the offenders financially responsible. I am not asserting that this should be so in all cases, but I am saying that it would be highly desirable to bring it in as something which the courts could do if they thought fit.
  Basically, the Bill is to be welcomed because it re-establishes and reinforces the principle of personal responsibility. If it is to be criticised at all, it is to be criticised because it does not go further, because it does not strengthen in the same way parental and family responsibility. I believe that, ultimately, if we want to re-establish the authority of the family in this country, we shall have to tackle the question whether we can allow young people to have incomes which make them economically independent of their parents. I believe that we shall have to tackle also the question whether we are prepared to impose upon fathers and mothers responsibility before the courts for the delinquencies and illegal acts of their children. I wish that we had done this in the Bill, but, so far as it goes, the Bill is to be welcomed and I shall support it.
  6.44 p.m.
  Mr. Eric Fletcher: Bearing in mind the slender scope of the Bill, we have had a very instructive and interesting debate, covering a wide field. With all respect to the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), I do not regard this as a partisan issue at all, and I am glad that most hon. Members have approached the problem in a bipartisan spirit, considering its national importance.
  I wish to add my tribute to those which have been paid already to the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. C. Morrison) on what, I know, the whole House regarded as an admirable maiden speech. I thought it most refreshing to hear the authentic voice of youth dealing with these problems of juvenile delinquency and to hear what the hon. Gentleman said in such engaging and
  292
  attractive terms. I was particularly impressed by what he said about the need to adopt a positive as well as a negative approach.
  The hon. Member for Devizes referred to the number of youth clubs and other organisations in his constituency, some run by the Churches, particularly the Methodist Church to which he referred. Listening to the hon. Gentleman, I thought that, if those youth clubs are of importance in a predominantly rural constituency such as his, how much more necessary it is in urban and suburban constituencies that there should be other avenues for healthy activity by adolescents. Those who live in rural constituencies have opportunities to engage in healthy activities and pursuits in their leisure time which are denied to many of our young people who live in the congested areas of urban centres.
  I cannot help feeling that the general problem of juvenile delinquency stems to some extent from the artificial conditions in which many young people are condemned to live by modern society, without adequate opportunities for amusements, sporting activities and other worthwhile diversions. In considering this whole subject of juvenile delinquency, we should put in the forefront of our minds the national need to provide for our youth much more abundant opportunities to enjoy useful and healthy occupations in the leisure time which our affluent society offers them.
  I do not share the view that this is a great national problem. There is a danger of exaggerating its extent. On the other hand, I am sure that we all listened with great admiration, sympathy and agreement to the constructive speech of my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice). He pointed out, with complete justice, that one of the serious defects of modern society, which has a bearing on juvenile delinquency, is that the Churches now have a diminishing influence. My hon. Friend referred to the decline in the efficacy of the Christian ethic.
  Regrettable though a great many of us feel it is, it is a fact that the demands and disciplines of the Christian ethic have ceased to have the appeal or to evoke the response which they did in

  293
  this country until comparatively recently. It is very sad that no alternative ethic that one can point to has taken its place. The Christian ethic is not the only ethic. The Greeks had a standard of values. Other non-Christian societies have had their standards of values. The Communist countries have standards of values. It is a sad reflection on our society that it is not particularly easy to say what has replaced the Christian ethic as the obvious standard of values to which young people can look for guidance.
  Mr. Curran: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman with a good deal of interest and a good deal of agreement. I do not dissent from what he is now saying, but may I put this question? If it is the fact that we have not substituted any sort of humanist ethic for the Christian ethic which we have lost, is not the hon. Gentleman forced to the conclusion that, if the only sanction which the mass of people accept is fear of the law, it becomes imperative that society should maximise this fear, whether it really likes to do so or not?
  Mr. Fletcher: I should very much hesitate to draw that conclusion. It is a truism that the most immediate and most important thing we can do in Parliament is to pass Bills of this kind in order to strengthen the penal remedies available to the courts in dealing with delinquency, but I could not agree with the hon. Gentleman that Parliament completely discharges its duty to the nation by passing Measures of penal reform.
  It may well be that the day has passed when anyone regards it as the duty of Parliament to give a moral lead to the nation. I should myself like to think that that day has not passed, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North pointed out, the decay in the influence of the Churches in giving moral guidance to the nation has, in a sense, left a great void.
  It may or may not be the duty of Parliament to fill this void. I should like to think that Parliamentarians could regard it as part of their duty to give a moral lead to the nation, apart from their function as legislators on matters of penal reform. However, I emphasise also what has been said by several hon. Members on both sides, that there is a
  294
  particular duty on parents and, perhaps even more important, on school teachers in this matter.
  Inasmuch as the State is today very largely responsible for education—I suppose that it was almost entirely responsible for the education of those who engaged in the delinquencies at Margate, Brighton and Clacton—I myself consider that it is worth while examining in that context, perhaps in a debate on education rather than on this Bill, whether our school teachers are sufficiently prepared and encouraged to give moral guidance to the children coming within their care. It may well be that, in the stress of competition among children for the passing of examinations, there is less emphasis in our school than there used to be on principles and on moral values generally.
  If this is so—I believe that it is, from my own rather limited experience in visiting some of our schools—I regard it as a sad reflection on our society today and a subject calling for just as much consideration as the desire to increase parental responsibility, whether by making parents responsible for the delinquencies of their children, as the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran) suggested, or otherwise.
  Having said that, and having expressed the hope, in agreement with the hon. Member for Devizes and others, that we in this House should do all within our power to urge a positive approach to the removal of the causes of juvenile delinquency, I must express disagreement with the hon. Member for Uxbridge when he suggests that the amount of evil in any society is necessarily always constant.
  Nor do I think that it is true to say that, whereas in Victorian times one could perhaps point to crime largely as the result of poverty, today one can point to crime or juvenile delinquency as being largely the result of affluence. For example, from reports I have read, most of the young people brought before the court at Clacton had no more than about 10s. or £1 at the most in their pockets at the time of the Bank Holiday escapade.
  The truth is that one cannot really judge the moral standards of our youth by the behaviour of those eccentrics who

  295
  produced the hooliganism at the seaside resorts which resulted in the introduction of the Bill. Nevertheless, I am sure that the Bill is necessary. Where young people pass over the borderline of youth exuberance, either as the result of boredom or of the desire for excitement which is generated by so many activities in our social life—the Press, television, and so forth—it is the duty of Parliament and society to see that effective remedies are imposed on those who indulge in behaviour which not merely satisfies their own desire for exuberant outlets, but causes malicious damage to others and hardship, fear and disorder of the kind that occurred at Easter and Whitsun. But I do not think that one can escape either the desire for excitement among young people or condemn them for wanting excitement.
  Therefore, like every other hon. Member who has taken part in the debate, I support the Home Secretary in desiring that the courts should have increased penalties made available to them for dealing with those guilty of these misdemeanours so that the offenders will know and fear a really serious deterrent to their activities.
  Something has been said in the debate—the right hon. Gentleman himself referred to it—about the kind of penalties which are appropriate. Speaking for myself here, I share the views of the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. David James). I hope that the Home Secretary will give further thought to the desirability of giving the courts power to impose alternative penalties on young adolescent offenders. A case in point is the withdrawal of a driving licence.
  On 4th June, announcing the introduction of the Bill, the Home Secretary said that he had considered various suggestions for giving the courts new powers to deal with hooligans. He gave as examples the suggestions that the courts should have the power either to confiscate their vehicles or disqualify them from driving or to inflict corporal punishment. He added that he did not think any of these suggestions provided the answer.
  I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider. I think that the majority of us regard corporal punishment as being barbaric. Some of us regard imprison-
  296
  ment for hooligan offenders of this kind as being, if not barbaric, at any rate something not very suitable. It is obviously important that these young offenders should feel that there is an effective deterrent. Certainly, one effective deterrent would be to take away their driving licence or suspend it.
  It is no answer to that suggestion to say that the offence we are considering has nothing to do with driving, or to say that such a penalty would be capricious because some might have a licence and some might not. When we are considering juvenile delinquency and alternative methods of legitimate punishment by modern society, there is no reason why we should not regard it as appropriate to deprive an offender of a privilege granted by the State. It seems rather reactionary and rigid to think that the State should be confined to the old punishments of corporal punishment, imprisonment and probation.
  It may not be a complete analogy, but when undergraduates engage in hooliganism, as they often do, they are exposed, very sensibly, to other penalties. They may be sent down, or gated, or deprived of privileges. All of these penalties in such cases no doubt have a deterrent effect and are thought to be reasonable. Equally, why should not the State, in dealing with juvenile delinquents who have overstepped the mark, deprive them of a privilege?
  Mr. Curran: How far would the hon. Gentleman take that argument, from which I am not dissenting? He is saying that we have substantially two methods of dealing with offenders against the law—fining and imprisonment. He suggests that we introduce a third penalty for juveniles—deprivation of driving licences. Would he be prepared to introduce such a new penalty for adult offenders, irrespective of whether the offence was connected with the use of a car?
  Mr. Fletcher: I hope that the House would consider the whole idea of introducing an additional variety of new forms of punishment in order to replace forms of punishment, such as hanging, corporal punishment and imprisonment in overcrowded prisons, which experience shows are completely out of date and are repulsive to the modern mind and do not produce the consequences which society wants to bring about.

  297
  I suggest that the Committee which is considering penal reform should go into the question, as a matter of principle, of what is wrong in giving the courts power to impose alternative forms of punishment which would have a deterrent effect. Whatever might be said about such forms of punishment, they could not be more serious in their operation than imprisonment. If one imprisons a man, one deprives him of liberty. If one deprives him of a licence, one is taking away a privilege. In these days of the State conferring privileges of various kinds, it is not beyond common sense that we should give the courts powers to deprive offenders, either juvenile or adult, of some of those privileges which have only been exercised by them by grace and favour of the State.
  Nor does it seem an answer to the proposition to say that such punishments are only appropriate to those who commit motoring offences. That does not seem a logical argument. It may well be a more obvious case for depriving someone of his driving licence if he has offended against the motoring laws of the country, but one is doing that as a punishment and not merely in order to prevent him committing the same kind of offence again. If a youth offender has a car or a motor bicycle, then, whether or not he uses it to go to Clacton, or Margate, or Brighton, a more useful form of punishment in many cases would be deprivation of his licence to use that vehicle. Such an alternative form of punishment would also, incidentally, ease the strain on our prison service, borstal and the probation officers.
  Having made this suggestion, I express my hope that the Bill will have a speedy passage through the House.
  7.6 p.m.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Mervyn Pike): We have had an interesting debate and all hon. Members who have spoken have done so with sincerity and a great understanding of the problem. I am very tempted to follow some of the more interesting byways and paths of thought, but it is my task to try to answer as many points as possible.
  I am sure we all agree that the most enjoyable highlight of the debate was the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. C. Morri-
  298
  son). He brought freshness, vigour, sound common sense and understanding to the debate. We are grateful to him and look forward to hearing him again on many future occasions.
  The hon. Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon), in a very thoughtful speech, rather under-estimated the value of the work of the committees and inquiries which are, among other things, at present investigating the problems under debate. I know that we are all impatient about this. We all want to know the results of the researches and inquiries and to find as quickly as possible some solution to these problems. But the fact remains that the greatest danger is that of acting on preconceived ideas and of not giving sufficient weight to valuable long-term research and scientific evaluation.
  It is tremendously important that we should all recognise the very wide cross-section of experience and knowledge in such committees as the Advisory Committee on Juvenile Delinquency which my right hon. Friend has recently set up and that the problem we are debating is a fairly recent one. We all know that the incidence of crime in pre-war days was caused, we believed, by very different factors and certainly in the 1950s we were led to believe that possibly the immediate post-war peak in crime was going down.
  It was only when we recognised that this problem was not the result of the war that we instigated so many of the valuable researches that are now taking place. Many of these were only started in the late 1950s and, of necessity, it will be some years before we can get the full results. Meantime, we have had the advantage of reports from committees like the Albemarle and Wolfenden Committees and the Government have taken certain action.
  The hon. Lady also referred to the necessity, in her view, for a family service which would have more specific statutory functions than at present.
  In this talk of the family service, no mention was made of the very important step forward which we took quite recently in this Parliament in the Children and Young Persons Act, which the House passed in 1963 and which puts on local authorities the responsibility to set up and co-ordinate a service to deal

  299
  with the prevention of juvenile crime by strengthening the family and for the first time puts a positive responsibility on families. We believe it is from the way in which this service has been founded that the variety comes from different approaches by different local authorities, the marrying of voluntary efforts and the distinctive approach which one gets in different parts of the country, that we shall get the richness and diversity to enable us to advance more firmly to some of the solutions.
  Hon. Members have remarked in Liverpool that it is the "beat" which has done a great deal to absorb the energies of young people. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) mentioned that in the North Country, the area where I come from, these difficulties do not appear to exist to the same extent. I would say to all those who want to support the family service that, if we go ahead on the present lines, with the diversity of approach which comes from different people in different localities trying to weld together the different strands of voluntary and statutory effort, this is possibly one of the most valuable fields in which we can work.
  The hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice), who has apologised for not being able to stay for the rest of the debate, made a very valuable contribution in this direction of thought, and he also mentioned the necessity of strengthening voluntary effort. We talk a lot about strengthening voluntary effort, but possibly we do not give sufficient thought to the ways in which this can be done. The Children and Young Persons Act is one of these ways because we shall direct the focus of the problem down to the local authority. All of us, however, want to examine fresh ways in which we can quicken the imagination of young people.
  I think that we all welcomed last night's Adjournment debate, when we heard of a very valuable voluntary effort now taking place among young people in London. I think this effort concerns 1,500 young people who are helping to alleviate the problems of older people, and we heard my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary for Education and Science say that the Government were
  300
  giving £3,000 this year to help that effort and that it hoped to be able to do so in the next two years.
  Efforts of this sort are very valuable. We are watching this effort in particular, and, more generally, we are helping wherever we can to stimulate voluntary effort. However, do not let us ever have the dead hand of centralisation trying to organise these things, which of necessity must spring up of their own volition. We can help and guide them, but we cannot give them imagination nor initiate them by central effort.
  The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Fitch) echoed the feelings of all of us when he said that to a great extent the present set-up of approved schools, detention centres and attendance centres very well meet the needs of rehabilitation in our society, but, of course, we are not satisfied that we have all the answers. This, again, is where the Royal Commission under Lord Amory will be of such tremendous use to us. It will enable us to look at these things again to see whether there are other ways in which we can go forward with rehabilitation.
  He also mentioned—and this was echoed by other hon. Members and was inherent in what the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) said—the need for greater imagination in sentencing. The magistrate can often find more imaginative ways in which to bring home to young people the nature of the crime which they have committed and possibly to provide a greater deterrent. I do not want to follow the hon. Member for Islington, East too far in any discussion of new ways of achieving this, because this, again, is a subject which the Royal Commission will be considering in the very near future, and this, too, underlines the value of the Royal Commission.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Sir W. Teeling) had some interesting things to say, and we particularly welcomed his tribute to the police over the Whitsuntide weekend. The disturbances at Margate, Brighton and Bournemouth over the Whitsun weekend put a very severe strain on police resources, which were already under pressure from the large holiday crowds. Despite the numbers involved,

  301
  which at Brighton reached a peak of 4,000 or 5,000, the police did not lose control. We know that they will be able to contain—at least, we believe that they will—any future outbreaks which may occur. We believe particularly that the firm line taken by the courts together with this Bill will have a helpful deterrent effect.
  Of course, the maintenance of public order is an ordinary police responsibility, and outbreaks of disorder on a large scale may always necessitate police from neighbouring forces providing assistance. A regular machinery for this exists and has been very valuable in the past. Nevertheless, as my right hon. Friend has said, the chief constables in the areas likely to be affected if similar outbreaks occur next Bank Holiday weekend have been in touch with each other to streamline their arrangements.
  The hon. Member also mentioned the penalties for assaults on the police. The answer to his question of why the Bill failed to provide increased penalties for assaults on the police is that penalties for this offence have already been revised by Section 51 of the Police Act, 1964, which comes into force on 1st August, this year. But it is not correct to say that the maximum penalty under provisions now in force is a fine of £5.
  Among the provisions at present in force and relating to the offence of assaulting a constable are Section 38 of the Offences Against the Person Act, 1861, which carries a maximum penalty, on indictment, of two years' imprisonment, and Section 12 of the Prevention of Crimes Act, 1871, which has a maximum penalty, on summary conviction, of a fine of £20 or six months' imprisonment, or, if the offence is repeated within two years, a maximum of nine months' imprisonment.
  As my hon. Friend said, the maximum penalty for obstructing a constable is at present a fine of £5 or two months' imprisonment under Section 2 of the Prevention of Crimes Amendment Act, 1885, but this and other provisions in the Special Constables Act, 1831, and the Town Police Clauses Act, 1847, and the Metropolitan Police Acts and the City of London Police Acts are replaced, in so far as they relate to the offence of assaulting or obstructing a constable,
  302
  by the provisions of Section 51 of the Police Act, 1964, which, as I have said, comes into force on 1st August.
  This will make the offender liable for an offence of assaulting a constable on summary conviction to up to six months' imprisonment, or, in the case of a second or subsequent offence, up to nine months' imprisonment, or a fine not exceeding f 100, or both and, on conviction on indictment, up to two years' imprisonment, or an unlimited fine, or both. The same provisions increase the penalty for the offence of assisting the offences or obstructing a constable, to a maximum of one month's imprisonment, or a line of £20, or both.
  I apologise for giving hon. Members the whole history of this matter, but it is very important for the record that it should be known what the fines and other penalties for assaulting the police are at present and what they will be as from 1st August, this year.
  My hon. Friend also put forward the idea of non-military centres where these young people could have more rigorous training. In fact he was describing detention centres as we have them at present. Ws have power to send young persons to these detention centres where the régime is very brisk and very firm and where they get the maximum of physical exercise and physical fitness and where they have good discipline which builds up their own self-respect, as well as their own physical condition. There are 15 detention centres already provided for boys and one for girls, and there are more on the way. As I have said, in all these centres the régime is based on hard and useful work and one of the senior centres, the North Sea Camp near Boston, provides training in open conditions for inmates employed on farm work and land reclamation. The primary purpose of this centre is to receive committals from the courts in the North-East, the Midlands and East Anglia. Boys committed to other centres may be transferred to the North Sea Camp if they are suitable for open conditions. About 20 boys committed to other centres following the Whitsun disturbances have been transferred to this camp.
  I think that all hon. Members who have seen (he results of the detention centres will recognise their value, and

  303
  the fact that about 5,000 boys are going through these detention centres at the present time will have a deterrent effect in society, because they talk to their friends and there is no desire on the part of many of them to go to these centres.
  Sir W. Teeling: Does the hon. Lady think that we have enough of these detention centres, or are we hoping to have some more?
  Miss Pike: There are more on the way. When they were in the experimental stage, doubts were expressed about whether they would fulfil a useful purpose, but we believe that they have proved themselves, and we are building more. In this context it is interesting to note that people in Europe who in the first instance were somewhat sceptical about this scheme are now coming to us to learn from our experience because they recognise the value of the results that we have had from the centres. The results will improve still further from this year onwards, because from 1st January last there was compulsory aftercare, so that all young people coming from these centres from April onwards will have the benefit of after-care. This again will help to rehabilitate them into society. Allied to that, there is the provision of attendance centres. The hon. Lady said that we need more of these. I think that most of us in the House would agree that they play a valuable part, and that their use can be extended in many areas.
  Many hon. Members spoke about the need for research into the social backgrounds of people who cause these disturbances. As I said at the outset, we have instigated research on these lines, and I think that we are playing a valuable part within the Council of Europe in the co-ordination and the extension of our research into these problems. As we have all recognised in the House today, this is not just a United Kingdom problem. It is a problem which is facing all industrialised nations, and with the mass communication of the present time something that happens in Brighton can have effects in Italy or Sweden. We hope that the effects of what happened recently in Sweden will not be felt in this country.
  304
  It is important that we should have this co-ordination of researches in this important field. We can never do enough research. There are never enough research workers in this new field of research, but all the time we are giving more and more support to new projects which are coming forward.
  I think that it was the hon. Member for Islington, East who referred to the effect of different schools on children, and the example which school teachers can provide. Research is going on to try to assess why different schools have different delinquency records. We do not as yet know the results of this valuable research which is going on in co-operation with the Ministry of Education.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran), and many other hon. Members, talked about the breakdown of parental control and suggested that parents should be answerable for the misdeeds of their children. I think that my hon. Friend was talking about young people over 17. Under Section 55 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, the fines of children and young persons under 17 years of age can be paid by their parents, but I think that my hon. Friend wished to extend that provision to young people under 21.
  Mr. Curran: Would my hon. Friend care to say anything about the Home Office view of making parents financially responsible, in some circumstances, for damage done by their children when breaking the law?
  Miss Pike: If my hon. Friend is talking about children and young persons under the age of 17, that power exists. If my hon. Friend is asking about young people over 17, I can only say that until the Royal Commission has looked into this matter there is no Home Office view on it. That does not mean that we are not thinking about it, but this is something which will be looked at by the Royal Commission.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Gardner) raised an important point about the power to enforce the payment of compensation. The answer to that is that if the compensation is ordered by a magistrates' court, under the provisions of the Bill, it will be enforceable in the same way as the fine. The money is paid in the first

  305
  instance to the court, and the court has power to commit the offender to prison in default of payment of the compensation. My hon. and learned Friend can therefore rest assured that that point is covered.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. James) and the hon. Member for Islington, East referred to the question of driving licences and disqualification. It perhaps would be useful if I were to repeat the substance of my right hon. Friend's remarks. My right hon. Friend has given consideration to a number of suggestions for strengthening the power of the courts, but he has come to the conclusion that none of them provides the right answer. My right hon. Friend gave particularly careful consideration to the suggestion that a court should have power to deprive of his licence any offender who was proved to have driven to the scene of the offence, but, as he pointed out, there would be difficulties in framing legislation to meet that point because of the question of the definition of the circumstances under which that power should be available. There would be difficulty in defining the offence of hooliganism, and it would be equally difficult to differentiate between those offenders who went to the scene of the crime by train or by public transport and those who went by scooter and parked it some distance away.
  I was only repeating some of the arguments, and I was going to end by saying that this would be looked at again, but, I think, particularly in the context of what is being looked at by the Royal Commission. We have not closed our minds to it, but, having looked at the matter, we find that the complexities of it rule it out from being dealt with at the present time. I do not think that hon. Members would wish me to go through all the arguments. My right hon. Friend has given great consideration to this point and has decided that the difficulties which exist at present do not justify him bringing forward legislation to deal with this matter.
  Mr. David James: I do not think that the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) or I suggested that the culprit need have gone to the scene of the crime by car. What we are suggesting is that
  306
  people who are so immature as to behave in this manner might well have their licences withdrawn, as these are a social privilege which they are not mature enough to enjoy.
  Miss Pike: I appreciate my hon. Friend's argument. I was trying to show that the case was so complicated that it would be difficult to resolve it in this Parliament, and the category to which he referred raised a bigger problem and was one which we could not resolve at the present time, but should leave to the Royal Commission to consider along with the more imaginative approach which we all want to see. As the hon. Gentleman suggested, it might then prove possible to consider providing varying penalties for people who indulge in delinquency and hooliganism.
  Mr. Fletcher: I would be happy if the hon. Lady would emphasise that, while we know what the Home Secretary said on an earlier occasion, this is still an open question, and that the Home Office will preserve, a completely open mind on this and related questions until the Royal Commission has reported.
  Miss Pike: I gladly give the House that assurance. We are anxious to do all that we can to get the right penalties.
  I hope that I have answered most of the points raised by hon. Members. Tonight's debate has inevitably ranged over a very wide field. Although this Bill is important, it deals with only a very small part of a very broad and complex problem. It is a problem in which the main themes are the prevention of crime, the punishment and reformation of the wrongdoer, restitution to the injured party, and the protection of society from lawlessness and violence.
  This is essentially, of course, a field for specialists and experts, but it is one in which most of us have a fund of experience and in which we have very strongly held views. I, like most people, have my favourite hobby-horse, but I shall not delay the House tonight in developing my own ideas or by reiterating the important points which have been made in this and other debates on allied subjects. These debates have shown that in recent years we have made important progress in our more

  307
  enlightened attitudes to punishment and reformation, and advances have been made in the practical measures which are essential to progress in this matter. It is a world wide problem, and we are making a significant contribution to the co-ordination and the extension of criminological thought and understanding in other European countries.
  We have attempted to quicken the pace of our own research, inquiry and training, and we have sought to reinforce those forces in society which strengthen the community and encourage self-discipline, self-reliance, vigour and responsibility to the individual. All these things are of supreme importance, and we must always be seeking new ways, new ideas and a greater sense of urgency and a much wider recognition that it is the responsibility of individuals in society.
  At the same time, we must not fall into the error of thinking that our desire to strengthen society, prevent crime and reform the wrongdoer will meet with an instant response from the irresponsible and evil elements in our community.
  Reformation and prevention must take place within the strong framework of effective protection of the public, and the Government always puts this protection first. The importance of the Bill is that it seeks to strengthen this protection by giving added powers to the court, and I commend it to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Hugh Rees.]
  Committee Tomorrow

  REFRESHMENT HOUSES BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  7.35 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Henry Brooke): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  As this is essentially a Home Office day, I hope that I shall not be ruled out of order if I take this my only opportunity of saying what a splendid maiden speech I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. C. Morrison) made in our last debate, I hope that it gave as great a pleasure to his well-loved father as it certainly did to all the rest of us who listened to it.
  I am sorry now that I have to turn a long way from my hon. Friend's special interest and experience, because this Bill deals with near-beers, or clip-joints. They are places where foolish people get milked of their money by fraud. The record known case is where three foreigners, visitors to London, after 15 minutes in a near-beer and having consumed nothing but fruit juice, were faced with a bill for £27. There are now about 40 of these establishments in London and with rates of profit like that it is hardly surprising that their numbers are growing.
  I am sure that it is better to legislate about this now than to let the scandal grow. There are three reasons for legislating about them. First, they are barefaced fraud; secondly, there is evidence that they are harming our reputation in the tourist trade; and, thirdly, an altogether disproportionate amount of police time is taken up in dealing with complaints about them.
  The technique is this. If any hon. Members have been preparing to take part in the debate on the Bill by gaining personal experience, I hope that they will bear with me if I describe what happens. Late at night, particularly after the public houses are closed, a woman stands just outside in the street and sees whether she can induce passers-by to come in. A vague idea is created of night club entertainment, seductive company, drinking and perhaps something more exciting than all that at the end.
  Once inside, the customer sits down at a small table with a hostess, who

  309
  orders drinks for them both. The drinks are, in fact, cheap fruit juice concoctions. The charges for all this spurious entertainment are enormous. As soon as the hostess finishes her drink she orders another round. She has every incentive to do so, because her pay from the management depends on the speed of drinking.
  The customer's welcome lasts as long as his money holds out, and no longer. If he is hoping for something to come after, he is completely frustrated and disappointed. He finds himself out on the pavement, with nothing in his pocket but with a lot of fruit juice effervescing in his stomach. He feels himself cheated, and he has been cheated. He may create a row in the street and the police may have to be called to move him on, or he may go to the police and complain. That very often happens. He says that he has been defrauded, but there is absolutely nothing that the police can do to help him.
  If hon. Members would like independent evidence of these curious goings on, without the rather heavy expense of a personal test, they will find an excellent account of an obviously first-hand experience in the Sunday Telegraph of 14th June.
  This form of exploitation is possible because there is at present no power to attach conditions to a refreshment house licence. A refreshment house licence is an Excise licence granted under the Refreshment Houses Act, 1860. The greater part of that Act has by now been repealed by various licensing Acts, but its provisions, that are still in force, require the keeper of a refreshment house which is open at any time between the hours of 10 p.m. and 5 a.m. to take out a licence.
  Refreshment houses are defined in the Act as
  "All houses, rooms, shops or buildings kept open for public refreshment, resort and entertainment between 10 p.m. and 5 a.m., not being licensed for the sale of beer, cider, wine or spirits …"
  Other provisions of the 1860 Act create the offence of keeping a refreshment house without a valid licence, refusing admission to the public, and permitting unlawful gaming or the assembly of prostitutes, thieves or drunken and disorderly persons. In addition, of course,
  310
  the licensing law would apply to any offence of selling intoxicating liquor without a licence. It is no use going to a near-beer if one wants alcohol.
  The Refreshment Houses Act applies only to England and Wales. In Scotland, I imagine, no place would stay open all night for non-alcoholic refreshment. The Act is useful in England and Wales as n means of maintaining a measure of control over the establishments kept open at night for the sale of food or drink—non-alcoholic—and of ensuring that there is an available record of them. There are about 1,800 of these late-night or all-night refreshment houses in the county of London alone. They range from the big Corner Houses to little all-night cafes and coffee stalls.
  These are not what the Bill is directed at. It is aimed at the few which are exploiting a weakness in the present law. The 1860 Act gives no power to attach conditions to a licence before it is granted. What the Bill does is simply to enable conditions to be attached to a refreshment house licence when it is granted or renewed. That power can then be used to curb the undesirable features of the near-beers.
  But the licensing authority cannot impose conditions in any and every case. Subsection (3) provides that the restrictive powers can be exercised only where this appears; to the licensing authority desirable to prevent customers from being misled as to the nature or cost of the entertainment provided.
  I should say that the licensing authorities are county or county boroughs. In London, from next April onwards, they will be the new London borough councils.
  Where the conditions of subsection (3) are satisfied, and the licensing authority finds itself dealing with an application for a licence from a refreshment house where the sort of practices take place that the Bill is designed to curb, then the other subsections apply and it will be possible for conditions to be attached 1o the licence.
  These conditions can render it unlawful to make charges in that particular refreshment house between the hours of 10 p.m. and 5 a.m. unless a visible and legible tariff is displayed and the charge on the bill is not greater than what the tariff specifies. It can also, if desirable, be

  311
  made a condition that the tariff shall be displayed where it can be read by the customer before going in.
  Another condition that can be imposed would prohibit soliciting for custom outside or in the vicinity of the refreshment house between 10 p.m. and 5 a.m. This should deal with the practice of touting in the street which causes a lot of complaints and can be a scandal. The reason for specifying the hours between 10 p.m. and 5 a.m. is that it is only in respect of those hours that a refreshment house licence is required at all.
  The other Clauses are subsidiary. Clause 2 requires all holders of refreshment house licences to notify changes of address to the licensing authority. This is a useful provision of general application, but it will particularly help to deal with refreshment houses of the kind aimed at in the Bill.
  The main effect of Clause 3 is to increase the penalties for offences against the existing provisions in the Refreshment Houses Act, 1860, or against the relevant provisions of licensing law: at present, the maximum fine is £20, or £50 if there has been a similar conviction within the previous five years. The new penalty is in line with that in Schedule 12 to the London Government Act, 1963, for the operation of unlicensed premises for music and dancing; it is a fine not exceeding £200 or imprisonment not exceeding three months, or both.
  The near-beer that I visited when I went round Soho did not seem to have been doing much business that evening. Perhaps I was a bit too early. It passed my comprehension how anyone who had once been fleeced in one of these grubby places could ever come back another night for a second dose. But some do. One cannot wholly save fools from their folly, but that does not mean that Parliament should never take a fresh look to see whether the laws of past years have gaps.
  The Dangerous Drugs Bill, which got its Third Reading last night, to deal with the current "purple hearts" racket, is a case in point. So is the Obscene Publications Bill, about to be reported back to the House from a Standing Committee—I believe the first Obscene Publications Bill to be introduced by a Government
  312
  and not by a private Member in the last 100 years.
  Then there is the Young Persons (Employment) Bill which will be coming up on Friday, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) to close a gap by extending the prohibition of the employment of young people under 18 to night clubs and the like.
  All these items of legislation have the common motive of protecting the innocent or the unwary against unscrupulous exploitation, making more difficult the piling up of easy money by preying on the worst weaknesses of human nature, and cleaning up scandals which are a blot on a city and a burden to the police.
  There is nothing grandmotherly about all this. Nobody believes that the near-beer fraud, any more than drug-taking by youngsters, is in any conceivable sense a good thing. Nothing will be done, so far as I am concerned, to interfere with all the honest and well-conducted establishments where people can get entertainment and refreshment and pleasure; but there is trash about too, and people cashing in on it in a big way.
  In some respects the trash has managed to get the better of the law. I want to see that the law is strong enough to have the better of the trash.
  7.47 p.m.
  Mr. Eric Fletcher: The Home Secretary has given us a very engaging account of the activities of "near-beer" clubs, or "clip joints", as they are called. From what he said, I gather that the Bill, introduced to deal with what is no doubt a serious but very small problem, is the result of one of his nocturnal visits to the West End of London which he told us about when he was bent on discovering something about the trade in "purple hearts". I gathered that that led him to discover the existence of 30 or 40 clip joints, or sleazy clubs, as they are described in the Press, which he is anxious to suppress.
  I need hardly say that my hon. Friends and I cordially support the Measure. However, in view of its somewhat sudden introduction, as the result of the Home Secretary's visit to the West End, there are one or two passages which need careful examination.

  313
  The right hon. Gentleman said that there are about 40 clip joints at which the Bill is aimed, and about 1,800 refreshment houses of a legitimate character to which the Bill either applies or may be made to apply. I suppose that our duty is to see that the Bill will be effective in its object of closing down or clipping the clip joints and, at the same time, will in no way impair the activities of those refreshment houses which carry on legitimate trade in London and the provinces for the benefit of those whose occupations require them to partake of non-alcoholic refreshment between the hours of 10 o'clock at night and 5 o'clock in the morning.
  For information about these clip joints all hon. Members will be dependent on what they have read in the Press. The most enlightening comment in this respect is that contained in the Daily Telegraph of 1st June, which, I suppose, is as authoritative a description of what happens as any. It says that these clip joints
  "are so-called because their conductors join in clipping the purses of unsophisticated visitors. In the characteristic clip joint a flamboyantly attired siren lures the midnight stroller in, ostensibly to quench his thirst, but very frequently with promises of more seductive pleasures. Once seated with him at a table she reveals an insatiable appetite for a beverage which to an untutored palate may pass for diluted beer, but which is charged for at double the price of vintage champagne. When his funds are exhausted, so are the young lady's affections."
  A correspondent in the Sunday Telegraph described in great detail what happened when he visited one of these clubs a few hundred yards from Piccadilly underground station and was accosted from a doorway by a plump little blonde, who said "Hello, darling. Looking for something?" He answered, cautiously, "What have you got to offer?" She beamed a broad, disarming smile and answered, "Me!"
  If that is the evil which we are attempting to remedy by the Bill, we must examine the content of the Bill and see whether it effectively deals with the case of those who frequent these places. I think that we should all agree with the Home Secretary that it is almost impossible to imagine a person who has once been the victim of a fraud of this kind wanting to indulge in the same experience a second time.
  314
  Incidentally, I do not think that anyone need have very much sympathy with those who are so foolish as to fall victims of this kind of stupidity. I suppose the case that the Home Secretary makes for the Bill is not on that ground so much as on the ground that, as he said, this practice does harm to our tourist trade and takes up a great deal of time of the police.
  The Home Secretary ventured at the end of his speech into what I thought was a very pious but, I have no doubt, well-intentioned intimation of what steps he is proposing to take towards the improvement of some of our great cities. The right hon. Gentleman referred to various other Bills which are passing through the House. Desirable though this Bill may be, it is relevant to remind the right hon. Gentleman that it deals with a very small matter compared with some of the far more serious scenes and activities in the West End that many people regard as a perfect disgrace to this great metropolis. I refer in particular to some of the striptease clubs and the garish and seductive advertisements outside them. I do not know whether the Home Secretary has yet had an opportunity of visiting any of those establishments which seem to me to be springing up in increasing numbers and which constitute a much greater disgrace and cause much greater offence to decent, well-meaning citizens than does this handful of sleazy clubs.
  One reason the Home Secretary gave for closing down the sleazy clubs is that tourists complain because, they say, they are defrauded when they go in. He meant that they are defrauded in the sense that they go in thinking they will get some seductive entertainment which they do not get. In that connection, the Home Secretary should tell us what his attitude is with regard to all the striptease clubs which are growing up all over the place. He cannot close those down because tourists complain that they are defrauded. Can he defend them on the ground that they are an attraction to the tourist trade? Do not the right hon. Gentleman's principles, which he has been telling us about, require him to take far more energetic steps in that direction than he is taking in the two Bills which are before the House

  315
  today to deal with malicious damage and clip joints?
  I want to consider whether the Bill will produce any injurious effects on the 1,800 or so respectable refreshment houses that exist. We do not know how the local authorities will operate the Bill, but, as I understand it, the Bill gives local authorities power to require any refreshment house to exhibit a tariff outside the premises. I suppose that will apply to a Lyons Corner House in the same way as it will apply to a coffee stall in any part of the suburbs? Is it reasonable—is it practicable—that Lyons Corner Houses should have to exhibit tariffs? If they are to exhibit tariffs stating what refreshments they serve inside them, what is the position if a customer reasonably asks for some kind of refreshment which is not contained on the tariff? One's experience at some of these perfectly proper and respectable refreshment houses which do not sell alcoholic beverages is that they often have tariffs inside them; they have a menu on which prices are listed; but from time to time their patrons ask for something which is not on the menu and not on the tariff, and a charge is made.
  If these conditions are to be attached, does it mean that in future, unless everything that is listed on the tariff is priced, the refreshment house will be unable to serve a customer with something, even at a reasonable and legitimate price, merely because it is not included in the tariff? The House should be assured that there is no risk of a Bill designed, quite properly, to close down a relatively small number of nefarious sleazy clubs being used to interfere with the legitimate trade of coffee houses and refreshment houses, both in London and in the Provinces.
  Perhaps the Under-Secretary, who will presumably reply, will also tell us whether, in the case of legitimate refreshment houses, Clause 1(2), which makes it unlawful
  "to obtain custom by means of personal solicitation outside "—
  those words seem reasonable in the context of a sleazy club—might not operate to prevent, for example, a commissionaire standing outside a perfectly respectable refreshment house. Presumably there is nothing wrong, in the
  316
  case of respectable refreshment houses, in custom being solicited. This is a matter for the Government to explain.
  I gather from the Press correspondents who have been studying this question that those who run sleazy clubs contend that the Bill will not have the effect it is thought it will have and that they will be able to operate in some other guise. It may be that they will still be able to operate in their present guise, despite the Bill. Would the Home Secretary consider what is meant by Clause 1(1,a), because, as I understand it, the operative words are that
  "it shall not be lawful to make any charge for or in connection with the entertainment of persons in the refreshment house … whether for the supply of food or drink, for admission, for service of any description or for any other matter, except any reasonable charge for the use of cloakroom or toilet facilities, unless—

  (a) a tariff of charges made in the refreshment house is … kept displayed …"

  Judging from the experience of those who have visited these sleazy clubs, what the victims pay for is presumably the opportunity of having the society, either for a short time or for a longer time, of somebody who either entices them into the premises or whom they expect to find in the premises. If that is the inducement or enticement, perhaps the Home Secretary will consider whether it would not be possible for these sleazy clubs to continue, despite the provisions of the Bill.
  True, the Bill will prevent deliberate solicitation, and it may prevent any charge being made except for refreshments advertised on a menu outside, but will that, in itself, prevent clip joints of this kind, with suitably seductive advertisements, continuing to trade and continuing to provide opportunities for extortion of visitors who are attracted by this kind of inducement?
  While my hon. Friends and I support the Bill, which is of a very meagre character and which is intended to deal with a very small evil, but not less an evil that should be stopped, in the West End of London, my concern is to express some doubts about whether it will have the desired effect, about what will happen to the patrons of these clip joints and, more particularly, to wish that the Home Secretary would direct his attention to doing something about some of the other clubs in the West End which are such a disgrace to London's society.
  8.2 p.m.
  Mr. William Shepherd: I appreciate that there is not uniformity of opinion on the series of Bills which my right hon. Friend is bringing forward. There are those who believe that this kind of legislation is unnecessarily grandmotherly, that we cannot dictate the moral standards and prudence of people by legislation. I confess that I do not share these views because I believe that it is the duty of Parliament to try to maintain higher standards, particularly in the large conurbations.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the initiative that he has shown in so many directions in trying to clean up what are some very unsavoury activities in the West End of London. I said that this was not the universal view because I recall listening a few weeks ago to an extraordinary speech made by the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), who believes that if one left everybody alone and abandoned all attempts at restraint, one would arrive at an idyllic situation in which all that was bright and beautiful would prevail. That is either an attempt at self-deception or incurable naïveté, because it is not so.
  I recall once going to a club to see what was one of the most nauseating spectacles I have ever seen in my life. The man responsible for it was subsequently sent to gaol for a number of years. The most appalling aspect of it was a statement made to me by one of the people running the spectacle, an assistant, who said that men came along week after week to see that sort of thing. I have drawn the conclusion that the veneer of civilisation is so thin that we have a moral obligation to improve and maintain standards, however much criticism we get from people like the hon. Member for Pontypool and his colleagues.
  While I welcome the Bill for many reasons, I have some serious misgivings about the extent to which it will prove to be effective. Consider a small point to begin with, the question of the prohibition of soliciting outside or in the vicinity of premises. As I understand it, these unalluring women stand in doorways and I am not exactly sure whether the words in the Bill would cover standing in a doorway. Such a place would
  318
  not seem to be either outside premises or in the vicinity of them, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will further consider this matter.
  It is not to this limited point to which I wish to draw attention. I am more concerned with a possible greater danger arising from the Bill. The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) said something about the danger I have in mind, but he did not quite get to the point. Is there not a real danger that establishments at present known as clubs—and there is no legal definition of a club of this kind—will arise in greater numbers as a result of the Bill?
  I have in mind the sort of club which has no real significance. If it is a licensed club then it has, and there are plenty of means of discovering what is happening, but if it is a club which does not sell alcoholic refreshments it is perfectly open to any individual or group of people to call the establishment a club. If it is so called, it does not require to have a refreshment licence and, obviously, in those circumstances the police cannot enter the premises.
  I wish to direct my right hon. Friend's attention to a real danger that might arise as a consequence of the Bill. This danger is that places that now operate not as clubs will assume the mantle of clubs so that they will have no requirement to have a refreshment licence and will, of course, be able to prevent the police from gaining access to the premises.
  This illustrates the extreme difficulty of dealing with this problem and I have in mind the possible result of this Bill being an increase in the number of strip clubs to which the hon. Member for Islington, East referred. If, for example, it will become rather difficult—to put it no higher than that—to have touts on the door, will it be as easy to put up some striptease advertisements and run a striptease inside a so-called club, and get customers into the establishment by those means?
  This might be a more effective method of luring the public into these establishments than the present method of having these doubtful-looking females lounging in doorways. I see the prospect of the Bill being calculated to increase the number of undesirable clubs of this nature

  319
  and intensifying the attraction to striptease, particularly if touting is difficult, and if, as I say, they are simply called clubs, they will not need refreshment licences. Although I agree that if they conduct themselves in this way it will be possible for the police to take steps to prove that they are not clubs in the sense that we know clubs, that will be a long way round for the police. In view of the way that these places open and shut so frequently, we must try to devise methods by which the police can be save the trouble and time of exposing these places.
  What can we do to prevent the people who are now running these establishments calling themselves clubs and defeating the object of the Bill? We must, first, deal with the basic issue of what is or what is not a club. We must try to cause people to have a licence for selling refreshments, whether or not they call their establishments clubs. If they are selling refreshments for the purpose of gain, perhaps we need a definition such as "purpose of gain" and to make a licence mandatory, whether it is a club or a place which does not call itself a club.
  The same consideration should be applied to entertainment, whether the place calls itself a club or not. If the purpose of the entertainment is for private gain, a music and dancing licence ought to be necessary. Unless we have these alterations in the Bill I have some anxiety that its main purposes will not be attained. I know that my right hon. Friend is desperately anxious to deal with this difficulty, and, having privately tried to do something about these places over many years, I have no illusion about the problems in dealing with this class of person. It is easy to deal with a respectable man in the entertainment world, but it is exceedingly difficult to deal with the sleazy gentleman who is in one day and out the next.
  If we have to stretch matters a little far to catch these people, I am sure that my right hon. Friend will have the support of the House, because I am satisfied that not only do these places tend to depreciate the level of entertainment in the Metropolis, because bad entertainment tends to drag other entertainments down with it to a lower level, but that
  320
  they give our city a bad name. I do not say that it is as bad as Hamburg's, which is a warning to all of how bad a reputation one can get with these entertainment establishments. I hope that between now and the Committee stage my right hon. Friend will look at the difficulties which I have tried to point out and will do something to strengthen the Bill so that we can get at these objectionable near-beer establishments.
  8.12 p.m.
  Mr. George Thomas: I apologise to the House that I was not here at the beginning of the debate. I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) has just said. I believe that all people with a sense of social responsibility are disturbed at some of the changing values of our time. The very fact that the Bill has to be introduced is a sad commentary on the habits of some of our people. We always have had, and I am beginning to think that we always shall have, people who will seek to exploit sex and the weaknesses of people so that they can make money.
  I congratulate the Home Secretary on introducing a Measure to tackle the problem. I cannot speak with authority on these refreshment houses, as they are politely called, because I have not the right hon. Gentleman's experience. I always bow to a man with greater knowledge than myself, though I realise that his knowledge is limited—at least I trust it is—to an official or surprise visit. When I read of the right hon. Gentleman's tour I was pleasantly surprised—I hope he will not take that offensively—that he had taken the initiative. Secretly I would have liked to have been with him, because my eyes might have been opened as well as his, though I have a very good imagination.
  The hon. Member for Cheadle referred to the need for restraints. I believe that self-discipline is a cornerstone of civilisation and that imposed discipline is essential in any enlightened country. Therefore, if people will not behave properly it is our duty and responsibility here to seek to impose restrictions upon them. I would go further than the hon. Member for Cheadle, because I believe that we could do with a good dose of Puritan standards back in this country.

  321
  I happen to believe that we owe an enormous debt to our Puritan forefathers for the values which they laid down for probity, honesty and sincerity.
  I believe that one of the reasons why we are having this mushroom growth of undesirable clubs is that it is associated with the swing away from religion in the life of our country, and that the day will come when the House of Commons will have to realise that there are terribly dangerous consequences which reveal themselves in any community that refuses to accept the restraints and the disciplines of a religious code.
  I realise that sometimes we are criticised if we are what are called "do-gooders". I do not claim to be a do-gooder, but I have a great respect for those people who seek to reform and to raise standards. I am anxious, however, lest this little Bill will fail, as the Street Offences Act has failed.
  Mr. Shepherd: It has not.
  Mr. Thomas: The hon. Member is more innocent than I thought if he does not realise that what that Measure did was to direct people's energies into finding other ways of exploiting prostitution and that there are new clubs and institutions exploiting what was once on our streets. I am glad to see our streets cleaned up, but this evil is now finding an outlet in other ways. If the hon. Member believes that that Act stopped prostitution and cleaned it up, he will believe anything.
  Mr. Shepherd: The hon. Member is repeating what the opponents of the Act have been saying for so long, but it was immensely successful in its prime purpose of preventing our streets being squalid and noisome. Anyone knows that if one does not put the goods in the shop windows one does not sell as many.
  Mr. Thomas: I believe that there is as much of this prostitution now as ever there was. The fact that it is not under our noses merely means, if we are not careful, that our hypocritical sense that as long as we do not see it it does not matter will be satisfied.
  If the Home Secretary is to be able to tackle this problem he ought to be able to do something about the opening hours
  322
  of 10 p.m. to 5 a.m. I grew up in a Nonconformist home in a small community in South Wales where we used to think that nobody was up to any good if he was out after a certain hour.
  Mr. Ede: Half-past seven.
  Mr. Thomas: Evidently my right hon. Friend had even a stricter home than I had.
  These places should not be tolerated throughout the night. Where the police know that a place is undesirable for the type of person whom it is attracting, the police should have power to apply to the licensing authority either to have it closed altogether or to make it close earlier at right. I know that the Home Secretary will correct me if that power already exists.
  The penalties in the Bill are not severe enough. I would not give the option of a fine to people who are found guilty of breaking the provisions of the Bill when it becomes an Act. There should be imprisonment for people who are deliberate flouting the law in order to make money regardless of how they make it and of who is damaged in the process. The time has come when we must make the law more severe for people who have no moral standards and no regard for the rest of the community. I gather from the Press that much soliciting has gone on inside these places, but I am very glad that by subsection (2) of Clause 1 it will be an offence to solicit for custom outside, or in the vicinity of, the refreshment houses. The hon. Member for Cheadle may have warned us in time about the strip-tease advertisements that can drive a coach-and-four through this Bill. I hope that the Home Secretary will, in the ordinary course of the Bill, look again at what his hon. Friend has said, and see whether it is necessary to include a reference to advertising in subsection (2) of Clause 1.
  Whatever criticisms I have expressed, I am very glad that the Home Office Ministers have shown themselves aware of the problem and have brought forward a Measure that seeks to reduce it. For that they will earn the gratitude of many people outside this House.
  8.21 p.m.
  Mr. Alan Brown: I support the Bill, which my right hon. Friend has so ably explained. The problem that is rearing its head is not by any means as small as the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) may think. His constituency may have been lucky, but these so-called all-night cafés are being opened in many parts of North London, including Tottenham. I am surprised that Islington has so far been missed; if it has, I do not think that it will be for long.
  I am authoritatively informed that in the London boroughs covered by my own police division there are no fewer than 20 of these establishments. The problem is not confined to Soho, as so many people think. To illustrate the point and, perhaps, explain some of the difficulties to the House, I should like to read a letter, dated 3rd June, 1964, from one of my constituents who conducts a most respectable business in the area of one of Tottenham's main shopping centres. She writes:
  "I have a matter of great importance which I should like you to take up. The above address"—
  it is her address, of course—
  "is shop premises and living accommodation, and we have been here for 13 years. About last March the shop next door, namely "—
  I will say No. X—
  "changed hands, and was taken over by a Greek Cypriot calling the place "—
  such-and-such a café.
  "He appeared to have no set hours, six only pints of milk being left daily, no kitchen in use. He sells cups of tea and coffee only, opened in the afternoon and stayed open all night every night of the week.
  Rumours that the place was to be used for gambling in all rooms all night long, and that the man had previously come from Camden Town and had been closed down there for running a brothel sent me hurrying to the town hall, where I saw "—
  a gentleman in the planning department.
  "There I was assured that no licences of any description had been issued, and after examination of my own premises to show the close proximity of next door and the thinness of the walls, I was assured that no licence would be allowed for noise during the night. However, the place opened, and soon attracted most unsavoury characters who made themselves a terrific nuisance to all the premises round about, the noise from the jukebox being terrific throughout the night"—
  and noise was complained of from gaming machines.
  324
  "My forecourt and store were used as a urinal, fighting amongst the customers next door disturbed the peace, and many complaints were made to the police. The back rooms of the premises are used about five nights a week for gambling. The people who visit there are either Nigerians, Greeks, or Irish mainly, a different night being for each type of game. These rooms are very close, being only about 10 ft. from my own living-room and the bedroom of myself and husband and my two little girls aged four years and nine years."
  The letter goes on:
  "The town hall assured me again that the premises were not authorised for this use, but they did nothing else to help me. I therefore made an appointment with"
  the superintendent of police at Stoke Newington.
  "He told me to wait for a month. It has been the most terrible month; the attached copy of notes I made at the superintendent's suggestion I enclose herewith."
  Those notes have already been sent to the Home Office. My constituent says that she was unable to get any satisfaction from the town hall, and feared that she would get little help from the police. Prostitution was taking place in these premises. She says that the people at No. 53, on the other side, have done all they can to have this nuisance stopped. Finally, the police suggested that she should get a solicitor to make application for an injunction. She adds:
  "I feel that the local authority have let me down in this matter. It should not be necessary for me to have to take legal proceedings in this matter. Although the police have been helpful their hands are tied considerably. Your immediate help will be a godsend."
  This is not by any means the first so-called all-night café of this nature that has opened in Tottenham; to my knowledge, it is the third.
  I made inquiries at the town hall and was there told, and I have no reason to disbelieve it, that the authorities had no powers whatsoever under existing legislation to help this woman, or the neighbours who were complaining. I also communicated with the superintendent of police. The police have to act through certain procedure, which means watching the premises for a very considerable time. They then have to get a search warrant to enter, by which time, with look-outs and everything posted, it is almost an impossibility to do anything about it or secure a conviction.

  325
  I ask the House to support the Bill, because, clearly, it will give the police, and certainly the local authorities, power to stop the functioning of these disgraceful kinds of businesses.
  Miss Alice Bacon: No.
  Mr. Brown: The Bill will be instrumental in doing that.
  Mr. G. Thomas: The gambling to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, which must be a dreadful nuisance to the people next door, will not be stopped by the Bill. The hon. Gentleman had better try to change the Betting and Gaming Act, which made this sort of thing possible.
  Mr. Brown: As I read the Bill, these places will be controlled by night. It is during the night that the main nuisance, and certainly the prostitution, takes place.
  8.31 p.m.
  Mr. Ede: The Home Secretary is to be congratulated in bringing this matter before the House. It is one of great difficulty, and if anything effective is to be done it will need very careful handling.
  I should not like to see the right hon. Gentleman lured by the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) into trying to turn the Bill into a Measure to deal with the status of clubs which exist merely to defeat the law, because there are many quite respectable clubs, including those associated with the Working Men's Club and Institute Union, which would watch such a Measure with great and meticulous care to ensure that they were in no way affected by it. I am sure that no Home Secretary, for a good many years to come, will embark on anything which might arouse hostility in that quarter.
  I hope that the Home Secretary will be able so to get the Bill through as to leave him with sufficient power to deal with the evils which he described and that he will be wary of Amendments put forward by well-meaning people wishing to extend the Bill, which would put him in very considerable difficulty with responsible elements in the community who should not be confused with the kind of people of whom he has
  326
  spoken. I wish the right hon. Gentleman success in what he is endeavouring to do, but warn him that he will be travelling along a very narrow path and that a slight deviation to the right or to the left may involve him in great difficulty.
  8.33 p.m.
  Mr. R. M. Bingham: Like all hon. Members, I think, who have spoken, I welcome the Bill.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) referred to the danger of pseudo clubs. I agree with the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) that ft. is not opportune to attempt to modify or alter the law in that respect in this Bill, particularly as the definition of a refreshment house' in the 1860 Act is:
  "Any place of public refreshment, resort or entertainment".
  If the mischief which the Bill is aimed is the soliciting for custom and the charging of excessive prices, it is hardly possible for an institution of that sort to pretend with any hope of success that it was a members club if at the same time it was using persons outside the premises to solicit for custom.
  The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) said something which, in principle, probably commended itself to everyone. He said that the police should have power to deal with the goings on inside premises such as those which we are discussing, which are obviously undesirable. Again, I suggest that this is not a Measure in which that type of regulation could be introduced. I suppose that we can only see how the Bill takes effect when it is enacted. If the mischief which the hon. Member apprehends takes place, I suppose that we should have to consider bringing refreshment houses into the licensing code because only in that way could we apply a discretionary regulation such as the hon. Member had in mind. Obviously, it would not be possible to give such a power to the police, but to give it to licensing justices and to allow the police to carry out on their behalf the day-today supervision in between the annual applications for renewal would be an effective way of dealing with the matter. However, that is well outside the scope of a Measure such as this.

  327
  I wish to draw the attention of the House to a most inelegantly drafted set of provisions. It was my unhappy lot not long ago to draw attention to another Bill in another context whose drafting seemed to me to be abysmal. I can hardly exempt this Bill, as drafted, from that criticism. If it is possible in the scheme of this Bill to complicate and obscure what is intended, that has been done. One needs only to look at certain isolated cases to realise that. The point is clearly illustrated by line 8 on page 2 of the Bill. Subsection (4) reads:
  "Where subsection (1) applies "—
  and the reader has to look back to subsection (1) to find out what it is about—
  "the tariff of charges must be able to be read before entering …"
  I have always understood that the active voice is preferred to the passive and that if one is to use the passive voice it should be used so that what is meant is fairly clear. But it continues
  "by any person frequenting the refreshment house if it"—
  another passive voice—
  "is so stated by the condition applying the subsection".
  I cannot understand why some simple phraseology is not used, such as "the conditions may require that the tariff or charges should be legible to persons entering …" I produce that as I am on my feet, and it may not be the most apt phraseology, but it illustrates what I have in mind.
  The whole of Clause 1 could be compressed into a comparatively small and intelligible Clause if the scheme of the Licensing Act, which gives justices power to impose conditions and which provides penalties for non-compliance, were followed. Clause 2 could be halved and made more intelligible as could Clause 3.
  The only Clause which seems to me to read at all easily is Clause 4, and even that ends by saying
  "This Act shall come into force at the beginning of April 1965".
  I had hoped that it would be possible to bring it into force, at any rate for new licences—in view of the fact that these refreshment houses are apparently springing up all the time—on the Act receiving the Royal Assent. I see no reason why that should not happen, although I can
  328
  see administrative difficulties in bringing it into force before April in respect of existing licences.
  With these comments, which I feel must be made when I find drafting which offends many of the canons of intelligible English, I naturally welcome the Bill and hope that it will be on the Statute Book as soon as possible.
  8.42 p.m.
  Miss Alice Bacon: Perhaps it is because I am a woman that I have been so impatient with nearly every one of the speakers I have heard tonight. I cannot take the Bill very seriously. It seems to me rather a silly Bill, in fact one of the silliest little Bills I have ever seen.
  We had a long speech from the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. A. Brown), who read out a long letter from a constituent of his about a club in his constituency. But the Bill will not affect that kind of club at all. We are talking about refreshment houses, which serve only lemonades. The right hon. Gentleman called them "near-beers". I suppose that he means lemonade. All that the Bill does is to ensure that the prices are put up outside the refreshment house and that there is no touting for custom outside.
  It seems to me that the Bill is a man's Bill for the protection of foolish men. Introducing the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman said that in these places foolish people are milked of their money by fraud. I have not been in one of these establishments. Indeed, I might even be turned back at the door. It seems to me that it is not the young who are going to these places, but those we call the tired business men—the middle-aged or the elderly, who go into the sleaziest parts of London.
  There they see women of doubtful character, who invite them into these refreshment houses, where they are overcharged for fruit drinks. We are tonight giving a Second Reading to the Bill to protect them from this over-charging. What do they expect when they go into a place of this kind? Do they expect to get orangeade or lemonade at Is. a bottle? If so, I think that they are very foolish and deserve all they get.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) quoted the

  329
  Sunday Telegraph. I have here the Sunday Telegraph of 14th June. One of its journalists went into one of these refreshment houses under the name, I think, of Fletcher—with apologies to my hon. Friend. He described what went on in several of them. I will quote only one of his experiences. He said:
  "My wallet had been lightened of more than £5 in 20 minutes. Just across Wardour Street, a tall, sultry brunette stood framed in another doorway. Was I looking for a girl? she asked. In this club, a tiny cellar that could have served as a Turkish bath, I was served orange squash in a plastic mug while my new friend had double 'cocktails'. Each round cost £3 16s."
  He went on to say:
  "Each drink she consumed yielded a cocktail stick, and I gathered that when she had collected sufficient I might enjoy her undivided attention until the following evening.
  When I announced, 15 minutes and more than £10 later, that I had come to the end of my resources, Doris was quite upset. She gave me a card in case I wanted to return later, and even made sure I had enough money to pay my bus fare. I was rather touched.
  The whole technique of emptying my wallet was so skilfully performed it was almost artistic. At each round of drinks the victim is led to believe himself a step nearer his goal, and the more he invests, the less willing he is to abandon what he has already invested."
  Then he added:
  "Soon, we are assured, Soho's clip joints will be squeezed out of business. So, farewell ladies. For hundreds of lonely salesmen at least, it will be a duller, if a cheaper, world without you."
  I am wondering what is really wrong with these places. People appear to drink lemonade in them and the women send the men home to go to bed. There are lots of places to which the Home Secretary might pay his attention which are not nearly as innocent as these. I cannot take the Bill seriously.
  From time to time we have talked in the House about women who have been taken in by slick salesmen on the doorstep who sell washing machines and refrigerators. I have heard hon. Gentlemen get up in the House and say that we ought not to legislate to protect women, because women know a bargain when they see one and they can look after themselves in that respect. And yet tonight in the House of Commons we are seriously giving a Second Reading to a Bill to protect men who knowingly go into the worst parts of London
  330
  and who are invited in by women to drink lemonade. We are ensuring that they do not pay too much for their lemonade. It seems to me that we are legislating to protect men who really should now better. If these men go in for immoral purposes, as I feel they do, and are taken in by these women on the doorstep, and when they get inside find that they get an expensive lemonade instead, I have no sympathy with them.
  The Home Secretary has said that the tourists should be considered. Even tourists are not so silly as to go into places like that and be taken in in this way. I am sorry, but I cannot get excited about the Bill. If it can be improved and made sensible in Committee, I will be willing to help to improve it. As it is, however, the right hon. Gentleman will not have done very much if the Bill goes on to the Statute Book.
  8.48 p.m.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. C. M. Wood-house): Reading between the lines of the speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon)—and many of them were extremely good lines—the House can detect that the hon. Lady is not entirely averse to the Bill, although she has taken the opportunity of striking a blow in the battle of the sexes which has gone some way to redress the balance. I almost feel inclined to congratulate the hon. Lady on a brilliant maiden speech.
  The hon. Lady expressed scepticism about the Bill. I will return later to the points on which she had doubts, although, if the hon. Lady will not think it ungallant of me, I should like to take the gentlemen first and answer some of the questions which have been raised by earlier speakers in the debate. The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) said confidently that he assumed that with the exception of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, we were all dependent upon the Press for our knowledge of the subject. I confess that I myself, in the jargon we are learning to use, have been touted though not clipped. The hon. Gentleman raised the question whether that evil will continue despite the Bill, and my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd)—who has told me that he is unable to remain for

  331
  the conclusion of the debate—raised a somewhat similar point.
  I can assure both hon. Members that so far as the specific examples which they mentioned go—the hon. Member for Islington instanced the case of the blonde described in the Sunday Telegraph article and my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle spoke of the lady standing in the doorway whom he thought to be neither in the establishment nor in the vicinity—such cases will, in fact, be effectively curbed by the Bill.
  I can tell the hon. Member for Islington, East also that the provisions of the Bill will have no effect at all on respectable houses of the kind he mentioned, whether the Corner House at one end of the scale or the coffee bar at the other, because, provided they are properly conducted, the local authority will not have any occasion to impose these conditions upon them. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the crucial point in Clause 1(3), under which the power of the local authority to impose such a condition is restricted to
  "any case where it appears to them desirable in order to ensure that persons frequenting the refreshment house are not misled …"
  The word "misled" is crucial and, obviously, is not applicable to the respectable establishment which the hon. Gentleman had in mind. I think that this answers his point both about the tariffs in such places and about the commissionaire at the door who, we are assuming in this context, is not committing the offence defined in Clause 1(2).
  The hon. Gentleman raised the question of establishments where "striptease" and similar performances take place. Of course, in the nature of things, these are outside the scope of the Bill, but I gladly respond to his request for some comments on the legal position as it affects them. The provisions of the law applicable to striptease performances are to be found in Schedule 12 to the London Government Act, 1963, and, where the performance takes place in a theatre, in the Theatres Act, 1843. Control over striptease and other such performances is, in our view, tolerably satisfactory, so far as this matter can be entirely satisfactory, in licensed theatres and in premises licensed for music and dancing. In the latter case, it is a con-
  332
  dition of the licence that striptease is not allowed. The maximum penalties for breach of the licence conditions were very recently increased by the London Government Act from £100 to £200.
  We shall give careful thought to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle about clubs and also to the cautionary reservations put by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). Genuine clubs serving only members and their guests are not required to obtain a music and dancing licence and there is, therefore, no prohibition on striptease entertainment as such in them. But this is not to say that they are entirely outside the law. In fact, a few years ago an obscene type of striptease entertainment was provided at some such clubs and was stopped by prosecutions for the common law offence of keeping a disorderly house.
  Our view on this difficult matter is that there is not at present any need for amending legislation, and there is a reasonable prospect that the police will be able to control the situation by use of the existing powers, particularly bearing in mind that the London Government Act comes into force fully on 1st April next. It is primarily in London that the problem exists, and we believe that the London Government Act will provide an effective reinforcement of control. Nevertheless, a close watch is being kept on the working of the law and on any new developments.
  Mr. Fletcher: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Government are satisfied with the way in which striptease clubs are at present conducted and advertised in the West End of London?
  Mr. Woodhouse: In our view, the law is at present satisfactory, especially with the reinforcement recently introduced under the London Government Act. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the London Government Act is not yet fully in force. However, it is a matter which we shall continue to watch closely and, if necessary, we shall introduce amending legislation. The hon. Gentleman will agree that this particular matter is somewhat outside the scope of the present Bill. We shall certainly pay careful attention to the other points which he raised.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Bingham) and my hon. Friend the Member

  333
  for Cheadle referred to certain other types of offences which are outside the scope of the Bill. Perhaps I might recapitulate to show that we are not breaking entirely new ground here and that there is a substantial body of law affecting such establishments. There is already the offence of keeping a refreshment house without a licence. If I followed the description given by my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. A. Brown) of the case referred to in his letter, it seems to me that, if the place he was describing was operating between the hours of 10 p.m. and 5 a.m. without a licence, an offence was, without doubt, already being committed. Second, there is the offence of refusing to admit the police. Third, there is the offence of permitting unlawful gaming or the assembly of prostitutes, thieves, drunks and disorderly persons. There are also the offences of selling alcohol without a licence and supplying it at parties organised for gain. All these provisions of the law already apply to the refreshment houses with respect to which we are now making a small amendment of the law.
  The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas), with whose puritanical sentiments I have a great deal of sympathy, went a little far, I thought, in his harshness in one or two respects. He referred to the hours of opening and seemed dissatisfied with the hours of 10 p.m. to 5 a.m. The reason that these are written into the Bill is that they are already the hours defined in the 1860 Act and it is only the establishments that open between those hours which require any licence at all.
  These hours have been in effect for over 100 years, and it would be a severe thing to limit them any further, particularly when one remembers that the establishments we are legislating for include most reputable concerns and coffee bars and other places which provide not only for people seeking refreshment and entertainment but for those working at night or in the early morning.
  The hon. Member also thought the penalties insufficient. The Bill substantially increases them. The present maximum fine is £20, or £50 if there has been a similar conviction within the previous five years. The new penalty goes up to £200 or three months' imprisonment or
  334
  both, and the prison sentence is a new penalty. I will also give attention to the point raised by the hon. Member about advertising.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham also raised the question of noise and nuisance caused by establishments of this kind. There have from time to time been representations on this subject. This main difficulty in attempting to control noise and nuisance in a Bill of this kind is that, in practice, the noise occurs not so much on the premises as in the street when customers are arriving and departing.
  That is clearly beyond the control of the licensee and in any case would be outside the scope of the Bill. It has sometimes been argued that planning conditions affecting the location of all-night cafes could ensure a minimum of disturbance to other people in the neighbourhood. That may be so, but, again, it is not a point for consideration in this Bill. It is rather a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, and I will see that this is brought to his attention. It will not be entirely new to him.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Garston also referred to the date of operation of the Bill—1st April, 1965. From every point of view, it is a practical and a reasonable date, especially is that is also to be the date of operation of the London Government Act. My hon. and learned Friend will see in the first line on page 2 of the Bill one of the better drafted phrases:
  "… before or after the commencement of this Act …"
  I am sure that these words will cause no great perplexity to the House.
  Licences are granted with effect from 1st April each year and run for 12 months. They may come up for renewal before expiry in February or March and when the licensing authorities early next year consider applications for renewals they will have power under this Bill, even though it will not yet be in full operation, to attach conditions to any licence granted or renewed regarding the matters defined in Clause 1(1), (2) and (4).
  They will be able to do this before 1st April next year, and it will take effect automatically upon that date. I will nevertheless take a careful look at the point my hon. and learned Friend raised

  335
  on the question of drafting. I am bound to say, however—and I am sure others will agree—that this is a matter in which it is much easier to suggest improvements when one is not responsible for ensuring that the law is foolproof.
  The fundamental question of whether such legislation is necessary was raised by the hon. Member for Leeds, Southeast and the hon. Member for Islington, East. The hon. Lady asked whether it was necessary merely to protect men from the consequences of their own folly and weakness. I entirely agree that their folly and weakness is entirely unadmirable, and if protection from it were the sole object of the Bill I would be inclined to agree with that criticism, although, at the same time, I would also strongly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle and the hon. Member for Cardiff, West that it is not inappropriate for the law to intervene in questions of morality of this kind.
  But there are also weightier reasons for the Bill, and my right hon. Friend referred to them. In the first place, the Bill will relieve the police of a time-consuming burden. From representations we have had from the police, I can assure the House that an exasperating amount of work is laid on them by the present situation.
  It will also remove a discreditable incubus on the legitimate tourist trade in London, and on this matter again we have had many and increasing representations from people making use of tourist facilities in London. Finally, it would remove a stigma which tends to bring London into disrepute as a centre of entertainment. I think that those are cogent considerations, and I hope that the House will be impelled by them to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  Mr. G. Thomas: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me why the Bill does not extend to Scotland and Northern Ireland? Is it because of the special virtue of those parts? If not, why is there no reference to Wales?
  Mr. Woodhouse: Because the principal Act which is amended by the Bill does not extend to Scotland or Northern Ireland. Unluckily for the hon. Member
  336
  for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas), England and Wales are customarily taken together in legislation.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. J. E. B. Hill.]
  Committee Tomorrow.

  SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act 1932 to the Rural District of Cranbrook, a copy of which was laid before this House on 2nd June, be approved.—[Mr. Woodhouse.]
  9.1 p.m.
  Mr. George Thomas: Has the customary action been taken in this case? Has there been a poll of people interested?
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. C. M. Woodhouse): It was not necessary for a poll to be taken, because in this case there was not the requisite number of objectors, or people demanding a poll.
  Question put and agreed to.

  SOFT DRINKS
  9.2 p.m.
  Mr. George Darling: I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Soft Drinks Regulations 1964 (S.I., 1964, No. 760), dated 21st May 1964, a copy of which was laid before this House on 1st June, be annulled.
  I think that it will be convenient if we also take the second Prayer, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, which deals with the Scottish Regulations.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): If that be the wish of the House, so be it.
  Mr. Darling: These Regulations have some association with the Bill which we discussed a short time ago. I suppose that the intention of the Regulations is to make sure that the lemonade sold in these sleazy refreshment houses is up to standard.

  337
  This is where we came in a year ago, on 17th June last, to be precise, when we discussed the Soft Drinks Regulations then introduced by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. He warmly welcome and commended those Regulations to the House. Although they were not complete—they did not cover the semi-sweet and low calory drinks—nevertheless, he felt that it would be wrong to delay their introduction.
  The operation was not to be exactly marked with speed, because those Regulations were not to come into operation until this month of this year. Despite the Parliamentary Secretary's plea that the Regulations should not be delayed, as I understand it he is now asking us that they should be delayed for another year, so that they will not come into operation until June next year. We want to know why. What is the reason for this further incredible and inexcusable delay? I am sure that it cannot be because the semi-sweet and low calory drinks are now to be included, because the Parliamentary Secretary is on record as saying that the Regulations should not be delayed for that purpose.
  I hope that we shall get from the Parliamentary Secretary the reasons for the delay, and that we shall get a convincing explanation. I hope, too, that he will not tell us that the new rules for the composition and labelling of these drinks, which he so warmly commended to us last year, are being held up as a result of further representations from the manufacturers. After all, the Regulations have been under discussion since 1959 when the Food Standards Committee recommended them, and, goodness knows, that Committee does not work with very noticeable speed. In fact, its examination of the soft drinks business had been going on for some time before it made its recommendations. My calculation is that the Ministry has had five years in which to consult all the trade interests involved, and I should have thought that that was more than enough time in which to take the manufacturers' views into consideration
  Incidentally, the law in this regard calls on the Minister to consult consumer interests as well, and I shall be glad to know whether during the last year the
  338
  delay, the reasons for it and the Regulations themselves have been discussed with the Consumer Council, because it is the Council's job to look after this side of things.
  If the Parliamentary Secretary is going to tell us that manufacturers of semi-sweet and low calorie drinks must be given adequate time to alter the labels on their bottles, and perhaps alter the composition of their drinks to bring them within the Regulations, may I tell him that that argument will not go down with us, because I repeat that he rejected that argument last year when he said that the Regulations should not be held up to accommodate these two types of drinks.
  I do not think that that can be the real reason for the delay. I shall listen to what the hon. Gentleman has to say, but I suspect that there has been some pressure from the manufacturers of other soft drinks too who will be quite pleased to have another year's grace before they have to adapt their drinks and their labels to the new Regulations. Quite frankly, though, I do not see what they have to worry about, because, as I said last year, and I say it again, these Regulations are in my view disgracefully inadequate. They will allow manufacturers to foist off what I call synthetic chemical drinks on the market under misleading labels which are designed to deceive customers into believing that they are buying drinks that are made wholly or mainly of fruit juice.
  Last year the Parliamentary Secretary evaded some of the criticisms and questions that I put forward about these Regulations This time I intend to be a little more specific, and to put some pointed questions to him. I should like to begin with the permitted fruit crushes, the drinks that are not going to be diluted by the customer. The Regulations say that orange and barley water, and lemon and barley, and lime juice and soda need contain no more than 3 per cent. of fruit juice and that all the other so-called fruit drinks need contain no more than 5 per cent. of fruit juice.
  Let us take the higher figure. Does the hon. Gentleman really believe that a drink with only 5 per cent. of fruit juice m it should be described as a fruit drink and labelled in such a way as to give the customer the impression that he is buying

  339
  a bottle of fruit juice? Is the hon. Gentleman really satisfied with the low standard of 5 per cent.?
  I admit that we have to distinguish between two issues here. The first is whether the permitted fruit content is too low or not. Secondly, if we reluctantly accept this very low standard, we have to ask ourselves how the drink should be labelled and advertised.
  Let me take the first point. A drink which consists of nine-tenths water and some sweetening agent and about one-twentieth of fruit juice, would be terribly insipid to drink, and, in fact, almost undrinkable. As we know, it is made into a saleable drink by the addition of chemicals. In fact, it is the chemicals and not the fruit juice which gives the drink its taste, its appearance and whatever qualities it may possess. In my view, these drinks ought to have more fruit and fewer chemicals in them. If we reluctantly accept these standards, surely we ought to insist that the labels and the advertising clearly explain what is in the bottle. Surely that is a proposition that ought to be accepted generally by now. If we do not do this, we are conniving at misleading advertising.
  Look what is going into the bottles. First, let us look at the permitted sweeteners that are described, if I can use that term, under Schedule 1. There is saccharin calcium. We are told here that saccharin calcium
  "is the calcium derivative of 2-sulphobenzoic imide with 3½ molecules water of crystallisation and contains not less than 98 per cent. of (C7 H4 NO3 S)2, Ca calculated with reference to the substance dried to constant weight at 105°C."
  It will be appreciated that this is an important matter. This is what is going into the drink. Frankly, I have not the faintest idea what it is—I do not think anyone else has either. Then we have another under paragraph (4). I cannot pronounce it, but we know what it is because it is described here as an acid which contains
  "not less than 98 per cent. and not more than 102 per cent."—
  I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to explain how one gets 102 per cent. of this substance inside whatever it is—
  "of C6 H12 NO3S with reference to the substance dried to constant weight at 105°C."
  340
  Curiously enough, it must not have more than 1 per cent. ash. I should like to know what happens if someone finds out that there is more than 1 per cent. ash. Does that mean that all the substances in the bottles have to be destroyed? I also notice that these acids must not smell of ammonia.
  Another one is calcium cyclamate. I shall not describe it, except to say that in certain regards it must not show any turbidity—I am sure that is an important point, too—and it must not smell of ammonia. The next one cyclohexylamine must not show any turbidity or smell of ammonia. I should like to know what all this business is about ammonia. Are they putting ammonia into these bottles, provided that it does not smell?
  Then we turn to the acids that can be put in. These are only the sweeteners. Regulation (6) says that
  "any soft drink may contain ascorbic acid, citric acid, lactic acid, malic acid, nicotinic acid, tartaric acid "
  and any acid that is permitted to be used under the Preservatives in Food Regulations or the Colouring Matter in Food Regulations. Certain soft drinks can contain acetic acid and phosphoric acid.
  These are the substances that are going into these so-called fruit drinks. It is a combination of acids and sweeteners with all these peculiar descriptions that people are going to drink. It is this stuff that gives the drinks whatever quality they possess.
  Incidentally, there is a weakness in these Regulations. The artificial sweeteners are carefully explained. Their various constituents are set out, but there is no such explanation of the contents of the acids. I have a feeling that these may contain lots of things that people should not be drinking.
  Under these Regulations we are allowing manufacturers to put all these chemical concoctions into their drinks and quite misleadingly label them as fruit drinks. If this is the sort of stuff that customers want they can have it, but we have a duty to make sure that these chemical drinks are properly and honestly labelled. Why should not we insist that the amount of fruit juice and the various chemicals used in its manufacture are clearly stated on the labels?

  341
  Does the Parliamentary Secretary agree that these drinks should be honestly labelled? Further, where do Coca-Cola, Pepsi-Cola and 7-Up come into this? Are they fruit drinks? If they are not, and are therefore outside the scope of these Regulations, perhaps the hon. Gentleman can tell us what they are made of, and why we have no Regulations to cover them. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will tell us whether he thinks that drinks should be honestly labelled. If he thinks they should not be, will he tell us why?
  Will he- also answer a question which he failed to answer when we were discussing this question last year? The Regulations contain no mention of advertisements. The only references are to labelling. Do the rules about labelling also apply to advertisements, including television advertisements? This is an important point. Last year I mentioned what I regard as a thoroughly dishonest advertisement for an orange drink, which used the words "whole orange drink". The labels and the advertisements for this drink are deliberately designed to give the wholly false impression that the drink is made from oranges and nothing but oranges. In fact, it is largely a chemical concoction of the kind of which I was talking a short time ago.
  The words "whole orange drink" are used because a small proportion of the fruit juice is comminuted. According to the Regulations a comminuted citrus drink
  "means a soft drink produced by a process involving the comminution of the entire citrus fruit".
  In other words, all the pulp, the pith and the skin are squeezed together, and not merely the juice from the centre of the fruit. Will the Regulations, as drafted, allow manufacturers of these drinks to go on using the words "whole orange drink" in their advertisements and on their labels? If the Regulations do allow this, their labelling is almost worthless as a protection against deceptive advertising.
  Has the Minister considered the fact that the persons who put out these misleading advertisements are probably committing an offence under Section 6 of the 1955 Food and Drugs Act, and that his Ministry should have taken
  342
  action long ago to stop this? If they are offences under the Act we should be doing wrong to permit offences under the Regulations. Section 6 of the 1955 Act is one of the most perfectly drafted Sections that I have seen in any legislation, and by quoting it I can get over my point quite simply. I will leave out all references to drugs, because they do not come into our considerations. It says:
  "A person who gives with any food of drug sold by him, or displays with any food or drug exposed by him for sale, a label, whether attached to or printed on the wrapper or container or not, which … falsely describes the food or drugs, or … is calculated to mislead as to its nature, substance or quality, shall be guilty of an offence …".
  That is the labelling.
  The same words are used, but I want to quote them, in regard to advertising:
  "… a person who publishes, or is a party to the publication of, an advertisement … which—

  (a) falsely describes any food, … or

  (b) is calculated to mislead as to the nature, substance or quality of any food … shall be guilty of an offence."

  I could go through all the advertisements and all the labelling for this range of fruit drinks. The kinds of advertisements about which I have been talking are, in my view, calculated to deceive. They come within the terms of Section 6 and are
  "calculated to deceive as to the nature, substance or quality "
  of the food that they attempt to describe. This is misleading advertising and labelling. We passed an Act of Parliament in 1955 to stop it. We are now producing Regulations under that Act of Parliament which, as far as I can see, will permit this same misleading advertising and labelling to go on. This is the point which the Ministry should very seriously consider, because if action is taken by somebody—the time is coming when action should be taken under Section 6 of the Food and Drugs Act against misleading advertising—we shall find ourselves in difficulties by agreeing to Regulations which are contrary to the provisions of the Act.
  The criticisms I have made about undiluted drinks could be applied equally to squashes, drinks that can be, and are, diluted by the customer. I will not

  343
  comment on the new Schedules referring to semi-sweet soft drinks and the rules about low calorie drinks. I should be glad to hear the Parliamentary Secretary's explanation of their inclusion.
  I must tell the Parliamentary Secretary that we on this side think that the Regulations are inadequate, that they set standards for these drinks which, in our view, are far too low, and that the labelling and advertising rules are far too weak and will permit deceptive advertising and labelling to go on. Above all, we deplore this further year's delay in applying these new Regulations, weak and inadequate as they are. We await with some interest the Parliamentary Secretary's explanation of this inexcusable delay.
  9.28 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Doig: Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling), I believe that it is a good thing that these Regulations are being delayed. This is not because I do not believe that there should be much stricter control. It is because I believe that the Regulations are so bad that they will make matters much worse.
  A firm in my constituency which was the inventor of carbonated food drinks as long ago as 1924—I refer to Robertson Fruit Products, Ltd.—registered one of its main brands over 40 years ago and has been trading with it ever since. These Regulations were supposed to clear matters up and make it much simpler for people to know just what they were buying. In the opinion of this firm, and in my own opinion after having studied the matter, they will do the exact opposite.
  I raised this matter with the Secretary of State for Scotland some time ago. In reply to my inquiry I received a letter from his Department saying:
  "The object of the regulations is to bring some order into the hitherto confusing welter of names and descriptions of soft drinks, and tile term ' crush ' as defined in the regulation fits well into the general pattern described."
  We find, however, that as a result of the Regulations a pure orange drink must be described now as "crush" while a drink that is made from crushed oranges, including the peel, is described
  344
  as an "orange drink". Could anything be more confusing?
  The firm in my constituency has been selling a pure fruit drink, described as "orange", for a very long time, but once these Regulations come into effect it will not be allowed to continue to do so. I was interested to note that it has been said that these firms were consulted, because later in the reply I received from the Secretary of State's Department I read:
  "The regulations were made after consultation with the soft drinks industry and after full consideration of representations from individual firms, including Mr. Robertson's".
  Meanwhile, Robertson's says:
  "This is absolutely untrue. We were never at any time consulted. We did write letters of protest, and enclose copies, but consulted, no!"
  Probably the oldest firm in this industry has never been consulted. This is what it means. It would seem that these Regulations have been designed to try to make things simpler, but by pressure from certain firms they have had exactly the opposite effect; and well-known firms which have been trying to give a pure fruit drink and which have been doing this for more than 40 years—and doing a good trade not confined to Dundee, for Robertson's has factories throughout Scotland—are being placed in difficulties. It is wrong that they should have to suffer because of bad regulations. This is exactly what will happen to the firm in my constituency, after 40 years of building up a reputation for providing a pure fruit drink. Although it has labelled its product "orange", it can no longer call it that, but must call it "orange crush".
  The people who do not produce pure fruit drinks, but who include the pith of the orange as well as the skin and the juice, can call their products "orange drink". This is not clarifying the position, but making it more confused than ever. An interesting point which has been brought to my notice is that Robertson's states:
  "As regards lime cordial, the Minister decided that as the clear product, made from lime juice, and requiring dilution, had been sold under the name ' Lime Juice Cordial ' for very many years, there were sufficiently good reasons for permitting that description …"
  There can be no doubt that when the Regulations were first drafted it was

  345
  definitely decided that that name would not be allowed. Presumably, because of pressure from influential producers, the Regulations were changed to suit the very influential producers of this cordial.
  The firm in my constituency about which I am speaking has, as I have said, used the name it has been using for its product for more than 40 years. Is that not a long time? It is strange that exceptions are made for some firms but not for others. So we have this farcical situation that one can now sell what is by no stretch of the imagination a pure orange drink as an orange drink, but one cannot sell a pure orange drink as an orange drink but must call it "orange squash".
  This seems very strange. The last time I raised this matter it was pointed out by way of explanation that we should see how the Regulations would work out. That is a very irresponsible attitude for a Government to take, because these firms have laid out vast sums of money on advertising a product in a certain way and they have built large stocks of labels. To say now that they must change all that in order to try out an idea which any sensible person would regard as a poor one seems to me the wrong thing to do.
  The Government ought not to delay the application of these Regulations, but scrap them and start all over again and consult all the firms in the industry and not merely one or two selected ones. They should draw up much better regulations after fuller consideration of all the interests in the trade. I hope that they will undertake to do this between now and the time when the Regulations come into operation. The Government have confused the issue to such an extent that I believe that they should delay the application of the Regulations for at least a year and, during that time, prepare and bring in new ones.
  9.36 p.m.
  Mr. E. G. Willis: I have no doubt that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who is an expert on soft drinks, will be able with his customary eloquence to hold the House spellbound with his explanation of what these Regulations, and particularly the Scottish ones, seek to achieve. Here is a Statutory Instrument of 19 pages,
  346
  excluding the Explanatory Note, laying down in great detail what must be or must not be done in making a soft drink. I cannot help thinking of the amazing lengths to which we have to go to protect the consumer against private enterprise.
  This is a great tribute to private enterprise. I hope that hon. Members opposite when they speak of the virtues of private enterprise will realise that one of those virtues is that we spend hours and hours in the House seeking to protect ourselves against it. Indeed we spend so much time that private enterprise is cribbed, cabined and confined, and has been even since about 1850, until today it is doubtful whether there is any such thing as private enterprise left in the country.
  These Regulations are particularly interesting because they tell us which artificial sweeteners are to be permitted in soft drinks. They are not content simply to name them but they specify them at great length over one and a half pages. They describe the degree of solubility and they lay down requirements for the composition of fruit juice and "potable fruit content". I look forward to hearing the Joint Under-Secretary on the potable fruit content of these drinks and the quantities of added sugar or permitted artificial sweetener and other requirements which are laid down in great detail in the Regulations.
  The acids that can be used in these drinks are specified. The labelling of drinks mad; from citrus fruits and the juice of citrus fruits is specified. It is interesting to look at the labelling instructions. Even the size of the lettering has to be specified; it must not be less than one eighth of an inch, because we have become accustomed to private enterprise using such small type that no one can read it. That is the honesty of private enterprise. The initial letter may be larger than the others. We even tell these people how it is to be done, and the size of the lettering.
  We also provide
  "… that where no words appear on any label on the said container, and no words appear on the container, other than any … printed on a cork, stopper or cap closing that container, or … embossed or fired on the container, being words which do not conflict with the requirements of these regulations …"

  347
  and refer those concerned to Regulations 8, 9(2), 10, 11, 12 and 14—what an array of Regulations to specify the type of word that can be put on. We are not content just to state the kind of word and the size of the words to be used; we specify
  "… the use of pictorial devices and words suggestive of fruit …"
  The manufacturers are told what they can and cannot do in that respect. These Regulations are, indeed, most illuminating.
  I only hope that hon. Members opposite, who are such great protagonists of the virtues of private enterprise, will ask themselves why it is necessary for ordinary folk to have to go to these enormous lengths to protect themselves against private enterprise, to ensure that what they get is what they are supposed to get, that it will not do them any harm, and is of a quality that measures up to what it is supposed to be.
  There is a lesson to be learned here. Although the Regulations are confined in this case to soft drinks, what I say applies to private enterprise generally. The more I looked at some of these details the more I was amazed that we should have to do this sort of thing. It would be much better to look on these matters in a different light. I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will take note of the important lesson contained in this little exercise. It is a forlorn hope, of course, but I hope that when next they speak with such great enthusiasm about private enterprise, they will remember these things; and what we have to do to protect ourselves from it.
  9.45 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Scott-Hopkins): We have had a short but interesting debate, and I am glad to have the opportunity of trying to answer the various points which have been put to me by hon. Members opposite.
  As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) said, this is virtually an identical debate to the one which we had last year. Most of the questions which he asked tonight he has asked me before. I answered them last year, and I shall endeavour to give him as good an explanation as I did then. I doubt whether I can give him
  348
  a better explanation than I gave last year. The first criticism concerned delay. He said that he turned up the speech which I made at the Box last year and he will see that I explained how, at a late stage after the consultations had taken place, it was suggested that the Regulations should specifically provide for two new classes of soft drinks—the semi-sweet ones and the low calory ones. I saw no reason for holding up the Regulations last year because of the new types which were liable to come forward
  I went on to say, however, that we had agreed to consider the proposal and, if necessary, to make further Regulations to provide for those particular categories. We have concluded the consultations, and the result is the Regulations before the House.
  It would have been possible to deal with the matter by way of amending Regulations, but the result would have been extremely complicated and difficult to understand. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), experienced though he is, found great difficulty in understanding these Regulations. If we had introduced amending Regulations to the 1963 Regulations, the result would have been so complicated and complex that it would have been extremely difficult for anyone, even the experts, to understand and operate the Regulations.
  There are two other points which I must ask the House to remember. A great many labels are used in a year, and I think that it is only right that reasonable time should be given to dispose of labels which are already in circulation before the new Regulations come in requiring a new type of label to be put on all products. Time must also be given for printing.
  Also, it is desirable, as far as possible, to have one operative date for all the Regulations to facilitate their administration by the local food and drug authorities. In addition, the House will recognise the need to synchronise the introduction of the compositional and labelling requirements. On those three counts it is necessary for the Regulations to come into force on a date which will enable a reasonable time for printing, and so on, and the adaptation which is necessary because of the new Regulations.

  349
  It is not unreasonable to say, therefore, that the Regulations should come in during June next year.
  There are changes in these Regulations, as I am sure the hon. Member for Hillsborough will realise. We have taken the opportunity to deal with further types of drinks, namely, those with mixed fruit juice and fruit bases. In addition, the sodium and calcium cyclamates may now be used as sweeteners. The requirements in the 1963 Regulations for accurate and informative labelling to protect customers are extended under the 1964 Regulations to the new types of drinks, and vending machines will have to bear a means of informing the consumer of the nature of the drink being offered for sale. Slight modifications have been introduced to allow the users of bottles with fired-on and embossed declarations, which do not normally use labels, to comply with the new labelling provisions in these Regulations. Obviously these are considerable changes, and it was right and proper that there should be this delay.
  May I turn quickly to the points raised by the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) about consultation. Full consultations with all the interests concerned have taken place. I am informed that lengthy correspondence took place between the firm in his constituency—I think that it is Robertson's—and my right hon. Friend's Department concerning the Regulations, and about the various difficulties which Robertson's foresaw and the views which they held about the proposed Regulations.
  Mr. Doig: The firm claimed that this correspondence took place after the Government had decided what the Regulations were to be and that they were not previously consulted. I have a letter signed by the managing director of the firm saying that this was so.
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The hon. Member realises that these are the Regulations before the House now. The Government cannot have finally decided what the Regulations were to be until they were drafted and laid. Consultations were going on until that time, and the firm in question had an opportunity of making representations about the problems and difficulties which they foresaw. I am informed that they did in fact do so. I am sorry that the hon. Member feels
  350
  that this was not adequate to meet the needs of his constituents.
  Mr. Darling: Will the hon. Member clear up a problem about consultation? Is the method that there are consultations around a table with the appropriate trade associations and that if any individual firm feels, for its own reasons, that it wants to make representations, those representations are made by correspondence and there is no discussion with the firm?
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The Act obliges us to follow a procedure of consultation with all the interested parties. These include consumers and manufacturers, such as the firm in the constituency of the hon. Member for Dundee, West. They are given every opportunity of putting forward their comments and suggestions, both on the reports made to us by the Food Standards Committee and also on our proposals for Regulations. How they do this is a matter for them. We take into account not only the consumer interests but also the problems which manufacturers may have to face in complying with any new legislation. I accept that these problems are considerable, particularly in some cases.
  May I turn to some points made by the hon. Member for Hillsborough. He asked me whether there had been discussions with the Consumer Council, and the answer is that there were consultations with the Consumer Council before the Regulations were laid. Next, he wanted information about what he called synthetic drinks. Those to which he is referring are. called lemonade or orangeade, for example—with "ade" at the end. If they do not have any fruit in them, they are not allowed to use the appellation which is laid down in the Regulations for the other types of drink. They must have the syllable "ade" behind the name, so there is no question of misrepresentation.
  Mr. Darling: The question which I put was whether he thought that the fruit drinks with only 3 per cent. fruit could honestly be described as fruit drinks.
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I was coming to that point. I am trying to deal first, however, with the point made by the hon. Member about synthetic drinks.

  351
  The fruit crushes are drinks which are ready to be drunk by the consumer on the spot. There seems to be some confusion in hon. Members' minds with fruit juice, which is described on page 2 of the Regulations:
  "' fruit juice ' means the clean, sound, undiluted juice of the fruit or fruits from which it is obtained".
  Pure, undiluted fruit juice is not covered by the Regulations at all. The crushes are a drink which should be compared with squash. If the hon. Member for Hillsborough refers to the definition of squash, he will see that it must contain at least 25 per cent. fruit-juice. He will find it in Schedule 2 on page 12 of the Regulations. I am comparing squash—the undiluted drink, which is made to be diluted—with crush, the drink which has been diluted.
  I am informed that squash is diluted by about five times, so that in the end one gets approximately the same juice content of 4 or 5 per cent. The crush is a drink which is meant for the consumer to drink straight down, and it compares as nearly as possible with the squash which needs to be diluted. The fruit content is quite adequate if one takes the squash as a basis.
  Mr. Darling: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive my interrupting so much, but he has not answered my question. I agree that we have perhaps, used certain phrases a little too loosely. When a drink which contains only 3 per cent. of fruit juice is described as a whole orange drink, does the hon. Gentleman regard that as honest labelling?
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins: That is not the point I was dealing with. I was dealing with the description laid down in the Regulations, and contending that a juice content of 3 per cent. or 5 per cent. for a fruit crush was adequate and does not deceive the public, particularly if one makes comparison with squash, which must contain at least 25 per cent. fruit juice in its undiluted state before dilution by the consumer. There is no misrepresentation or misleading of the public by this kind of labelling.
  The hon. Member asked about Coca-Cola. This comes under the category
  352
  of any other soft drink in the last item of Part I of Schedule 2 on page 11 of the Regulations. It comes under this heading only for the purposes of the sugar content. It must have a minimum sugar content.
  Mr. Darling: So the hon. Gentleman does not know what it is made of.
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins: That is its position as far as these Soft Drinks Regulations are concerned.
  The hon. Member made a point about advertising and labelling and said that the Regulations did not cover the advertising of these soft drinks. Advertising is not covered by the Regulations, which deal only with what can be put on the label or embossed or fired on to the bottle.
  The hon. Member found difficulty in understanding the definitions of artificial sweeteners. It has been extremely difficult for my Department to deal with this aspect, but I think that a good job has been made of it. The difficulty is that the British Pharmacopoeia lays down no specifications for the new artificial sweeteners which we have excluded in these Regulations. I except saccharin, the definition of which, as the hon. Gentleman will see from the first item of Schedule 1, refers directly to the definition in the British Pharmacopoeia. But for the other substances there is no specification in the British Pharmacopoeia.
  The whole purpose of these Regulations is to ensure the purity of the products to be used in drinks as artificial sweeteners, so, obviously, one has to go into detail to make quite clear to those qualified to deal with these matters, chemists, and so on, exactly what the artificial sweeteners are. The descriptions in Schedule 1 of the various substances to be used as artificial sweeteners correspond in type and form, as near as possible, to the British Pharmacopoeia definitions of like products of a different nature. I am sure that the House will agree that an extremely exhaustive job has been done so that very little doubt can be raised by expert chemists, and those dealing with these matters, about the purity of the substances concerned.
  The hon. Gentleman raised a point about the figure of 102 per cent. This is related to the method of analysis and

  353
  the possible error involved, which can be of the order of about 2 per cent. That is the explanation there.
  The hon. Gentleman also raised the question of safety, and he referred particularly to the acids permitted to be used under Regulation 6. He will have seen that these are covered by the Preservatives in Food Regulations, 1962, or the Colouring Matter in Food Regulations, 1957. The descriptions are fully set out there.
  The hon. Member for Dundee, West raised a point which, I think, goes back to what I was saying just now about the pure fruit juice and the difference between crushes and squashes. He spoke about the comminuted drinks, and I understand that the firm in his own constituency has been making a non-comminuted drink which will now have to be called a crush.
  The hon. Gentleman will have seen the definition of a comminuted drink in the Regulations. As he rightly says, such a drink includes the entire fruit, pips and everything, all chopped up in a mechanical process. It is a different kind of drink, and I think that we have here to provide a different name for it. The hon. Gentleman was, I think, confusing the point a little. He kept speaking of pure orange drink, pure fruit drink, and so on, which are referred to on page 2. These do not come under these particular Regulations. They are a separate article which is labelled "pure fruit juice".
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East paid a great tribute to private enterprise manufacturers inasmuch as they had made the Government bring in Regulations of this kind. He seems to forget that our tastes become more sophisticated and that science advances at a great pace under Conservative Government, as it has done over the past 12 years. I find it rather remarkable that hon. Members opposite seem to be having great difficulty with the chemicals and other technical matters covered by these Regulations, yet the image they are trying to project at the moment is all supposed to be "science based", and so on. I find it rather difficult to match the two images. They seem to be shying away from anything to do with new scientific advances in this matter.
  Of course, as science advances and our tastes become more sophisticated, it is
  354
  only right that the Government should accept as their duty—
  Mr. Willis: All this is very interesting and amusing, but what has it got to do with the printing of these things on the labels in letters which people can read?
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I was trying to answer the hon. Gentleman's point. As I understood him, he was making an attack on private enterprise. Perhaps I was wrong. If he has now been converted to the virtues of private enterprise, I am delighted. I was explaining that, when these developments occur, it is right that the Government should take notice and do what is necessary. [HON. MEMBERS: "Get on."] I do not want to prolong the debate unnecessarily on this point.
  These compositions and labelling Regulations are sufficiently clear and detailed to cover the entire range of soft drinks. I know that problems have been raised by certain manufacturers, but I trust that it will be possible for these to be overcome I am certain that the interest of the consumer is being properly safeguarded by these Regulations, taking into account all the advances which have been made over the years, and I commend them to the House. I hope that the hon. Member for Hillsborough will see fit to ask leave to withdraw his Motion.
  Mr. Willis: Why is it not necessary to protect members of Her Majesty's Forces? If this is not an improper question, is it that they have less sophisticated tastes than civilians have?
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The hon. Gentleman will realise that this all comes under the control of the Food and Drugs Act, and the administering authorities are the local authorities. The purpose of the Regulations is to enable local authorities to enforce our food and drugs laws. This naturally does not apply to the circumstances of our Forces overseas.
  10.7 p.m.
  Mr. William Ross: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) on the way in which he has mastered these Regulations. I was very surprised that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary seemed to tike my hon. Friend to task for having slipped up on one very small

  355
  matter. I noticed that there were about three or four matters on which he himself slipped up.
  In his concluding remarks the hon. Gentleman suggested that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), was quite wrong in drawing attention to the fact that we are here laying strict Regulations upon private enterprise to ensure that food and its labelling shall be such as to comply with the requirements of the Ministry in the interests of the health and well-being of the public. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think this amusing. Then he talked about the Labour Party and science. We often talk about the need for science-based industries in Scotland but I never thought that we were really talking about fruit juices.
  The more one reads these Regulations the more one can appreciate the concern of the Government that this has become a science-based industry. It is more science-based than nature-based. Many people enjoy soft drinks. Dare we call these drinks "squashes"? Or are they "crush" or "cordial"? All these seem to be interchangeable terms. Or shall we just call them soft drinks? People buy them under the impression that they are buying fruit. Many of these drinks are at a considerable price. If anyone reads these Regulations I doubt whether he would drink any of these things again.
  As a good Scotsman I was interested in the definition of "soft drink". How difficult that is can be judged by the amount of time it takes to define a soft drink. I am glad to note that "soft drink" does not include water.
  Mr. Willis: Except as aforesaid.
  Mr. Ross: This matter is sufficiently confused without my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East suddenly remembering that he is not a Scotsman but an Englishman, and trying to confuse me.
  At one time the Government went as far as to say that a soft drink must not be an intoxicating drink. That was a staggering discovery. Then they discovered that an alcohol could be a soft drink provided that it was a certain type of alcohol. It has not been clarified by these Regulations.
  356
  We have seen some of this before. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary has not referred to the case of the Dundee firm which claimed that it was not adequately consulted. It is not enough to say that there were consultations up to the time that these Regulations were printed. The implication that the delay between the information my hon. Friend got and the hon. Member's knowledge when these Regulations were printed may be that consultations took place, but that claim is marred by the fact that we are returning to this subject after an interval of months.
  We have been here before and the Government have made changes which may well have arisen out of our discussions and criticism last time. Surely the Government had time to get in touch with the Dundee firm and discuss the matter with it. On this score, I am talking not about the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, but about his "Tam o' Shanter"—the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland has a set of Regulations almost exactly the same as the English. There are one or two differences. As we are taking these two Statutory Instruments together, I think that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary might have referred to those differences. He decided to say nothing about them.
  The obligation to discuss the matter with the Dundee firm was not his and if he had said he knew nothing about it he could have deferred to the superior knowledge of the Under-Secretary of State, who will give us later the full explanation of the Scottish Order. We could have understood that. Has anything been done about this firm's case? It has been manufacturing and selling very successfully for 40 years and has been offended by not being consulted and having its interests adequately considered by the Scottish Office.
  These Regulations were made on 26th May. The English Regulations were made on 21st May. Scotland was a little bit behind. They are to come into force as follows:
  "regulation 19(1) shall come into force on 7th June 1964;"
  So we are, in fact, already protected. But what is in force? That is shattering.
  "The Soft Drinks (Scotland) Regulations, 1963(a) are hereby revoked."

  357
  What comes into force is the revocation of previous Orders. The Order goes on:
  "The Food Standards (Soft Drinks) Order 1953(a), and the Food Standards (Soft Drinks) (Amendment) Order 1954(b), are hereby revoked but without prejudice to any proceedings in respect of any contravention of the Food Standards (General Provisions) Order 1944, as amended, construed as one with the Food Standards (Soft Drinks) Order 1953, as amended."
  Earlier, it is stated:
  "in all oilier respects, these regulations shall come into force on 2nd June 1965."
  There is action to be admired. A whole year is to pass before we receive protection from this modernised, science-based Government.
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman realises that this is quite a normal form for Regulations. One makes the general Regulations to come into force on a certain date, in this case, as he rightly said, in Regulation 1(b). If he reads through the Regulations, which I understand he has not had time to do yet, he will find in other parts, for instance Regulation 10, that a date is given for the diabetic provisions to come into effect, in this case, 1966. This is quite normal. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is nothing sinister or misleading.
  Mr. Ross: I am sure that there is nothing sinister and it may be common form for the Government, but it is misleading for anyone to read that in all other respects the Regulations are to come into force when they do not come into force, because that relating to the change in diabetic fruit drinks does not come into force on 2nd June, 1965. I am talking about the Scottish Regulations.
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins: They are exactly the same.
  Mr. Ross: They are not exactly the same, and the hon. Gentleman knows it quite well. He has suggested that I have not read the Regulations. I can assure him that I have. I have nothing else to do but read these things. The Scottish Standing Committee has been in session every Tuesday and Thursday since November, but we find time to do our work. I do not see any Scottish Tories here, but I would be very surprised if I did. No doubt in a fort-
  358
  night there will be a Question on the Order Paper asking the Government whether we now have Regulations covering soft drinks. This will be just to show how fine a Government we have. This will be after someone in the Scottish Office has provided hon. Members opposite with a Question, but forgotten to say what the answer will be, or to explain what difficulty the Government have got themselves into.
  I should like some information about these two important matters. There has been not only this year's delay, but a further year's delay. Anyone who knows anything about diabetics knows that it is desirable that they should be protected very quickly and fully about what purports to be something specially made to meet their needs. Admittedly, there is a continuing Regulation until 1966 giving a description—according to the Parliamentary Secretary I have not read it, but, speaking from memory—dealing with the manufacture of these drinks for the use of diabetics.
  There is a stipulation about the size of the lettering, but why cannot the phrase "diabetic drink" be introduced before 1966? There may be some difficulty about vending machines, but I doubt it. Manufacturers would no doubt put up prices and make changes to enable them to collect the extra money involved. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has not gone forward with that.
  The Regulations surprise me. They appear to give something, but in fact they do not. One Regulation says that no soft drink shall contain any acid. That is fine, but it then goes on to say that
  "any soft drink may contain ascorbic acid, citric acid, lactic acid, malic acid, nicotinic acid, tartaric acid, and any acid inasmuch as the use of that acid in that soft drink is permitted by the Preservatives in Food (Scotland) Regulations, 1962, or the Colouring Matter in Food (Scotland) Regulations, 1957."
  Could there be any more misleading way of doing things than to start by saying that no fruit drink shall contain acid, and then to provide that it may contain the various acids to which I have referred? I think that Departments sometimes go out of their way to deceive. These Regulations are bulky and one's eyes are tired by the time one gets to

  359
  page 5. One assumes that the point about the addition of acids to soft drinks is covered, but there is considerable confusion.
  Sugar is not really sugar at all. It can be sugar added. Sugar means any soluble carbohydrate sweetening matter. Can the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland give us a list of what is included in that term? According to the Regulations, "sweetened" means
  "containing any added sugar or added polyhydric alcohol or any permitted artificial sweetener."
  To safeguard the public with regard to the composition and content of these fruit drinks, the label must bear a declaration of what is in the container, such as "x added" or "contains x" or "x and sugar added" or "sugar and x added", and so on, and the Regulation goes on to say that
  "the declaration shall be completed by inserting at 'x' the words 'permitted artificial sweetener' or "—
  they are given the option—
  "the name of the permitted artificial sweetener which has been added to such soft drink".
  The Schedule sets out the permitted artificial sweeteners. I am not given to gambling and betting. In fact, I tend to frown on such practices, but I do not think that many manufacturers who are given the alternative of putting in sugar plus an artificial sweetener, or using the actual name of the artificial sweetener, will write in such names as 4—sulpha-moylbenzoates, saccharin sodium, cyclohexylsulphamic acid, and all the others. There is then a full description of all these things such as ash, sulphate, and the rest.
  Why was it that the Government set out to try to tell purchasers of these drinks what they were drinking and then said that they could not ask the manufacturers to provide such an indication because the public would not purchase the drinks if they knew what was in them? We are now provided with a new formula, under which we have a list of so-called artificial sweeteners, and we are told that what we would regard as sugar need not be sugar, according to the definition, and that there will be permitted artificial sweeteners.
  This is not good enough, taking into account the facts which my hon. Friend
  360
  produced in relation to the often quite tenuous connection which fruit has with soft drinks, quite apart from the 25 per cent. about which the Minister held forth on the question of squash. There is definitely a question of the public's being misled.
  Apparently the Government are to take this matter seriously in 1965 or 1966; so much so that one Regulation deals entirely with penalties. The Government will ensure that if these Regulations are contravened the person who so contravenes them will be dealt with. But I warn all Scots that once again the Government are being unjust to Scotland. The Regulations for England and Wales provide that
  "If any person contravenes or fails to comply with any of the foregoing provisions of these regulations he shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both, and, in the case of a continuing offence, to a further fine not exceeding five pounds …"
  The Scottish Regulations provide for the same fine—not exceeding £100—but for a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months. It appears that either we look on money as being cheaper in Scotland, or we regard these offences much more seriously.
  The Minister chided me, saying that the Regulations for both countries were the same. He seemed to suggest that I had not studied them a great deal. I can assure him that I have studied this point. I am surprised that he did not mention it, because I drew attention to it when we last discussed similar Regulations. The fact is there, and I want the Under-Secretary—junior though he may be in that tripartite office—to tell us exactly why there should be this difference. If the idea is that there shall be parity of treatment in England in respect of the gravity of an offence, I would remind him that even today we were dealing with a Bill about malicious damage, and that we might have been able to provide in that Measure for increased penalties for this kind of offence. The Minister of Agriculture might have used the legislation for this purpose.
  The Parliamentary Secretary may say that the two countries are governed by different Acts, and that Scotland has more recently overhauled its criminal justice legislation and has brought certain

  361
  penalties up to date. But it is surely unsatisfactory when manufacturers who supply the same materials to both England and Scotland should be subject to greater penalties in Scotland than in England if they offend against the Regulations.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. A. Stodart): I am sure that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) will remember that we did—if my memory serves me correctly—discuss this matter on Regulations relating to meat contents just after the New Year, when he had explained to him, I think, that although at first sight it does look as though the penalties in Scotland are more severe the net result probably comes to the same effect in the end, because it is the practice in Scotland to treat several related contraventions as part of a single complaint or charge which attracts a single penalty.
  Under Scottish law several contraventions can be taken together and one penalty imposed, if that is so decided by the court, whereas in England and Wales such contraventions are treated as separate charges, each attracting a separate but similar penalty. Therefore, I think that at the end of the day the net result is almost certainly the same.
  Mr. Ross: Whatever else it may be, the net result will not be exactly the same. I do not think there is any doubt at all about that, when we bear in mind that in England and Wales the fine shall not exceed £5 for each day during which the offence continues after conviction, whereas in Scotland it is a further fine not exceeding £10 for each day during which the offence is continued. The permitted maximum in Scotland is double what it is in England and Wales. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would stop juggling with words about this kind of matter. Whether the basis is a single offence or group of offences taken together, if there is a continuing offence,
  362
  that is, one offence continuing per day, then there is a different penalty for it.
  This is something which ought to be sorted out. It may be that for food and drugs it is wrong to have different standards applying. I should be the very last person to say this, because I remember very well that when we were considering the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Bill we had at that time a Secretary of State for Scotland who was prepared to listen to pleas which were made about it, and we got a better Act. One of the great arguments was whether local authorities should be able to register and license restaurants and eating premises. This was taken out of the English Bill, but the then Secretary of State for Scotland, who has gone to another place—not the one who most recently went there, but Lord Stuart of Findhorn—insisted that it stay in in Scotland.
  I think that we should try to get satisfactory legislation for this. When we are giving powers to Ministers we ask for far better regulations than these Regulations, regulations which are more comprehensible, regulations which meet the very considerable needs of this country to ensure that what we purchase bears some relation to the descriptions which are given of it and to the names. We have not gone all the way yet to satisfy the public need and the public interest in that respect. But these Regulations are better than nothing, and that is all we can say favourably tonight about them.
  Mr. Darling: Although we are very dissatisfied with the Regulations—and I am not sure that I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) that the best thing would be to let go so that we can try to knock them into shape later—in view of the fact that they are an improvement on the Regulations we had before, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  COMMERCIAL ROAD VEHICLES (SAFETY REGULATIONS)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pym.]
  10.35 p.m.
  Mr. W. T. Rodgers: I am very grateful for the opportunity of raising on the Adjournment the question of the enforcement of goods vehicles licence regulations, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport is as grateful to me as I am to you, Mr. Speaker, because this seems to me to be a subject which has been proved to be too substantial to be usefully pursued in Questions but might be regarded as peripheral to a major debate on transport policy.
  Since I indicated my wish to raise this matter on the Adjournment, we had yesterday a statement by the Minister of Transport about roadside spot checks of heavy goods vehicles. I should like to congratulate the Minister on having sensitive antennae, and I would like to believe that this was because of the powerful advocacy which he knew would be exercised this evening in persuading him to take action. Whatever the Minister may have promised to do, there is certainly no indication that it is adequate to deal with the problem as I see it. In any case, I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will say a little more in expansion of yesterday's statement.
  I was particularly struck by one phrase used by the Minister when he said
  "that a lunatic fringe of operators fail to maintain their vehicles."
  As I hope I shall show, and as I think the Parliamentary Secretary will know, this is a very big fringe indeed, and that is why the problem is so serious and why it should be looked into.
  I am not concerned with the overall question of the enforcement of "A", "B" and "C" licences. Nor am I concerned this evening with the overloading of goods vehicles; this is most important but, as I understand it, this
  364
  is really a question for the local authorities' weights and measures inspectors. I am mainly concerned with excessive hours of work and with maintenance. I am concerned for two different reasons—first, the most obvious one of public safety, and secondly, because of the need for fair competition. This is a problem which has caused a good deal of public attention lately.
  I refer, for example, to an article in The Times of 5th November last, the title of which—"Lorry driver was happy to pay a £10 fine"—tells part of the story. Another article in the same newspaper of 11th February was entitled: "Motorway Cowboys Need Curbing."
  There was also a rather interesting B.B.C. "Panorama" programme recently, and I should like to refer to one or two of the things which were said in the course of that programme because they indicate the nature of the problem. The programe dealt with checks on road vehicles, and I should like to quote from a transcript of it:
  "In two hours here Ministry of Transport inspectors pulled 67 lorries into the side of the road. Their inspection of this random harvest revealed that more than half of them were defective. Two of them were considered too dangerous to travel another yard."
  In the same programme, when a lorry driver was asked what happened when he declined to take out a vehicle which he thought was inadequately maintained, he replied:
  "I got my cards the same night."
  Later the commentator said:
  "In a savagely competitive industry it's the honest driver and operator who are being hardest hit by undercutting, overloading, and drivers working longer than is safe."
  That gives a fair picture of the position and of the great public concern about it.
  This problem has been mentioned in evidence presented to the Geddes Committee. In particular, I would refer to the evidence presented by the T.U.C. where, among other things, they say:
  "There is extensive evidence that the regulations governing hours of work, period of rest and maintenance of vehicles are widely disregarded. This is mainly because of the intense competition and rate cutting which is still going on despite the efforts of the more responsible type of haulier to prevent it."
  I hope that the fact that the Geddes Committee is sitting will not be used as

  365
  an excuse for inaction. In recent years the Minister of Transport has established a number of Committees. We have had Beeching, Hall, Buchanan, and Smeed. Each has from time to time been used as an excuse for postponing taking action.
  I am not concerned with the overall question of what the licensing system should be, so whatever the Geddes Committee might recommend and whatever the Government of the day, enforcement will remain a problem. I want to refer to the annual reports of the various licensing authorities, particularly those covering 1962–63. I hope that the Minister will undertake to look at the form in which these reports are presented to discover whether it would be possible to have more comparable data in future. Each of the licensing authorities presents its report in a different way. The Northern Traffic Authority, for example, finds space for 20 headings, Yorkshire for five and the North Western four, but un-numbered. It is difficult to compare one report with another. One has a large number of paragraphs thanking people who helped him when he was a licensing authority because he is due to retire.
  It must be remembered that these are serious documents. Indeed, in many respects they are the basic documents available for a study of the ways in which the present licensing system works. Without saying precisely what can be done, I hope that the Minister will look at the form of these reports and try to find a way of improving them in future.
  Despite this, and despite the lack of comparable data—including the lack of information and statistics about persistent offenders, about which I asked a supplementary question in the House recently—together with the lack of information about the penalties that have been imposed, I want to look in more detail at these reports to see what they tell us about whether or not the present standards of maintenance are adequate.
  The Report of the North-Western Traffic Area stated:
  "The continued high percentage of defective vehicles indicates that there is no noticeable improvement in the standard of vehicle maintenance …"
  366
  The West Midland Traffic Area stated in its Report:
  "… offences relating to hours and records show no signs of decreasing."
  The Report of the East Midland Traffic Area stated:
  "The fact that 1 in 4 goods vehicles are still found to be sufficiently defective to warrant prohibition leaves no room for complacency".
  Meanwhile, the Report of the Metropolitan Traffic Area stated:
  "…five years ago … I reported that 12,160 goods vehicle inspections had been carried out and that the general run of examinations revealed that 10·1 per cent. were defective to the point of prohibition."
  The Report stated that 33 per cent. of vehicles had been found defective to the point of prohibition in the period under review. Thus the percentage of defective vehicles is increasing.
  On several occasions my hon. Friends and I have pressed the Minister to say where there are adequate inspectors to do this checking. We have been led to believe that there are sufficient. But considering these reports and the evidence available, one sees that the authorities concerned are unanimous in complaining that they cannot do their job properly because they do not have sufficient staff. Either the Minister has been right in the past—in which case the licensing authorities are not telling the whole truth—or the authorities have been right, and the Minister has been concealing something from us. But these reports of the licensing authorities are a powerful indictment of the lack of enforcement and the failure of enforcement to achieve its purpose.
  To summarise, of the total vehicles on the roads only one in 15 has been examined this year, and of that number about one-third have been found defective—33,903 defective vehicles out of 97,067. That seems to me to be a serious position. I would particularly like the Parliamentary Secretary to say something more about the spot checks which will take place and to make clear whether these can be conducted by the inspectors of whether the inspectors will require police assistance in the stopping of vehicles. Secondly, will the hon. Gentleman say something about the effort to recruit further enforcement officers? I understand that their pay

  367
  varies from £913 to £1,532. Does the hon. Gentleman regard these rates as adequate remuneration for people who are charged with these heavy responsibilities?
  Thirdly, could the hon. Gentleman say, particularly in relation to hours of work, whether the examiners are free to inspect the wage sheets as well as log sheets? This would be one way of making sure that drivers are not working overtime, because we know that these figures can be concealed in other ways. It is often said that the penalties imposed are regarded as normal business expenses. Does the hon. Gentleman take that view? If he does, can anything be done to emphasise the importance of causing penalties to be imposed which produce the results intended? Are steps taken to publicise those penalties which are adequate and severe enough in the hope that some operators will regard it as worth while keeping within the law?
  In the present circumstances, if each of the inspectors that we have tested 10 vehicles a day for seven days a week it would take three years to test the whole of the goods vehicle fleet, by which time a further 150,000 vehicles would be coming on the road. In the "Panorama" broadcast to which I referred one of the drivers commented at the end on the position as he saw it. It seemed to me to be a fair commentary on the position as it seems to be. He was asked whether anything could be done about pirate operators. He said that it was a hard point to answer and added:
  "I mean it's gone on and gone on and I suppose it will go on, no matter what we say and what we don't say. It will still carry on."
  Is that the Parliamentary Secretary's view? If it is not, what is going to be done about this serious problem?
  10.49 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): On the face of it, tonight's debate should be rather narrow in scope, because goods vehicle licensing regulations in the strict sense are concerned only with minor matters, such as the procedures and forms to be used in applying for carriers' licences, the fees to be paid, and so on. It has never been suggested, as far as I know, that
  368
  the enforcement of these regulations set major problems. As I expected, the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. W. T. Rodgers) is not really concerned with the procedural details but is concerned with the wider matters involving the enforcement of much of the Road Traffic Act and the subordinate regulations as they affect goods vehicles. I think that I can say that the theme of the hon. Member's speech was safety in the operation of commercial vehicles. I am glad that he has raised the matter tonight and given me the opportunity of saying something about it. It is a subject in which the public are considerably interested.
  I admit at once that the enforcement of safety sets us difficult problems. This is at least partly because in matters of safety, where safety of life and limb is concerned, one can never be fully satisfied with anything less than the highest standards. Nevertheless, it is necessary to maintain a sense of proportion, and I should like to repeat, as has been pointed out on a number of previous occasions, that goods vehicles over 1½ tons in weight have less accidents per mile than any other class of vehicle on the road. Whatever, therefore, may be the defects of some goods vehicles, or the misbehaviour of some of their drivers, as a class they achieve better results, from the point of view of safety, than anyone else, even including private cars. Statistics show that the average heavy goods vehicle travels between 300,000 and 400,000 miles without being involved in an accident.
  That is a good record, but it gives no ground for complacency. There are some owners who misuse their vehicles, and there are some drivers who exceed their hours. Our task must be to find out these people and make them adopt the high standard of the rest of the industry, and so improve the accident record still further. In this task, what is often forgotten is that there are agencies other than the licensing authorities which are doing a good job.
  First and foremost, there are the police. They have the responsibility for enforcing, for example, the general traffic laws, checking speeding and preventing dangerous driving—two of the most fertile causes of accidents. Then there are the highway authorities, which

  369
  also have an important part to play in regulating the safe use of commercial vehicles. For, as the law is at present drafted, it is mainly their responsibility to check overloading. I know that the hon. Gentleman did not want to spend much time on that aspect, so I will not do so, either, but I must say that normally, the highway authorities appoint their inspectors of weights and measures to do this for them.
  I should, perhaps, say that, contrary to the impression gained from an article in The Times of 5th November, 1963, it is wrong to suppose that a carrier can be convicted repeatedly for overloading and only suffer a nominal fine. Second offences—and I must say a word about fines in general—are subject to fines of up to £50, and a persistent offender could have his licence revoked under paragraph 1(b) of the Fourteenth Schedule to the Road Traffic Act, 1960, which is something that I am sure the licensing authorities and the highway authorities are alive to.
  In some cases, indeed, if there is a conspiracy between an employer and his men, for example, to breach the hours requirements, penalties may be much higher and, for some offences, driving licences may be forfeited. The fines imposed by magistrates vary widely, according to the circumstances of the case, from a few shillings to hundreds or even thousands of £s, and it is difficult to give an average that would be meaningful, but, undoubtedly they are a satisfactory deterrent—
  Mr. W. T. Rodgers: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that suspensions are very rare, as the report shows, and does he not feel that this instrument might be used more by licensing authorities in the case of very persistent offenders?
  Mr. Galbraith: If the hon. Gentleman will wait for a minute or two, I hope to deal with that point. It is an important point.
  There is another way of dealing with overloading which is, perhaps, not far round the corner. The hon. Member asked what we were doing. One thing is the new plating scheme which my right hon. Friend's Department will develop shortly and which has already been the subject of discussion with represen-
  370
  tatives of the industry. Not only will this make much closer control of overloading possible, but it will determine power-to-weight ratios for goods vehicles. It will also help to reduce one of the most irritating and dangerous features of motoring, namely, the lorry which goes uphill much too slowly for the rest of the traffic. I will not say more than that about overloading.
  A matter in which the hon. Member was particularly interested was driving for an excessive number of hours. As he said, there have been several recent articles in the Press on this subject. Public anxiety was highlighted by the multiple crashes on motorways in January. It was suggested in some quarters that the cause of those crashes was tiredness due to the drivers being too long at the wheel. As, however, my right hon. Friend pointed out, police investigation failed to find evidence that those lorry drivers had been driving for excessive hours. Undoubtedly, however, some drivers drive longer than they should.
  But to supervise every one of the 600 million journeys undertaken annually by goods vehicles is clearly out of the question for any inspectorate, whatever its size. Licensing authorities carry out this side of their duties of checking hours with the aid of non-technical traffic examiners, of whom there are about 140. Their number has been increased to keep in step with the growth of the number of commercial vehicles. They are not a specially recruited grade but are men with an aptitude for the work selected from other grades. At the levels at which they are paid, we have not found any lack of men willing and suitable to do the work.
  The hon. Member suggested that we should, perhaps, have more examiners. He will be glad to know that we are taking a fresh look at the whole problem and, clearly, would not wish to rule out the need for more traffic examiners. As I have said, however, the size of an inspectorate to cover every vehicle would be legion. The real problem, therefore, is to know how many we should regard as being enough. One idea which is sometimes mentioned for dealing with this problem of hours, and by which) am not very attracted, is the suggestion that special Government forms should be used. This shows a misunderstanding

  371
  of the checking procedure. The main method of enforcement is to watch vehicles on the road and then to check against a driver's records. If the two do not tally, an offence has clearly been committed and can be seen to have been committed.
  The hon. Member asked about traffic examiners and whether they should have acess to wages records as distinct from the statutory records of hours. The examiners do not have this access and it is a point which we are bearing in mind in our current studies of enforcement. It is not, however, clear that an extra power would in the end be very helpful, as there are various ways of disguising the reasons for extra payment to drivers. It is, however, a matter which we are considering.
  I turn now to the problem of vehicle maintenance. The licensing authorities have a staff of highly-qualified vehicle examiners to carry out inspections. They are specially recruited through the Civil Service Commissioners and they are trained automobile engineers of high standard. As the hon. Member said, these examiners have found a high proportion of the goods vehicles which they have inspected to be defective, and the licensing authorities have referred to this fact in their annual reports.
  Perhaps at this point I might take up the hon. Member's suggestion that those reports should be more highly standardised. The main statistical returns are, of course, in standard form. I am not clear what more could be done, but I will look at the matter again in the light of what the hon. Member has said. I must, however, point out, as, I am sure, the hon. Member will be aware, that these authorities are independent statutory bodies and it would clearly be wrong for my right hon. Friend to attempt to bind licensing authorities in detail as to what they may or may not say in their reports. I do not think that my right hon. Friend could prevent them from making the sort of remarks of which the hon. Member complained. These reports show that results vary in different parts of the country; but, on average, about one-third of the vehicles checked are found to have some defect, and 8 to 9 per cent. to have defects which render them potentially dangerous. It must be remembered that checks of this kind are usually arranged to catch the likely offender, so
  372
  these figures may not represent the state of the vehicle population as a whole. Nevertheless, they give no cause for satisfaction, and we have already taken action to try to put matters right.
  As I said, the vehicle examiner force has been increased, and, as my right hon. Friend announced yesterday, an intensive campaign of roadside spot checks is to be mounted during the summer months.
  The hon. Gentleman asked me to say a few words about this campaign. These spot checks will generally be carried out by inspection teams operating on every working day in each of the 12 traffic areas. There are also to be a series of two-day "blitzes" around large towns where co-ordinated teams will examine a high proportion of the heavy goods vehicles using the approach roads. The teams will serve prohibition notices on all unfit goods vehicles which they find. The essential purpose of serving these notices, of course, is to prevent the use of a vehicle in a dangerous condition. However, the sudden banning of an unfit vehicle may very well cause the owner a great deal of commercial inconvenience, so that it is also a useful weapon of enforcement.
  I should, perhaps, say that our primary aim in this campaign, as, indeed, in all enforcement, is not to punish bad behaviour but to deter it. For this reason, we are giving full and fair warning of our intentions and the areas which will be affected, including the large towns, and I have no doubt that this will lead to a very considerable improvement.
  Ultimately, of course, we aim to supplement, but not to supersede, roadside checks by regular annual testing of heavy goods vehicles on similar lines to the tests already applied to the older vehicles of unladen weight up to 30 cwts.
  Mr. Charles A. Howell: Will the teams have the right to stop vehicles on the road?
  Mr. Galbraith: No; it is necessary to have the co-operation of the police to do that. I am sorry I did not mention that, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me.
  It is not always realised that this scheme of annual testing covers light goods vehicles as well as private cars, and light vehicles constitute well over

  373
  half the goods vehicle fleet. Comprehensive testing of heavy vehicles requires special equipment and techniques beyond the scope of most existing test stations, so that it is not possible to extend the existing scheme as it stands. But even with things as they are, the traffic and vehicle examiners are a pretty formidable enforcement body. In numbers they equal the police force of a city such as Cardiff, and they exceed in number the total factory inspectorate of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour. They secure about 20,000 convictions a year, and they serve prohibitions on over 30,000 vehicles as well.
  As I have explained, the licensing authorities have power to revoke or suspend carrier licences, but they use these powers sparingly, partly because revoking a licence is a serious step affecting the livelihood, possibly, of both employer and employee, and partly because the Road Traffic Act restricts the use of revocation to cases involving repeated or serious offences. Last year, as the hon. Gentleman knows, there were 13 revocations and 19 suspensions. But
  374
  perhaps the main reason for not revoking is that the licensing authority often finds that for operators whose conduct is marginally bad a warning, with the threat of ultimately losing the licence, is enough to produce markedly improved behaviour.
  The hon. Gentleman did not wish to deal with the economic aspects of the licensing authorities' functions, so I shall say nothing about that. As he knows, the whole system is being surveyed by the Geddes Committee, and what will come out of that, nobody knows at present. One thing I can say—I want to say this very firmly—is that, though the future is uncertain, as always the licensing authorities are carrying out the enforcement procedure with the highest sense of public service.
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at five minutes past Eleven o'clock.

  FUNDS IN COURT (LEGISLATION)
  FUNDS IN COURT (LEGISLATION)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  National Savings
  National Savings
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Tenders (Nationalised Industries and Public Bodies)
  Tenders (Nationalised Industries and Public Bodies)
  Government Departments (Cost)
  Government Departments (Cost)
  Reports (Cost of Publication)
  Reports (Cost of Publication)
  Economic Situation
  Economic Situation
  Companies (Contributions to Political Parties)
  Companies (Contributions to Political Parties)
  Income Tax (Reliefs and Allowances)
  Income Tax (Reliefs and Allowances)
  Private Industry and Agriculture (Government Assistance)
  Private Industry and Agriculture (Government Assistance)
  Prices
  Prices
  Post Office Workers (Report)
  Post Office Workers (Report)
  Nationalised Industries (Financial Results)
  Nationalised Industries (Financial Results)
  Nationalised Industries (Interest Payments)
  Nationalised Industries (Interest Payments)
  Unestablished Civil Service
  Unestablished Civil Service
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Film "The Second City"
  Film "The Second City"
  Television Reception (Interference)
  Television Reception (Interference)
  Isle of Man
  Isle of Man
  West Country (Stage III Stations)
  West Country (Stage III Stations)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Kiosks, Belfast
  Kiosks, Belfast
  Development Plan
  Development Plan
  Subscriber Trunk Dialling
  Subscriber Trunk Dialling
POST OFFICE
  Services (Charges)
  Services (Charges)
HOUSING
  Batley
  Batley
  Slum Clearance, Manchester
  Slum Clearance, Manchester
  East Riding of Yorkshire
  East Riding of Yorkshire
  Council Houses
  Council Houses
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Sewerage Deodorising Apparatus
  Sewerage Deodorising Apparatus
  Guildhall, Column and Oddfellows Hall, Devonport (Restoration)
  Guildhall, Column and Oddfellows Hall, Devonport (Restoration)
  Lea Valley (Redevelopment)
  Lea Valley (Redevelopment)
  Tottenham Borough Council (Borrowings)
  Tottenham Borough Council (Borrowings)
  York and North Midlands General Review Area (Report)
  York and North Midlands General Review Area (Report)
  Rating Statistics
  Rating Statistics
  Refuse Collection
  Refuse Collection
MALTA
  Mr. Mintoff (Telegram)
  Mr. Mintoff (Telegram)
SWAZILAND
  Agricultural Development and Land Settlement
  Agricultural Development and Land Settlement
SOUTHERN RHODESIA
  Commonwealth Defence
  Commonwealth Defence
TANGANYIKA
  Aid
  Aid
PAKISTAN
  Storms, West Pakistan (Relief of Distress)
  Storms, West Pakistan (Relief of Distress)
MALDIVE ISLANDS
  1960 Agreement (Revision)
  1960 Agreement (Revision)
SOUTH ARABIAN PROTECTORATES
  Grants and Gifts
  Grants and Gifts
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Concessionary Postal Rates
  Concessionary Postal Rates
  Mauritians
  Mauritians
INDUSTRY, TRADE AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
  Export Credits (Indonesia)
  Export Credits (Indonesia)
  Pay-Television (Film Levy)
  Pay-Television (Film Levy)
  Non-Voting Shares
  Non-Voting Shares
MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  Aldergrove Civil Airport
  Aldergrove Civil Airport
  HONOURS (MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT)
  HONOURS (MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT)
  PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS (TRANSFER)
  PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS (TRANSFER)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  University of Strathclyde (Charter)
  University of Strathclyde (Charter)
  Colleges of Advanced Technology (Academic Staff)
  Colleges of Advanced Technology (Academic Staff)
CONGO
  United Nations Force
  United Nations Force
JAPAN
  Earthquake Disaster Relief (United Kingdom Donation)
  Earthquake Disaster Relief (United Kingdom Donation)
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Assistance
  Assistance
  Retirement Pensions and Benefits
  Retirement Pensions and Benefits
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Privately Operated Meters (Gas and Electricity Prices)
  Privately Operated Meters (Gas and Electricity Prices)
  Nuclear Power Stations
  Nuclear Power Stations
COAL
  Red Shale (Sale)
  Red Shale (Sale)
SCOTLAND
  Regional Crime Squads
  Regional Crime Squads
  Monkland Canal, Coatbridge
  Monkland Canal, Coatbridge
  Hospitals (Design and Operation)
  Hospitals (Design and Operation)
  Teachers
  Teachers

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

DOOR-TO-DOOR SALESMEN AND BLIND WORKERS' PRODUCTS
2.34 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that the Trading Representations (Disabled Persons) Act, 1958, has not prevented a considerable increase in the activities of door-to-door salesmen selling goods allegedly, and in most cases falsely, declared to be made or packed by the blind; and what action Her Majesty's Government will take to prevent this exploitation of blind persons and of the charitable public.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD NEWTON): My Lords, information is not available to show whether or not these activities have increased. On the other hand, the number of complaints to the Ministry of Labour in recent years about traders registered under the Act has not increased. Certain suggestions have been made for amending legislation, and these are under consideration by my right honourable friend's National Advisory Council on the Employment of the Disabled.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that encouraging reply, may I ask whether he is aware that all over the country newspapers carry stories of the exploitation complained of in the Question, with headlines such as "Salesmen profit at the expense of the blind" and "Beware these salesmen"; that the National League of the Blind has evidence that salesmen who exploit blind workers in this way are earning £30 a week, compared with the £9
84
which the blind workers get, including a considerable amount of augmentation? When, as a Private Member in another place, I introduced this Act, with Government support, Amendments had to be made which left this gap. Can the noble Lord say any more about when it is hoped that the Government may come forward with these proposals to strengthen present legislation?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot say what will be the outcome of the consideration which is going on. If the noble Lord, or anyone else, has evidence of undesirable activities by these traders, my right honourable friend will be glad to have it.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, while congratulating the noble Lord opposite, and his honourable friend Mr. Evans of the other place, on having introduced the Act which is referred to in his Question, and while noting that he himself now thinks that it is inadequate, may I ask Her Majesty's Government whether they believe that it is, in fact, inadequate—although not, perhaps, so bad as the noble Lord makes out? Not all sales at houses are phoney, but a great many are, and the Act wants strengthening. Can the Government hold out some hope that, if not in this Parliament, at any rate they will put it on the books so that a new Parliament will see it there and do something about it?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I take note of what my noble friend has said, and, of course, on a matter of this kind his views naturally deserve most careful consideration, and they will get it. I am afraid that I cannot tell him, or your Lordships, what is likely to be the outcome of the consideration which my right honourable friend's Advisory Council is now giving to the matter.
BARONESS SWANBOROUGH: My Lords, while considering this matter. can Her Majesty's Government also look into the fact that a great number of disabled ex-Servicemen representatives call at the door, things are bought in all good faith at a very high price, and they are then found not to represent the people whom they say they are representing? I have a good deal of experience of this in rural areas. Therefore, I think the two things ought to be considered at the same time.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her suggestion.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, is it not normally the case that these salesmen do in fact represent factories which employ disabled persons or blind persons and, to that extent, the representation is genuine, but that there are not many blind persons or disabled persons in the factory—perhaps only half a dozen—and therefore the truth is only a token in the representation? What is required is amending legislation to insist that, where a factory states that it employs disabled or blind workers, it does in fact employ enough of them to make the representation genuine.
LORD NEWTON: The suggestions for amending legislation which are being considered relate to the tightening up of the requirement for registration, which is what I think my noble friend has in mind.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, may I welcome the strictures which have been passed on my work by the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, and plead in aid that one has to get what one can, not necessarily what one knows is best. That is why the present Act has defects. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Newton, for his kind offer to look at these cases, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Swanborough, for pointing out that when people sell something worth only 2d. for 1s, all the disabled are thereby exploited.
A NOBLE LORD: Ask a question!
LORD STONHAM: I put it as a question.

LINCOLN RAIL SCHEME
2.37 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper. May I apologise for an error in the Question? It should read "Barnetby", not "Barnethy". The error is mine, not the printer's.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that British Railways Board, whilst submitting proposals to close the Lincoln—Grantham
86
branch line and the Mid-Lincolnshire (Peterborough to Grimsby) main line, are spending £250,000 at Barnethy and undisclosed sums elsewhere for the purpose of diverting an extra 40 freight trains a day to the line which has a level crossing in Lincoln High Street; and whether, in view of the high cost of the greatly increased traffic congestion that this would cause on the main road artery of the city centre, they will institute a public inquiry under Section 90 of the Transport Act, 1962, so that all relevant factors may be taken into consideration before final decisions are taken.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, changes the Railways Board make in the pattern of their freight services are a matter of railway management. My right honourable friend is not involved, since his approval is required only for the closure of lines or stations to passenger services. Such investment expenditure as may be authorised in the freight schemes to which the noble Lord refers will be justified on its merits, and not in relation to the proposed passenger closures. The hearing by the Transport Users Consultative Committee of objections to the passenger closures mentioned by the noble Lord has not yet taken place. When the proposals come to my right honourable friend for decision all factors relevant to the closures will be taken into account. I see no need for any other inquiry.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, does this case not go far beyond the limits of an inquiry by the Transport Users' Consultative Committee? Is the noble Lord not aware that already the traffic position is quite chaotic, with many hours during the day when there are queues of vehicles hundreds of yards long at both level crossings? Further, it is anticipated that an hour and a half will be added to the delays by the addition of 40 freight trains going right across the main street of Lincoln. Surely that is something which is a matter for the Minister to consider. Is the noble Lord saying that his right honourable friend is quite powerless to intervene in a matter of this kind?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I am simply saying what I have frequently said in your Lordships' House, and I

87
think the noble Lord knows quite well what my right honourable friend's powers are under the Act. I am not trying to say that this question does not arise. I am sure the noble Lord would like to know that the Lincoln City Council, who are the highway authority for the crossing he mentions, are in touch with the Railways Board about the possible effects on road traffic of the rerouting of the freight routes. I have no doubt that they, as the responsible authorities, will do all they can to minimise the effects of the change, and my right honourable friend has instructed his divisional road engineer to be ready to give any help that he can in the discussions.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am most grateful for the information given in that second reply. But can the noble Lord now deal with that part of my Question which relates to a public hearing under Section 90 of the 1962 Act? May I remind him that that Act renews the provisions of the 1919 Act, which read—?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
LORD STONHAM: May I remind noble Lords of this?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
LORD STONHAM: May I, then, ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that under the provisions of any special Act the Minister of Transport is required or authorised to sanction, approve, confirm or determine any matter or thing, or to make any order for the purposes of the special Act, and he may order such inquiry as he thinks necessary? I am sure the noble Lord will agree that there are these powers, and surely this is the kind of case where they ought to be exercised in the form of a public inquiry so that everyone concerned may see what is being done and may make a contribution.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, on that question I am perfectly well aware of the Section 90 powers. In fact, the noble Lord will recall that we had a debate about the matter not so very long ago in this House. That power of inquiry, as the noble Lord knows, is a very general one; it is not specific. But may I also remind the noble Lord that in my original Answer I said that my right
88
honourable friend could not see any need for an inquiry under that section.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, then, if he will make representations to his right honourable friend in regard to this particular case? Would he ask him if he is aware that it is thought that, when these 40 freight trains are added, there will be times during the day when neither the railway nor the road traffic will be able to move; they will block each other.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I always hope that I shall be courteous to the noble Lord, and I will convey to my right honourable friend what he has said. If it should be that these things come about, then there are the discussions that I have already mentioned. The noble Lord will also wish to know that if it happened—which I admit it could—that there were 40 extra trains, it would be regarded as a temporary imposition, because in due course rationalisation, and the disappearance of other unremunerative services, would bring the traffic back to the present level.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, instead of waiting until it happens, could we not stop it happening? Would that not be the sensible course?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I do not think I can add anything to what I have already said.

DISMANTLING OF NORFOLK RAILWAY BUILDINGS
2.47 p.m.
LORD WISE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have been informed that passenger buildings at certain stations between Norwich and East Dereham have recently been dismantled; and, if so, whether they will state the reason for this, as no proposals have yet been published for the closure of these stations.]
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport was not informed, nor is there any reason why he should have been.

89
This is a matter of management for which the British Railways Board are responsible. If it is any consolation to the noble Lord, however, I can assure him that the railways have no ulterior motives of the kind that might perhaps be inferred from what he says in the last part of his Question.
LORD WISE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, may I point out that I am not concerned so much with the buildings as with the comfort of the passengers who use the railways? Is the noble Lord aware that at the present time some platform buildings are completely missing? There is no accommodation at all for passengers who have to stand out and wait for trains, in sunshine, rain, hail or whatever the weather may be.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, as I said, and as the noble Lord knows, this is a matter of management. But I am anxious to help the noble Lord if I can. I have made some inquiries about this matter, and the Board have let me know that they have adjudged the buildings they are removing—which are separate units, so to speak, and do not affect anything else—as being surplus to traffic requirements on that line. They are being removed in the interests of economies. which I should have thought would have been to the benefit of the future of the line, and of which I should have thought the noble Lord would approve in principle.
LORD WISE: My Lords, I do not approve, because I am concerned with the comfort of the passengers. While there are no buildings on one platform in these particular stations, there is no accommodation whatever for passengers; and the fare-paying passengers in rural districts are just as entitled to comfort and consideration as any other railway passengers.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt, but I think your Lordships will agree that we are in danger of making our questions into a series of statements. It is the custom in your Lordships' House, that when a Question is asked we stick strictly to the rule that a supplementary question is a question and not a statement.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, is it not better to have an unmanned station with no buildings, than no railway at all?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, could the noble Lord put this point to the Railways Board? It may well be that these buildings were old and that maintenance would have been expensive. But would it not be possible to provide some form of shelter, not unlike that which the bus companies provide, even in the most rural districts? I should have thought it was not unreasonable for the Minister to make that point to the Railways Board for the comfort of the passengers.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I am quite sure that the Railways Board will take note of what the noble Lord has said, but I can only say what I have been told by them, that in each case there is accommodation on the other platform, and that the Board, having considered all the aspects of the problem, have thought it a reasonable thing to do.

NORFOLK ROAD IMPROVEMENTS AND RAIL CLOSURE
2.50 p.m.
LORD WISE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will state the approximate cost of the necessary widening and other improvements required to make the roads in the areas of Walsingham and Mitford and Launditch Rural District Councils respectively suitable and safe or future heavy road transport; and whether this necessary work will be commenced and carried out before the railways in these areas are closed completely.]
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, improvements to the roads in this area have recently been completed by the Norfolk County Council at an estimated cost of £50,000. When the widening at East Barsham which is now in progress has been completed, the roads generally will be adequate for the traffic they will have to carry. These works would have been necessary whether or not the Dereham—Wells line were closed.
LORD WISE: While thanking the noble Lord for that particular Answer, may I ask him whether he is aware that the roads around the line to be closed, from Wells to East Dereham, are totally inadequate for heavy traffic; that the throwing of heavy traffic on to those roads, which are all class "B" roads and sometimes not fifteen feet across, is liable to make them dangerous; and that we shall have more accidents in that particular area than we are getting at present?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I was aware of the state of the roads around there, which is what prompted the words I used in my Answer and the information which I gave to the noble Lord. The narrow places he has in mind have been and are being widened out, and the assessment is that when the line closes the roads will be adequate for the extra traffic which will be put upon them.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, does that mean that the railway line will not be closed until the road widening schemes to which the noble Lord has referred are completed?
LORD CHESHAM: Without calculating out the date, I understand that the widening scheme that I mentioned is due to be completed in the fairly near future.

PORT OF LONDON BILL
Read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.

HORTICULTURE IMPROVEMENT SCHEME, 1964
2.53 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (LORD ST. OSWALD): My Lords, I beg to move that the Horticulture Improvement Scheme, 1964, a draft of which was laid before the House on May 13, be agreed. If your Lordships agree, it might be convenient if we discussed at the same time the Small Horticultural Production Business Scheme, 1964, which comes next on the Order Paper. Noble Lords will recollect that, among
92
other things, the Agriculture and Horticulture Act increased from £8 million to £24 million the total sum of money made available by the Horticulture Act, 1960, for grants to growers and their marketing co-operatives. It widened the range of a co-operative's activities which may be eligible for grant under Section 1 of the 1960 Act, and postponed the closing date for applications for grants from April, 1965, as it was under the 1960 Act, to April, 1974. We were also given powers to introduce a Scheme to make grants to persons carrying on small horticultural production businesses.
The two Schemes now before the House implement these sections of the Agriculture and Horticulture Act. They have a number of features in common: for example, the two Schemes define "eligible land" in the same way; and the definition in the second Scheme of a small horticultural production business is based on that of a horticultural production business in the first. It is inevitable that two Schemes so closely related should bear a marked family resemblance to one another.
Before I go on to deal with the detailed provisions of these Schemes, I should like to mention particularly one important feature of both, which we debated at some length during the passage of the Bill. This is the minimum acreage. It has never been our intention, either in 1960 or now, to make grants for improving part-time businesses. On this, the Government and the Farmers' Unions have always been agreed. The 1960 Scheme, therefore, set a minimum of four "adjusted" acres, below which it was thought that there would be very few horticultural businesses providing a full-time occupation for one man. The House will remember that, during the passage of the recent Act, a number of noble Lords expressed concern as to whether this was a satisfactory test.
It was feared that a considerable number of viable holdings would be excluded by a minimum of four "adjusted" acres. As I then told the House, we were consulting the Farmers' Unions to see if any better test could be devised. We discussed with them possible alternatives, such as assessments of gross or net income, or of

93
standard man-days, but both the N.F.U. and ourselves became convinced that there were insuperable objections to them all—and we remain so convinced. The Farmers' Unions are fully satisfied that the right course is to keep the 4-acre limit for both Schemes.
We have, however, been able to make two changes in the rules of the existing Horticulture Improvement Scheme which will help some growers on very small acreages to qualify under either Scheme. First, we have found it possible to increase the weighting, in calculating the eligible acreage, of land under lights and cloches and of watercress beds. The House will see that paragraph 3, subparagraph (2), of the draft Horticulture Improvement Scheme and paragraph 2, sub-paragraph (4), of the draft Small Horticultural Production Business Scheme both provide that land cultivated in these ways will count for six times its actual area instead of four times as under the 1960 Scheme. Land under glasshouses will continue to count for twenty times its actual area. Secondly, on technical advice we have relaxed the conditions of eligibility for land on which vegetables are grown in the open. To be eligible, such land must be used intensively; and this was interpreted in the 1960 Scheme as meaning that at least one-half the land must be double-cropped. We are now satisfied that it is sufficient for one-third of the land to be double-cropped. Both these changes will make it easier for some growers to fulfil the minimum conditions of the Scheme.
I will deal separately, in brief detail, with the two draft Schemes. The Horticulture Improvement Scheme, 1964, is in outline similar to the 1960 Horticulture Improvement Scheme. The more noticeable changes are in the Schedule of equipment eligible for grant. We have retained all the items which are eligible for grant under the 1960 Horticulture Improvement Scheme, but we have also added very considerably to the range of equipment, especially on the production side. In general, our principle has been that only worthwhile specialist equipment which is not quickly expendable or easily diverted to some other use should be included in the Schedule. These new facilities are very extensive indeed. Paragraph 1, for example, provides for the
94
replacement, reconstruction and improvement of glasshouses, mushroom and rhubarb sheds; paragraph 4 for the installation, as well as the improvement, went, of heating systems; paragraph 8 for watercress beds. Paragraphs 9 and 10 break fresh ground in offering a very wide range of equipment and machinery for production. There are also a number of additions to Part II of the Schedule; and Part III is extended to provide for facilities for conducting markets.
I turn now to the second draft Scheme, the Small Horticultural Production Business Scheme, 1964. The minimum condition of eligibility is the same as for the Horticulture Improvement Scheme—four "adjusted" acres. The upper limit is set by paragraph 2, sub-paragraph (3), of the Scheme. This provides that there must not be more than fifteen "adjusted" eligible acres, and that the total area, including any land used for farming, is not more than 30 statute acres. This latter provision is designed to exclude the business which is primarily concerned with farming.
The second major difference between this Scheme and the Horticulture Improvement Scheme is that the business grant will not be tied to specific expenditure by the grower, such as the purchase of particular items of equipment. Under this Scheme the grower will have to undertake to carry out an approved programme to increase the efficiency of his business. Paragraph 3 of the draft Scheme provides that grant is to be at the rate of £50 per "adjusted" acre, up to a maximum of £500, and that the grant will be payable in four equal instalments; two in the first year of the approved programme, and the other two at the end of the second and third years. The grower will be able to use this money as he thinks fit—provided, of course, that he carries out the approved programme or that he obtains prior approval to any change that he wants to make in it. The grant is designed to make it easier for a small man to reorganise his business by helping him over the period of reorganisation.
I hope that I have been able to show that the Government are doing what we undertook to do. In preparing these proposals we have worked closely with the representatives of the industry and I should like to pay tribute to the ready co-operation that we have had from

95
them. I commend these two draft Schemes to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Horticulture Improvement Scheme 1964, laid before the House on 13th May last, be approved.—(Lord St. Oswald.)
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, we should like to express our gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, for his clear exposition of these two Orders and, indeed, for the negotiations which have gone on since the Bill became an Act, and also for the improvements made, particularly those which favour the interpretation of the four adjusted acres on behalf of the watercress growers. We are aware that the noble Lord has discussed with the National Farmers' Union the possibility of meeting some of our other objections, in order to bring more small horticultural business into this Scheme, and we accept that it has not been found possible to do so.
While we are grateful for those points, and warmly welcome the considerable extensions of the various types of machinery and equipment which can now become grant-aided under the Order we are now discussing, we regret that it was not found possible to include in the Schedules the pre-packaging equipment, lists of which the noble Lord may recall asking me to submit for consideration and which he was kind enough to inform me by letter could not be included. We welcome the fact that the definition of grading machines has been adjusted so that, instead of aid being confined to machines for grading by weight and size, it will be possible, when they become available, for machines for grading by colour or quality to be grant-aided. That is forward-looking and helpful.
We cannot, however, accept as a valid reason for excluding these other items or machines from the Schedules the fact that they are easily disposed of (I am not using the noble Lord's actual words), because here the noble Lord's Department is in conflict with other Government Departments which do grant-aid furniture and equipment of various kinds which is easily disposed of. They safeguard their position—the Ministry of Education, for one, in regard to youth clubs—by having a contract which
96
ensures that those goods cannot be disposed of without the consent of the Minister. That would have safeguarded the position in this case.
I would point out to the noble Lord that the present Order is wholly inconsistent with the principle he has put forward, of excluding from the grant types of equipment which are easily disposable and can be used in other industries. For example, if the noble Lord will look at Part II, paragraph 19, Groups (iii) and (v) he will see there mention of sorting tables, return flow tables, packing tables, automatic loaders and mercury switches, all of which are to be grant-aided, yet can be used in a wide range of industries. It is also difficult to understand how, while properly agreeing that box fillers should be grant-aided, bag fillers are "beyond the pale" and cannot be grant-aided. That seems an extraordinary decision. Then again, in the case of new producer co-operatives the noble Lord's Department have very properly agreed that their office equipment, furniture, and even, in one case, their lawnmower, shall be grant-aided. Yet all these things—though we do not object to their inclusion—are easily disposable. So the noble Lord has not been in any way consistent. We consider that the development of pre-packaging is of vital importance to the future of horticulture, and we therefore regret that the noble Lord has not seen fit to help this section of the industry on this occasion. We only hope that next year there will be an opportunity to put this right.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SMALL HORTICULTURAL PRODUCTION BUSINESS SCHEME 1964
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be approved.
Moved, That the Draft Small Horticultural Production Business Scheme 1964, laid before the House on 13th May last, be approved.—(Lord St. Oswald.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

FERTILISERS (UNITED KINGDOM) SCHEME, 1964
3.7 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I beg to move that the Draft Fertilisers

97
(United Kingdom) Scheme, 1964, a copy of which was laid before Parliament on May 7, be approved. In its general character this Scheme is similar to those of past years; and as in the last three or four Schemes the major point of change is a reduction in the rate of subsidy, following an Annual Review determination.
This year the Government decided to reduce the annual fertiliser subsidy bill by £2 million. This is about 6 per cent. of the present subsidy, and, applying this percentage to nitrogen and phosphates, we propose reducing the rate for nitrogen by 5d. a unit; for water soluble phosphoric acid by 4d.; for insoluble phosphoric acid by 2d. and for the higher grades of basic slag by 3d. The percentage reduction for lower grades of basic slag ranges has been heavier—as much as 10 per cent. In arriving at these various figures we have tried, so far as possible, to arrange that the principal straight fertilisers should all remain subsidised at about the same percentage of their cost to the farmer.
Leaving aside these changes in rates of contribution, there are four alterations in this Order, as compared with last year's Scheme, to which I should draw your Lordships' attention. Two of them concern minor matters in the arithmetic of computing the amount of subsidy due on a claim. In paragraph 6(1) we are taking powers to disregard anything less than a quarter of a hundredweight in assessing a claim. Any claims involving a fraction of 28 lb. have to be taken out of the mechanised payment system and computed by clerks, at a disproportionate expense compared with the small amounts of subsidy involved in them. In the Schedule to the Order we are similarly taking powers to calculate subsidy only to the first place of decimals by the weight of nutrient involved. Hitherto, we have calculated to two places. We can use the space thus saved for punching other information needed for verifying claims into the cards which are the basis of a mechanised payments system. Both changes have only trivial effects on the calculation of subsidy in a transaction.
In paragraph 5 we are making two changes. The first is to reduce the period in which applications must be put in by farmers from six months to three
98
months from date of delivery. Experience has shown that well over 90 per cent. of applications are made within three months already, and most of the balance within the following month. To enable our verification systems, and particularly field officer visits, to work as effectively as possible, we want to see all applications made within the three-month period. Moreover, linked with this, and to enable field officer visits to be made with most expedition, we are now also requiring farmers to send their applications direct to our divisional office, instead of to their merchants, for onward transmission to the Department as hitherto. This again will tend to reduce the interval between delivery date and the time we first learn about a transaction. I should like to assure your Lordships that both this reduction in the period for an application and the rerouting procedure are being well publicised.
Finally, in paragraph 3 we are proposing to disqualify fertilisers to which aldrin or dieldrin has been added from benefits of the 1964 Scheme. The Government have already announced their decision to give effect to the recommendations contained in the Report of the Advisory Committee on Poisonous Substances used in Agriculture and Food Storage on the persistent organochlorine pesticides. One of the Committee's recommendations was that the use of aldrin and dieldrin in fertiliser mixtures should be discontinued as soon as this could be arranged. Withdrawal of subsidy from fertilisers to which aldrin and dieldrin has been added before purchase will support the voluntary action proposed by the Government to which manufacturers have already agreed.
The Motion before the House seeks the approval to the Draft 1964 Fertiliser Subsidy Scheme. As I have explained, it contains a number of changes from the Schemes which have operated in previous years. The main purpose of the Draft Scheme is, however, to allow the fertiliser subsidy to be continued for another year, and I hope that it will have the approval of the House.
Moved, That the Draft Fertilisers (United Kingdom) Scheme 1964, laid before the House on May 7 last, be approved.—(Lord St. Oswald.)
LORD WISE: My Lords, I must thank the Minister for his full explanation of this Order. So far as we on this side of the House are concerned, we approve it, as year by year in the past we have approved the fertiliser Orders which have been put forward for consideration. This Order carries on the useful work which was started in the past and assists in the national food production efforts. For that reason, we commend it.
There are one or two figures which may interest your Lordships in regard to the fertilisers consumed on our farms. According to the White Paper which was issued some time ago, the cost of fertilisers to farmers in 1962–63 amounted to £108½ million, and for 1963–64 the forecast of expenditure is £119 million. which is an increase of £10½ million. The cost to the farmers from the merchants is, I believe, the same, and is likely to be the same, as in past years, so that it is obvious from these figures that the use of fertilisers in farming is extending. The expenditure of £119 million by farmers on fertilisers is no less than 8·6 per cent. of the total expenditure on farming—that is, about one-twelfth of the expenditure, It is useful to notice that the subsidies for fertilisers have increased year by year from £14·8 million in 1955–56 to last year, when they were slightly less than they are likely to be in the year ahead, when they will be £35 million.
I should like to say a word about the reduction of £2 million in the subsidy. I wonder whether the Minister could tell us if this amount is based on last year's tonnage or on the forecast for the 1964–65 tonnage. If it is based on last year's tonnage, then it will probably be more than £2 million in the year into which we are entering. This loss, whatever it may be, is suffered by the farmers themselves, and I was wondering whether we could not devise some system whereby the loss could be divided between the manufacturers and the consumers. That seems to me to be more equitable, because the price to the manufacturers will be the same, so that the loss to the farming community in their purchases, by way of loss of subsidy, will be £2 million or more.
The Minister referred to the alteration of the period. I am wondering whether it would be right to conclude that the advantages of mechanisation which is
100
now being instituted will save any additional cost in collecting the claims over a period of three months instead of over a period of six months. We approve the Order and I hope that it will be received with satisfaction by the whole House.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, I want to ask the Minister a question, but I do not think that he will have the answer in his brief and I do not mind if he cannot answer it. Could he tell me the position of fertilisers containing a large quantity of lime? The lime scheme and the fertilisers scheme are independent schemes. How does one put in claims if using, for example, a fertiliser such as Nitra-Shell, which contains 34 per cent. calcium carbonate? I do not know whether my noble friend has the answer, but, if not, perhaps he will let me know later.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot put my finger on the answer to the technical question of my noble friend Lord Stonehaven, but, of course, as he suggests, I will let him know later. I am very grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Wise, for this Draft Scheme. He asked me if the £2 million reduction was based on last year's consumption or on this year's anticipated consumption. If I am wrong I will let him know, but I have assumed throughout that the calculations must be based on the calculated consumption for this year in order to reduce the bill by £2 million. I cannot see how else it could be done, but I did not do the calculations myself-the noble Lord will not be surprised to know that.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DRUGS (PREVENTION OF MISUSE) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

RIDING ESTABLISHMENTS BILL
3.19 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, in rising to move the Second Reading of this Bill, I should like, first of all, to give a short résumé of the reason why it is necessary.

101
The 1939 Act had, roughly, the same objectives. The trouble was that the 1939 Act was purely permissive and could not force local authorities to take any action. So it has been rather a failure. Also, the 1939 Act did not register riding establishments, and the local authorities often did not know where they were. The present Bill, once it gets on to the Statute Book, as I hope it will, will put bite and teeth into the law, which the 1939 Act did not do.
Before the war, the majority of people who rode horses came from the farming fraternity and the so-called leisured classes—rather a misnomer, I must say. Since they were country people, with a country background, one of the many things they were taught was horse management and the art of horsemanship. Livery stables were handed down from father to son, and to the average man who owned a riding school or livery stable in those days horses were second nature. To-day, things have changed. We no longer have our cavalry regiments, our yeomanry regiments and the excellent courses in horse management that the British Army used to teach us.
Since the war, there has been a great increase in the number of people wishing to take up riding. This is no doubt due largely to the hell on the roads, and also, I suppose, to the greater leisure that the average person now has. We find, for instance, that the membership of pony clubs has quadrupled since the war. It is also estimated that we now have 2,000 riding establishments, or schools, with 20,000 horses, catering for 100,000 weekly horsemen. Where the matter has changed is that a great number of these people now desiring to ride come from urban backgrounds—and all the more credit to them! It is an excellent thing. The trouble is that a considerable number of riding establishments have been started by people who come from an urban background and have no previous knowledge of horse management. I could almost say that it has almost become a question of "the blind leading the blind"; and the poor horse is the Aunt Sally.
This Bill is primarily designed to prevent suffering to horses in riding establishments, and, to a certain extent, to ensure that the customers of such establishments get a fair deal: that they are taught something, and that the horses they ride are
102
fit. The Bill has been through another place, under the capable hands of my honourable friend Sir Jocelyn Lucas, the Member for Portsmouth, South. It has the support of all horse authorities, including the British Horse Society, the Association of British Riding Schools, the Horses and Ponies Protection Society, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the R.S.P.C.A. All these organisations have done a great deal of groundwork on the Bill. Three years ago, the Horses and Ponies Protection Society published a survey made by Colonel Boultbee, who surveyed 1,200 riding establishments. The Report says that 30 per cent. of the establishments were in a deplorable condition, with the horses underfed and overworked, and that the people in charge had no knowledge of their job. The object of this Bill is to put that matter right. The Bill is also intended to be educational, because anybody desiring to start a riding school will have to learn about proper horse management, otherwise he will have his licence soon revoked.
If I may now turn to the Bill, your Lordships will see that Clause 1 has to do with the procedure of licensing. By subsection (2) a person must be over 18 before he or she can apply for a licence. Further, anyone who has been disqualified under any of the five Acts therein mentioned may not keep a riding school. On subsection (3) of Clause 1 I am afraid that we are in a little trouble, because the clause has not been drafted very well. As your Lordships see, that subsection requires that the local authority shall not reach a decision on an application for a licence
"unless they have received and considered a report by a veterinary surgeon—
and this is the important part—
"carried out by him within the period of twelve months immediately preceding the date on which the application is received …"
That does not make sense, because if someone initially applies for a licence the veterinary surgeon cannot have made art inspection in the twelve months preceding the date on which the application is made, because he would not know that the application was to be made. So when we come to the Committee stage, I shall put down an Amendment to put this right. The licence, as your Lordships see runs for twelve months; it has to be renewed every year, and it costs 10s.

103
By subsection (4) the local authority maintain their right to withhold a licence on any other ground. The vet, may say that it is perfectly all right to grant a licence, but the local authority retain their power to withhold a licence for any other reason—perhaps, that the site is on a bad corner or main road, or otherwise is badly situated, Subsection (4) also secures certain conditions of management. Perhaps I should draw your Lordships' attention to paragraph (b). Probably the word "shelter" is not very clear. It is rather an ambiguous word and, of course, can mean anything. For instance, the sort of shelter a New Forest pony or Highland pony would require would be quite different from the sort of shelter required by a blood horse. A New Forest pony would require only a tree or a shrub, whereas a blood horse, if it were out at certain times of the year, would require adequate housing. Probably the paragraph is saved by the word "adequate", because the veterinary surgeon has to decide whether the shelter is adequate.
Subsection (5) says that anybody who is refused a licence can apply to the local magistrates' court, and if the magistrates see fit they can issue a licence. Under subsection (8), if the owner of a riding establishment dies his representatives are allowed to have an extension of the licence for a year from the date of death, and if the deceased's estate is not then wound up they can have an extension.
Clause 2 deals with the inspection of riding establishments. The local authority do not have to rely upon their own officers completely to inspect the riding establishments. They can ask officers and veterinary surgeons from other areas to do it. In this context, perhaps I should explain that the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the British Veterinary Association have, between them, so I am informed, drawn up a list of 4,000 vets., to whom the local authorities can apply. There are, of course, 7,000 veterinary surgeons who are qualified to inspect. It has been thought that of these 7,000 there are 4,000 who, by their great practical experience, are more qualified, and so the local authorities are to apply to them. There is nothing of particular
104
note in subsection (3) of Clause 2, in addition to what I have just told your Lordships.
Clause 3 deals with offences, and is quite straightforward. Perhaps I might draw your Lordships' attention to paragraph (b). Here the rider and horse are protected. If the owner has faulty equipment, a faulty saddle which either hurts the horse or causes an accident to the rider, the owner can be prosecuted. In Clause 4 are the penalties or disqualifications: a maximum fine of £25 or three months' imprisonment, or both. I should point out a printing error in this clause. It refers to Section 2(5): that should read 2(4). There is no subsection (5) to Clause 2.
Clause 5 empowers the local authority to prosecute, and there is nothing I need draw your Lordships' attention to in that clause except that the local authority cannot prosecute until they have had the vet's. report. Clause 6 is the Interpretation Clause, and here perhaps some of your Lordships may be a little confused. You may have the case of a farmer who has two or three hunters and who occasionally hires them out for hunting. Your Lordships may think that perhaps he should apply for a licence. But, of course, he is not a riding school; he is a man who has great experience of horses and, on the whole, provided he does not do it in a very big way, with thirty or forty horses, I understand that he does not have to apply. It is a question of the circumstances. There is nothing else of importance in the Interpretation Clause. Lastly, under Clause 8, the Riding Establishments Act, 1939, is repealed.
That, my Lords, is the Bill. I sincerely hope that your Lordships will give it a Second Reading. As I have said, riding is a recreation which is increasing to-day with the greater amount of leisure enjoyed by everybody. I am sure that the horse, if he could speak, would be extremely grateful, and also the rider would be grateful—although perhaps not all the riders, for now that these riding school horses will have to be fit probably quite a few learners will be "chucked off". However, we cannot help that—they have to learn the hard way. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.(Viscount Massereene and Ferrard.)
3.40 p.m.
LORD SILKEN: My Lords, I am glad to be associated with the noble Viscount on what is, to me, a unique occasion: I do not remember having been associated with him in anything before. Moreover, it is a little surprising that I should be now, for I have never been on a horse in my life, whereas I imagine that the noble Viscount has spent most of his life, or at any rate a large part of it, on horses. But we are in complete agreement in the desirability of this Bill, which is for the protection of animals against cruelty, neglect and ignorance, and for the protection of those who use the animals, the riders, against injury, and even, on very rare occasions, loss of life through accidents arising out of riding horses that are unfit for that purpose. So everything we can do to ensure that our riding establishments are properly conducted, by persons fully equipped, and that the establishments are fully inspected is a very worthwhile thing, and I am very glad that the noble Viscount has introduced this Bill.
The noble Viscount pointed out that some 30 per cent. of existing riding establishments are thoroughly bad. As to the remainder, they are about half and half; some are very good and some not quite so good. But the fact that some 30 per cent. of the riding establishments are very bad, with horses existing under frightful conditions, is a sad reflection on a nation that prides itself on love of animals—and, on the whole we are animal lovers, certainly so far as dogs are concerned. But so far as horses are concerned, those in 30 per cent. of the riding establishments are existing under these awful conditions. This Bill, therefore, is quite timely.
The noble Viscount has explained in detail the purposes of the Bill and I do not propose to discuss them at any length. There will be a Committee stage. I am not sure whether the Bill was adequately discussed in another place. There was no discussion whatever, not even an introductory speech on Second Reading; it just passed "on the nod". There was a small Committee stage and a very short Report stage, in which a large part of the discussion centred on whether the registration fee should he 10s. or £5. As the noble Viscount has pointed out, the Minister gave an assurance that the whole ques-
106
tion of the kind of fees for registration would be considered by the Government, and that, I presume, is being done.
There are one or two points in the Bill to which I should like to draw attention. One is: is it really the most satisfactory way of carrying out this registration that small authorities—the enormous number of them—should be entrusted with the task? They cannot possibly have the officers; in fact, the Bill contemplates that they will not have them, because it talks about sharing them, and passing them round, borrowing and lending and so on. This being so, would it not he better to give the responsibilities to those authorities that are capable of carrying out the job and are likely to have within their own jurisdiction the necessary officers? As we know, there is a considerable shortage of veterinary surgeons, and it would be far better to have those who are available under the control of the authority which is responsible, rather than have them shared and going around from one authority to another.
I see that even the City of London is an "authority" under this Bill. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, could find out, if he does not know (I think I can give him the answer, anyway), how many riding establishments there are in the City of London and why they are put in as an authority under this Bill. Is it to satisfy their pride or is there some special reason for it? However, this is a matter which we can deal with in Committee, and I hope (although this is not a Government Bill, but I imagine they are very much behind it), that we shall have proper discussion on it and that the Government will consider very carefully whether they want to maintain the position of making the small authorities responsible for something which we know they cannot adequately carry out.
The other matter to which I should like to draw attention is that the noble Viscount stressed over and over again that a great many of the people who were conducting these riding establishments were townspeople who obviously could not know very much about horses. I agree with him. There was a case quoted by one honourable Member in another place of a girl of 15, still at school, who was running a riding establishment with 14 ponies in her spare

107
time. The report of the newspaper which was quoted was, naturally, that the condition of the animals was very poor, the stables were awful, the feeding and general management were very bad and the animals were in the hands of inexperienced people. This girl, assuming she can tidy up the stables a bit, when she is 18 will get a licence, unless she is disqualified by virtue of one of the provisions which disqualify people. But she will still have no experience, and it seems to me to be a fundamental weakness of this Bill that anyone who is not in terms disqualified can apply, pay 10s., and get a licence, provided he or she can get by with a reasonably satisfactory kind of stable.
Since some societies are carrying out training in the management of horses, I should have thought it ought to be possible to ensure that anyone applying for a licence at least has some qualification for the care of a riding establishment, which involves not only the welfare of the animals themselves but the safety of people who go to the establishments; indeed, it involves, further, the safety of traffic. I have seen horses which are a menace in traffic being ridden on main roads; horses which perhaps become suddenly uncontrollable or suffer pain because they are badly harnessed or shod—things of that kind and they can be the cause of very grave accidents. Yet there is nothing in this Bill to ensure that the person in charge of the riding establishment has any qualifications for conducting such a concern. However, I am sure that every one of us will be in complete sympathy with the main purposes of the Bill, and I am hoping that it will be possible, in the course of its passage, for it to be strengthened in the various directions to which I have referred.
3.48 p.m.
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, as one who for sixty years has had most of his enjoyment on horseback, I welcome this Bill sincerely. Quite obviously, there are a large number of riding establishments which need no inspection and no licensing, and this Bill will be just too easy for them. It is the bad ones who should be got at. The trouble, from the horse point of view, is that it has always been a status symbol. In the Middle Ages it was a status symbol to
108
ride a horse in battle. Since then it has become a status symbol to own a racehorse and to own a red coat and go hunting. Now it is almost a status symbol for anybody to say that he rides a horse when on holiday. The more riding there is, the better; but we do want to get the riding establishments and the condition of the, horses better, and this Bill, I think, goes a long way towards that.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, made the point about qualification for running a riding school, a point I had in mind to bring up. I pick a hole in the Bill in that under Clause 1 anybody who wants to start a riding school can get an option on a yard and apply for a licence. A vet. would have to inspect the yard and any horses likely to be there But until the owner knew he was going to obtain a licence he probably would not have a horse. So a vet. having inspected the yard, there is nothing to prevent the man from getting a licence. I think it is most important that there should be some qualification in applying for the licence. Clause 1(3) says inspection of premises is to be carried out. Inspecting premises of the horses once a year, or something like that, will really not produce an answer at all. What is needed are spot inspections, and I should like to see something put in the Bill to the effect that the licensing authority must have a minimum of three or four spot inspections during the year. Spot inspection of a good establishment would obviously be perfunctory, but of a bad establishment it might be very searching.
Clause 1(4)(b) deals with the question of shelter. That, I think, may cause a good deal of trouble because everyone knows that no type of weather will drive a horse into an open shed; the only thing that will drive him in is flies. And a vet., according to this Clause 1(4)(c), has to certify adequate exercise and resting. How can he do that by going there one afternoon? It entails keeping logbooks and all sorts of records. It is not difficult to maintain a horse in a presentable condition—I do not say a good condition, but presentable condition—even if he has not been regularly and adequately exercised or adequately rested, and asking a vet. to sign to that effect after one inspection is, I think, asking too much. We have also got to see that adequate steps are taken for protection

109
of horses in cases of fire. I cannot imagine what should be done, other than to have doors open; you cannot have loose box sprinklers.
Under Clause 5(2), the local authority
"shall not institute any such proceedings except after receiving and considering a report by a veterinary surgeon".
The vet., as this Bill stands at the moment, is going to be very busy. Whether there will be enough good vets. who have the time to do all this work is, I think, very doubtful, and if the local authority cannot prosecute without getting a vet. I think a lot of people will escape a good deal It is not every abuse of a horse which can be detected only by a vet. If a horse is maltreated, a hundred and one people can testify to that, and the owner should be convicted, but by the time the vet. comes along—it may be two days after or half an hour later—there may be no evidence of that maltreatment at all. To rule out the evidence of such people as inspectors of the R.S.P.C.A., I should have thought a mistake. All these are points which will no doubt come up in Committee.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, I join with others in the general welcome of the Bill. The only point I wish to raise brings me in conflict with my noble friend Lord Silkin. When this Bill becomes an Act its effectiveness will depend upon the closeness with which the local authority can carry out the inspection and keep in contact with the riding establishment. I am not biased. But I am a member of a county council and have been a member of an urban district council, and Clause 6(4) defines "local authority" as having over 20,000 population. Many rural and urban authorities in which riding establishments are sited have a population under that figure; and it is my belief that it would be far better for the local authority to be the local district council, the urban, borough, rural district council, as is the case for the Animal Boarding Establishments Act and the Pet Animals Act. Both those Acts are administered by the district councils; conviction under them involve disqualification for holding a licence under this Bill. Therefore, I think they ought to be the local authority. In spite of this bringing me into conflict with my noble friend Lord Silkin, I give notice that I shall move an Amendment
110
the Committee stage to bring in those authorities.
3.55 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, the noble Viscount who moved the Second Reading of this Bill said it had been given a Second Reading in another place. That is so, but I am quite sure your Lordships will agree that that does not absolve us from our responsibilities for examining this Bill very closely; at the present stage and in later stages. Like the association of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, with the mover of the Bill—that amalgam that he said had not come about before—I should like to join as a third party and say that, of course, I support the general objectives of the Bill. Lord Silkin said he had never been on a horse. I cannot compete with this claim to have an anatomy unbruised by saddlery, but I am not a great exponent on a horse, I fear.
I think we should have a look at some of the propositions in this Bill in order to see how far we are going in its scope, and whether we are in fact encroaching on the liberty of the subject in a way to which we must give very careful attention before we give assent. In Clause 1 there is a demand that there should be suitable accommodation available at all times. I side with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in thinking that it is not right that the local authority—in fact the local veterinary surgeon—should be the person to decide what is suitable accommodation and what is adequate pasture and adequate provision for saddle rooms. For humans we have a Housing Bill that lays down certain defined standards of accommodation. We have an Offices and Shops Bill, I think, on the stocks. Animals are apparently to have a blank cheque to be filled in by the local authority, and we shall have different standards all over the country as to what is suitable accommodation for a horse and what is adequate accommodation in a saddle room, unless we alter the Bill in its present form.
As regards Clause 2, I would question the broad proposals of the right of entry into premises. There is a provision that the local authority representative can enter premises. The premises of a riding establishment may be in part used for horses and in part residential, and surely

111
the Bill should lay down that the part for which there is right of entry is specifically that part of the premises where the horses are accommodated. It is a Committee point which I hope will be considered by the mover and by the Government; nevertheless, it brings up that question which your Lordships and Members in another place, too, are always most careful to consider—the right of bureaucracy, the Executive, to enter the residential premises of any citizen of this country.
Clause 3 deals with control or management. Subsection (1)(d) reads:
"in keeping a riding establishment knowingly permits any person, who is for the time being disqualified under this Act from keeping a riding establishment, to have control or management of the keeping of the establishment."
Does "management" mean management of a horse or of horses, or does it mean management of the whole establishment? I think it would be wrong to disqualify a man from the care of horses because he had been a manager who was disqualified for not keeping proper saddling rooms. This is indeed possible under the Bill as at present drafted.
These are Committee points, but I think they are points of some substance which Parliament should look at. The noble Viscount who moved the Bill with such eloquence confounded, I think it was, Oscar Wilde, who said that he knew a good horse when he saw one, but what he knew when there was no horse, no friend was ever able to discover. To-day, the noble Viscount has shown us, in the way he moved this Bill, that a man who knows a horse knows far more than that. While giving the Bill general support, I sincerely hope that on the Committee stage we shall look at these and other points raised by noble Lords, so that Parliament is not asked to pass something which goes considerably beyond the actual scope and purposes of the Bill.
4.3 p.m.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I should like to add my support to this Bill. There are one or two small points that I want to raise. First, I should like to support those other noble Lords who have said that some qualifications for keeping an establishment should be included in the Bill. After all, this is
112
responsible work, for the sake both of the horses and of the riders, and I feel that the keeper of an establishment should have some knowledge of what he is doing.
The other point concerns Clause 4. The noble Viscount mentioned the misprint in regard to "section 2(5)". As your Lordships will see, that occurs twice. It occurs in subsection (1) and again in subsection (2). What each of them is 'referring to I do not know; but I should like to say that if they are serious offences, I think a maximum penalty of £25 is not enough. One knows that when the maximum fine is £25, the most that will ever be imposed will probably be about £10. Therefore, I would recommend something nearer £50 or even more, so that in practice one might obtain £25. That is all I have to say. Apart from that, I welcome the Bill and give it my full support.
4.5 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD DERWENT): My Lords, may I say briefly what is the Government's view on this Bill? I congratulate my noble friend on the way he introduced this Bill. I may say that in principle Her Majesty's Government think it will strengthen the law, and I hope your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading. As my noble friend has said, there are certain drafting Amendments that he will propose on the next stage, one of them a major Amendment. I need hardly say that the Home Office will give him all the help it can in regard to drafting.
The general remarks of other noble Lords, while welcoming the Bill—and, of course, I am not replying to this Second Reading debate; my noble friend will do that—seem to be on Committee points. But there are one or two matters upon which I think I should here and now express an opinion. The first is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has raised, about the City of London. It is essential that, like other local authorities, the City of London should be included. If the City of London were not included, anyone who was not prepared to run a reputable riding establishment would at once move into the City of London. It is customary practice when all local authorities are mentioned to name the City of London. Otherwise,

113
as I say, we might unfortunately have a great many riding establishments in the City.
LORD SILKIN: The City of London is, after all, inside the County of London.
LORD DERWENT: It is, as the noble Lord knows well, a separate local authority. In discussing the points which they may bring forward at Committee stage, I think that some noble Lords have slightly misunderstood the Bill, and perhaps in particular this applies to my noble friend Lord Fortescue. In one breath he says that there ought to be more frequent inspection by veterinary officers and, almost in the same breath, he says that there are not really enough veterinary officers in the country to do the job as laid down in the Bill.
I think there is misunderstanding to this extent. All that we are saying about veterinary officers is that, before a local authority come to a decision in the matter, they must have had a report from a veterinary officer—this is provided for in Clause 1(3). But they can attach any other conditions to the granting of a licence. That is laid down in Clause 1. At page 1, line 23, the clause says that they may
"grant a licence to that person to keep a riding establishment at such premises in their area as may be specified in the application and subject to compliance with such conditions as may be specified in the licence."
I doubt whether one could get a much narrower condition laid down in this particular Bill. If a local authority know that somebody has never had anything to do with horses, they can in fact refuse the licence. What happens then is that that person who is quite new to horses has to apply to the magistrates' court. If the magistrates thank that the local authority have been unreasonable, they will order that the licence be granted in so far as these particular conditions are concerned. But, as would undoubtedly happen in the particular case which has been mentioned, if they think that the local authority were correct the magistrates' court would not override the local authority.
May I say one word, rather "off the cuff", about the private argument that has ensued between the noble Lord,
114
Lord Silkin, and his noble friend Lord Lindgren. Having heard this argument for the first time between the noble Lords, I believe, on balance, that the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, is right. I believe that in this matter it is important, where a local authority are prepared to undertake this duty, that they should be, one might almost say, as small a local authority as possible. One must remember, as my noble friend Lord Fortescue has said, that it is not possible for a sufficient number of veterinary officers to go round all the time. One must remember, too, that the general public, in regard to complaints about horses being in bad condition and so on will want to go to their local member. If he is a county councillor he may be too far away; but if he is a man who lives in the next street it can be mentioned to him, and the local authority may then be prepared to send somebody round to look at the premises. I think that is really the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren.
May I go back to one argument that I was using, and refer noble Lords to page 2, subsection (4), at lines 12, 13 and 14, as to the circumstances in which a local authority can refuse a licence? Paragraphs (a) to (f) lay down what they must take into consideration, but earlier there are the words in brackets:
"but without prejudice to their discretion to withold a licence on other grounds".
So they have complete authority to refuse a licence—which answers some of the queries noble Lords have raised. We can consider all the other points in Committee. I hope that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading, for I believe that it will strengthen the existing law and I feel that the Bill is necessary.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYEMy Lords, can the noble Lord say something about restricted right of entry?
LORD DERWENT: I understood from the noble Lord that he, too, thinks that that is a Committee point, and if he wishes to pursue it perhaps he will put down an Amendment.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
4.12 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 5:
Power of Court to exempt classes of goods
5.—
(2) An order under this section directing that goods of any class shall be exempted goods may be made by the Restrictive Practices Court if it appears to the Court that in default of a system of maintained minimum resale prices applicable to those goods—

(a) the quality of the goods available for sale, or the varieties of the goods so available, would be substantially reduced to the detriment of the public as consumers or users of those goods; or

(d) the goods would be sold by retail under conditions likely to cause danger to health in consequence of their misuse by the public as such consumers or users; or

(e) any necessary services actually provided in connection with or after the sale of the goods by retail would cease to be so provided or would be substantially reduced to the detriment of the public as such consumers or users,

and in any such case that the resulting detriment to the public as consumers or users of the goods in question would outweigh any detriment to them as such consumers or users (whether by the restriction of competition or otherwise) resulting from the maintenance of minimum resale prices in respect of the goods.
(3) On a reference under this section in respect of goods of any class which have been the subject of proceedings in the Court under Part I of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1956 the Court may treat as conclusive, against any person who was party to the proceedings under the said Part I, any finding of fact made in those proceedings, and shall do so unless prima facie evidence is given of a material change in the relevant circumstances since those proceedings.
LORD CHAMPION LORD CHAMPION moved, in subsection (2), after paragraph (e), to insert:
"() there would be a substantial detrimental effect on employment in the manufacturing industry or in the retailing industry".
The noble Lord said: We seek here to add a sixth gateway to the five gateways provided for the instruction of the Restrictive Practices Court and the Registrar as to registration of goods as exempted goods for the purposes of the Bill. The five existing gateways are in keeping with the general tenor of the Bill, which is to safeguard the interests of consumers and users; and what we are proposing here is a safeguard for employees, whether on the manufacturing or the retail side of the business. Under the 1956 Restrictive Trade Practices Act the Restrictive Practices Court were given guidance in reaching a decision as to whether or not a restriction was contrary to the public interest. As I understand it, under that Act the Court was expected to declare a restriction contrary to the public interest unless it was satisfied that the restriction produced one or more of seven beneficial effects. One of these beneficial effects was summarised by the Registrar in his report in 1961–62 as when the removal of the restriction would be likely to have a persistent adverse effect on the general level of employment in the area or areas in which the industry in question was carried on. What we are seeking to do here is to import into this Bill the safeguard for employment which Parliament intended in the 1956 Act. That was not, if I remember rightly, put into the Bill without a great deal of consideration. It was not lightly done, but was put in because it was considered that a restrictive practice may well have a beneficial effect on employment in certain industries.
If that was the case in 1956, it will be no less the case from 1964 onwards. I frankly admit that I have not searched the records of the cases reported upon by the Registrar to see in how many of them the employment factor has been used as an argument by the suppliers appearing before the Court, or if the Court itself has permitted the continuation of a restrictive practice on the ground of a possible adverse effect on the general level of unemployment in an area. But it needs no stretch of the imagination at all to see that if the abolition of resale price maintenance seriously affected a manufacturer's business, the effect on employment would have serious consequences in the locality

117
of the business and for the employees generally and the people in the area. What is true of the manufacturing side of any business is, of course, equally true of the retail side. I will not attempt here to rehearse the arguments that have been repeatedly used about this Bill or its effect upon small shopkeepers, but I stress that they are an important consideration; indeed, they figured very largely indeed in the discussions in the other place.
All we are trying to do by this Amendment is to make the possible effect on employment one of the considerations for exemption by the Court. Clearly, the Court would have to consider it in the light of the balance of advantage to the community as a whole as against that of the people engaged in the industry. It is the case that the public will benefit by squeezing some of our inefficient manufacturers and shopkeepers out of business, for, clearly, it prices are enhanced as a result of unnecessarily high costs the public, as the consumers, are bound to suffer. On the other hand, the employees are also a part of the public and we ought not lightly to dismiss their interests as being inconsiderable.
Clause 8 of the Bill as it now stands makes provision for trade unions representing the distributing trades to be heard by the Restrictive Practices Court. By that provision the Government clearly recognise that their interests in the matter ought to be considered by that Court. We say, too, that their interest ought to be recognised by their inclusion as one of the gateways—making the sixth gateway, as I am suggesting here. If the Amendment is accepted—and it ought to be accepted in the interests of employees who have their lives staked in an industry—I propose to put down an Amendment to Clause 8, permitting appropriate trade unions of manufacturing undertakings to be represented at the Court. That would naturally follow if the Government accept this Amendment, which we on this side believe to be a reasonable one. I sincerely hope that the Government will accept it, despite the fact that this gateway seems rather to alter the general tenor of the Bill and the five gateways as they at present exist. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 11, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Champion.)
4.19 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD DRUMALBYN): The noble Lord has raised three questions here. First of all, the parallelism between the provision in the 1956 Act and the provision in his Amendment; secondly, the question whether the abolition of resale price maintenance is likely to have an effect on manufacturing industry and retail industry in particular ways; and the third question relates to the general compatibility of a provision of this kind with the provisions of the Bill.
If I may deal first with the question of the 1956 Act, the noble Lord is, of course, quite right in saying that there is the provision which he quoted from the 1956 Act. He said that he was not aware how this had worked out in practice, but I am informed (not that this is conclusive) that in practice no agreement has been declared not against the public interest on this ground. As I say, that would not be conclusive in itself, but I would point out that there is really no parallelism between the two cases, because the purpose of that provision in the 1956 Act was surely to give recognition of the fact that the manufacturing industry for a particular product might be concentrated in a particular area. But, of course, by its nature the practice of resale price maintenance is spread all over the country. Moreover, in this Bill we are not dealing with the effect on manufacturers' prices; we are dealing with the effect on distributive margins, on distributive prices. So that, so far as the manufacturer is concerned, there is no parallelism. I recognise that the 1956 Act is not directed only against collective agreements between manufacturers; but is directed against collective agreements between wholesalers or even retailers—or anybody. But, as I see it, the protection given to employment in the 1956 Act was given mainly to protect manufacturing industry.
The second question is whether this is likely to affect "the manufacturing industry"— by which I take it that the noble Lord means the industry manufacturing goods of that class—or" the

119
retailing industry"—and presumably he means the same there: the retailing industry dealing with that class of goods. I should have thought that the prospect of unemployment arising in the distributive trades from the prohibition of resale price maintenance was pretty remote. Any redistribution of employment which might take place as the distribution system evolved would occur over wide areas, and probably over a considerable period of time, and any surplus labour arising should be easily absorbed in expanding sectors of the economy.
So far as the manufacturing industry is concerned, I should have thought that here the possibility of unemployment arising was even more remote. After all, if this Bill is going to have an effect it is surely likely to have an effect in reducing prices. It is not going to have an effect in reducing demand. If you reduce prices, you are more likely, if anything, to raise demand. Therefore, I should have thought that the effect of this Bill of lowering prices was more likely to stimulate demand than to reduce it.
On the third point, the question of the compatibility of the provision with the Bill, may I just say this? The Amendment departs from the principle that damage to the public "as consumers or users" must be shown. In this case, I should have thought the tailpiece would, in effect, cease to be applicable, because the applicants would not be required to show that any detriment to the public generally would arise from the ending of resale price maintenance. All they would have to show would be that there was detriment to those engaged in the trades concerned; that is to say, to the manufacturers and the retailers. Whereas, of course, one has to face the fact that the manufacturers and the retailers, and those employed by them, are interested parties in a case of this kind. I think that the proposal which the noble Lord is making in this Amendment would really be incompatible with the purpose of the Bill, which is to protect the public as consumers or users. For those reasons I feel that the Government would not be justified in accepting the Amendment.
120
Perhaps I might make just one further point. To some extent the interests of retailers and their employees are already covered in the gateways; that is to say, in so far as the necessary services would be likely to be reduced, then employment would also be reduced, so to that extent they are covered. Similarly, in so far as retail outlets would be likely to be reduced, so the retailing industry, too, would be protected in that way. I should have thought that that protection was sufficient and certainly that protection is compatible with the purposes of the Bill.
LORD SHEPHERD: When we put the Amendment down on the Order Paper, I think we did so because we were concerned about the possible effects of this Bill not only on the retail side but also on the manufacturing industries. I think our general conclusion, after two days in Committee, particularly after the assurances of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, and the noble Lord the Minister, Lord Drumalbyn, is that the Bill is likely to have very little effect upon the management and marketing arrangements of our bigger industries. But I should have thought that, while these gateways are specifically directed towards the retailing side and to the consumers, some consideration should be given to the possible effects on employment.
I was reading the debates that we had in your Lordships' House on the 1956 Act. Members on the other side spoke very strongly on the consequences of resale price maintenance in the days when there was depression, and their feeling was that resale price maintenance should continue for the benefit of the manufacturing industry and the employees. I do not know whether those Members have changed their views; I suspect that they have. But there is no doubt that if there were real "cut throat" competition some companies within industries might well suffer. I would not go so far as to say that we should put a special provision in the Bill to protect them. But I should have thought that, when we are considering a change which may well affect marketing arrangements, some consideration should be given to the possible effects on employment.
I would not say that the question of employment should be a main gateway

121
in itself, but it should be something that the Court could, or should, take into account when considering the effects of the other five gateways. I imagine that the Court might be faced with a case being made on two of the gateways. They might then reach a position, shall we say, when they were not quite sure whether or not to give exemption, and they could then consider the possible effects on employment. It would not be used as a main gateway, but it should be something which they could take into account when making their decisions. I would not press the matter at this stage. I do not think it is now as important as it was when we first saw the Bill. But I think that the consequences to employment, perhaps in some of the smaller industries which might be affected by the Bill, is something that one should take into account.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD DILHORNE): May I just say a word to the noble Lord? Of course one appreciates—I am sure he does—the difference between this Bill and the 1956 Act. I would say myself, that the prospect of unemployment arising in the manufacturing industries in consequence of this Bill is really very remote indeed. Indeed, it could take place only if the coming of freedom to retailers, which this Bill seeks to ensure over a pretty extensive field, were in some way the cause of a significant fall in demand. I do not myself think that that is at all likely.
Now if one comes to the position of the retailers themselves, and to employment in retail shops, then the point the noble Lord has in mind is, to some extent, certainly, comprehended in gateway (b) because that deals with the number of establishments in which the goods are sold by retail being substantially reduced. Under that gateway, the Court will be asked, or may be asked, to consider the possible reduction in the number of establishments, and no doubt the Court's attention will be drawn to the number of persons employed therein. Of course, at the end of the day, when someone goes through the gateway, one comes to the tailpiece, where the Court has to do a balancing operation. I do not think that a gateway such as the noble Lord proposes really can fit into the scheme of this Bill so as to leave
122
the Court with justiciable issues. This particular gateway really cuts across the other gateways and does not fit into the pattern of this Bill. Though I have said that, naturally, of course, we will consider what the two noble Lords opposite have said, but I do not think one can really put more weight on this particular element.
LORD CHAMPION: Having regard to that assurance, I will not further expound this Amendment. The reply is reasonably satisfactory in the circumstances. We realise that this is a different Bill, but we felt that there was some justification for at least stating a case on behalf of the employees and for having that case answered by the Government, which they have done today. We shall look to see whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is able, in the time between now and Report stage, to put anything down which we might find a little more satisfactory than the words which he has quoted from gateway (b) but, in the meantime, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.33 p.m.
LORD JESSEL LORD JESSEL moved, in subsection (2), after paragraph (e), to insert:
"() Export sales of the goods would be substantially reduced."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is almost exactly the same as the next one on the Marshalled List, No. 26, which is under the names of three distinguished members of the Opposition. I am grateful for their interest in British exports, and I hope Her Majesty's Government will show equal enthusiasm. The purpose of my Amendment is to ensure that, if the abolition of resale price maintenance in respect of any goods were to harm their export sales, this should be considered as a ground for permitting the continuance of resale price maintenance in respect of those goods. What I am really asking for, therefore, quite obviously, is another gateway. As the Bill stands, harm can be done to exports without bringing the case within one or other of the existing gateways.
We are very familiar with the cliché that this country must export or die. It may be a cliché, but it is reality. Selling abroad is an

123
expensive business. We all know the difficulties. Competition is keen, and very often lower profit margins have to be accepted. Therefore a steady level of home sales is essential if exports are to be maintained. A continuing home demand also justifies the maintenance of substantial stocks, which are essential so that an exporter can give prompt delivery. I appreciate that each case will have to be considered and proved, but what I submit is that where it can be definitely shown that the abandonment of resale price maintenance will have an adverse effect on home sales, which in turn will be reflected in a diminution of export sales, then the Court should have power to exempt the goods. The manufacturer may find his case difficult to prove and the Court may throw out many applications of this kind, but I feel that this gateway should be in the Bill so that it can he used when it is really needed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 11. at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Jessel.)
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I should like to support this Amendment very briefly. I have a small manufacturing business, and it is my experience that if you get drastic price-cutting it affects your quality. I am quite convinced that the abandonment of resale price maintenance is in certain instances going to affect quality; and, of course, anything that affects quality does affect export trade adversely. Therefore, it is going to be to the detriment of the public in the widest sense. So far as I can see, among these gateways there is no gateway to cope with that. Another point I should also like to make is that today if you are to export you must have the most up-to-date plant, and you cannot buy the most up-to-date plant on the problematical extent of your export orders. You can go in for expensive plant, as the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, has just said, only on the basis of a steady home demand. I am quite con. vinced that in some instances the abandonment of R.P.M. is going to affect whether or not there is a steady home demand for certain goods. Therefore, in the interests of the public in a wider sense, regarding export trade, I support the Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Naturally, the Government very much welcome interest in exports and very much welcome the interest that those noble Lords who have spoken have shown in it: but is it really likely that this Bill will affect exports? My noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard has just been making the case that the abolition of resale price maintenance could affect quality. If it is going to affect quality, then the supplier can ask for the goods to be registered and can argue that case under gateway (a); in which event it would not be necessary to have a separate gateway for exports.
My noble friend Lord Jessel took a rather different line. He said that you must have a steady level of home sales if exports are to be maintained. I think it is necessary constantly to bear in mind that under this Bill it is the goods that are to be exempted, not the manufacturer. I was arguing under the previous Amendment that any tendency towards the lowering of retail prices is likely to stimulate demand rather than reduce it. This may not work evenly as between the goods of one manufacturer and those of another, but it is likely to affect the goods as a whole, and it is the class of goods as a whole in which the Court will be interested. It is that which will be exempted.
I should have thought that it is very doubtful whether, in practice, the presence or absence of resale price maintenance on a product in the United Kingdom could ever have any effect on the exports of that product. It is conceivable that if, as a result of the abolition of resale price maintenance, the market for the goods of that description as a whole were disrupted, then the export trade could suffer, too. But if there were any real risks of that kind of development, there would inevitably be a ground for arguing that the abolition of resale price maintenance would affect the public as consumers or users in one of these various ways already in the five gateways. So, on those grounds, I do not think there is any reason whatever to introduce another gateway dealing purely with exports. I hope that I have said enough to convince my noble friends that that is so, and that they will be willing to withdraw their Amendment.
LORD HAWKE: I do not think my noble friend is quite correct in all the assumptions he has made. I take it that the object of the Bill is to reduce prices at the retail level. The normal effect of reducing prices at the retail level is to stimulate demand; and if you stimulate demand from a fixed supply it can have only one result: either somebody else must go short or you create a long order book. I can well visualise a state of affairs—perhaps where the retail margin is rather high at the moment—when intense competition between retailers on the passing of this Bill might result in a considerable fall in the retail price of certain goods: motor cars, for instance. In the past it has been shown by various Chancellors of the Exchequer that certain goods are remarkably susceptible to rises and falls in the retail price manipulated by means of taxation. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer is capable, by putting on or increasing purchase tax, of reducing the demand considerably; and, by removing the purchase tax, of increasing demand considerably, then surely the abolition of resale price maintenance may have precisely the same effect. Therefore we may well find that a manufacturer who is selling his full output at the moment may be faced after the passing of this Bill, with a demand from the home market for larger quantities of goods, which he can supply only to the detriment of his foreign sales.
I must admit that I find some of these provisions in the Bill extremely difficult to understand; and it may be that I do not understand them. But as I read Clause 2, it means that the manufacturer can refuse to supply people who come along demanding to be supplied on the same terms as other dealers. Therefore either he is going to break the law under Clause 2 or he is going to refuse supplies to his foreign dealers, or at least increase the length of their delivery. Therefore I think another gateway in this clause is very necessary.
LORD SHACKLETON: I think the argument we have had is very ingenious. I am not quite sure whether I would go the whole way in suggesting that the Restrictive Practices Court should, in this matter, act for the Chancellor of the Exchequer in using a kind of additional regulator; none the less, I think it shows,
126
as did the argument of the other two noble Lords, that there are additional considerations of a kind which are very difficult to visualise with any certainty. All concerned with this will agree that we are to some extent dealing in theory and, as the noble Lord has said, the particular gateways are themselves of a somewhat theoretical kind. If I understand the position correctly, it would be possible for a supplier to refuse to supply the home market under Clause 2 because (as was very clearly explained by the noble and learned Lord Chancellor) this would be a ground, and presumably a respectable ground—though I think it is perhaps not very likely. None the less, he might wish to do so; and if he did so, in order to achieve continuity and to build up an export market, it is open to him to do so. I think that disposes of that argument.
I should like to support this Amendment on the grounds advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, and the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard. It seems to me that, since there are certain gateways built into the clause, this is an additional one which the court might wish to take into account. It may be argued that the absence of resale price maintenance would have an effect on the quality of the goods; but the arguments brought forward might not by themselves be quite convincing enough for the Court to accept them. Indeed, so far as "the public" as consumers or users of those goods applies to the public in this country (and I shall be interested to know whether "the public" includes also the public at the exporting end), it may be that in this particular category of goods any decline in quality may be of less importance than in the export trade. It seems to me that it would be perfectly proper for a supplier in these circumstances to go to the Court and argue on more than one ground, and that the export ground might be the clinching argument. But at the present moment, as I understand it, the Court would not be able to take this into account.
I should like to suggest that something along these lines should be put into the Bill. It may be theoretical, but then much of the Bill is theoretical. It is a great deal less theoretical than some of the other parts of the Bill—and particularly the clause dealing with loss leaders. This

127
Amendment seems to me to be a great deal more justifiable than some of the things the Government have already done in this Bill. I should like to ask the Government to consider this matter again, bearing in mind that the export market may be different and that the arguments under the other gateways which might not apply in this country might apply abroad. On this point we could perhaps be assured as to whether the public abroad are covered under, say, paragraph (a); and finally whether it is not a perfectly proper additional ground which might be argued before the Court.
LORD CONESFORD: I should like to support the arguments put by my noble friend Lord Jessel and, to some extent, those put by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, in the speech that he has just made. The export trade of this country is of such overwhelming importance— and nobody realises that better than the Government and the President of the Board of Trade—that if there were a risk, through the abolition of resale price maintenance, of injuring the export trade, I am certain Her Majesty's Government would concede there ought to be this additional ground. It may be difficult to imagine the case where it could be shown that the export trade would be injured. In that event, very little harm would be done by introducing this as a ground which might be very difficult to satisfy but which, if it could be satisfied, would provide a very strong argument indeed for the exemption of the goods in question.
I listened very carefully to the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. I agreed with him, of course, that in so far as the risk of the abolition of resale price maintenance is a risk of the deterioration of quality, then gateway (a) is relevant; but, for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, it is not conclusive. If gateway (a) is examined, it will be seen that it mentions the possibility of the quality being substantially reduced to the detriment of the public as consumers or users of those goods. My noble and learned friend will correct me if I am wrong, but I think it is clear that the reference to consumers or users of goods in that subsection means consumers or users in the United Kingdom. If that is the case, there may
128
be a possibility of consumers or users in the United Kingdom being not particularly interested in the maintenance of the quality of those particular goods. It might be possible that resale price maintenance maintains quality in this market, and that is very valuable when it concerns goods for export.
I should have thought that there were two possible ways of dealing with this. I should have thought that the simplest way would be the acceptance of the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Jessel. I cannot see that much harm would be done by that acceptance. But if Her Majesty's Government feel strongly that that would be objectionable, for some reason which they put forward, then, at least, either at this stage or at a later stage in the Bill, they should allow an amendment of gateway (a), which would make it run something like this:
"… reduced to the detriment of the public as consumers or users of those goods or to the detriment of the export trade."
Because I do not think that the two things are demonstrably identical.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have listened with interest to what has been said and, of course, I share with other Members of the Committee their view about the importance of maintaining exports. I cannot agree, though, with what has been said by my noble and learned friend or by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, or by my noble friend behind me. The arguments about resale price maintenance have been going to and fro over years, and I think I am right in saying that it was not until very recently that it was ever suggested that the abolition of the maintenance of prices in retail shops could have any effect on the export market. I do not believe that it is likely to have any effect at all. If I may be allowed to follow on and explain the reasons, all we are doing here is to give the retailer the opportunity, if he wishes to take it, of reducing prices below those which have been previously fixed. We introduce more competition in retail trade. My noble friend behind me said that the object of the Bill was to reduce prices at retail level. Let me assume that, as a result of this Bill, prices are, in fact, reduced. That may lead to increased demand on the home market but, with

129
great respect to my noble and learned friend, I think that the fallacy of his argument is that the level of production of that commodity would remain constant and that the increased demand on the home market could be met only by diverting goods from export to the home market. I have often heard it argued that if one wants a substantial export trade one must have a large base in the home market, and if the results of this Bill be as my noble and learned friend suggests, to reduce prices at retail level so that the demand in the home market increases, then there will be an even larger basis for the export trade.
My noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard raised the question of quality. I endorse what my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn said: that if the abolition of resale price maintenance was really to have an effect on the quality of goods available for sale, then gateway (a) would apply. Of course, my noble and learned friend Lord Conesford is quite right in saying that the "public" in this context means the United Kingdom public. But I put this question, in all seriousness. What possible relation can there be between the abolition of resale price maintenance and the consequent reduction of prices in retail shops, and a reduction in the quality of goods for export, if, as my noble and learned friend has suggested, the quality of goods on the home market remains unaltered?
LORD CONESFORD: May I correct my noble and learned friend? Of course I did not make any such assumption. The assumption I made was that it might be argued that in certain industries the effect of the abolition of resale price maintenance would be that they might make a slightly different sort of goods for the home market. Let me give a simple example. Suppose that after the abolition of resale price maintenance there is an equal or greater production of pottery, it might he that some of the high-class pottery, which is the kind that is important to the export trade, might not flourish on the home market.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not see that the question of whether high-class pottery may or may not flourish on the home market is really relevant. The question posed by my noble and learned friend, if I understood him aright, was
130
that the effect of the abolition of retail price maintenance in retail shops might lead to the lowering of the quality of goods on the export market. I can see no possibility of that happening. There seems to me to be no connecting link. If the abolition of resale price maintenance leads to a lowering of the quality of goods on the home market, then the gateway will apply. But why should it lead to any alteration in the quality of goods for export? I really do not see it.
The Government have most carefully considered these gateways and the question of the export sales of goods. This matter was discussed at considerable length in another place. I can only tell my noble friends that we do not think that any case has been made out for an amendment of this clause in the way suggested. We do not think that there is any reality in the suggestion that the giving of freedom to retailers in this country to charge what prices they like will, or could, affect the quality of goods on the export market or affect exports. Production will rise if the demand on the home market increases. Surely there can be no doubt of that.
My noble friend Lord Hawke raised a question with regard to the interpretation of Clause 2. With great respect to him, I do not think he got it right. I will not repeat what I said about it earlier on; I merely ask him to look at Hansard with regard to it. He is not right in assuming that the manufacturer cannot withhold supplies from someone who comes and asks him to deliver supplies, if the manufacturer has a good reason, apart from price-cutting, for taking that particular course of action.
LORD SHEPHERD: I should like to say a few words in support of the Amendment, as one who has been for the last fifteen years very much connected with the export trade and the export efforts of British industry. I think it is difficult to pinpoint what may be the effects of the abolition of resale price maintenance on the export industry. But I think it must be noted that in 1956 the Government of the day then thought that retail price maintenance should continue, and they gave it power and enforcement by Section 25. Now they have changed their mind, and most of us, I think, would agree that there

131
are certain sides of industry where the change should be made. But the Government recognise that there may be exemptions from this general rule. What the Amendment says is that the gateways through which the exemptions should be decided should take into account the possible effect on the export trade.
One of the difficulties, as I see it, is this. An exemption cannot well be given to a general classification of trade. If we take the textile industry, it may cover a whole range of textiles—wool, cotton, man-made fibres and perhaps some new product that is only being dreamt up at present in the laboratories of the firms concerned. What it will mean is that there will be no individual firm within that classification which will be able to obtain exemption. The Committee will have perhaps noticed Amendment No.32, where I have tried to deal with this point: that where there was a general classification, the Court, if it thought fit, could make an order that Clause 2 would not apply to that particular firm.
I think the main difficulty for the Committee in this matter is to decide whether an individual firm which is mainly connected with the export trade may be seriously involved to its detriment in its export trade because its particular class of manufacture is not exempted. I should have thought it was right, knowing that we are such a major exporting country and depend so much on exports, that this point of the export trade should be one of the factors to be considered by the Court when it is making its decision. I cannot see that it is likely in any way to affect major industries and major companies, but it may be that some of the smaller companies who play quite a considerable part in our export trade will be involved. I hope that the Committee will express their view, if necessary, in a Division, that the effect on exports should be taken into account by the Court when considering the other gateways.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sorry to intervene again, but I would ask your Lordships not to be persuaded by the eloquence of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, into taking a step which, having regard to the scope, content and
132
arrangements of the Bill, is one that I do not think would improve the Bill at all. I think I am right in saying that similar Amendments to this were put down, considered and debated in another place, and rejected. This is a majorissue. If there was any reality in the belief that the freeing of the retailer to charge such prices as he might wish would have an adverse effect on the export of goods I should not stand here and ask your Lordships to reject this Amendment. But that possibility, when one considers the matter impartially (as I hope I am), and free from emotion, is really so remote that there is no need to legislate in respect of it.
We are all concerned with exports. But I must say that I have listened carefully to the arguments advanced, and I am not in the least convinced that any case has been made out to establish that, because resale price maintenance goes off a class of goods—and that is what will be exempted, a class of goods; not perhaps all man-made fibres, but a class of goods; and the class will be compiled by the registrar—and because individual retailers are left free to charge such prices as they wish, the sales by manufacturers and suppliers on the export market will be, or may be, affected. I think that really is a nonsequitur.
If my noble friend Lord Jessel asks me to look at it and think it over again, of course I will do so. But it would not be right for me, as at present advised, to hold out any hope that we shall be able to meet him on this particular point, because by so doing we should not be improving the Bill. That is as tar as I can possibly go. If my noble friend would like me to think about this further, I will do so: but if he desires to press the matter now, I can only advise my noble friends to resist the Amendment.
LORD COLERAINE: If the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will allow me to say so, I was not entirely convinced by his argument in rebuttal of what my noble friend Lord Hawke put to him. The Lord Chancellor says that the effect of this Bill will be to reduce prices: that that will increase demand; the increase in demand will increase production, and therefore there will be a still wider basis for export.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: With great respect, the noble Lord is paraphrasing what I said and not paraphrasing it quite accurately. I said that the effect of this Bill will be to give freedom to certain retailers to reduce prices, if they wish. It was the argument of my noble friend Lord Hawke that the object of this Bill was to reduce prices. That was not stating the object of the Bill quite correctly. I argued it on the basis that the reduction of prices on the home market followed in consequence of resale price maintenance going. I merely make that correction because, with respect, my noble friend is not paraphrasing correctly what I said.
LORD COLERAINE: I apologise to the noble and learned Lord. But the point still remains that, if my noble friend Lord Hawke is right, there will be an increased demand for goods in the home market, if this Bill fulfils the hopes which are built on it, and that will limit the supply of exports. The noble and learned Lord says that that will not be the result, because if the demand increases, then the supply will increase, production will be expanded and, therefore, there will be an even wider basis for the export trade. I think I have now put the case as he put it. If his argument is right, it surely means that every effort that the Government make from time to time to damp down demand on the home market in the interests of the export trade must be wrong. I personally do not believe that. You cannot expect production to expand immediately, especially when all our resources are being used as fully as they are to-day.
What I would suggest to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is this. What is lost by putting in this additional gateway? It may never be used. So much the better. But, surely, it is possible to conceive of occasions when it might be very useful to have it there. My noble and learned friend said that the possibility is so slight that it is not worth taking account of. But I think the experience of all of us is that when Governments make prophecies about economic development—whatever Government they may be—they are likely to be proved wrong. I cannot see what will be lost by having this
134
gateway, whereas, if my noble and learned friend's prophetic instinct is at fault, a great deal might be lost to the export trade if this gateway is not included.
LORD CONESFORD: I wonder whether I might explain the great difficulty that I feel about this. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said: how can the abolition of resale price maintenance have an effect on quality? But gateway (a) acknowledges that it may have an effect on quality.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: With great respect, I did not say that. I said how can abolition of resale price maintenance have an effect on quality of the goods for export without having an effect on quality of the goods which are also sold on the home market? If they are sold on the home market and the quality is affected, gateway (a) applies.
LORD CONESFORD: I know that when I differ from my noble and learned friend on a matter of law the House will treat me with the contempt I deserve. Nevertheless, I venture to have a slight difference from him on this point. What I say gateway (a) acknowledges is that the abolition of resale price maintenance may have an effect on quality. The Court might consider that that was to the detriment of the home market. On the other hand, if the bulk of the home market were very keen on slightly different kinds of goods, they might think that that loss of quality was insufficient to allow exemption under gateway (a). I say that there is a distinction between detriment to the home public and injury to the export trade. There are possible distinctions between those two things, as most manufacturers know.
Now I want to put to my noble and learned friend the point that gives me the greatest difficulty, if this matter goes to a Division. I have not read through the whole of the proceedings in another place, but if this direct Amendment which is now being moved was debated and voted on in another place and rejected, then I shall not support my noble friend any longer on this Amendment. But if there was no such Division, or no Division which implied such rejection in any direct way, then I think it would put some of us in a great difficulty if my noble and learned friend

135
insists on this matter going to a Division. I wonder whether that simple question of fact could be cleared up: what precisely it was that another place voted on which is said to cover the principle of this Amendment. Because, if there were no such Division, then I think there would be a lot to be said for something being put in the Bill, either at this stage or a subsequent stage. I can assure my noble and learned friend that some of us are put in the greatest difficulty by the resistance to an Amendment which, prima facie, looks as if it cannot do any harm, and which arguably could be of importance to our export trade.
LORD SHACKLETON: Before the noble and learned Lord replies may I support what the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, has said? I am not sure that I would go quite so far as him in extending the Parliament Act and suggesting that we should never pass an Amend-mend which has been voted on and rejected in another place, although ultimately we might have to give in on it. The arguments which the noble and learned Lord used have been of two kinds. There has been what might be called a general political one, which we have just been discussing, and there has been the argument that he himself is unconvinced by this argument. But this is not a reason, if the House is convinced by it, for our not putting this Amendment into the Bill. I would suggest that the noble and learned Lord, either willfully or because he just has not understood the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, has confused the Committee in regard to the position in the Restrictive Practices Court with relation to this question of quality.
Perhaps I could illustrate this by an example. If there is a manufacturer of a certain kind of yarn, say a man-made fibre, in an industry where there is a large element of monopoly in this country, and where, as a result of there being no resale price maintenance, the manufacturer decided that it was no longer worth his while to use certain yarns in a certain type of cloth, it might be that what was not necessarily to him of the greatest importance was of importance to the nation: that is, that certain types of cloth would no longer be suit-
136
able for the export market. It is not necessarily the case that manufacture takes place in two compartments, one for the home market and one for the export market, which to some extent was the implication of the noble and learned Lord. He did not say that, but there was a slight implication.
I would reiterate the argument that I and the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, used, that the Court might decide that the variation in the reduction in quality was not to the detriment of the public as consumers or users of those goods, but that it might well be to the detriment of the sale of those goods abroad. We know that the reference to the public as consumers and users of those goods applies only to this country. If in fact it is possible—and this is a theoretical argument, anyway—that the quality will be affected, it seems to me to follow perfectly logically that the export trade might also be affected as a separate problem, apart from the interests of the public in this country. It seems to me that the Restrictive Practices Court ought to be able to take this into account as an additional factor when considering any such representations.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If your Lordships will forgive my addressing you again upon this matter, I have been invited by my noble friend Lord Conesford to answer specific questions which he has put to me, and I will certainly seek to do so. I would ask your Lordships to consider for one moment what we are engaged upon. The subject of this Bill is the practice of resale price maintenance and whether it should go on or stop. It is a practice we are concerned with in relation to this country, and this clause is the clause which provides gateways, if certain facts are established, to enable manufacturers and suppliers in this country to maintain resale price maintenance in relation to a particular line of goods. Therefore, it is obviously right that the clause should be drawn in such a way that the interests of the public as a whole in this country are considered.
I did not suggest, as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, sought to put upon me, that a manufacturer would be engaging in two distinct classes of manufacturing. What I said (I am afraid that I cannot have made myself clear) was that I find it difficult to believe—indeed, I simply

137
cannot accept—than, the abolition of resale price maintenance for a particular class of goods is likely to affect the quality of those goods for export with-cut affecting the quality of those goods on the home market. That was the view I put forward; and I said that if it does affect the quality of the goods on the home market, then, of course, gateway (a) applies.
LORD SHACKLETON: May I interrupt the noble and learned Lord? I hope he will point out that the Court will not be interested in a change in the quality of the goods, so far as this country is concerned, unless the change is to the detriment of the public in this country.
LORD CONESFORD: Before my noble friend replies, I would remind him of the words that follow all the gateways; the further thing about which the Court have to be satisfied:
"…in any such case that the resulting detriment to the public as consumers or users of the goods in question would outweigh any detriment to them as such consumers or users.…"
That is again a reference to the public in this country.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I entirely accept that. That is just what I am saying. We are considering here within the field of the United Kingdom whether this practice of resale price maintenance should continue; and in considering whether in the field of the United Kingdom that practice should continue it is only right to have regard to the advantages and the detriment to the public as consumers in this country.
The chain of my noble friend's argument is, in my view, one that it is quite impossible for him to establish: that there is any relation between the abolition of resale price maintenance in retail shops here and the volume of our exports abroad. The Board of Trade, with which he is familiar, is in close touch with industry, and I am told that that Department is satisfied that industry as a whole takes the view that resale price maintenance is a restrictive practice, and that its removal would not damage the export industry. I ask my noble friend to pay attention to that view. If it is right—and that is the view, I understand, of industry as a whole—then the
138
case for making this change is greatly reduced.
My noble friend, Lord Coleraine, took me to task for the argument that I put forward in dealing with the volume of demand against supply. I would point out to my noble friend that I was really replying to my noble friend Lord Hawke's argument about that; because he was maintaining, if I followed his argument correctly, that the volume of production would remain constant and that the necessary consequence of a reduction of price, if one occurred in a particular line, would be that goods would be transferred from the export to the credit market.
LORD COLERAINE: But it may well remain constant when the economy is as overstretched as it is to-day.
LORD HAWKE: Every Chancellor of the Exchequer since the war has used precisely those arguments in every Budget speech.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My noble friend Lord Hawke drew attention to the fact that a regulator was sometimes used to increase charges and to lessen demand. Here, of course, if he is right and the effect of this will be to reduce prices, it may increase demand. All I was saying was that it does not necessarily follow that an increase in demand at home will lead to a reduction of goods for the export market. What I am saying is that the effect of enabling the retailer to charge such prices as he likes on particular lines of goods is not likely to have—and, indeed, I do not believe will have—any effect on the volume of our exports.
My noble and learned friend Lord Conesford asked me to say whether this question had been discussed and voted on in another place. I am not sure to what extent it is right for me to refer to your Lordships the particular terms of Amendments moved in another place, but if my noble and learned friend would look at Hansard of April 22, 1964, col. 1414, he will see that an Amendment was moved by a Conservative Member and was taken, at the suggestion of the Temporary Chairman, with another Amendment. The mover of the first Amendment said, quite shortly, to the House that the Amendment dealt with exports. That debate, which obviously took a considerable time, was followed

139
by a Division, and the Amendment was rejected for reasons which I have sought to advance to your Lordships to-day. I do not think there is any point in my repeating the arguments. I ask your Lordships not to accept this Amendment, though I would at the same time stress that I share with all your Lordships the importance we attach to maintaining, and indeed increasing, our exports. But I do not think that the case is made out for making any change; and it would be a major change in this measure on the lines directed.
LORD JESSEL: There has not been a single speech supporting the Front Bench. Every speech in this House has been strongly critical of the Lord Chancellor's attitude. The Lord Chancellor says that it will make a major change. I do not agree with that at all; I do not think
it will make a major change. He also said there would not be many cases where it would be used. I entirely agree; in fact, I said so myself. But I still do not think that is a reason why we should not put it in the Bill. There may be cases. Also, in view of the tone of the debate here, which has shown the views of the Committee, I think it would be wrong for me not to press the matter. It would also be wrong in regard to my friends in industry, who, quite frankly, put me up to make this speech and put down this Amendment. Therefore, I am afraid that I cannot withdraw the Amendment.
5.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 25) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 44; Not-Contents, 63.

CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Gardiner, L.

Molson, L.

Amwell, L.

Greenhill, L.

Monsell, V.

Ashbourne, L.

Hawke, L. [Teller.]

Moyne, L.

Attlee, E.

Henderson, L.

St. Davids, V.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Hobson, L.

Shackleton, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Iddesleigh, E.

Shepherd, L.

Burden, L.

Jessel, L. [Teller.]

Silkin, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Latham, L.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Champion, L.

Lindgren, L.

Stonham, L.

Chorley, L.

Lindsay of Birker, L.

Summerskill, B.

Coleraine, L.

Longford, E.

Taylor, L.

Crook, L.

Mabane, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Forster of Harraby, L.

Mackintosh of Halifax, V.

Williams, L.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Williamson, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Milford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Auckland, L.

Falkland, V.

Newton, L.

Balerno, L.

Falmouth, V.

Ogmore, L.

Blakenham, V.

Ferrers, E.

Perth, E.

Bossom, L.

Fortescue, E.

Raglan, L.

Boston, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Redesdale, L.

Brecon, L.

Grenfell, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Carrington, L.

Harris, L.

Rockley, L.

Chesham, L.

Hastings, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Cholmondeley, M.

Horsbrugh, B.

St. Oswald, L.

Craigton, L.

Ilford, L.

Sandford, L.

Daventry, V.

Jellicoe, E.

Sandys, L.

Denham, L.

Long, V.

Sinha, L.

Derwent, L.

Lothian, M.

Somers, L.

Devonport, V.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Stonehaven, V.

Devonshire, D.

Mancroft, L.

Strange of Knokin, B.

Digby, L.

Merrivale, L.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Milverton, L.

Swinton, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Tangley, L.

Dundee, E.

Mottistone, L.

Templemore, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Thurlow, L.

Eccles, V.

Nathan, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

LORD TANGLEY LORD TANGLEY moved, after subsection (2), to insert:
"() On a reference under this section in respect of any drug medicine or other pharmaceutical substance the Court shall by order direct that such goods shall be exempted goods for the purposes of this Act subject to such conditions (if any) as the Court thinks fit."
The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment I must declare an interest: I am a shareholder in, and chairman of, my family company, which owns a group of pharmacies. I am sorry to have to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth; we give nothing away; we do not even give away hot cross buns or small tubes of toothpaste, but as that idea has been put by him into my head I shall consult my colleagues and I shall pass on the assurance that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor gave yesterday, that that would be perfectly all right under the Bill.
The object of this Amendment is to invite the Committee to consider whether the principles of this Bill should be applied without qualification to the sale of medicines to the public. I am a supporter of this Bill. I have voted with the Government on all three Divisions on this Bill. And I am a supporter of it because I believe in the philosophy underlying it, which is, as I understand it, that as great a variety of goods as possible should be offered to as many people as possible and at as low a price as possible. Ought that philosophy without qualification to be applied to the supply of medicines to the public? Is it desirable that we pour as much medicine as possible down as many throats as possible at as cheap a price as we can devise? I am certain your Lordships, when you consider that, will say, No. Of course the right answer must be "No," and that is why the business of supplying medicines has long been treated as being something different from ordinary types of other business
The reason for that, of course, is that the consumer of medicines is in a quite different position from any other kind of consumer. As a rule, he is not in a position to exercise a rational consumer's choice. He is usually not a physiologist; he does not know what is wrong with him, or even what he imagines is wrong with him. He is certainly not a pharmacologist: he does not in the least understand the nature of the medicine that he
142
is buying, or what will be the effect of the medicine on his actual or imagined complaint. He is in a weak position. He is not able to know on what basis his choice should be made. He is usually also in an emotional condition: he is worried and anxious, either with or without cause, about his bodily ailments, and is liable to fall into a state of credulity. That is why special provisions have always been made for protecting the consumer of medicines, the buyer of medicines, against exploitation of his weak position. He is not in at all the same position as this intelligent housewife or this active buyer, of whom we have been hearing so much in the course of the proceedings on this Bill, whose consumer's choice is to be respected.
There are three ways in which the supply of medicines to the public has, in effect, been controlled for a long time past. First of all, there are certain provisions of law; secondly, there are certain traditional practices; and, thirdly, there are certain voluntary actions taken by various component parts of the pharmaceutical industry. The legal situation I need not go into; it is familar to you all. There are a great many drugs which cannot be obtained at all except on a doctor's prescription, and it is illegal for anybody to supply them on any other footing or by any other means.
However, traditional practices hold and are most important. Most of the medicines which go to the public otherwise than through prescriptions are sold in the shops of pharmacists and under the control of pharmacists. As your Lordships know, a pharmacist is a professional man; he has a long and an expensive training. He has his own professional body, which admits him, examines him and disciplines him, in the same way that other professional bodies deal with their members. And most of the drugs, other than those on prescription, are sold by these professional men in their own places of business. It is by no means unusual—in fact, it is most common—for people to come to the pharmacist with some ailment and say, "What can you give me for my stomach ache," or backache, or corn, or whatever it may be. The pharmacist will often advise them and say, "I am not going to give you anything. You should go to a doctor"; or, if he does advise something, it will be

143
something which he knows about, which he can honestly recommend as a professional man.
This Bill will have no effect whatever on, and is utterly unnecessary in respect of, those two ways in which medicines get into the hands of the public. It cannot possibly affect what goes out by prescription, and it can hardly affect what the pharmacist, as a professional man, recommends over the counter—except to this extent, that it would be wrong for the pharmacist to have his attention diverted from his professional duty by wondering whether there was a cut-price store round the corner which was selling something else at a cheaper price. The real danger is, surely, that the control of supply of medicines to the public will get out of professional hands and into the hands entirely of people whose one interest, whose only interest, is the sale of as much as possible—the supermarkets, the cut-price stores, the discount houses—where there will be nobody in the shop trained in anything except in the techniques of getting rid of as much as possible as quickly as possible.
If this Bill goes through, you will see up and down the high streets this sort of advertisement on the windows of these stores: "This week's bargain—ABC pills. Astounding reductions". In the next shop window you will see: "This week's bargain: XYZ elixir" or whatever it is, at an equally astonishing reduction. Do you want to see that sort of thing happening up and down the country, as compared with the way in which this trade is handled to-day? If these things did happen to-day there are many respectable and self-respecting people in the trade who would stop that nonsense; they would withhold supplies, or they would insist upon proper prices being charged.
I think your Lordships will agree that these are public-spirited, right and proper, and reasonable actions to take. If your Lordships pass this Bill without amendment in this respect, people who take that proper action will be branded as lawbreakers; they will be illegal in their actions under this Bill. What is more, their actions will be ineffective. The cut-price stores can snap their fingers at them. I submit that that is not the sort of thing which the Govern-
144
ment intend to come out of this Bill, or which your Lordships would wish to come out of this Bill.
There are other precautions which are taken because of the special position of the consumer of medicines. I refer to restrictions upon advertising. Many of your Lordships—I know that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, is most active in this connection—have felt that there ought to be even more restrictions, by the media—in television, newspapers and so forth—upon the type and content of medical advertisements. Different opinions may be held about that, but there is a common consensus of opinion that advertisements ought to be controlled. The media themselves have their codes, and the trade co-operates with the media for this purpose. That is another illustration of the special nature of the particular trade in question, and the special circumstances with which it is now surrounded.
This Bill asks us to cast away all these safeguards or precautions and, as I say, to adopt the principle of getting as much medicine down as many throats as cheaply as possible. That cannot be right. What I am asking your Lordships to do is to recognise, as has been recognised already in the ways I have described, the special position of this particular business, and to carry that same principle into this Bill; to recognise in this Bill, in the same way as it has been recognised in other ways, the special position of this particular business.
How is that to be done? In another place an Amendment was moved seeking to take this medicine business out of Clause 1 of the Bill altogether. So strong was the feeling that that Amendment, I believe, was lost by only the narrowest possible margin. I think that is going too far. I do not think one ought to take medicines out of this Bill altogether. I accept the decision that has already been made in another place. But surely there is a strong case for my Amendment, which says that it can be dealt with under Clause 5 that prima facie this business ought not to be subjected to the rest of the provisions of the Bill.
It may be objected that I could wriggle through, in some way or another, one or other of the gateways in Clause 5. As I have been listening to these arguments about gateways—and I have sat through

145
the whole of this debate—I have thought of these words of Scripture,
"… strait is the gate, and narrow is the way … and few there be that find it."
and few there will be who get through these gateways unscarred. Why should I be condemned to this serpentine, wriggling process of getting through one of these gateways when I could be made an honest man on behalf of the consumer and walk straight through a wide open gate labelled "For me"? That is what I am asking for. It is reasonable, and I am certain that the Government will give me what I want. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 16, at end insert the said subsecticn.—(Lord Tangley.)
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: I rise to support the Amendment that has been so ably proposed by my noble friend Lord Tangley, but before I do so I must declare an interest in that I am a member of the Pharmaceutical Society; and although for many years now I have had no financial interest in the supply of drugs, the only interest I have had is, like so many of your Lordships, that of consuming them from time to time.
As your Lordships will know, the principle and purpose of this Bill is to free trade from restrictions and to give greater competition, which will come about, so it is hoped, by the reduction in prices. My noble friend Lord Tangley has made it clear that it cannot possibly be in the public interest that there should be the same free and unrestricted trade in drugs, medicines and pharmaceutical products which could happen—not of course in the case of all drugs or medicines prescribed under the National Health Act, but in relation to many kinds of drugs and medicines. Surely it is wrong that in this category there should be free and unrestricted trade and an encouragement to reduce prices and to increase production. It must be right, as this Amendment suggests, that there should be some restriction and control. Is it not best that control and restriction should be obtained through trained professional men who have spent a considerable time in passing their examinations and getting the necessary technical knowledge to enable them to discharge those duties in the services which they render to the public?
146
I suggest that, on the one hand, this Amendment seeks to give public protection. It is so worded that the Court, while exempting goods, can ensure that there are appropriate conditions, whether it be as to profit or in any other way. when the goods are supplied. I hope that the Government will feel that this Amendment is in the public interest in that the Restrictive Practices Court is surely there for cases which have to be proved; but from the way in which this Amendment has been moved it is plain that it is not necessary for pharmaceutical products, such as medicines and drugs, to have that proof—for the proof here is self-evident. Drugs and medicines are in a quite different category from those various other commodities with which this Bill is mainly concerned to deal. I therefore suggest that Amendment should be most carefully considered; and, if perhaps the wording is not quite right, that at any rate the principle which it seeks to put forward is acceptable, to the public's advantage. and would in no way undermine the principles for which this Bill stands.
LORD COLERAINE: Although I, too, must declare an interest in this Amendment, I can honestly say that the argument advanced by my noble friend Lord Tangley in his powerful speech just now seems to me to be incontrovertible. As I understand it, the purpose of this Bill—and it is a purpose which I support —is to do away with a form of restrictive practice which, in the view of the Government, and in my own view, does harm to the consumer. Therefore, I genuinely support the purpose of the Bill. The result of the Bill, if our hopes are fulfilled, will be that goods of all kinds will become cheaper in the shops. Their consumption will increase and the consumer will benefit. But, in respect of medical preparations, it must surely be the case that we do not want this to happen and we do not want the kind of picture which my noble friend Lord Tangley painted—one of "To-day's special line!"—to be a reality. If it became a reality, it would do incalculable harm.
It is perfectly true that in another place an Amendment on similar lines was very narrowly rejected, but my noble friend's Amendment contains in it some safeguards as to conditions, and so on.

147
which the Amendment voted on in another place did not contain. I very much hope that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will consider most carefully what Lord Tangley has said, and, whether or not he can accept this Amendment, I hope that he will realise it embodies a very real point which, unless there is to be real danger to the health of the public, ought to be met.
LORD SILKIN: We have had three speeches from people who have had an interest to declare. I have no interest to declare except to preserve the broad policy which this Bill sets out to achieve. I have listened carefully to the arguments put forward, and there is a confusion of thought. The pharmacist, who, I agree, is a highly trained person, is in fact in the majority of cases acting in two capacities. First, he is a person who makes up prescriptions given to him by a doctor—and in that capacity I agree he is dealing with people who may be suffering from emotional strain, from illness, and so on. But he is also a salesman, in exactly the same way as a person employed in Marks and Spencer's or anywhere else: he is selling commodities, like aspirin. He is not asked to exercise any judgment or skill whatever in selling a bottle of aspirin, or a box of cough tablets, or an ointment, or whatever it may be. These are all taken from stock or off the shelf and sold to the customer. The customer does not ask for the advice of the pharmacist on those matters; the customer normally knows what he wants. In those circumstances, where one is dealing with merchandise in the ordinary way, I can see no reason whatever why the Court should be directed, as this Amendment envisages, to exempt them from the provisions of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Tangley, has himself recognised this distinction.
Of course, on the question of drugs that are prescribed by a doctor no question can arise. All we are dealing with here, although it is described in the Amendment as a
"drug medicine or other pharmaceutical substance"
whatever that may mean—and would that include what is called "medicinal soap"?—is an ordinary commodity which the customer goes into the shop
148
and pays for. I think it is only right that those commodities should be dealt with in exactly the same way as any other commodity. I hope, therefore, that the Government will not accept this Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have listened with interest to the entertaining speech given by the noble Lord, Lord Tangley; and, indeed, he advanced powerful arguments in support of this Amendment. He accepted that pharmacists should be within the scope of the Bill. Your Lordships will remember that when he was talking about what had happened in another place he referred to an Amendment which had been moved to Clause 1—
LORD TANGLEY: I referred to pharmaceutical products rather than to pharmacists.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord accepted that pharmaceutical products should be within the scope of the Bill. He having accepted that, I now ask your Lordships to see what in fact this Amendment does. We have heard a lot about the sale of pharmaceutical products, but this Amendment in fact takes them right out of the Bill —there is no real halfway house—because the Court is by this Amendment directed to say that they shall be exempted goods; that is to say, exempt from the provisions of this Bill. That means that the Court is directed to say that the practice of resale price maintenance can go on, and there is no escaping that. The noble Lord's argument that in some way, by making this Amendment to Clause 5, these products are kept within the scope of the Bill, whereas under the Amendment to Clause 1 they were taken right out, is not a sound argument.
The Amendment says that they will be exempted from the provisions of this Bill so that resale price maintenance can be continued, and the last few words say:
"subject to such conditions (if any) as the Court thinks fit."
So the Registrar would have to brine these pharmaceutical goods before the Court with the knowledge that the Court could only exempt them from the provisions of the Bill, but—if this Amendment were accepted—with the

149
Court having power to impose any conditions it liked in relation to these pharmaceutical products. No indication is given as to the nature of the conditions contemplated, and I must say that I think the whole concept of attaching conditions to an exemption order is fraught with difficulties. If it were advantageous to attach such conditions, power to do so should be a general power not limited to pharmaceutical products.
I really do not see what sort of conditions the Court could sensibly and effectively impose. The only conditions that would seem relevant to resale price maintenance—and that, of course, is the matter under consideration—are conditions relating to the level at which suppliers fix their resale prices. If that is the purpose of giving this power to impose conditions, I do not think it is acceptable. The object of the Bill, if I may remind your Lordships, is to permit a greater degree of flexibility in the retail prices, and the gravamen of the complaint against resale price maintenance is not only that it keeps prices unnecessarily high but that it keeps prices unnecessarily rigid. To make a condition about the resale price would be to perpetuate the rigidity, since it would have to be imposed on many suppliers carrying on business in different places and in varying circumstances; and, in any case, the level at which resale prices may be fixed is not a matter for the Court.
I have said a little about the content of this Amendment. What my noble friend is really seeking is in some way to avoid the operation of this Bill in relation to pharmaceutical products, and I do not think that would be right for the reasons that have already been advanced. For these reasons I would say that these goods should be treated like other goods. The case for exempting these goods was powerfully argued by the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, and by my noble friend Lord Coleraine; and, indeed, by my noble friend Lord Wakefield of Kendal. The proper place to argue that case for exemption is before the Restrictive Practices Court. If the case is as strong as my noble friends think it is, then surely they should succeed before that Court in obtaining exemption. The stronger the case is for pharmaceutical products the stronger, I would
150
say, was the case for leaving it to the Court to adjudicate upon those issues.
I would draw your Lordships' attention, in particular, to gateway (d) which was inserted with regard to this particular question—namely, the gateway which says:
"the goods would be sold by retail under conditions likely to cause danger to health in consequence of their misuse by the public as such consumers or users".
I advised your Lordships not to accept this Amendment but to leave it to the Court to adjudicate upon the matter, and I can assure my noble friend Lord Wakefield of Kendal, who asked a question and hoped that the Amendment would be most carefully considered, that indeed it has been. My noble friend Lord Coleraine thought that the argument advanced for exemption by the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, was quite incontrovertible. But if that be so, why not leave it to be argued, as the Bill gives it power to be argued, before the Restrictive Practices Court? Of course, I was very glad to note that my noble friend Lord Coleraine generally supports this Bill, but for the reasons I have given I must ask your Lordships not to accept this Amendment.
LORD TANGLEY: May I just deal with three points, the first being the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin? The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has not had the advantage that I have had of knowing from earliest boyhood what really happens in pharmacies. I have had that experience and I spoke from the depths of it in what I said to the Committee this afternoon. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, is perfectly right in saying that the business of pharmacists divides itself into two parts; one is the dispensing of medicines, and the other is the trading in medicines—to use his own term. But the distinction is nothing like as rigid as he believes. In fact, the professional man who sells medicines to the public carries over into that sale a tremendous sense of professional responsibility which shows itself in three ways: one, is in advising, as I suggested; the second is that he makes up his own mind what he will stock, and I can assure the noble Lord that the respectable pharmacist takes a great deal of trouble to make sure that what he is stocking is good stuff and worthy to be sold—it is his own method

151
of control. The third point is that he does not attempt to push his wares on the public. He is not trained in salesmanship; he is trained with a professional background which he applies not only to his pure professional work as a dispenser, but also to the selling of goods over the counter. I can assure the noble Lord that that is in fact what happens.
The next point I want to make is that, so far as I can judge—and I say this with great respect—the noble and learned Lord has not attempted to meet my case in substance. He took the easier course—and I admit it is the easier course—of criticising the words of my Amendment. There is no attempt before your Lordships' Committee to answer the case in substance; there is no answer given to my point that there will be these advertisements in the supermarkets and elsewhere; there is no suggestion that they are desirable; and there is no suggestion that it is right to deprive the suppliers of their means of stopping the nonsense.
There has been no attempt to justify any of these things at all; and I do venture to suggest to the Committee that it would have been very much better, from the point of view of the Government, for them to have answered the substance of my case rather than spend a good deal of time on dealing with the wording, which I admit is imperfect. It is not only the wording in this Amendment which is imperfect. The wording of the Bill is imperfect almost from end to end, because the unfortunate draftsman—and I admire his skill enormously —has been attempting to draft the undraftable. I have been attempting, perhaps, to draft the undraftable in this particular Amendment; but I think that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, bearing in mind some of the words he has been seeking to defend, might have been a little more sympathetic to my wording in this particular Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I did not criticise the wording of the noble Lord: I criticised the effect of his wording.
LORD TANGLEY: Then may I come to the wording which the noble and learned Lord was good enough to put to me, in particular, under gateway (d)? It
152
is not good enough just to say that you can wriggle through these conditions somehow or other. Gateway (d) I have studied at least as carefully as the others, and there is one thing which is not caught by (d) at all, and that is a substance—and there are plenty of them, I am sorry to say—which is perfectly harmless and equally useless, the only damage which the consumer suffers being that he has money taken out of his pocket for a valueless article. Paragraph (d) says:
"the goods would be sold by retail under conditions likely to cause danger to health in consequence of their misuse by the public as such consumers or users …".
If it is not dangerous but only useless, you could not possibly get it under that clause. That is another example of what, in the first speech which I made, I called wriggling.
I am disappointed that the Government will not see the light on this clause. I greatly regret it, and I respectfully suggest they ought to. I want to say this with all the force I can urge. These things I have been fearing will happen, and when they do happen then it is the Government who will have to take the responsibility for them. It will be idle for Members of this House or Members of the Government to fulminate against the wickedness of the pharmaceutical industry. It is the Government who will have taken away their powers, and it is the Government who must accept responsibility for having done so.
I said in opening that my object in moving this Amendment was to ask your Lordships what you felt about this business of medicines. I think Members have expressed themselves very clearly. I have achieved my object. I hope that the Government will have second thoughts before the next stage of the Bill here—they certainly should. But, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.14 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD LORD CONESFORD moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "against any person who was party to the proceedings under the said Part I". The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with subsection (3) of Clause 5 of the Bill. This subsection, I think, commands the support of the whole Committee, but after

153
the Second Reading it was the view of my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross and myself that the excellent intentions of the Government in this subsection might be frustrated by the limitations imposed by the words which I propose to omit. Those words are,
"… against any person who was party to the proceedings under the said Part I …"
For that reason, on the very next day, my noble friend and I put down a series of Amendments to amend the words that I am now proposing to delete. When we gave the matter further consideration, it became clear that we should achieve our purpose even better by omitting the words altogether. That has the additional advantage of making the whole subsection more comprehensible to the layman. I believe that Her Majesty's Government also prefer this Amendment to the earlier Amendments which we put down. In those circumstances, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 20, leave out from ("conclusive") to ("any") in line 21.—(Lord Conesford.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: We have naturally considered this Amendment. We have come to the conclusion that it effects an improvement in the Bill, and I therefore advise the Committee to accept it. However, I should not like to part with it without congratulating my noble and learned friend on the excellent drafting of this particular Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.16 p.m.
LORD SINCLAIR OF CLEEVE LORD SINCLAIR OF CLEEVE moved, after subsection (3) to insert:
"()(a) On a reference under this section in respect of any goods, if

(i) the supply of those goods has been the subject of a reference to the Monopolies Commission, and

(ii) the Monopolies Commission has included in a report made pursuant to such reference a conclusion that in respect of such goods the maintenance of minimum resale prices neither operated nor might be expected to operate against the public interest,

the Court may make an order under subsection (1) of this section in respect of those goods and shall make such an order unless prima facie evidence is given of a material change since the date of such report in the circumstances appearing from the report to
154
have been taken into account by the Monopolies Commission in coming to such conclusion;
(b) In this subsection 'Monopolies Commission' means the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Commission constituted by the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices (Inquiry and Control) Act, 1948, or the said Commission as reconstituted under the name of the Monopolies Commission by the said Act as amended by the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1956, as the case may be."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment may appear somewhat formidable, in view of the amount of space that it occupies on the Marshalled List, but I assure the Committee that it is not a wrecking Amendment in any sense. Although the drafting may not be perfect, I hope that the meaning may be clear; and I hope to convince your Lordships that the Amendment is a reasonable and a desirable one. When this Bill was being considered in another place the Secretary of State introduced an Amendment, now incorporated in this Bill in subsection (3) of this particular clause, Clause 5, to provide special treatment for goods which had been the subject of proceedings before the Restrictive Practices Court. That Amendment was generally welcomed, and the one which I am now proposing to the Committee is intended to deal with an analogous problem—that is, the case of goods the supply of which has been considered, investigated, by the Monopolies Commission.
There are, of course, procedural differences between a reference to the Restrictive Practices Court and an investigation by the Monopolies Commission. In the former, the cases are heard in court, before one of Her Majesty's Judges, and witnesses are called and examined by counsel: in the latter, the particular industry is subjected to a long and laborious investigation, lasting over a number of years and culminating in hearings before the Commission, presided over by one of Her Majesty's Counsel. From the point of view of the industry concerned, however, whether the case is to be heard before the Restrictive Practices Court or whether it is to be investigated by the Monopolies Commission, the differences in the discharge of the burdens placed upon it have been more apparent than real. Since the Government, in their wisdom, have concluded that special provisions should be included in the Bill to lessen the burden of proof

155
in cases which have already been before the Restrictive Practices Court, I would submit that, in all fairness, analogous provisions should be included to reduce the burden on those industries whose affairs have been investigated by the Monopolies Commission and who have reason to believe that their practice is not against the public interest. This is what this Amendment seeks to do; and any order made under the proposed subsection would, of course, be subject to review in the event of any change in the relevant circumstances.
That is what I might describe as the prima facie case for this Amendment. I feel that there are few of your Lordships who would dispute its plausibility, and I venture to hope that most of your Lordships would sympathise with it—and, indeed, approve it—when regard is had to two factors. First, to take a case before the Restrictive Practices Court is a laborious, time-consuming and expensive business, involving the preparation of the arguments, the employment of counsel, arranging for the appearance of a large number of witnesses, and so forth. Secondly, each case takes a great deal of the time of an already overburdened Court. It is clear, I think, that there will be many applications for exemption, and power is taken in this Bill to appoint three more puisne judges. Yet there are likely to be very few cases where the Monopolies Commission pronounce on this subject, and it is difficult to conceive, under any likely future legislation, of any increase in that number. So I think there can be no reasonable doubt that, if this Amendment is accepted, it will not mean more exemptions of a large number of classes of goods, but it will mean, if and when the conditions stipulated are fulfilled, that a great deal of time, effort and money, both public and private, will be saved.
I realise however (and the advice which the Minister of State has been good enough to give me confirms this; indeed, the Lord Chancellor has reminded your Lordships on more than one occasion of this point) that both under the 1956 Act and under this Bill the Restrictive Practices Court, in considering cases before it, must have regard to specified gateways, a common feature of which is the establishment of the fact that, in some way
156
or another, discontinuance of the practice would be to the public detriment. With the Monopolies Commission, however, the question for determination is whether or not that practice is harmful to the public interest. This is a fine distinction. I would not claim that it is a distinction without a difference, but it is, nevertheless, a very fine one.
I would submit to the Committee that if, after due examination, after ascertaining and considering all the relevant facts, the practice is found not to be, or not likely to be, against the public interest, then its enforced discontinuance cannot be in the public interest. What we are concerned with surely is the public interest—the facts, not theory. This Amendment is not a specious device to insert into the Bill a provision which in general undermines its basic conception or real purpose. The distinction to which I have referred—perhaps I should call it "the different legal approach" in this Bill to the question of public interest—does not, of itself, turn something which quite recently was found not to be against the public interest into something which operates to the public detriment.
For all these reasons I earnestly hope that the Minister will be prepared to accept this Amendment at its face value, as being sensible, reasonable and calculated to save time, effort and money, and not something which makes any kind of breach in the structure of the Bill or in any way contravenes its purpose in promoting free competition and safeguarding the public interest. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 24, at end insert the said subsections.—(Lord Sinclair of Cleeve.)
LORD ROBERTSON OF OAKRIDGE: I should like warmly to support this Amendment. The case for it has been put so well by the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve that it is not necessary for me to add many words. However, I think it may be worth while to say a few words, first in the hope that it will show the Government that the feeling about it is fairly widespread; and, secondly, because I think I have one point to make which was not made by the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve. It is a point on which there has been a great deal of discussion throughout all

157
the period of preparation of this Bill. One is aware of that; and the Government have conceded something in introducing subsection (3) which will expedite the procedure when the case comes before the Court. Yet there is still some feeling about it.
I noticed that the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, said in regard to a previous Amendment that the Board of Trade had advised him that industry was not interested in that particular Amendment. I do not know whether he has received similar information from the Board of Trade about this one; but I know that I speak on behalf of a not inconsiderable section of industry who feel strongly about it. Why do they feel strongly about it—especially after this subsection (3) has been inserted? Because that subsection does not alter the fact that they will again have to go before the Court. Having already been "through the hoop", they must go through it again. They are told that the hoop is now a gateway and is not the same shape—and that is perfectly true. Yet it does not alter their feeling that they are being, as it were, put on trial twice for the same offence; and this is a point that was not made by the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve.
It is not only that for them the process is time-consuming and expensive, but also that public companies do not like having to go before a court to explain all the things they do. In a competitive world, that is very awkward and they object to it very strongly. They do not like having to do it unless it is absolutely necessary. In this case they feel that it is not necessary, and that the Government might be more considerate; and they do not like being "pushed about". That is, perhaps, a British characteristic. The soldiers have a song about it which expresses that in far more forcible and rather monotonous terms. But that is the sort of feeling that industry has on this particular point.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, has put forward his Amendment with very considerable persuasion, but I am sorry to have to disappoint him by saying that I must advise the Committee to reject it. The effect of it would be that the Restrictive Practices Court would have power to make an exemption
158
order, would have to make an exemption order, without regard to the application of the gateways, in respect of goods which had been the subject of a Monopolies Commission Report in which the Commission had concluded that resale price maintenance
"neither operated nor might be expected to operate against the public interest".
It would be obligatory upon the Court to make an exemption order unless prima facie evidence was given of a material change in the circumstances which appeared to have led the Monopolies Commission to such a conclusion.
But the Amendment goes further than that. It would be open to the Court to make an exemption order—and without any reference to the gateways—even where there was evidence of a change in the circumstances. The Amendment is intended to facilitate the exemption of particular goods. Tobacco is one. There are other goods in relation to which the Monopolies Commission has expressed a view: standard metal windows and doors, tea and certain rubber footwear. I have already mentioned cigarettes and tobacco. It is only in relation to those goods that there can be any suggestion of being put "through the hoop" twice or put on trial twice for some offence. Naturally, those concerned with the maintenance of resale price maintenance in respect of those articles may feel it is rather bad luck that they should have to be brought before a different body—a court in this case—to deal with that particular matter. The Amendment applies only where resale price maintenance arrangements are registered. We have carefully considered this and feel that this Amendment is quite inconsistent with the principles of the Bill and with the provision that has been made for cases, such as net books, where there have been proceedings before the Restrictive Practices Court in which resale price maintenance was involved.
The intention of the Bill is that individual resale price maintenance in all trades, if it is to be permitted to continue, must be considered by the Restrictive Practices Court in the light of the criteria in Clause 5. As I indicated in discussing the last Amendment, the Government do not think that any goods

159
should be automatically exempted from any liability to be judged by the Court against these criteria. We have introduced the provision in Clause 5(3) providing that any finding of fact in proceedings under the 1956 Act before the Restrictive Practices Court is to be treated as conclusive as a finding of fact in exemption proceedings under the Bill, unless there has been a material change in the relevant circumstances. The effect will be that, where the clause applies, suppliers will not have to prove facts all over again, but it will remain the Court's function to decide in the light of the established facts if an exemption order should be made. The principle that the grounds for an exemption order should remain the same for every case is unimpaired.
Therefore, there is an enormous difference of principle between Clause 5(3) and any provision on the lines of this Amendment, under which it would be obligatory for the Court to make an exemption order, regardless of the application of the gateways, where another body with its special terms of reference had reached a certain conclusion. This would put the trades which have been before the Monopolies Commission and secured (if I may so call it) a favourable verdict, in an unusually privileged position simply because they had happened to be the subject of a Monopolies Commission inquiry and the Monopolies Commission had had to consider whether resale price maintenance contributed in any way to abuses connected with monopoly; because, unless there were such a connection, the Commission would have had no ground for commenting adversely on resale price maintenance. Its concern is with abuses which stem from or strengthen monopoly situations.
I do not think that it would be right to require a court of law to accept as proved facts the conclusions reached in an essentially administrative inquiry in a different field and on different criteria. But I would add that this does not mean that the effort which particular industries may have put into Monopoly Commission inquiries would go for nothing, if relevant to exemption proceedings under the Bill. The rules of the Restrictive Practices Court already provide for the Court to be assisted in determining any issue in the proceedings by the
160
admission of oral or documentary evidence, which would not otherwise be admissible under the law of evidence. It is already the practice of the Court to have regard to the contents of the reports of the Monopolies Commission where these would be relevant. It has done so, for example, in the Linoleum and Metal Window cases. And I can see no reason why a similar procedure should not be followed in exemption proceedings under the Bill. We take the view that this is the only practicable method of ensuring that decisions are reached on the merits of these trades (like all others), in the light of the criteria in Clause 5(2). For the reasons I have indicated, while I regret having to disappoint my noble friend, I must say that the Amendment is not acceptable to the Government, and I must ask your Lordships to reject it, if it is not withdrawn.
LORD SINCLAIR OF CLEEVE: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the very full reply he has been good enough to give. I must confess that I have heard what he said not entirely without surprise but with a good deal of disappointment, disappointment in particular that his remarks seem to be so much related to the principles of the Bill as it stands (and I would certainly not presume to enter into argument with the noble and learned Lord on these) and so little to what I think is the underlying issue of supreme importance—namely, the public interest. On that, as I tried to establish, I believe that there is little difference between the two points of view, the point of view which the Monopolies Commission has determined and that which this Court has to establish. Of course, I accept that the Restrictive Practices Court must go into this specific gateway.
I hope very much that the noble and learned Lord can see his way to give some further consideration to the general point in this before Report stage, and, in reference to what I understood him to say towards the end of his reply, particularly to whether it might not be possible to adopt this Amendment, omitting the words in lines 11 and 12 as printed, "and shall make such an order". Though that would detract from the strength of the clause, it would still write into the Bill something to cover this point, which I feel is important, that the Restrictive

161
Practices Court may have regard to the conclusions of the Monopolies Commission in these matters. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will not say that this is completely unnecessary, but will be able to give it some further thought. On that basis, I should be very happy to withdraw my Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I should not like the noble Lord to be under any misapprehension. Naturally, we have thought about this a great deal. Even with the slight qualification he suggests, I am sorry that I really cannot hold out any hope that any further cogitations would lead to the acceptance of his proposal.
LORD SINCLAIR OF CLEEVE: I am very sorry to hear that. If I am in order to do so, I will refer to this again on Report stage, but, meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved, after subsection (3), to insert:
"() In any case where the Restrictive Practices Court on a reference made to it determines that no order under this section is to be made in respect of goods of a specified class, the Court may nonetheless, if it is satisfied that special circumstances make it reasonable so to do, make an order that the provisions of section 2 of this Act shall not from a date to be specified in the order apply to any supplier of that class of goods in respect of such goods."
The noble Lord said: In view of the hour, I will be as brief as I can on this Amendment. I wonder whether the Government can give us some indication of the type of classification that will be considered by the Court. To take textiles as an example, do the Government intend that the Court should examine the whole of the textile range or make their decisions on woollens, cottons and manmade fibres separately? The reason why I should like this information is that, if we are going to have a broad classification, there may be cases in which a particular manufacturer or supplier, for some special reason, is entitled to protection under Clause 2. If the Court is going to decide on a fairly narrow basis, then obviously the point of view of the individual supplier will be taken note of and will have a bearing on the decisions, but if it is going to decide on a fairly wide range then the position of the in-
162
dividual supplier, who may need special protection, may be affected in regard to the quality of his goods for the export market. I wonder whether the noble lord, Lord Drumalbyn, can help us in regard to the extent of the classifications on which the Court will decide. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 24, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Shepherd.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: So far as the extent of the classification is concerned, I am afraid I cannot give the noble Lord any positive information, except to say this. People will register goods for which they want exemption. It will then be for the Registrar to classify them as convenient. How extensively or how narrowly that will be done is a matter, in the first instance, for the judgment of the Registrar. But there is, as your Lordships will see, an appeal provided in the Bill against the Registrar's decision as to classification. I can only speculate, but I should think it highly unlikely that the classification would be so wide as to apply to all textile goods, or anything of that kind. I think it would make the goods much more identifiable. The Bill is designed in this way: the Registrar will decide in the first place, and people interested can then appeal against his decision.
LORD SHEPHERD: I thank the Lord Chancellor for that reply, but I would invite him to consider, on this point of classification, whether we could not perhaps make a little clearer to the Registrar the way in which he might, as it were, build the classification of goods to be considered by the Court. I think it would make a considerable difference to many suppliers, and also retailers, if they knew fairly well in advance that it would be a narrow definition and not a wide one. If it is put in on a wide basis, then I think there is a greater case, which we could come back to on Report, for making it possible for suppliers to have exemption, if in the view of the Court there is some special circumstance arising, while the general classification would continue. If the noble and learned Lord will consider this, I am quite happy to withdraw the Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will, of course, consider that between now and Report. I am doubtful whether I can give the noble Lord any further assistance on it, because it must be for the Registrar, when he sees what goods are registered, to classify them in the most convenient classes possible for handling before the Restrictive Practices Court. As I said, if anyone does not like the classification, he can always appeal against it, and provision is made for this in the Bill. On the question of knowing in advance what goods are registered, I do not think it will be possible for me to give the noble Lord much assistance, but I will consider the matter between now and the Report stage.
LORD SHACKLETON: I should like to ask one question. The noble and learned Lord said that anybody can appeal against this classification. I have been looking at the Bill, but I am not clear where this appears. Does he mean anybody, or only interested parties?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am afraid that, at this late hour, I said "anybody" when I naturally meant "anybody interested"; that is to say, interested parties. This is dealt with, as your Lordships will see, by Clause 8(3)(a), and it will be dealt with by rules.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.44 p.m.
LORD LINDGREN LORD LINDGREN moved to add to the clause:
"(5) Any order under this section directing that goods of any class shall be exempted goods may also be made by the Restrictive Practices Court if it appears to the Court that purchase tax, excise duty, and similar charges payable before the goods are offered for sale by retail would amount to more than half of the cost of such goods to the dealer."
The noble Lord said: Taking the hint from my noble friend Lord Shepherd, too, propose to be brief, and particularly as this Amendment is really a variation of an Amendment that was put clown in another place and fairly fully discussed there. Everyone will agree, I think, that where there is a commodity on which the excise duty, purchase tax or similar charge is over 50 per cent. of the price of the goods before they go on to the market—and one must have in mind the cost of manufacture and distribution—
164
there is litle room for manœuvre in regard to the general question of price-cutting, except perhaps where there are large-scale retailers, supermarkets and the rest, who can buy in great bulk and perhaps get greater discounts, thereby enabling them to indulge in this practice.
A case in point is the off-licence. I have received a letter from an association representing off-licensees in this country, and no doubt other noble Lords have, too. They feel that if they are to maintain a reasonable trade with stability, and to give reasonable service, then an Amendment such as this is necessary. It very likely covers many other goods as well. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 33, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Lindgren.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: I hope that I, too, shall be able to reply to the point quite briefly. The attitude of the Government is that it hardly seems that the rate of tax, or the fact that duty represents a substantial element in the price, is material to the question of whether there is or is not a case for maintaining the resale price. It is true that there may be less scope in such cases for retailers to make price reductions, or at any rate significant price reductions, in relation to the maintained resale price. But there seems to be no reason why they should not be permitted to make what reductions they can in cases where there is no ground for exemption under Clause 5.
The difficulty inherent in exemptions of this sort is that it makes an entirely arbitrary provision as to what sort of goods should be exempted; and because it is arbitrary, and because of the nature of the various taxes, excise duty and so on involved, it would operate quite haphazardly. For example, spirits would qualify for exemption, but not beer. Whether petrol lighters or scents would qualify would depend on their prices, because the duties on these goods are specific and so the ad valorem incidence is greater the lower the price. If at any time there were changes in the rate of duties or tax, in that case goods could quite by chance be brought within the exemption range or be excluded from it. I think I have said enough on this to show that this (quite apart from the drafting of the clause, which does not make it clear whether customs duty

165
would be included or not; and, if it were not, tobacco would be outside) would not be a possible criterion to apply because it would operate so haphazardly.
LORD LINDGREN: I thank the noble Lord for that reply. It is not exactly convincing, because these are all goods of standard manufacture. He mentioned wines and spirits, and said that beer would not be included. That is my beverage, and my trouble is to find out what the price is, because as I go from bar to bar the price seems to vary. Certainly there is no resale price maintenance in that connection. However, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LINDGREN LORD LINDGREN moved, to add to the clause:
"() Any order under this section directing that any goods of any class shall be exempted may also be made by the Restrictive Practices Court if the Court is satisfied that there is adequate competition between the suppliers of the goods and that the minimum resale prices applicable to the goods are not greater than necessary to ensure the efficient distribution of the goods in the United Kingdom."
The noble Lord said: This is another gateway Amendment, and I think it at least has the advantage that its wording is clear and easily understood. The Amendment really sets two tests which would appear to justify the continuance of resale price maintenance on any class of goods. To restate them—although they are stated quite clearly in the Amendment—they are, first, where there is adequate competition between suppliers of the goods, and, secondly, where the minimum resale price applicable to the goods allows of a margin sufficient only to ensure efficient distribution. I have admitted that it would cover a wide variety of goods; and that is perhaps an argument against the Amendment. But in view of the two safeguards which are quite stringent and I think would be effective, I beg to move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 33, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Lindgren.)
LORD SINCLAIR OF CLEEVE: Despite the lateness of the hour, I hope that I may be allowed to say a few words in support of this Amendment, because it seems to me to be of particular importance. The Bill, as I see
166
it, suffers from an absence of any positive encouragement of freer competition, and this Amendment underlines that omission. When I saw it, I felt it covered a point that I tried to make on Second Reading—a point particularly relating to the boot and shoe trade. In an industry where both systems operate —price maintenance and non-price maintenance—and where there is absolutely free competition between the suppliers in that industry; where the price-maintained sector of the trade is considerably smaller, but growing at the expense of the other, and where the distributors' margins in the pricemaintained sector are in general lower, and in some important brands very much lower, than in the non-price-maintained sector, then in some circumstances I cannot see how it can be in the public interest to compel the cessation of resale price maintenance. Yet the only possible gateway for a case of this type is subsection (2)(c) of Clause 5.
That requires the manufacturer concerned—the plaintiff, that is—to prove to the Court that in the event of the cessation of the practice the prices at which the goods are sold by retail would in general, and in the long run, be increased to the detriment of the public as consumers and users. That is a difficult thing for a minority manufacturer to prove. Surely, this Amendment is good. As the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, said, it is not an unduly wide gateway, for it is restricted by the Court's judgment of the reality and adequacy of the competition between the suppliers, and by the Court's being satisfied that the distributor's margin is not greater than is necessary to secure efficient distribution. I hope that the Government will be prepared to consider accepting this Amendment, or something very much like it.
6.54 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, and my noble friend Lord Sinclair of Cleeve have both adduced very strong arguments in this case, but I think they were probably aware from the start that they would have to be exceedingly strong arguments in a case like this in order to enable them to overcome the natural disinclination of the Government to admit the making of an exemption order which

167
would by-pass any argument about detriment to the public. In this case, as the noble Lord said, the Amendment would permit the Court to make an exemption order where it appeared that there was adequate competition between the suppliers of the goods in question, and that the minimum resale prices applied were
"not greater than necessary to obtain the efficient distribution of the goods in the United Kingdom".
The trouble here is that there is a fundamental objection to an Amendment on these lines. It is at variance with the whole concept and basic intention of the Bill.
As my noble and learned friend said on the last Amendment, the Government believe that the rigidity of the resale price maintenance system is itself necessarily undesirable, except where one of the specific benefits to the public set out in the gateways can be shown. The primary purpose of the Bill is to permit greater competition (and I am afraid one has to keep saying this in the course of the discussion of the Bill) between distributors, and so to introduce more flexibility into the distributive trades. However many manufacturers there may be in competition with one another in a particular field, if all shops sell each brand at uniform prices there is to this extent no scope for price competition between the shops: there is only competition between the manufacturers.
I was not quite clear about the argument which my noble friend Lord Sinclair of Cieeve put forward. He said that in the boot and shoe trade one of the factors was that in the price-maintained sector in that trade margins were lower. I think we must be careful about adducing an argument to show something which it may not show at all. I wonder whether the margins are lower because the goods are price-maintained, or because the goods are advertised. To the extent to which a manufacturer advertises his goods, he is bearing part of the expense of selling: he is helping to sell the goods.
LORD SINCLAIR OF CLEEVE: May I say a word in explanation? Of course the goods are advertised as well as price-maintained, and I agree that advertising
168
certainly has an effect on the situation. But the goods in the non-price-maintained sector are also advertised. In this particular case in the boot and shoe trade, as I understand it, the lower margins are accepted by distributors on the grounds of having fewer sizes and fewer makes to stock, and of being assured of a more rapid turnover as a result of the advertising and quality of the product. So they are satisfied that in the aggregate on their sales of these particular classes of goods they are making a satisfactory profit, although the actual margin per pair, or dozen pairs, of shoes, or whatever it may be, is, on the whole, lower than in the non-price-maintained sector. I think this is a real case.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I appreciate what the noble Lord has said, but again, as he has put the case now, it seems to me that he is adducing further points in which margins are lower, not only because they are price-maintained, but for other reasons. I think this is the effect of what he has said.
LORD SINCLAIR OF CLEEVE: I did not endeavour to argue that the margins are lower only because they are price-maintained.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I accept that. It seems to me that we have to consider the point that the competition we are aiming to produce within this Bill is competition between distributors, and to the extent that we allow price maintenance to continue among distributors we are reducing competition in distributive trades. But there is, of course, another objection to this Amendment, and that is that it is extremely difficult to say what would be the single appropriate price for the Court to determine here, because low-cost distributors can well afford, and may well wish, to sell more cheaply than shops offering a higher standard of service. That is another difficulty about this Amendment.
The third point is the general point which my noble and learned friend raised in a different connection, but which I believe applies equally to this Amendment; that is, that whether there is adequate competition between suppliers, and particularly whether the resale prices applied are greater than is

169
necessary to ensure the efficient distribution of goods in the United Kingdom, are not really justiciable issues. It is not possible for the Court to pronounce on matters of that kind. For those reasons, I hope that the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
LORD LINDGREN: I thank the noble Lord for that reply. He said in his opening statement that he would have expected that any argument in favour of the Amendment would have to be exceedingly strong if it were to pierce the armour of the Government Front Bench. That is true, because it has been "No, no, no" all the way through, irrespective of the likely effect of the Amendrnent on trade, industry, the consumer or the manufacturer. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, for calling attention to the boot and shoe industry, which was a staple industry in a constituency which I had the honour to represent in another place. It is an extremely good example, and, of course, there are very many others. In view of the attitude of the Government and the representation in the House at the present time, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by Leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6:
Registration of goods for exemption
6.—
(2) Within the period of three months from the commencement of this section, any supplier who supplies goods under arrangements for maintaining minimum prices on resale, or any trade association whose members consist of or include such suppliers, may give notice to the Registrar in respect of goods of any description so supplied by that supplier or those suppliers claiming registration in respect of those goods.
7.2 p.m.
LORD JESSEL LORD JESSEL moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "three" and insert "five" [months]. The noble Lord said: I suggest that this Amendment is necessary as the existing time-table laid down by the Bill is very tight. Clause 6 will come into force one month after the Act receives Royal Assent, and as the clause is at present drafted, suppliers will have to register within three months of its coming into force.
Bearing in mind the time it will take for suppliers to have the Act brought to their attention as something requiring positive action on their part, and the time they will then need to take legal advice and to receive all the relevant forms, I suggest that this is not long enough. It ought to be at least six months from the date when the Act receives Royal Assent, especially having regard to the serious consequences to people who fail to register in time.
For the sake of comparison, the final date by which the parties to restrictive agreements were required to furnish particulars of such agreements to the Registrar under the Act of 1956 was seven months after the commencement of that Act, and the consequences of failure to register in time under that Act were less serious than the consequences of a failure here. A period of six months from the date when the Act was passed cannot be said to be unduly long. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 42, leave out ("three") and insert ("five").—(Lord Jessel.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think that after the debate upon this Bill every supplier in the country who engages in the practice of resale price maintenance must be aware that the Bill is going through Parliament, and I would ask the Committee to bear in mind what he has to do. First of all, he has to decide whether he has to seek to get exemption under this Bill so that he can continue to practise resale price maintenance. He will not want to consult lawyers on that at this stage. He knows that the only step he must take is to register. Claiming registration is not going to be a particularly onerous task; and I would say to my noble friend that three months, I should have thought, would give ample time for suppliers to decide whether they want to register and to cope with the necessary documentation which is involved in registration. Once they have registered, as your Lordships know, their goods will be exempt from the prohibitions in the Bill until the matter has been before the Court.
Handling the notices claiming registration will mean a lot of work for the Registrar, but this would not be lessened by extending the period for registration.

171
Any extension in period for claiming registration will mean a comparable delay in the period before the provisions in the first Part of the Bill can be brought into force. Believing, as we do, that suppliers will realise what little has to be done to effect a registration, we consider that the three months' period which would befall from the enactment of the Bill is really sufficient. Therefore I would ask my noble friend not to press this Amendment.
LORD JESSEL: I thank the noble and learned Lord for his explanation and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.7 p.m.
LORD COLERAINE LORD COLERAINE moved, after subsection (2) to insert:
"(3) Such a notice as is mentioned in the preceding subsection may be given at any time in respect of goods which have not been the subject of any previous notice to the Registrar and which, at the time of the giving of the notice, were not being supplied by any supplier under arrangements for maintaining minimum prices on resale."
The noble Lord said: The intention of this Amendment is to raise again the ghosts which were only partly laid in the debate on Clause 1 on the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd; the rather unhappy ghosts of those new products which, unless this Bill is amended, will probably be strangled at birth and never see the light of day. In that debate my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn committed himself to some statements which I hope he will agree on reflection were a little extreme. He said that any Amendment proposing special treatment for new products would drive a coach and horses right through the Bill; there could be no doubt of that. I seriously suggest to him that that is an unreasonable attitude to maintain. If new products require special treatment in order to be launched on the market, it surely does not drive a coach and horses through the Bill if, for a temporary period, they are given special treatment to meet their special difficulties.
My noble friend also said, I think, that there are thousands of new products which come on to the market without the help of resale price maintenance. I have no doubt that is true, but there
172
are also some new products which, I am sure, can never reach the market without the support of resale price maintenance. One has to realise that when a manufacturer puts a new product on the market, not only is he taking a risk —and he is taking a risk because he does not know whether there is any public demand or whether the public will like it—but the retailer also is taking a very big risk. He has to make a very heavy investment in stock, and a heavy investment in shelf space, which is perhaps more valuable, in order to try to promote a product for which there is no public demand whatever and for which there may never be any public demand. He is only going to do this if he is assured that if the product is successful and there is a public demand he will profit from it. That is why, generally speaking, it is necessary to have higher and more stable margins with a new product than with an existing product.
One case comes to my mind, although I was not concerned in it myself. Some years ago an electric spit was put on the market for domestic use. It was an expensive piece of apparatus and the retailer had to make a pretty heavy investment in stock. It was a bulky piece of apparatus, and he had to give up a good deal of his shelf space to it. If it had not been price-maintained he would not have taken it on, and this very useful piece of equipment would not have come on to the market.
I think there is a more valid point in this than my noble friend was prepared to admit the other day on Clause 1. The Government recognise that there is a problem with new products under the Bill, and that is why I have no doubt my noble and learned friend on Second Reading, on the problem of new products and referring to Clause 7, said that this clause will also permit suppliers of new products to seek exemption. But Clause 7, in fact, gives no real help at all to anyone trying to launch a new product; because before the product is launched they have to apply to the Court; the Court has to deliberate, and it would be, I should think, at the most hopeful estimate, a year and probably longer before any answer came. No supplier is going to develop a new product to the point of

173
marketing it and then wait a year or eighteen months before he knows whether he can market it or not; and his only alternative is to market it without resale price maintenance, in the knowledge that almost certainly he will not find distribution for it and the product again is killed.
I think one has to realise that this question of the marketing of new products is a special problem for the relatively small manufacturer. The big manufacturer, who can afford heavy advertising, who is prepared to stand a heavy loss for two or three years in the knowledge—he has so much confidence—that in the end it will come out all right, is in one position and he can face up to the Bill. But the relatively small manufacturer, who is not a big advertiser and cannot afford to stimulate a public demand, relies entirely on distribution, and he will not get that distribution unless the retailer gets some special treatment under the Bill. I hope that the Government will consider the point behind this Amendment. I dare say the Amendment is imperfect, too wide and imprecise. I know there are all kinds of difficulties of definition. But there is a real problem, and I hope the Government will consider it and take some steps to deal with it later on. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 3, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Coleraine.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My noble friend has raised again an issue which we debated at some length at the earlier stages of this Bill, and I thought a great deal of what he said was really answered in the course of that debate by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth.
LORD COLERAINE: I can assure my noble and learned friend that it was not.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I only expressed my view; I said I thought it was. My noble friend may not have thought it was. But I really cannot accept his proposition that you cannot put a new product on the market without resale price maintenance. That is the underlying theme of his speech, and I do not believe that is the case at all. Of course, if you are going to engage in a trade and try to sell an article when everything else is price-maintained, the retailers will expect some price main-
174
tenance in relation to the article that you are marketing. But in the future it may not be that the other articles of that line are subject to resale price maintenance. I do not want at this hour to go back to the debate that we had, but I must say to my noble friend that we really cannot accept the Amendments that he proposes, on account of the effect they would have.
As the Bill stands, the compilation of a register is a once-for-all operation, and then you get the temporary exemption which follows upon that; and the only goods that can be registered are, of course, goods in respect of which resale price maintenance arrangements are carried on. Suppliers of goods not on the register, either because during the registration period suppliers were not maintaining price or did not wish to seek exemption or because the goods in question were not then in production, must seek exemption under this Clause 7. This requires the leave of the Court, and the applicant must show prima facie evidence of facts on which an exemption order could be made. That is what the Bill provides.
These Amendments would do away with that procedure. Instead, suppliers of goods which had not been the subject of any previous notice claiming registration would be permitted to give notice at any time to get their goods on the register at any time, and so, at any time, gain freedom to practise resale price maintenance until their case had been heard. The effect would be to extend the registration procedure indefinitely, and the three months' limit for initial registration would become virtually meaningless. I am sure, having said that, that the noble Lord will appreciate that the Amendment is one that we really cannot accept.
He has confined his observations to the supply of new goods, the manufacture of new goods, and I make this point: that although his speech was confined to that, this Amendment goes far wider. If my noble friend likes to put forward between now and Report stage any suggestions which he thinks might meet the particular case that he has so much at heart, I can say, of course, that we shall gladly consider what he suggests. But this Amendment is not one it would be possible for the Government to accept, and I hope my noble friend will excuse me,

175
therefore, from saying anything more on the matters which we debated at an earlier stage.
LORD COLERAINE: I accept what my noble and learned friend said about the wide scope of this Amendment, and certainly if I can think of a form of words which will deal with the new products aspect of it satisfactorily to my noble and learned friend, I will put it down. But I would say to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that it struck me that he was under a misapprehension about my argument. I was not arguing that no new product can be launched without resale price maintenance; I was arguing that there are a number of new products which cannot be launched without the retailer's being assured of a fairly high margin during the launching period. It is not so much that the retailer must be protected by resale price maintenance as that if it is to be worth his while to launch this new product, to take this gamble to try to stimulate a public demand which does not exist at all, then he must have a higher margin than he would need with the normal range of goods with which he is dealing. However, I certainly have no wish to detain your Lordships any longer, and I would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD SHEPHERD: Before the noble Lord withdraws it, may I say that this is an interesting point. I think the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said at an earlier stage that there was nothing to prevent a supplier from making arrangements for the marketing of his goods so as to ensure that the goods are marketed as I think the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine has in mind. I think that is the case: that in an early stage of new goods a supplier would be quite entitled, as I understand it from the Lord Chancellor. to so market his goods that it would prevent acute competition coming in by one or two individuals which would upset the general marketing of a new line. I think that is the case.
LORD COLERAINE: As I understand the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, it would be open to the supplier to restrict the number of retailers; but if he wants an opportunity
176
to launch his new product, that probably is the very last thing he wants to do. He wants as wide a distribution as he can get.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think the confusion here is this. If there is no resale price maintenance the retailer can fix any price he likes that he thinks he can get from the public. It will not rest with the manufacturer to say, "Sell my goods at so-and-so". The retailer, having got the goods and having made whatever contract he likes with the manufacturer, will then be free to charge what price he likes.
LORD COLERAINE: Yes, but that is of very little help in this connection, because while the individual retailer can charge whatever price he likes, he has no guarantee that he will not be undercut by the big chain store just round the corner, and that he will not dispose of these goods at all. However, I do not want to get involved in further argument. I would ask leave to withdraw this Amendment, but before the Committee gives me leave perhaps I may say that, if I am given leave to withdraw it, I do not propose to move the further Amendments in my name on the Marshalled List because they are in essence consequential.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.20 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It might be convenient to deal with the next four Amendments together. Amendments Nos. 38, 39, 40 and 41 are all drafting Amendments. I will explain them to your Lordships if your Lordships desire, but I think your Lordships would find it singularly uninteresting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 9, after second ("of") insert ("a class of goods consisting of or comprising").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 10, leave out from ("entered") to end of line 10.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move Amendment No. 40.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 17, leave out ("class are included") and insert ("description are included in a class specified").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move Amendment No. 41.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 20, leave out from ("goods") to ("shall") in line 21 and insert ("of any description are not included in any such class".)—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7:
Late applications to, and review of decisions by, the Court
7.—(1) The Restrictive Practices Court may, upon application made in accordance with this section at any time after the expiration of the period mentioned in section 6(2) of this Act, make such an order as is described in section 5(1) of this Act in respect of goods of any class, being goods in respect of which no notice claiming registration was given under the said section 6 within that period.
(4) No application shall be made under this section except with the leave of the Court; and such leave shall not be granted—
(a) in the case of an application under subsection (1) of this section, except upon prima facie evidence of facts upon which an order could be made in accordance with section 5(2) of this Act in respect of the goods in question, or could be so made if any detriment to the public resulting from the maintenance of minimum resale prices were disregarded;
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (1), to leave out all words after "class" and insert:
"not being goods of which particulars are entered in the register kept under the said section 6 or goods in respect of which a previous application has been made under this subsection".
The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment makes two minor modifications in the provision for late applications for exemption. First, it restricts late applications to goods
"not being goods of which particulars are entered in the register"
instead of goods
"in respect of which no notice claiming registration was given".
178
This will make it simpler for the supplier who wants to know whether he is entitled to make a late application. The easiest way for him to do this will be to look at the lists published by the Registrar, which by virtue of Clause 6(4) will be conclusive evidence of what is on the register. There will be no need for him to concern himself with the form in which notice was given.
Secondly, the Amendment will prevent late applications on goods in respect of which a previous late application has been made. There was a loophole there which is now filled. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 39, leave out from ("class") to end of line 41 and insert the said words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD JESSEL: I should like a little further explanation from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. Does this mean that the late applicant is in a worse position than the ordinary applicant, in that a late applicant can never apply again?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No; it does not mean that. What it does mean is this. Clause 7 deals with those two kinds of application. The application under subsection (1) is the only one affected by these Amendments. Where the application is under subsection (1) you have to make it with the leave of the Court; and as subsection (1) stands now you could have repeated applications with the leave of the Court.
LORD JESSEL: Even if your first application was a late one?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Even if the first one was a late one. We do not think that is right. The right thing to do is this: if he has made one application and had it turned down; then the late applicant ought to apply under subsection (2), and my noble friend will see that he has to show that there is prima facie evidence of a material change in the relevant circumstances since the last decision of the court in respect of the goods. So the late applicant is not prejudiced; but this second part of the Amendment does prevent what might develop into an abuse, repeated applications under subsection (1) when the second application to the court really

179
ought to come under subsection (2). That is all it does.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8:
Supplementary provisions as to registration, references and applications
8.
(2) The Schedule to the said Act of 1956 (proceedings of the Restrictive Practices Court) and, so far as applicable, section 23 of that Act (rules of procedure) shall apply in relation to proceedings before the Court on a reference or application under this Act, as they apply in relation to proceedings on an application under Part I of that Act, and as if references to agreements in the said section 23 included references to classes of goods:
Provided that notwithstanding anything in the said Schedule the Court may order the payment by the Registrar of all or any of the following costs incurred by any other party, that is to say—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Again this Amendment is really drafting. It slightly widens the Registrar's powers to make regulations. I can again explain it to the Committee if the Committee wishes, but I think that anyone who studies it will see that it is so much drafting that I need do no more than say that I will answer any questions upon it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 32, leave out from ("the") to ("relates") in line 35 and insert—
("manner in which notice claiming registration in respect of goods is to be given under that section;
(b) for prescribing the particulars to be included in any such claim of the descriptions of goods to which it").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 37, at end add ("and the documents to be furnished in support of any such particulars").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 38. leave out paragraph (b).—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
7.27 p.m.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH VISCOUNT HANWORTH moved to add to subsection (2):
"or
(c) costs incurred on a reference under section 5 of this Act or on an application under section 7 of this Act where the Court has made an order directing that goods of any class shall be exempted goods for the purpose of this Act."
The noble Viscount said: I should like to speak on behalf of my noble friend Lord Jessel on this Amendment. It deals with the costs of proceedings when a firm applies to the Restrictive Practices Court. As things stand at the moment, whether that firm or supplier are successful or not, they still have to pay their own costs. I should like to put forward three reasons why I think this is possibly a little unfair. In the first place, the practice of resale price maintenance has never been regarded, either at Common Law or by Statute, as contrary to public interest, and the present legislation recognises that in certain cases its practice may confer real and substantial benefit on the public. It would therefore seem right that the public having this benefit given to them might well foot the bill.
The other reason is that there are many small firms to whom the costs which might be incurred in such an application represent a considerable risk. They do not know beforehand how much it will cost, and therefore they may not feel justified in making the application. The application may, in fact, be in the public interest, and we are deterred from making such an application. The present Bill recognises that it is not necessary, and would not be fair as a general rule, to impose the Registrar's costs upon suppliers who had failed to discharge the heavy burden of proof in a complex matter; though, of course, if for any reason their application is considered frivolous, or it is felt that it should not have been made or was not made in the right way, the costs can be awarded against them. I should like this Amendment seriously considered. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 28, at end insert the said words.—(Viscount Hanworth.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I can assure my noble friend that this Amendment has been seriously considered, but the result of that consideration is, I am

181
afraid, wholly unsatisfactory to him. He would not for one moment, I imagine, like the Court to be in the position to award costs to either side; and I do not suppose that the small man who is applying for exemption would in the least welcome the idea that in some events he might get his costs before this Court and in others might be ordered to pay the Registrar's costs. Having considered it, I really do not think it would be right to go further than we have in the Bill in making provision for the payment of costs for those who apply for exemption.
The practice in the Restrictive Practices Court is not to award costs: each party pays its own costs. But we have recognised here two sorts of cases in which it is right to pay the costs where the issue has been determined in the other party's favour: first, where the issue substantially corresponds with an issue so determined in proceedings under the 1956 Act, and, second, in review proceedings. I am afraid that we cannot go further than that.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: I thank the noble and learned Lord for the assurance that the matter has been fully considered. I am not convinced that if this were agreed to it would necessarily mean that the firm or supplier applying need have the costs of both awarded against him, but I do not wish to press the Amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 9 and 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Interpretation]:
VISCOUNT HANWORTH VISCOUNT HANWORTH moved to add to subsection (2):
"provided that no company shall be liable to civil proceedings under section 4 of this Act in respect of any act or omission of any other company unless it would be liable thereto apart from the provisions of this subsection".
The noble Lord said: I should also like to speak to this Amendment—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Might I again save time by saying that this Amendment has drawn our attention to a slight defect in the Bill which might, as drafted, produce some anomalies? We should like to give tome further con-
182
sideration to the matter, and if the noble Lord, having spoken to his Amendment, will now withdraw it, that will save time.
LORD SHEPHERD: He has not yet moved it.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Does the noble Lord wish to move his Amendment?
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: Yes, I move it formally.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 43, at end insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Hanworth.)
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: I thank the noble and learned Lord for what he has said, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment. I should like to assure the noble and learned Lord that I had only five lines to say on the subject.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Application to Scotland and Northern Ireland]:
LORD CONESFORD LORD CONESFORD moved, in subsection (2), after "had not" to insert "been". The noble Lord said: This is a small drafting Amendment, the reason for which is as follows. Let me say at once that I, of course, agree that one can use the "pass" in an intransitive sense in saying, the "Act passes", or one can use it in a transitive way, in the sense of passing an Act or an Act being passed. But I think that there is some convenience in sticking to the one practice or the other throughout neighbouring clauses. The Committee will observe that in this sentence the Bill says that the Northern Ireland Parliament shall have the same power
"to pass Acts with respect to any matter as they would have had if this Act has not passed …"
using the word "pass" in the transitive and intransitive sense in the very same sentence. If one looks a little lower down, to Clause 14(2)(a) one sees a reference to "the date on which this Act is passed". So that I think there would be more uniformity of practice if the word "been" were inserted here. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 8, after ("not") insert ("been"). —(Lord Conesford.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not propose to debate the question of grammar with my noble friend tonight. All I can say now is that I will make sure that the draftsman has the noble Lord's observations drawn to his attention. If it is of any comfort to the noble Lord, the provision which he is seeking to amend is in common form and is identical with the comparable provisions in Section 37(1) of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1956, and Section 21(1) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Inquiry and Control) Act, 1948. The word "been" is not used in this form of provision, and therefore my advice is that as a matter of custom, practice and precedent the Amendment is not required.
LORD SHACKLETON: May I say that on a matter of such moment the Opposition would certainly not wish to commit themselves—at least, not quite so close to a General Election. I must say that, on an issue of this kind, I am rarely in disagreement with the noble Lord in matters of English. Indeed, I sometimes think that it would be unduly conceited to agree at all with him, rather than just to follow in the expert lead he gives. But on this matter I think he is in fact wrong, and for this reason we would probably support the Government.
LORD CONESFORD: I agree entirely with my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor that this Amendment is not required, and in a moment I shall withdraw it. But I would point out to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that, if he holds this view strongly, he might put down an Amendment to Clause 14 to leave out the word "is". Then he would have the whole thing consistent in the way he likes it. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Short title, commencement and transitional provisions]:
LORD GARDINER LORD GARDINER moved, in subsection (2)(c), after "months" to insert "and not more than nine months". The noble Lord said: The Government so
184
far have not been very appreciative of all our efforts to try to help them with this difficult Bill, but I am glad to find at the last moment an Amendment which I am sure they will accept with great pleasure. The effect of this clause is to provide first that the clauses to do with the Registrar and the judges, and so forth, come into force on the passing of the Act; then the clauses with regard to the Restrictive Practices Court come into force a month after the beginning of the Act. But Clause 1—which, after all, is the only clause that is going to work, the one which may abolish resale price maintenance—is not, according to this clause, to come into force on any specific date. It is to come into force
"not less than three months after the expiration of the last-mentioned period"
—that is, one month. So it is not to come into force until four months after the Act receives the Royal Assent, but there is no provision that it shall ever come into force at all.
After all the talk and time that has been taken up on this Bill, I would suggest for the consideration of the Committee that we ought to insert some period of time in which it ought to come into force—three months, six months, or nine months, as the Amendment says. I will make a sporting offer to the Government: if they want a year, I will agree to a year. But there should be some maximum period. We shall no doubt be told, "We have every intention of bringing it into force. We do not know how long the Registrar will be in drawing up his list." But I should have thought that nine months (which means ten months after the Act has been passed), was an outside period, and while ordinarily one would accept the assurance of the Government that they did intend to bring it into force, when I observe that four months from today is October 23, obviously no such assurance is of any value at all. By that time we may have a Government of the same or of a different persuasion, but nothing that is said tonight can bind any future Government. It is for these reasons, and because some of us believe that at the end of the day retailers should, save as to exempted goods, be free to re-sell at any price they like—and that will not happen until Clause 1 comes into force —that I beg leave to move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 28, after ("months") insert ("and not more than nine months").—(Lord Gardiner.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am astonished at the optimism of the noble and learned Lord at this late hour of the evening, but I am sorry that once again I have to disappoint him. This is an Amendment which was also discussed in another place, and I repeat the assurances given then, that there will be no unnecessary delay in bringing the provisions of this Bill into force. I do not share any of the doubts expressed by the noble Lord as to the power of this Government to implement that undertaking.
LORD LINDGREN: The noble and learned Lord is a great optimist!
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: But, be that as it may, there are practical reasons why it would be wrong to tie the Board of Trade's hands to a specific timing. It I may give one example quite shortly, the Board of Trade would not want the prohibition to take effect until the Registrar's published lists of registered goods were substantially complete. This is not to suggest in practice that this need take longer than the time limit specified in the Amendment, but there must be some discretion. The noble Lord has offered twelve months, but I would rather have an unfettered discretion about the appointed day in case of some unforeseen difficulty.
As I say, I can repeat the assurances that it is the Government's intention to bring the Bill into force at the first practicable date. But this is, as has been said before, largely uncharted territory and a great deal of administrative work will have to be completed by the Registrar in the first few months after the Bill becomes law. But, barring unforeseen difficulties, we see no reason to suppose that we shall need to overrun a time-table of the kind of length indicated in the Amendment. I can assure your Lordships that, having gone to the trouble of introducing this Bill and seeking to get it through both Houses of Parliament this Summer, we will take action with regard to it as soon as it is possible to do so in the next Session of Parliament.
LORD GARDINER: I cannot help feeling that the Government's real reason for opposing the Amendment is that they do not know how long it will take the Registrar to understand what the Act means. However, in view of the fact that the next Government will in fact be free to do exactly as they like, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Schedule [Transitional Provisions]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Amendments Nos. 51 and 52 are both drafting. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 12, line 11, leave out from ("of") to ("shall") and insert ("the said section 1, that section")
line 19, leave out ("the said section 1") and insert ("that section").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is an Amendment to the Schedule. Paragraph 2 is designed to allow suppliers a period of grace of one year to dispose of stocks of goods or containers which are already marked with a minimum resale price at the time when Clause 1 comes into operation in relation to the goods in question. The Bill as now drafted makes this concession conditional upon the goods having been manufactured before the date on which Clause 1 came into effect in relation to the goods, instead of referring to the time at which the price was marked. This produces undesirable anomalies. To rectify this position the Amendment limits the one year concession to cases where the minimum resale price was marked upon the goods or the container before Clause 1 came into operation. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 23, leave out from ("if") to ("before") and insert ("that price was so marked").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am advised that this is a purely drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 30, leave out ("has") and insert ("takes").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with Amendments.

SPRAY IRRIGATION (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
7.46 p.m.
Report of Amendments received (according to Order).
Clause 7 [Special provisions for shortage or abundance of water]:
THE MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD CRAIGTON): My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 1.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 36, leave out ("it") and insert ("they").—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule [Provisions as to applications for, making, coming into operation, and validity of, control orders]:
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, with your Lordships' approval I will discuss Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 together. These two Amendments meet the undertaking I gave in Committee to my noble friend Lord Burton. We could not accept tile noble Lord's proposal, that boards should determine minimum flow or levels before a control order was granted, if only because many boards are not ready for this. By this Amendment the Secretary of State can, in relation to each board, indicate a date by which this should be done. I beg to moved.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 4, after ("order") insert ("— (a)").—Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 7, at end insert (";and
(b) without prejudice to the foregoing generality, after a date to be appointed by the Secretary of State, shall, so far as practicable, include a statement of what the river purification board concerned consider to be the minimum acceptable flows for each such stream, as measured at control points described in that statement.")—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, I will discuss Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 together. These are drafting Amendments, to make it quite clear that the power of the Secretary of State to limit the notification of information relating to control orders applies only to the notification of those persons with interests in land referred to in paragraph 3(1)(d). I beg to move
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 37, leave out ("the provisions") and insert ("head (d)").—Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, I beg to move.

Page 7, line 42, leave out ("as aforesaid") and insert ("referred to in the said head (d)"). —(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL WEST RIDING COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.

NORFOLK ESTUARY BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at twelve minutes before eight o'clock.