Sitting of 24 March 1964

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

  BIRTH OF A SON TO HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
  The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address as follows:
  I thank you most sincerely for your loyal and dutiful Address on the occasion of the birth of my son.
  My husband and I have been deeply moved by the expression of your great pleasure in this happy event.

  MINISTERS OF THE CROWN
  The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD OLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address as follows:
  I have received your Address praying that the Secretary of State for Education and Science Order 1964 be made in the form of the Draft laid before your House.
  I will comply with your request.

PRIVATE BUSINESS
  CITY OF LONDON (COURTS) BILL [Lords]
  Read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.
  ELIM CHURCH MOOR LANE BOLTON
    BURIAL GROUND BILL
      LONDON TRANSPORT BILL
      Read the Third time and passed.

  PRESTON CORPORATION BILL
  [Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown and of the Duchy of Lancaster, signified]
  Read the Third time and passed.

  SHELL COMPANY OF AUSTRALIA BILL
    SHELL COMPANY OF EGYPT BILL,
      TEES CONSERVANCY BILL
      As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
  CHAPEL STREET CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH (SOUTHPORT) BURIAL GROUND BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time and committed.
  BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL (By Order)
  Consideration, as amended, deferred till Tuesday, 7th April.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  VIRGIN ISLANDS

    Development Plan
    Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid:asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will now make a statement on the assistance Her Majesty's Government are prepared to give to the Virgin Islands development plan.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and for the Colonies (Mr. Nigel Fisher): Her Majesty's Government have approved the development plan in principle. It provides for expenditure of about £600,000 in the period to March, 1966. Apart from loan funds of £185,000, the suggested sources of finance are £280,000 from Colonial Development and Welfare sources and £135,000 from the local budget which is grant aided by Britain.
    Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: Is my hon. Friend aware that his imaginative reply will be received with pleasure on both sides of the House by Members interested in the growth of our less developed possessions in the Commonwealth? Furthermore, is he aware that his own visit to, in particular, the Virgin Islands and its successful outcome are also a reason for more visits of this sort by himself and his colleagues in the coming years?
    Mr. Fisher: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for what he has said. I think that this development plan should make a considerable impact by opening up particularly Tortola and by providing the basic facilities for tourism.
    Mr. Chapman: Would the Government bear in mind the possibility of very real association with the American

    219
    Virgin Islands? After all, most of the people in the British Virgin Islands daily go to work in the American Virgin Islands. Would it not be a good thing in the long run for there to be some form of association between the two groups of islands, which would provide the possibility of American capital coming to the British Virgin Islands?
    Mr. Fisher: That is a very much wider question. This may be a possibility in the future, but we must have regard to local opinion.
    Mr. Bottomley: We on this side of the House gladly join in the tribute which has been paid to the Government for giving assistance to these islands. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will take into account what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) has said.

  ST. HELENA

    Emigration and Unemployment
    Mr. C. Hughesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) how many emigrated from St. Helena in 1963;
    (2) how many are now unemployed in St. Helena; and how many are on outdoor relief.
    The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and for the Colonies (Mr. Duncan Sandys): One hundred and five persons, including children, emigrated last year. Ninety-eight are at present unemployed, all of whom have been given outdoor relief work.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Secretary of State agree that many more St. Helenians would like to emigrate to this country if they were able to do so? If this were made possible, it would help to alleviate the heavy unemployment problem in St. Helena. Would the right hon. Gentleman consider giving additional financial assistance to enable more St. Helenians to emigrate if they want to do so?
    Mr. Sandys: As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a Government - sponsored emigration scheme for young men, under which jobs are found for them in Britain, and part of their fares is paid. For some
    220
    time there has been no request for this assistance.
    Mr. Hughes: Would the Secretary of State be good enough to look into this? Would he now consult the Government of St. Helena to see how many more would take advantage of this scheme if additional financial assistance were forthcoming?
    Mr. Sandys: I will certainly look into that.

  COLONIAL TERRITORIES

    Civil Servants (Non-designated Officers)
    Mr. Awberyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that in many colonies there are designated and undesignated civil servants, of whom the designated receive greater privileges and terminal compensation; and if he will take steps to rectify this.
    Mr. Barnettasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is satisfied with the present differences in terms of service between an officer recruited under the Overseas Service Aid Scheme and a non-designated officer; whether he is aware of dissatisfaction among non-designated officers, particularly in Northern Rhodesia, over their terms of service; and what action he proposes to take to rectify this situation.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and for the Colonies (Mr. R. P. Hornby): The terms of service of all officers in the service of overseas Governments, other than those designated by the British Government under the Overseas Service Aid Scheme, are the sole responsibility of the employing Governments.
    Some non-designated officers in Northern Rhodesia have expressed dissatisfaction with their terms of service but it is for their employing Governments to consider whether these terms of service should be improved.
    Mr. Awbery: Is the Under-Secretary aware that we have created a system of apartheid in our Colonies, even among British subjects? Men who have gone from this country and worked for the Government are now treated differently from others. The designated man

    221
    can get 15½ per cent. and other privileges from the Government which are not given to the non-designated man, who is doing exactly the same work. This is the feeling of the people in Lusaka, one of betrayal by the British Treasury on compensation benefits for those in Northern Rhodesia. Would the Minister give some serious thought to this matter, because it applies not only to Northern Rhodesia but to other countries? Would he give further thought to the problem and see if it can be solved?
    Mr. Hornby: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said; some dissatisfaction has been expressed by some non-designated officers in Northern Rhodesia. I think the hon. Gentleman would feel on reflection that this is not a fair way of describing the difference between the Overseas Service Aid Scheme, which was very carefully considered and worked out, with the approval of the Northern Rhodesian Government, and then approved by the House, and those officers who were locally recruited or did not come within the terms of the Overseas Service Aid Scheme. My right hon. Friend the Secretary for Technical Co-operation is prepared to consider the point made by the hon. Gentleman, but I cannot hold out much hope of the terms of the original O.S.A.S. being widened.
    Mr. Barnett: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the expression "some dissatisfaction" is a very wrong description of the situation? Is he aware that I have in my hands a petition signed by about 700 of these officers, complaining at the terms that they are having to endure? Is he aware also that some 400 of the 720 officers involved are of British origin and recognised by the Northern Rhodesian Government to have British domicile and that their terms of service are giving grave dissatisfaction in Northern Rhodesia, because, as my hon. Friend has said, they are doing precisely the same jobs and feel themselves very hard done by by comparison?
    Mr. Hornby: I am aware of the petition to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, but I must emphasise again that the position of the non-designated officer is primarily a matter for the
    222
    Northern Rhodesian Government. As I said earlier, my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Technical Co-operation will consider these matters, but I do not think I can add to what I previously said.
    Mr. Wall: In view of the original discrepancy in deciding whether an officer should be designated or non-designated, would my hon. Friend care to look it to the marginal cases and see if they could now be defined as designated officers?
    Mr. Hornby: I think I must repeat that the marginal cases, by which I think my hon. Friend must mean those who are at present non-designated officers, are those cases which fall within the sphere of responsibility of the employing Government—that is, the Northern Rhodesian Government.
    Mr. Bottomley: Although I appreciate what the Minister has already said, may I ask him to view this question from the point of view of hardship cases?
    Mr. Hornby: I will certainly consider whether my right hon. Friend can look at that aspect.
    Mr. Brockway: In view of the unsatisfactory reply, may I give notice that I wish to raise this on the Adjournment?

  MALTA

    Constitution
    Mr. Awberyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on his recent interview with the Archbishop of Malta on the independence of the island; and if he will place in the Library a synopsis of the chief matters discussed both with the Prime Minister of Malta and the Leader of the Opposition.
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the preparations for Maltese independence; and whether it has now been agreed to include in the future constitution of Malta the necessary safeguards for human rights, including freedom of worship and freedom from ecclesiastical control or interference.
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement about financial aid to Malta.
    Mr. Sandys: My meetings with the Prime Minister of Malta, and other political leaders and with the Archbishop were, of course, confidential.
    I cannot take any decisions regarding Malta's constitution until after the referendum.
    Talks on financial aid are proceeding.
    Mr. Awbery: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that radical changes have taken place since I tabled the Question? Now that a referendum is to be held, will he take steps to ensure that there is not a repetition of the circumstances which arose during the General Election in Malta? Let the people of Malta be given an opportunity of freely expressing their opinion without any threats being made.
    Mr. Sandys: That is what I hope will happen.
    Mr. Driberg: While sympathising to some extent with the right hon. Gentleman's evident desire to dodge the most awkward central issue here, and realising that he cannot appear to interfere with ecclesiastical jurisdiction as such, may I ask him if he realises that there will be a real difficulty about getting a referendum which truly expresses the views of the people of Malta if in the weeks before that referendum, and during the taking of it, there is the same spiritual tyranny which was exercised at the time of the election?
    Mr. Sandys: I do not think I want to express any opinions about that.
    Mr. Wall: Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that there will be adequate long-term financial aid to Malta before a final decision is taken on the date of independence?
    Mr. Sandys: As I explained in my Answer, financial talks are proceeding at the moment.
    Mr. Bottomley: Is it not unusual for one political party to draft a constitution for a Colony? Does this not usually fall to the lot of the Secretary of State or to some independent body such as a Radcliffe Commission? Would the Secretary
    224
    of State now issue instructions for a regulation saying that there will be a system of meetings and broadcasting for all parties concerned?
    Mr. Sandys: The second part of the question relates to the substance of part of the controversy in regard to the Constitution. As to the first part, the decision to hold a referendum was taken by the Prime Minister of Malta. It is not for me to dictate to the Government of a self-governing Territory whether or not they shall hold a referendum to test opinion on a question of importance.

    Independence
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies by what criteria he will judge the desire of the Maltese people for independence.
    Mr. Sandys: The "Yes" votes in the referendum will show how many people want independence under the Constitution which is to be proposed by the Malta Government. It will not, of course, be possible to tell how many of those who vote "No" want independence under some other form of constitution and how many are opposed to independence under any constitution.
    Mr. Wall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that after the last referendum in Malta all the political parties claimed the support of those who abstained? Can he say what weight he would give to abstentions on this occasion?
    Mr. Sandys: It is very difficult to draw any reliable conclusions from abstentions. I hope, therefore, that those who have views will express them through the ballot box.
    Mr. Woodnutt: In view of this difficulty, if a scheme could be devised whereby those who approved of the constitution as submitted and who felt that independence should be deferred were to submit blank referendum papers, would my right hon. Friend take those wishes into account?
    Mr. Sandys: That is a hypothetical question. But I think it can be assumed that if an abnormally large number of blank votes were cast in the referendum, I would have to consider what significance should be attached to them.
    Mr. Driberg: Does the right hon. Gentleman's own original reply to this Question not show that the only question that is being put in this referendum is of the same order as the familiar question, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Can he not seriously suggest to the Malta Government that they might revise the form of the question and make it either two or three questions of appropriate kinds?
    Mr. Sandys: I do not see much connection between the question suggested by the hon. Member and the one put in the referendum.

    Referendum (Observers)
    Mr. Bottomleyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, if he will appoint any officials as observers of the Malta referendum; and why he has decided not to allow the appointment of a representative of the United Nations Secretary-General.
    Mr. Sandys: I am not yet ready to make any statement about the choice of observers.
    Mr. Bottomley: Can the Secretary of State give any idea when this is going to be done? Will it be before the rising of Parliament for the East Recess?
    Mr. Sandys: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Jeger: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that he is bound to have questions put to him after this referendum takes place in Malta? Would it not be better for him to arm himself with the views of hon. Members on both sides by sending out an all-party delegation to supervise the referendum?
    Mr. Sandys: I am open to any suggestions.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Will at least one of these observers have knowledge of the language and customs of Malta?
    Mr. Sandys: I hope so.
    Mr. Driberg: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the right hon. Gentleman's replies on a number of aspects of the Malta problem, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Dockyard
    Sir W. Teelingasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) what grant loan or subsidy has been made by Her Majesty's Government since 15th February 1963 to the company running the Malta dockyard;
    (2) what assets of Bailey, Malta, Ltd. to which Her Majesty's Government have contributed have been sold or disposed of by the Council of Administration set up in February, 1963.
    Mr. Sandys: Since the date in question, a loan of about £2½4 million has been advanced to the company for the development of the dockyard and for working capital. No grants or subsidies have been provided. I understand that the company has disposed of interests in certain subsidiaries.
    Sir W. Teeling: As to the second part of my right hon. Friend's reply, can he say whether any of the plant and machinery in the dockyards has been sold—and the proceeds included in those figures—or advertised for sale? Further, can my right hon. Friend tell us how far the figures prove that there has been a loss since the dockyards have been taken over? Is that why the grants have been given?
    Mr. Sandys: I am not sure about individual bits of machinery. What I do know is that most of the subsidiary companies that have been sold were running at a loss, and that is why they have been disposed of.
    I see nothing in my reply to indicate that things have been running at a loss. We always envisaged providing money up to £7¼ million for the conversion of the dockyard and, of course, we are still well within that figure. There is no doubt that the dockyard is now running extremely efficiently. It has a full order book, and whereas previously it was largely dependent on Admiralty orders, the bulk of its work is now commercial, and at competitive prices.
    Mr. Awbery: Has any inquiry been made into the suspension of C. H. Bailey from Malta over two years ago and is any report to be made to the House of the circumstances which compelled

    227
    the Government to withdraw work from that firm and hand it to a north of England company?
    Mr. Sandys: The reasons for the take over were fully explained to the House at the time. As the whole matter is now the subject of litigation, I do not want to go into details about that.

  RHODESIA AND NYASALAND

    Universities
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what contributions will be made by the United Kingdom towards the establishment of universities in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland.
    Mr. Hornby: We have helped the Governments concerned with their preliminary planning in this field but we have not yet been asked for further assistance.
    Mr. Swingler: No doubt, the hon. Gentleman will be asked when the time comes when a specific project is put forward. May we take it that the Government's attitude will be at least as generous as in the contribution made to the University of Salisbury when that was established?
    Mr. Hornby: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we are naturally sorry that the two Governments concerned have not wished to continue their association with University College. We are anxious to help them all we can with the formation of their higher education policy, but it is not possible at this stage to go into figures, as the hon. Gentleman asked.
    Mr. G. M. Thomson: While not standing in the way of development of higher educational facilities in the two territories concerned, may I ask whether the Government would make one last effort to try to persuade all countries in the area to participate in carrying on the university at Salisbury, which will be needed by all of them, apart from developments in each territory?
    Mr. Hornby: I am sure that we would all share the hope expressed by the hon. Gentleman.

  HONG KONG

    Private Clinics (Ordinance 67)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will request the Hong Kong Government to suspend the operation of Clause Five 2(c) of Ordinance 67 of 1963 introduced on 1st January, 1964, with a view to bringing the inspection of charity clinics under the control of the medical staff of the Government instead of leaving them under the supervision of private practitioners as at present.
    Mr. Fisher: No, Sir. The object of the ordinance is to ensure adequate control of private clinics, including inspection by the Registrar of Clinics. There is to be a review of the working of the ordinance after 18 months.
    Mr. Rankin: On the face of this, would it not seem quite reasonable to hand this inspection to the doctors in Government service who have no private interest in the matter? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in June, 1957, I was promised by the then Under-Secretary that this Section of the Medical Registration Bill would not be brought into operation? Why the change, seven years afterwards, that insists on this being done, in view of the fact that the number of persons in Hong Kong today who need cheap medical facilities are thousands upon thousands greater than they were in 1957?
    Mr. Fisher: The intention of this is to preserve the service given by these clinics but also to ensure that they are properly supervised. I did not get the hon. Gentleman's point about inspection, because the registrar of clinics who will do the inspecting is a Government officer; he is the chief medical officer, which is just what the hon. Gentleman wants.
    Mr. Rankin: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the medical men who for the most part do this service in Hong Kong, and who are unregistered because they are expatriate doctors from other countries, are just as well qualified as those persons in Hong Kong today who are registered, and all that we are asking is for something similar to what obtained with regard to Polish doctors in this country just after the war?
    Mr. Fisher: The hon. Gentleman is getting muddled. He talks first about inspection and then about supervision. He is now talking about the supervision of the unregistered doctors. The reason that we want them to be supervised is that they are not adequately qualified, or many of them are not, and they do not possess the qualifications laid down by the Hong Kong Medical Association, which are substantially the same as the B.M.A., and we really must maintain adequate standards in Hong Kong.

    Refugees
    Mr. Longdenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the present refugee population in Hong Kong; and what arrangements have been made for their accommodation, education and health.
    Mr. Fisher: About 1·1 million people have entered Hong Kong from China since 1949. It is not known how many of them were refugees. All share equally in the social services provided in the Colony.
    Mr. Longden: Are not these very remarkable achievements on the part of the Government and people of Hong Kong, which deserve our warm congratulations?
    Mr. Fisher: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his tribute to Hong Kong. It is rather remarkable that such a tiny and seriously overcrowded Colony should have absorbed such an enormous number of people.
    Mr. Bottomley: In joining in the tribute to the Hong Kong Government, may I add that we should not be complacent about the matter? There is the refugee problem, and the condition of the people generally is pretty wretched in Hong Kong.

    Water Supply
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what further developments have taken place in respect of the water supply and resources of Hong Kong.
    Mr. Fisher: Emergency action has been taken to import water by tanker from the Pearl River. These measures have removed the immediate danger and
    230
    should enable supplies to be maintained, at least at their present level, until the rainy season.
    Discussions are being held with the Chinese authorities in order to obtain extra supplies of water from China from 1965 onwards. Meanwhile, good progress is being made in the construction of new reservoirs and in the investigation of a desalination scheme.
    Mr. Sorensen: Whilst expressing appreciation of the fact that some arrangement has been reached between the Hong Kong Government and the Chinese People's Republic, may I ask how long the water supplies would last if the supplies from China proper were entirely cut off?
    Mr. Fisher: I am afraid that I do not have that information. We depend a great deal upon China, as the hon. Gentleman knows. Long-term plans are now well in hand for the creation of new reservoirs at very considerable cost, and I think that the position should be all right after this next season. But I will find out for the hon. Gentleman about the dependence on China, and let him know.
    Mr. Rankin: Is the hon. Gentleman able to guarantee to the people of Hong Kong an adequate water supply without being dependent on sources in Chinese territory?
    Mr. Fisher: No, Sir. I cannot give any such guarantee. It is perfectly obvious that our sources are not adequate, and that in this matter we depend greatly on China. Even those sources are not adequate if we have a low rainfall, such as we have had lately.
    Sir W. Teeling: Can my hon. Friend say, roughly, for how many hours of the day people in Hong Kong are now allowed to have water?
    Mr. Fisher: The position is very bad. The supply of water in Hong Kong is at present restricted to three hours every fourth day.

  FIJI

    Constitution
    Mr. Godman Irvineasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps he proposes to take to work out a new constitutional framework for Fiji.
    Mr. Sandys: A constitutional conference will be held in London for this purpose within the next 12 months.
    Mr. Irvine: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in fact this announcement was made to the United Nations as long ago as December, and would it not be convenient for this House to be brought up to date with this information?
    Mr. Sandys: I should like to look at that.

    Commonwealth Countries (High Commissions)
    Mr. B. Harrisonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Commonwealth countries have established High Commissions in Fiji; and which countries they are.
    Mr. Fisher: India and Australia have appointed representatives with the rank of Commissioner.
    Mr. Harrison: Would my right hon. Friend see if he can persuade some of the other countries around the Pacific with interests in Fiji to have closer representation there, in view of the importance of the place to the Commonwealth?
    Mr. Fisher: Yes, we were indeed very glad that the Australian Government decided to appoint a Commissioner and we warmly welcome it as an indication of Australian interest in the area. We should, of course, also very much welcome a similar appointment by New Zealand, but that is a matter for the New Zealand Government.

  SEYCHELLES

    Family Planning Clinic
    Mr. Abseasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has now completed his study of the directive given to the medical services of the Seychelles prohibiting instruction of birth control techniques involving contraceptives; what is the result of his request to the Governor to review the matter; whether he is aware that until the prohibition a family planning clinic had been conducted with the approval of the former Governor for 18 months by the Acting Director of Medical Ser-
    232
    vices, who protested against the closure; and whether, in view of the population growth and high illegitimacy rate in this grant-aided Colony, he will now direct that the family planning clinic should be reopened.
    Mr. Fisher: I have much sympathy with the aims implied in the hon. Member's Question; but I do not think that, in a territory where most members of the Legislature and nearly all the public officers are Roman Catholics, a direction from my right hon. Friend to the Governor to reverse his previous decisions and re-open a Government clinic is the best way to achieve what the hon. Member has in mind. I am examining other possible courses which would not involve the use of Seychelles Government funds.
    Mr. Abse: Is the Minister aware that when there was a Protestant Governor there were no such objections in existence and the clinic ran very satisfactorily? Is he considering further alternative means and, if so, what are those means? Is he discussing anything with the family planning groups in this country? Is he aware of such a need in a country over-populated, with a 44 per cent. illegitimacy rate; and how far will he ensure, if given alternative methods, having medical men on the spot who are non-Catholics and outside the medical service there at the moment? Will he say whether such an idea is in his mind?
    Mr. Fisher: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that I sympathise very much with what he has in mind and I am aware of all these factors in the case. I am in touch with the International Planned Parenthood Federation to ascertain whether it could equip a private clinic in the Seychelles, and this may well be a way out of our difficulty if it can.
    Mr. Sorensen: Would the hon. Gentleman put it to the Governor that, while one appreciates his own objections to family planning, he should not try to impose them on a large number who do not accept his premise?
    Mr. Fisher: I am not so much thinking of the fact that the Governor himself is a Roman Catholic as of the fact that 90 per cent. of the population and

    233
    nearly all the public officers and members of the Legislature are Roman Catholics, and one must have regard to that.

  BRITISH GUIANA

    Situation
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if, in view of the substantial agreement reached between Dr. Jagan and Mr. Forbes Burnham and the executives of their parties as a result of the intervention of the Ghana Goodwill Mission and of the continuing discussions between them on outstanding points, he will postpone the application of a new constitution for British Guiana in order to provide an opportunity for the acceptance of an agreed constitution.
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a further statement in respect of the political situation in British Guiana.
    Mr. Sandys: I have nothing further to report to the House about the general political situation. I have made inquiries about the hon. Member's statement that agreement has been reached between the parties, but I have not been able to obtain any confirmation of this.
    Mr. Brockway: Is it not the case that agreement has been reached on 10 of the 12 subjects under discussion? Is it not also the case that Dr. Jagan has now agreed to some introduction of proportional representation on the lines that there are in neighbouring Surinam in Dutch Guiana? In view of the terrible danger of racial clashes in British Guiana, will the right hon. Gentleman still seek to find a basis of agreement before the Privy Council meets on 26th March to endorse the Order in Council?
    Mr. Sandys: No one would be happier than I if there were agreement between the parties, but I have done my best to check up on the hon. Gentleman's statement about agreement having been reached, and I cannot find any evidence to show that, on the basic issues, the differences have been resolved. As for the Order in Council, as I think the hon. Gentleman knows, any Order in Council of this kind will have to lie on
    234
    the Table for 40 Parliamentary days before it can be given effect.
    Mr. Sorensen: Can the right hon. Gentleman state, quite apart from the clash of personalities, what is the crucial point at issue between these two parties?
    Mr. Sandys: There are a number. The most important are the questions of proportional representation and of elections before independence. The basic problem is the racial character of party politics in British Guiana.
    Mr. Bottomley: Bearing in mind that some progress has been made in bringing the parties together, is there not something that the Secretary of State himself can do to bring about this result? Otherwise, the outlook for the future is rather grim.
    Mr. Sandys: The outlook is not very rosy, but I do not think there is anything further that I can do at this stage.

  EAST CARIBBEAN

    Proposed Federation
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when further meetings of the territorial Ministers and representatives of Her Majesty's Government are to take place in order to make progress towards the proposed East Caribbean federation.
    Mr. Sandys: I have proposed to the Governments of these territories that we should have a meeting in London in April to discuss this matter further. I have not yet received their replies.
    Mr. Chapman: If there is to be further delay—and there has already been a great deal of delay—would the right hon. Gentleman, first of all, bear in mind the possibility—indeed, the importance—of consulting the other leaders of the West Indies who all met in summit conference, particularly as Trinidad is involved with the future of Grenada, one of the territories in question? Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the idea of the consortium which has been proposed on this side of the House and which was also proposed at the summit meeting in the West Indies—a consortium of nations—Canada, the United States and ourselves—to help

    235
    put these islands on their feet economically? Thirdly, if there is to be further delay, would the right hon. Gentleman meet a deputation from all parties, through the British Caribbean Association, including business interests, which are very worried about the delay in bringing this idea to fruition?
    Mr. Sandys: I am, of course, happy to meet Members of Parliament who wish to discuss this matter with me. As regards the consortium, naturally economic aid from any quarter would be exceedingly welcome in this area. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am keeping in close touch with the Governments of the two independent Caribbean Commonwealth countries.
    Mr. Bottomley: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the invitation to the conference in April was sent to the countries concerned?
    Mr. Sandys: I should think about a month ago.

  ST. VINCENT

    Public Works Department (Inquiry)
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the unsatisfactory state of administration revealed by the recent inquiry into the conduct of the Public Works Department, he will order new elections in St. Vincent.
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what further action he proposes taking in connection with the findings of the recent Commission of Inquiry into financial irregularities in the Public Works Department in St. Vincent.
    Mr. Sandys: Steps have been taken in St. Vincent to carry out the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. The Administrator is considering whether any further action is necessary.
    Mr. Chapman: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the extreme seriousness of the findings of this inquiry, namely, that Mrs. Joshua was accepting payment on behalf of people employed by the Public Works Depart-
    236
    ment who had not done any work, and that fictitious names were on the payroll on occasions? Will he also bear in mind that the report speaks of widespread coercion and fear among the people giving evidence? Will the right hon. Gentleman also bear in mind that this inquiry is not the sum total of the suspicion of maladministration in this island, that there are allegations about the wrongful sale of public land and so on? In the circumstances, would it not be much better to give the people of St. Vincent a chance, through new elections, to say whether they have confidence any longer in the existing Government of the island?
    Mr. Sandys: I would prefer to leave the Administrator, who is a very capable person in whom I have confidence, to judge what is required to deal with this situation. He has the power to dissolve the Legislature after consultation with the Chief Minister. That is laid down in the Constitution.
    Mr. G. M. Thomson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is much more than a matter of ordinary Ministerial responsibility for blunders inside a Department? Is he further aware, as my hon. Friend has said, that the Minister concerned was found by the Commission to have engaged in financial irregularities outside her own Department? Is he further aware that the Commission showed that there were 240,000 dollars of unathorised expenditure in the Public Works Department in the year under question? Is there not something much more serious than can be met simply by persuading the Minister concerned to retreat from the Front Benches and become the solitary back bencher in the Legislative Council in St. Vincent? Is not the only way to clean up the situation to have an election and allow the people of St. Vincent to decide for themselves what they want to do about the Government?
    Mr. Sandys: I agree with the hon. Member that the position is far from satisfactory, but I would prefer none the less to leave the Administrator some further time in which to consider what he thinks is the best course to adopt.
    Mr. H. Hynd: Was the right hon. Gentleman able to see the Leader of

    237
    the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition when they visited this country recently?
    Mr. Sandys: They were seen by officials of my Department.

  BECHUANALAND

    South Africa (Frontier)
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps he is taking to ensure that the wishes of the local population of Bechuanaland are met regarding the hours of opening of the gates at the frontier between Bechuanaland and the Republic of South Africa.
    Mr. Fisher: Representations by the Government of Bechuanaland have resulted in some relaxation in the arrangements made by the Republican authorities.
    Mr. Thomson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that my understanding is that in the Legislative Council for Bechuanaland representations are at present being made that the gates should be kept open until, I think, 8 o'clock at night? Will he do everything he can, perhaps in association with the Foreign Minister, to ensure that the interests of the people of Bechuanaland are paramount in this matter?
    Mr. Fisher: Certainly I know of no complaints at this moment. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is better informed than I am about it. The main road north is open from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. The majority of the other roads were open, I think, only until 4 p.m. but I believe there have been relaxations in respect of those roads. I have not got the precise hours in mind, but I know there has been some improvement.

  PRESIDENT JOHNSON (DISCUSSIONS)
  Mr. Shinwellasked the Prime Minister what conversations he had with President Johnson about the intentions of the United States in the event of an attack by an aggressor against the United Kingdom.
  The Prime Minister (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): None, Sir.
  Mr. Shin well: Has not the right hon. Gentleman frequently voiced suspicions about the possibility, in certain circumstances, of the United States defaulting on their agreement embodied in the North Atlantic Treaty? Would not this have been a suitable opportunity of ascertaining whether President Johnson stands by the provisions of the Treaty, which provide that in the event of an attack by an aggressor on the United Kingdom, the United States, along with all other N.A.T.O. countries, would come to the assistance of the United Kingdom? Does not this dispose of his argument, frequently adduced, that one of the reasons for retaining the independent nuclear deterrent is that we cannot depend on the United States?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. That is not one of the reasons. We have no doubt about the intentions of the United States—[Interruption.]—what we cannot guarantee is that the Communist Power will not mistakenly believe now, or at any other time, that it might be able to attack this country with impunity.
  Mr. Shinwell: We should be quite clear about this matter. In the interests of our security, are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's statement that, at any rate, for the next few years—for the foreseeable future—in the event of an attack on the United Kingdom by an aggressor we can no longer depend on assistance from the United States?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The right hon. Gentleman must not draw that conclusion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—but the Government of a country—as, certainly, Mr. Gaitskell used to realise—has to have a defence policy, not for this year or next year but for 20 years ahead.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: While there is much mischief in this question—[Interruption]—is it not the case that the best guarantee—
  Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is the hon. Member entitled to refer to a question put in the form in which I presented it as indulging in mischief?
  Mr. Speaker: Indulging in what?
  Mr. Shinwell: Mischief.
  Mr. Speaker: I think that it is in order. It is a matter of opinion, I suppose. Let us progress. Mr. Biggs-Davison.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: In spite of the mischief in this question, is it not the case that the best guarantee that no enemy would be deceived into thinking that the United States would abandon us is the retention of the independent nuclear capacity?
  Mr. H. Wilson: Since the right hon. Gentleman referred to my predecessor, he knows perfectly well that there has been no change in this party's defence policy—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—the right hon. Gentleman, at any rate, knows perfectly well that there has been no change in this party's defence policy since this policy was commended to the Blackpool Conference by my predecessor. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] And if the right hon. Gentleman wants to ride out on this one I challenge him to produce any evidence to the contrary, and not to make comparisons between what happened before the collapse of Blue Streak and after.
  On the point put to the Prime Minister by my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), did not the right hon. Gentleman himself say in a recent television programme that one of the difficulties, and one of the reasons for his policy, is that America was very late in coming into the war in 1914 and in 1939?
  The Prime Minister: There are many reasons for and against keeping the deterrent, which we can argue in debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] If hon. Members will wait they will get the answer but they may not like it. There are many arguments for and against the nuclear deterrent, and the retention of it, which we can argue at other times in debate. I certainly said on television that twice in our history Britain had been left alone. We should remember that. I also said just now before the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) came in—and he came in rather late for the Question—that it was the Government's business not to make provision for the security of the nation for today or tomorrow, but for years ahead, and this we are doing.
  Mr. Wilson rose—
  Hon. Members: Sit down.
  Mr. Speaker: I do not want to interrupt any hunt, particularly, but I think that I must allow a question from somebody else, and I invite the House to remember that we really need to make progress.
  Mr. Grimond: Does the Prime Minister really believe that the Russians have any doubt whatever what the reaction of America would be if they launched an attack on Europe?
  The Prime Minister: I hope that the Russians have no doubt, but the Government are responsible in all circumstances for seeing to the security of the nation.

  DEFENCE AND DISARMAMENT POLICIES
  Mrs. Castleasked the Prime Minister if he will appoint a Minister with power to co-ordinate the defence and disarmament policies of Her Majesty's Government.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The defence and disarmament policies of Her Majesty's Government are directly related to the respective responsibilities of my right hon. Friends the Minister of Defence and the Foreign Secretary, who proceed in close consultation.
  Mrs. Castle: In view of the fact that the Foreign Secretary at the Geneva disarmament talks has pledged this country to reduce the number of our strategic nuclear delivery vehicles if other countries will do the same, would the right hon. Gentleman tell the House under what circumstances arising at the disarmament talks he would be willing to reduce the number of Polaris missiles which we have on order for delivery over the next five years?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady had better have what my right hon. Friend said. He said:
  "We welcome the American intention that a start might be made on the problem of limiting the numbers and characteristics of strategic nuclear delivery vehicles."
  And therefore anything that we might agree to depends on what progress we

  241
  are able to make with the Russians and, of course, with the Americans, the largest nuclear Powers.
  Mrs. Castle: Further to that reply, does not the Prime Minister's answer reveal that there is a need to reconcile statements made by different Ministers of this Government? Is it not a fact that the Minister of Defence told the House that we would not in any circumstances reduce the number of Polaris missiles which are not due to arrive except over the next five years? Does this mean that, whatever the Russians propose at Geneva, Her Majesty's Government visualise no progress being made with disarmament over the next five years?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. What President Johnson proposed in his proposal that there might be a nuclear "freeze" has yet to be worked out at Geneva and the Americans have to put forward in detail what they are proposing. What we know for certain is that President Johnson said that this would not affect our own Polaris programme.
  Mr. G. Brown: In view of the fact that the Foreign Secretary and the First Lord of the Admiralty clearly see eye to eye, would it not be better if the First Lord were appointed to take the place of the present Minister of Defence?
  Hon. Members: Answer.
  The Prime Minister: Not worth answering.

  PATRONAGE SECRETARY (SPEECH)
  Mr. Wyattasked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Patronage Secretary at Bristol on 21st February about economic matters represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Wyatt: Does not the Prime Minister think that it would be better to stop the Chief Whip making rather peculiar speeches in which he blames the economic misfortunes which he foresees for the country on the Labour Party and address himself to the real
  242
  problem of the Government, which is the ever-increasing adverse balance of payments? Will the Prime Minister say now whether it is the case or not that since he took office our balance of payments has been running at a rate of surplus of £300 million to £400 million a year which we must have in order to meet all our overseas expenditure? Will the right hon. Gentleman answer that question and not dodge it as he usually does?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Member has been reading a lot of the Government's speeches lately. It is very good for him. I gave the hon. Member what turned out to be very good advice last week about the trade figures. I will ask him again to await the balance of payments figures on 1st April. When he takes the last quarter of the year he knows, of course, that this does not really reflect the underlying position, because it is during the last quarter that the annual American loan service payments are concentrated in December and amount to £67 million.
  Mr. H. Wilson: Is the Prime Minister aware that, of course, the loan service payments are not included in the current balance of payment figures? Would the right hon. Gentleman, to whom we listened with such respect last week when we were told that we were going to get good trade figures, tell us in how many months is in 1962–63 the monthly trade gap was worse than even the improved figures for February, 1964?
  The Prime Minister: Not without notice.
  Mr. Wilson: Since the right hon. Gentleman likes making speeches without the facts, would it help him if he were told that in 1962–63—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—I am asking if it would help him, I do not know whether it would help him or not. Would it help the right hon. Gentleman to know? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
  Mr. G. Brown: Nothing will help the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Wilson: I am asking the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware—if that will help—that the only month in 1962–63 when the visible trade gap on the traditional basis was £68 million was in December, 1963, which is

  243
  exactly the same figure as his much vaunted February figure for 1964. Would the right hon. Gentleman recognise that in the two crisis years of 1957 and 1961—
  Hon. Members: Oh.
  Mr. Speaker: There is too much noise for us to make progress—[Interruption.]—and I would point out that progress is not assisted if the noise is renewed.
  Mr. Wilson: To finish the proceedings, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that in 1957 and 1961, the two years of 7 per cent. Bank Rate, the trade figures were better than they were in February, 1964?
  The Prime Minister: I must clearly answer the right hon. Gentleman's speech very shortly. I advise every hon. Member to wait for the April figures. We have long ago said that the underlying trade position is sound and if we are going to have another period of expansion, to which we are confidently looking forward, with industry stocking up as it is now, there will be some effect on the balance of payments. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that in his last Budget.

  INDUSTRY (PUBLIC OWNERSHIP)
  Mr. Websterasked the Prime Minister what plans he has for the future of public ownership of industry.
  The Prime Minister: I have no plans for adding new industries to those already in public ownership.
  Mr. Webster: I thank my right hon. Friend for that Answer, but is he aware of the risk of reduced investment in the road haulage industry because of the fear that a Labour Government would direct traffics on to rail, would cause widespread bankruptcy in the industry, and would nationalise on penal terms of compensation?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, I think that my hon. Friend is right. I consulted the last Labour Party manifesto just to make sure, and I found that the party opposite said that there was going to be straight renationalisation of road haulage. If right hon. and hon. Members opposite
  244
  are hedging now, perhaps we have persuaded them to drop it.
  Mr. G. Brown: Will the Prime Minister tell us what plans he has to prevent any take-overs of private enterprise and increasing monopolisation?
  Hon. Members: Answer.
  The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman asked me whether we would take over—will he repeat his question?
  Mr. Brown: I am very happy to do so. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what plans he has to prevent any further take-overs of private enterprise and to prevent a further increase in private monopolisation?
  The Prime Minister: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman can have read the White Paper on Monopolies.
  Mr. Skeet: Will my right hon. Friend agree that no case has been made out for the renationalisation of steel, that it has been rejected by all the workers in the industry, and that there is no point in trying to organise industry by the disorganising principle of nationalisation?
  Mr. J. Morris: Will the Prime Minister confirm that he has confidence in the management of Richard Thomas and Baldwins and its efficiency to date, and, in order to allay any anxiety, will he confirm that it is no longer the intention of his Government to denationalise Richard Thomas and Baldwins in the lifetime of this Parliament?
  The Prime Minister: On the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I do not know that I can be quite clear. On the first part, yes, I can.

AGRICULTURE (ORGANO-CHLORINE PESTICIDES)
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Christopher Soames): I will, with permission, make a statement about the use of certain toxic chemicals in agriculture.
I have received the Report of the Advisory Committee on Poisonous Substances used in Agriculture and Food Storage on the persistent organo-chlorine pesticides.

245
Copies of the Report are now available in the Vote Office. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking Sir James Cook and the members of his Committee for their work.
The Committee found no evidence of any serious immediate hazard to human beings from the use of these pesticides, or to wild life apart from certain species of predatory birds. In particular, it rejects the suggestion that these chemicals may be severe liver poisons or that they can be condemned as presenting a carcinogenic hazard to man.
On the other hand, it regards it as a matter of concern that traces of the chemicals are being found in so many situations and express the firm opinion that accumulative contamination of the environment by the more persistent organo-chlorine pesticides should be curtailed.
The Committee does not advise that the situation calls for urgent action, but it recommends that a start should be made as soon as possible by restricting certain important uses of aldrin and dieldrin. Other uses of these chemicals, and the use of D.D.T., should be reviewed again at the end of three years.
Consultations have taken place with organisations representing the interests concerned. The manufacturers of aldrin and dieldrin have informed me that they disagree strongly with the Committee's scientific conclusions, since their own scientific researches suggest that, after reaching a certain harmless level of concentration, the chemicals cease to have further cumulative effect. The National Farmers' Union have drawn attention to the considerable significance that restriction of their use could have for agriculture.
Nevertheless, the Government have decided to give effect to the Committee's recommendations and I am glad to be able to tell the House that I have had assurances of co-operation from all the interests concerned in curtailing the use of these chemicals on the lines recommended by the Committee. This will be done through the voluntary schemes operated jointly by the manufacturers and the Government.
The principal changes will be that fertilisers containing aldrin, products for garden use containing aldrin or dieldrin,
246
and dips and sprays for sheep containing these chemicals will cease to be available. Generally, these and other recommended changes will take place at the end of the 1964 season, though in the case of sheep dips more time will be needed and the change will take place at the end of the following season Further consideration will be given to sanctioning certain relatively minor uses.
The Committee stresses that its recommendations are based purely on the situation as it sees it in Great Britain and may have no relevance to conditions in other countries. In developing countries in particular these chemicals have made a striking contribution to solving the problems of malnutrition and disease and, under these different conditions, the gains from their use may well outweigh any potential hazards.
The voluntary scheme has so far worked well, but as scientific knowledge increases and more restrictions are found to be necessary, it comes under increasing strain. The Government are asking the Committee to examine the present voluntary safety arrangements and will consider whether legislation, which the manufacturers of agricultural chemicals now advocate, would be desirable.
The Advisory Committee, whose terms of reference are at present limited to use of chemicals in agriculture and food storage has drawn attention to the use of organo-chlorine pesticides for industrial and domestic purposes such as wood preservation and mothproofing. The Government have decided, there-fore, to extend the Committee's terms of reference to include these purposes and also to enable it to report on other toxic chemicals which the Government might wish from time to time to refer to the Committee.
In view of this extension of the Advisory Committee's responsibilities, beyond that of agriculture and food storage it will in, future be primarily responsible to my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Science, but will continue to advise other Ministers as necessary.
Mr. Peart: Will the Minister associate with his expression of gratitude to Sir James Cook and his Committee of distinguished scientists and administrators the thanks of the Opposition?

247
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable disquiet about the effects of organo-chlorine pesticides upon our environment, particularly regarding the hazards to human beings and domestic and wild life? Does he appreciate that it may well be that the Committee reveals a measure of complacency, if we take the words of his own statement, that it expresses
"the firm opinion that accumulative contamination of the environment"
by these pesticides should be curtailed, but the
"Committee does not advise that the situation calls for urgent action"?
Is there not a contradiction there? What about restricting the use of aldrin and dieldrin? Why wait until the end of this year? Why not take action now? Three years for a further review is rather a long time, in view of the increasing use of these pesticides.
Does the Minister realise that hon. Members on both sides feel that legislation should be brought in now and that we should have consolidation? There are the three schemes, the Pesticides Safety Precautions Scheme, the Veterinary Products Safety Precautions Scheme, and the Agricultural Chemicals Approval Scheme, and there is the Agriculture (Poisonous Substances) Act, 1952. All these could now be out of date.
Apart from that—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] Well, it was a long statement. This is not a party issue. Is not the Minister aware that there is great concern, also, about the use of chemicals in food given to animals which are later slaughtered for human consumption? Will this also be considered when he makes his survey?
Mr. Soames: It is my belief that the Report will do a great deal to set a lot of the disquiet at rest. It shows, also, the extent to which these matters are kept under constant surveillance.
The hon. Gentleman asked why we were not taking action more quickly by withdrawing these chemicals immediately. When he reads the Report, he will see that we are acting in line with the recommendations of the Committee. These do not suggest that the matter is one of great urgency, requiring the
248
immediate withdrawal of these chemicals, but, rather, calls for a phasing out of the more persistent chemicals as soon as practicable.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman about legislation. I said that, as more curtailments and restrictions come into effect, the voluntary scheme will be put under increasing strain and it may well be that legislation will be necessary. This is one of the points to be examined.
The Committee will, within the broader ambit of its terms of reference, be able to look into the effects of the use of the other chemicals to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
Sir G. Nicholson: I welcome what my right hon. Friend has done, particularly concerning the transfer of these functions. Up to now, he has been judge and jury and accused in the same case. Is my right hon. Friend aware that public opinion cannot altogether feel that these matters have been dealt with as quickly as they should have been? The Estimates Committee recommended the prohibition of these chemicals nearly three years ago. We cannot get away from the fact that great damage has been done to bird, animal and, especially, insect life. The most constant vigilance is necessary if civilisation is not to destroy some of its most precious heritage by carelessness and greed.
Mr. Soames: I ask my hon. Friend, as I know he will, to give careful study to the Report. It says that it is not so that great damage has been done to wild life by the use of these chemicals. What worried the Committee was the build-up of the level of contamination generally in the environment by the use of these highly persistent chemicals whose effects remain long after they have done their job. Although there is no absolute proof of any great damage being done, it is considered that it would be in the general interest if the use of these chemicals were to be phased out.
Mr. Grimond: As the Minister has said, the use of these chemicals has greatly improved food production and, with half the world starving, this is no small matter. I do not minimise the dangers, but can the Minister say whether the Government are encouraging experiments in doing the job of these chemicals by other means? Do

249
I understand that the manufacture of these chemicals for export will still be permitted and that it is not intended to limit their use in overseas territories for which the Government have responsibility?
Mr. Soames: We do not intend to limit the export of these chemicals in any way. Neither are we judging how other countries should weigh in the balance the advantages or any potential hazards which may arise from their use. As I said in my statement, in many countries they are of the greatest use and advantage.
Mr. Grimond: Are any alternatives being developed?
Mr. Soames: The Committee is of the opinion, which I share, that the phasing out of these chemicals will act as an incentive to the introduction of other chemicals which are as effective but less persistent.
Mr. Crawley: While making no pretentions to scientific knowledge, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that scientists are deeply divided on this question? Is he aware that his own Agricultural Research Council has grave reservations about the finding of this Committee and that dieldrin, in particular, has played a very important part in reducing deaths from malaria to a quarter of what they were 10 years ago, has reduced deaths from yellow fever and has played an important part in locust control? Will my right hon. Friend try to ensure that, as a result of his action, its use is not abandoned in tropical countries?
Mr. Soames: I made a specific point of that both in my statement and in answer to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond).
Mr. Hilton: Is the Minister aware that this announcement will be especially welcomed by the farm workers, the people who mostly have to use these chemicals and who for so long have been concerned about the adverse effects of some of them? Will he give an assurance that he will not succumb to pressure by the manufacturers, who do not exactly like the view that he is now putting forward, and that he will not relent in his attempts to introduce legislation?
Mr. Soames: The purpose of the statement was to announce that the Government have accepted the Committee's recommendations and will act on them.
Sir A. Hurd: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that the firms making these pesticides have been very forward and energetic in research and, in many cases, are able to provide alternative effective preparations which are safe to both human and animal life? Will my right hon. Friend say something more about sheep dips? Is it not a fact that the use of dieldrin and aldrin has greatly improved the effectiveness of sheep dips in this country and abroad? If we are not to be allowed to use these sheep dips here because, presumably, of some risk to people, what will we do about the importation from New Zealand, Australia and South America of the mean of animals which may have been subjected to the use of dieldrin and aldrin?
Mr. Soames: I am aware of the very important research carried out by the manufacturers of these and other chemicals.
I agree with him that the dieldrin dip has been of great benefit to flock masters inasmuch as only one dip a year has to be applied to their flocks of sheep. Without the, chemicals at present used, two and sometimes three dips would be required in many cases, and there would have to be some reorganisation on the part of flock masters. It is largely to this end that wt have given one extra season for the sheep dips. It is our hope that within that time, or soon afterwards, a sheep dip will become available which can last the whole year, so that only one dip would be necessary, and also have the advantage that it will not be as persistent as these chemicals.
On the question of levels of residues in food, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health will be seeking advice on the tolerances permissible in food-stuffs. If necessary, we will take action under the Food and Drugs Act to enforce them. They would be enforced both for home and imported supplies.
Mrs. Butler: I welcome the limited ban on aldrin and dieldrin in garden pesticides, and D.D.T. in sheep dip, but is the Minister aware that the timidity of his

251
statement and the delay in the ban is a matter of some concern? In particular, does he realise that the phrase "organo-chlorine pesticides and chlorinated hydrocarbons" means nothing to people who may have stocks of these chemicals in their homes and gardens, ready for use? What is the right hon. Gentleman doing to publicise the possible dangers of these chemicals and the names of the proprietary products which contain them, and, where they are still being manufactured for export or for use on farms, to list the active ingredients of these products?
Will the Minister withdraw his booklet Chemicals for the Gardener, which gives approval to the use of aldrin and dieldrin, and reissue it with the necessary emendations?
Mr. Soames: I do not accept what the hon. Lady says about delay. I received the Committee's Report about a month ago, and since then have had consultations with those interested. The Report was published today, and I have made this announcement on the day of publication.
With regard to the use of chemicals of this sort, which have already been purchased, and may be used, I think that when the hon. Lady reads the Report many of her fears will be allayed. I know how strongly she feels about this matter. The whole gist of the Report is that the danger is not such that the chemicals should be withdrawn immediately. The Committee's Report does not advise the withdrawal of chemicals which have been already issued, but, over a period, of phasing out the use of these chemicals.
We do not intend to withdraw the booklet. We have not printed any more copies of it for some time. A new booklet will be printed and it will be available very shortly. It will not include chemicals which are no longer within the advisory scheme.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: We must make progress.
Mr. W. Yates: On a point of order. In view of the Minister's statement, I give notice that I should like to raise the matter on the Adjournment. To
252
assist my right hon. Friend, I should like to bring in a Private Member's Bill to speed up his action.
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that the hon. Member needs to give oral notice for either purpose.

COMPLAINT OF PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker: Yesterday, the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) asked me to rule on a complaint of privilege which he raised with me founded upon a passage in a speech said to have been delivered by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord President of the Council outside this House on Thursday last.
I have considered the matter. It is not for me to say whether or no any contempt of the House was committed. I express no view of any sort or kind about that. I have to say whether, in my view, the hon. Gentleman's complaint raises a prima facie case. It is my opinion that it does.
This is the moment when, in accordance with our practice, I should ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to withdraw.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman then withdrew.
Mr. George Wigg: It is my duty, Mr. Speaker, having brought the matter to the attention of the House, to move a Motion. This matter is dealt with on page 135 of Erskine May, but I shall not trouble the House by reading the words. I will at this stage read the Motion which I wish to move.
I beg to move,
That the matter of the complaint be referred to the Committee of Privilege, and, pending their report, Mr. Quintin Hogg, Member for St. Marylebone, be suspended from the service of this House.
There are two views about the duties of an hon. Member in connection with privilege. I hold the view that in bringing the matter to the attention of the House I am merely discharging the duty which is open to any other hon. Member in the House. It is not my rôle to do the job of prosecuting counsel. I tried yesterday, as on every other occasion when I have dealt with such a matter, to speak with the greatest possible

253
restraint and to refer only to the actual terms of the complaint and then leave the matter to the Chair.
But the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) has other views. He was concerned in a previous case of privilege, which, needless to say, I examined with the greatest possible care before raising the matter yesterday, and I have examined it with the greatest possible care again.
When the right hon. and learned Gentleman raised, on 16th April, 1947, the case of Mr. Garry Allighan, having given the House notice the previous day, he assumed to himself the rôle of prosecuting counsel and subsequently, when the matter was returned to the House, with the Report of the Committee of Privilege, when a Motion was before the House that the hon. Gentleman concerned should be censured and suspended from the House, the right hon. and learned Gentleman thought it his duly—I make no point of it—to act as judge and moved a manuscript Amendment calling for the hon. Gentleman's expulsion from the House, and that Motion was carried.
I still am of the opinion that my view is the right one, that any hon. Member raising the matter is not prosecuting counsel. His sole and exclusive job is to bring the matter to the attention of Mr. Speaker, and then the matter goes to the Committee of Privileges.
I have been long enough in the House for hon. Members on both sides to know my ways, and I cannot bring myself to do other than I am doing. If the game starts off being played as kiss-in-the-ring, and then the rules are altered, I do not continue to play kiss-in-the-ring. Yesterday, we had a wonderful example of the rules getting altered en route. I made my submission yesterday in the firm belief that under the new procedures Mr. Speaker would require 24 hours to consider the matter, and at that point—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not really trying to be critical of the Chair, but the trouble is that he sounds like it. I should be grateful to him if he would make it plain that he is not trying to do that, which would be out of order. The prac-
254
tice, which is in no way changed in this respect, a 'pears on page 142 of the current edition of Erskine May.
Mr. Wigg: I was going on to say, Mr. Speaker, that I accept that once the right hon. and learned Gentleman had demanded the right which he demanded yesterday, to speak as soon as the paper was handed to you, but before the Motion was before the House, he was exercising his right to be heard in explanation or exculpation, and proceeded to make a speech for the defence. So, on one occasion, he demands the right to make the speech of the prosecutor without the defence having been heard, and when it suits him he switches round and makes a speech for the defence before the prosecution has been heard. I find it difficult to play the game that way.
If we examine his case on 16th April, 1947, we find that the first thing he said—I entirely agree with this—was:
"I hope teat this will not be treated as a party matter…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th April, 1947; Vol. 436, c. 191.]
I entirely agree. This is a House of Commons matter, not a party matter at all. I say again that it is not a party matter. That is what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said. I try to treat it on a non-party basis. I do not want even to have to make the speech.
But yesterday we had a very good exhibition when I read the terms of the complaint. I will read them again. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said:
"No honest person since we came into power can accuse us of pursuing a reactionary or illiberal policy."
That caused tremendous hilarity on the benches opposite. If hon. Gentlemen opposite really believe that, as they did, I have only to say one word, and that is "Suez". [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, certainly. If hon. Gentlemen want to play it this way, very good.
Later, the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), through the process of raising a point of order, managed to bring great satisfaction to the party opposite by saying that she had been attacking hon. Members on this side of the House on the ground that they had been subversive. But it was not any hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House, but the hon. Lady and her right hon. Friends who were the friends of

255
Captain McEwen who was interned under Defence Regulation 18B. [HON. MEMBERS: "It was Captain Ramsay."] The real complaint of the right hon. and learned Gentleman is this. What he tried to do—
Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—
Sir Godfrey Nicholson: In the interests of Captain McEwen, it should be pointed out that he was not the person to whom the hon. Member is actually referring.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am being addressed on a point of order.
Dame Irene Ward: Mr. Speaker, I merely wanted to tell the House that the hon. Gentleman has got the wrong name. He ought to be careful when he makes allegations of that kind.
Mr. Speaker: I really would seriously urge one aspect of this matter upon the House. This is one of those moments when the words or conduct of one of our fellow Members is collectively under our consideration. Let us treat the matter properly.
Mr. Wigg: I beg pardon for referring to Captain McEwen. I meant to refer to Captain Ramsay. I apologise. It was, in fact, Captain Ramsay.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman went on to argue that if we have anything to say we should say it openly, in accordance with the procedure of the House. He went on to argue that in raising the matter I was attacking the right of free speech and the right of hon. Gentlemen to say what they like on controversial issues. That is not so. We are all amenable to the law, including hon. Gentlemen opposite. If, outside, we say things which are actionable, clearly there is an action in court—and I have had my fair share of such actions.
I was charged in my constituency by a Conservative candidate for sabotaging the defences of this country. Needless to say, when I sued in the High Court and forced an apology, there was no defence. Subsequently, I was charged in the Dudley Herald for acting in a traitorous manner, which was subsequently—
Mr. Speaker: Surely the hon. Gentleman ought to speak to the Motion. At the moment, I do not follow why his misfortunes in that respect have any bearing on this matter.
Mr. Wigg: Again, let me say that I hold that my duty was discharged yesterday when I brought the matter to the attention of the House, but what I had then not heard was the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. What I submit is that, whatever the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, that was in order in April, 1947, and if he takes the line again yesterday I am entitled to follow the argument. I am saying that the mistake that he has made is in generalising his argument in such a way that he hopes to get in with it in such a way that no hon. Gentleman on this side of the House can sue him in the courts because he could not be identified.
What he set out to do, and what he thought that he had succeeded in doing, was to generalise in such a way his complaint that the Labour Party as a whole and hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House could be smeared by the charge that they are being subversive when, in fact, any subversion is over there and not here. He is doing what he rejected in the Garry Allighan case. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] Yes, including up to the present time.
All I am arguing is that the right hon. and learned Gentleman shall be treated with as much consideration and as much courtesy as was extended by the House to my colleague, Mr. Garry Allighan, and that there shall be the same procedures in this case as there were in that case, that the matter shall be gone into by the Committee of Privileges and that, pending its reaching its conclusion, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been found guilty, or as a prima facie case has been made out against him of gross contempt, he shall be suspended from the service of the House.
In excluding him from the service of the House I do not want to exclude him from the precincts. He is a member of the Cabinet and if the Prime Minister wants to see him we will not have any objection to that. This man has now to answer to a Committee of this House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Member', not 'man'."] This man must now answer to

257
a Committee of this House, and until such time as that Committee has gone into the matter I hold that the Motion which I have put before the House should be accepted.
Mr. Speaker: The Question is,
That the matter of the complaint be referred to the Committee of Privileges, and that, pending their report, Mr. Quintin Hogg, Member for St. Marylebone, be suspended from the service of this House.
The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd):I beg to move, in line 2,
To leave out from "Privileges" to the end of the Question.
As you have ruled that there is a prima facie case in regard to the first part of the Motion and that the matter of complaint be referred to the Committee of Privileges, Mr. Speaker, I would advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote for that part of the Motion; in other words, the Motion will stand if my Amendment is accepted.
As a member of the Committee of Privileges, it would be improper for me to comment on this matter until the evidence has been heard. These are difficult matters which affect the House as a whole and very great care must be taken in handling them by the House. It would be wrong, therefore, for me to enter into a controversy—
Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: On a point of order. As the Lord Privy Seal finds himself in difficulty in that respect, Sir, does he not also find himself in some difficulty in moving his Amendment?
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that that raises any point of order for me. I do not quite understand why the hon. Member thinks that it does raise a point of order.
Mr. Lloyd: If the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan) will do me the courtesy of waiting a moment he will see why I am moving the Amendment.
When considering the merits of a matter like this, it must be appreciated that these are serious and difficult matters for the House as a whole. We must take very great care in handling them. Restraint is needed. The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) complained of what my right hon. and
258
learned Friend did yesterday. In fact, he did exactly what it is laid down that it is his right to do in Erskine May. He is entitled to speak in explanation or exculpation; which is what he did, neither more nor less.
The second part of the Motion—that is, the part I would like to have deleted—is, as I understand it, based on the Garry Allighan case. It is true that my right hon. and learned Friend raised the Garry Allighan case, but there was no question of dealing with Mr. Garry Allighan's suspension or expulsion from the House until after the case had been heard. The case was originally raised by my right hon. and learned Friend on 16th April 1947, and when it came to a question of suspension, which was moved by the then Lord President of the Council, my right hon. and learned Friend moved a manuscript Amendment to substitute "expulsion" for "suspension", but that was after the case had been heard.
That was after the right hon. Gentleman who is now Lord Morrison of Lambeth moved a Motion saying:
That Mr. Allighan, for his gross contempts of the House and for his misconduct, do attend in his place forthwith and be reprimanded by Mr. Speaker; that he be suspended from the service of this House for six months and that his salary as a Member of this House be suspended for that period."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th October, 1947; Vol. 443, c. 1159.]
It was in relation to that Motion, moved by the then Leader of the House, that my right hon. and learned Friend put forward his Amendment.
I think that it would be wholly wrong for this House to deal by way of punishment before the case had been heard. This is a matter of a prima facie case. I have accepted your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, on this, and have suggested that my right hon. and hon. Friends support the first pert of the Motion, but that any question of suspending or punishing in the meantime would be completely wrong and, I suggest, contrary to the tradition and spirit of this House.
Mr. George Brown: I wish, first, to raise a point of order with you, Mr. Speaker. Before we began this debate you said that it was in accordance with our custom and practice that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should be asked to withdraw, and he promptly did so. Has he been asked to withdraw

259
merely for this debate, or does he stay withdrawn until we consider the report of the Committee of Privileges?
Mr. Speaker: He stays withdrawn while the House is discussing his words and conduct and what to do about it. That is our custom. I do not wish to be facetious, but if a committee of a club were discussing the conduct of one of its members that member would be asked to leave the room while the discussion was taking place.
Mr. Brown: I am sure you will agree, Mr. Speaker, that that is not something which is likely to happen to me.
As has been said, this is a serious and troublesome matter which raises the question of the standards of the House as well as the particular question of the speech made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, whose position we are currently discussing. It would be foolish of me not to say that I find myself having a great deal of sympathy with the motives that lay behind the feelings of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) to some extent. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I hope that hon. Members opposite will do me the courtesy of hearing me out: it might help.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman whom we are discussing has him-
260
self taken fair freedom of action and speech from time to time. It is not unnatural that some of us should feel on such an occasion that it would not be unreasonable, as it were, to return the medicine. However, having listened to my hon. Friend's remarks, and having heard the Leader of the House, I am bound to say to the House that my own feeling is that it would be better that the matter should now go to the Committee of Privileges.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley has made his point abundantly plain and in the honest and open way in which the House is accustomed to hearing from him. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The House has always been proud of those who are open, honest and courageous, even if the views being expressed are not entirely agreed with. However, I feel that I should advise my hon. Friend now to allow the Motion to be passed in the customary form and let the matter go to the Committee of Privileges, whereupon we shall await its report.
Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question, put and negatived.
Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That the matter of the complaint be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

MOTOR VEHICLE DRIVING ESTABLISHMENTS
4.9 p.m.
Colonel Sir Harwood Harrison: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable the Minister of Transport to license establishments which give instruction in driving motor vehicles and to make regulations with respect to a code of driving instruction and the qualifications of instructors.
The Bill which I am seeking leave of the House to introduce is designed to enable the Minister of Transport to license establishments which give instructions in driving motor vehicles and to make regulations with respect to a code of driving instruction and the qualifications of instructors.
I am sure that the House will not grudge a few minutes being devoted to the subject of road safety, in which all of us are concerned on behalf of our constituents, all the more since this is the week before the Easter holiday when, unfortunately, the number of accidents increases. If nothing else comes out of my asking leave to present my Bill but that it does something to persuade us to drive a little more carefully over Easter, my efforts will have been worth while.
I remind hon. Members that on 24th January the House had a debate on road safety and passed unanimously a Resolution deploring the loss on the roads and reminding drivers that they control lethal weapons. As a result of that debate, it became clear that there is no single solution to this appalling tragedy but that a number of individual things can be done, all of which can help, and perhaps it also became clear that the most important person concerned is the individual driver. But drivers have different standards. We ourselves, as we drive, differ from day to day in how we feel and in our standards.
It also became clear that the more instruction a person has, the better driver, in the main, he becomes. This was clear particularly among that class of drivers who drive for their living. My Bill would give the Minister power to control the driving schools. As I understand the position, any person, whatever his driving record, can set up a
262
driving school. He can have as instructors some people—I do not say that this often happens—who have perhaps only just passed the test and have never driven at more than 30 m.p.h. Yet they have to take out a trainee and travel at 60 m.p.h.
There are many good driving schools but, like everything else, we do not legislate for the good percentage but for the bad few. I have had a letter from the head of a very well-known driving school who says:
"I have long experience in the profession and regret that at the present time the position is such that the learner motorist is being exploited by inefficient and unscrupulous owners of so called driving schools."
Thus I can say that there is a desire amongst the better schools themselves for a Bill such as this. I would like to see the Minister, under the Bill, make regulations that a school must have three proper modern cars with dual control and that the instructors must be trained or have passed tests or have had so many years of driving before teaching others. There is an excellent school at Hendon, run by the police, where they lay down a pattern of instruction. If that is the best pattern—and I am told that it is—then it should be the one on which everyone is instructed.
I may be asked why the Bill is required at the present time and has not been introduced before. I suppose that, in this House, it is better to be a little late man too soon, or to be late than never at all. I remind the House that the position has changed tremendously in the last few years because, in our affluent society which we enjoy, instead of there being a few people who drive for pleasure and a few professional drivers, every boy and girl is a potential driver on reaching the age of 17. Youngsters are already looking around to see where they can find instruction, and often it seems to be denied to them. We may come to the day when, in our schools and universities, we shall have to have official classes for driving, as s happening in other countries.
We were first allowed to drive these lethal weapons on the roads merely by obtaining a licence and perhaps having no instruction at all. Nowadays, the beginner must take a test and carry

263
"L" plates until he passes it. In view of all the tragedies on the roads, the public should have the protection afforded by driving schools giving the right standard of instruction, as laid down by Parliament and of the same pattern throughout the country so that signals are standardised.
At this stage in the Session, I realise that, if the Bill is to reach the Statute Book, I shall have to have the support of every hon. Member. In Committee, if it is shown that I have drafted it badly, then, of course, I will consider the objections. This matter concerns every hon. Member and every constituent. We all pay lip-service to the horror of our road tragedies. Here is a genuine effort to secure better standards of driving.
In my last speech on the subject of road safety, I quoted the reply of an engineer in a garage when asked which was the most important part of the motor car. He replied, "The nut at the wheel." I want to see that the nut at the wheel is well screwed down to the rest of the motor car. That is why I commend the Motion to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir H. Harrison, Mr. Gresham Cooke, Mr. Stainton, Mr. John Hall, Mr. Cleaver, Mr. Creech Jones, Mr. Wade, and Mr. Webster.

MOTOR VEHICLE DRIVING ESTABLISHMENTS
  MOTOR VEHICLE DRIVING ESTABLISHMENTS
  Bill to enable the Minister of Transport to license establishments which give instruction in driving motor vehicles and to make regulations with respect to a code of driving instruction and the qualifications of instructors, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 10th April, and to be printed. [Bill 117.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  RESALE PRICES BILL
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 23rd March].
  [Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

  RESALE PRICES BILL

    Clause 1.—(AVOIDANCE OF CONDITIONS FOR MAINTAINING RESALE PRICES.)
    4.18 p.m.
    The Chairman: It would be convenient if I were to begin by referring to a question put to the Chair yesterday by the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst), who expressed anxiety regarding the selection of redrafted Amendments whose redrafting was made necessary by Amendments accepted yesterday.
    I would like to tell the Committee that it would be my opinion that any Amendment put in to replace an original Amendment would be acceptable although it might be put in so late as to be starred. Further, should there be insufficient time to put a new Amendment so affected on the Notice Paper, I would be prepared to consider accepting a redrafted Amendment in manuscript form. I think that that would meet the anxiety of the hon. Member for Shipley, and I think, of all right hon. and hon. Gentlemen.
    Mr. Douglas Jay: On a point of order, Sir William. I think that we must be clear about where we are. It seems to me from your statement that we are now in a worse position even than yesterday's. I really must ask you to allow me to move, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again, so that we may have a chance to sort out the procedure of the Committee and conduct the business in a reasonable manner.
    The position appears to be that, owing to the successive vacillations and alterations of policy by the Government, we now find that, following the very extensive verbal amendment that the Bill received only yesterday, a number of the later amendments which had been put down in perfectly good faith by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides, and which were quite in order then, have now apparently been rendered out of order by what was done yesterday.

    265
    That, of course, is no fault of yours. It is entirely due to the blunders and the incompetence with which the Government are conducting their administration—in particular, this Bill. It is bad enough if they conduct their affairs in that way, but even worse if they make it impossible for the Committee seriously and rationally to examine the Bill. That seems to be the point we have reached. I understand that we have at least two days on the Committee stage before us. We do not know—
    The Chairman: Order. I should make it clear to the Committee that at this stage I am not prepared to accept a Motion to report Progress. I am hearing the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) on the subject which I initiated. Further to that, this is not something which never happens. Quite frequently, Amendments are accepted to Bills which are being considered in Committee, and, if those Amendments affect subsequent Amendments, it is not unusual for the Chair to allow latitude to those hon. Members who wish to bring their subsequent Amendments up to date so that they can have a bearing on the Bill as it then stands. I go no further than that.
    Mr. Jay: I gather, Sir William, that I am in order in proceeding with my brief argument.
    However, whether unprecedented or not, the situation is undoubtedly that there are many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, especially hon. Members opposite, who have Amendments on the Notice Paper and who put them down legitimately and in good faith, regarding them as being in order and, until lunch time today, having reason to believe that they would be called. We now find, as a result of the changes made yesterday, and because the Government put down these Amendments only over the weekend, that a number of the later Amendments—I do not know how many, because information about this reached us only after lunch today—are out of order.
    If the business is to be conducted properly—and, goodness knows, the Bill needs examination and amendment—a number of new Amendments will have to be put down. I recognise—
    The Chairman: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for interrupting him again. We are being a little premature in our anxiety at the moment. I do not foresee one of the Amendments affected coming up for discussion for some little time.
    Mr. Jay: The difficulty is that the Amendments relate to Clauses and not to days. For instance, if there is an Amendment relating to Clause 3, which is affected, we do not know whether Clause 3 will be taken today or tomorrow. If it is taken tomorrow, then, during the course of this afternoon and this evening, while we are supposed to be seriously examining the Bill, we will somehow have to ascertain whether our Amendments already on the Notice Paper to later Clauses are in order and—I suppose in the backs of our minds—while w, debate the Bill we will have to go through the somewhat complicated process of redrafting Amendments, getting them in order and putting them on the Notice Paper.
    Although I recognise, Sir William, that you are doing all you can to help us by your statement, in spite of you and not through your fault and if hon. Members on both sides of the Committee do the best they can to get things put right by tomorrow, it still will not be possible to conduct the rest of the Committee stage in a proper and businesslike manner. I should therefore like to suggest that the Government now come clean and do what they should have done yesterday—agree to postpone the rest of the Committee stage until after the Easter Recess so that hon. Members—
    The Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman is getting further than matters to which I can reply. As Chairman of the Committee I am satisfied that we can conduct ourselves with the Notice Paper as it is, subject to the provisions which I have announced in response to the hon. Member for Shipley, without finding that we are at risk. I propose that we should now continue our discussion on Clause 1.
    Mr. J. J. Mendelson: I should like to urge you, Sir William, to reconsider the earlier suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) to report

    267
    Progress. I do so on grounds not yet advanced.
    The Bill has been received with hostility to principle as well as detail and there are many hon. Members who agree with the general principle although feeling that it does not go far enough and does not start at the right end and who decided not to oppose it on Second Reading but to try seriously to improve it in Committee. Since that decision was taken by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, a number of private conferences have taken place. At the last moment, those hon. Members of whom I have spoken have been placed in an impossible position in that they have not had time to consider their attitude vis à vis the new situation. It would be impossible for the Committee to live up to its reputation as the main instrument used by the House of Commons when acting as a legislative workshop and it would not be in the interests of good government to go on with this debate.
    The Chairman: I thank the hon. Member for his observations, but my own conclusion is quite the contrary. I think that we can proceed and see what progress we make. I should like the Committee now to address itself to the first group of Amendments, on which I should like to make a statement.
    Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: As the Member who put the point to you, Sir William, I should like to thank you for your kindness and courtesy in dealing with this matter. As is recognised on both sides of the Committee, you always attempt to meet the convenience of the Committee with the graciousness and kindness which we have come to expect. However, there is something which concerns me.
    You have many advisers, and so have the Government, but I speak as a humble back bencher who is responsible for a number of Amendments on the Notice Paper, and I find the new situation very difficult. I do not think that it is fair to us. We do not have the facilities and the necessary technical advice which must be given by learned counsel.
    In circumstances such as these, when the Government have made a fundamental drafting change—nine Amend-
    268
    ments to the first Clause—we do not know what the effects on some of our Amendments there will be. I do not know how many are now made nonsense in the light of the Amendments which have been made. We cannot question your selection of Amendments and I do not do so, but we do not now know where we are.
    I have taken advice—and I respect the advice I get here—and I am informed that this is not a very usual situation. As the Committee stage is being put through on three consecutive days, we do not get much time to seek advice. Your judgment was very considered and no doubt you are right when you say that our earlier Amendments will not be affected; but I am responsible to many people outside Parliament and I think that I should have more time to consider the position. To accept Clause 3 without that further opportunity would be a travesty of justice in the circumstances.
    The Chairman: My own view is that the hon. Member is unduly apprehensive in his fears about our early Amendments being affected. When we reach Clause 3, we shall be nearer the point at which Amendments might be affected. I invite the Committee now to continue its discussion of Clause 1.
    Mr. Eric Fletcher: The Committee is being placed in an intolerable position if it is asked to consider a Bill to which there are about 200 Amendments on the Notice Paper, many, admittedly, out of order by reason of an Amendment to Clause 1 which was carried last night, but involving consequential Amendments to at least three other Clauses, Clauses 2, 5 and 6. At your suggestion, Sir William, yesterday we considered a group of Amendments with far-reaching effects not only on Clause I, but on other parts of the Bill. The result of that decision is that, inevitably, the subsequent Clauses of the Bill will be recast.
    4.30 p.m.
    Sir William, I think you have recognised that as a result of that a large number of Amendments put down by hon. Gentlemen opposite and by hon. Members on this side of the Committee will be out of order and, therefore, presumably will not be selected. Some of

    269
    my right hon. and hon. Friends, and some hon. Gentlemen opposite have been working very hard to try to work out the necessary revisions which will be required to those Amendments. There are many other hon. Members who are equally interested in the Bill, as are all our constituents, and are anxious that when the Bill emerges from the Committee it should be as rational and sensible in its language as we can make it.
    You suggested that manuscript Amendments would be accepted by you on this occasion in your discretion as Chairman, but may I point out that the acceptance of manuscript Amendments, although they may be acceptable to you as Chairman of the Committee, places all other Members of the Committee in great difficulty? We have here one of the most complicated Bills ever introduced in this House, involving every citizen in the country. We are all anxious that it should be as rational as possible in its form, whatever divergent views we may have on various points of principle.
    If you are conceding that it will be right for you to accept manuscript Amendments, you will have those Amendments before you, and they will no doubt be read out by whoever moves them, but every other hon. Member, whether or not he happens to be in the Chamber—even more so if he is not—at the moment when they are read will be in an impossible position. How can a Committee of the whole House be expected to work seriously, conscientiously, and rationally on manuscript Amendments to this kind of Bill?
    For those reasons I very much hope that you will reconsider your decision not to accept a Motion to report Progress. I gather that you have intimated that one reason why you are not prepared to do so is that you do not know how far we shall get today. Nor do we, of course. All we know is that the Government's intention was to get the whole of the Bill through the Committee stage by tomorrow night. If that is still their intention it follows that some time today there is a chance that we shall read the stage when we shall be considering manuscript Amendments.
    There cannot be this unseemly haste in rushing the Bill through the Committee. The Government have brought this
    270
    sorry position on themselves by their own vacillation. Surely, in fairness to the Committee and to the country, the right course is for further consideration of the Bill to be postponed until after Easter so that we may ascertain the considered views of our constituents on the revised Bill before us and have adequate time in which to frame essential Amendments to it?
    The Chairman: If I might reply to the hon. Member's remarks about manuscript Amendments, I appreciate that they carry weight, but that is a part of the machinery of our procedure.
    I am satisfied that the present group of Amendments under discussion is not at all affected by what was done yesterday. I can see no reason why the Committee should not continue with the consideration of that group of Amendments, and that is what I should like the Committee to do. It may be that when we get further on, possibly to the end of Clause 1, it would seem right and proper for an hon. Member to move that I report Progress and ask leave to sit again, but I cannot guarantee what the result will be. It may seem right and proper then, but I am sure that with the knowledge that we have we can conduct our debate on the present group of Amendments without further delay, and that is what I should like the Committee to do.
    Mr. William Wells: Sir William, may I add a few words to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher). I will not for a moment argue with what you have said about the position of this group of Amendments, or indeed about any Amendments arising on Clause 1, but the difficulty is that both those, hon. Members who are putting down Amendments from the back benches and those who are trying to frame Amendments which the Opposition are putting down officially, do not have the expert advice which the Government have, or which, with respect, you yourself have.
    I do not pretend to have the ability of a Parliamentary counsel, and though I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) has that ability, he cannot carry the whole burden on his shoulders The difficulty is that we

    271
    cannot be in two places at once. If we are trying to keep pace with what is going on in the Chamber, we cannot be considering what impact the Amendments which have been made to the Bill have on the rest of the Bill.
    I doubt whether it is really in the interests of the good conduct of business in this Committee that we should live from hand to mouth in this manner. I ask you to consider that we have responsibilities to those outside the House, and that it is really intolerably difficult to conduct our business in these circumstances. Of course, we are all accustomed to situations in which Amendments are put down at the last moment, but here a large group of Amendments has been put down, and under normal practice we would be given a week's or two weeks' notice of them.
    The Chairman: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Member, but nothing that I hear affects my decision with regard to getting on with our debate on Clause 1, and that I feel is what the Committee should do. At a later stage it will be open to reconsider the matter, but I can see nothing to prevent our getting on with our work now. As Chairman, that is my duty, and I should like to get on with the business.
    Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: Sir William, if there were an Amendment which would add a cubit to my stature I would move it now for I have been trying to catch your eye for some time. Last night your distinguished predecessor promised that he would consider the point which some of us persistently made throughout the debate yesterday about the grouping of these Amendments. Some of us feel that there is a good case for taking Amendments Nos. 17 and 27 out of this group. If we are to be limited by the advice which you have given about the way in which we are to conduct our business, the case for taking those two Amendments separately is all the stronger, and I appeal to the Chair that those Amendments should not be taken with the others in this group.
    Very different principles are involved. While I appreciate the commonality of Amendments Nos. 17 and 27 to the other Amendments, they nevertheless repre-
    272
    sent a distinct principle. In view of the complexity of the discussion, I think that they should be taken separately, and I appeal to you to allow that to be done.
    The Chairman: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman, and I have considered afresh the point raised by him yesterday. Hon. Members will see that in yesterday's notice of selected Amendments, in addition to No. 7, No. 17 was starred for a Division, and today I have starred No. 14 as well for a Division. That means that three separate Divisions can be taken on the three separate points. Hon. Members will have no difficulty in registering their votes on the separate Amendments.
    I had to consider whether it was right and proper to consider the Amendments together, in a group, and I came to the conclusion that it was. They overlap each other. If hon. Members look at their Notice Papers they will find that that is the case. For that reason I must abide by the decision to keep them in a group. By allowing three separate divisions the rights of hon. Members will be adequately protected.
    Mr. Archie Manuel: I recognise that you take the view that the four Amendments should be considered in a group, because of their commonality, as my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) suggested, but I would point out that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have received a considerable volume of correspondence concerning the principles laid down in Amendments Nos. 17 and 27. Those two Amendments apply only to medicines and drugs, and so that we may represent constituency interests on both sides of the Committee we would appreciate it if those two Amendments could be debated separately.
    We would not be wasting any more time. It would be better to get on with our proceedings in that way, instead of continually trying to obtain freedom of expression by appealing to the Chair, Sir William.
    4.45 p.m.
    The Chairman: I understand the anxieties of the hon. Member, but I can assure him that the subjects that he has mentioned are also covered in Amendment No. 14.
    Mr. Manuel: With many others.
    The Chairman: Yes, but throughout those four Amendments and the new Clause there is a constant overlapping. I have given my best judgment on the matter, and I hope the Committee will allow me to continue in the way that I think best.
    Mr. Michael Foot: I return to a fresh aspect of the point of order raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) a few moments ago. The criticism of the way in which the Committee is conducting this part of its business derives first from the question put by the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst). He has reinforced the question that he put yesterday by his remarks today. I am sure that you will agree that hon. Members on this side of the Committee have presented powerful arguments, and that they feel—perhaps wrongly, in your view—that they will be greatly inconvenienced by the way in which the conduct of our business has been arranged.
    I would point out that the only section of the Committee from which we have not heard a word on this matter is the Treasury Bench. You have said that there are precedents for the suggested procedure. According to my recollection, when Governments have wished to alter the procedure on a Bill in a drastic form they have usually explained at the beginning what they wished the Committee to agree to.
    The proper procedure now would be for the Government to move to report Progress, so that they could explain how they wished our proceedings to be conducted. If the Government found that, owing to a strange combination of circumstances, we were in difficulties, and that they had complicated our business and were putting hon. Members on both sides in difficulties—and it has been proved that that is the case by what has been said—in normal circumstances they would ask for the indulgence of the Committee.
    This would not only be the most courteous way but the most expeditious way to proceed. If the Secretary of State had responded not merely to appeals from this side of the Committee but to those of his hon. Friends—and,
    274
    in particular, the hon. Member for Shipley, who originally raised the question—and had moved to report Progress and ask leave to sit again, in order to make a brief statement on the business of the House, apologising for the situation in which he had placed hon. Members and asking for their indulgence and assistance, he would have had a better hope of proceeding with the Bill than by coming here not caring a fig about how we proceeded. He has treated the House with outrageous discourtesy. When he wishes to change the whole structure—
    The Chairman: Order. I am at fault in allowing the hon. Member too much indulgence to develop his point of order. I have considered what has been put to me, and the views of hon. Members have been heard all over the Committee. In my opinion, the submissions that have been made do not affect the consideration of Clause 1.
    I now propose to call upon the Committee to consider further Amendment No. 7, in page 1, line 15.
    Amendment proposed: In page 1, line 15, at the end, to insert:
    "except where the customs and excise duty exceeds 60 per cent. of the net cost price as determined in section 3(2) below".—[Mr. Hocking.]
    Mr. Jay: On a point of order. In view of what you say about Clause 1, Sir William, may I make a suggestion to help us out of the difficulty? We must, naturally, accept your Ruling, but we shall have to do so under protest if we are forced to go on with the discussion of the Bill in these circumstances. If the public outside is to have respect for the law and confidence in the way in which we conduct our proceedings, and if, as a result of the Government's action—and not our action—a number of hon. Members on one side of the Committee do not have that confidence, I do not think we are conducting our proceedings as we should. I ask the Secretary of State to help us to get out of the difficulty in this way—
    The Chairman: Order. I think that I should be allowed to conduct the business of the Committee as seems to me to be proper. I have tried to carry the Committee with me and I have made it clear that what I am inviting it to do

    275
    now is to consider this group of Amendments. I have made it clear that at a later stage I shall certainly be prepared to accept a Motion to report Progress and ask leave to sit again, but it is nearly five o'clock, and we must get on with our business.
    Mr. Jay: But I was attempting to respond to the precise suggestion that you made, Sir William. You have said with some force that these changes do not interfere with the consideration of Clause 1, and because you say that I ask the Secretary of State whether he will give an assurance that the Government will not attempt to proceed beyond Clause 1 this side of the Easter Recess. If he could give us that assurance, in view of your suggestion—and because the whole difficulty arises from the Secretary of State's action and not ours—it would be very helpful. The Secretary of State could get us out of this difficulty by responding to that suggestion.
    The Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development (Mr. Edward Heath): On a point of order. In view of the way in which the debate has gone I must speak to a point of order. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) seems to have overlooked the fact, in his exuberance, that yesterday I accepted Amendments put down by my hon. Friends. Those Amendments were on the Notice Paper, and were moved by my hon. Friends. I accepted them. Their consequences flow through the Bill. I am in agreement with you, Sir William, that it is possible for us to continue our business as laid down on the Notice Paper.
    I hope that the Committee will be prepared to do that, because we share the anxiety of the right hon. Gentleman that we should make progress with the Bill. He said that he wants the public outside to realise how much we want to see the Bill through. The best way to demonstrate that is for him and his hon. Friends to help us make progress.
    The Chairman: We are running into the danger that points of order rightly addressed to me, and to which I reply, are developing into more general speeches. When that happens they become out of order.
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: I am obliged for your indulgence, Sir William. It was precisely, as a point of order, that I rose to put to you what you have said. The situation we have now is that the right hon. Gentleman has been allowed—in the course of putting a point of order to you, about whether the Motion should be accepted or not—to make exactly the kind of speech that he would have been in order in making had you given leave to my right hon. Friend to move his Motion. In my submission, every word of what the right hon. Gentleman has just said was out of order, but it was a very necessary thing for him to say.
    The point I want to put to you, Sir William, is that in the vastly difficult situation which everyone knows us to be in, it might have been proper to give my right hon. Friend leave to move, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again, to give the Government an opportunity to explain how they view the situation and what they would like—as distinct from what you would like, Sir William—the Committee to do in the matter.
    The Chairman: I am obliged to the hon. Member for his opinion. This has now been discussed long enough and I am sure that we must get on. The Question I have to put is, That those words be there inserted.
    Mr. Robert Cooke rose—
    Hon. Members: Sit down!
    Mr. Robert Cooke: Perhaps I shall be in order now to address—
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: On a point of order, Sir William. If the Chair would be kind enough to consult the records it will be found that I have what is called a right of pre-emption in that I was called by the Chair and I was about to begin my speech when I was interrupted by the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development. It was a very welcome interruption, and I only hope that the right hon Gentleman can do it again.
    The Chairman: In actual fact, the hon. Member has no specific right. But he may be in no doubt that he will catch the eye of the Chair quite soon.
    Mr. Robert Cooke rose—
    Mr. Manuel: The hon. Member for Bristol. West (Mr. Robert Cooke) was not even in the Chamber last night. He was at home in bed.
    Mr. Robert Cooke: I hope, Sir William, that I shall now be in order if I address some words to the Committee on the first Amendment placed on the Notice Paper by some of my hon. Friends.
    I think that my hon. Friends are mistaken in thinking that this Amendment, which seeks to exempt those cases where customs duty exceeds 60 per cent., would meet the point of objection made particularly by those gentlemen in the licensed trade who are represented by the Licensed Victuallers Association and other bodies of that kind. It is to that part of the Amendment that I wish to direct my remarks. I know that the question of tobacco would be included, but there are other hon. Members, who represent interests of that kind, and would know more about it than I.
    I have no personal financial interest in the licensed trade, but I have had some experience of the workings of that trade. I did have an interest until about two years ago, so I know something of the difficulties in which those who have made many representations to hon. Members of both sides of the Committee on the subject find themselves. They have come to hon. Members and said that they feel that resale price maintenance should be maintained in the licensed trade. They feel that it would protect their position, because off-licensees find that their position is being attacked all the time by various people who are selling alcohol of one sort or another, particularly spirits, at prices way below the present retail price.
    This is possible because any person who cares to go to a whisky manufacturer—I will confine my remarks mostly to whisky because it provides a good example but I have no doubt that this applies to other spirits as well—and if he is prepared to buy large quantities, may get them at a very advantageous rate. The retail price for whisky is 41s. 6d. a bottle. But one would find that the wholesale price one would be expected to pay would be 35s. 10d. a bottle. One might do even
    278
    better if one were prepared to buy larger quantities. That applies to everyone, except the off-licensee who, in a very large number of cases, is a tied tenant of a brewer. Even after the passing of the last licensing legislation a vast number of retail outlets for drink are still in the hands of the brewers. This is a continuing process of expansion on the part of the brewers who buy up wine merchants and similar establishments in order to get an increasing hold on the retail outlets.
    Off-licensees who have been so vociferous, and have written letters and sent delegations to lobby hon. Members, make the pint that they find themselves at a disadvantage compared with club owners and other people who are able to sell whisky and other spirits at cut prices. They say that they would like r.p.m. to continue. What they really want, of course, is that r.p.m. should be continued not just for them, but for everyone else as well. They would like a protected market. One cannot blame them because they can only buy from the brewer—he is their exclusive source of supply, they are not allowed to buy from anyone else if they are tied tenants—as well as private individuals or someone in competition with them, the free men. So they would like everyone to be in the same boat as they are. That, of course, is quite impossible. No law that I can visualise could be made to put free people in the same restricted field as the off-licensee finds himself.
    Mr. Leslie Hale: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman. But when he rose I rushed out to get a copy of HANSARD to find out what had been said yesterday and to see what other Amendments are being discussed with this Amendment. I am told that no list of selected Amendments is available at the Vote Office, as is normal. I have not heard the hon. Member refer to any Amendment on the Notice Paper. The note which I made yesterday was that the other Amendments related to quite different matters from those being discussed. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what we are now discussing? Are we discussing Amendments Nos. 14 and 17?
    The Chairman: May I help the hon. Member? The notice is never in the Vote Office. It s posted in the "No" Lobby.

    279
    If the hon. Member consulted the notice in that Lobby at this moment he would get the information which he requires. To help him, may I read it to him? With this Amendment, which is No. 7, are being discussed Amendments. Nos. 14, l7 and 27 and the new subsection, Amendment No. 10.
    Mr. Robert Cooke: Thank you, Sir William, for dealing with that interruption by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale). I was addressing my remarks to those words which appear first on the Notice Paper today. I wish to confine my remarks to that Amendment and not stray into wider fields which would involve some of the other Amendments.
    Off-licensees, who have been very active in the matter, wish the restrictions which apply to them to be made to apply to other people who are in competition with them. As I was about to say, that seems to me to be an impossible burden to put upon Parliament—to make a further restriction—and surely the Government are right in trying to take off a restriction and to achieve free competition in this field.
    My hon. Friends who put down the Amendment are mistaken in thinking that it will have the result which they suggest. What really should be done is, the Bill should go through as my right hon. Friend has left it, but perhaps we could cover the future if my right hon. Friend were able to say—within the rules of order—a little word of encouragement in this direction, that perhaps even the Bill may have some effect for those unfortunate tied tenants of the brewers; and that under the provisions of the Bill—if not perhaps we may get some encouragement for the future—they will find themselves in a position of freedom where they can buy their supplies at the best prices and sell them at the most competitive rate, which is not happening at present.
    What my hon. Friends suggest by this Amendment would not help to get the free competition that we all want and which would be to the benefit of the consumer. I hope that the House will reject the Amendment and that my right hon. Friend will advise against it and that he will be able to do something about getting, in a real sense, a free market in the licensed trade.
    5.0 p.m.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: I believe it was the late James Maxton who once said. "If you can't ride two horses at the same time you ought not to be in a circus." I congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) on managing to achieve that act this afternoon. He ought to have put down an Amendment confined to the difficulties about tenants of brewers.
    It is not for me to praise Amendments which have been put down to the Bill, but I think the hon. and learned Member for Hove (Mr. Marlow), with Amendment No. 14, rather caused the wheels of the bandwagon to fall off. The trouble about that Amendment, which we are considering in this group, is that it is so heavily loaded with all kinds of interests that it is difficult to make a coherent case on any one. It is all very well for the Minister to say that it is not Parliament's place to debate the circumstances and that it is for the Registrar to invite the Court to do that, but if the various items had been taken in order by the Committee there might have been a case made for some and against others.
    I believe there is a case for some of these items. The Restrictive Trade Practices Court has already shown that on two of the items mentioned in Amendments the practice is not acting against the public interest. The Secretary of State ought to tell us why when he introduced the Bill he did not make it clear that goods which have been examined by the Court already should not automatically be exempt. Why should there be this procession of testimony again to an overburdened Court, which will be more overburdened in the years to come if this Bill becomes law? Amendment No. 14 is so overweighted with vested interests, legitimate or not so legitimate, that it cannot succeed.
    That is why I regret that we are taking that Amendment with Amendments numbered 17 and 27. Defeat can be contagious. I do not accept the usefulness of Amendment No. 27. I have reasons for saying that but I shall not go over them now. I think there is an excellent case for Amendment No. 17. If the Minister is to cavil on technical points, I willingly admit that that Amendment is not very well drawn.

    281
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) said last night, the words "any substance recommended" could be misconstrued in a multitude of ways. "Any substance" could refer to any alcohol. Again who recommends the substance?
    I admit right away that this is not a perfect Amendment, but we all know that although an Amendment may lack perfection in some regards it is the principle we seek to ensure that is Important. The Secretary of State, in his reply to this debate, may like to bracket all reference to drugs with cosmetics, tobacco, cigars, sweets, wines and spirits, but I think that would be most unfortunate. There is a very good case to be made about drugs.
    When I was in America in the summer I had occasion to mix with doctors in Harvard. I was at one time with a doctor who was prescribing for a patient. I was with him on two separate occasions purchasing the same drug. I was astounded to find that there was a different price for the same proprietary drug in different shops. It was a specific new drug and it struck me as unfortunate that there should be different prices. When we found it offered at a lower price I was concerned to find whether it contained the same ingredients.
    It is difficult for a biochemist to do that, but when the public are faced with different prices for the same drug they immediately consider it best to buy the more expensive variety in the belief that it is more reliable. This will not tend to lower the price. In some trades it is well known that it is better to charge a higher price in order to sell goods.
    Mr. Wilfred Proudfoot: Surely the hon. Member realises that there is a maximum price which cannot be exceeded?
    Dr. Mabon: That is a bad argument. I am arguing on the question of variability in prices of a drug. How far the prices are below the maximum does not affect the point about variability. It is undesirable to have the same drugs sold at varying prices because that confuses those seeking to purchase the drugs. It will doubly confuse people seeking to buy drugs for others.
    282
    That leads me to the question of self-medication. The medical profession has set its face against encouraging self-medication. Hon. Members who have some experience of a doctor as a friend will know something of the human tragedies which are seen in surgeries. They have so long relied on self-medication that they arrive in the surgery far too late for anything to be done for them. I am against encouraging prolonged self-medication. These are two important points which have to be taken into account in considering Amendment No. 17.
    I cannot accept the argument that the Registrar should decide these things. It is a very unfair burden to impose on him that not only should he have economic knowledge but also medical and pharmacological knowledge to enable him to arrive at conclusions on matters such as these. If the Minister refuses to exempt drugs, logically they will have to be among the groups paraded before the Board of Trade for the Registrar to decide in which priority they shall go before the Court.
    Mr. Heath indicated dissent.
    Dr. Mabon: Is there some provision to exempt drugs?
    Mr. Heath: I think the hon. Member is under some misunderstanding about the procedure. He said that the Registrar would have to make the decision, but it is the Court which will have to decide whether or not an order should be made.
    Dr. Mabon: I apologise. Perhaps in the excitement of my delivery I said the wrong words. I meant to say that the Court is not qualified to make decisions of this character.
    The Court might agree that there is a case for admitting certain groups of drugs to the exemptions. The damage done may not be so large and on balance it may not be against the public interest. But there are a large number in which it can be argued that it would be wholly against the public interest to have variability of price. Drugs, unlike many groups of articles mentioned in these Amendments, are of considerable public concern and there is a great deal of legislation about them. There is a great deal of legislation still to come on this

    283
    matter. This is part of the good case for exempting drugs.
    The Dunlop Committee has not arrived at conclusions about how to operate the testing of drugs and the ultimate licensing of drugs for sale to the public. Yet we know from the statements made by the Minister of Health that there is to be legislation on the subject. We can all recollect the thalidomide disaster as one of the principal reasons for activating the Dunlop Committee. This has not been resolved either medically or publicly. The lawyers are not sure how any future Bill will be drawn and neither are the doctors. The Dunlop Committee is in active consideration concerning how it should go about the matter.
    The next point that springs to mind is that we have through the Ministry of Health a voluntary price agreement—of what the price will be when purchasing drugs for the National Health Service.
    Mr. James Dance: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I think there is a little confusion here. Already there are variations of the prices of these types of drug not on the National Health Service. Not long ago I had conjunctivitis and I was given a prescription by my doctor which, I think, was chloromycetin. At one chemist's I paid 6s. 6d. for a little dropper bottle and at another chemist's 8s. 6d. This was within the course of two or three days, so surely resale price maintenance is not there at the moment.
    Dr. Mabon: There are two fallacies in the hon. Gentleman's argument. The first is that it depends on the nature of the prescription. What was the strength? What was the nature of the drug?
    Mr. Dance: It was the same prescription from the same doctor. I had two made up; one was made up at one chemist's and the other at another chemist's, within two days of each other.
    Dr. Mabon: I cannot comment unless the hon. Gentleman shows me exactly what he means. Different companies sell different forms of drugs—I concede this, particularly from abroad—at different prices, but the hon. Gentleman is anticipating my speech.
    284
    Let me deal with the voluntary price agreement. One of the bargains made between the Government and the drug manufacturers is that if one buys through the National Health Service drugs, one gets them at a certain price, but if one takes them out of the Health Service one gets them at a higher price. The voluntary price agreement is there in order to arrive at what would be a fair return on the research done to acquire these drugs. Many of these drugs are expensive discoveries. Of course, other firms can acquire knowledge of these drugs once they are on the market, and can cash in on them. I concede that. However, if we are not to strangle original research we must make sure that there is an appropriate reward for companies which engage in pure research, as, otherwise, we shall end up by having no research of our own and having "to borrow" the formulae from foreign companies.
    It is hardly fair to apply a Bill of this sort to drugs when this would prejudice the voluntary price agreement. Some of us are concerned about the economics of the drug industry, and we feel that it is a subject which merits examination on its own, that it is not a subject which ought to be the general concern of a Bill for the abolition of resale price maintenance. We are concerned with the safety of patients, with the quality control of drugs and with ensuring that the manufacturers of these wonderful instruments of human comfort are in no way impeded in their proper development.
    5.15 p.m.
    It is wrong that drugs should be brought within this Bill. I have mentioned quality control. Anyone with knowledge of the operation of the Ministry of Health knows that one of the grave concerns, not only in this country but in others, is to exercise proper quality control over drugs. This is something which has really got to be done properly. For the arguments which I have advanced, I feel that it is clearly wrong merely to permit anything which would encourage price variations, that we should have the public confused over the price of drugs for the same purpose and that it is wrong that we should have drugs regulated in this way when they can be regulated by a voluntary price agreement or by recommendations following

    285
    an inquiry into the drug industry. It is wrong in my view that drugs should be covered by the Bill when we have important committees considering the matter, including in particular the Dunlop Committee.
    For all these reasons I think that Amendment No. 17 should be incorporated in the Bill in some form, and I hope that my hon. Friends will support me.
    Mr. William Clark: I supported my right hon. Friend on the Second Reading of the Bill on the understanding, in my own mind, that the Bill could be strengthened in Committee. I wish to speak only to Amendment No. 7, because I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead), in addition to what the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) has said, will deal with the chemists' interests in the matter.
    I do not apologise for anything in Amendment No. 7 because I accept the fact that it is probably a device to get exemption from the Bill. The Amendment says that anything carrying a customs duty in excess of 60 per cent. should be exempted. I do not accept the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke). I am sorry that he was not present yesterday when my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Hocking) moved the Amendment, because he never brought into the argument that the Amendment was intended to help tied or untied houses in the matter of spirits. His main argument was that goods carrying a customs duty of 60 per cent. were, in fact, tax gatherers for the Exchequer. Any industry which collects a tremendous amount of tax—it runs into nearly £1,000 million a year—should have special treatment as far as the Resale Prices Bill is concerned.
    I am afraid that if we do not get some exemption for such industries as the spirits and tobacco industries we may find—this is particularly so in the tobacco industry, where the margin of return is so very small—that if one has a reduction in price the tobacco content in cigarettes will go down and, consequently, that the revenue which the Exchequer collects will also go down. This may be a good idea, but I think the Committee wants to look at the
    286
    matter coldly and squarely and to realise that if we are going to lose a substantial part of the revenue which we get from spirits or tobacco it has to be found elsewhere.
    No one advocating less smoking has ever given me any valid reason or answer as to how that revenue is going to be rep aced. I understand that the only country which has exempted large tax-bearing goods from resale price maintenance is Denmark. I accept the fact that in Denmark the customs duty is allied to the retail price of the goods whereas curs is regulated according to the amount of spirit in the bottle of whisky or the tobacco in a cigarette.
    If I am right in my contention that, because of the small profit margin and the price cutting that may arise owing to the imposition of resale price maintenance, we shall get a reduction of alcohol or tobacco and that, consequently, the Exchequer will lose money, then I would have thought that there was a case, for exempting these sorts of goods. The tobacco industry has, in fact, been investigating recently, and, although it was incidental to the decision of that court, it was said that resale price maintenance in the tobacco industry did not activate against the public interest. I would have thought that it was logical to give some sort of exemption in this Bill to any industry that has gone through the hoop. This not only applies to the tobacco industry, we all agree, but to the net book agreement also.
    It was suggested yesterday that ail the Amendments which have been tabled by hon. Members on this side are inspired by the Whips or by somebody else on the Government Front Bench. May I make my own position clear? My support of the Amendment has not been inspired by any member of the Government or by any of the Whips. I am certain that my right hon. Friend will accept this from me because he and I have had many discussions on this matter.
    There is a case for an exemption. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South and I are not wedded to the wording of the Amendment. Sixty per cent. may be the wrong figure. Perhaps it should be 65 per cent.
    Mr. Peter Emery: Will my hon. Friend give me an explanation on

    287
    the matter which troubles me most on the Amendment? What would be the position if there were an alteration in tax, Excise duty or customs duty? If it suddenly fell below 60 per cent., r.p.m. would disappear. Therefore, r.p.m. is set purely on the way that the Budget happens to go. Petrol, for instance, could be freed from duty, and then duty could be reimposed on it. There would be no stability.
    Mr. Clark: I hope that my hon. Friend does not fear that there will be a Government formed by the Labour Party. If there were, perhaps there would be an increase in customs duty. There have been reductions in the past twelve years. I said—I am sorry that my hon. Friend did not hear this—that I am not wedded to 60 per cent. Perhaps it should be 65 per cent. If it fell below 50 per cent., I would agree that r.p.m. could be abolished. In that sense, this would be to the consumer's advantage. The fact that a tax may be increased or decreased does not invalidate the argument that the tobacco industry and the spirit industry are tax gatherers for the Revenue, and they are unpaid.
    Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: If Amendment No. 14 were accepted, it would make nonsense of the Bill. It is designed to exempt many items. Unlike the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. W. Clark), I think that the number of exemptions should be kept to an absolute minimum. Exemptions should be granted only in respect of commodities such as books and drugs where Gresham's Law threatens to operate and adversely effect the quality and safety of life in society. I commend this principle to the Committee.
    I do not think that the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Nottingham. South can be regarded as sound. Hence, I join my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) in recommending Amendment No. 17. I certainly could not support a sweeping Amendment like No. 14. Those hon. Members who have put their names to it take too far pessimistic a view. I do not think that supermarkets are casting greedy eyes at most of the items the Amendment mentions, certainly not at tobacco and cigarettes. There is no evidence of this.
    Mr. W. A. Wilkins: Is it not rather strange that the day following the announcement of the Bill a supermarket situated within one hundred yards of the headquarters of the Imperial Tobacco Company reduced the price of cigarettes by 4d.?
    Mr. Duffy: The margins on cigarettes and tobaccos and on other items such as sweets and confectionery, are not high enough to justify supermarkets risking the pilferage which is almost certain to follow.
    The item in the Amendment I want to take up is—
    "the sale of goods normally carried on by pharmacists, including cosmetics."
    I recognise the special position in society of chemists. From the consumer's point of view, the most valuable man in the high street is the chemist. What he does cannot be measured in terms of money. Who can put a price on the chemist's services? He has to make provision for emergency throughout the year. He has to carry—if I can use the phrase—excess social capacity.
    However, I still do not see how the exemption asked for in paragraph (a) can be justified. I do not see that the chemist can be set apart from other retailers and treated separately. What the hon. and learned Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe) said last evening—this is said by so many of our correspondents in the trade—was that the National Health Service pays chemists so little for dispensing medicines that they cannot maintain this service or make ends meet without the fair profit they receive from selling branded goods.
    Many hon. Members will have received from the Proprietary Articles Trade Association an article which says this:
    "The chemist is a retailer of many kinds of goods, the largest proportion being price-maintained articles. On these goods the chemist (whose overhead expenses are high) receives a fair profit margin. This enables him to carry on his dispensing and professional activities free from acute and persistent financial anxiety."
    If the Association and the hon. and learned Member for Hove are right in taking this view, then there is a case, not against the Bill and its purpose, but against the National Health Service.

    289
    The hon. and learned Member for Hove went further and said, in effect, that chemists were treated so badly by the National Health Service that they can go on dispensing only at the expense of all types of people—for instance, secretaries and their cosmetics. The logic of this argument is that chemists will be entitled also to go on retailing cameras and mark up 42½ per cent. and will be entitled to retail rolled film—120, for example—at a mark-up of 40 per cent. I cannot accept such an argument.
    The hon. and learned Member for Hove said that, as the small shopkeeper is an institution in our society, we should hesitate long before driving him out of business. Much has been said on behalf of the small shopkeeper, both on Second Reading and so far in Committee. It is only right that we should consider his position further. We should tell him frankly that, as I had the brief opportunity of saying on Second Reading, the Bill obliges him to think out new ways of increasing, not justifying, his usefulness in the modern economy. Small shopkeepers can do much for themselves, as the hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Proudfoot) told the House in the debate on the Abolition of Resale Price Maintenance Bill, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse).
    There are many ways in which the little man could be encouraged by the shopping public, the local authority and the Government to extend that part of his service which is unique, because it is provided at odd places and at odd hours. This would not merely involve his liberation from some of the strange rules in regard to opening and closing. It would also help him to fit into the system of the big blocks of flats which are being erected all over the place. It would help him to fit in with the railway stations, given the modernisation of many which is now being undertaken. His presence in large factories could save time, and time to many consumers is just as precious as money. Some hon. Members have had first-hand evidence of how the United States keep their small shops, which fill in gaps between the weekly visits to the supermarket. There will always he consumers who will prefer to patronise the local shop, because of the personal attention, the quality, the
    290
    delivery and the local gossip. The atmosphere, the service and the convenience are much appreciated.
    Does anyone seriously contend that the same prices are to be paid for similar goods in different shops, irrespective of atmosphere, service and convenience? When the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) put a question on this last night he was told, in effect, that the prices must be the same irrespective of the location and distribution costs of the retailer.
    I do not think that small shopkeepers should assume too facilely that r.p.m. will be felt entirely in their ranks. Many large-scale firms have also been effectively shielded from competition by the protective umbrella of resale price maintenance.
    Thus, enterprising small shopkeepers will experience little difficulty in competing even with their large rivals. Because under more competitive conditions their assets of flexibility, convenience and personal service can be deployed more effectively.
    5.30 p.m.
    Sir Hugh Linstead: There are two Amendments to which I have put my name which fall within the group that we are discussing, and I join with those who nave already spoken in wishing that it would have been possible for us to have isolated the discussion on drugs and medicines from other items in the group. I must, however, accept the decision that has been taken by the Chair. The two that I wish specifically to discuss are Amendments Nos. 27 and 17, both of which deal with drugs and medicines only.
    It is probably unnecessary for me to say to the Committee that I am secretary of the Pharmaceutical Society, but I think it is in interest which once again I should declare.
    On Amendment No. 27, I want to make only a brief point. It is an Amendment which seeks to enable a manufacturer to select his distributors in all and any circumstances. As the Clause is drafted, it prevents a manufacturer refusing supplies where there has been price-cutting. That is the reason why on Second Reading my right hon. Friend interrupted me and said that what is now in Amendment No. 27 is already permitted by the Bill.

    291
    There is a distinction here which it is important to underline. It is true that supplies cannot be refused under the Bill if the sole ground is that a man is price-cutting. But consider the situation the manufacturer finds himself in when dealing with a price-cutter. He has to satisfy the Court that he is withholding supplies, not on the grounds of price-cutting, but on some other ground. He has to go through all the processes of law without any certainty that in the eyes of the Court he will be able to separate the motives which led him to withhold supplies. Therefore, in the particular case of drugs and medicine, I feel that there should be afforded the manufacturer an absolute right to with-hold supplies in any circumstances for the very specific reason that drugs and medicines, the handling of them and the storage of them and the care with which they are handed out to the public are extremely important elements from the manufacturers' point of view. He may have an extremely good reason for not desiring drugs manufactured by him being distributed by someone who engages in all types of commercial price-cutting. That is the point that I want to make clear to my right hon. Friend. I can only explain it to him and express the hope that he will see that there is differentiation here.
    Mr. Hale: I am sincerely interested in this Amendment, and I think that at the moment I am in support of it. What is the substance recommended as medicine? Is that defined? Does it include Beecham's pills or Alka Seltzer, or what?
    Sir H. Linstead: May I come to the second Amendment, No. 17, which has much more depth to it and deal at once with the point which the hon. Member has just raised. That was a point raised last night when we began this debate by the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) who asked why medicines and drugs were defined as being substances recommended as a medicine. It is to meet a difficulty which has occurred elsewhere in our medicine legislation—the difficulty of drawing a line between what is a medicine and what is not. There are many substances which are used for medical purposes and also for non-medicinal purposes. In other legislation the distinction is made according to
    292
    whether a substance is recommended on the label as being a medicine. In such a case under that particular legal provision, it is regarded as a medicine. If it is labelled for use for some other purpose it is regarded as not being a medicine.
    I think that the precedent of earlier legislation can quite wisely be followed here. I want to give the two main reasons why I feel that this Amendment has very substantial merits. I have been greatly struck by the interest which has been shown by friends of mine on both sides of the Committee in relation to the representations which they have received from pharmacists about the effect of the abolition of r.p.m. not merely on themselves as individuals economically, but on the quality of the service they will be able to render to the public. I have sensed a general concern in the Committee on both those grounds. I have on two occasions explained in this Chamber the basis of the fears that pharmacists have on the effect on their economic circumstances if r.p.m. disappears. They have, as the Committee knows, broadly three sources of income: the medicines that they supply under the National Health Service; the medicines they sell over the counter; and the non-medicinal goods which they have to sell in order to increase their turnover. The National Health Service remuneration will continue and the abolition of resale price maintenance does not affect this. With regard to the other two sources of their income, they will undoubtedly be seriously affected.
    That effect will be shown in the quality of the service which they can afford to give to the public, not merely the National Health Service element in that service, but the broad pharmaceutical service they give. It will affect the quality of the staff which they can afford to employ, and it will affect the amount and variety of the stock that they will be able to carry and the hours during which it will be possible for them to maintain their public service. In fact, any reduction of prices, if it is achieved by the abolition of resale price maintenance, will be an extra tax out of their own pockets, crippling them in the service which they can give.
    Mr. Eric Lubbock: If one accepts all that the hon. Member

    293
    has said so far, the chemist would be able to pass through either gateway A or gateway C. I would be grateful if he would explain why it is necessary to have a separate Amendment excluding them from the Bill if it is so certain that they would be covered by these two provisions.
    Sir H. Linstead: I can return the question to the hon. Member by asking if he can give such an assurance to me at the moment. None of us has the remotest idea how the Restrictive Practices Court will operate. If we felt certain that it was going to operate in that way, a very large part of the argument for this Amendment would disappear. We do not know. We are gazing into the crystal ball and cannot find the answer.
    I have nearly concluded what I want to say about the effect on the chemist. I would remind the Committee that according to the 1961 Census of Distribution, 22·9 per cent of chemists' shops had a turnover of less than £10,000 a year, and 46·8 per cent. had a turnover of between £10,000 and £20,000 a year. That is not a picture of a group of people who are getting fat out of the profits on their businesses.
    I believe that the views of many hon. Members, echoed in this debate in what was said earlier, are right, namely, that if the remuneration under the National Health Service were more adquate, much of the argument behind what I am now saying would disappear. It is generally accepted—indeed there is on the Order Paper an Amendment to that effect—that it is because the remuneration takes too much account of turnover earned through other parts of their business.
    If we could get from the Government an undertaking that a very serious upgrading of National Health Service remuneration was possible, I think many of these difficulties would disappear. But, in the nature of things, no Minister is able today to give an undertaking of that kind, or, at any rate, has not done so up till now.
    I have spoken about the effect on the pharmacist. I want now to say a word about the effect on the public, which, after all, concerns the Committee even more seriously. I have indicated that
    294
    the staff, the stocks and, indeed, possibly the numbers of pharmacies are likely to be reduced. I want to echo what was said earlier about the undesirability of competition in selling drugs. I do not believe that the public should be encouraged by every conceivable commercial wile to purchase additional drugs to supplement what they obtain under the National Health Service, drugs attractively advertised at cut prices, so that they may try one against the other. I think it is important to remember that part of the duty of the pharmacist is often to say "No" and not "Yes". In other words, it is his job to discourage people from taking drugs when he does not believe, that in their particular circumstance it is wise for them to do so.
    The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Duffy) referred to Gresham's Law, and I am sure that Gresham's Law will apply to drugs as it will apply to other fields. In other words, competition in price will only result in competition in quality, with poor drugs and cheap advertised medicines driving out the good medicines.
    5.45 p.m.
    Mr. Charles Loughlin: I am wholeheartedly in support of the hon. Member in both the Amendments to which he has referred, but would he explain this to me? I do not think his case is substantial on this point because I am wondering where these drugs are going to be sold. So far as I can see, there is no danger that huge supermarkets will be selling drugs at cut prices. Drugs are sold only at pharmacies.
    Sir H. Linstead: No.
    Mr. Loughlin: The hon. Gentleman says "No". Perhaps he will tell me where they can be sold other than at the pharmacy.
    Sir H. Linstead: I will answer the hon. Gentleman directly by saying that there is no legislation in this country that limits the sale of medicines, broadly speaking, to pharmacists. Medicines other than poisons and narcotic drugs can be sold through any trader. That is one of the changes which are badly needed in the law of this country.
    I want to summarise the three remedies that have been put forward, other than

    295
    the Amendment which I am now discussing. First, it is said that proper remuneration under the National Health Service is the answer. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health is sympathetic, but, so far, that has not extended beyond expressions of sympathy. Then it is said that there should be new legislation bringing more pharmaceutical business into the pharmacies. I believe that some legislation of that kind is now under consideration in the Ministry of Health, but, again, that is something for the future.
    Finally, there is the possibility, as the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) said, of exclusion under Clause 5. That is a possibility, but again it is uncertain. The problem that pharmacists are faced with is that they find that the three possible remedies—remuneration under the National Health Service, legislation for bringing more pharmaceutical business to them, and the possibility of exclusion under Clause 5—are all vague and uncertain. That is the situation with which some of us are faced in this Amendment.
    I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development will be able to give us some indication of how he visualises the operation of Clause 5 and the gateways applying in the case of drugs or medicines. If we are able to get a very clear-cut assurance from him, it may have some effect upon the attitude of mind of myself and some of my colleagues. All I can say at the moment is that there is so much vagueness that it will require a great deal of assurance from my right hon. Friend in relation to Clause 5 before I would feel that Clause 5 provides the gateway for which this Amendment asks and which I believe hon. Members on both sides of the Committee desire to see.
    Mrs. Harriet Slater: If I were to answer the hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead), I would say that the case which he has put forward is in favour not of the exclusion of drugs but of the exclusion of all articles sold in chemists' shops. When brought down to rock bottom, the hon. Member's case has been submitted not from the pharmaceutical point of view but from the commercial point of
    296
    view. I was horrified to think that cosmetics were to be excluded, because if ever there was a racket there is a racket in cosmetics—
    Sir H. Linstead: Would the hon. Lady explain where in the Amendment cosmetics are excluded?
    Mrs. Slater: I refer to Amendment No. 14, and my hon. Friend mentioned cosmetics.
    In the last two Budgets there have been alterations in the Purchase Tax on cosmetics. The week before the alteration has been announced the wholesale price of the goods has gone up, so that the consumer has never benefited from a reduction. The manufacturers go in for wide-scale advertising of all kinds, in magazines, on the I.T.V., on the doorstep and in every way possible in the hope of achieving very large business.
    The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. W. Clark) spoke about cigarettes. I do not want to follow him, except to say that a committee of inquiry pointed out that this business constitutes a monopoly, and that facilities for a take-over should not be given to a certain firm. That shows, as we have said time and again, that the Government have tackled the problem in the wrong way. If they had tackled the monopolies problem first, most of the other things would have fallen into place.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) has expressed reservations on the meaning of the words
    …or any substance recommended as medicine…"
    in Amendment 17. I share her reservations. The wording could cover all sorts of things that are not really drugs. There is the old idea of people saying that they were recommended to take a Guinnesss a day, that it put them right, and they did not need the doctor. My reservations extend to alcohol as well as cigarettes and some other things.
    Drugs should be completely outside the Bill. In many cases life itself depends on their use and, if not life itself, the improvement of life, in that a sick person can be made better by their use. This is a question that should concern, perhaps not so much the Secretary of State as his right hon. Friend

    297
    the Minister of Health, and several aspects should have received much more consideration by now.
    There is the price of drugs—two drugs can be sold under different names and each be offered at a different price. The importing of drugs and their purchase should also have been considered by the Government but, more than anything else, attention should be given to the standard of practice in the sale of drugs. As with cosmetics, there is far too much advertising done to try to persuade people to buy certain drugs to improve their condition. One has only to think of the simple aspirin. I do not know how many varieties of that there are, but I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Sir B. Stross) will tell us that, generally speaking, a plain aspirin is much better than the tablets that have had other bits added to them, are well advertised and marketed under a name, and attract a very much higher price—
    Sir Barnett Stross: As my hon. Friend has called me in aid, will she accept my opinion that if aspirin had just been invented today and had come before the Dunlop Committee—or, if it had been invented in America, it had come before the F.D.A.—it is fraught with so many possibilities of side-effects that it would never have passed?
    Mrs. Slater: I have taken up the question of side-effects of aspirin with the Minister of Health, because a very respectable friend of mine in the medical world says that they are very serious and could cause great trouble to a person suffering from a particular disease.
    Advertising, which is now a very large-scale business, has so extended its activities to the drug world that the ordinary person does not know what is good for him or what is not. As my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) said, one of the dangers is self-medication. This is a going concern, and it is helped by advertising and by the Government's 2s. prescription charge, which persuades some people that they get the thing cheaper by getting the ordinary commodity in the shop. The people who dispense our drugs, the pharmacists, ought not to be
    298
    subjected to this Bill. If they are doing the job for which they are trained—and this is the important thing—they should be receiving adequate remuneration from the Government for doing that job.
    I am not prepared to vote for Amendment No. 14 or Amendment No. 7. The basis of the argument for Amendment No. 7 is completely wrong. To speak of the tax that comes from these commodities is an absolutely false argument. It has been pointed out that if the tax were altered the commodity would come out of the provisions of the Bill, but the argument should not be applied at all. If we want tax from these commodities, let us do it by straightforward taxation rather than by indirect means.
    Mr. Philip N. Hocking: Would the hon. Lady not agree that where a commodity is taxed to the extent of three-fifths, the remaining two-fifths is a very small margin within which to manœuvre from a price-cutting point of view? Surely that is a fair argument for the Amendment.
    6.0 p.m.
    Mrs. Slater: Where does resale price maintenance then come into price cutting? The hon. Member for Nottingham, South tried to put the point of view that the standard of these commodities would be lowered unless we followed the provisions in Clause 7. I would not be worried if the standard of tobacco, cigarettes and alcohol went down. Perhaps it would save us from many other problems which affect us today.
    Far too many items are included in Amendment No. 14, which deals with such things as pharmacists' goods, tobacco, newspapers, sweets and confectionary, wines and spirits. Their inclusion defeats the whole purpose of the Bill. It would mean that there would be a large section of the provisions of the Bill to which r.p.m. would not apply. I would be prepared to vote, with reservations, on Amendment No. 17, which provides that the Clause should not apply to any drug or substance recommended as medicine or any medical or surgical appliance.
    On Amendment No. 27, dealing with the withholding of supplies of medical substances, there is the point that if we

    299
    supported it I am not sure whether or not it would prevent the small grocer, about whom so many hon. Members have been making pleas, from selling simple things like iodine, aspirin and liver pills. I, therefore, hope that the Minister will look again at that Amendment and consider whether, in the interests of better quality and more control over price, some requirement should be laid down.
    Mr. Norman Cole: I want to address my remarks to Amendments No. 14 and No. 17 and to deal first with the proviso in Amendment No. 14 that nothing in the Bill shall apply to
    "(a) pharmacy and the sale of goods normally carried on by pharmacists, including cosmetics,"
    This is something similar though not quite the same as Amendment No. 17, which provides that
    "this section shall not apply to any drug, or any substance recommended as medicine, or any medical or surgical appliance."
    My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) and the hon. Lady the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) have made it clear that this all-important matter of drugs, which may be said to be the outward working of the doctor's skill when he prescribes, ought to be outside the confines of the Bill. I think that most of us would agree.
    I was very much taken up with the point made by the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) when he spoke of the danger of variability of price because people might go for the dearer drug because they would be suspicious of the cheaper one. There is the other side to the coin in that people might economise and buy the cheaper article, and it might well be cheaper in the sense of being inferior. I use an innocuous article as an aid to digestion. The article is sold in two forms, one pure and the other combined with some other ingredient. Both are excellent but differ in price. When we are dealing with drugs we ought to consider means of eliminating them from the processes of the Court.
    In another respect I differ from the hon. Lady the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North. I thought that my hon.
    300
    Friend the Member for Putney made it quite clear that in order to assist the State or to help people to pay the prescription charges, the rest of the things which a pharmacist or chemist sells should be allowed to carry a reasonable profit, and certainly far more than the profit on prescriptions so as to allow him to continue to deal with prescriptions. Some shock has been expressed that some of these articles may carry 42 per cent. gross profit, but we should not forget the "gross". We should remember the stock of one hundred and one specialities which has to be carried in these shops. I know of another trade where the gross profit is anything between 30 per cent. and 40 per cent. and where there is no resale price maintenance and the price depends upon what people will stand.
    A good case can be made for these Amendments on the ground of improving the nature of the drug sold and on the ground of the support given by the sale of non-drug articles to the sale of prescriptions. These are good grounds for the elimination from the Bill of those engaged in pharmacy and the sale of goods normally carried on by pharmacists, including cosmetics.
    Mr. J. J. Mendelson: Does the hon. Member argue in favour of this omission on the grounds that profit is too high in some lines of trade not subject to r.p.m.?
    Mr. Cole: The expression "too high" is the hon. Member's, not mine. I was speaking of gross profit. Whether or not that profit is justified in other trades, it is argued that it is justified in the chemist's trade when one bears in mind the many things which he has to sell so that what he does by way of prescriptions can be done at a cut profit.
    As for the proposal in the first of the Amendments I mentioned to eliminate those engaged in the trade of
    "(b) tobacco, cigars, cigarettes and the sale of associated goods,".
    Although the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1899 and 1900 did a great deal to encourage people to smoke so as to increase the Revenue, nobody in his right mind would wish to encourage more smoking today. Nevertheless, millions of people want to smoke and they want to see the continuation of these retail outlets. It should be borne

    301
    in mind that the retailer receives only £10 or £11 gross profit from the disposal of £100 worth of stock of cigarettes and tobacco. One would think that this is a reasonable case which would get through one of the gateways provided in Clause 5.
    Mr. Proudfoot: I trust that my hon. Friend realises that stocks of cigarettes and tobacco are held by the retailers on sale or return.
    Mr. Cole: I was not talking about conditions of sale and return. I realise that, but I was shocked to hear that a man has to stock £100 worth of goods, with all the risk that that involves, and has to sell that stock to produce £10 gross profit for himself. We should be well advised throughout our discussions to use the expression "gross profit". Some people may think that "gross" should be used in another connotation, but I use it in the sense that it is not net profit but profit before the deduction of overheads and tax.
    The provision in the first of the Amendments I mentioned, dealing with
    "(c) newspapers, magazines, periodicals, stationery, and the sale of goods normally retailed by newsagents,"
    includes part of an industry which has already been, as it were, in jeopardy before the Restrictive Practices Court. It seems unfortunate that we should have industries exposed to double jeopardy, as no doubt they will be if the Bill goes through in its present form. There is a good case for considering these small items.
    As for
    "(d) sweets and confectionery"
    perhaps we are much more concerned here with the maintenance of quality and condition than with price. It is possible for some of these goods to have been in a shop for a couple of years. In the case of many of the items sold in small sweetshops there is a condition, which is clarified in a later Amendment, in that many of these items are under 6d. in price, and I take it that we are not going to play about by trying to insist that a man should be able to buy one of these items at perhaps ½d. or 1d. cheaper in a shop round the corner.
    Now, the last item, wines and spirits, on which the hon. Lady the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North commented. Like
    302
    her, I should be the last to want to encourage or assist the consumption of wines or spirits. Indeed, I think that the average publican, too, is very much against the intemperate consumption of wiles and spirits. However, it should not be forgotten that we have seen a great development in this trade by the provision of better places and surroundings, all of which can very often assist towards proper and sober conduct in the pubic houses of today, unlike what happened in some of the "hell pits" of days gone by. Whether this is done by the brewer, by the tenant of a public house or by a brewery employee, there must be some sort of margin somewhere to make possible the provision of improved conditions and amenities in modern public houses.
    The whole point of the Bill is that, if we do away with resale price maintenance in this industry, we shall, in effect, reduce the price of some of the products. I should be the last to wish to reduce prices and thereby possibly causing an increase in consumption. In this case, I think that some special pleading might well be justified. On the one hand, there is at present maintained a not unreasonable price level for wines and spirits the ordinary prices which most of us know about in the average public house. On the other hand, I think that we should be doing a disservice if we produced a situation in which cut prices were offered in competition between public houses, one on one side of the road and another, perhaps, just across the way. It would do no good to the country's welfare. I do not know, but the Court may well think it right to have this sort of consideration in mind if the occasion arises.
    Although it is a little complicated and inconvenient to have so many different kinds of article listed in Amendment No. 14, with its five items (a) to (e), I am glad to have had the opportunity to express my views about it. The main point to which I direct my mind is that covered by item (a) of Amendment 14 and by Amendment No. 17 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Putney which would provide for the exclusion from the Bill of drugs and medicines and all things that come under that heading because of their great value in saving human life and their good purpose for the betterment of life.
    Mrs. Barbara Castle: I am sure that the majority of the Committee feels that both Amendment No. 7, which has been moved by the hon. Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Hocking) and Amendment No. 14 in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe) with its five items (a) to (e) are so widely drawn as to be self-defeating. The principle behind Amendment No. 7 is quite unacceptable as a basis for deciding whether or not resale price maintenance should be maintained or abolished. The list of items included in Amendment No. 14 is so comprehensive as to amount to a direct negative to the whole purpose of the Bill. There was really no reason for one hon. Gentleman opposite to assure us that this Amendment had not been put down at the instigation of the Government Front Bench. I cannot see the right hon. Gentleman hurrying to put down this Amendment after one of the secret conspiratorial meetings which he has been having on the Bill.
    In my view, there is a case for exempting some of the items listed in Amendment No. 14, but I think that it is a case which needs to be examined very thoroughly and with far more information than is available to us in the Committee today. One of the reasons why I have deplored both the reason why the Bill has been introduced and the manner of its introduction is that we have had to discuss it against the back-ground of quite inadequate information about the social and economic consequences of the Bill. One can only hope that some of the deficiencies will be met by the Restrictive Practices Court when the items come before it one by one.
    We are saddled with the Bill. I do not like its machinery. I do not like the reason why it was introduced. I do not like the right hon. Gentleman's economic philosophy. However, having the Bill before us, it is our job not to direct negatives at it but to seek to improve the machinery, modify its evil consequences and be as constructive as possible.
    6.15 p.m.
    This is why I wish to concentrate on Amendment No. 17, in the name of the hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead), to add a new subsection (5) specifically to exclude drugs, medicines
    304
    and surgical appliances from the effect of Clause 1. I can supplement what was said by the hon. Member for Putney from the pharmacist's point of view by some arguments from the consumer's point of view in favour of accepting the Amendment and excepting the pharmacist and his goods. Clearly, the existence of an adequate number of chemists shops, reasonably accessible, is a vital public interest. We ought to make an exception in this case. Chemists provide a service which is, in effect, ancillary to the whole of the nation's hospital and health services. It is no good going to a doctor and being told what is wrong if, on being given a prescription to put the trouble right, one then has the devil's own job to find someone who will translate the prescription into the medicine which one needs.
    There is already evidence that the number of dispensing points in the country is on the decline. This was put to me by pharmacists in my constituency when they came to see me about the Bill. They told me that the number of dispensing points was, over the past few years, being reduced at the rate of 13 a month. I thought that I had better check this, so on 16th March I put a Question to the Minister of Health asking him if he would give the number of dispensing points in England and Wales in the years 1961, 1962 and 1963. His Answer bore out the argument which the chemists had put to me. I was told that the number of chemists' shops, drug stores and appliance suppliers in contract under the National Health Service in England and Wales fell from 15,681 in 1961 to 15,208 in 1963. That is a reduction of 480 in three years, and, if my arithmetic is correct, it works out at just about 13 a month. This is happening at a time when the income of the pharmacist as a dispenser under the National Health Service is being supplemented by the sale of goods subject to price maintenance. If resale price maintenance on some of the supplementary goods which he sells is abolished, the chemist's income will be even more in jeopardy.
    It is not enough to say that this should be met by an increase in the dispensing allowance which the pharmacist receives under the National Health Service. It is a little more complicated than that. I do not claim to know the rights and wrongs

    305
    of the pharmacist's argument on whether or not he is being paid enough for dispensing under the National Health Service—I should want to go into it a little more thoroughly—but I am assured that the arithmetic works out in this way.
    The margin of profit on National Health Service prescriptions is not enough unless the chemist does over 1,000 prescriptions a month. I gather that the average throughout the country is about 1,200 a month. This means that there must be a large number of chemists, especially in the more scattered areas, who do less than the national average. Therefore, they are doing less than the minimum of 1,000 prescriptions a month. It is they who will be most hard hit and yet the closure of their shops would cause the maximum hardship.
    The pharmacist in the central area may be able to get his requisite minimum number of prescriptions per month to keep his head above water, but the outlying shop, perhaps in an area of scattered dwellings, does probably less than the average. I was surprised to be told by chemists in my constituency that of 42 of them in Blackburn, 30 were doing fewer than 1,000 National Health Service prescriptions a month. They are the ones who will be in direct danger of having to close if r.p.m. is abolished over the rest of the range of their goods. This is a matter of public interest. It is one in which I must take great concern as the representative of my constituents. That is why, from a consumer's viewpoint, we should take Amendment No. 17 seriously.
    Another point that was put to me by the pharmacists was that if r.p.m. is abolished on the supplementary goods, their non-ethical goods as they call them—a description which is appropriate probably to cosmetics—and if a price-cutting war in these goods begins, pharmacists will be at a disadvantage because they are supposed to observe rather special standards of conduct.
    In that connection, I was shown a circular which has been sent by the Pharmaceutical Society to my local chemists, entitled "Important notice about price-cutting". It contains the following paragraph:
    At present some cosmetics sold in pharmacies are not subject to resale price maintenance
    306
    and prices to the public are decided by the pharmacist or firm concerned. Following Government action it may be that the list of such items will be increased. The right of each retailer in these circumstances to fix his own prices is not disputed, but the Council of the Society wish to make it clear that any blatant publicity relating to price levels will be regarded as conduct liable to bring the profession into disrepute. Whatever the outcome of the proposed legislation, pharmacies are urged to act with restraint in meeting competition from sources outside pharmacy."
    They are, therefore, expected to observe levels of conduct which will make it difficult for them to compete in the sort of society into which the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade wants us to move—the price-cutting, cut-throat society in which, apparently, he so passionately believes.
    As I understand, what the pharmacists in my constituency are concerned with is not so much whether resale price maintenance should be maintained on cosmetics. Their concern is with the items listed in Amendment No. 17. If they are given price maintenance, they will be satisfied. They have even said that they would not mind having their retail margins controlled. They have this in any event over a large area. Their alarm is lest, in the field of drugs, medicines and medical and surgical appliances supplementary to those prescribed under the National Health Service, they should be subjected to a price-cutting war. This argument of their is a fair one.
    They also point out—and here again I am in hearty agreement with them—that instead of our paying so much attention to reducing the retailer's on-cost in pharmacy, the House of Commons would be far better employed in examining the on-costs of the drug manufacturers, which, it is argued, are completely unwarranted and excessive and should be examined by the House of Commons. In this I heartily concur with the pharmacists. In the meantime we must support Amendment No. 17.
    Mr. G. R. Howard: I will confine my remarks to my Amendment to the proposed Amendment No. 14, in line 10, at end add:
    (f) photographic equipment and materials used in connection with photography.
    I know that certain photographic materials are sold in chemists' shops.

    307
    They are one of the items of which the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) has spoken. These articles have a fixed price which allows the chemist a profit which helps to pay his overheads. I shall concentrate, however, upon the effects on purely photographic dealers and shops which deal with photographic materials.
    There is already strong competition, not only between retailers but within a shop. Under the present system, one can go to a shop and see any number of cameras, both imported and home produced, although, alas, there are not so many of the latter. One sees also optical instruments, lenses, field glasses, telescopes and the like. There is already great competition as to quality and price.
    In discussing this matter last night, an hon. Member said something to me which is a good illustration. He said that he had been to a shop and was asked how much he knew about photography. He replied "Very little" and was given a foolproof camera, and a cheap one at that. This is one of the best arguments which I can give for resale price maintenance, because the retailer gets a fair profit on that article. If he considers it the right one for somebody to buy, he recommends him to buy it. If r.p.m. goes, he will not get the profit on such articles and he will advise people to buy things on which he gets the greatest profit.
    Mr. Peter Emery: Is my hon. Friend trying to suggest that the profit margins on all these goods are the same? If that is true, I can understand his argument. If it is not true, I do not understand it.
    Mr. Howard: No. The retailer gets a reasonable profit on a cheap article. The profit margins are not all the same. I am told that in the trade the average is 33⅓ per cent. and that when Purchase Tax is deducted, it is between 27 and 28 per cent. That, however, is over the whole field.
    Mr. Proudfoot: I bought a foolproof camera a week ago and I checked on the price, both in London and in my home town. The dealer in my home town gave me a 10 per cent. discount.
    Mr. Howard: Perhaps it was a line which was not selling very well. Retailers can do that. There are dealers and dealers. I maintain that there is strong competition and a wide choice.
    There is a moderately good secondhand value for cameras and equipment if people wish to buy them, but most important of all is the skilled advice and service. The photographic business is getting more complex every day. There is the increase in sales of home "do-it-yourself" colour processing materials and equipment. There is the increase in the sales of every sort of camera—from that about which my hon. Friend is talking to the most expensive cameras which can cost up to £500.
    6.30 p.m.
    One thing which the customer expects is that a qualified man should be available to explain to him the various points about the camera which he proposes to buy—whether it has a coated lens, what the focal length is, whether the focal depth scale is graduated to this, that or the other thing. This is a highly skilled business and this man is expected to give advice to the customers. He helps them in purchasing their materials. He advises them on whether they photograph well or badly. This service can be rendered only if the photographic shop is able, through resale price maintenance, to pay skilled people who can give it.
    If resale price maintenance goes, what will be the answer? Obviously, there will be fewer shops. The smaller man will not be able to compete. The big multiples will go for the extensively advertised goods. As many hon. Members have said, this does not mean that they will be of the best quality. I heard the other day about a Japanese camera which had been advertised as an absolute bargain. Someone bought it for £6 and it was not worth 5s. The trade got after this case and stopped it happening again, but this sort of thing can happen.
    If resale price maintenance goes, there will be less variety because shopkeepers will not be able to afford to keep the slow moving lines—the things which do not sell well—and the quality of his goods must suffer. I do not see how that can be avoided. Shopkeepers will simply go for the things which can be

    309
    quickly cleared. There will be no after-sales service, no guarantees and no help given to customers in buying their materials. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Simply because shopkeepers, so they tell me, will not be able to pay high enough wages to attract the skilled men to this sort of job. Therefore, they will not be able to get the men who can give technical advice on the equipment which people wish to buy.
    Mr. Nicholas Ridley: By how much does my hon. Friend expect the price of a camera to come down?
    Mr. Howard: If the shopkeeper does not get his recognised 27 per cent. to 30 per cent., if there is a price-cutting war and the price of cameras comes down considerably, those in the photographic trade say that they will not be able to pay the salaries of the highly skilled men needed to render this service.
    Therefore, I hope that the photographic trade will be excluded. It is a very important trade, and it is growing rapidly, but it is a very technical and complicated one. I hope that my hon. Friend will see his way clear to excluding it.
    Mr. Anthony Crosland: I do not think it will be considered in bad taste, in discussing a Bill to abolish resale price maintenance, if I say that I am strongly in favour of the principle of abolition. One would never guess from most of the speeches made on both sides of the Committee in the last two days that probably a very considerable number of hon. Members are in favour of the principle of abolishing resale price maintenance. A rather false impression of the feeling in the Committee has been created, because of the Amendments which we have been discussing.
    I should like to comment on the speech of the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard). Would he say that in the United States, where resale price maintenance does not exist, the conditions surrounding the sale of photographic goods are so much worse than they are in this country?
    Mr. G. R. Howard: I am delighted to answer the hon. Member. Having been to a good many places in the United
    310
    States, I can say from my experience that the service is nil. On many occasions I have asked questions just out of interest, and the assistant could not begin to give me one technical answer to the things that I wanted to know. He just handed the article over the counter, and that was all that he could do.
    Mr. Crosland: In view of that, I shall rather rapidly shift my ground away from photographic goods towards motor vehicles. In the United States, where resale price maintenance does not exist, the standard of garage and repair facilities for motor vehicles is much higher than it is in this country.
    Mr. Peter Emery: The hon. Member says that he is shifting his ground. May I reinforce his ground? I do not believe that the advice on cameras is so bad in Germany, Sweden, Denmark and Switzerland. There is certainly no resale price maintenance in those countries.
    Mr. Crosland: I applaud that brilliant and pertinent intervention.
    I want to make it absolutely clear that I firmly and strongly oppose Amendments Nos. 14 and 27 and support, with considerable reluctance, Amendment No. 17. My reluctance stems from this fact. I listened to the hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead), both tonight and on previous occasions, describing the great services rendered by the pharmacists and the threat to these services if resale price maintenance is abolished. What he says may be true, but it seems to me that there must be pharmacists and pharmacists.
    I can think of a number of services which the chemists could render to the public under the existing system which they do not do. For example, if I go into a shop wishing to buy aspirin, why does not the chemist tell me that aspirin B.P. at one-fifth the price is identical to any sort of branded aspirin that I can buy? Why does not he tell me that the same applies to codeine and to a very large, number of other goods on sale in his shop? With that reservation, I shall march happily into the Lobby in support of Amendment No. 17.
    Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: Before the hon. Member does

    311
    any such thing, may I put this to him? I know that he is very good at reading these matters. If he looks at Amendment No. 17, he will see that it refers to
    "any substance recommended as medicine".
    Does the hon. Member really want to defend the vast mark-up on things such as Lucozade and Ribena, not to mention all the appliances which can cover a wide range of things; or would he merely deal with those medicines which would be the subject of a prescription?
    Mr. Crosland: If the hon. Member had been here during previous stages of the debate, he would have heard most hon. Members on this side say that they had reservations about this phrase and about the precise language of the Amendment, but that they were nevertheless prepared to support it in principle, subject to those reservations. That has been made very clear from this side of the Committee.
    I wish to make one or two particular points and one or two general remarks on the other Amendments. It seems to me that Amendment No. 7 is totally indefensible on any grounds. Even the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. W. Clark), who usually speaks with great skill and ingenuity, was utterly unable to make a serious case for it. I thought that he was totally floored by the intervention of one of his hon. Friends who pointed out, quite rightly, that the changes in the rate of tax on alcohol and tobacco could have the effect of bringing in and putting out of the Bill tobacco goods and liquor from one year to another. There are no grounds in logic for choosing this criterion as to whether resale price maintenance should apply or not. Resale price maintenance may be a good or a bad thing in this trade or that trade, but whether it is good or bad is not to be judged by the rate of tax which has to be paid in respect of a certain commodity.
    I agree very much with the view that if Amendment No. 14 were passed it would make nonsense of the entire Bill. But I do not object to it merely on that ground, which is obvious enough. My objection to it is much more fundamental. It would be a great mistake at this stage of the proceedings to bring a range of particular exemptions into the Bill.
    312
    It may be that, in the case of medicine, there is a strong social argument as to why it might be desirable but, leaving aside social and non-economic arguments, it would be wrong for us to say that certain goods should be inside the Bill and the rest outside. We would start a great deal of undesirable logrolling, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) referred yesterday. The whole principle of doing this by Amendment is wrong and should be strongly resisted.
    If there is a case for not having resale price maintenance it does not apply to most of the goods listed in Amendment No. 14 in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe). I fear that the list (a) to (e) in that Amendment is based on the fundamental misapprehension which runs through most of the speeches made by the rebels opposite. This is their fear that the abolition of resale price maintenance will be felt first and foremost by the small shopkeeper. That will not be so. It is a total misapprehension.
    The typical small shopkeeper is the man in the village shop, the man in the shop round the corner, the man in the suburban shop. But he is very strongly protected against any invasion or depredation by the effects of the Bill. He is, for instance, protected by his geography, his location, the mere fact that he is just round the corner, or is in the village or in the suburb, with the High Street a long way away. That is his most important and most fundamental protection.
    Secondly, he is protected by the fact that a greater number of people, like my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), like nothing better than to go into such shops for the service they offer and for the opportunity to discuss the latest racing results, or some such topic. This is another very important social protection for the small shopkeeper. He is also protected by the fact that the majority of goods listed in that Amendment are goods in which the multiples or supermarkets would not, or could not, try to compete. No one can possibly reduce the price of a newspaper without removing the profit. Again, the small shopkeeper is heavily protected in his sale of confectionery. People, particularly children, are apt to buy on

    313
    impulse. If parents send the children out for sweets, they are told to go just round the corner and not further afield to multiple stores.
    Mr. Walter Monslow: My hon. Friend is putting a plausible argument, and I agree with what he says about the village shop and the suburban shop, but we are surely talking about the effect which this Bill will have on the legitimate profits of the retailers in the High Street.
    Mr. Crosland: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, but I was making the opposite point that the small shopkeepers outside the High Street will not be affected. I will deal with those in the High Street in a moment.
    A great deal of alarm has been expressed about the tobacconists. I have a great deal of sympathy with the tobacconists, but none with the Imperial Tobacco Co. nor with Gallahers. Both these near-monopoly concerns are bringing a good deal of pressure to hear on their own retail outlets in propaganda against the Bill. We should be clear whether we are defending the interests of the small tobacconists or the Imperial Tobacco Co. or Gallahers. There is a sharp distinction.
    There may be some price cutting in tobacco and cigarettes by the multiples. One does not know yet. I agree that, when the Bill was first announced, some multiples used price-cutting in cigarettes as loss leaders. In Ireland, there have been examples of cigarettes used as loss leaders, but how widespread it would be in this country I do not know. It has been pointed out that low margins are involved in the sale of cigarettes and that this is not such an attractive loss leader line as appears at first sight. That is something to look at, however, when we come to the loss leader Clause.
    6.45 p.m.
    My main point is that the main force of the new competition brought about as a result of the abolition of resale price maintenance will not be directed at the small village shopkeeper, confectioner or tobacconist, but elsewhere. The first trades to be affected will be furniture, hardware and ironmongery, electrical goods and motor cars. If anyone worries about the effects of abolition on trade, then those are the lines they should be
    314
    considering and not sweets and cigarettes.
    The competition in those trades will not hit the small village or suburban shopkeeper but it will possibly hit a number of independent retailers in the High Street, but no one can say that every independent retailer selling hardware and ironmongery or something else in the High Street is the most efficient retailer in the world. That would be by no means true. But multiples and departmental stores will also be hit.
    I hope that the biggest single result of the abolition of resale price maintenance will be the spread of the discount store This is, in fact, the most likely single result, but that will hit not the small shopkeeper but the departmental stores, the multiples and, sometimes, the independent men in the High Street But what they should do if worried about the threat to their livelihood is to follow the example of the grocers in the last five years. The grocers have reacted to resale price maintenance abolition by banding themselves into voluntary associations whereby they are able to compete by obtaining large discounts. This is the answer to other trades which feel themselves threatened.
    Mr. Proudfoot: Since voluntary chains started in Scarborough, in the last three weeks three chain stores and two "co-ops" have closed.
    Mr. Crosland: I must confess to disappointment about the "co-ops," but I accept the fate of the others with some equanimity. On the Second Reading debate of the Abolition of Resale Price Maintenance Bill, moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse), the hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) said that the whole mint of abolition was to favour the big man, the co-operative society and the formation of big combines. I hope that the hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Proudfoot) will explain clearly to the hon. Member for Putney what has happened, for example, in Scarborough.
    Therefore, as I have said, the first threat will not be to the small village or suburban shopkeeper. I want to reinforce, secondly, something that was said on Second Reading. A great number of facts and figures have been put

    315
    out as propaganda for resale price maintenance and much of that propaganda is of a level of hypocrisy and dishonesty that I have seldom seen. The pamphlet which has already been quoted is simply—well, I do not know what one could say about it that would be reasonable or within order. It is certainly a tissue of—I will call it a tissue at any rate.
    One of the tricks in this kind of propaganda is to take different countries where resale price maintenance has been abolished and quote figures showing that, in the years after abolition, there was a decline in the number of small shopkeepers. What these profoundly hypocritical statisticians never dream of doing is giving the figures for the five years before abolition. One discovers, in examining them, the self-evident fact that the number of small shopkeepers was declining before the abolition of resale price maintenance. What is not proved is that the decline accelerated after the abolition of r.p.m.
    The fact is that there are profound social changes going on in all countries and these are tending to diminish the number of small shopkeepers. This has nothing whatever to do with r.p.m. or its abolition. One hears horrifying stories about what has happened in the United States and how the number of small shopkeepers there has declined, but that has had nothing to do with the abolition of r.p.m. There has been the great growth of the suburban shopping centre in the United States with a total change in shopping habits. That, in turn, has led to changes in the type of shops people want. The abolition of resale price maintenance hardly came into the picture at all.
    I will now pick one or two examples of small shopkeepers. First, there are the grocers. In the last three or four years, where there has been no resale price maintenance in the grocery trade the proportion of trade held by the independent shopkeepers has been stable. It has not declined.
    On the other hand, let us take two trades in which resale price maintenance is strongly entrenched—chemists, and radio and electrical goods. In both of these trades, in contrast to the grocers, the share held by the independents has
    316
    declined appreciably in the last five years. One cannot prove cause and effect, but I suggest that these figures show that what is happening to the small shopkeeper is not mainly dependent on whether his trade is subject to resale price maintenance.
    The major reason why the number of small shopkeepers in my part of the country is declining—and it is probably true all over the country—is the shift of population out of the older areas of the old industrial towns into the new industrial estates. When that occurs, the number of shops is reduced in the older areas where not only was every other house often a shop but one could buy tobacco at practically every other shop. Where the shift of population occurs, the number of shops goes down in consequence of it. That has nothing to do with the abolition of resale price maintenance.
    I do not want to go into too many general arguments at this stage. I repeat that I am strongly opposed to all the Amendments except that of the hon. Member for Putney, and I hope that as our debates develop we shall get a slightly fairer impression of what the opinion in the Committee is. Anybody listening to our debates in the last two days and listening to this and that plea for this and that trade would get the impression that the bulk of hon. Members, even the bulk of hon. Members of my party, were fundamentally opposed to any abolition of resale price maintenance, whereas there are many of us who are strongly in favour of the principle of abolition.
    Mr. Proudfoot: I hope that my right hon. Friend will resist all the Amendments. When I consider the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe), think that he is guilty of at least what might be called economic gerrymandering, because he seems to try to draw a line around those commodities about which we have had most letters.
    I want to speak from one point of view and to say that the very people whom hon. Members are trying to protect, the small shopkeepers, will in the end regard those hon. Members as their worst enemies if they try to throw a blanket of protection around them and the shopkeepers one day find that it is

    317
    stripped away because of the advancing techniques of distribution. That would be the cruellest of all things to do.
    I know the grocery trade which has been quoted many times as an example of a trade which has been exposed to competition. Seven years ago I had to stop reading the grocery Trade Press. It depressed me so much that I could not read it any longer. It should have been printed with black borders. Some three years later, I took a casual look at it and found how much it had changed. It was vigorous and bright and full of ideas. It even told retailers what profits they should make; it gave them targets to achieve and it tried to blow a breath of efficiency into the business. There are now 27,450 members of voluntary grocery chains and they are doing extremely good business and, I am sure, will continue to do so. At this point of time the supermarkets have been hurt for three reasons. One is that they cannot get enough managers. The second is that they have paid too expensively for sites and the third is that the voluntary chains are competing hard against them. I believe that this will happen in other trades.
    I want first to take the example of the chemist. I speak as one who comes from a very long line of hypochrondiacs. I had a grandmother who used to throw her medicines away but whose son tried every pill on the market. The Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) is not the kind of criteria to write into the Bill. Certain commodities are prescribable and others are not. I do not know where that is laid down, but I accept it as good sense. Grocers have sold patent medicines for years. The first widely advertised patent medicine had the slogan, "Worth a guinea a box", and that slogan has now been written into the history of advertising in this country. As a boy I was dosed by my grocer father with Fenning's Fever-cure and California Syrup of Figs. Some of these lines have been sold by grocers for years and years.
    Let me take an instance to show why I dislike resale price maintenance so intensely. I once bought what for me was an enormous quantity of tooth brushes. They had a nationally branded name. I had read in the Financial Times that the tooth brush market was saturated and
    318
    that the manufacturers were trying to get people to buy more than one toothbrush each. Being situated in a holiday resort I bought 10 gross, expecting that everyone would come on holiday forgetting their toothbrush. I bought them at 6d. each. The selling price on the box was 1s. 8d.
    I think that that is an immoral profit. It is far too high. However, believing that one should take what the market will bear, I tried to sell them at 1s. 8d. I failed. I advertised them locally at 10d. each and every chemist in my town wrote to the manufacturer, and within days his representative called and asked me to put the price back to Is. 8d. I am pleased to say that I refused to do so and that I showed him the door of the shop and told him to go.
    I believe that chemists could have the same sort of success that grocers have had if they form voluntary chains. I take that view for many reasons. The logistics of retail chemists are much simpler than those of grocery in many respects. The commodities are not as big and transport costs within a voluntary group would be less and the size of warehouses could also be less. If they were organised—and if resale price maintenance goes, they will not take long to get organised—chemists would do better business.
    I envisage chemists then organising their shops so that the chemist himself could do his professional job—some now do. He could take his dispensing counter to the back of the store and give information and dispense and take out his window back and the traditional type of display of little bottles which now fills his window, have an open store and put a check-out at the door and allow customers to browse for the things which can be bought without prescription—cosmetics and health and beauty aide, and so on. I admit that there might be packaging problems and that some packaging would have to change to deal with the possibility of pilfering.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: I have listened carefully to the hon. Member's arguments, but he has not made a distinction between the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe) and that of the hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead). I regretted the fact that we were to take the two

    319
    together and the distinction is being blurred. I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman has said about the sale in chemist shops of items which are not on prescription, but he is dodging the issue of those which are on prescription. He ought to address his argument to the question of prescription costs. When he was a hypochondriac and his family were hypochondriacs, they were taking medicines most of which have long since been denounced by the medical profession, apart from simple remedies. Publications of the B.M.A.—that most progressive of organisations—in 1909 and 1910 were pointing out the iniquities of self-medication of this type. The hon. Member ought not to dismiss the Amendment concerned with medicines just because he so much dislikes the more general Amendment.
    Mr. Proudfoot: I will answer that by asking a question. Has the hon. Member ever prescribed a placebo? This lets the cat out of the bag. Every member of the medical profession must have done precisely that. This is something to placate the patient who is given a beautifully coloured bottle of medicine, which always separates into two different colours and which has to be given a jolly good shake. As I said, I speak as one in a long line of hypochondriacs. My mother swears by the tonics her doctor gives her. I am sure that they have their medical uses. Psychologically, they help people who feel that they need medicine. I am sure that there is an ethical case for the use of a placebo.
    7.0 p.m.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on surviving thus far. Of course placebos are prescribed, but if we were to say to the person concerned, "Go down to the grocer and get one; do not get it from the chemist", the whole point of prescribing it would be lost. A doctor's major concern is in prescribing real drugs. That is the real argument which the intelligent hon. Gentleman appears to have missed.
    Mr. Proudfoot: Does the hon. Gentleman consider wines and spirits to be placebos or not? I have heard of doctors prescribing Stergene, a soapless detergent, as a cure for baby eczema. It
    320
    is available in all grocers' shops. I think that one has to figure out when is a medicine a medicine. It is a difficult thing to do, because a cup of tea can be considered a medication. If I correctly recall my first-aid days, we were advised to give the patient a cup of tea in certain circumstances.
    Let me turn to the fact that I am also a newsagent, and inform the Committee how I become a price cutter. The Daily Express was the first paper that I bought myself after I stopped sponging on my father. This was just after the war, and it said, "Cut your prices and you will succeed". I did just that but the Daily Express has deserted the bridge. Never mind, I got off that ship, just before the Common Market debate.
    Let me tackle the business of the newsagent. Let us think for a moment of the physical aspects of this business. It is a matter of distance limits, how convenient people are to the shop in question, and how people are influenced by habit. People travel from A to B, from home to work, and if there are four different routes, they generally take the same one. They call into the same shop, purchase the same paper, and buy the same packet of cigarettes. We must recognise that the newsagent should not be covered by this Amendment, but I dislike the idea that Lord Beaverbrook sells me my paper for 2¼d. which I have to sell at 3d. It has a shelf life of only three hours. At 10 o'clock it is very difficult to sell papers, and I have to throw 24¼d. away. There is no "sale or return" on national dailies, and I hope that newsagents will pressure the proprietors of newspapers to get back to pre-war condition of "sale or return".
    Again on the business of r.p.m. in a newsagent's shop, the thing that they are most worried about is the sale of cigarettes, and I am delighted to have heard that mentioned in this Chamber. The odd occasion of Adsega was obviously a gimmick. They got off the mark pretty quickly, and received a lot of national publicity for doing so.
    If one examines resale price maintenance in connection with the sale of cigarettes—and I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Hocking) to consider this—one realises that it has given sellers a guaranteed profit. The sale of cigarettes has spread

    321
    enormously. They can be bought in garages, in chemists' shops, in grocers' shops, in fish and chip shops, and more and more people are taking to selling them. I am convinced that that would never have happened if there had not been virtually a guaranteed profit on them.
    I come back to the point about supermarkets. The sale of cigarettes in one chain of supermarkets accounts for only 0·5 per cent. of the sales, and I know of one chain which in the course of the next few weeks is to stop selling them. A personal friend of mine who owns some supermarkets says that when he has to deal with the problem of pilfering in his stores he stops selling cigarettes and he is no longer troubled with shrinkage.
    Supermarkets are not really interested in selling cigarettes, but if they do sell them I believe that they will sell them in packs of 200, as they come into the store. They might knock off 2s. 0d., but I ask the Committee to think of the way in which the whole pattern of selling them would have to be altered. How many people will buy 200 cigarettes at a time and plonk down more than £2 on the check-out for their purchases? Again, there are a number of people who use the 10 or 20 packet to ration themselves as it were, or to keep their smoking within bounds, particularly since the cancer scare. I believe that this business of the sale of cigarettes is a red herring, and that the tobacconist-confectioner-newsagent will exist if his site is right. If his site loses its value because of slum clearance and the like, he will not exist in that area, which is natural.
    I deal next with the propaganda which has been sent by newsagents to all hon. Members. The pamphlet to which I am referring says—and I will take only one point—that nine out of ten butchers' shops are owned by chains. If hon. Members check on the census of distribution they will find that that is an erroneous figure. The co-operatives have 5,997 outlets; the multiples have 5,795; the large independents have 275, and other independent butchers have 31,555. Those figures show how wrong are the facts put forward in this propaganda.
    322
    I have been a subscriber of a Newsagents' Federation for 15 years. I have been to one meeting only, at which three members were present, yet this is the kind of pressure which has been exerted on us. The older people in the trade attend to earn respect in the trade, to wear the medal at the annual dinner, and just think of the line of promotion? The man who is interested in the politics of the business goes to the area committee and eventually becomes national chairman. There he has a hired pressure-group hack at his elbow to give him some of the false figures which we have been getting from these pressure groups. He has not the time in which to study the figures. He swallows what the men in the centre give him.
    The hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) referred to a pamphlet on resale price maintenance. I rang up the gentleman responsible for this publication. He is ex-Member of the House—from the other side of the Committee. The late Sir Willy Darling was once attending a meeting at Scarborough. A heckler remarked on the Labour Party in Australia winning the 1916 election and Sir William replied, "I know that. I was there, and I voted Labour". That is the kind of thing that catches people out and on page 9 of this pamphlet there are statistics about the United States and about New York during the period 1947 to 1958.
    I was it New York in 1958 when resale price maintenance ended. I checked the figures, and I assure the Committee that being in New York on that day was like being present at everybody's birthday. The price cuts in consumer durables were enormous. It was the gayest day in my life.
    During my telephone conversation with the person responsible for this pamphlet h said that he was thinking of going in to a second edition of the pamphlet because some of the words were not quite right. He said, "In New York State, which is a fair trade state"—he broke off there and said that he was going into a second edition because it should read, "New York State was a fair trade state". That is the kind of stuff with which we have been pressured by these groups. I believe that it is not in the ultimate interest of men in small businesses in

    323
    this country to listen to that kind of thing.
    I turn now to the positive side of getting rid of resale price maintenance and the things that it has done for the grocery business. Voluntary groups are now marching along the path of progress more rapidly than the supermarkets. If Members look at the census of distribution, part of which has just been published, they will find that between 1950 and 1961 the number of grocery and provision dealers increased. Those figures should be closely studied by every hon. Member before he votes on this issue.
    To turn to new Clause 10, if we decide to let people drink alcohol, that is a primary decision. I do not see that price alters the argument. Every survey that has ever been carried out in the grocery business has shown that the reasons why a customer selects a certain shop are, first, proximity; secondly, the giving of credit; thirdly, the provision of a delivery service and, fourthly, price. Nearly every survey puts the reasons in that order.
    The independent trader has enormous advantages which no multiple can have. The cards are stacked in his favour. He is generally a local man, who can serve on the local council and attend the local church. He can be a prominent member of his own community. These are all reasons why the independent will be able to stay in business. I expect that in the next few years he will increase his business. For all the reasons that I have given, I ask my right hon. Friend to resist all these Amendments.
    Miss Margaret Herbison: I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have thoroughly enjoyed the hon. Member's speech, whether or not they agree with it. I want to take up a few points that have been made. In a very lucid and logical speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) seemed to suggest that all those Members on this side of the Committee were, without reservation, in favour of the abolition of resale price maintenance. He was afraid that an impression might be given that that was not the case. I am afraid of the impression that his speech gave, and I feel that we must make our position clear.
    324
    I am speaking for myself. I believe in the abolition of r.p.m., but only if there are positive safeguards for the consumer. They are not provided in the Bill. The Bill does only half the job, and that makes it very difficult not only for the small shopkeeper but for almost every housewife. That is the main reason why I criticise the action of the Government in bringing forward a Bill which is only half a Measure, and doing nothing worth while to deal with the other side of the coin, namely, monopolies.
    7.15 p.m.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby said that in the grocery industry r.p.m. had disappeared. I accept that. He said that because of the associations which the independent grocers have entered into they are able to compete on equal terms with the big chain stores and self-service stores. Only on Sunday—two days ago—I was speaking to a man who, like the father of the hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Proudfoot), has been in the grocery trade all his life, owning his own shop. He gave me one example of the difficulties he experienced.
    He is an excellent businessman. He has prospered. But even that type of man experiences difficulties. Every housewife must buy sugar. This man has to buy a ton of sugar in order to get it at 8½d. a lb. He says that he has had to reconcile himself to the fact that he just cannot sell sugar in competition with the big multiple shops. He sells it to those who will come in and buy it, but he cannot reduce it to the 1s. 4d. for 2 lb. that so many big multiples charge for it.
    As it is at present, the Bill will not help the small shopkeeper. But I want to develop my argument about small shopkeepers and consumers when we reach Clause 5 and to deal with points made by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Duffy). I want to devote the rest of my short speech to Amendment No. 17. Even though the wording may not be what we should like to see ultimately in legislation, the Minister ought to be able to tell us that he accepts it in principle, and that on Report he will ensure that the proper wording will be put in.
    I was amazed at the hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead). He made an excellent speech. I was certain that,

    325
    come what may, no matter what the Government said he at least would go into the Lobby in support of Amendment No. 17. But he has talked himself out of taking that step, because he has said that he would like the Minister to show him whether there was a gateway in Clause 5 which would do for the pharmaceutical industry and the chemists what the Amendment asked for. In the middle of his speech one of the Liberal Members intervened and suggested that he might find a gateway in Clause 5, but he said that that would leave it to the judges to decide on this matter and could decide to abolish r.p.m. on pharmaceutical products. There seemed to be a great contradiction in his speech.
    There is one point to which little reference has been made. Sometimes chemists have to carry very large stocks in order to supply the medicines prescribed by doctors. If r.p.m. is abolished for them, and the rest of the Bill is made to apply to them, it is possible that some of this medicine could find its way into grocers' shops, multiple stores and other similar places. I am certain that my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) would say that one of the things that a chemist has to know is whether his stock has deteriorated. If medicine has deteriorated it may prove very dangerous to a sick person. One could not expect a grocer to take the same care over medicines as would be taken by a chemist. From that viewpoint alone it seems to be of the greatest importance that this Amendment should be accepted.
    Mr. Peter Emery: If one accepts the argument advanced by the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) it would follow that a grocer, who may be selling many types of food, would not be willing to take the necessary care to ensure that the food which he sold was in a proper condition. Surely, if the argument of the hon. Lady is a sound one, she is suggesting that a grocer would not take the necessary care. That, I think, is entirely wrong, and something neither she nor the Committee would maintain.
    Miss Herbison: There are two points arising from the intervention with which I should deal. A grocer is trained in
    326
    his job. But he is not trained as a chemist. The training for a chemist is fairly lengthy and does not relate just to the dispensing of medicine. It is necessary for a chemist to know about the properties of the medicines that he stocks and one could not possibly expect a grocer to know that. One could not expect a grocer to know the condition of goods which a chemist may sell and which may deteriorate even more rapidly than some foods.
    When a housewife buys goods from a grocer—with the exception of tinned foods—she can see almost at a glance whether the cheese, the butter and other things are in a good condition. She would find that impossible where medicine is concerned.
    Mr. Heath: I am not quite clear whether the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) is suggesting that the medical commodities which are at present sold by other traders than chemists should not be sold in that way, or whether she fears that if r.p.m. were abolished, goods sold by chemists might be sold more widely. There will be no question of that, because the matter is covered by legislation to which I shall refer later. But I should like to know what is worrying the hon. Lady, whether it is the suggestion that goods of a medical nature which are sold in shops other than chemists shops ought not to be sold in that way.
    Miss Herbison: I am not suggesting that at all. In a small hamlet it should be possible to buy aspirin and other simple remedies at the general shop. But there are certain things sold by chemists that the small shopkeeper, or particularly the multiple shop, would not at present dream of including in stock, but which they might consider selling if the provisions in this Bill become law. I wish now to refer to the reduction—
    Mr. Peter Emery rose—
    Miss Herbison: No, I am sorry, but I cannot give way to the hon. Gentleman. The Committee has already spent a long time on this matter and there are other hon. Members who wish to speak. It may be that the Closure Motion will be moved, and they will be cut out.
    There are many villages in my constituency. My hon. Friend the Member

    327
    for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) gave the exact figure of the reduction which has taken place in the number of chemist shops. It seems to me that it would be a very serious matter if there were a further reduction in the number of chemist shops in villages. I hope that the Minister will give consideration to this question, and ensure that the people living in villages may enjoy the same service that they get at present, and that they may even be improved.
    Sir Douglas Glover: I am glad of the opportunity to speak about these Amendments, particularly as the whole of my business life has been spent in distribution and retail in a sphere where resale price maintenance has never operated. Listening to speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, I have come to the conclusion that people are worrying unduly about what will happen to the shopkeeper with a medium-sized business. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard) referred to the possibility of cameras being sold at half-price and there being no after-sales service. That might happen were we living in the midst of a dreadful depression. But, if we consider the competition which takes place in the market street, to which reference was made by the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland), we realise that there are rent and rates to pay; and there is the ever-rising cost of wages, light, heat and so on. There is a very real difficulty about securing staff. These business people will not fill their counters and shop windows with goods that they propose to sell at a loss just to please the public.
    I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Proudfoot), who recalled what happened in New York when resale price maintenance was abolished, and I think that when this Bill becomes an Act a lot of funny things will happen in this country for the first six or twelve months. People may well exhibit whisky in their shop windows for sale at 35s. a bottle. But they will not tie up vast amounts of capital or utilise much window space in order to sell whisky below cost price, or even at cost price. It is difficult enough to get sufficient whisky to sell at the full price without considering
    328
    cutting the price. So I do not think that there will be a great deal of price-cutting, except at the beginning of the period after the abolition of resale price maintenance.
    In my business, the clothing business at the popular price end, we fight each other like Kilkenny cats. We are really keen merchandisers. But we are all conscious of the fact that we must secure a certain mark-up on our total turnover, otherwise it would not be worth while being in business. The same thing will happen when resale price maintenance is abolished in other forms of business.
    I am surprised that Amendment No. 14 was selected, because if ever there were a wrecking Amendment this is it. I have made a rough calculation of the turnover in the various items referred to, and I believe that the total resale turnover of all commodities, including food, is about £16,000 million to £18,000 million a year. I reckon that the turnover involved here would add up to about £5,000 million to £6,000 million. The total of the goods sold and covered by r.p.m. is about 40 per cent., and so that apart from motor cars it does not seem to me that much has been left out from the terms of this Amendment. If it were accepted, we might as well scrap the Bill altogether.
    7.30 p.m.
    According to the speeches I have heard, no one has appeared to realise that there are a great many safeguards which are not altered by this Bill. We have heard a reference to photographic equipment. Films are generally sold in all pharmacists and a great many stores, but I doubt if many cameras are sold in them except on a restrictive franchise. The manufacturer decides that he will have so many outlets in a town. He may allow four shops to stock his particular range of cameras in a large town, two shops in a small town, and in a still smaller place he will allow one shop to have an exclusive franchise. There is nothing in this Bill to stop that manufacturer continuing to do so.
    A chemist should not think that he will go out of business the next day after the Bill becomes an Act if he has exclusive rights in a small town to sell Helena Rubinstein cosmetics. Such a chemist would still have that right, while the chemist across the road would have

    329
    an exclusive right to sell Max Factor preparations. All these things are generally sold on a restricted franchise.
    If a motor-car dealer has a sole agency in his area, he will still have it under this Bill. If a person wanted to buy a Ford, he would still go to the same person. If he wanted to get it at a cut price, he would probably have to go to another area, or to a subsidiary dealer who does not get so much profit in the first place.
    I am a little critical of the Minister in thinking that we shall not find an enormous reduction in prices. I believe that nearly every commodity reaches its retailing optimum price, whether it is a fixed price or an unfixed one, in a free competitive market. That is the price which nearly all retailers find they need. The mark up is the same if they are to make a profit in selling that commodity. In a full employment society, with rising costs of rents, rates, staff, light, heat and so on, everyone finds it increasingly difficult to get staff to carry their increased turnover. Once the freeing of prices comes into operation, there will not be a very big reduction in prices. It will lead, perhaps, to a marginal reduction and to a keener area of efficiency, but I do not think the public will get a bonanza of reduced prices as a result of this Bill.
    On the other hand, it is about time we mentioned on the Floor of this Committee that the main object of the Bill is to help the public, the consumer. From many of the speeches we have heard, there seems to be a belief that retailers and wholesalers are, by definite right, entitled to a given income from the public whether they give service and provide facilities which the public have a right to expect.
    I hold a totally different theory about retailing—and I speak as one who has been a retailer—and that is that when a man puts his name over the front of a shop he issues a challenge to the community that he will provide it with goods and services at a price and of a quality and with the ancillary services which go with shopkeeping, and he challenges himself to make a living out of the margin of profit. That is the correct way to approach the question. He is not entitled to a given return from the public on his activities. It is
    330
    up to the retailer to justify and prove that his way of doing business is the most efficient, and to go on proving it year by year.
    Having said this about competition and believing in the free competitive element in retailing, I am very worried about Amendment No. 17. There are some instances where, I think, price is a secondary factor. As many of my colleagues know, I have been ill in the last 12 months. I had so many drugs pushed into me that I became, not a hypochondriac, but an anti-druggist. Only on the last month have I begun to feel better because, ignoring all medical advice, I poured the whole lot down the sink. Now I am making a rapid recovery. It is all right for doctors to talk about self-medication being bad for us, but if we are honest we all admit that no one on these benches has not done some self-medication at some time. Are enormous amount of self-medication takes place. I am sure that the average person when he goes into a chemist's or a grocer's is much more concerned that a medicine shall be backed by a name which is known and respected. That applies to many proprietary medicines, let alone ethical medicines.
    Having spent a lifetime in a type of retailing where there is no resale price maintenance, I think the public have gained an enormous benefit from its absence; but there has been a tendency to lower Quality. We cannot get away from the fact that if we have cut-throat competition the tendency is to lower quality. That might not matter in some trades because the general level is going up as a result of various inventions and so on, but in others a person's name and reputation is very important.
    Mr. Donald Chapman: The hon. Member has been in a type of retailing and perhaps can help us. The dilemma, as I see it, is that if we open up the remainder of the retail trade to competition to keep the margins Keen, how can we be assured after this Bill has passed that margins will not to too high for patent medicines? Can the hon. Member give a guarantee on that? I am with him in my sympathy with Amendment No. 17, but if we do this how can we be sure

    331
    that margins are not too high? Some of us feel that they are already too high.
    Sir D. Glover: I think that a very useful contribution, and I am glad that I gave way to the hon. Member. It is not my duty, however, in a speech on an Amendment, nor even on Second Reading of this Bill, to say whether prices in pharmacy are too high or too low. That applies to many proprietary medicines, let alone ethical medicines. Every hon. Member will know what I mean by that—medicines and drugs prescribed by doctors. If there is an argument for resale price maintenance for proprietary medicines, there is an overwhelming case in the ethical field that they should be sold through chemists with no question of price-cutting or lowering of standards and quality. If another system is to be evolved whereby the pharmaceutical industry would have to have its prices vetted, that would be a different argument. It is not something to try to interject into a speech on an Amendment.
    Mr. Hirst: There is absolutely no guarantee that, even without r.p.m., profit margins would not be too high. This matter does not rest on the basis of r.p.m. alone.
    Sir D. Glover: My hon. Friend is right. However, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) made a genuine point, which I was trying to answer quickly.
    Therefore, I do not think that the Amendment as it is drawn is nearly tight enough to deal with what most people have been discussing, namely, the prescribing and handling of medicines which are drugs in the accepted sense and not aspirins bought in the local store. I therefore ask my right hon. Friend to consider this. I believe that he would carry the Committee with him overwhelmingly if he said that between now and Report he would see if ethical medicines, where quality is far more important than price, could be made an exception. With this one proviso, I think that Amendment No. 14 is a wrecking Amendment.
    I agree with the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) that the worst
    332
    fears of the smaller shopkeeper will not be realised. I believe that there is a great future for the bright, forward-looking and pushing independent shopkeeper in the suburbs, away from town centres. Costs in town and city centres are becoming colossal. Space is becoming increasingly valuable. Some smaller shopkeepers who think that they will be adversely affected by the Bill may be the first to cut prices and put multiple shops out of business in expensive high street. In the suburbs it is easier to park. Advertising for small shopkeepers in suburbs is no more expensive. Space is much cheaper there than it is in town and city centres. Once r.p.m. is abolished. I believe that those who will reap the most benefit—perhaps not in the pharmaceutical trade, but in many other trades—will be the small men away from the high street. They will also help the Minister of Transport to solve some of our traffic problems.
    7.45 p.m.
    Mr. Donald Wade: I agree with the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) that there is a great future for the independent retailer. Probably it is the independent retailer selling high quality goods in the high street and endeavouring to keep a fairly wide range of goods in stock who will, with or without r.p.m., have the difficult time in years ahead.
    I have been present throughout the whole debate. As I have listened, it has become clear to me that we cannot satisfactorily examine all the evidence relevant to the various commodities covered by the Bill, nor to the fairly wide range covered by Amendment No. 14.
    I agree with those who have said that, if Amendment No. 14 were carried, it would wreck the Bill; the Bill might as well be scrapped. We are in a difficulty when trying to discuss a number of different commodities in a group of Amendments such as this. Most hon. Members will remember the debates we have had on Purchase Tax, some of them dealing with groups item by item, sometimes with a group of items. It is difficult to cover all the ground satisfactorily. I have no doubt that the Minister in winding up will say that the Bill provides the machinery for considering these various groups of goods. It is a matter of opinion whether the machinery of

    333
    going before the Court is the best that could be devised. I have my own views on that.
    I have carefully examined all the letters which have been sent for me. The strongest case has been made out by the chemists. Earlier in the debate the hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Proudfoot) said that he was a hypochondriac. The hon. Member for Ormskirk said that he was not. My father-in-law certainly was not a hypochondriac, but he could not bear to see anything wasted. Whenever he saw a half-empty bottle of medicine lying around, he drank it because he could not bear to see it wasted. He did not seem to be any the worse for it. Perhaps they were all placebos.
    The reason why chemists seem to have a strong case is that they do not just retail goods. They have the dispensing service. This is a very important service. The whole question in relation to chemists is bound up with considering the safeguards affecting the sale of drugs, including poisons. This extends beyond the realm of r.p.m. I quote briefly from one of the letters I have received from chemists. A Huddersfield chemist expresses his desire, which I think is genuine, that we should consider the public as well as the welfare of the pharmacist. He then says this:
    "I would suggest that the Government should be pressed for an undertaking to improve dramatically the terms of service of the dispensing chemist and to investigate the means of bringing British pharmacy into line with European pharmacy by the restriction of sales of medicine to qualified outlets."
    This goes beyond the realm of r.p.m. All kinds of ancillary social problems are involved. There is the question of drugs and poisons, to which I have referred. There is the problem of paying for the National Health Service. I have received a number of letters, as no doubt other hon. Members have, saying that it would be very difficult for chemists to maintain the National Health Service if it was not for the maintained price of other articles.
    Mr. John Hynd: Is the hon. Gentleman quite sure that the problem in relation to pharmacists is outside the scope of r.p.m.? Surely the problem of the chemist is that with the present arrangement under the Health Service he is forced to sell all kinds of goods and pay unqualified
    334
    people in his shop. If he were given better standards under the National Health Service, we could then insist on chemists being pharmacists and not general grocers, which would be more in keeping with the status of the service.
    Mr. Wade: That is the point I was endeavouring to make. I am not satisfied that the social problems—for instance, the question of the Health Service—will be solved by a reference to the Court. How exactly will Clause 5 be construed in the case of the chemist, for example? There are three gateways. There is the question of the quality of the goods being substantially reduced. I do not know whether chemists will be able to get through that gateway. There is the question of the number of establishments being substantially reduced. It may be that a number of chemists would go out of business. I hope that that will not be so. I do not think they would be able to prove that the number of establishments would be substantially reduced because many of the articles they sell might be sold by other establishments. I would be unhappy to see that happen, but I am not sure that this gateway will be sufficient in their case. It may be that they will come under the third gateway—necessary services or the public interest. I do not know to what extent the Court could consider issues that are really social problems and not merely questions of price maintenance.
    One hon. Member referred to the procedure before the Court as a "crystal ball". I am not sure whether our judges would like a court of law to be described as a "crystal ball". I presume that when a case came before the Court, the Court would have to say whether price maintenance was to be allowed to continue. The Court would not be able to express an obiter dicta that there should be a qualified outlet only for medicines and drugs. It would not be able to express an opinion on how the Health Service should be paid for. These are matters that come outside the scope of the Court that is being set up.
    The Court, obviously, would not be able to consider whether it was desirable that there should be an increase in the drinking of alcohol. All these matters would come outside the concern of the Court. I do not know to what extent

    335
    the Court would be able to consider fully the interest of the consumer. I believe that in examining this Bill and the various Amendments we must consider primarily the interests of the consumer.
    Coming back to the question of chemists, my own view, subject to anything which the right hon. Gentleman has to say, is that there seems to be a case for Amendment No. 17. I am not persuaded on the other Amendments. I think that there are cases which must go before whatever procedure is finally decided upon, but it seems to me that Amendment No. 17 is a social problem and not just a problem of price maintenance. At the moment subject to anything further that may be said, I would be prepared to support that Amendment.
    Sir Richard Thompson: Of the group of Amendments that we are discussing, the one which mainly interests me is Amendment No. 17. I shall be as brief as possible because I know that several other hon. Members want to speak. I do not think that the kind of blanket exceptions which is urged in the terms of this Amendment is either acceptable or, indeed, workable in practice, because of its looseness of definition. Nor do I think that it would solve the problem of the chemists, around which so much of this debate, rightly, has revolved.
    There are, of course, plenty of substances, in the words of the Amendment, "recommended as medicine," which can be freely bought anywhere, including the grocers. I am thinking in terms of aspirins, cough lozenges and mixtures, Beecham's pills, indigestion tablets and the like. It seems to me that the wording of Amendment No. 17 would deliberately exclude the wide range of toilet accessories, soap, cosmetics, sponges, sunglasses and all the rest, on which, we are told, the chemist relies to a very great extent for the extra income which his services under the National Health Service do not by themselves secure for him.
    I think that if we accepted this Amendment it would be terribly difficult to make sense of it, and I do not believe that it would be workable in practice. We hear a great deal, as we have heard
    336
    tonight, of the claim by chemists, which is regarded by them almost as axiomatic, that their activities subsidise the National Health Service. It is quite an article of faith with them. I do not believe that this is really the case. But it is on this assumption that they fear the effects of this Bill. They claim that the profitable part of their trade will disappear, leaving them only with the unrewarding and sometimes quite exacting task of dispensing prescriptions. Although I think that they have the argument wrong, I accept that it is a genuine fear on their part, but I believe it to be exaggerated.
    I believe that the existence of the National Health Service has had quite the reverse effect on chemists. I think that single fact alone has brought many thousands more customers into their shops every year. We must accept the fact that if it were not that the public, by payment simply of a prescription charge, can have costly prescriptions dispensed at the cost of the State large numbers of people would fall back on the sort of self-medication which hon. Members have deplored, and which we all to some extent indulge in, and the products of which can be purchased in shops other than chemists' shops. Therefore, I think that the chemists are on rather a shaky point when they maintain that they subsidise the National Health Service by what they make on ordinary retail sales. If it were not for the National Health Service, they would have about half their custom removed, which could not be of advantage to them.
    Mr. Elwyn Jones: Are not the chemists agitating very actively for the restriction on the sale outside chemists shops of drugs of the type which the hon. Member has mentioned? It is also part of their complaint in regard to this matter that they are not getting the protection from the Government which they would expect to have if they were losing other benefits?
    Sir R. Thompson: I accept what the hon. and learned Member has interjected, but the point that I was dealing with was that the kind of things that chemists sell—cosmetics and things of that kind—which are not drugs are the

    337
    things on which they make a good commercial profit. They are helped in selling them by the existence of the National Health Service which brings many more people into their shops than would otherwise be the case.
    What are we to do about this? It seems to me that on the whole the retail chemists' business is holding its own. I know that one hon. Member quoted figures to show that there had been a rather marginal reduction in the number of "dispensing outlets", which I think is the term. My own figures show that the number of chemists in retail business has not altered significantly over the last 14 or 15 years. This does not suggest to me that, as things are at present, the chemists' business is a precarious or unrewarding practice. Indeed, in 1960–61 the Public Accounts Committee drew attention to what it thought was over-remuneration in certain cases. Nevertheless, a genuine apprehension exists, and no one in the Committee would deny the key role that the chemists undoubtedly play in the machinery of the National Health Service. A really substantial fall—and I mean "substantial"—in the number of retail chemists would create a serious problem for the general public. That is the problem that we have to grapple with.
    8.0 p.m.
    It suggests to me that the real solution is for the Government not to look at this matter solely in the context of resale price maintenance but to look at the scale of remuneration to chemists for the services that they perform under the National Health Service. I am told that at this moment some pretty detailed inquiry is going on. I am told that the chemists themselves have hired professional consultants to go into the whole basis of the economics of their profession, and that the result of those researches is now being argued out in the Ministry of Health. If that is so, at the end of the day—and I hope it will not be a very long day—we ought to get some reliable data on which we can properly assess the position. I should have thought that that would point to an equitable solution.
    Mr. Hale: I did not quite follow the hon. Gentleman's argument on that point, in which I am very interested.
    338
    Is he saying that because the pharmacists are having regard to the actual expenditure in reconsidering the structure of their industry, they should be deprived of our protection and that we should say, "Perhaps some time in the years to come, when we have time and when the Government are feeling benevolent, we might return to your problems"? If not, what is he saying?
    Sir R. Thompson: I did not say any of those things. If the hon. Gentleman will read the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow, I think he will find that I said that the chemists had commissioned a survey of the economics of their own activities and that the result is being examined by the Government. I said that at the end of the day—and I added, "I hope it will not be a very long day"—we shall then have the data on which we can assess the situation.
    Mr. Hale: But will the hon. Gentleman tell us, in relation to Amendment No. 17, what he suggests we should do in the Lobby tonight—abstain because they are behaving well, or vote because they are not behaving as well as we would like?
    Sir R. Thompson: I can tell the hon. Gentleman clearly what I shall do in the Lobby tonight. I do not believe that the chemists can be rescued from this dilemma by the abolition of resale price maintenance. I think these are the wrong kinds of Amendments to secure the kind of end that I want to see. I was giving my idea or an objective alternative which would secure a better economic return. I shall oppose these Amendments in the Lobby. That is the answer to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) asked the hon. Gentleman a definite question and he began by saying that he was going to reply to it, but he never did reply to it. The question was, what will the hon. Gentleman do in the Division Lobby tonight?
    Sir R. Thompson: That question was specifically answered in my very last sentence. I think the hon. Gentleman will find that is so.
    I believe that is the more sensible way to deal with this problem. To

    339
    accept this Amendment would be unworkable and also would give rise to utterly unacceptable claims in respect of a whole group of other goods which to the manufacturers would appear equally as important as those sold in chemists' shops.
    Mr. Chapman: I apologise for the fact that I have very little voice. Perhaps I had better see a chemist. The state of my voice will, at least, have the advantage that my speech will be very brief.
    I want to develop the dilemma which I posed to the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Glover) in the course of his speech. I am sympathetic to Amendment No. 17. May I illustrate my attitude in this way. Last week, and before that in 1959, we gave the protection of resale price maintenance, in the most vicious form, to the opticians. We have said that a purely cosmetic product sold by opticians—namely, a spectacle frame—can never be advertised with a price on it, that it can never have its price cut by competing opticians, but must be treated as an ancillary service to a professional prescription. I opposed that proposal because I think that this is one field of the optician's activities where we certainly ought to allow a breath of competition. It is a purely cosmetic article in many cases. Yet because we said that an optician is a professional man, we gave him the protection of the Opticians Act, and opticians have now used that protection to prevent price-cutting and advertising.
    If a spectacle frame is in that sense an ancillary product to a professional service, how much more so is a drug? It is pre-eminently so compared with a spectacle frame. There is an absolute case for saying that a drug, which we should not encourage people to use except under professional advice, should not be subject to price cutting, advertisement inspiring self-medication and all the other dangers which have been developed ad nauseam today.
    But once we say that, and if we give that protection of preventing price-cutting and the ability to enforce resale price maintenance, how do we ensure that the retail margin is not too great? We cannot do so in many cases. Without a great deal of evidence, but, never-
    340
    theless, with sufficient evidence to persuade me, and particularly after having listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington), who has developed this subject over the years, though only with the protection of this Chamber, because if he said these things outside this House about patent medicines he would be in great difficulty. I feel absolutely sure there is a racket in patent medicines and drugs that border on patent medicines.
    Here is a dilemma, that if we examine the activities of pharmacists from the point of view of the operation of the Bill, how do we ensure that their margins of profit are not too great? I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to point to a solution to this dilemma. I do not know the answer. If we exclude the pharmacist, we entrench him absolutely in his profit margin. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to tell us whether he can think of a way of solving this dilemma.
    The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Sir R. Thompson) referred to products which are not really drugs, such as laxatives, voice pastilles, indigestion tablets and the rest. There seems to be no reason to regard them as ancillaries to a professional service. They could as well be sold in shops other than in pharmacies. Then we come to a certain ring of products—patent medicines which are supposed to cure diseases as such. In that case I would generally opt for the ending of resale price maintenance. I do not think it would do a great deal of harm.
    Then we come to the middle core of the whole problem, namely, the provision of drugs which should not be taken except under the guidance of a pharmacist or doctor. We must find some way of discovering whether the Bill as drafted, or with the inclusion of any of the Amendments, can enable the court which is to be set up to judge whether resale price maintenance should be retained in the public interest in respect of specific groups of products in that field. If so, I shall feel happy about this part of the Bill. Does the right hon. Gentleman feel that this will solve the problem which I have in mind—first, that it can judge whether or not resale price maintenance on those items will enable the margins to be too great?

    341
    It is not only that it should be in the public interest, and that these things should be sold only under professional advice, but also that the Court can decide that in those cases there is no grave danger that the public will be milked by too high retail margins as well—because these are part of the parcel I want. We want an assurance on both points before we exempt this class of goods from the operation of the Bill. It is all very difficult. I am in sympathy with Amendment No. 17, but until I can be reassured about the size of the retail margins, I cannot go the whole way in exempting goods as suggested in Amendment No. 17.
    That leaves us with the other point that, in any case, if part of the pharmacist's case is that he is subsidising his work under the National Health Service from these too high margins on patent medicines, we must look at the margin available to him for his National Health Service work. The right hon. Gentleman ought to make some announcement on that problem as well this evening, before we can feel happy that we have constructively tackled the problem in the Amendment.
    Mr. Patrick Wall: It would be wrong at this stage to spend much time discussing generally this batch of Amendments. Suffice to say that I believe that there are long-term benefits both for the consumer and for the trader in the general abolition of r.p.m., and I believe that there has been gross exaggeration—probably deliberate exaggeration—of the fate in store for the small trader. The arguments contained in Amendment No. 14 would drive a coach and horses through the Bill and therefore cannot be accepted but, like the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) I am particularly interested in Amendment No. 17.
    As I understand it, the chemist earns his remuneration through three main actions; the dispensing of medicines, the selling of drugs and surgical appliances, and the selling of infant foods, special foods, cosmetics, and so on. He draws about one-third of his returns from each of those three branches of the service he gives. I cannot wholly accept the argument that chemists must recoup their losses in dispensing medicines by making large profits in the other two
    342
    branches of their service. As has already been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir R. Thompson), the answer there is to give better National Health Service payments.
    Here, I would commend attention to Motion No. 77, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett), myself and other hon. Friends, which points out that the Minister of Health is at present conducting an investigation into the remuneration of pharmacists for N.H.S. dispensing, and suggests that when the review has been carried out there should be
    "…adequate provision to cover all overhead expenses of the services rendered so as to obviate the need for pharmacists to have to sell other non-pharmaceutical goods to subsist."
    If we ensured this, we would probably solve our main difficulty, but it does not get us out of a further difficulty.
    There is the very serious argument that drugs should not be subject to a cut-price war and that there sales should, broadly speaking, continue to be controlled through the professional discipline that exists in chemists' shops. Chemists alone are under that professional discipline. With their long training, they are fully aware of the considerations in handling medicines, the restrictions that should be applied to the sale of drugs, and the precautions necessary in their use. I do not believe that this long training and discipline can apply in the same way to other channels of sale. There is also the parallel argument that chemists render great services to the community, such as the first-aid they are prepared to carry out, the provision of oxygen, and so on.
    8.15 p.m.
    I am told that the effect of the removal of r.p.m. on the sale of proprietary medicines would be of great importance to the chemists, that it would drive the small ones out of business, and that their service to the public in the medicinal field would be made insecure. I am also told that under the terms of the Bill as now drafted the Court cannot consider service to the community. If that is so, an Amendment such as No. 17 would be necessary; No. 14 is far too wide, but I think that No. 17 covers the point that I particularly want to stress.
    There may be another way out. I can see that my right hon. Friend would not

    343
    particularly want to include one group of items when not allowing exemptions for other items, but Amendment No. 89 allows exemption on goods that
    "…would be sold under conditions which would be likely to lead to their misuse by the public".
    That provision would cover the main point I am making and I hope that my right hon. Friend will deal with it very carefully when he speaks later. It is quite obvious that this is something that is worrying many hon. Members on both sides.
    Mr. Hale: I do not want to start by saying something that might sound unpleasant to the Committee, but perhaps I could try humbly to return the debate to the comparatively narrow questions that have been postulated for us by the Ruling of the Chair. We are trying to consider collectively the question whether strong spirituous alcoholic liquors should be exempted from the provisions of Clause 1: the question whether tobacco and tobacco products should be exempted from the provisions of that Clause; the question whether we should exempt from the same provisions
    "…pharmacy and the sale of goods normally carried on by pharmacists, including cosmetics…
    tobacco, cigars, cigarettes and the sale of associated goods…
    newspapers, magazines, periodicals, stationery and the sale of good normally retailed by newsagents…".
    That is a difficult one. I have been here throughout most of this debate but I have not heard a word about newspapers—
    Mr. Manuel: My hon. Friend is perhaps being misled in the Amendment he quotes. It does not speak of good newspapers but of
    …the sale of good normally retailed by newsagents…".
    The "s" of the word "goods" has been missed out.
    Mr. Hale: I am infinitely obliged to my hon. Friend, whose advice I always welcome, but that raises the question of the Sunday Times. I was told some time ago by the Sunday Times that I was to be given a free coloured supplement, and it was added that the advertising revenue would pay for the supplement. Now it
    344
    costs 8d. Other papers rise in price. Now, when I go to my newsagent, I find that he is very annoyed about it. I have had bitter complaints from him—and I am on tolerably good terms with him. He tells me that for weeks he was selling one of the sporting papers at below the price until someone told him that the price had gone up; he had not examined it to find out. The Sunday Times is now 8d., I think, and the Sunday Telegraph is 5d, I think that the Sunday Telegraph is a jolly good newspaper—if they would not keep leaving out Hugh Massingham.
    This is the nub of the problem. It is a serious question whether a gentleman who became a peer by mistake, because he had not expected to pay United Kingdom taxation and wanted to preserve his Canadian nationality—
    The Temporary Chairman (Sir Samuel Storey): Order. I do not think that this arises on the Amendment before the Committee.
    Mr. Hale: Blimey! What does arise? This is the problem of the Chair. I am quoting from the Amendment we are discussing as to whether or not newspapers shall be subject to resale price maintenance, and what can be more relevant than to say—
    The Temporary Chairman: Order. We are not discussing Lords in another place. We are discussing the question of these Amendments on the Notice Paper.
    Mr. Hale: I apologise at once, Sir Samuel—of course, you are right. We have so many noble Lords in this place it is really hardly worth while looking in another direction.
    I remember the remark of Henry VIII who said of Holbein, "I can make seven peasants into seven lords tomorrow but I cannot make of those seven lords one Holbein", but perhaps I ought to pass from the Sunday Times to other matters which I sought to enumerate when I earned the temporary reprobation of the Chair.
    Sweets and confectionery, wines and spirits, if they are not strong enough to be included in the previous Amendment, any drug or any substance recommended as medicine. These are some of the items. I hope in the course of

    345
    a few minutes to return to the Amendment which was moved by the hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) with a certain amount of limited admiration, but "any substance recommended as medicine" raises a very serious problem.
    When I was a young man I was confronted by pictures which suggested that if I were too fat I should take "Antipon". I could acquire a figure worthy of a male. If I was not fat enough I should take "Sargol". I believe that both were made by the same firm and I think that it would be true to say that both contained much the same constituents, though there may have been some variation in the quantity of water. But I got fat without the use of "Sargol", and such physical progress as I have made has been made without the help of any product described as medicine. The hon. Member for Putney said "recommended as medicine"—not recommended by anyone who mattered, but on the label by the manufacturers. On television at the moment we are advised to take all sorts of obscure products to advance us mentally, physically and in beauty. I have complained before that although I am offered a paste which would make me look like Marilyn Monroe no one offered to Marilyn Monroe a paste which would make her look like me.
    It is not for me to say one word which would be interpreted as expressing any doubt about the wisdom of the Chair in exercising the difficult problem of selection of Amendments, but I recall that Henry Hawkins made a point rather effectively in his reminiscences. He was appearing on behalf of a railway company in a case which concerned a chemist whose shop was being taken over for a railway siding and the question of valuation arose. It was said that the site was very attractive and he said, "It is all very well but if the witness and his friend were walking along a street and saw an attractive pub on an attractive site they might be tempted to say, 'Here is an attractive pub. Let us pop in and have a beer', but nobody passes an attractive chemist's shop with the sun shining on it and says, 'Here is an attractive chemist's shop. Let's go in and buy a truss'".
    This is an important point and the discussion has ranged rather widely.
    346
    There is no hon. Member for whom I have greater respect than my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) He speaks with great authority and with exceptional ability and great charm, and in private conversation is always speaking with tolerance, but I think that yesterday he was tempted to show a little harshness towards political delinquents.
    I watched yesterday's scene with compassion. I recalled rather unhappily William Allingham's reference to the four ducks on a pond which moved us so much. There were only four ducks yesterday, although the Press said that there were going to be 40,
    "What a little thing
    To remember for years—
    To remember with tears!"
    And when the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Wise) rose, I think justifiably, from the political scaffold to say with Danton, "Show my head to the people", I could almost have sobbed aloud.
    The fact remains that we have been discussing all these Amendments with brevity in view of the range of the products, and I think with relevance, except for one of two hon. Members opposite. I am bound to say that the hon. Member opposite who promised to say what Lobby he was going into bolted like a rabbit almost within two seconds of the Question. I am not sure, but I fancy that he was going to take refuge in some burrow other than the Lobby. The result is that we have had the right hon. Gentleman whose short title is terribly difficult to remember, the Secretary for Industry and a lot of things as well as President of the Board of Trade, sitting almost triumphant and saying hardly a word and making no intervention.
    The hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) talked about his winding up the debate. I hope that that was not a prognostication. Many of us hope that we shall hear the wise words of the President of the Board of Trade and make our own comments upon them when we have heard them. For the moment we feel to a certain extent that we are speaking in vacuo. It is sad that, as far as I can remember, we have not had the assistance today of more than one or two of the 40 who were staging a tremendous political battle a day or two

    347
    ago. Where are they now? In the words of the lament of Francois Villon
    "Mais où sont les neiges d'antan?"
    All gone, all dead, all disappeared. And here is the Patronage Secretary. [An HON. MEMBER: "No, he has gone too."] I beg the Committee's pardon, I meant the President of the Board of Trade. It would be generous to deny the right hon. Gentleman the opportunity of obtaining some sustenance in the course of these long and thoughtful debates and I shall have to refer to him again unhappily in his absence.
    I recalled this morning something which I thought apt to yesterday's debate—a ballad of my salad days, whose precise verbiage it is difficult for me now precisely to recall.
    "They were poor but more or less honest,
    Victims of a strong man's whim.
    Now they are selling penny or rather fourpenny matches
    Not subject to r.p.m.
    * * *
    See him in the grand theatre
    On the Front Bench looking slack
    In one hand he holds the Order Paper
    And with the other pats his back.
    He never grieves and he never smiles
    And he never larfs nor play,
    But he sits and croaks and a single joke
    Has he, which is to say—
    'I am a cook and a captain bold
    And the mate of the Alec brig
    And the bo'sun tight and the midshipmite
    And the crew of the Premier's gig'."
    8.30 p.m.
    No one can doubt, no one will wish to doubt or detract from the right hon. Gentleman's victory over the mutineers. But I am wondering now whether he will be generous in his victory, if he will, on his return, consider some of the representations which the Committee might wish to direct to him.
    I referred to my hon. Friend. I hope that he will forgive me for reminding him of Louis XVIII, a man of great commonsense, I have always thought. There was brought before him Barentin, who had made an unhappy journey to Elba at the wrong moment to swear allegiance to Napoleon. When asked to explain, he said, "I did not actually swear". The generous king said: "Vous avez mi juroté"—"You took only a partial oath. Of course, at your age, one only does things by halves."
    348
    It is difficult. I should like to take matters seriatim for the convenience of the Committee and, if I may humbly say so, for the convenience of the Chair. We start with alcohol. I have had a note from the Licensed Victuallers' Association asking me to support resale price maintenance in respect of alcohol. I do not deny a certain interest in the subject. I rather sympathise with what Robert Burns is supposed to have said—
    Mr. Ellis Smith: Say it all again. The Secretary of State has come back now.
    Mr. Hale: A very happy meeting. I was hoping to make some generous reference to the right hon. Gentleman in his presence. Perhaps it would not be inappropiate now to put this familiar quotation to him—
    "Ah Sin was his name
    And I shall not deny
    In regard to the same
    What that name might imply;
    But his smile it was pensive and childlike
    As I frequent remarked to Bill Nye
    Which we had a small game
    And Ah Sin took a hand;
    It was euchre. The same
    He did not understand,
    But he smiled with his feet on the table
    With a smile that was childlike and bland."
    I was interrupted by my hon. Friend, and I have for the moment lost the thread of this rather complicated argument. I was saying that I rather sympathise with the remark wrongly attributed to Robert Burns. When asked whether he would have alcohol or tea, he is supposed to have said, "If I have the first, you will make me fou. If I have the second, I shall be as dull as you".
    The Licensed Victuallers' Association, however, did not answer several questions which were in my mind. I had just paid a visit to Oldham and I had found a surprising variety of scales of prices for alcoholic liquor even in the "pubs" of Oldham. It is true that the "Red Lion" has a quite different scale of prices from that of the Dorchester in London. I gather that it is not on that side of the retailing of alcohol that the Amendment falls. Hon. Members are talking about the sale of whisky and high quality spirits in bottles. This, of course, is our old friend the loss leader again.

    349
    I do not feel passionately about this, but I can see difficulties. Some years ago, the Member who was then my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch raised the whole question of tied houses in relation to this matter. Indeed, I went almost as a crusader to Oldham and said to the licensed victuallers, "I have come to save you from your vassalage." They said to me, "Will you please go away".
    What will the effect be? I understand that the brewers have resale price maintenance in their tied houses and lower prices for the club premises in the backyards which they have hived off and sold to the clubs. It seems to me that the argument on this head is singularly difficult to present.
    I have no desire whatever to detain the Committee in these important deliberations, but I feel that I should briefly say, in passing, that I have had representations from the Commercial Travellers Association. Although I have been here pretty well throughout this long debate and yesterday's debate, I have heard no reference to this point. I believe that they have a right to be considered. Their incomes are paid on commission, and if we are to have a movement to reduce prices at least we must say what we propose to do with the victims of this procedure. I put this not as a high point but as one which the Committee cannot afford lightly to dismiss.
    Then we come to the difficult Amendment of the hon. Member for Putney. I have never had any desire in Committee to make verbal points. But this is rather more than a verbal point. The hon. Member refers to things "recommended as medicine", and that protects, and clearly protects, the worst type of product. I recall that in my earlier days we had a certain amount of proganda from the Left Book Club about patent medicine companies. In Tory M.P. there was reference to interests in this country. More recently, in Tribune, it was suggested that hon. Members opposite had an interest in what I will call, in deference to the fact that this is a mixed Committee, surgical goods.
    These are clearly problems, but I think that the hon. Member for Putney has made out an impressive case. I do
    350
    not criticise his draftsmanship. We have all been in this difficulty. We all know that drafting is not easy, and it may be that the words which he has used indicate as clearly as they reasonably can in a back bench Amendment the sort of intention which he has in mind. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) made a brilliant speech which was later supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater). We must get clear of the fact that we are protecting the manufacturers of Yadil or the people who tomorrow will produce purple hearts in a slightly amended form and call them restoratives. [Laughter.] Let us not be funny about this matter. This is a very serious problem of the day.
    Sir H. Linstead: I think that the hon. Member will probably agree that in so far as there are abuses—and, on the whole, the examples which he has taken concern abuses of many years ago—they should be checked by other legislation, and that an attempt should not be made to deal with them in a Bill dealing with resale price maintenance.
    Mr. Hale: That would probably be true if we had an efficient Government. Naturally, I should not wish to give the appearance of moving even to the circumference of the ambit of order, otherwise I might develop the point rather as the hon. Member developed it when he referred to the defects of the National Health Service and to the necessity for increased contributions, on which I should want to be satisfied by evidence and by a Departmental Committee. It is said that there are grievances. I do not fully understand them, but it is probably true. It is certainly true that this is an area in which there should be legislation, and effective legislation.
    It is monstrous and frightening what could be done with patent medicines by the irresponsible companies like the A.B.C. Company, with no local interest and no local responsibility but merely with the desire to make money. I do not attack the desire to make money; I have made a little myself. But, if hon. Members refer to the Notice Paper, they will see that I have tabled a new Clause in defence of Tory principles to ensure that the mere desire to make money is not regarded as reprehensible

    351
    in the interpretation of the Bill when it becomes an act. That is supported by my hon. Friends on both sides of me. [Laughter.]
    However, I cannot agree that this is the be-all and end-all of existence. I think that the chemists have a very strong case. Not having had any assurance from the hon. Member from Putney, I am not prepared to say what I will do in the Lobby. But, at the moment, if the hon. Gentleman moves his Amendment, I shall vote with him, subject to what may be said by the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade. I have not much hope in that direction. I do not think that he is likely to move me. If he does not, the hon. Member will move me into the Lobby in support of Amendment No. 17.
    The hon. Member has virtually conceded that the other Amendments are impassable. One of them No. 14 is virtually a direct negative to the Bill. For the moment, I feel that I have neither the time nor the ability to discuss more fully the important proposed new Clause 10 entitled "Intoxicating liquors" standing in the name of the hon. Lady the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mrs. Hill), which is supported by my hon. Friends for motives on which it is likely they would have been challenged yesterday by a cavalier who did not take the field.
    I disagree with reluctance with my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Duffy). It is not good enough to talk about the small shopkeeper in such terms. The small shopkeeper in Oldham is often a disabled pensioner of the last war, or a lady who has been left a widow and desires to eke our the miserable income that is being paid to her by the Government. I had a letter this morning from the National Assistance Board to say that a dear old lady whom I represented was getting £3 10s. a week and should be jolly pleased about it and could live on it. This is a question which I cannot develop more fully now, but I shall not miss an early opportunity of doing so.
    These are the people who have tried to provide a little service, often in remote areas, in Oldham, in outlying areas and very often in back streets. They try to provide the limited range of goods that
    352
    is available. We have not dealt with the question of whether newspapers can be retailed on a basis of r.p.m. unless one is able to establish the need for the sale of newspapers in that area, which, in view of the type of newspapers today, is difficult to establish.
    These shops have a range of—what? One commodity which they have is cigarettes, another chocolate. As one hon. Member has said, they must have a minimum stock. They have a very minimum profit. They have to keep also some magazines, which, as far as I am able to say, are mostly the sort of vulgar and crude American magazines which now flood the market. They have to sell what they can get. To talk about their being efficient is ludicrous. To talk about their being able to develop stocks is not quite good enough. These questions develop from geographical considerations.
    In the Bay of Galway my missus sends me across the bay—I have to row two miles—to go to the local grocer to get two bottles of burgundy, six flypapers, calor gas, groceries, frozen fish, confectionery, the newspapers, and so on, because he is the only man there.
    Sir H. Linstead: Who rows back?
    Mr. Hale: There have been occasions when I have gone on a favourable tide.
    We are discussing a genuine human problem, and a laudable human problem. The desire of somebody who is put on one side by poverty or disablement to develop a little business is not an unlaudable desire. As for saying that these people can become efficient, I said yesterday, and I repeat myself, that there are 500 retail shops in the urban district of Chadderton, with a population of 32,000. To say that they must all become efficient is ludicrous. If they were all efficient, I would not want to go to them. One calls on them for a chat. I remember popping in at one shop to ask the test match score. I was told, "Come inside. The television is on. You can see the next over." I went in. That is the sort of service I like.
    I rise only to say, with my accustomed brevity, that I support Amendment No. 17. Subject to a little doubt about the words
    "…recommended as medicine…"

    353
    which may be dealt with on Report, I think that this is a desirable and proper Amendment.
    8.45 p.m.
    The pharmacists have had a raw deal. They are subject to very heavy expenditure. They must have very special qualifications and it would be much against the public interest if these mass stores could retail any sort of drug. We are told that drugs can only be sold on prescription, but at inquest after inquest we are told that chlorodyne contains almost all the damaging effects of many scheduled drugs and can be obtained in chemists' shops. Under the law as it stands the chemist must supply it. Indeed he must stock virtually everything that a doctor, who is often submitted to very intensive advertising pressure, may wish to prescribe.
    I have said that I was moved almost to tears at one time during yesterday's debate. The whole position was expressed in a poem by R. K. Munkittrick. He calls it "Unsatisfied Yearning".
    "Dawn in the silent hallway
    Scampers the dog about
    And whines, and barks and scratches
    In order to get out.
    Once in the glittering starlight
    He straight away doth begin
    To set up a doleful howling
    In order to get in."
    Some of the sentiments of that poem are appropriate to the procedure of this Bill on both sides of the Committee.
    Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: The task of following the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), after almost every speech he makes, is very difficult. I can only comment, which, for those who might not understand, is Homer's saying, "He spake the winged word." I want to recall the speech of another entertainer yesterday. We are always pleased to hear the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot). Certainly he told us yesterday what I profoundly believe to be true: that the purpose of the Committee was now to hear what had already been decided. I would put it even more cynically than that and say that we are here to listen to arguments which the Committee has every intention beforehand of rejecting.
    I speak as one who views this matter entirely from the point of view of con-
    354
    sumer interest. Broadly speaking, I hold the same sort of views so eloquently and knowledgeably expounded by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Proudfoot). But I have watched these debates for some time, and it is my impression—I say this in no sense of criticism—that there has been some careful stare management opposite with regard to Amendment No. 17. I believe that right hon. and hon. Members opposite have the general intention here to create a division in our midst on this side of the Committee. Whether that be so or not, I wish to reply to a number of arguments on Amendment No. 17, because I profoundly believe that it would be singularly unfortunate if the Committee accepted it in its present form or in any other form suggested.
    I listened with great care to what was said by the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) and the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) on the subject of chemists. I recognise that the passing of the Bill will require chemists to alter the whole nature of their business, but I want to see the whole nature of that business so altered and to see chemists get back to the true nature of being pharmacists, which at present they are unable to do. The hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn was quite right when she said that there had been a reduction in the number of dispensers, those who are true pharmacists. There has been a reduction, particularly in the rural areas.
    Mr. Manuel: And in the Scottish Highlands.
    Mr. Rees-Davies: And in the Highlands of Scotland. The reason for the reduction is well known to those who understand the case. It is that the money in being a chemist lies not in being a chemist at all but in being a purveyor of cosmetics, of French perfumes by Dior and of a wide range of so-called pharmaceutical products of which I will give one example. It is that of Lucozade, which is manufactured at a cost of about 4½d., purveyed by the manufacturer at ls. 7d. and sold by the chemist at 2s. 10d. If the public were aware of that, is it thought that it would buy this mixture of glucose and water under a trade name?

    355
    I give only one example which has been the subject of a widely publicised case, but it will have been noted that in the course of these debates although precise mark-ups have been quoted, they have been mentioned by very few hon. Members. There can be no doubt—this has not been denied by the chemists in my area, every one of whom has written to me—that there will be substantial reductions in price in those very products to which my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) adverted, those which are not pharmaceutical products at all, but which are a whole range of cosmetics with a very large mark-up. The so-called "surgical appliances have a mark-up in some cases as much as 200 per cent. and in others of 100 per cent. It is well known to us, although for some reason we do not seem to be prepared to say so, that there will be some substantial price reductions in these products, with the result that the whole system of the trading of chemists will have to be completely altered.
    Why should we not tell them so straight? I have told the secretary of my local association that this is what I believe will happen to the trade of the chemists, and that I believe that it is right that is should happen. Do we want to get these men back to pharmacy, these men who now spend half their day dispensing face powders and all that sort of muck, who have done three or even five years' training to become pharmacists in order to be able to dispense to the public the services for which they have peculiar and careful education and knowledge? I want them to get back. I want them to be able to undertake that task for which they are trained.
    It is wrong in principle and morally wrong that the ladies of this country should have had to pay far too much Purchase Tax on their cosmetics for many years—that has now been reduced—and should also be denied the opportunity of far cheaper cosmetics for all of them—and good luck! But that caries with it the corollary that in another capacity we might have to pay more through the Minister of Health to the pharmacists to encourage them to go back into the Highlands and the other areas where they can dispense services,
    356
    often late at night or at hours of the day when they do not do so now.
    I go further. In the inquiry which is taking place at the present time, and to which my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir R. Thompson) adverted, one of the things which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health must inquire into is whether or not there ought to be a loaded factor of extra pay to a pharmacist in a rural or out-of-the-way area. I give this pledge to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney, that while I shall oppose him root and branch on this Amendment, in the years ahead I shall give him and whichever Government is in power all the support that I can to ensure that the proficient and qualified pharmacist is properly remunerated for his task.
    But that is a long way from saying that one can amend Amendment No. 17. In the first place, I think it was conceded yesterday, and it has been pointed out today, that subsidies for medicine can cover almost anything. I was a "Gugnunc" when I was young. Everybody appears to have had some deplorable background, and in those days I had to have at least two spoonfuls of Keppler's Malt every day. My child has Ribena every day, and others have Lucozade and the like. These branded products which we pour into our stomachs are of inestimable value to us because we believe them to be so, and, because we believe that, they are useful. But they are, of course, branded products with a very healthy mark-up.
    Let us not forget the manufacturer, because he is entitled to consideration. What does the manufacturer of these things say? What do Beechams, and so on, say? They say, "It is true that the public may pay far too much for some of these products, but we have a tremendous research establishment to maintain, and if the public want the best type of chemical products they have to pay one way or another to enable us to run those research establishments which can carry into effect the research necessary in other fields".
    Just as I say that chemists ought to be paid the proper price for their services, so I say that it is not right to try to get a large mark-up on the manufacturers' price in respect of these branded products to subsidise research.

    357
    If we want research into, for example, cancer, let us carry that burden where it properly belongs. That is why I am against the Amendment.
    Furthermore, in any event I would much rather look at Clause 5 carefully to see whether under that Clause what I would call the genuine prescription part of medicine can go through the gateway, and if my right hon. Friend and his advisers come to the conclusion that the feeling of this Committee is that medicines on prescriptions ought to be the subject of exemption, let us not do it here. Let us make sure that when the principle adumbrated in the Bill is looked at by the judges they can see the clear intention of this type of exemption.
    If the net book agreement of the publishers is exempted by the Monopolies Commission and, indeed, tobacco has been brought in for exemption, there must be a powerful argument for exempting medicine on the ground that it is beneficial to the public interest.
    Sir H. Linstead: I have a great deal of sympathy with what my hon. Friend is saying, and I am grateful to him for his remarks, but the example that he has given of medicines is the one section of the business in respect of which r.p.m. does not apply, and even if it were able to get through the gateway it would have no effect on the turnover and the return of chemists.
    9.0 p.m.
    Mr. Rees-Davies: In the case of these rather cosy types of goods it has been difficult to sustain the mark-up. In many cases the mark-up is due to the fact that the trader is used as a form of advertisement. Instead of advertising in the Press the manufacturers allowed the trader a very big mark-up, as a kind of douceur. I am sorry to use a French term, but thank goodness we have no English word for it. [HON. MEMBERS: "A sweetener."] It is not quite the same. There is something rather nice and naughty about the word douceur. Perhaps I can better refer to it as a mixture of douceur and pourboire. The trader is encouraged to plug the goods. Anyone who looks in a chemist's shop can see almost at a glance what he hopes to be able to sell you. It will have a
    358
    higher price than other goods. I should like to see the end of that system.
    Now let us consider the question of wines and spirits, about which the hon. Member for Oldham, West waxed so eloquently. I understand that beer does not come into the question. The brewers have not said that they want r.p.m. It may be argued that they proceed in another way. If so, so be it. Wines cannot come in, because anyone who drinks them knows that the only class of wine which is price maintained is something like Sandeman's Port, which sells under a trade name. The ordinary run of wines depends upon the bottler. There is an infinite variety, and the licensed trade does not contend that wines should be price maintained.
    As for spirits—gin, whisky and brandy—we should try to stop loss leadering. A supermarket may be able to flog whisky at 35s. for a week or two, but I do not know how long it would be able to continue after that. What the licensed trade fears is the springing up of working men's clubs, but that subject is outside the scope of the Bill. I believe that these fears are groundless and that we do not need to exclude either wines or spirits.
    Leaving aside the question of confectionery, what about periodicals, newspapers, books and tobacco? They are matters which the Registrar is bound to put fairly low on his list, and things will run very much the same for a while with those products. Ultimately, if they do come up, we must remember that the Monopolies Commission has reported on the net book agreement and the tobacco trade agreement, and has found that both, on the whole, are in the public interest.
    That view can be encouraged in Clause 5. They should be excluded. I want to see price maintenance for cigarettes and tobacco. One of my hon. Friends said that in recent years the distribution of tobacco had widened. If we want this wide distribution we must allow for a big mark-up, otherwise the smaller garage proprietor and the small out-of-the-way shop will not sell it. If we want to be able to obtain cigarettes and tobacco easily throughout the country—and I should have thought that that was what the public

    359
    wanted—price maintenance should be allowed.
    Is it right to take out the manufacture of tobacco? I should have thought not. I should think that it is wrong to take out any named trade in the Bill. I stick by the principle that if it is to come out it must come out through one of the gateways determined by Parliament and through no other one. The order in which we considered them yesterday is another matter, and I hope that the order of what might be termed the "batting list" will mean that in the clear cases, where there is not likely to be protection, like the tobacconists and newsagents, the situation will continue as it is.
    If we want a wide variety of magazines, it is the case—as many hon. Members will know much better than I—that a guaranteed circulation is needed. If there are 20,000 or 30,000 copies unsold the firm concerned will go broke, as the advertisement as well as the sales revenue depends on the circulation. It seems to me, therefore, that there is a strong case for arguing that almost the whole range of magazines should be price-maintained in the public interest and that there should be a steady mark-up. I hope that we shall not consider these matters in connection with this Clause at all, and that we shall reject the Amendments; but I hope that we shall take care that Clause 5 is so drafted that there will be the close examination of publications and tobacco where wide distribution is necessary and security of circulation.
    I am sorry to have taken up so much time and I apologise for the lack of wit in my speech which followed witty speeches from hon. Members opposite, but I felt that these things should be said before we turn to some other aspects of the Bill.
    Mr. Denis Howell: We have reached the point when hon. Members are anxious to hear the speeches from the Front Benches, and I shall therefore take only a few minutes to refer to Amendment No. 17, which I consider to be important. I agree with the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) that the provisions in Amendment No. 14 would have a revolutionary effect on the
    360
    Bill. A good case can and probably has already been made to the Restrictive Practices Court about books, newspapers and tobacco. I am prepared generally to support the Bill, because I believe that the more competition which is made possible over the whole sphere of retailing, the better it will be for the consumer and the housewife. But I have to ask myself whether competition is in the public interest if applied to certain commodities. I have unhesitatingly concluded that competition is not in the public interest but is, in fact, detrimental to it if applied to drugs and dressings. The hon. Member who drafted the Amendment probably experienced some difficulty over it. I do not like the word "recommended", whatever that means.
    I realise that, in discussing this, we are determining a principle in relation to drugs and medicine. Although he may not be able to accept the wording of the Amendment, I hope that the Minister will signify a general acceptance of the principle. I feel that we have failed to draw a distinction between drugs and medicines prescribed under the National Health Service and those freely available for anyone to purchase. There might not be so much difficulty about drugs and medicines prescribed by general practitioners if we had an ideal situation in which all drugs were self-prescribed and that was the only way that people could obtain them. Then none of us would be particularly worried. But that is not the situation. As a matter of fact, a very serious position is arising because some drugs may be obtained too easily, particularly by young people.
    As chairman of the Birmingham Association of Youth Clubs, I know the great concern there is on this matter. Only this week I wrote to the Minister of Health giving him a list of 10 drugs freely available in Birmingham at some of the less reputable chemist shops. These drugs are positively dangerous to young people, but they can be bought by young people. We should all like to see those drugs brought under the scope of the poisons legislation, but they are not at present under that legislation. Similar types of drugs are coming forward which social workers view with very grave apprehension. The last thing which society wants is competition in the

    361
    sale of these drugs. We do not want a situation in which people have free access to them.
    I hope we realise that we cannot deal with drugs prescribed under the National Health Service without having regard to the fact—however much people support the Health Service as I do—that these drugs can be bought outside the Service. The only way to deal with the problem would be to see that the National Health Service is fully implemented in the way we wanted it to be, with doctors and pharmacists and everyone needed available in all districts. We have to be realists and to acknowledge that that situation is still a long way off. We hope that the next Government will make much greater strides in this direction than have been made since the inception of the Health Service.
    The hon. Member for Isle of Thanet said that cosmetics should not be regarded as a legitimate part of the pharmacist's income because that detracted from his true profession as a pharmacist. I quite agreed. The hon. Member said that he wanted the system to be altered, but we know that it will not be altered. He could not tell us when it would be altered, nor by whom. Much as we should like chemists' charges to be put on to a rational basis so that the genuine pharmacist did not have to resort to the sale of these ancillary items to make a living that will not happen for a long time.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West said, we have not been presented with a very valid costings argument by the industry showing what changes there should be in this direction. I am prepared to accept from pharmacists that if they dealt only in prescriptions they would be in difficulty from the economic point of view, but there has been no evidence on that state of affairs. Before we can accept their statements we should have some detailed costings information to determine whether or not we should make a substantial increase in the charges for drugs under the National Health Service. If the pharmaceutical industry makes a case showing that it cannot make an economic living on present standards of payment for National Health Service prescriptions, the position should be
    362
    rectified so that pharmacists do not have to rely on ancillary services.
    9.15 p.m.
    Most chemists nowadays must stock an extremely wide range of drugs and medicines. They do not stock on the basis of what is profitable for them to have in their shops for the public. They keep a whole range of things simply to be able to supply what any general practitioner may prescribe. In other words, they perform a public service over a very wide range. This is an additional argument which should weigh in their favour.
    I return to my basic point. I have spoken of my interest in the youth service. I think that drugs and medicines are the very last thing in which we should indulge or encourage unnecessary competition. Even if the Secretary of State cannot accept the wording of the Amendment, I hope that he will indicate his sympathy with it, otherwise many of my hon. Friends and I will be forced to register our belief in the Division Lobby.
    Sir H. Linstead: On a point of order, Sir Samuel. Could you give some guidance to the Committee about voting, should it be necessary, upon any one of the Amendments which we are discussing? We are discussing with Amendment No. 7 Amendments Nos. 14, 17 and 27 and new Clause 10. Before any question of voting arises, we shall obviously want to consider very carefully what my right hon. Friend has to say and weigh his words. If any section in the Committee thought it desirable to have a Division on Amendment No. 17, would you be kind enough to advise us at what point that Amendment would be called for Division purposes, should it become necessary?
    The Temporary Chairman: The answer is cuite simple—when we reach that Amendment, not before.
    Miss Jennie Lee: I shall detain the Committee after this long debate for only a few minutes, and on one point only. It is a point which may influence other Members as well as myself on Amendment No. 17. My dilemma is that the Government present me only with a choice of evils. Some

    363
    hon. Members have said that it is essential that chemists should be allowed to charge exceptionally high prices on a wide range of cosmetics and other articles because, unless they are able to do so, they will not be able to sustain their business as dispensing chemists. Other hon. Members have accepted that the serious dispensing chemist might not be able to make a living at present prices if he was confined simply to his products as a pharmacist. They have said that we must therefore see if we can increase his remuneration for his strictly chemistry goods.
    I take a very poor view of that. Every time additional burdens are placed on the Health Service there is a chorus of protests from hon. Members opposite. That is why I say we are presented simply with a choice of evils. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) that the solution which should have been reached in many communities long ago is that when there is sickness in a house the father or mother, or whoever goes for a prescription, should be able to go to a doctor and get a prescription; and in the same building there should be the doctor and the chemist with dispensing facilities. We should cut out the drugs which are unnecessary and ensure that the beneficial drugs are provided at the lowest possible price. This should be done for the sake of the consumer and with a view to keeping down the charges imposed on the Health Service.
    What finally decides me is this. In the last few years there have been many vast new housing schemes. The former Prime Minister made such a high priority of housing figures that he neglected not only school, hospital and other buildings but—
    The Temporary Chairman: Order. I think the hon. Lady is straying far from the Amendment.
    Miss Lee: I do not mean to stray any further, Sir Samuel. I was about to say that among the things which have been neglected in those vast housing areas are places where families can take doctors' prescriptions.
    I come down on the side of the lesser evil, that we must sustain the small shop. The number of prescribing chemists is
    364
    already diminishing, and if we do not buttress the prescription service with the sale of other goods, families will have to travel further than ever, and the evils which already spring from our badly-balanced communities, especially many of those great new communities where there are not enough proper social amenities, will be worsened.
    I do not see how we can ask mothers and old persons to travel further than they are now travelling in order to get to chemists' shops. That is one of the factors which will decide some of us, unless the Minister astonishes us with a brilliant solution to the problem.
    Mr. George Darling: I am very pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) has made that contribution, because I agree with it and it enables me to leave out one part of my speech.
    I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), as I am sure most of the Committee do, that this has been a very good debate. It has given the Committee an opportunity which, for reasons I shall not go into now, we did not have yesterday, to get the principles of Clause 1 into perspective.
    I do not want to go over all the arguments that have been put forward on both sides of the Committee for and against the Amendments that we are discussing, but I should like to present, if I may, a sort of summing up of our views on these Amendments. I should like, first of all, to refer to Amendments Nos. 7 and 14 and new Clause No. 10, because they go together. Between them, as we have heard, they provide a list of goods which, it is claimed, should be exempted from the terms of the Bill. Hon. Members who have spoken in support of these Amendments have offered different reasons for excluding the list of goods, but I think we should take into consideration the fact that whether the reasons are sound or not—and I personally believe that no sound reasons have been put forward for the exclusion of these goods—the effect would be that we would be asking Parliament to decide quite arbitrarily whether certain goods should be excluded from the effects of the Bill.
    Taking the two Amendments and the proposed new Clause together, the list

    365
    is not exhaustive, although it is pretty long. There are many other goods which have not been mentioned during the debate, and which are certainly not in the Amendments, but for which perhaps equally good claims for exemption could be made—indeed, perhaps better claims. There are, for instance, mechanical goods and electrical appliances where cheapness might well lead to the manufacture of unsafe appliances in the absence of standards being laid down under the Consumer Protection Act. There are no other goods before us.
    I suggest that this Committee cannot proceed on the basis of giving favourable treatment arbitrarily to one list of goods, specified for a set of reasons, while leaving out other goods which might claim exemption for another set of good reasons which we have not heard. If there were anything in the argument that Parliament, not the Court, should lay down the exemptions, I suggest that the only way open would be for this Committee to go through a complete list of goods commercially sold in this country, group by group, and decide, on some accepted criteria that have not yet been put before us as we have not yet come to Clause 5, the goods for which exemption should be given.
    That is a quite impossible exercise, and cannot be done for two reasons, amongst others. First of all, we do not have the facts before us on which to base decisions, nor the criteria to guide us. Secondly, these Amendments have been put down—let us be quite frank about it—on behalf of sectional interests. If we can accept that Parliament can make a list of exemptions in response to the pleadings of sectional interests, without any guiding criteria whatsoever, the House becomes an auction for special considerations—as it is often in danger of becoming when we discuss Purchase Tax exemptions—
    Mr. Hocking: The hon. Gentleman has just said that these Amendments have been put down on behalf of sectional interests, but the Amendment in my name was put down not with any sectional interest whatsoever in mind but merely on the guiding principle of taxation.
    Mr. Darling: When I speak of sectional interests I am not seeking to be offensive. The fact remains that these
    366
    are sectional interests—sectional interests of tobacconists, chemists, and so on. I am not being offensive, but merely stating the facts.
    Moreover, neither in the Bill nor in any of the Amendments is there provision—on the assumption that the Amendments are accepted—for adjusting the list as circumstances change. The list would be fixed as long as the Bill, as enacted, remained unamended, and every time we wanted to make the changes that circumstances might make necessary we would have to pass amending legislation.
    On the procedure that is being laid down in this Bill, we must leave decisions on exemption to the Restrictive Practices Court, with a proper examination of the gateways in Clause 5 to make sure that we have everything in perfect order—as far as anything can be perfect under this rather imperfect Bill. We might well later find a better procedure for dealing with these restrictive practices, but we have to concern ourselves with this Bill, and even if we succeed in our efforts to improve the Bill we shall still be left with the procedure of the Restrictive Practices Court, and the registration that goes with it.
    In my view, we should leave all commercial goods to be dealt with by the practice laid down in the Bill. In other words, the arguments in favour of Amendments Nos. 7 and 14 and new Clause No. 10 should be rejected. But I share the opinion of my hon. Friends that Amendment No. 17 is in a different category. I would assure the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), if he were present, that there has been no stage management about this. I have not discussed it with anybody. It represents my own personal conclusion from listening to the debate.
    9.30 p.m.
    I do not want to go over all the arguments for giving prescribed drugs special treatment under the terms of the Bill for social and non-commercial reasons. Despite the views advanced by the hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Proudfoot), I think that the case put forward by my hon. Friends the Membes for Flint, East (Mrs. While) and Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) last night and today should be accepted by the Government. Those arguments have been reinforced by further speeches today.

    367
    If Amendment No. 17 is going to be accepted by the Government it can only be accepted as far as its intentions go. It will have to be reworded before it is included in the Bill, for the reasons given in the debate, for we cannot accept that
    "any substance recommended as a medicine"
    should have the exemption that is being claimed for it. We cannot accept Amendment No. 27. It goes far too wide. I need not labour the point. It has already been expressed in Committee.
    I would end on this note with regard to drugs. The hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) said that there was a case, and I agree as I think do many of my hon. Friends, that there is a case for restricting the sales of certain categories of drugs to trained and professional pharmacists, but, with respect to the hon. Member, this is not the Bill in which to put that proposition. Therefore, while we think that there is a case for accepting a rewritten Amendment No. 17, and we would vote for it unless the Secretary of State can give us some assurance by covering the points we have made in some other way. I do not think that we can accept Amendment No. 27. I therefore hope that for the reasons I have given the Committee will reject the other three proposals which we have been discussing in this group.
    Mr. Heath: This has been an important debate, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) has indicated. It has been important because it has covered the question whether or not there should be specific exemptions to the procedure laid down in the Bill. It has therefore been a wide-ranging debate dealing with all the articles named in the Amendments together with a number of others.
    I think that the hon. Member would agree that we have had expressed to the Committee a wide variety of views about the items mentioned and we have also been given a considerable amount of information of different kinds. At the same time, some hon. Members have drawn the attention of our colleagues to the fact that they still lack a considerable amount of information. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Dennis Howell) drew attention to
    368
    this in patricular and asked how he could make a decision on such information as he had.
    This leads me to the point that some of our colleagues have been speaking as though we had to settle these questions here and now. Indeed, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) said at one point that the question with which he was faced was whether r.p.m. should stay or should go on these particular items, but, with respect, that is not the question with which we are faced tonight. This is really the answer to the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) in the dilemma she had as to which course she should follow. The question is not whether we should decide here and now whether r.p.m. stays on one of these products or goes. The question we have to decide is whether we automatically make it an exemption tonight or does it go through the normal process of the Bill, in which case all the information about the product is placed before the Court in that fullness desired by the manufacturer and it is then for the Court, with the assessors, to reach a conclusion.
    Miss Lee: Would the Court be able to range widely enough to consider social considerations such as the number of chemists' shoos and how far the Government would have to help?
    Mr. Heath: I shall come to the details in Clause 5 in which the things which will have to be taken into account are mentioned—the quality of goods, the variety of goods available, the number of establishments in which the goods are sold by retail and any necessary services provided in connection with or after the sale of the goods, service including the size and variety of stock. All these things have to be taken into account by the Government on the information provided about them. I think that this is the answer to the hon. Lady's dilemma as to whether she has to decide now or whether all these matters can be placed before the Court, the Court reaching a decision on the information put to it. This is the procedure laid down in the Bill.
    The hon. Member for Hillsborough was quite frank in his view that all these things ought to go before the Court, but he then said that, for social and economic reasons, there should be

    369
    a difference in respect of a limited number of goods, presumably the prescription items, handled by chemists. My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) pointed out that this was not what he wanted. What he wanted was what was in his Amendment, which is something very much wider than what the hon. Member for Hillsborough suggested.
    In dealing with these exemptions, we come to the root decision which we have to make in formulating the structure of the Bill. How should the problem of exemptions be handled? A variety of ways was open to us. It would have been possible to do it purely by administrative means, for the President of the Board of Trade or the Government to come to a conclusion about particular items, on what criteria they liked, and to say, "We think that this is a case in respect of which r.p.m. should continue, and we will take powers for it to be swept away elsewhere". We could, perhaps, have brought these individual items before the House by order, on the affirmative or negative Resolution procedure, justifying each to the House on its merits. This would have been an administrative procedure to follow, very much akin to what happens in some other countries.
    The Leader of the Liberal Party has several Amendments down, which we shall discuss later, no doubt, suggesting that these things should go individually to, I think, the Monopolies Commission, that the Commission should make a recommendation, and that the Government should then bring the matter before the House. There are several ways in which the question of exemptions could be handled.
    The Government decided that the method they should adopt was to bring cases before a judicial tribunal. The criteria for the tribunal should be laid down in the Bill itself by Parliament, but, Parliament having done that, it should then be left to the judicial tribunal, with the advice of its assessors, to make an impartial judgment, according to the criteria, on each case brought before it.
    There are several reasons why we took this decision. The main one was that we thought that it would be fair to all the different interests concerned. It
    370
    would be an absolutely fair procedure. Second, it would, therefore, command the confidence of the manufacturers of all the products that they were getting a fair judgment from a judicial tribunal commanding all the respect that such a tribunal has in this country. Third, it would give consumers confidence that the judgment had been reached according to criteria laid down by Parliament in their interest and not by a Minister backed by a majority under pressure from any particular interest or other.
    Although this system may be more complicated and may take a little longer than a purely administrative system, we believe that it has those advantages in dealing with the question of exemptions. This was the reason why we came to the conclusion that it was the procedure to use. I believe that, having decided on this procedure as laid down in the Bill and having asked Parliament to give its approval to a judicial process as the basic structure of the Bill, we should then leave the decisions to the tribunal, under the criteria which we still have to settle in Clause 5, and that we should not try to make exemptions on our own judgment here in Parliament on such information as it is possible to lay before us in the course of a debate. This, therefore, is our general approach to the whole of this very important subject.
    Mrs. Castle: If the right hon. Gentleman attaches so much importance to the adoption of a purely judicial procedure in deciding exemptions, how does he justify his acceptance of the Amendment yesterday which allows the Board of Trade to intervene, on a purely political basis, to decide the order of reference to the Court?
    Mr. Heath: This does not affect in any way either the criteria on which the Court acts or the decisions of the Court. It was made plain yesterday—and I am sorry that I was unable to explain it to the hon. Lady yesterday—that this affects only the order in which items are brought forward by the Registrar to the Court. We have, therefore, a general position in which I believe we should leave the Court to decide the individual items on the criteria set out by Parliament.
    The purpose of all the Amendments which we have been discussing is to obtain special exemption for certain items,

    371
    and I should like to deal with them in detail. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Hocking) was using what I am sure he would agree was the device of taxation in order to exempt certain articles. He did not wish to over-emphasise his case, and he said that a number of those affected by his Amendment would not make any use of it. He suggested, for example, that neither the small producers nor, he thought, probably the large producers of spirits would want to make any use of it. The one group which he thought might take advantage of it would be those in tobacco. I think that that was the group in which he was particularly interested.
    On the other hand, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. W. Clark), who also said that it was a device, was particularly interested in whisky. He emphasised that he thought that those producing this excellent product were acting as tax gatherers and that this entitled them to special consideration. But my hon. Friend will realise that every wholesaler is a gatherer of Purchase Tax and that wholesalers might equally feel that they were entitled to special consideration as a form of, as they would gladly say, unpaid tax gatherers on behalf of the Government.
    My hon. Friend mentioned the Danish example. It may well be that those who have followed this Amendment carefully think that the Danish example might be followed. But, as my hon. Friend hinted, there are particular circumstances about the Danish example. The level of the tax in Denmark varies with the level of the retail price. This means that when prices are reduced the Government begin to lose their revenue. The Government therefore have an interest in having a fixed price which maintains a fixed revenue. That is why the Danish Government have adopted resale price maintenance in respect of some of these items. At the same time, I understand that they are under considerable pressure to remove resale price maintenance even on these items.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) mentioned the problem of off-licences. There is no doubt that the holders of them are in a particular position because they
    372
    are tenants. They are not in the same independent position as the ordinary shopkeeper. I should have thought that if resale price maintenance were to be removed from these products the brewers would undoubtedly have to consider the arrangements with the tenants about particular items because of the competition which, as my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, will ensue. But, naturally, brewers have very great investments in the houses themselves, and I should have thought therefore that there was a common interest between them to find a solution.
    May I remark on what would be the effect of accepting this Amendment. First, it excludes from Clause 1 items covered by the 60 per cent. arrangement. On the other hand, it does not exclude them from Clause 2. Therefore, it would not be possible to enforce the arrangement in any way. In my view, the rate of duty has no direct relationship to resale price maintenance. I do not think that my hon. Friends have endeavoured to prove that it has a particular relationship.
    However, this proposal would have very arbitrary results. Spirits would be exempted, but beer would not, and, as my hon. Friend pointed out, neither would wine. On the other hand, whether petrol, matches, lighters or scents were exempt would depend entirely upon their price. This, therefore, makes an arbitrary group to exclude from the Bill. The duties on these items are specific duties and, therefore, the ad valorem amount of 60 per cent. or whatever other percentages is fixed depends upon the prices. It has the odd effect that the lower the price, the higher the ad valorem and, thus, exempted goods. That, too, was a result which my hon. Friends would not particularly want.
    9.45 p.m.
    Finally, as has been pointed out, the changes in duties can quite fortuitously affect whether a product is covered by resale price maintenance. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friends will agree that even as a device, this is not a satisfactory one and that they will not wish to press the suggestion. I hope, moreover, that they agree with my general premise that the items should be decided by the Court on the basis of the information if those producing the products so wish.

    373
    The next group of items was brought forward by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe) and it was a very wide group. My hon. and learned Friend emphasised the position of the small shopkeeper. Coming, like my hon. Friend, from a seaside town myself, although not so large or distinguished—indeed, perhaps, a small one—I recognise the problems of that type with small shopkeepers.
    During that debate, we had a most interesting discussion, lively and stimulating from my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Proudfoot) and informed, as usual, from the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland), about the small shopkeeper and the approach to him. There was also the interesting letter in The Times yesterday from a rural shopkeeper pointing out how much he wanted to have resale price maintenance removed to allow him to compete and to build up, as he said, a very good business. There are all these aspects of the problem of the small shopkeeper.
    The Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend would have wide-ranging implications. The items seem to be fairly arbitrarily selected. It would ensure the retention of resale price maintenance over a substantial proportion of those items which have it now, because it deals not only with certain items mentioned in the Amendment. It also covers those normally sold by the institutions mentioned in the Amendment and it covers all goods manufactured by people who supply these establishments. This, therefore, is a wide-ranging Amendment and would remove a large part of all these products from the scope of the Bill. I hope, therefore, that my hon. and learned Friend, who put forward very powerfully the reasons for helping the small shopkeeper, will recognise that the Amendment goes much wider than he intended and that there are other ways, which have been discussed today, in which the small shopkeeper can be helped.
    I come next to the third and fourth Amendments, dealing with the supply of items for chemists. Again, we have had an interesting discussion. Some of the points were put forward last night by the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) and this afternoon
    374
    by the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon). I should like to deal with some of the individual points before coming to the general position.
    First, however, there has been running through the minds of some hon. Members and of some of my hon. Friends the feeling that resale price maintenance should be kept on these products because of factors affecting safety and the health of our people. Nobody could realise more than hon. Members here the importance of safety and the health of our people, and also of chemists who minister to them.
    In looking at this problem we must clearly separate questions of safety and health, which are dealt with under existing legislation affecting all these products, from questions of price through resale price maintenance. There are very important differences which we must keep clear all the time in our minds.
    The hon. Member for Greenock said he wanted the Amendment because he did not want variable prices in any of these items, but, as has been pointed out, there are variable prices already in many of them, whether sold in chemists' shops or other shops. We heard examples of medicinal items sold in village shops and so on in which there are price differences and I do not believe that the public is confused in the way he suggests. Nor, in my experience, do the consumers always buy the most expensive of these items. They will, in many cases, make their own decision as to whether to buy expensive or cheaper items. I do not accept that they automatically believe that the more expensive goods are the better ones.
    Dr. Mabon: I was trying to point out—perhaps inadequately—that the bulk of drugs—certainly 50 per cent.—are proprietary. The manufacturers themselves put them on the market. A rather unfair example was given referring to products in which prices were variable. The fact is that these are in the minority. This is the point to which the right hon. Gentleman must address himself. Many drugs used in the National Health Service are the precinct of only one firm.
    Mr. Heath: I agree that that is so as far as the National Health Service is concerned, but I was talking about other

    375
    items which can be bought at shops other than chemists' shops—the same sort of things but in different brands, with the consumer able to choose between prices. This goes on at the moment and does not cause harm or damage. Nor do I believe that people are confused by it.
    Mr. Monslow: Do we understand that the basis of this Bill is free prices so that the person next door may be able to sell at less than one is charging?
    Mr. Heath: If resale price maintenance were to be abolished on some or all of these items then we should get different prices, but the hon. Member for Greenock believes that one should always have the same prices for particular items. I was pointing out that many items can be bought at shops other than chemists. We have had examples where prices vary. I was pointing out also that this was not necessarily a wholly bad thing and that it did not confuse the purchaser.
    The hon. Member for Greenock also said that he thought that the Court was not equipped to deal with the question of drugs. I do not agree with him. The Court will have assessors and advice on the various items it deals with. Under other legislation the Court already has to deal with drugs and similar articles and there is no reason why it should not be capable of dealing with them in this case.
    The hon. Member also claimed that, if resale price maintenance were abolished, these drugs would become more easily available. This, I think, is a confusion that is beginning to come about in his mind and the minds of other hon. Members. It is that if we change the present system we change also the question as to which of these articles are to be available to the public. This is a misunderstanding which tends to develop and I will deal with it in more detail in a moment, together with the question of legislation which is due.
    The hon. Gentleman also mentioned voluntary price agreements under the National Health Service and said that these will be breached. They will not be breached in the least, and that, therefore, is not an argument for settling the question here tonight as to whether there
    376
    should be exemptions. He also claimed that r.p.m. should be maintained in order that manufacturers could do research. But research comes out of the manufacturers' price and not out of r.p.m., which is the retailers' benefit from price. [HON. MEMBERS: "Unfair."] It is not unfair. It is a question of where the manufacturer gets his return. He gets it from his price and uses it for research and manufacture. I want to deal with this point before coming to the detailed position about chemists.
    I now address myself to the very important remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Putney. He has put down two Amendments and I should like first to refer to No. 27. This is the Amendment which says that it shall not be unlawful for a supplier to withhold supplies of any drug or any substance recommended as a medicine, or any medical or surgical appliance, from a dealer who is not an authorised seller of poisons. My hon. Friend said that he wanted the manufacturer to be able to select retailers in all or any circumstances.
    Clause 2 makes it absolutely plain that the manufacturer can select his outlets in all circumstances, except where he would normally do so but is refusing to do so because the man has sold below the recommended price. The whole range of choice is thus protected except in the case of price. I believe that this is sound and covers the position of all these cases as a whole. What my hon. Friend is really asking is that a dealer who is not an authorised seller of poisons shall not sell these items, which limits their sale very specifically to chemists and dispensers and pharmacists, excluding all other suppliers who may be selling these goods. It is, therefore, asking for the chemists to be put in a privileged position, and that is not justified by the circumstances of the case.
    Sir H. Linstead: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving so much time to this matter. The only reason why a chemist should be exempted is that nobody should have the right in any circumstances to withhold goods from a chemist, because a chemist must have them in stock in order to carry out his statutory duties. We are saying

    377
    in the Amendment that he alone, therefore, must be in a position never to have goods refused to him.
    Mr. Heath: What we are saying is that he cannot have goods refused to him even though he may sell below the recommended price. That is what the Bill says and that is the position I want to maintain, because it means that if the chemist sells goods below the recommended price, people ought not to be able to withhold supplies from him. That is exactly the point we are trying to make in Clause 2.
    Sir H. Linstead: This is an extremely difficult argument to maintain at the end of a long debate, but I think that my right hon. Friend is wrong. If he looks at his own Clause, he will see that goods will be withheld from a chemist who has cut prices, and we say that nobody should have the right, even in those circumstances, to withhold goods from a chemist.
    Mr. Heath: With great respect to my hon. Friend, the whole of the discussion is exactly the reverse. What we are saying in the Bill is that if a man reduces his prices below the recommended prices, supplies must not be withheld from him. That is of great importance to my hon. Friend's chemists and that is why we have it in the Bill. It is one of the reasons. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that that is covered and will therefore not wish to press this Amendment, and I will gladly discuss it with him separately afterwards.
    Sir D. Glover: Will my right hon. Friend clarify the minds of many hon. Members? Does this mean that if a supplier says to somebody who is not a chemist, "I am sorry but I cannot supply you because our policy is to supply our goods only through chemists" that is a valid reason for withholding supplies from people who are not chemists?
    Mr. Heath: Yes. The manufacturer or supplier has the right to decide the outlets which he will use in all the circumstances except that which I have mentioned, which is that he must not withhold only because a man is reducing his prices. Therefore, it gives him the right of selection. Of course, if a supplier also likes to say that there are certain chemists whom he does not wish to supply, he can do that now and would
    378
    still be able to do it for other reasons. He might say that he wishes to limit his outlets to a certain number in a town. It lies within his power to do that, and to go on doing that. That is part of his general freedom of choice as a supplier as to the method of outlets that he wants to have. I hope that my hon. Friend will not wish to press the Amendment, but I shall gladly discuss it with him individually.
    It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Clair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
    Committee report Progress.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered
    That the Proceedings on the Resale Prices Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this days Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Redmayne.]

  RESALE PRICES BILL
  Again considered in Committee.
  Question again proposed, That those words be there inserted.
  Mr. Heath: Now, if I may turn to the other points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney, I think he said that there was really one particular one which worried him. He said that the chemists who were willing to sell these products were worried about the future of their incomes, and with this he mentioned particularly the quality of the services, the staff, the stock and hours of public service. Those were the items which were particularly involved.
  I ask the Committee to note that my hon. Friend placed this on the basis of remuneration and the effect of remuneration on services, on staff, on stock and on hours of performance. He said that this was a public service—with which we all agree—and one of the greatest importance. He was not placing it on the basis of the other points which have been raised by other hon. Members about the safety and health of the public and how this is looked after.
  I should like to deal, first, with the question of the safety and health of the public. This is covered by legislation at the moment, and I think it is important that we should realise how this operates.

  379
  First, there are restrictions on the sale of medicines in places other than chemists, and these consist, first, of the medicines in Part I of the Poisons List. These can be sold only in chemists.
  Secondly, we come to the provisions of the Pharmacy and Medicines Act, 1941. This restricts the sale of certain substances recommended as a medicine—the phrase used in the Amendment put forward by my hon. Friend. This Act restricts them to pharmacists, but this is subject to complicated and very considerable exceptions, and, as my hon. Friend knows, there are a considerable number of exceptions which means that they can be sold outside all chemists.
  Thus, one has the poisons group which can be sold only by pharmacists, and substances recommended as medicine, some of which can be sold only by pharmacists, and others which can be sold in a wide range of other shops. What hon. Members will have to decide in their minds is really whether this list is the right one. This is fundamental to the question of public safety and health.
  What some hon. Members have been suggesting is that some of these items ought to be restricted. I do not propose to enter into the detail of that argument tonight. I think my hon. Friend will agree that the sale of some of these ought to be restricted. On the other hand, some of my hon. Friends will say that there are certain restrictions which they would not wish to see come about. They would not wish to see it so restricted that many normal things could not be sold in village shops or local stores.
  At the moment, in the Board of Trade, we are receiving a considerable number of representations that baby food, which is at the moment severely limited in its outlets, ought to be sold more widely, for example, in food stores which have proper means of protecting and maintaining food. So there are two sides to this discussion, concerning those things which should be sold in chemists' shops and those which should be sold over a wider field.
  Many pharmaceutical suppliers voluntarily limit the sale of their drugs to pharmacists because they believe that
  380
  they provide the necessary outlets. That position will remain. If they wish to restrict their sales to chemists, or only to a few chemists, that process can continue. The Bill does not affect the position. Some of the suppliers who limit their sales to pharmacists operate resale price maintenance agreements, and some do not.
  Therefore, we already have a situation in which some suppliers limit their supplies voluntarily to chemists and do not operate resale price maintenance, and in which chemists themselves, if they wish to do so, can vary their prices. That is how the question of public health and safety is covered—partly by the poisons list, partly by restrictions on the sale of substances for medicinal substances, and partly by the voluntary action of suppliers who limit their sales to chemists because they think that that is the best way in which they can deal with the public. At the same time we have r.p.m.—sometimes inside the chemist's shop and sometimes outside.
  Dr. Dickson Mabon: The right hon. Gentleman has consulted his right hon. Friends the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland. They have given specific pledges with regard to certain substances, and everyone concerned in these matters knows that the law must be revised and consolidated, irrespective of the question of baby foods, which is of very little importance considering the other side of the question, which concerns the distribution of dangerous drugs. Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that because of the existence of pending consolidating legislation it is dangerous to deal with this matter at this stage?
  Mr. Heath: I shall deal with the question of legislation shortly. I do not agree with the hon. Member. If prices were altered it would not affect the existing state of control. The state of control would remain exactly the same. It would not be affected by the question whether r.p.m. remained or went, because the items which can be sold only in chemists' shops remain the same, and those which can be sold outside remain the same. The price factor does not affect the matter. That is why I am so anxious to establish it clearly in the minds of hon. Members that there is this

  381
  difference between the health and safety aspect of the matter and the completely separate consideration of price.
  Mr. Anthony Fell: Is not the argument that cuts in price margins could reduce the efficiency of the pharmacists and therefore create danger in the dispensing of these drugs?
  Mr. Heath: That is a separate argument, which I shall come to in a moment. It does not affect the question of distribution, whether to chemists or to other shops. It affects chemists' incomes.
  The Home Secretary yesterday told the House that he is preparing legislation and hopes to introduce it as soon as possible. The Pharmaceutical Society has made it clear that it does not consider the present restrictions to be sufficient, and the Government are now actively carrying out a review of the legislation. The Pharmaceutical Society is in a position to make representations about this review.
  I suggest that the legislation which follows this review should deal with the question whether more drugs should be added to the list of those which can be sold only by chemists and, if so, which drugs they should be. This question covers a wide area, and I hope that the Committee will feel reassured now that the matter is under active discussion with the Pharmaceutical Society and that the Government will take action on it as soon as practicable.
  Dr. Dickson Mabon: This is a very important matter. My point is that the legislation will concern named drugs about which there have been public complaints because of failure to restrict their distribution. If, under the provisions of this Bill, these or new drugs become cheaper, obviously more of them will be bought, and if that is so, it is a question of the Government trying by means of legislation to keep pace with the production of new and offensive drugs which are being wrongly used. The Minister seems to have lost the point by not saying that the Government cannot cope with the position regarding new drugs unless they are willing to control the new drugs as the Dunlop Committee recommended.
  Mr. Heath: The question of keeping control over new drugs will face the
  382
  Government and the public whether or not there is resale price maintenance, It is a normal problem of which we have had experience in the last few years with the invention of many new drugs, and it is something quite separate from whether or not the price is maintained. The Government are discussing with the Pharmaceutical Society what should be the appropriate method of bringing the whole matter up to date, and I can give an assurance to the Committee that this is being dealt with.
  The important matter of National Health Service dispensing has been raised, and I wish to deal with that. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hove, when dealing last night with the position of small shopkeepers and moving his own Amendment, said that he believed that pharmacists ought to be paid more, and this view has been echoed by other hon. Members. In an admirably lucid and concise speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir R. Thompson) dealt with the whole question of the remuneration of chemists. Perhaps I may explain the position. They are reimbursed in full for the cost of the ingredients and containers. Above this they receive an on-cost allowance calculated as a percentage on the cost of the ingredients and a dispensing fee for each prescription. These payments are intended to cover in full the proportion of labour and overhead expenses attributable to the National Health Service dispensing and, in addition, to yield a net profit.
  Since 1961—I think that this is an important refinement—the on-cost allowance has been expressed as a sliding scale in order to take account of the fact that the expenses per prescription of a chemist who does only a little National Health Service dispensing are higher than those of a chemist who does a great deal of such dispensing. That was introduced in order to allow for the chemist who did a small amount of dispensing. The objective has always been to fix this remuneration, including an element of profit, at a level to give a fair return for the service involved without taking account of the profits from other parts of the business.
  A number of hon. Members have expressed unhappiness, unease or anxiety, about the position that results

  383
  from this. I am told that a detailed inquiry has recently been carried out in order to identify more precisely than hitherto those expenses attributable to National Health Service dispensing; and if the balance between the turnover and the overheads changes it could be taken into account in the formula which I have described. I am also informed, and I hope that my hon. Friend will agree, that already a measure of agreement has been reached between the Ministry of Health and the representatives of the chemists about how the figures of expenses are to be treated and apportioned. There are still two difficult items to be settled and the discussions are continuing on these.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health hopes that the additional information which has now been obtained about expenses will provide a rational basis for reaching a form of agreement on remuneration. I hope that the Committee will feel that this new investigation and the discussions going on between the pharmacists and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health will provide this rational basis for a form of agreement on remuneration. From what my hon. Friends have been saying, I believe that the whole Committee will welcome this agreement, if it can be reached, and if these two difficult items can be dealt with. I wanted to give the Committee the information for which I was asked by my hon. Friend about arrangements for dispensing. Action is being taken by the Minister in discussions with the pharmacists themselves.
  I have dealt with a large number of the points raised during this very long debate. I should like therefore to come to the—
  10.15 p.m.
  Dame Irene Ward: May I ask one question? In announcing this new inquiry and the attitude expected from the Minister of Health, has my right hon. Friend the agreement of the Treasury that it will not sit on it?
  Mr. Heath: I think it unlikely—
  Dame Irene Ward: Not at all.
  Mr. Heath: —that the Treasury will be able to sit on anything with my hon.
  384
  Friend prodding it hard. I know that my hon. Friend is anxious that agreement should be reached as early as practicable and that the agreement should be settled. I agree with her about that.
  Mr. Chapman: Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the point about how Clause 5 of the Bill as it stands can be certain of securing that if the Court allows resale price maintenance on drugs, which many of us think a good thing, the Court can be satisfied that unduly high profit margins will not be retained?
  Mr. Heath: I know that is an item which is worrying the hon. Member, but we cannot institute price control in these matters, which is what he has suggested. We can take account of the criteria set out in Clause 5, which we shall discuss later. The criteria are quite clear about the interests of the public as consumers and users. This is all set out in Clause 5.
  Having dealt with the question of the area of health and safety, and financing of dispensing by chemists, I come to the final point we have to decide. As I said at the beginning of these remarks, we do not have to decide tonight whether or not r.p.m. goes. What we have to decide is whether we are to go against the structure of this Bill to make particular exemptions or to continue with it in its structure and put them before the Court and then the Court, with all the information, can decide. When the Bill was constructed it was deliberately constructed, in Clause 5, to allow the arguments put forward by the proponents of resale price maintenance to be stated exactly. Those are arguments to which hon. Members have drawn attention today.
  I repeat them. First there is:
  "the quality of the goods available for sale, or the varieties so available, would be substantially reduced…or the number of establishments in which the goods are sold by retail would be substantially reduced.…"
  This covers many of the anxieties raised about the number of establishments which would continue. Next there is the provision:
  "any necessary services actually provided in connection with or after the sale of the goods by retail would cease to be so provided.…"
  These again are two of the particular items with which we have been dealing

  385
  today. This structure was drawn up to allow all the powerful arguments put in this debate to be put to the Court and weighed against the balance of the public interest.
  Where it is thought that there are powerful arguments put forward—for example, many hon. Members said that they believed the arguments put forward for pharmaceutical goods were powerful, some say in a rather limited field but my hon. Friend says in a much wider field—surely the more powerful argument the stronger the case to go before the Court. It is the Court which should decide these matters. The judgment would be in the public interest. My hon. Friend said that he was anxious about what the outcome would be. It would be quite improper for me to make any suggestion about the outcome of a case which has still to go before the Court. He will appreciate that, and he will appreciate that it would be quite wrong for me to try to suggest particular items.
  If my hon. Friend suggests that he is anxious that it might not succeed, it is really being suggested that the Court would decide that it was not in the public interest. Therefore, my right hon. Friend would like it laid down specifically by Parliament. I do not think my hon. Friend, if there was a danger that the Court would say that it was not in the public interest, would want it laid down by Parliament as a separate item. I know that is not the point of view he is trying to advance.
  The other thing on which I agree with the hon. Member for Hillsborough is that the Court has flexibility. Once the item is dealt with here in the Bill, it is in the legislation until we get another change of legislation. On the other hand, by the provisions in the Bill there is flexibility for the Court, because either way it can be reviewed again under the criteria and in the public interest, and the Bill makes special provision for the cost of such cases.
  Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that the strength of the arguments is that all the cases should be placed before the Court and that the Court should judge on the criteria presented. I hope that my hon. Friend would not feel that these products ought to be taken out of the scope of the
  386
  Court or put above the Court, for the reason that I believe that the element of fairness to all products is of the utmost importance.
  We have heard, quite rightly, great emphasis laid on the aspects of safety and the quality of service required. Other traders—for instance, in electrical goods, the servicing of electrical goods, in motor cars and such items—feel equally strongly that these aspects are of the utmost importance to their trades. They will have to go before the Court if they wish to do so. They are not being decided here tonight. They have not even been put forward.
  Therefore, as an element of fairness, I hope that my hon. Friends will agree that we should allow each of these the same opportunity to go before the Court and for the matter to be decided by it and not be decided independently on such information as we have had today and be put into legislation as a permanent feature. How can we commend the Court to other trades and tell them, "It is here that you will receive a fair understanding of all the information put before it", if I have answered my hon. Friend, "But of course we will take this group of goods separately and put them in the Bill", because my hon. Friend has suggested that he is unhappy about putting them before the Court?
  Therefore, in this very important item, bearing in mind the aspect of fairness to all, commending the Court and giving confidence to all others concerned about the Bill, I submit that we should not make exemptions to it, but should leave the matter to be dealt with under the procedure in Clause 5.
  Sir H. Linstead: I must apologise to the Committee at the end of a long debate if I say a very few words about the kindness of my right hon. Friend in going into so moth detail. [Laughter.] It may be regarded with amusement by hon. Members opposite. I regarded it as particularly courteous on his part. I thought that the very least I could do was to make one or two comments, which I will now do extremely rapidly.
  When I spoke on the last Amendment I was standing on the wrong foot, but this time I am operating in a field with which I am extremely familiar. I take the four paints that my right hon. Friend first made in criticism of the economic

  387
  case made on behalf of pharmacists. He said, first, that they had the sale of medicines in Part I of the Poisons List. He will, I know, accept it from me that those are a burden and not a profit and that the great majority of them are sold on prescription and are not subject to resale price maintenance. My right hon. Friend then referred to the provisions in the Pharmacy Act relating to substances recommended as a medicine. These are substances which can be sold freely and are controlled in the Pharmacy Act only for labelling purposes. He then said—and here I accept entirely his point—that there was voluntary limitation by manufacturers in many cases. He said that legislation was likely to be coming which would greatly assist in the economic difficulties that we have heard about. The trouble with legislation is that we do not know when it is coming and we do not know what the content of that legislation will be.
  Then, when he dealt with the discussions on remuneration under the National Health Service, my right hon. Friend said—and I accept this—that the desire of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health was to ensure a fair return and a rational basis of calculation. But a rational basis of calculation can only operate in the light of experience, and that means that two or three years have got to pass before that experience can be worked into a rational basis of remuneration.
  I recognise that my right hon. Friend has been extremely courteous and detailed in his reply, but the impression that it made on me was that he was saying that all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds. If that is so, it cannot explain away, with great respect to him, the intense feeling in the pharmaceutical world about this situation. If everything is for the best, and if the likelihood of being able to meet losses is obvious by the various means that he has suggested, I cannot explain, nor can any members of the Pharmaceutical Council, why there is this burning indignation about the situation at present.
  Sir D. Glover: I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend, but he is the expert in the Committee on this pharmaceutical problem. I do not
  388
  think there is anybody on either side of the Committee who has not got a great deal of sympathy for the pharmacists. But if their case is so overwhelmingly strong, are they not almost certain to get what they require through the Restrictive Practices Court?
  Sir H. Linstead: That, I admit immediately, is the strongest part of my right hon. Friend's argument. The only answer I can give to that is that neither he nor anyone else can clearly indicate how the Restrictive Practices Court is going to operate or on what principles its decisions are going to be based.
  The final point is that owing to the procedure of this House it is not possible to take a vote on Amendment No. 17—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, it is."] If I may finish my sentence, I was about to say that it is not possible to take a vote on Amendment No. 17 at this moment. It can only be taken when the Committee has discussed Amendments 10, 11, 12, 13, 15 and 16. In other words, there will be a long gap—nobody except those who wish to speak know how long that gap will be—
  Mr. Thomas Steele: On a point of order, Sir William. The hon. Gentleman has made a point here, but surely we have been here all day, the Chamber is full, and hon. Members are seized of the arguments. We have had the discussion on all these Amendments. Surely it would be for the convenience of the Committee not to take the discussions on the other matters but to take the votes on the Amendments which we have just discussed.
  The Chairman (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): It would be outwith the powers of the Chair.
  Sir H. Linstead: I have nearly finished. What I think it is necessary for me to do before the Question is put on Amendment No. 17 is to take advantage of this gap to consult some of my hon. Friends who have put their names to this Amendment, and then we shall decide what action we shall take when the Question is put. But I am bound to say to the Committee that at the moment my personal feeling is that this is an Amendment upon which a Division should take place.
  Amendment negatived.
  10.30 p.m.
  Mr. Jay: I beg to move, in page 2, line 20, at the end to insert:
  (3) Where a supplier enters into an agreement with a dealer whereby he purports to retain ownership in goods up to the date of delivery to a consumer and his normal practice at the date of the agreement or previously thereto is or has been to supply similar classes of goods to a dealer or dealers for sale, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the object of the agreement is to circumvent the provisions of this section and the agreement shall be void.
  I very much regret the necessity to move this Amendment at this stage before we come to a decision on Amendment No. 17—the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead). This is due to a procedure which we did not welcome but which in the circumstances now we have to accept, but I shall be very brief, because the Committee wishes to come to a decision soon on Amendment No. 17.
  The purpose of my Amendment is to remove from the Bill a possible loophole which would enable the suppliers to evade its provisions by retaining legal ownership of their goods till the goods pass into the hands of the final consumer. This is not, I think, an imaginary danger. As the right hon. Gentleman will probably know, during the controversy over Purchase Tax losses on retailers' stocks certain trades did arrange, in order to avoid losses as a result of Purchase Tax reductions, that the goods concerned should remain in the ownership of the manufacturers till the final sale to the retailer took place. It has emerged from the debate today that some of the most important reductions in prices which might follow the abolition of resale price maintenance would be in trades like those in electrical goods and motor cars. I should have thought that it would not be very difficult for the motor car manufacturers, for instance, so to arrange things that the cars remained in the ownership of the manufacturers till the final sale to the consumer. If that were done, of course the whole of this Bill would be evaded: there would be no resale at all, and the Bill would not bite.
  I think it would be rather a curious conclusion to the elaborate discussions we have had and to the complicated procedures of this Bill if some of the main trades concerned were able to evade the
  390
  whole of its provisions by this rather simple device. The Amendment appeared to us to be the simplest common-sense method of preventing this from happening. We should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman thinks this would be effective. If he does not think this would be effective we should like to know if he has an alternative, and failing that, how he thinks this loophole in the Bill can be filled up.
  Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: This seems to me to be an extremely bad Amendment. I say that because I am opposed to the Bill anyway. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will realise that it is no good his subsequently refusing to accept responsibility for the Bill if he endeavours to make an Amendment of this nature which in fact renders the Bill in many ways much more effective than it would otherwise be.
  Mr. Heath: The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) has raised an interesting point, and has brought to our notice what he believes to be a means of circumventing the operation of the Bill. He says that the retailer would become merely an agent of the supplier and the supplier would remain free to fix the retail prices because the goods would actually be sold to the customer on behalf of the supplier, and not sold to the retailer and resold by him to the customer.
  Let me assure the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee that no one is more concerned than I to prevent the Bill, when it becomes law, from being circumvented. The implementation of what the right hon. Gentleman suggests, however, would in a very large number of cases mean the complete reorganisation of the distributive system. With some goods this would be particularly difficult to do and, indeed, would not be worth while doing. On the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman has suggested a particular type of article—perhaps the larger and more valuable articles—in regard to which it might be possible to rearrange the distributive system in the way he suggests.
  I should first like to clear up the question of the agency agreement, which has been raised by my hon. Friend the

  391
  Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) who, I know, has a particular interest in it. The Amendment deals with one type of agency agreement. Strictly speaking, an agency agreement is one under which a supplier appoints someone to sell goods on his behalf, and that is the type with which the Amendment seeks to deal. The supplier remains the legal owner, and the dealer does not buy the goods at all.
  Very often we loosely term an agency agreement something that does not involve an agency in the legal sense in which the right hon. Gentleman uses that word in his Amendment. In this sort of agreement the supplier sells the goods to the dealer, so that they cease to be the property of the supplier. I think the arrangement is more properly known as a franchise agreement, in which the right to sell the goods is given to a particular dealer and is of value to him. This in many respects particularly affects the small shopkeeper. What the Amendment deals with is not the franchise agreement, but the legal agency arrangement.
  What the right hon. Gentleman has said is of importance. On the other hand, it will be difficult to get an Amendment so drafted as really to deal with the point of evasion. The right hon. Gentleman's wording would mean that immediately a supplier changed his means of distribution he would have to justify it, and it could affect existing and perfectly genuine agency agreements. We have no desire to affect the perfectly genuine existing agency agreement, and we do not want to prevent genuine agreements being entered into in future. What we do want is to deal with those that may be a means of circumventing the Measure, and thereby evading the resale price maintenance provisions.
  I believe that the wording of the Amendment goes too far; it would deal with genuine agreements now existing and those that might be created. I would, therefore, like to look at the matter between now and the Bill's next stage to see whether it is possible to draft wording that would prevent circumvention but would, at the same time, not touch genuine existing arrangements and those that might be created. Therefore, if the right hon. Gentleman's hon.
  392
  Friends the Members for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) and Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) will permit him to withdraw the Amendment. I will undertake to see whether we can do something on our side.
  Sir D. Glover: As there is a good deal of doubt on the subject, would my right hon. Friend bring in a Clause making it quite clear that the agency arrangement, the franchise agreement, and so on, of which we have talked for some time, are not affected by the Bill? The trouble is that when the Bill as now drafted is read by many retailers they get no reassurance that their present system of distribution will be allowed to continue. By the wording of the Bill, the Restrictive Practices Court will have to deal with this problem, and its terms of reference would be much more closely defined if complete freedom in regard to dealer arrangements, franchising and manufacturers restricting their product to one outlet or perhaps two outlets in a town, were clearly written into the Bill and not left to be dealt with by the Restrictive Practices Court.
  Mr. Heath: I hope that I have made the position about the franchise and the agencies plain in the statement which I have just made. I will consider what my hon. Friend has said at the same time as I am considering the point raised by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North. I could not give my hon. Friend a clear undertaking on exactly what we shall put down by way of definition but I will consider it when we are drafting on the point already raised.
  Mr. M. Foot: The Minister made an appeal to me whether I would be willing to permit the withdrawal of the Amendment. I cannot answer for my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) but I can answer for myself. I think that the Minister certainly deserves the prize for his persuasive effort on the last Amendment and therefore I am very happy to fall in with his request.
  At the beginning of the discussions I made some strictures on the way in which the right hon. Gentleman had dealt with the Bill and I still think that the way in which we are dealing with the Amendments is absolutely cockeyed.

  393
  We should have had a vote on Amendment No. 17 and the Minister could have helped us out of this situation at the beginning, but nobody could possibly quarrel with the extreme courtesy with which the right hon. Gentleman dealt with the whole of the last debate and therefore as a prize for good conduct I am prepared on this occasion to withdraw my name from the Amendment.
  Mr. Jay: I am delighted that the Minister at last has accepted something. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. A. J. Irvine: I beg to move Amendment in page 2, line 25, to leave out from the beginning to "a" in line 26 and to insert:
  "Subject to the provisions of subsection 1(c) of this section it shall be lawful for".
  The Chairman: It will be possible to discuss also Amendments Nos. 12 and 13, in line 27, leave out "from notifying" and insert "to notify"; and line 28, leave out "publishing" and insert "to publish".
  Mr. Irvine: The Amendment raises a small point but we think one of importance. The Bill as drawn provides that it is unlawful to notify to dealers a price stated or calculated to be understood as a minimum price, but subsection (4) provides that it is lawful to recommend a price as appropriate for resale. This to our minds creates an obvious difficulty of some importance in considering the operation of the Bill, because in our view a price calculated to be understood as a minimum price may seem to be or to have the character of being a recommended price and vice-versa. In other words, there is quite a possibility in our view, as the Bill is drafted, of an overlap between the recommended price on the one hand and the price stated or calculated to be understood as the minimum price on the other.
  The intention, and I think the effect, of our Amendment is to make clear beyond doubt that if in a particular case there is a recommended price, perhaps expressed to be a recommended price, it is not for that reason lawful to notify it to the dealer if it is on the evidence a price calculated to be understood as a
  394
  recommended price. We think it better to be explicit in the matter. We think the existing wording to be of the kind of wording which has led to difficulties in the Restrictive Practices Court when it has recently considered the effect of information agreements.
  10.45 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Edward du Cann): Again, we are grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) for the care with which, obviously, he has looked at the Clause. As he said, this is an important point.
  The purpose of the first Amendment is to make clear that Clause 1(4), in permitting suppliers to recommend prices, does not override Clause 1 (1,c), which makes it unlawful to publish or notify a price
  "calculated to be understood as"
  a minimum price. I agree that this is a point which needs examining with some care. If there were that result, it would be disastrous to the effect of the whole Clause.
  I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman and the Committee that both since we saw the Amendment on the Notice Paper and before then we have looked into the matter with care. I have taken particular advice on it. I am advised that Clause 1(4) cannot be construed to produce the effect which the hon. and learned Gentleman envisaged. Subsection (4) has been inserted only to make it abundantly clear that the Clause does not affect recommended prices. Any price stated as or calculated to be understood as a minimum price is not a recommended price, and Clause 1(4), therefore has no bearing on it.
  If I thought that there was the slightest shred of doubt about it, I should be willing at once to recommend the Committee to accept the Amendment. I am entirely satisfied that there is no such doubt. I hope that, with that explanation, the hon. and learned Gentleman will be reassured and will be willing to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. W. Clark: I beg to move, in page 2, line 29, at the end to add:
  (5) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to goods where the retail price is less than sixpence.

  395
  We have been told throughout our debates both on Second Reading and in Committee that it is essential for this country to be competitive if we are to maintain our position abroad, and so forth. My reason for putting down the Amendment is that I cannot think that the country's economy depends on goods which cost 6d. or less. It may be that the Minister will say in reply that this is a device to get another exemption. I fully agree; it is a device, and in this instance I feel that there is some hope of sympathy for the exemption which I seek to secure since it was not embraced by Amendment No. 7, under which, presumably, all the other exemptions were linked together.
  I am concerned particularly about the newsagency business. It would be disastrous if there were cut prices in newspapers. In view of the time, I shall not develop the argument in detail. Many other hon. Members have made it already. To my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Proudfoot), who said earlier that newsagents are worried about sale or return, I can only reply, with respect, that this Bill has nothing whatever to do with the sale or return of newspapers. What newsagents are worried about is whether they will be able to continue to maintain their prices on newspapers, without anybody cutting prices.
  There could be an argument that acceptance of the Amendment would lead to a reduction of prices. There is one Sunday newspaper which sells at 7d., and it may be that the proprietors of that newspaper would reduce the price in order to avoid the implications of the Bill.
  I do not want to elaborate the point. I hope that I have shown that this, though a small matter, could be important, it might reduce prices, and it would help the newspaper industry—in which I have no interest whatever save as a reader of the papers. I hope that, as this exemption has been taken out of the context of all other exemptions, the Minister will give a sympathetic reply.
  Mr. du Cann: I have made common cause with my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. W. Clark) on many occasions, particularly during Finance Bill periods. I only regret that
  396
  tonight I shall part company from him, and part company clearly and directly, but, I hope he and the Committee may think, for good reason.
  The Amendment is, to quote my hon. Friend's words, a device to obtain exemption. Perhaps, therefore, it is appropriate first to examine its purpose. It would permit suppliers to make and enforce at law conditions relating to minimum resale prices of goods by selling by retail at less than 6d., or, to put into better words my hon. Friend's crude language about a device, suppliers would be free to impose prices of less than 6d. I do not doubt that the intention is to remove such goods entirely from the scope of the Bill.
  There is, first, a technical objection. In itself, the Amendment would not have that effect, since under Clause 2 it would remain unlawful for suppliers of these goods to enforce their resale prices by withholding supplies. It may be that my hon. Friend intended to put down a later Amendment, but this Amendment of itself would not achieve what my hon. Friend sets out to achieve.
  Be that as it may, there are two main reasons for objecting to the Amendment which I will shortly rehearse. The first is the practical objection. The Amendment would cover daily newspapers, obviously the cheaper lines of confectionery and, perhaps, other goods, but it would not apply consistently to these classes of goods. It would, for example, remain unlawful to make minimum price conditions on the more expensive Sunday newspapers. My hon. Friend suggested that prices might come down. I am not so sure. If they did not, it hardly seems right that the dailies should be all right, so to speak, that is to say, their price would be protected, whereas that of the Sunday newspapers would not.
  In the case of goods sold by quantity—for example, sweets—a supplier could, under the Amendment, prescribe a price for, say, 2 oz. of sweets but not for 4 oz. Retailers would be free to sell the large quantity more cheaply than the smaller. To paraphrase, therefore, one could say that gobstoppers are out but that expensive chocolates for film stars are in. That cannot be what my hon. Friend intended.
  In general, any goods with a recommended price of 6d. might be sold for

  397
  less than goods with a prescribed price of 5d. Again, I am sure that that is not what my hon. Friend truly intended. To develop his point still further, one is forced to the conclusion that the Amendment would lend itself in many cases to evasion. One can imagine cigarettes being sold separately, and all the rest.
  The second objection, which is one of principle, is, however, the more important of the two. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State expressed so clearly during his excellent speech on the series of Amendments which we debated for nearly the whole of today, the Government are of opinion that it would be wrong to exempt any goods from the whole or part of the Bill. We believe, as we have said clearly, that the right course is to treat all trades alike under the exemption procedures in Clause 5. That being so, I hope that my hon. Friend, whose views I ordinarily respect, will agree that he is, possibly, pulling my leg, or that of the Committee, with the Amendment and that he will see fit to withdraw it.
  Sir D. Glover: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend the Minister has said. In trading, as Mr. Woolworth found 60 or 70 years ago, it is easier to make a large profit on things under 6d. than on things costing £100. Everybody who has had experience knows that, when one is dealing with substantial sums, people are very anxious and careful in investigating prices but that, if one is dealing with something of small monetary value, they will buy and sell without consideration of that aspect. The Amendment would mean that many items that could be sold for even half the price they are now sold at under r.p.m. could be maintained at the present price. It is a thoroughly bad Amendment. I do not know whether my hon. Friend intends to press it but if he does, then, for the first time on this Bill, I shall go into the Lobby with enthusiasm.
  Mr. W. Clark: I would not desire to part company like that from my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover). I was seized of the argument put by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State earlier, when this Amendment should really have arisen, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Hirst: I beg to move, in page 2, line 29, at end to add:
  (5) For the purposes of section 1(1)(c) a price published on or in relation to any goods shall in the absence of any wording to the contrary be deemed to be a recommended price.
  This is not a very substantial point. If my hon. Friend the Minister of State advises me that it is not necessary, then I shall be satisfied. The Bill would make it unlawful to lay down, print or in any way convey a minimum price but there is, I am advised, the possibility of some difficulty in carrying this out in instances where it is perfectly proper to recommend a price, which is not in any way a minimum price but where it will help if a price is recommended.
  In these instances, if a price is not recommended, people will not know how much they are recommended to charge. In many cases there is already no r.p.m. A commercial traveller is often asked what the price should be. Guidance is given and this becomes the recommended price. But if the retailer wants to cut that price, then that is his business, since no r.p.m. is involved, only a recommendation.
  There is, however, some question that it might be unlawful under the Bill as it stands to print a price on goods as a recommendation even if it is in no way intended to be a maintained price. The point is simple and I need not labour it further.
  Mr. du Cann: My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) is as modest as the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) when he says that this is a small point. It is nevertheless important. He asks whether people will be able to mark their goods and in what circumstances. I make no complaint that he has been good enough to draw the matter to our attention.
  The object of the Amendment, as he explained, is simply to make it clear that suppliers will still be able to mark their goods by marking, for example, "Price 6d." or whatever it may be, on the container. Such a price marked on the goods in this way would not of itself be calculated, under the Bill, to be understood as the minimum resale price but would be understood to be a recommended price and the marking would, therefore, not be prohibited.

  399
  Perhaps I can put it in another way, even clearer. There is no reason why a price should not be printed on goods. It will be understood to be the recommended price unless the contrary is made clear either on the goods or in some other way—as, for example, in the case of a price list.
  I give a complete assurance that the Amendment is unnecessary. People will still be able to mark their goods in the way my hon. Friend supposes and that is entirely right. I hope that he will therefore withdraw the Amendment.
  Mr. Hirst: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I accept his assurance. As
  he said, this is a small point but is important. His assurance will be very well received. It is very acceptable. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed: In page 2, line 29, at end add:
  (5) This section shall not apply to any drug, or any substance recommended as medicine, or any medical or surgical appliance.—[Sir H. Linstead.]
  Question put, That those words be there added:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 203, Noes 204.

  Division No. 53.

  AYES

  [11.0 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  McBride, N.

  Ainsley, William

  Forman, J. C.

  McCann, John

  Albu, Austen

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  MacColl, James

  Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  McInnes, James

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Gammans, Lady

  McMaster, Stanley R.

  Barlow, Sir John

  George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)

  MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

  Barnett, Guy

  Ginsburg, David

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  MagInnis, John E.

  Beaney, Alan

  Gourlay, Harry

  Manuel, Archie

  Bence, Cyril

  Greenwood, Anthony

  Mapp, Charles

  Benn, Anthony Wedgwood

  Grey, Charles

  Marsh, Richard

  Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  Millan, Bruce

  Blackburn, F.

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  Milne, Edward

  Blyton, William

  Hannan, William

  Mitchison, G. R.

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

  Harper, Joseph

  Monslow, Walter

  Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  Morris, Charles (Openshaw)

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Hayman, F. H.

  Morris, John (Aberavon)

  Bradley, Tom

  Herbison, Miss Margaret

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Hiley, Joseph

  Neal, Harold

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Hill, J. (Midlothian)

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

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Hilton, A. V.

  Oliver, G. H.

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Holman, Percy

  O'Malley, B. K.

  Callaghan, James

  Hooson, H. E.

  Oram, A. E.

  Carmichael, Neil

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

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Castle, Mrs. Barbara

  Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Cliffe, Michael

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Owen, Will

  Cole, Norman

  Howie, W.

  Padley, W. E.

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Hoy, James H.

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Paget, R. T.

  Cordle, John

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Parker, John

  Craddock, George (Bradford, s.)

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Crosland, Anthony

  Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

  Peart, Frederick

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Pentland, Norman

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

  Prentice, R. E.

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

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

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Jennings, J. C.

  Price, J. T. (westhoughton)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Probert, Arthur

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Dempsey, James

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Redhead, E. C.

  Diamond, John

  Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Dodds, Norman

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Doig, Peter

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Driberg, Tom

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

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

  Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)

  Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

  Lawson, George

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

  Evans, Albert

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Ross, William

  Fell, Anthony

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Silkin, John

  Fernyhough, E.

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Finch, Harold

  Laughlin, Charles

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  Fitch, Alan

  Lubbock, Eric

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Foley, Maurice

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Small, William

  Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

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

  Willey, Frederick

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Thornton, Ernest

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Steele, Thomas

  Tomney, Frank

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

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Wainwright, Edwin

  winterbottom, R. E.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Wall, Patrick

  Wise, A. R.

  Stones, William

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

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

  Watkins, Tudor

  Woof, Robert

  Swingler, Stephen

  Weitzman, David

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Symonds, J. B.

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Teeling, Sir William

  Whitlock, William

  Mr. Hirst and Sir Hugh Linstead.

  Thomas, forwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Wigg, George

  NOES

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Gibson-Watt, David

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Allason, James

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)

  Morrison, John

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael

  Ashton, Sir Hubert

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

  Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

  Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)

  Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Barber, Rt. Hon. Anthony

  Goodhart, Philip

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Barter, John

  Gower, Raymond

  Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

  Batsford, Brian

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Partridge, E.

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

  Green, Alan

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

  Biffen, John

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Peel, John

  Bingham, R. M.

  Grosvenor, Lord Robert

  Percival, Ian

  Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Peyton, John

  Bishop, Sir Patrick

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  Pitt, Dame Edith

  Bossom, Hon. Clive

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Pounder, Rafton

  Bourne-Arton, A.

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

  Box, Donald

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

  Hay, John

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Braine, Bernard

  Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Brewis, John

  Hendry, Forbes

  Ramsden, Rt. Hon. James

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

  Hobson, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. Sir Peter

  Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hocking, Philip N.

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  Hogg, Rt. Hon. Quintin

  Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)

  Bryan, Paul

  Hoiland, Philip

  Renton, Rt. Hon. David

  Buck, Antony

  Hopkins, Alan

  Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Hornby, R. P.

  Ridsdale Julian

  Campbell, Gordon

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

  Rippon, Rt. Hon. Geoffrey

  Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

  Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert (Mitcham)

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool, S.)

  Chataway, Christopher

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Roots, William

  Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

  James, David

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Cooke, Robert

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan

  Cooper, A. E.

  Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Corfield, F. V.

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Sharples, Richard

  Costain, A. P.

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Shaw, M.

  Coulson, Michael

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Shepherd, William

  Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

  Kirk, Peter

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Crowder, F. P.

  Kitson, Timothy

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

  Curran, Charles

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Speir, Rupert

  Dance, James

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Stanley, Hon. Richard

  Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  de Ferranti, Basil

  Lilley, F. J. P.

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Litchfield, Capt. John

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

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Doughty, Charles

  Longbottom, Charles

  Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)

  Drayson, G. B.

  Longden, Gilbert

  Thomas, Peter (Conway)

  du Cann, Edward

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Thompson, Sir Ricthard (Croydon, S.)

  Duncan, Sir James

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

  Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter

  Eden, Sir John

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  MacArthur, Ian

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

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

  McLaren, Martin

  Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

  Emery, Peter

  McLean, Nell (Inverness)

  Turner, Colln

  Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

  Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Madden, Martin

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Farr, John

  Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Finlay, Graeme

  Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Fisher, Nigel

  Maudling Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Mawby, Ray

  Walder, David

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

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

  Walker, Peter

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Mills, Stratton

  Webster, David

  Freeth, Denzil

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Whitelaw, William

  402

  403

  Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Woodhouse, C. M.

  Mr. Chichester-Clark and

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Worsley, Marcus

  Mr. J. E. B. Hill.

  Mr. George Brown: I beg to move,
  That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
  It must be apparent, not least to the Minister, that at this point the Committee has a total disregard for the Bill which the Minister is trying to foist upon it. The Government have a nominal majority of considerably over a hundred—my right hon. Friend the Chief Opposition Whip reminds me that there are seven by-elections pending and that the majority is therefore a hundred—but on a Bill of considerable importance to the nation they have carried their view on an important Amendment by a majority of only one. It is therefore clear that the Government are not in command, not only of the Committee but even of their own side of it. Surely in such a situation such a point of view should not be enforced upon the country by that derisory majority, that accidental majority, of one.
  In such a situation it must clearly be the proper thing for the Government to take time to consider their future course of conduct. They must consider whether they should persist in trying to force the Bill through against such an obvious feeling, whether they should rely on the accident of one Division or another, one giving them a majority of one, another perhaps refusing them a majority by one. I submit that they are not in a position to conduct the Bill until they have cleared up their differences with their colleagues on their own side of the Committee.
  In modern times there cannot have been a Bill which was urged upon the nation in such ringing terms as this—a Bill to which the Treasury Bench, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State attach such importance, for they have said that it is essential to the nation that the Bill be passed. The Government have pinned their faith, their reputation and their standing to the Bill which has been so ignominiously rejected by almost half the Committee.
  When hon. Members opposite consider that less than one-third of the Committee voted for the Government's point of view on the Measure, I submit to you
  404
  Sir Robert, and, through you, to the Government, that the obvious step for them to take now is to agree that we should report Progress; that they should consider their position during the night and, I should have thought, take this Bill away—and, more than that, take themselves away, since quite clearly they no longer have any authority at all.
  11.15 p.m.
  Sir D. Glover: On the Motion to report Progress the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) has made very disparaging remarks about the Government. In the recent Division I went into the Lobby with the Government, but I believe that what happened in that Division was a triumph for the House of Commons, and the Government need not be ashamed of what took place. For years the great cry in the nation has been that the House of Commons did not use its influence. Here we have had a crystal-clear decision, with everybody having made up his mind after having listened to the debate. Despite what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I believe that the status of the House of Commons and of the Tory Party will go up in the country.
  It ill becomes the right hon. Gentleman, in a changing Britain, to say what he has said. He seems to be very confident that before long he, too, will be defeated in the Committee stage of a Bill. The risk of that happening, however, is a very small one, as far as the nation is concerned.
  What we have done tonight has done the House of Commons a great deal of good. We are discussing a controversial Bill which, on balance, is for the good of the nation, and I think that we should make further progress before the Motion is accepted.
  Mr. Heath: The right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) has unfortunately not had the opportunity of being with us during our discussions for the whole of the day. Therefore, he cannot have known the importance of the discussion which has taken place, nor the immense interest which many hon. Members on both sides of the

  405
  Committee have taken in the point at issue. All that the right hon. Gentleman has done is to start playing party politics at this late hour. The fact is that after a long and interesting debate the Committee has reached a decision on a very important point, and that decision ought to be respected. It is a decision which reflects the views expressed and it has settled a very important point. We have, therefore, made progress in the debate during the day.
  There have been other occasions on the Committee stage of Bills—important ones too—on which Amendments have been rejected by narrow majorities and Government Amendments have been passed by narrow majorities. I remember when my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) was Prime Minister and we had a majority of three my right hon. Friend then said to me, "In fact in the House of Commons one is enough". One has settled this Amendment tonight. I suggest that the course for the Committee now is to continue to make further progress.
  Mr. S. Silverman: The Committee ought not to part with this Motion without noting a rather extraordinary situation.
  Here we have a Bill, important as my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) said, which was dissented from from the first by a large number of right hon. and hon. Members opposite. They put down dozens of Amendments—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State stood up to them and made speeches which quite clearly were making no concession of any kind and they ran away. Now what has happened? The right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]—
  The Deputy-Chairman: Order. I hope that the Committee will at least allow the Chair to hear what the hon. Member is saying.
  Mr. Silverman: The right hon. Gentleman made the most persuasive and convincing speech he has made so far in the course of the Committee proceedings. He almost persuaded me. It was a powerful speech. It was delivered courteously, persuasively and, from his point of view, I should have thought
  406
  it was a completely devastating and convincing speech. What has happened as a result of this great persuasive and convincing speech? The rebels, who would not stand up to points which were of great importance, rejected the right hon. Gentleman when from their point of view he was probably right, having submitted to him when from their point of view he was obviously wrong.
  The result is that the Government are left in a humiliating situation. We knew that they did not represent the country. We knew that their mandate and author ty were exhausted, but we did not know until tonight how low their authority had sunk with their own members and the Conservative Party. The right hon. Gentleman does not command any loyalty or support behind him. If he can make a speech of the character he made on a comparatively minor Amendment and carry the Committee with him by a majority of one vote in more than 400, he must recognise that the Government's authority on the benches behind him has sunk to a lower ebb than I can remember any occasion of precedent.
  It is not now a question of reporting Progress and asking leave to sit again; it is a question of reporting no Progress and not sitting again at all. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that the only decent thing for himself and his Government and party to do is to pack up and give the electorate the opportunity of electing a Government in which they have confidence, which will have authority and will be really able to govern.
  Major Sir Frank Markham: It is very difficult to speak with wisdom at a moment like this. I believe that this Bill is dead. I draw the attention of the Treasury Bench particularly to the fact that many of us who tonight wanted to vote for this Amendment have abstained out of loyalty to the Government. Many on these benches have actually voted with the Government out of a loyalty even greater than ours. But this Bill is dead, and if the Front Bench will not recognise that, they will go on to defeat by their own Members and by the Opposition.
  Mr. Richard Marsh: I think that both sides of the Committee will have been fascinated by what has

  407
  happened within the last few moments—indeed, not only fascinated by it, but rather worried by the Gaullist obstinacy of the right hon. Gentleman who refuses point blank to recognise that he is pushing through a highly controversial Measure which does not have the support of either side of the Committee or, indeed, of both sides of the Committee together.
  Both sides of the Committee have to recognise that a number of hon. Members opposite who voted with the Opposition on this occasion did so because their motives were beyond reproach. I think one has to say this. Hon. Members on either side do not vote against their party on a major issue of this type unless they feel very strongly indeed about it. I think that both sides of the Committee can feel some security in the fact that there are hon. Members opposite who are prepared to stand by views which they have enunciated in their constituencies and in this House, and which they hold very strongly.
  But the point which has emerged—and it was obvious to all who took part in the Division—is, as the hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham (Sir F. Markham) has said, that had it not been for the instinctive party loyalties of some hon. Members opposite, the Amendment would have been supported overwhelmingly.
  In those circumstances, I submit that it is quite wrong and undemocratic that any Minister should take what is obviously purely a theoretical majority and proceed to argue this point. I hope that the Committee will not give the right hon. Gentleman the opportunity to pursue this any further.
  Hon. MembersVote.
  Mr. G. Brown: May I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his position? Without overdoing it, it must be clear to him that, as things stand at the moment, he lacks the necessary support to drive this Bill through. The remark that "one is enough" may be a debating point, but it is not the basis on which we do our business in a democratic country. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that Mr. Chamberlain had a majority far larger than that, but it was not enough for him to be able to
  408
  go on. To try to push this Bill through with an abstention on his own side far larger even than happened in the debate which brought down the Chamberlain Government surely robs him of any claim tonight to have authority for anything that he does.
  The right hon. Gentleman will lose nothing; his own stature will grow, and the opportunities in his party for reconsideration and for regroupment will be greater if he recognises what has happened. With a majority of the size that he started with behind him, to have got down to a nominal majority of one is, in effect, a defeat, and a defeat on this Bill is, in effect, a vote of censure. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] A Government defeated on a Bill of this importance, even in Committee—with a majority of that size behind it—has, in fact, forfeited the support of the majority of the Committee.
  11.30 p.m.
  I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to force this issue to a Division but, in fact, to do what will cost him, and his Government, nothing at all—that is, to accept the Motion. Let us finish at this stage tonight and consider the situation thereafter—[Interruption.]—Very well, if hon. Members opposite want him to refuse our request, then the Motion must be divided upon. We must take the other Amendments awaiting consideration, but the Minister must then understand that the atmosphere, faced as he will be with a Government which has nothing approaching a majority, must be very different from what it was before.
  The right hon. Gentleman is no longer governing. He is now merely existing, and that fact will change the whole atmosphere in this Committee. Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman that he and I have both been here for a long time, and that he has spent a considerable period in the office of Patronage Secretary. He must, therefore, know what the result of a vote of this kind must be in terms of Parliamentary procedure and I ask him to accept the Motion which I have presented. If he refuses to do so, then there is nothing left but for the Committee to divide.
  Dame Irene Ward: I hope that the Minister will not accept the Motion. I was one of those people who voted

  409
  against the Government, but I voted for the Amendment because I believe in Parliamentary democracy and in the Amendment. I rise now because I want to say one thing and it is this. I am very sorry that my right hon. Friend did not ask the Opposition to examine their own record in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has just said that he and my right hon. Friend had been in the House for a long time; but neither have been here so long as I have, and I watched this afternoon's operation with very great interest I listened to all hon. Members of the Opposition who spoke, getting up and supporting the chemists when they had not the guts to come into the Lobby against the Bill on Second Reading.
  I know from my own part of the world that they like hon. Members to support their own views, and I naturally understand that, but I must say that, as I listened to the appeal of the Opposition tonight, I knew exactly what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was going to say. He was going to cash in. Hon. Members opposite are a discredit to Parliamentary democracy.
  Mr. Denis Howell: I spent a lot of time in this Chamber during the closing stages of this debate, and I can say that the hon. Lady the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward) was not in her place—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Where was she?"]—I do not know, but the fact remains that, wherever she was, this is now a constitutional position of some importance—[Interruption]—I thought I heard hon. Members opposite say "Rubbish." They may say "Rubbish" but I would point out that, in addition to those hon. Members who voted with us in our Lobby, there was a considerable number of abstentions among hon. Members of the party opposite. There were abstentions by people, like the hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Hollingworth), who have played a very prominent rôle, particularly in local politics, in arguing against this Bill.
  It so happens that on general principle I support the Bill, but here was a specific matter of considerable importance for the pharmaceutical industry. We had a great argument about this and we heard a passionate speech by the Secretary of State, a speech which lasted almost an hour—50 minutes
  410
  exactly, I am told—trying to convince his hon. Friends that this was a subject of tremendous importance involving a matter of high principle. The question of high principle was whether this sort of matter should be referred to the Restrictive Practices Court, by a legalistic approach, with all the evidence put to the Court and a legal decision reached, or whether, as some of us believe passionately, it should be, as the whole question of medicines and drugs should be, a matter for executive decision [Interruption.] I think the Committee can now be said to have gone the whole hog.
  The point I was making is that the Secretary of State himself portrayed the Amendment in terms of fundamental principle, whether the pharmaceutical industry ought to go to the Court for legal decision, or whether, as the hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) thought, and some of us thought, it was a question for the executive to decide on political grounds. There has in fact been far too ready an insistence on putting matters of such principle to the judiciary because that is a convenient way for the Government to avoid taking decisions. Since the Secretary of State himself portrayed the Amendment as one of fundamental importance, the view and decision of this Committee upon it obviously are of fundamental importance.
  The decision of many of the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends has been to reject the legalistic approach and to say that the Committee of the House should take an executive decision of a political character. The decision having been taken by only one vote, there having been many abstentions on the other side of the Committee, clearly this was a crushing defeat for the Government, and ought to be so recognised by them, at least to the extent of accepting this Motion, and, in the opinion of many of us, by the further logical action entailed, by going to the country upon the whole question of this Bill, because if this Bill is a cardinal point in the Government's economic policy, there can be no confidence in the major part of the Government's policy.
  Mr. Peter Emery: Having sat through all of yesterday's and all of today's debate I think the Amendment and the

  411
  decision on it should be brought into proper perspective. The concept that this was a crushing defeat for the whole of the Bill is complete poppycock, and the sooner the other side of the Committee realises that the better for the progress of the Bill.
  Secondly, it ill behoves some hon. Members opposite to have been giving lectures about the democratic principle involved, because although we have had one or two very strong speeches supporting the Bill I saw not one of those who made them in the Lobby opposing the Amendment. None of them had the guts to do that—
  Mr. Marsh rose—
  Mr. Emery: Sit down—the hon. Member has had his turn—[Interruption.]
  Mr, Marsh: Sir Robert, I only seek your guidance. The hon. Member has made the statement, which is completely untrue, that he sat entirely through the debate, when he spent part of the time with the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) in the—[Interruption.]—
  Mr. Emery rose—
  Mr. Hale: On a point of order, Sir Robert—[Interruption.] Is it not a point of order respectfully to call the attention of the Chair to a libel on an hon. Member by an accusation of falsehood made quite without regard to the subject under the Motion? On a second point of order, may I ask whether we should not have the assistance of the Leader of the House, who was present for the Division but who, because of his known antipathy to the Bill, appears not to have been informed of the result?
  The Deputy-Chairman: That does not raise a point of order for the Chair, neither is it a matter for the Chair whether or no the Leader of the House is present.
  Hon. Members: Loss leader.
  Mr. Emery: If the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) makes an accusation against me—[Interruption.]—perhaps hon. Members opposite will have the good manners to allow me to answer, when I rather hope that the hon. Member will be willing to withdraw the accusation. I spent part of the
  412
  afternoon with him at a television studio—[Interruption.]—Will hon. Members opposite wait a minute? The hon. Member will find that this debate started at 4.50. I drove him back, so he knows this. We came into New Palace Yard just after 4.45. So I hope that he will have the good manners to withdraw his accusation.
  Mr. Marsh rose—
  Hon. Members: Sit down.
  Mr. Jeremy Thorpe rose—
  The Deputy-Chairman: Order. I should like to know to whom the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Peter Emery) gave way.
  Mr. Emery: I gave way to the hon. Member for Greenwich, Sir Robert.
  Mr. Marsh: I am sorry, Sir Robert—I was not sure that I had any constitutional right to give way to the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe).
  The only point I would make—[HON. MEMBERS: "Apologise."] Defeat has made hon. Members opposite very noisy. I travelled here with the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Peter Emery), and both of us arrived in the House, not having been present throughout the whole of the debate. I am not making any accusation against the hon. Member for Reading other than to say that his statement that he had been here throughout the debate was, as I know, or can gather, untrue. The hon. Member may well have—[Interruption.]—they really are a noisy lot. The hon. Member may well have reached—[Interruption.] I am trying very hard, Sir Robert, not to waste the time of the Committee, but hon. Members opposite will keep interrupting.
  11.45 p.m.
  The only point I should like to make, and on which I keep getting interrupted, is of no particular importance except that the hon. Member for Reading made it and with great courtesy invited me to comment on it. Neither of us was here throughout the earlier part of the debate. Whilst this is purely a point in passing, I am saying that I was primarily concerned with a period less concerned with the Amendment, and a debate which took

  413
  place prior to the debate on an Amendment which we voted on and which resulted in the Government getting an extraordinary result—
  The Deputy-Chairman: Order. The hon. Member is not in possession of the Floor. The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Peter Emery) has the Floor and he gave way to the hon. Member when the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) was being asked to apologise. It is an abuse of our procedure to seek to make a speech by way of interruption.
  Mr. Emery: If the hon. Member for Greenwich has not the good manners to apologise to me we must accept his attitude. Let us realise in the perspective of the whole of this matter that this vote, which is treated as of great importance by many of my hon. Friends, is a matter of one point—[HON. MEMBERS: "One vote."]—in a Committee debate on the whole of a very important and major Bill. The whole concept on the other side of the Committee is that hon. Members opposite think that this casts doubt upon the support of my hon. Friends for the Government. This is why I think that it is important that we should not report Progress. I hope that we can have a decision on this very quickly and I think that the Committee will find from that Division the sort of support that the whole of these benches will give to the Government on this matter.
  If the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) was correct in his assumptions and if my hon. Friends felt as he would like it interpreted, my hon. Friends would take his view and would not wish to proceed with the Bill, in the same way as perhaps they would take the view of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Buckingham (Sir F. Markham) who interjected earlier, but I believe that all my hon. Friends wish to get on with the Bill, and the sooner we do so the better for the whole Committee.
  Mrs. Slater: The more I listen to the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) the more I realise what a great opportunist she appears to be. She cashes in on every possible occasion. As one who sat through most of yesterday's debate and the whole of today's I have heard almost all the arguments. The only point that I wish to
  414
  make is that most of the decisions which have been taken on the important Amendments which we have discussed had been taken already in a place other than this Chamber.
  Sir D. Glover: Rubbish.
  Mrs. Slater: It is not rubbish. The Secretary of State has been doing his best to persuade his right hon. and hon. Friends to support him on this and other Amendments, but the result of the vote has shown that he has not been as successful as he had hoped.
  It should not be forgotten that Ministers, Parliamentary Secretaries, Under-Secretaries of State and Parliamentary Private Secretaries have a special loyalty to the Government, and, had it not been for the way they rallied round, the Government might well have not succeeded even in the poor way they did. These people made it possible for the Government to have their one-vote victory.
  The right hon. Gentleman did his very best to persuade the Committee that the Amendment to exclude drugs and medicines from the effect of the Bill should not be accepted. He failed to do so, and he should now accept the Motion which my right hon. Friend has moved.
  Mr. Hirst: There may be a perfectly good case for arguing at some stage that the Chairman should report Progress and ask leave to sit again, but I feel that the Committee is entitled to know what progress it proposes to make. Quite frankly, I think that it would be quite unreasonable, in spite of the Motion which has been moved, that the Government should not have the Motion, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill." However, I wish to say a few words now, Sir Robert, following a point of order which I raised last night and which was very ably and kindly answered by the Chairman of Ways and Means earlier today. It is a point of substance which both sides of the Committee recognise as such.
  If we take progress beyond Clause 1, we enter a field in which quite a number of Amendments might be affected by the material Amendments made yesterday. After all that has been said, and in the general atmosphere of the Committee, I trust that it will be thought

  415
  constructive on my part if I say that I am most willing to support the Government if they wish to make progress on the Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," but I should feel that they were lacking in the usual tact and sympathy towards their own back benchers if they went to the extent of proceeding beyond that point.
  Dr. Dickson Mabon: The hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) has referred to the point of order on which the Chairman of Ways and Means ruled earlier today. Some of us were very cerned lest, if we were to make progress with the Bill, we should be discussing manuscript Amendments. No doubt, Sir Robert, you are familiar with, and will follow, the Ruling which has been given, despite protests from many hon. Members. In argument against that Ruling, it was pointed out that many hon. Members did not fully appreciate all the consequences of what we did yesterday, and, moreover, it would be highly inconvenient to discuss Amendments in manuscript form.
  If we are to make progress, I assume that we shall at some stage have to consider manuscript Amendments.
  If our procedure had been different, the hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) might have been in a better position to rally more of his hon. Friends to support him on the Amendment which we have just disposed of. In his short speech after the Secretary of State had replied, the hon. Gentleman made, if I may say, a very gallant effort. Indeed, I did not expect him to stand so formidably by his own Amendment. Some of my hon. Friends had added their names to it with the specific intention of ensuring that the hon. Gentleman did not withdraw it.
  That Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Putney was not just a subject for argument or political manoeuvre. It touched the safety of the nation. Many of the hon. Members who voted for it say the point that, with the Government's intended but inadequate legislation governing drugs, it would be a menace not to incorporate the Amendment in the Bill. This is the point of the charge against the Secretary of State. In his reply to the
  416
  Committee—and to me in particular—the right hon. Gentleman behaved with the utmost courtesy, and I do not deny that he made a good case, albeit a fundamentally bad one from my point of view. But this reinforces the argument that the time has now come to report Progress. It is time now to take stock of why the Government barely succeeded in defeating the Amendment. It is time to take stock and find out which hon. Members abstained, which hon. Members supported the Amendment and which hon. Members ought, perhaps, to have been informed that it would come up at that time.
  When we discussed the group of Amendments, many hon. Members made objection, not only today, but yesterday—and I was among them—because we thought it wrong that that Amendment should be taken with the others of the group. It is interesting that every one of these Amendments, except No. 27, which has not yet been reached, has been withdrawn or not voted upon and that that one Amendment has been the only one on which we have had a vote.
  The significance of that cannot be lost upon the Committee, because it was the only time that the Committee, with all the arguments to and fro, has been faced with the choice of voting on the Bill. The Minister is being unfair in insisting that the Committee must go with the Bill at this stage. He has suffered a moral defeat, and he should concede this.
  Mr. John Biggs-Davison: What the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) has said about the Government suffering a mortal defeat—[HON. MEMBERS: "A moral defeat."] Whether it was a mortal or a moral defeat, it is equally nonsensical.
  Dr. Dickson Mabon: I wish it were mortal.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: I am reminded of what was said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Buckingham (Sir F. Markham), who said that it was difficult to speak wisely at this hour. The hon. Member for Greenock and I were in the same Lobby just now but, unlike the hon. Member, I supported the Government on Second Reading. Unlike the hon. Member, I am anxious that this

  417
  Committee should get back—I say this with respect—to the job that we are supposed to do as a Committee, and that is to make progress with the Bill.
  I do not see why there should be such great excitement and alarm and exaggerated references to 1940. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) compared this situation with 1940. Had it been so serious, why was not he here? If it was a great political crisis, if it was a question of the whole nation, the country and the Government being at stake, why was not he here? Why was not the Leader of the Opposition here? [Interruption.] Why is not the Leader of the House here? Why should he be here? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]
  Unlike the right hon. Member for Belper and other hon. Members who have spoken from the Opposition side, I do not take the view that this is such a catastrophic event in the history of the Conservative Government.
  Mr. Monslow: How naive of the hon. Member.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: This is an important Bill and one to which we should give serious attention. It is our duty in the Committee—
  Mr. James Callaghan: Where is the Leader of the House?
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: —to do our best to improve it. When hon. Members, on either side, stand by the convictions which they have expressed by lending their names to an Amendment, this should not be considered extraordinary. It is what they are sent here to do.
  Therefore, I dissent from what has been said by hon. Members opposite. The Committee should support my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who has shown the Committee great courtesy throughout these proceedings.
  Mr. Callaghan: Where is the Leader of the House?
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: We should carry on as long as seems appropriate in the circumstances. We should make progress and we should all do our best according to our own convictions to improve the Bill so far as we can.
  12 m.
  Mr. M. Foot: I cannot quite understand what course the Secretary of State is recommending to the Committee. I am not sure what proposal he is making. The right hon. Gentleman failed to respond to the proposal made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), which was put in terms which made it as easy as possible for the right hon. Gentleman. It was not made in any offensive manner to him. It was made in exactly the manner in which such Motions have been moved on previous occasions when Governments have suffered at any rate big surprises in the Division Lobby.
  All the right hon. Gentleman had to do was either to respond to that appeal directly or to say that in any case he was proposing to report Progress himself and would be glad to accept the Motion. If he had taken either of those courses he would now be in a very much better situation. I do not know whether he would have gone straight to bed. He will have a few things to talk over with his right hon. and hon. Friends. He would at any rate be able to consult the Leader of the House even when we are not allowed, apparently, to do so.
  If the right hon. Gentleman had only accepted the Motion he would have been able to consult his right hon. Friends on the consequences of the vote and on what measures they propose to take to deal with it. No doubt he would have been able to start the consultations with the Leader of the House and with the Prime Minister which he will have to have anyhow, for is he suggesting that he will not have to consult them on the consequences of the vote?
  The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that he made a mistake. The question is how best he can extricate himself. I do not want to make things more difficult for him. If we persist in the erroneous course he has recommended by refusing the Motion, what is to happen? The House Committee will be up all night. It will be a very rowdy affair—everybody knows that. Does he think that the best way to deal with the situation?
  Does the right hon. Gentleman think that any Opposition in the history of the British Parliament, confronted with a

  419
  situation such as this, would permit a Government to go ahead with their Measure and do nothing about it? He answered my right hon. Friend too quickly. He should have taken time to think.
  If the right hon. Gentleman had only looked along the Treasury Bench and seen the faces of the other Ministers, in particular that of the Patronage Secretary, he might have learned some wisdom merely from a first glance. It is no good hon. Members opposite—I do not know what communications are passing along the Front Bench opposite. If the Leader of the House has something to say then he should move along and say it.
  Those of us sitting on this side could see exactly what was felt on the Treasury Bench when Ministers heard the result of the Division. Nothing was more eloquent than the face of the Patronage Secretary. It disposes of the arguments which have been put forward by hon. Members opposite that this was a vote of a trivial nature that did not matter.
  The Government themselves do not believe it to be trivial. From the very beginning we have been told that the Bill is very important. Not only the Secretary of State himself but the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in replying to the Second Reading debate, said that it was an integral part of the Government's economic policy. The Daily Telegraph, perhaps more percipient than it knew, in its leading article on 9th March, called "Economic strategy" said:
  "The decision to abolish r.p.m. is not an isolated act of policy. It is part of a broad strategy of structural reform in the British economy—broader, perhaps, than even the Government itself sometimes seems to realise."
  That shows remarkable foresight. It recalls the statement of Oliver Cromwell that no one goes so far as he who does not know where he is going. The right hon. Gentleman did not know where he was going. In his remarkable speeches today we could detect why he has got the Government into so much trouble. The trouble with the right hon. Gentleman is that he looks at the world through rose-coloured spectacles. He has an extraordinary faculty for excluding from his vision all disagree-
  420
  able factors. He tried to get us into Europe without noticing that General de Gaulle was there. Having failed in that enterprise, he went along to the Government and said that he had a bright new scheme for rescuing their fortunes—the r.p.m. Bill.
  Tributes have been paid to him today and no one who has listened to most of the debate, as I have, could possibly fail to pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman; but he cannot say after a speech which he delivered with such passion for three quarters of an hour, or an hour, that this matter was unimportant. If it was unimportant, why did he devote so much time to it? He devoted more time to this subject than to any other part of the Bill. He did so because he knew from all the conversations which had taken place how strong was the opposition inside his own party to the proposition.
  Today, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman exerted himself to the full limit of his powers to try to persuade his party to support him on what he regarded as an essential Clause in a Bill which he and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have described as an integral part of the Government's policy. When he has carried that by only one vote—[HON. MEMBERS: "His own."]—his own—excepting the single and dubious vote of the Minister for Science—he should not have the cheek to tell the Committee and the insolence to tell the nation that nothing very much has happened.
  There is not an hon. Member who imagines that to be the case or who genuinely believes that nothing much has happened. Everyone who has witnessed the scenes today and what has happened tonight knows that tonight the biggest nail of all was driven into the Government's coffin. They can never recover their position of prestige, such as it was, from such a result as this. They can never do it.
  Therefore, in their own interests it would be best for the Government to have such consultations as always follow votes of this character. If, having taken the false step of rejecting my right hon. Friend's proposal, they persist in the error, they are inviting a long night, throughout the whole night, of violent controversy. Many words will

  421
  be thrown from either side of the Committee. We have already had an example from the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Peter Emery) who has shown the degree of coolness which we might expect in the debate. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well what will happen. Is this what he wants the House of Commons to do? Is this how he wants the House of Commons to deal with a situation of this character?
  If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to show that he has real stature in dealing with this situation, if he has teal respect for the House of Commons, he will rise now—it may be difficult but it is the wisest and most honourable course that he can take—s and say that on consideration he thinks it best, not merely in the interests of the Government, but in the interest of the dignity of the House, that this Motion should be accepted.
  Mr. Heath: I do not think that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) could have heard what I said in my opening remarks. I did not say that nothing had happened. I said that after a very important and long debate—which was long because so many hon. Members wished to take part in it—the Committee had reached a decision, and it was an important one, and it was part of our Parliamentary process, on which many hon. Members who have spoken have commented. That is our way of reaching a decision after a long and thorough debate.
  I said to the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) that I thought the course we should pursue was to endeavour to make more progress. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) has quite fairly asked me what progress we ought to try to make, and several of my hon. Friends have urged that we should now continue to try to make progress, and that is the view which is now being echoed. I suggest to the right hon. Member for Belper that the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley is a fair one, and that we should try to make progress now with Clause 1 stand part.
  The hour is already late. It is past the hour at which we rose last night in a perfectly normal Committee stage, and I believe that it might be the wish of my right hon. and hon. Friends that we should make progress with Clause stand
  422
  part, which would be the end of these deliberations. For two days we have had discussions in great detail about the Amendments, the structure of the Bill, and the question of individual exemptions, and I therefore think that we should complete the progress tonight by gaining Clause 1.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley asked a particular question about Amendments. I understand that the matter which is giving cause for anxiety is the question of the use of the word "exemptions" throughout the Bill and the effect that this would have on Amendments. In fact it was changed in two places in the Bill by Amendments that we discussed yesterday in Clause 1(1) and in Clause 2(1). The key reference, which is in Clause 5(1), remains, and the first items in which it appears are Amendment No. 105 and Amendment No. 106 in the name of the right hon. Gentleman. I think, therefore, that the Amendments containing this word are not affected because it still remains in Clause 5.
  But there are technical matters on which you, Sir William, have offered us your help, and certainly as the Minister in charge of the Bill I am prepared to offer my help to the Committee, and indeed some hon. Members have been kind enough to say that they have so far been treated with courtesy in the handling of this Bill.
  As regards the use of the word in the Amendments, I think that we can meet the wishes of the Committee, and it should not cause difficulty in dealing with these Amendments. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley will feel satisfied with that arrangement, and of course it can be carried out with the help of the Chair. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he might beg leave to withdraw the Motion, and that we should make progress with Clause 1.
  Mr. G. Brown: We could have had that speech just an hour ago. This is something which the right hon. Gentleman really has to learn. He really must drop this obstinate assumption that he can grind his way through with business which is highly controversial and about which there are many views. When I made my appeal to him earlier he could have had his face-saver by saying that

  423
  he wished to get Clause 1 and then rise. At any rate, that is what I understand him to be saying now, and I want to be quite clear about it. Had he put that proposition an hour ago it would have met the appeal which I made to him. But he refused even to listen to my appeal or my warning, which I gave him out of experience.
  Mr. T. L. Iremonger: Do I hear the right hon. Gentleman aright? Is he saying that an hour ago he said that we should take the Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill?" I thought that he wanted to report Progress.
  12.15 a.m.
  Mr. Brown: I appealed to the right hon. Gentleman because I recognised that not much more progress would be made tonight. I asked him to agree that we should shortly rise. It was for him to say that if he got the Clause he would not pursue the Bill further tonight and would take the opportunity which I suggested for the Government to consider the consequences of the Division. All that was put to him and could have been done, if the Leader of the House had not absented himself and had not arrived behind the Chair, taken a look to see that his right hon. Friend was in plenty of trouble and then gone out again. If he had done the job for which he is paid we could have had his assistance and avoided the last hour of the Secretary of State's obstinacy.
  I am prepared to withdraw my Motion provided that the Secretary of State will make it clear that if I do so he has changed his tune and will seek only Clause 1 and nothing else.
  Mr. Heath: I realised, as did my right hon. and hon. Friends, the purpose of the right hon. Gentleman's invitation that we should immediately report Progress. I have had some experience of what the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends like to do in a situation of this kind—because situations of this kind have occurred before and are quite natural I stated clearly what I proposed to the right hon. Gentleman—that we should get Clause 1, as amended, to stand part of the Bill and then I would move to report Progress.
  Mr. Brown: That is clear. In case there is any misunderstanding about it, let it be quite clear that the debate during this hour and ten minutes which has been required to get this statement from the right hon. Gentleman has been conducted equally by both sides of the Committee. There have been as many speeches from the Conservative benches as from our benches. This has been an operation in which the right hon. Gentleman has provoked both sides of the Committee by his outrageous assumption that he can enforce his own arrogant views on the Committee. In view of his complete cave-in, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  To report Progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Heath.]
  Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (RECIPROCAL ARRANGEMENTS)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]
12.20 a.m.
Mr. David Gibson-Watt: I am glad to be able to make a short speech tonight on the Adjournment with regard to the problems of one of my constituents. This is a matter of great importanec to my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Bowen, of 28 College Road, Hereford. The issue is that Mrs. Bowen had a grave accident in the United States which resulted in medical charges which she and her husband find themselves unable to pay.
The object of my speech is not to ask Her Majesty's Government to raise the money in any way; indeed, I should be out of order if I were to suggest that. But I want to draw attention to the very different systems which apply in this country and the United States respectively to pay for injured visitors, and to show what can happen as a result. This is Mrs. Bowen's story: in June, 1963 the Bowens left the United Kingdom to visit their daughter in Idaho.

425
Their daughter is married to a Mr. Harold Bergendorf.
They travelled in a K.L.M. air liner, chartered by the G.I. Brides and Parents Association. The Bowens took out an insurance policy with the Railway Passengers Assurance Company, of London, for a premium of £6 6s. 9d. for two-and-a-half months, which was the length of their intended stay. The total liability for medical expenses did not exceed £100. For personal accident and total disablement there was to be a sum payable of £10 a week, for partial disablement £4 a week—both for a period of up to 100 weeks' benefit. I have been in touch with the insurance company, and in my view it has done well and is still doing well in meeting its commitments with regard to Mrs. Bowen. The point is that the Bowens were adequately insured and had taken proper precautions before leaving this country.
When they landed in New York in the K.L.M. air liner there was some form of bumpy landing, as a result of which Mrs. Bowen suffered a serious internal injury. She was rushed to hospital and there, as a result of a number of operations—and extremely great medical care was taken of her—her life was saved. The Bowens say that the landing was bumpy, but in any case, whether it was or not, it was a most unlikely and unfortunate injury. No one else in the aircraft was hurt.
Mrs. Bowen was in hospital for eight weeks and had four major operations and was in an oxygen tent for three weeks. Her recovery was remarkable, and nobody can say enough for the attention she had in the American hospital. But the outstanding bills now amount to 9,500 dollars, or about £3,000, of which 4,400 dollars have been loaned by the Mormon Church. The son-in-law, Mr. Bergendorf, is a member of that church, but he will have to pay back the money. Mrs. Bowen is now back with her husband in Hereford.
It is fair to say that neither Mr. Bowen nor the son-in-law is in a position to find a sum of the order that I have described. Mr. Bergendorf describes himself as just an average working man, and Mr. Bowen is an egg delivery man in Hereford. It appears that Mr. Bergendorf has behaved in a wonderfully generous and helpful way to his mother-
426
in-law. Perhaps not many sons-in-law would have done so well. But who will pay that £3,000? I understand that the Bowens have taken the matter up with K.L.M. and the airline's solicitors in New York, but they are not prepared to admit any liability.
I do not say that there was negligence on the part of the airline. I am not in a position to know whether there was or not. I do not know whether Mrs. Bowen's seat was properly adjusted or whether the stewards on board carried out their job properly. I merely state that K.L.M. refuses to pay.
Had Mrs. Bowen been an American citizen and the position been reversed. her medical bills here would have been all paid by the National Health Service. It is a matter of sadness to me that over a matter of this sort the systems which apply in this country and in that of our great ally, the United States, are so different and that the system in America does not cover unfortunate incidents of this sort. Is it not possible to instigate a system which would cover them? If this cannot be done at present, as seems clear from the Answer which my hon. Friend who is to reply to this debate kindly gave to a question by me on this subject on 27th January, it seems that the situation exists in which only the rich can visit America and the poor cannot. That is a situation which is bad for allies as great as ourselves and America who have such a close understanding.
I think something could be done to see that this difficulty is removed. People of all walks of life and all sizes of income should be able to visit one another in their respective countries. I do not believe that people understand how many citizens of this country have married and are living in the United States of America and that a great many Americans have married and are living in this country. Perhaps I am making a constituency point, but Hereford has given some good things to the United States over past years. We have given her some of the finest cattle in the world. Is it asking too much that, in his usual generous way, Uncle Sam should reach out a hand of generosity to the Bowens of Hereford and people like them in future and arrange a special way of paying for such accidents,

427
for no action would be more appreciated. Generosity in small things is as attractive in a country as in a human being.
12.28 a.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernard Braine): I can well understand why my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt) has sought to ventilate the sad experience of Mrs. Bowen and her family. We can all sympathise with them in the difficult circumstances they encountered at a time when they must have been looking forward eagerly to a family reunion.
As my hon. Friend pointed out, this raises the question of reciprocal health service agreements between this country and others. Perhaps it would help if I first explained what the position is in regard to such arrangements. From the Government's point of view we would regard it as ideal if we could have complete reciprocity with every country so that our citizens and theirs need have no fears of the financial consequences of injury and ill health while travelling abroad. Our policy, therefore, is to conclude reciprocal agreements wherever possible, but the difficulties which face us in seeking to attain this desirable end is that very few countries provide a health service comparable to ours.
Most countries relate their health service arrangements to insurance contributions which cannot easily be extended to citizens of the United Kingdom travelling abroad. We have, however, so far established reciprocal arrangements covering medical treatment for any United Kingdom citizen living in or visiting Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Yugoslavia and New Zealand, where in general the conditions are similar to those in our own National Health Service. More limited agreements have been made for citizens of the United Kingdom who are living abroad and are insured under local schemes, with France. Belgium, Luxembourg, Italy, Israel, Malta, the Netherlands, Switzerland and the Federal Republic of Germany.
The arrangements which operate in most other countries are limited for specific groups of insured persons and their dependants who must satisfy pre-
428
scribed conditions. I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that overseas bodies providing insurance cover of this kind could not reasonably be expected to afford more favourable treatment to British visitors than they do to their own compatriots who do not satisfy the prescribed conditions. In short, this is another reminder of the value to the British people of our own free National Health Service.
Since my hon. Friend first raised the case of Mrs. Bowen, I have had very full inquiries made into the details, and the information that I have is that she left this country on 18th June last year with her husband to visit her daughter, Mrs. Bergendorf, living in Pocatello, Idaho. As my hon. Friend has said, Mrs. Bowen travelled in a K.L.M. aircraft on charter to the Transatlantic Brides and Parents Association. It is alleged that the aircraft made a clumsy landing in New York, as a result of which she was thrown forward against her seat belt, rupturing her oesophagus, suffering, as my hon. Friend has described it, serious internal injury.
A family friend who met Mr. and Mrs. Bowen at the airport arranged for her to be seen immediately by his personal doctor and she was admitted to hospital in New York for surgical treatment. According to Mrs. Bowen's son-in-law, Mr. Bergendorf, in a letter which he wrote to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 6th March, the bills for hospital and surgical treatment amounted to 9,500 dollars which he was arranging to meet from his savings and by various loans. Information has been received more recently from our Consulate-General in Seattle that the hospital bill was reduced to 3,500 dollars and that this was paid by Mr. Bergendorf from money advanced by his church against his undertaking to repay. It appears that surgeon's bills amounting to about 2,000 dollars may still be unpaid. The figures which my hon. Friend has quoted may not, therefore, be completely up to date; but I recognise that this does not affect the substance of his comments tonight.
Mr. Bowen returned alone to this country last August. Mrs. Bowen was not well enough to accompany him, but she returned last month. Her unused return fare was forfeited and the cost of her fare was met by her husband and

429
son-in-law. I believe there may have been some misunderstanding as to the possibility of our consular officials in the United States being able to help Mrs. Bowen, and I should like to clarify the position on the basis of the information that I have been given.
Our consular posts at New York and Seattle received no request for financial assistance from Mr. or Mrs. Bowen. Mr. Bowen's passport, which was issued jointly for himself and his wife, was amended by the Consulate-General in New York to allow him to return home alone. But I am assured that Mr. Bowen made no request for any other kind of assistance at the time that he applied for his passport to be amended. Subsequently Mrs. Bowen applied to the Consulate-General at Seattle for a passport in her own name. A letter from her daughter, Mrs. Bergendorf, covering the passport application, mentioned her mother's illness but not the question of her medical expenses.
Later, as a result of a newspaper report about Mrs. Bowen, the Consulate-General asked her whether she was experiencing difficulty in returning home. She told them that she was not planning to return for the time being since she had not fully recovered from her illness. The Consulate-General told Mrs. Bowen that although they could not assist with her medical bills in New York, she should not hesitate to get in touch with them if there was any other way in which they could help. I am informed that Mrs. Bowen has filed a claim for compensation against the airline. She was advised by lawyers in New York and they told our Consulate-General there that in a hearing in the Supreme Court of Queens County, New York, the airline had successfully invoked the Warsaw Convention, claiming non-jurisdiction.
The court held, apparently, that it had no jurisdiction and that, since Mrs. Bowen's ticket for the return journey had been issued in London and this was the place of final destination, jurisdiction properly lay with a British court. I understand that the Ministry of Aviation has confirmed, orally, that such a claim could be made in this country. Accordingly, Mrs. Bowen would be well advised, if she wishes to pursue her claim in this country, to seek proper legal advice, but I am unable to say
430
whether, in fact, she has taken steps to do this and I know that my hon. Friend will appreciate that I cannot comment on that aspect of the case.
That, then, is the background to the matter. Before I say any more, I should like to endorse what my hon. Friend has said about the generosity and helpfulness of Mrs. Bowen's family and the church which rallied to their help in time of need. I understand, however, that if the family had not been willing and able to arrange for, and meet, the cost of private treatment, Mrs. Bowen could have been taken to a municipal hospital as an emergency case, where charges are based on financial circumstances and the ability to pay. The charges for essential treatment can be waived in cases of destitution, and these facilities are available to alien visitors without funds as well as to American citizens.
I am told that these hospitals have an excellent reputation and that the best New York doctors give their services to them without charge if the circumstances justify such action. Normally, it is not expected that British visitors would find themselves in such straits since, before leaving this country, they are warned by the Consular Department of the Foreign Office, by the United States Consulate, by travel agencies, and by organisations sponsoring trips to the United States, that the National Health Service operates only in this country and that they should, therefore, take out fully adequate insurance cover before leaving.
I have here a booklet entitled "Essential Information for Citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who intend to travel Overseas", a copy of which is issued with every British passport. This makes the position absolutely clear and perhaps I may quote some relevant passages. Under the heading "Insurance", it is stated in bold type that
"Foreign travel entails the risk of incurring unforeseen expenditure as the result of accident or other mishaps. You are strongly advised in your own interest to insure against the various risks which are inherent in foreign travel, including illness, theft or loss of possessions, injury, or death".
Under the heading, "Illness and Accident", it is stated that
"Treatment under the National Health Service is available only in the United Kingdom.

431
You are, therefore, advised in your own interests to take out a comprehensive insurance policy, before leaving this country. This should cover medical and hospital treatment in case of illness or injury, the loss of money or effects, and death. Such policies can be obtained from most travel agencies or insurance companies, brokers or agents. If you do not do this you will probably be personally responsible for all medical or hospital expenses which you may incur in foreign countries, with the exception of Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Yugoslavia, where certain benefits are available, subject to the conditions referred to below."
Later on, the booklet states,
"The Ministry of Health has no power to pay for treatment obtained outside this Service, whether at home or abroad."
As my hon. Friend indicated, the Association sponsoring Mrs. Bowen's visit insist on its customers insuring to cover minimum medical expenses of £100 and this, of course, Mrs. Bowen did at the cost of £3; but the Association also strongly recommends its customers to insure for increased benefits, as it warns them that £100 will cover only minor ills.
I cannot stress too strongly the importance of intending travellers making adequate insurance arrangements. I have said before in this House, and I say again, that in many foreign countries, the normal scales of medical fees go far beyond what we in this country can possibly imagine and those intending to travel abroad should be fully alerted to this fact. So far as the Government are concerned, we draw the attention of travellers to this in the way I have described, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to emphasise this point again tonight.
Another cost which can arise, and did in this case, is the inability of the traveller to return on the specified flight. Here again, it is possible to insure against this. I know it is very easy to be wise after the event—
Mr. Gibson-Watt: Hear, hear.
Mr. Braine: —but, as I have said, I hope that a debate such as this will bring it home to people that the risks do exist and that it is wise to insure against them.
As an additional safeguard against the risk that an alien may find himself unable to meet his obligations in the United States, immigrant and visit visas to that country are granted only to persons who can produce proof of adequate means of subsistence, or whose visit is sponsored either by an American firm or institution or an American resident. I think that is the answer to the point my hon. Friend made about the rich and the poor. In Mrs. Bowen's case this is what happened, and, as I have said, full credit should be given to those who have made the very considerable effort needed to meet the bills.
I have seen the most reasonable letter which Mrs. Bowen's son-in-law sent to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and I must say I am shocked at the statement in that letter that the airline concerned has not replied to letters sent to it. I trust that it will not be out of place for me to express the hope that if responsibility does rest with the airline—and as my hon. Friend said, it is not for us to pronounce on that—a satisfactory outcome to this unhappy story will be secured.
I am, therefore, grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this matter and providing us once more with an opportunity to bring home to intending travellers the importance of making really adequate insurance arrangements to cover this sort of contingency.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes to One o'clock.

HONG KONG
  Weaving Factory (Dispute)
  Weaving Factory (Dispute)
BECHUANALAND
  Immigrants (S.W. Africa)
  Immigrants (S.W. Africa)
BRITISH GUIANA
  Constitution
  Constitution
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  H.M.S. "Osprey"
  H.M.S. "Osprey"
  National Economic Development Council (Building Industry)
  National Economic Development Council (Building Industry)
  Ambassador's Residence, Yaounde
  Ambassador's Residence, Yaounde
  Overseas Naval Quarters (Improvements)
  Overseas Naval Quarters (Improvements)
  Teheran Embassy
  Teheran Embassy
  Building Standards
  Building Standards
  Staff Flats, Kuwait
  Staff Flats, Kuwait
  Madrid Embassy Offices
  Madrid Embassy Offices
  Royal Palaces
  Royal Palaces
  Holyroodhouse
  Holyroodhouse
  Buckingham Palace
  Buckingham Palace
  Staff Accommodation, Abu Dhabi
  Staff Accommodation, Abu Dhabi
  Grace and Favour Residences
  Grace and Favour Residences
  Building and Construction Industries (Development Council)
  Building and Construction Industries (Development Council)
  Palace of Westminster (Fire Precautions)
  Palace of Westminster (Fire Precautions)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Anti-Litter Prosecutions (Fines)
  Anti-Litter Prosecutions (Fines)
  Swimming Pools
  Swimming Pools
  Clean Air Act (Prosecutions)
  Clean Air Act (Prosecutions)
  Inquiry, Penarth (Enforcement Notice Appeal)
  Inquiry, Penarth (Enforcement Notice Appeal)
  Smoke Control (Domestic Appliances)
  Smoke Control (Domestic Appliances)
HOUSING
  House Purchase Loans
  House Purchase Loans
  Commonwealth Immigrants
  Commonwealth Immigrants
  Clearance Areas, Cardiff
  Clearance Areas, Cardiff
  Wednesbury, Darlaston and Willenhall (Interest Charges)
  Wednesbury, Darlaston and Willenhall (Interest Charges)
  Slum Clearance
  Slum Clearance
  Redevelopment Schemes (Private House Builders)
  Redevelopment Schemes (Private House Builders)
  Sunderland
  Sunderland
SCIENCE
  Medical Engineering (Research)
  Medical Engineering (Research)
  Common Cold Research Unit
  Common Cold Research Unit
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Purchase Tax (Leaflets)
  Purchase Tax (Leaflets)
  Servicemen (Motor Cars)
  Servicemen (Motor Cars)
  Nationalised Industries' Boards (Members' Salaries)
  Nationalised Industries' Boards (Members' Salaries)
  Government Departments (Location)
  Government Departments (Location)
  National Income and Expenditure
  National Income and Expenditure
  Soft Drinks (Tax)
  Soft Drinks (Tax)
  National Income and Balance of Payments (White Papers)
  National Income and Balance of Payments (White Papers)
  Civil Servants
  Civil Servants
  Premium Bonds
  Premium Bonds
  Property, Brighton (Condition)
  Property, Brighton (Condition)
  Personal Incomes (Taxation)
  Personal Incomes (Taxation)
  Public Works Loans (West Ham)
  Public Works Loans (West Ham)
INDUSTRY, TRADE AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
  Post Office Savings Bank (Dispersal)
  Post Office Savings Bank (Dispersal)
  Exports
  Exports
  Cornwall (Minister of State's Visit)
  Cornwall (Minister of State's Visit)
  Cotton Textiles (Hong Kong)
  Cotton Textiles (Hong Kong)
  Peking Exhibition
  Peking Exhibition
EMPLOYMENT
  School Leavers (S.E. Northumberland)
  School Leavers (S.E. Northumberland)
  North Lanarkshire
  North Lanarkshire
  Falmouth and Camborne
  Falmouth and Camborne
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Poisons
  Poisons
  Drugs
  Drugs
  Licensing Hours (Isle of Wight)
  Licensing Hours (Isle of Wight)
  Administration of Justice(Jersey)
  Administration of Justice(Jersey)
  RAIL CLOSURES
  RAIL CLOSURES
  COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS (MEETING)
  COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS (MEETING)
  LORD PRIVY SEAL (SPEECH)
  LORD PRIVY SEAL (SPEECH)
  NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES
  NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES
  NUCLEAR WEAPONS
  NUCLEAR WEAPONS
  POLARIS SUBMARINES (HOLY LOCH)
  POLARIS SUBMARINES (HOLY LOCH)
  PRESTWICK AIRPORT (SCANDINAVIAN AIRCRAFT)
  PRESTWICK AIRPORT (SCANDINAVIAN AIRCRAFT)
  SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND
  SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND
  NIGERIA (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)
  NIGERIA (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)
  NATIONAL UNDERTAKINGS AND PUBLIC BOARDS (APPOINTMENTS)
  NATIONAL UNDERTAKINGS AND PUBLIC BOARDS (APPOINTMENTS)
  TRADE FIGURES
  TRADE FIGURES
  ECONOMIC POLICY
  ECONOMIC POLICY
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  World Health Organisation
  World Health Organisation
HOSPITALS
  Hospital Engineers
  Hospital Engineers
  Doncaster Royal Infirmary
  Doncaster Royal Infirmary
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Local Broadcasting Stations
  Local Broadcasting Stations
SCOTLAND
  Herring Industry Board
  Herring Industry Board
  The Highlands (New Towns)
  The Highlands (New Towns)
TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION
  Overseas Service
  Overseas Service
RAILWAYS
  Free Travel Passes
  Free Travel Passes
ROADS
  Road Accidents
  Road Accidents
  Highway Works (Labour Force)
  Highway Works (Labour Force)
  M.1 (Accidents)
  M.1 (Accidents)

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

MANUFACTURING POWERS OF BRITISH RAILWAYS BOARD
2.35 p.m.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that the British Railways Board are advised that they have powers to tender for the manufacture of privately owned railway equipment to be used on British Railways or on the railways of any other Board; whether the proposal of the Board to exercise such powers has been vetoed by the Minister of Transport; and, if so, why.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are aware of what advice the British Railways Board have received, but the question of their legal powers is not the issue. The Board have submitted to my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport certain proposals under Section 13(4) of the Transport Act, 1962, for the exercise of their manufacturing powers. My right honourable friend has stated in Parliament that he decided not to approve the proposal by the Board to tender for the manufacture of rolling stock for ownership by private firms because this proposal would not have been in accordance with the Government's policy, which was made clear on several occasions when the Transport Bill was before Parliament. The primary task of the British Railways Board is to provide railway services, and the Government consider that, as hitherto, there is at present no
1124
justification for the nationalised transport undertakings entering the field of manufacture for outside customers.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for not contesting the legality of the request of the Railways Board. I, personally, think they have the powers, and that is not disputed. What is in dispute is the veto of the Minister, which is lawful in itself, by which he is preventing the British Railways Board from competing. May I put this to the Parliamentary Secretary? Here is a great railway undertaking; it is experienced in the manufacture of railway equipment; and all it is asking is the right to tender, in competitive tendering, for contracts in relation to private undertakings using the railways. If it wins the contract on merit, then it wins it; if it loses, it loses it. And it would not tender on a basis that would cause a loss to the Railways undertaking. The Government are in favour of competition, so they constantly say. Why impose a veto against competition on this occasion? Is it not the fact that the veto is imposed for purely dogmatic and doctrinaire purposes, and is that not a confession of the stultifying bankruptcy of the present Administration?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, the broad answer to the noble Lord's question almost throughout is, of course, No, certainly not. But I would say this. I do not think anything that the noble Lord has now asked me justifies adding anything to what I said in my original reply. I think the Government's policy and attitude in this matter have on several occasions been made abundantly clear in both Houses when the Transport Bill was before Parliament, and they have not changed in the slightest.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, will the noble Lord not answer whether this is not dogma? Is it not in response to a doctrinaire view; and is it not the case that it would be good for British Railways to make a modest profit out of something? Those contracts could be worth millions of pounds. Would it not be a good thing if some of the railway workshops had a little more work to do, instead of staffs being ruthlessly reduced? Will the noble Lord deal with these points?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I have already said, No, certainly not, to the noble Lord's first question on the point. I do not quite know for what reason he thinks redundancy will result from this, because in the two workshops that could do this work it is known there will be no redundancy this year. If they are not making wagons they will be engaged on repairs and maintenance; and this is what they are for.
EARL ATTLEE: My Lords, may we take it that the Government do not care what happens to towns like Swindon, Crewe and the rest which depend on the railways, and that they are prepared to scrap them in spite of all their talk of the redeployment of industry?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, the noble Earl can take nothing of the kind, because any such action, if it happened, would not affect any of the towns he mentioned. The question, therefore, does not arise and I do not think it was a very worthy one.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh, oh!
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, would it not be a little better if the British nation as well as Parliament knew how little consistency there is in this policy regarding the railways? Is t not a fact that the electricity undertakings compete in almost every sphere in retail and wholesale trade? Is that not so, and is it not right that it should be so? Is it really the intention of Her Majesty's Government to go on with the kind of policy they had when they sold out the road transport belonging to the British Transport Commission? They still have had to keep some of them—and they are making a profit to go into the general fund. When will the Government have some consistency about this and treat the people of the country in a decent manner with regard to transport?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I am not going to attempt to deal with the six fresh questions which the noble Earl has just raised, but I will say that the policy of the Government in this matter has been completely consistent throughout.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord
1126
whether he suggests there is no likelihood of redundancy because of the Minister's decision? And may I ask him whether there is likely to be redundancy in the Doncaster railway workshop, which has been one of the most enterprising and efficient in the country for a long time?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, the Doncaster works are not involved in this question.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, was the noble Lord correct when he said that the primary duty of the British Railways Board was to run the railways? Would the noble Lord not agree that the duty the Government laid upon Dr. Beeching was to make the railways pay? Are we to take it, therefore, that when the Government and the Minister criticise the judgment of the British Railways Board they are in fact criticising the commercial judgment of Dr. Beeching?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord is not to take anything of the kind. I am well aware, and so is the House, of the duty laid upon the Railways Board in this matter, and when it was being laid upon them it was made perfectly clear that it was not to include manufacturing for outside interests.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, one moment. Are we to take it that a speech by a Minister in a Standing Committee of the House of Commons is to bind the Government for all time? If this was to be done, why was it not done by legislation? If it is left to the discretion of the Minister, why is the Minister's mind made up in advance, well before the application is received? The Government are trying to elevate a minor ministerial speech in a Standing Committee of the House of Commons into Statute Law, and it is nothing of the kind.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I am not doing anything of the kind, if the noble Lord will allow me to say so. I am merely repeating what was stated, not only in the Standing Committee, but also at various stages of the Bill, in another place and in your Lordships' House, to be Government policy. It does not bind the Government for all

1127
time, but so long as the Government remain of the same opinion, their policy will remain the same.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, we are shocked by this display of inconsistency and of animosity towards a nationalised industry belonging to the country. We will raise this in a debate at the earliest possible opportunity. Perhaps we shall start at once with an Unstarred Question.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, of course, it is always open to the noble Earl to ask for a debate or to put down an Unstarred Question on any subject he wishes, but I am very surprised that he should express himself as either shocked or surprised at what I have said, because it is so completely consistent with what has been so often said before.
EARL ATTLEE: My Lords, is it not clear that if the Government are pursuing stupid policies like this, it is high time they gave way to another one?
LORD CHESHAM: No, my Lords.

AIR SERVICES BETWEEN SCOTLAND AND SCANDINAVIA
2.45 p.m.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stand in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what alternative arrangements are being made to enable people to travel from Scotland to Scandinavia, and vice versa, after April 1 on the days when Scandinavian Airlines System's flights are not permitted to operate through Prestwick.]
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, in the event of the Scandinavian Airlines System's services through Prestwick to New York being reduced it will remain open to the airline to operate a service between Scotland and Scandinavia at whatever frequency it chooses. I would remind your Lordships that there is, in any event, a daily service between Renfrew and Copenhagen in the summer.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, does not my noble friend realise that the continued indecision about this matter is causing great difficulty to Scotland? Can he tell us when the Government will be able to come to some decision on this matter? Is he aware that the severing of these vital links between Prestwick and Scandinavia would not be in the interests either of Scotland's tourism or of industry, as I find it hard to believe that the Scandinavian Airlines System would find it worth while to run daily services between Prestwick or Renfrew and Copenhagen were they not, in addition, able to carry some cross-Atlantic traffic?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, that is rather a prolonged supplementary, but I will try to answer it. I would tell the House that the present state of play is that the discussions continue. Representations to the Foreign Office have recently been made by the Scandinavian Ambassadors and these are now being examined. I think that the noble Duke mis-stated the position slightly when he implied that terrible things were happening in Scotland because of the uncertainty over this matter, because the airline is not running daily services through the winter. As I have explained before, and will do again in future when the noble Duke's Unstarred Question comes up, I do not think that Scotland will suffer as a result of the rearrangement.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, can my noble friend tell us why it has been found necessary to restrict the services between Scotland and Scandinavia?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, briefly, under the agreement, the S.A.S. are permitted to land at Prestwick in connection with the traffic from Scandinavia to New York. In fact, it would appear that they are collecting most of the traffic at Prestwick.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in the last year for which I have figures, 19,500 passengers flew by these services from Copenhagen to North America, 14,000 from Scotland to Copenhagen, and 16,000 from Prestwick to North America—so it seems slightly unfair, would he not agree, to say that the majority of the traffic originates in Scotland?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, perhaps, in the heat of the moment, I was in error in my last remark. I should have said, 40 per cent., which is the figure.

THE NEW ST. THOMAS'S HOSPITAL
2.47 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will arrange for a model or perspective drawing of the revised design of St. Thomas's Hospital to be exhibited in the Palace of Westminster.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH (LORD NEWTON): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister of Health has the Hospital Board's new proposals under consideration, and if it is decided to revise the design, he will arrange a display on the lines suggested by the noble Lord.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, could the noble Lord say when it is likely that the Minister will come to a conclusion about the revision of the design? I was under the delusion that a decision had been made to abandon the design, a model of which has already been exhibited in the Palace of Westminster, and to substitute a new design.
LORD NEWTON: No, my Lords, I would not say that the noble Lord is under a delusion, but he is not quite right about this. Last week, the Board submitted for my right honourable friend's approval detailed proposals for the next stages of rebuilding and it is those proposals which my right honourable friend is now considering, in the context of operational efficiency and costs and also, of course, of any possible effect on the building timetable.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, will the Minister also have regard to the great importance of this site æsthetically, as
1130
perhaps the most important site in London from the visual point of view.
LORD NEWTON: Yes, my Lords, if it is decided to revise the design, the local planning authority and the Royal Fine Art Commission will be consulted, as they were originally.

SUPREME COURT JUDGES' SALARIES
2.50 p.m.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that the Supreme Court Judges in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland have had no increase in their salaries since 1954, while those of the lower judiciary have been increased on three, and in some cases four, occasions since that date; and whether Her Majesty's Government will take the necessary action to increase these salaries.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD DILHORNE): My Lords, the answer is, Yes. It is the Government's intention to introduce next Session legislation to provide for increases in the remuneration of the Superior Judiciary.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for that Answer. Can he tell us whether the Judges of the Supreme Court will be equally grateful?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I should hope so, in due course.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, I should like to inform the House that at a suitable moment after half-past three my noble friend Lord St. Oswald will be making a statement on organo-chlorine pesticides.

FILMS (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Films Act, 1960, in its application to newsreels. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

PORT OF LONDON (EXTENSION OF SEAWARD LIMIT) BILL
Read 3a, and passed.
CUSTOMS ANNUITY AND BENEVOLENT FUND BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

HOLY TABLE MEASURE 1964
2.52 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion in my name on the Order Paper:
"That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Holy Table Measure 1964 be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent."
The Holy Table Measure is the first of a number of Measures which will be coming before your Lordships' House as a consequence of the revision of the Canon Law of the Church of England, a process that has been going on for some twenty years. I would, therefore, ask your Lordships' indulgence if, before coming to the Measure itself, I say a word or two in general terms about the need for Canon Law revision and the reason for the Measures which are related to it.
The Canon Law is the domestic law of the Church—the code of faith, morals and discipline. In this country the canon-making bodies are the Convocations of Canterbury and York, acting under Royal Licence. They can, however, make canons only so long as they do not conflict with the existing Statute Law of the land. If there is any such
1132
conflict, then the Statute Law must first be altered so that a canon may subsequently be promulged.
The Canon Law of the Church of England was last revised in 1604, and the greater part of its provisions are out of date and unrelated to the needs and circumstances of the present time. The Church of England is as anxious as are its critics to restore a proper measure of discipline to its life, but it is impossible to do so when, as is the case at the moment, there is so wide a gap between the Canon Law and the normal practice of loyal churchmen. So we have been engaged upon the massive and often wearisome task of a complete revision of the code.
In the far greater number of instances there is no difficulty, since we shall recast some existing canons in terms applicable to the modern day, and we shall repeal the canons which no longer hear any relevance. But there are a certain number of matters with which we must deal and which are now established practice of the Church of England, but which are technically illegal. We desire to make canons which will reflect current thought and action. So first we must change the law, so that consequently we may make the canon. Thus there will be, in the coming months, a number of Measures, some dealing with matters which are quite trivial and others with matters of moment, before your Lordships' House, the effect of which will be to enable the Church of England to legislate for its life in the way that its constitutional assemblies desire.
The process is, as I have remarked, a long one; but at least your Lordships may rest assured that each matter which will in this way be brought before you will have been debated with a thoroughness seldom accorded to legislative enactments. Each one has first passed through all the stages of a draft canon in the Convocations and the House of Laity of Church Assembly. Having been approved as a draft canon, it is then redrafted as a Measure for the Church Assembly, and it is debated all over again in the Church Assembly. It must then be subjected to the scrutiny of the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament. So your Lordships may rest assured that these Measures have received prolonged and meticulous examination.
The first of these Measures, the Holy Table Measure, is concerned with the character of the Holy Table upon which the Holy Communion is celebrated. The existing law is contained in Canon 82 of the 1604 Code and in the rubric of The Book of Common Prayer. The canon requires that
"Convenient and decent tables"
shall be provided and covered with a
"carpet of silk or other decent stuff".
The rubric in the Prayer Book orders that the Holy Table shall stand in the body of the church or in the chancel. There is in these enactments nothing about the material of which the table is to be made nor what it is to be like, but, as a result of a judgment in 1845 in the case of Faulkner v. Litchfield and Stern, the law has been interpreted as requiring that the Holy Table must be made of wood and must be movable.
This judgment was a reflection of the controversies at the time of the Reformation, when the medieval stone altars were in large measure destroyed because they represented superstitious beliefs connected with the sacrifice of the Mass. It is difficult to discover, in fact, how much doctrinal significance was attached to the material of which the Table was made. We know, for instance, that there was a pre-Reformation wooden Table in Canterbury Cathedral. In any event, a number of stone Holy Tables were erected between 1559 and 1845, both in England and Ireland. But in a judgment delivered in 1938, Mr. Justice Stable, who was then the Deputy Dean of Arches, held that the ecclesiastical courts are bound by the 1845 judgment and are precluded from granting faculties for the principal Holy Table unless it is made of wood and movable.
However, my Lords, the situation is anomalous and uncertain. Many churches, from Westminster Abbey downwards, have stone Holy Tables, and some of them are churches of an evangelical tradition. Those erected between 1559 and 1845 were undoubtedly the main Holy Table of the Church. Some chancellors have granted faculties for stone tables. There is, further, no question at all but that so long as the main Table is of wood, any other Table, in a side chapel, for instance, may be made of stone and need not necessarily be
1134
movable. In short, the law raises no objection to stone Holy Tables as such, but only when they are the main Holy Table, and for many centuries, since the Reformation up to 1845, there seems to have been no question raised about the propriety of stone Holy Tables as the main Table in the church.
It is clear that Chancellor Garth Moore's observation in the case of St. John the Divine Richmond in 1953, that
"No doctrinal significance should be attached to the name by which the article is called, whether table or altar, nor to its material, nor to its position in the Church"
expresses the mind of the Church of England to-day. The opposition to this Measure in the Church Assembly amounted to only one in ten of the votes cast. The desire for this Measure stems from the need first to clarify an unsatisfactory legal position and, secondly, to give freedom to those who on æsthetic grounds consider that the design of a church requires that the Holy Table should be made of some substance other than wood, and should possibly be immovable. This Measure gives that permissive freedom. I trust your Lordships will agree that the Measure is desirable, and should receive the Royal Assent. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Holy Table Measure 1964 be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Bishop of Chester.)
3.2 p.m.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, once more I have to follow the right reverend Prelate, the Lord Bishop of Chester. Evidently he is at every stage going to be a kind of counsel for the introduction of Canon Law which is brought before Parliament by way of Church Measure. The speech which he has just made on the Holy Table is, of course, one full of historical research and knowledge as to what has actually happened. But there cannot be any doubt in the minds of any of those people who are connected with myself in the United Kingdom Council of Protestant Churches as to the general influence which is being used nowadays to alter the Canon Law of the Church of England.

1135
I think it must first of all be remembered that these Laws are required to come to this House only because they relate to the State Church. It is ineradicably linked up under the law with the Crown. Her Majesty is the Head of the State Church. Her Majesty stood over there when the Lord Chancellor presented her, at the beginning of her first Parliament, with the Declaration she had to make: "I declare that I am a faithful Protestant."
The question as to how changes of this kind should take place has, of course, been discussed over and over again. But it is not so many years ago, when we think of all the depths of history that the right reverend Prelate has gone into this afternoon, that in 1906 there was a Royal Commission which inquired very carefully into all these matters, including, so far as I remember, the matters relating to the Holy Table. It certainly referred to the kind of decision that was made the other day, so far as the Church Assembly is concerned by a large vote of the clergy, with regard to legalising the use of the sacramental vestments.
Of course, there can be no possible doubt that these changes are being made, step by step, only in order that the Church may move further Rome-ward in its policy. The right reverend Prelate shakes his head, but he must remember, when you come to deal with, say, the kind of Holy Table that you have, that the only real idea behind a stone table is to turn it into an altar—which is not used according to the Prayer Book, so far as I remember—and an altar was built of stone because it was upon that kind of structure that, according to the Old Testament, sacrifices were made.
It is perfectly certain in my mind, too, that the whole objection to the use of sacramental vestments is that it raises once more the fact that many of the priests of the Church of England now believe as substantially as the Roman Catholics do—only the Roman Catholics are more courageous and belong to the Chuch in which it is the proper practice—that transsubstantiation is right for the Church of England; and that, in spite of great passages of scripture such as Hebrews, Chapter IX, verse 24 to the end, in which the sacrifice of the beloved Master was once and for all, and not to
1136
be offered often. Those things are there, and indisputably so.
Therefore, I very much regret that we are gradually being led, stage by stage, in the State Church to surrender to those who are going more and more back to the doctrine of Roman times, the Roman Catholic practice. That I very much deplore (I speak only for myself; my colleagues who sit on these Benches must all have their own opinions, and they are perfectly free to have what opinions they like; we all know that), but I personally will never consent to a Measure of this kind by voting for it—never.
I was brought up in the Church of England. I love so much of it, especially its Prayer Book, that when I begin to see these alterations in the Prayer Book, which set up the first true basis of civil and religious liberty in this country (it had not existed until then), and the example which, in religious and civil and political life, has had so much to do with the growing greatness of this country in the last 300 years; the setting up of its Commonwealth, as well as the examples that have been given over and over again by those who hold our belief in civil and religious liberty according to the reformed Church of England, I find it a sad sight to see Prelates hurrying to get through this kind of Measure which is upsetting the doctrine. I am equally shocked to find that some clergymen and some of the Prelates, whom we had regarded as well grounded in what we call the evangelical faith and practice, are beginning to vote for Measures of this kind. It will not lead to, shall I say, the strengthening of the State Church in this country. I believe that it will lead gradually to more and more controversy, and I very much regret having to speak to such a Measure this afternoon.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

FACULTY JURISDICTION MEASURE 1964
3.10 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER rose to move, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Faculty Jurisdiction Measure 1964 be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent. The right reverend

1137
Prelate said: My Lords, the Faculty Jurisdiction is that branch of the law which is exercised by the chancellor in the Consistory Court of a diocese, and it has four main purposes: first, to protect the interests of succeeding generations of parishioners, and the fabric and treasures of their parish church; secondly, to settle disputes between interested parties; thirdly, to ensure that nothing unsuitable is done in the church, and, fourthly, that nothing illegal is introduced.
The exercise of this jurisdiction has been largely regulated by the Faculty Jurisdiction Measure, 1938. The whole question of this jurisdiction was considered by a Commission of the Church Assembly which reported in 1959. That Commission recommended that the jurisdiction should in the main continue unchanged, but it suggested certain modifications. This Measure therefore repeals and replaces the Faculty Jurisdiction Measure, 1938, but it introduces certain new provisions, most of which were recommended by the Fees and Faculties Commission. The provisions of Clause 2, however, arise from recommendations made by another Commission under the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, which considered the whole complicated question of what should be done with churches which are redundant. Some attempt was made in the Church Assembly to achieve a more radical reform of the whole system, but the amendments to that end met with little support. Only amendments of detail were made and at no stage was there a division.
The principal changes in the existing law are, first, that Clause 1 contains provisions for dealing with aisles or other parts of parish churches which are in private ownership, the owners of which cannot be found or who have proliferated so that there are a number of them, or who have neglected to carry out repairs for seven years. It sometimes happens that the whole fabric of a church may be imperilled because the private owner of some part of it has not done his job in keeping it in repair. An incumbent or a parochial church council may therefore apply for a faculty vesting such parts of the church in the person or persons who own the remainder of the church and thus make it possible for the parochial
1138
church council to carry out the necessary repairs.
Clause 2, while providing for demolition in cases where either the building is a dangerous structure or it is necessary for the purposes of enlargement, rebuilding, replacement or repair, makes it impossible for a faculty to be granted for the demolition of a church solely on the grounds of redundancy. That is because we hope further Measures will be coming before us from the Bridges Commission which will deal with redundancy. However, this clause very much limits the existing powers of chancellors to give demolition orders for churches, and they have to carry out certain consultations even when it is permissible for them to do so.
Clause 3 provides for a faculty to be granted for the removal of a monument, notwithstanding the fact that the owner objects or cannot be found. Experience has shown that entirely desirable schemes of improvement in both churches and churchyards have been held up because the consent of one owner of a monument cannot be obtained. He would have the right to object and have the case heard, but his objection would not be conclusive.
Clauses 6 and 7 deal with two questions which affect modern church buildings. It is often the case that when a building is first erected in, say, a new housing area, either because it combines both church and hall, or because it is not suitable at that moment to become a parish church, such a building is only dedicated and not consecrated, and it does not come under faculty jurisdiction at all, so that the parish priest is free to furnish it in whatever way he thinks proper. Nevertheless, it may well happen that after a number of years that church will be consecrated and then there may be the trouble that certain things have to be taken out which may have endeared themselves to the people who worship in that church. The Measure, therefore, authorises a Bishop, in appropriate cases, to make an order bringing such buildings under faculty jurisdiction.
Next, for reasons of health the land which surrounds a new church in an urban area in these days cannot be used for burials, and it is therefore often not consecrated ground. The question has

1139
sometimes been raised whether or not it is within the faculty jurisdiction. The object of Clause 7 is to remove any doubt about this. It is obviously desirable that the ground around the church should be subject to faculty jurisdiction and that the chancellor should have some control over what is put on it.
The other provisions of the Measure are fully described in the Comments and Explanations submitted by the Legislative Committee of the Church Assembly, and they are printed as an Appendix to the Report of the Ecclesiastical Committee. I hope, therefore, that I have said enough to satisfy your Lordships that this Measure is desirable and is one that should receive the Royal Assent.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

WAR DAMAGE BILL
3.17 p.m.
House in Committee (according to Order).
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.
Then, Standing Order No. 41, having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of March 19), Bill read 3a, and passed.

LICENSING BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Commons Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendment be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
[The reference is to Bill (91) as first printed for the House of Commons.]
Schedule 5, page 134, line 11, leave out ("so").
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment. This is merely a drafting Amendment, arising out of an oversight in the original text of the Bill, the word
1140
"so" not having appeared in the Acts consolidated.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL
Read 2a (according to Order): Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of March 19), Bill read 3a, and passed.

PERPETUITIES AND ACCUMULATIONS BILL [H.L.]
3.19 p.m.
Report of Amendments received (according to Order).
Clause 9 [Options relating to land]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to add to subsection (2):
"Provided that this subsection shall not apply to a right of pre-emption conferred on a public or local authority in respect of land used or to be used for religious purposes where the right becomes exercisable only if the land ceases to be used for such purposes."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment carries out an undertaking that I gave in the course of the Committee stage to move an Amendment which would give effect to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, and so make special provision for the cases where land has been let by local authorities to churches, with an option to re-purchase should that land no longer be required by the churches.
LORD SILSOE: My Lords, I express the gratitude of all Churches for this Amendment. It entirely meets the point I was asked to raise and the Churches are grateful to the Government.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of March 19), Bill read 3a.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to signify to the House.

1141
that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Perpetuities and Accumulations Bill, has consented to place Her Majesty's interest so far as it is concerned on behalf of the Crown at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill. I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES ACT 1923 (AMENDMENT) BILL
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
3.22 p.m.
LORD ST. JUST: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard, who is ill, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord St. Just.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

HARBOURS BILL
3.23 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, as I move, "That the Bill be now read a second time", I feel that I must first say a word or two about the Rochdale Report, which is the background for all Government policy on ports, and on which the Government have drawn in very large measure for the provisions that are in the Bill. I am sure your Lordships will be as pleased as I shall be to hear what the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, is proposing to say a little later in this debate.
The port industry, Parliament, and indeed the country as a whole, owe the noble Viscount an immense debt. The Report he and his colleagues produced in sixteen months of hard work has been so widely praised that I do not think it is easy for me to try to add anything; but I must place it on record that it was described by a speaker in another place as the most important event ever to have taken place in the history of the port
1142
industry—and I do not think that is overstatement. The noble Viscount has put the Government and the ports industry further in his debt by agreeing to become the Chairman of the National Ports Council, about which I shall have a good deal more to say in a moment.
But first I must state the main objective of my speech this afternoon, which is to give your Lordships a brief factual outline of the contents of the Bill. It certainly looks a formidable affair, with 61 clauses and 6 Schedules, and while much of it is of very considerable complexity, I hope to be able to satisfy your Lordships that the basic objectives of the Bill are straightforward, simple and, above all, commendable. They are, if I am not over-simplifying, to provide means whereby a comprehensive, coordinated plan for the systematic development of our ports over the next 15 or 20 years can be worked out. I should perhaps apologise to your Lordships if I rather over-simplify matters, but I shall try to present this very complex measure as best I can; so if I err in that way your Lordships will no doubt tell me about it in due course.
So I begin with the establishment of the National Ports Council and its proposed functions and duties. The draftsman, quite rightly and properly, put the provisions which deal with these in the forefront of the Bill, in the first eight clauses. The establishment of a strong central body to plan, in conjunction with the ports, the future pattern of development of the whole system was one of the chief recommendations of the Rochdale Committee and the Government were never in any doubt that it must be accepted, although I must tell your Lordships that the exact powers and functions of the Council as proposed in the Bill now before us are not in every respect identical with what that Committee recommended. The Bill, then, provides for the setting up of the National Ports Council and spells out their duties in Clause 1. These are so important that while I am not actually going to read them out, I want your Lordships to look at Clause 1 with great care, because the words have been very carefully chosen, and it is important that their significance should be fully understood.
As I said, the primary task of the Council is the working out, in close co-

1143
operation and conjunction with the ports themselves, of a comprehensive, coordinated national plan. I think the word to stress here is "co-operation". The National Ports Council will have no dictatorial powers such as would enable them to compel a port authority to undertake a project they did not want to do. It is cardinal to the Government's policy that the ports must do everything they can to help themselves and to feel as free as they possibly can to manage their own businesses within the overall concept—and when I get to the part of the Bill about charges, my Lords, we shall see how this principle applies in practice. Your Lordships will wish to know that the National Ports Council is already very hard at work, though of course on a non-statutory basis, on various aspects leading towards the plan and on their main duties which are, in effect, to give port authorities every possible help and encouragement, both in the formulation and execution of plans and for capital development and in assisting by way of their advice any port authorities that want it.
Clause 2 deals with the composition of the Council and says that the members are to be appointed by the Minister on the basis of experience and knowledge of various suitable kinds. It also provides for the possible appointment of people with experience of working in harbours and people with knowledge or experience of matters affecting the fishing industry, among others, who might have useful and special knowledge and experience. The real point is that it is not intended that the National Ports Council should be strictly representative of sectional or regional interests, but that it should provide a blend of experience and capacity in a number of different and appropriate fields.
Clause 3 is to enable the Council to do what seems to them to be practicable and desirable for the promotion of research into matters of management, construction and improvement of harbours and the carrying out of harbour operations and training and education. Their training and education activities are not to overlap those of the National Dock Labour Board, but they will be able,
1144
for instance, to train dock workers for white collar jobs on the management side. My right honourable friend can direct the Council to promote research into any specific problems as he may think desirable, and the Council, if they promote research to be carried out by other people, can give financial assistance for it.
Clause 4, my Lords, is important. It provides that the Council's expenses are to be met by means of a levy on the port industry, subject to the Minister of Transport's prior approval of both the actual scheme itself and the amount that can be raised under it. This clause was hotly opposed in another place, largely on the ground that the Council should properly have been financed by way of Exchequer grants. It would take too long if I went fully into the reasons why the Government rejected this course—perhaps that may come later—but I think it will do at this stage if I say that the Government are quite convinced that for the Council to derive its income from the port industry will both encourage it to be as independent as possible and, at the same time, promote close relations with the port authorities with whom the Council must work. Perhaps I should at this stage just say that I am not going right the way through the Bill in this way, but these first eight Clauses are very important, and I thought I ought to give them special attention.
I will go on to the second main section of the Bill, which deals with the control of harbour development. I think your Lordships will agree with me that it the concept of an overall and comprehensive national ports development plan is to be effective, there will clearly have to be powers to disallow major developments if these do not fit in with the national plan. Clause 9 therefore proposes that the Minister shall have powers of this kind, and he must consult with the National Ports Council before he can act. Some fears arose in another place that the Minister and the Council might use these powers in such a way as to control minor and relatively unimportant capital works, and the Bill was therefore amended to provide that the control will not operate on works costing up to £500,000; nor will it be used to control routine maintenance and repairs. I think that change was quite

1145
widely welcomed, and certainly I think it should relieve the worries of the smaller ports, who thought they might have to go through a cumbersome procedure for quite small projects, although that, of course, was never the idea of the clause.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, I do not want to interrupt the noble Lord, but this is an important point. I accept that for a port authority like the Port of London Authority £500,000 is very little, considering the work they have to do. But, if we consider a small port somewhere else, £500,000 is more than will ever be spent. Should there not be some relation between the size of the port and the work to be done?
LORD CHESHAM: I think that would be difficult to write into the Statute. The sum of £500,000 was settled upon as the most reasonable compromise that could be made, and the Bill of course has provision for varying that figure if it proves to be either too high or too low.
Clauses 11 to 13 provide that the Minister, with Treasury approval, and having consulted the Council, may make grants or loans to port authorities for the various purposes set out in Clauses 11 and 12. I think I can best express to your Lordships the real intention of these clauses by saying that Government policy will be that no approved major capital project which fits into the national plan shall be stultified by lack of funds to carry it out. I think that is putting it as simply as I can. Clause 13 puts the limit of the aggregate of these loans and grants at £50 million, which can go up to £100 million if another place so provides. I think in these cases where a Minister is granted powers of financing assistance to an industry it is now usual to write a maximum into the Statute.
I come to harbour revision and empowerment orders in Clauses 14 to 17, which are also important. The intention is to enable harbour authorities, on the one hand, and persons or bodies who wish to construct new harbours, on the other, to have a new and rather simpler method of getting the necessary statutory authority. Until now, the only way they could get new powers was by Private Bill or Provisional Order, both of which have to go through a lengthy and often expensive process before they
1146
become law. Under the new procedure, measures—certainly those which command general assent—should go through much more quickly. I would point out that the amplest safeguards have been written in to ensure that proposals of this kind are thoroughly aired and any possible objections to them examined. Without going into the whole detail, which is very long, I would say that they provide for extensive advertisement, a reasonable time for objections or representations, and a public inquiry where the Minister thinks it desirable—and I imagine that he would think it desirable in any contested proposal. On top of that, when that has all been done and the Minister lays an order before Parliament, the Special Parliamentary Procedure to which it is then subject provides also the fullest opportunity for detailed scrutiny. The objects for which these orders can be made your Lordships will find in Schedule 2, and Schedule 3 spells out in great detail the procedure that is to be followed before the Minister lays an order before Parliament.
The Minister himself is given related powers, in Clause 15, to make harbour revision orders off his own bat, but he can do that only on representations made to him by the National Ports Council; and even then he can, in effect, only reconstitute a harbour authority or alter its constitution or regulate either in whole or in part, its procedure. This was thought necessary because it could happen (although I should hope only very rarely) that both the Minister and the National Ports Council were satisfied that changes of some kind ought to be made in a harbour authority's constitutional procedure for which that authority, for some reason or other, was unwilling or reluctant to ask; and I think I can see where it might be less embarrassing for the Minister to act of his own motion on this than for the authority to start the action itself. Harbour empowerment orders, on the other hand, deal with the situation where some person or body wants to construct a new harbour, and the procedure is, in fact, very much the same as for harbour revision orders.
Clause 18 brings us on to harbour reorganisation schemes. The Rochdale Committee came to the firm conclusion that there was a lot to be gained by the

1147
unification of port facilities in an estuary or river in a number of places around the coasts. The Government accept this in principle. Proposals can come either from the Council or from all or any of the harbour authorities concerned; and once again the procedure they have to go through has been designed to provide for the fullest possible scrutiny. Under Clauses 19 to 24 the Minister can make orders, called "Control of movement orders", to set up schemes for the control of movement of ships entering or leaving harbours; and how harbour authorities apply to my right honourable friend for such an order is set out in Schedule 5. I should say that what is in these clauses is a self-contained section of the Bill, not closely related to the main objectives of the other important parts of it; although I think one could argue that the effective control of ships entering and leaving harbours is probably conducive to their commercial efficiency. What we hope to see happening is further progress along the lines which have already been successful in the Mersey and Thames estuaries; but again I stress that the initiative again lies with the harbour authorities concerned.
My Lords, I come next to what might be the most important single section of the Bill—important both because of what it does and because of what has been thought and said about Clauses 25 to 38, which contain the provisions about the control of charges. They are, quite frankly—and particularly Clauses 25, 29 and 30—exceptionally complicated in detail, but I think I can put their essential objectives fairly simply.
At present, the charges which a harbour authority can make may be subject to a variety of controls, or to no control at all: it all depends on whatever is in the appropriate one of the large and various number of Private and Public Acts which govern the powers of harbour authorities to charge. The Rochdale Committee thought the existing system inadequate, inconsistent within itself and to a large extent unnecessary. The Government accept this, and accordingly the general objective is to free the authorities from all statutory controls which may be contained in Acts of general or local application and to leave them at liberty to make such charges as they think right in
1148
respect of dues on ships, passengers and goods or of charges for other services such as stevedoring, warehousing and so forth. I must, however, point out to your Lordships two important qualifications to this freedom—one already written into the Bill and another which I propose to move in Committee. First, so far as dues on ships, passengers and goods are concerned, the freedom of harbour authorities to make such charges as they think fit is qualified by the right of a port user to object to paying a particular due. These objections are to be heard by the National Ports Council, whose decision is to be final. If they think that the objection is justified, they can direct a port authority to fix that due at a given figure which will thereafter remain frozen for a period, not exceeding twelve months, to be fixed by the Council.
The second qualification arises out of an undertaking which the Government gave late in the progress of the Bill in another place, and it is that charges which a port authority are entitled to make, other than ship, passenger and goods dues, are to be subject to the limitation that if they were required by Statute before the passing of this Bill to be reasonable they must continue to be so. I think that this is something we shall have to discuss in more detail in Committee when I move the necessary Amendments, and that your Lordships might be content to leave the matter for the present.
I want to come to Clause 30, which is also important, because it provides that the National Ports Council, if they are unable to reach agreement with a particular port authority on the level of all or any of their charges may submit to my right honourable friend a scheme for adjusting those charges, for the Minister to approve if he so decides.
I will not try to conceal from your Lordships that these provisions have been the subject of intense scrutiny and debate, both in and out of Parliament and have been strongly objected to by many of the important interests concerned. I do not think I should take time to-day to go in detail into the grounds of this argument, though I have little doubt that we shall later on; but broadly, however, the argument is between those who think that in the last resort the control of charges made by harbour authorities should rest, as it

1149
has hitherto, with the Minister of Transport, and those who think that it is high time for statutory control of this kind to be abolished. The Government have never had any doubt that the right course is the one recommended in the Bill, which incidentally conforms precisely in this respect to the recommendations of the Rochdale Committee.
Let me remind your Lordships that it is a cardinal principle of the Bill that harbour authorities should have the maximum degree of freedom to regulate their affairs, including, of course, their financial affairs. It would be inconsistent with such a principle that the Minister should retain the powers which he has now to regulate port charges; but at the same time, in view of the special position of the ports, it seemed right to us to provide, as a counterpart to this freedom, a right of objection to a particular due on the grounds set out in Clause 29. We are satisfied that this kind of objection should go to the body which the Government have set up, charged with the general oversight of ports, rather than to the Minister.
But it is not the same when we come to Clause 30. I think I should say, and make quite clear, that we regard that provision as very much a reserve power; we certainly do not think it very likely that it will have to be invoked in many cases. But—and here again we accept a recommendation of the Rochdale Committee—a situation could arise where a particular port was not making proper provision for depreciation and reserves and refused to listen to the advice of the National Ports Council that it should review its charges in order to put itself on a more satisfactory financial basis. Then the National Ports Council, if they fail to reach agreement with the port authority, will be able to make recommendations to the Minister, but in a matter of such importance we feel that the final decision on it should be with him.
Clauses 39 and 40 deal with the furnishing of information and statutory harbour authorities' annual statements of accounts. I am sure that noble Lords will be relieved to hear that I am not going in detail into the rest of the Bill; that is, Clauses 41 to 61 and Schedules 4, 5 and 6. They contain the usual miscellany of matters which have to be covered in any major Public Bill, like
1150
penalty provisions, application to the Crown, inquiries and hearings, date of coming into operation and so forth. I need only direct your Lordships' attention to Clause 52, which sets out the orders made by my right honourable friend the Minister, which are to be subject to Negative Resolution procedure, with its consequent safeguards.
I have referred already to one major Amendment, or rather series of Amendments, which in due course I shall ask your Lordships to approve. I should perhaps mention another. Late in the Bill's progress in another place the Opposition introduced an Amendment providing for the payment of compensation for loss of employment or worsening of conditions of employment arising out of the operation of certain provisions of the Bill. It was withdrawn on an undertaking being given that the Government were sympathetic to the principle behind the Amendment, but would like to consider in more detail exactly how it should be applied. I have little doubt that when your Lordships see what I shall be moving in due course you will agree that it is one which fully satisfies the undertaking.
My Lords, I have done my best to give your Lordships a complete but not too lengthy description of the principal points of what is in this long and complicated Bill, but I realise that I have had to deal rather summarily with many matters of considerable weight. If, however, I have managed to place before your Lordships the main objectives of the Bill under its different heads with reasonable clarity, I shall consider that I have succeeded, but no doubt there will be many queries and matters which we shall have to discuss. We have reached a critical point in the development of our ports, and this Bill therefore comes at the right moment.
One of the many pregnant observations in the Rochdale Committee's Report was that we ought to prepare for a 100 per cent. increase in the volume of our imports and exports by 1980—and, in fact, it might be earlier than that. If we are going to achieve that kind of expansion it will need the best brains we can get and the close and positive co-operation of all concerned. It is not a matter in which one can lay down hard and fast lines and rigid policy directives. The Government will expect

1151
a far-seeing and imaginative report from the National Ports Council and also the fullest co-operation from the port authorities in developing in accord with it. The Ministry of Transport will be available at all times to give advice and assistance as may be required of it, and not least, perhaps, financial assistance. Her Majesty's Government have every confidence that a working partnership between the National Ports Council, the port authorities, whether they are independent or nationalised, and the Ministry of Transport will produce the best possible results. The first step towards that is this Bill, which I ask your Lordships to read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Chesham.)

ORGANO-CHLORINE PESTICIDES
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (LORD ST. OSWALD): My Lords, it might be for the convenience of the House if I were now to make a statement, similar to the one being made by my right honourable friend in another place. I will use his own words. This statement relates to the use of certain toxic chemicals in agriculture.
"I have received the Report of the Advisory Committee on Poisonous Substances used in Agriculture and Food Storage on the persistent organo-chlorine pesticides. Copies of the Report are now available in the Vote Office. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking Sir James Cook and the members of his Committee for their work.
"The Committee found no evidence of any serious immediate hazard to human beings from the use of these pesticides, or to wild life, apart from certain species of predatory birds. In particular they reject the suggestion that these chemicals may be severe liver poisons or that they can be condemned as presenting a carcinogenic hazard to man. On the other hand, they regard it as a matter of concern that traces of the chemicals are being found in so many situations and express the firm opinion that accumula-
1152
tive contamination of the environment by the more persistent organo-chlorine pesticides should be curtailed. The Committee do not advise that the situation calls for urgent action, but they recommend that a start should be made as soon as possible by restricting certain important uses of aldrin and dieldrin. Other uses of these chemicals, and the use of D.D.T., should be reviewed again at the end of three years.
"Consultations have taken place with organisations representing the interests concerned. The manufacturers of aldrin and dieldrin have informed me that they disagree strongly with the Committee's scientific conclusions, since their own scientific researches suggest that, after reaching a certain harmless level of concentration, the chemicals cease to have further cumulative effect. The National Farmers' Unions have drawn attention to the considerable significance that restriction could have for agriculture. Nevertheless, the Government have decided to give effect to the Committee's recommendations and I am glad to be able to tell the House that I have had assurances of co-operation from all the interests concerned in curtailing the use of these chemicals on the lines recommended by the Committee. This will be done through the voluntary schemes operated jointly by the manufacturers and the Government.
"The principal changes will be that fertilisers containing aldrin, products for garden use containing aldrin or dieldrin, and dips and sprays for sheep containing these chemicals will cease to be available. Generally, these and other recommended changes will take place at the end of the 1964 season, though in the case of sheep dips more time will be needed and the change will take place at the end of the following season. Further consideration will be given to sanctioning certain relatively minor uses.
"The Committee stress that their recommendations are based purely on the situation as they see it in Great Britain and may have no relevance to conditions in other countries. In developing countries in particular these chemicals have made a striking

1153
contribution to solving the problems of malnutrition and disease and, under these different conditions, the gains from their use may well outweigh any potential hazards.
"The voluntary scheme has so far worked well, but as scientific knowledge increases and more restrictions are found to be necessary, it comes under increasing strain. The Government are asking the Committee to examine the present voluntary safety arrangements and will consider whether legislation, which the manufacturers of agricultural chemicals now advocate, would be desirable.
"The Advisory Committee, whose terms of reference are at present limited to agriculture and food storage, has drawn attention to the use of organo-chlorine pesticides for industrial and domestic purposes such as wood preservation and mothproofing. The Government have decided to extend the Committee's terms of reference to include these purposes and also to enable them to report on other toxic chemicals which the Government might wish from time to time to refer to them. In view of this extension of the Advisory Committee's responsibilities, it will in future be primarily responsible to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, but will continue to advise other Ministers as necessary."
My Lords, that is the statement. And, of course, my reference to the Report's availability in the Vote Office in another place means that it is also available in the Printed Paper Office in your Lordships' House.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, we welcome the Government's decision to implement the recommendations of the Cook Report and we regard it as a first step. But, having listened to the noble Lord, I think everybody in this House must express concern on learning that the manufacturers of these products do not endorse the Government's attitude or endorse the Cook Committee's recommendations. In view of this, does not the Minister think that, with science advancing so rapidly in this field, the test for toxicity should be taken out of the hands of the manufacturer of the product, and an indepen-
1154
dent central organisation be set up to test all these products and then to recommend that they can be distributed?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I think the noble Lady is a little astray in saying that the manufacturers of these products do not endorse the Committee's recommendations. In fact, one manufacturer has disagreed, and has given reasons for disagreeing which were considered by the Committee. But as the noble Lady will have seen, the Government have continued with the action which the Committee recommended. In fact, another manufacturer of a chemical called heptachlor chose to withdraw that particular chemical slightly before the Committee made its Report. This shows, I think, that the views of its own scientists were going in the same direction.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Could the noble Lord answer the question whether he thinks the time has arrived when there should be an independent organisation set up to test these substances?
LORD ST. OSWALD: No, my Lords. We always treat the noble Lady's views with great respect, but we believe the voluntary system does work. As I mentioned in the statement, the question of the possible introduction of legislation is being looked at; but at the moment we find the voluntary system works, and we hope it will carry on working as effectively as it has up to now.
LORD HURCOMB: My Lords, as I had occasion to be somewhat critical of the noble Lord's attitude when this matter was last debated in your Lordships' House, I should like to say that all naturalists in this country will appreciate, I will not say the change of heart, but at any rate the modification of the noble Lord's attitude and that of his Minister in regard to these chlorinated hydrocarbons, which have done such immense damage to the wild life of this country. Nobody disputes the importance of the use of pesticides and herbicides in agriculture, but I would remind the noble Lord that it is only recently, as a result of representations by the naturalists and, in another country, Rachel Carson, whose book had such an influence, that it has come

1155
to be recognised that damage is being done.
In thanking the Ministry for the action they have taken, and whilst recognising the great importance of restricting the use of, in particular, aldrin and dieldrin, may I also say that, in spite of the reservations which seemed to be attached to his description of the manufacturers' attitude, we recognise that they also have approached this particular problem with a considerable degree of enlightenment?
May I put one or two questions to the noble Lord? First, may I take it that the Ministry's pamphlet to gardeners which caused so much feeling and was the subject of so much criticism a year ago will now be withdrawn or very substantially modified? May I remind him that it contained the statement that these substances, including those he has mentioned, are
"quite safe for use in the garden if properly handled"?
My Lords, does he not now agree that the use of aldrin and dieldrin by gardeners who have little idea what they are using, or of the damage they can do, has in fact done immense damage to our insectivorous birds?
I would not dispute that these substances are quite safe to human beings if properly handled, but does he not agree that, in destroying the insects, they have also destroyed a vast number of birds? May I put one other point to the noble Lord? Does he not think that the fact that our water is now carrying quantities of these particular substances and appears to be affecting all aquatic birds is in itself a matter which requires further research?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I remember the noble Lord's criticism, which naturally I took very much to heart. I am happy that he is pleased at the direction in which we are moving. He may have noticed that chlorinated hydrocarbons, which we were discussing at that time, have now become organochlorine chemicals. I hope he will not ask me why. As regards the booklet he mentioned, I can tell him that a revised booklet will be issued. I ought to tell him—though he may think this is splitting hairs—that the Committee found no evidence in their studies of
1156
birds being killed by the use of chemicals in gardens. He related that question to the pamphlet, I think. I am afraid I am not in a position to comment on the levels of these chemicals in water. I do not think they are known; but, of course, we shall pay attention to what he has said.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, is the Minister really satisfied that, if it is not safe to use these chemicals in this country, it really is safe, right and proper to send them out to primitive peoples with very much more primitive methods of handling them in tropical agriculture?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I think I included a reference to that in my original statement.
LORD TAYLOR: That is why I asked.
LORD ST. OSWALD: I know. I drew attention to the fact that it was the cumulative effect of these chemicals which, though it had not become dangerous, looked as if it might do so. I also said (and this is the statement to which the noble Lord is drawing attention) that in some countries the value of these chemicals in food production might outweigh the existing potential risks.
LORD TAYLOR: But if these potential risks are there, am I not right in thinking that they are handled in a very sloppy way, quite often, by primitive agriculturists (for which they cannot be blamed), and that there are very real hazards to health arising from them? In fact, the World Health Organisation has a special section dealing with this question.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, that question does not come under the Ministry of Agriculture or Her Majesty's Government.
LORD TAYLOR: Yes, it does, if the chemicals are exported.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: You have mentioned them.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, can the noble Lord say why, if the Government have accepted the Committee's recommendations, they will not be implemented, in the case of sheep dips, until 1965?
LORD ST. OSWALD: Because, my Lords, we have to give the sheep farmers time to replace this particular chemical with others equally effective. It would not be fair to withdraw this as quickly as the others are being withdrawn. It is true that there are effective alternative dips, but they have to be used two or three times a season, whereas this has to be used only once a season; and in certain parts of the country physical conditions make it extremely difficult for farmers to do that. We think it is only fair to give time for another effective chemical to be produced.
LORD STONHAM: Is the noble Lord not saying that he thinks it is only fair to allow the farmers to use up their stocks of poison?
LORD ST. OSWALD: No, I am not saying that.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, would the noble Lord explain why this confident prediction is made; that the accumulation of these poisons in the human body will not do anybody any harm? What research has been done on that subject?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, what I have said, or what I ought to have said, and what I hope I did say, is that there is no evidence that the present levels have done anybody any harm. The fact is that we do not know, and nobody knows, what exactly are the tolerances in the human body. The noble Lord will be well aware—more aware than myself—that tolerances vary between one animal and another, and between animals and human beings but we have no evidence to suggest that the buildup of these chemicals in the human body has reached the point of harmfulness.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: Yes, my Lords; but has the noble Lord any evidence that it has not reached that point? He has said that he has no evidence at all. Since when has no evidence become evidence?
LORD ST. OSWALD: It would need positive evidence before we should feel justified in taking any stricter and swifter action than we are taking already. We believe that the action we are taking is sufficiently strict.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: Is it not desirable to have positive evidence of safety?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, following on that last and very important question, can the noble Lord assure us that his Department, or some other Department, is in fact urgently engaged on a research programme which is going to provide evidence, whether it is positive or negative, rather than simply leaving it to—
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Autopsies.
LORD WALSTON:—autopsies to show whether or not there is any evidence of any harm? I think the House would he most grateful if the noble Lord could give us that assurance now.
LORD ST. OSWALD: Yes, my Lords, I can give an assurance of that nature. The Government are referring the Committee's Report to the Chief Medical Officers' Committee on the Medical and Nutritional Aspects of Food Policy for advice on tolerance levels (I think this is what the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, wanted to know) and in the light of the views of that Committee will again seek the views of the Food Standards Committee as to the making of regulations under the Food and Drugs Act to provide for maximum residue levels. Such regulations—and this is a partial answer to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor—would have to apply to home produce and imported produce alike. The figures given, which noble Lords will find in Appendix F to the Committee's Report, indicate that, on the whole, imported produce does not compare unfavourably with home produce in the matter of dieldrin residues.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord suggesting that these long, future programmes that he has read out are in any way comparable to actual scientific experiments designed to decide these very important questions on which there is, on his own admission, no evidence? Referring something to a Committee is not exactly the same as carrying out a scientific experiment.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, the Committee will, of course, have at their command the physical means of making these experiments.
LORD HURCOMB: My Lords, have I understood the noble Lord to say that his Committee denied that there is any evidence of the death of wild birds, other than of birds of prey, as a result of these chemicals? If so, how can that be reconciled with evidence produced by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the British Trust for Ornithology, which shows that the bodies of a very large number of dead birds, of a wide range of species, have been found, on analysis, to contain a high concentration of these substances? And that they were dead certainly cannot be denied. Can the noble Lord further say how he reconciles what he says with the fact that a large number of eggs were found to be infertile?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, we are back on a subject which the noble Lord and I have discussed before. This learned and conscientious Committee received the sort of evidence that the noble Lord mentioned, and in their conclusions they say that the only convincing evidence of death of birds caused by taking in these chemicals was among predators.

HARBOURS BILL
4.12 p.m.
Debate on Second Reading resumed.
LORD HOBSON: My Lords, we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, for his clear and interesting exposition of this very complicated and lengthy Harbours Bill. I want, first of all, to raise the question of dry docks. It is rather significant that within the Rochdale Report there are long references to the dry docks, but no provision is made within the Bill for providing dry docks within our ports and for financing them. Rochdale made at great length the point that, by comparison with modern European and American countries, we are very short of adequate dry dock facilities. This seems something that ought to be put right quickly, and it is rather strange that there is no reference to this within this Bill. I should be grateful for an explanation from the noble Lord.
We are pleased on this side of the House that the noble Lord has intima-
1160
ted that an Amendment is to be moved to deal with the problem of redundancy. That is something my Party advocated in another place, and we are grateful that the noble Lord is going to produce an Amendment dealing with compensation for people declared redundant in the reorganisation scheme. We on this side of the House support the Bill and we shall do all we can to facilitate its passage during the remaining stages. That does not mean to say that we shall not move Amendments in order, as we see it, to make the Bill better and more effective; but I hasten to assure your Lordships that our Amendments will be constructive, methodical and certainly forthright.
As the noble Lord has said, this is a very large Bill: it has 61 Clauses and there are six Schedules. It follows the recommendations of the Rochdale Committee which are accepted by both sides. So there is no question of controversy in this Bill at all. It is just a question of both sides of your Lordships' House getting together to make it more workmanlike and effective. The noble Lord has already expressed thanks to Lord Rochdale for his lucid and comprehensive Report and the splendid analysis of the docks industry; and I am sure it must be an added pleasure that the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, is a Member of your Lordships' House. We are also pleased on this side that Lord Rochdale found it possible to become the new chairman of the Ports Council.
We are forced by this Bill to deal with the legacies of the past. Having been the first industrialised nation, many of our installations are now hopelessly outdated and do not fulfil modern requirements. We must face the fact that it is going to involve this nation in very considerable capital expenditure. We are also grateful that, under the Bill, noble Lords opposite have accepted the principle of planning. This is the first time we have had a measure dealing with docks which is providing for planned dock facilities and developments in this country. For far too long "planning" has been an ugly word, and we of the Labour Party were often denounced for advocating planning after 1945. We are, therefore, pleased that noble Lords opposite and members of their Party in another place have come round to accepting our premise that if we are

1161
going to have an efficient industry we must have planning, whether it be national or private.
I have already said that tremendous leeway has to be made up; and I think those of your Lordships who have visited Rotterdam and the new Europa Port, and have seen Antwerp and Hamburg, will appreciate the tremendous effort that we, as a nation, must make in order to bring our port facilities up to date. Paradoxically, the reconstruction of these large European ports was facilitated by their destruction by the enemy. Now they have been rebuilt and, in my submission, from the point of view of equipment, they are the most modern ports in the world.
The first seven clauses of this Bill, as the noble Lord has said, set up the National Ports Council and define its duties. The consequence of this is that, for the first time, we are to have planned development of our ports according to the needs of our nation. Development is no longer going to be pragmatic; it is no longer going to depend on whether a company or municipality have sufficient resources to raise the capital to develop their particular ports. Now we are to have the whole of the nation considered for port development in relation to location and to trade needs.
My first observation on these first seven clauses is that we are concerned that the Ports Council which is to be set up will have among its members representatives of dock labour as well as dock employers. We feel that dock labour, as such, should be represented; and, of course, there must naturally be among the Ports Council people of proven industrial merit. My idea of an effective board is one that will contain representatives who are functional, who know their jobs, who are representatives of labour engaged in that industry; and I believe that quite a large percentage of the total board should be people with wide industrial knowledge who have made their way in life and can bring to bear sound common sense on decisions.
We should also like the noble Lord, when he comes to reply, to tell us how many members of the new National Ports Council are to be full-time and how many part-time. There is obviously to be a full-time chairman and deputy chairman; but it seems to me that there ought to be a large number of the Council
1162
—and there are only eleven at maximum—who are full-time, in view of the magnitude of the task of having to plan development, and also because the distances between the various ports will involve a large amount of travel.
We feel that Clause 3, which the noble Lord dealt with and which concerns training and education, is commendable. It will enable a docker to receive the training which will enable him, if he so desires and if he be adequately qualified, to rise to the top. There is always a danger in industry, in my experience, that promotion for the manual worker stops half-way. This clause makes it certain that, should a docker qualify, he can proceed to even the highest effective position in the managerial ranks. I believe that this is the first time we have had a Government Bill in which this is actually written down.
I think that at this stage it would be pertinent to pay tribute to the work of the National Dock Labour Board training scheme. The Board set up this scheme in advance of the Industrial Training Act, which was before your Lordships' House a few weeks ago, and they have been very successful in their training of new dockers as they come into the industry. I should think that what will happen is that some of the bright men who received their original training in the Dock Labour Board schemes will pass to further education and provide the "sergeants" who will eventually become the "generals" in this industry.
Obviously, we accept the provision in Clause 8 for the presentation to Parliament of report and accounts, but I wonder whether we might consider going a little further. The present position is, that we cannot question a Minister on the annual report and accounts of any nationalised industry. I have always thought that that was drawing things a little too far. I remember raising this matter with two previous Prime Ministers, and whilst they viewed my contention sympathetically, they did not give way. I do not believe in interference by question and answer in the day-to-day management of any industry, whether nationalised or private, but this question of the degree of the accountability of nationalised concerns is something

1163
which both Houses of Parliament will have to consider sooner or later. So far as the other place is concerned, only six days are allocated for the discussion of the reports and accounts of the nationalised industries and, of course, it is always those which are most contentious, or where there has been a strike or shortages, which are most discussed. Therefore, it seems to me that, in future, consideration will have to be given to the accountability of these large public and semi-public organisations.
Clause 9 deals with the control of harbour development. This is to be achieved by the central control of national port investment. This, of course, is essential and we accept it without any reservations. Otherwise, if it is going to be left to the individual port authorities, there would be a useless duplication of capital expenditure. One can point to occasions at various ports when this has already happened. The Government and the Ports Council can take into consideration the location of industry.
This ports development is to be laid down by way of orders in Parliament subject to the Negative Resolution procedure. Why not the Affirmative Resolution procedure? We are faced with a fait accompli if a port is closed down or developed, when we have the Negative Resolution procedure. It seems to me far better that this should be in the form of an Affirmative Resolution before action is taken. Frankly, the longer I live and am associated with Parliament, the more suspicious I am of the Negative Resolution procedure.
Here I think it is relevant to deal with the capital sum for the development of our ports, which is to be between £50 and £100 million "to fit them for their responsibilities for fifty years", to quote the Minister in another place. The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, put on another 30 and said, "80 years". I want to ask two questions on this. First of all, is this sum large enough? Secondly, are the ports going to receive an adequate share of the national "cake"? I doubt it very much. After all, £100 million in 50 years is £2 million a year. One does not get so very much maritime engineering for £2 million nowadays. And this is a very urgent task for this country.
1164
If it is going to survive and to be preeminent as a trading nation, it has to have up-to-date ports.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I want to follow the noble Lord's argument properly. He is dividing the sum available into fifty years, but he is misled. I said 15 to 20 years, and not 50 to 80 years.
LORD HOBSON: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord. I put down 80, but I must have misheard him. I accept his statement. But, coming back to the argument, I doubt very much whether the amount of capital to be provided is adequate. I know the difficulty. We on this side are not stupid enough to say that there are millions of pounds available for the development of every industry. We know pretty well what the national "cake" is, and the amount of capital available. It is a question of which industries are going to get a share—and it largely boils down to the question of what the nationalised industries are going to get. I went before several Cabinet Committees, during the time that my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth was a Minister, to plead for more capital expenditure for the Post Office. I know that one cannot pursue a personal ministerial line on these matters. Nevertheless, I doubt very much whether the sum included here is sufficient to modernise our ports.
Let me develop this aspect one stage further. With the change in the type of ship, with ships of increased length, wider beam and greater draft, in nearly all our major ports, except the double tidal ports, such as Southampton, there has unquestionably to be almost immediate capital development. This brings me to a question which may be rather controversial on both sides of the House. As the Bill now stands, and as the noble Lord has stated, harbour authorities can spend up to £500,000 for their own development. At first sight, this is satisfactory: they should not have to run to the Minister for re-equipment, for some cranes or for minor alterations. But, as my noble friend Lord Lindgren pointed out in his intervention, this is rather a two-edged weapon, and I think that between now and Committee stage the noble Lord may care to have a look at it. Half a million pounds to the Port

1165
of London, Tilbury or Southampton is (to use a colloquialism) a "flea-bite". But some of the smaller ports could make themselves into quite large ports on that amount of development and so undermine the whole idea of national port development. I think that there will have to be some new wording here, or some lowering of the amount of money, to prevent that from taking place.
We welcome, in Clause 16, the streamlining of the cumbersome Private Bill procedure to which harbour authorities have to resort. Those of us who have sat on these Private and Hybrid Bill Committees appreciate that that procedure is far too cumbersome, and welcome the provisions made here. There is no doubt that in the past many desirable improvement and development schemes have been pigeonholed purely because promoters have been frightened of this cumbersome legal and Parliamentary procedure—I am too respectful of lawyers to mention cost.
In Clause 18, we come to harbour reorganisation schemes—and to a rather awkward word which I, as a Yorkshireman, find hard to get out—estuarial groupings. We accept that of course. There has to be development; there has to be retrenchment. But I hope that the Ports Council and the Minister—who, after all, has complete power, in the last analysis—will be aware of the social consequences of closing down any port. Here I think it is fair to pay tribute again to the National Dock Labour Board. Where ports have been running down there has been very little trouble, because they have seen the need ahead of time, and through resignation and stopping of recruitment the matter has gone off without trouble. But I would give a warning that plenty of notice must be given in order to avoid trouble, because of the social consequences involved.
Here again, on Clause 18, the approval of this scheme is subject to the Special Parliamentary Procedure—that is the wording in the Act. I read the Report of the Third Reading debate in the other place, and frankly (I speak with 14 years' experience of the other place) I do not yet understand what form this special procedure is to take. I hope that when the noble Lord comes to reply he will give us some indication of what this
1166
special procedure will be, not only as it affects the other place, but also as it affects your Lordships' House. I do not know whether what is meant is that an order will come before a Select Committee, and will then come down to the House for approval, or what it means. With due respect, I found the Minister's explanation on Third Reading in the other place very nebulous.
I come now to Clause 19, which deals with the control and movement of ships in harbour. This matter, of course, at the Committee stage in another place was one of the most controversial issues. The Parliamentary Secretary has a great record in Her Majesty's Navy—he certainly knows something about ships and their movement—and we pay due tribute to the work that he did on the Bill. But his great idea in life (it is a very worthy one, and it makes me feel rather humble in criticising this clause) is the question of safety. It was because of his concern for safety that Clause 19 was drafted. But it soon got into trouble, probably not so much as a result of stupidity as from forgetfulness. Why on earth was there no consultation with the pilots, the marine officers, the navigating officers, the Chamber of Shipping and the National Union of Seamen before this contentious clause was drafted? There have been consultations since. Indeed, I believe the reason—which I shall not give, but which my noble friend Lord Lindgren has mentioned—is the reason why Clause 20 is included in the Bill. But this is stupid. If there had been consultation before, there would not have been half the trouble over the clause that there has been.
But what we are concerned about here is that, first, this is unilateral action on behalf of the United Kingdom. We think that this is wrong. We think it is wrong, not because we are against safety at sea, or because we are against safety in the harbour, but because of the retaliation that may be taken against our British merchantmen when they enter other ports. I do not want to delay your Lordships by giving illustrations, but noble Lords can think of many countries that have not the same sense of justice as we have in Britain. I know of one case where a British merchantman went into a foreign

1167
harbour and got into trouble by misunderstanding; and the retaliation that may be taken against British merchant seamen could well be severe.
I think this is something which should be done gradually. Presumably, what is involved in Clause 19 is the V.H.F. radar system. Let there be no doubt that we certainly have the finest radar system in the world. But the point of the matter is that we should proceed gradually with this control scheme, in order to see that other nations adopt our system. I do not want to weary your Lordships, but I think you will find, on examination of the facts, that the number of foreign nations which adopt our system of V.H.F. radar is increasing every year. Therefore, it seems to me that this is rather precipitous action. We could even forgive that. It may be said: "We are pioneering; we are doing the right thing." But when it comes to having a penal clause, with provision for a fine of £100, it seems to me to be going a little too far. Again, I cannot understand the contradiction that noble Lords get into in this matter. We went from 1960 to 1964 before we ratified the Geneva Convention for Safety at Sea—I think it has just been ratified. That took us four years; but here we are proclaiming this form of safety, regardless of the consequences, immediately.
This is an interesting Bill and, as I said, we approve of it in principle. But its success depends upon the cooperation of both sides of industry. I believe that one of the greatest inducements to the success of this scheme will be an early complete de-casualisation of dock labour. Casual labour is a Victorian concept; it is out-dated and undignified, and it should be abolished at the earliest opportunity. Both sides of the industry having agreed to this in principle, surely something can be done by the Minister of Transport or the Minister of Labour to see that the details are worked out as a matter of urgency. It is often said that we get a great many strikes in this industry. Well, in point of fact, we do not. I will not weary your Lordships with figures, but having had a long experience of industry, having been in strikes and stopped strikes, I think sometimes we expect a little too much. After all, there
1168
is no doubt that the only place where there will be complete harmony is in the graveyard. Therefore, in a complicated industry, where such things as dirty money and dirty cargoes are involved, I think there is bound to be friction. But, by and large, the record is a good one.
I think, too, that we could nail the lie of the slow turn-round of ships in British ports. It is always possible to quote exceptions, but this is something in which I have always been interested, and I have taken the trouble to get some Press cuttings. One says:
"Fast turn-round at Immingham. Eight days for two 14,000-ton cargoes."
Another says:
"7,506 tons of coal in eleven hours."
Then:
"Quick discharge at Thames tier."
So I could go on. I could also give a very fine quotation, which is fact, of the way the dockers have readily accepted the new methods of unloading. Therefore, as I say, the dockers are a great body of men, and loyalty is probably their greatest trait. There are not a large number of disputes. I am sure that, given this scheme, with active and urgent support by the Minister of Transport, they will co-operate to make this industry efficient and pre-eminent.
4.39 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord for the way in which he introduced this Bill, and indeed for introducing it. It seems to me that the more difficult his task—for he properly described this as a long and complex measure—the better he seems to do it. I wish to congratulate him. I should also like to pay my tribute to the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, and his Committee for producing a Report which, though a difficult one, touching a lot of rather difficult points in the industry, yet seems to have earned the approval, in general and in principle, of all the major ports in the country.
This is not a Party matter—I hope, also, that it is not controversial—and, therefore, I do not speak in a Party sense. But I must declare an interest, in that I am connected with various companies engaged in port activities. I see I am to be followed by the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman of Doxford, and the

1169
noble Viscount, Lord Simon, both of whom probably have much more experience than any of us in shipping and the handling of ships. But I speak merely as one connected with those who do the things which happen inside the ports when the ships get there.
In general, I would say that the people I presume to represent—I have no particular brief—approve of this Bill. But it seems to us—that is, the port people—that in one sense it impinges dangerously on the private sector of the industry of port work. The people about whom I speak are tug-owners, lightermen, warehouse keepers, wharfingers and waterside manufacturers. They feel that if this Bill goes through in its present state it will have a damaging effect on the private sector in industry. The sector, as I say, comprises tug and lighterage operations, stevedoring and wharfage, which has, of course, very specialised storage services, and all of which demand great expertise. These operations, done in these different branches, are essential for the speedy handling of shipping, to which the noble Lord has just referred. The slow turnround is a great obstruction in our shipping industry, and we must do everything, in the interests of import and export trade, to improve it.
I think your Lordships will agree that as a nation we have a genius for marine matters; and these things are handed on not necessarily from father to son or family to family, but within a tradition they go down from one firm to its successor, and it would be a pity to see the free enterprise firms swamped by the powers which seem to be given in Clause 9 of this Bill. I think it is inappropriate that companies should be brought within the control of development provisions of that clause, and I would ask that when we get to the Committee stage steps will be taken to take out private enterprise as much as possible. It will not be possible to get the speedy work necessary in turnround that we want if we are to hand over these powers to the port authorities. For instance, if they are to indicate to tug-owners that such a practice shall cease, or another practice may take place, it is impossible to put that into effect in a short time; and a tug-owner is naturally going to think a good long time before he spends the money necessary for a
1170
new tug which, as your Lordships may not know, is very often between £100,000 and £200,000 a vessel.
I am not going to keep your Lordships longer, but when we come to the Committee stage I should like Clause 9 and also Clause 55 (which is the interpretation clause) to be looked at. It defines "harbour land" as
"land adjacent to a harbour, and occupied wholly or mainly for the purpose of activities there carried on."
I see a danger there that waterside manufacturers, for instance, may well come under that clause. People who should not properly be controlled or directed by the port authority may find themselves in real trouble. It is only a question of definition. With these few words I should like to welcome the Bill, and hope that Clauses 9 and 55 in particular will receive special attention when it comes to the Committee stage.
4.44 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER: My Lords, I ask your Lordships' indulgence if, while speaking in this debate, I do not stay till the end of it. I am sure your Lordships will appreciate that in Holy Week my place is in my diocese, and I have to get back there to-night. If I have to leave early, I do not intend any discourtesy to your Lordships' House. I should like to add my congratulations to the noble Lord for the way in which he has introduced this Bill, and for the clarity with which he has set before us matters of extreme technical complexity. It is because of those complexities that I intervene in this debate with some trepidation.
But there is one aspect of the Bill which has caused considerable annoyance to a body of men with whom I have some contact, the master mariners, and to which I desire to call the attention of your Lordships' House, although the noble Lord, Lord Hobson, has already touched upon the matter. It is the penal clause in Clause 19, which subjects the master of a ship, if he is convicted on indictment for a failure or contravention of a control of movement order, to a penalty of imprisonment of up to six months. This possible imposition of a prison sentence upon the master of a ship has caused, to put it mildly, extreme resentment on the part of

1171
master mariners. They point out that nothing must be done to challenge the responsibility of the master for the safety of his ship. They feel that the present system of control (which I understand is by by-laws) has worked perfectly satisfactorily, and they stress that the knowledge that they may be taken to the Admiralty Court and their company mulcted of heavy damages should they show incompetence or carelessness in the face of a control order, is in itself a sufficient safeguard.
It is no consolation to these men to point out that under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, the master of a ship may be sent to prison, because they contend that the offences which are contemplated in that Act have a real element of criminal impropriety about them, whereas the threat of imprisonment in this Bill is imposed upon the exercise of professional judgment by a master concerned for the safety of his ship and all shipping. Nor does the fact that the defences provided in Clause 20 of the Bill bring any assurance, since, it is argued, if it is so unlikely that a master will ever be sent to prison under this clause, then why retain it in the measure at all, together with the hurtful sting which it inflicts upon a fine body of men?
This penal clause in the Bill has been condemned by the Chamber of Shipping, the Merchant Navy and Airline Officers' Association, the Mercantile Marine Service Association, and by the Honourable Company of Master Mariners, a formidable body of opinion. There is, I venture to say, no finer body of men in this country than our master mariners: men of the highest professional competence and skill, men exercising daily great responsibility, men of character, and men who are jealous of the dignity of their position. They are deeply hurt by this penal provision in the Bill, and they regret that, despite many protests in another place, Her Majesty's Government have declined to meet what they regard as a reasonable request. Surely, my Lords, this is an occasion where a little generosity and understanding would reap a harvest of goodwill. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will re-examine this matter and meet the legitimate complaints of this responsible body of men.
4.48 p.m.
VISCOUNT FALKLAND: My Lords, if it were not for the known tolerance of your Lordships' House, I should not have the temerity in a maiden speech to address your Lordships on so technical a Bill as this, especially as, if it had not been for the special provisions in Section 4 of the Peerage Act, I should not be here at all—at least not in this Parliament. As I am a West countryman by descent I am, as you might say, masquerading as a Lowland Scot. I doubt very much whether my fellow Scottish Peers would even have considered electing me. I have lived in Cornwall for a good many years now, and certain aspects of this Bill have been brought to my notice.
Although I have no vested interest in the china clay industry, I have a great many friends—I might say, most of my friends in my part of Cornwall—tied up with the industry in one way or another. It is on how this Bill might affect the china clay industry in Par Port, in particular, that I should like to address your Lordships, as briefly as possible. Perhaps I should not say that the Rochdale Report has exceeded the terms of reference, but it seems to have included such small ports as Par in its recommendations without having previously heard relevant evidence, at least from the china clay industry; and if it were not for the china clay industry the port of Par would not exist.
Weighing up all the facts, it seems to me that the Bill, as at present drafted, could seriously affect the port, especially Clauses 22 and 28 which refer to costs. On the face of things, there is nothing in the Bill as it stands to change the status of ports such as Par, but it seems to me that various clauses in the Bill could do so. I am sure that any uneasiness as to the effect of the Bill on small ports could be allayed if a clause were inserted to make it possible for the Minister to make, at a later date, an order excluding certain harbours from its provisions. This would enable any small ports such as Par to state their case to the Minister after the Bill becomes an Act.
I must tell your Lordships that the Port of Par is a private, specialised port which was originally developed to serve the copper and tin industries, which

1173
have now been replaced by china clay. The china clay industry is a little known one, but any of your Lordships who have visited Cornwall must have seen the white pyramids known by the locals as the Cornish Alps. This is the solid waste from a clay pit, which is tipped on to this distinctive conical burrow. The clay stream is passed by a pipe-line until it arrives at the dries. The dries are often many miles away from the pit, and some of them are in fact alongside the quays at Par. If any of your Lordships are interested in china clay workings and cannot find the time to visit one in Cornwall, there is an excellent model of a pit and workings in the Science Museum in Exhibition Road, South Kensington.
Par Harbour has been enlarged and improved at the expense of English China Clays Limited. The port is now a subsidiary of English China Clay and has long overtaken Fowey Harbour in the tonnage handled. No general trade has been accepted by Par since before the war, except for a few isolated shipments amounting in all to about 54,000 tons, to honour arrangements entered into in the past, on which local merchants rely. No new general trade has been accepted since 1960. The harbour has handled, in each year during the last two years, three quarters of a million tons of cargo, 89 per cent. of which is china clay. It owns its own locomotives and has five miles of private track, with two connections to the main line, chiefly occupied in serving the adjacent clay works. It has a firm of stevedores and operates its own mechanical equipment.
It does not come under any statutory authority, which I think makes it unique in the United Kingdom. Plans are in train with the trade unions for the complete integration of the port sector of the china clay industry, which would lead to the "decasualisation" of dock labour, which is much encouraged by the Government and Opposition. In debate, the Government have argued that the exclusion of private ports generally from the Bill would create a precedent contrary to their general intentions. But, as I have already said, I think the port of Par is unique in the United Kingdom.
1174
I hope that the National Ports Council will hear evidence from Par if any of its plans are likely to affect the port. I would assure your Lordships that exclusion from the Bill is not sought for the sole benefit of the Port of Par, but for the whole china clay industry that it serves. Since the decline of copper and tin mining, china clay has become the life-blood of Cornwall. During the year 1963, china clay exports earned more than £10 million in foreign currency.
4.52 p.m.
VISCOUNT ROCHDALE: My Lords, it is my good fortune to congratulate my noble friend on his maiden speech. We all have this hurdle to overcome at some stage in our career; and very difficult it is! I am sure your Lordships will agree that my noble friend has acquitted himself very well. He has managed to be entirely non-controversial yet, at the same time, has made an important point in respect of the smaller ports, such as the port of Par, which we have discussed. And, while saying that I hope we shall hear him again, I would also say that I hope he will gain some encouragement with regard to the smaller ports from what may be said later this afternoon during the debate.
My Lords, may I also add this? I feel that I should be less than courteous if I did not express a word of gratitude to those noble Lords who have paid a compliment to my Committee and myself on the production of our Report. It has been a matter of great satisfaction to all my colleagues that this Report has been received throughout the country in the way that it has. To-day, in particular, is a day of some significance to me, when we come to the Second Reading of the Harbours Bill. It so happens that Sunday next will be March 29, and it was on March 29, 1961, three years ago to the day, that the Minister announced in the House of Commons the terms of reference of my Committee. Hence it is almost exactly three years from the first announcement of the establishment of the Committee to the occasion when the result of the Committee's deliberations, embodied in a Bill which has passed through another place, are being debated on Second Reading of the Bill in your Lordships' House. If

1175
I may say so, I would suggest that this is not too bad going.
It is also just about twelve months ago since the Minister indicated that, following the publication of the Report, he proposed to establish straight away a non-statutory advisory committee, to be called the National Ports Council. He announced the appointment of this committee in Parliament, so that it could proceed with a mass of preliminary work which could usefully be done, pending legislation to bring into being a statutory body of the same title. The Minister invited me to be chairman of that non-statutory committee. We have been working now for some months, and we had a Council meeting only this morning. As Chairman of that Council I was in some doubt whether it would be in order for me to take part in this debate this afternoon, and I took care to inquire in the appropriate place whether I should be in order in speaking. I was informed that as it was a non-statutory body, provided that I declared my interest, which I now do, I should be in order.
My Lords, with very few exceptions, the Bill deals with all the proposals included in our Report. It does not always deal with them in the way suggested in the Report; but here, as in most other activities, there are usually more ways than one of doing the same thing. The Parliamentary Secretary has given us a concise summary of the Bill, and I think and hope that it may be useful if I pick out two or three major matters which I regard as particularly important, and then try to indicate the thinking underlying the recommendations in the Report which have now been embodied in the Bill.
A large part of the Bill—Clauses 1 to 18, and the first four Schedules—deals with the subject of organisation, and it may well be asked why is all this necessary? Why do we need harbour reorganisation schemes? Why do we need revision or empowerment orders? I should like to say a word on that point. I have no doubt that in every industry there will be found any number of armchair critics, and I may say that we in the Committee of Inquiry certainly found that to be true in the case of the port industry. We had a great many pieces of critical evidence, and the two
1176
most favoured general avenues for criticism were, first, the alleged failure of the industry to use sufficient modern mechanical equipment for cargo handling, and, second, the problems surrounding dock labour.
We recognise that these matters are of transcendent importance, but further than that my Committee could not agree with many of the critics. It was abundantly clear to us that, in so far as there might be some truth in these criticisms, which would certainly call for, and should receive, urgent and careful attention, they were matters which should be regarded more as symptoms than as causes of some of our dock problems. What stood out to us very clearly was that it was the organisation that needed attention; and that if, in certain respects, that could be put on a better basis, then the rest could reasonably be expected to follow in due course.
In saying that, my Lords, I want to make it quite clear that what I have said is not to be regarded in any way as derogatory of port management for not having put, so to speak, their organisational house in order before. As has already been mentioned, the structure of the industry is largely established by Private Acts of Parliament, and without some such enabling measure as this Harbours Bill it could be virtually impossible to break through what in many respects amounts to a vicious circle. The port industry is one of some considerable antiquity, but, unlike so many other older industries that we know of, while there may be much out-dated and therefore redundant capacity, it is not an industry which can be either expected or allowed to contract. It must expand, and its expansion must look not at the needs of to-day but at the needs as we can expect them possibly to be in ten, twenty or even thirty years ahead. This expansion must be substantial, particularly so in respect of deep water berths.
The question therefore arises: how can we reasonably expect a medium-sized or small port to develop on this grand scale when it may well be in daily and continued competition with other ports in the same estuary, often all tending to be weak sellers? Looked at in that way, we were convinced that if the needs of to-morrow were to be matched by development to-day then there must, first of all, be a

1177
national ports plan within which major development would be concentrated at selected major ports. We were also convinced that the responsibility for development and management of these great projects should be that of large port authorities often established on an estuarial basis and enjoying all the advantages to be gained by economies of scale.
Of course, there is nothing new in the concept of an estuarial port authority. The Clyde Estuary Committee, under Lord Cooper, some twenty years ago recommended such an authority for the Clyde; that there should be one authority that should stretch from Glasgow, or, in other words, the territory of the Clyde Navigation Trust, away to the West down to the Cumbraes. It is an indication of the difficulty of getting agreement of this sort from within the authorities themselves—I think there were something like seven at the time—for us to remind ourselves that this great major Clyde authority that Lord Cooper's Report suggested is still something for the future; though I must pay a tribute, having said that, to those who are still to-day actively endeavouring to bring one about.
Since then there have been other ideas in different parts of the country about estuarial authorities, but those ideas have again led nowhere. But perhaps the best example of an estuarial authority is to be found in the great Port of London Authority, presided over by my noble friend Lord Simon. He will, I am sure, agree with me that that came into being in 1909 only because crisis conditions on the Thames resulted in no less an arrangement than a Royal Commission to bring it about. It had to be brought about from outside. The whole purpose, therefore, of the clauses in this Bill which deal with harbour reorganisation schemes is to provide adequate machinery for grouping existing authorities, where this may seem advisable, on an estuarial or some other area basis, with reasonable expedition and with proper safeguards for those concerned. This aspect of the Bill I regard as of the greatest importance.
Just as the harbour reorganisation schemes are intended, shall we say, to look outwards and to deal with the major aspects, so the revision and empowerment orders can be said to look inwards, to deal with internal matters of organisa-
1178
tion and powers as they affect the authorities themselves. Most ports, as we have heard, derive their powers and their organisation from private Statutes, often very old-fashioned. They can, of course, be amended by private legislation, and frequently are, but this takes time, is costly, and can often too easily be frustrated. These revision and empowerment orders seek to streamline procedure and help authorities in this respect to get on to a more modern basis.
As a Committee we saw several ways in which internal organisation could, with advantage, be altered so as to make it easier for the port authorities to do justice to themselves and to their users. I certainly do not propose to go into any detail of the sort of points I have in mind; they are all set out in the Report for anyone who is interested and range over all the activities of a port, including—and this is quite an important one—the size and function of the authority itself.
I should, however, just like to mention one important matter which has been referred to already: the question of cargo handling and who shall be responsible for carrying it out. Some port authorities do not themselves handle cargoes at all; it is left to private companies, ship-owners, master stevedores, master porters and all the other kinds of interest which the noble Lord, Lord Rea, referred to in his speech. Examples of ports where the authorities virtually do not handle cargoes at all are Liverpool and the Clyde. Going to the other extreme, there are some ports who virtually do all handling themselves, and here we have the example of Manchester or the great new port of Lackenby Dock on the Tees. Other ports, such as the Port of London Authority, do some of the work themselves, and leave a very great deal, perhaps the bulk, of the work to private firms of one kind or another.
The view we took in the Committee on this general point was that it was right, and indeed desirable, that the port authority itself should be one of the employers of dock labour and that otherwise, apart from the specialist firms, whether large or small, there should be in any large port a much smaller number of employer firms than is sometimes the case to-day, so that those that were

1179
there could be firms of substance with a real stake in the port. This we regarded as a matter of considerable importance when considering such matters as management, dock labour problems, the use of machinery and equipment, amenities and the general smooth running of a port. Under present Statutes I think it would be very difficult, if at all possible, for a port authority to begin to make changes to bring about the sort of organisation we have in mind; and the revision order procedure will, I hope, open the way for this to be thought about and brought into being if the port so thinks fit.
I have already mentioned the national ports plan. This arises under Clause 1 and it is obvious that this will be one of the National Ports Council's most importance functions. The Council will need information and statistics to produce it; and, in passing, I may say that statistics in the port industry to-day are woefully inadequate. We found this a great problem when we were producing our Report, and we had from the start ourselves to create many of the statistics. This provision of statistics is adequately provided for in the Bill. But to do this the Council will need something else; it will need goodwill and co-operation from the industry. That, I believe, is assured provided the Council itself behaves sensibly.
However, that raises one difficult matter. I have already referred to the need to concentrate major development on selected major ports. That implies that some ports will not be so selected, and this is where I see some heartburning arising. But this concept should not be taken as suggesting that other ports will necessarily need to stagnate or that every small port is doomed. Far from it, particularly with specialised ports. But what it does mean is that, as regards major projects, where there is only a limited amount to spend around our shores on port development—and looking at the national economy, with so many calls on its resources the amount must be limited; whether the amount to be spent on ports is the right amount or not is another matter—wherever the money comes from, whether it comes from private or public sources, that major
1180
development will, for the most part, have to be concentrated on those ports where it can make the most impact. Whatever happens it must not be shared all round so that the butter is spread far too thin and nothing is achieved. I have heard the view expressed that everything would be all right provided that the port was pegging along on an even keel, perhaps even making a modest investment from its own hard-earned reserves, but at any rate "out of the red"; but it is not good enough for a port merely to be doing that. If the national needs are to be met in the years ahead, some ports must be given priority, perhaps some financial help, so that by their very efficiency and enlarged facilities they will stand preeminent and will attract the ships and trade. It follows, of course, that some other ports will be hard pressed to compete with them.
All this concept is provided for in Clause 9 and 10 under the control of harbour development, and in passing may I mention that I would expect—and I hope that this will give my noble friend some comfort in regard to Par—that the sort of development that a smaller port might reasonably contemplate would escape through the pretty wide mesh in Clause 9 (6). This raises in my mind an interesting point. I was very interested to hear the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, on the question of whether a figure of £500,000 was the right figure for all ports. I would merely make this observation. This was a point that we considered in great detail in the deliberations of the Committee. We took the view that what we did not want to do was to go round each port and say, "This port shall be enlarged so much, and that port shall be enlarged so much", the amount being dependent on the size. That was not our concept at all.
Our concept was a different one. What we were trying to do was to control major development, which is, after all, the major matter that affects the port industry as a whole; and, provided that we had control to be able to say where the major development was to be, it did not really seem to us to matter what the little ports did, as long as they did not get swelled heads and become attached to some big financial house which

1181
could turn them into major ports. When they tried to do that, then of course the control would come into being. But we did not feel that the single figure was a wrong concept, and in fact the Bill as it now stands entirely reflects the thought and discussion we had during the deliberations of the Committee.
That leads me to say something about charges. Our ports have sometimes been criticised as being expensive, and this of course can be a very serious matter. But what I would suggest for your Lordships' consideration is that even more important is the overall costs of bringing our imports from the original port of despatch overseas or taking our exports to their ultimate destination. Looked at in this context a port's efficiency may be even more vital than its charges because on its efficiency can so well depend freight charges and premiums, which can easily nullify any advantage from very low port charges and dues considered in isolation. Having said that, let me hasten to add that this does not in any way indicate that the Committee had in mind a wholesale increase in charges. Far from it.
However, it was painfully clear to us that there was no major port which we investigated which over the years had achieved what we regarded as reasonable financial objectives—not one. Those objectives, I might remind your Lordships were that ports should aim to provide for the following: first, working expenses; second, interest on loans; third, depreciation of assets at replacement cost; fourth, taxation; and we hoped that it would be possible for a port to provide a modest margin for reserves to meet contingencies such as premature obsolescence. No major port has achieved this end, and in general terms one can say that the outcome was that without fresh borrowings they would be unable to replace their fixed assets as they wore out. In other words, these ports could be said financially to be running down.
This was the basis, the background, of the recommendation we made that, whilst doing everything possible to reduce expenditure and to improve efficiency, ports should have greater freedom in regard to charges and dues. And so it comes about that Clauses 25 to 38, subject to certain safeguards, aim
1182
at giving authorities greater latitude in this respect. I would just add that the existing statutory control of charges is cumbersome and has therefore often led to authorities, when applying to Parliament for an increase, to ask for, indeed receive, as much as 25 per cent. increase at a time. This, of course, means that the present system is often in fact serving no useful purpose, because these large increases would be expended over a number of years. Nevertheless, I am quite convinced that greater latitude for the port authorities in respect of their charges and charges system is of real importance if they are to make themselves financially viable.
Those are the main points about which I wanted to speak. There are other points one could talk about, very important points, large and small—for instance, research, management training, and so on. But I hope that what I have said is sufficient to indicate the need for some central body, first, to hold the reins, second, to prepare a national ports plan and to promote the execution of the plan, and generally to be a focal point of the industry. I believe that in this way, with an organisation of this type—major port authorities, smaller specialised ports and a national authority speaking for the port industry as well as the Government of the day—we shall see that the skill, the experience, the enthusiasm, and (may I say?) the pride that there is to-day in the industry, both in management and in the dock workers, will have the best opportunity for showing its mettle and working together for a common end.
5.20 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I should like to join in the welcome that has been given to this Bill; but before doing so, I have to declare a double interest, both as Chairman of the Port of London Authority and as President for the time being of the Dock and Harbour Authorities Association. In both these capacities I have been closely in touch with the discussions which have been going on and which have led to the introduction of this Bill. I should like also to pay a tribute to the Minister, to the Parliamentary Secretary in another place, and to the staff of the

1183
Ministry of Transport for the understanding way in which they have approached the problems of the port authorities. Having said that, may I go on to extend my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Rochdale and his Committee for their really magnificent Report which sets out so clearly the situation with which we have to deal.
The first objective of the National Ports Council (this has been repeated to-day both by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, and by the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale) is to prepare a coordinated national plan. That was laid down by the Minister, speaking in another place as long ago as July 10 of last year. So that it came as something of a surprise to me to find that there is no reference in the Bill to a national plan. If your Lordships will refer first to Clause 1 of the Bill, you will see that the words used are that the Council
"shall be charged with the following duties, that is to say
(a) formulating comprehensive plans"—
your Lordships will note the word "plans", in the plural—
"for the improvement of existing, and the provision of new harbours … and of services and facilities …"
The noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, has made it clear that his instructions are to proceed towards the production of a national plan, and I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, when he comes to reply, can explain why this has been left out of the Bill. I must say that an ordinary reading of the words in the Bill suggests to me that the intention is to provide comprehensive plans for each and every port. That, I am sure, is far from the intention, and I would ask the noble Lord whether the Government would consider accepting an Amendment which would make specific reference to the preparation of a co-ordinated national plan, and would link the comprehensive plans for the development of ports within the co-ordinated national plan.
If I had a suspicious nature, there are several curious points during the discussions on this Bill to which I might call attention. For instance, the Minister, again speaking in the debate on July 10 in another place, said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 680, col. 1252]:
"… it is no part of our overall plan
1184
to control the day-to-day developments in our smaller ports."
My Lords, why "in our smaller ports"? Is the implication that it is part of the plan to control day-to-day developments in our major ports? I know that it is not. But why was it put in that curious way? Later on, in the Report stage in another place, there was an even more curious remark, when the Minister, in resisting an Amendment on the lines referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hobson, about the inclusion in the National Ports Council of a representative of the dock labour, said that if we did this we might have port interests urging representation, in which case the whole managerial function of the body, the National Ports Council, would be destroyed. As I say, I have not got a suspicious nature, but one wonders whether, behind the Minister's mind, there is some idea of extending the control of the major ports, at least. I feel that it would put the major ports in a much happier position if what is, I am sure, truly intended could be written into the Bill and not left to be inferred from the speeches that have been made from Government Benches. Incidentally, as I have mentioned that Amendment, might I tell the noble Lord, Lord Hobson, who asked for representation on the Council of dock labour as well as of dock employers, that there is no representation of dock employers on the Council, and it was indeed specifically recommended, and accepted by the Government, that there should not be.
Assuming that I am right, and that there is no intention of avoiding this primary objective of creating a national plan, I want to ask how effective is the machinery that is provided in the Bill. Have the National Ports Council or the Minister sufficient powers to make this plan effective? Can this be done by the control of major capital expenditure? I believe it can. There have been arguments that the powers of the Minister could have gone further. I think that the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, and the Committee recommended that they should have power to compel in some way the execution of a plan which was thought necessary.
My own feeling is that the balance in this Bill is just about right. I think that if you went any further you would really have no stopping place until you

1185
came to nationalisation of the ports. I am not in the least dogmatic about nationalisation, but if it involved central control of all the ports of the country, I am quite sure it would not work. It would lead to atrophy of local initiative. It would lead to the inability of the ports to attract the best brains into harbour management—that is a point on which Lord Rochdale rightly expressed concern. In my view, the control of major capital expenditure, although it is admittedly a blunt instrument, will, in fact, do all that is required, because I am convinced that the ports of this country will be anxious to collaborate once they know what the national plan is. If they have grown up in a haphazard way, it is not from any original sin in them; it is simply that there has not been a national plan within which they could work out their proposals. I believe that they will be not only happy to co-operate, but most pleased to have a lead from the National Ports Council as to where development is wanted.
I was glad to hear the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, say that he did not visualise that any port would be likely to contract under the suggestions of the National Ports Council. That agrees strongly with the view that I have formed: that if there is any hope of dealing within twenty years with an increase in trade of 100 per cent., every single port in existence will have to be used to full capacity, quite apart from any development of other ports.
How then, is this control going to work? I must confess that I think the procedure in Clause 9 is rather wasteful and time consuming. The port authority which has a proposal which exceeds the limit of half a million pounds is required to go to the Minister; the Minister then goes to the National Ports Council; the National Ports Council then seeks the advice of interested parties and consults with the port authority, and then recommends back to the Minister who reaches his decision. I must say that it seems to me that it would be much simpler if the port authority went to the National Ports Council in the first place; if the consultations then took place, and if the port authority and the National Ports Council then went hand in hand to the Minister and said, "Here is a proposal which is jointly agreed." I am assuming that there is a constitutional
1186
reason for the Minister to have the final decision. I, for my part, would rather have seen the National Ports Council in a relationship with the Minister similar to that of the Research Councils to the Minister for Science, where they would have a certain amount of money and within that money could deal themselves with the port authorities. But I quite understand there may be difficulties there, and the analogy is not a complete one. In practice, I think we shall find that the procedure I have suggested will be adopted. I certainly hope so.
Then the question arises on any project: how many technical evaluations are there going to be? First of all, any project of this size will obviously be examined with great care by the port authority with its own technical advisers or perhaps with consulting engineers. The project then goes to the National Ports Council and, as I understand it, they will look at it again with their technical advisers. When it goes to the Minister he has the discretion and, therefore the responsibility, of deciding whether to accept the proposal or not. Is it going to another set of technical advisers?—because for a scheme of this kind to go through three hoops like that is not only going to be time-consuming but also liable to lead to frustration. In the engineering profession, as in other professions, experts do not always think alike; and it is quite probable the three experts would think quite differently as to which was the best way to do a scheme. I come back to the point of retaining really good people in the port industry and how we are going to retain them, if what they propose is subject to being taken to pieces not only by one but by two advisory bodies.
Another important point arises which I would put to the noble Lord, Lord Chesham. As I see it, proposals of this kind will have to be considered from two aspects: both whether they are technically sound and fit into the national plan, and also whether they are financially admissible. I consider that it would be very unfortunate if plans which have been agreed between the port authority and the National Ports Authority as desirable and necessary were then to be turned down by the

1187
Minister on the grounds that the country's resources could not afford them. I hope it will be possible for the Minister to keep the National Ports Council fully advised as to the financial position, so that that situation does not arise and so that the National Ports Council will not accept the proposal and bring it forward if it is going to be turned down on financial grounds.
I come to Clause 4, dealing with the finances of the National Ports Council. The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, dealt with this very fairly, but I would disagree with him. I think the proposal that the administrative costs of the National Ports Council should be met, in effect, by a levy on the port authorities is quite unsound in principle, because here you will have a body which is spending quite a substantial amount of money on an organisation and getting its finances by a precept on people who have no say whatever on how the money has to be spent. It is quite true that the Minister determines the salaries and allowances of the members of the Council and therefore exercises control over that aspect; but all the other administrative expenses are determined solely by the Council.
I have the greatest confidence in the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, and in his very capable Chief Executive, and I am quite sure they will keep these things well under control. Nevertheless, the principle seems to me unsound. And your Lordships will remember that the Rochdale Committee recommended that the costs should be borne by public funds, at least in the early years. I do not think we can do anything about that here, but I thought it was worth while to mention the point. The burden is not heavy, though it may fall quite heavily on some of the smaller ports. We may hear more from them on the subject later. I am not suggesting that the cost of research and training should be borne otherwise than by the industry. I think it is perfectly right.
I would turn for a few moments to the point I raised when discussing the Industrial Training Act, as to the question of training arrangements in this Bill. I cannot see why at the time when the Industrial Training Bill (as it then was, for it is now an Act) was going through Parliament it should have been
1188
thought desirable to introduce a separate system of training for the ports industry—that is, the ports industry excluding dock labour as such, for which the National Dock Labour Board have done such good work already. It seems to me that the scheme proposed in the Industrial Training Act is better, for three main reasons: first of all, that by adopting a scheme under that Act the industry would enjoy the expertise which will grow up in the Ministry of Labour in dealing with these matters. It will have the exchange of information with other industries; and it will in particular have clear access to training courses provided for industry in general, such as training in management, training for engineers, electricians, and so on. From that point of view it would be much better.
The second reason is that an industrial training board under the Industrial Training Act is composed largely of representatives of the employers and the employees—and I should have thought it necessary to get those into a training board. Yet the National Ports Council has neither. Finally, there is the matter of participation in Government grants. Under the Industrial Training Act grants are payable for approved training facilities in any industry where an industrial training board has been set up; whereas in this Bill—and it is a rather curious provision—in Clause 6(1)(a) a grant is payable for training only where the Minister has issued a direction under Clause 3(2). One might almost think that the employers (I am sure they would not) would be found dragging their feet, in the hope of nudging the Minister to issue a direction; because if he does so they can get the grant, and if he does not they cannot.
When I mentioned this matter previously, the noble Viscount who was in charge of the Industrial Training Bill said that he did not see any reason why the port industry should not enjoy the benefits if both sides of the industry thought it right. And the Minister, speaking on Second Reading of the present Bill in another place, said that the Council would co-operate with the National Dock Labour Board or with any training board set up under the Industrial Training Act. I think that that is probably all right, but I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he would

1189
ask the draftsman to consider this point carefully, and perhaps give us an assurance that, if both sides of the industry want to take advantage of the Industrial Training Act and if an industrial training board is set up, then nothing in this Bill will prevent the organisation of training by the industrial training board without interference from the Minister or from the National Ports Council. For the Minister has power to give directions under Clause 3(2), and of course the National Ports Council have the duty to take steps that seem to them desirable in this direction.
May I move on to Clause 19, about which the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chester made such an interesting speech in regard to the control of movement orders? I cannot help feeling that on this matter there has been a complete misunderstanding and I hope that it can be cleared up. I do not believe that anybody has ever contemplated people sitting ashore and directing a master of a ship when to reverse his engines, or how far to turn the wheel. It seems to me that the fears of shipmasters in this matter are quite illusory. There are many ports in the world (I think the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman of Doxford, will agree when he speaks later) where a ship approaching the port has to comply with certain instructions. There are ports with narrow approach channels where one must not go in if a ship is coming out, and a signal is put up on the flagstaff accordingly. There are also ports which it is not possible to enter at night, and the shipmaster makes his arrangements accordingly. All that is contemplated in these schemes is a series of perhaps rather more elaborate traffic instructions, like "No parking between 6 a.m. and 12 noon", or "One-way street", or "Clearway during peak hours", or whatever it is. No master complying with such an instruction is being asked to surrender for one moment his responsibility for the safety of his ship. While on this subject, I should like to say that I fully agree with what the right reverend Prelate said about penalties, and I would join with him in expressing the hope that at the Committee stage we may remove the penalty of imprisonment in this clause.
I should like next to say a few words about harbour charges, which were fully
1190
explained by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham. The Bill begins in Clause 25 by removing statutory control, and one may pause, if one is a port operator, and wonder why it should not be left there. Why should the port authorities be the only people in the transport chain who cannot charge what they like? The railways can; the road traffic authorities can, and the shipowners can. All the people that we have to deal with can charge what they like; but the Bill has proposed that we should be subject to regulation. The principal reason put forward for this when it has been discussed in another place appears to be that the ports have some kind of monopoly. My Lords, I think that is a complete misconception. There is the keenest competition, I can assure your Lordships, between, let me say, the Port of London, the Port of Liverpool, the Port of Bristol and the Port of Hull for Midlands traffic; there is very keen competition between the Port of Glasgow and the Ports of Leith and Grangemouth for Scottish traffic; and, in a different sense, and coming nearer home, there is very keen competition between the Port of London and the periphery ports, like Felixstowe and Shoreham, for the traffic for the South-East of England. I think this idea that there is a monopoly is quite misconceived.
It is true that through the years there has been provision for appeals, at present to the Minister of Transport, and the port authorities have accepted that there should be a right of appeal to the National Ports Council, as provided for by Clause 29. I believe that there are here considerable difficulties which will, I trust, be overcome as we go along. There is no criterion laid down, and any of your Lordships who have been associated with the transport industry and tariffs will know how difficult it is to establish a proper criterion for the relative charges of one particular service as against another. I cannot help feeling that the National Ports Council will have difficulty here. The Minister was good enough to suggest that if anybody could produce a good criterion he would be willing to consider it, and I am hound to admit that nobody did produce a good criterion. Nevertheless, though I think there may be some difficulties, I feel fairly confident that they will be ironed out as we go along.

1191
Then I come to Clause 30. And this Clause, I must say, sticks in my gullet. Here is the Minister taking power, on the advice of the Council, to revise tariffs when no complaint has been made—because, of course, if a complaint had been made, it would be dealt with under Clause 29. The first object of this that was suggested to us—by the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale—was that the power of revision should be exercised if the Minister was satisfied, on examination of the accounts (I beg your Lordships' pardon: this is actually from the Rochdale Committee's recommendations) that charges were not being made on an economic basis. That, I think, was the gist of the argument which the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, used this afternoon. Could this power perhaps be limited to such cases? Could it be limited to those ports that were running in the red? The Parliamentary Secretary in another place said, "Oh, but the accounts might not be right; they might be misleading". But provision has been taken for accounts to be put forward in a specified form, and I see no reason why they should be misleading. But there is an even more difficult question on this. Suppose it is established that a port is running into the red and the Minister decides that its charges should be increased. Does the Minister guarantee that the revenue of the port will go up? It does not follow that, if you put up your charges, you will get more revenue; you may get less. That is one of the fundamental judgments which management has to make.
A number of other suggestions have been made as to the use to which this clause might be put, and they seem to be widening all the time. There was a suggestion that a port might be unfairly reducing its charges to compete with a new development which had been financed by the Government under the National Ports Council's advice. Surely, a new development has to be prepared to stand on its own feet, and ought not to be freed from the possibility of competition. Then, the Permanent Secretary in another place produced a new, additional reason. He said:
"If we make a loan, we must have power to protect the public purse".
That is extremely arguable, but I would have thought that, if a loan were made,
1192
the Government could impose any conditions they liked on the loan without having this provision in the Bill.
Then, a still more (if I may say so) sinister suggestion was made during the Report stage in another place. There the Parliamentary Secretary, again, suggested that this clause could be used to revise other charges which might have become, I suppose, out of line following a decision by the Council on an appeal under Section 29. That is certainly extending the use of this clause far beyond the suggestion of the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, in the Committee's Report. I cannot help feeling that, while this may be a very convenient arrangement, it is an example of "Whitehall knows best"—or, in this case, North Audley Street.
It was said somewhere—I am sorry I cannot give the reference, but I think it will be agreed on both sides of the House—that one of the main aspects of managerial responsibility for running a business is fixing rates and charges, and I think it will be a great pity if this responsibility is taken away from the dock authorities. But if the Government are quite convinced on this—and they certainly indicated as much in another place—I wonder whether it would be possible to get a stop of some kind put upon it? Could the Sword of Damocles be put away in a cupboard, just to be brought out by the Minister, by an Order in Council, if he really found that it was necessary to do so? My Lords, we are dealing here with people, and I ask your Lordships to think of the people who are running the Ports, who feel that they alone in the transport chain are not being trusted to put their charges right, are not being trusted to be reasonable. I believe it would do a great deal to foster the co-operation which I am sure we are going to have with the National Ports Council if it were possible for this proposal to be in some way kept really as a reserve power, not to be brought into force until the Minister had come to Parliament and said, "This is happening, and it is really necessary to do so".
After the welcome I gave to the Bill in my opening sentence, your Lordships may feel I have been doing little but criticise. I confess that I think there are defects in this Bill, but I do not believe

1193
that any of the defects are overwhelming. I believe that the port authorities will co-operate with the National Ports Council, and with the national co-ordinated Plan which they are to bring forward. The noble Lord, Lord Hobson, referred, very properly, to the question of dock labour. As I see it, it does not really arise under the Bill, because, if I am right in thinking that the National Ports Council has no managerial functions, it will not in fact concern itself with negotiations with dock labour; but I think that, as the point has been raised, I should like, if your Lordships will bear with me for a few minutes, just to refer very briefly to this. Most of the port authorities, whether they undertake the handling of cargo or not, are in fact employers of registered dock labour, and as such they play their part, with other employers, in the talks going on about "decasualisation"; and I think everyone on both sides of the industry is disappointed that the progress has been so slow. But anyone who is familiar with this complex industry knows that it is easier to agree a principle than to agree the detailed application of it. I am afraid that that is what has happened in our two greatest ports, London and Liverpool, where we are very near deadlock.
I have tried to find out how this arises—it may be that the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, can help over this—and I think it arises because the dock workers have somehow got the impression that the employers are wanting to "ditch" the National Dock Labour Board. The employers have done their best to dispel this belief, which is completely erroneous. What they have suggested is that, to make "decasualisation" possible, it will be necessary for the port employers to form consortia so that men can be moved freely from one job to another; and, in doing that, they will be acting in conformity with the Rochdale Committee recommendation that the number of employers should be reduced.
The suggestion that the place of these consortia could be taken by the local dock labour board is fallacious. The Dock Labour Board, although they are the legal employer; of registered dock labour, and look after a number of matters as well as discipline, have never directly employed labour in the sense
1194
that they tell a man what to do; and they are not equipped for this task. Under these proposals the Dock Labour Board functions will not be altered by the establishment of the consortia. The consortia will stand in the same relationship to the Dock Labour Board as any other employer who employs weekly paid labour as many do to-day. I hope that this misunderstanding can be cleared up because it is bringing these negotiations, which we all want to see finished as soon as possible, to a dead stop.
My Lords, I have no more I want to say, except just to state that I hope the National Ports Council will get on with their national Plan, that they will publish it, that they will see it is not too tightly drawn, so that there is still room for competition between the ports, and that it does not get down to a case of cargo being directed to a particular port because the capacities are so small. I hope we can, above all, get some planning that has a certain life to it. I realise the difficulties from the point of view of the national finance position; and of course one wants a plan to be flexible enough not to knock one's head into a brick wall that was not seen when the plan was drawn up. But port development is a long-term business, and I hope we can reach a position where the National Plan is laid down to cover, let us say, the next five years, and the ports can get on with development and fill in the details of that Plan.
In national planning there is always a tendency to tinker with the plan, and I do not know any field in which it is more true that the best is the enemy of the good. The artist may go back, picking a little here and altering a little there, but in this matter we shall waste so much if the Plan is altered once it is under way that I hope it will be possible for the Plan to last for a reasonable length of time. If it is, I am quite certain that the National Ports Council will have the support of the port authorities.
5.55 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, with the welcome proposal before us to set up a national body which highlights the importance of the port industry to the national economy, we seem to have travelled a long way from the time when,

1195
under the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act, 1847, the master of a vessel could be fined up to £10 for navigating under sail in or into any dock. However, Her Majesty's Government should be complimented for taking the necessary steps to implement the main recommendations of the Rochdale Committee—although possibly, as the noble Viscount said, with a certain difference with regard to emphasis.
Here, I should like to take the opportunity to pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Rochdale and his colleagues for having produced such an extremely interesting document. I would however, with respect, make one comment: In view of the fact, as was mentioned in the Report under paragraph 609, that there are about 300 small ports around the coast of Britain, it would seem to me a pity that recommendations should have been made by the Committee (and these recommendations are applicable to all docks and harbours) without the small ports having been given the opportunity to submit evidence. In this context, a port which has already been mentioned springs to mind: I refer to the port of Par, which was stated, in Lloyd's List and Shipping Gazette on September 6, 1963, to be the busiest small port in the country.
To revert to one of the most important recommendations of the Rochdale Committee—and it is one which has been accepted by the Government; that of the urgent need for the development of a co-ordinated national plan for port development—it seems to me regrettable, as was mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, that there is no reference in the Bill to a national plan. The Rochdale Committee, in paragraph 146 of their Report, stressed that the most vital function of the Council would be to supervise the development of ports in accordance with a national plan which would involve examination of the schemes of individual authorities and the assessment of priorities. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Hobson, referred to it as "dividing the cake". However, Clauses 1(1)(a) seems to go much further; and, indeed, further than the Government statement of July 10, 1963 (to be found in column 1251 of Hansard of another place), that a central
1196
planning agency should formulate a national plan and supervise its execution. For it seems to me that the Bill would place on the Council the onus of responsibility for detailed planning; and I should have thought that it would be necessary purely to have a general national plan, the details then coming from the port authorities.
Moreover, the Rochdale Report recommended, in paragraph 57, that developments should take place at selected major ports, as the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, mentioned this afternoon, while the wording of the subsection to which I have referred would seem to imply the formulation of comprehensive plans for the improvement of all existing harbours. Perhaps I have misinterpreted the wording of the Bill; but it seems to me that the stress is laid here in the Bill on the improvement of all existing harbours. It could well be that some of the smaller ports may not need development at all. As the Bill is worded, I feel that the national body which is to be set up will be empowered to act in much more than an advisory capacity. But I should have thought that the Council's main functions should be merely in keeping under review likely changes in the pattern of trade and ship design, the improvement of cargo-handling facilities, and the action required to ensure adequate present and future port facilities and services. The Council should also advise the Minister regarding major construction proposals emanating from the port authorities, within the framework of the national plan as set up by the Council.
On the question of the contribution by all the ports to a levy, the Rochdale Committee may be right when they say that it should be possible to arrive at an equitable basis on the volume of shipping and tonnage of cargo handled, but I think it should not be forgotten that not only the port authorities will be benefiting from any action taken by the National Ports Council, but also those firms or other organisations who are providing facilities and services at harbours.
With regard to the provisions of Clause 9 and the insertion of the sum of £500,000, as the figure above which harbour development will have to be

1197
approved by the Minister I would express the hope that when the Minister is exercising these powers he will bear carefully in mind the particular requirements of specific industries. The china clay industry has already been mentioned, and I would stress its importance to Cornwall. The noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, said that the port of Par may be able to go through the mesh of Clause 9, but I believe that the port is considering extension works—the construction of a jetty—which would enable larger ships to come alongside. At the moment, there are shipments for America which have to go to Fowey, and shipments for Continental ports which have to leave from Par—not a very satisfactory arrangement. With regard to the non-statutory ports, could my noble friend say whether the provisions of Clause 9 would put such a port within the definition of a harbour authority, should such a port seek approval for development from the Minister? My understanding of the definition of a harhour authority under Clause 55 is that it would not, but I should like an assurance from my noble friend on this point.
I feel that the efficiency of an industry could be interfered with by the powers given in Clause 18, which authorise the Minister to transfer property, and even labour, from private hands to harbour authorities. This could also apply to amalgamations. For instance, a port principally used or required by a specific industry may be called upon to amalgamate with a port handling quite different cargoes—in effect, the amalgamation of a general-cargo port with a specialised port handling bulk traffic in the main. Surely such an amalgamation would not he compatible with recommendation 77 on page 224 of the Report, to the effect that in appropriate cases specialised bulk-cargo installations should be financed by firms or consortia of firms in the industries concerned.
My noble friend Lord Simon, with a greater knowledge than I have, has referred in much detail to the proposals in Clause 30. I agree with him that they are unprecedented. Harbour authorities are in competition, and I believe that they should remain so; in fact, the Rochdale Committee stressed that ports should be regarded as commercial undertakings. In paragraph 192, the Committee state that the permissive powers contained in Clause 30 would seldom, if ever, be needed by the
1198
Council, for settlement would generally be achieved on an informal basis. I agree with my noble friend Lord Simon that it would be interesting if, on Committee stage, Her Majesty's Government would consider his suggestion of shelving this clause and bringing it off the shelf only by an order initiated by the Minister, which could be considered by Parliament.
I should like to add a few words to the plea made by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, for the port of Par. I intend at Committee stage to put down an Amendment on small ports. The port of Par was originally created 131 years ago, and has recently been modernised and enlarged. It serves an industry responsible for one of Britain's large and valuable bulk exports. This port, as was mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, feels that it is unique; and I believe it is unique, because not only is it a non-statutory harbour, but also it does not come under any by-laws which could have been made pursuant to the 1847 Act. I believe that the Port of Fawley is a non-statutory harbour, but it comes under the by-laws of the Southampton Harbour Board, so I think I am right in saying that the Port of Par is unique. I would ask my noble friend Lord Chesham to bear in mind the interests of an industry which is so vital to Cornwall, and also to recognise that the problems of Par are special. Possibly this port should fall into a special category. Apart from those few comments, I welcome this Bill most heartily.
6.11 p.m.
VISCOUNT RUNCIMAN OF DOXFORD: My Lords, at this late hour I hope not to detain your Lordships for long, particularly as I may find myself under the unhappy necessity of asking for your Lordships' indulgence, and especially that of my noble friend Lord Chesham, if I have to leave the House before the end of the debate. It is my first duty to declare my interest in this matter as a shipowner—I think perhaps the only one who has spoken this afternoon. I am particularly glad to do this, because it gives me an opportunity—though, naturally, I have no mandate to speak for anyone but myself—to say what I think I can say with fair confidence; that is, that the shipping industry as a whole welcomes this Bill warmly

1199
and is extremely hopeful of the good that may flow from it.
If I should be a little critical of the Bill, it is on one fundamental ground, which can perhaps be most simply expressed by saying that I think the relations between port authorities and shipowners are rather like those between a man and the Sabbath. You can, after all, and in some parts of the world still do, conduct overseas trade by ships without the intervention of a port at all. But a port, however elaborate, which does not attract shipping to it is not likely to perform any very useful function. I cannot help detecting here and there in this Bill a slight feeling (I hope I am not any more suspicious than my noble friend Lord Simon) that ships are being considered rather as objects which port authorities can order about and levy dues on, those ports being considered as places designed to facilitate the movement of goods and persons by sea. Perhaps I may illustrate this for a moment with three points, all of which have been mentioned in your Lordships' House this afternoon, but all of which, if I may say so with respect, deserve mentioning again.
Two of the points arise from the control of movement of ships in harbours. I agree with my noble friend Lord Simon that there is already, and should be, a measure of control. But I doubt, with respect, whether the extremely elaborate provisions set forth in this Bill are really necessary, or even desirable. For it cannot be denied that the existence of powers is always a temptation to use them; and it cannot be denied, either, that for the highest possible motives zealous professional men are rather apt to think that the good of the whole is necessarily best served by the proliferation of their own activities.
I am not happy about the provision which requires certain specific equipment to be carried by a ship, in default of which she may be refused entry into a port on the authority of those who control the port. The provision of equipment in ships is, at least it has been hitherto, an international matter—after all, shipping is an international business; even more so than ports, which in their own ambit are highly domestic
1200
affairs—and it seems to me that you are risking the introduction of a dangerous element into the conduct of international shipping affairs if you are going to say that the equipment required to be carried by ships for safety purposes is to be determined, not by international agreement and convention, but by what might almost, in an extreme case, be the whim of a particular professional adviser to a particular port or authority.
Allied to this is the provision, which had already been attacked with such eloquence by the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chester that I would not seek to add to what he said about it—namely, the entirely novel and wholly undesirable suggestion that a master mariner can render himself liable to six months' imprisonment for disobeying a movement order in a port. As has already been said, those things for which a master can be imprisoned are those which involve and imply criminal intent. I do not think it is too fanciful to say that under this Bill, if I interpret it rightly, it would be possible (I am sure it would be most unlikely) for a master, on the one hand, to risk imprisonment for not taking his vessel to sea when ordered to do so, because he might fear that the port authority would not accept a defence that in his view she was not in a fit condition to proceed to sea; whereas, on the other hand, if he did obey the order and take the risk, he might be prosecuted under the Merchant Shipping Act for taking a vessel to sea in an unseaworthy condition. That, I know is an extreme case, and it is almost a reductio ad absurdum. But I do not think it is wholly impossible under the Bill as it is drafted. I beg the Government to consider again this particular penalty when we come to the Committee stage of the Bill.
Both of these matters of equipment and penalties, as the noble Lord, Lord Hobson, has already justly observed, have their repercussions abroad. There is, happily, I think, a tendency on the part of several emerging countries, notably those of the British Commonwealth, to model their legislation upon the legislation of this country. But I am not at all sure that they are apt, as yet, to be as understanding in the application of the penalties which that legislation empowers them to impose. While, if the Parliamentary Secretary says that

1201
the risk of a master ever being imprisoned under this Bill is negligible, I should be inclined to believe him—only asking him, if that is so, why there is any point in putting the provision in the Bill at all—I should not be prepared to accept an assurance that the risk was negligible if the clause were incorporated in legislation copied from our own by some countries less experienced and less wise. The same is also true, I think, even with more experienced countries, when it comes to questions of equipment. If these are to be things which can be the unilaterally-made conditions for the use of certain harbours, I think the more gadget-minded nations of the world, whom I will not name to your Lordships (I am sure you can readily name them to yourselves) will be inclined to have too much of a field day.
On the financial side, which is, naturally, important to shipowners, since they are inevitably largely going to provide the finances, there is only one thing I would say. I shall not seek to attempt to lead your Lordships through what is still a difficult maze of financial provisions in this Bill, but I think I am right in saying that it is still possible for a situation to arise where, the National Ports Council having directed a harbour authority to make certain charges, the objection by the users to those charges can be made, in the ultimate resort, only to the National Ports Council on whose instigation the charges were originally imposed. I am not for one moment suggesting that the National Ports Council would not act with perfect wisdom and propriety. What I am suggesting is that it is a bad provision in any Bill to put any body in the position of being advocate and judge in its own cause. I hope that that point, too, may be looked at, and some action taken on it in Committee. Having said this much, I should not like to detain your Lordships any longer other than to say that I hope in these ways it may be possible to make a good Bill even better.
6.21 p.m.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, we are now coming to the closing stages of this debate and the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, and his colleagues must be proud of the very warm reception given to his Report. We are even more grateful that it has been made the basis for the
1202
Bill which the Government have now brought forward. Although he is not here at the moment, may I congratulate from this side the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, on his maiden speech. It was a speech for a specialised port, in which he seems to have more than a passing interest, and I hope that the phrases used by the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, have gone a long way to allay the fears he had about his port at Par.
The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, raised some objection to Clause 4 and the levy on the harbour authorities. I will be quite frank. For myself, I would prefer the charges to be a national charge.
I cannot go all the way with the noble Viscount, because he seemed to object to the fact that those on whom the precept was made would not have a say in the manner in which it was spent. Perhaps that is owing to my local Government background, because in local government it is happening all the time. When the county council levies a precept on the district councils, neither the district councils nor the person who pays the rates really has any say in how the money is spent—although, of course, if they have the courage they can sack the councillors when the local elections come along. However, we have to face the fact that we have a Tory Government.
LORD CHESHAM: Hear, hear!
LORD LINDGREN: The cheers may not last long. A provision of funds from the Treasury would be a subsidy to the shipping industry. There is not the slightest doubt about that, because it has its reflection in the industry on the costs charged by the ports and harbours.
I was not quite sure whether the argument of the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman of Doxford, was that the ports and harbours thought that ships were made for them, or that the ports and harbours were made for the ships. Somehow or other we have to get away from this attitude. It is a partnership. Shinning could not be facilitated unless there were adequate port facilities; and the more efficient they are the better it is for shipping and for our country. Ship-owners are not any different. The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, has to deal with this problem in regard to air. Those who use aerodromes think they ought to be provided, and that they ought to be

1203
allowed to enter without paying for the facilities which the airport gives. We have more arguments over the scale of landing fees than perhaps anything else.
From this side, as my noble friend Lord Hobson made quite clear in his speech, we welcome this Bill. It appeared to me, as one not directly associated with the dock industry, to be a very technical and complicated Bill. I must add my appreciation of the detailed explanation that the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, gave to the Bill. With his explanation the Bill becomes comprehensible to one who has read the Rochdale Report, if one is not directly associated with the industry. While talking about the Rochdale Report, may I also say that this is the first time that there has been a Report on the industry outside the shadow of a dock strike.
It has not been said to-day, but I think we ought to say—and perhaps we can say it better from this side of the House—that, by and large, the industry emerges from the Rochdale Report with credit to itself and to Britain. Of course, there are some very efficient harbours and docks; there are some not so efficient; and there are some which are inefficient. That was the reason for the setting up of the Rochdale Committee, and it is really to deal with that problem that we have the Bill which is before your Lordships to-day. If everything in the garden had been lovely so far as the ports and harbours of this country were concerned, then, of course, there would have been no necessity for the Committee and no necessity for this Bill.
We can only emphasise what has been said before in a different form: this country of ours is dependent upon imports and our shaping of those imports for exporting as manufactured articles. We have only one basic raw material ourselves, which is coal, and if we are to live as an industrial nation then we must import and export. If we are to survive, then the manner in which we are able to survive depends not only upon the skill of the worker in the field, factory, workshop and mine but upon the efficiency of the ports to handle the incoming materials and the outgoing products. If those ports are inefficient there is an added charge on the industry in
1204
freight charges, and an added inconvenience for those who are purchasing or selling the goods.
We agree that, to secure real efficiency throughout the whole of the port and harbour industry in this country, there must be planning, and that planning must have relation to the siting, to equipment, and to the operation of the ports. We are delighted, as my noble friend Lord Hobson has said, to congratulate the Government upon having made this deathbed repentance, not only in this Bill, but in one or two other Bills recently, and upon being prepared to plan the nation's resources for the nation's good, and to get away from this "free-for-all". They are now accepting what obviously ought to have been accepted some considerable time ago, in place of a "free-for-all" society for which they have been arguing. The ports of this country can never become efficient on the basis of a "free-for-all"; there can never be fully efficient handling and a fully efficient labour force.
Having welcomed the Bill and welcomed it, I think, very generously—much more generously than Bills are generally welcomed from this side of the House—I would suggest that many of the points that have been raised to-day are really Committee points, and I do not intend to weary the House by dealing with too many of them. I should like just to follow up what my noble friend Lord Hobson said, namely, that we intend to put down some detailed Amendments to the Bill—constructive as well as detailed—on questions of administration arising from the Bill rather than on the fundamental principles of the Bill.
I want to call attention to just one or two points. The first is the construction of the Council itself, the membership of the Council. I would agree right at the start with what the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, said when he introduced the Bill this afternoon, that members appointed to the Board ought not to be considered as representative of any particular interest. They should be free, knowledgeable, of course, and able persons; but to accept anybody on the basis of his being a direct representative would be wrong. The Council as it is at present constituted consists, I believe, of seven members. Six of them

1205
are employers and there is one trade unionist. That trade unionist has no association with the docks industry. That is not against him; he still has knowledge of labour relations. If this Bill is to be a success and if the Rochdale recommendations are to be implemented (and everybody who has spoken has agreed that they should be) that can only happen if there is the fullest cooperation and good will on all sides of the dock industry—the harbour authorities, the employers, the labour force and, for that matter, shipping companies as well as the users of the ports.
If the best of good will is to be obtained from the labour force within the dock industry—and the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, this afternoon referred to a section which is a little suspicious in regard to certain consortia which are being sit up—if we are to get their full co-operation, free from suspicion, I think it would be wise (I put it no higher) to have some person on the National Ports Council who has a fairly detailed knowledge of the labour conditions arising in the ports of this country. I would emphasise the point made by my noble friend Lord Hobson. This is going to be a very big task for the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, and the members of his Board. I think at least three members of that Board ought to be full-time members in order that they can give the greater part of their time to the work, which will necessarily mean that there has to be a considerable amount of travelling, detailed inspections, negotiations and the rest.
Reference has been made by a number of your Lordships to-day to Clause 3 and to research and training. I am afraid I cannot go with the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, in his reference to a preference for the Industrial Training Act. We welcome this clause within the Bill. We think it is first class, and reference has already been made to the good work done in the training of the docker by the National Dock Labour Board. Not only the newcomers into the industry, but many of the men who have been in it for a long time are being trained to do their job more efficiently. I think that, if it sets about this job properly, the National Ports Council can make it
1206
possible for those within the industry to fit themselves for managerial and executive posts. It is a change to have this opportunity within the industry, particularly for the manual worker. Let us face it: the manual worker starts with a very considerable disadvantage. There are exceptional men in the industry, and those exceptional men can take advantage of and profit from this provision and secure reasonable appointments arising from it, but they start at a disadvantage.
The fact that the scheme is here is to the credit of the Bill and I hope the National Dock Labour Board will operate it to the full. I hope, too, that the workers in the industry, be they clerical, professional, technical or manual, will take the fullest advantage of it, because they can play the biggest part in making the industry efficient if they themselves are efficient in their own jobs, and this has to be encouraged right the way through.
There has been much discussion on Clause 19, on the control of movement. We have had not only the reference to it from my noble friend Lord Hobson, and that in the opening statement, but other references from the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chester, the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman of Doxford, and the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. I do not think any of those who have been critical of this clause have made any suggestion at any time that the very utmost should not be done by everyone associated with the ports of this country in order to ensure the safe movement of ships. The greater the degree of safety which we can get, the better. Everyone agrees on that, and I think all those who have criticised this clause will agree that there is a right and a wrong way of doing things and, to put it no higher, the way the Government have tackled this matter seems to be a little ham-fisted.
As perhaps is natural, we on this side of the House get representations, not from the shipping companies or the users of ports, but from those who get their livings in the ports; from pilots, members of the National Union of Seamen, members of the Merchant Navy and members of the Airline Officers' Association. These are the men who operate

1207
in the ports, and who are likely to suffer the penalties, if penalties be imposed, arising from this clause. Yet my information is that in the preparation of the clause and its inclusion within the Bill there was no discussion with them. Some noble Lords have suggested that there should be an Amendment at Committee stage to take out the penal part of the clause. We have had representations, particularly from the Merchant Navy and the Airline Officers' Association, and arising from those representations an Amendment will be tabled at the Committee stage.
With regard to Clause 25 and harbour charges, while reference to this matter has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, in his opening statement, and by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, I approach it from a different point of view. I regret very much that in another place, in the closing stages of the discussions there, the non-preferment charges clause was taken out of the Bill. I would ask, quite bluntly, why. Here is a Bill where the Government have been converted to planning, upon which we congratulate them; and yet we are now making it possible for the absolute negation of planning in a cut-price war as between one port and another on charges for the facilities of the port. Here there is to be the modernisation of ports; there is to be the provision of more up-to-date equipment; and, of course, if there is to be modernisation and more up-to-date equipment it must be paid for. It will be quite possible, now that the non-preferment clause has been taken out, to equip one port and make it more efficient and for another port to offer a lower tonnage charge, and for shipping companies, concerned about the immediate effect of 2d. a ton on cargo, to switch from the port that has been modernised to some other port. My Lords, I think that the clauses dealing with the charges as a whole give the user of the port pretty good protection against overcharging. Therefore I think it was all the more foolish to have withdrawn this non-preferment charge clause from the Bill.
Winding up from this side of the House I will close as I opened. We welcome the Bill. As my noble friend Lord Hobson said, we will facilitate
1208
its passage through the House, subject to giving detailed consideration to a number of what we hope are constructive Amendments. We will do all that we can, both inside and outside this House, fully to implement the desire of the Rochdale Committee and of this Bill to make the ports of this country the most efficient in the world. Having said that, I will repeat what I have said in this House on a number of occasions. I have never hidden the fact that I worked for a living as a railwayman, and that, as a transport worker as well as a railwayman, I have always accepted the fact that the various forms of transport—road, rail, air, shipping, aerodromes and the ports—are all part of a transport industry and ought to be worked and planned together.
A little while ago I was congratulating the Government on having accepted planning. Yet there is nothing in the Report—it was not within the terms of reference of the Rochdale Committee—and there has been no statement by the Government, about something which is equally as important as the Rochdale Committee and this Bill; that is, the access by road and rail to the various ports of this country. If you ever get up early in the morning, just go down to the London Docks and see the scramble there, with miles of lorries having arrived at 5 o'clock at night and not being able to discharge or be loaded until next morning. If we are to have really efficient ports, then road and rail access must be dealt with as well. It is no good implementing "Beeching" at the same time as implementing the Rochdale Committee Report. One is dismantling facilities, the other is calling for their provision. You can make the most efficient ports for the handling of goods and you can give provision for what is perhaps the most serious lack in our ports, additional dry dock facilities; but unless you deal with the problem of the approach to the docks by road and rail, then you will not get the fullest effect from the Bill to which we are now giving a Second Reading.
6.44 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I should like, before I forget it, to take up the last remark which was made in the very reasoned and reasonable speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, about the question of road and rail access.

1209
May I ask him just to look at Clause 1(1)(d). The noble Lord said that it had never been mentioned in any context. But it is written into the Bill. I feel I must make that point, but I am not going to make a lot of it. I want to go on to what has been said by other of your Lordships who have taken part in this debate, which has been, I think, a very constructive one; and I should particularly like to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale—I am sure your Lordships would also like me to do so—for the extremely valuable and enlightening contribution he made.
In my turn I should also like to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, on his maiden speech. The former speech more or less answered the latter, particularly in regard to the port of Par, a subject with which my noble friend Lord Merrivale associated himself in his remarks. I can only echo what the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, said: that small ports such as Par have nothing to fear from the provisions of the Bill. I should have thought they may well benefit from the activities of the National Ports Council. I think it would be a disservice to such ports to put them outside the scope of the Bill, where, of course, they are included in Clause 9(2).
My Lords, I particularly appreciate the welcome that has been given to this Bill, and the generosity of noble Lords opposite, in particular, in what they have said about improvement effected by the Bill, has certainly not been lost upon me. I would disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, only to the extent that it seemed to me, as, indeed, it has proved, that a large number of points that have been raised in this debate are rather more of a Committee character than of a Second Reading debate, unless I misunderstood him: and we are all concerned not so much—in fact really not at all—with the "if", but with the "how" of it. Therefore, as I feel we shall return in some detail to the majority of the points which have come up to-day, I am not going to attempt to tackle them at any length now; but there are, nevertheless, a few that I must mention.
The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, and the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, both doubted whether the real purpose of the
1210
Bill was written into it. I should like to allay any fears they may have that the Bill does not make the preparation of a comprehensive plan absolutely clear. I would point out that it does; I would say that I thought the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, was in a rather sinisterly suspicious mood to-day and has seen too much in the drafting of this Bill, because I must tell your Lordships that where it refers, in Clause 1, to "comprehensive plans", it is no more than a drafting device to ensure that all development is not held up until the whole plan has been produced. If it were produced in such a way that there must be a plan, nothing could be started towards implementing the plan until the whole thing was there. That is the reason the clause refers to "plans" in the plural.
The noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, and the noble Lord, Lord Hobson, told us they would be putting down Amendments, and they used the words "constructive", "considered" and "forthright" in relation to them; and I am quite sure they were right to do so. Whether your Lordships would wish to apply the adjective "acceptable" we can only wait and find out in due course.
The noble Lord, Lord Hobson, asked about the dry docks and pointed out that they were not included in the Bill. That is because the dry docks industry is part, in fact, of the ship repair industry. I know that all that goes on within the sphere of harbour authorities, and some dry docks are in fact owned by them, but not, of course, operated; and it would be extremely difficult to try to drag into the Bill an industry within an industry. That is the reason why it is not referred to.
He also, as did the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, raised the question of the composition of the Council, and I must try to deal with this point. I know it has been the view—it was pressed in another place—that there should be full-time members of the Council. In fact, that has been rather the custom in the past; for instance, in the case of the Railways Board. But the analogy of the Railways Board is not very strong. That Board is engaged in active management. This Council is engaged much more in an advisory and planning capacity. What is wanted, and I think

1211
this has commended itself all round the House, is a body of people of proved experience and knowledge to advise the Minister, to adjudicate on charges, to promote research. It does not necessarily require some statutory provision whether they should be full-time or not. In fact there is nothing to prevent the Minister from appointing as many full-time members as he may wish. Neither is there an obligation that all or any must be; and I think in the case of a council of this kind that is the better arrangement.
As to the other members, I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, agreed with my view that it should not be a sectional interest that should be represented; it would almost ruin this body's activity if it were so. It is true that there are members of the shipping industry, but they are not there to represent that industry; they are there to give their experience and contribute their knowledge to the work of the Council. I think that if we drew this thing in too close and there were statutory representatives of any given organisation—whether it be the National Dock Labour Board or any other—one would be unable to resist the argument that there should be a representative of all kinds of other people, or, indeed, of different regions. Therefore, I think the Council is better left as it is, although I would point out that there is nothing to stop the Minister if he so wishes from appointing any person of any organisation who happens to have the expertise which is necessary. Probably from time to time he will so wish, and he will do so.
The next point the noble Lord, Lord Hobson, made and which I think I ought to mention is whether the £50 million or possibly £100 million, mentioned in Clause 13, is adequate for the job. I am sorry he did not hear me say "fifteen or twenty years"; I must have mumbled. He mentioned fifty to eighty years. If he had divided that, he would have got a very astonishing answer. This money is not an actual piece of the national cake which has been earmarked for this purpose and is therefore sitting in some drawer marked "Private, Ports only" or something like that. This sum was decided on rather rough consideration, as best one can tell, of what was likely
1212
to be required; it seemed, on due consideration being given to it, the appropriate sum to put in the Bill at the present time. It was not just picked out of a hat, so to speak; it was on such consideration as could be given. The noble Lord, Lord Hobson, went on to a query on Special Parliamentary Procedure. I hope he will forgive me if I do not take up time on that matter now, because it will take time; it is rather detailed. It might be better to go into that at some convenient moment in Committee.
I feel I must deal, though I hope not at length, with the question which I think has exercised the minds of all, and that is Clause 19 and particularly the penal provision. Various noble Lords who have taken part have had to go, which is unfortunate, because I should have liked them to hear my remarks, but I have no doubt they will read them. There is one particular aspect of this matter which I think has been misunderstood. Nothing is actually written into this Bill which, when it becomes law, is going to send any master of a ship to prison.
What I think has been missed is that this is an enabling clause, enabling the authority which is making the scheme to make by-laws whereby offences against their scheme can be dealt with, either summarily, in which case the maximum penalty is £100, or upon indictment, when to preserve anything like equality with the law in other respects the maximum penalty of imprisonment is six months. If there is to be indictment, then that is the proper penalty. It will depend, surely, on the difficulties which are to be encountered in the harbour concerned whether the authority wish to make a by-law calling for indictment or whether they do not. I cannot stand here and say I think many will, or many will not. The other point to remember is that this is a safety arrangement; it is entirely in the interests of safety.
I think that between now and the next stage of the Bill we all ought to consider very carefully what is the alternative. Ships now are becoming very large; cargoes are sometimes explosive—I do not say ships are all full of gunpowder, but their cargoes may be oil, or petrol, or something like that,

1213
in what are getting to be very large quantities. Tankers are getting up to 100,000 tons, and you do not manœuvre an 80,000-ton tanker just as easily as a speedboat. It is in the interests of safety, not only of the ships, not only of their crews, not only of the responsibility of the master; we have to think of the safety of people in adjoining districts, living on land, who may easily be affected, and we have to take precautions against what could be a very major disaster. I think it would be a pity to wait until we had it rammed down our throats by having to suffer a major disaster before we tightened the law to deal with compliance with traffic control schemes. I think that is what we should ask ourselves before we take the matter to a further stage.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, with most of what the noble Lord has said one is in perfect agreement. To my mind, at least, the worst feature of this matter is what is claimed to be the lack of consultation with those concerned.
LORD CHESHAM: A good deal has been made of lack of consultation in these matters, but I do not see quite what the noble Lord is complaining about. The noble Lord, Lord Hobson, gave us a long list of people who should have been consulted in this matter which, so far as I can make out, did not, with the possible exception of the Merchant Navy and Airline Officers' Association, include the masters. I do not know, but I do not think you usually necessarily have to consult people who are going to suffer a penalty under the law before you fix the penalty. I think that would be an unusual, rather than a usual, procedure. I may be wrong about that, and I should like to think about it a little more. But I rather think that the point that noble Lords have made has been a little overstated. For the moment, I should like to leave the matter there. Undoubtedly we shall be returning to it.
LORD HOBSON: My Lords, when the noble Lord returns to it at a later stage, will he pay particular attention to Clause 23, which gives me the impression—I am
1214
not a lawyer—that the man is guilty and has to prove he is innocent?
LORD CHESHAM: Yes, we shall look at the whole question, because undoubtedly there will be Amendments which will call for detailed attention at the next stage.
I want now to refer quickly to what the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, said on the question of an industrial training board. I echo what my noble friend Lord Blakenham said in the debate on the Industrial Training Bill. I see nothing inconsistent between what is in the Bill and the possibility in the future of an industrial training board for the industry. I should have thought that with these provisions and the possibility that the National Ports Council may have been promoting training in the meantime, if, later, an industrial training board came into existence, this would really have done nothing but good. Certainly, there is no intention that there should be any interference by the Minister or the National Ports Council with the activities of such a board if it were set up in due course. I do not think it will do to rely on an ultimate possibility of an industrial training board when we ought to be doing this and getting on with it now. That is my view.
The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, was, I think, in a darkly suspicious mood. Whilst I shall certainly be glad to look at Clause 30 and to think about what he said about it—Lord Merrivale mentioned the same point about its being put into cold storage—I think that what has been said is probably going unnecessarily far. When I opened I made it clear that this power was regarded as a reserve power and probably that is quite sufficient for this clause. However, I will look at what the noble Viscount said again—indeed, I will look at what all your Lordships have said again—with considerable interest before the Committee stage. But now, I hope your Lordships will see fit to give this Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

NEW FOREST BILL [H.L.]
7.4 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the House to be in Committee (on Recommitment) on report of the Bill from the Select Committee.
LORD CRATHORNE: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.
Moved, That the House do resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.—(Lord Crathorne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: House in Committee accordingly.
[THE LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: This Bill has been amended by a Select Committee of your Lordships' House, and the Amendments made have been incorporated in the Bill.
Clause 1:
Alteration of perambulation of New Forest
(4) Subject to the provisions of this Act the lands which are designated on the additional plans certified under section 4(4) of the New Forest Act 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1949") as extended by section 2(3) of this Act as lands to which are attached rights of common of pasture over any part of the added areas shall be treated as lands to which are attached rights of common of pasture within the perambulation of the New Forest as altered by this Act.
LORD CRATHORNE LORD CRATHORNE had given Notice of several Amendments, the first being in subsection (4), after "pasture" where that word first occurs, to insert: "or a privilege of pasture". The noble Lord said: I beg to move the first Amendment standing in my name on the Marshalled List. This Amendment, and other Amendments to Clauses 2 and 16 which are consequential, are designed to give effect to the views of the Select Committee on this Bill as expressed in paragraph 2 of their Special Report. Here I should like to quote the Special Report. In paragraph 2 they say:
"… that the reasonable privileges at present enjoyed by"
people who turn out animals on the adjacent commons
1216
"should continue to be enjoyed by them, even though there may be difficulty in establishing such privileges as legal rights."
To achieve this end these Amendments have all been agreed between the Promoters of the Bill and the petitioning Commoners, and, indeed, the National Trust. The position, therefore, is that in respect of the commons within the added areas which belong to the National Trust and the Wellow Parish Council great difficulty has arisen in the past in determining whether or not common rights did, in fact, attach to particular holdings. This led to much local discord, and in the end it was decided, I think wisely, that irrespective of the existence of common rights, holdings adjoining these commons should be given the privilege of the pasturing of animals. The effect of these Amendments, therefore, is to place holdings—and I emphasise the word "holdings," as opposed to "individuals"—to which a privilege of pasture is attached on the same footing as holdings to which rights of common of pasture are attached. Thus, not only will the existing privileges continue, but they will also be extended within the whole of the altered perambulation. In other words, this brings all these new people in on the same terms as the original commoners in the original New Forest area. This is the object of these Amendments. I hope that they meet with the wishes of the Special Committee on the Bill as explained in paragraph 2 of their Special Report.
At this stage it may be convenient to your Lordships if I deal quite shortly with paragraph 3 of the Special Report, which deals with the question of concessions on marking fees. I should like it on record in the OFFICIAL REPORT that the Promoters stand by the concessions offered in the letter of February 18, 1964. That letter is quoted in paragraph 3 of the Select Committee's Special Report. But it may be mentioned also that it is not only intended to cover commonable animals normally turned out on the commons in the added areas, which have in the past been in the habit of remaining on the commons as at December 1, 1963, but it goes further, and includes other animals which would otherwise fall into this category, save for the fact that their owners normally turn them out at certain other times of the year—for example,

1217
during the summer months. The intention of the Promoters is to try to meet the suggestion and recommendation in paragraph 3 of the Report of the Select Committee. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 5, Ater ("pasture") insert ("or a privilege of pasture").—Lord Crathorne.)
LORD SHACKLETON: I should like to get one thing clear on this Amendment. The noble Lord referred to certain commons only. I think it should be made clear that this will apply to all the outlying commons which are brought within the perambulation and not only West Wellow.
LORD CRATHORNE: I give that assurance right away.
LORD SHACKLETON: I thought that point should be made clear. The second point is this. I should have thought that the common rights over other commons, particular Hyde Common, were a good deal more firmly established than the noble Lord has suggested. Certainly I am told that they have been exercised for a very long time. Indeed, my note suggests that this goes back to the time of Edward I, though, unfortunately, it has been altered in ink, and it might be Edward VII. I am now told that these rights have been exercised for centuries. I think that we should have that on record. I shall have further points to make on the Question, That the clause stand part, but your Lordships might take note of the excellent work which the Select Committee have done, as they did on the previous New Forest Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 1, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD SHACKLETON: There is still a certain amount of dissatisfaction among some of the outlying commoners. I suspect that it is perhaps impossible to satisfy all the commoners, but the situation is made mare difficult in the absence of any general legislation in regard to commons—legislation which, one hopes, some Government will one day find time to enact. There is still scope for some further concessions or further clarification. In introducing a Bill of this kind it is exceedingly difficult to make sure that all the interested
1218
parties have been fully consulted; and whereas I would not in any way criticise the Promoters (I know the great efforts they have made, and particularly the efforts made by Sir Oliver Crosthwaite-Eyre, the Member of Parliament for the New Forest, with a long family tradition there), the fact remains that there is one group of commoners—I cannot speak for the West Wellow ones—who are still anything but satisfied.
I very much hope that this Bill will pass, and, with the imminence of a General Election, I realise that we are legislating against the timetable, and that if we do not get this Bill through the chance may disappear. On Second Reading I pointed out that it is a hard thing to interfere with people's rights, especially when they feel that such rights are immemorial and are satisfied such rights are genuine, and where there is legal reason to suppose that is the case. Representations have been made by certain people from one common, a group who did not petition against the Bill, for reasons which I do not know, but which may have been connected with a desire not to hold up the Bill, or possibly not to spend money. They had relied on representations from the National Farmers' Union to see that their entitlement was protected and that their rights were confirmed. The Promoters of the Bill have gone a considerable way in clarifying the position, including the action of the noble Lord in his last Amendment in confirming the right of pasture. Furthermore, there are proposals with regard to a concessionary rate of payment towards the verderers. There are suggestions that they should in fact maintain their own agisters. They already maintain part-time voluntary agisters. No doubt they will now come in some degree under the verderers.
On the question of representation, we are confronted with a strange institution, the Court of Verderers—the old Court of Swainmote. I shall have to be careful what I say about this, because I know the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, is a great expert in these matters. The fact remains that there could be some further concession made in regard to some special representation on the Court of Verderers, whether it be by a federal institution or some other method. There is a possibility of verderers being

1219
elected for a particular area. I do not favour this very much, but in this transitional stage it is highly desirable that these matters must be settled if the peace of the New Forest is to be maintained.
And peace has not always reigned in the New Forest. Having solved the ancient war between commoners and the King's woodsmen by the 1949 Act—and the Forestry Commission is now greatly beloved in a way it was not in the past—we do not want one set of commoners who are aggrieved. We do not want a feud, for if a grievance grows up it may lead to a disproportionate waste of effort in resolving it. I should like to suggest to the noble Lord that certain steps should be taken to ensure that the local interests in these outlying commons are specially taken care of. It is possible that they could have their own committee. Certainly they want to make quite sure that their rights are firmly established. It may well be that their interests are related to tithe or Ordnance Survey numbers, but I would suggest that this particular suggestion should be borne in mind.
I stress that there will be slightly different interests. This is a Private Member's Bill, and there has not been a further committee to investigate the New Forest like the Baker Committee. It may be that in time we shall have to have such an investigation. We want to make sure, so far as possible, that not too many people are left unhappy about it, and some of those who feel they have had these ancient rights for a long time have been concerned about this. I think it is unlikely they will petition, but we must not ignore the fact that there is still a right to petition in another place and that such a petition might gravely endanger the Bill.
I hope, therefore, that the Promoters, and in particular the verderers, however irritated they may be—and when you are embarked on a great enterprise and are well aware of the virtues of what you are seeking to do the temptation to ignore feelings, justified or otherwise as they may be, may be strong—will have proper consultations. There have been accusations that they have not properly consulted. Frankly, I think that if one were to consult everybody
1220
properly one would have to wait a hundred years before one had such a Bill. None the less, I think that further steps should be taken in this matter, and that it is in relation to the passing of this clause that we should note them.
LORD CRATHORNE: I should like at this stage to thank the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, for raising this point. It is a new point, and I should like to say at once that I am certain your Lordships will agree with the principles underlying his remarks to your Lordships on the question whether this clause shall stand part. When we come to their detailed application, we have now got this new point which will be in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Although I cannot give any assurance that the verderers will be able to meet in exact detail the suggestions that he has made, I certainly can give, on behalf of the Promoters of the Bill, the complete assurance that the verderers will take cognisance of the suggestions that have been made and will look into the propositions that they suggest. There are, as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, will know, many kinds of committee. There is an advisory committee, an official committee, a sub-committee, and all kinds of various methods by which local opinion can be brought into consultation as we see how the Bill works. If the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, will accept it from me on behalf of the Promoters that they will certainly look into the points he has raised, I think that is as far as I can go this evening.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Designation of additional lands entitled to rights of common pasture]:
LORD CRATHORNE: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 31, after ("exist") insert ("or over which a privilege of pasture was exercisable on 1st December, 1963").—(Lord Crathorne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRATHORNE: This Amendment, also, is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 34, at end insert ("and also designating the lands to which a privilege of

1221
pasture over any part of the added areas was attached on 1st December, 1963, specifying in relation to the lands the extent of that privilege").—(Lord Crathorne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRATHORNE: This is a further consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 45, at end insert ("and whether any, and if so what, privilege of pasture is attached to any such land").—(Lord Crathorne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 2, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD SHACKLETON: I am not sure whether this is the right point at which to ask one question. I take it, in the light of the Amendments moved by the noble Lord, that we have been dealing only with the question of pasture. I hope I am right. In fact, I wanted to be clear that the other rights—rights of turbary, mast and the rest—which have existed, will continue to be exercised as in the past, and that this clause does not really affect these rights.
LORD CRATHORNE: I can give the noble Lord a complete assurance on that. The Amendments deal only with pasture.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Fencing, etc.]:
7.25 p.m.
LORD DOWDING LORD DOWDING moved, after subsection (3), to insert:
"(4) The verderers shall, by adjustment of grazing fees or otherwise, put themselves in a position to fulfil all their financial commitments, particularly as regards the maintenance of a number of agisters adequate in the opinion of the Minister for the welfare of all the animals permitted to graze in the Forest."
The noble Lord said: I am interested in the welfare of the animals grazing in the forest, and in the prevention of accidents on the roads. I am only incidentally interested in the verderers and their affairs; but when the verderers grant permission for animals to graze in the forest they make themselves responsible, not only for the animals' food and water but also for their welfare. The verderers have taken over these responsibilities from the owners, and they are not fulfilling them adequately. They employ four agisters to care for about 6,500
1222
animals, and these four men are not enough. I have here an account of efforts to help a sick and suffering animal after its condition had been noticed by a passer-by. A man out for a walk with a friend found a pony lying down and obviously in great pain. This was at 1.10 p.m. The man immediately telephoned an agister, and they waited for over two hours, but nobody came.
At 3.50 the man came to my informant's house and reported the situation. At 4 p.m. my informant started a round of telephone calls which included an agister's wife; a veterinary surgeon's receptionist; the veterinary surgeon's wife, who was also a qualified veterinary surgeon; the police; and the clerk to the verderers, twice. All were unhelpful except the police, but they said that they could do nothing until they were satisfied that every agister had been telephoned. Finally, at 4.45, the police rang up to say that an agister was on his way to the pony, and at 6 p.m. two agisters arrived and took charge of the situation—about five hours after the first finding of the pony.
Considerable delays also sometimes occur before the arrival of an agister when a pony is lying injured on the road after a car accident. A correspondent living at Ringwood writes as follows:
"The plight of the unfortunate animals, some of which lie injured for hours before an agister can be found to destroy them, is pathetic."
The verderers say that they cannot afford to pay more than four agisters, and this account seems to be true in present circumstances. The purpose of my Amendment is to ensure that the verderers should, by one means or another, put themselves in a position to meet their just liabilities.
There are two classes of people who are permitted to graze animals in the forest, commoners and non-commoners. The commoners have rights which, if not actually legal, are hallowed by ancient customs. The non-commoners are not in the same position. Some of them do, not live in the forest. One, at least, lives in Australia. If the raising of grazing fees is not a practical suggestion, then other means must be found of enabling the verderers to fulfil their obligations and to pay their way.
I have with me the verderers' accounts for the year 1962, which are the latest I have been able to obtain. The pay, insurance, commissions and expenses of the agisters amount to about £2,880; that is to say, £720 per agister. The excess of expenditure over income for the year was £750, or about 17 per cent. of the income. It seems obvious that some positive action is required. I am told that if any Amendment is made to this Bill at this stage, even if it received the approval of the noble Lord who is introducing it, the Bill would have to be referred again to the Examiners and the delay involved would very probably result in the Bill's being lost altogether owing to the imminence of a General Election.
I do not wish to subject the Bill to any such hazard, and I shall not press my Amendment to a Division. I hope, however, that the Committee will agree with me that the matter warrants some consideration by Her Majesty's Government, and I would ask the noble Lord who represents the Minister concerned to suggest to his right honourable friend that he should initiate discussions with the verderers which may enable them to balance their budget and, at the same time, fulfil their obligations to the animals whose welfare they are representing. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 40, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Dowding.)
7.32 p.m.
LORD CRATHORNE: I know the Committee will be pleased to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Dowding, is not prepared to press his Amendment to a Division, because, as he truly says, there would be a definite danger of losing this Bill. Although it may not do all that the noble Lord would wish, I feel confident—and I am sure that he must also—that if the administration of the Bill goes according to plan it must be of considerable advantage to the animals in the New Forest, and particularly to the ponies. I should also like to tell the noble Lord that he is not the only Member of your Lordships' House who is interested in animals. We all have this matter very much in mind, and very much at heart, and should wish to do anything that can be done, by legislation or otherwise, to minimise danger to
1224
animals and to human beings. That is the intention of the Bill now passing through your Lordships' House.
I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Dowding, is aware that the Petition which was originally submitted by the New Forest Society for the Prevention of Straying Animals was withdrawn on February 26, because of an open letter to the Petitioners on behalf of the Promoters, two sentences of which I will quote:
"The verderers believe that the effect of the Bill by restricting the area within which the agisters have to operate will be to make the existing agisters more available. Nevertheless, it is the intention of the verderers to increase the number of agisters even if it involves an increase in marking fees in order to make provision for their remuneration."
LORD DOWDING: I am aware of the situation there; but my point has been to get something more than an intention from the verderers to do something or the other. I think I have shown from the accounts that they cannot employ more agisters without going still further into the red. My suggestion was aimed at the noble Lord who represents the Minister to see whether it would not be possible to initiate some direct consultations between Her Majesty's Government and the verderers, rather than rely on a vague promise made in a letter which, so far as I can see, cannot be fulfilled in the existing circumstances.
LORD CRATHORNE: I was just coming to that point, when the noble Lord rose in his place. The point about consultations—and I have the authority of the Minister to say this—is that, in fact, consultations are going on all the time, because on the Court of Verderers there is, first, the official verderer, who is certainly not appointed by the Minister; then there is one verderer appointed by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, himself, in his capacity as Minister. Furthermore, there is a verderer appointed by the Forestry Commission for which the Minister of Agriculture is the official liaison, so far as Parliamentary affairs are concerned.
So there are two direct representatives on the Court of Verderers—one from the Ministry of Agriculture and one from the Forestry Commission—who can keep in the closest possible touch with the Minister and the Forestry Commission

1225
on all the points which the noble Lord has raised. I know that the Committee are entirely sympathetic to the noble Lord, Lord Dowding. We wish him well in everything he tries to do for the animals; and I believe that this Bill goes a long way to achieve what he desires.
LORD SHACKLETON: I do not think we can do very much about it to-day, but there is no doubt that the shortage of agisters is a serious problem in relation to the matter which the noble Lord, Lord Dowding, has raised. I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to the evidence before the Select Committee, in which Mr. Scott (who is, I believe, the clerk to the verderers) suggested that the agisters had a great deal of their time taken up by attending to injured animals. Quite obviously, we are all in favour of doing something about this matter. The difficulty is that the noble Lord, Lord Dowding, is trying to do it by legislative action, and I do not think that can be done. Nevertheless, I do not think that the situation can go on as it is. The marking fees that are paid have gone up 800 per cent. in the last few years, but they are still ridiculously low, and I think it ought to be made clear to the commoners, who may or may not be public-spirited in this regard, that their leaders, including some of the verderers, will not be able to resist public pressure in this matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, said that the size of the perambulation has been reduced, but it has been increased in one respect, and the net effect is that even more animals are going to belong to the Forest by the introduction of the new commons. One of the problems of the New Forest is that animals are turned out not only by people who live in the Forest, but also by people who do not, and there is one particular operator (I think that is the word) whose black steers are a menace on the roads. In last year's cold spell they caused a great deal of anxiety among people in the Forest, because it was felt they were not properly attended to.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: Has he not changed to Herefords?
LORD SHACKLETON: I do not know what his animals are. I saw one breaking its way through somebody's hedge the other day, for which the individual
1226
was responsible. Those of us who live in the Forest know to whom I am referring. There are a number of these animals and I do not see why the operator should not pay bigger marking fees for the privilege. I certainly support those verderers who are in favour of an increase in fees. And a brave step has been taken by the Member for the district in another place, which may or may not get him Commons votes but will bring him merit, in proposing that there should be an increase in fees for agisters. Something has to be done about it.
LORD DOWDING: I must say that I did not feel satisfied with the explanation of the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, because these Government representatives have served on the Court of Verderers for some time and they have not done anything about the finances of the Court. It seems to me it is quite impossible to increase the number of agisters unless there is money to pay them. Therefore I should welcome a word from my noble friend who represents the Minister, if he would say one on this subject.
LORD ST. OSWALD: The only word I can say is that I have listened to the noble Lord and I will pay careful attention to his words and bring them to the attention of my right honourable friend. This is a Private Member's Bill, and so far as the Committee stage is concerned I really have only a listening brief. Naturally I have been interested by what the noble Lord has said, and I will give it even more attention when I have had the opportunity of reading it.
LORD SHACKLETON: Before we leave this matter, may I point out to the noble Lord that the 1949 Act was amended in this House to give a majority to local representation—that is, of elected verderers. The original proposal would have given the Minister, in effect, power to achieve this very thing. None the less, these members are there to represent the public interest. I am glad the noble Lord said that he would take note of this, because they certainly are in a position to bring some influence to bear on the Court.
LORD DOWDING: I am much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, for his words. As he says, this is a Private

1227
Member's Bill, but, if I may say so, the Forest is a Royal Forest and the Government must have some responsibility in the matter. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.46 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON LORD SHACKLETON moved, after Clause 3, to insert the following new clause:
Speed limit for motor vehicles
" .—(1) It shall not be lawful for a person to drive a motor vehicle on a road within the perambulation of the New Forest (in this section called 'a restricted road') at a speed exceeding forty miles per hour.
(2) A person convicted of an offence of driving a motor vehicle on a restricted road at a speed exceeding forty miles per hour shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.
(3) This section shall not apply to the road from Cadnam to Ringwood (A.31).
(4) This section shall come into force on such date as the Minister of Transport may by order appoint not being later than one year from the date of the passing of this Act.
(5) The power to make an order conferred by the last foregoing subsection on the Minister of Transport shall be exercisable by statutory instrument."
The noble Lord said: I suffer from the same disability in regard to moving this Amendment as my noble friend Lord Dowding, because we do not have the time to send this back to the Select Committee, and I think that this is unfortunate. Perhaps I ought to have moved an Instruction at an earlier stage, but a time-table based on the unknown judgment of the Government, as the result of a Gallup Poll or the results of the Greater London Election, handicaps us a bit in dealing with legislation.
One of the main criticisms of the Bill is that it has not gone far enough in its declared intention, contained in the Explanatory Memorandum of the original Bill, to reduce accidents. I fully acknowledge that this Bill, which has many merits, would contribute to that end; but there is only one fundamental solution to the problem of accidents—that is, to reduce the speed of motor vehicles.
I should like to give your Lordships some figures in regard to this problem.
1228
These figures are probably official verderers' figures and may not be absolutely complete, because animals may crawl away and not be found and agisters may not be notified. None the less, what has happened over the last eight years is quite striking. In 1955, there were 170 accidents to animals, but in 1963 that figure had risen to 349, although I should say that it represents a reduction on the 1962 figure, which was 378. Taking the 1962 figure, this includes 198 ponies killed, 92 cattle killed, 9 donkeys killed and 14 pigs killed. I doubt whether any fencing is going to prevent pigs from being killed, though noticeably there were only two pigs killed in 1963.
Of the 349 animals killed or injured in 1963, 175 of the accidents took place on the A.31 and the A.35. It is proposed to take powers in Clause 4 to fence the A.35, which is the lower Southampton—Lyndhurst—Bournemouth road, in addition to the powers already existing under the 1949 Act to fence the A.31, the Southampton—Cadnam—Ringwood road, which is really the fast road to the West and which is in process of being fenced at this moment. There is little doubt that the fencing of this road will reduce the serious number of accidents that have occurred on it. In 1963 there were 80 accidents (that is the number of vehicles involved) on the A.31, and on the A.35 there were a similar number. But if we deduct this number—and it is difficult to harmonise these particular statistics—there is still a large number of accidents on other roads.
If one looks at the map one sees the A.337, which runs from Lyndhurst to Cadnam and which is a fast road, and there are a serious number of accidents there. Although the greatest number of accidents occur on these main roads, there are still a large number of accidents on other roads. I confess that I, myself, was involved in an accident a few years ago, just outside my own village of Burleigh; and I know of a young man from that village who was killed while riding a motor-cycle, due to running into an animal late at night.
In our traditional British way, we have not yet made any mention of human beings. This is a serious hazard. If you drive through the New Forest at speed—and despite the warning signs, many people do, both in conditions of clear

1229
daylight and in appallingly bad conditions—and there is an approaching car, even with its headlights dipped, it is impossible to know whether an animal, possibly followed by another one, is going to leap acrcss the road.
There is a further argument in favour of my Amendment for a speed limit; that is, that I do not want to see any more fencing in the New Forest. Yesterday I drove along the A.31, and the fence that is being put up there is of a most depressing kind. You have these great and beautiful vistas of open moorland, with the open forest, where you can drive along roads or drive off on to the side road at some convenient point, and walk straight across into moorland or forest land that is as wild and beautiful as you will find anywhere. This is going to be spoilt.
Very strong views have been expressed by neighbours and others on this subject, and I have here a number of letters from people some of whom have an interest. In some cases it may be purely the enjoyment of the forest, and in others it is that the writers turn out animals. There is a strong view that the A.35 (and this point relates also to my next Amendment) should not be turned into a permanent speed track, fenced off by ugly fences along one of the most beautiful roads in the world. I would argue that to put a speed limit on every road except the A.31 would not be a serious hardship to anyone. The distances involved are not great. The particular stretch of the A.35 for which it is now proposed there should be powers to fence is only ten miles, and, if it should be a fixed rule that people should not proceed along that stretch at more than 40 miles an hour, they are not going to lose much time. I know that arguments will be produced that this would not be enforceable. In relation to the A.35, I would say that this is quite untrue, because there are police cars moving along that road, regularly patrolling it in the ordinary way. So I see no reason why there should not be a speed limit.
I should like to urge that the whole of the New Forest should be treated as it ought to be—namely, as a great national heritage and a National Park, and there should be a speed limit of a kind that you have in other National Parks, such as, for instance, Windsor
1230
Great Park. Nor would it be necessary, I submit, to have signs all over the New Forest indicating a 40 m.p.h. speed limit. I do not know whether there are signs all over Windsor Great Park, but it surely should be possible, if this were made an enclosed area (and that is why I want to apply it to the whole of the New Forest), to keep people down to reasonable speeds.
I know that it will be disputed whether speed is the cause of these accidents. There are, of course, certain particularly dangerous times. Of the 349 accidents in 1963, 278 took place after dark. It is conceivable that a speed limit, if it were enforceable, should be confined to the night time. But I think it would be difficult to have a night time speed limit only. The evidence, to my mind, is quite clear: if we could reduce speed in the forest, we should reduce the number of accidents, both to animals and to human beings. Since this is now to be a matter that will fall within the competence of the Government—because they have power, as have the Hampshire County Council, to make representations—I think they should take into account the strong local feeling.
If the noble Lord, or any noble Lord, should dispute that, I would draw attention to the evidence given before the Select Committee, where Mr. Scott, again speaking for the verderers, made it clear that the verderers would be in favour of such a speed limit. What he said was this:
"I think I can say the verderers are very much in favour of a speed limit being imposed. This has been suggested in the past, but it has always met with opposition, mainly from the county police, who take the view that such a speed limit cannot be enforced. But the verderers would welcome a speed limit on all unfenced roads."
If this is done, some extra expenditure may be necessary; but there is a great deal at stake. The only argument, as I understand it, is enforceability—and I recognise that this is an important argument. The evidence which the Minister's own representative gave before the Select Committee was that the ruling factor was enforceability. The Chairman of the Committee asked:
"It is the unenforceability rather than the desirability which is the ruling factor?"
and Mr. Glover said:
"Yes, my Lord."
Therefore, we know that the Ministry

1231
already accept the view that such a speed limit is desirable. It is not possible to put this into the Bill, but it would be possible for the Minister or the County Council to take action in the way that has been asked.
I could produce a great deal more evidence in the way of local opinion on this matter, but I will quote only one letter, in which the writer says:
"… why should there be such a speed track now that the New Forest exits are all, or practically all, gridded? And why should it not be treated as a park, like Richmond, with a 40 m.p.h. speed limit enforced on all roads, so that the inhabitants and those who want to drive at a reasonable speed and enjoy the scenery are at liberty to do so? For those who want to pass rapidly through the forest there will still be the A.31, which will be enclosed and can provide the fast travel which those on a long journey want."
Since I shall, at a later stage, have to withdraw my Amendment, I hope that we shall have (although I doubt it at this stage) some encouraging words from the Minister. Meanwhile, I should be interested to know what is the view of the Promoters of the Bill. I am informed that certainly the commoners of the New Forest would be in favour of this limit. I am also informed that the New Forest Pony and Cattle Breeding Society would be in favour of it. I would assure noble Lords that there is a very strong feeling in regard to this matter, and I hope that certainly the Promoters of the Bill, and the verderers, will continue their battle in this direction. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 3, insert the said new Clause.—(Lord Shackleton.)
8.0 p.m.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: I will not detain your Lordships for very long, because I know it is getting late. I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton—I think I agree with everything he has said. I think the enforceability of a speed limit is a difficulty. I would have preferred 45 m.p.h. because the modern car, with its efficient modern braking, perhaps helps to make 45 m.p.h. possible. It is not that I wish in the least to see motorists going faster. I agree with the noble Lord opposite on this subject. When I have not been imprisoned in the Palace of Westminster, or at liberty to some degree in Scotland, I have lived for thirty years in my spare time, weekends and so on,
1232
within a mile of the border of the New Forest, and I know these roads. Indeed, nine days ago I took the time to drive for 50 or 60 miles through these forest roads to educate myself further. Even on the main trunk roads, such as the A.31 which is being fenced, as the noble Lord said it is not deer fencing, and there are many deer. Deer fencing, of course, would cost a vast sum—I admit that. The fast motorist, the speed merchant—I think the Americans call him a "hot-rod"—is in danger of hitting a buck, not only with danger to the buck, of which the noble Lord, Lord Dowding, would disapprove, but with danger to himself. His own fault, maybe. One young man who I am told had one of these cars, said that he could already get up to 100 m.p.h. on this road, but with the fencing he would be able to do 110 m.p.h. He might hit one of these animals at any moment. On the minor roads, the unfenced roads, of which the noble Lord is speaking, he is perfectly right. The noble Lord mentioned pigs. I did not know that pigs were so nomadic as to go wandering about from the mud in which they normally keep their noses stuck; but there are certainly the deer, the ponies and the cattle who come leaping out from the undergrowth. If anybody interrupts me to say that cows or cattle do not leap, I must remind them of the cow that jumped over the moon. I include cows, or cattle.
That is really all that I have to say on the subject. I think the bright idea (which I do not suppose has ever been operated anywhere) of having a speed limit automatically enforced, be it 30 or 40 m.p.h., at lighting-up time, is well worthy of consideration, but I do not suppose it is possible under the present conditions. Anybody who knows the forest knows the dangers—I think it is a most frightening place in which to drive a motor car. It is all right on the twistier roads, because then you cannot speed. But in the open places people go whizzing along, and never know when ponies are going to cross a road. It certainly has its dangers, not only to the animals, with whom the noble Lord, Lord Dowding, is so rightly concerned, but also to the drivers or passengers of the motor cars concerned. I have pleasure in supporting the noble Lord opposite.
LORD CONGLETON: There are one or two points on which I must take contest with the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, so far as certain local opinion with regard to the speed limit is concerned. I can tell your Lordships that the question of the speed limit throughout the forest was discussed at great length in various unofficial committees and unofficial bodies before the Bill was drafted. There was great difficulty over the difference of opinions and views of what the speed limit should be; of how it should be enforced; whether there should be one at all, and what the effect would be on through traffic, local traffic and the different interests within the forest, such as the local tradesmen, the Chambers of Commerce, and the commoners. All these people had different views, and so it was quite deliberately left out when the Bill was drafted; there was considerable difficulty and very many opinions.
I myself come clown on the side of not having a speed limit, and I will try to explain my reasons. I think it would he a mistake not to take into account the effect when the A.31 gives a dual-carriageway trunk road from which all animals are excluded. It is difficult to assess how much traffic will be automatically transferred on to that road and, therefore, will have no contact with the animals of the forest. It is certainly my hope that so much traffic will be transferred to that road that there will not be the heavy through traffic, the big lorries and the big charabancs, which everybody tries to overtake and so possibly do not pay attention to other things on the road or near to them. If all that traffic can be transferred to one road the reasons for speeding in the forest will be reduced.
LORD SHACKLETON: May I ask the noble Lord from which road he expects it to be transferred to the A.31? There is a heavy incidence of accidents on the A.337 which runs North and South. If anything, traffic will increase on that road. Where does the noble Lord expect it to come from?
LORD CONGLETON: I think that when the new bridge at Redbridge is built, instead of the traffic turning South-West, it will tend to turn North-West, and so move from the A.35 on to the A.31. I hope that answers the noble
1234
Lord's question. Of course, the roads have to be completed, and that has not been done yet.
May I refer to the noble Lord's comments about pigs in 1963? I think it was a year in which there was very little pannage, because there were not many acorns and not much beech mast, so there were few pigs out in the forest and few pigs to be involved in accidents. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that powers exist for imposing this speed limit. The Minister has power, and so has the Hampshire County Council.
I believe that if a speed limit were imposed they would be forced to put repeater posts alongside the road. That, I think, is the technical term for the small indications of the speed limit which have to be put every half mile (I think it is) between the main posts in an area which is not obviously a built-up or restricted area. If I have it right, these posts were introduced under the Road Traffic Act, 1960. Also under that Act, in circumstances of country where you would not expect there to be a speed limit, no prosecution can be brought unless these small indicator posts are put in between the main restriction posts. So I would suggest that imposing a speed limit will achieve nothing, because even if the police could stop the people and presumably charge them, they could not be convicted, or there is a defence already written in and therefore it may be possible to get over the charge. But I would suggest that that is one of the reasons why the police have always stood out against the imposition of a speed limit on these roads.
Whether that particular difficulty can be overcome I do not know, but I am sure it would be quite wrong to have repeater posts. I suspect that these would tend to attract animals to the roads. At the moment, on the whole, they stay away from the roads; but here is a small, blinking, shining object, and small animals would find it a convenient rubbing post and something interesting to lick. I think it might well have the opposite effect to that which is desired.
I do not think that the difficulty that comes at night would be met by any speed limit whatsoever. I know of two

1235
cases of persons who were driving, certainly at under 40 miles an hour and, knowing the people, I should think probably at under 30 miles an hour, but who were involved in a collision with animals at night; and I think if there were any statistics, which I do not think there are, they would show that accidents of this sort have been occurring and will continue to occur.
I should be entirely willing to support the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, on this particular Amendment only if it meant that we should be able to do away altogether with fencing along roads. I cannot myself believe that that, in fact, is so. On the face of it, I would suggest that the speed limit seems a very helpful thing that would assist in getting over the whole of this problem, but I think when one goes into the detail of it one in facts gets nowhere. So, on the whole, I come down against this Amendment.
LORD CHESHAM: I think the nature of the Amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has proposed is such that it brings me into this discussion, not perhaps to your Lordships' surprise, although you have to tolerate my speaking for a fifth time this afternoon. I am not a bit happy about the Amendment. Frankly, I do not like the Amendment, and I will tell your Lordships why. But first I should like to make it perfectly clear that I do not wish to dissociate myself in any way from the objects that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said he had in view—reducing accidents, both human and animal, and reducing risks of all kinds. I am bound to say to him and to your Lordships, however, that I cannot agree that it would be a good thing to do in the circumstances to do what this Amendment proposes, for reasons which I will explain in a moment.
Rather contrary to what the noble Lord has said, I think, that the Amendment is, first of all, unnecessary; secondly, undesirable; and, thirdly, unworkable—and I would put them in that order. It is unnecessary because the Hampshire County Council, as the highway authority, already have powers under Section 11 of the Road Traffic Act, 1962, to impose a 40 miles an hour speed limit on these roads. The exception,
1236
of course, is the A.31, where the power rests with the Minister. That is the unnecessary part.
Section 11 procedure also provides for the giving of public notice and for consultation with the police, which the noble Lord's Amendment does not do; which is the first element of undesirability that enters in. Further, it would make the position regarding speed limits in the New Forest completely different from that in any other part of the country—which is undesirability Mark II. Neither the Minister nor the County Council consider that a speed limit would be justified on these roads. We hold very strongly to the view that if a speed limit is to do any good it should he one that is respected by the drivers who are using that part of the road. We think very strongly that to earn the respect of the motorist the road on which a speed limit is imposed should have at least some of the criteria of the kind of places people would expect to find a speed limit—there should be building development, traffic, waiting vehicles, schools, whatever it might be, and side turnings. We do not think you can ask people to respect a speed limit on an open road. That is the third stage of undesirability.
LORD SHACKLETON: May I ask the noble Lord what he means by saying that it is necessary for there to be traffic? I would point out to him that we are talking about traffic.
LORD CHESHAM: I was well aware that we were talking about traffic. I mean traffic going to and fro; a "mixture" of traffic, if the noble Lord prefers that. I do not mind if he wants to pick me up on a point of that kind. But a road going through a forest is not the type of road on which people would expect to find a speed limit in force. If people are on that kind of road they do not, we know well, respect a speed limit unless it is enforced by the police. Whatever the noble Lord tried to destroy in anticipation of the argument being made, I say that the police are not in favour of this, because they say it could not be enforced.
The noble Lord told us that there are police cars going up and down the A.35. What about other roads? Are people going to expect to be "pinched" for doing 60 or 70 miles an hour down

1237
one of the side roads, if that is possible? They know they are not. I do not think that is going to do any good. The noble Lord tells us that the verderers are in favour, and if he says so, then of course, I accept it from him. But I have had the same information as the noble Lord, Lord Congleton: that the local authorities in the Forest, the commoners' associations and amenity societies, particularly when they met together in September, 1962, were not in favour of such a restriction except in the built-up areas, where one would normally expect to find one.
LORD AIREDALE: Could I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment? Surely the kind of speed limit which people expect to see when they see signs in a built-up area is a 30 miles an hour speed limit. This Amendment seeks to impose a 40 miles an hour speed limit, which has very different, and much more specialised, applications. Surely, almost everybody in England knows something about the New Forest and the difficulties there of the animals, and when they come to the New Forest and see a speed limit of 40 miles an hour they are not going to be put off that because it does not look like a built-up area to which a different speed limit applies.
LORD CHESHAM: A 40 miles an hour limit can mostly be found in built-up areas, which have recognisable characteristics; and if the noble Lord—let us face it—thinks that most people do not respect them there, how much less are they going to respect them on a side road running across open country?
LORD AIREDALE: You should get them enforced in places where they already exist and are not respected. It is a rotten argument that because existing speed limits are not enforced you cannot have any more.
LORD CHESHAM: I do not think it is a rotten argument at all; I think it is an argument in my favour.
LORD CONGLETON: I am sorry to interrupt the noble, Lord, but he mentioned the commoners' associations. I cannot remember the date off hand, but approximately a month ago there was a public meeting at which the Commoners' Defence Association and the Pony and Cattle Breeders' Association
1238
were represented, and that meeting expressed the view that a speed limit would help. I think that was contrary to what the noble Lord said. It was certainly contrary to the view of previous meetings.
LORD CHESHAM: It is, apparently, contrary to what I said by virtue of the fact the noble Lord has more up-to-date information than I. My information is exactly what I said: that the commoners' associations and amenity societies had been against a speed limit. If there has subsequently been a meeting about which I have not heard, the noble Lord is probably right. But I think I should mention this question of repeater signs. These would be necessary by law—it is no good hoping they would not—at 325-yard intervals, to be precise; and whether that would be desirable in the forest, I should have doubted. The question whether they are present in Windsor Great Park does not arise, because there is no speed limit there and there is no need to have one; but if there were a speed limit there would have to be these signs. If there is this great increase in accidents, I am sorry to say that the answer lies in fencing, because the noble Lord's speed limit Amendment is not a starter.
8.22 p.m.
LORD CRATHORNE: I do not want to detain your Lordships for more than a few seconds, but I know the mover of the Amendment would like to know the view of the Promoters of the Bill. The Promoters are in favour of some sort of speed limit, and especially a temporary one, for a trial period, to see how we get on. I think the debate has been extremely interesting and it has shown how quickly opinion changes in this particular area. The noble Lord, Lord Congleton, said that recently quite a different view was taken from that held a year ago. I believe that this situation will go on. All I would say to the Minister (he was not helpful, but it is the kind of reply I expected; and he is bound to give the reply of the Ministry) is that, so far as the New Forest is concerned, we must remember that no precedent can possibly apply, because it is something entirely different from anything else anywhere else in the British Isles. That is a point that must be remembered. I think that it

1239
is wrong to accept advice on precedents on this particular area.
I am certain that to have this debate on record will be useful. The Promoters will look into the point with the local authorities, because it is quite clear that this proposal will not get anywhere until the Hampshire County Council are in agreement, and then they might push the Minister further. In the meantime, the Promoters will keep their eyes very carefully on this problem and take it into consideration in consultation with the interested parties.
LORD CHESHAM: I am sorry to intervene again, but I must say that if the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, thinks I was talking on precedent he is not right; I was talking about the law of the country, not about precedent. I must remind him again that there already exists this power if the county council want it.
LORD SHACKLETON: It is a handicap that the Minister was briefed only as far as 1960. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Congleton—
LORD CHESHAM: Would the noble Lord say that again?
LORD SHACKLETON: I said that I was sorry the noble Lord was briefed only as far as 1960, so far as opinion is concerned.
LORD CHESHAM: The date I mentioned was 1962.
LORD SHACKLETON: The noble Lord is not quite so out of date—I apologise. I suppose it is unfair to expect Ministers to know everything; we tend to think they ought to, especially the noble Lord. But the fact is that there is a decisive development in opinion. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Congleton, for coming forward with that information. His own argument was rather based on the views held at the time the Bill was being originally thought about and discussed, but I can well understand the Promoters not wishing to get in a tangle on this matter, so running the risk of not getting the general support which they needed. We know that they have had quite a bit of trouble in other directions, and they do not want the county against them. I would stress
1240
this is a matter on which there is very strong feeling. And, after all, it did call into existence the New Forest Society for the Prevention of Straying Animals. One may or may not take this Society seriously, but the fact is that many people who are deeply concerned about this problem got together in an effort to find a solution. I do not believe—and the evidence is not there—that fencing the A.31 will solve this problem.
Then there is the problem of the other roads. The noble Lord, I know, lives not far from the New Forest, and has no doubt frequently driven through it. But there is particularly this problem of the A.337. Why are powers not being taken to fence this road?—because accidents will continue to grow more serious. The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, gave a number of reasons. He said that it was not necessary, not desirable and unworkable. First of all, it is necessary because of the attitude of the authorities to this matter. Secondly, it is desirable because the whole object of this Bill is to prevent accidents. I agree that there is one undesirable aspect—and this is another reason why I shall not press the Amendment to-day: quite clearly it would have been desirable for this point to be argued out in Committee, and for the local authorities and the police to have had an opportunity to express a different view. What I cannot accept, any more than the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne can, is the argument that we cannot do this because it is different. It is precisely because it is different that we want to do it. It is because we do want to get it understood that different conditions apply in an area which we want to preserve. It is already beginning to be known by some people as "gridland" because there are grids all over the place. I shall have more to say about fences at a later stage in this Bill. When we see more fences of the kind being put up now, it is going to be very sad indeed.
I would therefore appeal to the Minister and to the Promoters to consider whether there is not, perhaps, a case for a speed limit. The problem of repeater signs is, I agree, a difficult one. It is perhaps an argument for having dealt with the matter in this Bill, when

1241
we could also put an Amendment in the Road Traffic Act in regard to the requirement for repeaters. I would support what the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, said, that people would be prepared, with training, to expect this. The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, takes a dreary, depressed view of motorists when he does not think they are capable of respecting a need of this kind. This seems to me something we cannot accept if we are to preserve areas like the New Forest.
Finally, on enforceability, I would say that if we want to keep the New Forest—and there are other areas—we may have to pay for this, and this may mean more police. As it is, I know what will happen. We shall have the A.35 fenced, which will be a great loss to the scenic beauty. There will inevitably be another bill to fence A.337 and other roads. Before withdrawing the Amendment I would say this. I do not expect the Minister to be able to say more to-day, but there is very strong feeling. There has been this change of attitude. I think he will find if he consults the Ministry of Agriculture, which is also responsible for forestry, that the Forestry Commission might have a view of this matter, and that there is a general change of attitude in favour of a speed limit. If no other noble Lord wishes to speak on this, I would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 [Fencing of road from Southampton to Christchurch]:
8.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD SHACKLETON: Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport may also care to consider this matter. In Clause 4 we are giving powers to public authorities to spend a large sum of money—a sum of money which could be estimated at somewhere round £100,000 or £200,000—to put up a fence along the A.35. My observations are really in regard to the type of fence that might be put up. The fence that has already been put up on the A.31 is a good workable fence, but it spoils the area. The Baker Committee recommended that a ha-ha fence should be constructed. The description in the Baker Committee Report of this fence
1242
was not, I believe, strictly of a ha-ha fence at all. As I understand it, a ha-ha fence is a vertical wall with a ditch and then a slope, so that if you are standing on the side above the fence you cannot see that there is any fence at all—you just see that there is a bit of a ditch. This is going to be extremely expensive.
I have consulted some people, including one young man who is actually building a road at this moment and who has also a good deal of experience of preserving the countryside. I would urge that before we put up more of these unsightly fences—perhaps this is a matter on which the Promoters of the Bill will also have views—we should consider the possibility of a sunk fence. This is a fence with a visible bank, but instead of being vertical it slopes at an angle with a small fence vertical to that slope. Such a fence would probably be slightly more expensive—indeed, quite considerably more expensive—but it would still be less expensive than a ha-ha fence.
Strong feeling exists on this matter. The first experiment at Pickett Post in regard to a fence of the Baker Committee type was rather disastrous, because there was a horrible great bank, a sort of parapet almost like the top of a trench, which spoiled the view. My fence would not produce this effect. Some of the soil might have to be disposed of elsewhere, but I am told that if you are building a road there is no particular difficulty in getting rid of soil. If necessary, it would have to be spread. The figures I have had on this proposal would suggest that it would not be much more expensive.
I would say that there are strong feelings—certainly there are some verderers who feel strongly—that if we are trying to preserve the New Forest we should have the sort of fence that will not block the Forest as much as the one that has been put on the A.31. We are giving power for the building of such a fence. I should be interested to know whether the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, has any views on this matter. I hope we shall get co-operation between the local authorities and those concerned with preserving the countryside. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, would not dissent from me in regard to the object I am seeking in

1243
this matter. I am just asking that, before we finally take a decision and put up the sort of fence that is being put up now, something rather more attractive will be considered.
LORD CONGLETON: Before the noble Lord replies, may I ask him to answer a further question? I understand that the Ministry of Transport have given an undertaking that the present fence on the A.31 road is agreed to be a temporary provision and not the final answer. He may not be able to answer that, but I understand it to be so. I was told so by one of the senior members of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England who are much involved. It would be helpful to know that. That would be the first stage.
I can only then go on to say how much I support Lord Shackleton in his point. The present fence is appalling, and is the last thing that anybody could possibly wish to see. I hope it will be possible to adapt the ha-ha principle to what is at present required. Lord Shackleton was good enough to show me the design of his new fence. It certainly produces the effect of looking from the road to the forest without obstruction, but when you look from the forest to the road, you can still see all the horrible vehicles. I wonder whether the noble Lord could help over this question of the fence.
LORD CHESHAM: I will let the noble Lord know what is the precise position, because I do not have it in my mind at the moment. All I would say is that I take note of, and agree with, the principle expressed: that one does not want ugly fences stuck about beautiful places. But all it had occurred to me to say, in a personal and not in an official capacity, and merely "thinking aloud" on what the noble Lord said about the sunk type of fence, is this: although it is cheaper, unless it is deeply sunk and is a rather high fence, and therefore extremely expensive, it has a lot against it as a means of keeping animals in. My reason for wishing to "pop up" in a personal capacity, is that I have just such a fence along my garden, and the way the heifers lightheartedly dance over it, whenever they feel inclined is quite remarkable. It is
1244
quite a sizeable obstacle. If the noble Lord is going to press for a particular fence of that type, it must be on a fairly large scale or it will not have the effect that everybody wants—namely, to keep the animals off the road.
LORD SHACKLETON: Is the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, going to express a view? It would be interesting to know what the Promoters think about it, because it is they who are insisting on taking the power in this Bill.
LORD CRATHORNE: All I can say at this point is that, so far as the Promoters are concerned, they have not got that far yet. But there is no doubt that discussions will go on with the parties concerned to see which is the right kind of fence, and great attention will be paid to the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton.
LORD SHACKLETON: I am astonished to hear it suggested that the Promoters have not yet got on to this. I think the noble Lord does not do justice to his colleagues in this matter. I am sorry to hear about Lord Chesham's sunk fence. I will show him the diagram that I have. There will be some animals against which no fence is proof. I am worried about some of the black steers in the New Forest. Then there is the point that the noble Viscount, Lord Stuart of Findhorn, mentioned, of the deer. There were 60 deer killed on the road. This slaughter will continue.
I think we have extracted all we can on this point. I hope that the amenities will be borne in mind. I am quite sure that the verderers will strongly support some satisfactory solution.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clauses 5 to 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Saving for National Trust]:
LORD CRATHORNE: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 39, after ("exist") insert ("or over which a privilege of pasture was exercisable on 1st December 1963").—(Lord Crathorne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRATHORNE: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 40, leave out from first ("lands") to ("without") in line 42.—(Lord Crathorne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill reported with amendments.
ELIM CHURCH MOOR LANE BOLTON BURIAL GROUND BILL
LONDON TRANSPORT BILL
PRESTON CORPORATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.

CITY OF LONDON (COURTS) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
  INTRA-UTERINE CONTRACEPTIVES
  INTRA-UTERINE CONTRACEPTIVES