Sitting of 25 March 1964

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  MINISTRY OF AVIATION

    Ferranti Ltd. (Bloodhound Contract)
    Mr. Diamondasked the Minister of Aviation whether he will now state the total profit made by Ferranti Ltd. on the Bloodhound contract up to 31st March, 1961; and what profit would have been needed to secure a return of 10 per cent. per annum on the capital employed.
    The Minister of Aviation (Mr. Julian Amery): My Department has no right of access to the books of Ferranti Ltd. for the purpose of ascertaining the actual profit made by the firm. I do not, therefore, know what this was.
    According to the best estimate I can make, it seems possible that the profit made on Bloodhound production for the Ministry of Aviation up to 31st March, 1961, was approximately £4·5 million. On the same basis of calculation, the profit to secure a return of 10 per cent. on capital employed would have been about £400,000.
    Mr. Diamond: Do I gather that the Minister is saying that, according to the best of his information, a reasonable return of profit—the figure of 10 per cent. on capital employed is reasonable—would have been £400,000 and the actual profit made was more than 10 times that amount?
    Mr. Amery: On the figures as I estimate them—as I say, I have no knowledge—it looks as though £400,000 would have represented 10 per cent. on capital employed and as though the profit made may have been as much as £4½ million.
    Mr. Diamondasked the Minister of Aviation whether, in computing the figure for overhead expenses incurred by Ferranti Ltd. on the Bloodhound contract, his Department disallowed trade subscriptions to the Aims of Industry organisation and similar bodies.
    Mr. Amery: No, Sir. For the purpose of payment for supplies on contracts such as these, the contractor's overheads are expressed in the form of a percentage addition to the direct labour costs. This is based on the proportion which the contractor's general expenses bear to direct labour employed. In assessing this figure, we do not normally take account of individual items which, as in this case, would be too small to affect the final percentage.
    Mr. Diamond: How do we know that they are too small to affect the final percentage unless we are given an idea of what the final figure is? Is it not a fact that every accountant acting in this way examines items of this kind, and is it not right that the country should know whether or not subscriptions to organisations of this kind are paid for by the taxpayer so that the Conservative Party can benefit out of the taxpayer's payments?
    Mr. Amery: There is, of course, a general examination of figures to see whether they are of a size which would affect the final percentage, but no purpose would be served by eliminating from the contractor's items general expenses which would not affect the percentage.
    Mr. Lee: Will not the Minister agree that there is now so much public money, very rightly, being put into the aircraft industry that it would be a very good thing if he, when looking into the question of contracting, insisted upon a return being given to him of any public moneys to be used in this way?
    Mr. Amery: The important thing is to make quite sure that we get a proper percentage. The object of the negotiations with the contractor is to agree an overhead rate, and this, naturally, involves some give and take. We do not want to waste time, have excessive effort or employ more people than necessary in looking into individual items; and not every small item can be identified as

    435
    having in the outcome been specifically allowed or disallowed.
    Sir C. Osborne: We recognise that Ferranti is probably the most efficient company in the world in this class of business, and, as a result of these contracts, I believe, it secured great export orders, but could my right hon. Friend assure the House that these extraordinary profits are not being repeated elsewhere in other contracts, and could he assure us that the other tiny items such as those raised in this Question do not affect the major one brought out in answer to Question No. 1?
    Mr. Speaker: We cannot go back to Question No. 1 now. I do not understand this process. A supplementary question can arise only out of the last answer.
    Mr. Wiggasked the Minister of Aviation whether the report of the committee of inquiry, presided over by Sir John Lang, into the price charged by Messrs. Ferranti Limited for the Bloodhound missile, will be presented to the House.
    Mr. Amery: Yes, Sir. It is intended to publish the report as a White Paper.
    Mr. Wigg: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the report will be published? Secondly, as this firm has had a touch "touch" the tune of several million pounds, have negotiations been opened with a view to the return to the public of money improperly obtained? Will he assure us that no more contracts will be awarded to Ferranti's until the money has been refunded?
    Mr. Amery: I am not in a position to say exactly when the report will be published. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would give me notice of the other questions.

    Polaris Submarines (Missile Tests)
    Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Minister of Aviation when the testing of missiles to be placed in the British Polaris submarines will commence.
    Mr. Amery: The A3 missile, with which our Polaris submarines will be fitted, has been under test by the United
    436
    States Navy for some time. Development is at an advanced stage and the missile is planned to enter service with the U.S. Navy later this year.
    Mr. Hamilton: Can the Minister say whether the warheads and the firing mechanisms have been tested as well, because clearly the one goes with the other? If not, when does he anticipate testing them, in view of the test ban treaty?
    Mr. Amery: The firing mechanisms have been tested repeatedly. I understand that the warheads, on the American side, were tested underground long ago. Our warheads are under development. There is no need for a positive test of the nuclear material to ensure that the system itself works. The detonation is quite distinct from the nuclear.

    Aircraft Accidents
    Mr. Dribergasked the Minister of Aviation if he will publish in HANSARD figures showing the number of persons killed in accidents involving aircraft flown by British operators in each of last 10 years, to the latest convenient date; how many were killed in aircraft flown by publicly-owned Corporations and how many in aircraft operated for private profit; and if he will publish further figures relating the fatal accidents, in each category to the number of miles flown by publicly and privately-owned airlines.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation (Mr. Neil Marten): As the Answer includes a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Driberg: Without having seen these figures, but knowing their general trend from figures that have been released before, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he would agree that there is clearly a causal connection between the high accident rate and the inevitable pressures of the commercial motive?
    Mr. Marten: There are reasons for all accidents happening, but we must not be misled by straight figures because there is such a variety of factors which go to make up accidents.
    Mr. Cronin: Is not the real problem that charter flying, which is done largely by the independent companies, is about 10 to 20 times more dangerous than flying with the Corporations? Is it not the case that the Government have completely failed to take steps to ensure that charter flying is made safer?
    Mr. Marten: I disagree with the hon. Member's assessment because it must depend on the basis on which one calculates the ratio of danger. But clearly the highest accident point is take-off and landing, and it is true that charter flight aircraft make more take-offs and landings in relation to the whole than the scheduled flights.
    Mr. Rankin: We have been asking questions about this apparent frequency of accidents—[HON. MEMBERS "Question."] Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we have been asking questions of this sort for quite a long while and that we have been getting much the same answer from him? What advance is being made in finding an answer which will satisfy all of us that accidents on the private lines are not more frequent than those on the public ones?
    Mr. Marten: I am sure that the whole House is concerned about any accident which happens, whether it concerns a private company or public Corporation. We are doing all that we can. There is the Flight Safety Committee which studies all accidents and disseminates the

    TABLE 1

    ACCIDENTS TO AIRCRAFT OPERATED FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORT (PASSENGER AND FREIGHT OPERATIONS) BY CORPORATIONS AND BRITISH INDEPENDENT COMPANIES

    Calendar year

    Total number of persons killed

    Number killed in Corporation Aircraft

    Number killed in Independent Operators Aircraft

    1954

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    96

    96

    0

    1955

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    16

    15

    1

    1956

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    91

    32

    59

    1957

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    114

    30

    84

    1958

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    99

    57

    42

    1959

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    46

    0

    46

    1960

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    3

    0

    3

    1961

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    102

    27

    75

    1962

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    125

    1

    124

    1963

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    0

    0

    0

    1964 (up to 10th March)

    …

    …

    83

    0

    83

    TOTALS

    …

    …

    775

    258

    517

    results. We have set up recently the Operations Analysis Group to study the take-off and landing of aircraft. Therein we might hope to find a solution.
    Sir S. McAdden: Would my hon. Friend agree that it is pretty disgraceful that these allegations should be made about charter companies which are subject to the same safety regulations as the Corporations? Is it not obvious that charter companies which operate with a full payload must, if unfortunately they have an accident, have a greater number of casualties than the other companies whose aircraft are flying half empty?
    Mr. Marten: Those are two of the general factors which must always be taken into account. I urge the House to treat these bare figures with reserve, although I share the concern about them.
    Mr. Driberg: If we are not to believe or to take any notice of what the hon. Gentleman called the "straight" figures, which I take it are those which he will put in HANSARD, what are we to believe? Are statistics of no use at all?
    Mr. Marten: I did not say that they were not to be believed, because they are figures which we are giving to the House. They are clearly to be believed. But all these things have to be weighted in assessment, and until all the factors are brought into account I think that we should treat these figures with reserve.
    Following is the answer:

    TABLE 2

    FATAL ACCIDENTS TO AIRCRAFT ON SCHEDULED AND NON-SCHEDULED BRITISH PASSENGER AND FREIGHT SERVICES

    (Moving five year totals)

    Financial Years*

    B.O.A.C. and B.E.A

    Private Companies†

    Number of fatal accidents

    Number of fatal accidents per 100 million aircraft miles

    Number of fatal accidents

    Number of fatal accidents per 100 million aircraft miles

    1953/54–1957/58

    …

    10

    3·2

    8

    5·4

    1954/55–1958/59

    …

    …

    9

    2·7

    10

    6·2

    1955/56–1959/60

    …

    …

    8

    2·1

    12

    6·9

    1956/57–1960/61

    …

    …

    7

    1·7

    10

    5·4

    1957/58–1961/62

    …

    …

    6

    1·3

    12

    6·0

    1958/59–1962/63

    …

    …

    4

    0·8

    10

    4·9

    Notes

    * This table has been based on financial years because this is the only basis on which statistics of non-scheduled operations by private companies before 1961–62 are available. Progressive five year periods have been used to smooth out sharp fluctuations in the rates from year to year.

    † Two accidents, one in 1958 and the other in 1960, on non-scheduled services operated by private companies who were not members of the British Independent Air Transport Association have been excluded from the table because non-scheduled operating statistics for the periods prior to 1961–62 are available in respect of B.I.A.T.A. members only. It is not thought that the inclusion of these accidents and their associated operating statistics would materially alter the picture.

    British Eagle (London-Scotland Services)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Aviation if he will make available the evidence and argument on which he based his decision to reject the Air Transport Licensing Board's finding on the application by British Eagle for increased frequencies on the London-Scotland services.
    Mr. Amery: The evidence and argument, which was heard in public by the Appeal Commissioner, is available in my Ministry if the hon. Member wishes to consult it. The Appeal Commissioner's report has also been published and I am sending a copy to the hon. Member.
    Mr. Rankin: But that hardly answers the Question on the Order Paper. Is it not the case that the Air Transport Licensing Board gives very serious consideration to every application for operational rights at any airport and that these proceedings are held in public? When the Minister takes the very serious decision to reject a carefully considered applicatiton, why should he not make available to the public the reasons for his decision?
    Mr. Amery: The Question asked me whether I would make available the evidence and the argument. The evidence and the argument, taken overall, are extremely bulky, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes to come and see them I should be delighted if he would do so. The Appeal Commissioner's report is somewhat smaller, and this I would propose to send to him.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Rankin, Question No. 8.
    Hon. Members: Wake up.
    Mr. Rankin: Shut up. Question No. 8.
    Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Aviation whether he will make it a condition of his acceptance of the recommendations of his Commissioner, in regard to British Eagle Airlines' application for increased frequencies on the London-Scotland service, that the service be operated from and to Prestwick Airport.
    Mr. Amery: I am not sure whether the hon. Member's last remark was addressed to the Chair.
    The Answer is, "No, Sir".
    Mr. Rankin: Owing to the interruptions on the benches opposite. I did not hear the Answer.
    Mr. Speaker: The Answer was, "No, Sir".
    Mr. Rankin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
    Is the Minister aware that Prestwick Airport is in a rather difficult situation? Is it not the case that he is doing his best to help it? Does not he realise that here is one way in which he can help it—by directing this service to operate from Prestwick? If the right hon. Gentleman has the power to say that it can operate from Renfrew, surely equally he has power to say that it could operate from Prestwick.
    Mr. Amery: If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that Prestwick should become the normal domestic airport for Glasgow—
    Mr. Rankin: No.
    Mr. Amery: —that is an entirely separate question. British Eagle wishes to operate from Glasgow and therefore that is the operating point in respect of which it applied for a licence. It has been given a licence.
    Sir Knox Cunningham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the public would appreciate a more frequent service on other routes by British Eagle? Will he do his best to make that possible?
    Mr. Amery: I will certainly take into account what my hon. and learned Friend says, but that is a rather different question.
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Minister of Aviation what requirements he laid down, when approving the extension of British Eagle Airways services to Scotland, regarding the application of adequate safeguards for passengers against accident risk.
    Mr. Marten: These services are subject to the same safety requirements as apply to other air transport services.
    Mr. Dempsey: When the Parliamentary Secretary says "other air transport services", does he mean that we should demand for private operators the same standards as we insist on for our publicly-owned airlines? Is he aware of the growing uneasiness, especially in Scotland, at the accident rate among private operators? Will he give an assurance that the standards insisted on
    442
    will be similar to those demanded for B.E.A., for example?
    Mr. Marten: We are here concerned with public transport aircraft, not private flying. A detailed and exacting code of safety regulations applies to all air transport operators in this country.

    Aircraft Orders
    Mr. Stratton Millsasked the Minister of Aviation whether it remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government, as stated in this House on 15th February, 1960, to concentrate Government orders for aircraft on the five major groups of the aircraft industry, except where specialised requirements or public policy make it necessary to do otherwise; and if he will give an assurance that the position of Short Brothers and Harland is still protected by the exception stated above.
    Mr. Amery: The answer to both parts of my hon. Friend's Question is "Yes, Sir".
    Mr. Mills: Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that the assurance which was given on that occasion will be honoured when the exact percentage of work which is to be sub-contracted to Shorts under the HS681 contract is being finalised by his Department?
    Mr. Amery: I am not sure what is the implication of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. We have agreed that a substantial part of the 681 contract will be sub-contracted to Shorts.
    Mr. Mills: May I help my right hon. Friend in underlining—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—is my right hon. Friend aware that the point of my previous supplementary question was to get an assurance that the undertaking that a substantial amount of work under the contract will be given to Shorts when the contract is fixed is fulfilled?
    Mr. Amery: I would certainly hold to the term which I used—"substantial". I hope that my hon. Friend will accept the same definition of the term as I do when the decision is announced.
    Mr. Cronin: As Americans and Italians are making aircraft for the British Armed Forces, can the right

    443
    hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that he will try to concentrate orders on the British aircraft industry in future?
    Mr. Amery: This has always been our policy. I remember being taken to task by the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) not so very long ago for not buying American transports.
    Mr. McMasterasked the Minister of Aviation what steps he is taking to give effect to the Estimates Committee's recommendations relating to the placing of Government aircraft orders.
    Mr. Amery: The recommendations in the recent Report of the Select Committee on Estimates on transport aircraft are being considered. We shall send our views on them to the Committee as soon as possible.
    Mr. McMaster: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in spite of several debates on aviation and defence, there has been no announcement of any aircraft projects, including particularly such projects as the replacement of the Shackleton, and that the Committee on Estimates recommended that there should be better forward planning if redundancy was to be avoided in the aircraft industry?
    Mr. Amery: It is true that the Shackleton has been a versatile aircraft capable of a certain amount of transport work, but it can hardly be regarded as a transport aircraft in itself. We are doing our best to forecast transport development as far ahead as possible, but all foreseeable requirements are met up to the middle of the next decade.
    Mr. Lee: Is the Minister aware that those of us who are keen that the British aircraft industry should be a great success are becoming more and more worried that, despite huge expenditure of public money, we are, apparently, not putting ourselves in a position to ensure that British products are bought and are the best for British aviation? Would the Minister agree that it is necessary to have far closer planning as between the fliers and the makers, with the Government taking a more active interest in what they can have than they are doing now? There seems to be growing in Britain a feeling that at the
    444
    end of the day we have still not proved that we are getting value for money from the great public expenditure which is now entailed.
    Mr. Amery: There is always room for improving the methods by which we approach these problems. The hon. Member would, however, be doing a disservice to the industry if he suggested that its condition is bad. I think on the contrary that it is extremely good, and the co-operation between industry, pilots and the Government is extremely close. No doubt there is room for improvement, but it would be a great disservice to suggest that the situatian is a bad one.
    Mr. McMaster: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the forward planning of heavy strategic transport aircraft and that we have sufficient to meet our needs as far ahead as he has suggested?
    Mr. Amery: I am in constant touch on this matter with my right hon. Friends the Minister of Defence and the Secretary of State for Air. They seem satisfied that the requirements are being met.

    T188 Aircraft
    Mr. Lubbockasked the Minister of Aviation whether the decision to cancel the T188 aircraft programme was based on the failure of the aircraft to achieve its designed performance, or on a reassessment of need to investigate the use of steel in the construction of high-speed aircraft.
    Mr. Amery: The reasons for the termination of the T188 programme were given in answer to the hon. Member's Question of 2nd March.
    Mr. Lubbock: Will the Minister confirm that the total cost of the T188 programme was £30 million? Can he say whether equally important information might not have been achieved by the use of our existing supersonic aircraft such as the Lightning, which flies at a speed greater than that achieved by the T188? Further, what plans do the Government have for continued research in hypersonic flight now that this programme has been discontinued?
    Mr. Amery: The hon. Member's figures are quite wrong. The sum spent

    445
    so far on the project is nothing like as much as £30 million. [HON MEMBERS: "What is it?"] More of the order of £20 million. A good deal of research is being carried out in the direction of hypersonic flight. We could not have got anything like the same experience from the Lightning. The metallurgy of the T188 has been very important and during its construction we have met a number of problems much greater than those involved in a conventional development programme. To expose these problems has been one of the main objects of our research.

    Aviation Fuel (JP4)
    Mr. Lubbockasked the Minister of Aviation if, in view of new evidence pointing to the risks of wide-cut gasoline, JP4, as an aviation fuel, he will propose to the International Civil Aviation Organisation that the use of this fuel should be banned by international agreement.
    Mr. Marten: The attention of the International Civil Aviation Organisation has already been drawn to the British report of 1962 on the subject. Studies of more recent evidence are in hand in the United States. When we have the results we shall consider a further approach.
    Mr. Lubbock: Is it not now virtually certain that the Pan American 707 which was struck by lightning over Maryland on 8th December crashed as a direct result of using this more dangerous fuel? Has the Parliamentary Secretary noticed the suggestion which has been made by Mr. Rickard that we should allow licences to foreign operators flying into this country only if they are prepared to use the safer fuel? Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that this would be a good thing considering that our air Corporations, which use kerosene, are at an economic disadvantage compared with the foreign operators who use JP4?
    Mr. Marten: That is a slightly wider question. The accident to which the hon. Member referred, at Elkton in the United States, in December, is under investigation. It is not yet established—here one must be a little cautious—that kerosene would have been any safer in that accident.

    Short Bros. and Harland
    Mr. McMasterasked the Minister of Aviation whether he will take steps to expedite the commencement of work on new aircraft construction under contracts and subcontracts which have been awarded to Short Bros. and Harland so that temporary redundancies may be avoided and a steady flow of work maintained.
    Mr. McCannasked the Minister of Aviation if he is aware of the impending redundancies at the works of Short Brothers and Harland at Belfast; and what action he is taking to prevent them.
    Mr. Leeasked the Minister of Aviation whether he is aware that one-half of the employees of Short Brothers and Harland will be redundant by 1966; and what is his estimate of the size of their labour force in 1970.
    Mr. J. Amery: I would refer to the statement which I made during the debate on the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill on 19th March. My Department is considering what additional work might be obtained by the company and what action can be taken to reduce the difficulties foreseen.
    Mr. McMaster: With a view to placing further work with the company, in view of the undertaking to which reference has been made, will my right hon. Friend consider, if the price difference is small—10 per cent. or less—placing the work where there is most social necessity for it?
    Mr. Amery: This is something that we have already done in the case of the VC10 for the Royal Air Force and the sub-contracting on the HS681.

    Lulsgate Airport
    Mr. Awberyasked the Minister of Aviation if he is aware of the disquiet of the Bristol, Lulsgate, Airport Committee concerning the hazard to aircraft approaching the airport caused by the erection of the mast 1,624 feet high in close proximity to the aerodrome; if he will re-examine the position in the light of the weather conditions at the airport; and if he will receive a deputation from the committee on this matter.
    Mr. Marten: In considering the proposal by the British Broadcasting Corporation to erect this mast all relevant factors, including weather conditions at Lulsgate Airport were taken into account. My Department decided that the proposal did not offend against the internationally accepted criteria which govern the safeguarding of airfields. I am satisfied that this view is correct. I am, after Question Time, meeting a deputation of hon. Members and local representatives about this.
    Mr. Awbery: I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for agreeing to meet a deputation this afternoon to discuss the matter. When he discusses it with the deputation, will he bear in mind that the Bristol local authority and the chamber of commerce have used very strong language in condemning the erection of this mast, 1,650 ft. high, within six miles of the aerodrome? The Minister's own Department has said that it may not be the right thing and that it may be undesirable to have a mast so near to the airport. Will the Minister consider this matter when he meets the deputation this afternoon?
    Mr. Marten: I hope that the hon. Member will be present. If he is not, I will certainly bear that in mind.

    Confederation of Engineering and Shipbuilding Unions (Correspondence)
    Mr. A. Lewisasked the Minister of Aviation on what date he received a communication from the Confederation of Engineering and Shipbuilding Unions concerning the aircraft industry; what was the nature of this communication; what was his reply; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Amery: I am circulating copies of the correspondence in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Lewis: Is it not the case that this important body has rightly asked for the resignation of the Minister? As this is a wonderful suggestion, will the Minister undertake to act upon it?
    Mr. Amery: No, Sir. I assure the hon. Member that I have rejected that suggestion from the body of men he has in mind. The grounds on which they argued that I might adopt it were entirely mistaken.
    Following are the letters:
    From:
    Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions.
    13th March, 1964.
    Dear Minister,
    Representatives of my Executive Council met you on 5th February and discussed with you the present situation of the Aircraft Industry and its future prospects. Generally, you felt we were taking an unduly gloomy view of the industry and you instanced developments which had and were taking place which led you to a more optimistic view as regards the competitive position of the industry and of its future.
    More particularly we referred to the existing uncertainty at that time about military planes and our fears that foreign types might be substituted for British planes which had been developed but not in production waiting on top level decisions.
    Since our meeting on 5th February it was made public that the Government have ordered 50 Phantom fighter planes from the U.S.A. to replace the British P.1154, and 200 helicopters of American design to be built in Italy.
    At the meeting on 5th February in so far as the P.1154 was concerned you told us that a final decision had yet to be taken but that holding contracts were in existence to ensure that progress was not held up; and that so far as the unit light helicopter was concerned, this requirement, which was urgent because of heavy military commitments, had not been foreseen in sufficient time to allow a British type to be designed to meet it. But in any case the requirement involved relatively little expenditure and work and efforts would be made that any solution adopted would provide employment in the United Kingdom.
    We accepted your assurances in good faith and reported on this basis to our full Executive Council and by circular to our affiliated unions and District Committees. Now we have found our original fears realised, and what is more we feel that the decisions for placing orders for the Phantoms and the helicopters must have been known by you at the time you met us.
    When the position was reviewed by my Executive Council at their meeting in York on 12th March grave concern was expressed at the policies of the Ministry of Aviation during the last ten years which has now brought us to a position of becoming dependent upon the United States of America for the design of aircraft. My Executive Council further consider that our representatives at the meeting on 5th February were misled by your assurances and that in the circumstances you should resign.
    H. G. BARRATT,
    General Sec.
    24th March, 1964
    You wrote to me on 13th March about my meeting with representatives of the Confederation on 5th February. I am at a loss to

    449
    understand how your Committee can suggest that they were misled, and can find nothing in your letter to justify such an allegation.
    You refer in particular to the Minister of Defence's recent statement that we would adopt the Phantom fighter if its proved to be compatible with our aircraft carriers and available on financially acceptable terms. I cannot accept the suggestion that I should have been able to warn the Committee about this decision before it had been taken. When I spoke to your Committee no decision had been taken and as you will see from what the Minister of Defence said, the decision is even now a conditional one.
    It is incorrect to say that the Phantom will replace the British P.1154. Development of the latter as the Hunter replacement is going ahead, and this will bring important design and production work to the industry. What has happened is that we have not seen our way to meeting the Navy's requirement for a Sea Vixen replacement with a variant of the P.1154. It would be extremely costly to develop a separate Sea Vixen replacement for such a limited requirement with no apparent export prospects. On the other hand, the Phantom was already in production, and could be fitted with Rolls Royce engines, thus making a considerable contribution to employment in this country. As you know, the engine content of our aircraft represents around 1/3 of its total value.
    It is also incorrect to say that we have ordered 200 helicopters of American design to be built in Italy. The facts are, as I announced in Parliament on 18th March, that the first 50 light helicopters are to be imported from Italy, and that the balance will be built in this country. Here again we have thus been successful in our aim as stated at the meeting on 5th February to ensure that the solution adopted should, at any rate on the production side, provide employment in the United Kingdom. You will also be aware that Italy represents an important export market for the British aviation industry.
    The view I expressed, which was incorporated in the agreed press notice after the meeting, that "there were good grounds for optimism about the future level of employment" in the British aircraft industry remains valid, particularly in view of the decisions to go ahead with the HS681 and P.1154 projects.
    In all the circumstances I trust that your Committee will now recognise that a great deal has been done by the Government to improve the prospects of the industry and that although there are problems affecting particular factories the general outlook is good.
    I have always been ready to see your Committee and I must therefore express my surprise that, when doubts arose in their minds as to the significance of the recent decisions, they chose to make the kind of public statements they have, rather than suspend judgment until they had talked the matter over with me again.
    JULIAN AMERY.

    Prestwick Airport (Scandinavian Air Services)
    Mr. Millanasked the Minister of Aviation what decision has been made about the number of Scandinavian Airlines' flights to be allowed through Prestwick Airport.
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Minister of Aviation if he will now make a statement on the further negotiations which have taken place with Scandinavian Air Services on the question of landings at Prestwick.
    Mr. Amery: The matter is still under consideration.
    Mr. Millan: Before coming to a final decision, will the Minister bear in mind that there is considerable concern in Scotland about this matter and a strong feeling that the Minister has neglected the effects of his original proposals on Scotland's air communications with Scandinavia, quite apart from the question of the connection between Prestwick and the United States? Will he bear this in mind and ensure that by his decision on this matter he does not prejudice air communications between Scotland and Scandinavia?
    Mr. Amery: I assure the hon. Member that I have not neglected that aspect. I am quite satisfied that my proposals would not interfere with communications between Scotland and Scandinavia.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: How long is it likely to be before the Minister comes to a decision in this matter? Surely, he is aware that the Scandinavian Governments have intervened with the Foreign Secretary and that the Foreign Secretary is also now considering it. Is the Minister aware that during this interval, disquiet in Prestwick is steadily growing?
    Mr. Amery: The best negotiations, as the hon. Member will be aware, are carried out with patience.
    Sir T. Moore: Is my right hon. Friend aware, as I imagine he is, that there is indeed, as the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has just said, great anxiety in Scotland at these proposed reductions in S.A.S. flights to and through Prestwick—not particularly over the damage to S.A.S. but over the

    451
    damage to Prestwick Airport itself and also to the air industry in Scotland generally?
    Mr. Amery: I can assure my hon. Friend that I have naturally taken all these aspects very much into consideration. I am directly responsible for the operation of Prestwick Airport and it is a point of first consideration in my mind, but I believe that the proposals we have put forward are in the best interests of British aviation taken as a whole.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is an impression that Prestwick is being used as a pawn in some sort of battle between Britain and Scandinavia over things which are not connected with Prestwick, and that this is regarded as an extremely dangerous game from the point of view of the future prosperity of Prestwick? Would he explain just exactly why Prestwick must be used as a target in this battle?
    Mr. Amery: Yes, indeed, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will wish to help me in dispelling any misapprehension of this kind. What has been happening is that S.A.S. flights have been picking up a great deal of the traffic from Scotland and carrying it to the United States—traffic which might otherwise have gone by B.O.A.C. I am sure that the last thing the right hon. Gentleman and his friends north of the Border would want to see would be subsidising S.A.S. at the expense of B.O.A.C.
    Mr. Gourlayasked the Minister of Aviation what representations he has received from Kirkcaldy Town Council regarding the proposed restrictions on Scandinavian Air Services at Prestwick; and what was the nature of his reply.
    Mr. Amery: I received, and duly acknowledged, a letter from the Town Clerk informing me that the Kirkcaldy Council supported the representations that had been made to me by the Prestwick Town Council.
    Mr. Gourlay: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that two local authorities in my constituency have protested about the proposed restriction on S.A.S. services and that this reflects grave disquiet and resentment among the population of
    452
    Scotland as a whole about his decision? How does he square a previous Answer—that his decision was taken in the best interests of British Aviation with a view to protecting B.O.A.C.—with the granting of additional facilities to British Eagle to compete with B.E.A. on the Edinburgh and Glasgow services? Will he take into account the enormous trading and commercial interests of Scandinavian countries in Scotland? Is he aware that the Prime Minister told me yesterday that he was giving further consideration to this problem? Will he consult the Prime Minister about this?
    Mr. Amery: I think that the simple answer is that both British Eagle and B.O.A.C. are British airlines and that, therefore, the best interests of British aviation are served by promoting all the different British aviation efforts. The hon. Gentleman and, perhaps the town clerk, are under the misapprehension to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) referred earlier, when I expressed the hope that he would help dispel it north of the Border.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise the enormous amount of national capital invested in Prestwick? Is he not aware that, right across Scotland, there is grave disquiet? Will he consider coming to Prestwick to find out things on the spot?
    Mr. Amery: I am hoping to visit it shortly, but I am under no misapprehension about the amount of national capital invested in it.
    Mr. Ross: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is also aware of the amount of national feeling involved. Will he consult his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and get from him the reports of the various delegations of hon. Members on both sides of the House who have been to see the Parliamentary Secretary to express their concern about the well-being of Scotland as a whole and the particular interest of the area of the country in which Prestwick lies?
    Mr. Amery: It is kind of the hon. Member to suggest that I should consult my hon. Friend, but we are already in very close touch.
    Mr. Lubbock: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that there is no suggestion of restricting the "fifth freedom" rights of S.A.S. to fly routes between Prestwick and Scandinavia? Is not he concerned only with the through flights between Scandinavia and the United States which pick up passengers in Scotland? Is not B.O.A.C. perfectly capable of providing all the seats which might be needed by passengers wishing to fly from Scotland to the United States or vice versa?
    Mr. Amery: The hon. Gentleman has expressed the position accurately. We have no wish to restrict in any way flights between Scotland and Scandinavia. Our only objection is to S.A.S. taking more than its fair share of passengers flying from Scotland to the United States and vice versa. The rights which S.A.S. has enjoyed in Prestwick were originally conceded in the period when aircraft were not able to fly direct from Scandinavia to the United States without breaking the journey. The situation has now changed and S.A.S. is exploiting a market which should naturally go to B.O.A.C.

    Britannia Aircraft
    Mr. Milneasked the Minister of Aviation what has been the number of Britannia aircraft sold by the British Overseas Airways Corporation.
    Mr. Marten: British Overseas Airways Corporation informs us that it has so far disposed of seven Britannias.
    Mr. Milne: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that if these aircraft which are being sold have a long and safe flying life ahead of them that is a case for their retention by B.O.A.C., and if this is so, does not this represent a hidden subsidy from the nationalised airlines to private airline companies?
    Mr. Marten: B.O.A.C. sells them when it wants to sell them.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why, if these planes are serviceable and airworthy, they are not good enough for the nationalised industry to operate, but are good enough for private flying?
    Mr. Marten: Because the nationalised Corporation in this case wishes to
    454
    change over to other aircraft, for various reasons, and sells them to other airlines which wish to operate Britannias. It is a commercial matter.

    Aircraft (Safety Standards)
    Mr. Milneasked the Minister of Aviation if he will introduce legislation to make more effective the safety standards applied to aircraft which are resold, following their use by the nationalised air Corporations.
    Dr. A. Thompsonasked the Minister of Aviation whether he will take steps to make more effective the safety standards applied to aircraft sold by the nationalised air Corporations to other operators; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Marten: Under the existing legislation exactly the same safety standards apply for the continuing airworthiness of a transport aircraft, irrespective of whether it is operated by the Corporations or an independent operator.
    Mr. Milne: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that many of these are bought by private airlines when they are approaching the end of what is termed their safe fatigue life? Is he further aware that the opinion is held throughout the industry that the private airlines are greatly inferior to the nationalised lines in the maintenance of craft and in their readiness to withdraw or divert machines from service? Will he not consider that this sort of thing needs examination, because there is growing disquiet throughout the industry that private lilies lag behind the nationalised lines in their readiness to divert and land at another field when landing conditions are hazardous at the intended airport? Is he aware of this? Will he give greater examination to this problem than appears to have been given to it by the Ministry in the past?
    Mr. Marten: In answer to the last part of the supplementary question, if an accident occurs involving diversion of a flight it is subject to complete inquiry, and if it is abroad we take part in that inquiry, and give it very careful attention. As regards the last part of the supplementary question, all aircraft, whether they be Corporation aircraft or aircraft belonging to private airlines, have the same safety standards.
    Dr. A. Thompson: Would not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that this is a question of the planes being further advanced in what is called their safe fatigue life? It becomes more important for planes operating in hazardous geographical and weather conditions. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is disquiet among pilots and aeronautical engineers about this. Would he start by making inquiries, with information relevant, with the Air Registration Board?
    Mr. Marten: These things are constantly under study by the Air Registration Board itself.

    Phantom II Aircraft
    Mr. Wiggasked the Minister of Aviation on what date the first delivery of Phantom II's will be made to the Royal Navy; and what is the expected date on which deliveries of this aircraft will be completed.
    Mr. Amery: I have nothing to add to the Answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) on 18th March.
    Mr. Wigg: Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to explain why he is so coy about this? For over a year now it has been dangled in front of the Royal Navy that it would get the P1154. Then at public expense and a great amount of publicity the right hon. Gentleman goes off to the United States and buys the Phantom II. Now he cannot tell us either when we shall get it or what the order is. When are we to be given some relevant information on this matter?
    Mr. Amery: I should have thought the hon. Member would have been the first to wish us to study very carefully all the considerations before we order aircraft, whether foreign or, indeed, British. No commitment will be made until we are satisfied on the technical issues and the costs, and until we have negotiated a satisfactory Government-to-Government agreement.
    Mr. Farey-Jones: In view of that reply, will my right hon. Friend strictly bear in mind the enormous psychological impact on the aircraft industry of the purchase of these Phantoms, and will he undertake and promise to the House that
    456
    before any such contract is placed every possible avenue of employment in the aircraft industry will be scrutinised first?
    Mr. Amery: We naturally consider the full implications of the Government's decisions, in particular to order the Phantom, on the aircraft industry, and we will see that every possible step is taken to alleviate any difficulties which may arise here. As I have said, there is no commitment yet.
    Mr. Lee: There are very serious technical problems which have not been resolved in the case of the Phantom. Will the right hon. Gentleman realise that when I put a supplementary question a moment or two ago which seemed to annoy him it was precisely this kind of thing that I had in mind, that we are spending huge sums of money, but that when the crucial time comes when we have to make an order, whether for helicopters or the Phantoms, we have to go abroad for it? It is this kind of thing which causes apprehension in Britain.
    Mr. Amery: There are indeed certain technical aspects of the Phantom solution which have not yet been resolved, and I can confirm this, that it will be some months before we are in a position to say whether they can be economically resolved or not. I was only taking the hon. Gentleman to task for running down the British aircraft industry.
    Sir J. Eden: Is it not a fact that a great deal of care was taken in trying to find a joint aircraft between the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force and that this having failed it appeared that the best alternative to that was the Phantom airframe equipped with the Rolls-Royce Spey engine? If the difficulties can be overcome, is it not right that the Royal Navy should get the best aircraft available?
    Mr. Amery: I would agree with my hon. Friend. The idea of a common aircraft proved to be impracticable. To have developed a special British naval aircraft as a Sea Vixen replacement would have been extremely expensive. If the technical difficulties can be overcome I have no doubt that the Phantom is the best solution. The fact that it will have a Rolls-Royce engine means at least that one-third of the cost is going to British industry, and it may well be that this will

    457
    have helpful repercussions and consequences in the entire field.
    Mr. Wigg: One can understand the right hon. Gentleman being cautious in a matter of this kind, but how comes it that all these doubts and second thoughts were not made clear by the right hon. Gentleman when for political reasons he came here and made an announcement that he was going to get the Phantom II?
    Mr. Amery: The hon. Member is quite wrong in saying that my right hon. Friend said what he said for political reasons. He needed to say we had a decision of intent before we could seriously embark on negotiations affecting both technical modifications and serious detailed discussions on estimates.

    Airport Development, Yorkshire
    Mr. A. Robertsasked the Minister of Aviation what action he proposes to take on the report of a survey recently published by the Yorkshire Airport Development Association, a copy of which has been sent to him, making certain proposals on airport development in the North-East.
    Mr. Marten: I agree with much of the report which confirms my Department's view that there is no case for a single regional airport for the North-East and Yorkshire Region. We are already assisting financially with the development of Woolsington and are taking over Middleton St. George from the Air Ministry for transfer to the local authorities. We shall be glad to help the local authorities at Hull—with whom we have already been in touch—in any planning or technical problems connected with the proposed civil development at Brough.
    Mr. Roberts: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the Press reports, obviously authoritative, confirming that there will be two more international airports in the South-East, or around London? Does he realise that the population of the South-East should not be further increased but that there should be a movement to the North? Well he give consideration to the provision of an international airport in Yorkshire?
    Mr. Marten: That has already been considered and it does not fit into the pattern of aviation in this country.
    Mr. Tiley: Will my hon. Friend tell the House how, if we are to have two more international airports within an hour of London, plus a Channel tunnel, we Northerners are to get to the South? Admittedly, I have never found anything worth coming south for except to attend this place but we have to go to and travel from London Airport. In the broad survey of the country's transport, is it not time that some attention was given to Yorkshire and the North-East?
    Mr. Marten: I do not know whether my hon. Friend heard my Answer but mentioned, for the North-East, the development of Woolsington and Middleton St. George. There is also the improvement at Yeadon at the moment, and we are prepared to help Hull with any proposed civil airport developments and technical problems. A substantial effort is being made by the Government to improve communications with the North-East.

    Missiles and Aircraft (Cancelled Projects)
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Minister of Aviation what has been the financial loss sustained by the cancellation of projects concerned with missiles and aircraft since 1952.
    Mr. Amery: I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) on 17th June, 1963, of which I am sending the right hon Member a copy.
    Mr. Shinwell: I have not seen that Answer. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me the total? Can he also say whether, since last June, there have been other cancellations of projects? Who is responsible for cancellations? Is it the Ministry? If so, are those responsible to be surcharged?
    Mr. Amery: I have not got the total here. The figures are set out in a table which the right hon. Gentleman will be able to see in the circulated statement. The decision is, of course, taken by the Government as a whole. I am aware of no cancellations since June.
    Mr. Shinwell: If the right hon. Gentleman refers me to an Answer given previously, presumably he has that Answer

    459
    before him. I am merely asking for the total amount. Has he not that in front of him?
    Mr. Amery: The Answer does not give the total but lists each item. I would not wish to weary the House by counting up the sums listed.
    Sir J. Eden: Can my right hon. Friend give any comparison with the experiences of other countries regarding the cancellation of projects like this? Would not he agree that it is insufficient merely to consider cancellation of projects? Should we not also have regard to the value of our exports, the value to developments in other industries and also the value of all those projects—both missiles and aircraft—which are in service? Would not this give one a much more balanced account of the success of the British aviation industry?
    Mr. Amery: The proportion of cancellations in this country has been considerably smaller than in the United States. When the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) asked for certain detailed information it never occurred to me that he was criticising cancellations. It is much better to begin projects and cancel some than not begin at all.
    Mr. H. Wilson: Since the right hon. Gentleman has not got the total sum with him and apparently cannot tot up the answer, would it help if I informed him that a simple tabulation by arithmetical methods gives a figure of £239 million?
    Mr. Amery: The figures advanced by the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues in the last aviation debate make me hesitate to accept his now.
    Mr. Lee: Following the answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), is it not the case that since last June we have had the cancellation of the T188 at a cost estimated at £20 million?
    Mr. Amery: This is another typical example of the hon. Gentleman's characteristic tendency to misrepresent the facts. We have not cancelled T188. All we have done is to terminate the programme. [Laughter.] What we have done is to terminate the programme somewhat earlier than was previously
    460
    foreseen, but not before we had learned very many lessons from it. It is all very well for hon. Members to laugh, but there is no question of cancellation. Our decision has been based on the fact that further expenditure would not pay off. The expenditure so far incurred has given a reasonable return.
    Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order. Might I give you notice, Mr. Speaker, that I might catch your eye on the Adjournment tomorrow to enable the right hon. Gentleman to give the full amount after he has inspected the details?
    Mr. Speaker: Yes. I have received notice. I can give no encouragement.

    Airfield, Sculthorpe
    Mr. Bullardasked the Minister of Aviation if he will make a statement on the possibilities of using the now disused American air base at Sculthorpe, Norfolk, for purposes in connection with civil aviation.
    Mr. Marten: I understand that the future of Sculthorpe as a military airfield has still to be determined, so that it may be premature to be considering its possible civil rôle. However, I can say that it would have no place as a major intercontinental airport if Stansted is selected as the site for the third London Airport.
    Mr. Bullard: While I appreciate all the difficulties of using this base for civil aviation purposes, may I ask whether my hon. Friend is aware that the potential closing of the base is likely to have an enormous effect on the area and that the size and scope of the installations are vast and that it seems a great pity that some future profitable use cannot be found for them?
    Mr. Marten: That is the very point which has not yet been decided, but if its use as a military airfield is discontinued it is up to the local authorities, in consultation with us, to consider its future use.

    Phantom Aircraft (Airframes)
    Mr. Croninasked the Minister of Aviation what consideration he has given to having the McDonnell Phantom aircraft airframes manufactured under licence in the United Kingdom, instead

    461
    of buying the airframes directly from the United States.
    Mr. Amery: This is one of a number of issues which are currently under consideration in connection with the possible purchase of Phantom aircraft.
    Mr. Cronin: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this order has been a heavy blow to the prestige, morale and well-being of the British aircraft industry? As it will involve the expenditure of between probably £100 million and £200 million, would not some of the economic effects be mitigated if it were made under licence?
    Mr. Amery: As the hon. Gentleman is already aware, more than one-third of the total sum involved will be placed with Rolls-Royce. As I said, the question of assembly over here is one of the matters now being considered.
    Mr. McMaster: Will my right hon. Friend also consider the re-engining of this aircraft by the British aircraft industry?
    Mr. Amery: It is to be engined by Rolls-Royce.

    Scotland (Air Transport Requirements)
    Dr. A. Thompsonasked the Minister of Aviation whether he will set up a small committee to investigate Scotland's requirements in air transport over the next 10 years.
    Mr. Marten: No, Sir. I do not think it is necessary to set up a special committee for this purpose.
    Dr. Thompson: Will not the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that any plans for the industrial expansion of Scotland must be matched by provision for improved air facilities, better services within the United Kingdom and direct links with Europe, better tourist facilities and links with overseas countries? In the light of that, will he have an over-all look at the problems of Scotland and perhaps consider the possibility of setting up a Scottish air travel authority?
    Mr. Marten: At present there are the Highland Transport Inquiry under Lord Cameron, which has made an investigation, the Committee of Inquiry into the Scottish Economy under Sir John Toothill, the Scottish Council, the
    462
    Highland Transport Board and the Scottish Advisory Committee for Civil Aviation, all of which deal with this subject.
    Mr. Manuel: What are the considered views of the Minister of Aviation and the Secretary of State for Scotland, who received a report from B.E.A. a year ago about the Scottish internal services? Have they reached a decision on that matter yet?
    Mr. Marten: That was a question of the Highlands and Islands. In the White Paper it is clearly stated that these internal services will be maintained as social services.
    Dr. Thompson: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Toothill Report. Is he aware that it was made three years ago and condemned the rate of growth of air travel in Scotland as inadequate to the new needs of both industry and tourism? Will the hon. Gentleman read that Report and do something about it?
    Mr. Marten: I was only saying that this was one of the reports studying the problem and that setting up a further small committee would not carry it much further.

    Lang Report
    Mr. Leeasked the Minister of Aviation on what date the Lang Report will be published.
    Mr. Amery: I cannot, at this stage, give a date for publication.
    Mr. Lee: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that two months have elapsed since the Lang Committee was set up? We know that the Public Accounts Committee is considering this matter, but will the right hon. Gentleman now assure us that we can expect the Lang Committee to report at any rate within the next month?
    Mr. Amery: As I said, I am not in a position to say what the date will be.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that the report will be published before the General Election?
    Mr. Amery: Rightly or wrongly, it is not I who takes the decision about the election.

    B.O.A.C. (Corbett Report)
    Mr. Croninasked the Minister of Aviation if he will give further consideration to publishing the Corbett Report on the British Overseas Airways Corporation having regard to the recent disclosure of the contents of this Report to the British Overseas Airways Corporation.
    Mr. Amery: No, Sir.
    Mr. Cronin: Has not this Report now received widespread unofficial circulation and even appeared in the Press? Can the right hon. Gentleman reassure the House that his refusal to publish the Report is not influenced by the circumstances first that the Report contains no justification for his changes in the B.O.A.C. Board and, secondly, indicates that B.O.A.C. received some very improper Ministerial interference in its presentation of its accounts?
    Mr. Amery: As I have said, I am not prepared to publish the Report and it would therefore be a waste of time of the House to try to discuss what its contents are.

  ROADS

    Huntingdon By-pass
    Mr. Rentonasked the Minister of Transport when it is proposed to start building the Huntingdon by-pass.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): The scheme will be considered for inclusion in the extension of the trunk road programme to 1968–69.
    Mr. Renton: Is my hon. Friend aware that since I started pressing for this bypass more than eight years ago the congestion in Huntingdon has been getting worse and worse and that to have to wait another four or five years is a serious matter in a fast developing town? Will he ask his right hon. Friend to consider this matter again and make a further announcement about it at a later date?
    Mr. Galbraith: What I can say is that naturally we will consider as sympathetically as we can including the scheme in the next extension of the
    464
    rolling programme, but whether it succeeds in being included will depend on the competition from other similar schemes.

  SHIPPING

    The Hartlepools
    Commander Keransasked the Minister of Transport whether he has now approved the plans for the modernisation of the coaling staithes in the port of Hartlepool.
    Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: The British Transport Docks Board is still in discussion with the National Coal Board on the volume of coal likely to be shipped through the Hartlepools in the future. In consequence the plan for the modernisation of the coaling staithes has not yet been submitted to my right hon. Friend.
    Commander Kerans: This was brought to the attention of the then noble Lord more than a year ago when he came to the North-East, when it was said that this was one of the items which would help to improve the port and thus increase communications and attract industry to the area. Why has nothing been done for so long?
    Mr. Galbraith: My hon. and gallant Friend probably knows that the Docks Board has done a great deal of preparatory work on this, but before it can come to a final decision, it must know what the Coal Board's requirements are, and the Coal Board is now estimating the extent of its future shipment requirements throughout the whole of the North-East.
    Commander Keransasked the Minister of Transport what plans the Docks Board has submitted to him for the future development of the port of Hartlepool.
    Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: I am advised that, apart from the scheme for new coal shipment facilities the Board has no plans at present for major developments.
    Commander Kerans: Is it not high time that it did? Not so long ago it was turning away ships from the port because it did not have sufficient alongside berths or deep-water berths for

    465
    unloading timber. Will my hon. Friend look into this again as a matter of urgency?
    Mr. Galbraith: The Docks Board is looking into this, but it considers that present facilities are generally adequate for the immediate future, with the exception of the coal facilities which I have mentioned.

    QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
    The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
    Mr. HUGH DELARGY: To ask the Lord Privy Seal if he will move to appoint a Select Committee to consider the desirability of setting up a plaque in Westminster Hall in memory of Sir Thomas More.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Bevins—statement.
    Sir T. Moore: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I direct your attention to this Question and ask whether in your opinion any mistake has been made in the spelling of the surname?
    Mr. Speaker: Westminster appears to be spelt normally.
    Mr. Delargy: As this Question is in my name, and contains the words "in memory of", may I draw attention to the fact that, notwithstanding appearances, the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) is not yet dead?
    Mr. Speaker: I am inclined to think that the transfer of the Savings Bank would be a healthier topic.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Nobody would ever associate the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) with Utopia.

POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK (LOCATION)
The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:
Mr. CHARLES GREY: To ask the Postmaster General if he will now make a statement on the transfer of the Post Office Savings Bank out of London.
Mr. TIMOTHY KITSON: To ask the Postmaster General if he will make a statement on the new site of the Post Office Savings Bank.
Dr. JEREMY BRAY: To ask the Postmaster General whether he will now announce the future location of the Post Office Savings Bank.
The Postmaster General (Mr. Reginald Bevins): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I will now answer Questions Nos. 98, 99 and 101 together.
Following the Government's general acceptance of the Fleming Report the decision was taken to move the Post Office Savings Bank to a location out of London. This is an organisation which, technically and operationally, it is possible to move a long way from London.
The Government have considered many locations and has now decided that the national interest lies in moving the Bank to Glasgow.
Mr. Grey: While it is generally accepted that there will be great delight in Glasgow over getting this Department, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the people on Tees-side will be bitterly disappointed? May I also ask him what regard he has had for the staff side in this transfer, because it has declared itself wholeheartedly in favour of going to Tees-side in any case? Why did the right hon. Gentleman go through the paraphernalia of seeking the views of the staff side about where this Department should go? What part has the Prime Minister played in all this? I ask that because, politically, this decision stinks.
Mr. Bevins: I have seen the Staff Association on at least two occasions, and there is no doubt that the Civil Service Clerical Association, which represents a majority of the staff, has as the hon. Gentleman said, felt a strong preference for Tees-side. Great weight has been given to the views that have been expressed to me, but the paramount consideration here must be the national interest, and that is why it has been decided to send this Department to Glasgow.
Mr. Kitson: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there will be considerable disappointment on Tees-side because of that reply? Will my right hon. Friend

467
convey to his colleagues the claims of Tees-side when any other Government Departments are moved from London?
Mr. Bevins: Yes, Sir. There will be disappointment both on Tees-side and on Merseyside, but I assure my hon. Friend that the Government are not insensitive to the claims of the North-East. Indeed, the Post Office itself is in course of moving the Savings Certificate Division to Durham, where about 2,000 people will be employed. There are also two or three other very much smaller Civil Service units which are available for dispersal to the North. In choosing these locations we shall give special consideration to places that need additional employment.
Dr. Bray: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that on Tees-side this will be regarded as a blow below the belt? Can he say what is the national interest in the matter of diversification in view of the fact that the proportion of clerical jobs on Tees-side is substantially lower than in any of the other areas considered?
Mr. Bevins: It is true that clerical employment on Tees-side is relatively low, but I think that the principal factors to which the House ought to have regard are, first, the fact that unemployment in terms of numbers is much greater in Glasgow than on either Tees-side or Merseyside, and secondly, that the rate of juvenile unemployment there is also greater.
Mr. Maclay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will give great satisfaction to everyone who is interested in achieving a better balance of employment opportunities throughout the country, and that it will give particular satisfaction north of the Border? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that those members on the staff of the Savings Bank who move to Glasgow in due course will receive the warmest possible welcome, and will find that it is an extremely friendly city?
Mr. Bevins: I agree with my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Ross: While appreciating the disappointment of Members from the
468
North-East, may I express the pleasure of hon. Members on this side of the House who have pressed for this decision, without a voice being raised from the other side?
Will the right hon. Gentleman draw to the attention of the Government the fact that we welcome this belated concern, in the national interest, for the well-being of the neglected areas of the North? Will he speed on the Government during their remaining days in office to disperse further office accommodation and headquarters from London?
Mr. Bevins: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his rather grudging appreciation. I should like to make it clear that there has been no lack of voices raised on this side of the House in support of Glasgow.
Sir K. Thompson: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that that last question is evidence of the fact that he will get little credit from Scotland for doing this, and that the Post Office staffs who are to be denied the pleasure of living and working on Merseyside will find it hard to understand how he arrived at that decision? Will my right hon. Friend do what he can to see that the remaining staffs of the Post Office that are to be moved from London are sent to Merseyside?
Mr. Bevins: I should be the last person to discourage people from going to Liverpool or Merseyside. I assure my hon. Friend that the Government are acutely conscious of the needs of our constituencies.
Mr. Bottomley: May we have an assurance that this case has been decided entirely on its merits? Is it not unfortunate for the North-East that the right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) is no longer Prime Minister?
Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory reply from the Postmaster-General, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. H. Wilson: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for the first week after the Adjournment?
The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): Yes, Sir. The business for the first week after the Adjournment will be as follows:
TUESDAY, 7TH APRIL—Remaining stages of the Police Bill, the Continental Shelf Bill [Lords], and the Tenancy of Shops (Scotland) Bill, and, if there is time, the Income Tax Management Bill and the Emergency Powers Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 8TH APRIL—Committee stage of the Resale Prices Bill.
THURSDAY, 9TH APRIL—Housing Bill: Progress with the remaining stages.
FRIDAY, 10TH APRIL—Private Members' Bills.
Mr. Jay: While welcoming the return of the Leader of the House after his disappearance last night, may I express to him our thanks for affording us the opportunity this side of the Easter Recess to put down a number of important new Amendments to the Resale Prices Bill?
Mr. Lloyd: I am not sure whether I would be in order on commenting on the first part of that question, but I heard a good deal more of the debate than did either the Leader or the Deputy-Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. M. Stewart: Will the Leader of the House say whether the Government will find time for a debate on the South-East Study?
Mr. Lloyd: Certainly not the week after we come back.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will the Prime Minister give consideration to the proposal that the proceedings of the Committee of Privileges should be televised?
Sir C. Nicholson: Has my right hon. and learned Friend any news now about the question of Statutory Instruments?
Mr. Lloyd: Not today.
Mr. Lipton: So that the matter may be disposed of as quickly as possible, will the Leader of the House say whether the Committee of Privileges proposes to sit during the Easter Recess, so that the House may have its report as soon as possible?
Mr. Lloyd: It is not for me to say what the Committee of Privileges will do. In fact, a meeting of the Committee is being held at four o'clock this afternoon.
Mr. Prentice: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say when we shall have a debate on the Government White Paper on the Compensation for Victims of Crimes of Violence? Is he aware that those who have been trying to legislate on this subject for four and a half years wish to congratulate the Government on their belated conversion to our idea?
Mr. Lloyd: I am aware of the fact that the House may wish to have a debate on this matter, and I will consider it.
Mr. Woodburn: The Leader of the House usually intimates the provisional business for the Monday of the week following that in respect of which he announces business. Is he likely to do that today, or is he departing from that procedure?
Mr. Lloyd: I thought that the business for Monday, 13th April, seemed quite a long way off.
Mr. Fernyhough: Having regard to the fact that only limited progress has been made with the Resale Prices Bill, and that only one day of the week when we come back will be devoted to it, is this a sign of the Government's intention to drop it?
Mr. Lloyd: No. Today will be devoted to the Bill, and I expect rapid progess.

MEMORIAL TO PRESIDENT KENNEDY
The Prime Minister (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): With permission, I will make a statement about the memorial to President Kennedy.

471
I have now received the report of the Committee under the chairmanship of Lord Franks, and I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I have consulted the right hon. Gentlemen the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal Party. We all accept the Committee's recommendations.
The Committee proposes that the memorial should take the form, first, of an acre of Runnymede, laid out simply, with a simple plinth and steps, which should be given in perpetuity to the United States in memory of President Kennedy. The second part of the memorial proposed by the Committee is a scholarship fund for young men and women from the United Kingdom to go, as undergraduates or graduates, some to Harvard University or Radcliffe College, some to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
The Government are deeply grateful to Lord Franks and the members of his Committee for the care with which they have examined all the proposals brought to their attention and we feel that the recommendations taken together will provide a worthy memorial.
Both parts of the proposal will require consultations with various authorities and bodies in this country and the United States and these will be undertaken.
It seems desirable that the task of giving effect to the memorial should be supervised by a small Committee. I am glad to be able to tell the House that Sir Roger Makins has accepted my invitation to be the Chairman of this Committee and that the United States Ambassador in London and Sir Humphrey Mynors, the late Deputy Governor of the Bank of England, have generously agreed to serve on it.
I am also glad to be able to inform the House that the Lord Mayor of London has most kindly agreed to make the President Kennedy memorial the object of a Lord Mayor's appeal. I am sure that this generous offer by the Lord Mayor of his time and energies will assist the whole nation in raising a worthy memorial to the late President.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Following is the report of the Committee:
Dear Prime Minister,
I am writing as Chairman of the Committee which you set up to consider what form the British memorial to President Kennedy should take. This letter contains the recommendations of the Committee.
You told Parliament on 5th December that, while public opinion was being given an opportunity to express itself on the tragedy of the assassination of President Kennedy, you were considering how best to facilitate discussion about the form of a British memorial to him; and you arranged consultations between the parties. You also told Parliament that Her Majesty the Queen had been graciously pleased to express her wish to be personally associated with whatever proposal might be decided upon.
You announced on 21st January the constitution of this Committee. We have held four meetings and a sub-committee has held a further two. We have received about 150 letters, nearly all of which reached us by the middle of February; few have come since then. We have considered every one. We wish to express our thanks to all who have helped us in this way.
We have had the privilege of the interest and counsel of Her Majesty the Queen, who received me as the representative of the Committee and discussed with me a number of ideas which we had formed in the light of the suggestions before us. I have visited Secretary of State Dean Rusk, Mr. Robert Kennedy and others in the United States and have had similar discussions with them; and I have had the honour to be received by Mrs. Kennedy, whose wishes we particularly desired to consult.
We have founded our recommendations on these consultations and on our examination of the many particular proposals before us. Trying to catch the spirit which pervaded these proposals, various though they were in content, and to interpret the general feeling of the country, we have sought for President Kennedy a living memorial in the service of men and women, including a permanent physical presence and infused with an imaginative quality which would always evoke the memory of his outlook and achievements.
President Kennedy gave a voice to the heritage which is enshrined for us in Runnymede: we propose that an acre of Runnymede, laid out simply, with a simple plinth and steps, should be given in perpetuity to the United States in memory of him.
This would be at the centre of our memorial. But it would not be the whole memorial. It would be completed by a link with the influences of his home country and of the world of thought and action which helped to mould his mind: we propose a scholarship fund for young men and women from the United Kingdom to go, as undergraduates or graduates, some to Harvard University or Radcliffe College, some to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. President Kennedy was particularly interested in bringing the two great disciplines of traditional humane studies

473
and modern technology into fruitful combination and making their strength effective in the activities of government and the direction of world affairs. The scholarships would be awarded within these fields of knowledge and thereby contribute, as we hope, to the advancement of his idea. The scholars would come from all over Britain, chosen on some regional sub-division of the country.
We make both parts of our proposal as a unanimous recommendation. The first part speaks for itself. We have chosen the second part because it relates to youth; Boston was President Kennedy's home, Harvard his university; and at Cambridge, Massachusetts, the Kennedy family are providing the John F. Kennedy Memorial Library. It is a fittting tribute to President Kennedy's work for international understanding that a succession of young men and women from our country should be given an opportunity to live and work for a period in this environment.
I enclose with this letter a list of the members of the Committee.
Yours sincerely,
(Sgd.) OLIVER FRANKS.
Members
The Rt. Hon. The Lord Franks, P.C., G.C.M.G., K.C.B., C.B.E. (Chairman).
The Rt. Hon. The Viscount Chandos, P.C., D.S.O., M.C.
The Rt. Hon The Lord Evershed, P.C., F.S.A.
The Rt. Hon. The Lord Mayor of London (Alderman C. James Harman).
The Rt. Hon The Lord Provost of Edinburgh (Mr. Duncan M. Weatherstone, M.C., T.D.).
The Rt. Hon. The Lord Mayor of Belfast (Councillor W. Jenkins, J.P.).
The Rt. Hon. The Lord Mayor of Cardiff (Alderman Charles A. Horwood, J.P.).
The Viscount Harcourt, K.C.M.G., O.B.E.
Sir Roger Makins, G.C.B., G.C.M.G.
Sir Philip de Zulueta.
Dame Margo: Fonteyn de Arias, D.B.E.
Lady Jackson.
Mr. Victor Feather, C.B.E.
Mr. John Freeman, M.B.E.
Dr. T. Lupton.

NEW TOWNS (No. 2)
3.45 p.m.
Mr. Martin Maddan: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that orders designating new town areas or extensions thereof shall be subject to annulment by either House of Parliament.
My opposition to the expansion of Stevenage over the motorway by-pass has caused me to examine carefully the procedure for designating new towns and, in particular, the procedure by which the Minister makes an order. But Stevenage is only incidental to the problem dealt with by my Bill, if the House grants my right hon. Friend, my hon. Friends and myself leave to bring it in. I want to acknowledge the courtesy of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government in letting me know that, unfortunately, he cannot be present at this moment.
A designation order is a most important matter, not only to the locality concerned but to the whole region in which the new town is to lie. If the Minister cannot convince Parliament about it he will not be able to convince local opinion about it, either. Therefore, the establishment, or enlargement, of a new town will be an act of bureaucracy and not of democracy. As a supporter of the new town idea I regard this as a pity.
There is no Parliamentary control over designation orders other than that the Minister, as a Member of Parliament, is responsible to Parliament in a general way. What the New Towns Act, 1946, says—and it comes straight to the point, in Section 1(1)—is:
"If the Minister is satisfied, after consultation with any local authorities who appear to him to be concerned, that it is expedient in the national interest that any area of land should be developed as a new town by a corporation established under this Act, he may make an order designating that area as the site of the proposed new town."
Schedule 1 provides that if there are objections there must be a public local inquiry. That is all there is to that procedure.
In 1946, Parliament was clearly not fully alert to the need to retain some degree of supervision over the exercise
476
of delegated legislation. The question of these orders being subject to Parliamentary control, either under the affirmative or negative Resolution procedure, was never once raised during the passage of the Bill, either in this House or another place.
The nearest that we came to the subject was when, in another place, the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk, suggested that the Minister should, on completion of the inquiry, lay before Parliament a White Paper giving the reasons for his proposals. Presumably, the object was that those proposals could then be debated. But the noble Lord withdrew his suggestion on receiving from the Government an assurance that any point or objection could be raised at the inquiry, local or otherwise. There has been some change in our procedure since those days. Nowadays the Minister issues an explanatory memorandum when he lays the draft order, and the representative of his Ministry attends the local inquiry to explain the Ministry's point of view.
The Minister, in deciding whether to go ahead, considers what has been said at the inquiry in an administrative and not a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity. When Franklin and others challenged the original Stevenage designation order in the King's Bench Division, the judge ruled that the Minister
"did not consider the question: 'Aye or No should the Order be confirmed?' with an open mind, but that he meant to confirm it whatever the force of the objections might be."
The judge added:
"This, in my judgment, involves a denial of natural justice."
This is what can happen.
But the Minister appealed, and, finally, the House of Lords ruled that whether or not the Minister had been impartial was completely irrelevant. That may be a surprise to some hon. Members. This is what Lord Thankerton said in giving his judgment:
"In my opinion, no judicial, or quasi-judicial, duty was imposed on the respondent, and any reference to judicial duty, or bias, is irrelevant in the present case. The respondent's duties under Section 1 of the Act and Schedule 1 thereto are, in my opinion, purely administrative…"
This is, in fact, how the thing is done.

477
It is pertinent here also to quote what the Master of the Rolls said in a parallel case, Robinson v. the Minister of Town and Country Planning:
"How can this Minister, who is entrusted by Parliament with the power to make or not to make an executive order according to his judgment, and acts bona fide…be called upon to justify his decision?… Such justification, if it is to be called for, must be called for by Parliament…"
At present, Parliament cannot call for the justification of these designation orders. I wish to contrast for hon. Members the position of new town designation orders, where there is no Parliamentary control at all, as I have said—even when the local authorities concerned object—with the position of other forms of compulsory development.
Under the Town Development Act, 1952, if a receiving district does not agree to a proposal, but the Minister, nevertheless, decides that it should be proceeded with, his order must be approved by each House of Parliament under the affirmative Resolution procedure. Perhaps I may draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government to that—the affirmative Resolution procedure. Under the Housing Act, 1957, which is mainly to do with slum clearance, if the Minister decides to compel a local authority to carry out certain developments against its will, the order is subject to parliamentary approved under the negative Resolution procedure.
The Bill which I seek to introduce is very modest. It would merely make designation orders subject to the negative procedure. This is because, if there is but little substantial opposition to a scheme, I do not wish to take up Parliamentary time with it.
It may be said by some hon. Members that the 40 days during which a designation order is subject to a negative Resolution will prove an unacceptable waste of time in getting a new town started. In reckoning this period of 40 days, no account is taken of any time during which Parliament is prorogued or dissolved, or during which both Houses adjourn for more than four days. In this way a short Recess may add on a couple of weeks to the 40 days, making perhaps two months in all.
478
As to the long Summer Recess, I do not think that this is relevant, because, in practice, I am certain that a Minister would take care to hasten the lengthy procedure leading up to the laying of a designation order, if there were any danger of it running into the Summer Recess. He would see that it was laid by mid-June, so that the 40 days would have expired before the Summer Recess began.
What can happen during this period of perhaps a couple of months in which a designation order is subject to annulment by Parliament? I will give two reasons why this period cannot be considered as time wasted. First, the validity of the designation order can, in any case, be challenged in the High Court at any time during the first six weeks after it has been made. Secondly, the first task of the Minister, after he has made an order, is to appoint the members of the new town development corporation. In doing this he has to consult the local authorities concerned. This must take up much, if not all, of the 40 Parliamentary days. Before it can do anything, the corporation has to select its staff. All this can go on while the designation order is subject to annulment.
For these two reasons it is inconceivable, to my mind, that making designation orders subject to Parliamentary control will, in practice, lead to any material delay in developing a new town. I therefore commend the Motion, which provides that orders designating new town areas, or extensions thereof, shall be subject to annulment by either House of Parliament, as one which, if I am given leave to bring in my Bill, will enable Parliament to do its job. I ask the House for leave to bring it in.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Maddan, Sir D. Walker-Smith, Mr. Mason, Lord Balniel, Mr. Gardner, Mr. Gough, Sir H. Legge-Bourke, Mr. Graham Page, Mr. Temple, Mr. van Straubenzee, and Mr. Wingfield Digby.

NEW TOWNS (No. 2)

  NEW TOWNS (No. 2)
  Bill to provide that orders designating new town areas or extensions thereof shall be subject to annulment by either

  479
  House of Parliament, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 10th April, and to be printed. [Bill 118.]

  OFFICIAL REPORT
  Mr. Warbey: I wish to raise a point of order, Mr. Speaker, in connection with the printing of the OFFICIAL REPORT. In accordance with the usual practice, the copy of the OFFICIAL REPORT which is available to hon. Members today concludes with the proceedings as they were at about 10.30 p.m. last night—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is too late, if he is talking of yesterday's OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Mr. Warbey: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, you have not heard the point which I wish to make. It is that I wish to ask you, Sir, as the representative of this House, to take steps to facilitate, on behalf of the House, the business of the House in Committee; which can be done, I should have thought, without any very great difficulty or any great technical objection. The position is that we shall shortly be going into Committee on the Resale Prices Bill and will be engaged in discussing a number of Amendments which have been tabled.
  The discussion of those Amendments, and the attitude which hon. Members take towards them, must be very much influenced by what has happened during the previous proceedings of the Committee, particularly as it so happened, as hon. Members are aware—the whole House is now aware, from the Votes and Proceedings, although not from the OFFICIAL REPORT, and you, Sir, are aware—that last night, some time after 10.30 p.m., the House divided on an Amendment to the Bill, and that 203 hon. Members supported that Amendment. We also learn from the official proceedings that 204 hon. Members opposed the Amendment.
  In those circumstances, where there is a very close division of opinion about a matter of primary importance—and this was an Amendment which cut right at the heart of the Bill—it is generally regarded by the common practice of the House in Committee that statements
  480
  made by the spokesman of the Government at that time—in this case, by the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development and President of the Board of Trade—and by the acting Leader of the Opposition, and by other hon. Members—such as the hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham (Sir F. Markham) and the hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead)—concerned with the Amendment in question; that the statements made at that time, or subsequent to such a vote, are of considerable importance in regard to the future proceedings in respect of the Bill. For example, it is usual for the right hon. Gentleman in charge of a Bill to give some undertaking about the steps the Government propose to take to meet the wishes expressed by hon. Members in the Committee.
  It will, I submit, be quite impossible for us, when we go into Committee, to consider the rest of the Bill properly and decide how we shall speak and vote on the Amendments now tabled unless we are in possession of a verbatim report of yesterday's proceedings. I am aware that there may be technical difficulties, but I should have thought that by this time the printers of the OFFICIAL REPORT would have had the full verbatim report of the proceedings of yesterday's sitting of the Committee already set up in type, ready to be run off.
  I should like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you could make arrangements with the printers of the OFFICIAL REPORT for them to run off sufficient copies of yesterday's proceedings for distribution to hon. Members, who can have them in their possession when considering the Bill this afternoon.
  Mr. Speaker: Of course, I shall inquire about the technical possibilities, but I really could not hold out much hope. As the House knows, HANSARD and the Stationery Office really do a most wonderful job—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and put the OFFICIAL REPORT before us as quickly as they can. I venture to think that the hon. Member's suggestion might be asking a good deal, but, of course, as a servant of the House, I will find out what can be done. Of course, they were giants in the old days, but they did manage somehow until 1909, when there was not an OFFICIAL REPORT at all.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  RESALE PRICES BILL
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 24th March].
  [Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

  RESALE PRICES BILL

    Clause 2.—(PROHIBITION OF OTHER MEASURES FOR MAINTAINING RESALE PRICES.)
    4.0 p.m.
    The Chairman: The first Amendment to be moved is No. 18, in page 2, line 31, to leave out "exempted goods" and to insert:
    "registration, to the powers of the Restrictive Practices Court thereunder".
    Mr. William Yates: On a point of order, Sir William. I would be grateful if I could draw your attention, and that of the Committee, to column 194 of the OFFICIAL REPORT dated 24th March. I realise, Sir William, that you cannot always hear everything that goes on in the Chamber, but when I saw these words in print this morning I thought that I had better refer to them.
    The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), delivering himself of a great address to the Committee on 23rd March, concluded with the following words:
    "In my political lifetime I have".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd March, 1964; Vol. 692, c. 194.]
    The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member will be asking more of me than I am authorised to do if he asks me to consider words spoken in a previous debate. It is quite clearly laid down that the Chair—and that refers either to Mr. Speaker or to the occupant of the lower Chair—cannot entertain a complaint regarding words spoken in the House or in Committee unless attention is drawn to those words at the time. It would be without my capacity to consider a point regarding words used previously.
    Mr. George Wigg: In order to help the Committee, Sir William, may I repeat the words? I say that they are true—
    The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) will be
    482
    aware that the origin of this rule, which is of very old standing, was to prevent questionable words being raised and causing debate on subsequent occasions. I certainly could not allow those words to be stated.
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: Further to that point of order, Sir William. Perhaps I may, very respectfully, draw your attention to the fact that, as your yourself have stated, the words were spoken in the full hearing of the Committee. No one who heard them took the slightest exception to them—no doubt because they admitted them to be true.
    The Chairman: I think that that disposes of the matter.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    The Chairman: Mr. Warbey.
    Mr. William Warbey: Mine is a new point of order, Sir William, but I am quite willing to give way to the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates) if he wishes to continue the point of order he raised.
    Mr. W. Yates: I am grateful to the hon. Member. Although I do not want to pursue—
    The Chairman: Order. I understood myself to have ruled quite clearly on that point of order, and I cannot entertain it any more. If the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates) has a different point, of course, I will hear it.
    Mr. Yates: I wish your guidance, Sir William, about putting down a Motion of censure on an hon. Member in Committee, and on the Chair—
    The Chairman: Order. Again, the hon. Member asks me to do more than I am empowered to do. Such a Motion would be a matter for Mr. Speaker, and not for myself. Mr. Warbey.
    Mr. Wigg: Further to that point of order, Sir William. It is not only a matter of the political lifetime of my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), but of my own lifetime and that of my hon. Friends. Those words are true.
    Mr. Warbey: On a point of order, Sir William. I desire to move that further consideration of the Bill be adjourned

    483
    until such a time as hon. Members have in their possession a verbatim report of yesterday's proceedings of the Committee. If I have your permission to move—
    The Chairman: Order. That I am paying attention to the hon. Member is not to assume that I am accepting his Motion to report Progress. Perhaps, at this stage, I should say that, as far as I have heard it, I do not think that I could entertain the hon. Gentleman's Motion. I heard, as did the full House, the question asked by him of Mr. Speaker, and heard Mr. Speaker dispose of it. The Committee is well aware of what is possible for HANSARD and what is not possible, and we ourselves must presume that the hon. Member was in his place throughout the debate and knows what happened.
    Mr. Warbey: Further to that point of order, Sir William. You were kind enough to indicate that you would be willing to hear me, at least while I was claiming to move this Motion. May I, first, say—
    The Chairman: Order. I thought that I had heard enough.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    The Chairman: Order. Is the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) anxious to add a word?
    Mr. Warbey: I am much obliged, Sir. William. I should like to say that I did not claim to move that the Committee should report Progress, but that the Committee should adjourn its proceedings for such time—
    The Chairman: Order. There is no such Motion. It may save the time of the Committee if I tell the hon. Gentleman that I am sure that I cannot help him upon the point he is raising. I should like to deal with other points of order.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    The Chairman: Order. If the hon. Member for Ashfield is convinced that there is weight in what he says, I shall hear him.
    Mr. Warbey: I only desire to move a Motion under the Standing Order
    484
    which provides for dilatory Motions. One of the dilatory Motions provided for under the Standing Order is a Motion for the Adjournment of the discussion in Committee of the whole House, and that is what I am seeking to do.
    The Chairman: The proper Motion would be that I do report Progress and ask leave to sit again. I am not going to entertain that Motion and I cannot help the hon. Member further.
    Mr. Raymond Gower: You ruled, Sir William, and, of course, we all accept your Ruling, that you cannot entertain a point of order on remarks made at an earlier stage, but after that matter was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Yates) my hon. Friends and I distinctly heard the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) assert that he repeated these words and held them to be true. I respectfully submit that this was a new assertion of these objectionable words upon which you can rule.
    Mr. Wigg: Further to that point of order—
    Hon. Members: Sit down.
    The Chairman: I heard no disorderly words. I hope that the Committee will make matters easier and not more difficult by encouraging hon. Members on either side of the Committee to say words which will create a difficulty. I should much prefer to get on with the business of the Committee.
    Mr. Wigg: I must repeat what I said. I said not only in relation to my own lifetime, but also in relation to the lifetime of my hon. Friends.
    Mr. George Brown: On a point of order. I wonder whether you would allow me to enter an appeal to the Committee? This is not our Bill, but on either side of the Committee I am sure that we are not doing the reputation of the House of Commons much good—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] This also applies to hon. Members opposite. May I appeal for tolerance so that we can get on and start the business?
    The Chairman: The first Amendment, which is called for decision only and

    485
    has previously been debated, is Amendment No. 18.
    Amendment made: In page 2, line 31, leave out "exempted goods" and insert:
    "registration, to the powers of the Restrictive Practices Court thereunder".—[Mr. John Hall.]
    The Chairman: Mr. Irvine.
    Mr. A. J. Irvine rose—
    Mr. Marcus Lipton: On a point of order. You were good enough, Sir William, to indicate, when Amendment No. 7 was before the Committee yesterday, that Amendments Nos. 14, 17 and 27 and new Clause 10 were also before the Committee. You were good enough to indicate that if it were the wish of hon. Members a Division could be taken on Amendments Nos. 14 and 17. It seems that the Committee, inadvertently perhaps, is being denied an opportunity of voting on Amendments Nos. 14 and 17—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is the wrong number."]
    Mr. W. Yates rose—
    Mr. Lipton: I have not finished my point of order. I apologise for making a mistake about the number. I should like an opportunity to be afforded to the Committee of dividing on Amendment No. 14.
    Hon. Members: No, Amendment No. 27.
    The Chairman: The Committee has already divided on Amendment No. 17 and it would be out of order to go back to Amendment No. 14.
    Mr. Lipton: In those circumstances, would you allow a Division to take place on new Clause 10, because that relates to an entirely different category of goods?
    The Chairman: That had not been selected or starred for a Division. In addition, it is a very long way off. I would much sooner get on with the next Amendment.
    4.15 p.m.
    Mr. A. J. Irvine: I beg to move, Amendment No. 19, in page 3, line 9, at beginning insert:
    "Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions of this section".
    486
    At this stage in its deliberations the Committee turns to Clause 2, which deals with the unlawful withholding of goods by a supplier. We feel that the Clause would be improved if this Amendment were adopted by the Committee. We think this is so for one good reason in particular. If hon. Members look at the wording of subsection (3) I think that they will agree, at first reading, anyway, that in its terms it is definitive of what shall be "withholding" under the Bill.
    When one studies the subsection, however, one finds that, on analysis, it is not intended to be definitive, but is designed to refer to some particular types of withholding of supplies which are regarded as a withholding for the purposes of the Act. There is a reference to refusal to supply
    "goods to the dealer except at prices, or on terms or condiitons as to credit, discount or other matters, which are significantly less favourable than those available to other dealers carrying on business in similar circumstances".
    The Minister will be the first to recognise that the language in subsection (3) does not comprise what, in practical terms, is likely to be the most common form of withholding of all the withholdings which will occur. In other words, the language of the subsection does not comprise what I may call a complete blanket withholding of goods without anything said or any conditions attached or any offer made. It is the type of withholding of supplies which I should have thought would be most likely in practice to occur and which the Bill is plainly designed to cover.
    The language of the subsection is definitive in character. It is only on further inquiry, and, as I think, un-necessary inquiry, that one finds that it is not, in fact, definitive of withholding and does not refer to the simple decision of a supplier to stop supplying without any conditional comment or condition, a compact on the part of the supplier which in the context of the Bill it is manifestly intended to make unlawful.
    There is a sense in which this is a drafting point, but it is an important point none the less. If our wording were adopted it would become abundantly clear that the language of subsection (3) is very illustrative of certain somewhat exceptional circumstances which, but for the

    487
    subsection, might be thought not to constitute withholding and that the intention of the Clause as a whole is to deal with all types of withholding as an act of cutting off supplies of goods.
    That is our objective and I ask the Minister to say that the Government will give serious consideration to it. During the course of our considerations of matters in the Committee I have had the privilege, on behalf of the Opposition, of raising from time to time one or two points of a legal, or maybe drafting, character and the Minister has dealt with them with unfailing courtesy. There is no question about that. But he has always turned them down, and I think it fair to say that he has done so mainly upon the ground that he has received advice and that he can assure hon. Members on both sides of the Committee that anxieties that we have expressed are without foundation.
    That is all very well. I have the greatest respect—no one more so—for the advice which the Minister receives. Let there be no misunderstanding about that. On the other hand, it has been a very common experience of mine, and, I have no doubt, of other hon. Members, that we have considered a point like this, we have been told that advice has been received, we have been given assurances and we have been invited, on the strength of those assurances, to let the matter drop; and then, after perhaps eighteen months or two years, the whole issue has come before the court.
    The plain truth is that although, as I say, one respects the advice given, none the less the Committee has the opportunity here of improving the language of the Bill and getting rid of what, at the worst, may be an ambiguity and, at the very best, is an obstacle to the ready and clear understanding of the purpose of the Clause.
    This time, I hope that the Minister will go rather further than he has done on other occasions. I am confident that he will be extraordinarily polite about it. Let him go just this little bit further on this occasion and either say that he will accept the Amendment on behalf of the Government, or that he will give further consideration to the merits of the argument and consider rewording to meet the point.
    The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Edward du Cann): This is the third occasion on which the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) has been of assistance to the Committee. As he quite rightly pointed out, without teasing me too hard, on each of the first two occasions I found myself unable to accept his suggestions. None the less, for all that he said at the tailpiece of his short speech I hope that he may have thought that I was suitably reassuring. It was my intention to be, and I can assure him that there is no prejudice against Amendments of this sort. Indeed, we would be ready to accept them if we thought them appropriate.
    The purpose of the Amendment under consideration is, as the hon. and learned Member said, to clarify the wording of Clause 2(3). It is intended, as he went on to point out, to make it abundantly clear that Clause 2(3), which covers cases of supply at less favourable terms, is not an exhaustive definition of withholding supplies. I say at once, in case he should think that, like a gramophone record, I shall repeat the speeches that I have made twice already, that we regard the idea of the Amendment as both desirable and wise. I confirm that it is the intention of the Clause to deal with all types of withholding. This is the point that the hon. and learned Gentleman was asking me about. I agree that there would be advantages in tightening up the wording of the subsection. Therefore, I say to him at once that the Government fully accept the principle of the Amendment.
    I should like to accept the second of the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposals, but with reservations. He suggested that perhaps we would consider this matter again. I do not wish to do that, because my mind is made up about it—
    Mr. Norman Cole: I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend, but he referred to "tightening up" the provisions of subsection (3). Surely, that is not what is wanted. What is wanted is a comprehensive net to catch any kind of new method of avoiding the abolition of resale price maintenance which might be thought of in the future. In other words, these two examples that are given

    489
    in Clause 2 are surely a little exclusive. They tend to make everything else look as if it is all right. We do not want a tightening up of that subsection. We want a widening of the subsection to catch everything in its net.
    Mr. du Cann: My hon. Friend is entirely right. I apologise for my some-what loose language. In saying "tightening up" I meant "improve, clarify". That is precisely what we propose to do. "Widen" is exactly right.
    If the hon. and learned Gentleman will withdraw the Amendment we will certainly table a new Amendment which will, I hope, precisely take care of the point that he has made. I would accept this Amendment if I could. I am advised, however, that it would not precisely do the job which the hon. and learned Gentleman and the Committee, particularly in the context of what my hon. Friend has just said, seek to do. That is why I seek to replace it with other wording. I apologise if I misled the Committee with my explanation.
    Mr. Irvine: We are most grateful for that assurance. Bearing it in mind, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. A. J. Irvine: I beg to move, Amendment No. 24, in page 3, line 19, after "delivery", to insert "or terms of payment".
    At this point in the Clause we are still considering the matter of the with-holding of supplies of goods from a dealer. We are now dealing with the narrow cases which this subsection is designed to exemplify and contain. In paragraph (b) there is provision, in effect, as to what shall constitute discrimination towards a dealer. It is not left open just to the discretion of the court to determine in those circumstances what shall amount to discrimination.
    The method that is chosen to be adopted by the Bill is to refer to certain matters, namely, treatment
    "significantly less favourable than other such dealers"
    receive
    "in respect of times or methods of delivery…"
    These two matters are selected to be given specific reference in the language
    490
    of the paragraph. We would think it appropriate, therefore, if the Clause is to be specific to that extent, to have, also, a reference to what will presumably be, in practical terms, a very common type of discrimination—more common than discrimination in respect of times or methods of delivery—namely, discrimination of a pecuniary character affecting matters of credit or amount or time of payment. That is the object of this Amendment.
    It will be observed by anyone who studies this Clause that when dealing with the case of refusal to supply goods to a dealer
    "except at prices, or on terms or conditions as to credit, discount or other matters"
    the Clause goes in some detail into what are the relevant circumstances that will constitute discrimination under that head.
    4.30 p.m.
    When it comes to the separate case of a supplier who, although he contracts to supply goods to the dealer, treats him in a manner significantly less favourable than other dealers, there is no reference to method of payment and pecuniary conditions. I suggest that that is not a logical distinction to draw, and that if the Court is not to be given complete discretion but will have its mind directed to particular matters, then in addition to a reference to times and methods of delivery, there should be an express reference to terms of payment.
    Mr. Harold Lever: Do I understand that the purpose of the Amendment is that if a manufacturer or supplier gives credit to one firm he will automatically be obliged to give similar credit to every other firm?
    Mr. Irvine: I conceive that that would not be the consequence of the Amendment if it were carried. What it is designed to do—we are on a narrow point here—is to clarify the points which a court will have to entertain and consider in determining the question whether there is or is not discrimination against a dealer. That is all. We think it desirable that the Court's attention times and methods of delivery but to the wider topic, and, we think, in should be directed not only to the classical to terms a topic more likely to be

    491
    relevant—the matter of methods of payment and terms of payment.
    I hope that the object of the Amendment is clear. I think I can best assist my hon. Friend by emphasising to him that we are concerned with the narrow point of the matters to which the attention of the Court is, by the language of the Bill, to be directed.
    Sir Patrick Bishop: I am a little doubtful about the meaning of the Amendment in relation to the preceding sub-paragraph, where reference is made to refusing delivery of goods, one reason being because of unfavourable conditions as to credit. It is now proposed, in relation to sub-paragraph (b), which deals with a case where the supplier contracts to supply goods, that he should not be permitted to make less favourable terms than to others with regard to the terms of payment.
    There is an Amendment on the Notice Paper in the names of some of my hon. Friends which deals more specifically with the question of credit and whether it is right, in effect, that Parliament should take upon itself to lay down rules which would compel a supplier to give terms of credit to a dealer who he may think, for reasons quite other than those envisaged by the Bill, to be not worthy of credit.
    If my hon. Friend were to accept the Amendment to sub-paragraph (b), it would defeat the whole object of a more general discussion on the question whether a supplier could be forbidden to refuse supplies on questions relating purely to credit. For that reason, I hope that my right hon. Friend will not readily consider accepting the Amendment.
    Mr. Graham Page: On a point of order, Sir William. Would it be convenient for the Committee to discuss, at the same time, the Amendment No. 25 in my name, page 3, line 20, at end insert:
    (4) Nothing in this section shall make it unlawful for a supplier to refuse to supply goods to any dealer otherwise than on terms that cash or the equivalent of cash shall be paid with the order for the goods.
    as it seems so closely related to this one?
    Mr. du Cann: Perhaps I might assist the Committee, Sir William. I should be perfectly willing to intervene at this
    492
    stage if that is what hon. Gentlemen wish, because the Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) covers rather a narrow point, whereas the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, Central (Sir P. Bishop) and the one which I think my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has in mind is very much wider and we could go on to deal with it adequately and normally in the case of the next Amendment. In any case, what I should have to say to the Committee would, I think, be satisfactory to my hon. Friends.
    Mr. R. T. Paget: I find myself in considerable sympathy with the observations of the hon. Member for Harrow, Central (Sir P. Bishop). It seems to me that the more one looks at the terms of the subsection with a view to widening it, the more unworkable the whole scheme becomes.
    After all, if one is required to give credit without having regard to the circumstances which, in the mind of the supplier, affect the credit-worthiness of the person to whom he is required to give credit, amongst the factors which affect credit-worthiness is surely trust-worthiness. If a supplier finds, whether or not the contract is enforceable or void, that a man does not behave in a trust-worthy manner with regard to the methods of dealing which have been understood between them, surely he is entitled to limit credit to a man whose conduct has proved untrustworthy in his eyes. Surely the man who gives credit is the man who must judge the trust-worthiness of the person to whom he gives it.
    Again, people may legitimately fear that traders who go in for cutting prices may land themselves with an insufficient margin to carry on their business and may involve themselves in wars which they are likely to lose, and that they are likely in consequence to go bankrupt and become uncreditworthy. To say that one is compelled to give credit to a man of whose method of business one disapproves, and whose method of business, one feels, will get him into trouble, seems to be not only absurd but impossible in practice. This goes for the whole conception of the proposal.

    493
    Perhaps it would be more appropriate to deal with this on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill, but I do not think that in the process of dealing with the Clause, against which I shall certainly vote, one ought to remain silent when Amendments are considered which seek to make it more and more absurd.
    Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: I am very worried about the Clause and the necessity for these Amendments on a somewhat different ground. Although, at the beginning of the Clause, the words used are "for resale in the United Kingdom" I presume that it is resale in the United Kingdom if, as in so many export orders, the contract of sale is signed in the United Kingdom. This is often done specifically so that if the terms of the contract are in dispute they can be tested and adjudicated in a British court rather than, for instance, in a Venezuelan court or whatever the country might be.
    We might, therefore, bear in mind that we are not just concerned with goods changing hands in the United Kingdom, but that, potentially, there is a very wide range of export contracts which are not excluded by the phrase "resale in the United Kingdom". In the export sales of expensive capital equipment the actual terms of sale vary widely from country to country. There are such questions as whether the Export Credits Guarantee Department will or will not give cover and, if it will, on what terms and whether it is or it is not advisable to secure a contract by confirmed and reputable letters of credit if such are forthcoming.
    Every case is different and yet all of them can fall within the term of "resale in the United Kingdom". This is a point of significant substance which may well be overlooked when the words "resale in the United Kingdom" suggest that they exclude export orders. We must also remember that in many export orders there is a favoured nation clause.
    The Chairman: Perhaps the hon. Member could help me to relate his remarks to the one Amendment which we are considering, which is in page 3, line 19, after "delivery", to insert "or terms of payment".
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Yes, Sir William, I would indeed, because the
    494
    terms of payment may or may not include underwriting by the Export Credits Guarantee Department or may require letters of credit or insurance in the currency specified. There are a very large number of matters which may or may not have to be covered in the term "resale".
    The Amendment applies to the subsection where the major Clause refers to
    "…any goods from a dealer seeking to obtain them for resale in the United Kingdom…"
    The aircraft manufacturer, for instance, is presumably a retailer for this purpose of all the components embodied in an aeroplane such as the radar in the nose, the engines in the wings and everything of that kind.
    He is presumably, for the purposes of the Amendment, the subsection and the Clause, a dealer and, therefore, we have to be careful that the commitments which the supplier, that is, the manufacturer, may have entered into are not invalidated by the actions of a dealer who might not necessarily occur to the Committee as being a dealer in the phraseology of the Clause. In other words, this whole matter is much more complicated than the initial grounds in the Clause suggest.
    I repeat that if we merely debate the merits of Amendment No. 24 in terms of payments, with minds focused on the sale of electric bulbs in the home market we shall exclude very important considerations which we may bitterly regret afterwards
    Mr. H. Lever: I am reluctant to attack vigorously the wording of the Bill, it being conventional not to speak ill of the dead or about the dying. I do not want to point unnecessarily the comments made about the ill-conceived character of the drafting which is not related from general electioneering intentions or even commercial intentions to the true experience of commerce as illustrated by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop).
    It is true that the Clause could interfere with entrepôt trade. Although the Chair is human, as we have now had it authoritatively stated, we do not propose to stray beyond the Amendment to the Motion that the Clause stand part of the Bill. Although my hon. and

    495
    learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) made remarks with which I am in profound agreement, I think that we shall have the proper opportunity of expressing them on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) is the apotheosis of courtesy and clarity, but I cannot understand what his Amendment means if it does not mean opening the doors to some of the dangers about which some hon. Members are concerned.
    4.45 p.m.
    The subsection makes clear that it is an unlawful withholding if the supplier, although he contracts to supply goods to him, treats the dealer in a manner significantly less favourable than any other dealer in respect of times and methods of delivery or other matters arising in the execution of the contract. I would have thought that that covered sufficient already to arouse the hackles of hon. Members and to include things like terms of payment, but if we insert the words "terms of payment" we shall be forbidding the supplier to make any distinction between one customer and another as to terms of payment. If I am wrong I should be glad if my hon. and learned Friend will correct me.
    Mr. A. J. Irvine: I venture to put the matter to my hon. Friend in this way. I quite agree that the expression "other matters" probably covers terms of payment. All we seek to do by the Amendment is to draw out from "other matters" the point of "terms of payment", because we attach particular importance to that. That is all.
    Mr. Lever: I am sorry if I expressed myself in a rather muddled way. May I put the point more clearly? I understand that the effect of my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment is to say that a supplier will be unlawfully with-holding supplies if he treats a dealer, one of his customers, significantly differently as to terms of payment from any other person who he supplies.
    Mr. Graham Page: I do not think that the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) meant that, but the Clause refers only
    496
    to "withholding" and not to "unlawfully withholding". To be unlawful reference must be made to Clause 1.
    Mr. Lever: To build up a case of unlawful withholding one must first have a withholding, and it is a sufficient with-holding under the Clause if apparently a person refuses to give to any of his customers financial terms as favourable as to his most favoured customer. In other words, the question whether or not one is unlawfully withholding may depend on whether one is withholding, and the question whether one is withholding itself depends on an allegation that a person is not treating a customer who has complained as favourably as another customer in the matter of terms of payment.
    If the Amendment is accepted it might in certain cases—and we can work out the hypothesis—quite easily happen that a man, as part of the case of unlawfully withholding, will be found to be guilty—and I do not mean that in a criminal sense—because he has withheld goods only in the sense that he was ready to supply them but was not ready to give customer A the same terms of payment as customer B.
    In other words, the Amendment might enforce terms on a customer which otherwise would not be available to him on his credit standing. Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edge Hill can clear my mind on this point. I find it impossible to believe that I could fail to support him, but I could not conceivably support an Amendment which underlines still further an obnoxious matter in the Clause, namely, the intention to enforce against a firm the obligation to give the same financial arrangement to the honest and the dishonest, the solvent and the insolvent, the punctilious in payment and the dilatory in payment.
    Perhaps I have misunderstood the impact of subsection (3) and of the arguments which have been addressed. I hope that somebody will clear my mind on the point, because as the Amendment stands there are cases in which it would have the effect of compelling a supplier to give the same favourable terms to a dud customer as he gave to his best customer, and I could not support that.
    Mr. Anthony Fell: I, too, should like to clarify my mind on

    497
    the Amendment which was so courteously presented by the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine). Possibly I am looking at this much too simply, but surely subsection (3,a) deals with the making of the arrangements and the contract and subsection (3,b) deals with the execution of the contract. If that is true, does it not make the Amendment irrelevant?
    Mr. Michael Foot: I hasten to say that I am not rising to attempt the herculean task of clarifying the mind of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever). Most of the previous debates have been conducted by lawyers, although my hon. Friend is not a lawyer. I am reminded of the statement of the most famous journalist who ever sat in the Press Gallery of the House of Commons, William Hazlitt, who said that the only thing that gave him any respect for the House was the contempt which he had for lawyers in the House. Since have some sympathy with this point of view, I hesitate to participate in this discussion.
    I have approached the Bill in a spirit which may be rare, if not unique, in the House of Commons. I am approaching every Amendment with a completely open mind, and I like to have the matter fully clarified before I decide which way I shall vote at the end. Since I wish to be equally clear on this Amendment as on others, I wondered whether I should reserve my own participation in the debate until I had heard the Minister. I was not sure whether that would assist the clarification or whether I should run the risk of allowing him first to enlighten the Committee.
    Although, in my approach to the Bill, I have a great deal of sympathy with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cheetham, and on other Clauses, after listening to their arguments, I am inclined to come down on their side of the fence, in this case I think that they happen to be wrong. I understood that, throughout, my hon. Friends and many others who have been critical of the Government's Bill have been critical to a large extent because they wish to protect the interests of small shopkeepers. But it seems to
    498
    me that by their intervention on this Clause my hon. Friends are protecting the interests of the manufacturers.
    This Amendment is a protection for the retailer, because it prevents the manufacturer from discriminating between retailers and adds a further underlining of the way in which the manufacturer will be prevented from discriminating between retailers.
    Mr. Paget: It stops only discrimination between retailers which somebody can prove is based upon the fact that the retailer is cutting, or might cut, his prices.
    Mr. Foot: I understand that, but my hon. and learned Friend had the candour to say at one point that perhaps his speech might be better delivered on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill. I thought that that was the most telling part of his intervention.
    If he were arguing against the whole Clause I could see some merit in his argument. This is the reason why I began with the claim, not received with overwhelming approval, that I approach all these miners with an open mind. I therefore apply myself to the Amendment before the Committee, and if it is agreed by the Committee that, in general, we wish to abolish resale price maintenance, when we look at how this Clause will operate there is an obligation on hon. Members to ensure that we shall treat retailers as fairly as possible.
    In the Clause, therefore, the conditions are laid down on which the manufacturers will be prevented from discriminating between retailers because a retailer has cut his prices. We should make it as fair as possible. If the law lays down that there shall be no resale price maintenance, which is what the Bill will achieve if it is carried, then we must try to ensure that the Bill does not subsequently discriminate unfairly against particular retailers. I would rather that the House of Commons decided the matter than leave it to individual manufacturers, which is what my hon. Friends would do.
    I cannot attempt to emulate the legal language which has come from different quarters, but as far as I can see at the moment—and I see it fairly clearly—all those who are supporting the interests of the small shopkeepers should support

    499
    my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment. I have the matter very clear in my mind at the moment, but I am not sure whether that will survive the intervention of the Government Front Bench.
    Mr. Gower: I hesitate to quarrel with a member of the senior branch of the profession, but my main objection to the Amendment is that it is a form of circumlocution. I cannot see how it will have any of the effects which are being suggested because on the face of it the Clause specifies the kind of methods of delivery and is followed by the all-embracing expression
    "other matters arising in the execution of the contract".
    As the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) has admitted, that certainly includes the expression incorporated in the Amendment. How the Amendment can have the slightest effect one way or another is beyond me. It is a form of circumlocution which is not necessary in the Bill.
    5.0 p.m.
    Mr. Herbert Butler: I am concerned with the smaller retailer and anxious to see that we give a measure of protection to those who are the distribution point of the manufacturers. I want to know what "terms of payment" mean. Is it a question of credit? Is it that the small retailer has to pay on delivery? Is it a question of extended terms? The Clause is designed to protect the small retailer, and to enable him to get terms as good as the large retailer would get. I should like an exact definition of what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) means by "terms of payment".
    Mr. A. J. Irvine: I will deal, first, with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. H. Butler). It seems to me that the matters enumerated by him would all come within the expression "terms of payment".
    I am particularly glad to have the support in this matter of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot). One of the things which makes life tolerable for me is the knowledge
    500
    that his dislike of lawyers is not universal. My hon. Friend had seized the point. I am very glad to have his support.
    I cannot do more in reply to my hon. Friends, who have insisted upon an explanation of the Amendment, than repeat what I said earlier. I remind my hon. Friends that we are dealing here with what is to be the relevant evidence of whether there has been a withholding of supplies. This is a very limited point indeed. It is this with which we are concerned. I agree with the Minister, who pointed out precisely that in an intervention. We are dealing with the narrow question of what is to be the evidence entertained by the Court in determining whether there has been a withholding of supplies.
    Mr. Angus Maude: I must confess that, after listening to the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman and of other hon. Gentlemen, I am by no means clear. Would the hon. and learned Gentleman deal with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell)? It seems to me that subsection (3,a) deals with terms of a contract made and entered into before delivery arises. Subsection (3,b), deals with the manner in which, after a contract has been signed, notwithstanding that he has contracted a supplier tries to fiddle the retailer in the manner in which he carries the contract out.
    I am still waiting for the hon. and learned Gentleman to give me an example of a way in which a supplier could do this in respect of terms of payment without breaking his contract. Surely all the terms of payment—conditions as to credit and time of payment—must have been settled in the original contract. I cannot understand how, at the stage of delivery and execution, a supplier could get round them.
    Mr. A. J. Irvine: I am much obliged to the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) for raising this point. I agree with his account of the provisions in the paragraphs. I would point out to him, in passing, that paragraph (b) is alternative to paragraph (a). I entirely agree that paragraph (b) deals with the case where there has been a contract. It assumes, and I should have thought reasonably assumes, that, even

    501
    where there has been a contract, there may still be a withholding of goods. That is the situation with which the paragraph is designed to deal.
    It is a matter for the Committee, but I should have thought that it would be quite possible for there to be some conduct by the supplier relative to terms of payment after a contract had been completed by which the supplier could discriminate in respect of that dealer as distinct from others.
    Mr. Maude: How?
    Mr. Irvine: The hon. Gentleman, perfectly fairly, asks, "How?" The supplier might write to the dealer telling him that, in view of his conduct, or in view of circumstances which had arisen, he proposed to require payment for the goods to be made in a particular fashion, perhaps at a date earlier than had previously been contemplated by the parties. This might well not be spelled out in the contract. There might well be an enforceable contract between the supplier and the dealer which none the less left open some room for manœuvre on the matter of payment and time of payment.
    The Committee will appreciate that this could easily occur. There might well be an enforceable contract between the supplier and the dealer, and yet, within the context of that contract, there might be some room for manœuvre under which the supplier could discriminate, and that room for manœuvre might well affect terms of payment. This is the point. I cannot put it more clearly. It is for the Committee to consider the merits.
    I fully acknowledge that most of the criticisms of the whole proposal in the Clause made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever) are valid. What we are trying to do is to improve a Bill. It is sometimes desirable to improve a Bill, even if it is a bad Bill. That is what we are trying to do here. To them, I cannot say more than that in the Amendment what we are trying to do is to make clear what are the factors that the Court should be invited to have regard to in determining whether there has been a withholding of goods.
    502
    Let us leave aside for a moment the whole question whether a withholding of supplies is lawful. That is a different point. At some stage in any proceedings there must be a decision upon the question of fact: has there been a with-holding of supplies? In determining that issue of fact, we think that it would be wholly appropriate that the Court should have regard to any discrimination with respect to terms of payment or methods of payment. That is what we are after. We are not to be taken for one moment as approving the general process here—indeed not. Our effort here is designed to improve the Bill.
    As it has been thought appropriate to call attention in the Bill to particular factors, such as terms and methods of delivery, we, rightly or wrongly, take the view that these should not be brought out in this fashion as of special importance when discrimination affecting method of payment may be just as significant.
    Mr. H. Lever: I am sorry to take up more time on this, but it is quite an important point, although I agree with the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) that the words are tautologous and not necessary, because the mischief I am criticising would exist as the Clause is drafted. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) has had an Amendment called which underlines the evil character of the subsection, and since that is what we are discussing, it is not improper or unreasonable or illogical to focus attention upon it. We can reserve more general criticism for the debate on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
    In spite of the objection of some hon. Members, this is law which we are making, if we pass the Clause. It is a most unhappy thing for people who are not lawyers to find that lawyers are apt to interpret law rather better than non-lawyers. It is all very well for my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) to express a general antipathy to lawyers, but he will always find himself in the same anomalous position—that he is not against lawyers, but is only taking sides with one lawyer against another. I want him, with his self-proclaimed and continuous open-mindedness, to come to realise that he

    503
    has backed the wrong lawyer in this case and come back to our side of the matter, for this reason.
    As I understand the Clause—I hope that I shall be corrected if I am wrong; I will readily yield—its purport is that, even though a man contracts to supply goods, even though the terms of payment are exactly specified in the contract, and even though he delivers in accordance with the contract, it will still be a withholding of goods if he has treated the man supplied any less favourably as to terms of payment than somebody else—even after contract and, as far as I understand it, even after delivery.
    This abominable piece of innovation is such that the more I listen and wait for an explanation—which is a long time coming—the more indignant I am apt to wax at the meaning of the Clause.
    Mr. A. J. Irvine: If my hon. Friend's ingenious and attractive criticism is valid, will he agree that it is a criticism of the Bill rather than of the Amendment?
    Mr. Lever: I am not criticising my hon. and learned Friend, who is trying to assist the Committee in qualifying the meaning of the Clause, even though he thinks that he may be improving it. If it is a mischievous Clause one must qualify it and seek the mischief, and I am merely speaking on this point.
    Mr. Paget: What is being said by my hon. Friend is surely that suggestions for improving the efficiency of the rack are not inconsistent with the torture.
    Mr. Lever: I am merely following the argument deployed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine). I think that non-lawyers will be able to interpret what I am explaining, and if I am wrong I am sure that the Minister will correct me. As I understand the Clause, we are faced with this position. If the Amendment is carried there will be a withholding for the purpose of the provision if the supplier honours the terms of his contract with a customer who has already dishonoured the terms of his contract.
    None the less, if he supplies him with goods and gives him reasonable terms of payment or credit, that will be the case, although those terms need not be as
    504
    favourable as the terms given to other of the supplier's dealers. In such cases there will be a withholding for the purpose of the Bill. If I am wrong in that interpretation I am ready to yield if I am corrected.
    Mr. S. Silverman: I follow my hon. Friend's point, but what is his objection?
    Mr. Lever: My objection is really a point of view. My objection is that even if the Amendment is accepted there will be difficulties. An example may help. A man supplies goods and his customer agrees not to charge less than a certain price. That customer breaks the agreement and charges something different and has, therefore, broken his contract. The Clause is intended, as is the Bill, to see that people who break their obligations of this kind are not penalised by the people with whom they are trading.
    Let us assume that we allow people to break agreements of this kind and force suppliers to deal with people who will not be persona grata willing to take part in these practices.
    Mr. Eric Lubbock: Once the Bill is on the Statute Book such an agreement would be void under Clause 1.
    Mr. Paget: Exactly, just like a bet.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Lever: If Clause 2 is designed to deal with the unlawful withholding of supplies on the ground that someone has sold the goods at a price below the resale price provided by the supplier—
    Mr. Lubbock: The hon. Member has been postulating that there was something in the terms of the contract—
    Mr. Lever: What I have been saying—
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    The Temporary Chairman (Dr. Horace King): Order. It will help the Committee and the Official Reporters if hon. Members address the Chair. It is becoming extremely difficult to hear.
    Mr. Lubbock: The hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever) was postulating that there was something in the contract between a supplier

    505
    and a dealer which stated that the latter had to resell at a certain fixed price. I am pointing out that we have agreed in Clause 1, which now stands part of the Bill, that no such terms under such a contract would be valid. Such a contract would be void under the Bill.
    5.15 p.m.
    Mr. Lever: That is exactly my point. I do not know why the hon. Gentleman intervened, for he is only proving what I am saying. If the Bill is passed such agreements will indeed be void and, therefore, the supplier will be forced to deal with a man whether or not he likes to do so.
    Mr. S. Silverman: I intervene in the hope of shortening this discussion. What my hon. Friend is saying, as I understand it, is that it would be wrong to include in the Clause the words proposed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) because this would prevent a supplier from imposing a more onerous condition in the circumstances contemplated by the Clause than he imposes on others. What my hon. Friend is saying is, "Why should he not be allowed to impose an onerous condition because the retailer has broken a clause in his contract?" Since the Bill makes the terms in the contract, of which he is in breach, void, he is, therefore, not in breach of any terms of his contract and, thus, should not be penalised.
    Mr. Lever: Had my hon. Friend heard the whole of the debate on this subject he might be aware of my point. I am sorry to have to labour this point, but since there are so many non-lawyers present it may help if I explain the matter in a more simple way. The purport of the Clause is to force a supplier to supply a dealer with goods even though he does not want to do so. Such a supplier can be made to do so and he can also be made not to withhold supplies from that dealer. A part of the question of proving the unlawful withholding of supplies from a dealer must be to prove actual withholding.
    I have already said that I am willing to be corrected if I am wrong in my view that as the Clause stands it may be possible to prove the withholding of supplies from a customer if that customer is given goods on terms of credit, finance
    506
    or payment which are less favourable than the terms given to some others of that supplier's customers.
    The machinery of the Clause runs something like this. When one is seeking to force a man to deliver goods, one of the things one can say is that he has failed to deliver because he has contracted to supply, or he may already supplied, but that the terms of credit he is giving are significantly less favourable than some of the terms he is giving to a more lucky man with whom he is dealing. It may be asked, "What is wrong with that?", and some hon. Members may suggest, "Let us force all suppliers to treat all their customers on the same basis of credit and if they do not they should become liable to be charged with withholding supplies."
    Sir Douglas Glover: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman with interest. Would he clarify an example I have in mind? Suppose a manufacturer is supplying firm A and is allowing that firm 5 per cent. discount for payment within seven days. Would it be illegal to supply goods to firm B at 2½ per cent. based on monthly terms? Would that be discrimination or would it be allowed?
    Mr. Lever: It would depend on what had happened. I suppose that there would be nothing wrong and there would be no difficulty in having stickier terms for one customer than for another. This is normal in business, unless the customer who is being discriminated against happens to have broken whatever understanding the supplier had or whatever advice he had been given about the retail price.
    Suppose a manufacturer is supplying a trader with cornflakes and that the retail price is 1s. a packet and the terms are cash payment, but because he is not a particularly solvent trader the manufacturer says, "I will supply you but you must pay cash." That is all right and the manufacturer can insist on that—but then the retailer, instead of selling the cornflakes at 1s. a packet, sells them it 10½d.
    From then on the manufacturer will be in great difficulties because if he insists on cash payment he has broken the understanding that he had with the

    507
    retailer, who will say, "You are discriminating against me. You contracted to give me three months' credit and I want all of that. If you do not give it to me you will be withholding goods under the provisions of this Clause."
    Here we have a complete and unlawful withholding. The retailer will say, "This is unlawful withholding of goods because you have given me less favourable financial terms than you gave to so-and-so, and my position is a lawful one because I am in the happy position to be able to say that I broke my retail price contract before." To qualify for the full benefit of this Clause, one has to break the resale price in order to enforce more advantageous terms with the manufacturer.
    Mr. Lubbock: Let me put two points to the hon. Gentleman. First, he talks about the terms of credit—which surely come under subsection (3,a) rather than (3,b)—and, secondly, does he not think that the phrase in "similar circumstances" in (3,a) might apply to the credit service of the two dealers he has described?
    Mr. Lever: It is no good saying that subsection (3,a) covers (3,b), because it does not. I am talking about (3,b)—terms of payment and terms of credit. I am sorry if that was not obvious. Terms of payment and terms of credit are the same thing.
    I am dealing with the Amendment, and I am sure that the Chair would have called me to order if I were dealing with terms of credit under subsection (3,a), I am dealing with what happens after the manufacturer, however unwillingly, has agreed to supply the goods. He may have agreed the terms of payment, but this is the interesting point; according to the Clause—the Minister can challenge me if I am wrong—a manufacturer or supplier is guilty of withholding supplies of goods even if he contracts to supply goods to a dealer whom he dislikes and even if he agrees reasonable credit terms with him.
    Sir D. Glover: What is the point?
    Mr. Lever: I am trying to show hon. Members who are not lawyers that where an Act of Parliament says that someone is witholding goods, there is still a
    508
    withholding of the goods if one contracts to supply the goods and even if one delivers the goods, even after the man has received the goods and resold them at any price he likes. He can claim that there has been an illegal withholding of goods because he has not been given so much credit as has been given to some other trader.
    Mr. Gower: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be a complete answer for the supplier if he could demonstrate that his action was not due to an infringement of resale price maintenance by the retailer, but because that retailer had not been in the past satisfactory in his dealings?
    Mr. Lever: A complete answer to the lawfulness of it if it could be proved. Why should he have to prove it? Why should one say that a supplier is withholding goods when he is not withholding goods? I understand that it did not commend itself to the Committee to say in the Bill that a man was deemed to have eaten a fillet steak when he had eaten a cough lozenge. How much more so should it not be attractive to the Committee to say that a supplier is guilty of withholding goods if he is not witholding them. I strongly object to a Clause which deems a man to be withholding goods when he is not, and when all that he is doing is making discrimination in terms of credit or payment, which is a reasonable and commercial thing to do.
    There is a second point that I should like to make. Some hon. Members say that discrimination as to terms of payment is one of the things that the Court should be able to look at in deciding whether there has been a withholding of goods. With great respect, if my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment is carried that is not what would happen. I would not mind, assuming that I accepted the general purpose of the Clause, if the Court could be instructed in deciding whether there had been unlawful withholding to take into account all such matters as to whether the terms of credit had been discriminatory, and so on. But, that is not what my hon. and learned Friend says or what the Clause says. It says that once it has occurred the suppliers shall be deemed to have withheld the goods.

    509
    That is a different matter. I agree that the Court should be entitled to take this matter into account in deciding whether there has been a withholding of goods. What I object to is that where a man in supplying a customer holds up the goods on terms of payment, it is mandatory on the Court to say that there has been a withholding of goods. I do not want to go beyond that at this point, because I hope to return to it at greater length and give more thoughtful consideration to it on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
    We are entitled to some information. It is not necessarily reactionary in dealing with small shopkeepers to say that as between one customer and another the supplier is entitled to have regard to credit-worthiness. It is not a reactionary attitude to grant this normal commercial right to a trader, and I am surprised that the hon. Member who has to supply traders and has to have regard to the credit-worthiness of the people with whom he deals in his capacity as a publisher should think that it is not an un-reasonable thing to ask that manufacturers and suppliers should have this power.
    5.30 p.m.
    Mr. du Cann: I had a certain twinge of regret that we had passed the last two Amendments without any discussion, but we have now had 14 hon. Members intervening in this matter, which is really rather a narrow Amendment. Indeed, I have enjoyed all their speeches. The difficulty has been that I am not sure that I have understood them all. I acknowledge that that, no doubt, is entirely my own fault, but if I may endeavour to cap something said by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) a little while ago, I feel that I ought to withhold the supply of explanation not on the grounds of price cutting but of inadequacy.
    I will endeavour to deal with the Amendment, and there is one very general remark I wish to make which I hope will be of assistance to the Committee. To begin with, subsection (3), which we are discussing, provides that two forms of discrimination are to be treated as if they amounted to a withholding of supplies. The hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) went through
    510
    them with some care, and I will not repeat them. To come specifically to the Amendment, the hon. and learned Gentleman stated that a court should have regard to the terms of payment. That must certainly be true, and that is one of the important matters to be considered.
    The Amendment would add the words "or terms of payment" after the word "delivery" in paragraph (b). We take the view that it is not necessary to add these words because the terms of payment are not matters which can arise in the execution of a contract. As my hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) pointed out, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) pointed out, terms of payment would have to be agreed at the time of the contract, even if spread over a period of time. So, if the supplier offers to the dealer significantly less favourable terms of payment than to other dealers, then the case is covered by paragraph (a) which refers to terms or conditions which would include terms of payment. Therefore, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is a point which calls for consideration as a matter of some substance. None the less, it is already covered, in our view, and I hope that the Committee will feel reassured by what I have said in that regard.
    Mr. John Hynd: If it were the practice of the supplier to provide in the contract for payment within a certain period of time but it was his practice, none the less, to give a reasonable extension of the time and in one case he refused to give such a concession, would that not be discrimination that occurs afterwards?
    Mr. du Cann: Yes, it would be part of the contract and could be considered as such, and, indeed, is covered by the Clause as drafted. If the Committee wishes, and if there is any doubt about the matter. I will certainly undertake to look at it again in the light of this discussion.
    Mr. J. Hynd: It may be part of the contract that payment should be made within a specified period, but it may be the long-established practice of the supplier to give to reliable customers an extension, by a gentleman's agreement or a general concession, in a particular case.
    Mr. du Cann: My impression is that the matter is covered, but I am perfectly willing to look at it again. If it is not covered, then we will propose an Amendment to deal with the subject. However, I feel quite clearly, although I may be wrong, that it is covered.
    Mr. H. Butler: All of this case seems to be concentrated on a manufacturer entering into a contract with a retailer. In fact, that is not so. It may be so in the minds of lawyers. The manufacturer may show a small retailer a suite of furniture which he proposes to buy. He may be selling him other goods as well, and the retailer gives the order to the agent who at some time delivers the suite. As far as he knows, he is going to get the normal terms of credit, but, in contradistinction to the credit allowed to a large retailer, the manufacturer says, "You have to pay pro forma". No formal contract is entered into. I appreciate that the Minister says he will give consideration to the matter, but I want to disabuse the minds of hon. Members who believe that the small retailer enters into a fixed contract and terms of payment. Day after day representatives call on small retailers and there is discrimination in these matters which creates the difficulties outlined.
    Mr. du Cann: I think I understand what the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. H. Butler) is saying, but, of course, contracts do not necessarily have to be written. They can be verbal and their terms need not be necessarily expressed. They can be implied. Therefore, I think that the circumstances which he has in mind are covered by the Clause. At any rate, I have given a general assurance on the matter.
    The other general point I want to make—we shall be discussing this, but I think it relevant to make it now—is that under the Clause as drafted a supplier is perfectly entitled to impose whatever terms he wishes when he supplies the goods so long as he does not offer significantly less favourable terms to a dealer because he is cutting prices or is likely to do so.
    Having given the Committee that explanation in regard to the Amendment itself, I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Edge Hill may not wish to press it at the moment. Indeed, should it be necessary, we can discuss it further at another stage.
    Mr. H. Lever: Am I wrong in supposing that the subsection as it stands will treat the manufacturer as I have alleged, as withholding supplies for the purpose of the Clause, if he delivers the goods in accordance with his contract but thereafter it is discovered that his terms of payment were significantly less favourable than those offered to other customers? Am I right or wrong in alleging that?
    Mr. du Cann: It would take me a minute or two to reply to the hon. Gentleman. I think that it would be going very far beyond the Amendment, and I would not wish to trepass on your patience, Dr. King, by going outside the rules of order. I will, if I may, give the hon. Gentleman a full answer in the debate on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. Niall MacDermot: May I seek to join in the Herculean task of clearing the minds of hon. Gentlemen on this Amendment? I suppose that, being a lawyer, all I shall succeed in doing is to increase the fog.
    Listening to the Minister's reply, I am led to wonder whether he really has himself appreciated the point, as I understand it, of my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment. As has been pointed out by a number of hon. Members, paragraph (a) of the subsection dealing with the making of the contract. Paragraph (b) deals with the performance of the contract. Surely, the point here is that we get the case where a supplier enters into identically the same contract with several different dealers—that he enters into a contract with dealers A, B, C and D—and that these contracts are all in identical terms, but that he discriminates between them in the way in which he enforces the contract.
    As I understand my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment, it is directed to the case where the discrimination between dealers does not lie in discrimination as to the terms of the contract but to discrimination in the enforcement of those terms and, in particular, in the terms as to payment. The common terms of all the contracts may be for payment on delivery, but the way in which the supplier who is trying to enforce resale price maintenance can try to get round it is by saying to the offending dealer, as he considers him, "I am going to hold you

    513
    directly to the terms of the contract, but, of course, if you adhere to resale price maintenance then I will extend to you the same facility which I am granting to other customers, not as a term of the contract"—ex gratia as lawyers call it—"the facility of extended credit."
    It is that situation which at the moment is not covered by the Bill at all. Whether, in fact, it is practicable to try to render unlawful practices of that kind is a more general question which I think we should discuss on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill". But, as I understand it, that is the point to which the Amendment is directed. Judging by the Minister's answer, I do not think that he appreciates that this door is still left open in the Clause as at present drafted.
    Mr. du Cann: I am very grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot) for his typically clear explanation, but, whatever impression I may have created in his mind, I am satisfied in my own that I have understood the matter. I certainly understood his extremely clear speech. I am satisfied also that the matter is covered. Nevertheless, I have undertaken to study what has been said in the debate.
    Mr. A. J. Irvine: If the expression "terms of payment" in the Amendment related to terms contained in the contract, it would, of course, be an illogical Amendment. As I understood it, that was the point taken by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude), and I agree with him about that. However, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot) has expressed the matter absolutely correctly. We are concerned to deal with the possibility of discrimination in the enforcement of contracts or the methods of payment pursuant to contracts after the contracts have been concluded.
    The Minister has been good enough to give us certain assurances. I am obliged to him for them, because I think that they go fairly far. He will look into the matter and consider it further. I hope that, in his consideration of the points we have raised, he will have particular regard to the question directed to him by my hon. Friend
    514
    the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd), which, in a very few words, put precisely the question which we wish to have considered further.
    I hope that the Committee will think that this has been a useful discussion. In view of the assurances which we have received, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 25, in page 3, line 20, at the end to insert:
    (4) Nothing in this section shall make it unlawful for a supplier to refuse to supply goods to any dealer otherwise than on terms that cash or the equivalent of cash shall be paid with the order for the goods.
    This new subsection is intended to ensure that refusal to supply goods on credit or refusal to supply because of a dealer's lack of financial substance shall not be prejudiced by the Bill. I hope that, in putting the Amendment to the Committee, I shall not be guilty of tedious repetition. What I say is bound to cover some of the points raised on the previous Amendment.
    Under subsection (1) of the Clause as it stands, it is unlawful to withhold supplies of goods on the grounds there set out, that is, that the dealer has sold at a price below the recommended resale price or is likely so to do. This is said to be an unlawful withholding.
    One turns then to subsection (3) to see what is or what can be a withholding of goods. A supplier shall be treated as withholding supplies of goods if the conditions in paragraphs (a) or (b) exist. Under (a), he shall be treated as withholding supplies if he refuses to supply the goods on terms or conditions "significantly less favourable" and so on.
    One turns then to Clause 4(4). Supplies will be wrongfully withheld if the conditions in paragraphs (a) and (b) apply, that is, if down to the time when supplies were so withheld
    "the supplier was doing business with the dealer or was supplying goods of the same description to other dealers…"
    and he knows that the dealer has been selling goods under the recommended resale price.
    5.45 p.m.
    Let us suppose that a supplier merely refuses to supply on credit. He does

    515
    not think that the dealer has the substance to justify the giving of credit and he wants payment in cash. He has then contravened Clause 2(3,a). Never mind whether it is an unlawful withholding or not, at that stage he has withheld goods because he has refused to supply them unless the man pays cash. The question then is, Has he done so unlawfully under Clause 2(1) on the grounds set out in paragraphs (a) or (b) thereof.
    In order to answer that question, one turns to Clause 4(4). If he has been doing trade with that retailer or with another retailer in the same line of business, and he knows that the retailer has undercut or has threatened to undercut, he is then presumed to have withheld the goods unlawfully. The undercutting has nothing to do with the matter in his own mind, however; he has refused merely because he wanted cash for the goods.
    I shall try to illustrate the point by an example. A supplier has been supplying goods to confectioner A. Confectioner B asks for similar supplies. He says, "You have been supplying A. Please supply me with the sweets which you have been supplying to A". The supplier knows that retailer B has been selling at below the recommended resale price, so Clause 4(4) comes into operation. But he knows also that retailer B is insolvent, so he refuses to supply unless he gets cash for the goods.
    However, because he knew of the undercutting by B, he is presumed to have wrongfully refused to supply B with the goods and he can be sued under Clause 4(2). On proof of his requirement of cash for the goods, he at once is turned from a defendant in that action to a plaintiff who has to prove something. He is no longer a defendant who can call on his plaintiff to prove the case. Once the original plaintiff has proved, "You refused these goods except on cash terms", the unfortunate supplier has to say, "Yes, but I did not refuse them because you were undercutting. That was not in my mind". He is thus forced to prove a state of mind in order to justify his refusal to supply the goods except on cash terms.
    As the Bill stands, the supplier in such circumstances may well be found by the
    516
    court to have wrongfully withheld supplies and to be subject to a civil action for damages under Clause 4(2).
    Mr. Ronald Bell: An injunction.
    Mr. Page: For an injunction, yes. A supplier must be allowed to decide for himself whether he will require cash for goods or will grant credit. If the Bill prevents a dealer doing that by this roundabout way of trying to make him prove a state of mind or a negative state of mind, it is going much too far. I think that if we could say this definitely, as I propose in my Amendment, it would be a great relief to both suppliers and retailers and that it would make the Bill workable.
    Mr. Ronald Bell: I support the Amendment. I do not wish to repeat the arguments used by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) except to say this. If the dealer who has not hitherto been receiving supplies from the supplier goes to the supplier and says, "You have been supplying these goods to other dealers, but not to me. I want to sell them at a cut price", he can force the supplier to supply him on credit unless the supplier is willing to undertake in a civil action the burden of proving affirmatively that his reason for his insistence upon supplying for cash was not due to the fact that he had been told that the man would sell at cut prices. I hope that that is not an involved sentence; I think that the point is clear. [An HON. MEMBER: "It had no verb."] It had a main verb and I believe that it came in the right place. I was receiving so much vocal encouragement from both sides of the Committee that the syntax may have got a bit muddled.
    This is a point which, perhaps, we shall want to discuss more on Clause 4, which contains the subsection which is causing the trouble. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby was quite right to raise it by proposing an Amendment to Clause 2 because the consequences of Clause 4 relate back to Clause 2 and one knows how difficult it is to bear the burden of proving affirmatively the state of one's own mind. It seems to me quite wrong that a dealer who has never had any business dealings with a certain supplier

    517
    should be able to go along to that supplier and say, "I want to sell your goods at a cut price. You supply me for cash or go to the Restrictive Practices Court".
    Mr. J. Hynd: I follow the hon. Member's argument and I can agree with it, but I do not see how the Amendment alters the position, because it merely says that it will not be unlawful to require payment in cash. However, if it were inserted in the Bill, it still would not affect the situation as laid down in the Bill, which is that everybody must be treated alike.
    Mr. Bell: I agree with that intervention, but its effect is to point out that the Amendment cures only part of the mischief. I think that that was the point of it. It is a valid point, and I agree that we must return to it on Clause 4 if we agree that Clause 2 should stand part of the Bill. I have grave doubts about that, and we will come to those doubts in due course. This is a useful Amendment, but the main consideration of this point will arise later.
    Mr. H. Lever: As I have said, I propose to reserve extended discussion of this matter on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill. I fully support the purpose of the Amendment, and I wish merely to say this in reinforcing what has been said.
    It is surely utterly repugnant to any sense of normal commercial practice that we should embody in an Act matter which in practice would compel a man to grant credit to another whether he wished to do so or not. This is so outrageous that I trust that the Committee will reject it out of hand. The Amendment only partially cures the abomination of much of this abominable Clause. I hope that the Committee will give a warning to the Government in time. However, I do not want to play party politics, although I am not without enjoyment of them from time to time.
    I hope that the Committee will take the opportunity to force this Amendment on the Government, whether they like it or not, so that they may escape further humiliation through outraging their own supporters and many open-minded Members. I will certainly vote for the Amendment if there is a Division.
    Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: I support the Amendment, for this reason. A large number of traders are opposed to parts of the Bill because of the obscurity of the Clauses. One point which has been raised with me is whether traders can withhold supplies when a dealer becomes non-creditworthy. There has been so much opposition to the Bill for a large number of reasons that I suggest that it is right for the Government to clear up this point about whether suppliers can withhold goods if they believe that the dealer is not creditworthy, whether or not he is cut pricing them.
    Mr. S. Silverman: This Amendment, like the last one, raises general questions of principle which I think it would be better to discuss when we deal with the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill. I hope that all those who have expressed doubts about the principles behind the Clause and, indeed, about some of the principles behind the Amendments will take up the matter again at that stage when it can be discussed more fully so that we get a clear picture before deciding whether the Clause is a good or bad Clause. I therefore refrain from entering into detailed discussion of the Amendment. However, I should like to put one consideration to the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) and to those who have supported the Amendment.
    Suppose that a supplier has reason to believe that the retailer to whom he has been in the habit of delivering supplies on certain terms is evading a condition, which is, in any case, void by the Bill, to sell them at a certain price. Suppose that he says, "I know a way to stop that. This man always trades with one month's delay in payment and on certain discount terms. I know that if I insist on cash on delivery he will not be able to pay. If he is not able to pay, and if that term is in his contract, I will have effectively stopped his source of supply. He would have effectively stopped his source of supply, but is not that exactly what the Bill sets out to prevent? If the Amendment is accepted in its present form—and I realise that it could be amended—I cannot see how it will not provide a broad highway along which one could drive a

    519
    very large Rolls Royce through the Bill's main provisions. There is nothing to prevent it.
    The hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) says, "Of course, you can go to the Restrictive Practices Court". He dealt with the difficulty of satisfying a court about what is in one's mind. All lawyers appreciate the difficulty of doing that, although they also appreciate that there is a variety of circumstances under the law in which one has to do that very thing. If it is difficult to satisfy a court about the state of one's own mind, it is infinitely more difficult to satisfy a court about the state of somebody else's mind.
    6.0 p.m.
    What the hon. Member for Crosby is seeking to do is to transfer the onus of proof if a condition of cash payment is imposed to make the retailer, or, it may be, the Registrar or somebody else, satisfy the court that it was done for the purpose of evading the Act and because the retailer had been selling at unauthorised prices. How does he prove that and why is that easier or more just to provide than to say, in the case of a retailer, "You used to supply him on credit. You supply everybody else on credit. You have suddenly stopped supplying him on credit. You have insisted upon cash knowing that he does not have cash. It is, or it may be, a fair inference from all those facts that you did it to stop his supplies"? What is wrong with that?
    Mr. H. Lever: My hon. Friend is wrong in supposing that that is the purport of the Amendment. It does not say, as my hon. Friend supposes, that it would transfer the onus of proof. The Amendment—

    ROYAL ASSENT
    Whereupon The GENTLEMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD being come with a Message, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair.
    Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.
    Message to attend the Lords Commissioners:
    The House went:—and, having returned;
    Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

    1. Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act, 1964.

    2. Rating (Interim Relief) Act, 1964.

    3. Married Women's Property Act, 1964.

    4. Uganda Act, 1964.

    5. Television Act, 1964.

    6. British Nationality Act, 1964.

    7. Fireworks Act, 1964.

    8. Trade Union (Amalgamations, etc.) Act, 1964.

    9. War Damage Act, 1964.

    10. Licensing Act, 1964.

    11. Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act, 1923 (Amendment) Act, 1964.

    12. Motherwell and Wishaw Burgh Extension, &c. Order Confirmation Act, 1964.

    13. Port of London (Extension of Seaward Limit) Act, 1964.

    14. Customs Annuity and Benevolent Fund Act, 1964.

    15. City of London (Courts) Act, 1964.

    RESALE PRICES BILL
    Again considered in Committee.
    [Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]
    Amendment proposed: In page 3, line 20, at end insert:
    (4) Nothing in this section shall make it unlawful for a supplier to refuse to supply goods to any dealer otherwise than on terms that cash or the equivalent of cash shall be paid with the order for the goods.
    Question again proposed, That those words be there inserted.
    6.16 p.m.
    Mr. H. Lever: What I wanted to put to my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) was this, that contrary to what he has said, this Amendment is not intended to transfer the onus of proof but to restore, categorically and unconditionally, the right of any manufacturer, in any circumstances and for any reason whatsoever, not to

    521
    grant credit where he does not want to grant it.
    The second point I want to put is, that surely there is a difference between making retail price maintenance illegal or void and forcing one to grant credit to people in the course of that purpose.
    Mr. S. Silverman: My hon. Friend is in many ways perfectly right, but if we are to preserve freedom of contract in every respect uninfluenced and unembarrassed and uninhibited by the House of Commons we shall have to defeat the Bill or persuade the Government to withdraw it. The point that I am making is not an academic one; it is quite simple. The whole purpose of the Bill is to interfere with freedom of contract. That is what it is for. If we object to a particular provision, the way is not to undo it because it interferes with freedom of contract—
    Mr. H. Lever: There are degrees of freedom.
    Mr. Silverman: We shall come to degrees of freedom in a moment. Do not let us base ourselves on the question of freedom of contract, because the purpose of the Bill is to prevent in certain respects and for certain purposes the freedom of people to contract with one another. That is what it is for.
    The question is whether we should pass an Amendment which would restore—if it is taken away, which is not quite clear; but if it is taken away—to the supplier complete freedom to contract in one respect. It would restore him complete freedom to fix, at his own absolute discretion, on what terms, cash terms or credit terms, he will supply goods. That is what my hon. Friend says is the purpose of the Amendment. Am I right?
    Mr. Lever: Correct.
    Mr. Silverman: All I am saying is that, if we do that, then we are enabling in this respect the supplier to do in any circumstances at his own discretion what the Bill forbids him to do. In effect, by insisting on cash where he knows that cash is not available, the supplier is preventing the retailer from getting supplies.
    I shall not split hairs about the difference between preventing him from getting
    522
    supplies and withholding supplies from him. For all practical purposes they are the same thing. I agree that, if the supplier is imposing a cash condition by reason of a careful and fair assessment of the financial risk, he should not be prevented from doing so and nothing in the Bill prevents him from doing so.
    If, on the other hand, there is no unreasonable financial risk, but he is withholding credit under the guise or pretence of preserving his freedom of contract about cash or credit payments, then what he is really doing is to prevent a cut price seller from getting supplies. That achieves the very thing which is defined in the Clause as being an unlawful withholding of supplies.
    Mr. Graham Page: I am sure that the hon. Member can see where his argument is leading. The effect would be that a supplier could be forced to finance a retailer for a period by giving him credit. The alternative would be civil action for damages.
    Mr. Silverman: Only where the supplier has been in the habit of financing the retailer in question. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes.
    Mr. Page: The hon. Member should look at Clause 4(4,b).
    Mr. Silverman: All this interchange only reinforces what I said at the beginning—that the proper time to discuss all these matters is when we consider the Clause as a whole.
    Suppose there is such a design. Suppose a supplier has reason to believe that there is a cut price seller whom he has been in the habit of financing to the extent suggested by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). Suppose he is looking around for a way of doing what the Bill says that he must not do—withhold supplies. This Amendment would give him the golden opportunity to do what he will not be able to do if the Bill remains as it is.
    The Amendment goes too far for the genuine purpose behind it. It is not unreasonable for a manufacturer to choose for himself to whom he will give credit and to whom he will not. The Amendment goes too far in that it would enable him to withhold credit,

    523
    perhaps from an old customer who has always had it, for reasons that the Bill would make unlawful reasons.
    Dr. Alan Glyn: I wonder whether this Amendment achieves what we want. We want to preserve the right of any manufacturer to refuse to supply a retailer who he does not consider creditworthy. If the Amendment would achieve that, then it would go a long way towards allaying many fears among retailers who consider that they would be obliged, if the Bill went through unamended, to supply people even though those persons were not creditworthy.
    I am also not clear about the words
    "…on terms that cash or the equivalent of cash…"
    What does this mean? What is the equivalent of cash? Is it a cheque or a banker's order? The legal interpretation of these words should be made clear.
    Mr. George Darling: I hope that the Minister will accept the Amendment, although I share the doubts expressed by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). When the hon. Member for Harrow, Central (Sir P. Bishop) anticipated this Amendment, he said that it would deal with this point. I thought that he meant that it would deal clearly with the issue. I am a layman in these matters and it took me a considerable time to understand what these words mean. Even then, only with the help of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. W. Wells) did I get it right.
    Nowhere does the Amendment mention credit. Certainly, a supplier should be in a position to withhold supplies from a person to whom he does not wish to grant credit and from whom he wishes to insist on cash payments. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot), I approach this with an open mind. My fears on this occasion are for the small shopkeeper, for the little grocer in the backstreet.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale and I both represent steel constituencies. Where there are steel works there are shift workers and the little shops in the back streets of indus-
    524
    trial areas provide a great deal of service to these workers who, because of their hours of work—many of the wives are also on shift work—cannot get to the main shopping centre. Obviously, these small shops have not a great deal of financial substance behind them. They may be inefficient if one measures costs against the way they operate.
    But they provide a social service to some extent. In addition, many of them are run by injured workers who put their compensation payments into them. I am one of those who will be lining up with my hon. Friend to fight for them in our consideration of the Bill.
    Sir P. Bishop: The hon. Member perhaps does not realise that the Clause would work both ways. Supposing a supplier wanted to give extended special credit to a small shopkeeper like those he is referring to, the supplier would be debarred by the Clause from doing so unless he was prepared to give the same credit to all his customers.
    Mr. Darling: I was coming to that point. I understand that, if the Amendment were accepted, it would work as I think both the hon. Member for Harrow, Central and I want it to work. The supplier would be in a position to refuse to supply on credit terms a person he did not think credit worthy.
    Mr. H. Lever: The Amendment clearly says that he would be able to refuse to supply on credit whether the man was credit-worthy or not, withiut giving any reason.
    Mr. Darling: That is obviously true, but in reasonable practice the supplier would refuse credit to the person he thinks is not credit-worthy. It is true that the Amendment would allow him to refuse credit terms to anybody, but, in practice, he would refuse it only to persons he regarded as being not creditworthy.
    Mr. S. Silverman: It would enable him to refuse credit for reasons which the Bill makes unlawful.
    6.30 p.m.
    Mr. Darling: I want to get rid of this problem by putting a question to the Minister. I am merely leading up to it. In practice, what will happen is that the manufacturer will refuse to supply goods

    525
    on credit terms to a person who, he thinks, is not credit-worthy. He can refuse others if he wants. At the same time, he can also refuse to help my small shopkeepers. I do not know how we can deal with this in the Bill, but I should like to make sure that my small shopkeepers are not to be handicapped, any more than they already are in the Bill, by the inclusion of this Amendment.
    I began by saying that I was not a lawyer. I have approached this with an open mind. The arguments of the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) confirmed what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Walsall, North told me and I now know where I am. What I am asking is whether there is any way when we have accepted the Amendment of making sure that my small shopkeepers will not be harmed by the Amendment. However, I accept the general terms of the Amendment.
    Mr. Ronald Bell: I want to speak partly because of something the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) said and partly because of something which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) said. I start with the latter.
    Was not the hon. Gentleman overlooking that the supplier might want to refuse credit not because the dealer was not credit-worthy, but because the supplier could not afford any more credit? Might he not have been supplying a number of dealers on credit for a number of years, but then find a new demand, which might be on a large scale, which might put him in difficulty? Might he not just happen to be in difficulty? Is it not a great hardship for him to have to go before the Restrictive Practices Court and publicise his financial embarrassment before all the trade? That is the kind of position to which provisions of this sort lead.
    Mr. Paget: Is it not the more vicious as his inability to give credit might well result from the fact that his business has been disrupted by the Bill?
    Mr. Bell: I shall not rise to that particular fly, skilfully though it was cast across the Chamber. I turn to what was said by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, who is quite a formidable person in himself.
    526
    Was not the hon. Gentleman overlooking that giving credit is always a favour and that on the face of things one is always entitled to be paid cash? Ought we to formulise the giving of credit which may have been customary in the business? Are we to make it a statutory duty on the supplier always to give it? It seems to be very harsh if he does not want to do so. After all, the considerations which move him to give credit in other cases may be very diverse. There may be a blood relationship, or an old association, or all sorts of other things. It seems very unreasonable that he should have to trot all this out before the Court and explain his state of mind and justify his refusing to a new customer, who may never have been to him before, what after all is a credit.
    I appreciate the argument of the hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever). The Amendment covers not only the new, but the old customer. Incidentally, in relation to the old customer we get back to the point I was making, which was that the supplier may have been granting him credit, but may want to stop it. I realise that that is a difficult point. However, it seems to me that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne was overlooking the fact that, basically, one is entitled to demand cash and might grant credit for all sorts of diverse reasons which are very difficult to mention in a court of law.
    Mr. S. Silverman: I have great sympathy with what the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) has been saying. Hon. Members have been talking about having open minds as though lawyers never have them. The only thing lawyers insist upon is that whereas a good judge ought to have an open mind at the beginning of an argument, it is a poor judge who has a mind still open at the end of it. One cannot have an open mind for ever. At some stage one has to give a judgment.
    What I object to in the Amendment is not any of the things in it which have been defended. I see the point of all this and I respectfully support these things; but I am saying that the Amendment goes too far for that purpose, because it would enable a supplier, without any ostensible reason, effectively to withhold supplies because he suspected that a retailer was selling cut price.

    527
    If the sponsors of the Amendment could devise some form of words to integrate this perfectly reasonable Amendment with the purpose of the Bill and not make it an offence to that purpose and in breach of the Bill, I would think that it was a good Amendment. I say that even without prejudice to my own personal view that the Clause and the Bill are both bad and that we would all be much better off if they had never been introduced.
    Sir P. Bishop: Unlike the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), I think that the Amendment does not go far enough. I apologise to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) if I misled him about it when we referred to this matter earlier. I was under the impression that we might be able to discuss the whole subject of credit, but it may be that we shall have to leave that until we debate the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
    But that does not alter the fact that this is a very good Amendment. It does not seem to go a step beyond what is one of the most natural and obvious rights which any trader going into business should possess—the right to say to a man who wants to do business with him and to buy his goods, "I will sell you these goods; you give me cash over the counter for them". How it could be proposed to take that right from a trader is inexplicable. I know that it is meant to take that right away only when the supplier intends to use it, or does use it, for the wrong reasons, but the effect of the Clause as it stands would be quite different and would debar the supplier from what is surely a natural right, and it would do so even when he had perfectly legitimate reasons.
    I hope to hear from my hon. Friend that the Government are prepared to consider this matter in the light of our debate on this subject of the obligation of a supplier to give credit, and that they will consider whether some Amendment is required. However, this Amendment would not affect that issue one way or the other and I support it.
    Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: I should like to get this issue of cash and credit clear in my
    528
    mind. Subsection (3,a) deals with conditions as to credit. At first glance, it would appear that if the Amendment were accepted it would undermine the conditions under which credit is given.
    Mr. H. Lever: There is no doubt about that.
    Mr. Winterbottom: My hon. Friend says that there is no doubt about that, but all the conditions of credit are not confined to cash or to the period in which repayment has to be made.
    From my experience of the retail and wholesale trades, I know that very often special conditions have to be laid down to meet special cases. Those special conditions may be called conditions as to credit to one special customer, and they cannot be applied in general. I should therefore like a better definition of this condition as to credit.
    It seems to me that a little practical experience would enable hon. Members to understand the relationship between a wholesaler and a retailer. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) referred to small shops in Sheffield. Most of those small shops exist by credit, and most of them find that their credit is cut if they do not pay within the specified time. Furthermore, most of them, in turn, exist by granting credit and there is nothing in the Bill to say that the retail shopkeeper shall have the right to get cash from his customers. Very often the relationship between a retailer and a wholesaler is controlled by the amount of cash that the wholesaler has received from the credit that he has allowed, and it appears to me that those conditions ought to be clarified in the Clause.
    From a practical point of view there is one thing that the Government could do. They could redraft the Clause, because one thing that is certain is that if it is accepted there will be more confusion in the wholesale and retail trades than there has been since this House—I think that it was in 1916—passed an Act saying that butter had to be weighed unwrapped. Unfortunately, that Act came into force on 1st July during a very hot summer, and nobody could sell butter for 16 hours until the Government issued an edict enabling retailers to

    529
    wrap the butter in paper before weighing it, provided that paper did not exceed a certain weight.
    The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Robert Grimston): Order. The hon. Gentleman is going a little wide of the Amendment.
    Mr. Winterbottom: The moral of that ancient story applies to this Clause and it is—
    The Deputy-Chairman: We are not dealing with the Clause. We are dealing with the Amendment. I think that the hon. Gentleman's remarks would be better addressed to the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
    6.45 p.m.
    Mr. Winterbottom: I have been engaged for many years in narrowing down from the bulk to the unit. It is part of the knowledge of distribution. I have, therefore, moved from the Clause to the specific Amendment before us, and to the Amendment in relation to the Clause, which I submit will cause more confusion in the distributive trades than I have known during the last 14 years.
    I suggest that the Clause, or the Amendment in relation to the Clause, should be reconsidered, and that the Government should bring in a provision which is more practical and sensible, and which can be understood both by the wholesaler and by the retailer. I think that the Clause must have been drafted by someone who did not know the difference between production and distribution and did not appreciate the difficulties which the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has appreciated.
    If the Amendment were not accepted and this Clause became part of the law of the land, wholesalers would face ruin because of the amount of credit which they have allowed their retail customers. If they have to increase that credit, they will have to borrow money outside the distributive trades, probably at extremely high rates of interest. These are practical issues, and if the Government are not prepared to consider the matter, shall give my wholehearted support to the Amendment.
    Mr. Cole: The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Winterbottom), and the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) propose to
    530
    say a few words on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill, and if I catch your eye in due time I shall do so as well.
    This Amendment is one more example of hon. Members being engaged on the herculean task of trying to make the Clause of practical value. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) would be the first to admit that in an Amendment of two and a half lines he cannot cover all the possibilities that he would like to cover. Among other things, he seems to be trying to enshrine the existing practice in a particular trade. There are many trades in which cash is the order of the day. I can think of instances in which a wholesaler will not unload goods on to a retailer's property unless he is paid his money first. I shall not weary the Committee by going into details of that situation, but I understand that that happens in some of the larger businesses.
    What the Amendment seeks to do is to say that the practice of the last 50 years shall continue, and that the man who follows it will not offend the dictat of Clause 2 and, therefore, will not offend against the purposes of he Bill. In short, this Amendment—and, indeed, some of the others to this Clause—is a clear and outstanding example of the difficulties with which we are trying to cope.
    So far as it goes—even if it goes too far for some people—I support the Amendment, but I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby will not mind my saying that this is not the end of the story. This does not cover all the complications which could arise; complications which will provide a real paradise for lawyers, let alone the Restrictive Practices Court.
    For what it is worth, I fully support it. A man who has been carrying on a perfectly friendly business with people in the past and has always received cash will suddenly, under the terms of this Bill—without the Amendment—find himself breaking various of its provisions simply because he carries on his same old practice. In that case we shall have the extraordinary position of a supplier possibly having to refuse to accept cash in payment because to do so would immediately, bring him within the ambit of the prohibitions of the Bill.

    531
    The whole thing is quite ridiculous, in going too far in one direction, but not far enough in another. I hope that my hon. Friend will persuade the Government, who have many more resources to draw upon in framing Amendments even than has my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby, that they ought to make the Clause comprehensible.
    What the Committee is really trying to do is to anticipate the job of the Restrictive Practices Court.
    Mr. J. J. Mendelson: I should support the Amendment in the Division Lobby because it does a number of things that ought to be done and avoids a number of dangers. But my support would be somewhat reluctant, because I also believe that it does a number of things which it should not do. On the whole, I would prefer the Minister to accept the spirit of the Amendment and agree to bring in a similar Government Amendment at a later stage.
    There are a number of aims which the Committee must have in mind in dealing with the Bill. The main difficulties are created by the nature of the Clause. I have much sympathy with the point of view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), who is not with us at the moment, but who, I thought, made an interesting and useful contribution to the debate. He pointed out, in reference to the claim made by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), that if the Amendment were not accepted it would be impossible for a supplier to refuse to grant credit either to an actual or a potential customer, that the refusal could not be narrowed down to reasons concerning credit-worthiness or lack of credit-worthiness.
    I accept the logic of what my hon. Friend has said. That is precisely why I am reluctant to support the Amendment. Whether or not it was the intention of the hon. Member for Crosby—and I am not trying to open his heart and mind in such detail as to find whether or not it was—the Amendment would have the additional effect of allowing suppliers who wish to support resale price maintenance to continue to adopt practices which they have used in the past.
    532
    There is involved in our discussion what is called in American legislation the "most favoured customer condition," under which, to enforce certain monopoly positions, a firm or supplier, covering up his real intention, applies either to an actual customer or a potential customer whom he suspects of not maintaining the price that he wishes to see maintained—although that actual or potential customer remains as creditworthy as ever—an inhibiting condition, not allowing the customer to have goods on credit terms, simply because he wishes to apply a sanction, or a form of punishment, because he does not like what the retailer or customer is doing in selling his goods. I would not support that aim.
    On the other hand, we are anxious to make this badly drafted Bill as well balanced as possible, and we do not want to impose unreasonable conditions upon a manufacturer or wholesaler. In the end, in the absence of any assurance from the Minister of State that he accepts the principle of the Amendment, I would go into the Division Lobby with the hon. Member for Crosby. But it is essential in approaching these matters that we should be careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater by insisting that certain dangers should be prevented and certain improvements should be introduced, losing sight of the fact that it is not our purpose to make it easier for manufacturers to enforce conditions.
    I support the principle of making it easier to pass on to the final customer any savings made in distribution. Because I support that principle I would not like to see any conditions introduced in future legislation which would give the manufacturer the whip hand and make it more and more difficult for the retailer to pass on any savings in distribution to the consumer.
    Therefore, although, on this limited Amendment, it is difficult to go further into the background of the Clause without being out of order, I want it to be clearly understood that in supporting the Amendment, if we have to, we are not satisfied that it will guard against some of the dangers. It will put some matters right which should be put right and it will introduce better balancing features in what is an unbalanced part of the

    533
    Bill. But it will also not be desirable legislation, because it will not make it easier to pass on savings in distribution.
    Mr. du Cann: There is some support for the Amendment among some of my hon. Friends, and I appreciate their feelings. On the other hand, the Amendment has received somewhat qualified support from hon. Members opposite—from the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling), and particularly from the hon. Members for Nelson and Come (Mr. S. Silverman) and Penistone (Mr. Mendelson), who rightly pointed out that there are substantial objections to it as it stands.
    During the last debate that we had, which dealt with a rather narrow but important point, I attempted to give my hon. Friends—and particularly those whom I knew to be bothered about the matter—some reassurance, although in doing so I went slightly beyond the rules of order. I had hoped that in this debate we might avoid the need for clarification and explanation of what the Clause does.
    However, as that has not happened, I must repeat the explanation that I gave previously, namely, that under the Clause as drafted the supplier is entitled to impose whatever terms he wishes when he supplies his goods so long as he does not offer significantly less favourable terms to a retailer just because he is cutting prices, or is likely to do so.
    In a very clear speech my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) quoted a specific example, where supplier A supplies to B, who is a confectioner, and another confectioner, C, then asks A for supplies, and it so happens that A knows that C is a price cutter and is virtually insolvent—or there is some other reason why A does not wish to supply to C.
    There is a dual position. He particularly quoted the instance of insolvency. But I think that he and other hon. Members who have taken part in the debate should consider a much wider range of choice of reasons why A might not wish to supply C.
    7.0 p.m.
    Mr. Cole: May I ask my hon. Friend whether has C been a purchaser from A before?
    Mr. H. Lever: That does not matter.
    Mr. Cole: I should particularly like my hon. Friend to address himself to that question.
    Mr. du Cann: I do not want to mislead my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole), but I do not think that that really matters in this instance. Let me go on with the point.
    So we have a position when A should supply C and A does not want to. The fact that C is a price cutter is largely irrelevant if there are other good grounds existing which make A feel that it would be quite wrong, as a matter of ordinary commercial business prudence, to supply C, and he may justifiably withhold supplies.
    Mr. Graham Page: My hon. Friend says that it is largely irrelevant, but it is not. Under Clause 4(4) he is then presumed to have unlawfully withheld goods.
    Mr. du Cann: I realise that my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby is interested in the provisions of Clause 4. He did point out, when making his speech, that he could not, obviously, go into that matter in any detail and I am similarly inhibited from replying to him at any length. But I heard hon. Members say that the words
    "unless the contrary is proved"
    appear in Clause 4. That would cover the situation that my hon. Friend has in mind.
    I am not talking about right or wrong or the burden of proof. I am merely saying that under the situation as it is in the Bill as drafted at present, the position about which my hon. Friends are so concerted is covered. Perhaps I may go a little further and say that the supplier is completely at liberty to insist on cash terms in all his agreements if he wishes. He is also completely at liberty to offer credit terms to some dealers and cash terms to others where there is some ground—other than price cutting—for doing so. But what the Clause says—and rightly, in the view of the Government—is that he must not offer credit terms to some dealers and insist on cash from others, merely because they are actual or likely price-cutters.

    535
    To continue. In so far as the Amendment permits supplies to be refused except on cash terms, on grounds not connected with price cutting, it is unnecessary. But the Amendment goes a good deal wider, as I have suggested and as has been pointed out by other hon. Members, particularly by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne. In so far as it permits this to be done, even on prohibited grounds, it cannot be accepted by the Government, because it goes too wide. I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand that point.
    To sum up what I have been attempting to say. I recognise the anxieties of my hon. Friends the Members for Crosby, Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke), Bedfordshire, South, Harrow, Central (Sir P. Bishop) and Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell). I can assure them that the points which they have made, if I have understood them correctly, are covered in the Clause. I realise that to some extent my hon. Friends would wish to discuss the matter further when we come to Clause 4, but I suggest that that is another subject.
    I am prepared to go as far as this: we certainly should be willing, in the light of the discussion, to look at the Clause again with a view to tabling an Amendment. The object of the exercise, as I understand it, on the part of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, is primarily to make sure that the Bill is clear.
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear during the Second Reading debate that the Government are always ready to look at constructive suggestions relating to this Measure and I have already accepted one Amendment today. If we table an Amendment we hope that nothing in the Clause would be construed as preventing a supplier of goods from withholding supplies, or offering supplies on different terms to different dealers, where the reason for doing so is not because a dealer has cut, or is threatening to cut, the price of the suppliers goods. In the light of what I have said, I hope that my hon. Friend will feel that we are anxious to meet him, but will understand that it is not possible for me to meet him in relation to the Amendment which he has tabled. I hope therefore that he will seek to withdraw his Amendment.
    Mr. Jay: I do not feel that the answer of the Minister of State is good enough. He has not offered to amend the Bill in any way. He intends to reword it so as to make clear that it means what he thinks that it means already. The position will still be that the onus of proof will be on the manufacturer, if he withholds his supplies, to prove that he had some motive for so doing other than the fear of a price reduction by the retailer. In that case, he will still, so far as I can see be under a compulsion to give exactly the same terms of credit to that retailer, unless he can substantiate in court that his motives were something which somebody else says that they were not.
    The Deputy-Chairman: Mr. Bell.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Before my hon. Friend continues—
    The Deputy-Chairman: I did not call the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop).
    Mr. Ronald Bell: I think that my hon. Friend has slightly misunderstood some of the points which we put to him. I realise that the burden of proof is in Clause 4. If my hon. Friend will look at Clause 4(4), he will see that it is a definition Clause relating to Clause 2; or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that it relates to proceedings brought against the supplier of goods in respect of a contravention of the provisions of Clause 2. So the implications of Clause 4(4) have to be looked at in relation to the affirmative provisions of Clause 2.
    We cannot merely pass Clause 2 in its present form and then deal with things like the burden of proof when we come to Clause 4. Then it will be too late to go back to Clause 2. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) put down his Amendment to draw attention to the effect of the definition in Clause 4 on the operation of the provisions of Clause 2(3,a). I think that is the point at issue.
    Of course, were we told that the Government were proposing a radical alteration to Clause 4 which would remove the fears we have about Clause 2, we should be happy about Clause 2. But at present we have to assume, in accordance with the rules of order, that Clause 4 will remain as it is and we have to look at

    537
    Clause 2 in the light of Clause 4. That being so, what is troubling me—I must speak only for myself—is that a supplier is put in the position that he must supply credit, perhaps to a new customer, unless he can prove that he is not refusing it because of some price-cutting activities. I do not think that my hon. Friend was phrasing it quite correctly. He said it was crystal clear that a supplier could refuse supplies, or demand cash, provided that was not done because a man was price-cutting.
    Mr. MacDermot: "Merely because".
    Mr. Bell: It is not a question whether it was not done "merely because", but whether he can prove it. That is the point which is worrying us. It is not actually the Restrictive Practices Court which is concerned, that was a slip of the tongue on my part. It is the Queen's Bench, where he has to go as a defendant and affirmatively proved that it was not so. That is a point which is worrying us and I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Minister of State would address his mind to the question of the man having to give credit unless he could prove that he brings himself within Clause 2.
    Mr. Paget: The point which the Minister of State seemed entirely to ignore is that either the abolition of r.p.m. has an effect or it has not. If it does, it changes to that extent the nature of the trade. It may change the nature of the trade by increasing the turnover, or in some other of a variety of ways, but by changing the nature of the trade it changes the credit-worthiness of the shopkeeper who is the buyer. It therefore makes the supplier offer credit when he is facing a changing trade with perhaps a much larger turnover.
    This, to my mind, is fundamentally wrong, because if he withholds credit because the change of selling at cut prices has changed the credit situation that is caught precisely by the Clause. This is the very situation which the Minister says he will preserve. He has not met the case for the Amendment at all.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I want to remind my hon. Friend the Minister of State that I did not hear him deal with the point on export contracts signed in this
    538
    country. The Amendment affects the whole of the Clause, of which this is a subsidiary part, and I was anxious that my hon. Friend should either confirm or deny that, to quote from Clause 2
    "…a dealer seeking to obtain them for resale in the United Kingdom…"
    where an export contract is signed in the United Kingdom is covered by the Clause.
    This is a point which exercises us considerably. I do not believe that it was in the minds of those who drafted the Clause but I believe that it would be a consequence of it. We must, therefore, bear in mind when considering the Amendment whether there will be complications there.
    Mr. H. Lever: The Minister of State has said understandably that he desires to avoid clarification of the meaning of the Clause, but, happily, he has not succeeded in that object. He has made it crystal clear that any Amendment that he has in mind for the Clause will be one of clarification. What I seek, and hon. Members generally seek, is not that he should make the mischief clearer legislatively speaking, but that he should abolish it by accepting the Amendment which has had almost universal sympathy on both sides of the Committee. The hon. Gentleman has given no assurance which comforts in any way any fear expressed from any quarter of the Committee. If the Committee does not support the Amendment, any trader can be or may be required in practice to give credit to any dealer whom he has never seen before and who comes along and demands credit.
    Mr. A. Bourne-Arton: Surely that can apply only to a dealer who has cut the price of those goods.
    Mr. Lever: All that the dealer has to do is to go to the supplier and put him in an embarrassing position by telling him, if he did not already know, "I am the man who has been cutting the price of your goods in the last few months." Apart from establishing this bad relationship between the supplier and the client, the Clause will enable a complete stranger to the supplier to insist upon a most favourable position in regard to credit and everything else.
    Sir D. Glover: How can a person who has been obtaining goods for some months be a total stranger to him?
    Mr. Lever: He may be a total stranger, because he may have been getting the goods from somebody else. It is enough that he tells the manufacturer that he intends to sell the goods below price to put the supplier in great difficulty. Until the onus of proof is decisively shifted it means that every supplier who wants to refuse supplies to a cut-price trader must see his lawyer, because the dice would be loaded by statute hopelessly against him once the man who gets credit takes the elementary precaution of telling him that he is a price-cutter.
    How can the Committee pass a Clause, not on the assurance that the Minister will look at it and put a mischief right, but in the knowledge that he will repeat the mischief and if we give him a little time he will tighten the Clause and make clear that this extraordinary monstrosity will continue?
    7.15 p.m.
    Mr. du Cann: The hon. Member appreciates that the point which he is making relates to Clause 4. I appreciate the connection between Clauses 4 and 2 and, as the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) has said, we have not yet reached Clause 4. On the other hand, the hon. Member talks about the monstrous position in which the dealer is put. Would he not agree that the first thing that has to happen in an action of this sort is that either the dealer or the Crown has to prove that supplies have been withheld? That is the first burden. The supplier would be required to show that supplies were not withheld simply on the ground of price-cutting, which is very different from the suggestion, which I think the hon. Member is making, that the burden on the supplier is intolerable.
    Mr. H. Lever: The whole debate has been heard by the Committee and the hon. Gentleman omits to mention that the Government provides in the Bill a definition of what amounts to withholding supplies and that a supplier can be held to be guilty of withholding supplies even if he has actually supplied the goods. This is part of the meaning of the Clause.
    540
    I should like to make one comment to hon. Members, and particularly my hon. Friends who feel that somehow or other the purpose of the Bill is frustrated if we do not legislate quite uniquely this novelty that the supplier must grant credit to all and sundry against his will, provided that he supplies some people. Let us suppose that we want to abolish discrimination against coloured people in public houses. I can well understand hon. Members, of whom I would be one, legislating that a publican must supply beer to a man whether he is coloured black, white or yellow. But I cannot see any hope of our enacting that he should supply the beer, whether he likes it or not, and give the man credit, whether he likes it or not, on the ground that he gives other people credit and that his failure to do this would be contrary to the purposes of the Bill.
    The whole thing is preposterous nonsense. It is such an ill-considered novelty that I hope that the Committee will be rough, brutal and to the point when we come to vote on it.
    Mr. R. H. Turton: I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever) that my hon. Friend the Minister of State has not given a concession. He has definitely given a concession which goes some way, but in my view not sufficiently near to what the Amendment purports to do. I gather that my hon. Friend proposes to insert at a later stage of the Bill a provision which will make clear that, if the goods are withheld on the ground merely that the dealer is not credit-worthy, that will take the supplier out of the mischief of the Clause. But it may well be that the reason for withholding the goods is a deduction from the price-cutting method of the dealer that he is not credit-worthy. Probably the Amendment is not entirely satisfactory as drafted, but this is a point which, it seems to me, ought to be met.
    Some older hon. Members will recollect that before the war there was a chocolate price-cutting war. Many small dealers were cutting the price of chocolate and then, about three months later, going bankrupt. This was common throughout the country, and it was greatly to the detriment of the chocolate trade, because eventually it meant that prices went up. This is the kind of situation in

    541
    which a manufacturer will say, "I shall not sell to dealers X, Y, Z, who are price-cutting people and who are breaking the chocolate trade". But the reasons for saying it would be, first, that they were not credit-worthy and, secondly, that their methods of price cutting were such as to lead to that conclusion.
    I hope that in the interval between now and the Report stage my hon. Friend will try to make the Clause, which is not entirely satisfactory, deal with such a position as that. I gather that he is not completely satisfied with Clause 4 and that he will be receptive to the ideas which we put forward when we reach that Clause.
    Mr. Graham Page: If I had to weigh the evils of the supplier using the refusal of credit for the ulterior motive of refusing supplies to an under-cutter against the evil of depriving the trader of his right to decide whether to sell his goods on cash, I should plump for the former evil.
    My hon. Friend said, in effect, that we must wait for Clause 4 and do something about it then. I cannot be put off like that. I am presented with the case in which the price-cutter goes to the supplier and says, "I am a price-cutter and I want goods on credit because you have been supplying another dealer on credit". Surely there are two grounds. The supplier says, "The fact that this man is an under-cutter, of course, affects my mind. I cannot honestly say that it does not. But the main point is that I want cash for the goods from a man like that".
    Clause 4(4) refers to the ground for refusing supplies. My hon. Friend said that he might consider a provision which said that it shall not be unlawful withholding if it is merely on the grounds of credit. But if there are these two factors, even though credit may be the major factor, a man may say, "Under-cutting affected my mind". He then comes under Clause 4(4) and has to go to the Court and possibly has to defend a claim for demages by the under-cutter who has been unable to obtain his goods.
    I want a much better assurance from my hon. Friend than he has given us so far. I am glad to see my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General
    542
    on the Front Bench, because he will appreciate the legal points involved. I do not want to go over the arguments all over again, but it is a very serious matter to set out in the Bill that there will be occasions on which a man cannot freely decide whether he shall require cash for his goods and that he can decide it only by going to his solicitor, who will obtain counsel's opinion, and then fighting it out in the Court. This is not what we should impose on people by the Bill, and before I ask the Committee to give me leave to do anything I hope that my hon. Friend will rise again and give us a far better assurance.
    Mr. Cole: My hon. Friend the Minister of State is always so courteous that it is difficult to criticise him, but I understand the position to be this: there may be four or five reasons, all of them good, including the possibility of price cutting or the fact of past price cutting, for which a supplier does not supply goods to a dealer, and in that event either the dealer or the Crown can take him into the Queen's Bench Division and start an action. It was not clear to me that the Crown has the onus to prove that withholding—not unlawful withholding but withholding of goods—has taken place between the supplier and the dealer.
    Mr. Graham Page: The Crown does not come into this. There are no criminal proceedings. These are civil proceedings by the person who says that he has been injured by the goods being withheld.
    The Attorney-General (Sir John Hobson): Clause 4 provides that either the dealer or the Crown can bring proceedings. There may be a situation in which the Crown has decided to bring proceedings when the individual dealer is a person who could not possibly face proceedings of this nature.
    Mr. Cole: I see that I am in good company in my remarks. But I am not so much worried about that as about the supplier finding himself in the Queen's Bench Division facing a charge. Whoever has initiated the prosecution must prove that there has been withholding of supplies, which I imagine would not be too difficult. I want the Committee to use its imagination and to imagine that the court has accepted this

    543
    fact: not simply that there has been no delivery or that deliveries have been banned or that there has been slackness, but that there has been a deliberate action of withholding delivery. That must be a problem for the court.
    There may be four or five different reasons why the dealer has withheld the supplies. Let us be frank: one reason may be that the goods have been cut in price in the past or that there is good reason to believe that they will be cut in selling price by the dealer in future. There may be other reasons, not only credit-worthiness but the number of outlets in the town and the fact that it is an area in which the supplier prefers not to sell his goods as it may be unsuitable. There may be a hundred and one reasons, including that in the Amendment.
    The onus of proof is on the supplier to prove his motive, and it is almost the most difficult thing in the world to prove in any court the motive that someone had. Someone said in my company the other day, "Some of the greatest errors are committed with the best of intentions." This may well be true in this case. First, there is the withholding of supplies, and then the Crown has as one of its causes—otherwise it would not have brought the case—the fact that the dealer has been selling goods below price or attempting to do so and that this is the reason why the supplier will not supply him.
    The supplier must first eliminate the charge on the basis of cut prices. Having proved that that was not the motive for his action, he must prove that one or two of half-a-dozen reasons was the motive for his action. I do not know who will decide—either the dealer or the Crown—whether it is worth while bringing a case. But let us assume that the Crown or the dealer has proved that there has been a physical withholding—or, in deference to the hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever), a theoretical withholding—of supplies within the confines of the Act. When all that has been finished and there is an admission on both sides that the dealer has been dealing in cut-price goods, or was about to do so, the supplier must prove to the satisfaction of
    544
    the Court that his action was taken for other motives.
    This is an impossible situation. I am not a lawyer, but I can see that it would be a paradise for lawyers arguing on both sides. I do not know whether the Amendment would go far enough, but it might at least help a little. The very fact that we have gone so far as to invite the attention of the judges of the Queen's Bench Division to other causes seems to be a good reason for adding as many reasons as we can for their consideration.
    7.30 p.m.
    Mr. du Cann: First, I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) for what he said. I think that the point he had in mind would be covered, but we will certainly look at it specifically.
    Secondly, I do not want to "pull the leg" of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) too hard, particularly as our constituencies are neighbouring. The point he raised about exports really concerned the last Amendment. I considered it then, but it did not seem to me to be fully relevant, even on that Amendment. I appreciate that my hon. Friend raised a serious point. I do not believe that the point is of particular relevance to this matter. I think the anxieties he expressed are largely unfounded.
    Thirdly, I have been asked to go a little further. I have given a very clear undertaking, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has now authorised me to say that, as we come to have our discussion on Clause 4, which we all agree has a bearing on the matter, we shall certainly consider what has been said now and what is said on Clause 4 when considering the question of this Clause and the decisions that we have come to about it.
    I hope that is clear. I hope, also, that it takes account of the points which have been made and which we recognise are important, particularly in the minds of my hon. Friends.
    Mr. Graham Page: My hon. Friend the Minister of State has, to put it vulgarly, got me scared now, because I know that, if I called a Division now, I could probably defeat the Government.

    545
    This has been made clear by what has been said by my hon. Friends and by the support the Amendment has received from hon. Members opposite. I do not want to do that. It is the last thing I want to do, but my hon. Friend is driving me to put the Amendment to a Division.
    Hardly a speaker has opposed the Amendment. Those who have not supported it wholeheartedly have finished by saying that they support it with qualifications. I am not one of those who are modest about drafting. I think that the Amendment says what I intended it to say. I think that it is a good one. It may need provisos. Those can go in later. We do not know how hurried we shall be over later stages. If I get this into the Bill now, someone else can put the provisos in later. If I do not get this in now, I do not know whether I shall be steam-rollered later.
    I am placed in the most difficult position, as practically the whole Committee has supported the Amendment and I believe would support it on a Division. Again, I press my hon. Friend the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to see the points which have been made during the debate and give us a better assurance than we have been given so far.
    Mr. Cole: Would it help my hon. Friend—if it does not, he will not do it—[Laughter.] I am trying to be fair; I can do no more. Will my hon. Friend ask my right hon. Friend to give an undertaking that he will consider redrafting the Clause?
    Sir D. Glover: My right hon. Friend knows that I am broadly in favour of the abolition of resale price maintenance and that I have gone out of my way to support him on numerous occasions. I have not heard the whole debate but I am not satisfied with the assurances given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. If we cannot be given better assurances, I shall be in great difficulty if the Amendment is pressed to a Division.
    It appears clear from listening to all the lawyers who have spoken that, as the Clause is drafted, it will be a lawyers' paradise. If that happens, the Bill will
    546
    fail in its purpose. Any manufacturer or supplier has an enormous responsibility to safeguard his shareholders' money. The only person who can make a decision about credit-worthiness is the manufacturer or supplier. There should not be overriding conditions weighting his judgment.
    I know of cases in my practical experience when we have restricted credit to a firm which may have been paying our accounts promptly when we have received information that others were not receiving quick settlements of their accounts. As the Clause is drafted, I would have no right to restrict credit if my account was being paid promptly, despite the fact that I was receiving information which made me very dubious indeed about the customer's creditworthiness.
    I do not think that anything said by my right hon. and hon. Friends so far has removed the fear that many of us have about what will happen if the Clause as drafted goes on to the Statute Book. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give an assurance to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), who moved the Amendment with great ability, that the spirit of the Amendment, if not its exact words, will be incorporated in the Bill before it leaves this place.
    The Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Edward Heath): I must apologise to the Committee for the fact that I have not been able to hear the whole of the debate, but I am aware of the context of the Amendment. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has given an undertaking to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). I do not wish to go into the merits of the argument on the Amendment. Broadly speaking, we believed that the point raised by my hon. Friend was satisfactorily covered by the Bill. My hon. Friend and some hon. Members opposite do not believe this to be the case.
    My hon. Friend the Minister of State has given a firm undertaking that we will, therefore, look at the matter again. This is a normal thing during a Committee stage. I am quite prepared, as always, to say that we will study every

    547
    word which has been said in the debate. We will then have the opportunity of taking action upon it, because our objective is the same. As I understand it, my hon. Friend is not asking that the supplier should have the right to withhold supplies purely because the dealer is a price cutter. That is what we are concerned with.
    My hon. Friend is concerned with other aspects of that—the difficulties which arise because the supplier wants to withhold supplies on other grounds, including, as I understand it, the ground that the man might not be creditworthy because he was cutting prices. He has given that specific example.
    The firm undertaking I am giving to the Committee is that we are now quite prepared to look at the whole of this matter again. I believe that that is a reasonable thing for my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby to have asked and a reasonable thing for me, as Minister in charge of the Bill, to say. We have listened with great care and attention to all the arguments put forward. I hope that we can agree that we are honourable people who want to deal with this problem satisfactorily.
    Mr. Graham Page: I feel that we are now making some progress. If my right hon. Friend will say that in looking at the matter again he will look at the question of putting this in Clause 2, I am sure that the fears of many hon. Members will be allayed. The Minister of State referred to our having to wait until we got to Clause 4. If my right hon. Friend will think about this in the context of revising Clause 2, I think that that would satisfy my hon. Friends and me.
    Mr. Heath: The Minister of State dealt with this matter and pointed out that there were obviously separate problems concerning Clause 4 which hon. Members would want to discuss, because this deals with the question of the onus of proof, how an action is to be brought and so on. On this matter of Clause 2, my hon. Friend has given an undertaking on my behalf—an honourable undertaking—that we will consider every word that has been said and that we will look at the matter from this point of view because our objectives are
    548
    the same. I do not think that, in Committee, I can be asked to give a firmer or clearer undertaking.
    Mr. Jay: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what he is undertaking? Is he undertaking to amend the Bill in the sense that the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) is asking?
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Mr. Ronald Bell: I apologise for speaking again, but a few words might be helpful in the interest of clarity. My right hon. Friend referred to a clear undertaking which, I admit, seemed to be clear to me. However, he also referred to an undertaking which had been given by the Minister of State. The undertaking we were given until the point when my right hon. Friend rose was simply that everything that had been said would be carefully borne in mind when we came to Clause 4. That was the only undertaking we had been given, and I want that to be clear.
    We felt that there were great difficulties about that, because if when we came to Clause 4, the Government were not convinced of the merits of our arguments, we could not go back to Clause 2. However, if my right hon. Friend is now giving an undertaking that we were not given before—and that everything which has been said this afternoon will be considered in relation to Clause 2 as well—then that is a different matter and I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) would feel differently about the issue. We have not had that undertaking and unless my right hon. Friend is meaning to give it I fear that things will be made very difficult.
    Mr. Heath: This is an Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) to Clause 2 and what I said in my statement was that we will carefully study that Clause and his Amendment. If we are, as I believe we are, trying to reach the same objective, then if we have not already done that in the Bill as it is drafted I hope that we will be able to do it. That is a clear undertaking which I am giving.
    Mr. Hirst: We are certainly making some progress now, although we must have the matter clear. I appreciate that

    549
    my right hon. Friend is trying to be helpful and I agree that he has said that he will consider this matter, I hope in relation to both Clauses 2 and 4. I want to know whether my right hon. Friend accepts the principles which have been enunciated by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), because that is at the heart of the matter. We want to be assured that in considering the subject generally my right hon. Friend has the principles in mind.
    7.45 p.m.
    Mr. Heath: My hon. Friend is not being as fair as he usually is. I have said that we will take into account the whole of the situation described by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby. I do not believe that it is reasonable, in Committee, to say that in taking into consideration everything that has been said in the debate I am, therefore, automatically committing myself to a particular course of action. It is not fair to ask, in Committee, that I should do that.
    I am entitled to take everything stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby into account. I believe, from my previous study of the Amendment and of the Bill, that we are trying to reach the same objective. If now my hon. Friends have shown that we have not reached that same objective, then there is very good reason for amending Clause 2—and I must now be given the opportunity to consider the matter and deal with it at another stage of the Bill, because that is what the other stages are for.
    Mr. Paget: What is the objective? As I understand it, the objective of the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) is simply that suppliers should not be compelled to grant credit unless they want to; whatever their reasons for demanding cash they should be entitled to demand it unconditionally. That being the objective of the hon. Member for Crosby, is it the objective of the right hon. Gentleman?
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Mr. Hirst: I am trying to be fair. I can assure my right hon. Friend that whenever I have spoken on this subject I have been absolutely fair. My right hon. Friend considers that we have a common objective, but have we? I do
    550
    not think that we have. I do not wish to be unfair but, honestly, we would not have tabled the Amendment and this whole debate, for all these hours, would not have taken place and the principles of the matter would not have been discussed at such length if we had a common objective.
    I am sorry, and I say this with regret, but it appears that a large number of hon. Members feel that this common objective does not exist; or should I say that the Government do not appear to have the common objective of a large number of hon. Members? I appreciate that we are in Committee. I know all about Committee stage work and I am aware of our procedures, but my right hon. Friend surely accents that it is normal in Committee, on Finance Bills and other Measures, for Ministers to say that they accept the principle of the point being raised and will find words to put it into effect. If that is not forthcoming I am sorry to say that my right hon. Friend must see that we have a suspicion that our common objective is not there.
    Mr. MacDermot: I must press the right hon. Gentleman to make exactly clear just what is this common objective. He himself said that he has not been present throughout the debate. He appears—at least, the Minister of State appeared—to assume that if a supplier withholds supplies there must be only one motive activating him in that decision. The Bill appears to be drafted with that assumption in mind because it talks about a supplier withholding supplies in that way.
    The basis of the argument adduced in support of the Amendment is that one will frequently get a situation where a supplier is acting from mixed motives. If he is honest he will say that one of his motives is that the dealer is likely to be engaged in price cutting. Another is that he suspects the credit-worthiness of the dealer. The right hon. Gentleman and the Government must face up to this situation. What is their intention in this situation? Is it that the supplier shall be entitled to say, "Because one of my motives is genuinely that I suspect this man's credit-worthiness, I am insisting on cash?" Will a supplier be allowed to say that? If not, what is the common objective?
    Mr. Heath: Perhaps I might try again to help the Committee, I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) if he wished to create a position in which a supplier could withhold goods from a dealer solely on the ground that he was selling below the recommended price, to which my hon. Friend replied, "No." That was not the situation he wished to create and, therefore, we have a common objective. I said, as I understood it, that the discussion had been about the circumstances in which other factors arose, including that he might wish to take into account the fact that the man had been selling below the recommended price as a factor in deciding his credit-worthiness.
    I said that our objective was the same. We also wish to meet that situation. I am advised on this matter that, legally, the position is that if there are other reasons, then that is sufficient, because there are other reasons by which the man is making his decision. He is doing it on that basis and I believe, therefore, that we have the same objective in trying to get the Clause clear.
    It has been suggested that in Committee one must always accept the principle involved. With respect, that is not the case. On innumerable occasions Ministers, in Committee, say that they will thoroughly examine everything that has been said and will if they can, assist the Committee in reaching a proper solution. The Minister in charge of a Bill is entitled to say that, and that is the undertaking I have given.
    Mr. Hirst: I did not mean "always" when I referred to the acceptance of principles in Committee stages, but it is not unusual or exceptional for a Minister to accept the principle and then try to find words to put it into practice.
    Mr. Heath: I have tried to show the objectives we are trying to reach in the Bill and to give my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby the clearest and firmest undertaking. I will study everything he has said and try to reach the objective we have outlined. That is the sort of undertaking, as Minister in charge of the Bill, I can and should give.
    Mr. H. Lever: We have to get this clear. The objective that the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) was
    552
    to see that manufacturers and suppliers had the unconditional and unqualified right not to give credit on the sale of their goods. That was what the debate was about. Are we to understand that the Secretary of State is to consider sympathetically restoring to the suppliers the unconditional right to withhold credit on any grounds that they like, including that of price cutting? If he is not giving that undertaking, then he is giving no undertaking at all.
    Mr. Cole: I am prepared to accept my right hon. Friend's undertaking. I believe that he is seized of the point made not only by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), but of a variety of other cases which ought to be within the right of the manufacturer, even if the question of price cutting does not exist at all. I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend will take consideration of that. What was frightening me and, I believe, frightening many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee was that whatever is in Clause 2, either now or on Report, it will be viable once it is passed.
    Clause 4 has a bearing on it, because it will look like a contradiction of what is laid down in Clause 2. That is what was worrying us. If we get Clause 2 right, I do not think that there will be much to worry about on Clause 4.
    Sir Stephen McAdden: I am sure that my hon. Friends have been much encouraged by the attitude of my right hon. Friend, and that we appreciate the way he has proceeded on this issue. We also appreciate the very ready way in which he has given a commitment that he will study this matter most carefully. I only hope that, after due consideration, if he finds it necessary to amend Clause 2, he will bear very clearly in mind that there are Members on both sides of the Committee who will take the strongest possible exception to any legislation being enacted which laid it down that the manufacturer had to allow credit to people even if he did not think that they were credit-worthy. As long as my right hon. Friend is considering legislation in that form, he will satisfy his hon. Friends on this side of the Committee.
    Mr. Winterbottom: In view of the fact that in this Clause equality between

    553
    retailers and wholesalers on conditions of credit is already provided for, may I point out to the Minister that the only issue he has to decide is the simple principle that everybody accepts in this country—the right of anyone to refuse to give credit? That is a principle that ought never to have been introduced into the question of resale price maintenance. It is confusing the issue and making it much more difficult not only for wholesalers and retailers, but, seemingly, also for hon. Members.
    I want the Minister to face that simple issue and give us the assurance here and now that he will give an undertaking that in no way, shape or form will he, through the Bill, interfere with the inalienable right of a person to refuse to give credit.
    Mr. William Shepherd: Under the law, as I understand it, I, as a supplier of goods, can refuse to supply anybody even on the ground that I do not like the look of his face. I imagine that, apart from the restrictions imposed upon me by the Bill, I shall be able to continue to refuse to
    supply goods to Mr. Jones because I do not like the look of his face.
    I am very anxious that my right hon. Friend should not widen the provisions of the Bill so that evasion becomes possible. I have some reservations about the Bill in general terms, but I am more concerned that we do not launch ourselves once more into anti-monopoly legislation which becomes abortive. Starting with the Act introduced by the Labour Government in 1948, we have had a string of Measures which have not been properly effective. I hope that my right hon. Friend, in considering all aspects of the question, will bear in mind the absolute necessity of not providing loopholes whereby people can evade the purpose of Parliament.
    Mr. Graham Page: I accept entirely my right hon. Friend's statement that he believes that our objectives are the same. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Hon. Members: No.
    Question put, That those words be there inserted:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 164, Noes 244.

    Division No. 54.]

    AYES

    [7.57 p.m.

    Ainsley, William

    Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

    Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

    Allen, Soholefield (Crewe)

    Evans, Albert

    Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

    Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)

    Finch, Harold

    Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

    Barnett, Guy

    Fitch, Alan

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Bence, Cyril

    Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

    Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

    Benn, Anthony Wedgwood

    Forman, J. C.

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Benson, Sir George

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Lawson, George

    Blackburn, F.

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Blyton, William

    George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Ginsburg, David

    Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

    Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

    Bowles, Frank

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Lipton, Marcus

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Loughlin, Charles

    Bradley, Tom

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Lubbock, Eric

    Bray, Dr. Jeremy

    Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

    McBride, N.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

    MacDermot, Niall

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

    McLeavy, Frank

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Harper, Joseph

    MacPherson, Malcolm

    Carmichael, Neil

    Hart, Mrs. Judith

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

    Castle, Mrs. Barbara

    Hayman, F. H.

    Manuel, Archie

    Chapman, Donald

    Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)

    Mapp, Charles

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Herbison, Miss Margaret

    Mellish, R. J.

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Hill, J. (Midlothian)

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Crosland, Anthony

    Hilton, A. V.

    Millan, Bruce

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    Holman, Percy

    Milne, Edward

    Cullen, Mrs. Allce

    Holt, Arthur

    Monslow, Walter

    Darling, George

    Houghton, Douglas

    Morris, Charles (Openshaw)

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)

    Moyle, Arthur

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Howie, W.

    Mulley, Frederick

    Deer, George

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Neal, Harold

    Dempsey, James

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Diamond, John

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Dodds, Norman

    Hunter, A. E.

    O'Malley, B. K.

    Doig, Peter

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Oram, A. E.

    Driberg, Tom

    Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

    Oswald, Thomas

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

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Padley, W. E.

    Paget, R. T.

    Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

    Silkin, John

    Tomney, Frank

    Parker, John

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Wade, Donald

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Skeffington, Arthur

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Peart, Frederick

    Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

    Warbey, William

    Pentland, Norman

    Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

    Weitzman, David

    Prentice, R. E.

    Small, William

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    White, Mrs. Eirene

    Probert, Arthur

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Whitlock, William

    Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Wigg, George

    Randall, Harry

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Rankin, John

    Steele, Thomas

    Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

    Redhead, E. C.

    Stones, William

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

    Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

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

    Winterbottom, R. E.

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Swain, Thomas

    Woof, Robert

    Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)

    Swingler, Stephen

    Wyatt, Woodrow

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

    Symonds, J. B.

    Ross, William

    Taverne, D.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Royle, Charles (Salford, West)

    Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

    Mr. Grey and Mr. Ifor Davies.

    NOES

    Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian

    Emery, Peter

    Kitson, Timothy

    Arbuthnot, Sir John

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    Ashton, Sir Hubert

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Leather, Sir Edwin

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)

    Farr, John

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Barber, Rt. Hon. Anthony

    Fell, Anthony

    Linstead, Sir Hugh

    Barlow, Sir John

    Finlay, Graeme

    Litchfield, Capt. John

    Batsford, Brian

    Fisher, Nigel

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald

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

    Longbottom, Charles

    Biffen, John

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Freeth, Denzil

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

    Bingham, R. M.

    Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Gammans, Lady

    McAdden, Sir Stephen

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Gardner, Edward

    MacArthur, Ian

    Bossom, Hon. Clive

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)

    McLaren, Martin

    Bourne-Arton, A.

    Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute & N. Ayrs)

    Box, Donald

    Glover, Sir Douglas

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

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

    Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

    McMaster, Stanley R.

    Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Godber, Rt. Hon. J. B.

    Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

    Braine, Bernard

    Goodhart, Philip

    Maitland, Sir John

    Brewis, John

    Gower, Raymond

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Grant-Ferris, R.

    Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest

    Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

    Green, Alan

    Marshall, Sir Douglas

    Bryan, Paul

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Marten, Neil

    Buck, Antony

    Gurden, Harold

    Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

    Bullard, Denys

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

    Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

    Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

    Maude, Angus (Stratford-on-Avon)

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

    Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Campbell, Gordon

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Mawby, Ray

    Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert (Mitcham)

    Harvie Anderson, Miss

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

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Hastings, Stephen

    Mills, Stratton

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Hay, John

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Chataway, Christopher

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Chichester-Clark, B.

    Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward

    Morgan, William

    Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

    Hiley, Joseph

    Neave, Alrey

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

    Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

    Cole, Norman

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

    Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael

    Cooke, Robert

    Hobson, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

    Cooper, A. E.

    Hocking, Philip N.

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

    Hogg, Rt. Hon. Quintin

    Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Hendon, North)

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Holland, Philip

    Osborn, John (Hallam)

    Corfield, F. V.

    Hopkins, Alan

    Page, John (Harrow, West)

    Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

    Hornby, R. P.

    Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

    Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

    Partridge, E.

    Crawley, Aidan

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

    Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

    Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

    Peel, John

    Curran, Charles

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    Percival, Ian

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Hulbert, Sir Norman

    Peyton, John

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

    Dance, James

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Pike, Miss Mervyn

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Pitman, Sir James

    Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.

    Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

    Pitt, Dame Edith

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

    Pounder, Rafton

    Doughty, Charles

    Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith

    Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

    Douglas-Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Alec

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Drayson, G. B.

    Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

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

    du Cann, Edward

    Kerby, Capt. Henry

    Prior, J. M. L.

    Duncan, Sir James

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

    Eden, Sir John

    Kimball, Marcus

    Proudfoot, Wilfred

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Kirk, Peter

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

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

    556

    557

    Ramsden, Rt. Hon. James

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. Sir Peter

    Speir, Rupert

    Vickers, Miss Joan

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

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

    Stoddard-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

    Walder, David

    Renton, Rt. Hon. David

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Walker, Peter

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

    Rippon, Rt. Hon. Geoffrey

    Tapsell, Peter

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

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

    Webster, David

    Roots, William

    Temple, John M.

    Whitelaw, William

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

    Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

    Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan

    Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Sharples, Richard

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Wolrige Gordon, Patrick

    Shaw, M.

    Tilney, John (Wavertree)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

    Shepherd, William

    Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Woodhouse, C. M.

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Turner, Colin

    Worsley, Marcus

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

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Mr. Hugh Rees and Mr. More.

    Mr. Hirst: I beg to move Amendment No. 26, in page 3, line 20, at the end to insert:
    (4) For the purposes of the foregoing subsection a dealer shall be deemed not to be carrying on business in similar circumstances to other dealers in relation to any goods, if the supplier can require the dealer to purchase such goods from the supplier or his nominee.
    This Amendment deals with a situation very different from that which we have just been discussing. I think that it will be a little easier to deal with and will, I trust, engender rather less heat and allow people to recover a little. The Amendment raises a quite separate issue. I shall be reasonably happy, because it is a rather difficult point, if the Minister who is to reply will, at least, agree to have some discussion with me between now and Report if he finds that the Amendment is not acceptable at present.
    It is a separate issue, and, as I see it, the Amendment does not invalidate the principles of the Bill. As I understand it—I suppose that I do understand a bit about it by now—this Resale Prices Bill is put forward with the intention that there should be action to ensure that, as far as is conceivably possible, apart from unfair practices, there will be free or substantially more competition. This is the basis of what we have been discussing. It is laid down perfectly clearly in the Explanatory Memorandum.
    In the lawyers' battle we have had for the past two hours, some of us may have forgotten what the actual meaning is. I have enjoyed the battle, of course; these things are always instructive. However, I am not a lawyer. I am a simple soul who is now bringing forward a point which affects quite a number of people who have special forms of trading.
    558
    We are not trying in any way to circumvent the Bill or its objects, but it has seemed for a long time that there are various advantages in arranging one's business in different ways. There are several trades concerned here.
    I have been very frank with hon. Members at all times—I think that both sides of the Committee will agree with that—in indicating any interests which I may have in the subject under discussion. I do not have very great interests, but I should like to make it clear that I have a modest interest in some items concerning resale price maintenance. Some of the firms with which I am connected, although in a very non-executive capacity, have an interest in this matter, and I wish to make, that clear.
    There is a reasonable purpose behind the Amendment. People may provide certain services or capital for development or other facilities and, therefore, by reason of that their trade is not quite similar—in other words, they are not trading in entirely similar circumstances. I see the validity—and whether I like it or not has not very much to do with it—of the phrases which have been used about trading in similar circumstances and provisions, as under Clause 2, for other measures for maintaining resale prices. People who are not carrying on business in similar circumstances, while in no way desiring to do anything which is irregular or which is against the spirit of the Bill, could be carrying on a practice which might be unlawful, because in its wisdom the Board of Trade has not, perhaps, had time to consider every peculiarity of every form of trading.
    I do not think the Amendment needs much explanation. Anyone can understand its wording without much trouble.

    559
    Therefore, I do not want to labour the point. I will explain it at greater length if necessary, but I think that my hon. Friend the Minister of State is seized of the point and of the unusual situation that certain traders are in. They are not trying to do anything irregular. For many years they have found it convenient to trade in such a way that certain advantages are given on one side in return for advantages created on the other side. The public has been the gainer in many ways by reason of this sort of relationship. No one desires to do anything which is against the spirit of the Bill.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The Amendment does not commend itself to me. I can see that there may be circumstances such as those to which my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) alluded in which it might serve a useful function. But there is certainly one function which it could perform and with which I have very little sympathy. It would enable breweries, for instance, to charge their tenants in tied houses higher prices for liquor supplied to them than they charge to other retailers—for instance, those in free houses or off-licence premises. The balance of advantage as between the owners of public houses and the tenants of public houses should be struck in a different way from making the tenant, who has many statutory conditions to meet and very long hours to work, pay more for the liquor which he cannot buy anywhere else except from the owner of the public house unless the brewery gives him permission to do so.
    We should be careful to examine the implications of this and to make sure that they are implications with which we want to live. I am not sure that they are implications with which I want to live. The off-licence merely has to suit its own commercial advantage. People in off-licences have no obligation to be open for a certain number of hours a day, although there is a limit to the number of hours that they can be open. The free house—that is, a house which is not owned by a brewery—can purchase its liquor where it is most advantageous, which the tenant of a public house cannot do.
    560
    8.15 p.m.
    There is an increasing tendency in the licensed trade, which I deplore, even though economic circumstances may tend to advance it, for the individual landlord to be replaced by a manager. There is often a great loss of atmosphere when this happens. One way to squeeze tenants out and to replace them with managers is to make the economic conditions under which they operate quite intolerable. One way of doing that is to make the tenant pay an unreasonable additional amount for his supplies than his competitors so that he cannot meet his rent and provide himself with a reasonable living, so that he throws in his hand and is replaced by a manager.
    I do not suggest that this is a universal trend, but it is, unfortunately, a practice which there is reason to suppose exists.
    Mr. R. J. Mellish: Is it not a fact that if a tenant works extremely hard and pushes up the sales in his public house, instead of getting a letter from the brewers saying, "Well done, faithful servant", he gets his rent increased?
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: That may be the case, but I have not come across examples of it.
    Mr. Mellish: It happens in London all the time.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I have come across the opposite case, namely, of tenants giving up because they are not able to conduct the business profitably and thus to give the service which they should give to the public.
    Because I think that the Amendment would tend to accelerate that process rather than to discourage it, I could not give it my support. I recognise, however, that there might be many other trades in which considerations of this kind could legitimately be encompassed. For instance, if a manufacturer supplies equipment to test and service the machines which he makes, I suppose that it might be reasonable that a person, when buying in supplies, should pay a bit more. It would be much more reasonable to say that if the retailer wanted facilities provided by the manufacturer he should pay directly rather than in a peculiar side way. This would seem to be more logical.
    Mr. J. Hynd: I have no prejudice one way or another on this Amendment. I want to ask one or two questions for clarification and to ask the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) whether there is not another side to the coin.
    I accept the abuses of the tied house system to which he referred and recognise that they exist, but are there not many examples, not only in the licensing trade but concerning petrol stations and things of that kind, where this system permits of people being able to run these stations and to make a profit out of them, or out of the pub, as the case may be, who would not be able to do so, not having the capital, but this being provided by the parent concern on conditions which would necessarily provide for the benefit thus given?
    As to the terms of the Amendment, I am in the same difficulty as on the previous one, which achieved nothing. As the mover or seconder of that Amendment admitted, a further Amendment was necessary to achieve what was desired. This Amendment seems to me to be completely redundant.
    Subsection (3,a) of the Clause refers to people
    "carrying on business in similar circumstances".
    If the circumstances were so dissimilar as in the case of tied public houses, petrol stations or other instances, I should think that the situation would be covered by subsection (3,b). That is my interpretation. If that is not the case, I should like to have the difference explained and to know whether there is any purpose in the Amendment.
    Mr. du Cann: I was interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) said in moving the Amendment. If its wording is to indicate one relevant factor which would be ground for saying that one dealer was not carrying on business in similar circumstances to another, the Amendment is not strictly necessary. Clearly, any special relationship between a dealer and a supplier would be a good reason for saying that a dealer was not carrying on business in similar circumstances to other dealers. The Amendment, however, goes a good deal beyond that, as my hon. Friend will recognise, and, therefore, for that reason, I cannot accept it.
    562
    My hon. Friend, who is a very old friend of mine in many ways, always tries to be frank with the House of Commons. Perhaps I can try to be frank with him and say that whether he and I disagree, as we obviously do substantially on certain occasions, plainly we do not disagree in the context of this matter.
    As to the Amendment, my hon. Friend said that it was not his intention in any way to invalidate the principles of the Bill, and I accept that from him at once. In those circumstances, and having regard to what I have said, if my hon. Friend would be good enough to withdraw the Amendment, which simply cannot be accepted—the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd) was quite right about that—I shall be ready to agree to discuss it with him in the context of the discussion that we have had today, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) has also joined. I note what he, too, has said.
    Mr. Hirst: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me what I asked. I will be grateful to have those conversations with him, because this is a matter which needs careful study. With that assurance, I should like to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Mr. W. Wells: I should like to add a word before the Amendment is withdrawn. It was by no means as clear in its wording as the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) said. It is sometimes said that these proceedings are a lawyer's paradise. From the point of view of one lawyer at least, they are purgatory.
    Mr. Cyril Bence: It is a lawyer's jungle.
    Mr. Wells: I accept that, too.
    What is clear from this debate, and what I suspected before it began, was that whether or not the form of words was clear in itself, the types of transaction to which the Amendment is intended to apply are far from clear. Nor did the hon. Member for Shipley make clear to the Committee how his Amendment would affect the types of transaction which he did not describe.

    563
    It is clear, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd) said, that the Amendment relates to many transactions right outside the scope of the licensed trade, and my hon. Friend gave a number of examples. During the course of the Bill, there have been many conversations, upstairs, downstairs and nearly everywhere except on the Floor of the House of Commons. My eyes are not impious to peer behind the curtains which hide the transactions of the party opposite—
    Mr. Hirst: The Amendment relates to a wide form of trading. I have not tried to bring the matter down to a detailed argument. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) mentioned one industry which is affected. The hon. and learned Member for Walsall, North (Mr. W. Wells) realises, I trust, that the field is a wide one and that the circumstances in each case are somewhat dissimilar, but that all of them would, possibly, be considered to be affected by the term "similar circumstances".
    Mr. Wells: My difficulty is to understand what the commercial purpose behind the hon. Member's Amendment might be. Therefore, my hope is that if an Amendment to this effect is put down at a later stage of the Bill—although I hope that it will not be—there will be a full explanation of the intended purport of these transactions and that the House, as it will then be, will be informed fully of the scope and commercial purpose of what the hon. Member for Shipley is seeking to achieve. We on this side will not oppose the withdrawal of the Amendment and are inclined to hope that it will disappear once and for all.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: When the Minister replied, he suggested to his hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) and, I think, to his hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) that he would be prepared to discuss the matter with them. I should like to make a suggestion. Why cannot the Minister discuss it with my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) and with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. W. Wells)? If there is an
    564
    interest in the matter and if any of my hon. Friends wants to be sure that the Amendment is a good one, before anything is done for the Report stage the Minister could do no better than discuss the matter with the legal brains on this side of the Committee—they are very much lacking on his own side—and then we might make progress.
    Mr. du Cann: I am obliged to the hon. Member for giving way. All I was going to say was that it is generally known and understood, I think, that the Minister is always ready to see hon. Members who wish to put points to him. Certainly, I shall be very happy to accept the hon. Member's suggestion and see him any time.
    Mr. Lewis: I was only trying to help the Minister, because there is a lack of legal knowledge on that side of the Committee, whereas on this side we have an abundance of it. I thought that I would help the Government with the suggestion that they should come to see some of my legal hon. Friends to get out of some of their difficulties.
    8.30 p.m.
    Mr. Charles Loughlin: It is the common practice in Committee, when an Amendment has been submitted and the Minister has a degree of sympathy with it, for the Minister to agree to discuss it generally with the Member on the Opposition side of the Committee responsible for it; and he is usually the one who is leading for the Opposition. But when an Amendment comes before the Committee then it becomes the Committee's property, if my contention is right, and not the property of the Member who moved it. It is reasonable for the Committee to give its blessing—I nearly said its permission, but that is, perhaps, too strong a word—to discussions, if the Committee knows precisely what the Amendment seeks to do.
    The hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) said that he is always straight with the Committee, always explains himself in clear language so that we know what he means. I will accept that, but in putting forward this Amendment he has, if I may respectfully suggest it to him, fallen a little short of his practice, because he said afterwards—he subsequently intervened to say the

    565
    same thing—that there were a whole host of trades where these practices obtain, where, in addition to ordinary trade practices, certain services were provided by the manufacturer to the retailer.
    Then another Member on that side of the Committee helped the hon. Gentleman by pointing to the question of tied public houses. Then an hon. Member on this side helped a little further by talking about the question of petrol stations and the provision of capital—by agreement, perhaps, with the landowners—for the development of petrol stations when the petrol owners did not have the capital so to develop. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. W. Wells), speaking from our Front Bench, thought there had been a host of trades mentioned in the debate. Frankly, I must have dozed off to sleep, because I heard no more than those two instances which were given. The hon. Member for Shipley, in his intervention, talked about a host of people.
    I do not know how my hon. Friends stand in relation to the Amendment. It may be that I am not too bright, and that they all understand precisely what this is about and how far it will have any ramifications at all in distribution. They may not. I do not know. I am, at least, a member of the Committee, and I think that I ought to know, if someone is asking me either to support a proposal, or alternatively—
    Mr. Bence: Acquiesce or withdraw.
    Mr. Loughlin: I am very sorry that my hon. Friends wish to make the speech for me. I can assure them I shall not be more than a minute or two, and then they can carry on their argument.
    However, before these proposed discussions take place with the approval of myself, I think that we ought to hear from the mover of the Amendment precisely what it is all about, because if we do not, we shall have some discussions, and then at a subsequent stage we shall have the mover of the Amendment coming along and putting an equally vague and indistinct case, and the Minister will say, "The House will remember that on a night when we were in Committee we discussed this matter
    566
    and I offered to discuss it with my hon. Friend, and having done so, I hope that the House will agree to its being accepted."
    Many hon. Members—I include myself in this—are perhaps a little modest and rather afraid of saying, "We do not know what this is all about; please tell us." It would be wrong for the Committee to agree to the withdrawal of the Amendment before we have a fuller explanation of it.
    Mr. Leslie Hale: I greatly regret intervening in a fairly able speech, but my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) should bear in mind that the Bill was presented by the party opposite as one of the great reforms of the final Session of this Parliament. There are seven Conservatives present at the moment and when the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) comes to ask our leave to withdraw the Amendment perhaps he will be able to tell us whether or not he has consulted his 320 other colleagues, some of whom support the Bill and many of whom do not. They were not in the Chamber while he made his important contribution and they are not here now.
    Mr. Loughlin: That is a point of some substance, but my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) overlooks the fact that there have been other consultations among the colleagues of the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst). Before the last Division there were some very strong consultations indeed between the Patronage Secretary and those likely to vote against the Government.
    We should hear a little more from the hon. Member for Shipley about this. I appreciate that, on other occasions, he always completely "comes clean" with the Committee. If I admire him for nothing else it is that he has a little more courage than many of his colleagues.
    Amendment negatived.
    Question proposed, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. Douglas Jay: We now come to discuss the main issue at stake in this Clause. It is, perhaps, a pity that we have been attempting, on

    567
    and off, to discuss it in relation to certain detailed points which have arisen on the various Amendments. However, that was possibly inevitable. The discussions have shown the difficulties we get into when we try to enact by legislation that certain people shall trade with other people with whom they do not wish to trade, which is what we are doing in Clause 2.
    This Clause substantially prevents a supplier from withholding supplies in certain circumstances from a dealer. One can express that either in the form of preventing supplies from reaching a dealer, or of withholding supplies, or of forcing the supplier to provide supplies to somebody with whom he does not wish to trade.
    Mr. A. Lewis: My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) drew attention to the fact that only seven hon. Members opposite were present when he was speaking. Will my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) mention that there are now only three, which shows the interest in the Bill of the party opposite?
    Mr. Jay: On the whole, I would rather not waste time doing that. I was trying to explain, to such Members as are present, what the Clause means.
    Mr. Hale: On the whole, we are discussing a Measure which has occupied the time of the House of Commons for 2½ days. With great respect, my right hon. Friend should not dismiss the fact that there are now only four Tory back benchers present at twenty minutes to nine when we are discussing the most important Clause of the Bill. I do not think that it is right to discuss it with such attendance. It would be open to call for a Count, but that would be futile, as hon. Members would come back into the Chamber.
    Surely we should not make light of the fact that on a Bill which has attracted so much attention throughout the country—I have never thought that it was so important and do not suggest that I do now, but the Committee has been asked to regard it as important and has been asked to spend 2½ days on it—there are only four Tory Members of Parliament present on the back benches and three who are here in pursuance of offices to
    568
    which an absentee Prime Minister has appointed them.
    Mr. Jay: I assure you, Sir Samuel, that I do not dismiss it, but I thought that it was more likely to be obvious to our eyes than to our ears.
    Mr. A. Lewis: But that is not much good to HANSARD.
    Mr. Jay: I return to the Bill and draw attention to the fact that what the Clause asks us to do is to forbid a manufacturer to withhold supplies from a dealer in certain circumstances. That is to say, it forces a manufacturer or wholesaler in these circumstances to trade with people with whom he does not wish to trade. In the nature of the case, that is a fairly drastic thing to do and not something which we would often do by legislation.
    The second point to which I draw attention is that it forces him to supply goods not merely to someone with whom he does not wish to do business, but also to somebody with whom he has never before done business. When I said this on Second Reading, the Secretary of State shook his head and appeared to deny that this was the case, but I am glad to find that it is now generally admitted that it is. It follows from the wording of Clause 4(4,a)—which I cannot discuss now, but which we are compelled to mention so as to understand this Clause—that Clause 2 says that a supplier must not withhold goods on the ground that a dealer has been cutting prices—to put it in crude terminology—or is likely to do so.
    When we reach Clause 4, we will find that he is presumed to have acted from this motive when two conditions are satisfied. The first, which appears in Clause 4(4,a), is that down to the time when supplies were withheld the supplier was doing business with the dealer, or, was supplying goods of the same description to other dealers. That word "or" makes it plain that by Clause 2 we compel people in certain circumstances to trade with some retailer of whom they may never have heard until this moment and with whom he has never before done business. Whether this is right or not, that is what we are being asked to do.
    To see this in perspective, one must set it against the background. Until

    569
    1956, it was the law that a manufacturer could withdraw his supplies from a retailer either through the collective boycott, in company with other manufacturers, or individually on his own initiative, if he so chose. In the 1956 legislation it was thought right that the collective boycott should be abolished. Since that legislation, although the manufacturer could no longer apply the collective boycott, he has been at perfect liberty to withhold his supplies as he chose, and could not be compelled to trade with a retailer with whom he had no wish to trade.
    8.45 p.m.
    We on this side of the Committee have no objection to abrogating the other part of the 1956 Act which gave the manufacturer power to enforce his prices on a retailer against the retailer's will. In our view that went much too far in interfering with the freedom of choice both of the retailer and of the consumer. But that we are, in effect, reversing in Clause 1. I was going to say that that is what we are repealing in Clause 1, but that is not strictly correct.
    Let us be clear what the 1956 Act gave the manufacturer, so that we can understand what we are doing. It gave him the right to enforce his prices on a retailer, whatever those prices were, without any authority having control over those prices.
    Mr. H. Lever: And whether the retailer had bought them direct from him or had given an undertaking in relation to himself or not.
    Mr. Jay: Certainly.
    I think that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever) who, in our earlier debates, said something about his being against nineteenth century Liberalism. I do not think that one has to be against that to agree at least with this part of the Bill, so far as it goes in reversing Section 25 of the 1956 Act, for this reason, that whether or not one believes in price competition, I cannot think that it is right to forbid price competition by law. That is really what the previous Act did, and what we are doing now is to remove from the Statute Book the provision which forbade price competition.
    When we come to Clause 2, I think that it is essential to make a distinction
    570
    between the procedure of establishing the onus of proof which applies to Clause 1, and the procedure for establishing the onus of proof in Clause 2 where we are laying on the manufacturer this new obligation to supply people whom he does not want to supply.
    I hope that hon. Gentlemen realise that throughout the Bill as it stands the onus of proof is still emphatically on the manufacturer, and not on the Registrar, the public authority, to prove that he is acting in the public interest. That has not in any way been altered by the Amendments that we have made to the Bill.
    I think that one can make a case for that when what the manufacturer is asking—and this is what he is primarily asking when he asks for exemption—is to retain the power that he previously had under Section 25 of the 1956 Act to enforce his price on a retailer against the retailer's will. If the manufacturer is asking for that, I think that a strong case can be made for saying that the onus of proof should be on him.
    The Minister is going further. First, he is taking away the manufacturer's right to invoke the law on his side and to enforce his prices. But—and this is where all the trouble arises in our debates—he is also imposing a new obligation upon the manufacturer or wholesaler to supply retailers whom he does not wish to supply, and whom he may never have supplied before. He can be compelled to do this if it is held that his motive for not doing it is a fear of price cutting on the part of the retailer.
    The Bill goes even further than that. Here again, I must refer to Clause 4, which states that the manufacturer shall be presumed to be acting in this way—that is to say, his motive shall be presumed to be the fear of price-cutting—if two conditions are satisfied: first, that he was previously doing business with the dealer, or was supplying similar traders; and, secondly, that the trader who wishes to do business with him has in the recent past been cutting prices.
    It therefore follows that a retailer can say to a manufacturer, "You have never done business with me and you do not want to do business with me—and, by the way, you may like to know that I am in the habit of making large cuts in

    571
    prices below the recommended prices," and if the necessary conditions are satisfied the manufacturer can be compelled to do business with that retailer, even if he does not wish to do so. The only way of his avoiding it—and here we must look at the end of Clause 4(4)—is for the manufacturer to prove to the contrary. The words
    "unless the contrary is proved"
    mean that the onus is thrown upon the manufacturer to prove that this was not his motive, or not one of his motives.
    My hon. and learned Friend asked the Minister exactly what the situation would be when the manufacturer had more than one motive. We may all have more than one motive for a given action.
    Mr. Shepherd: There may be more than one motive for this speech.
    Mr. Jay: First, he may consider the retailer to be untrustworthy and not wish to trade with him. Secondly, he may think that the retailer is likely to treat his goods as a loss leader. I hope that the Minister will be able to clear up the question of what happens when several motives are operating at the same time. What is quite clear is that we are now asked to enact legislation which compels a manufacturer to trade with a retailer unless that manufacturer can prove that his motives were of a certain kind.
    As the Bill stands, however, the onus of proof is now on the manufacturer in another sense. Nobody has pointed this out, so far. If the manufacturer or wholesaler wishes to obtain exemption for the class of goods in which he deals he has to prove, according to the gateways of Clause 5, that it is in the public interest, for some special reason, that he should be allowed to maintain a certain price for his goods. The onus of proof is upon him. It may be that some case can be made out for the arrangement.
    But the onus of proof is also upon him in a further sense. If he fails to obtain exemption under Clause 5, unless he is to be under an obligation to supply people whom he does not wish to supply he must prove that his primary motive was not a fear of price-cutting. When the matter is argued out to this point, it seems to us that it is a little harsh to lay upon the manufacturer an obligation of this kind.
    572
    I do not know whether the Committee has realised—I have not heard it pointed out—that there is no reciprocal obligation on the retailer. Some hon. Members may feel inclined at first sight to say that that is all right. They may think in terms of a large monopoly manufacturer—perhaps the Imperial Tobacco Company—and of a small tobacconist with premises in a village street.
    In such a case it may be that there would be no great hardship. But all manufacturers are not large and all retailers are not small. There are plenty of retail combines in this country which are large, wealthy and powerful. Surely, when we are legislating we should not think in terms of favouring the manufacturer against the retailer, or vice versa, but about being fair to all British subjects living in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. J. Hynd: Will my right hon. Friend clarify that point? Is not the retailer in relation to the supplier in the same position as a consumer in relation to a retailer? Is not there a legal compulsion on a retailer to sell to the public but no compulsion on a member of the public to buy from a particular retailer?
    Mr. Jay: If that is so I should like to be shown chapter and verse where it says so.
    As I understand the Bill, at present it merely places an obligation on the supplier, the wholesaler or manufacturer to trade in these circumstances against his will with the retailer. It places no similar obligation on the retailer to trade in comparable circumstances—or, indeed, in any circumstances at all—with the manufacturer.
    There may be many cases, though, admittedly, not a majority of cases, where a manufacturer is small and a retailer large; and I find it difficult to believe that a case has yet been made out for imposing such a sweeping obligation as this on the manufacturer—to trade in the circumstances with someone with whom he does not wish to do business and with whom he has never done business—unless he can go to the Court and prove that his motives were such-and-such to the satisfaction of the Court. Therefore, we find it very difficult to support the substance of the Clause.

    573
    With the Bill in the condition in which it is at present, our difficulty about procedure is that, in seeking to shift the onus of proof in the matter of Clause 2 and the imposing of an obligation on a manufacturer not to withhold his supplies, we are forced, owing to the peculiarities of the Bill, to amend not Clause 2, but Clause 4. I cannot, therefore, go on to suggest in detail ways in which this must be done. We are in a situation where the Committee has to take a decision on Clause 2—this difficulty has been troubling us all the afternoon—without knowing whether Clause 4 will be amended or not.
    This being the position, it is certainly my view at this time that the only sensible course which the Committee can take is to conclude that the Government have not made out their case for Clause 2 at this stage in this form, in view of the harsh and sweeping obligation which it places on a number of traders. Though we shall certainly seek at a later stage in our discussions on the Bill—and when it is in order to do so—to ameliorate the situation and seek to ensure that in this matter the onus of proof is the other way round—that is to say, the onus of proof is on those who argue that some trader should do business with those with whom he does not wish to do business—we are certainly not satisfied that this Clause in its present form ought to be approved by the Committee.
    9.0 p.m.
    Sir James Pitman: I have a quite minor point on the Clause, to which I hope my hon. Friend the Minister of State will pay attention because rather than speak to the two Amendments which could have been called and might have kept the Committee and my hon. Friend at them for a long time, and since they are merely exploratory at the moment, I thought it better to raise this point on the present Motion.
    I refer particularly to line 14 of subsection (3,a) where it is stated that the terms will not be
    "significantly less favourable than those available to other dealers carrying on business in similar circumstances".
    This is a question of interpretation, because in many trades there are three different terms. There are what are
    574
    known as occasional discount, bulk discount and personal discount. In the book trade the traveller who comes round for a subscription gives the bookseller what is known as an occasional discount. This is not by any means the usual discount. This is why I wished to insert the words to make the terms not less favourable than "those usually available from him". If that is not the interpretation of the Clause as it stands, or if it may not safely be so, I hope that the Government will consider putting it right on a suitable occasion later on.
    Equally, there is the question of supplying books in bulk. There are normally higher rates of discount if three hooks are ordered than there are when the order is for a single copy. In these circumstances, shall we be involved in an argument as to which discount represents the normal terms? Will it be said that the discount given for a single copy should be applicable? Finally, there is the special arrangement which one makes with a special customer who gives special displays, who is one's special agent and who enjoys what may be called a personal discount. It is important that these questions should be considered in connection with the last three lines of subsection (3,a) where it is stated that the terms must not be
    "significantly less favourable than those available to other dealers…"
    and I would suggest that the word generally" might be added at the end.
    Mr. Paget: It seems to me that one has only to understand what the Bill does in order to appreciate the real absurdity of Clause 2. Clause 1 simply makes contracts, including a resale price maintenance clause, void. It does no more than that. It goes on to state that it shall be unlawful to make these contracts, but "unlawful" is there used simply in the sense that they would be void. It goes no further. It does not say, and it does not provide, that to make these contracts shall be a crime. Indeed, Clause 4(1) makes this quite clear.
    It is no crime to make resale price maintenance contracts, nor is it a civil wrong. If it were a civil wrong, then the agreement to do so would be a conspiracy in the same way as it is a conspiracy to slander or to work a

    575
    boycott, for example; they are criminal offences because the boycott or the slander, although not a crime, is a civil wrong. But a resale price maintenance contract is not a civil wrong and is not made a civil wrong. It is not unlawful even in the sense of being immoral. If one makes a contract which has an immoral purpose, whether to take a house for a mistress or a house from which to carry out a train robbery, for example, the whole contract is void because of the immorality of the contract. But as Clause 1(3) points out, only the resale price maintenance law is void; the rest of the contract is valid and enforceable.
    May I take a parallel? A resale price maintenance contract is today in exactly the same position as a betting or gambling contract; it cannot be enforced by the courts and it is only an obligation in honour. I have no objection to that. Before the Bill, as a result of Section 25 of the 1956 Act, resale price maintenance agreements were put in a specially privileged position. They were enforceable not as between the parties by the civil law but by criminal sanctions of the criminal law, and they were enforceable not only as between the parties to the contract but even where the goods came into the hands of a third party who was not a party to the contract. I think that that went very much too far.
    We opposed Section 25 of the 1956 Act, and I think that we were right to do so. Now we have lurched rather the other way. We say about these price maintenance contracts that not only shall they not be enforceable by means of the criminal law but that they shall not be enforceable by means of the civil law. But we have gone no further than that. There is nothing wrong with these contracts save that they are unenforceable.
    It is the same position as a betting or gambling transaction. They are obligations in honour, and they remain obligations in honour. By Clause 2 we proceed to say that we shall compel people to deal with the customers whom they have found dishonourable. Let us take the position of a bookmaker. We are not merely saying to the bookmaker, "You cannot enforce this bet in the courts." We are saying to him, "Pro-
    576
    vided only that your customer turns out to be a defaulter, we shall compel you to go on betting with him—and not only if he is simply your defaulter. If he can prove that he is a defaulter with any other bookmaker, we shall compel you to lay bets with him."
    One has only to put it in terms of another contract made void by the law to show how absurd, and indeed immoral, this provision is which requires a man to sell further goods to a man who has defaulted upon an honourable obligation of the trade, no longer enforceable by the law but still there, not forbidden. Is it just to force someone to supply further goods to a man whom he can no longer trust because he has proved himself to be untrustworthy? Is it sensible to force someone to supply goods to a customer whom he has never met, with whom he has had no dealings, if only the customer is in a position to prove that he has been similarly untrustworthy with another supplier? Such business dealings have only to be stated for their absurdity to become apparent.
    Not only is a supplier compelled to deal with these people who are the last people, because they are untrustworthy, with whom he would choose to deal, but he is compelled to give them credit, to make deliveries to them and to do a whole series of things. Over and above this, there is a provision in Clause 4 that this can be enforced upon a man by injunction to be sought by the Attorney-General. I do not imagine that anybody really thinks anything like that will conceivably happen. Does anyone imagine circumstances in which the Attorney-General would go to the Court and demand an injunction that somebody shall supply goods to a third party, with whom he does not want to deal, on credit terms? This has no connection with reality.
    Mr. H. Lever: Why does my hon. and learned Friend suggest that it is inconceivable that this will happen if the Committee is foolish enough to agree to the Clause in its present form?
    Mr. Paget: Merely because, as a matter of practice, I do not believe there ever would be such an occasion. The process of pushing through that sort of proceeding in a court of law would

    577
    simply break down. Somebody might be foolish enough to try it at some point, but I cannot believe that any part of the Clause will work in practice.
    I do not think, in terms of ordinary trade and business, that the obligation to supply a customer whom he does not want to supply can be imposed upon a manufacturer. If a manufacturer applied his mind to seeing how awkward he could make himself to a customer whom he did not want, it would not require much ingenuity to make the position intolerable. This is the sort of doctrinaire essay in unreality which can have no effectiveness on a Statute Book and which makes our whole position absurd even by the effort of putting it there.
    9.15 p.m.
    I sincerely hope that the Clause will be rejected. I dislike the Bill as a whole and would, therefore, like to see the Clause rejected. Other hon. Members may like the Bill in principle, but, whether or not they like it in principle, this kind of invasion of the freedom of choice of people running their own businesses is wholly inconsistent with a free enterprise system.
    As a Socialist, I probably believe in far more regulation than hon. Members opposite, but any form of regulation of a free enterprise system must at least leave an entrepreneur with the freedom to run his business and at least to choose his customers. If one tries to impose certain conditions such as saying, "We order you to deal with certain people you do not like, you do not want to sell to, you do not trust, and to whom you are reluctant to deal in every other way, or you are committing an offence", one is equally committing the offence of being utterly inconsistent with the system one is trying to create. I therefore urge that the Clause be rejected.
    Mr. Ronald Bell: I find myself in the unusual and not likely to be frequently repeated position of agreeing with the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). When one remembers that the hon. and learned Member is one of the most well known dirigistes in the Committee, my right hon. Friend may think that if the hon. and learned Member feels that there is an encroachment of personal freedom here, then perhaps there is.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: What did the hon. Member call my hon. and learned Friend?
    Mr. Ronald Bell: A dirigiste. I am am glad to see from the knowledgeable looks on the faces of hon. Members that the word is generally known in the Committee. There is no definition of it in the Bill, but it is a good word.
    I have doubts about the Clause for three reasons, or groups of reasons, the first being on the broad general principle involved. I am not aware of any provision in English law which compels any supplier or maker of goods to sell to anybody. I may be wrong, and there may be one tucked away somewhere, but, generally speaking, the principle on which we conduct our affairs is that if somebody makes an article he is able to sell it or not to sell it as he wishes and thinks fit.
    Mr. Shepherd: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although that has been true since 1956, before that date there were vicious arrangements which restricted supply operated by private enterprise?
    Mr. Ronald Bell: My hon. Friend has raised the point to which I was coming. That was done by the collective withholding of supplies, but the general principle of the law is that people are free to sell or not to sell as they wish to do.
    We have always recognised in our law another principle, a well established one, that things which are perfectly lawful if done by one person may be unlawful if done by a number of people in collaboration, that being a conspiracy. The question of things being lawful and unlawful concerns a very sound and sensible disposition, because it is right that the individual should enjoy a wide freedom of action which it might be tyrannous for a combination of people to enjoy. That is why it was necessary to pass trade union legislation; to give trade unions a degree of freedom to act in collaboration as conspirators which is not enjoyed by other members of the community. It was this collective withholding of supplies, because it was collective, that we outlawed in the 1956 Act. I quite see that it had become oppressive with all the accoutrements of private tribunals and so on which we were familiar with at that time.

    579
    What we are dealing with now is the right of the individual, legal person or company to sell or not to sell as he or it, in its good discretion, thinks right. I am not saying that this is something that is outside the power of the State, because it is not. I am not saying that it is something about which Parliament ought not perhaps at some time to pass laws, but I am saying that this is a field in which Parliament ought to tread with the greatest circumspection and hesitation in considering whether it is not infringing fundamental human freedoms in imposing on the individual limitations of his right to dispose or not to dispose of the products of his labour.
    A thing like this can be done if there is a compelling reason for doing it. I shall, therefore, examine quite soon whether I think that there is a compelling reason for doing it, granted for the moment the purpose which is the purpose of the Bill. For the moment, I accept the proposition that, unless there is a compelling reason made out, this is the sort of thing that the Legislature ought not to do.
    I would then ask: is there a compelling reason why it should be done? I cannot see one. Let us assume that it is right that the practice of resale price maintenance ought to be stopped either altogether or in part. The practice of resale price maintenance depends not merely on the right of A to make a contract with B but on the right of A to make a contract with B and enforce it against C. That was the whole point of resale price maintenance. Without that we could not have resale price maintenance.
    That was also the point of collective action and private tribunals. If A and B made a contract C could laugh at it, C being the actual retailer who finally bought the goods. The manufacturer sold to the wholesaler and the wholesaler sold to the retailer and the retailer could, if he wanted, snap his fingers at any bargain that the manufacturer had made with the wholesaler. Because that was the case, the apparatus of the collective withholding of supplies was brought into force. It was the only method by which resale price maintenance could be enforced. That method—the only method—was abolished in 1956. That was why
    580
    Parliament, intending to preserve individual resale price maintenance, had to introduce into the 1956 Act Section 25, which gave a right, which never existed before, allowing A to enforce against C the contract which he had made with B. This exists by Section 25 of the Act and not otherwise.
    The whole apparatus of individual resale price maintenance which exists now depends on the machinery and procedure which was created in Section 25 of the 1956 Act. Therefore, if we want to abolish or limit resale price maintenance, all we have to do is either to repeal Section 25 or to say that the procedure created by Section 25 shall be employed only by people who bring themselves within certain exempt categories. This Bill has these exempt categories, and if one brings oneself inside them through the machinery of the Restrictive Practices Court then one can go on practising individual price maintenance and using the machinery under Section 25 which is not repealed by the Bill.
    Why not just say that if a person wishes to apply to the Restrictive Practices Court for exemption he may do so, as provided by the Bill, and may then use the machinery of Section 25, but if he does not do that he may not use it? That would be the end of it. We do not need all the complications of Clause 2, injunctions, arguments about credit, and all the rest.
    If it is said that that would be all right in one context but it would still leave in existence the resale price maintenance contract which has only two parties—manufacturer supplying direct to retailer, or something of that kind—where no third party is brought in, my answer is that Clause 1 has dealt with that. Clause 1 lays down that any provision in a contract for resale price maintenance is void. The whole contract is not void but the resale price maintenance provision is. Therefore, it cannot even be enforced between A and B, as it could be at common law, because we have said that it is void. It cannot be enforced against C because we would say that Section 25 is not available to someone who does not bring himself within the exemptions.
    Does not this cover the whole field? If it does, why do we want Clause 2 with all the complications, vexations, doubts and hesitations which hon. Members on

    581
    both sides have expressed? Why are we castigating ourselves with this complicated business about withholding supplies when the whole thing can be done effectively without it? Some hon. Members may think that I am exaggerating a little when I call it an incursion upon human rights—it is not a phrase which I very much like or tend to use—but it is certainly an encroachment upon a valuable personal liberty.
    On that aspect, I add this further thought, which was touched on by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton. To force people to sell their own goods is harsh anyway, but it is particularly harsh to force them to sell their goods to people with whom they have recently quarrelled, with whom they have recently quarrelled in accordance with the law as it has been and at this moment is, people whom they have taken to court under Section 25 of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, an Act passed not so long ago and introduced by a Conservative Government.
    Is it right to make such a somersault? I would not grumble at just limiting the application of Section 25. There is no reason why one should not move on to do that. But why strike in this rather savage way through Clause 2 at the suppliers who have done nothing whatever up to now except comply with the laws which we have laid down and take advantage of a law which we have specially created for their benefit? Suddenly, we are switching over 180 degrees and saying, "These people whom you have rightly taken to court up to the date of the Royal Assent shall be entitled to come to you the day after and require you to supply goods to them, on most favoured customer terms, or you will face an action for damages and, perhaps, an injunction".
    Those are the three reasons why I have grave doubts about Clause 2. I do not see why it could not be dropped without any damage whatever to the structure of the Bill or to the intention in substance and in detail which is embodied in it.
    9.30 p.m.
    I do not understand why Clause 2 is in the Bill. I hope that the Government, who brought this Bill forward, will give mature consideration to all the complications which it brings in, the difficulties
    582
    of enforcement which it brings into existence and the multiplication of injunctions to which it will give rise; and, be it borne in mind, the ever present likelihood of imprisonment for a breach of injunction, a most disagreeable consequence which we should seek to avoid wherever possible. If there are dozens or hundreds of injunctions throughout the country, somebody will break them fairly often. People will be put in prison for contempt of court. I should not like this procedure to be established on a wide scale, and I hope that second thoughts will come to the Government.
    Mr. Winterbottom: I deeply appreciated the speech of the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell). It was the speech of a lawyer with something added to it, namely, a knowledge of human nature which gave it a greater value than it would have had if it had merely contained lawyer-like explanations. It was one of the best speeches that I have heard today.
    I wish again to raise the question of cash, which was dealt with in the Amendment which was defeated. There was one point which I wanted to raise, but, because everybody seemed to be talking at length, I thought that I would leave it until we reached the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill. One of the problems in allowing credit from a supplier to a retailer or from a wholesaler to a retailer is, in many cases, the itinerant salesman, the man who is on one market day today and on another 50 miles away, tomorrow. Sometimes it is weeks before he gets back to the first market or district from which he has been supplied with goods.
    I have many years experience of the butchery trade and, in particular, the grocery trade. In the old days, when the country was rotting in idleness and a start was made by the cut pricers, especially in the industrial districts of the North, we found this problem most marked among the itinerant salesmen. Very often we found it difficult to discover from where they got their supplies.
    One thing has been forgotten in discussing resale price maintenance, and it is this. The Government might have done much more good to the country had they introduced a Bill to find out from where retailers' supplies came

    583
    rather than a Bill to deal with resale price maintenance. With itinerant salesmen on the market, many so-called suppliers are very hard to find.
    One problem arising from Clause 2 which perplexes me is how we are to draw the lines of demarcation between many of the practices which take place between the wholesaler and the retailer and sometimes between the wholesaler and the retailing staffs. For instance, how are we to deal with a cash discount which deals, not with individual items but with a number of commodities all ordered at once and which has been calculated on the cash value of the whole order?
    How are we to deal with the question, which was not raised by the hon. Member but is on the same line of thought, of the wholesaler who gives cash discount gifts to the staff of the retailers concerned without their going through the books of the organisation? These are only two out of dozens of points of common practice in the world of distribution and two which have a bearing on either the overheads or the original cost of the goods. These things are forgotten. No provision is made for them except in generalities which do not deal with the complications of the practical life in distribution.
    Let me give an illustration. How would one deal with the wholesaler of cigarettes who also retails them, who allows the usual about 9½ per cent. to the retailer and is dependent upon ½ per cent., or slightly less, with a 6½ per cent. cash discount? That man could meet the needs of the Bill and become the biggest price-cutter in the district. He could charge 5d. per packet less for 20 Player's cigarettes in competition with the retailer to whom he supplies goods at wholesale prices and take him out of business, because he is a wholesaler and a retailer. There is no provision for this in the Bill. There is no provision for the many complicated relationships which exist in the world of distribution.
    What about substitution? From my knowledge of the distributive trades and with no illusion about what happens in distribution, I prophesy that if there is one Measure which has been introduced into the House of Commons in the last 50 years that will encourage
    584
    the substitution of spurious second-class goods, it is this Bill. The substitution will not always be open and above board. It will be done from a knowledge of the trade which is not possessed by those who drafted the Bill.
    I have had packets of tea from cheap, cut-price shops and tasted it as against the so-called same brand of tea at the proper advertised price, and found that it was a substitution of low-grade, cheap tea. That is something which the Bill will encourage and foster throughout the distributive trades. Whether in groceries, or in the world of women's fashions, children's outfitting, or boots and shoes, the world of substitution will be encouraged by this Bill. There is no provision in this Clause to provide check or hindrance to activity of that kind.
    I suggest that the Bill should never have been introduced to apply only to the abolition of resale price maintenance unless, with its abolition, the Government began to deal with some of the difficulties in distribution, began to deal with the nature, substance and quality of consumer goods, began to deal with their standards and the recording of their standards. I can show them tins of fruit which differ in terms of the label on them. Sometimes they are called "super choice" but are of a standard make. This gives rise to all kinds of things, especially in the cut-price shops. It is the nature, substance and quality of goods which should be examined, to that consumers will know that that which is on the label is that which, in truth, they are purchasing. Till we deal with that we cannot deal with the problem of resale price maintenance.
    The Government can only deal with resale price maintenance if and when they plan distribution, and, in the planning, eliminate most of the evils which are there. And after they have planned it, the paradox is that we shall have to come back to some kind of understanding as to what the margin should be between the wholesale and the retail side, and sometimes between the manufacturer and the wholesaler.
    Can we hope that the Bill will be equitable throughout the length and breadth of the country when, in some places, there are shops each with only 30 customers and in other places there

    585
    are shops serving about 100 customers each? It is inevitable that there will be inequity, and till we have dealt with the problem of inequity in the world of distribution, trying to deal with the abolition of resale price maintenance is premature.
    Because of that I suggest that there are parts of the Bill which are so obnoxious to the world of distribution that it ought to be withdrawn; and the Government ought to do that as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Shepherd: It is true that there are problems in distribution, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Winterbottom) has just said. It may even be true that the processes of competition may be capable of ironing out some of those problems rather more easily than precise forms of legislation. I do not propose to discuss that issue at present, because I want to address myself closely to the Clause.
    I must say that I have found the speeches made by hon. Members opposite depressing. They showed the sort of attitude and mental approach which gave us the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices (Inquiry and Control) Act, 1948.
    Mr. H. Lever: The 1956 Act.
    Mr. Shepherd: The 1948 Act I said, an Act which had no teeth in it at all.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: We admit that.
    9.45 p.m.
    Mr. Shepherd: It ssems to me that, many years afterwards, hon. Members opposite are still looking at the antimonopoly legislation in the flabby way they viewed it then.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: We will soon have another chance.
    Mr. Shepherd: I am prepared to admit that it would have been possible to achieve a good deal of the purpose of the Bill had Section 25 of the 1956 Act been rescinded, taking from the supplier the legal sanctions to deal with those cutting prices. But we have not chosen to do so as the method of dealing with competition in retail trading. We have said, instead, that price maintenance in retail trade is an undesirable practice.
    586
    If we accept the premise that, subject to certain exceptions, the maintenance of retail prices by the manufacturer or supplier is in itself a harmful practice, an anti-social practice, then we must seek methods of enforcing this concept on those who do not pass the exception provisions The Bill will be useless if that is not to be the attitude of mind of this Committee.
    We say to certain individuals that they may appear before the Court, which, if it is satisfied that their practices are in the public interest, will, despite the general premise of the Bill, give an exemption. It would be foolish if we turned round and allowed other individuals who did not secure exemption to reach the same aim by restricting supplies to potential customers.
    Let us have no doubt about the ability of traders, suppliers and manufacturers to stop supplies going to retailers. I do not know whether hon. Members remember the extraordinary efforts made by cigarette manufacturers in the 1930s to prevent supplies going to price cutters. Secret agents and secret markings on packings were used; indeed, a whole apparatus was devised to prevent a man selling goods more cheaply than his neighbour.
    If we were not to provide something equal to the provisions of Clause 2, it would be pointless for anyone to go before the Court because he could obtain his objectives simply by the methods used in the 1930s. If anyone is naive enough to believe that the will of the House of Commons as expressed in these debates is sufficient to deter suppliers from working their own will upon the community, then he is more naive than one thought.
    The record of anti-monopoly legislation since 1948 is a record of legislation rendered negative by the machinations of those engaged in trade and industry. If we want an effective policing of the policy of resale price maintenance then this Clause is the one.
    Mrs. Harriet Slater: Is not the logic of what the hon. Member is saying that we are wasting our time with this Bill and that consumer protection means nothing at all, whatever shape or form in which we introduce it?
    Mr. Shepherd: I am sorry that I did not make myself clear. I am saying that, unless there was a proviso which compels supply, disagreeable as it may be, it would be useless to declare in the Bill that r.p.m. was against public interest. All those who wished to avoid the obligations of the Bill would stop supplies as they did in the 1930s to those who wanted to cut prices.
    Mr. Ronald Bell: Of course, in the 1930s it was done collectively; otherwise it could not have succeeded.
    Mr. Shepherd: But there is no necessity to do it collectively. It was easier to do it collectively and the punishment was greater for the man who wanted to show enterprise by selling at lower prices, but it could have been done quite as effectively individually. The collective process was much simpler and much more punishing to the individual who was enterprising.
    I want to refer to the continued repetition that the Clause compels people to supply goods to those whom they do not wish to supply on the ground that they are not creditworthy. I can see nothing in the Clause which would compel any supplier of goods to supply goods to an individual whom he thought to be not creditworthy. As a supplier of goods to wholesalers and retailers, I would have no hesitation, under the Bill as it now stands, in saying that I would withhold supplies from a man because I thought that he would not pay me. I can see nothing in the Clause which would prevent me from so doing. All I can see is that those individuals who want to broaden the loopholes in the Bill and who, under the pretext that a man might not pay, or some other pretext, would withhold goods, would be prevented from withholding goods; but there is nothing to prevent a manufacturer or supplier from withholding goods from a man he considers not to be creditworthy.
    I agree that the Clause is extremely difficult and raises issues which are disagreeable, but if we are serious in our attempt to make this a truly competitive country, we have to face doing things which, on our past understanding, we regard as disagreeable. Unless we are prepared to do those things which are
    588
    disagreeable, we will find that this country is left behind in the race for world trade. Hon. Members opposite, with their wishy-washy attitude towards these problems, will certainly not lead the country into a better world.
    Mr. Bence: I agree with the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) about monopolies. Certainly the Monopolies Act, 1948, and later legislation were inadequate for bringing to the consumer rather than the shareholder whatever benefits there might have been in private monopolies and for protecting the consumer from whatever evils there might have been in monopolies. There may not be as much ruthless competition as there was a hundred years ago, but those of us who are of this generation can thank God for that.
    Mr. Shepherd: If there is a low level of demand and large-scale unemployment, there may be some justification—although I doubt it—for restriction; but when the Government maintain a high and stable level of demand, is it not the duty of those in trade and industry to be truly competitive?
    Mr. Bence: I agree. There is probably some justification in certain branches of industry and commerce for asking for more competition, but those points at which more competition is needed are not the final points of distribution. There are many professional services where a little price competition would be very good, indeed. There are many intellectuals and professional people who ask the little shopkeeper to be competitive but who might be a little more competitive among themselves in their professional fees. I know that the hon. Member for Cheadle is a trader and I am not throwing this at him, but, as someone who has been in industry all his life, I resent the expectation that a manufacturer of goods should be intensely competitive, irrespective of the effect on his standard of living, while the people who lecture him subscribe to and are members of professions. I have a great respect and admiration for them and I appreciate their position on their resale price maintenance, but I wish that when they justify their resale price maintenance, they would find some justification for the resale price maintenance of my product.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: To make it quite plain to me, will my hon. Friend tell me who he means?
    Mr. Bence: I want to make that point, and I think that I am justified in making it because I refuse to accept that people do not compete with each other. They do compete with each other in factories. They do not compete quite so ruthlessly as we do in the Palace of Westminster, but there is, nevertheless, competition between them. There is a great deal of competition in this country, and I wish that people would stop crowing that there is not. There is plenty of competition between manufacturers of different products.
    I strongly object to the Clause. When I read it, I thought that I must have read it wrongly. I thought that it was impossible for a Government to insert a Clause like this in a Bill. That is how it struck me, having been in industry and business all my life.
    The big institution in any manufacturing concern is its sales force. A big concern has its sales department, and its salesmen travel the country looking for customers to buy the firm's products. It seems to me that by the provisions of this Clause an industrial unit whose salesmen are travelling the country looking for desirable customers—and, naturally, one does not want undesirable ones—will have to supply people who apply for its goods whether it wants to or not.
    Under the provisions of the Bill there will be set up a Restrictive Practices Court which will force the unit to which I have referred to accept a customer which its salesmen have said is undesirable. A manufacturing unit may be marketing its products all over the country. Its salesmen will visit Leicester, Nottingham, Stoke, Glasgow, Edinburgh—
    Mr. Ellis Smith: Not Stoke.
    Mr. Bence: All right, excluding Stoke.
    A salesman may call on a potential customer, and, after making inquiries, may decide that he is not a desirable customer. That person may then apply direct to the salesman's firm to be supplied with its products, and the firm will have no option but to supply him if he goes to the Restrictive Practices
    590
    Court ands obtains an order to compel the firm to do so.
    Sir D. Glover: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's giving way. He is always extremely courteous in the House. A lot of us are worried about this, but I think that he has got the position wrong. If I have never supplied you, then I am not affected by this Bill. It is only when I have supplied you—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not so."] That is the position under the Bill. A manufacturer has a right to decide where and how he will distribute his products. If I thought that you were a very nice customer—and I am sure that I always would—I would supply you with goods. But if, following that, you started to cut my prices, I might decide that because you are doing that I will cut off your water, and not supply you any more. Then you would go and say—
    The Chairman: Order. I hope that the hon. Member will remember that he is addressing the Chair.
    Mr. Bence: On a point of order. With due respect, Sir William, the hour is getting late, and I was wondering whether you had forgotten that I had the Floor.
    It being, Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to Report progress and ask leave to sit again.
    Committee report Progress.

    RESALE PRICES BILL

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

      RESALE PRICES BILL
      Again considered in Committee.
      The Chairman: The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) was raising a point of order.
      Mr. Bence: Further to that point of order, Sir William, I raised it because I was in some considerable trepidation at the thought that you had forgotten that I was addressing the Committee. I hesitated to rise before, because the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) had threatened to cut off my water.
      Sir D. Glover: I apologise if any of the beautiful, pure streams of Scotland are thought to be in any way affected by anything that I have said in this Committee.
      The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East has the Floor.
      Mr. Bence: I did not know whether the hon. Member was trying to destroy my argument. His intervention was of considerable length. I was saying that a manufacturer or supplier was compelled to supply a customer in his area, or, if he refused to do so, had to justify his action on other grounds than that the customer was breaking a resale price contract.
      A manufacturer can find all sorts of reasons why he should not supply a retailer or wholesaler. I do not wish to name companies or products, but I know of two famous firms whose products have been marketed for over a century and have never been supplied to any distributors or retailers. Through their own marketing organisations the firms market their products direct to the consumers, whether they be shopkeepers, housewives or large industrial engineering plants.
      The main reason why they have always been able to sell direct is that in every city and town in Great Britain they have established service stations where their machines can be serviced by expert mechanics trained by themselves. They regard the service behind the product as a very important factor in their business. They are selling the service with the machine. According to the Clause I understand that they will be compelled—
      Mr. H. Lever: No—they will not be affected.
      Mr. Bence: They will not be affected. In that case we have two manufacturing institutions which completely escape the Bill's provisions. They have this vertical structure, from the manufacturer straight to the customer. I take it that, under the provisions in Clause 2, a manufacturer could withhold supplies for any reason under the sun, with the exception of those applying to resale price maintenance.
      592
      I can think of dozens of products manufactured and distributed in this country which have to be kept under certain conditions in a shop or warehouse. They include engineering products and delicate instruments. Many consumer goods must be displayed under hygienic conditions. A manufacturer whose product is well known and advertised will require his distributors to have a knowledge of the product and be able to render an after-sales service. I can imagine that a company would be justified in arguing that a certain distributor was not adequately equipped to deal with its product.
      Motor companies do not appoint main agents unless those agents possess a certain amount of capital and equipment and employ trained staff. All sorts of conditions must be complied with before a main agent receives supplies from motor car manufacturers. If a motor car manufacturer witholds supplies from a motor agent on the grounds that the agent is insufficiently equipped, and if at the same time the agent has been cutting prices, the motor car manufacturer must prove that the reason he is withholding supplies is that the agent is not adequately equipped, and not that prices are being cut. This sort of thing will provide a paradise for the lawyers because the question of resale price maintenance will lead to a tremendous amount of litigation.
      This is no far-fetched argument. It actually happens. Manufacturers withhold all sorts of products because retailers are unable to store, equip or service such products. We have heard it argued on many occasions that a consumer should have the choice of buying a product on which there is a narrow margin of mark-up because there is no after-sales service. If the customer requires an after-sales service, he can secure it by obtaining the product from a store where the price is higher because of the existence of such a service. A manufacturer is entitled to say that he requires his distributors to provide an after-sales service. I am sure that people who, for example, buy typewriters expect to be able to get the machines serviced by experts. I presume that the lack of such a service would justify a manufacturer in refusing to

      593
      supply his product to a particular distributor. As I read Clause 2, a manufacturer would be entitled to do that. These are the sort of questions that I want answered.
      I dislike the Clause intensely, and I shall vote against it if I am given that opportunity, as I hope will also those hon. Members opposite who have always stood for this inalienable right of the individual and a company manufacturing or distributing a product to sell it to those to whom they desire to sell it and to refuse to sell it as they choose. People are already punished heavily by law if they supply a product to somebody who should not have it. A licensee is prosecuted for supplying drink to a man who has already had too much, but here are the men in Whitehall determining that manufacturers shall supply someone who, they think, ought to be supplied but who the manufacturers, knowing his lack of capacity to service and distribute the product, thinks should not be supplied. Here is where the expert in Whitehall knows best and the trader on the spot whose money is at stake knows nothing at all. This is the worst piece of legislation I have seen in 30 years in the House of Commons.
      Sir D. Glover: I should like—
      Mr. Mellish: Not to be too long.
      Sir D. Glover: Would the hon. Member care to rise and repeat what he said?
      Mr. Mellish: I was asking the hon. Member not to take too long.
      Sir D. Glover: If the hon. Member counts the number of columns in HANSARD which he and I have respectively occupied he will see that he has wasted more time.
      I understand many of the worries that the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) has about Clause 2 so well that I asked the Secretary of State if he would provide a new Clause making it quite clear, separately from this Clause, that each manufacturer has a complete right to decide the agencies and methods of distribution of his product for the benefit of his own company and of the nation. But I was assured by my right hon. Friend that under Clause 2 every manufacturer has the right to continue the method of distribu-
      594
      tion which he has carried out in years gone by.
      Mr. H. Lever: Would the hon. Member tell us whether this assurance was given to him in his private ear or whether it was said across the Floor? None of us heard such an assurance.
      Sir D. Glover: If the hon. Member had listened to the debate yesterday he would have heard the Secretary of State give me an explicit assurance when I interjected on this very point of the fears expressed by the hon. Member and by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East in their speeches. I still feel that it would be a good thing if there was a Clause in the Bill which made this quite clear. There is a great deal of anxiety among manufacturers, distributors and retailers as to whether their restricted franchise will be affected by the Bill.
      Mr. S. Silverman: I, too, am in favour of adding any Clause to the Bill which would make anything quite clear. The Bill has none so far. Would the hon. Member say exactly what he wants to make clear in the suggested Clause?
      The Chairman: Order. I should like to make clear that we should apply ourselves to the Question, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
      10.15 p.m.
      Sir D. Glover: I am just about in order in that it is under this Clause that the question arises of a manufacturer or distributor having freedom of action, with the exception of price cutting.
      The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) asked me what I am worried about. I will not go into a long explanation, but his esteemed colleague the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East, spent the last half-hour explaining what he was worried about in that manufacturers would no longer have the right to control the distribution of their products. We have had a long debate on the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) about the credit-worthiness of customers. Any manufacturer must have the right to decide how to distribute his products.
      For a certain type of product it might be right to confine it to one distributor

      595
      in a town. For a smaller product there might be three outlets, and for an even smaller product there might be ten outlets. The manufacturer or distributor must have the right to decide on his own commercial policy about the goods which he is handling. Equally, he must have the right to decide his own financial policy, because if he goes bankrupt the State will not pay his debts; he will have to pay them himself.
      There is much unity in the Committee on these two points. The hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever) agrees with every word which I have said on the financial side. But I want to come to a more fundamental aspect—and this is why I want a new Clause. I should like my hon. Friend to listen carefully. May I describe a case—not speaking for myself. I am a manufacturer and my policy at the moment is to supply my goods to everybody in the country who is willing to sell them. This is my position as a hypothetical manufacturer when the Bill becomes law.
      When the Bill becomes law my product comes under intense price competition and price cutting, so much so that the name which I have spent 25 to 50 years building up is, it appears to me and my board of directors, rapidly disappearing down the drain. We have a board meeting and decide that in future instead of supplying every dealer in the country, we shall supply our products to a restricted franchise—one supplier, or perhaps two, for each town. We decide as the policy of the firm that not everybody wanting to buy our goods will be able to buy them but that we shall maintain the reputation of our product by selling it on a restricted franchise. On our previous unrestricted practices we are supplying our goods to a great many outlets which are cutting the price to the bone, and we decide as a matter of permanent policy—not just for six months—to alter our method of distribution.
      Under the Bill I do not think that we should ever be allowed to do that. Surely if we are to write that restriction into a Statute we are removing an enormous amount of freedom from manufacturers and distributors to carry out their business in the best interests of their firm.
      Mr. Jay: It is plain that under the Bill the hon. Member would not be able to do that if his reason for withholding supplies from the other retailers were that they were cutting prices. There is no question about it.
      Sir D. Glover: I accept that, in the context that, basically, I am not in favour of price-fixing. On the other hand, there is a great distinction between accepting unrestricted competition and having some control over the outlets for one's goods. I should like my hon. Friend to give this serious thought. If he does not, the Bill will stratify the distributive process for all time when it becomes law, whereas in fact in a modern society distribution policy naturally changes year by year and what is good today is bad tomorrow. If under the Bill the Government are not able to knit into this the opportunity for a firm to alter its distributive processes, a stratified society will be created.
      Mr. A. P. Costain: Is my hon. Friend talking about an individual firm's products, or all the products of individual firms? How would he view the matter of a subsidiary company being set up to deal with one product?
      Mr. Bourne-Arton: I do not understand why my hon. Friend should assume that the Bill prevents his imaginary company from changing its sales policy and going over to a limited franchise. The Clause provides that a manufacturer must not refrain from supplying on the ground that a dealer has cut prices. This would not be the ground for the board of directors about which my hon. Friend has spoken reaching that decision. It is therefore outside the scope of the Bill.
      Sir D. Glover: This means that I shall have to take up the time of the Committee for a little longer. My hon. Friend has not seen the point. I am speaking of a company producing a popular piece of merchandise whose previous practice has been to sell it unrestrictedly across the board to anybody who wants to buy it. The company discovers that, as a result of this Measure, fewer and fewer people want to stock it because its price has been cut to the bone. There is then a board meeting. The directors decide to alter their policy.

      597
      However, under this Measure they will have to go on supplying, because, if they want to withhold supplies, they must find another reason than that of price-cutting. They cannot reach their decision purely on price-cutting. They must have another reason before they can change their policy. They may want to alter their policy because a product they have built up, perhaps over 50 years, and which is held in great esteem by the nation, is losing its reputation and becoming non-acceptable and because they see their turnover gradually falling because fewer and fewer people want to stock it.
      Mr. Bourne-Arton: Precisely. As a result of price cutting a new situation has arisen, and the company decides to change its policy. This is not discrimination directly against a price cutter. It is a change of commercial policy resulting from a new situation.
      Sir D. Glover: The trouble with the Bill, which is very complicated—[Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite may laugh. I find this the most fascinating Bill I have studied since I entered the House.
      Several Hon. Members rose—
      The Chairman: I would remind the Committee that we are not discussing the whole Bill but only the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
      Sir D. Glover: I apologise, Sir William, but to clear up this matter I have been anxious to give way. I am endeavouring to make this point on Clause 2 and to show that it is a valid example which my right hon. Friend should bear in mind.
      The point I am raising—and I have spent for many year in distribution, so I know what I am talking about—is a valid one. I am not in favour of r.p.m. and I believe in competition. At the same time, a person who is producing or distributing goods should be the master of his own household and I see a real danger that the Clause will cease to enable him to have that position.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Bourne-Arton) has not grasped the point. If I have sold goods to A, B, C, D, or E without any restriction and the reason I want to stop
      598
      supplying them with my product is that they have been cutting prices, I shall find it difficult under the Bill to do so; yet it may be a decision of my board of directors that we should alter the policy of the company. Under the Bill we will find it almost impossible to do that.
      Mr. Bourne-Arton indicated dissent.
      Sir D. Glover: We will, because each one of those dealers will say that we are cutting off their supplies because they have been price cutting.
      In a Bil so complicated as this, I hope that the Secretary of State and the Attorney-General will appreciate that, speaking as a trader, I believe that what I am saying concerns a very real danger. I hope that they will have a serious look at this matter. I do not wish to delay the Committee and I hope that, on Report, my right hon. Friends will make certain that manufacturers and distributors will remain masters of their own households and will not become, as a result of the Bill, subservient to a system of which they entirely disapprove.
      The Attorney-General: Perhaps I can assist the Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) has suggested that because trading conditions have altered, as a result of the Bill, a company could not change its policy. I can assure him that that is quite wrong, because if the trading conditions had changed substantially the company would be perfectly entitled to restrict the agencies through which it sold. What it could not do would be to restrict the agencies through which it sold to those who were not price-cutting. The only restriction under Clause 2(1) is that the company must not restrict the agencies to those who have not either sold or are likely to sell at a cut price.
      Therefore, once a company has changed its policy, that change would be a justification for a restricted sales policy. The time at which one must look to see if that policy is being properly applied is the moment of the refusal to supply the goods and not the moment of the passing of the Bill. The Bill would not, therefore, stultify trading conditions and they would not have to remain exactly as they are at present.
      Sir D. Glover: How would this be decided? Would it be decided by the Court? How does one decide whether a company has altered its policy or has refused to supply goods because of price-cutting? It seems that unless we are careful we will need to have a court case before a firm can alter its policy.
      The Attorney-General: There is nothing whatever in the Bill which deals with the policy generally of a company provided it is applied equally and fairly between all the dealers and is not applied only to those who have or are likely to cut prices.
      Mr. Jay: Surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that on his own statement—and I shall be surprised if we are to have no further elucidation about this—it would only be necessary for the retailer to actually cut prices and to make plain the fact that he had done so to establish his right to get the supply of goods and throw the onus of proof to the contrary on to the manufacturer. Am I not right in that assumption?
      10.30 p.m.
      The Attorney-General: That is quite a different point. There are two quite different problems. One, which I was not discussing and which we shall discuss under Clause 4, relates to the onus of proof and the question of the relationship between a supplier and an individual dealer who wants goods. What I was trying to deal with was the point raised by my hon. Friend, quite fairly and properly, that a company will have to go on trading in the same way in which it has always done up to the time that the Bill was passed, and that it cannot thereafter change its trading policy.
      It can change its trading policy and it can say, "Trading conditions are such that instead of selling to everybody we will now sell only to one agent in the town." Provided that is the policy that it applies generally, and provided that it does not say, "We will only sell to the non-price cutters," it is entitled to pursue that policy.
      Mr. H. Lever: If a trader changes his policy—and this is the crux of the whole of this Clause—he will have to face the possibility of total ruin by an action for damages for breach of statutory duty, unless he can prove to the satisfaction of the court that he was not influenced in his decision to cut off supplies or to change his policy which resulted in the cutting off of supplies, in which case he will succeed, as the Attorney-General has said. The onus of proof will be statutorily upon him.
      Sir D. Glover: I find that interjection most helpful. What I am worried about is the case of the firm which has changed its policy because of price cutting and not for any other reason. If I had got a large plant with £1 million worth of machinery producing chocolate bars or something of that sort and, as a result of the play of competition, I found that most of the reputable people to whom I would like to sell ceased to stock my produce because it was no longer profitable, I should want to restrict my franchise to sell on a limited market. I should withdraw my supplies from those people because they were cutting prices.
      Mr. Lever: The Attorney-General's intervention has the quality of being technically correct but practically useless to people such as those—
      Mr. Ellis Smith: If I may interrupt my hon. Friend, can he explain how a thing can be technically correct if it is not practical?
      Mr. Lever: If a firm is placed in the position where it might have a reasonable chance of proving all the matters that the Attorney-General has spoken about, but there is a risk that it will not succeed, and the onus of proof is upon the firm, and failure so to prove would mean the total ruin of that firm, what normally happens is that the lawyer tells the firm, "You may have a reasonable, sporting chance of proving technically correctly your assertion, but should the reasonable, sporting chance come unstuck, you will be ruined."
      I am not going to make any point generally against the Bill. There is plenty of opportunity to do that later. I want to speak briefly on what I regard
      602
      as one of the most obnoxious Clauses in any Bill that has ever been brought before the House of Commons while I have been a Member. The only hon. Member who has made a vigorous defence of this machinery, as far as I know, is the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd). He accuses those of us who cannot stomach this Clause of being flabby and lacking in muscularity in our approach to price maintenance. The respect for justice and the rights of individuals is not flabbiness; it is a concern for those in-built principles which we in this House are especially charged to preserve and protect.
      I submit, first, that one has only to read the Explanatory Memorandum about what it is sought to achieve in Clauses 1, 2 and 3 to realise that one cannot in a Bill of this kind accomplish so complex an achievement as to compel suppliers to supply and buyers to be free to buy on given terms without being unjust. The particular form of injustice to which I wish to draw attention is as follows. The remedies here are worse than if the Government had a simple straightforward enactment which made it a criminal offence to enforce price maintenance. The manufacturer would be in a better position if he were told that on pain of a fine and imprisonment he must not enforce price maintenance than he is in the precarious situation in which he is placed here. The manufacturer will inevitably and often be put in a position where it will be doubtful whether he will succeed in the civil action which can be brought against him—an action for unlimited damages. The more dishonest the man bringing the action, the more precarious will be the supplier's position.
      I will not deal with the general possibilities of destroying price maintenance, but the method chosen is obnoxious to anyone who has any respect for the subtle and flexible arrangements of all kinds mentioned by hon. Members who are concerned in trade. It must not have occurred to the Secretary of State and his muscular trade supporters, like the hon. Member for Cheadle, that some manufacturers and suppliers do not like to deal with crooks.—[HON. MEMBERS: "A novel doctrine"]—It may be an

      603
      eccentricity on the part of some suppliers and manufacturers, but they exist certainly in the part of the country from which I come and no doubt they are equally to be found in other parts.
      Under the Clause in certain circumstances a supplier is made to deal, whether he likes it or not, on pain of an action which would ruin him or an injunction which would stigmatise him and cast him into gaol if he persisted, with a man he knows to be a crook. The man may have come out of prison just long enough ago to qualify him for the most favourable terms of undercutting the man's product for a week, within the six-months' period referred to in the Measure. I see the Minister shaking his head. Does he really say that a man with a criminal record is not entitled to use the provisions in Clause 2 to enforce supplies? Of course he is. And the supplier is obliged to deliver to him the actual—
      Mr. Bourne-Arton: No. This is the point. A supplier is not obliged to supply anybody who has a criminal record if he thinks that is a good reason for withholding the supply.
      Mr. Lever: But the onus of proof would be thrown on him by this muscular Clause. He would have to prove that it was not because the man had been cutting his prices that he had not supplied but because he had a criminal record. It is terrifying for a manufacturer that if he wants his just rights under the Bill, assuming that the spirit of the Bill is passed in some form, he can never exercise those just rights without being told by his lawyers that the onus of proof is on him. He stands in grave peril always of being ruined by the kind of action for damages which is created by the Bill.
      Also, the idea that because one has cut prices and insisted on supplies, this should entitle one to most-favoured nation treatment is so odd and astonishing that it does not seem to me possible that it could be approved by the Committee. One would have thought that as the country gets more and more prosperous we should be less and less inclined to encourage the rat race, but it is obvious that there will always be rats even when the rat race is no longer
      604
      necessary. I wonder why it is thought necessary in the Clause to exalt the price cutter and force ordinary manufacturers not merely to supply him but to give him credit on peril of being sued for damages or faced with an injunction by the Attorney-General.
      It speaks volumes for the impartiality and generosity of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) that he supposes that, if the Committee enacts this power and enables the Attorney-General to proceed by way of injunction against a supplier, nobody will dream of using it. I do not understand why the Government want such a power in the hands of the Attorney-General if he is not to use it. Perhaps the Attorney-General will explain the reason for wanting a power which he will be unable to use.
      The truth is that the power is to be given to him to intimidate suppliers. When a supplier has such an injunction against him, imagine his pitiable condition. The injunction will say to him, "You shall not further withhold supplies from this man". A reference to the wording of this infamous Clause shows that it is proposed to enact that it is a withholding of supplies if the supplier in any respect fails to give the man in question the most favoured treatment of all his customers. Therefore, once an injunction is made against a firm, it will have to proceed with meticulous care to ensure that the man with whom it is at loggerheads has the best credit and other terms of dealing that any other customer has, on pain of being cast into prison, since breach of the injunction would be a contempt.
      The Committee cannot possibly allow the Government to enact a Clause so unjust, so peremptory and so unnecessary even for the purpose of destroying the resale price maintenance system, as was shown by the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell).
      Hon. Members opposite are not obliged to vote with us and cause acute embarrassment and nervous tension to the Government in order to produce the result which we all desire. Hon. Members opposite have shown that they are very concerned about this matter, and I am the last person to be in a position to lecture them on how they should

      605
      fulfil their duty. But, with respect, I feel that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee who feel passionately on this Clause, quite apart from the general principles of price maintenance, ought to enforce our will on the Government by some means, be it by vote or by pressure of one Parliamentary kind or another available to us.
      Mr. du Cann: I shall endeavour to answer the points which have been raised in the debate and at the same time make some general observations on this Clause.
      I noted two points particularly in the speech of the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay). The right hon. Gentleman said—I think I quote his words almost exactly—that he had no objection to the abrogation of the power of the supplier to force a retailer to charge higher prices than he wished. I entirely agree. That is the chief purpose of the Bill. Plainly, we agree between us that the present position is unsatisfactory, and the aim in all our discussions is to find an appropriate method to remedy the situation. The Government believe that this Bill is the appropriate method.
      I very much agreed with the right hon. Gentleman also when he said that it was quite wrong that we should permit a situation to endure in which it was possible to forbid price competition by law. That is entirely right. I remember my right hon. Friend bringing the same point out in his Second Reading speech.
      If we agree, as between the Government and the official Opposition, as to what we are seeking to achieve in general, the only quarrel between us is as to method. The method chosen in the Clause is well known to the Committee now, and I shall not take time by going into it, save to repeat that it seems to us to be the right method and a wise method. I shall endeavour now to illustrate the reasons for my confidence.
      I take, first, a point raised by the right hon. Gentleman, by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell). My hon. Friend's speech I greatly enjoyed, as, I think, did every-
      606
      one who heard it. Indeed, one hon. Gentleman opposite who followed him said that it was one of the best speeches he had heard on this subject or ever in the House of Commons. I think that it was—but, my word, I thoroughly disagreed with a great deal of what my hon. Friend had to say, and I thought that he was answered effectively by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd).
      10.45 p.m.
      It is suggested that the Clause means, in effect, that manufacturers must supply. In fact, it says that manufacturers must not withhold supplies, in certain conditions, which is a very different thing. The only purpose of the limited curtailment in the Bill of the supplier's right to sell his goods to whom he chooses, upon which my hon. Friend rightly sets great store, is to preserve the dealer's right to sell his goods at the prices he chooses. I suggest that that is a right of which the dealer has been deprived for far too long. It is that right which we seek to restore and I suggest that it is equally, if not more, important.
      I am sorry that I did not hear the whole of the speech of the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence), who raised the question of a supplier to a motor agent or dealer. Under the Clause as written, a supplier to a motor agent can withhold supplies, assuming that the motor agent is not price-cutting, on the ground that the dealer is unqualified in some way. I do not think that there would be much difficulty in proving it. The hon. Member mentioned that category and also typewriters. In the circumstances which he described, precisely the same would obtain.
      The hon. Member went on to ask whether the Bill was virtually a lawyer's benefit. That is not the view that we take of it, particularly in the circumstances retailed by the hon. Member. We think that proof in these cases would be a simple matter. That, again, is the answer to another point raised by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North.
      I understand the kindness of my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Sir J. Pitman) in not taking the time of the Committee to move Amendments. It is slightly ironic that he did not do so, because I was ready to accept the first

      607
      completely and the second in principle. Now that my hon. Friend has made his points, I do not, on this Motion, know what to reply to him, except to say that if he will be good enough to put down Amendment 23 again on Report, and assuming that there are no mistakes in transmission, we shall certainly consider accepting it. As to Amendment 21, we will put down an Amendment to cover the point.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South asked why we should not repeal Section 25 of the 1956 Act to abolish resale price maintenance and said that it could be done as simply as that. That, too, was answered by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle. The chief reason why Section 25 remains is for exempted goods. In other cases, it disappears in effect, although the Bill does not specifically refer to Section 25. We think that it would be inconsistent explicitly with the general approach embodied in the Bill to withdraw the support of Section 25 from exempted goods. The point basically is this. Surely, it is agreed by my hon. Friend that there should be exemption procedures. Surely, exempted goods deserve protection, which would mean that Section 25 must remain.
      It was the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Winterbottom) who paid tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South. The hon. Member, speaking from his experience, interested us all. I cannot catch sight of the hon. Member; if he is not here, I will curtail my remarks to him. I felt, as, I am sure, many hon. Members felt, that his fears were misconceived. The Bill will not mean the end of retail distribution. It will not mean an end of quality, and recommended prices can still appear.
      To come to another point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South, who certainly deployed the most powerful of all the cases made against this Clause, he said that the Clause in his opinion was unnecessary. I hope that I can convince him otherwise. Without the Clause the prohibition in Clause 1 can be evaded without any difficulty if the supplier can withhold supplies of price-cut goods, which only means the goods being sold slightly cheaper. The imposition of minimum
      608
      prices is not even necessary. R.p.m. could be made effective simply by withholding goods. Therefore, I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that, in logic, the whole purpose of the Bill would be undermined if there were no Clause 2. Many suppliers at present enforce r.p.m. not by legal action but simply by withholding supplies. Without what I shall describe again as this limited prohibition on the withholding of supplies we should not get rid of r.p.m. by this Bill.
      Finally, I should say that the Government have no wish to interfere with what I may describe as ordinary trading practices, about which there has been so much discussion this afternoon and this evening. To refer again to a point made by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East and the type of case he was speaking about especially, if a firm is not acceptable to a supplier for reasons other than that the firm wishes to reduce prices—for example, creditworthiness, or the fact that the manager of the firm, or the firm itself if it is a one-man band, which was mentioned, has a criminal record, he certainly must be free to use commercial judgment.
      My right hon. Friend said, and said clearly, in reply to an earlier debate, that certainly we shall be very ready to take into account, both in the light of the decisions on the Amendments to the Clause and the discussions we are going to have in relation to Clause 4, the points which my hon. Friends and by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have in mind. We do not regard the Clause as perfect. We have never said we did. We do regard it, however, as an essential part of the Bill. I say to the Committee that, in our judgment, it is an integral part of the Bill, and I commend it to the Committee.
      Sir D. Glover: My hon. Friend is usually very courteous, and I should very much like a reply to the point I made in my speech. Even though I say it with great humility, I know more about retailing than 95 per cent. of the people in the Committee. I have spent the whole of my working life in it. The point I made and the case I put about manufacturers changing their policy was a very valid point, and if my hon. Friend did not reply to it I shall go into the Lobby against him.
      Mr. du Cann: I certainly would not wish my hon. Friend to think me guilty of discourtesy. The reason I did not reply to the points he raised particularly was very simple: I thought that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General had done so. He made two interventions at some length. If my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) feels that he still does not have the information which he wishes to
      have I shall certainly see he has it, and furthermore, I will certainly see that the points which he brought to our attention—he said during his remarks he was happy we should do this—are considered by my right hon. Friend.
      Question put, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 218, Noes 130.

      Division No. 55.]

      AYES

      [10.54 p.m.

      Agnew, Sir Peter

      Gough, Frederick

      Mawby, Ray

      Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian

      Grant-Ferris, R.

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

      Atkins, Humphrey

      Green, Alan

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

      Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)

      Gresham Cooke, R.

      Mills, Stratton

      Barber, Rt. Hon. Anthony

      Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Barlow, Sir John

      Gurden, Harold

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Batsford, Brian

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Bovine, Rt. Hon. Reginald

      Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

      Morgan, William

      Biffen, John

      Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

      Mott-Rodclyffe, Sir Charles

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael

      Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

      Harvey, John (Walthamslow, E.)

      Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

      Bishop, Sir Patrick

      Hastings, Stephen

      Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Hendon, North)

      Bourne-Arton, A.

      Hay, John

      Osborn, John (Hallam)

      Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

      Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Llonel

      Page, John (Harrow, West)

      Box, Donald

      Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward

      Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

      Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

      Hiley, Joseph

      Partridge, E.

      Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

      Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

      Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

      Braine, Bernard

      Hobson, Rt. Hon. Sir John

      Peel, John

      Brewis, John

      Hogg, Rt. Hon. Quintin

      Percival, Ian

      Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

      Holland, Philip

      Peyton, John

      Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

      Holt, Arthur

      Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

      Bryan, Paul

      Hopkins, Alan

      Pike, Miss Mervyn

      Buck, Antony

      Hornby, R. P.

      Pitman, Sir James

      Bullard, Denys

      Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

      Pitt, Dame Edith

      Campbell, Gordon

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

      Pounder, Rafton

      Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert (Mitcham)

      Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

      Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

      Channon, H. P. G.

      Hughes-Young, Michael

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Chataway, Christopher

      Hulbert, Sir Norman

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

      Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Prior, J. M. L.

      Cole, Norman

      Iremonger, T. L.

      Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

      Cooke, Robert

      Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

      Proudfoot, Wilfred

      Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

      Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

      Quennell, Miss J. M.

      Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

      Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

      Ramsden, Rt. Hon. James

      Corfield, F. V.

      Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

      Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. Sir Peter

      Costain, A. P.

      Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith

      Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

      Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)

      Dalkeith, Earl of

      Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

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

      Dance, James

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Renton, Rt. Hon. David

      d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

      Kirk, Peter

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Deedeo, Rt. Hon. W. F.

      Kitson, Timothy

      Rippon, Rt. Hon. Geoffrey

      Digby, Simon Wingfield

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

      Douglas-Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Alec

      Leather, Sir Edwin

      Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

      Drayson, G. B.

      Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

      Roots, William

      du Cann. Edward

      Linstead, Sir Hugh

      Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

      Eden, Sir John

      Litchfield, Capt. John

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Elliot Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

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

      Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan

      Emery, Peter

      Longbottom, Charles

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Emmer, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

      Loveys, Walter H.

      Sharples, Richard

      Errington, Sir Eric

      Lubbock, Eric

      Shaw, M.

      Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.

      Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

      Shepherd, William

      Farr, John

      Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Fell, Anthony

      MacArthur, Ian

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

      Finlay Gracme

      McLaren, Martin

      Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John

      Fisher, Nigel

      Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute & N. Ayrs)

      Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher

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

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

      Spearman, Sir Alexander

      Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

      McMaster, Stanley R.

      Speir, Rupert

      Freeth, Denzil

      Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

      Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

      Gammans, Lady

      Maitland, Sir John

      Studholme, Sir Henry

      Gardner, Edward

      Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest

      Summers, Sir Spencer

      Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk Central)

      Marten, Neil

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

      Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

      Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

      Teeling, Sir William

      Glover, Sir Douglas

      Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

      Temple, John M.

      Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

      Maude, Angus (Stratford-on-Avon)

      Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

      Godber, Rt. Hon. J. B.

      Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald

      Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

      Goodhart, Philip

      Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

      Wade, Donald

      Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

      Thorpe, Jeremy

      Walder, David

      Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

      Tilney, John (Wavertree)

      Walker, Peter

      Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

      Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

      Wall, Patrick

      Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

      Turner, Colin

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Woodhouse, C. M.

      Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

      Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

      Worsley, Marcus

      van Straubenezee, W. R.

      Webster, David

      Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

      Whitelaw, William

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

      Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

      Mr. Chichester-Clark and

      MR. R. W. Elliott.

      NOES

      Ainsley, William

      Hayman, F. H.

      Padley, W. E.

      Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)

      Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)

      Paget, R. T.

      Barnett, Guy

      Herbison, Miss Margaret

      Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

      Beaney, Alan

      Hilton, A. V.

      Pavitt, Laurence

      Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

      Holman, Percy

      Peart, Frederick

      Blackburn, F.

      Houghton, Douglas

      Pentland, Norman

      Blyton, William

      Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)

      Prentice, R. E.

      Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

      Howie, W.

      Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

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

      Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

      Probert, Arthur

      Bowles, Frank

      Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

      Redhead, E. C.

      Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

      Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

      Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

      Bray, Dr. Jeremy

      Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Brockway, A. Fenner

      Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

      Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

      Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

      Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

      Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)

      Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

      Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

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

      Castle, Mrs. Barbara

      Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

      Ross, William

      Cliffe, Michael

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

      Collick, Percy

      Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

      Skeffington, Arthur

      Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

      Kelley, Richard

      Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

      Cronin, John

      Kenyon, Clifford

      Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

      Crosland, Anthony

      Lawson, George

      Small, William

      Crossman, R. H. S.

      Lee, Frederick (Newton)

      Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

      Darling, George

      Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

      Sorensen, R. W.

      Davies, Harold (Leek)

      Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

      Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

      Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

      Laughlin, Charles

      Stones, William

      Dempsey, James

      Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

      Swain, Thomas

      Diamond, John

      McBride, N.

      Symonds, J. B.

      Dodds, Norman

      McCann, John

      Taverne, D.

      Doig, Peter

      MacColl, James

      Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

      Driberg, Tom

      MacDermot Niall

      Tomney, Frank

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

      Manuel, Archie

      Wainwright, Edwin

      Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

      Mapp, Charles

      Warbey, William

      Evans, Albert

      Mellish, R. J.

      Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

      Fitch, Alan

      Mendelson, J. J.

      White, Mrs. Eirene

      Fletcher, Eric

      Millan, Bruce

      Whitlock, William

      Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

      Milne, Edward

      Wigg, George

      Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

      Morris, Charles (Openshaw)

      Wilkins, W. A.

      Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

      Neal, Harold

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      Ginsburg, David

      Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

      Winterbottom, R. E.

      Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

      Oliver, G. H.

      Woof, Robert

      Grey, Charles

      O'Malley, B. K.

      Wyatt, Woodrow

      Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

      Oram, A. E.

      Hamilton, William (West Fife)

      Oswald, Thomas

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Harper, Joseph

      Owen, Will

      Dr. Broughton and Mr. Ifor Davies.

      Hart, Mrs. Judith

      Mr. Heath: I beg to move,
      That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
      We might perhaps discuss how we should handle the next stages of the Bill. We have now had a number of long discussions on a number of Amendments put forward by my hon. Friends, and a long debate on the Question, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill. Many hon. Members will be disappointed that we have reached this late hour without achieving discussions on the "loss leader" in Clause 3, and, indeed, more detailed discussions on Clause 4, which has been of great concern to hon. Members on both sides of the Committee in the course of the day.
      612
      In the ordinary way, on an occasion like this evening's, one would expect that we would be able to go on and make further progress with Clause 3 and loss leaders. That, however, is a big subject, on which we have put forward fundamental proposals. There have been discussions in the Press and elsewhere about the nature of the Clause, and we have put down Amendments which represent a fresh approach to the subject, in an attempt to avoid some of the difficulties which are inherent in the approaches suggested so far.
      I feel that in the circumstances, as we are on the eve of an Adjournment before a Recess and questions of travel are of importance to hon. Members on both

      613
      sides of the Committee, and as the next debate is bound to be one not only of importance but of considerable length, embodying a whole group of Amendments which can be taken together, we should not endeavour to embark upon it at this hour.
      I hope it will be for the convenience of the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, and for my right hon. and hon. Friends, if we now report Progress, and I also express the hope that when we resume, as announced by the Leader of the House this afternoon, and embark on the remaining Clauses, we shall be able to make rather more rapid progress than we have been able to make so far. I hope, therefore, that it will be convenient to the Committee if we now bring our deliberations to a conclusion.
      Mr. G. Brown: This just shows that one's faith, as an Anglican, ought never really to be disregarded. One can always save a sinner if one tries hard enough. Last night I was a little cast down, because I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was beyond redemption. Clearly that was not so. He can be saved, and tonight he is proving himself—[An HON. MEMBER: "Parson Brown."]—[Laughter.] If what is reported to me as having been said is in fact what was said, it does not seem to justify that amount of hilarity. Anyway, it seems that we can now take a certain amount of humble pride in having impressed on the right hon. Gentleman last night that he should not be quite so rough and tough. He has learned his lesson and has come to us tonight in a much more humble mood.—[Interruption.]—Yes, indeed. He has now proposed that, having gone just about as far as he knows he can get, we should all go home.
      I want to make it quite clear that my hon. Friends and I have not held up the Bill so far. His own hon. Friends have occupied a large part of the time, and I must remind him that it was I who came here today to get his Bill afloat, at a time when his right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House did not bother to come in, and when he himself was a wee bit afraid to rise. We got his Bill afloat for him. But for that we would have been discussing
      614
      points of order for a long time. We helped him as far as we could.
      However. I agree with him, in his new mood—the mood of today as against the mood of yesterday—that once we start on the next set of Amendments and the next Clause we shall be dealing with a very wide subject, which will take us a long time. It would be jolly inconvenient for hon. Members on both sides of the Committee to interrupt that debate. It therefore seems a natural thing to break off our discussion at this point.
      As to any commitment when we come back after Easter, I want to make it quite clear that on this side of the Committee we shall conduct the debate exactly as we have done up to now. We shall discuss every point in the Bill with the attention that it demands, and we shall give it no more but no less than the attention that one would expect from a flee House of Commons. I do not want the right hon. Gentleman's Motion to be accepted with any misunderstanding about our position, but on that basis I think that the right hon. Gentleman is doing much better tonight than he did last night. I am therefore delighted tonight to second him and on behalf of my hon. and right hon. Friends to agree that we should now report Progress.
      Mr. Heath: I understand the right hon. Gentleman, of course, when he says that he has entered into no commitment about the future conduct of the Bill from his side of the Committee, but I fully apreciate what he was saying when he said that he was determined to carry on conducting the proceedings on the Bill in the way that hon. and right hon. Members opposite have been doing so far, because that enables us to form our own judgment about the way the proceedings have been going.
      I am grateful to the right hon. Gentlemen for his help this afternoon when he indicated to his hon. Friends that he would prefer them not to raise points of order. In this respect he was quite different from last night when he moved a Motion similar to the one we are now discussing and suggested to his hon. Friends that they should take further part in the debate. I agree with

      615
      the right hon. Gentleman that we have reached a satisfactory solution and should report Progress.
      Mr. Brown: I said last night that the right hon. Gentleman had joined the select band of Ministers who had obstructed their own Bill, and he is doing the same thing again. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to play it this way, very well. We will play it this way [HON. MEMBERS: "Touchy."] No, not touchy, but I want some things to be quite clear on the record. The right hon. Gentleman was laying, a speech then to which he hoped to refer at a later date when the Guillotine Motion is moved by the Patronage Secretary. I want to get one point quite clear. There has been absolutely no behaviour from this side of the Committee which could possibly justify that. There have been speeches after speeches from both sides of the Committee, and there has been as much concern on the benches opposite about the effect of the Bill as there has been on this side.
      If the right hon. Gentleman wants to play it this way, we are quite prepared to stay here tonight. If he does, let us start on the next Clause. This is the absurdity of the position that the right hon. Gentleman takes up. Faced with a genuine offer from this side of the Committee, he cannot help but make a kind of party point. We have helped him far more than have his own hon. Friends. If the right hon. Gentleman is thinking, as I guess he is, and as I guess he has already arranged with the Patronage Secretary, in terms of a Guillotine Motion on Monday, 13th April, let us make it quite plain that nothing has been done on this side of the Committee to justify it. If he wants to defer the debate until the next sitting day, it is all right as far as we are concerned, but it is for the right hon. Gentleman's convenience. The Leader of the House, who so seldom troubles us with his attendance, should not enter into hiccups the moment he arrives [Laughter.] The mere mention of his right hon Friend's name caused him to hiccup. Last night all he did was to appear round the corner to see whether his right hon. Friend was in trouble; and the moment he saw that he was in trouble out he dodged. If the right hon.
      616
      and learned Gentleman feels, as I do, that his right hon. Friend did not deal very well with this matter, perhaps he would like to say a word about it.
      11.15 p.m.
      To us it seems logical and rational to end the discussion here, but I want no threats held over our head and no misunderstandings. We, being broadly speaking in favour of the consumer, have helped a rather bad Bill to be amended and improved. We shall address ourselves to the rest of the Bill in the same spirit. The right hon. Gentleman will perhaps use the Recess to talk to some of his hon. Friends, who clearly do not see the consumer in the same way as we see him.
      Mr. Heath: The right hon. Gentleman and I are both agreed that this is a suitable moment at which we should interrupt proceedings on the Bill and report Progress.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Committee Report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

      ROADS (M.4 ROUTE)
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Finlay.]
      11.17 p.m.
      Mr. Peter Emery: Just about 24 hours ago I was on my feet from my place in the House. The House seems a little less full now than it was then, and I hope that what I say will be considerably less contentious.
      I want to draw the attention of the House to the position of the routing of the motorway M.4 as it affects my constituency of Reading. I should like to make it plain from the outset that I do not wish to enter into any controversy or any discussion about the way in which it may affect a large number of other constituencies through the whole of Berkshire, Devizes and, indeed, a number of others, but I shall keep my remarks entirely to the position of Reading.
      The first point which anybody ought to realise in discussing this matter is the extreme difficulty which the Ministry of Transport has in coming to its decision

      617
      about the route which this shall take. The historical background has been considerable, and it is in some way because of this that it seems to me important that the position and the case for Reading should be made quite clear. The Reading and district traffic survey, which has been carried out by the local authority is in my hon. Friend's hands, and I am certain that he agrees with me that this is one of the first of the newer traffic surveys.
      Going into the greatest possible detail, I am certain that it is possible to provide him with the sort of information required to reach the proper judgments and decisions affecting roads and their environment in any new plan which has to be brought forward. But he knows that in respect of the M.4 this proposal goes back for many years, and indeed until quite recently it was always believed that this road would go south of Reading.
      Development and planning provisions were conditioned by the assumption that the M.4 would have to pass south of the town on a route included in the Berkshire County Council's development plan. Because of a provision to this effect in that development plan, earlier proposals for a southern loop within Reading were abandoned.
      This earlier loop road was planned to link Oxford Road with Wokingham Road and London Road through areas which were either then underdeveloped or only just being developed. Since abandoning these earlier proposals, this route has been largely developed by housing, without any provision for the loop road; and no alternatives along these lines readily present themselves.
      Statistics of particular importance about the traffic in Reading are that there is an estimated volume of 29,000 vehicles a day which would use the motor way if it were planned along the southern and link road. This figure would decrease to about 16,700 vehicles a day if the modified northern route was used. It is important to realise that through non-stop traffic, for which the motor way is primarily intended, amounts to about 10,000 vehicles a day. This is an average figure which obviously varies considerably and depends on the method of entry.
      About half of these vehicles are carried on the A.4 and, naturally, in the peak
      618
      holiday periods these figures are considerably increased. It is also interesting to note that about 90 per cent. of local traffic comes from points or goes to points in the area south of Reading—using the line of the railway track, the Great Western Railway, as the division between north and south.
      I will outline the problems which are illustrated by this north and south route. Travelling north or south through Reading one must cross either one of two bridges over the Kennet, both of which are narrow and able only to take a single lane of traffic passing in opposite directions. One must go under the main London railway line at one of two places and then cross either Reading Bridge or Caversham Bridge. These are individual bottlenecks which create the greatest possible problem to north-south traffic.
      The importance of this becomes obvious when it is realised that the whole of the industrial development affecting Reading is now taking place in the southern part of the town. That figure of 90 per cent. of the traffic is concerned specifically with the area south of Reading. If a motorway were placed north of Reading not only would this traffic have to use one or other of these two narrow points and crowd the centre of a thriving metropolis, but it would then have to pass through an area of residential development in Caversham, Caversham Heights and Emmer Green which, on all the evidence, is an area which is not easily developed for any sort of proper access for through traffic. Anybody who has seen the area of domestic homes in Caversham, and noted the problems of the hills, will realise that there would have to be the greatest demolition. Notwithstanding the problem of getting out on to Peppard Road, there are things which the local authority strongly recommends as being impracticable of development, whilst the Basingstoke Road, in the area of Reading, has been planned wide enough to take the necessary sort of traffic as that which would use the road which has been provisionally planned for many years south of Reading.
      Perhaps I may now refer particularly to a considerable number of reports which have, in fact, inundated Berkshire and which, I imagine, must have

      619
      reached the Minister's desk? They come from six preservation societies—the Chilterns and South Oxfordshire, the Tidmarsh Parish Meeting, the Mid-Thames Valley Association, the Berkshire Downs Villages Association, the Berkshire Preservation Society, and the Kennet Valley Preservation Society—and the only thing which I would point out is that five out of the six urge the southern route. The Kennet Valley Preservation Society urges the southern link road to the modified northern route after it has been around Reading.
      The reason that I feel it is necessary to initiate this debate is the sort of things which have arisen from some of these reports and studies. I would mention here the most excellently produced report of Messrs. Rose and Rigby Childs, but they have given views about Reading which I think should be quoted. If I may use a quotation from page 27, they state:
      "The line passing south of Reading may produce complications rather than a solution"
      and on page 68 there is the statement that a route south of Reading may produce more complications.
      But these two gentlemen neither saw fit to see the town clerk, the borough engineer, the planning officer, or myself before coming to any of these conclusions and this slightly worries me when I remember the sort of publicity that these reports have had. So far as Reading is concerned, there is a very real worry over the fact that there would be the greatest disruption if, in fact, traffic which goes through, and which is concerned with Reading, was routed on the northern side, How this would fit in, as has been said, particularly with the proposed development as the South-East Study, published last week, is difficult to see. Then, we shall have to have expansion for another 30,000 people—a balanced expansion of both office and industrial development—and for this the route should be on the southern side.
      The bottlenecks which would be produced are worthy of study, but are more simple of solution if the route is on the southern side. If the Ministry decides that it is in everybody's best interests that the route must go to the north of Reading, I must ask the Minister to guarantee the provision of a link route
      620
      from somewhere in the area of Calcot, to the west of Reading, going around the south of Reading and coming out somewhere in the Sonning or Twyford areas. My estimate of this is that it would be of an area of at least 10 miles, at an estimate, using the Minister's Road Technical Paper No. 50, of £425,000 a mile.
      Any argument about economies and saving by using the modified northern route will entirely disappear if the Government have to make a contribution for a link south of Reading, which must be essential. If the route goes north of Reading the whole of the new central plan for the civic centre of Reading will have to be reconsidered and the present arrangements scrapped, as well as extensive and impossible road improvements.
      I know that my hon. Friend will not give me the exact answer today, but may I urge him to consider most fully the position as it affects Reading, not only for the present but for the future, because it would be absurd to have to spend this millions of pounds and, at the same time, disrupt the whole of a town such as the Borough of Reading.
      11.31 p.m.
      The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): As my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Peter Emery) has said, the routing of M.4 is a question which has aroused considerable interest, and I am glad that he has raised the subject tonight, because to some extent the hopes and fears of the protagonists of the various possible routes have obscured the principal factors which must influence my right hon. Friend when he comes to make a decision.
      I think, therefore, that it may be useful to the House if I describe, first of all, the requirements which the route finally chosen has got to satisfy. As the House knows, M.4 is the London—South Wales motorway. Like the other roads in the main motorway network, it is primarily intended to provide a safe, fast route for long-distance traffic, in this case for vehicles travelling between London, Bristol and South Wales via the Severn Bridge. This primary requirement for long-distance traffic is a factor which must never be forgotten.

      621
      The position to date is that only two short lengths of this motorway have been completed so far—the by-passes of Slough and Maidenhead. By the beginning of next year, however, the connection between the eastern terminus of the road at Chiswick and the Slough bypass will be ready. At the same time, we hope also to have the entire length from the terminus at the western end of the Newport by-pass to Tormarton in Gloucestershire under construction. It is clear, however, that before these two lengths can pull their weight, they have got to be linked together, and it is over this link that controversy has arisen.
      For some years, as my hon. Friend has told the House, a tentative route has existed and has in part been protected in the Berkshire and Wiltshire development plans. This route, nowadays commonly called the southern route, is really a linking together of pre-war by-pass schemes for towns, including Reading on the A.4 route to Bristol. But when, some three years ago, the position was reexamined it was found that the route would require considerable revision to bring it up to modern motorway standards. Particularly important was the fact that it seemed probable that there were other routes which would be better for long-distance traffic.
      As a result, therefore, my right hon. Friend decided to have the whole route between Maidenhead and Tormarton reexamined, and consulting engineers were appointed in 1961 to carry out surveys and recommend a provisional line of route. These investigations added to the basic requirement of a route designed to serve long-distance traffic, the secondary need to serve major industrial towns lying between London and Bristol—that is, Swindon and my hon. Friend's constituency of Reading.
      As a result of this inquiry, three basic routes emerged. First, there was the southern route, which I have already mentioned. The second, which became known as the northern route, crossed the Thames near Shiplake, ran across the southern extremities of the Chilterns and crossed the Thames again near South Stoke. It then ran through the Vale of the White Horse, passing north of Swindon and so on to Tormarton. Both these lines were about 79 miles long. The southern line did not serve Swindon, but
      622
      the northern line through the Vale of the White Horse served both Swindon and, more distantly, my hon. Friend's constituency.
      The third line, known as the direct line, also crossed the Thames at Ship-lake and near South Stoke, and served both Swindon and Reading. It was also substantially shorter, to an extent of seven miles or 10 per cent. A saving of this magnitude would obviously be quite important, not simply because it would cost less to build, but more particularly because the running costs for the long-distance traffic would be less, too. I must emphasise, however, that the economic argument is by no means the sole argument for the selection of a route, though obviously it is a very important factor.
      Other factors which are taken into account are, for example, the effect of a particular route on amenities; and, unfortunately, as we know only too well, here all three possible basic routes run through very attractive and beautiful country and it is very difficult to say which is the most attractive and beautiful. This explains the number of preservation societies which have been active on this route, to which my hon. Friend has just drawn attention.
      My right hon. Friend, of course, recognised the peculiar difficulties of the direct route, and so in May, 1962, before steps were taken to begin surveying in detail, he decided to consult informally with the major local authorities. This was not an attempt to get them to commit themselves in advance. It was simply to get their reactions.
      In asking them for their reactions, my right hon. Friend indicated a broad preference for the shorter and more direct line. In answer to his query, three of the counties affected by this line—Gloucestershire, Wiltshire and Berkshire—said that they saw no objection, but Oxfordshire was in favour of sticking to the southern route, and so was Reading, as my hon. Friend told the House, though Swindon, on the other hand, saw no objection to the direct route.
      As a result of these consultations and other advice that my right hon. Friend received, the direct line was modified. This produced three advantages. In the first place, the second crossing of the Thames was brought further south to the

      623
      neighbourhood of Purley, and as there are more trees in this area, it would make the crossing less obvious. Secondly, it brought the route nearer to Reading, and thirdly, except in the area between Great Shefford and Baydon, it avoided the high downland. Furthermore, the modified direct route line was, if anything, slightly shorter than the direct route itself.
      It was this modified direct route which my right hon. Friend announced in January, 1963, as a basis for consideration. Of course, my right hon. Friend cannot take a final decision until he has published draft proposals, studied any objections to them, and, if necessary, held a public inquiry and considered anything that emerges from it.
      Since the publication of the modified direct route, some survey work has been taking place on this line and also upon some alternatives. One of these alternatives which has only recently been suggested also runs south of Reading. But immediately west of Reading it swings north-westwards to join the modified direct route. This route, which the Reading report prefers, avoids the Thames crossings, but as it passes through a low-lying area it would have to run on an embankment with the existing roads carried over it on humpback bridges which would be difficult to fit into the landscape. Furthermore, this route is nearly three miles longer than the modified direct route.
      So the present position is that these surveys are now being embodied in the full report which my right hon. Friend expects to receive very shortly from his consulting engineers. Naturally, until he has considered the report carefully and has consulted the local authorities and other interests, he cannot possibly reach a decision. But once he has made up his mind, the route chosen will be published for public appraisal and objection as laid down in the Highways Act, 1959. Then there may well be a public inquiry, and it is only after all this has been studied that my right hon. Friend will be able to make his final decision.
      Since my right hon. Friend is still awaiting a full report, I am sure that the House and my hon. Friend will understand why I have been able to
      624
      touch only superficially on some of the merits of the various schemes and why what I say in regard to the points raised by my hon. Friend will also to a certain extent be superficial.
      One point which is sometimes made is that the extra cost of bridge structures over the Thames would make the cost of the modified direct route much the same as that of the modified southern route; but the bridges over the Thames, even with their associated viaducts, would not be so expensive as to counterbalance the cost of the greater number of smaller bridges which would be required on the other routes nor the need for embankments in areas of poor drainage.
      Mr. Emery rose—
      Mr. Galbraith: I would like to finish. My hon. Friend asked a great many questions, and I am worried about the time. If I can finish in time, I shall be delighted to give way.
      All our preliminary estimates show that the cost per mile of the various routes will be broadly similar, so that in respect of cost the advantage, such as it is, lies with the shortest route.
      From these general considerations, I come now to my hon. Friend's constituency and the case which Reading has deployed in its report on the Reading and District Traffic Survey. As my hon. Friend probably knows, we have only recently received this report, and we are at present studying it very carefully. My right hon. Friend's consulting engineers have already been in touch with the borough engineer to clarify some sections of the report. What emerges in general from the report, I think, is that Reading, perhaps naturally, has a view of the function of the motorway diametrically opposed to that of my right hon. Friend.
      The report makes clear that there is only a marginal difference in the amount of east-west through traffic which will transfer from the A.4 route to the motorway, whether the motorway goes north or south of the town. But Reading is anxious—this is something which has emerged from the traffic survey—to use the motorway as part of a relief ring road to keep north-south traffic out of the town. This is a proper and understandable desire on the part of Reading, but

      625
      I am not sure that it is really a legitimate use of a main national route to the West, to use it over a short distance as a relief ring road for a particular town. If there are a lot of short-distance drivers entering and leaving the motorway, this will obviously cause unnecessary hazards to the long-distance traffic. This does not mean that a relief road may not be necessary, but we do not believe that it is the function of a long-distance motorway to be used for this purpose.
      The report which Reading produced emphasises the difficulties which traffic attempting to gain access to a motorway junction north of the town would create. My hon. Friend has referred in particular to the capacity of the bridges over the Kennet and the Thames and to the problems which arise because of the railway bridges in the town. These potential difficulties have been recognised from the start. But our preliminary view is that traffic from the industrial areas in the south of Reading would use proposed junctions east and west of the town, so that the fear expressed in the report and by my hon. Friend tonight may well not come to pass. Certainly, some of the routes out of the town will have to be improved, but this is probably true whichever route is finally chosen.
      My hon. Friend has referred to the possible attraction of traffic from the south to Reading if the line chosen for the M.4 passes north of the town. But is it not more likely—my hon. Friend with his local knowledge will be able to say whether he agrees—that such traffic, if it wishes to join the motorway, will prefer to use one of the junctions east or west of the town, depending on its destination? Moreover, some of this traffic, if travelling to London, may well prefer to join the projected Basingstoke motorway.
      626
      I emphasise again that the function of the M.4 is primarily to serve long-distance east-west traffic. I assure my hon. Friend that the report is being considered in this context. Even if the figures quoted for the cost of the relief road by my hon. Friend are correct, it is not true that the financial advantage of the modified direct route disappears. My hon. Friend has left out of consideration, I think, the extra cost to through traffic of the extra mileage he would impose on it for the benefit of Reading.
      In conclusion, I stress once more that all I have said is no more than our preliminary reactions. The report was sent to us only on 4th March, and any new factors which emerge from it and which have a bearing on the routing of the M.4 will, I assure my hon. Friend, be taken fully into account. I hope that nothing I have said tonight will be construed by people outside the House as implying that my right hon. Friend has already made up his mind on the route to propose in a draft special road scheme. He has not yet received his consulting engineers' report. When he does, all the factors, the implications of economics, amenity, planning and agriculture must then be fully considered.
      It is a most difficult decision that my right hon. Friend has to take, as, I think, my hon. Friend appreciates. I assure him, however, that the valuable points which he has raised tonight will certainly be amongst those which will be weighed carefully before the final decision is taken.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes to Twelve o'clock.

AVIATION
  Turnhouse Aerodrome
  Turnhouse Aerodrome
  Overseas Service Volunteers (Transportation Costs)
  Overseas Service Volunteers (Transportation Costs)
  Stornoway Aerodrome (Improvements)
  Stornoway Aerodrome (Improvements)
  Westland Helicopters (Contract Date)
  Westland Helicopters (Contract Date)
  Royal Ordnance Factory, Cardiff (Chimney)
  Royal Ordnance Factory, Cardiff (Chimney)
  Britannia Aircraft (Sale)
  Britannia Aircraft (Sale)
  Departmental Administration
  Departmental Administration
  Ministry (Forms)
  Ministry (Forms)
  Vertical Take-Off and Landing
  Vertical Take-Off and Landing
ROADS
  Fatal Accidents (Report Form)
  Fatal Accidents (Report Form)
  A.2 (Lamp Standards)
  A.2 (Lamp Standards)
  Abandoned Vehicles
  Abandoned Vehicles
  Goods Vehicles
  Goods Vehicles
  Axbridge By-pass
  Axbridge By-pass
  North-East Programme
  North-East Programme
  Trunk Roads (Lavatory Facilities)
  Trunk Roads (Lavatory Facilities)
  Accidents (Statistics)
  Accidents (Statistics)
  Calder Bridge, Wakefield (Design)
  Calder Bridge, Wakefield (Design)
  One-Way Traffic Scheme, Islington
  One-Way Traffic Scheme, Islington
  High Road, Leytonstone (Traffic Congestion)
  High Road, Leytonstone (Traffic Congestion)
  Parked Cars (Double Banking)
  Parked Cars (Double Banking)
  Trafalgar Square (Traffic)
  Trafalgar Square (Traffic)
TRANSPORT
  Public Transport (Improved Standards)
  Public Transport (Improved Standards)
  Car Ownership
  Car Ownership
  Rural Transport, Scotland
  Rural Transport, Scotland
  Flashing Light Indicators (Standardisation)
  Flashing Light Indicators (Standardisation)
  Channel Tunnel (Road and Rail Traffic)
  Channel Tunnel (Road and Rail Traffic)
  Channel Crossing (Hovercraft)
  Channel Crossing (Hovercraft)
  London Transport Board
  London Transport Board
  Travel Concessions Act, 1955
  Travel Concessions Act, 1955
  Political Broadcasts
  Political Broadcasts
  Road Checks, Scotland
  Road Checks, Scotland
  Departmental Administration
  Departmental Administration
  Departmental Forms
  Departmental Forms
  Transport Undertakings (Capital Debts)
  Transport Undertakings (Capital Debts)
RAILWAYS
  Branch Lines
  Branch Lines
  Closures
  Closures
  Liverpool-Southport Line
  Liverpool-Southport Line
  Transport Museums
  Transport Museums
  Closures, Scotland (Net Annual Savings)
  Closures, Scotland (Net Annual Savings)
SHIPPING
  Shipbuilding (United Kingdom Merchant Fleet)
  Shipbuilding (United Kingdom Merchant Fleet)
  Organisation Methods
  Organisation Methods
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Regular Recruits
  Regular Recruits
POST OFFICE
  Sub-Office, Birmingham (Northfield)
  Sub-Office, Birmingham (Northfield)
  Parcel Post (Westmorland)
  Parcel Post (Westmorland)
  Postal Service Costs (Government Department)
  Postal Service Costs (Government Department)
  Post Office Savings Bank
  Post Office Savings Bank
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Kiosks (Highlands and Islands)
  Kiosks (Highlands and Islands)
  Feltham and Hounslow
  Feltham and Hounslow
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Bute
  Bute
  Radio Relay Stations
  Radio Relay Stations
ROYAL NAVY
  Former Naval Aircraft
  Former Naval Aircraft
  Polaris Submarines
  Polaris Submarines
  Nuclear Submarine Propulsion Plant, Dounreay
  Nuclear Submarine Propulsion Plant, Dounreay
  Burma Independence (Claims)
  Burma Independence (Claims)
  Organisation and Methods
  Organisation and Methods
  Royal Yacht "Britannia"
  Royal Yacht "Britannia"
SCOTLAND
  Teachers' Salaries (Joint Council)
  Teachers' Salaries (Joint Council)
  Farm Rents (Ayrshire)
  Farm Rents (Ayrshire)
  Exported Cattle (Subsidies)
  Exported Cattle (Subsidies)
  Roads, Central Scotland
  Roads, Central Scotland
  Monkland Canal (Coatbridge)
  Monkland Canal (Coatbridge)
  Organisation and Methods
  Organisation and Methods
  Prestwick Airport (Scandinavian Aircraft)
  Prestwick Airport (Scandinavian Aircraft)
  Houses (Disinfection)
  Houses (Disinfection)
  Obstetric Services, Stornoway
  Obstetric Services, Stornoway
  School Leavers (Western Isles)
  School Leavers (Western Isles)
  Educational Broadcasts (Gaelic Language)
  Educational Broadcasts (Gaelic Language)
  Forth Road Bridge
  Forth Road Bridge
  Civil Servants (Travel Allowances)
  Civil Servants (Travel Allowances)
  Landlords (Farm Properties)
  Landlords (Farm Properties)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Outside Bodies (Grants)
  Outside Bodies (Grants)
  Land Sale Profits (Taxation)
  Land Sale Profits (Taxation)
  Organisation and Methods
  Organisation and Methods
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Customs (Seizure of Books)
  Customs (Seizure of Books)
SCIENCE
  Motorways
  Motorways
UNIVERSITIES
  Bristol University
  Bristol University
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Organisation and Methods
  Organisation and Methods
  Sugar
  Sugar
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Organisation and Methods
  Organisation and Methods
  Air Ministry
  Air Ministry
  FOREIGN OFFICE (ORGANISATION AND METHODS)
  FOREIGN OFFICE (ORGANISATION AND METHODS)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Bind Persons (Ultra-sonic Aid)
  Bind Persons (Ultra-sonic Aid)
  Prescription Charges
  Prescription Charges
  Organisation and Methods
  Organisation and Methods
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Commnonwealth Immigrants (Deportation)
  Commnonwealth Immigrants (Deportation)
  Administration of Justice (Guernsey)
  Administration of Justice (Guernsey)
  Woolf Case (Report)
  Woolf Case (Report)
INDUSTRY, TRADE AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
  Organisation and Methods
  Organisation and Methods
  North Lanarkshire Industrial Estate
  North Lanarkshire Industrial Estate
EMPLOYMENT
  Cutlery and Silverware Industries
  Cutlery and Silverware Industries
  Alton
  Alton
  Organisation and Methods
  Organisation and Methods
  Stornoway
  Stornoway
  Fort William Pulp Mill
  Fort William Pulp Mill
  Railway Workers, Merthyr Tydfil
  Railway Workers, Merthyr Tydfil
  Industrial Training Council
  Industrial Training Council
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Organisation and Methods
  Organisation and Methods
  Widows, Western Isles (National Assistance)
  Widows, Western Isles (National Assistance)
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Organisation and Methods
  Organisation and Methods
PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND WORKS
  N.A.T.O. Base, Stornoway
  N.A.T.O. Base, Stornoway
  Organisation and Methods
  Organisation and Methods
MALTA
  Referendum (Observers)
  Referendum (Observers)
ADEN
  Franchise
  Franchise
EDUCATION
  Schools, Colne Valley
  Schools, Colne Valley
  Organisation and Methods
  Organisation and Methods
  Day Release (Report)
  Day Release (Report)
  Bristol University (Students)
  Bristol University (Students)
HOUSING
  Rents
  Rents
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Organisation and Methods
  Organisation and Methods
BRITISH ARMY
  Land (Petersfield)
  Land (Petersfield)
  Civilian Clothing (Cash Grant)
  Civilian Clothing (Cash Grant)
  Organisation and Methods
  Organisation and Methods
  Dartmoor
  Dartmoor
  Personal Case
  Personal Case

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

MESSAGES FROM THE QUEEN
2.35 p.m.
LORD COBBOLD: My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships two Messages from Her Majesty the Queen, signed by her own hand. The first Message is 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 highest satisfaction and the assurance of your affectionate concern for our happiness."
The second Message reads 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."

PLAYING FIELDS AND RATING RELIEF
2.37 p.m.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: 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 now in a position to make a statement about the results obtained from the further contact that has been made with those local authorities who had previously refused to consider the granting of relief to
1248
football, cricket and other sporting clubs, in respect of the rates payable on their playing fields, as it was intended should be done under the Rating and Valuation Act, 1961.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, THE MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD HASTINGS): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has written to four rating authorities about their alleged refusal to consider applications on merits. One authority rescinded its decision not to entertain applications; one refuted the allegation that it had not given any relief; one replied that only one sports club had asked for relief and that had been refused on merits; and one admitted refusing all applicants but explained that most would have lower rates this year than before the revaluation, and that the decision had been taken against the background of a local increase in the domestic share of the rates.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, I should like to ask him whether the Government will continue to bring pressure to bear in future on those local authorities who do not carry out the intention of the 1961 Act. Furthermore, is my noble friend aware that all amateur sporting clubs who have received relief or who are in difficulties are grateful to the Government for the action they have recently taken in this matter? And will the Government be prepared to continue in future to act in this way, should it be shown to be necessary?
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his expression of gratitude to Her Majesty's Government. It is certainly to be understood, and I welcome this opportunity of making quite clear, that my right honourable friend expects every decision to be taken on merits. I welcome this opportunity of drawing attention to his view. The intention of the Act, of course, is that proper consideration should be given to all applications.

THE FOREIGN OFFICE BUILDING
2.40 p.m.
LORD BOSSOM: 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, since the façade of the Foreign Office is an exceptional example of Victorian architecture, whether they will consider removing the interior and replacing it, and if this is not large enough to meet the requirements of the Foreign Office could not the members of the staff who do not have to meet members of the public or the senior officials be located in some nearby building; or failing this could not some smaller Government Department be located in the Foreign Office building, and the whole of the Foreign Office be transferred into different premises.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CAR RINGTON): My Lords, a scheme to mod rnise the interior of the present Foreign Office was prepared but had to be abandoned because it becomes apparent that after spending at least £2 million we should be left with accommodation which still suffered from many of the defects of the present building, would be unsuitable for a modern Department of State, would be insufficient to house the staff of the Foreign Office and Commonwealth Relations Office who must be in Whitehall, and would not make the best use of this important site.
Complete reconstruction of the interior of the building would be an even more expensive operation, and would not materially increase the space available. It would not be possible to introduce additional floors while retaining the present window arrangement without spoiling the external appearance of the building and condemning staff to work in offices with inadequate natural lighting
To spend millions of pounds on trying to improve the accommodation in the present building, and to spend further millions on accommodating those staff who cannot be housed there would not, in our view, be a justifiable expenditure
1250
of public money. It would result in a far more expensive and far less efficient scheme than replacing the present building. As for the suggestion that the present building might be used to house a smaller Department, and the Foreign Office be housed elsewhere, there is no other building in the Whitehall area—apart from Whitehall Gardens, now fully occupied by Ministry of Defence staff—which is large enough to house the Foreign Office and Commonwealth Relations Office staff who must be in this area.
Her Majesty's Government do not share the implied doubt as to the ability of our present-day architects to produce a building that is both functionally efficient and to a design worthy of this important site.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether, when a final decision is being reached, the plans for the new building will be made available to Parliament before the actual decision is taken?
LORD CARRINGTON: Yes, my Lords; I am sure that that is so.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that rather comprehensive story, with which I do not quite agree, I would say that I am afraid modern methods of construction do not justify the figures he has quoted. But surely there are methods whereby this can be done. As for getting a part of the staff to go elsewhere, this is, in fact, being done by some of the largest organisations in the world, both in this country and abroad. Why, therefore, cannot we give consideration to this matter so as to save some of our really famous buildings?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, there is no doubt whatever that part of the Foreign Office staff could be housed elsewhere, as indeed they are at the moment. But the point is not only that anybody can see that it is very desirable that the whole Foreign Office should be housed together, but that it was one of the recommendations in the Plowden Report. If the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, will read it, I think he will see why. I know that my noble friend Lord Bossom feels very strongly about this and is unconvinced by the arguments which have been produced so far. May I suggest to

1251
him that he comes round, at a time convenient to him, and has a look at the inside of the Foreign Office; and if he is still unconvinced and thinks that it could be altered structurally inside to accommodate the whole of the Foreign Office, he may like to write to my right honourable friend the Minister of Public Building and Works, and perhaps see one of the architects concerned.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that some time ago I put forward a suggestion that there should be a White Paper on this subject, so that Parliament should be fully informed as to the position? We are not fully informed; we do not know what the cost of alternative schemes would be. The noble Lord has explained what will be cost of carrying out the noble Lord's suggestion, but we do not know what would be the cost of alternative schemes. If we could have all this information before the Government are finally committed—the cost of carrying out the alternative which the Government have in mind as against the cost of the proposal which the noble Lord, Lord Bossom, is putting forward—we should be in a better position to make up our minds.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I confess that I did not know that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, had made that suggestion, but I should like to consider it, if I may.
LORD SILKIN: I had been promised that it would be considered, but I had not heard the result of the consideration.
LORD CARRINGTON: I am afraid that, as the noble Lord knows, I am only a "stand-in" in this matter, and I did not know that.
LORD BOSSOM: May I accept my noble friend's invitation after Easter? We can then get together. I am certainly only too anxious to be as helpful as I can be. Thank you very much.
LORD CARRINGTON: I can assure my noble friend that the Foreign Office will not be pulled down before Easter.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: My Lords, is the noble Lord not aware that many people who have it in mind that the real façade should be retained are of the opinion that the Ministry are circumscribed in the information that they can obtain from other experts, architects and engineers? And is he not aware that many people who have this matter very much at heart think that the Government are limiting themselves in the receipt of alternative information which would make them believe that what they think is now impossible is in fact possible?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I really do not think that that is so, but I hope my noble friend will feel that the inspection by my noble friend Lord Bossom will meet at any rate some of his objections.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether it is intended to retain in the new design, if it takes place, the Indian Council Chamber, which is one of the few features in London which has a direct association with the long period of government by this country of India, and which in itself is a very beautiful room which has historic associations?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am afraid I do not know that, because, of course, there is no new design, but I am quite sure that those concerned will take note of what my noble friend has said.
LORD REA: My Lords, is it not the fact that there are plans afoot for reconstructing the South-East corner of Whitehall—that is, roughly, I think, from Richmond Terrace to Bridge Street, and along Bridge Street? Could the noble Lord say whether there is any intention to build more Government offices there, or what are the plans?
LORD CARRINGTON: I think that is rather a different question, but I believe the intention is that there should be more accommodation for the House of Commons, and another Government building which should be occupied by the Home Office.

THE VIEW OF ST. PAUL'S CATHEDRAL
2.46 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: 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 satisfied that the setting of St. Paul's Cathedral is in no way jeopardised by the proposed new buildings in the neighbourhood.]
LORD HASTINGS: Yes, my Lords. I assume that the noble Lord has in mind the building now being erected on the North side of Ludgate Hill. This is in accordance with the proposals of Sir William Holford, the consultant for the St. Paul's Cathedral Precinct Scheme, and the amendment of the development plan formally approved following public inquiries by my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government on January 12, 1959.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that Answer. Is he not aware of the very strong feeling which has been aroused among very many people of widely different kinds about this proposed building and is he not also aware that only a very small alteration in the existing plans (albeit costing a considerable amount of money) would go a very long way towards meeting the major objections? Therefore, would he not consider looking into this whole matter again with the greatest possible urgency, in order to ensure that the view of one of the finest buildings left in the City of London is in no way, even minimally, impeded, so that people can enjoy to the full the façade of Sir Christopher Wren's St. Paul's?
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I am well aware of the strong feelings of a number, possibly quite a small minority, of people who have been expressing their feelings upon this matter and writing to the Press, but I am sure that the noble Lord himself must be fully aware that this is probably the most carefully considered, the most carefully planned and the most thoroughly discussed redevelopment plan in the whole of Great Britain since the war, over a
1254
period of six years, starting in 1955. Everybody was fully aware at that time of what was going to happen. The scheme was fully considered, and everybody had the opportunity to express his opinions. I would draw the noble Lord's attention to the letter by Sir William Holford in The Times of yesterday explaining the scheme in great detail, and to the leading article in The Times today.
In view of all this, I must state categorically that my right honourable friend has no intention of altering the decisions already taken or of reconsidering the matter. We believe that it has been fully considered and in the great majority of cases that it is fully approved as a very fine development scheme. I would just add that the view of the West Front of St. Paul's is to be limited to only a very small extent by the building to which the noble Lord has referred. It is a question of a difference of about 35 yards between the view obtained when the demolition of the old building was completed and the view after the erection of the new building. The new building will obstruct the view to an extent of only 35 yards on Ludgate Hill.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that it is unfortunate that even 35 yards—which on a façade of the size of St. Paul's, cannot be considered as entirely minimal—should be restricted in a new plan? And would he not once more undertake to reconsider some of the objections put forward by many people, including the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's, and other less eminent but no less worthy people?
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, does my noble friend recall that this House debated Sir William Holford's plan for St. Paul's on April 18, 1956, and that every one of us who took part, including the late Lord Esher and the late Lord Mottistone, welcomed and praised it? Is he aware that one lover of London and of the work of Wren remains of the same opinion still, welcomes the Government's reply and greatly prefers the plan of Sir William Holford to the views of his latest critics?
LORD RATHCAVAN: My Lords, my interest in this matter is that the very next building to the building under dis-

1255
cussion belongs to a business of which I am the chairman, and my board and I are naturally very much concerned with the amenities around St. Paul's. I quite realise, as the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, said, that this matter was decided a long time ago by, I think the London County Council or the City of London and various high-up people.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order! Question!
LORD RATHCAVAN: Is it not the case that this is the first occasion since this building has been started that the ordinary citizen has been able to see what is happening? It is the ordinary citizen who did not realise the position. And is it not time, in view of the correspondence in the Press and the meeting to-day outside St. Paul's Cathedral, that some notice was taken of what the ordinary citizen thinks?
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Conesford for reminding us of the full debate some years ago; and in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Walston, and to my noble friend Lord Rathcavan, I would say that this is really not a case where the public have not been fully informed of what has been happening and have not had an opportunity to express their opinion: the public have had that opportunity. Ultimately, as in all matters of æthetics, it is question of personal opinion. The majority opinion after careful consideration, seems to be that the precinct of St. Paul's—which is to become a precinct free from traffic—is better in a setting of enclosure or semi-enclosure, rather than having a wide open front whereby the West Front could be viewed at a rather greater distance. It is a matter of opinion, and I think we must say that this matter has been most carefully considered and finally closed.
THE EARL OF SANDWICH: My Lords, it is not clear from Sir William Holford's letter, but it is the case that, after this building, to which so much objection has been taken, has been put up, there will be a better view of St. Paul's from Ludgate Hill than there has been at any time since the nearby nineteenth century buildings were put
1256
up, except for the period after the bombing.
LORD HASTINGS: That is one of the intentions of Sir William Holford's plan, my Lords. The public will have access to the tower of this new block, which is 90 feet high, and they will be able to look in both directions, on to the West Front of St. Paul's and down Ludgate Hill itself.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, is my noble friend not aware that St. Paul's is internationally considered to be the finest example of the work of England's greatest architect, Sir Christopher Wren? Yet here we are attempting to obliterate its view—and if the noble Lord will go to St. Paul's he will see it for himself—by an ordinary commercial building? Can my noble friend state a single example in the world where such vandalism has been carried out before?
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I would remind my noble friend that the view of St. Paul's has been far more greatly obliterated by buildings which were there soon after St. Paul's was put up than it is now or will be when redevelopment is carried out. The range of views will be much wider and there will be many more varied and wider views of St. Pauls within the precinct than were ever seen before.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, would my noble friend go down to St. Paul's and see for himself? If he were to do so he would not make that comment.

PRESIDENT KENNEDY MEMORIAL
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should like to inform your Lordships that at a suitable moment after 3.30 p.m. the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will be making a statement on the President Kennedy Memorial.

EDUCATION BILL [H.L.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH (LORD NEWTON): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to enable local education authorities to establish schools for providing full-time education

1257
by reference to age-limits differing from those specified in the Education Act 1944, as amended by the Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1948; to enable maintenance allowances to be granted in respect of pupils at special schools who would be over compulsory school age, or, in Scotland, over school age, but for section 38(1) of the said Act of 1944 or section 32(4) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1962; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Newton.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

NEWCASTLE-UNDER-LYME CORPORATION BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL
Read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES COMMITTEE
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That the Lord Strang be proposed to the House as a member of the House of Lords Offices Committee.—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

JUDICIAL STANDING ORDERS
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD DILHORNE): My Lords, I beg to move the first Amendment to the Standing Orders relating to Judicial Business standing in my name on the Order Paper. On February 26, 1959, your Lordships amended Standing Order I regulating Judicial Business in your
1258
Lordships' House so as to provide that appeals from the Court of Appeal in England and Northern Ireland and from the Court of Session in Scotland should be brought within three months of the order or interlocutor complained of, instead of within six months, as had formerly been the case. The Standing Order as then amended included a proviso that in the case of orders or interlocutors made before April 1, 1959, the period for appeal should still be six months. With the passage of time that proviso is now spent, and therefore I beg to move its deletion from the Standing Order.
Moved, That the following Amendment be made to the Standing Orders regulating Judicial Business:—
Standing Order I, leave out the proviso.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move the second Amendment standing in my name. This Standing Order provides that in appeals from Scotland the Appellants shall lay before your Lordships' House a copy of the record "as authenticated by the Lord Ordinary". The closed record is the document which contains the pursuer's condescendence and the defender's answers thereto as fully adjusted at the sight of the Lord Ordinary and which forms the pleadings upon which the subsequent procedure takes place. The Lord Ordinary is said to "close the record" when parties have completed their adjustments on the pleadings. I am informed that in fact the Lord Ordinary has not so authenticated the record for a number of years, but that this is done by the Deputy Principal Clerk of Session. This official takes charge of the Process Department of the Court of Session by virtue of an Act of Sederunt. This Amendment will regularise the present practice. My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Standing Order VI(2), lines 3 and 4, leave out ("Lord Ordinary") and insert ("Deputy Principal Clerk of Session or a Clerk of Session delegated by him").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

AGRICULTURE
2.58 p.m.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH rose to draw attention to the problems of Agriculture and to the Government Statement on the Agricultural Price Review, 1964; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, while we are all pleased to learn that the outcome of the recent Price Review was an agreed settlement, I doubt whether many of us were really surprised, for Review Settlements have been agreed in every Election year since the Tory Party took office, though on only two occasions during the last ten years when there was no Election was there agreement. That, of course, would be purely coincidental, although The Times political correspondent on Monday hinted that the Prime Minister may have influenced the decision.
Referring to some activities in connection with the Resale Prices Bill this writer said that, acting on the instinct of survival and self-preservation,
"Sir Alec did something of the same kind behind the scenes in the farm prices decisions."
He went on,
"But Sir Alec left nothing to chance. Very unobstrusively he intervened as the appeaser or … as the reconciler.
He made an opportunity to let Mr. Woolley and the rest know that the farmers also need not tear the Conservative Party to pieces …"
Clearly, this correspondent is much nearer to the Establishment than I am ever likely to get. He appears to know, not only what they do but also the motive that prompts the doing of it. However, the Election of this year, 1964, will at least enable the present Minister of Agriculture to depart with two agreements and two non-agreements to his credit. But I doubt whether the farmers, or even the country, could afford to trust him or his Government any more during a non-Election period.
It is interesting to note that there were no disagreements until 1956, then they came thick and fast—the disagreements of 1956, 1958, 1960, 1962 and 1963; and there was a succession of these imposed settlements which robbed the farmers of any share in the value of increased efficiency or increased production since 1951. And this, my Lords, despite the following statement, which appeared in
1260
paragraph 31 of the White Paper of December, 1960:
"At the same time the Government wish to assure the industry that they intend, taking one year with another, to leave farmers with a share of the gain from increased efficiency."
Of course, they did nothing of the kind. And if I were an individual farmer, doing my best on the limited acreage that I try to cultivate, I should feel that the mail-bag robbers were gentlemen compared with some members of this Government. However, this year's Price Review and Determination of Guarantees contains a certain element of justice to those who have suffered most from these faulty calculations and broken promises since 1956.
The reduction of 3 per cent. in the size of the dairy herd was a sharp reminder that something substantial had to be done, and an increase in the price of milk was inevitable if we were to stop that tendency to reduce the dairy cattle, with the risk of a shortage in the quantity of milk, which would perhaps endanger the making of cheese and other commodities that derive from milk. Therefore, the increase of price was anticipated, because it was inevitable. We hope that the beneficiaries will not take it for granted that they can afford to go to a point where the quantity of milk to be diverted for manufacturing would reduce the proper price below which they would not like it to go. It will be noted, however, that this concession to the dairy farmers was made at the expense of the housewives and not of the Treasury. I have always found that it is not too difficult to make presents with other people's money. One simple question is being asked, and I know that the noble Lord who is to reply will be ready with an answer very quickly. The question is this: the housewife is called upon to pay 4d. per gallon more for her milk. The producer is to be given 2¼d. Where does the other 1¾d. go? I am sure, as I say, that the noble Lord will have a ready answer to that question.
We regret to learn that no agreement has yet been reached with overseas suppliers of meat for voluntary restriction and phasing of exports to this country. I realise that this is no easy task, but I hope that the Government will persist until a final arrangement is

1261
reached in the interest of market stability. The tragedy is that there have been twelve wasted years. At any time from 1951 this Government could have done what they are trying to do now, in 1964, though so far they have failed. But for their stupid ideological and doctrinaire inhibitions, they could have done this in any one of those twelve years, with advantage to the exporters, the importers, the producers and the consumers of meat.
I should like to ask the noble Lord what the spokesmen from the supplying countries have made out of the agreement concerning bacon, which limits home producers to 36 per cent. of the quantity of bacon we consume, and whether this agreement has had any influence on the discussions that have taken place. We can only take note of what is said in paragraphs 7, 10, 11 and 12 of the Price Review White Paper concerning minimum import prices, levies, standard quantities and marketing arrangements. We are informed by the Parliamentary Secretary that the producers are in agreement with all the Government's proposals, both in principle and in detail, concerning standard quantities and import prices; but so far your Lordships have not been made aware of what these principles and details really are. I should like to know from the noble Lord when your Lordships are going to be let into the secret. It is difficult for members of the Government or of the Opposition either to argue wisely about, or to disagree with, schemes which they have not seen and know nothing about.
What we do know about import prices, however, seems to be about the craziest suggestion that has been made for a very long time. As my noble friend Lord Stonham said a few days ago, as usual, in an odd case, they are doing the right thing, but doing it in the wrong way. I wonder whether noble Lords realise what the Government are doing in their name, and what the Government intend to do, whether they agree with it or not. One simple exampiie—it was an example given by the noble Lord in charge of the Price Review White Paper a few days ago—illustrates the mechanism. Should any country or exporter want to sell to this country, say, large quantities of barley at £17 a ton, if the Minister of Agriculture thinks that £17 a ton is not enough and that we ought to be charged more
1262
for it, he is going to persuade this co-operating country to charge us a few pounds more per ton, and then we shall be very happy!
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (LORD ST. OSWALD): My Lords, if I may say so, that is a very liberal piece of paraphrasing of what I said.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: Well, my Lords, I asked the noble Lord to look at it on Monday, and I shall be very sorry if I have misrepresented the noble Lord in any respect. Probably it never occurred either to the Minister or to the Parliamentary Secretary that a Government buying commission, acting for the nation as a whole, could buy any such commodity at a lower price than that at which it was originally offered and market it in this country in such a manner as to avoid upsetting our own marketing arrangements, and probably make millions of pounds of profit to help the Treasury during the course of every year. But, because the noble Lord and his Government disagree with Government trading of any sort or kind, they prefer this curious, intriguing policy of limiting the lowness of the price of imported foodstuffs that we may require for man or for beast. I shall mention the reason for the extraordinary suggestion later on. With regard to increased prices for fat cattle, potatoes, sugar beet, wool and a reduction of 1d. per dozen for eggs, I think the Minister makes out a good case and comment from me is unnecessary.
As this happens to be the last Price Review before the General Election, whether that should be in June or October (it seems to me that the latter date is becoming more and more likely as the Government get into deeper and deeper cold water, with majorities of one), I propose to remind your Lordships of some of the more important incidents during the past eleven or twelve years relating to agriculture and the attitude and actions of the Government towards both the industry and farmers. But, first, I should like to say how I welcome the shift to the system of operation now embodied in the latter part of paragraph 3 of the White Paper (Cmnd. 2315), which says:

1263
"The system of support through deficiency payments suits us as a nation and is of very great benefit to consumers as well as producers. By safeguarding it from undue pressures in this way the Government are maintaining the system with its advantages to the community."
The safeguards referred to are in paragraph 2: control of imports or import prices, combined with the extension at home of standard quantities. This is by no means the first time that this or similar language has been used in White Papers over the last ten or eleven years. But a reference to these words was out of fashion during the 1962 period when the Government were so involved in the Common Market talks. They will be more popular in the countryside during an Election campaign, however, and that is why I assume they have been resurrected in this White Paper.
In any event, agriculture is still our largest industry. But, while it has made enormous progress since the war, in terms of both efficiency and productivity, we are still the largest food-importing country in the world. Moreover, as a great manufacturing nation, we are obliged to import most of our raw materials for industry. So agricultural policy and productivity are not only important to the farming community as such, but of vital importance to the whole nation, particularly where the balance of payments (which are referred to in "Neddy's" latest Report, published this morning) is concerned. It is true that it required decades of depression under Conservative Governments, a couple of world wars and a Labour Government to appreciate this lesson. Indeed, I am not at all satisfied that the Conservative Government have yet learned the lesson, although the White Paper (Cmnd. 2315) seems to indicate that they are now willing to move from their ancient citadel of free markets and the law of supply and demand since their humiliating experience in 1962.
We welcome this healthy sign, but I regret having to remind noble Lords opposite still further of a few more weak spots in their armour. I have been struggling to try to avoid being more political than was the Leader of the House last Tuesday, and the Chairman of the Conservative Party last
1264
Wednesday, but the truth must be told. The simple truth, of course, is that neither before the war nor since the war have the Government had what could be recognised as an agricultural policy. In 1939, the year of the outbreak of war, there was no such thing as a co-ordinated agricultural plan: no direction, no controls, no confidence, minimum production, and maximum of poverty in the countryside.
After the war, however, with all its physical destruction, it was inevitable that rationing of food would become general for several years. The urgent and serious question for this country was what conditions were really necessary to induce farmers to produce more food from our soil; to reduce, and finally abolish, food rationing; to make what contribution an efficient agriculture could make to our economy and to our balance of payments; to encourage large-scale investment; and certainly not to repeat what happened after the First World War. Your Lordships will remember, however, what happened in 1947, and I need not linger upon that. But, as a result of what happened in 1947, the Review White Paper for 1962–63 said that the forecast of output for that farming year was an 86 per cent. increase over and above pre-war in productivity. This year it is supposed to be something over a 90 per cent. increase on pre-war. That is an average increase in production of no less than 6 per cent.
The National Farmers' Union, in a document which, I suppose, has been circulated to every one of your Lordships, Farming Incomes and the Facts, go a little further and say that agriculture is Britain's key industry, with an output of £1,800 million a year, twice that of coal mining or the motor industry. As a customer, agriculture spends something like £1,000 million with other industries. As an import saver, the increase in home agriculture since the war is worth nearly £400 million a year. On the question of efficiency, Britain's farmers produce 2½ times as much grain as they did pre-war; 99 per cent. more eggs; 114 per cent. more sugar beet; and our dairy herds produce nearly 200 gallons of milk per cow more than the pre-war figure. Yields of wheat, barley and sugar beet have risen

1265
67 per cent., 62 per cent. and 80 per cent. respectively. And all this has been accomplished with 170,000 fewer agricultural workers.
But what contribution have the Conservative Party made to this minor agricultural revolution? Precious little that they can feel proud of! For, despite their lip-service to the 1947 approach, they have always been very lukewarm towards the 1947 Act; and, indeed, I am convinced that, had it not been for the possible political consequences to the Conservative Party, the remainder of the 1947 Act would have vanished long ago. Let me remind noble Lords that, within two years of their taking office, they announced their grand policy of "Set the people free!" The announcement came through the then Prime Minister in another place, and I propose to quote a short paragraph from his speech. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 520, cols. 26–27]:
"The House knows that it is our theme and policy to reduce controls and restrictions as much as possible and to reverse, if not abolish, the tendency to State purchase and marketing which is a characteristic of Socialist philosophy. We hope instead to develop individual enterprise founded in the main on the laws of supply and demand and to restore to the interchange of goods and services that variety, flexibility, ingenuity and incentive on which we believe the fertility and liveliness of … economic life depend."
I need not remind noble Lords where that sentence comes from. But no controls, no restrictions, no State purchase, no marketing.
There is no wonder, therefore, that the noble Lord in charge of this Price Review, and the Minister of Agriculture, are driven back to those minimum prices of imported food to which I referred earlier on. That was no sort of a policy. It was just a blind, doctrinaire onslaught on planning and controls which, if pursued, would definitely undermine the basic principles of the 1947 Act. It was typical of Conservative Party thinking on agriculture. They would sincerely, I suppose, sacrifice the tremendous gains just quoted to satisfy their ancient inhibitions and beliefs. I thought at the time—I still think—that it was a dangerous moment both for agriculture and for the nation. I described it at the time as ill-considered, half Liberal-half Conservative, and absolutely half-baked: and I am sure it was all of
1266
them. Instead of well-thought-out proposals for new marketing schemes to match the new productive capacity of the industry, we were presented with a grand new policy, resurrected from the 1850's.
The noble Lord the Leader of the House should remember something about the lack of controls, for as Joint Parliamentary Secretary at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I think it was he who made the announcement that the country could do with 1 million more pigs round about 1953. The farmers, the boars, the sows and the gilts co-operated loyally. The pigs were here before the end of twelve months. But what the noble Lord had forgotten to do was to provide a reception committee for them. When they had the 1 million extra pigs, they did not know what to do with them. Therefore, prices slumped. The deficiency payment went up like a balloon, and the 1947 Act was made responsible for the blunders of the Ministry. After that piece of chaos, the present Leader of the House decided that there were too many economic gates wide open. He went off to the Ministry of Defence to learn how to spend more, for so little, than any other Government Department. Then he went off to Australia for a real bathe in the sunshine, and I think he was very wise to do so. He looks better for it to-day, and we are all glad to welcome him back in his elevated post.
Fortunately, however, the nation as such, and agriculture in particular, escaped the worst that might have occurred under the Conservative so-called new policy. The farming community, who hitherto dithered at the very mention of controls, were no longer afraid of them. They had already tasted such economic freedom as never existed before, and they were even having visions of a brighter future under the deficiency payment system. There were definite signs that the farming community would revolt against a reversion to the policy of the 1850's. Farmers made loud noises in the counties, and they even went so far as to pass resolutions. The Government became clearly aware that it would be politically unsafe for them to abolish all controls, and to abolish the basic principles of the 1947 Act.
That did not mean that the Government were still converted to better

1267
things, for when they saw a chance of joining the Common Market they tried to grab it with both hands. By the autumn of 1962 they were almost grovelling on their hands and knees to get inside. All the statements made in White Papers over ten or eleven years extolling the virtues of the deficiency payments system were forgotten or ignored. The ex-Prime Minister at the Prime Ministers' Conference in 1962 stated plainly that he preferred the European system to our own. The Deputy Prime Minister echoed those sentiments, and the Minister of Agriculture almost went poetical when he addressed the Northants. Agricultural Society's annual dinner at Kettering. There he said:
"The managed market as a system of protection for British agriculture against competition from other spheres will bring a price protection which it has never had or has never dreamed of. It would bring fundamental changes in Britain's agricultural system with producers getting the whole of their returns from the market and consumers paying the full cost."
In other words, if the present Minister of Agriculture had had his way we should have gone straight back to the pre-war conditions, plus unlimited protection against imported foodstuffs determined, not by a British Government, but by six European Governments.
That was a policy which the electors of this country refused in 1923 for the then Conservative Party. But this present Conservative Government were willing to hand over to six European Governments the power to say how much we in this country should pay for our food. Thousands of figures, one way and another, have been used to illustrate this point and that point. I shall be content to use one set of figures to show what we might have walked into if it had not been for the generosity of de Gaulle. These figures were in reply to the Financial Times, who had been suggesting that we were not competitive in our food production in this country. The editor, or sub-editor, of the Farmers Weekly said on January 17 of this year:
"I have been comparing some of our prices with those of Common Market countries. In Paris last week, sides of beef cost up to 4s. 5d. a lb. wholesale, with hinds up to 5s. 10d. Comparable qualities on Smithfield sold for 1s. 11d, to 2s. 2d. a lb. Top quality lamb (carcass) in Paris fetches 6s. 11d. a lb.
1268
wholesale, with legs reaching 10s. 6d. Smithfield prices—1s. 10d. to 2s. 2d. In Belgium and France, pigs have been selling at 54s.—65s. a score dead-weight against 37s. to 48s. (including guarantee payments) here.
"Unsubsidised English butter, fetching higher prices as milk supplies have run down, has been selling wholesale at 1s. 6d. to 3s. a lb. Consumer prices in the E.E.C. have been round about 7s. 6d. a lb. and up to 10s. in Germany. Belgian wheat growers have been getting £45 a ton. Here the current market price is about £24 (standard price £26 10s. 0d.)."
Those are the prices that we might have had to pay if it had not been for the stubbornness, stupidity, generosity or wisdom of de Gaulle. I will not say which it was. But, if the Conservatives had had their way, clearly the wage problem in this country would have been just chaotic. How all those with static incomes would have gone on none can tell.
I have tried to show just one or two things and no more; and that, with their ideological and doctrinaire background, although the Conservatives have been in office for two-thirds of this century, they never had a reasonable agricultural policy; that their policy of "Set the people free!" in 1953, and their efforts to join the Common Market in 1962, have proved conclusively that their only idea or policy on the subject of agriculture is protection and taxes on foodstuffs, as with their forbears a hundred and fifty years ago. For these reasons, I submit that a Conservative Government can no longer be trusted with agriculture, and the sooner the Parliamentary Election comes the better. I beg to move for Papers.

THE PRESIDENT KENNEDY MEMORIAL
3.32 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I should like to repeat a statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on the Memorial to President Kennedy. These are the words of the Prime Minister:
"I have now received the report of the Committee under the Chairmanship of Lord Franks, and I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I have consulted the right honourable gentleman the

1269
Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal Party. We all accept the Committee's recommendations.
"The Committee propose that the Memorial should take the form, first, of an acre of Runnymede, laid out simply, with a simple plinth and steps, which should be given in perpetuity to the United States in memory of President Kennedy. The second part of the Memorial proposed by the Committee is a scholarship fund for young men and women from the United Kingdom to go, as undergraduates or graduates, some to Harvard University or Radcliffe College, some to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
"The Government are deeply grateful to Lord Franks and the members of his Committee for the care with which they have examined all the proposals brought to their attention and we feel that the recommendations taken together will provide a worthy memorial.
"Both parts of the proposal will require consultations with various authorities and bodies in this country and the United States and these will be undertaken.
"It seems desirable that the task of giving effect to the Memorial should be supervised by a small Committee. I am glad to be able to tell the House that Sir Roger Makins has accepted my invitation to be the Chairman of this Committee and that the United States Ambassador in London and Sir Humphrey Mynors, lately Deputy Governor of the Bank of England, have generously agreed to serve on it.
"I am also glad to be able to inform the House that the Lord Mayor of London has most kindly agreed to make the President Kennedy Memorial the object of a Lord Mayor's Appeal. I am sure that this generous offer by the Lord Mayor of his time and energies will assist the whole nation in raising a worthy memorial to the late President."
Following is the copy of a letter from Lord Franks to the Prime Minister dated 29th February, 1964, referred to in the statement:
"I am writing as Chairman of the Committee which you set up to consider what form
1270
the British memorial to President Kennedy should take. This letter contains the recommendations of the Committee.
"You told Parliament on December 5 that, while public opinion was being given an opportunity to express itself on the tragedy of the assassination of President Kennedy, you were considering how best to facilitate discussion about the form of a British memorial to him; and you arranged consultations between the parties. You also told Parliament that Her Majesty the Queen had been graciously pleased to express her wish to be personally associated with whatever proposal might be decided upon.
"You announced on January 21 the constitution of this Committee. We have held four meetings and a sub-committee has held a further two. We have received about 150 letters, nearly all of which reached us by the middle of February; few have come since then. We have considered every one. We wish to express our thanks to all who have helped us in this way.
"We have had the privilege of the interest and counsel of Her Majesty the Queen, who received me as the representative of the Committee and discussed with me a number of ideas which we had formed in the light of the suggestions before us. I have visited Secretary of State Dean Rusk, Mr. Robert Kennedy and others in the United States and have had similar discussions with them; and I have had the honour to be received by Mrs. Kennedy, whose wishes we particularly desired to consult.
"We have founded our recommendations on these consultations and on our examination of the many particular proposals before us. Trying to catch the spirit which pervaded these proposals, various though they were in content, and to interpert the general feeling of the country, we have sought for President Kennedy a living memorial in the service of men and women, including a permanent physical presence and infused with an imaginative quality which would always evoke the memory of his outlook and achievements.
"President Kennedy gave a voice to the heritage which is enshrined for us in Runnymede: we propose that an acre of Runnymede, laid out simply, with a simple plinth and steps, should be given in perpetuity to the United States in memory of him.
"This would be at the centre of our memorial. But it would not be the whole memorial. It would be completed by a link with the influences of his home country and of the world of thought and action which helped to mould his mind: we propose a scholarship fund for young men and women from the United Kingdom to go, as undergraduates or graduates, some to Harvard University or Radcliffe College, some to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. President Kennedy was particularly interested in bringing the two great disciplines of traditional humane studies and modern technology into fruitful combination and making their strength effective in the activities of Government and the direction of world affairs. The scholarships would be awarded within these fields of knowledge and thereby contribute, as we hope,

1271
to the advancement of his idea. The scholars would come from all over Britain, chosen on some regional sub-division of the country.
"We make both parts of our proposal as a unanimous recommendation. The first part speaks for itself. We have chosen the second part because it relates to youth; Boston was President Kennedy's home, Harvard his university; and at Cambridge, Massachusetts, the Kennedy family are providing the John F. Kennedy Memorial Library. It is a fitting tribute to President Kennedy's work for international understanding that a succession of young men and women from our country should be given an opportunity to live and work for a period in this environment.
"I enclose with this letter a list of the members of the Committee."
THE PRESIDENT KENNEDY MEMORIAL COMMITTEE
Members
The Rt. Hon. The Lord Franks, P.C., G.C.M.G., K.C.B., C.B.E. (Chairman),
The Rt. Hon. The Viscount Chandos, P.C., D.S.O., M.C.,
The Rt. Hon. The Lord Evershed, P.C., F.S.A.,
The Rt Hon. The Lord Mayor of London (Alderman C. James Harman),
The Rt. Hon. The Lord Provost of Edinburgh (Mr. Duncan M. Weatherstone, M.C., T.D.),
The Rt. Hon. The Lord Mayor of Belfast (Councillor W. Jenkins, J.P.).
The Rt. Hon. The Lord Mayor of Cardiff (Alderman Charles A. Horwood, J.P.),
The Viscount Harcourt, K.C.M.G., O.B.E.,
Sir Roger Makins, G.C.B., G.C.M.G.,
Sir Philip de Zulueta,
Dame Margot Fonteyn de Arias, D.B.E.,
Lady Jackson,
Mr. Victor Feather, C.B.E.,
Mr. John Freeman, M.B.E.,
Dr. T. Lupton.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, we are obliged to the Lord Chancellor for giving us the statement. A scheme which has been so received in the other place by all the Parties concerned is worthy of our support, and we think that a good deal can come from it in the strengthening of relationships with the United States.
LORD REA: My Lords, this scheme obviously has the support of those of all Parties and of no Party as a memorial to a great man. I think it will be very suitable to us that a bit of England at Runnymede which really saw the beginning of our independence should be dedicated to this great purpose. Of course, the interchange of young people between this country and America can do nothing but good. We welcome this scheme wholeheartedly.

3.35 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, for drawing our attention again to the problems of agriculture? I think I may say in this House, without being invidious, that he was certainly the best loved Minister of Agriculture that we have had, and that anything he has to say on this subject we all listen to with the greatest of interest. He accuses the Government of electioneering in this Review. Well, my Lords, if it is electioneering, I am only too delighted that the agricultural industry is still resilient and important enough to be able to command this bit of notice.
But I wonder whether I am unique in being able to acquit the Government of electioneering. I know that a great many members of the Government's own Party think that it has been electioneering in this regard, but I wonder whether it is really true. I feel that I see the Government at last moving towards a very definite shift in policy—a policy which seems to me consistent with what our problems are. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, said, something had to be done at this moment to redress the balance of the position that the farmers have got into in the last two or three years, and I, at any rate, am going to give the Government the benefit of the doubt and say that it may be a coincidence that once again this falls in an Election year but perhaps it is not electioneering and is part of a consistent policy.
After all, we are talking about the problems of agriculture, and it seems to me that the central problem of British agriculture and, indeed, world agriculture is the problem of co-ordinating imports with home production; of coordinating imports with what we ought to produce properly in this country with this kind of agriculture we ought to have. I know that there are other problems, and perhaps the most important domestic agricultural problem is that of structure: that is to say, the size of the unit in relation to the various other factors. I think we are in a better position than the rest of Europe in this respect, but, nevertheless, it is our own central internal problem.

1273
I do not believe that one of our major problems is that of technique. I am sure that so far as technique is concerned we stand higher than almost any other country in the world in regard to output per man and per acre, and also per unit of cost. These are domestic problems within our own industry, but the problem of agriculture as we face the rest of the world is the central problem of co-ordinating home production and imports. My Lords, how does this Price Review help towards this co-ordination? It must, of course, be seen as part of the Government's agricultural policy. Let me remind noble Lords that slightly over a year ago there was a breakdown in Common Market negotiations. I do not follow the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, here—we do not on these Benches, as noble Lords know and as I have said before. This breakdown was followed by a statement in May last by the Minister on what he was proposing to do, which was virtually to change our whole system of support. The Agriculture and Horticulture Bill, 1963—which is still going through this House; we have not yet finished it—implements this major change of policy.
There is another thing which the Government are doing at the same time and which is worth thinking about in this connection. The Minister of agriculture has asked the landowners' representatives, the farmers' representatives and also the representatives, of the five professional bodies concerned with land to start thinking about ways in which the 1947 Act and the 1948 Act might be improved and possibly end up in an improved and consolidated Act.
I welcomed the 1963 Bill, within certain limits, as being likely to promote a solution of this central problem of home production and imports, and I now welcome the Price Review Statement similarly. I welcome it within certain limits, in the same way as I welcomed the other within certain limits. Nevertheless, it see ms to me to be part of a general policy which the Government quite clearly are following consistently, and for this reason, as I said, I acquit them of electioneering. Obviously when one accepts a thing within certain limits one may be very doubtful about details. As a matter of fact when the statement was made last Wednesday I
1274
immediately listed a large number of details on which I wanted to ask questions, and quite rightly was called to order by noble Lords for making too much of it at that time. Perhaps I may now touch on one or two of those details which worried me.
The first is this question of cereals, on which the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, has already touched. I was very interested, because when I read the speech in another place of the spokesman for the Labour Party on agriculture I was not quite sure whether they were alive to this problem about asking the foreigner to increase the price. The danger, it seems to me, here is that one might be supporting, inadvertently, a foreign cereal grower; and there is also the danger of hanky-panky on the Corn Exchange, or wherever that kind of hanky-panky does take place. Obviously it lays us open to both these things, and I am glad noble Lords on my left have realised this.
The next point is the question of milk. The Minister answered me on this point. I am sorry that he could not have given a little more than 2¼d. plus the ¼d. He said he was afraid that would have two effects, the first driving up the price to the consumer too much and the second letting people come back into milk production who were better out of it. There are two answers to those two points. First of all, with regard to driving up the price to the consumer, does this really matter? It is conceivable that the price of milk is artificially too cheap. Would it not be better that a realistic price should be paid? On the second point, that a higher price might bring back into milk production more people than there should be, again I would ask: does it matter? I cannot help feeling that milk is the sort of thing that this country can produce very well, and there is no earthly reason why we should not produce more, dry it and, if you like, export it to the poorer countries. And at any rate, it seems to me a better course than bolstering up, shall we say, sugar beet—a course which I cannot help feeling is a mistake, because it interferes with what is the sole export of many countries which depend exclusively on sugar. I throw out that thought, because it is so often suggested that there is too much milk and that we must

1275
not produce more. I ask the question; is this, in fact, true?
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, if I may intervene, can the noble Lord explain in more detail what he is trying to tell us: that it does not matter if the price of milk goes up to the consumer, and it does not matter if we produce more milk than we require. Can he explain why? It is not self-evident.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, I am sorry if my slightly confused method of speaking did not make this clear. The point I want to make is this. I feel that it is a mistake to be gearing prices to a subsidy price; we must get back to the idea, which seems to me perfectly reasonable, that we pay for a commodity at the price it costs to produce. I do not feel that putting up the price of milk a little matters. That is my point with regard to milk. My second point with regard to the quantity of milk we produce is this: I put it forward as a suggestion. So far from our producing too much milk, there is no reason why we should not produce more, and then dry it and export it to the poorer countries, in the form of dried milk. I said that here is a form of agricultural service, if you like, which might be more sensible than bolstering up sugar beet; that everything we grow in the way of sugar beet must affect those countries which depend only upon sugar as an export. Does the noble Lord understand what I am getting at? He may disagree, but does he understand?
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I understand what the noble Lord is trying to say. But I still do not follow him when he says that it does not matter if the cost of living goes up.
LORD HENLEY: I have tried to explain that I think it does not matter in this connection, because I am against the idea of paying for our agriculture by subsidy. I feel that we must get back to paying for commodities at market price. That is a point with which some people will agree and some will not. I hope I have made it clear.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: My Lords, the noble Lord does not seem quite to have appreciated this fact, when he says that price does not matter. It
1276
clearly does matter; and what the Minister must have in his mind all the time is not to fix a price which inevitably will mean a decrease in production of that particular commodity. Otherwise, the whole basis of maximum production is out of gear.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord opposite. I wonder whether I can clear Lord Henley's mind on one point. He referred to the price of milk as being artificially low. He said that he was against paying for agriculture out of Exchequer grants. There is, of course, no subsidy on milk. I do not know whether he is aware of that.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, I was aware of that, but I still think that the whole of agricultural prices are so be-devilled by subsidies and cross-subsidies that the price of milk is not, in fact, what it appears to be. So much for milk: I think we have had enough of milk.
The next question is winter keep, which is another matter about which I am not happy. I would much rather, instead of adding £1 per acre, perhaps, work the same way by putting something more on hill cows. This winter keep scheme is going to involve all of us in a great deal of paper work, and I think the C.A.E.Cs. are already overloaded with it. With regard to fertilisers, I am sorry that the Government have taken something off the fertiliser subsidy. Is this the Government's answer to the Monopolies Commission's suggestion that something should be done about fertilisers? Because it seems to me a rather feeble way of doing it.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, the noble Lord is mistaken if he thinks the Monopolies Commission criticised the fertiliser manufacturers.
LORD HENLEY: That was not my interpretation of the Monopolies Commission—but never mind.
Then there is the mechanism of this new deficiency system. I quite like that. It looks as if it might be a help, but I think we shall have to wait and see how it works. But in spite of these details in regard to which either I am not sure how they will work or of

1277
which, in some cases, I slightly disapprove, I am quite certain that the major policy trends of the Government's suggestions are sound; that they do help towards co-ordination of home produce and imports, and that they do, to revert to what I was saying earlier, tend towards making price come from the market and not from subsidy. I am very pleased that the Government have secured some agreement with overseas suppliers, and I hope that it will be possible to get something for beef and lamb in the same way as they have done with cereals. I make the same proviso as I made on cereals—I do not think it matters so much in the case of meat; there is not quite the same opportunity for playing the markets. Within these certain limitations, I feel that the Price Review does help the problem of agriculture and is a major contribution to solving its problems. But I feel that it is we in this country, and only we, who can take a lead in trying to get world agreement and a world-managed market in agriculture. We are the biggest importers of agricultural commodities, and because we are in that position it is only we who can do something about it.
If I am not taking too much time, I should like to say one last thing, and it follows on what the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, said in his intervention, as did the noble Lord, Lord Silkin—I refer to the question of a cheap food policy being abandoned as a result of the present trend in Government policy. I, for one, think it is right that the so-called cheap food policy should be abandoned, because I feel it is an illusion. We have the cheapest food in Europe, but it has been held at this figure artificially by our subsidy system. After all, the consumer still pays, whether he pays in the form of a slightly higher market price or in the form of an Exchequer subsidy. Why not? Why cling to this 19th century idea that cheap food must be to the advantage of the industrialist? I do not believe it is true. What it all amounts to is something like £6 per head per year, which is only half-a-crown per week.
It is not only there that the weight lies; it lies also in the difference between the farm-gate price and the price that the consumer pays. It lies also in the extra-
1278
ordinary difference between the raw material and the processed food. I wonder whether it has ever occurred to your Lordships to consider a product like crisps. The wholesale price of potatoes is well under £20 a ton, and the price of a packet of crisps, if worked out in terms of tons, is over £600 a ton. This is where the housewife is having to pay. It is not at the farm gate. It is not because of what we might say is the "non-cheap food" policy. That is where the money is going. Surely, if that is so, the market would stand a little more being put upon the price of those commodities.
Do not let us forget that this subsidy is in fact as much a subsidy to the exporter as it is to the farmer. The pound would not stand at 2.80 dollars if it were not for the system of subsidised foods which we have here. I personally think that there must be some subsidy. I am not for the moment suggesting that there should not. There must be subsidies for agriculture until we get a system of world commodity agreements. Our agriculture must be subsidised, because the whole of the rest of the world's agriculture is in the same sort of difficulty as we are. I do not think that this need lead to an international producers' cartel: and while we must have a subsidy, let it be based on the real cost, so that it can be seen and so that one can say that this bit of subsidy applies to the agricultural industry and that to the exporter.
I feel that it is unfair to the agriculturist to create an image of the inefficient and the heavily subsidised farmer when it is part and parcel of a wrong system of subsidies. If you take this apparently heavy subsidy bill, even if you say that it is all attributable to the agricultural industry and not to the consumer, or is not bolstering up the exporter or not helping the pound to stand up, it is still only of the same order of subsidy as that which the motor car industry gets in a different way through tariffs. It seems to me that even if the Government policy is tending towards cheaper food then that is all right; and within the limits of those things I was doubtful about I welcome this policy, I welcome the trend and a consistency I see in it, and I do not follow the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, entirely in condemning the

1279
Government, because it seems to me that on balance it is the right policy.
3.54 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, it seems odd to think that it was nearly a whole year ago since we last had a full-scale agricultural debate. I am sure that the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, for having put down this Motion and for having initiated the debate so that once again we can have a discussion on agriculture in its widest context. On whatever side of the House one sits, one can never fail to enjoy listening to the noble Lord. He always puts his case so clearly and so wittily that it cannot be anything other than enjoyable to listen to it, even if one disagrees with what he has to say. But on this particular occasion we are glad to hear the noble Lord speak because for the last few months we have been starved not only of his opinions but also of his presence, and we are glad to see him back again. The noble Lord will not mind my saying that, however well he has put his case, we on this side of the House cannot possibly agree with all that he has said. He has, of course, accused the Government of electioneering by adding £31 million to the agricultural subsidies in the course of the last Review.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: My Lords, the noble Earl will not put those words in my mouth—I never uttered them. The only reference that I made that could perhaps be construed as being a criticism was when I quoted The Times political correspondent. I did not say that it was my view.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I stand corrected and will withdraw my remarks entirely. I can only conclude that he was using the argument in The Times as his own argument as well; but, of course, I entirely accept the fact that he does not mean that the Government were electioneering. However that may be, I have no doubt at all that some noble Lord on the other side is going to say that, because we have already heard rumbles of it from all over the place. I would only say this: that £31 million has been added to the value of the guarantees. Of that, £24 million is on milk, and noble Lords know perfectly well that the extra price of £24 million which is put on milk is being paid by increasing the price of
1280
milk to the consumer. It seems an odd way of electioneering if you make 50 million people pay more for the sake of 150,000 people. However, there we are, and I hope that we shall not hear any more about that particular matter, because it really does not hold much water.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, before the noble Earl talks about watering the milk, I find it extremely difficult to understand all these diffuse arguments about mathematics and milk and beef and so on. But did I not hear the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, say that there is no subsidy on milk? Now the noble Earl says there is.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, all I can say is that perhaps I have not only misconstrued the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, but also myself spoken indistinctly. What I meant to say—I apologise if I did not say it—was that there is no subsidy on milk; that although the value of the guarantees has gone up by £24 million with respect to milk, that is coming from the consumer and not from the Government. Therefore, I conclude that as the consumer, the housewife, is going to pay more for her milk and there are 50 million consumers, it seems odd to accuse the Government of electioneering when those 50 million people are paying more for the sake of 150,000 people.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: My Lords, may I, while we are on the subject of electioneering, say that I nearly asked the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, the other day, when the Price Review was announced, whether it was not the fact that he was always pleased to get an agreed Price Review, even if it was electioneering.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: But I never had a disagreement.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I think we had better leave this business of electioneering and move on to something else. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, said that in the 1960 White Paper the Government said that they intended to leave a fair share of the benefits for increased efficiency within the industry, and he added that they had not done so. But taking £25 million per year as the a greed figure of increased efficiency, in the four Reviews of 1961,

1281
1962, 1963 and 1964 the farmers have been left with £59 million out of the aggregate of £100 million of increased efficiency. If that is not a fair share, I do not quite know what is.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene, and I am sure that the noble Earl will not disagree with me when I say that if he will look at Hansard of another place of April 2, 1962, he will find that the Minister, in replying to a Parliamentary Question, said in regard to prices adapted to foodstuffs and other services that the net income in 1951–62 was £314 million, but in 1961–62 it was £310 million. So that is 1961–62 the farmers got £4 million less. Ten years have expired, at £25 million a year—that is, £250 million, out of which they got nothing; and there has been a 29 per cent. increase in productivity for which they got nothing. Therefore, in ten years they got nothing out of increased efficiency and nothing out of increased production.
EARL FERRERS: The noble Lord has the advantage of me because I have not the Hansard of April 2, 1962, nor, in fact, that of May 2 or June 2, and I should find it difficult to refute his arguments without actually seeing them written down on paper. But I would add this. The Government have, of course, stood by what they have said, and if I could, just for the record, confuse the noble Lord once more with a few figures. I would say that if he looks at page 28 of the White Paper he will see that in the figures adjusted to normal weather conditions the aggregate net farming income has increased from £364 million in 1959–60 to £438 million in 1962–63.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, could the noble Earl, as a farmer, say when he has ever experienced normal weather conditions?
EARL FERRERS: That is rather like asking what is the stock size of a person who wants to get a suit of clothes. I have never yet found one; nor have I ever been stock size. Perhaps we could leave those figures for the moment, otherwise I feel that no other noble Lord will have a chance to speak other than by interrupting.
1282
The fact is that the results of the Annual Price Review which have been agreed by both Government and Unions, and which have just been announced, are in themselves evidence of the Government's sincere and long-held determination to provide this country with a stable and efficient agricultural policy. The changes in agricultural production and in agricultural markets over the last ten years have been immense, and it is with these changes in mind that the Annual Price Review was held. The position in regard to supply and demand for food is very different now from what it was in war time and in the immediate post-war period, when the system of guaranteed prices was introduced; and it is natural that from time to time changes must be made in order to keep our system of agricultural support up to date and efficient, and to adapt it to the conditions of to-day. In recent years experience has shown us that it is necessary, in the interests both of producers and of consumers, for us to safeguard our arrangements from unpredictable and unregulated pressures to which they are from time to time exposed, which may bear no relation to the needs of the market, and which have at times led to excessively low market prices and heavy demands on the Exchequer.
During the course of the last year the world markets for many agricultural commodities have been stronger. This has been due to the fact that in Europe agricultural production suffered from the very severe winter of 1963, and also to the fact that Russia and China have both had very bad harvests. But these are only temporary factors. On the other hand, the scientific revolution in methods of agricultural production continues at an even faster rate, and there is the underlying tendency for production in the developed countries to increase faster than the commercial demand for food. The main risks to our support arrangements have arisen on cereals and fatstock, which in the estimates for 1964–65 account for about £177 million out of the total figures of £327 million for the overall cost of agricultural support.
As your Lordships know, we started consultations on these commodities last summer with the leaders of our agricultural industry and all other interested

1283
people, including the Commonwealth and overseas suppliers. The object of these discussions was to secure greater stability in our market and, at the same time, maintain a reasonable balance between home production and imports. We have also been determined to provide British farmers with the opportunity of securing a fair share in any expansion in the market which will arise in the future, due to the increase in population and the rise in living standards which can be expected. We intend that these new arrangements, both for imports and for home production, will enable supplies to be more related to the needs of the market and will ensure a reasonable balance between what we can produce at home and what we have to import.
I am glad to say, my Lords, that we have been able to make good progress in this direction. Last autumn we reached agreement with our overseas suppliers about the regulation of supplies of bacon to our market, and this agreement will come into operation next week. In February we reached agreement in principle with our main overseas suppliers of cereals about our proposals for minimum import prices on cereals and cereal products coming into the United Kingdom. Subject to their final agreement, and to the passing of the Agriculture and Horticulture Bill, which is at present before your Lordships, we shall be introducing this minimum import price system on July 1. In conjunction with this we shall, for home-produced wheat and barley, introduce standard quantity and indicator price arrangements, as explained in the White Papers—which, I am glad to say, at least have the blessing of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, if the condemnation of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh. In view of these arrangements the guaranteed prices for cereals remain unchanged.
For beef and lamb, despite an encouraging degree of progress, we have not yet been able to reach agreement with our overseas suppliers, and consequently we shall not be introducing any standard quantity arrangements for home-produced cattle or sheep in the coming year. But it is, of course, in everyone's interest to see that our market is not overloaded, and we shall be having dis-
1284
cussions with the main exporting countries in the coming months about the level and timing of their supplies.
To encourage our own farmers to give more attention to the state of the market when deciding when to sell their stock we are making some changes in the deficiency payments system for cattle and sheep. Within certain limits, the deficiency payments will be increased when the market is strong, and they will be decreased when it is weak. This will reward those who consider the level and trend of markets before selling their beasts and will, we hope, encourage producers to sell their beasts when the market is high and not when it is overloaded and weak. With the continued strong demand for beef, and in view of the fact that the rate of increase in home production is slackening, we have decided that some further stimulus would be desirable to maintain supplies. We have therefore, as your Lordships know, raised the guaranteed price and increased the calf subsidy for steer calves. Home production of lamb, on the other hand, is expected to increase substantially, given a good lambing season, and we have therefore left the guaranteed price unchanged. But the hill sheep farmer, particularly, will benefit from the increases which are being given in the guaranteed price for wool and, of course, also from the increased rate of the hill-sheep subsidy. Hill farmers will also be helped by the higher rate now being introduced for the winter-keep subsidy and by the fact that they will no longer have to choose between the winter-keep grant and the ploughing grant.
Looking at the prospects for cereals and fatstock as a whole, we believe that the steps which the Government have taken to regulate supplies will establish a much firmer basis for our system of agricultural support and, indeed, for the whole agricultural industry. I am glad to say that we have also reached a sounder position both for milk and for pigs. In the past, the problem of milk has been one of production rising faster than consumption. As the White Paper points out, milk output over the three years from 1958–59 to 1961–62 increased by an average of 110 million gallons. Over that same period, however, the liquid consumption increased by only an average of 22 million gallons. This

1285
meant that the balance which was produced had to go for manufacture, and consequently attracted a very considerably reduced price as against that which went for liquid consumption, with the result that the pool price to the farmer was lower—much lower than the farmer would have liked and much lower than the Government would have liked, as well. But it would have been totally imprudent had the Government increased the price of milk at that juncture, because all that would have happened is that milk production would have increased and the position would have worsened.
The effect of these relatively low prices, unpleasant though they have been—and no one denies it—was that some farmers decided to give up milk production, and over the last two years milk has been produced in smaller quantities. This has resulted in a far more healthy market for milk, and it is now possible for the Government to agree to a considerably increased price.
With pigs, too, we have achieved a position of greater stability. The breeding herd has beer at a steady level for about eighteen months, and the market for pork is strong. The agreement with our overseas bacon suppliers will ensure that bacon prices are not undermined by ill-timed or excessive imports. The increase, therefore, of three-quarters of a million pigs in the middle band of the flexible guarantee arrangement reflects the increased demand for pigmeat which the market can absorb at reasonable prices—and this it good. But, so as not to give an excessive stimulus to production, we have reduced the guaranteed price, leaving producers with a net improvement of 1s. 3d. a score on their present price.
However, the outlook for eggs is, unfortunately, far less satisfactory. As a nation we are already producing 98 per cent. of the eggs which we require, and the demand is inelastic. The industry continues to advance technically and to improve its efficiency through rising yields and in other ways, and there is a growing tendency for eggs to be produced in very much larger units than previously. We are now, therefore, in grave danger of over-production, and it is for this reason that it has been decided to reduce the guaranteed price of eggs by 1d. a dozen. This, we hope, will serve
1286
as a warning to producers and also to those who may be considering increasing their production of eggs.
As in so many instances in our commercial life, the larger units tend to be able to produce the commodity cheaper. This is so in many instances with eggs, and there has been a marked increase over the last few years in the number of large units of laying birds. In 1957 the number of birds over six months old which were kept in units larger than 5,000 was 469,000. This had increased by 1963 to nearly 6 million. Clearly, developments of this nature are to be welcomed as a sign of efficiency and alertness in the industry, but, of course, they can bring their own problems of over-production with them.
I see that the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, had something to say on this when he was reported in the Farming Express of March 12 as saying:
"A much greater difficulty we have to face is the growth of egg factories or mass production methods. It has been suggested that eggs produced by these methods cost half those from hens kept in the traditional way."
The noble Lord goes on to say:
"If the present subsidy is fair to one it is outrageously generous to the other".
I wonder what the noble Lord's remedy is. Perhaps he will tell us something about it this afternoon. Is he suggesting that there should be one price for the efficient producer and another price for the smaller producer? Is he prepared, by this method, to penalise the efficient; and is he prepared, by this method, to put a deterrent on people becoming more efficient—because, if they do, then they will receive a lower subsidy?
I would grant the noble Lord that this is a problem, but it is a problem confined not only to eggs. It is a problem that is with us in many other aspects, not only of agriculture but also of industry. If one looks at agriculture alone, one can say that there is a similar problem with milk or with grain, or with small farmers versus big farmers. I hope that the noble Lord will say something about this, because from what I read in his words I should like to know whether he is in fact suggesting a differential subsidy. If he is suggesting a differential subsidy, is that view supported by the noble Lord, Lord Walston, who speaks for the official Labour Opposition? It would be interesting to know.

1287
Noble Lords opposite frequently make out—and I have no doubt we shall hear it this afternoon—that the returns that farmers receive for their goods now are lower than they used to be. We have often heard this argument used, and the ironical thing about it is that it is a reflection of the immense success created by the agricultural industry. It is the Government's task—and a very difficult one it is, too—to endeavour to keep a balance between four opposing forces. First, we have got the natural increase in production from the farms due to modern techniques, modern seeds and modern varieties; the second force is the relatively inelastic demand which comes from the consumer; the third force is the reasonable and fair standard of living which the agricultural community not only demand but deserve; and the fourth is the cost to the taxpayer of the agricultural subsidies. To keep those four forces in equilibrium is no easy task, but the Government do not shirk, and have not shirked, from their responsibilities in this respect, knowing full well that if any of these forces gets out of balance then the whole ship will shudder and shake.
It is because the industry has been so successful that these problems are here. Anyone who is engaged in agriculture knows that the industry is progressive. Certainly units are getting larger, but that is a trend not restricted to agriculture; certainly there is a high level of capital investment, and that is not a sign of a defeated and defunct industry but of a prosperous and vigorous industry; certainly there have been changes, and there will be more and more changes, but is that wrong? And certainly agriculture has its problems, and will go on and on having its problems so long as the industry exists, but that, my Lords, is natural.
If agriculture is strong, modern and vigorous, it can face the future with confidence, and it is with these big considerations in mind that this Government—and, I might add for the benefit of noble Lords opposite, the Government to follow, of the same complexion—are determined to have a strong, efficient and prosperous agriculture ready to meet the challenge of the future, whatever that challenge may be.
4.20 p.m.
LORD WISE: My Lords, first of all I should like to say how pleased I am to see the noble Earl on the Front Bench opposite leading for the Government on agriculture. I do not propose to follow him in what he has had to say. I must say, however, that I thought he made a typical opening speech on behalf of the Government, trying to excuse them in many ways.
To-day is Lady Day and we are considering the problems of agriculture. To-day tenancies are ceasing and new tenancies are opening up in many parts of the country. The outgoing tenants may be going with a sigh of relief that their problems are over, and the incoming tenants may anticipate meeting many problems in the future. In fact, there are many problems in agriculture, and most of them relate to living and material things. Two of these come readily to my mind. The first is, how to make a living from the land; and, the second, how to dispose of products at prices commensurate with one's labour and costs? During the last few years farmers have not been alone in their experience of difficulties and financial stringencies, but they have had their share. These have been referred to in the Annual Review which, throughout its many pages, strives to gloss over them and to suggest some alleviation. But its very lengthy explanations show a large measure of disquietude on the part of the Government. The practical results of all these, whether they be good or bad, must be left to the future.
It has not been easy for a farmer to carry on during recent periods of unsettled weather conditions and, at the same time, to have to face unreliable marketing practices, instability in market prices, increasing costs, high rates of interest, discounts added back again on accounts for expired credit periods, lower purchasing power, unregulated imports and foreign competition. This has placed a heavy burden on his shoulders. The Government have at long last awakened to the need for some system of control of imports and import prices. This is a welcome change of front on the part of the Government, if they mean what they say. Farmers' incomes, in spite of what the noble Earl said a moment ago, have not matched those

1289
in the professions and in the other industries, many of which provide services at first hand and often at a high rate to the agricultural population, or make profits from the purchase of agricultural products.
To buy cheap and sell dear seems a fairly common doctrine among agricultural suppliers and dealers. There are two ends to a stick, and more often than not the farmer is at the worse end. There are no resale price maintenance possibilities for the agricultural producer. It is known that Government financial palliatives have over a number of years been inserted grudgingly into the various branches of the industry in smaller or larger amounts; but these have not been sufficient or appropriate to establish a thriving and prosperous occupation
"consistently with proper remuneration and living conditions for farmers and workers in agriculture and an adequate return on capital invested in the industry."
Those last words, my Lords, are not my own. They can be found in Section 1 of the Agriculture Act, 1947.
I am not at all in favour of a free-for-all, nor do I believe in the slogan "Conservative freedom pays". Personally, I look forward to the distant future—it may be distant—when subsidies, grants and deficiency payments instituted to augment farming income and to assist consumers in their spending for the necessities of life become things of the past; when British farming, through real beneficial Government control of imports, market prices and functions, can be assured of stability and fair rewards for its products and services to the community. It is somewhat ironical that the Government control some activities in the agricultural industry without cost to the taxpayer but are at a complete loss to institute methods of bulk purchase, resale of cereal products and more satisfactory and satisfying methods for fatstock on mere or less similar lines as were in vogue, with fairness to all concerned, not many years ago.
Our main present systems are outworn and vary in their application. What we have done with some commodities we should be able to devise ways and means to do with others. For many years now, what I have said in your Lordships' House has fallen on deaf or inattentive
1290
ears; but in the future someone may say that I was right in my generation. I have a friendly feeling for the small farmer, the chap who has to work most of the hours of daylight to make ends meet. The larger farmer has his own advantages and is more able to take care of himself. Government aid to him appears to be on more favourable lines. The cheques he receives are larger, and they seem to make a greater impact upon his bank balance or overdraft and perhaps help to keep his creditors in a better humour.
My Lords, I want for a moment to look at two items in the Annual Review as they affect the receipts of the small or medium-sized farm. I will deal with small quantities and acreages, and my figures can be multiplied and adapted according to individual circumstances. Milk naturally comes first to mind. The advance in price is 2¼d. per gallon, paid for solely by the consumer. In consequence, the family milk bill will rise very considerably during the course of the year in those families where there are a number of children. On a churn of 17 gallons—which was the churn in vogue when I had a large dairy herd though I do not know whether it has altered now—this 2¼d. per gallon amounts to 3s. 2d.; and, of course, the small milk producer may put less than 17 gallons on a milk lorry each day. Then, the additional receipts of the small man may be offset by additional feeding costs, since it usually follows that, if farming receipts rise, someone decides that the price of feedingstuffs and so on should rise as well. In fact, the vicious circle goes into operation. Also, what a small farmer may gain with his milk may be lost in the lower prices of his eggs.
Sugar beet is another item which plays a part in farming practice in East Anglia and other parts of the country. An increase of 3s. 4d. per ton for a 16 per cent. sugar content is proposed. This is roughly equivalent to an increase of £2 per acre. On the basis of the additional 5 per cent., for an acreage from one up to twenty, that would mean a further addition of £2 to the producer. That is not very rewarding, and I cannot imagine anyone being over-excited by reason of these increases. Ten years ago, the price of sugar beet was 125s. 7d. per ton for

1291
a 16·5 per cent, sugar content. In subsequent years it rose to 130s. 6d., and later dropped to 124s. 8d. It is now proposed that it should be 128s. for a 16 per cent. sugar content. I hope that the Minister will not suggest that in the past sugar beet production has been favourably encouraged. The additional price barely cancels out previous reductions, and the addition has already been swallowed up in additional costs of production and transport, which will no doubt be higher in the course of this year's operations. As a final word, I want to deal with the £7 million net increase. This works out, on an average over the whole of the farms involved, at between £20 and £25 for each farmer, soma naturally receiving more and some less. This is hardly the cost of a new Sunday suit for the farmer and a box of chocolates for his wife.
4.33 p.m.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, for introducing this debate. I have listened to the two speeches from the opposite side of the House and there seems to be some contrast, in that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barn-burgh, was inclined to say that we were doing a lot for the farmer because it was Election year (though he did not say so in so many words) and the noble Lord, Lord Wise, has just pointed out that we have done practically nothing at all for the farmer. There does not seem to be a great deal of consistency.
I have lived to an age when I can look back at farming before the war and during the war and in the period during which the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, was Minister of Agriculture. As we know, it was a period of fixed prices and world shortages. Everything was sold to the Government at the farm gate. Quality meant nothing at that time and quantity was everything. But we sharpened our knives, ate it up and were duly grateful. And the noble Lord did a magnificent job. But to listen to him, you would think that from 1951 farming policy, as such, had ceased entirely.
Surely what caused the modifications was the returning ability to import larger quantities. And the policy was quite
1292
clear: it was to give the consumer the benefit of the low world prices and at the same time to protect the producer by subsidies and by making up his cost of production above world prices. As world supplies have increased, so has that system come under greater and greater pressure, and throughout the years it has gradually been modified. And I must say that it has been modified most ingeniously. I think we should pay tribute to the people who work out these ingenious formulae, which bring back to the producer the effect of market prices, without bringing them back too hard. For instance, when we look at the White Paper and contrast Appendix VI, Part I, which gives the simple fact of how much the price of the commodity has gone up, and Part II of the same Appendix, which shows how these alterations in the guarantee are to be implemented, we realise that the ingenuity of the scheme is wonderful.
We have to place this Review against the background of the last three or four Reviews, which have gradually put farming on a firm basis. They have gradually closed the ends of the unrestricted liability of the Exchequer and at the same time have introduced some form of standard quantity for the home producer. Now, we have the new and, I think, revolutionary introduction of some form of import control.
The Opposition pour scorn on the method of import control by minimum prices and imply that we can always get anybody to believe in a thing if we offer to pay him more for his goods. But, surely, just as the home producer is given a quid pro quo in the acceptance of standard quantities, so, to some extent, is the cereal exporter accepting a quantity limitation. If he cannot sell in this market below a certain price, then, when the market is fairly strong, he will not be able to import into it. In a way, it is the acceptance of a form of regulation, of import control, other than purely a question of the exporter getting more for his exports.
I hope we shall be able soon to come to agreements over meat, though at the moment that does not seem such an urgent problem. At the moment, the problem is one of where we are going to get meat rather than that of oversupply. I understand, for instance, that

1293
in Argentina the increased standard of living and the drought have caused severe shortages and it may be difficult to get all we need from that country.
I think one thing which the Review shows is that standard quantities need not necessarily be restrictive, in that they do not necessarily stop the amount produced by the British farmer from expanding as the market expands, which will enable him to get the largest possible share of that expanding market. After all, I think that the starting point for the standard quantities has been set reasonably high, and every assurance has been given that, if the industry can work competitively, they will get a larger share of the market.
To deal with the individual commodities, I welcome the increase to milk producers. But one question I should have liked to ask the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, had he been here, is whether he would expect milk to be subsidised. He was rather complaining about the high cost to the consumer. I could not agree less with the noble Lord, Lord Henley, over milk. I think it would be quite wrong to let production go up and up and hope that one would use the surplus entirely for manufacture, because if the farmer is going to be paid the liquid milk price, either we are going to have an enormously expensive surplus, which it will be quite uneconomic to turn into butter and so on, or the price to the producer will be extremely low.
On the question of milk, I think the Government have been right to resist the temptation over the last few years. As my noble friend Lord Ferrers said, production was expanding very rapidly, and the point had come when the Government faced the industry with the choice, really, of either attrition or coming to some sort of two-tier price system. The industry and the Milk Marketing Board, I think quite rightly, rejected the two-tier system. The only other alternative was somehow to get the production of milk reduced so that there would be an economic return to the producer. I think that has now happened, and as a result we have a much more efficient milk industry than we should otherwise have had. Although some 40,000 (I believe that is the correct figure) milk producers have gone out of
1294
milk production, I understand from the referendum that the Milk Marketing Board carried out among those producers that profitability was the prime cause in less than half the cases, and other things, such as dairy regulations, played a big part in their decision. I am glad that the Government now, through being firm in the past, are in a position to do something about it.
As an arable farmer, I am grateful that for the first time the Government are able to do something for the arable farmer, both in the extra price of potatoes and in the small increase on sugar beet. As the noble Lord, Lord Wise, said, this will represent about £2 an acre on a fairly high-class property; it is not a tremendous lot, but it is something.
It seems to me that the structure of the industry is very much sounder. The next thing to which we have to devote our attention is the improvement in marketing. We have the Verdon-Smith Report, and no doubt very soon we shall hear what the Government are going to do about it. I understand that the Government are having talks with the National Farmers' Union on the marketing of cereals. Now that it is hoped that we shall have a more stabilised market, this should be the opportunity for the home producers to be able to set their own house in order; and there is no real reason why home-produced grain should be at such a discount as it is against imported grain. I have talked for long enough, and I would only say, in conclusion, that I think this is a Review that should be of great assistance to the industry.
4.48 p.m.
LORD ABINGER: My Lords, as a farmer, I share the concern felt by many about the conditions which have been prevalent in the industry in the last two or three years. I accept that many farmers, and particularly the smaller men, have faced extremely difficult circumstances, with falling incomes, and deserve a better deal. I also accept absolutely that there must be some limit to the amount of support the taxpayer can be asked to give to agriculture. I agree that subsidies cannot be openhanded. But what I cannot accept is that these two requirements are necessarily conflicting. I believe that the interests of the farmer and the consumer are largely mutual interests, and that,

1295
if we are given the right Government policy, the interests of both will be served at the same time.
To this end, my first and most urgent plea to the Government is for a much more decisive system of differentials between the price paid for quality produce and that paid for low-grade produce from the farms. One of the problems which has been facing agriculture has been this increasing tendency towards over-production of certain commodities. Agriculture has performed its rôle magnificently in the national economy over the last 20 years. It has achieved its 4 per cent. annual increase in production, and it seems to me that if this tendency continues, there is some danger that the market will not be able to take up the increased production, with possibly disastrous results either to the farmer or to the taxpayer. Surely the first thing to meet a situation like this should be a determined effort to push the lowest grades off the market altogether. This would have the effect of getting production back into line with demand, and it would steady the market for the 90 per cent. of the self-respecting farmers who grow good food; it would help the consumer, and would ease the burden on the Exchequer. It is true that the Government have paid lip service to this idea of price differentials, but my case is that the differentials are nothing like decisive enough.
Let me consider some individual commodities. In the sphere of grain, wheat is one of our most important crops. The fact is that some of the best wheat grown in the country will provide the poorest return—the lowest price—to the farmers who grow it; and, conversely, some of the more indifferent wheats grown in the country will earn some of the best prices. I imagine that the best wheats of all are those grown for seed. They are an expensive crop for farmers to grow, and if they are a winter-sown variety, in the very nature of things they have to be sold immediately after the harvest at a time when the standard price is lowest. Even if they command a small premium from the merchants, they will not give the farmer who grows them as good a return as some more rubbishy wheats
1296
that he might choose to sell later in the summer. This particular instance may be an anomaly, but it is the case that there is no relationship between the amount of support the Government give grain and the quality of the grain.
In the field of eggs, I think we now have a position in which there is over-production, which is not of course, the case with wheat. I believe that these egg factories, which were referred to earlier, are a rather unhealthy development in the industry. I would not complain if these factories, housing 100,000 or 200,000, or even, it is suggested 1 million birds, were sited on the edge of some large town and confined their activities to providing that town with these eggs. But they go very much further than this. The eggs from these places percolate throughout the country, right down to the most rural parts of the South-West and the remote parts of Wales. They have a tendency in those rural areas to weaken the market for the local farmer-producer. One could not complain if one were comparing like with like, but I refuse to believe that, however efficient the transport system for moving eggs from the factories is, they can really compare in quality and palatability with a locally produced farm-grown egg. I should have thought that this was a field (and this point has already been referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers) where a selective subsidy might be worked out.
In the case of milk, we have heard again that milk is not subsidised, but is price-controlled. At times of impending over-production, the control has been severe. This year the control has been relaxed to the extent that the price received by the farmer has been allowed to rise by 2¼d. a gallon. Until recently, the price control was severe, the profit margin for many milk producers fell, and a number went out of business. I think it is true that this has been followed, in certain areas of the country at certain times of the year, by a definite danger of a shortage of milk, particularly milk for the creameries for making butter and cheese. It is a difficult point to prove by statistics, because we know that there is an overall average over-production of milk, and also that at certain times of the year in certain districts

1297
there is a shortage. I would ask: why penalise the whole milk industry at times of impending over-production? Why not be selective with the price control, and endeavour to push the lowest grade milk off the market altogether?
It is true that the Milk Marketing Board, who handle these matters on behalf of the Government, operate a price differential system. But what an esoteric system it is! The Milk Marketing Board pay a medium-range price for the best milk; they pay a rather higher price for some less good milk, and a lower, though quite good, price for some milk which I maintain should not be on the market at all at times of over-production. That is the current price control system. What is good milk? Other things being equal, I think it depends upon the composition of the milk. When all is said and done, milk is well over 80 per cent. pure water, and it is the remaining percentage of its contents, the solids content, that is of importance in defining the quality of the milk. The fact is that milk from the Channel Island breeds has by far the highest percentage of solids. Here, I must declare an interest, because I am a Jersey breeder. I do not think I am prejudiced; I think that both the farmer and the consumer will agree that Channel Island milk is the best. It is this Channel Island milk which the Milk Marketing Board lump in the medium-price bracket when paying for milk, although this milk will have a solids content of anything from 13·6 to 14·6 per cent.
The Board pay a higher price for non-Channel Island milk in possibly the 12·6 to 13·6 per cent. range of solids content, and they pay quite a good price for milk with a solids content of less than 12 per cent. Furthermore, in the summer the Board buy without question milk having under 11·5 per cent. solids content, which is below the assumed minimum of solids content for resale by retailers to the public. That is the sort of milk which in times of over-production should not be bought at all for human consumption. I believe that it serves absolutely nobody's interests to support low-quality produce, either by a weak and faulty price differential system, or by unselective subsidy, as in the case of the much-travelled eggs and the indifferent wheat sold late in the sell-
1298
ing season. It does not help the consumer, who may have to pay an artificially high price for even poor food; and, in any case, I should have thought that in time of plenty the consumer deserves better food. It does not help the farmer, who may find his market weakened by an influx of low-grade produce. And it does not help the taxpayer, who may find the cost of agricultural support getting out of hand.
I would plead, therefore, for a more selective use of the subsidies, and I should like to pose again the question raised earlier this afternoon: Whom do the agricultural subsidies benefit? I do not accept that the farmers are the main beneficiaries. I think the subsidies are meant to benefit the consumer. Surely the position is this: that by making public money available to agriculture, the Government are sharing production costs with the farmer. If this support is withdrawn, surely it is the consumer who suffers most. He will either have to pay the farmer his full production costs—that is to say, increased prices for his food—or he could let the farmer revert to the dog-and-stick system of farming—a simple, unproductive, though not necessarily unprofitable, form of farming—and buy his food abroad. If he were dependent on imported food he would starve in time of war and go very hungry in time of peace during balance-of-payments crises. I do not think we can assume for a moment that in the absence of home production imported food would remain cheap. I think the consumer could be in a position where he would be held up to ransom. Whether it is the consumer or the farmer who is meant to benefit, I suspect that neither of them are doing so at the moment as much as they should.
May I illustrate what I think is going on by an exaggerated example? The Government have proposed to raise the price of milk paid to the farmer by 2¼d. a gallon. To a farmer with forty cows this might mean an increased income of £250 a year; quite a handsome increase. If he is a mixed farmer working 250 acres of corn and dairying, he could expect extra income of about £1 an acre. But what happens if this farmer's suppliers—using a phrase currently popular in manufacturing industries—

1299
say: "The climate is right for an increase in prices"? The fertiliser supplier may increase his prices by an equivalent of 5s. an acre; the feeding-stuffs merchant follows suit; machinery engineers increase their prices; the farm chemist and the veterinary surgeon, the electricity board and the local authority also do so; and so it goes all along the line. The outcome may well be that the farmer is plus £1 an acre in income and plus 25s. an acre in costs. The poor fellow probably will not realise that for some time, because he is not an accountant or an economist; he prefers to be out in the fields examining the more fundamental problems of life.
I know that the Ministry checks costs when negotiating the Annual Price Reviews, but these are out-of-date costs. Has the Ministry any machinery for checking current costs and cost trends? If it has such machinery, has it any machinery at all for combating unjustified price increases? If the whole essence of the support system is the sharing of production costs between the Government and the farmer, the Ministry should be very interested indeed in the whole field of production costs.
In this context I would say at once that I most heartily welcome the Government's Resale Prices Bill. I think that resale price maintenance has become an undisguised menace in the agricultural industry. It is no exaggeration, I think, to say that a farmer can hardly be considered efficient now unless he has taken steps to combat it, by dealing with either co-operatives, to some extent, or the discount houses which exist in the industry. I hope Her Majesty's Government will push this Bill through firmly, quickly, and without significant amendment. I would also ask Her Majesty's Government to take a long, cold, hard look at monopolies and mergers. We have heard this afternoon that the fertilisers industry has been looked at in this way and has been given a clean bill of health. But the fact remains that more than three-quarters of the supply of fertilisers in the country are provided by three giant firms. I can only say, as a farmer, that the prices of their products are extraordinarily similar, and I just ask whether there is full, free and fair competition between them.
1300
The corn and milling trade recently has been going the same way. The small country merchants are disappearing every year. Their businesses are being merged with another handful of giant combines, and I believe that this is against the interests of the consumer and the farmer and that the farmer's bargaining scope is being restricted. Too often in these days is he quoted one price—the highest if he wants to buy and the lowest if he wants to sell. My Lords, I will conclude by saying that I welcome the terms negotiated at the Price Review, but that I regret that the Government have not felt able to make the subsidies more selective. I would emphasise, too, that unless the problem of rising production costs is tackled at Government level, any benefit the farmer receives from this recent Review may prove all too ephemeral.
5.6 p.m.
LORD SAINSBURY: My Lords, in these interesting debates which we have each year on agriculture, if you come lower down in the batting order you are liable to cover subjects that have been covered by previous speakers. Therefore, in advance, I crave your Lordships' indulgence. When I spoke a year ago in a similar debate I uttered perhaps a platitude, but certainly an obvious truism, when I said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 248, col. 209]:
"Whatever evolves in future from the main political Parties in the way of agricultural policy, it will obviously be necessary to arrive at a fair and just division between what should be produced in Great Britain and what should be imported from the Commonwealth and the rest of the world."
What makes this agreed aim so difficult to accomplish are the vagaries of nature. For example, who could have foreseen the 1962–63 winter in Europe and its after effects? There is no better example of this than the supply position of milk and milk products. A year ago I wondered whether Her Majesty's Government had not been unduly optimistic in thinking that the increase of a halfpenny per gallon would not add still further to the burden of milk that could be used only for manufacturing purposes. I was wrong, and I hope that that confession is good for my soul. I notice that the Financial Times, in their leader of March 19 of this year, when referring to the recent Price Review

1301
expressed the same sort of fears that I expressed a year ago. I quote:
"To make so large an increase as 2¼d. a gallon is to run the risk of upsetting the balance, discouraging the growth of demand and provoking another excessive flood of milk by tempting the marginal producer back into business."
I was wrong, and I think it is quite possible that the Financial Times may be wrong, because I believe that once farmers have given up milk production—and they give up, as a previous noble Lord has said, for more than one reason—they are unlikely to resume within a short space of time; although I notice that the President of the Farmers' Union of Wales has said that in his view the increase of 2¼d. a gallon could inspire new entrants into milk and thereby cause a recurrence of the trend that was apparent two years ago. As regards liquid milk consumption in the United Kingdom, it is going up only very slightly more than the increase in population; in other words, about 1 to 1½ per cent. per annum.
As regards overall dairy policy, I think the Government have to make up their mind whether it is in the national interest to produce milk for manufacturing purposes, particularly for butter. Obviously, there has to be a reserve for the liquid milk market owing to seasonal variations in production, but surely this reserve can become too large. I am aware, of course, that there is a standard quantity, and that if milk prod action goes over the standard quantity farmers get a lower price. I am also aware that this standard quantity provides a reserve of about 26 per cent. above the liquid milk requirements. In my view, it cannot be said too often that the true cost to the nation of English butter is about double the cost of production of New Zealand butter. It seems to me, therefore, that the trend of milk production must be watched most carefully, because in my view before we know where we are we might once again, in common with the rest of Europe, be faced with the chaos of over-production.
May I next turn to a commodity where there is again the problem of balance between home production and imports, namely pigmeat. As your Lordships are aware, and as has already been stated, last week saw the publication of the Memorandum of Understanding on the Supply of Bacon to the United Kingdom
1302
Market, which ensures 36½ per cent. of the total target quantity for the home producer. When I spoke last week on the economic situation I mentioned that bacon prices were in the neighbourhood of 18 per cent. above prices at the same time last year. Currently pork market prices are some 25 per cent. higher than a year ago.
There are several reasons, I think, for the recent high U.K. pigmeat prices, such as the shortages on the Continent, that in turn are, in part, due to last winter's severe weather. This has led to traditional suppliers to this country diverting part of their exports to other countries—for example, Denmark exporting to France and Switzerland. In addition, high prices on the Continent have attracted exports of pigmeat from this country, mainly to France, and the quantity amounted last year to over 5,000 tons. This quantity, of course, is not big in itself, but has a psychological effect on market prices. The export of pigmeat to France has now fallen off owing to an internal drop in pig prices in France, showing once again that high prices increase supplies.
The increase of the present guaranteed pig prices to the producers in last week's Price Review by 1s. 3d. per score should, in my view, act as a moderate incentive to increased production and the overcoming of the present shortage in this country. It is, of course, only with increased production, on the Continent as well as in the United Kingdom, that the recent bacon agreement will be put to a real test.
It is probably in beef where there is the greatest contrast between to-day and a year ago, as to both supply and price. As is so often the case in these matters, several things have contributed to this change. Your Lordships will recall that a year ago two factors were operating which caused low prices. One was the volume and timing of imports, the other the effect in Britain of feed shortages on marketing. To turn to imports, your Lordships will recall that at this time last year the Minister of Agriculture sent what my noble friend Lord Williams of Barnburgh called "a couple of love letters" to the Argentine and Yugoslavia. Those letters appear to have had some effect of recent months. It has been estimated that imports of Argentine

1303
chilled beef have recently been running at some 40 per cent. behind those of the corresponding period of last year. In fairness to the Argentine it must be said that the British Government asked for shipments between September last year and March, 1964, not to exceed 89,000 tons with a minimum of 80,000 tons, and I am informed that in fact the Argentine have delivered about 82,000 tons.
It is not always appreciated, I think, that of the total production of beef in the Argentine, only 18 per cent.—which is a fair average figure over a period of years and is the last available figure, which is that of 1962—goes for export, and of that 18 per cent. Britain took about half. Therefore, unfavourable weather conditions, such as the drought that was experienced in the Argentine, in South America, some eighteen months ago, can have a considerable effect on the quantity of cattle now available for export. There is also what a newspaper this week described as the "beef drain". This must not be exaggerated, but it is an entirely new factor. There are now regular shipments from Britain to the Continent of live cattle, mostly cows, going on continuously. It is very difficult to obtain figures of the total volume, and perhaps the noble Lord when he comes to reply to this debate on behalf of the Government can enlighten us on this quantity.
Whatever the volume is, it is certainly having an effect on market prices, and perhaps what is most serious of all is that I have been reliably informed that if more suitable shipping space were available the number of exported animals would be much higher. The situation, therefore, over all, again in my humble opinion, seems fully to justify the proposed increase in the market price by 3s. per live cwt. and the increase in the steer calf subsidy. But it is perhaps an enigma that in endeavouring to prevent an over-supply, Governments sometimes help to create a shortage.
I now come to eggs. May I say that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, with his customary courtesy and kindness, informed me in advance of this debate that he was, I think he said, going to "have a dig" at me about eggs, and
1304
he quoted a speech I made recently at the London Egg Exchange dinner. He also referred to the fact that the Government, in the light of expanding production, are reducing the guaranteed price by 1d. per dozen; and, quite rightly, he said that that increasing production was due to the increase in the average size of the laying flock and higher egg yields rather than to the number of egg producers. In point of fact, the number of registered egg producers has declined.
In the speech which the noble Earl has quoted, I said what a relatively small contribution imported supplies made to the total. I think it interesting to compare the great change between the present-day and the pre-war situation. In the period 1934 to 1938, imported eggs, including egg products, accounted for 35 per cent. of the United Kingdom supplies. In the last two years the comparable figure has been estimated at 6 per cent., and of this 6 per cent. only 2 per cent. represented imports of eggs in shells. This is a truly remarkable change. In my view it would hardly justify import quotas which have been mentioned in the past in certain agricultural circles. In my view, it is not imports which present the problem, but the varying costs of production.
I said that eggs produced by the newer methods of mass production cost so much less than eggs produced from hens kept in the traditional way. Obviously—again I quote myself—if the present subsidy is fair to the one it is outrageously generous to the other. I said that, in my view, the one thing that we must not do is to discourage improved techniques leading to lower costs. So there is a fair measure of agreement between the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and myself.
Now I come to the point in his remarks on eggs at which he tried to sow the seeds of discord between my noble friend Lord Walston and myself. I appreciate that I am but a humble Back Bencher and that my noble friend speaks from the Front Bench; but, in spite of my humble position and his important one, nothing that the noble Earl said is going to weaken our friendship or succeed in sowing these seeds of discord between us. I am much more a shopkeeper than a politician, and I

1305
believe that the appropriate thing to say at this juncture is that it is not the job of the Opposition to provide the Government with the way to solve their problems.
However, I would offer two suggestions for consideration, without in any way committing the new Government that, before the end of this year, will be in power. The first of my two suggestions is consideration of a policy that was, I think, years ago, applied to milk, by which you had a graduated payment and the big suppliers received less than the smaller ones. That, I should have thought, could possibly be applied to eggs. Secondly, there are obvious variations of cost between the eggs produced a long way away from the market of their consumption, and those produced near the urban areas where they are consumed. It is possible that you could have a differential price system by which the small producers in the remoter districts received a higher price than the producers in the more urbanised areas. For what they are worth, I throw out those suggestions.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to interrupt him? I am particularly grateful to him for being so illuminating about this. He said that these were outrageously generous subsidies. When I asked him what he would suggest doing about it, he said, "That is a problem for the Government." This is most interesting. It is a good debating technique if you can deflect any arrows that come across the Floor and turn them into boomerangs. But if the noble Lord is going to suggest that these are outrageously generous, then I think he has an onus to say what are his alternatives. I am glad that he has said that, in his view, it would be right to give a differential subsidy, which, in other words, would be a smaller subsidy to the big man and a bigger subsidy to the smaller man. In other words, he would discourage the smaller person from being more efficient. Is that: really what he means? If that is so, is that what the Labour Party think? The smaller man would like to know.
LORD SAINSBURY: We are back on the electioneering point.
EARL FERRERS: This is fact.
LORD SAINSBURY: I personally certainly would not agree with any policy which discouraged increased efficiency or innovation; but there are certain inescapable differential costs. I was at one time on the National Egg Packers Council. Without reference I cannot remember the date, but this principle of a differential price has been considered by the Department concerned as well as by people such as egg producers and their representatives and egg packers. So I do not claim for it any originality. I have made it perfectly clear that it is not our job from these Benches to provide noble Lords opposite with the solution.
EARL FERRERS: But then, if noble Lords opposite are going to present themselves as a possible alternative Government, it is right that the farmers should know what they should expect from those noble Lords in regard to eggs. The noble Lord has just said that there are certain inescapable differences in costs. A few minutes earlier he had suggested that the big man should get less than the small man. All that I want to find out from the noble Lord is this: is he saying that there should be a small subsidy for the big person and a big subsidy for the small person? I am not saying that he is necessarily wrong, but is that what he and his colleagues feel?
LORD SAINSBURY: My Lords, you can criticise people who will not look ahead, and, with all respect, the present Government, in agricultural matters and in other matters, have not always looked ahead. I am suggesting that unless one makes a determined effort to solve this problem in an equitable way which does not discourage efficiency, the Government of the day—which I hope will be composed, as to some at any rate, of Members from this side of the House—will be faced with a problem not of a subsidy of, say, £25 million, but of a subsidy of £40 million. So, whatever you throw across the Table at me, the problem remains and somebody will have to solve it. It is over-generous to the large-scale producer who gets a certain efficiency of production purely from size. I have detained your Lordships too long. I have enjoyed this little interchange, but, in conclusion, I would say that, however satisfactory the outcome of the

1307
latest Price Review may be to the farmers, many long-term problems remain to be solved.
5.31 p.m.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: My Lords, I should like to congratulate and thank the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, for initiating this debate; and in doing so I add my thanks to those of other noble Lords. The noble Lord gave us a recent history of agriculture, though, if I may say so, that history was a little biased. I should like to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture and his Parliamentary Secretaries for this year's Review and Determination of Guarantees. I think it has in it something very great, in that it looks right into the future.
I know that the last noble Lord who spoke mentioned the future, and I rather think he felt it was almost the prerogative of the noble Lords opposite. But that is not so, for he has only to look at this year's Price Review to see that it definitely looks to the future. There are ideas in it, and those ideas have taken time to develop. It was not very long ago, in fact about four years ago, when agriculture was in a sellers' market. Very quickly it suddenly became a buyers' market and everyone became worried; the idea that everything which was produced was actually needed died very hard. There was also at that time a more or less free entry for overseas supplies, and a large number of people got hurt, not only in this country but in the countries from whom we were importing. The idea of standard quantities and import controls has a good deal in it, in that everybody concerned knows how he stands. He knows full well that he has to be an efficient producer.
Going back a little, I find that one of the most alarming things about open-ended guarantees was that so few producers had any idea what their costs of production really were. Starting soon after Christmas, they usually had a shot at what the thing would cost. One man would mention the figure and others would follow; but those who followed had no idea how they could apply the first man's figures to their own farm. In fact, they had no idea whether they were producing efficiently, whether they were producing a line that they ought
1308
not to produce, or whether they were producing too many lines and ought to streamline the whole of their farm business.
I must congratulate the National Agricultural Advisory Service. In recent years they have done a remarkable job of work and have co-operated closely with county committees and district subcommittees. They have held meetings, they have spotted weaknesses, and they have persuaded one or two farmers—this took place in my county, which I believe was a leading county on the question of costs of production—to try out some form of simple costing. What had always put farmers off was that costings seemed to become complicated, and in busy times of the year got put on one side.
Then, suddenly, the thing got going. One or two of the farmers who had started costings told their neighbours what had happened. They suddenly realised that perhaps they were spending too much on food in the production of a given quality of milk; or that the same thing could apply to meat, whether cattle or pigs. Revealing information came out, and the farmers began to realise what their costs really were. Then we received able farm management advice from N.A.A.S., and the forms were revised; and now, in this month of March, a wonderful thing has happened. In conjunction with the National Farmers' Union, the universities and all concerned, there is now produced what is known as the Farm Business Record Book. I am not advertising its sale in any way at all; I have nothing to do with it; but it costs only a guinea and is available for every farmer in the land. It is a simple book and I consider that every farmer could make use of it; and if he did, there would be a great deal less wild and inaccurate talk in the farming business. I believe agriculture has suffered from such inaccuracy in the past, and this is where so much political talk has got into the process—which probably has not done the industry itself a great deal of good.
The other point I want to bring out is that a tremendous amount of information is coming through from the botanist, the veterinary world, the scientific world, agricultural engineers, and so on. Although the Advisory Service is first-class, the information that is available

1309
is not coming through quickly enough. I should like to put forward the suggestion that there could be some form of abstracting or clearing house under a single heading, so that farmers could be fed with specific knowledge which they require. The trouble is that over the years the information has grown so vast and so quickly that it is difficult to get exactly what one wants.
I have rather left the Price Review, but I consider that it is a wise one. I move round the farming world a good deal, and I can say that the Review has undoubtedly given an incentive of thought and a calmness of mind to the farmer to go ahead in sorting out his own problems and to produce on each farm what that farm is most suited to do. It was only yesterday that I was given a figure by a small farmer with 30 cows, He is quite a good farmer, and he was very pleased with the 2½d. In fact, it has increased his income by just under £300. But I said to him, "What do you think of it as a whole?" He replied, "Well, it is not going to attract new people into producing milk, but it is going to encourage the man who is already in".
I should have said that that was really what was wanted, because the shortage of milk with which we have been threatened during the last two months has not, I believe, been produced because of farmers going out—and there has been a suggestion this afternoon that those farmers were not, perhaps, the most efficient ones. The shortage of milk has really been brought about by the very cold winter of 1962–63, when farmers found it extremely difficult to get their cows in calf. The result was that the milk due from those cows was late in appearing again this last winter. I think, from talking to people and going round, that that was the main cause of the shortage. That, obviously, is going to right itself, and this price seems to me and many others just about the right amount to give the necessary encouragement.
That, my Lords, is all I want to say. If I may, I should just like to mention, as my last point, the Verdon-Smith Report. There was one item in that which I know caused a good deal of nervousness, and that is the rejection of the idea of the provision of additional cold storage. Farmers feel that if there
1310
is a surplus of meat, additional cold storage could take up the slack.
5.43 p.m.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: My Lords, my experience, like that of my noble friend Lord Malmesbury, has been that this Price Review has been very well received in the farming industry—in fact everywhere, at any rate outside your Lordships' House. Even here, the jeremiads of noble Lords opposite to which we have become used have on this occasion been comparatively few and restrained. It has been, I think, a good Review; but to my mind the really important thing about it is that at last the Government have found a way towards a solution of what has seemed an intractable problem: how to maintain the profitability of farming without placing an intolerable burden on the rest of the community. It has been becoming clear for some time, I think, that our support system, which was devised in conditions of shortage, was becoming less and less relevant in the changing conditions of to-day. The difficulty was how to make sure that periodical, or possibly even permanent, surpluses of some commodities would not raise the cost of support to unreasonable heights, for that would not only embarrass the Government but, much more important, forfeit the good will of the general public towards the farming industry.
During the last year a pattern has begun to emerge based on the idea that guaranteed prices should be linked in some way to the quantities of the various commodities that are required. This, of course, is difficult to contrive, particularly with those commodities of which a large proportion is imported under conditions of no restriction on imports. The Understanding on the Supply of Bacon and the proposed arrangements for the control of imports of cereals will help, and these are the first instances of restriction on imports that we have had—a great and important departure from what has long been the method in this country. It is true that it has not yet been possible to reach agreement with our overseas suppliers of meat. I have no doubt that that will come in good time; but I am very pleased to see that it has been possible to devise a system by which the total price received by the farmer for

1311
his fatstock will now to some extent depend on the price he receives in the market. The situation hitherto had been most unsatisfactory: it was a situation in which the farmer need pay no attention whatever to the price paid to him in the market, since, however little he received from the buyer, the Government would make up the difference to the agreed amount. I think that that was exactly the opposite of what is wanted to-day, now that the farmers are being urged to pay more attention to their methods of marketing.
I find that the scheme for meat is complicated, but I am sure that the principle of it is right—and I must say that it is not only that scheme which I find complicated. Many of the schemes seem to be complicated now. I was in your Lordships' House the other day when we were discussing the minimum import prices for cereals, and I certainly had the impression on that occasion that I was not the only one of your Lordships who was somewhat perplexed. But, my Lords, any interference in the natural play of the market for any commodity is bound to cause complications; and the greater the degree of sophistication introduced into the system, the greater the complications will become.
Our agricultural support system was quite simple when it was started; but it has been going a long time now, and it has had to be constantly altered and adapted through the passage of the years to meet the constantly changing conditions. This process has now brought the system to a pitch of sophistication and complication which requires a huge bureaucratic machine to operate it, backed up by the fine array of computers which I have seen at Guildford. Of course, I accept that in the special conditions of agriculture it is necessary for the Government to interfere, to decide priorities, and, by distorting the pattern of the market, to exercise some control over production. But I must say that when I look at what all this involves in agriculture I am astonished that noble Lords opposite, as I understand it, should wish to introduce the same sort of interference into other branches of our national economy,
1312
where the need is by no means so obvious.
My Lords, I am not going to be long, but I should like to say something about one particular commodity, and that is milk. In passing, I should like just to take up a point that was made by my noble friend Lord Amherst of Hackney (who is not at the moment in the House) at a time when the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, was not in the House. I was interested, as he was, in the implications of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, about milk. He appeared to approve of the increase in the price of milk to be paid to the farmer, but to disapprove of the increase in the price of milk to be paid by the housewife. That seems to me to imply the reintroduction of subsidies. I should be interested to know if that is the intention of noble Lords opposite. But I believe that every thinking farmer accepts that two years ago we were heading for trouble with milk unless some check in the upward trend of production could be achieved. Measures were taken that may have been uncomfortable; they were certainly effective. Production levelled off, and for the last few months it has been well below that of recent years. But I do not believe that indicates anything like a flight from milk, as has been suggested; or, indeed, that there is a danger of an actual shortage of liquid milk.
First of all, I believe, as my noble friend Lord Malmesbury and others have said, that the shortage during this winter has been largely due to climatic conditions—the cold, wet summer, which is always followed by poor milking performance in cows, and also the hard weather in the early part of last year, which made it difficult to get animals in calf and so interfered with the autumn calving programme. Certainly in my own herd the pattern of production seems to have been very similar to the national pattern, without any deliberate intention on my part. It is true that some farmers have gone out of milk, but for many reasons, as has been said, besides that of price. Some of them have been unable or unwilling to achieve the standards of hygiene which are now required of dairy farmers, and some of

1313
them have found the drudgery of the job too much for them.
It is also true that there has been a reduction in the national herd of about 3 per cent. which is partly due to the very high price now obtainable for culled cows. At the same time, all over the country farmers are increasing their herds and spending large sums of money on arrangements for improving the efficiency of their output. It has been noticeable that the demand for downcalvers has remained high. There has been an increase in the number of inseminations by dairy bulls. The Farmer and Stock Breeder of January 21, under the heading "Swing Back to Milk" said:
"Latest figures on cattle inseminations from Milk Board centres show a big swing back to dairy breeds … The new trend heralds a rise in milk production in something over two years' time. It is to be hoped that the dairy breed proportion of inseminations does not go on rising much further, else there will be a distinct danger of over-production of milk in 1966 or 1967."
None of these things seems to me to indicate a lack of confidence in the future of milk—and all that was even before the present increase in price which has now been given. As a milk producer, I am pleased with the increase in price; but I hope that we shall not see the cycle of over-production starting again.
Farmers grumble, of course, and a fall of £40 million in aggregate net income—which is nearly 10 per cent.—is no fun, even if three-quarters of it was due to bad weather. Certainly in the SouthEast—that part of the country where I live—I have not been able to find, even before the Price Review, this dismay and depression we have heard so much about. I have no doubt that this Review, coupled with the other measures the Government are taking, will be accepted by the industry as giving firm grounds for confidence in the future of British farming.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION
6.0 p.m.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:
Consolidated Fund (No. 2),
Rating (Interim Relief),
Married Women's Property,
Uganda,
Television,
British Nationality,
Fireworks,
Trade Union (Amalgamations, etc.),
War Damage,
Licensing,
Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1923 (Amendment),
Motherwell and Wishaw Burgh Extension, &c. Order Confirmation,
Port of London (Extension of Seaward Limit),
Customs Annuity and Benevolent Fund,
City of London (Courts).
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

AGRICULTURE
6.16 p.m.
Debate resumed.
VISCOUNT FALMOUTH: My Lords, to take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, I see from the list of speakers that I am twelfth man, batting at number eleven. I claim the privilege, therefore, to be short. Your Lordships are now well acquainted with the provisions of the Agricultural Price Review of 1964. This is a most important Review, and must be considered jointly with the Agriculture and Horticulture Bill which your Lordships' House has recently been considering. All your Lordships must surely welcome the fact that this is an agreed Price Review, and I think we are all united and desiring the welfare of this great industry.
The Government have been very skilled in steering a middle course between the four shoals of GATT and the Kennedy round, the taxpayer, the consumer and the home farmer. The marketing problems which have been to

1315
the fore and which are, so to speak, built in in the industry, are perhaps four in number. These problems are well-known to the House and, indeed, they must be a kind of hardy perennial at each of these agricultural debates. I hope that your Lordships will not consider me presumptuous to touch on them briefly when considering the Review. I will list these four problems as, first, surpluses at home and abroad; secondly, pressures of imports from abroad; thirdly, the natural desire for cheap food; and fourthly, the ever-increasing payments from the Treasury to agriculture to support it.
First, with regard to surpluses, the Review sets out to deal with this problem by the introduction of standard quantities for the home producer. I think this year it is 3·3 million tons for wheat and 6.5 million tons for barley. I know your Lordships will agree with me that the scheme is a clever one, and, indeed, is much simpler to operate than it looks. As your Lordships know, the target indicator price is fixed for the standard quantities at each Review. For wheat this price to-day is 20s.; that is, 6s. 6d. below the guaranteed price. This 6s. 6d. is the deficiency payment to the farmer if the standard quantity is just achieved and the average price is the same as the target indicator price. Supplies over and above the standard quantities or over and above (shall I call it?) the T.I.P. or average market price lead to a corresponding adjustment in the deficiency payment. The calculation to decide this payment is not a difficult one, as we see if we refer to page 42. I think, too, we should note that in this Price Review there is no question, so to speak, of "quota-ing" the products of individual farms, except in so far as potatoes are concerned. I hope, indeed, that the fluctuations of the English cereal market will not be great enough to disturb these arrangements.
Secondly, pressures from abroad. The 1964 Act, now in course of going through Parliament, will allow the authorities to place minimum prices on overseas cereals. This, I suppose, will be closely linked to the T.I.P., while the agreements with the main producers overseas will limit what they send. I understand that the alterations of the minimum import price can be made
1316
quickly so as to prevent dumping. The previous anti-dumping Acts can be slow and cumbersome, and I am sure your Lordships would agree that it is to be hoped that these provisions will be put into operation as soon as possible after the passing of the Bill, so as not to prevent the successful working of this Price Review.
Let me deal now with the desire for cheap food. One halfpenny on milk is, of course, an increase in the food bill to the housewife, but this must be looked at in the light of the £24 million increase in Treasury support for milk and the fall in the rate of increase of milk production. Lastly, the necessity to keep a firm hold on Exchequer support is, of course, to be greatly helped by preventing the entry of under-price cereals into the market from abroad.
The importance of these changes in our system are very great, and I think your Lordships must agree with me that it is a well-timed action that the agreement with our overseas suppliers has been made before this Price Review. The Price Review represents a time for thinking ahead in the industry. It is easy for us to criticise Governments for blowing hot and cold from one moment to the next by encouraging or discouraging farm produce. But, as we know from our own experience, surpluses and shortages are of the very nature of agriculture. Probably nothing will alter that, and it must be hoped that these new arrangements, if worked wisely, will work against these fluctuations.
Before I sit down, there are perhaps two practical points which I should like to put before your Lordships at this time. They follow on, I think, from the Price Review. First, there is the question of the small farm and, secondly, the spread of the increasing population into the countryside. As the noble Lord, Lord Wise, said, it is not an easy thing to get a fair living from a small farm—and I have many connections myself with small farmers. As the noble Lord opposite said, we must remember that this problem is much greater in Europe. It may well be that there are no great changes which can be made speedily. Agriculture itself is a slow business. Swift changes often do great harm, and if amalgamations come it can be only a slow process.

1317
Increase of the population and its overflow into the countryside mean greater markets for the home farmer. But in the regions where the population is expanding the farmer is at a considerable disadvantage in attracting the right type of young labour for his farm, especially when he is competing against such prosperous industries as the building trade. Particularly in the southern suburbs of London, excellent work is done in the primary and secondary schools in encouraging young people to take an active and intelligent interest in the land, in the hope that they may enter into this industry. I hope that the Minister, with all his responsibilities in reconciling conflicting interests, will defend the existence of good agricultural land, so far as he can, so that no more of it than is absolutely necessary can be taken for building.
6.27 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, we are always grateful to my noble friend Lord Williams of Barnburgh for debates of this kind. To-day I think we are particularly grateful to him for three special reasons. First, I feel that to-day's debate has been, if anything, even more valuable and a more informed debate than those we have had in the past. That is saying a great deal, because the standard has always been high. Secondly, this is a particularly important occasion because it seems the beginning of a new form of agricultural Price Review and price support and, therefore, it has special significance. Thirdly, it is of special importance because, in my view at least—and there are many who share this view with me—this is the last occasion for many years to come on which noble Lords opposite and their friends will have the opportunity of taking the actions they have taken. So I think that for all those reasons it is worth looking, as many noble Lords have done, not only at the immediate position of agriculture as it is to-day and the immediate impact of the Price Review, but at the rather wider context, both of the past and of the future.
So far as the past is concerned, we have, of course, heard a great deal of pleasure expressed at the Price Review today because it has been an agreed Review. As a farmer, I am delighted
1318
that we have got over recoupment—a repulsive word, but it is useful shorthand, and I think noble Lords know what it means. But it is always dangerous, as the Prime Minister was at pains to point out with regard to the trade figures when they were not so favourable in January, to draw conclusions from one month alone. One must look at the whole picture of our trade balance. Similarly, it is dangerous to draw conclusions from one Price Review alone, whether it happens by coincidence, as my noble friend has said, to he the Price Review in the year of an Election or not. So I do ask your Lordships to look back over the past ten years, when we are now congratulating ourselves as farmers on this over-recoupment of £7 million or so, and see what has been happening.
We know perfectly well there has been an under-recoupment in the past ten years to a total of £175 million. In other words, under-recoupment has been running at an average rate of £17½ million per annum. So, grateful though we are for this over-recoupment this year, it really is not a terribly significant figure when viewed in the light of the accumulated under-recoupment of £175 million.
There was some query about this when my noble friend Lord Williams of Barnburgh mentioned these figures, so may I just remind noble Lords of what has been happening in the past ten years, from 1951–52 to 1961–62—the last year for which I have figures available? The actual net income, adjusted for changes in the prices of consumer goods and services, dropped from £314 million to £310 million. So there can be little dispute that during the last ten or twelve years the actual position of farmers, in real terms, has been steadily declining.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, would the noble Lord mind explaining that point a little further, because if he will look at Appendix II, "Aggregrate Farming Net Income", he will see that between the years he has quoted, adjusted to normal weather conditions, total income has gone up from £331 million to £438 million—which by my calculations, means a rise of £100 million?
LORD WALSTON: That, of course, is perfectly true; and it does show how dangerous it is, if I may say so without any offence to the noble Earl, to use statistics without reading what goes before them. Of course, the actual income has gone up according to those figures. But I said adjusted to "real" purchasing power, and, as we know, during the tenure of office of the present Government the purchasing power of the pound has declined very considerably. Therefore, although you may have more pounds passing into your pocket during the present time, you can buy less with them. This answer, which was given by the Minister in another place, did make that adjustment. I am grateful to the noble Earl for allowing me to make it clear—because it is an important point—that even though the number of pounds in a farmer's account may be greater than it was before, the actual amount that he is able to buy with his pound has declined. Therefore, his absolute standard of living is lower now than it was before. I hope that makes it clear to the noble Lord.
That is not all that has happened during this time. As your Lordships know, the Government were worried a few years ago by the problems which arose with meat when the deficiency payments (and therefore the taxpayers' contribution) for meat rose to alarming proportions, but it appeared that the price in shops did not fall correspondingly with the price that the farmer himself was getting in the open market. As a result, the Government set up what has come to be known as the Verdon-Smith Committee, which made an inquiry into the marketing of meat. I share with other noble Lords (I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney who mentioned this) interest in this matter and the hope that perhaps one day we shall be able to discuss this in more detail. But I do not think the present moment is the time to do so.
But I would draw your Lordships' attention to some figures which emerged from the Verdon-Smith Report. If you refer to the profits, as ascertained by the National Farmers' Union statisticians, from 357 farms, with an average of 225 acres, concerned primarily with livestock production, beef, mutton and pigs—the farms being ide cal samples—you will
1320
find that over the period 1957–58 to 1961–62 their profit rose by 3 per cent. That is not a very high rise, especially considering the decline in the purchasing power of the pound; but at least there was a rise. But if you then look up some very interesting figures in the Appendix of the Verdon-Smith Report you will find that the profits of the provincial wholesalers of meat during the same period rose, not by 3 per cent., but by 51 per cent. The profits of the independent retailers, the people who come after the wholesalers, during the same period rose, not by 3 per cent., but by 36 per cent. In other words, during that period—and I use that period solely because the Verdon-Smith Committee use it, and not for any other reason—while farmers, the producers of meat, were struggling along with a 3 per cent. rise, which was far too little to make good the rise in the cost of living, the retailers were just about able to keep even with a 36 per cent. rise, and the wholesalers were able to make an increased profit of 51 per cent. I think it is worth pointing out, my Lords, that the Verdon-Smith Committee themselves say that they do not think these profits were unreasonable, and there is no reason to alter the system because of them. Surely, if it is not unreasonable for wholesalers to have an increased profit of 50 per cent., or thereabouts, in five years, and for retailers to have an increased profit of 36 per cent. in that period, it must be unreasonable for farmers to have a profit of only 3 per cent.
That is meat. Now let us have a look at arable farming. What happens there? During a similar period—and again quote the National Farmers' Union figures. The noble Lord is laughing at this; I hope he has studied them himself.
LORD ST. OSWALD: The noble Lord must quote his own.
LORD WALSTON: Unfortunately, I have not my own here; I wish I had. It is possible that if I did, some noble Lords would say that I am not entirely typical of the ordinary run of arable farmers. After all, most arable farmers do not spend most of their time sitting in your Lordships' Chamber; they are probably far better occupied. Taking the N.F.U. figures—once more of a sample of 155 farms of 196 acres, again identical

1321
samples—we find that they did rather better than live stock producers. They had an increased profit of 5 per cent.—a lordly figure of 1 per cent. per annum. Unfortunately, neither the Verdon-Smith Report nor anything of a similar kind has looked into cereal marketing, so all I could do WAS to look at Stock Exchange reports of the profits of some of those concerns most closely associated with cereal marketing and utilisation. I looked at a firm called Associated British Foods, which is, I believe, concerned with bakery in a rather large way, and I found that during the period from 1958 to 1963 their profits increased by 64 per cent. We must remember that the farmers' profits increased by 5 per cent. Spiller's increased their profits by 94 per cent.; but they were not particularly efficient compared with Rank's, whose profits increased by 103 per cent. There again, you have somewhat of a difference between the farmer, the producer, under this present system and this present Government, and the other people who come between him and the consumer.
Let us have a look at milk, about which we have heard quite a lot. Here, I must say, I have a slight difference of opinion with my noble friend Lord Williams of Barnburgh. He suggested that the housewife was now going to pay 4d. a gallon more for her milk. My calculations suggest that she is going to pay something over 5d. a gallon more, because for eight months in the year she is going to pay Id. a pint more—I hope I have these figures correctly—and for four months in the year she will pay ½d. a pint more. That gives an average, unweighted, I grant, of 5⅓d. She is going to pay 1d. a pint more for four months and a ½d, a pint more for eight months.
LORD ST. OSWALD: May I just clear my head? One penny a pint more than what is the noble Lord saying?
LORD WALSTON: I do not know if I shall be able to clarify the noble Lord's head. One penny a pint more than at the present time, under the new system. The average increase she is going to pay will be something over 5d.
LORD ST. OSWALD: More than she has done is one thing. Is the noble Lord saying more than she is doing now?—because if so he is wrong.
LORD WALSTON: More than in the past twelve months; over the next twelve months she is going to pay, on a non-weighted average basis, something over 5d. a gallon more. Noble Lords have been talking of 2¼d. to be paid to the farmer. I am not at all sure they are not being unjust to the Government. I think it may be 2·79d. per gallon more. However, I do not think we need go into these rather complicated calculations.
What has happened in the past? Between the years 1955 and 1963 the average price to the producer has declined by 10 per cent. The retail price has increased by 28 per cent. These figures are to be found in the Milk Marketing Board's latest Report. From the National Farmers' Union, and their invaluable set of statistics, we find that from 1957–58 to 1961–62 milk producers' profits, dairymen's profits, on 384 farms of 96 acres—once more identical samples—have declined by 10 per cent., which is not surprising considering that the average price has declined by 10 per cent. too. The figures go hand in hand. Take Express Dairies—what has happened to their profits? They have gone up by 114 per cent. during that time. I think that these are figures to which we ought to pay quite a lot of attention; we should study them with considerable care if we are genuinely interested in the ultimate objective of any sound agricultural policy which is to ensure that the consumer gets his food at the lowest possible price and in adequate quantities.
I think it is significant that under this Price Review, in which the milk producer has been given this lordly increase of 2¼d. or 2·79d. per gallon, the consumer, in fact, will have to pay not 2¼d. or 2·79d. more but 5⅓d. per gallon more. The noble Lord knows perfectly well, and I know perfectly well, that there are many and complicated reasons for that. I am not suggesting—it is not so—that in this case the retailer of milk is getting a higher margin. He is not. There are many complicated factors which come in between, though I will not weary your Lordships by explaining how that comes about. The important thing is that the increase to the farmer is more than passed on to the consumer, and that is something to which, as people who are primarily interested in the welfare of the

1323
consumer, we should be giving very serious attention.
What serious attention are Her Majesty's Government giving to this? They have introduced this grand new concept of standard quantities and agreements with overseas producers, so far, unfortunately, only for wheat or cereals. We wish them luck in pursuing this concept with other commodities and with other countries. But we do not wish them luck in pursuing it in the same way they have been pursuing it up to the present time, because what they have been doing—and I will not go over the arguments we have had in the past weeks—is to give more money to overseas producers without getting any corresponding return for it, other than the possibility of reducing the amount of deficiency payment that has to be paid. We on this side of the House are wholeheartedly behind any policy which is going to regulate markets and promote order in the production and marketing of primary commodities of all kinds. We have been prepared on occasion, as the Government have been, to pay rather more for certain commodities than we have been paying in the past. But if we are going to do that we want something in return. We want two things in return. One is that should the market turn against us, as buyers, and should there be a world shortage of the particular commodity, we shall gain some advantage from having bought rather above open market price in the past. The second thing we want is that the extra money we pay out for these essential commodities shall, so far as possible, go to the countries which need it most, and especially, so far as possible, to Commonwealth countries.
Let us look at these cereal agreements in that light. We have no long-term agreement for ensuring our supplies of cereals at a regular price if there should be a world cereal shortage—and it is not at all unlikely that that may happen in the next few years. Sometimes we are terrified of super-abundance; sometimes we are faced with shortage. Who could have foretold, a couple of years ago, that the world price for sugar would have risen from £25 to £101 a ton? Who would have dared to get up in public
1324
and say that the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement was good, not only because it helped the Commonwealth and the developing countries, but because it would ensure that this country got its sugar at half the world price? Nobody would have considered that. It is not altogether unrealistic to say at the present time that it may well be that the world price of wheat may rise to £28 or £30 a ton. Why did Her Majesty's Government not take this opportunity, when they were offering some of the biggest wheat-exporting countries of the world a bottom to their markets, by undertaking to pay not less than £18 a ton or whatever it was, to ensure that they, as a quid pro quo for this, would undertake not to sell to us for more than £24 or £26? That would have been sound common sense, good business sense. But the Government have thrown away that opportunity, and I think the consumer should have something to say about that.
What about these countries to which we are offering this minimum price? Two of them, admittedly, are members of the Commonwealth, Australia and Canada. But by no stretch of the imagination can they be held to be underdeveloped countries, poor countries in need of help; and by no stretch of the imagination can the United States be held to be such a country. Therefore, although I am not against the idea behind the regularisation of price and controlling of markets, I do regard it as unfortunate that the great opportunity we had for ensuring that, should world prices rise, this country would get at least a proportion of its food at relatively low prices, was missed. And we have also missed the opportunity of helping those members of the Commonwealth who most need help, the developing countries. There is a further point about this that I should like to ask the noble Lord—namely, what is the effect going to be of this floor in the price? Sometimes we are told that in fact it will make no difference at all.
LORD ST. OSWALD: I do not know who said that; it will.
LORD WALSTON: I am delighted to hear the noble Lord say that it will. If it will make a difference, the only difference it can make, surely, is that,

1325
instead of on occasion buying our wheat, maize or barley at £13, £15 or £17 a ton, we are going to pay more for it. If we are going to pay more for it it can only mean that the price of those commodities, when they get on to the table or into the kitchen in the form of bread or flour or breakfast cereals, or whatever it may be, must be higher; unless, of course, the noble Lord were to say that the profits of all the middlemen are already so great that they can easily absorb these higher costs without passing them on. In any case, to have allowed them to get away with this in the past is a complete indictment of the policy that he and his colleagues have been following in past years. He cannot have it both ways.
So if it is going to mean that we are going to pay higher prices even for a small proportion of our imports, and if there have not been undue profits on the part of the middlemen in the past, then the price of the food to the housewife must rise, if not much, at any rate to some extent. It means also that the price of feedingstuffs to the farmer must rise because a large part of these things are made up of imported cereals. Some of the increased cost of feedingstuffs will have to be borne directly by the farmer. The dairy farmer has no written-in clause to adjust his price of milk to the cost of the feedingstuffs. Other increased costs will be passed on once more to the consumer, because the egg and pig producers have such a clause, and the cost of eggs and pork will go up.
Therefore, it is clear that if this new system of the Government is going to mean anything at all, it must mean some increase in the cost of living. We have already seen that it is going to mean that the price of milk will go up; there is no doubt about that at all. It will probably mean that the price of cereal products will go up, and possibly even the price of eggs and bacon will go up, albeit to only a small extent. I am not saying that we are against it for that reason, but I think the Government ought to be bold enough to tell us if it is in fact so; and if it is not going to make any difference at all to the price of these various commodities, they ought to explain to us clearly how in fact they figure this out.
1326
Now I want to come to one other point mentioned, mainly by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, about, I think his words were, the fair share of the increased efficiency that should be left to the farmer. I have already given figures to suggest that in the past the increased efficiency of farmers, amounting to some £25 million a year, has resulted in a very small increase indeed in the spending power of the farmer—in fact, a decline. Not only would I, but other farmers throughout the country would be extremely interested to know whether the Government's idea of a fair share of increased efficiency is exactly what it has been over the last ten years. or if they have altered their idea of what is a fair share at the present time.
There is another remark of the noble Earl, which is also in the White Paper itself, concerning the fair share of the increased market which should accrue to the British farmer. Paragraph 7 of the White Paper purports to deal with this. Discussing the standard quantities, it says that they
"will be determined at each Annual Review taking account of the growth of the demand for cereals for human consumption and animal feed"—
this is significant—
"and any changes necessary as a result of reviewing the balance between home production and imports."
I am not quite sure what those words mean. They could mean that the Government of the day will say that these changes, which are necessary, may in fact change the ratio between imports and home production in such a way that it will react adversely on the British farmer.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, would the noble Lord just indicate the passage he is referring to? I am sorry, I missed it.
LORD WALSTON: It is paragraph 7 of the White Paper, the Annual Review and Determination of Guarantees, 1964. It is perfectly true that the final sentence of the paragraph says:
"The Government intend to increase the levels of the standard quantities as required to provide this opportunity for home producers in the future."
May we take that—this is a point on which I hope we can have a categorical

1327
assurance from the Minister—as meaning that the Government have undertaken, not only that the standard quantities will not be reduced in the years to come, but that they will in fact be raised in successive years at successive Price Reviews?
There is one other point which was mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, that I should like to take up. He finished up his exhortatory peroration with the words "a strong, modern and vigorous agriculture can face the future with confidence." He is quite right: it can. Are the Government taking the steps that are necessary, and have they taken the steps which were necessary, to see that we have a strong, modern and vigorous agriculture? It is difficult to know that. I am not being dogmatic, but I have grave fears upon the matter.
We all know that in the last ten or eleven years the labour force on the land has declined by 30 per cent. I think that most of us have no qualms about that, because we believe that, so long as we can produce the amount of food which this country should have—I believe it should be an increasing quantity—with fewer men, so much the better, not only for agriculture but for the country as a whole. I am not complaining about the reduction of 30 per cent. in the labour force over this period, provided that it takes place, as it has taken place, without rural unemployment and without hardships to those who were formerly working upon the land. But a figure we do not hear so much about, and one which is of far greater significance, is that those between the ages of 25 and 44 who have left the land in the same period do not number the overall average of 30 per cent., but in fact 45 per cent. This in fact means that we are moving towards an agriculture without a well spread age group of young boys, old men, middle-aged men, skilled men; we are moving into an agriculture where we have a relatively large number of young boys, unskilled, who as soon as they get better jobs move on to something else, and a large proportion of elderly and old men.
We are having this serious drift of farm workers just at the time when they
1328
are skilled, just at the time when they are at their peak of productive capacity and efficiency. They are drifting away into other occupations. That is what these figures from the Ministry show us, and I cannot believe that an agriculture where that is happening, or indeed any industry where that is happening, can be considered strong, modern and vigorous.
I do not know whether the same thing is happening among farmers. There are no statistics to show it. I should doubt if it were at the present time, but we all know what happened in the bad old days in the late 'twenties and the late 'thirties. Very few young men of intelligence, ambition and vigour went into farming, if they could possibly go into anything else. Very few went into designing agricultural machinery or into agricultural research, all ancillary trades essential for a healthy, vigorous and prosperous agriculture. They did not do so, because the industry was rapidly declining in its prosperity. I have great fears that if this present trend goes on, we shall in the years to come find that not only our farmworkers, but our farmers too, are composed only of old and young, and that our agricultural scientists and agricultural engineers, consist not of bright young men, coming in with bright ideas, full of energy and ambition, but of old men who are there and cannot get out. This is the sort of agriculture which cannot meet the challenge of the years to come.
To sum up, my Lords, the object of any agricultural policy must be first of all to safeguard the legitimate interests of the consumer: to give him, at the lowest reasonable price, the food he requires; to safeguard the interests of the taxpayer, and see that his money is not squandered; and to safeguard the interests of the farmer and the farm-worker by seeing that the people who produce the food get a fair reward. I do not believe that even this present Price Review and the beginnings of change in the Government's policy show any glimmer of light in either of those respects. For the consumer there will be higher prices—higher admittedly for milk; higher probably for cereal products, and possibly also for meat products. For the taxpayer the White Paper itself makes it clear that the total charge on the taxpayer will be £20 million more

1329
in the coming year than for the current year. So that there can be no justification on the ground that the taxpayers' money is going to be saved by this new system. And for the farmer, although he has moved up very slightly from his place at the bottom of the ladder, he is still at the end of the queue. And I am afraid that, so long as Her Majesty's Government pursue a policy of this sort, we shall not have in the years to come the strong, modern and vigorous agriculture which we all agree is necessary to face the future.
7.2 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in this debate to-day for their many interesting and useful contributions. I am, I suppose, inevitably particularly grateful to those who have commended the White Paper, and there have been many commendations, though not many from the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh. It is none the less always pure joy to take part in a debate with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barn-burgh.
I thought to-day he was even more acrobatic than usual. He read out an excerpt from a newspaper naming this as an Election Review. He said admiringly that the correspondent knew more than he did and had in fact an insight into the Prime Minister's motives, a really remarkable tribute. He then contradicted my noble friend when he deduced that the noble Lord was agreeing with that sapient scribe, and I am afraid that when I heard that, an irreverent and distorted jingle came into my head, which I shall be irreverent enough to repeat. I thought:
"You are stately, Lord Williams, the younger man said,
And your hair has grown notably white, And while you consistently stand on your head,
Do you think at your age it is right?"
I assure the noble Lord that that is uttered from the purest of motives.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: My Lords, I am round to confess I am utterly lost, and I should like to know whether the noble Lord would tell us what he is trying to say.
LORD ST. OSWALD: I should have thought that I had made it clear. The noble Lord agreed with The Times article
1330
and then denied he had agreed with it when "smoked out" by my noble friend.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: I simply quoted it.
LORD ST. OSWALD: Quoted it, and said, if you please, that the correspondent had a remarkable insight into the Prime Minister's mind. If that is not agreeing with it I do not know what is. We also gather from the noble Lord that in his term of office he pleased everyone. He pleased the farmers, he pleased the consumer, he pleased the foreign supplier. He said this all by implication, of course—never directly. But I am bound to say a small, mischievous inquiry went through my head: did the Estimates Committee of his day really dance "Ring-a-ring-a-roses" round him when he presented his proposals?
In some communities—I return to the opening of my speech—even in some intelligent and influential bodies, in our country, it is sometimes forgotten how important a part agriculture plays in our economy. This could certainly not be said of your Lordships' House by anyone who has listened to or who reads this debate. The importance of agriculture has been witnessed by those of varying shades of political belief, all with a keen concern for its welfare.
My noble friend, Lord Ferrers, speaking earlier in the debate, devoted particular attention to the recent Price Review and to the commodity determinations which were then announced. The debate has rightly ranged a good deal wider than that subject, and I shall later be commenting on specific points raised by noble Lords in other interesting fields. But I should like to start by joining those who have set the Price Review in a broader context, and to identify, as it were, its place and function in the development of British agriculture. Your Lordships will have realised that, more so than in past years, the Price Review is tied up with outside matters. I refer, of course, to the new developments in agricultural policy which my right honourable friend announced last May in another place. As regards the present Price Review, these developments have particular and immediate meaning for cereals, where the new policy is promoted through a careful balance of interests of long-term

1331
benefit to the producer and his market—the introduction of standard quantities at home and restraint on import prices from overseas.
At the outset I should like to make two affirmations—one positive, one negative—both pleasing to those concerned, and pleasing, I should hope, to your Lordships to-day, at least in so far as your Lordships will accept them. The first is my belief that this policy, taken as a whole, will be of new and ever-enlarging benefit to the farming community. A measure of control over imports has been for many years an object of the Unions' policy. But in addition to this, the new arrangements will give a powerful stimulus to improve marketing; they will ensure that the industry's efforts are not frustrated by a sudden inrush of uncontrolled imports at low prices, or by the permanent threat of surpluses overhanging the market.
I recall that at this time last year one such inrush of Argentine beef had embarrassed and unbalanced the market, and the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, made much of it. It never entered my head to criticise him at that time for seeking to embarrass me or to unbalance the debate by "plugging" this instance for all it was worth—and perhaps rather more than it was worth, to an unbiased ear. What does seem strange, or at least illogical, to me is that he should now object to our seeking and negotiating to prevent this kind of embarrassment or unbalance repeating itself, to the dismay of either the market, of individual Ministers or of the Government as a whole. It is particularly strange that he should object to our efforts when we can claim their success on cereals, and their progress towards success in meat, the two commodities which have given most trouble in the past ten years and which, but for these arrangements, would foreseeably have given still more trouble in the years ahead.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is committing the same error on this occasion as he has on two previous occasions when I have intervened in an agricultural debate. He is answering a speech that I never made.
LORD ST. OSWALD: No.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: The noble Lord is referring to my references to minimum prices. I did not say that the Government were doing wrong. I said they were doing the right thing in the wrong way.
LORD ST. OSWALD: Very well. What the noble Lord did was to disagree with our methods of controlling imports. I am right, I think, in that.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: Yes; but that is different.
LORD ST. OSWALD: But, my Lords, he did not specify—and I suppose he would say that it is not up to him to specify—how he would do it. But, I must say that, from what he said, it did not sound to me as if he would have been able to do it by agreement with the foreign suppliers.
The noble Lord, Lord Walston, was in a notably more peaceable mood to-day than he was in a previous debate when he spoke on this particular theme, when he advocated what seemed to me rather rough-handed methods. I do not think I am misrepresenting him—indeed, if I am, he will no doubt tell me so—in recalling his view that we were in a position to tell the foreign overseas suppliers what our terms were. It seems to me that, in an age when it is considered outre to send a gunboat up a foreign river, the noble Lord was prepared to send a gunboat into the Canadian heartland.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, there are such things as economic gunboats these days.
LORD ST. OSWALD: I was speaking about the approach. So I understand that the noble Lord would, in fact, send an economic gunboat to our overseas suppliers. I am glad to hear that, and I hope that it will be hoisted in.
So far as these arrangements for cereals are concerned, the House is relatively familiar with their provisions (my noble friend Lord Falmouth, enviably, I thought, found them easy to understand), and familiar also with the advanced point which negotiations have reached. I will, of course, try to deal with specific points raised by noble Lords in the course of the debate. My

1333
noble friend Lord Ferrers referred in his speech to meat, and it is true that our negotiations on this with our overseas suppliers stopped short of final success. That does not mean that they were unsuccessful. Progress was made, for all the supplying countries have come to recognise that stability in our market depends on adequate, regular and properly phased supplies. One noble Lord, I think on the other side of the House, referred to the "love letters" which the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, had referred to in the debate on agriculture last year, and I think that at that time I corrected him and said they were not love letters but were business letters. Indeed, it was the noble Lard, Lord Sainsbury, was it not, who said that they were not only business letters but were successful business letters?
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: Love letters should be.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, our market-sharing approach is now well understood, and we hope that in the forthcoming sessions of the GATT Meat Group this way of dealing with the problems of the meat trade will also commend itself. Meanwhile, we are asking the overseas suppliers of the British market to join in a consultative body to keep under review the flow of meat on to our market in the coming months. This will, I hope, cover the period until we can arrive at a comprehensive agreement on supplies. With this prospect for meat, and the arrangements for cereals which are already almost complete, the industry can look forward to a clear indication from the Government of the levels of production which are in the national interest. Above all, the arrangements will mean that the whole system of guaranteed prices and deficiency payments to which farmers rightly attach so much value can be maintained.
The second thing I want to stress is that this is not a policy which involves raising the level of food prices. On reading through the Hansard records both of Clause 1 of the Agriculture and Horticulture Bill in Committee in your Lordships' House and of my statement
1334
on the Review last Wednesday, I blamed myself, and I still blame myself, for not making this clearer, and for not using the openings given by noble Lords to emphasise even more strongly that we do not intend to use the new powers to jack up the general level of cereals prices. We intend to use them, only as necessary, to cut off any imports at unreasonably low prices which would otherwise disrupt our market generally. Had the sort of minimum import prices we have in mind been in operation over the past few years, the effect on the cost of imported cereals as a whole, and so on the balance of payments and on the cost of living, would have been small.
This, I think, is where the noble Lord, Lord Walston, did me the honour of misquoting me, or possibly misquoting somebody else. The levels of minimum import prices will, of course, have to be prescribed and approved by Parliament in an order, and it would clearly not be right for me to discuss the precise level at this time. But, as your Lordships know, the target indicator prices for 1964–65 have been fixed at 20s. a cwt. for wheat and 19s. a cwt. for barley, and these prices have been fixed in relation to the proposed minimum import prices after allowing for the recognised handling differentials, quality differences and marketing conditions, which must always affect any price comparisons between home-produced cereals at the farm gate and imported cereals at the port.
The Government have made it quite clear that we are certainly not intending to go over to a complete managed-market system. On the contrary—and in view of some of the remarks which have been passed during the debate, I should like to give this point very great stress—we are introducing only the minimum degree of regulation which we need in order to provide the more stable conditions necessary in present-day circumstances to safeguard the present system of support for cereals which has been the basis of our cheap food policy.
The noble Lord, Lord Walston, asked what was a fair share of increased consumption: was it the same as before? My answer must be that it never has been a rigid fraction, and we do not

1335
see it ever becoming a rigid fraction. He also asked: will the standard quantities be raised in future years? The noble Lord has a more vivid imagination than I, and perhaps he can foresee the British islanders losing their appetite or ceasing to have babies, or something similar, in which case, presumably, there would be less requirement for food; but I cannot see that, and therefore I tell him with confidence that, as the general consumption goes up, so will the standard quantities.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, we can take it, then, as absolutely definite that any increased consumption of cereals in this country will be shared in some proportion between the home producer and the importer?
LORD ST. OSWALD: Yes.
LORD WALSTON: But the noble Lord will not specify to any extent whether that proportion will be 5 to 95, 50–50, or how it might be? It could be only 5 per cent. for the home producer and 95 per cent. for the importer.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, as I have said, it never has been fixed at a rigid proportion, and I do not foresee its being fixed at a rigid proportion or fraction. Therefore I cannot give the noble Lord that figure.
Noble Lords on the Benches opposite—I am thinking particularly of the noble Lord, Lord Henley—have spoken about the possibility of using food surpluses for the Western nations to feed the hungry in underdeveloped areas. He specified the possibility of sending dried milk. In fact, under the World Food Plan we did offer dried milk, but the offer was not accepted. Undoubtedly, however, it must be looked on as one of the possibilities. Mention was made of the World Food Board. This, of course, is a very stimulating idea, and we sympathise with its general aim of ensuring that enough food is produced and distributed to bring the consumption of all peoples up to a reasonable standard.
Many noble Lords, quite properly, made comment about the level of farm incomes, and it might be helpful if I were to say a few words on this subject. Noble Lords on the opposite Ben-
1336
ches, and particularly the noble Lords, Lord Williams of Barnburgh and Lord Walston, have tried to make a case to show that farm incomes have lagged a long way behind the incomes of other sectors of the community in recent years. Recently a good deal of play has been made with the fact that farmers' costs have gone up by £188 million in the last ten years while the change from the increase in guaranteed prices was only £15 million. So the argument has been made that farmers have to find £170-odd million from their own pockets. That was not the argument presented by the noble Lord, Lord Walston, but in any case this argument omits that it is pointed out that over the same period increased efficiency has been worth something like £250 million to the industry, and that is a net gain of over £70 million. In fact, compared with similar classes of business, the incomes of farmers are shown up to advantage.
Looking at the rest of the community, we find it is the wage earners who have had the biggest increase over the period to which we are referring. But what we are talking about to-day is the increase in the guaranteed prices given under the current Review in the context of the present state of agriculture. The Government naturally welcome an improvement in farmers' incomes at any time; but we have always to bear in mind the risk of excessive production and the size of the Exchequer bill. This year, for the first time recently, the production prospects and measures taken in the Price Review to achieve a greater stability in cereals and fatstock marketing made it possible for the Government to give the industry a substantial award.
I think I ought to say a word about the gloomy picture of agriculture which was painted by the noble Lord, Lord Wise, and which my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Dalzell found strange. The noble Lord, Lord Wise, spoke of the outgoing tenants breathing a sigh of relief. I see that the noble Lord has himself become an outgoing speaker—I hope with not too happy a sigh of relief at missing my speech. What he did not mention was anything to do with those who would be taking their place. I think that anybody on the land knows that

1337
when a farm falls vacant, even a fairly decent farm, there is a queue of applicants. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, and I, being neighbours, both read the Agricultural Supplement to one of the papers recently. I think it is fair to quote from one of the articles in that Supplement:
"Today those farmers who were fortunate enough to take a farm or buy one for those sort of figures"—
that is to say, £100 an acre for freehold arable land
"are looked upon as being fortunate people. The same type of farm today would cost between £160/£200 or more per acre and it would be necessary to offer a rent of at least £8 per acre to be in the running for a tenancy. … The old contention that farm values were being pushed up by wealthy industrialists with money to burn and a desire to farm as a hobby or to enhance their prestige no longer can be accepted. With few exceptions vacant farms are being purchased by farmers for their own or their sons' occupation and in many cases by adjoining or neighbouring owners or occupiers with a view to increasing the sire of their holding to more economic levels."
I am bound to ask, my Lords, if there is anything in the contentions of noble Lords opposite, why are farmers queueing up to buy these farms at increased prices or take them at increased rents? Farmers are not mad; they are very intelligent people; and these are the facts.
The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, raised the question of what he called "the beef drain". Unfortunately, the Trade and Navigation Account figures for recent weeks are not available. If they were, I should be able to help him. But we know that the export of cattle beef is negligible in proportion to the total marketings. Moreover, the animals involved are, in general, not the ones on which the subsidy has been paid. I am sorry not to be able to give him a more specific answer.
No noble Lord spoke of the increase in the guaranteed price of milk as being a "panic measure" to deal with the threat of a milk shortage, although the term "milk shortage" has been mentioned. But these are terms which have been used; and very strange and ill-considered they seem to be. In the White Paper noble Lords will find that in the current year supplies of milk going to manufacture have constituted more than a quarter of the total sup-
1338
plies. The forecast for 1963–64 is that 1,724 million gallons will be consumed liquid while 785 million gallons will be used to manufacture. This is considerably more than the reserve margin written into the standard quantity, and there has never been any prospect of even a temporary or local scarcity of milk. I think the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, worked it out at 26 per cent. The reserve is, in fact, 20 per cent.
I do not know that I can say very much more. Although I should like to answer the questions of other noble Lords, I think the hour is fairly late. There was one other matter which seemed to me to be important and that was the question that my noble friend Lord Falmouth asked about good land going over into building land and whether we should do our best to defend the good land for agriculture and see that, where possible, the second-class or third-class land went for building. That is being done; these considerations are very much in our minds.
My Lords, in conclusion I would once again refer to the general picture. It has seemed to us, in arriving at the determinations of the recent Price Review, that for once—for the first time in several years—it is possible to give the industry a substantial measure of benefit from its ever-increasing efficiency and productivity, without incurring the danger of starting a spiral of rising production and falling prices. Some noble Lords have to-day made comment on the fact that this will be the final Price Review before an Election. I still do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, was saying so or not. I hope he knows. My answer to that is that they should read the information in the White Paper concerning the economic background and prospects of the industry, and then compare conditions with what they have been in recent years. Being fair-minded as well as noble Lords, I think they will agree that this is a fair Review which will greatly enhance the future prospects of the industry.
My right honourable friend described our agricultural objectives in a speech in another place in May of last year. We see the main problem facing agriculture as the problem of balancing supply and commercial demand. In recent

1339
years there has been a tendency, as has been said earlier, for supply to outstrip commercial demand, and this has too often led to depressed markets and high subsidies. Our overseas suppliers have also been concerned at their falling returns on our market. The Government's aim, therefore, has been, and still is, to promote greater stability in the market by bringing supply and demand more closely into line. At home, we have sought to do this by extending the use of the standard quantity concept. As far as overseas suppliers are concerned, we have already reached agreement with our bacon and cereals suppliers to regulate supplies or prices. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barn-burgh, asked a question about this. This was a negotiated agreement, on which the various suppliers, our own domestic producers and the Government sat around the table and discussed their proper shares.
This Price Review has been an encouraging one. But it could not give us full encouragement—it could not give farmers the sort of encouragement which we think worth giving—if we saw it as standing by itself in isolation. We do not. The fact that it has been an agreed Review is, of course, a relief and a positive pleasure to an Agricultural Minister. But the best side of the agreement is that it is not simply founded and dependent upon the £31 million added to the guarantees this year. It is founded in a mutual appreciation of present conditions, and it is facing the future. It recognises as its theme the truth brought out by my noble friend Lord Abinger that the interests of the farmer and of the consumer are mutual interests.
What we hope, what we intend, is that from now production and commercial demand will march forward together. The meaning of this will be clear, and I hope more than merely welcome to noble Lords. I am no more than echoing my right honourable friend's words that if, from now on, production and commercial demand can be matched, and equated with growth, taking full advantage of growth, then the benefits of our system will at last far eclipse the dangers. Granted this victory—and one can never be starry-eyed about agricultural certainties—any future Minister of Agriculture
1340
will henceforward be able to give greater weight, the sort of weight he would wish to give, to the levels of farm returns, to the rewards of sweat and skill and devotion to the land. There is an exhilaration in that prospect, which many of us must feel. And though, politically, it may go hard for the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, to advertise that exhilaration, humanly he must be sharing it with me at this moment.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: My Lords, it would be extremely ungenerous on my part to detain the House for more than a minute after your Lordships have been decent enough to stay here for so long to listen to so many of us. The only answer I would give to the series of questions which the noble Lord has put to me—Why are people willing to pay higher prices for land than hitherto?; why is it difficult to get a farm tenancy without paying £7 or £8 an acre?—is extremely simple, and one which I thought the noble Lord would have known and understood. It is, simply, the 1947 Act.
I would express my thanks to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, which I think has been extremely useful. I agree that this Price Review is very different from many of its predecessors. The Government had an experience in Europe in 1962 and early 1963 which perhaps has helped them to change their 1864 minds. That is all to the good. We welcome it and hope that during the next few weeks, at all events, they will continue with this policy. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW FOREST BILL [H.L.]
Report of Amendments received (according to Order).
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I have it in Command from Her Majesty the Queen to signify to the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the New Forest 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.

1341
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of March 19), Bill read 3a (privilege Amendment made).
LORD CRATHORNE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Crathorne.)
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, if I may say a word, my noble friend Lord St. Oswald has asked me to express his apologies to your Lordships for having to leave early, but he has been suffering from an indisposition, as some of your Lordships may have realised, and has regretfully had to leave. I only hope that, in his endeavour to be here to answer the Agriculture debate, he has not passed on his indisposition to anyone else. As I have been sitting near him all the afternoon I would reiterate this fortissimo.
He has asked me to say that the common land aspects of this Bill have, of course, been considered under the Select Committee procedure, and the Committee have recommended that the Bill should be allowed subject to certain safeguards. Your Lordships accepted the views of the Select Committee last night, and, as my noble friend indicated on Second Reading, my right honourable friend therefore has no objection, in the light of your Lordships' attitude, to the provisions of the Bill as now amended so far as they affect common land and the rights of the commoners. I would add that, from the point of view of the Forestry Commission, the Bill includes a number of provisions which they would find useful in the administration of the New Forest. It only remains for me to express the gratitude of the House
1342
to my noble friend Lord Crathorne and to the Promoters for their public spirit in bringing this measure before the House.
LORD CRATHORNE: My Lords, at this hour I do not think that I should continue the debate on this Bill, but I should like to express my gratitude to the noble Lords, in all parts of the House, who have made their contributions at various stages of this Bill. I would also, if I may—and I trust that I am in order in doing so—thank the Select Committee of your Lordships' House for the careful and thorough way in which they investigated the points which they had to discuss, for the Amendments made to the Bill in Select Committee, and for the admirable Report made. I have nothing further to say, except to wish the Bill well in its further stages in another place, and to express the hope that when it becomes an Act of Parliament it may be of great benefit to those who live in the New Forest, both human beings and animals.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

SAINT PAUL, PORTMAN SQUARE, SAINT MARYLEBONE BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-one minutes before eight o'clock for the Easter Recess, until Tuesday, April 7, 1964.