Sitting of 5 August 1965

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

  IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES
  The COMPTROLLER OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
  I have received your Address praying that the European Launcher Development Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1965 be made in the form of the draft laid before your House.
  I will comply with your request.

  IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES
  The COMPTROLLER OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
  I have received your Address praying that the European Space Research Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1965 be made in the form of the draft laid before your House.
  I will comply with your request.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  WALES

    Iron Ore Ports
    Mr. Gibson-Wattasked the Secretary of State for Wales what further recommendations he has received from Richard Thomas and Baldwins Limited with regard to the iron ore ports; and whether he will make a statement.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Harold Finch): None. My right hon. Friend has at present nothing to add to the information given during the Welsh Grand Committee debate on 14th July.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: Perhaps I may first refer to the fact that there are hon. Members from both sides of the House receiving bardic honours at the Welsh National Eisteddfodd today—the first time that this has ever happened to so many Members of Parliament. I am sure the House would wish to congratulate them.
    With reference to the Question, if and when we do have a report from Richard Thomas and Baldwins, will it be possible to debate the matter further before a final decision is taken?
    Mr. Finch: I feel sure that there will be an opportunity for a debate, as we recognise that this is a very important matter. I can assure the hon. Member that Richard Thomas and Baldwins want to decide as soon as possible, but it is not likely to be before October, although we hope that it will not be delayed long after.

    New Town (Mid-Wales)
    Mr. Gibson-Wattasked the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to receive the report of his consultants on the proposed new town in Mid-Wales.
    Mr. Finch: By 31st December next.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: In view of the news given last Tuesday, does the Secretary of State still consider this as a feasible project, or does he think that in the circumstances in which we find ourselves, plans for a new town in Wales are virtually pie in the sky?
    Mr. Finch: I cannot agree with the hon. Member. I think that we are quite confident that a new town will be established in Mid-Wales in the near future. As the hon. Member knows, the matter is in the hands of consultants, and we hope to get some definite report by 31st December.

    Road Programme
    Mr. Boxasked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will make a statement on the road programme in Wales.
    Mr. Finch: My right hon. Friend is not yet in a position to make an announcement about the Welsh road programme as a whole up to 1971. The Chancellor's statement will not affect

    1853
    schemes already started. Nor will it affect schemes due to start in the next six months but which are for development districts or areas of high unemployment, or for providing access to ports, or are needed to complete or extend projects already started.
    Mr. Box: I thank the Under-Secretary of State for that information, which is slightly encouraging. One recognises that there are economic factors that may cause delay in the further programme. Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that his right hon. Friend keeps the situation very much before his Cabinet colleagues, as the road programme has considerable significance for the future economy of Wales?
    Mr. Finch: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's remarks, and I can assure him that I will keep in close touch with my right hon. Friend and watch these developments as much as possible. If the hon. Member has any scheme particularly in mind and will communicate with I will endeavour to answer him.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: Can the hon. Gentleman say anything specific in regard to the road programme east to west? Has he any particular announcement to make about this?
    Mr. Finch: No, I have no statement to make at the moment. As I have said, the whole programme up to 1971 is under consideration. No doubt, if the hon. Member puts down a Question for Answer after the Summer Recess, we shall consider it.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: How much of the road programme has to be postponed in Wales because of the Chancellor's statement? Are there to be any postponements at any particular time in Wales?
    Mr. Finch: It may be postponed, but at present that will not affect present plans. It is impossible to say, at the moment, what may be postponed.

    Welsh Affairs (Information)
    Mr. Boxasked the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has for giving increased information in the future about Welsh affairs and the work of his Department.
    Mr. Finch: The former Welsh Office of the Central Office of Information has
    1854
    become the Information Division of the Welsh Office and my right hon. Friend has asked it to give the fullest possible information about the work of his Department and about Welsh affairs generally.
    Mr. Box: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many people feel that Wales is faring worse rather than better since the appointment of his right hon. Friend? For example, is the hon. Gentleman aware that a day for discussion of Welsh affairs for the first time for many years has been relegated to the dregs of this Session? Is this not derisory treatment of the new approach to Welsh affairs which we were promised prior to the election?
    Mr. Finch: We used to have complaints at one time because Welsh affairs were debated at the end of the Session before the Summer Recess and left to the fag end of the Session, but now we shall have a day to debate them as soon as we come back before the Session ends. On the general point, if there is any information that we can supply to the hon. Member. we shall do so.

  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

    Royal Shakespeare Company (Accounts)
    Sir Knox Cunninghamasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make it a condition of the next grant to the Arts Council that they should require the accounts of the Royal Shakespeare Company to be set out in such a manner as to show the profit and loss of their theatres in Stratford-on-Avon and London, respectively.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Miss Jennie Lee): No, Sir.
    Sir Knox Cunningham: Is the hon. Lady not aware that this company has been producing excellent Shakespeare plays at Stratford-on-Avon year after year and that only since it opened in London has a subsidy from public funds been paid—£40,000 last year doubled to £80,000 this year? With this in mind and the necessity to reduce public expenditure, is it not reasonable that Sir Fordham Flower should prepare his accounts to show where the taxpayers' money is going? Will the hon. Lady ask him to do so?
    Miss Lee: I agree that there must always be public accountability for public funds, but I would not dream of interfering in the slightest extent with the way in which the Arts Council allocates its money and the companies it chooses to support.

    Direct Grant Schools
    Mr. Dudley Smithasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the future of direct grant schools, in view of his policy of achieving an integrated system of state and public schools.
    The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Anthony Crosland): I have already made suggestions in my recent circular on secondary education which I hope will encourage a closer integration of direct grant schools with local schemes of comprehensive organisation.
    Mr. Smith: Is it not the right hon. Gentleman's avowed intention eventually to destroy direct grant schools? Would it not be better to end this double-talk so that those responsible for the administration of direct grant schools may know exactly where they stand?
    Mr. Crosland: My avowed intention is clearly set out in the circular, which states:
    "The Secretary of State looks to both local education authorities and the governors of direct grant schools to consider ways of maintaining and developing this co-operation in the context of the new policy of comprehensive education."
    What I hope will happen, and what is beginning to happen in some parts of the country now, is that local education authorities and the schools will start discussions to see how these schools can fit into the comprehensive system.
    Sir E. Boyle: Does the reference in the circular to changes in curricula mean that the Minister has in mind nonselective direct grant schools as to the level of education? Will he bear in mind that many people who are by no means diehards on secondary school organisation none the less feel real difficulties about keeping grammar school traditions if all the very finest of the grammar schools are to disappear as separate institutions, and that the anxieties are particularly
    1856
    strong in the case of direct grant schools?
    Mr. Crosland: I have taken the view from the start that it is quite impossible to lay down a single national policy for the future of direct grant schools partly because they vary enormously—some are large and some small, some are denominational and some are undenominational—but, as the right hon. Member is almost certainly aware, discussions are going on to see whether the direct grant schools by certain changes, for instance in age of entry and standards of attainment, might be able to fit in with the reorganisation.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: Will my right hon. Friend not agree that in many direct grant schools the range of ability is very much broader than in maintained grammar schools and that therefore they are appropriate to provide some sort of comprehensive education?
    Mr. Crosland: Yes, Sir.

    Football Matches (Television)
    Mr. Murrayasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science, in view of the recent decision of the Football Association not to allow live televising of any football matches next season except the Football Association Cup, if he will reconsider his decision to make a grant from public funds to certain Football League clubs for World Cup matches.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Denis Howell): No, Sir. The purpose behind the Government aid to the Football League clubs in question is to ensure that the accommodation and facilities at the grounds of those clubs are up to the required standard for the World Cup matches. The grants have no relation to the policy of the Football Association in relation to live television. In any event, the World Cup games themselves will be televised live and there is an understanding to this effect between the Government and the football authorities.
    Mr. Murray: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he will informally request the Football Association to reconsider this question of televising football matches? As there are long-term benefits which the Football Association will receive

    1857
    from a grant from public funds, would it not be in the interest of the public, particularly old-age pensioners, the sick and infirm, if they could enjoy the benefits of seeing football matches on television?
    Mr. Howell: This is a matter for the Football Association, but one cannot escape the fact that when events of this kind are televised live it has an almost catastrophic effect on the gates. And the question of maintaining the gates and the atmosphere of sporting occasions is very much in the mind of the Association; but this is the Association's problem, not mine.
    Mr. Walden: Has my hon. Friend any information to give the House about the degree of foreign interest in these events, particularly on the advance sales of tickets?
    Mr. Howell: Yes, there is a tremendous amount of interest. The Football Association has already sold a quarter of a million tickets, and it is particularly heartening to find the tremendous amount of inquiry from the U.S.A., Canada, Central America and South American countries. It rather looks as if this will be a winner in attracting visitors to this country.
    Mr. Park: Does not my hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons for the decline in attendance at football matches is the standard of facilities provided, especially sanitary facilities, which very often are inadequate and out of date? Is this not the reason for a decline rather than the televising of matches?
    Mr. Howell: There is a lot of truth in that. These are exactly the sort of problems to be looked at in deciding how the seven grounds in question should raise their accommodation standards.

    Sailing and Yachting Clubs
    Mr. Murrayasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what requests he has had from sailing and yachting clubs for financial assistance; and what action he has taken.
    Mr. Denis Howell: Since January 1964, 33 applications for grant have been received from sailing and yachting clubs.
    1858
    Twenty-three grants have been made, totalling £44,581. One application has been rejected and nine are under consideration.
    Mr. Murray: Would my hon. Friend consider whether enough publicity is given to the fact that grants are available, particularly as sailing and yachting on the Thames in the Gravesend area has a great local appeal?
    Mr. Howell: Not for the next six months.

    Deaf Children, East Kent
    Mr. Bostonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he is satisfied with the provision for the education and training of deaf children in east Kent, in particular in the Faversham constituency area; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Denis Howell: The general shortage of teachers of the deaf impedes the full development of services for deaf children in many areas. I am not aware of special difficulties in east Kent, where there is a boarding school for deaf pupils. Officers of the Department will be meeting representatives of the universities of Manchester and London later this year to discuss the need for more teacher training places.
    Mr. Boston: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the difficulties is that, whilst residential training may be needed for some severe cases, it is nevertheless important, particularly for psychological reasons, that the children should be near their home environment? Will he therefore see whether there is a case for extending day facilities, especially since the residential facilities are a long distance away from some places?
    Mr. Howell: Fortunately, the small numbers of deaf children make it imperative that they are given specialist training together, which very often rules out day school training. The educational advantages of giving them whole-time specialist education are overwhelming, although I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that there is increasing co-operation between these schools and ordinary secondary modern and other schools in their localities.

    Teachers' Superannuation (Earnings Rule)
    Mr. Patrick Jenkinasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will take steps to modify the teachers' superannuation scheme so as to abolish or relax the earnings rule for teachers over 70 years of age who continue teaching.
    The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. R. E. Prentice): No, Sir. The present arrangements are in line with those that apply to other public service superannuation schemes.
    Mr. Jenkin: Does not the Minister of State recognise that this operates as a very considerable disincentive to older teachers continuing to teach in the profession? Their services are very valuable in reducing the size of classes, particularly in primary schools. Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise also that the public pension provision is way out of line with what applies in most private pension schemes, where no reduction is made in pension if the employee goes on working after pensionable age?
    Mr. Prentice: Yes, I have much sympathy with that point of view, although, if one were going to make a change, one would make it at retirement age, presumably, not at 70, as suggested in the Question. Even if a change were made, there would still be a difficulty in that this would have implications for public service pensions in general.
    Mr. James Johnson: Would not my hon. Friend agree that most teachers, if not all teachers, who have reached the age of 70 do not wish to do any more teaching? What they want is a decent pension scheme which has some approximation to the cost of living.
    Mr. Prentice: Yes. This relates to the question of reviewing public service pensions, which is rather wider than the Question on the Order Paper.

    Technical Colleges
    Mr. Lubbockasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he is satisfied that enough places will be available at technical colleges to accommodate the additional students who will
    1860
    be taking courses as a result of the Industrial Training Act; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Prentice: In so far as it is possible to foresee the additional demands for further education courses which will result from the establishment of industrial training boards, I think that it will be possible to meet them.
    Mr. Lubbock: Has the Minister of State had an opportunity of studying the resolution passed at the Annual Conference of the Association of Education Committees stressing the importance of ensuring that adequate building resources are available to meet the developing needs of technical colleges in relation to industrial training? Therefore, does not the hon. Gentleman think that the restrictions recently imposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in respect of capital expenditure should not apply in this sector?
    Mr. Prentice: I have seen the resolution and agree with it. Clearly, the restrictions recently announced are serious restrictions which will have some effect, although we are of the opinion at the moment that they will have less relative effect on this sector than perhaps elsewhere. Technical college building as a whole has increased recently. There is some difficulty in actually getting the projects started on the ground, so that the impact of the Chancellor's announcements will have less effect here in practice than one would think at first sight.
    Sir E. Boyle: Following our debate 30 hours ago on this matter, may I put this question to the Minister of State? If in the case of some authority there is likely to be very heavy pressure of numbers following the Industrial Training Act, I ask the Minister of State not to rule out the possibility of advancing one or two individual starting dates before the six months has come to an end. Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that constantly in the past when a case for "roofs over heads" has proved overwhelming, whether in the case of schools or technical colleges, this has been done by advancing a project from one programme to another? It would be rather absurd to take too rigorous a view of this merely on economic grounds, bearing

    1861
    in mind that this is the aspect of education which most directly affects economic efficiency.
    Mr. Prentice: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman will expect me to make a unilateral departure from the Statement of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in answer to a supplementary question. It is true that the impact of demand for day release places resulting from the Industrial Training Act will vary locally. Therefore, the general confidence we have over the country may not be reflected in every locality. We shall watch this situation very carefully and do anything we possibly can.
    Mr. Freeson: Would my hon. Friend consider another way of helping in this matter? In certain areas, instead of initiating new building schemes, could not the Ministry encourage the technical college authorities to purchase or to lease disused or for-sale factory premises and the like, bearing in mind that the Statement of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was on this score directly related to the existing strains on the building industry and this would obviate the difficulty?
    Mr. Prentice: Yes. The kind of arrangements my hon. Friend mentions clearly are second-best arrangements, but they will be necessary in relation to technical colleges and perhaps other educational institutions, and we rely on the authorities concerned to explore all these possibilities carefully in relation to the demand.

    Religious Education
    Mr. Newensasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will review the provisions governing religious education in State schools.
    Mr. Crosland: No, Sir.
    Mr. Newens: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread dissatisfaction which exists among both modern churchmen and humanists at present regulations governing religious education in schools, which often result in teachers being placed in the position of teaching what they do not themselves believe? Is he aware that in some schools it would be impossible to carry out the requirements
    1862
    of the system if all the teachers who desired to do so availed themselves of the conscience clause? Does not my right hon. Friend recognise that this can do considerable damage to religious education, if it is being taught by people who do not themselves accept what they are teaching?
    Mr. Crosland: I thought that my hon. Friend was referring in his Question to the actual statutory provisions. If he is referring to the content of courses, I entirely agree with him that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction, and indeed a great ferment of argument, as to the content, both in the denominations themselves and in the teacher-training colleges and elsewhere. As far as I am aware, this discussion which is going on has not yet led to any consensus view as to particular changes which might be made. Until some consensus view has emerged out of the discussion which is now going on, I do not think that any action on my part would be called for.
    Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Whilst recognising the difficulty of dealing with this matter in question and answer, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is not a fact that very great efforts are being made by the denominations involved to work out a sensible and cohesive view on this matter? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that no change will be made until he has had the fullest possible consultation with all concerned?
    Mr. Crosland: I can certainly give that assurance.
    Mr. Maxwell: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that teachers, pupils and parents are very disturbed that the teaching of religion in schools is not in conformity with what children need? I appreciate that this is a very ticklish matter, but will my right hon. Friend tell the House what he can do to induce the various denominations to give some practical effect to bringing in a new curriculum and a better way of teaching religion than is being done at present, which is much more for the form than what is actually needed?
    Mr. Crosland: There is nothing that I can do or wish to do in this matter. The fact is, as my hon. Friend mentioned, that a great deal of thought is being given to the question of the curriculum. Almost

    1863
    everybody agrees that as now taught the subject is unsatisfactory in relation to the modes and ideas of today. A great deal of thought is already being given to this. Until this has emerged in some kind of consensus, I would not myself take any initiative in the matter.
    Sir E. Boyle: Is it not a fact that a very wide range of opinion, both Christian and humanist, is concerned with the importance of religious instruction and the agreed syllabus justifying itself as a curriculum subject and also the agreed syllabus being suitable for older teen-agers? A great deal of thought is being devoted to this at the moment. Would the Secretary of State accept that we on this side fully agree that it would be wrong to take decisions on this subject until these thoughts have matured more than they have at present?
    Mr. Crosland: Yes, Sir.

    University Students, Scotland
    Mr. Edward M. Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give the numbers of students attending universities in Scotland during each of the past five years.
    Mr. Crosland: As the information requested involves a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The figures rise from about 18,500 in 1960 to over 22,600 in October 1964.
    Mr. Taylor: Would the Minister accept that there are increasing worries on both sides of the House that if this is the rate of increase we shall be turning away large numbers by 1970? Is he aware that these worries have been increased by his noble Friend in another place when he indicated yesterday that the Robbins estimate for 1975 would be achieved by 1970? Could the right hon. Gentleman give some indication of the extent to which Scotland will be exempt from these cuts? Will it be only those universities which are actually in the development areas that will be excluded?
    Mr. Crosland: On the last part of the supplementary Question, Aberdeen, Glasgow and Dundee will be totally exempt from the cuts. On the first part of the question, there is, of course, bound to be anxiety whether we can accommodate not just the Robbins figures but people be-1864
    yond those figures who fulfil the Robbins criterion and are qualified and wish to have higher education. All I can say is that we are determined to fulfil this requirement.
    The information is as follows:
    The total numbers of full-time students attending university institutions in Scotland during each of the past five years are as follows:

    Academic Year

    1960–61

    18,529

    1961–62

    19,433

    1962–63

    20,573

    1963–64

    21,921

    1964–65 (provisional)

    22,674

    In the course of the academic year 1964–65 the Glasgow College of Commerce has been merged in the University of Strathclyde and the Heriot-Watt College, Edinburgh, was added to the University Grants Committee grant list in accordance with the recommendations of the Robbins Report. The figures given in the table are exclusive of the number of students added by these two institutions.

    Comprehensive Education
    Mr. Evelyn Kingasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if, following the issue of the appropriate circular, he will now estimate the cost of introducing a system of comprehensive education throughout England and Wales.
    Mr. Crosland: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave the hon. Member on 1st July.
    Mr. King: Will the right hon. Gentleman recall that when he gave me that Answer he replied that he would hope to be able to give the figures as soon as his circular had been issued? It has now been issued. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that among those of us on this side of the House who are not altogether unsympathetic to comprehensive schools it is considered preposterous to say that they cannot be costed? Either we must have some order of priorities or some knowledge of what this gigantic scheme will cost. Is he aware that it will do nothing to help his policy to seek to conceal the figures?
    Mr. Crosland: On the first point, one cannot give figures a few weeks after the comprehensive circular has gone out, because it asks the authorities to produce schemes for going comprehensive. The time which it will take for a number of authorities to do this will be considerable and until replies come in we

    1865
    will have nothing based on the comprehensive circular. Even so, I must stress the point once again that one cannot isolate the cost of comprehensive organisation from other costs in the educational system. For example, when a local authority decides to replace two small slum schools by one large comprehensive school, is that cost to be put down to comprehensive reorganisation or to the normal process of improving the schools system? One cannot isolate the one from the other.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that a more appropriate investigation would be into the cost of not applying comprehensive education?
    Mr. Crosland: I entirely agree, I made the point on the last occasion when we discussed this matter that the cost of going comprehensive, such as it is, even if it cannot be measured, will be certainly less than the cost to the country now of the wastage of talent due to maintaining the 11-plus examination.

    John Innes Institute
    Mr. Scott-Hopkinsasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will now make a statement concerning the future move of the John Innes Institute to Norwich; whether the terms of the original bequest are being carried out in respect of the giving of direct horticultural training to student gardeners; and what he intends to do with the laboratories on the existing site which were completed four years ago at a cost of £150,000 of public money.
    Mr. Prentice: The matters to which the hon. Member refers were fully discussed in the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill which is reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT for 4th August. I do not think I can usefully add anything to what was said then.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Will the Minister of State realise that he did not mention the reply to this Question at all when he replied to the debate 30 hours ago? Would he now do so? On the question of the cost of the laboratories and glasshouses there, can he give an assurance to the House that when these are sold they will be used properly and if possible for research, employing the equipment
    1866
    which was given and which was very expensive?
    Mr. Prentice: As I understand, the trustees have put up for sale the premises which will be vacated. I have no further information on that point. I promised to write to an hon. Member who raised this subject in debate on the night before last, and give him what information I could obtain on that aspect.

    Part-Time Teachers (Children)
    Sir E. Erringtonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will seek to make provision for the children of part-time teachers to be accommodated and supervised whilst their parents are engaged in teaching.
    Mr. Denis Howell: My right hon. Friend has asked local education authorities to give priority for admission to their nursery schools and classes to the children of qualified married women teachers where this would enable them to return to service. Neither he nor local education authorities have power to make provision for children too young to attend nursery schools or classes.
    Sir E. Errington: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are many places where there are schools but there are no nurseries? With a view to ensuring that we have as many part-time teachers as possible, will the hon. Gentleman consider providing some financial incentive where married teachers have to leave their own children with personal friends?
    Mr. Howell: I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman means, but I have said repeatedly, and so has my right hon. Friend, that local authorities should be encouraged to establish nursery classes with priorities for teachers' children if this will bring married women back to teaching. Anything that we can do to that end will be done.
    Sir E. Errington: Will the hon. Gentleman please answer my question? Will financial assistance be given to teachers to enable them to remunerate friends who will look after their children?
    Mr. Howell: Certainly not. We could not give extra financial assistance to married teachers with children. It would be completely contrary to all the principles of administration.
    Mr. Maxwell: Is not that a rather complacent reply, having regard to the fact that we are desperately short of teachers and we can only recruit them from among married teachers? As the shortage is really desperate, will my hon. Friend look at this matter again? It may be against some administrative principle, but we need to educate our children and we need teachers to do that.
    Mr. Howell: There is nothing complacent about urging married women to return to teaching and urging local authorities to provide special classes for their children when this can be done, but when we are dealing with teachers' salaries, one cannot ask the House of Commons for something to be done which completely undermines collective bargaining. This is what my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell) and the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) are asking.
    Sir E. Erringtonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his policy towards part-time teachers, who have children below school age, having those children with them in classrooms whilst they are teaching.
    Mr. Denis Howell: My right hon. Friend regards this as a matter for the local education authority.
    Sir E. Errington: Are the Government prepared to give some guidance in a matter of this importance.
    Mr. Howell: It would be almost impossible to give generalised guidance, but I am prepared to go a little further and say that if a local education authority feels that such arrangements would not interfere with the general teaching of the class, the Government would be very happy to accept the local authority's assurance on that point.

    Race Relations
    Mr. Huntasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will publish a series of posters designed to promote better racial understanding for use in schools within areas of high immigrant population.
    Mr. Denis Howell: No, Sir. There is a great variety of information material, including posters, already available to the schools about the Commonwealth
    1868
    and about particular Commonwealth countries.
    Mr. Hunt: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that my Question related not to the Commonwealth but to race relations? Is he aware that on a recent visit to the United States I and a number of other hon. Members saw a number of posters very effectively used in the city of Philadelphia to this effect? Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that while sometimes it is difficult to persuade older people to change their attitudes of intolerance and prejudice it is most important that similar attitudes should not be allowed to develop among the younger generation? This is what I am asking the hon. Gentleman to do.
    Mr. Howell: I was not aware that the hon. Gentleman recently visited Philadelphia. I am glad to hear it, and if he brought back anything useful I should certainly like to see him and talk it over with him. Generally speaking, it is felt by people engaged in education that posters of this sort might conceivably have the opposite effect of what it is intended. I assure the House that the entire teaching profession, so far as I can see, are determined to encourage the right attitude of mind among all their pupils, irrespective of colour or race.
    Mr. Woodhouse: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that most children are quite unconscious of the existence of racial distinctions until the idea is put into their heads by their elders? Without knowing exactly what my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. Hunt) has in mind, may I say that my own instinct is rather to agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said about the undesirability of attracting attention to distinctions of this kind?
    Mr. Howell: I entirely endorse those sentiments, which are borne out by my personal experience with my own children who attend a school where there is a large number of immigrants. There is absolutely no racial prejudice in such cases until it is injected from outside.
    Sir E. Boyle: But, whatever one's views on the merits of this particular suggestion, what efforts is the hon. Gentleman's Department making to ensure that it has knowledge of all that is being done in the United States on this subject? Is it

    1869
    not most important that we in Britain should be well advised of every type of effort made to solve this problem in countries overseas?
    Mr. Howell: Certainly. My right hon. Friend and I recently had discussions with people from the United States concerned with the problem, and the question which the right hon. Gentleman has asked will encourage us to make further inquiries in this regard.

    Teaching Machines
    Mr. Patrick Jenkinasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress he has made in promoting the increased use of programmed teaching machines in school for those subjects for which the use of such teaching aids is appropriate.
    Mr. Prentice: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend on 24th June to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington (Mr. W. T. Williams).
    Mr. Jenkin: I thank the Minister for that reply, but will not he agree that there is an increasing place in education for the use of teaching machines, particularly in those subjects in which it is simply a matter of learning by rote and there is no question of attempting any sort of aesthetic understanding or knowledge of a sense of values? Cannot subjects like primary mathematics, elementary science and so forth, with great advantage, be taught well and more swiftly with teaching machines?
    Mr. Prentice: I agree in general terms with what the hon. Gentleman says so long as we bear in mind that this has to be done against the background of proper research, which we are now financing in a number of centres, and, of course, with the consent of the teaching profession. Teachers must themselves be involved in it and introduce the use of teaching machines as an aid to teaching in a way which fits in with other established principles of teaching. This we are encouraging, and expansion is taking place for the reason which the hon. Gentleman has indicated.
    Mr. Walden: Does not my hon. Friend consider that the suggestion made by the right hon. Member for Birmingham,
    1870
    Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle), with reference to Question No. 26, about watching American experience is thoroughly appropriate here as well and we might well do more to study what is being done in this matter in the United States?
    Mr. Prentice: Yes, Sir. We have established a research and documentation centre for programmed learning in Birmingham which is studying, among other things, what is being done in the United States and other countries where progress has been made.

    Association Football (Inquiry)
    Mr. Conlanasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science, what progress has been made with the comprehensive inquiry into the future of football and the problems which beset it; if the inquiry will be in public; whether, in addition to the Football Association and the Football League, all bodies and persons interested in the future well being of football will have the opportunity to present evidence; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Denis Howell: The proposed inquiry had to take second place to the problem of organising facilities for the World Cup games, but I am consulting the various football authorities on the desirability of an inquiry and upon its form if one is established. I have not contemplated a public inquiry, which would be unusual in a case of this kind, but all bodies and persons interested in the well-being of football would have the opportunity to give evidence if the inquiry is set up.
    Mr. Conlan: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but is he aware that many Association Football clubs are anxious to make representations to such an inquiry, and will he ensure, in spite of the difficulties in relation to the World Cup to which he refers, that there will be no undue delay in instituting an inquiry?
    Mr. Howell: I am in communication with all the bodies concerned about the possibility and desirability of such an inquiry. I was not aware that a lot of people were anxious to give evidence—one or two have written to me—but, of course, if an inquiry is established, it will be possible for anyone to give evidence who wishes to do so.
    Mr. James Johnson: There is also the Parliamentary Sports Committee. Could my hon. Friend get in touch with that?
    Mr. Howell: I am constantly receiving advice from the Parliamentary Sports Committee. Should it wish to give advice also to an independent body, I could arrange for that to be done.

  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Immigrants
    Mr. Longdenasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what conclusions the Mountbatten Mission, which is discussing with Commonwealth governments means of regulating the flow of immigrants into this country, has come as to the feasibility and desirability of making health checks in the country of origin.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Alice Bacon): The report of the Mountbatten Mission will not be published. As regards health checks in the immigrant's country of origin, I would refer the hon. Member to the statement by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council on Monday and to the White Paper, Cmnd. 2739, published the same day.
    Mr. Longden: I thank the hon. Lady for that reply. She will realise that this Question has been overtaken by events. It was put down originally because it seemed absurd, if a health check was necessary at all, that it should not be made before a man set out on his journey.
    Miss Bacon: I understand that, and I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has said. He will now know what the position is.

  INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR FORCE (ASIA)
  Mr. Eldon Griffithsasked the Prime Minister what plans he has for an international nuclear force in Asia.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I have nothing to add to previous statements on this subject.
  Mr. Griffiths: Bearing in mind the troubled situation in the Far East and
  1872
  the grave threat to India posed by China's decision to become a nuclear Power, will the Prime Minister be good enough to answer these further questions? First, when Mr. Patrick Gordon Walker, following his tour of the Far East, suggested such an international nuclear force, was he speaking with the knowledge and authority of the Prime Minister? Second, in view of the guarantee to India which we and the United States have virtually given, will the Prime Minister assure the House that the British V Bomber Force in the Indian Ocean and, later, the Polaris submarines will continue to be equipped with nuclear weapons? Finally,—
  Hon. Members: Too long.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The invitation to ask a supplementary question is an invitation to ask one question.
  The Prime Minister: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's preamble to his questions; I thought that it was very fair. As regards the statement by Mr. Gordon Walker, there was no question of whether he was talking with or without authority. He was merely repeating what I had said to the House in the debate on 16th December and repeated in the same debate on 17th December. He was saying nothing new beyond what I had already said in the House. As regards the Polaris submarines, it was never envisaged by the previous Government or by this Government that the submarine programme then on order was to have any rôle in the Pacific.
  As regards the decision on the V Bombers, I have already referred to this: it is our proposal that these should be internationalised. I agree about the urgency of it, but it will take some time to secure the necessary agreement which will be satfactory to all the Powers concerned, both those which have something to contribute and those which need the safeguards.

  GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE (ARMS AND SOCIAL SERVICES)
  Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Prime Minister if he will set up an inter-departmental committee of Ministers dealing with the social services on one hand, and defence and foreign affairs, on the other,

  1873
  to review the balance of Government expenditure between them.
  The Prime Minister: This is a matter for the Cabinet.
  Mr. Allaun: Will the Cabinet, particularly in the present financial situation, act on the advice of those who want the balance tilted far less heavily in favour of arms expenditure and more towards industry and social needs? Would it not be better if the 62,000 Service men now in Germany were brought back and were working in British factories producing the goods we need?
  The Prime Minister: As I have said in more than one debate recently, we have just undertaken—obviously, this requires the full action of the Cabinet—the most searching review of every item of Government expenditure, including defence and all civil expenditure. As regards a final determination on defence, I made clear that this must await the outcome of the defence review, and all questions of commitment, on some of which, of course, we have serious and solemn international obligations, must wait, first, until we have completed that review and, second, until we have had an opportunity of discussing all these matters with our Allies and Commonwealth partners.
  Mr. William Yates: Will the Prime Minister agree that, although we are anxious to cut the cost of the defence programmes, cutting the defence programmes must not be at the cost of re-organising and making more efficient our country's business economy?
  The Prime Minister: That is absolutely right. I have said throughout that, in reviewing the defence programme, we have to consider what the country can bear economically, and, whatever is attempted in the matter of defence expenditure, our country is not strong unless its economic base is strong. I would point out, however, as we hear the term "arms expenditure" used at lot, that expenditure on arms is considerably less than 50 per cent. of the total defence expenditure and the rest involves Service pay, as right hon. Gentlemen opposite know. The scope for cutting what can properly be regarded as arms or hardware is very much smaller than one
  1874
  might think looking at a total figure of well over £2,000 million.
  Sir E. Boyle: While recognising that decisions on the balance of expenditure must be decisions for the Cabinet, will the Prime Minister take it that a large section of opinion does not understand how a decision to hold back a number of vital technological and technical college projects fits in with either educational and economic priorities or with his own past speeches?
  The Prime Minister: This question was discussed in a debate at a rather strange time just over 24 hours ago. I have made plain in two debates why this emergency programme which is required by the exigencies of the economic situation is necessary, but I made equally plain that these cuts, which have been forced upon us by the current balance of payments position, are part of a short-term position very different from the long-term one I was trying to talk about on Monday night.

  COMMONWEALTH ORGANISATIONS
  Mr. Bostonasked the Prime Minister what other proposed new Commonwealth bodies, apart from the Commonwealth Court, have been under discussion between Commonwealth countries; and what further consultations and steps are to take place on these developments.
  The Prime Minister: The Commonwealth Secretariat and the Commonwealth Foundation. I would refer the hon. Member to the Agreed Memoranda on these two bodies issued with the Final Communique of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Meeting on the 25th June.
  Mr. Boston: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if the Commonwealth is to develop and flourish, it is important to make it far less London-based, and that as new bodies are set up there may be a case for centreing them on other Commonwealth capitals and making particular places the centres for particular things? Can he say whether he is having any discussions about this?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. This was discussed at the conference of Prime Ministers. It was the general wish of

  1875
  all my colleagues that the Commonwealth Secretariat should be located in London, and that is where it will function. But apart from the organisations and bodies referred to in the Question and the Answer, I am sure that my hon. Friend will have noticed our plans for intensifying Commonwealth consultation, first of all, in economic affairs, including commodity prices and matters of that kind, and, secondly, in relation to bringing the planning departments of various Commonwealth Governments together so that we can all help one another with the development plans which each of us has.
  Mr. Tilney: Can the right hon Gentleman say whether any discussions have taken place about the formation of a Commonwealth Police Force on the lines suggested by the Prime Minster of Canada and like-minded nations, so that those Commonwealth countries which are richer than we are can take some of the burden off us?
  The Prime Minister: There was no discussion of this proposal. It was not before us this year partly because all my Commonwealth colleagues wanted to emphasise the importance of the United Nations in the matter of peacekeeping. If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the use of a Commonwealth police force to step in and deal with trouble, in so far as it is a question of recruiting in different countries for internal police forces, I think that this is a matter best dealt with bilaterally, for example between the Government of Canada and some of the other countries which might be involved.

  FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)
  Mr. Kershawasked the Prime Minister what arrangements are to be made for Ministers to be available during the Summer Recess to deal with financial and economic matters.
  The Prime Minister: The normal arrangements, Sir.
  Mr. Kershaw: That reply fills my heart with foreboding. Does the Prime Minister realise that, rightly or wrongly there is an impression that there is a divergence of policy between the Department of
  1876
  Economic Affairs and the Treasury, one wishing to press the accelerator and the other the brake? As this involves the question of confidence, will the Prime Minister now give the House an assurance that he is at last prepared to face economic realities?
  The Prime Minister: With regard to the rumour to which the hon. Gentleman has referred about the views of my two right hon. Friends, I am not aware that this is a feeling outside the jaundiced minds of one or two hon. Members opposite. But, since the hon. Gentleman was kind enough to use the words "rightly or wrongly", I would say that if that view is held, it is held wrongly. So far as economic realities are concerned, I should have thought that the manner in which we have laid before the House successive necessary programmes, including some very unpopular and, for us, unpleasant decisions in the field of cuts in Government expenditure, starting with defence and the more recent ones, would have been proof of our willingness to face realities.
  Mr. William Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend state what steps he and the Government are taking to deal with the treacherous rumours which emanated from the City yesterday? Will he give an assurance that he will conduct an investigation into the source of those rumours?
  The Prime Minister: I would not use the word "treacherous" but I think that there were some highly neurotic rumours flying about yesterday about a meeting between the Governor of the Bank of England and myself, which certainly did not take place, and an extraordinary suggestion, amounting almost to a libel or the Governor of the Bank of England, that he was in favour of devaluation, when it is perfectly well known that he is as determined to maintain the value of the £ as anybody.

  AIRCRAFT INDUSTRY (COMMONWEALTH CONSULTATION)
  Mr. Raphael Tuckasked the Prime Minister whether he will seek to call a Commonwealth Conference of Ministers responsible for the aircraft industry to

  1877
  co-ordinate and unify plans for the aircraft industry throughout the British Commonwealth.
  The Prime MinisterI would refer the hon. Member to the Communiqué issued at the end of the recent meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers.
  Mr. Tuck: Bearing in mind my right hon. Friend's heartening statement to the House on 29th June, 1965, which appeared in column 309 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, that he envisaged meetings between representatives of Commonwealth countries to deal with questions affecting aviation and aircraft, will he give an assurance that he will at least consider the great advantages to be derived from developing the aircraft industry on a Commonwealth basis, with particular reference to Australia and Canada, and does he not agree that there might be a great saving in cost, in particular with reference to research and development?
  The Prime Minister: We ourselves took the initiative in this matter. The reason was that I thought it was highly desirable that there should be Commonwealth consultation because we have found cases in the last year—before last October and since—where we missed out on possible big Commonwealth orders for civil and also military aircraft because we came too late into the field. We thought it essential that when planes are being designed there should be discussions with Commonwealth countries to see what their needs are so that we can take account of those needs and make long-term plans. With regard to an organisation to co-ordinate plans, we discovered that there was the Commonwealth Air Transport Council, which last met in 1956 and has got into a state of desuetude, and so we decided to revive it and make it a reality.

  VIETNAM
  Mr. Newensasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the latest steps taken by Her Majesty's Government to achieve a peaceful solution to the war in Vietnam.
  The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to my statement in the Foreign Affairs Debate on 19th July.
  Mr. Newens: Does my right hon. Friend now recognise that the attempts made by the Government to bring about a peaceful solution in Vietnam have been seriously undermined by the support given by the Government to American policies? Will he at this stage take the opportunity to make it clear that British opposition to the build-up of forces in South Vietnam applies equally to the additional land forces which the United States Government have now decided to send in?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir; I am not going to make anything of the kind clear. I dealt with this matter very, very fully indeed in the recent foreign affairs debate, and it has, I am afraid, become very clear—it has become even more clear as a result of the mission of my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) to Hanoi—that there are people in the Far East, in important countries, who hold the key to the situation and who at the moment feel that they are winning and that they may lose more round the conference table than they can win on the battlefield. I am sure they are wrong. As I have said before, I am sure that there will be no military solution, and it will not be long before this realisation spreads. Therefore, it is right that we should continue as we have been going. It should be recalled that the Commonwealth Peace Mission represents Governments of every point of view, some who have supported the United States, some who have taken an unaligned position and some who have been against the United States. I still think that this provides the basis for bringing all concerned round the conference table under the aegis of the Anglo-Russian Co-Chairmen of the 1954 Agreements.
  Mr. Blaker: The Prime Minister will recall that he has said that the key to the problem lies in Hanoi. If he is considering how to make contact, if the occasion arises, with the Hanoi authority, would he bear in mind that there are capitals in the world where both Hanoi and we have missions, and would he consider whether it is possible to make contact, if necessary, through those missions?
  The Prime Minister: I wonder what the hon. Gentleman thinks we have been doing all these months. We have, of

  1879
  course, been trying every possible means of contact with Hanoi, and so have the United States in one particular example which I mentioned in our recent debate. But the difficulty has been that Her Majesty's Government—both this Government and the previous Government—do not recognise North Vietnam in a diplomatic sense, and this has been a bar to the kind of contacts that have been referred to. However, I am glad to say that, despite the strong views expressed by one or two right hon. Gentlemen opposite about our taking the wrong lines by these contacts with Hanoi, what we did has now been explicitly and publicly supported by President Johnson, who in particular referred to the very great value and good effects of the visit of my hon. Friend to Hanoi.
  Mr. A. Henderson: Can my right hon. Friend give any indication whether the four peace points that have been put forward by Mr. Dong, the Prime Minister of North Vietnam, would be acceptable as a basis of discussion at a reconvened Geneva conference, especially in view of the suggestion that such a course would not be unacceptable to the United States Government?
  The Prime Minister: This is, of course, something that we could have discussed if the Commonwealth Mission had gone to Hanoi. But I myself do not feel that the four points provide of themselves a solution to the problem. However, I said in the debate that I believed that a return to the spirit and performance of the 1954 Agreements would provide a basis for a solution. I would also commend—I think that this ought to be pressed more in international activities—the very detailed proposals that were published in what were called "guide lines" to the Commonwealth Conference on this. I believe that the "guide lines" agreed by the Commonwealth would provide the right way to negotiations and peace.
  Mr. Woodhouse: Is the Prime Minister aware that it has been suggested that the Foreign Secretary may have made a misstatement of fact when he said a few weeks ago that the Communists in North and South Vietnam had insisted that, before any conference or discussion took place, all United States troops must leave South Vietnam? Will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity of denying
  1880
  that allegation and confirming that what the Foreign Secretary said was incorrect?
  The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend was absolutely correct about this. I wish that he had not been. I wish that the situation were different. But it has been repeatedly said in these countries that there must be total evacuation by America from the area before negotiations can take place. I think, however, that there is some doubt as to how far this is a sticking point. There have been signs of a rather different attitude in at least some pronouncements and messages which have filtered through.
  This again is a strong argument for the Commonwealth Peace Mission to take an opportunity to talk in Hanoi. Others have been talking in Hanoi. I do not know how far the phrase mentioned by the hon. Gentleman represents the latest thinking of the Hanoi Government. I hope that it does not.
  Mr. Driberg: Has my right hon. Friend had any report yet, formally or informally, from the Ghana High Commissioner in London, since President Nkrumah is one of my right hon. Friend's colleagues on the Commonwealth Peace Mission and the High Commissioner has just returned to London from Hanoi?
  The Prime Minister: It was that, amongst other things, that I had in mind when I said that we hope to get further information on the point raised by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse). I have not had a report yet, directly or indirectly, from the Ghana High Commissioner and, of course, it would be appropriate, in circumstances which we recognise, that he will wish to report to his own President before we get any official report either from Ghana or from the High Commissioner himself in London.
  Mr. Lubbock: Will the Prime Minister try to keep down the length of his replies so that more Questions can be asked? I ask this in the friendliest way.
  The Prime Minister: I am not sure whether there was a Question there apart from the first.
  Mr. Lubbock: I ask in the friendliest possible way.
  The Prime Minister: I take it in the friendliest possible way. I have had a tally taken recently of the number of Questions we have got through. Some of these are very important issues. Sometimes the Question have double and treble barrels and sometimes have a preamble which cannot be ignored.

DEFENCE EXPENDITURE
Mr. Powell(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his cuts in expenditure on the defences forces?
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Denis Healey): May I congratulate the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) on his new post and hope that he will hold it longer than his predecessors in the shadow Cabinet? I must say that three shadow Defence Secretaries in a year beats even the record that the party opposite set when in office.
I am grateful for this opportunity to expand on the information given to the House yesterday by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force in a debate attended by only six hon. Members opposite and no right hon. Gentleman from the Opposition shadow Cabinet.
As the House knows, our object is to reduce defence expenditure in 1969–70 from about £2,400 million at 1964 prices, which would have been the cost of the programme which we inherited from the previous Administration, to £2,000 million at the same price level—that is to say, a reduction of about £400 million in real terms.
At the present stage of the Defence Review we have managed to reduce the forecast figure to about £2,180 million. In other words, we are more than half way to our target. Of this reduction of £220 million, £150 million is derived from decisions which have been announced in this House since the beginning of the year.
One hundred and fifteen million pounds comes from the changes in the R.A.F. aircraft procurement programme which were debated at length in the spring—that is to say, £75 million as a direct result of the substitution of the Phantom, the C130, the F111A, the Kestrel and the Comet for the P1154, the HS681, the TSR2 and the OR357—the previously planned Shackleton replacement—and £40 million, which is probably an underestimate, from the fact that we shall not now have to buy an interim generation of aircraft to fill the gap in our predecessor's slipping programme.

1883
Then there is a £15 million saving in the year in question as a result of cancelling the fifth Polaris submarine and £20 million as a result of the Army Reserve reorganisation which I announced in the House last week. The remaining £70 million—the difference between £220 million and £150 million—is derived entirely from administrative decisions none of which raises a major issue of policy. First, we shall be able to reduce expenditure on the naval Phantom aircraft in 1969–70 by arrangements to include them within the American credit terms. For working purposes we are at present assuming that we shall take up all the American aircraft options and the figure of £2,180 million provides for them. I should point out that we have not, of course, yet taken a decision to take up the option.
Secondly, we have assessed the probable value of the rationalisation and organisation savings to be effected by 1969–70 at £15 million. This is entirely a question of internal management and a large number of comparatively minor savings—for example, the saving on the integration of motor transport, airfield construction and intelligence, all of which I have already announced to the House.
Finally, rephasing and minor changes in the programme between the summer of 1964 and the present day—the sort of thing that happens in any year, except that this time there has been a far greater emphasis on applying realistic judgment to production forecasts—have reduced the figure for 1969–70 by a net £35 million.
Mr. Powell: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his partially kindly reference to me, might I ask him two questions? The first is whether there was, therefore, any significant new information in the statement which he made to a Press conference yesterday and, if there was not, whether he would confirm that this was merely a window-dressing operation for the benefit of dissident back-benchers. The second is whether he can say what is the effect upon our total commitments in terms of foreign exchange in the defence field of the decisions he has taken since he assumed office.
Mr. Healey: Let me assure the right hon. Gentleman that my sentiments towards him are totally friendly, but not quite so friendly towards the party to which he belongs, or its record.
Yesterday, I gave the Press hardly any information which was not readily available and which hon. Members opposite would have known if they had done their homework. But I felt it necessary to give a progress report on what has already been happening and to pull together the facts given to the House, in particular, to correct some faults and misleading impressions caused by speculation in the Press and elsewhere about the results of the Defence Review. I did not follow the precedent set by my predecessors in giving the conference off the record and I will place the text in the Library. I only wish that my predecessors had taken the same line on these conferences.
I know that there is a feeling that it would have been better if I had made a statement in the House, but I have made three statements in the last fortnight and I think that I would have been abusing procedure if I had chosen a statement after Question Time to give a progress report. All Ministers in the Government are making a great deal of progress all the time and I do not think that there would be much time for other business if we reported our progress every time occasion arose. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman, as a Front Bencher, has himself dropped the complaint that had been made in the newspapers that this statement should have been made in Parliament.
None of the cuts that we have made so far in any way reduces our ability to fulfil our international commitments. Indeed, many of the changes, particularly those concerning the Territorial Army and aircraft, increase our ability very substantially.
Mr. Powell: The right hon. Gentleman may have misheard my second question. Perhaps I may put it again. I asked about the effect upon our total commitments in terms of foreign exchange which has come about as a result of the steps which the right hon. Gentleman has taken.
Mr. Healey: I am sorry that I misheard the right hon. Gentleman. There is no effect on our total commitments, in terms

1885
of foreign exchange, from the changes in policy which I have announced so far. I have made it very clear to the House on many occasions in the past, and at the briefing which I gave to the Press yesterday, that reductions in overseas exchange expenditure must depend on withdrawing individuals from service overseas. There is no other way of achieving them, except by reaching agreement with other countries to bear part of the burden of our presence in their territories. As the House knows, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has had outstanding success in increasing the readiness of the West German Government to contribute in this respect in the last few months.
Mr. Frank Allaun: Does what the Secretary of State now say mean that to make more substantial cuts it will be necessary to cut not merely our hardware, but our commitments overseas? Will he press for this among his Cabinet colleagues?
Mr. Healey: It may be possible to make some further substantial savings without affecting our commitments overseas by applying the doctrine of "value for money" more stringently still to the equipment used by our forces, but I readily confess that to bridge the remaining nearly £200 million gap to the target will require redeployment of our forces and a smaller total of manpower in the Services.
Mr. Hugh Fraser: I am sure that the whole House is very grateful for this statement, but I must confess that until I have seen it in detail I can ask just one question. It is not clear what sums within the figures are being made available, if any, for the procurement of a tactical strike reconnaissance aircraft for the Royal Air Force. May I have the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that there is to be no final decision about the Territorial Army until the House has had a chance of debating the quite new principles which come out in the right hon. Gentleman's statement?
Mr. Healey: On those two questions, the costings figures which I have given to the House include provision for the replacement of the TSR2 as a Canberra replacement by the same number of F111As. However, as I have said, we have not yet decided, as a Government, whether we shall replace the Canberra
1886
by the F111A or some other aircraft. We still have another five months before we are required to take up the first small option of F111As.
On the subject of the Territorial Army, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, we plan to publish a White Paper on our proposals for reorganising the Reserve Army, probably in November, and the House will have an opportunity, I imagine, to debate that before the Bill itself is discussed. No final decision can be taken, of course, until the Bill is approved by Parliament.
Mr. Atkinson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Government's policy is to increase the gross national product by 25 per cent. before 1970 and that if that policy is achieved the figures for defence which he has announced as representing a cut would still represent 7 per cent. of the gross national product by 1969–70? Is he further aware that it is the opinion of many eminent economists in this country that unless we cut the defence budget to 4½ per cent. of the gross national product, we cannot possibly succeed in carrying out our social programmes?
Mr. Healey: I cannot agree with my hon. Friend on either of those issues. I think that there will be general agreement among able economists who know the facts that to reach the target which we have set ourselves would reduce the percentage of the gross national product spent on defence from 7 per cent. to under 6 per cent. in 1969–70. Many countries manage to support very progressive welfare systems and still spend 6 per cent. of their gross national product on their security.
Sir Richard Glyn: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the possibility of making savings in foreign exchange by reducing the number of troops overseas? Would he agree that, if troops overseas were brought back, that would mean an enormous increase in expenditure in this country on barracks and married quarters, and that the only way in which a total saving can be made is by dismissing those men and reducing the size of the Forces?
Mr. Healey: Of course, that is true.
Mr. Rowland: As in different alliances in different parts of the world we share certain responsibilities with the United States, has the American Government in

1887
any way been consulted about the defence cuts already proposed or pending?
Mr. Healey: I hope that the Government will be in a position to discuss with allied and all Governments with which we have commitments the broad outline of our thinking some time in the autumn, and of course foremost among the Governments we shall then consult will be the United States, our major ally.
Mr. Lubbock: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman three questions? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Three short questions. Is there any truth in the accounts of the increasing cost of the Spey engine in the Phantom programme? Secondly, is he giving active consideration to ordering a Spey-engined Mirage IV in place of the F111A, which would result in substantial savings in foreign exchange because of the higher British content? Finally, will he consider immediate cuts in capital expenditure on overseas bases, such as Aden, to help the measures of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
Mr. Healey: I will do my best to meet the hon. Gentleman's advice to the Prime Minister. The Minister for the R.A.F. gave details of the Spey-Phantom two days ago, as the hon. Gentleman should have known. There has been a disturbing increase in the research, development and production costs of the Spey engine for the Phantom in recent months and we are keeping this problem under very close and continuous review.
On the Mirage IV, we are looking at all possible aircraft as a possible replacement for the Canberra, but I think that the hon. Gentleman will know that the Mirage IV is being designed as a high-level nuclear bomber and what we are looking for as a Canberra replacement is a low-level bomber capable of delivering conventional weapons with great accuracy. A very large increase in development would be required to give the Mirage IV that type of capability.
Mr. Lubbock: That is not my information.
Mr. Healey: I dare say that it is not the hon. Gentleman's information, but mine is a great deal better than his. Let me point out to him that if we buy the F111A, it is quite possible that the Spey may be put into it.

DETECTIVE SERGEANT CHALLENOR
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Frank Soskice): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the case of Detective Sergeant Challenor.
As I have already informed the House, I have recently received the Report of Mr. Arthur James on his inquiry into the circumstances in which it was possible for Detective Sergeant Challenor to continue on duty at a time when he appears to have been affected by the onset of mental illness. I am very grateful indeed to Mr. James for the thoroughness with which he has investigated these matters, and I am anxious to publish his Report in full as soon as possible.
I have a statutory power to remit a person in Mr. Challenor's position to prison for trial if I am satisfied that he can properly be tried, and I have been giving anxious consideration, in consultation with my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, to the question whether I should be justified in exercising this power but on the medical advice we have received I am of opinion that I could not yet properly direct the return of Mr. Challenor to prison from the hospital at which he has been receiving treatment. I am, however, arranging for further medical opinions on this question before coming to a decision.
My right hon. and learned Friend has advised me that as the Report deals in part with matters which might be directly in issue in any proceedings taken against Mr. Challenor the publication of the Report might seriously prejudice his chance of receiving a fair trial. I have, accordingly, after consultation with my right hon. and learned Friend, decided that for the time being I should hold up publication of the Report. It is my intention to publish it in full as soon as I can properly do so.
In the meantime, I have to inform the House that Mr. James finds that Mr. Challenor continued on duty in circumstances which cast no blame whatever on any member of the Metropolitan Police Force or on any of the doctors who examined him.
Mr. Thorneycroft: May I, first, thank the Home Secretary for his courtesy in

1889
making this statement before we rise for the Recess? It is a matter which is of some public concern. May I also say that I think that the whole House will feel gratified that he, who has read the Report, feels able to put in the final paragraph of the statement which he has made?
There are two points which I would like to raise arising out of this statement. One is, will the Home Secretary recognise that, from our point of view, no one wants a Report to be published which will prejudice any man in his trial? What I think most of us feel is that what is really important is not the time of the publication, but the fact that the Report will be published. I would like the Home Secretary to emphasise that it is his firm intention to have the text published.
The second point concerns the proceedings. Are those proceedings those which were instituted, but to which Challenor was unfit to plead, or is it contemplated that some new charges might be made against him? In any event, would it be his view that sometime in the autumn we ought to decide, one way or the other, whether we are to take decisions? We do not want to be perpetually in the dilemma of having proceedings which might be brought, and therefore, with no publication of the Report. Would the Home Secretary feel it possible for a firm decision to be made some time in the autumn?
Sir F. Soskice: I can say that I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman has just put to me. I accept that it is of the greatest importance that the public should know exactly what is in this Report, and should know it in full, at the earliest possible moment. I have that very much in mind. The right hon. Gentleman accepts, and I feel that the whole House will agree with me that it is essential, if a man is put on trial for a criminal charge, that he must have a fair trial, and that nothing must be done which could possibly prejudice his chance of having such a fair trial. Subject to that requirement being fulfilled, I undertake, and it is my firm intention, to have the full Report published as soon as I possibly can.
1890
On the question about the charges which might be preferred, that is, of course, entirely a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. I understand that the charges which he has in mind are those in respect of which Sergeant Challenor has already been put on trial, but to which he was found unfit to plead. It will, naturally, be a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend whether he thinks it appropriate, in all the circumstances, to add any further charges. I cannot say anything further than that.
Mr. Lipton: Does the statement of my right hon. and learned Friend mean that there can be no publication of the Report until the contemplated proceedings against Challenor have been concluded, or a decision has been taken not to proceed any further with a prosecution?
Sir F. Soskice: That must be a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to decide. So far as I am concerned, in deciding when I may publish the Report, I must wait until a firm decision has been taken as to whether Sergeant Challenor is to be prosecuted. If he is to be prosecuted then I must wait until the trial has been completed, so that he cannot possibly suffer any prejudice by the publication of the Report.
Mr. Brooke: As it was I who set up this inquiry, the first under the new powers given by the 1964 Act, may I be allowed to associate myself with the Home Secretary's expression of appreciation to Mr. James for his assiduous work? As the Commissioner of Police was criticised, and as I was criticised, as being responsible for the Metropolitan Police, and for having allowed Sergeant Challenor to be on duty in circumstances when it was alleged that it was clear he was not fit for duty, can we understand from the Home Secretary that Mr. James's Report completely disposes of all those charges?
Sir F. Soskice: I have already said so. I am very glad to have been able to give the House the information which I have already given with regard to the opinion expressed by Mr. James, that there was no blame in the fact that Mr. Challenor was allowed to continue on duty.
Mr. Driberg: Quite apart from the question of prejudice, is it not rather

1891
hard on Mr. Challenor himself that there should be this threat of a possible trial hanging over him for some months? Could this not actually impede his complete recovery? Would my right hon. and learned Friend and the learned Attorney-General consider that there must surely be a strong presumption that, if Mr. Challenor was unfit to plead when he was charged, he was also mentally disturbed when he did the admittedly very terrible things that he did do?
Sir F. Soskice: All those are matters which my right hon. and learned Friend, I have no doubt, will take into account. I think that the whole House would wish to join in the expression of sympathy offered by my hon. Friend to anyone who has been ill, and is not yet well, and who finds himself in the position in which Mr. Challenor finds himself, when charges may be preferred against him.
Mr. Lubbock: While thanking the Home Secretary for making his statement, may I ask him why such a long delay has elapsed between the completion of Mr. James's investigations last November and his announcement of the findings today? May I also ask whether he has given consideration to the publication of an interim Report, or even a summary, of Mr. James's investigations, excluding any reference to matters which might affect proceedings which could ultimately be taken against Mr. Challoner?
Sir F. Soskice: Mr. James completed the hearing on 26th November, 1964, and his Report was delivered at the Home Office on 16th July this year. It is a very long and complicated Report and very careful consideration has had to be given to it.
I had certainly taken the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question into account. My desire, and I feel it would be the desire of everyone, is that the full Report should be published. If circumstances so turn out that it either cannot be done for a long time, or if there is any other reason still standing in the way of publication of the full Report, I will certainly think again—and I have already thought—of the possibility of giving such a complete extract from it as would inform the public of the substance of its findings.
1892
I have not done so yet because, as I say, I feel sure that the public would wish to see the full Report, so that no gloss can be put upon it, and everyone can judge for themselves as to its contents.

PORT TRANSPORT INDUSTRY (REPORT)
The Minister of Labour (Mr. R. J. Gunter): With permission Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement.
I have received the final Report of the Committee under the chairmanship of Lord Devlin, which has been inquiring into labour problems in the port transport industry.
The Report was published at 12 noon today as a Command Paper.
The Report makes radical and constructive proposals for solving the longstanding labour problems in the industry. The Government attach the highest importance to the Report. The modernisation of labour relations, including a reduction in the number of employers and the efficient organisation of manpower, and the provision of improved working conditions, are all essential for the industry itself and for the development of the export trade on which our economy depends.
The Government, the port employers, the unions and the Dock Labour Board, will need to give urgent consideration to the proposals for action and I shall have discussions with those concerned at a very early date.
The Government are most grateful to Lord Devlin, and the other members of the Committee, for the work and thought that they have given to this difficult and vital problem.
Sir K. Joseph: As it is since only last evening that I entered the Minister's field of work and have had the chance to see this Report, I must apologise for any shortcomings in my comments upon it.
I am a little surprised by the brevity of the Minister's statement. Would not he agree that this is a brilliant analysis which the Committee has presented which gives him a well-argued, systematic and constructive set of proposals? Would not he also agree that the Report spares no one or no body in its criticism while

1893
paying tribute to some notable initiatives and some honourable failures on both sides of the industry?
Would the right hon. Gentleman accept that it seems on a first reading that Lord Devlin and his colleagues have managed to suggest ways by which regular employment, with all that that should mean in mutual obligations and trust between private employers and employees, can be reconciled with the inevitable fluctuations in demand for labour in the docks still to be safeguarded by the Docks Labour Board?
Perhaps the Minister would acknowledge that the Report also gives the country a glimpse of the operations, clearly referred to in paragraphs 21, 62, 109, 113 and 114, of the work of a minority—I stress a "minority"—of wreckers. He will agree that action is urgently needed, and that it is sad to see that in paragraph 286—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] I ask the Minister to agree that it is sad to see from paragraph 286 that
"… all the running has been made by the employers on the one side and the dissidents on the other."
The paragraph goes on to say:
"At the moment the future depends on the T. and G."
May I put some specific questions to the Minister? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] This is a very important Report. In seeking to reduce the number of employers, would the Minister assure us that he will safeguard the right of new entrants to the industry? We recognise that the number of employers should be thinned out, but we do not want a monopoly created even of a few firms. Would the right hon. Gentleman further agree—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Would he look at paragraph 323—
Mr. John Hynd: On a point of order. As we have not yet had the opportunity of seeing this Report, is much purpose to be served by discussing its details?
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that that raises a point of order, but I should like to take the opportunity of pointing out that all I am allowed to allow on a statement is the asking of a few questions. It is very difficult to fit in many questions by back bench Members if Front Bench
1894
Members ask all the questions. I wish not to reprove, but to invite indulgence.
Sir K. Joseph: I am grateful, Mr. Speaker. I have nearly finished.
Will the Minister please bear in mind that the users who are not referred to in paragraph 323 should share the benefits as well as the employers and the employees? We on this side of the House ask the Minister to accept that we want to do nothing to make his task harder, that we note the high hopes mentioned in paragraph 326, and that we wish him all success. We shall not press him prematurely, but we ask him to recognise that paragraph 326 invites the Government to make a firm statement about their own intent to legislate if it should become necessary. Would the right hon. Gentleman give us the assurance that he will take urgent, prompt, personal action on this vital Report?
Mr. Gunter: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to this most difficult field. I immediately concur with his reference to the Report being a brilliant analysis and the other points which he made in praise of the Report. When the right hon. Gentleman asks for specific assurances on any part of the Report, he will appreciate that the discussions which must ensue next week, I hope, with the interested parties are bound to be of a very sensitive and delicate character, and that it would be unfortunate if I were to express an opinion on any paragraph in the Report until I had met the interested parties. The points which the right hon. Gentleman has raised are very much in my mind.
Mr. Frank Allaun: In view of the attacks on the dockers which we hear—and Manchester and Salford is the third biggest docks in the country—will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that some dockers have to handle loads of 80 lb. and that this leads to accidents and overstrain? Do not let us pay too much attention to this attack on the "idle dockers", because some of them do far more work in a day than we do in a week.
Mr. Gunter: All that I would say to that is that I do not know that anybody has attacked the dockers.
Mr. Tilney: Does the Minister think that it will be possible to solve the great

1895
difficulties of the two unions on Merseyside and decasualisation generally?
Mr. Gunter: I always live in hope. I do not know whether it gets me very far.
Mr. Maxwell: Could my right hon. Friend say how long, in his opinion, it will take for some aspects of this Report to be implemented so that they make a real difference to exporters either in the speed which it takes to get through the docks or in costs? Secondly, what suggestions has my right hon. Friend to make about the steps which exporters might take to assist him and the industry in implementing this vital Report?
Mr. Gunter: The Report draws attention to the importance of exports, and that is why it is to be welcomed and why there should be a great sense of urgency in solving the problem. I hope that the Report will be implemented as soon as possible. However, the negotiations and discussions are bound to be of a delicate but not, I hope, protracted character. I am open to any suggestions from anywhere.
Mr. David Steel: Will the Minister undertake to make another statement to the House after we return from the Recess, indicating how the discussions are going between the Government, port employers, unions and the Docks Labour Board?
Mr. Gunter: I hope to be in a better position to report on how the discussions are going when we return from the Recess.
Mr. Peter Emery: Nobody wishes to complicate the Minister's task, but would not he say that, in principle, the Government intend to be widely guided by the plan of action outlined at the back of the Report? [HON. MEMBERS: "We do not have the Report."] It is in the Vote Office. Hon. Members could get it half an hour ago. Would not the Minister agree that an indication that the Government intended in principle to carry out much of what is in the Report would greatly assist and speed the negotiations which have to take place?
Mr. Gunter: The Government accept the Report generally as a basis for further action. The precise steps to be
1896
taken will become clear when I have had the discussions to which I have referred. However, I assure the House that we are determined to ensure that this opportunity of bringing about a vital improvement in the docks will not be lost.
Mr. Deedes: On a point of order. While appreciating your own difficulties, Mr. Speaker, and without wishing any discourtesy to the Minister, may I point out that the time is now nearly twenty minutes to one, that we have had three Government statements which have occupied the last 40 minutes and that there is to be a Royal Commission today which will further break into the time of back-bench Members? May I enter a rather strong protest on behalf of backbench Members and all those interested in today's Adjournment debates?
Mr. Speaker: I was about to conclude this matter and to make some observations on those lines myself. Without further comment, I leave the matter to the right hon. Gentleman. Perhaps I might say that I shall have to ask my fellow Members, to whom I have thought fit to allot time for Adjournment debates, to impact their speeches as much as they can so that we do not squeeze out others.

PORT TRANSPORT INDUSTRY (REPORT)
  ADJOURNMENT
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Grey.]

TEXTILE INDUSTRY
12.40 p.m.
Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me the opportunity to raise the subject of textiles, and particularly the cotton textile industry. Last time that you were good enough to award me one of these Adjournment periods, it was about six years ago on the subject of education and the claim of the National Association of Schoolmasters to a seat on the Burnham Committee. The Minister, now Lord Eccles, explained carefully that that was quite impossible, but within six months the Association was there. I am, therefore, hoping that my case today will receive equally rapid translation in action if not in words.
The President of the Board of Trade is negotiating, as he has to do, with

1897
foreign Powers because the agreements under which textiles coming from overseas to this country are limited by quota expire at the end of this year. What we have to consider is how, for the future, these imports should be limited. It is, I think, common ground that the President of the Board of Trade should now negotiate, or attempt to negotiate, a global quota instead of individual quotas with different importing countries, because if he negotiates merely with countries that are at present importers experience has shown that new countries pop up which have no traditional market in this country and rapidly acquire large business at the expense of those which have negotiated previous agreements.
How these negotiations should be carried on and what sort of stand the President of the Board of Trade should take has been set out rather conveniently for us by the right hon. Gentleman's colleague, the First Secretary, in his discussions with the Cotton Board two years ago. On 19th July, 1963, the First Secretary of State and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton), met the Cotton Board and reports of their meetings and what they said should be done have emerged.
The best way of dealing with this problem is to urge the Government to adopt the wise words of the First Secretary in the days when he had no cares of office and was free to examine the case dispassionately. The first point made by the right hon. Gentleman—and a very good point it was—was this. He said:
"It should be made plain that any chance of renegotiating our imports at 25 per cent."—
that is to say, 25 per cent. absorption of foreign imports into a 100 per cent. market—
"while others"—
that is, other industrial countries—
"took as little as 2 per cent. could not continue after 1965."
Of course, we take more than 25 per cent. from abroad for the home market, far more than any other Western country takes. Although those countries paid lip service to increasing their proportions after the last G.A.T.T. conference, I do not think that very much has been done and I should like information about the extent to which they have honoured that obligation.
1898
The First Secretary was adamant about that. He said:
"In any new agreements there would be no increase over our present levels unless others take much more."
The importance of that is that rumours have leaked out that the President of the Board of Trade in his negotiations is adopting the position that there shall be a built-in increase each year from whatever basis figure he adopts for the global amount which shall be allowed into this country.
This is something against which, I believe, the industry and all members of the Cotton Board are adamant. They say that the figure that the President of the Board of Trade is already adopting, which is probably the 1964 or 1965 figure, is in any event too large and that there should be no question of there being any year-by-year increase in that figure at least until other civilised and Western nations take far more in the way of Asian imports proportionately than they do now and until our figure is down to 25 per cent. That was the First Secretary's advice then and I am sure that it is right.
The second thing that rather worries us is the rumour that in the global negotiations the idea of a ringed fence round the whole business is to be considerably diluted, since the global net is not to include anything but developing countries. This may be inevitable, but if it is I urge the Board of Trade to give us some satisfaction on the leakage that comes through developed countries.
Again, the First Secretary was strong on this point in 1963. It is said that he admitted that there was second-stage competition of Asian goods coming through other developed countries and that this was part of what he decribed as the Asian problem. If the global arrangements are not to cover developed countries, there must be strong provision, first, against substitution—that is, the practice by which certain Western countries buy Asiatic goods and then substitute their own goods for export to the United Kingdom at a figure far less than they would be able to but for that substitution.
The second thing is the problem of added value, which is familiar to the Board of Trade but is slightly complicated. What is feared if the global arrangements are not really global but apply only to

1899
developing countries is that Asian countries with a surplus of cloth can send it at any time for finishing to Western countries; and in this way not only would the quota restrictions be avoided, but there would be a substantial increase in imports from Western countries. Again, those Asian countries can sell at very low prices, as so often happens for currency reasons, to, say, countries like Canada or Eire and this would provide a low enough base on which to mount the 25 per cent. added value. These imports also would enter the United Kingdom duty-free.
To prevent that happening, the United Kingdom should either raise the content criterion from 25 to 50 per cent. for added value or adopt the E.F.T.A. rule that two out of three processes—i.e. spining and weaving or weaving and finishing—should be carried out in the country of last consignment. Otherwise, we visualise another loophole in the system, which we all wish to see made more comprehensive.
Again, at his meeting with the Cotton Board the First Secretary made a strange remark. I do not wish to take this up particularly, but it is rather interesting. He said that our obligations to India and Pakistan were far stronger than our obligations to Hong Kong which did not need help in the same way. It was "pretty affluent already". In my view, there should not be any discrimination. I wonder whether that is still the policy of the Government.
Then the right hon. Gentleman said—and how right he was—that the new agreements, or agreement, must provide for more satisfactory categorisation—again, a very technical matter, and I know that the Minister of State knows all about it. Most of the imports, certainly from Hong Kong, at present provide an efficient system of categorisation. Different sorts of textiles are broken down to over 30 different categories, and the Minister knows the reason for that from the point of view of the home industry.
Now the rumour is that the President of the Board of Trade has adopted the stance for the coming negotiations, not of increasing those categories, as the First Secretary suggested, but of reducing them to only a dozen and for allowing to Asian producers a considerable amount of swing
1900
between those categories. This would be taken very badly, I must tell the Minister of State, by the United Kingdom trade. The right hon. Gentleman also said, did the First Secretary, that the subdivision of quotas should be for short periods, that the periods at present of the quotas were too long; and again, the rumour is that the Board of Trade is hostile to this suggestion, which is a suggestion very much approved by the Cotton Board.
Then the First Secretary said—and this is a very important matter—that the Government—his Government, if they ever got into power—would study the effects of low-cost imports on the prices structure and make suggestions to mitigate their disruptive effects. This is, of course, not just quotas. This is a question of protection, and this was a matter which many spokesmen of the Labour Party, when in Opposition, adopted.
I must mention, in particular, the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), now the Minister of Overseas Development. She, either in the House or outside it, I forget which, put forward a very powerful suggestion when she was in opposition, which was, that to mitigate the disruptive effects of these very low prices a levy should be put upon them but, to satisfy the Asian producers that we were not doing this for selfish reasons, that the results of this levy, a countervailing levy, she described it, should be used for aid to those developing countries in other forms. This would be a means of reducing the disruptive effects of their exports to this country, but, at the same time, they would not as countries suffer, because the countervailing levy would be, as it were, ploughed back to them for general purposes of grants and aid. What has happened to that suggestion? I think it a good one. It seems to have not received now any sort of encouragement from the President of the Board of Trade.
The right hon. Gentleman met the Cotton Board on 27th May this year, when the Board strongly urged him to give further consideration to its proposals for dealing with price disruption. He said that though he could not accept any proposals which involved imposing a duty or levy upon imports from Commonwealth countries he would certainly consider any other measures which would

1901
help to avoid price disruption. Why cannot he not consider it now? Is it in breach of some undertaking?
When the surcharge of 10 per cent. comes off, as, presumably, one day it will, price disruption will cause havoc in the United Kingdom. The position is held at the moment by the surcharge, but the Government are pledged, and rightly pledged, to take it off—in a matter of months, as, I think, was the phrase used last January. What is to happen to price disruption then, if no sort of countervailing duty or levy is to be allowed to be placed on products of the Commonwealth?
Of course, I understand the reasons for this in the past, but when Nigeria, for example, is threatening to adopt a very anti-Commonwealth line in her negotiations for entry into the Common Market so far as the Congo basin treaties are concerned, which we hitherto observed, in so far as anyone can understand them, and if Commonwealth countries are to adopt a line very prejudicial to the former system of trade in the Commonwealth, in the way Nigeria appears to be thinking of doing, then surely our old feelings of obligation in this matter must be looked at again.
If there is to be no duty or levy, at least can we have some assurance generally on new anti-dumping legislation? Of course, everybody knows that the present system of anti-dumping legislation in the Board of Trade really does not work very well. It is too stringent. Can we have a system like the Canadian system, which is very effective for their protection? Although it is not specifically a textile matter, but goes generally throughout imports into this country, it would help the textile industry if we could have more effective antidumping legislation.
I shall truncate my remarks, Mr. Speaker, because, as you said we have to consider other persons wishing to speak, but my general worry is that the President of the Board of Trade is not starting his negotiations from a sufficiently firm stance. He and the Board of Trade have been lamentably weak, in our view, on recent textile matters. I asked a question about Malta, but perhaps the Malaysia problem is even worse. What has happened recently about textile imports from Malaysia?
1902
After protracted negotiations between Her Majesty's Government here and the Government of the Malaysia, agreement was eventually reached on ceiling levels for imports from Malaysia of cotton textiles for retention in the United Kingdom in 1965. The quotas established are 9·8 million sq. yd. for piece goods and 7·6 million sq. yd. for made up goods. This is the most extraordinary thing of all, any outstanding contracts—this is in addition—entered into before 1st May, 1964, and not yet shipped, may be licensed outside the quota. Those outstanding contracts are simply enormous, about 4 million sq. yd. of piece goods and an estimated 23 million sq. yd. of made-up goods.
The Cotton Board was deeply concerned with that, the problem of outstanding contracts, in other negotiations in the past. It has now been conceded to this extent. In the past, only outstanding amounts under contracts covered by irrecoverable letters of credit—which were completely verifiable, and therefore there could be no jiggery-pokery—have been admitted in such cases, and none of the outstanding amounts in the Malaysian case were so covered by irrecoverable letters of credit and no valid reason can be seen why the normal arrangements should not have been gone through and why Malaysia has been given this enormous concession.
This is what worries the people of Lancashire and others engaged in the textile industry, that the Board of Trade is not adopting a firm line from the start. We all know that in multilateral negotiations of this sort one has to give in a little bit along the line so as to get agreement, but if one's initial stance is generally weak, as I think it has been, judging from the hints we have been given on such things as the increase in global quotas built into agreements, or the reduction in the number of categories, an absolute veto against any effective scheme against price disruption, and nothing about substitution or added value, and these sorts of matters, then I am not surprised that the Cotton Board does show some worry in this case.
In the past, the Board was bitterly attacked by a more militant group called the Textile Action Group, which thought that the Board was really—I will not

1903
say the stooge—too closely tied to the Government. In spite of that, it is now really very much worried and vocal on this subject. I think that that goes for all the members of the Cotton Board, including the trade union members.
We face the news today, which is inevitable and may be right, that four more cotton mills have closed as part of a very necessary reorganisation scheme. But all the reorganisation that is going on—and it is a good thing that it is—will come to nought if, when the surcharge is taken off, and when the present agreements run out at the end of this year, there is no firm feeling of confidence in the industry, which can be produced only by strong, global, effective protection against low-priced and often sweated Asiatic imports.
For some years now the cotton industry has faced the fact, and faced it well, that it is not entitled to any protection against what we may call European competition. It knows, and it now realises and faces the fact, that against foreigners, whose standards of living and whose social services and other things are roughly equivalent to ours, it must not expect any protection at all, and in this the industry stands in marked contrast to many other British industries, particularly the motor car industry. The cotton industry and other textile industries have done that. They have reorganised themselves, and they have fined themselves down very effectivedly, thanks to the reorganisation scheme put up by the last Government.
But all this money, and all this effort, will count for nought unless the industry can get what it was assured by the First Secretary two years ago that it would get, namely, a proper global system with some sort of provision against price disruption, some sort of assurance that there will not be the loopholes and the increases in the quotas which have been a feature of the past. I hope that the Minister will be able to make some announcement today, which will go some way to allay the fears of the Cotton Board and others engaged in the industry, that the President of the Board of Trade will be tough with those with whom he is negotiation who take such a derisory percentage of these imports compared with the enormous amount that we still enjoy.
1.3 p.m.
Mr. H. Hynd: Like the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke), I represent a cotton textile industry constituency, or rather a constituency that was predominantly cotton textile, but which, unfortunately, is no longer so, and I find myself strangely in agreement with the hon. and learned Gentleman on this occasion.
I would not claim that the cotton textile industry is the most shining example of successful private enterprise, but it must be admitted that it has had very special difficulties. One is that while, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said, it is not afraid of competition, it has been subjected to unfair competition, and that is what it is afraid of. If it is fair competition, the industry is confident that it can be met, but it is this unfair competition which is so worrying, and which has caused so much trouble.
The industry has also been the victim of our very laudable desire to help underdeveloped countries. It is the victim of negotiations with foreign countries. It is tied up with foreign affairs, trade agreements, and all sorts of other things, and so no one can blame the industry altogether for the position in which it now finds itself.
The result has been disastrous to the whole of Lancashire, but the outcome of this disaster is quite surprising. The way in which the reduced industry has readjusted and readapted itself is not quite what we expected, and in this respect we can pay tribute to the co-operation of the textile trade unions. The way in which the textile trade union leaders have persuaded their members to adopt shift-working, to adjust themselves to new methods in the industry, and to adopt a new pay structure is quite creditable, and anyone who knows the difficulties of trade union leaders in persuading their members along such lines must admire the success that they have had.
I wonder whether the employers in the industry have shown similar enterprise, for example, in introducing the latest up-to-date sophisticated machinery. Once or twice I have had the opportunity of visiting textile mills abroad, and I have noticed that their machinery seems to be very much more up to date than what we often see in Lancashire. I know that in parts of Lancashire we have the

1905
latest machinery, but so many of the mills have the old Lancashire looms and the old ways of working, and I wonder why they do not get themselves up to date.
There is a tremendous amount of joint working between the two sides of the cotton industry on the Cotton Board, and I am delighted to learn that the Board is to continue, perhaps with some changes, and that the opportunity will be provided to both sides of the industry to co-operate in that way as well as in others.
As many of us in this House know from painful experience, the textile trade unions have been very active. A number of deputations have come to see us, and we who represent the cotton textile towns have also been very active, as the President of the Board of Trade knows only too well. Some of us saw my right hon. Friend only this week.
What is to be done about this problem? What can the Government do? What should they do? Most of us I suppose, particularly on this side of the House, would say that the ideal is complete free trade, that there should be no restrictions at all on imports or on exports, except, of course, for goods brought in here for finishing. We want as many of them as possible, on condition that they are re-exported. The trouble is that too many of them come here for finishing, and end up here, to the detriment of Lancashire goods.
Whatever views we may have about the theory of free trade, because of the special difficulties facing the cotton textile industry there is justification for special protection of some kind. I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposal for a global quota, because of the new countries that are now developing cotton industries and sending their exports to this country. Whether they are dumping is a matter for the Board of Trade to decide.
It is all very well to say that we should help developing countries, but cannot we sometimes help them by sending them goods instead of cash? Cannot we send them a lot of Lancashire manufactured textiles instead of sending them cash and credits with which they can buy Japanese textiles? This proposition has been put up more than once in this House, and
1906
I have never heard a real answer to it. We just cannot afford to let the cotton textile industry die, for economic, social and other reasons.
I hope that today the Government will be able to tell us something that will send a message of cheer to Lancashire. If there is any justification for Government help to private industry it is best exemplified by the cotton textile industry, for the reasons that have already been given. I ask the Minister to tell us whether he has any good news to give the House today.
1.10 p.m.
Sir Douglas Glover: I shall obey Mr. Speaker's injunction and shall not detain the House for more than three or four minutes. I congratulate and thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) for raising this very important subject on the Adjournment. I do not know whether it is the case, but I always sense that in its negotiations with the Lancashire textile industry the Board of Trade has a love-hate complex. That may be understandable, because for the last ten or 15 years it has lived in a sort of illicit relationship with the industry, and it may be that this atmosphere has permeated the Department.
The time has now come for us to take a stand. The industry has done more reorganisation and adaptation than any other in the country. It has contracted its production, without too much public display, from 7,000 million yards in 1913 to about 1,000 million today. It now employs only 7½ per cent. or 8 per cent. of Lancashire's working population.
All this has involved an enormous amount of upheaval. The buildings were designed for an industry seven times as large as it is today. That is why many mills do one process only. When they were built the industry was seven times as large as it is today. All these difficulties have now been pretty well sorted out, and owing to the reorganisation that has taken place in the last two or three years we now have a viable industry.
But this industry is entitled to expect fair trading. My hon. and learned Friend referred to the problem of substitution. Canada is one of the worst examples of this. It is true that the

1907
cloth that comes here from Canada is Canadian cloth, but it comes here at a price equivalent to that of Asiatic cloth, and is keeping out Asiatic cloth.
A global quota is necessary, but unless we have proper categorisation such a quota can cover a great deal of sin. If we have no categorisation, or a wrong categorisation, over a period of two years we could have a total offtake of poplin, completely killing the poplin side of the industry, because we were able to import it inside the global quota. Having lost the poplin side of the industry, two years later everybody would say that we did not want poplin on the quota because we did not make it here. If that process continued we should gradually drive the industry into extinction—simply because of wrong categorisation.
In those circumstances, I hope that the Minister of State will make it clear that the Board of Trade will be very tough in its negotiations with overseas countries, so that we can get this categorisation right. It is as important as the global quota.
1.14 p.m.
Mr. Anthony Barber: I, too, will defer to the request of Mr. Speaker to be brief on this occasion, since we are already running late and I do not want to cut out other hon. Members who wish to speak on later Adjournment Motions. There is another reason why I agree. Most of the salient points with which the industry is concerned at present have been raised by my two hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd).
I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) for raising this subject, and I also thank Mr. Speaker for having selected it for discussion in the first of this series of Adjournment debates, because it is of particular importance at the present time, for the reason given by my hon. and learned Friend, namely, that many rumours are floating around as to what has been happening in the past few weeks, and some of these rumours are hard and firm.
For example, I was told only yesterday that the President of the Board of Trade has now reached agreement with
1908
the main Commonwealth suppliers on the question of quotas of imports which are to apply from 1st January next year. Actual figures were given to me, but it is not for me to quote them to the House. Nevertheless, before we rise for the Summer Recess I hope that the Minister of State will be able to give us some firm facts and figures as to the intentions of the President of the Board of Trade as a result of these negotiations.
It would be irresponsible of me to seek to minimise the difficulties with which the right hon. Gentleman is faced, but if the information which has been give to me is correct there will be considerable disappointment among all those engaged in the textile industry. It is now generally accepted that the industry has nothing to fear from fair competition with those countries which have what might be called a Western standard of living, but there have been complaints, of the type already referred to by the previous speakers, about the loopholes that exist under which cloth from low-wage sources has entered the United Kingdom from European countries. Asiatic grey cloth has been finished in Europe and then passed off as European cloth. The practice of substitution has already been referred to. In the course of his recent negotiations has the President been able to do anything to stop up these loopholes?
Secondly, I hope that he will say something about the proposal, which has been under discussion for some time, for a returnable levy on cotton textile imports. I can see the difficulties of the proposal, but whatever its merits or demerits it has been put forward seriously. One of my hon. Friends mentioned that it had been put forward by the First Secretary when he considered the matter in the past. I am sure that the industry would welcome the views of the Government on the question.
I also hope that the Minister will be able to give us some assurance about the future of the industry in the United Kingdom. The re-equipment and rationalisation of the industry, which is going on apace, could result in a substantial saving in imports. I need not stress the relevance of this in our present economic situation, but the long-term plans of the industry will be carried out only if there

1909
is confidence in its future. In view of the way in which the negotiations with the overseas suppliers are reputed to have gone in the past few weeks I hope that the Minister will have something to say to show that the Government are confident that there is a place for a thriving United Kingdom textile industry.
1.19 p.m.
The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. George Darling): This rather thin House will agree that the speeches we have listened to from hon. Members on both sides leave us in no doubt about the anxieties which some hon. Members feel at the position of the Lancashire cotton industry. I hope that I can say something to alleviate them. The right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber) said that "information given to him"—the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) said that "information given to him"—and the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) said that "rumours he had heard"—led up to certain views. The information given to me about the negotiations which are now in hand lead me to take a less despondent view than has been expressed.
The principal source of concern is that imports from nations whose costs or prices are liable to disrupt our domestic market are still going on. It is the problem of imports from those countries that we are concerned with, and the worries are perfectly understandable. Figures have been given, and we have to face the fact, that over 30 per cent. of our consumption is met by imports from developing nations. The great bulk of these imports come from Commonwealth countries and, therefore, enter free of duty. That presents a formidable and unique problem for the British cotton industry. It is something that does not apply to any other industry in the country.
Over the past decade, imports of cotton textiles from developing countries have grown by about 500 million yards. But these growing imports have not been the only source of difficulty, because over the same period our exports of cotton textiles have fallen by about the same amount. It would be quite wrong to suggest that the industry has lost all these exports through its own failings. The loss of exports owes a good deal to the
1910
closure of many of our traditional markets, especially those in the developing countries. In fact, one is going round in a circle.
Developing nations, with their growing textile industries and balance of payments problems, have wished to buy fewer cotton textiles from us. There are, therefore, widespread import controls against our exports of cotton textiles to them. At the same time, developing nations have wished to sell more and more cotton textiles to us. It is only too easy to underestimate the problems of adjustment which the situation has posed for Lancashire.
The industry has had help from successive Governments. Arrangements were made with India, Pakistan and Hong Kong in the late 1950s, and subsequently with other countries, under which limits were placed on the volume of imports that we would accept. Then there was the Cotton Industry Act, 1959, which provided Government help for scrapping and re-organisation. In all, the Government will have contributed about £25 million for these purposes. But the results of the efforts to restrain imports have not until now been all that the industry hoped for, and something else is needed.
As the hon. and learned Member for Darwen said, as one source of imports was restrained, new ones appeared. The effect has been that, since the first restraint arrangements were negotiated, imports of cotton textiles have continued to grow at a substantial rate. These imports occurred despite the acceptance by all but one of the parties to the G.A.T.T. Long Term Arrangement of a British "no growth" reservation. Hon. Members will probably know what I am talking about, but I have had to learn about it rather painfully over the last few months. Other countries are generally obliged to increase their cotton import quotas by 5 per cent. a year, and the average increase in the case of Britain has been well above that figure.
It is never easy to strike a balance between our obligations to British industry and the people employed in it, on the one hand, and to the developing nations, on the other. We cannot ignore the force of the pleas put to us by those countries to trade with us and to sell the

1911
things which they can make. It is unfortunate that, as in our own case, their first beginnings of industry are often concentrated upon cotton textiles and that the supplies of cotton textiles directed towards the developed markets are potentially enormous. That is why country after country has begun to supply cotton textiles to the British market, and our imports have continued to grow.
I can assure the hon. Members who have spoken in the debate that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is taking a firm line and has decided that that continuing substantial increase can no longer be accepted. Britain has done her full share in buying imports of cotton textiles from developing countries. We have decided, therefore, that our objective shall be a total limit on these imports, and to hold the growth of imports to the growth in consumption of cotton textiles as far as that can be foreseen.
The Government have received advice and recommendations from the Cotton Board—we shall also take into account the advice that we have received today—and the President of the Board of Trade has had discussions with the Cotton Board. During the last two months, the Board of Trade has been having informal discussions—and at this stage they are informal—with the three major Commonwealth suppliers in Asia. On the basis of those discussions, we are on the point of putting our proposals into final shape for presentation to the generality of supplying countries.
I need hardly say that the advice from the Cotton Board differs from the views that have been expressed to us by the developing countries. We believe, however, that developing countries will accept that there is equity in our claim to have played our full part in buying their cotton textiles and that some firm limitation on our future commitments is only reasonable. To continue to accept large increases in imports would clearly, in the Government's view, cause disruption of the market and would threaten the existence of the British cotton industry.
That was another point which was expressed in the speeches that we have heard. We think it a reasonable view that those advanced countries where the
1912
proportion of consumption met by imports from developing nations is less than 10 per cent. are in less immediate danger of total disruption of their markets than we are. It is now for other countries to continue to increase the access that they give to those textiles. We shall be advancing that view in the discussions on the Long Term Arrangement which are due to take place in Geneva later this year.
The Lancashire industry is concerned not only about the volume of imports, but also about the price. We have made it clear that we exclude any idea that we should impose a duty or levy on imports from the Commonwealth. However, outside that, we are considering what other measures would help to avoid price disruption. We intend, anyway, to secure a practical degree of categorisation so that risks of disruption of the market for particular products will be lessened. I thoroughly agree with the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) that effective categorisation is tremendously important.
The hon. and learned Member for Darwen raised the question of imports from developed countries which will remain free from control. It is possible that attempts will be made to circumvent our controls on imports which could be disruptive by transhipment through uncontrolled sources. We recognise that there are real fears here, and we are urgently studying possible safeguards. The views that have been expressed today will, of course, be taken into account. There may be fears that, by leaving some sources uncontrolled, we shall transfer business away from developing countries who need foreign exchange to the developed countries who do not. It has been urged upon us that we should, therefore, put quotas on cotton textiles from all countries.
There is a great deal of force in that view, but I would say that it would be a major step to reimpose quotas on trade between developed countries and not something that we could lightly enter into as long as the 10 per cent. surcharge is with us. That type of sophisticated competition is very different from the low-priced imports that we have been talking about up to now. There is international recognition that imports which cause disruption can be the subject of regulation.

1913
But the idea that trade between developed nations, where social and economic circumstances are somewhat similar, can cause disruption is one that has some pretty wide implications. We recognise that there could be attempts to evade our controls on disruptive imports by diversion through uncontrolled sources to which hon. Members have referred. We want to look at all possible ways of dealing with this problem, including the views that have been expressed today, and this we are doing.
The hon. and learned Member asked how far other countries were honouring their obligations. The G.A.T.T. Long Term Arrangement generally obliges those countries to increase their quotas by 5 per cent. each year. As he probably knows, the obligation on the E.E.C. countries is 10 per cent., and there seems to be no doubt that they are honouring their obligations in this regard. The details for 1964 are not yet available, but we almost certainly expect that there will have been a substantial increase in E.E.C. imports of cotton goods during that year.
The hon. and learned Gentleman also asked whether we could do something about anti-dumping legislation, and mentioned the Canadian system. I am advised that we cannot adopt the Canadian system, as it is in breach of the G.A.T.T. rules and only continues because it preceded the G.A.T.T., which makes rather a difficult situation for us.
I come back to the Lancashire industry itself—
Mr. Barber: The hon. Gentleman said that informal agreements had been reached with most Commonwealth countries—
Mr. Darling: No.
Mr. Barber: Well, that some agreement had been reached, at any rate, with Commonwealth suppliers, as I understood him to say—and that, in due course, an announcement would be made. I put it to the hon. Gentleman that specific figures are being bandied about and are becoming widely known. I did not quote them here because I felt that to do so would be irresponsible, but I thought that the Minister might give them to the House. If he cannot do so, I quite understand, but I hope that he will say how soon we can expect an announcement because, as I say, these figures
1914
are becoming more and more widely known every day.
Mr. Darling: These figures are being bandied about in the informal discussions. Finalisation will have to come about by the end of the year, and we will try to give that information as soon as possible.
Reference has been made to the reorganisation that is going on in the Lancashire cotton industry. The 1959 Act has led to the scrapping of a great deal of plant and the installation of new machinery. Generalisations are always difficult and there is always a risk of being unfair, but I think that it is reasonable to assert that the re-equipment in the early stages was not matched by a parallel reshaping of organisation and structure in the industry.
Over the last two years, however, an active and more widespread reorganisation has got going, assisted by the interests of the big man-made fibre producers who have acquired in the industry some of the plant and machinery, and so on. They themselves are putting resources into it. The new machines are being effectively organised, particularly, I am informed, in the carding and spinning sections, but we are still relying far too much on imported machinery, especially in the weaving and warp knitting sections.
Nevertheless, production and distribution are being increasingly better planned, and there is now also a much greater emphasis on proper selling of the products. The Government believe that the impetus behind this reorganisation justifies the measure of greater certainty on imports which we intend to provide—the two must go together.
We must, however, be clear about the implications of all this. Productivity and shift working in the cotton industry has been increasing, as my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) has said, but the levels remain below those in some other countries with whom we have to compete. If the benefits of the new machinery are to be realised in terms of productivity and cost, it must be worked as long as possible and without over-manning. It is the machines that must do the work, because this is what productivity means.
It is true that the relations between employers and employed in the Lancashire industry are very good. In fact,

1915
there is an example here for many other industries. But we have to face the fact that the labour force contains a large proportion of older workers, and with the passage of time—and in some areas of Lancashire it will not be so long—there must be many retirements. There is a need, therefore, for managements and workers to continue to work together—as, indeed, they are now doing most effectively—to reduce manning and increase shift working.
I want to join with my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington in his tribute to the unions in this industry. We hear a lot in this House and in the Press generally about restrictive practices in the trade unions, and about how they do not co-operate in the introduction of new machinery, new methods, and so on. I am sure that the examples we bandy about represent a minority of the trade unions and a minority of British industry. Here, we have an industry to which none of this criticism applies, and in which the unions have co-operated fully in introducing four shifts, new machines and new methods. This should rightly bring higher wages to the workers, and enable them to get the fair deal they should have in return for the help they are giving in this reorganisation. Higher wages must be paid if the industry is to gain its share of new workers in competition with newer and other industries growing up in the North-West.
The Lancashire cotton industry is sometimes thought of as being old and clapped out, but if this impression is too widespread it is partly the industry's own fault. It has, perhaps, in the past been too keen to parade its own difficulties. It is now becoming a highly capitalised industry, in common with other textile industries, where the most advanced technologies can play their part. I am sure that we are right to give the industry this chance to shape itself for the present and for the future.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Dr. Horace King): I am grateful to right hon. and hon. Members for the way in which they have so far co-operated in response to Mr. Speaker's appeal. We began the Adjournment debates 40 minutes late; we are now only 20 minutes late.

REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT, WEST COUNTRY
1.36 p.m.
Mr. Peter Bessell: I am very grateful to have this opportunity of raising the problems of the West Country before the House adjourns for the Summer Recess. I recognise that as we are running late it will be necessary for me to abbreviate my remarks somewhat. I know that one or two hon. Members from constituencies in the South-West are anxious to speak before the Minister winds up the debate, and I shall do my utmost to give them the opportunity to do so.
I do not speak just as a Member of Parliament representing a West Country constituency. I claim to speak as someone who has a fairly wide knowledge of the whole area. I was born at Bath, and for the first 25 years of my life my home was in Somerset. For the next eight years my home was in Devon, and for the last 10 years it has been in Cornwall. To save the arithmetic, or a visit to the Library to look at The Times House of Commons reference book, the answer is 44.
I have also had some experience of business and commerce at various levels, retail and wholesale, and have travelled considerably in attempts to bring light industry and other enterprises to the West Country. My hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) and myself have, I am glad to say, had some limited success in that direction. I therefore hope that it may be felt that I speak with some knowledge of West Country problems, and I hope to be able to present them to the House in a way that can be clearly understood.
It has long been my belief that it is necessary to divide the West Country into two distinct sections. One area forms a natural region—the Severn basin, which comprises South Gloucestershire, Somerset, Wiltshire and a large part of Dorset. I do not think that in that section we can include West Somerset, Devon or Cornwall, and that is why I have always believed that this should be a completely separate region. I may say that that view is shared by most people in the extreme South-West. It is, therefore, not unnatural that I shall

1917
confine most of my remarks to the problems of the South-West in relation to the West Country as a whole.
The problems of the South-West are well known. The first is that of depopulation. Between 1951 and 1961, the date when the last census was taken, the population declined in no less than 15 local authority areas in Cornwall, 20 in Devon and four in the area which I call West Somerset, that is, taking a line roughly west of Taunton. At the same time, in England and Wales generally the population increased by 5·5 per cent. That is an indication of the magnitude of the problem of depopulation in the West Country, where there is an ageing population.
In Cornwall, for example, those over 65 account for 15·6 per cent. of the population, in Devon 17 per cent., if we exclude Plymouth and Exeter. In the United Kingdom as a whole the over65s amount to only 11·9 per cent. We have to plan in the West Country to stop the outflow of youth and to bring more people into the area. It is not enough to retain our school leavers; it is important also to correct the imbalance of the population to bring other people into the area to make it a viable economic unit.
Can this be done? I am sure that it can. There are certain priorities. The first must come under the heading of incomes. It is noteable that in Cornwall, in 1959, the average income was £10 5s. a week; in Devon approximately £10 7s.; while in the United Kingdom generally it was £13 5s. in 1964, there was some improvement although in percentages the improvement was not remarkable. In Cornwall, then the average income was just over £11 a week; in Devon just over £11 15s.; while in the United Kingdom as a whole it was in the region of £17 5s.
We have to look at the problems of unemployment. In the off-season unemployment is very high. During the past winter in Cornwall the average unemployment figure was 4·2 per cent. and in Devon it was 3·5 per cent. while in the United Kingdom as a whole it was only approximately 1·4 per cent.
The basic problems as I see them are, an ageing population, depopulation, low incomes and relatively high unemployment.
1918
The difficulty of correcting the population imbalance is accentuated by virtue of the problems of low income and high unemployment. Before discussing corrective measures, we must consider the effect of the situation on the national economy as a whole. The problems of the West Country represent a burden to taxpayers throughout the nation because there is the necessity of providing unemployment Day and a very high measure of National Assistance.
There is also a waste of manpower and of land and natural resources which should be used for the benefit of the whole nation and not merely for the benefit of the West Country. We must consider the overcrowding, labour shortages and congestion of traffic problems which have been created in the South-East, the Midlands and the North as a result of migration of population from areas such as the South-West which are suffering from under-population and providing real problems for the overdeveloped areas.
I have deliberately spent a few minutes in analysing the basic problems so that the House should understand properly the magnitude of the difficulties we are confronting. I want to make quite clear that none of us in the West Country seeks charity. The assistance we demand is, first, to raise the standard of living of the people of the West Country to that enjoyed by the more fortunate people in other parts of the country. Secondly, and much more important, we are making our demand in order to relieve taxpayers throughout the rest of the country of the burden of supporting an area which should be contributing to the full to the national economy. Finally, it is our objective that good sound development in the West Country should enable the people there to play a full part in the restoration of national economic stability.
What has been achieved by way of new forms of employment in recent years? The only example I touch on is that in Cornwall where new factories have provided employment for at least 3,000 people. The county council and others responsible deserve congratulation on their work in this respect. At the same time, changes in agricultural methods, decline of the fishing industry, the closure of other industries, and similar factors

1919
have resulted in a loss of work at least equivalent to the number of people who have been given employment in those factories. Therefore, there has been no improvement. At best, this has been a holding operation. We might say, like the Red Queen in "Through the Looking Glass", that it is taking all the running we can do to stay in the same place rather than to move forward.
The solution is not easy. We have to look at the basic forms of employment which might be attracted to the area. They are agriculture, horticulture, fishing and forestry. Our second basic industry is tourism. We have a certain amount of light industry and one or two important bigger industries such as that of china clay. To these can be added new sources of employment. We need additional light industries sited in locations which will not harm the natural scenic beauty of the area. These areas are easily available and accessible. Next, we should develop some of the indigenous resources of the West Country. Under this heading I particularly emphasise the need to develop the mining resources of the West. Many of the Government Departments which today are housed in the overcrowded, over-congested areas of London, could profitably be resited in the West. Finally, there is the question of the siting of educational training centres.
Because of the time factor I shall not dwell on the problems of agriculture. A White Paper was presented to the House yesterday and we are studying it with great interest. I hope that efforts to encourage co-operative farming may be of assistance to small farmers, but I am certain that the small farmer basically does not want to be retired. He does not want to be put out of business. He wants the kind of assistance which would enable him to stand independently on his own feet and to contribute to the economy of the country by ensuring that he has a fair return for his capital and a fair wage for the work he does. I have a suspicion that the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) will refer to this, so I leave the subject to him.
In tourism there is a demand for better communications. We cannot hope to attract tourists to the West Country unless we have the roads, airports and rail
1920
services essential to bring people there and to convey them back to their homes expeditiously when their holidays are over. There is a need for off-season entertainment facilities which do not generally exist. I hope that the Government will consider a system of grants to local authorities, hotels and private developers to help them to modernise standards of accommodation and recreation.
A proper amount of funds must be allocated for adequate publicity. It is tragic that so little publicity is given to the attractions of the West Country. Anyone who has called at offices of the British Travel and Holidays Association abroad will find that there is a very sad lack of adequate publicity to attract overseas tourists to the West Country. Men and women who could spend valuable dollars in overseas currency would be of help to the whole country as well as to that area.
In industrial development there is the problem of roads and the absence of good communications. There is also a need for additional incentives. It may be that larger building grants are required with fewer strings attached to them so that industrialists would be encouraged to build factories in the West. We should also provide tax holidays which in the long term would be of great benefit to the Exchequer and would be a sound investment. We need better housing for the technical staffs which must be brought to the West if the kind of industry which will flourish there is to be attracted to Cornwall, Devon and West Somerset. Further there should be even better training facilities to ensure that the right type of labour is available to anyone who proposes to bring his industrial concern to the West.
There is a demand for an immediate allocation of funds for a full-scale mining survey in Cornwall and Devon. I am disturbed at the amount of private money which is being spent on certain surveys. I am not happy that it is the overseas investor who is for the moment, for the main part at any rate, looking into the mining potentials of the West. The millions of pounds of valuable minerals which lie under the soil of Cornwall should be used for the benefit of the country. It is the business of the

1921
Government to encourage British investors. It is the business of the Government to carry out the necessary surveys to assist them before they make their investment.
I believe, too, that we must have a 10-year tax-free holiday for bona fide companies prepared to invest the necessary capital to open new mines or reopen old mines, with all the risks which that involves. This has been done in Canada and other countries. It is absurd that this country should be so far behind the times. There is a world tin shortage. The price of tin remains very high, and it will remain so for a very long time to come, possibly as far as we are able to see ahead. The benefit to the balance of payments position of producing the tin which lies under the soil of Cornwall for British industry would be enormous. Moreover, it is a potential source of exports which has not yet been considered seriously by any Government Department.
On the subject of the removal of Government Departments to the West Country, the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance functions most efficiently at Newcastle and Blackpool. The Department of Naval Defence, the former Admiralty Headquarters, has operated from Bath since 1939. I remember in the opening days of the war when this headquarters was first removed from Whitehall to my native city. Why not continue to relieve the congestion in London? The Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government could well be sited in the West Country, to the enormous benefit not only of the West, but of London itself, where there is a tremendous problem of congestion, traffic and communications, with people travelling to and from their places of work.
Only a few weeks ago the Secretary of State for Education and Science assured me by letter that he would give favourable consideration to siting at least one new teacher-training college in Cornwall. I ask him to go much further than this. I hope that he will site a number of them not only in Cornwall, but in Devon and in West Somerset, where they could be sited, not only to the benefit of the West, but to the benefit of the teachers
1922
themselves, who would find that this is a healthy and happy area of the country in which to train.
I should like to say a lot on the subject of communications, but I spoke on this matter the other night. Therefore, I shall be brief now. The road conditions connecting the West Country to the main centres of population are intolerable. The improvements on the A38, the A30 and the A303 must not be held up because of the Government's credit squeeze. I believe that the Government must look at this seriously and realise that, if there is to be any sense in their regional development plans, road development in the West and to the West cannot be stopped even for six months because of the country's present financial condition. It was notable that the previous Administration—I pay tribute to them for this—even at the height of the various economic crises with which they were confronted at no time put a stop on road development or road expansion.
I recognise that all that I am asking for would cost not millions but tens of millions of pounds. It could not be achieved quickly in the present state of the economy, but in the long term it would help to stabilise the national economy by spreading the load throughout the economy and enabling each part of the country to contribute equally to the health of the nation's finances. Therefore, I suggest to the Minister that there should be a phased plan over the next 10 years and I believe that he should give us specific undertakings now as to the Government's intentions.
On the subject of agriculture, the first urgent requirement is a new form of credit to enable farmers to deal with the problems confronting them today as a result of the credit squeeze. It is not only the capital account that is their problem. They have the difficulty, too, of meeting current expenses. I do not believe that the Government have appreciated fully the magnitude of this problem.
As I have said, I should like to hear that the Government have plans to make special grants to increase tourist facilities in the West. I have made certain proposals on the subject of industry, but there are many other proposals which should be carefully considered.

1923
We must have the money for a mining survey and we must have a tax-free holiday. I am not suggesting that the resiting of Government Departments should be carried out now. I am suggesting that as it becomes necessary to find new accommodation for various Ministries the West Country should have priority when they are relocated.
On the subject of teacher-training, I rely on the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, to make urgent representations to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, as I hope that he will make equally strong representations to him to reconsider the incredible suggestion that the Camborne School of Mines should be moved from the only existing mining area to Plymouth, where, to the best of my knowledge, very little tin is extracted from the centre of the city.
On the question of communications, I hope that a directive will be given to the Regional Economic Planning Council that there must be no further rail passenger closures until the funds have been provided for an adequate alternative road to cover the area concerned. I know for a fact that in one part of Cornwall at the moment—this is not my constituency—there is very grave anxiety regarding future industrial development because of a quite incredible suggestion that one branch line connecting to Bodmin should be closed. I share the concern which has been expressed already by the Member for the constituency concerned.
I want to say a final word on the question of the Regional Economic Planning Council. I have deliberately left this matter to the end because I have certain important questions to put to the Government. The First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs made a statement to the House on 10th December. I must say that I am very sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is not now present in person to reply to this debate. This is the first occasion on which development in the West Country and regional plans for the West Country have been discussed in this Parliament. For that reason, I think that the First Secretary should have made it a matter of priority to be here to answer us.
1924
The First Secretary said this:
"The economic planning councils will be concerned with broad strategy on regional development and the best use of the regions' resources. Their principal function will be to assist in the formulation of regional plans and to advise on their implementation. They will have no executive powers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th December, 1964; Vol. 703, c. 1829.]
If they have no executive powers, what is the function of the Council? The function of the Council is to advise the regional board on all measures affecting the future of the West Country. It is well known that the Liberal Party favours regional government. I hope that it is equally well known that we favour it only if it is a democratically elected body.
If the Regional Council is to be effective, if it is to function at all, it must be the organisation upon which every Government Department and every Minister of State relies for guidance. If this is the case, it is vital that its deliberations are held in public and that the Council itself is chosen by a democratic means of selection, even if its members are not actually responsible to the electorate. This is no reflection upon the members of the present Council.
Are the members of the Regional Council chosen by the people whose future depends upon their decisions and recommendations? They are not. They are selected by the Minister, on the advice of his officials and other advice which he may obtain. What that advice is is clouded in mystery. Are the meetings of the Regional Council held in public? They are not. They are all held in camera.
Are the Press admitted? No, they are rigidly excluded, but they are briefed afterwards. Is the agenda published? Far from it. It is not even available to the clerks of the county councils who might well wish to put certain matters before the Regional Council. Are the minutes published? On the contrary, they are treated like secret diplomatic files. The Press, the public, the officials of local government and even Members of Parliament are prohibited from any knowledge of what takes place at meetings of the Council where the recommendations upon which the Government and the Ministries will depend are deliberated and decided. What possible sense is there in all this? If the functions

1925
of the Council are to be credible, they must also be the subject of discussion by people in all walks of life in a democratic society. This strikes at the very roots of our democratic system and democratic government at every level.
In a recent letter, for example, the Minister of Transport assured me that he would be guided by the recommendations of the Regional Council in respect of a branch railway closure in my constituency. We know that the road programme and industrial siting and development are affected by these recommendations and thus the whole future of the West. I do not believe that the First Secretary realises the resentment and even bitterness which he has created and I beg him to look at this matter again. I ask him to undertake to issue a directive that all meeting shall be public, that the Press shall be admitted, and that minutes and agenda shall be published. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that if he trusts the people they will co-operate. If he disregards them and ignores them and denies them their democratic rights anything which he hopes to achieve through the Regional Council will be imperilled.
As reported in column 1496 of HANSARD, the Minister said on 3rd June that if it is the wish of the South-West that there should be a sub-regional headquarters in Plymouth he would give this favourable consideration. The right hon. Gentleman has my unqualified assurance that this is the wish of the people of the South-West and I hope that this pledge will be implemented.
To most people, the West Country means Devonshire cream and thatched cottages, Cornish pasties and piskies, legends of King Arthur, Glastonbury, Tintagel and Dozmary Pool, quaint place names, forgotten saints, picturesque fishing villages, moorland beauty and blue seas. To those who live there it is all these things, but it is also an area of high unemployment, of an ageing and declining population where opportunities for youth and enterprise are rare.
The people of the West are a proud and independent people. We demand that this country of Arthurian legend, from whence set forth on Britain's errands men like Frobisher, Hawkins, Drake and
1926
others, not least the Pilgrim Fathers, shall be given the opportunity to prosper, to live again so that they may give again as they have given to this nation throughout their long, proud and honourable history.
2.3 p.m.
Mr. Evelyn King: I am sure that all West Country men will be grateful to the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) not only for raising this subject but for the eloquence and, indeed, towards the end of his speech almost the poetry with which he spoke about it. I have seldom enjoyed a speech more. I shall intervene briefly and I know that I shall make myself popular with the Chair and with most hon. Members if I do not attempt to interleave my observations with statistics and figures, many of which have been provided already and which it would take overmuch time for me to reinforce.
Anyone who is acquainted with the social history of our times is bound to be sympathetic with the development areas. It was the state of those areas which first brought me into politics, but in so far as resources are poured into those areas we must also be aware that we are penalising, if not punishing, the areas into which the resources are not poured. Unemployment is, of course, a factor, but unemployment is not the only social ill in this country. I have no doubt that in the Ministry offices there is a map showing areas of heavy unemployment throughout Britain, but I should like to think that there is also, or that there will be shortly, a map showing the areas of low-wage economy, because that factor is equally important.
The hon. Member for Bodmin mentioned the point and I repeat it. The average wage paid to my constituents in Dorset is between £2 and £3 a week less than the average elsewhere in Great Britain. This means that here is an area of hardship. It will be pointed out no doubt that the unemployment rate in my constituency is probably less than 1 per cent., but that is not the only factor of hardship and I beg the Ministry to consider also where the areas of low wages exist in this country.
Dorset has been desperate for many years for light, clean industry and small factories. I see no sign of their coming. We are conscious of our aesthetic heritage

1927
and we do not seek to be an area of heavy industry, but we seek to have light, clean industry in small packages. Heaven knows that for many years it has been difficult enough, but up to the time of the General Election it was possible to erect and use without consent an industrial factory up to 5,000 sq. ft. in area. The present Government, for reasons which I fail to understand, are now making it necessary to obtain an industrial development certificate even for the smallest factory. As a result, they are not making the position better. They have made it worse. Although I have sympathy with the unemployment areas I do not see how that measure will assist in providing employment in other parts of the country.
I speak briefly of the roads, because the hon. Member for Bodmin dealt with them thoroughly, but if one travels, as I do habitually, from London to Weymouth through Poole and Bournemouth, particularly at the weekends, it is not unusual to have a 45-minute wait. [HON. MEMBERS: "More."] I cheerfully accept that. More. The roads situation in Dorset is chronic. A sum of £14 million has been spent on the roads in Lancashire alone. I cannot see why we in the West Country should not have a fair share of the expenditure on roads. This expenditure affects not only the tourist industry, but also the question of attracting light industry into the area, because industry will follow communications. We cannot leave the area wholly dependent on tourism. I feel that the Ministry looks at the unemployment rate and thinks that because it is between 1 per cent. and 2 per cent. all is well but, as I have said, unemployment is not the only factor.
There is also under-employment. The conditions for the young in my constituency are such that in August and September they work extremely long hours at a time when the population in Weymouth goes up from 40,000 to over 100,000 in a month. Many of these young people may start work at eight o'clock in the morning and continue until 11 p.m. Come November, and if they are not unemployed they are under-employed, not only in terms of hours of work, but in the sense that there is no opportunity for the development of their inherited skills. They must either leave the area or throughout their lives their abilities and any technical skills which they might
1928
have acquired will be unused. Because the young are so treated, because wage rates are low and industry is rare, it follows that the rates are high. This, in turn, brings about another hardship. But fares are high and so are electricity charges. My present correspondence about the bus fares is voluminous.
This adversely affects what is, perhaps, the major class of constituent in my area, the old and the retired. The correspondence I have been having on the subject of public service pensioners, on which I must not dwell, is enormous. These people have been hit twice. They are resentful and have reason so to be. First, the Government's pledge in respect of public service pensions has been dishonoured, and, on top of that, their other pledge about the lowering of rates has not been honoured. In fact, the rate burden has risen. In addition, bus fares, electricity and every element in the cost of living is going up. These people have been treated harshly, and the state of affairs which hits them is, in turn, linked with the lack of industrial development in the area.
Since they came in, the Government have appointed about 100 Ministers, There are moments when I feel like suggesting that there should be a Minister for Dorset. Perhaps that is flying rather high, but, I suggest—this is the case in Canada and many parts of Europe—that there ought to be a Minister for Rural Development. Hon. Members opposite—I speak in the plural, but I see not one present except the Minister on the Front Bench—almost inevitably represent industrial areas. This is in the nature of things and I do not complain, but their interest is confined to the industrial areas. On the agenda for the Labour Party conference, for instance, one scarcely sees a resolution dealing with rural problems.
More than half the population lives not in London, Bradford, Leeds, Manchester and the other large cities and towns, whose problems are deep in the minds of hon. Members opposite, but in the countryside or in towns with less than 50,000 population. These are the people who are not getting the square deal that they ought to have, and it is on their behalf that, in this very brief speech, I make this plea.
2.11 p.m.
Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I am glad that the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) has raised this subject, and that he mentioned tourism, although I was rather surprised that he did not say very much about it. My usual complaint about speakers who refer to development in the South-West is that they talk too much about tourism and not enough about the substantial opportunities which there are in the South-West, particularly in Cornwall, in agriculture, horticulture and other industry.
It is not generally appreciated by the public at large what a very large factor our economy the tourist trade is becoming. The British Travel Association recently stated that in 1964 there were 2,400,000 overseas visitors to this country and that they spent here £218 million, in addition to £118 million in fares to British carriers, making a total of about £330 million in our earnings of overseas currency.
The Association adds that it is expected that this year there will be 2,700,000 overseas visitors spending in this country about £360 million, and I understand from what they have said previously that about one-fifth of that total will relate to the South-West. These are large figures. Tourism is the fourth largest British export, it is the largest single dollar earner, and it has risen three times as fast in the last ten years as the total of physical assets.
Cornwall does not get as many overseas visitors as Britanny. I can never understand why. Cornwall has everything that Britanny has—inland moorland, picturesque coastline, surf bathing, and even oysters. I remember saying to a Cornishman once that the only advantage which Britanny had over Cornwall was that in Britanny the women wore funny hats on Sunday, but he replied, "Ours do, too". That is as may be, but I am certain that there are further opportunities for the development of tourism in the South-West, and they could be seized without any destruction of local amenity The hon. Member for Bodmin mentioned advertising, and I agree that more could be done in that direction.
The chief difficulty for tourism, is transport, as it is for the other potentials in the South-West—china clay, machinery manufacture, ship repairs, non-ferrous
1930
metal mining, agriculture, horticulture and the rest. All these depend on improved transport by road, rail and air. I shall say no more about the road programme, which has been debated recently in the House, except to observe that I hope that the deferment of starting dates of new construction will not put a setback on all the developments which are due in our area.
Now, a word about the railways. Fairly substantial improvements have been made in the services to the South-West, but I understand that the line west of Plymouth is regarded by British Railways, though they have every intention of keeping it going, as one which does not justify a large expenditure of capital for improvements, the reason being that it does not carry sufficient traffic. But, of course, if all the domestic coal trade, at present carried into Cornwall very largely by sea, and the china clay, a substantial part of which is carried by road, travelled by railway, then, unquestionably, the line beyond Plymouth would justify considerable capital expenditure for improvement. Great improvements could be made with comparatively limited capital because that line was built on the cheap, its layout includes a large number of unnecessary curves which could quite easily be straightened out, and substantial improvements could be made in some of the bridges and viaducts.
Given better communications, the prosperity of Cornwall could be greatly increased without spoiling its superb scenery. It is quite possible to do this, as anyone can see in Switzerland. The Swiss have developed their tourist trade to a large extent and they have substantial industry in various parts of their country without any spoiling of the scenery. The same could be done in the South-West, and I hope that the Government will do everything possible to encourage it because it would add greatly to the prosperity of the South-West and particularly of Cornwall.
2.16 p.m.
Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) on the extremely cogently and concisely argued speech, with, if I may say so, a most moving conclusion. Perhaps this was hardly unexpected as my hon. Friend

1931
comes from a county which recently returned two Cornish nationalists at local government elections. Celtic imagery from my hon. Friend was, in the circumstances, hardly unexpected.
As my hon. Friend rightly said, the public view of the West Country is that it is a picturesque place for holidays, but, of course, it is in the winter months that we see the unemployment rising again, we see depopulation going on apace, in effect, the exporting of unemployment, and we see low wages. On 25th June, I asked the Minister of Labour what was the difference between the average weekly wage in the United Kingdom and in the South-West. The reply was that the average weekly earnings of manual workers in manufacturing and other industries in the South-West was £16 19s. 8d., compared with £18 2s. 2d. for the United Kingdom as a whole. Thus, there is a difference of £1 2s. 6d. in the average wage in the South-West region, but, as the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King) pointed out—this is the great criticism of the present form of regional planning—that takes into account average wages in Bristol, which has totally different problems. I agree with the hon. Member for Dorset, South that the average wage in our area—this is certainly true in North Devon—is something like £2 or £2 5s. a week lower than the national average.
This is the great danger of talking about the South-West as a region if that region includes the Severn Basin, which has totally different problems and is a totally different part of the United Kingdom. I have poined out to the First Secretary that it is far easier for us in the northern parts of Devon to get to London than to Bristol, which is to be our regional capital.
Certain things have happened in the South-West in recent years which, I think, hold out some hope. We have had the survey of the South-West which has been completed with Board of Trade assistance. We have the plans for regional development, about which I shall say a word in a moment. Yesterday, we had from the Minister of Agriculture the announcement of the rural development boards, on which we hope that some progress will be made. Nevertheless, I endorse what the hon. Member for Dorset,
1932
South said about a Ministry concerned with the rural areas. In Canada there is such a Minister for Rural Development, and what he has been able to do for the rural areas of Canada we might well follow in Britain.
We have already had an announcement by the President of the Board of Trade that certain advanced factories will be built. This holds out some hope. A South West Exporters' Association has been formed and is trying to co-ordinate the efforts of exporters in the South-West. If I may be so immodest as to cite my personal experience, I am at the moment carrying out a survey with a view to leasing an aircraft and operatting an airline for the West Country as a whole.
There are things which have to be tackled. First of all, there are basic amenities. Taking my own constituency as an example, nearly 20 per cent. of my rural dwellings are still without mains electricity. One of the reasons for this is that as a result of the operation of the Electricity Act the electricity board can pay for only as much rural development as it can subsidise out of its urban profits. Consequently, if one lives in a largely rural area, it means that one has a low rate of electrification owing to the absence of urban receipts.
Last December the First Secretary set up a joint inquiry composed of the Electricity Council and the National Farmers' Union to look into the question of rural development charges for electricity. The report was completed last May but it has not yet seen the light of day. I believe that there is a case for an Exchequer grant, possibly added to the Annual Price Review, in order to ensure that we have 95 per cent. electrification in all our rural areas. It is outrageous that we still find farms with parrafin lamps, privies at the bottom of the garden and pumps in the yard for the main water supply. It is iniquitous. Who can be surprised that in those conditions people leave the countryside?
Communications have been mentioned. In August we have queues about five miles long outside Exeter and Torquay. This sort of thing will not help the export drive and the tourist industry. If we cannot build massive roads overnight then I agree with the view taken by my

1933
hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin in the debate on roads that we might consider the possibility of paying for our roads by means of loans and then having tolls paid voluntarily by those who choose to use those roads.
As another example, take our hospitals. By and large, they are very out of date. I have a waiting list of 1,200 for a hospital built 120 years ago. Take also many of our schools, particularly primary schools. One finds that in many of them a bucket is the only form of sanitation, many have no electric light and many are probably under threat of closure. I must say that, having regard to some of the structures, it would be a good thing if some of them would fall down without our having to wait for the closing of the school.
We have our scheduled areas. Most of the Duchy of Cornwall and the Bide-ford and Ilfracombe areas have a persistently high rate of unemployment. Our experience is that whenever an application is made to B.O.T.A.C. the delay is a minimum of six months, and very little comes out at the end. I do not believe that the Local Employment Act is working as it was intended to do. The procedure is thoroughly inefficient and takes a very long time. Perhaps I am unjust and should not say that it is inefficient. Perhaps I ought to say that the system tries to exact the same security and tests as a merchant bank or an ordinary commercial bank. But the object of the exercise is that the scheme should take a greater risk having regard to the social benefits which would flow if industry were set up in those areas and employment were given to those who are at present out of work.
Finally, I want to say a word about Bristol. I do not believe that Bristol is the logical centre for the South-West. Its problems do not represent the problems of the South-West, which is an area of its own. It is as different from Bristol as the Highlands of Scotland are from the Lowlands. I believe that we must have a regional centre at Plymouth or Taunton or Exeter. Any of the three would be acceptable. My view is that Plymouth would probably be best. We must have regional representatives, elected and answerable to the electorate, and considerable power must be given to these boards over the issuing of I.D.C.s, the
1934
planning of housing and the co-ordinating of road and rail communications. The experience of Mid-Wales has shown that a small factory employing only 200 people will bring economic benefit to nearly 2,000 people living in the surrounding area.
I am certain that a tremendous amount can be done after we have improved our communications and after we get more speedy action from the Board of Trade to encourage investment in the area. Otherwise we shall have a position where our school leavers will continue to leave the area, thus leaving a depopulated area behind them, and choking up our main centres in the South-East and the "coffin" area north of London reaching up to Manchester.
In the South-West there is a spirit and a determination to help ourselves. In the past few years much has been done by local authorities and others, but I hope that the Government will realise that we have not had our fair share of the allocation for roads, that we have suffered from low wages and de-population and that we are impatient to have something one about it all.
2.25 p.m.
Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: I join in with other hon. Members who have congratulated the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) on initiating this debate and bringing the subject to the notice of the House, and also on his very forceful and thoughtful speech. We are overrunning our timetable a little, but we will do our best to keep within the limits which have been laid down.
One of the most important things to ask the Parliamentary Secretary is what has been done by the Regional Board and the Regional Council since they were set up some time ago and their members were appointed, and what have been the effects on the region of those appointments. In passing, I must say how much I agree with the hon. Member for Bodmin and others that it is wrong to try to link Bristol and the Severn Basin with the rest of the South-West, covering parts of Somerset, Cornwall and Devon, because they constitute two completely different areas with different problems. It is difficult to understand how Bristol, if it were made the centre, could appreciate what was going on in the rest of the area—what, for instance, were the different problems in the South-Western

1935
tip of Cornwall and in Devon and the other parts of Somerset.
No mention was made by the hon. Member for Bodmin of the functions of the Regional Board. It is a body with executive powers, and we want to know what it is doing. We understand that it is advised by the Regional Council. The body has great advisory powers and capacity, and, therefore, presumably has great capacity to influence the Board and the Minister. We should like to know what it thinks about things. We want to know, for instance, whether it is thinking about establishing a new town or increasing the population of any particular part of the South-West.
I hope that we shall be told that it is not thinking of making Taunton an overspill centre for Bristol or the Midlands. This is the natural thing that I should expect from some body based in Bristol, but I hope that that is not what the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us. If the Council is suggesting some overspill provision, I hope that he will tell us that it will be in Plymouth or Exeter.
Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us what the Regional Council is thinking about the future development of towns in the South-West. Does the Council envisage a prosperous future development for Plymouth, with the provision of factories, and so on? If so, what advice is it giving to the First Secretary, and what action is the Board itself taking in this matter? What is being done? It is very difficult to discern, since the inception of the new concept of regional boards and councils, one single constructive thing which they have done. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will enlighten us about this.
I turn to the question of a survey. I am sure that all my hon. Friends and also the hon. Members on the Liberal Benches have one object in mind—and I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary has, too—and that is to try to get something done for the South-West, as a region, which will be of benefit to those who live in it and those who work in it. But before anything constructive can be achieved one needs a survey of the use of the land and the natural resources. That is essential.
Some time ago I asked whether the Government were to use as the basis of
1936
all their discussions the survey which was carried out by the six counties, Part I of which was published. I do not know whether Part II has been undertaken or whether the Regional Council has recommended to the Minister that Part II of the survey should be carried out. I do not know, nor does anybody else. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary can tell us what advice he has had from these anonymous gentlemen. But I must not be unfair. They are not anonymous. Their names have been published. But their deliberations are unknown. We do not know what they are thinking.
It is vital that we should know what the uses of the various natural resources are to be. Minerals and tin have been mentioned. I hope that the tin industry in Cornwall will be developed. I do not pretend to be an expert on the subject, but I hope that the Government will be able to facilitate what needs to be done. I do not think that a grant from the Government is necessary to carry out a survey. Private industry should be capable of carrying out such a survey if it thinks it worth while, but, certainly, Government facilities should be put at its disposal and it should be encouraged to undertake the work to see whether revival of the industry is possible and to what further extent minerals exist.
China clay and coal have been mentioned and these link up with the communications aspect. What recommendations has the Regional Council made concerning the development of the rail system in the south-west of the region? If the china clay industry could be persuaded for commercial reasons to use the railways, and if a great deal more of the coal for the area were carried by train, then both branch and main lines could become stronger economically. What recommendations are being made to encourage this?
It would be a good thing if the Government took action to bring about this change. Certainly the coal industry should send coal by rail to Devon and Cornwall. At the moment, a certain amount is sent by road, but most by sea. It seems rather foolish to have not very good coal from the North creeping round the coast by boat to the West Country when better coal from the Midlands could

1937
go by rail. The Government could and should take action, but I suppose that they will not do so unless the Regional Council recommends it.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King) and the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) said, this is not only a problem of unemployment, although that exists in the winter months especially in large parts of south-west Devon, Cornwall and Dorset and is a grievous problem, for it reaches a high level. There is also the low wage factor. Once again, one must weigh these matters up. I hope that the hon. Member for Bodmin will accept that I enjoyed the peroration at the end of his speech, but I wish he had confined himself to it. Earlier, when outlining the prospects of the South-West, he said that we were an ageing population.
The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not true. There are many young people who are only too keen to stay there. By saying that our population is becoming older and older the hon. Gentleman was hardly being conducive to encouraging industrialists to open new factories in the South-West, for they will not want to employ mainly people over 55 or 60.
Mr. Bessell: I was quoting statistics published in the survey which showed comparative figures. The proportion of old people, as a result of depopulation, is much higher than in the rest of the country.
Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I accept the figures. I was drawing the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact, however, that he elaborated on them and that the closing part of his speech was much more helpful from the point of view of encouraging industry to go to the area.
We must keep a balance between the wish to develop light industry and existing types of industry and preserving the attractions of the tourist industry. This year, given a certain amount of good weather—which we have not yet had—we can expect a record tourist trade. But if we develop the South-West as the Midlands were developed in the last century, the tourist trade will go out of the window. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South, said, one expects more light industry to go there and that is right and proper. Some type of
1938
development is also needed for the roads but great motorways sprawling across Devon, Cornwall and Somerset would not add to the beauties of the area.
Developments of industrial sites such as those in Switzerland are something that we should take note of. Has the Regional Council given advice to the First Secretary of State concerning this problem? When overspills and new towns are being considered, where is it recommended that there should be renewed and increased industrial development in Cornwall, Devon and Somerset?
I hope that Exeter and Plymouth will get their fair share of industrial development. They could and should be the growing cities of the South-West. The Camborne and Falmouth triangle and the Bodmin and St. Austell triangle could be developed industrially. But if we have such development, then we cannot, at the same time, have our rail communications taken away. Yet that is what is happening in my constituency, I hope that there will be no further rail closures of any type in those areas where there is a possibility, or indeed, a probability, of future development until a decision is taken as to what kind of development is to take place.
The Regional Council is silent on these things and so is the First Secretary of State. I have an awful feeling that the Joint Under-Secretary of State will also be silent, but we must know these things before we can make any judgments. The South West and Cornwall want to be put much more in the picture.
Mr. Thorpe: I entirely agree with what the hon. Gentleman is saying about not closing railway lines until we know what industrial development there is to be. But, in fact, the situation is worse than that. Railway lines leading to areas which are development districts are scheduled for closure.
Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I am aware of that. Some happen to be in my constituency and there are probably more in the hon. Gentleman's. But I hope that what is said today will bring home to the First Secretary of State and the Minister of Transport the urgent necessity of holding up these operations until a decision has been made on development. In areas where industrial development is

1939
possible, probable and in some cases vital, these moves should be postponed until the Government know both what should be done and what will be done for industrial development.
But agriculture also needs development. The agricultural White Papers do not deal with the priorities which are of vital interest to agriculture in the South-West. The White Papers are important, but do not tap at the fundamental difficulties of the agricultural industry especially in the South-West—for instance, the level of production and its corollary, the level and strength of import controls. The Government have hopelessly failed to tackle these issues and the measures announced yesterday will have no effect upon them.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will say something about development. The First Secretary of State talked about setting up a sub-committee in Plymouth. Although the right hon. Gentleman has said that the Regional Council will definitely have its offices in Bristol, he has said that he has not yet decided against having a sub-committee office in Plymouth. There are 70,000 sq. ft. of office space at North Road Station, Plymouth, now and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to say that the sub-committee will have its office there. Is it not nonsense that more than £2 million should be spent by British Railways on huge offices at North Road Station, Plymouth, and that British Railways should then "up stakes" and go to Bristol leaving that office space empty and apparently with no future tenant? What is to be the future of that accommodation? I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some hope, or at least tell us what the Regional Council is recommending.
Since the Council has been set up, not very much has happened, but a great deal remains to be done. I agree with the hon. Member for Bodmin that we in the South-West are not an ageing population in heart or spirit.
Many of our young people want to stay there if they are given the opportunity to do so. We want the hon. Gentleman to live up to the fine words and promises of himself and his right hon. Friends before, during and since the election.
1940
So far, we have seen no sign of that happening. We want to be assured that action will be taken urgently and that the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not act as a brake for the next six months, until after the next election.
2.41 p.m.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. William Rodgers): As the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) has given me precisely nine minutes in which to reply to the debate, half of what I expected, he will understand if I do not go as fully as I might otherwise into the many issues which he raised in a rather longer speech.
Like other hon. Members, I was impressed by the coherence and elegance of the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell). However, I should remind him that the first debate this Session on regional development in the South West was initiated by the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) who, I am sorry to say, is not here today. We all know that his time and energies have been substantially absorbed lately by extra-mural duties of one sort or another. I am also sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) is not present, and I am sure that on both sides of the House there will be a general wish that he will soon fully recover. He has played a substantial part over a long period in drawing attention to the problems of the South West and particularly those of Cornwall.
There has been some criticism of our new planning machinery and perhaps I should spend some time dealing with it. I am sorry if the hon. Member for Bodmin was disappointed by the absence of my right hon. Friend the First Secretary, although I do not think that he should have been surprised. I had the opportunity of reading in the Western Daily Press a fairly full account of what the hon. Gentleman intended to say, quite apart from a letter which I received this morning. I was interested to note that the hon. Gentleman or the Western Daily Press thought that
"On most points Mr. Brown will trot out soothing, bland replies …"
It has not been my experience to hear my right hon. Friend trot out soothing, bland replies.
Mr. Bessell: I must assure the hon. Gentleman that whatever was said in the Western Daily Press was not said by the hon. Member for Bodmin.
Mr. Rodgers: I am glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman has very good judgment in this respect.
Both the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Cornwall, North took a rather melodramatic view of the functions of the Regional Council. I would like to know from them—and if we had more time I would be ready to give way—whether they feel that no machinery should have been set up for regional planning in the South-West. I think that the view of the hon. Member for Bodmin is that we should have gone much further and had elected regional government.
Our view is that, whatever developments lie in the future, the right thing now is to set up effective machinery for getting action on regional planning. As the House knows, the task of the new machinery, both the Council and the Board, is to prepare a regional plan and assist in its implementation. Granted that we are going that far, it is far more important that the Council should function effectively and give good advice to the Government and that there should be genuine partnership between the Government and the regions in this respect than that a body should be set up which might well become a talking shop.
It is true that the Government necessarily deal with many confidential matters. If we want the regional councils to work effectively and to give good advice to the Government in knowledge and not in ignorance, we must ask them to make a part of their proceedings confidential. Certainly, in the short run, this will be the best way in which to get a regional plan and to get it fully implemented in a way which will commend itself to both sides of the House.
It has been said that the Council is only advisory. However, its job is to advise not the Board, but the Government. Over a very wide range of subjects the Council has been asked for its advice and, consequently, the Government will make much wiser decisions because, for the first time, the Government will be genuinely consulting the people on the
1942
spot, the people with practical experience of the region's problems.
Hon. Members have referred to the differences between Devon and Cornwall and the rest of the region. I am very ready to concede that there are differences, but, as I said in our debate on 4th November, the fact that the two areas are different in a number of respects is no reason why they should be planned separately. On the contrary, if one is suffering from unemployment and low wages, as I agree, and rural depopulation, as I agree, and the problems of communication, there is good reason why it should be planned together with the other part of the region where industry is rapidly growing and where population is increasing.
If we consider them both together, we are more likely to get policies for the South-West which will be fully effective in all respects and by which the stronger parts contribute to those parts of the region which are going through periods of difficulty. I hope that this policy will be pursued. The machinery has been set up and the decisions have been made.
On a number of occasions, we have discussed where the regional centre should be, the regional centre and not the regional capital as the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) described it, whether it should be at Bristol or elsewhere. The job of all hon. Members who want to see the prosperity of the South West increase is to accept the machinery and to make sure that it works. In parentheses, I am sure that Professor Tress, who is playing a very energetic part in helping the region to grow, would be ready at any time to meet hon. Members to discuss the region's problems. As the Chairman of the Council, he is accessible and not only will I inform him of all the matters raised today, but it may be in the interests of hon. Members to meet him and to discuss the problems with which they are especially concerned.
There is agreement about the problems, of course. In Devon and Cornwall there are the problems of rural depopulation, the need for further new light industry, the need to develop tourism. As the House knows, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Board of Trade, visited the West Country on 28th May and at Exeter met a number of those concerned

1943
with the South West. We intend to consider the various problems to see what more can be done.
The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Geoffrey Wilson) referred to the relative advantages of Cornwall and Brittany. Perhaps I can make one remark which will surprise some people. I spent a holiday in Cornwall only at Whitsun and I must say that it is now possible to eat as well in Cornwall as in Brittany. This is an unusual recommendation, which alas, cannot be applied to all parts of the country.
Our new Economic Planning Council is not only to meet in Bristol. It has already visited various parts of the region and will be visiting others in the near future. It has met in Bristol, Taunton and Exeter and very shortly will meet in Plymouth. Here again, they will be seeing at first hand the very varied problems of the area of the far South-West, as well as of urban and industrial growth in the Cheltenham, Gloucester, Bristol, area.
I wish I could go on much longer, because there is a great deal that I want to say. I think that the important thing is that a number of points have been made today which we shall be looking at. We have the very greatest feelings for the problems of Devon and Cornwall—
Mr. Evelyn King: And Dorset.
Mr. Rodgers: We are deeply concerned with the problems there, and with Dorset as well, but I think it is only right, as the hon. Gentleman raised Cornwall, that I should pay particular attention to it. We recognise that it is not simply a holiday region, though it is a very pleasant one, and I hope that nothing said today will make anyone believe anything to the contrary. It is not only a holiday region but a region with very real difficulties. It is not for me to ask for patience, but I hope I can ask for support for the new regional planning machinery and for the development of a proper plan for development in the South-West.
It may be a 10-year plan; we have to look a good way ahead, and then take the necessary steps to see that the South-West shares fully in the prosperity which Britain as a whole, I believe, will be enjoying in the future.

HOUSING (NEW AND EXPANDING TOWNS)
2.52 p.m.
Mr. W. F. Deedes: I want to raise the subject of housing densities in new and expanding towns.
Sir Geoffrey de Freitas: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. What protection have I, as someone who has the last Adjournment, from the great length of overrunning of these Adjournments today, and the fact that, I am told, a Royal Commission will interrupt the proceedings, and we go off and indulge in the ridiculous and ludicrous exercise of hearing a lot of Bills read out, and as a result my constituents suffer?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Samuel Storey): That does not raise a point of order. These times are only arranged as a general guide. We started these debates very late, and in the first debate some time was saved. The last debate has taken its full time. I hope that in future debates right hon. and hon. Gentlemen will try to curtail their speeches as much as possible, to make up for the delay which has already occurred, and the delay which will occur when the Royal Commission is heard.
Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter: Further to that point of order. I do not know whether it is strictly in order, but is it appropriate for an hon. Gentleman, who himself has represented the Crown overseas, to refer to the giving of the Royal Assent as a ludicrous exercise?
Sir G. de Freitas: Further to that point of order. I will waste no more time on the procedure under which we work. To go along there and have the Clerk read out the Titles of the Bills is a ludicrous exercise. I represent some of the citizens of Northamptonshire today.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I deprecate such language. The hon. Gentleman must be courteous to the other place.
Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: Further to that point of order. Am I not right in thinking that we are summoned to another place, but that it is up to this place to decide whether the time is convenient to go along?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That may be so, but I think that we should get along now.
Mr. Deedes: I shall do my utmost to make sure that the hon. Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas) gets his time. I think that he was not present earlier, when I registered, on behalf of him and others, protests about the first 40 minutes of our day going to Government announcements. I now want to spend a few moments explaining what this debate is about.
Twenty years after the war our population is still on the move, and moving faster than ever. Any hon. Gentleman who keeps an eye on the register of electors will realise how fast this movement is. This is what is called the population explosion. The people are disposing themselves into a new pattern, and an important part in this is played by new and expanding towns. Here, particularly in the second generation of new and expanding towns, the moulds of future life are being cast. These moulds will decide, not only how this generation lives, but perhaps how their children will live, and what sort of people, certainly among the younger generations they will become. This seems to me a matter of first importance.
A cardinal factor of these new living conditions is the space factor to be observed, or in a word, density, and that is what I want to talk about. My particular concern is the town of Ashford. We are an expanding town—just what we are to expand to it is difficult to discover. Our population is now 29,000 and our targets have been variously mentioned as 100,000 and 250,000. Perhaps the South-East Study, when it comes, will give us the answer. The only firm figure that we have on paper is an agreement with the Greater London Council to build about 4,250 houses for London by 1975, for about 19,500 people, an increase of about 66 per cent.
That is a very large operation for a very small town. It is not rendered any easier by the fact that we have not one but two objectives. The first is to relieve London's congestion, something in which a number of hon. Gentlemen have a very close interest—to accommodate what is elegantly called, "overspill". The second objective, I hope, is to build for
1946
Ashford a town worthy of the name. I will not say that those objectives are in conflict, but they do not always naturally go hand in hand.
In all this there seems to be no mastermind. We have many masters, we have the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, represented by the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary, we have the Kent County Council, the Greater London Council and Ashford itself. All have their own spheres of responsibility and their own special interests. We have not got, to guide us in this matter, a new town corporation. I think that we should have, but that is not immediately relevant, and, therefore, there is a good deal of ad hoc planning. What I now wish to turn to seems to be a very bad example of it.
The expansion seriously began in Ashford last October on two new estates, one called Bockhanger, in a residential suburb of Kennington, which will contribute only 360 houses, and the other, in a much earlier stage, called Stanhope. That will hold eventually, 1,425 houses. Together that represents nearly half the decade's programme. The first site, Bockhanger, is about 26 acres, of which the residential area is 21 acres. It is being built to a density of about 70 persons to the acre or, alternatively, about 12·8 acres per 1,000 people.
By comparison with these figures in Ashford, modern standards elsewhere show that this is a very high density, in my view an alarmingly high density. It compares with an average of between 30–40 persons to the acre in most of the English new towns. The Scottish new towns are rather higher. At Bracknell, residential density, and I am comparing like with like, is about 25 persons to the acre. The other extreme is at Cumbernauld, in Scotland, where there are nearer 100 persons to the acre. Most of the English new towns, if one takes it on an average, are around 33 persons to the acre in density.
The Ashford figure, around 80, compares with the figure of 55 at Basingstoke, which is another expanding town, not a new town. I refer to the Oakridge Estate, where 90 per cent. of the houses are to have gardens. At Ashford, on the Stanhope Estate, four times the size of Bockhanger, the density is going to work out at about

1947
80 to 85 persons to the acre. This is to be achieved only after the Ashford Council protested against a proposal by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government that the density should be no less than 100 to the acre. There was some correspondence, which will be of no interest to the House, which passed between the council and the Ministry, between January and March of this year, which the hon. Gentleman will know something about, and the details of which I need not go into. I am bound to say that I find it a little astonishing—this is the source of my disquiet—that the Ministry's policy on density should make such a proposal possible.
In reply to a Question which I tabled to the Minister, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary observed, on 6th July:
"For the Bockhanger scheme the Ashford U.D.C itself proposed a net density of 80 persons per acre. At an early stage in preparation of the plans for the Stanhope area, officers of the Department suggested that a net density of 100 persons per acre might produce the most economical housing scheme."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th July, 1965; Vol. 715, c. 193.]
I ask the House to note that—"the most economical housing scheme".
Ashford's main objection to a density of 100 is the high proportion of flats which would be required to meet it. This is axiomatic. The higher the density, the greater the number of flats which must be built to meet it. The reduction to 80, after protest, means that in the scheme there can be a higher proportion of two-storey houses.
Those are the facts. I should like to say why more generally they seem to me immensely disquieting. First, there is the question of the future of these houses. Some observations on this matter appeared in the June issue of the Town and Country Planning Journal. They were written by Dr. Robin Best, of Wye College, who is, I think accepted as an authority on land use and housing development. I am indebted to him for some assistance in this matter. These are his conclusions on the houses themselves:
"As the standard of living rises and the stock of houses increases and diversifies in future decades it seems quite probable that these new estates will become embarrassing white elephants to which it will be more and more difficult to attract tenants. Needless to
1948
say, the social and financial consequences of this will be a serious matter for towns like Ashford."
I cannot resist the conclusion that this reflects some weakness of thought in the Ministry of Housing. Dr. Best goes on to say:
"It may well be asked how such unrealistic planning proposals came to be made at all. Just what criteria have been used for arriving at these unfortunate decisions?"
That is the point: what criteria were used?
The second point, which is perhaps more important, is the people themselves. What sort of people are we catering for, not only in the expanding town of Ashford, but in expanding towns elsewhere? The motives of people who move from London are mixed, but we know that 30 per cent. of the people moving out of London are represented by children under the age of 10 compared with about 15 per cent. for the country as a whole. Therefore, these are young families, and that has a considerable bearing on the amount of space that we should consider for them. It certainly has a bearing on the number of five-storey flats which should be considered within these estates. People certainly will not desire to exchange one set of overcrowded conditions in London for another set elsewhere. Admittedly, the need for a house may drive them into doing so for the time being.
These estates are not only for today, but for tomorrow. In my view, they must anticipate some of tomorrow's needs. Every perceptible trend in this society of ours and all experience elsewhere suggests that these people will want more and not less space. We have entered the era of the urban region, which is familiar in America but less familiar here, with all that that implies for land, design and density. If densities in places like Ashford are pitched too high, one of the longterm results is, in my estimation, predictable: a high proportion of people will move out, whether the planners want it or not, and will settle in a wide belt of surrounding villages, and ultimately that will create a far larger demand for land than would be necessitated by granting more land for lower densities now.
The Minister is entitled to reply that I am on the verge of a doctrine somewhat at variance with that propagated for a great many years by members of my party

1949
representing agricultural constituencies, namely, that agricultural land is at a premium and that, to save it, we must remorselessly build upwards and that all other considerations must be subordinated to the needs of agriculture. I plead partly guilty here, although this is not a doctrine which I have preached for some years. I am sure that we must think carefully about this matter. We must not squander agricultural land. Of course, we cannot have garden cities everywhere, but I am sure that we must strike the right balance. We must not starve expanding towns of the land needed to meet the conditions which modern requirements demand.
I share with Dr. Best and others the view that densities are tending to become too high, not only in Ashford, but elsewhere, to provide this generation, let alone the next, with what it wants and with what it is able to afford. I know that there is a school of thought—I do not belong to it myself—which thinks that many people regard their homes as dormitories, and that their car, giving access to the open spaces and the sea, represents a kind of density of its own, that the car has become part of the density. I should like more scientific evidence of that theory before accepting that everywhere garages should replace gardens—as indeed they will do on part of one of these estates. Garage space has been subtracted from the area of the dwelling and the curtilage.
My view is that densities have been dictated not only by the desire to preserve agricultural land, but by cost considerations—by the idea that higher densities produce a marginal but important saving on site costs. Although high building normally means higher cost, admittedly industrial building may redress the balance. Costs must weigh, but not overwhelmingly.
My last word to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary concerns what I think the Ministry should do. First, the Ministry should overhaul its thinking and its guidance on the subject of density. Is it a consistent policy, or is it, as I suspect, subject to the ideas of particular officials? Consistency does not mean identical densities everywhere. It means, broadly horses for courses—applying by scientifically-based thinking the right solutions in the right places and giving guidance to councils which are not always well equipped
1950
to deal with a large subject like this on their own behalf. There is a need for more homework and research to be done, particularly in respect of expanding towns and the special populations which are going to them. We must not rehouse people by hit or miss methods.
I confess that my mood is somewhat conditioned by a recent visit to Kirkby, that sorry bit of social planning outside Liverpool. I will not have that tragedy repeated in the town of Ashford if I can help it; once is enough. We must face the fact that a great part of England is about to become an urban region and that for millions of people that is tomorrow's horizon. A great deal of health and happiness is involved.
I am sure—and no doubt the Parliamentary Secretary will agree with me—that we must be master of the right techniques. We must contrive that urban development of this kind in rural England is not, as it is traditionally represented, a dead loss to amenity, environment and national resources and merely a negative process of replacing contented cows with discontented human beings. Given the landscape architect, arboriculture and a number of things which we are not using properly, we can give environmental satisfaction to those who live in the urban regions. But we have a lot to learn. We must start our homework with a thorough look at the density question and decide what we want densities to be in the towns of tomorrow.
3.9 p.m.
Sir Anthony Meyer: My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) has drawn an alarming picture of what can happen when housing densities are too high in new towns and on new housing estates. I should like to depart slightly from my right hon. Friend's thesis and make a plea for widely variegated standards of density within housing estates or new towns.
There are in my constituency two out-of-town Greater London Council estates which are of fairly uniform density. They provide nice houses and gardens. The other day, as is my wont, I was paying calls on people living in one of those Greater London Council housing estates and I discovered two things. I discovered that a surprisingly large number of them,

1951
mainly people coming down from London, particularly North Paddington, insisted on telling me that they proposed to vote Conservative at the next election. That was very gratifying.
What was rather less gratifying was that an equally large number of the people told me that they were not very happy in their nice new homes and gardens. I could not altogether find out from them the exact cause of their unhappiness, but I think I know what it is. It is the complete absence of any kind of community sense, the complete absence of feeling that they belong in the place in which they have arrived. That is partly due to poor transport facilities.
This is a very general complaint which would be heard from all hon. Members who have constituencies around the London area. It is difficult for these people to get from where they live to the centre of the town for amusement, cultural activities and the rest. It is also due to the fact that in these housing estates there is a woeful shortage of shops, pubs, post offices and amenities of any kind.
The reason, I suggest, why these facilities are so sparse on estates of that kind has something to do with the uniform fairly low densities. We are creating a sort of suburban desert in these housing estates with their immensely long rows of two-storey houses. There is not sufficient concentration of population at any point on the estate to attract shops or pubs. Because of this, we are not evolving a satisfying pattern of life for the people who live on these estates and who make up a surprisingly high proportion of the country's population. If we could create pockets of high-density housing within each estate, we could, I believe, help to improve the pattern of life and of the people who live on the estates.
Of course, there are difficulties. People do not like living in flats, particularly families who have children. Flats are very unattractive for families with young children. There is, however, a stage in the life of any family when a flat is not only acceptable but is a preferable form of accommodation. For married couples who have not yet had children or for couples whose children have grown up,
1952
a flat is a perfectly acceptable place in which to live. The point is that in between, there is a period in the development of a family when a flat is an unacceptable place in which to live.
In that connection, I was glad to see the suggestion put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) and Mr. Geoffrey Rippon in a recent pamphlet suggesting that one of the causes of our troubles is the habit of giving indefinite tenancies to people who get council houses. Here is one possible key with which to unlock the problem. If we could give council house tenants a limited lease, this would help us to get greater mobility in the allocation of accommodation of this sort, so that we could thereby make flats a much more attractive proposition for families when they are first married. They could be given the tenancy of a flat for a couple of years with a fairly reasonable expectation that a house would become available for them later in their married life when they had a young family who wished to run about in the garden.
I should like to hear that the Government are giving attention to this side of the matter and that they have in mind the barrenness which results from creating these miles and miles of two-storey dwellings, which, although in themselves attractive places with nice gardens, are basically suburban deserts and places in which the human spirit withers and decays no matter what attractions are provided. I hope that this side of the problem will engage the attention of the Government together with the powerful points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford in favour of providing enough space for families in which to spread themselves.
3.15 p.m.
Mr. A. P. Costain: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) on introducing this subject. It is a matter in which I have always had a great interest, dating from the time when I was a small schoolboy, when my father took me round the Port Sunlight development, which was the first of the garden city type.
My right hon. Friend has properly referred to the swings and the pendulums,

1953
which has so often been the tendency when vie have considered new developments, particularly after the end of the war. My right hon. Friend said that density in new towns started at a low level and has gradually increased. We have to accept that as a nation we are short of land. We do not, however, seem to be able to make up our minds about the right use of that land and how we will use it also for social purposes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Sir A. Meyer) has referred to the fact that flats are suitable only at a certain stage of a family's life. We should consider for a moment the translation of densities into dwellings, because that is what densities really are. It might help the House if I give the result of some of my calculations. Basically, my idea of economical building according to density is that if we are to have densities of 200 to the acre, the accommodation must be in the form of flats. A density of 75 to the acre could be in terraced maisonettes, which are not a very satisfactory form of development because it is difficult to plan a terraced maisonette.
When working on densities of 50 to the acre, one must think of terraced houses. Terraced houses have gone through phases. We started with the Nash terraces when things were done properly. After the 1914–18 war, we got down to the terraced houses which qualified for Government subsidy in order to overcome the density problem. When one then goes up or down the scale, according to whichever way one regards it, semi-detached houses accommodate about 25 people to the acre and detached houses 12 to the acre.
The trouble today is that there is a much greater hunger for land. Few people realise that a modern clover-leaf junction on a motorway takes up something like 100 acres of land, in addition to the demands made by airfields and other purposes. Quite often, we in this House have had debates concerning the acquisition of land. Quite rightly, our schools, hospitals and other buildings are all being surrounded by greater built-up areas. The problem can only be properly assessed by treating the areas of the country on the basis of big regions.
1954
My right hon. Friend has referred to densities of 100 to the acre in Ashford. In any comprehensive development there are areas where a density of 100 to the acre would be entirely fair, provided that there was sufficient surrounding land to make this possible. The main necessity, however, is to avoid at all costs the kind of urban sprawl which we saw between the wars. Fond as I am of my right hon. Friend and his constituency, I do not want to see it sprawling into mine. I would prefer him to build to higher densities in flats.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough has made an important point concerning the different stages of life when flats and houses are the right forms of accommodation. What I think we must have—I have mentioned this in earlier debates—is more flexibility. I see no reason at all in planning an estate, a local authority housing estate in particular, why provision cannot be made for elderly people to live in a section of a house. I do not see why not. Every elderly persons wants a place of his own. Equally, he does not want to be forgotten; elderly people want to feel they are wanted by their grandchildren. With more ingenuity in planning this can be provided for. It can be done by having in a house, probably on the ground floor, a single-room flat—a bedroom and kitchenette—which the elderly can use. This would have this advantage, that by the mere passage of time it is more than likely that, when the children of the house have grown up and want a bedroom each, the grandparents will have passed on. By having that sort of planning we could have greater flexibility, but that sort of planning cannot be contained in any formula we have for density. Will the Minister see if he can do something to help about that?
3.21 p.m.
Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter: I am sure the House is indebted to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) for raising a subject of very great importance. My only regret is that it has not been possible to discuss it earlier in the Session in a fuller House, because it raises issues, as I am sure the joint Parliamentary Secretary will agree, of great seriousness for large parts of our future development.

1955
None the less, I think the debate will have served a very good turn if we can elicit from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary the answers to two questions: first of all, what measure of guidance is given by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's right hon. Friend to those responsible for the administration both of the new towns—the development corporations and to the appropriate authorities in the case of expanding towns; and secondly, it, as I suspect, that guidance is somewhat scanty, has the right hon. Gentleman in mind any special clarification and amplification of it?
I am not asking—I do not think the hon. Gentleman will misunderstand me—for his right hon. Friend to lay down a rigid rule applicable to each of the new towns or expanded towns whatever their circumstances. That would plainly be foolish. On the other hand, I think there is a great deal in what my right hon. Friend said, that the present position is of a somewhat hit-or-miss character, and I think that both sides of the House will take the view that, at any rate, the principles in determining density should not be left to those authorities but that a great deal of guidance—guidance, not direct control—should be given by the Minister.
After all, the money in the new towns is provided entirely—and in the expanded towns very largely—by the central Government, and these developments must be a major part of the housing and rehousing programme of any Government. The Minister has himself placed great reliance on this method of development and has announced his intention to make a number of new towns, and it is not unfair to ask that guidance should be given and what it is. Some of them, I may say, are new towns which were planned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph). I am not seeking to make a point either for or against the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. I am only saying that to emphasise the importance of this matter to our system of housing and rehousing.
I think that because guidance is particularly needed there is a clash of considerations. There is, on the one hand, the question of amenity for those who live in these towns. My hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Sir A. Meyer) brought out very eloquently the
1956
Englishman's desire for a little bit of garden and his own front door. This is a feeling which is very strong in our people in this country—stronger, I think, than among our European neighbours. Indeed, I recall that when, before the war, I was contesting—I hasten to add, unsuccessfully—a constituency in the East End of London for the then London County Council it was held against the party which I was then representing that although we had carried out a very considerable amount of rehousing we had done so, in that crowded area, in the shape of blocks of flats. People felt that what they wanted were little houses.
I think opinion has moved since then, and I think it is accepted as all but inescapable that those who want to live or have to live in or near the centres of the great conurbations will have to make up their minds to do what many of our continental neighbours do, and live in tall buildings. That is not, of course, a necessity in all cases in the new and expanded towns, and many of the people who seek to go to live in those towns do so because they want to live the sort of life which a separate house with a garden makes possible, with all the advantages it means for young children. My hon. Friend referred to this, and these are powerful considerations.
On the other hand, there is the consideration of cost, which is one which one who has served at the Treasury can never wholly shake himself clear of, and there is also the question, vital in this crowded island, of the proper use of land. I certainly do not intend to intervene in the border dispute between my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford and my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hvthe (Mr. Costain), but the proper allocation of land as between new towns on the one hand, and agricultural use and other uses on the other, is a crucial question, particularly in those parts of the country like the Midlands and the South-East where the shortage of land is increasingly acute.
These are major questions which simply cannot be left to hit-or-miss considerations and it is because there is here a balance of national considerations—amenity, well being, pleasantness of towns, on the one hand; cost and land use on the other—that it is very important that the Government should give as

1957
clear a line of guidance in principle as they can.
I should, however, like to add one comment. I am personally very glad that this debate is to be answered by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, partly because he comes from the Department which really has the power in the matter, and partly because, if he will allow me to say so, and I can do so without doing him irreparable damage, he has himself a great knowledge of the subject matter.
It is an extraordinary commentary on the Department that is supposed to have responsibility for land use, the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources, that not only is it not replying to this debate, but it is not represented on the Front Bench opposite. I have made the point before, and I shall make it again, that decisions as to lard use, which are major decisions of public policy, will not be taken effectively while we have an administrative system in which responsibility for them is given to one Minister, and the reality of power and decision lies with another.
That is exemplified today on this issue by the fact that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, whom we are glad to see here, is to reply, while the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources has shown no interest in the matter. It was also shown during the early hours of yesterday morning when my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. William Yates) raised a very important point on the allocation and use of land between two forms of public authority, and was replied to by the Minister of State for Education and Science.
I must put on record that the Government are unduly handicapping themselves in dealing with this most serious problem of all in the planning sphere, the proper use of land, by the creation of this fifth wheel of the coach, the co-called Minister of Land and Natural Resources. I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will not worry about him, because, as we all know, the decision rests with the hon. Gentleman and with his right hon. Friend as they have the effective control. As this is an important issue, I hope that he will be able to answer the two questions that I put to
1958
him—the amount of guidance already given, and his right hon. Friend's intention to amplify, clarify and expand it.
3.30 p.m
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not think that the presence of my colleague from the Navy Department indicates that the Government are to build their new towns afloat in the future.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No one would ever suspect the hon. Gentleman of being at sea at the Box.
Mr. MacColl: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) for raising this matter, because it enables me to clear up some points of misunderstanding which have been behind a certain amount of his detailed criticisms of what has been happening in Ashford.
A problem of semantics is involved in this, because there are two methods of measuring densities in terms of persons per acre. The first one, which is the one normally used, is based on the number of people expected to occupy an area. That includes the fact that some houses are under-occupied, some have families without children, some have a large number of children, and so on, and, therefore, it is less than the absolute maximum number that the area can hold.
In the Bulletin produced by the last Government to deal particularly with questions of costing, and really only costing, a new phrase was introduced—bed spaces. The point is that if one is trying to measure the cost of constructing a house, the fact that it is not to be fully occupied does not affect the issue. To measure whether one has made the best use of the land, one needs to know the number of bed spaces available, and divide that into the acreage. Confusion has arisen from the fact that the figures quoted—quite rightly; I am not suggesting that there is anything wrong with them—of 77·8 and 80 were, in fact, bed spaces and not the ordinary occupancy figure of persons per acre that is used in normal planning.
Mr. Deedes: I am aware of this difference. Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that this new phrase about bed

1959
spaces adds enormously to the confusion of the argument? How can we make sense of the issue if we use two kinds of vocabulary?
Mr. MacColl: The right hon. Gentleman need not raise that point with me, because I have to try to understand these things within the Ministry and I find it extremely difficult to do so.
I am not trying to put this in the form of saying that this is something which the right hon. Gentleman should have understood, but there is a need to have two measures. They measure different things, and are used for different purposes. One is used for costing, and the other for measuring how many people are to be accommodated on a housing estate. One needs to use these two measures for different forms of control. I do not think that there need be any difficulty about that. The difficulty arises to some extent over the confusion between their use.
To illustrate the contrast between the persons per acre in, for example, the Bockhanger Estate at Ashford and the persons per acre being rehoused in new towns, the right hon. Gentleman referred to the pamphlet written by Dr. Best. I carried out a little research into the way in which Dr. Best had arrived at his figures. The 77·8 was clearly based on bed spaces per acre. That is common ground. But when I looked up his earlier work, "Land For New Towns" I found that it was quite clear from the conversion table in that book that he has used the figure of 3·2 persons per dwelling as a multiplier to convert dwellings per acre into persons per acre. It is, therefore, clear that in the two articles he has compared two quite different things.
If we want to see the difference we can take the case which has been referred to—the Basingstoke estate. In that case he quoted a figure of 55 persons. They were translated into bed spaces in order to arrive at the figure of 77·4. This is only slightly less than the figures at Bock-hanger, so that the difference is not very substantial. The figure which the Ashford authority has been using to calculate occupancy rather than the numbers to be provided, is 3·5, and if we multiply by 3·5 instead of by the higher number, 4·6—which refers to bed spaces—we get a substantial reduction in the density. We get a density which, although large, is not all
1960
that much larger than the figure quoted for the new towns.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that one of the difficulties was that with an expanding town like Ashford there are many masters. That is a feature of the Town Development Act. It is a partnership, and it is meant to be. It is easy to slip into saying, "Ah, well, the new towns were invented by the Socialists and the expanded towns were invented by the Tories. Therefore, you have to take one or the other". Both have their advantages. My right hon. Friend has been impressed by the contribution made by some of the successful expanded towns. They impose a strain on local authorities. It is more difficult to work by agreement and conciliation than simply by having a development corporation which lays down the rules.
From the point of view of administrative tidiness new town corporations are attractive, but my right hon. Friend thinks that in some cases, where town development has been worked imaginatively, it has a very important contribution to make. London County Council, which has done a great deal and which was a pioneer in this field, has been extremely successful in working with other towns. My answer is that we want both forms of development.
The right hon. Gentleman then quoted the figure of 100 persons per acre, when that figure referred to bed spaces—so it is not quite so large as it would appear. He was very shocked by this figure, and wondered by what means it had been arrived at. I should point out that this was never taken as more than a piece of advice thrown out in discussion. When Government representatives and representatives of local authorities discussed the matter round the table this suggestion was put forward as something that would lend itself to good administration. It is not something that was insisted upon in any way.
I should have thought that it was good democracy that there should be a discussion, and that if local authorities think that a suggestion is silly it should be dropped. But when a person wonders where a figure comes from, and how anybody ever thought in terms of it, it is necessary to draw the attention of the House to Planning Bulletin No. 2—"Residential Areas—Higher Densities"

1961
which was published when the right hon. Gentleman was in the Cabinet.
The argument of the Bulletin is that in certain areas which are called "pressure areas" it is necessary and desirable and may be absolutely mandatory—the right hon. Gentleman made this point better than I can—to be economical in the use of land because of the tremendous demand for it. It says:
"The main pressure areas are within the conurbations and in the areas surrounding the conurbations beyond the green belts."
That would define Ashford very well. Paragraph 15 says:
"Development or redevelopment of net densities much above 140 persons per acre, on the other hand, should seldom be necessary except in the most congested urban areas where existing densities are even higher … No one contends that family living at densities of over 100 persons per acre is ideal, but high density development meets the needs of the large number of families without small children"—
Mr. Deedes: Is that bed spaces, or on the old basis?
Mr. MacColl: It would be the old one. I do not think that even that great and powerful Administration of which the two right hon. Gentlemen were distinguished members had invented bed spaces at that time.
I want to quote the last sentence of the paragraph, which says:
"Some pockets of very high density will certainly be necessary, but even at 140 persons per acre it is possible by skilful planning to provide a proportion of two- and three-storey housing for families with children."
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Would the hon. Gentleman tell us the date of that Bulletin?
Mr. MacColl: It was published in 1962, as the right hon. Gentleman ought to know. He should know when his right hon. Friend was in the Cabinet.
That leaves the other point that I wanted to make, and what I want to emphasise is that it does not necessarily follow—and what has been said by the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) who has great experience in this field, confirms that—that you need to have discomfort, inconvenience and lack of amenities because you are making a thicker density development. It depends on the skill in design and layout and the contribution of the architect.
1962
It is important not to get a rigid dichotomy between the two.
If it appears that I have been poking fun at it, I want to make it clear that it was a very wise document. It drew the line very clearly half-way between the extreme views that had been put forward of having very high density on the one hand and having what used to be called "prairie planning" in the new towns. One does not want either. One wants something between the two. We have a challenge now in the South-East, which my right hon. Friend the First Secretary mentioned in his statement yesterday, with a vast number of people to be re-housed and with overspill coming from London. In that situation, we are under a social duty to make the best possible use of the investment and the services provided in the way of roads and communal amenities, as well as the houses.
I will finish by answering specifically the two questions put by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). The first one was, what measure of guidance is there? There are the Planning Bulletins, which are the general statement of policy. From time to time, they can be revised and brought up to date. They are simply for guidance; they are not laying down the law rigidly, but show the underlying philosophy behind our thinking on housing density.
Most local authorities, think that there already is far too much control through loan sanctions on what can be done. If we are to have good design we must give our architects more freedom. We cannot build up good communities if creative men are tied down by rigid rules, and I know that my right hon. Friend feels that very strongly. It is absolutely necessary to bring in the work of genius of young and creative architects who want to solve these problems and will rise to the challenge.
What we have to do—and this to some extent, answers the right hon. Gentleman's second question as to how the intentions are to be amplified—is to see that, without having too rigid control, public money, social capital, is used in the best and most effective way in accordance with the resources available in land as well as in other things.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Did the hon. Gentleman say, as I understood him to

1963
say, that the 1962 document from which he quoted is still regarded as being the proper guidance to give?
Mr. MacColl: The document was reprinted in 1963—which ties up the right hon. Gentleman effectively as to responsibility for it—but I would certainly say that the document is still in circulation and is accepted as planning policy. It is, of course, open to revision. This is not a dead field, but a dynamic field which all the time alters itself, and we intend to keep it up to date.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: So the Government are following the lines laid down by the Cabinet of which, as the hon. Gentleman says, I was a member.

BRITISH BASE, MALTA (FUTURE)
3.46 p.m.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I doubt whether many serious commentators on military affairs would care to argue the value of Malta as a base on strategic grounds. It is my guess that if our actions were determined by purely strategic considerations, we would get out of Malta fairly rapidly. But Britain has economic obligations to Malta and, as I understand it, the Government's view is that these economic obligations must be honoured whatever the difficulty of Britain's own financial position. Certainly, few hon. Members would want to be party to leaving Malta and its economy high and dry.
Yet, if it is true that we are in Malta for economic rather than for strategic reasons, is it not legitimate to ask how our earmarked resources should be used? The purpose of this Adjournment debate is to suggest that instead of superfluous naval and military installations, an equivalent level of financial resources should be spent on a British teacher-training college in Malta, a British school in Malta and a British hospital in Malta.
Before going further, I must make it clear that if it were a question of having a school in Malta or a new school in Glasgow, I would choose the new school in Glasgow as a priority; that if it were a question of having a teacher-training college in the South-East of England, or a teacher-training
1964
college in Malta, I would choose the college in the South-East of England and that if it were a question of having a convalescent hospital in the West Midlands for those who suffer from bronchial diseases or having a similar hospital in Malta, the priority would clearly be the convalescent hospital in the West Midlands.
No sane politician, in the fortnight after the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement, will advocate educational and health service frills of this kind in addition to what the national economy can bear, but we are not faced with an either-or situation like that. We are faced with another situation, and this is the anchor of my argument. Do we continue to use expenditure allocated to Malta for obsolete military purposes, or do we use for social purposes what we have to spend on Malta's economy? It strikes me that in the 1965 Malta situation we have a concrete opportunity to beat swords into ploughshares. Yet my efforts over the past months to get Government Departments to grasp this opportunity have not been happy.
Starting with a courteous interview with my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), I have been buffeted around the Ministry of Defence, the Commonwealth Relations Office, the Ministry of Overseas Development, the Scottish Office and the Department of Education and Science. I am not implying either or laziness, but it seems simply that Government Departments on this sort of issue where there unquestionably are inter-departmental boundaries have been like independent satrapies each operating in the absence of a total view of the conditions.
I give two examples to back up my charge. I went to the Department of Education and Science and the Minister told me that he had been advised by his chief inspector that if there was to be a school or teachers' training college abroad it should be in an "important" country like France or Germany. Yet the chief inspector clearly has no responsibility for the balance of payments. A training college on the Seine or the Rhine would be wonderful, but we do not have the unused accommodation in Paris or Coblenz, nor have we an obligation to help the economies of those cities as we have in Malta.

1965
My second example comes from the Ministry of Overseas Development. Officials there shake their heads and say, A factory for £1 million would create more employment in Malta than a teachers' training college." This may, or I suspect it may not, be marginally true, but can they be certain of getting £1 million for such a project in our present financial position and economic circumstances? The fact is that educational establishments of the kind I have indicated in detail in correspondence with Ministers would create at least as much work as the Admiralty ever did.
If the Minister has any concrete ideas as to what a Ministry of Overseas Development financed plant in Malta might make at an economic cost relative to the rest of the Mediterranean world we would be happy to hear about it. I hope that these two examples are sufficient to show that there is a case for the one decision I am asking for this afternoon. The one decision I am asking for this afternoon is the setting up of an interdepartmental committee under, I suggest, a chairman representing the Ministry of Overseas Development to look at the Malta position as a whole and an approach through what I would wish to call one satrapy or another of a Government Department is simply not sufficient.
I have been more limited for time than I suspected I should be, because of the 20 minute ceremony which has just taken place in the House of Lords. There have been two educational objections. One is on the ground of continuity of staff, which does not hold water. The other more serious one is on the ground that there would not be available teaching practice for those British teachers who, perhaps, would spend the second year of teaching training at a British teaching training college in Malta. The answer to that is quite simply that it is not necessary in all three years to have teaching practice, or to let British teacher-trainees practice in Malta schools. The argument for a school abroad has been outlined in great detail by Mr. William Monaghan, in his presidential address to the Educational Institute of Scotland. On the argument that there is not enough educational interest in Malta, I refer to the remarks of the ex-Chief Inspector of Schools of the L.C.C., Dr. Alec Hay.
1966
On the question of a hospital in Malta, one perhaps has to be a little more careful. Transport could be fairly cheaply provided by a number of shipping lines. I do not want to pick out one, but the costs of taking pupils in the now orthodox school ships is not very great. This is a practical and relevant idea of making swords into ploughshares. I ask the Government to be alert to every opportunity of using obsolete defence equipment for constructive social purposes.
Wing Commander Sir Eric Bullus: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, may I ask him whether he has any support from the islanders themselves for the schemes he has suggested?
Mr. Dalyell: Yes. I have been in fairly close touch with them. I have been there many times, when I was working on the Schoolship "Dunera", and I know the set-up on the ground.
3.55 p.m.
Mr. John Hay: I am sure that the whole House wall feel that the obvious sincerity with which the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) holds his views is a reason for our listening to him with great patience this afternoon. I must say that I was a little surprised, as I expect was the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy, that so much of this debate has turned, not upon the position of what is called on the Order Paper "the British base in Malta", but rather upon possible other developments in the social field. It is a pity, in some ways, that the hon. Gentleman did not first see exactly what it is that Britain has in Malta. The truth is that we no longer have a base in Malta.
Mr. Dalyell: I asked the Library for the exact current facilities. I was told that they were on the graded list.
Mr. Hay: I can only refer the hon. Gentleman to a number of documents which I propose to quote briefly in the course of the debate, beginning with the Statement on Defence, 1962, which set out the then Government's decisions about the base in Malta as it was then. I quote briefly from paragraph 16:
"Britain no longer has to discharge alone her obligations in the Mediterranean. Today, the maritime forces of the allied nations are sharing a N.A.T.O. responsibility there. So

1967
far as Britain is concerned, we also have a responsibility to contribute an air strike force in support of C.E.N.T.O. and, under our treaty, to help with the defence of Libya. We are adjusting our forces in the Mediterranean in recognition of the fact that our responsibilities there are shared with our allies; this process will continue. For the Royal Navy, the main base will be in Britain, but there will continue to be the need for forward operating facilities in Gibraltar and Malta. The Royal Air Force will continue to need airfield facilities at Gibraltar and Malta, and both places will continue to require small local garrisons."
Summing up the argument at the end of the paragraph appear these words:
"In short, while we shall continue to maintain naval or air facilities with some land forces in Gibraltar, Malta and Cyprus, in none of these places need we base continuously large land forces for operations elsewhere; if necessary, such forces would be provided from Britain."
I mention all that to set the stage for what I want now to say. It is vitally important to understand that the position of Malta has been, as it were, downgraded from the days of the great Mediterranean Fleet before the last war when Malta was a major British base. It is now an extension really of the facilities which we have here at home in all three arms.
The hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his speech, and later he repeated it, that there is no longer a strategic position for Britain to hold in the Mediterranean. With all respect to the hon. Gentleman, he should look at some of our obligations, particularly to Libya, which are referred to in that White Paper. I will not go into them all now, but we have certain obligations under the Anglo-Libyan Treaty of 1953. Everyone in this country knows that there have been enormously valuable finds of oil in Libya which might be under threat or attack at some future time.
It is, I believe, an important British interest that we ought to retain close to Libya the staging post, the springboard, whatever one likes to call it, to enable us to fulfil our obligations and protect our interests there. He would be a very bold man who would say with complete conviction that the base facilities that we have in Cyprus are likely to remain for the full length of the Agreement. I am very doubtful about it. If we lose Cyprus and if we have given up the facilities in Malta, as the hon. Member would like us to do,
1968
we have nothing between Aden and Gibraltar at the other end of the Mediterranean. That is a situation which I would not want to contemplate.
I mentioned the 1962 White Paper, but I assume that this position is still held by Her Majesty's present Government, because in paragraph 20 of this year's defence White Paper these words appear and I would urge the hon. Member, with respect, to listen to them:
"It would be politically irresponsible and economically wasteful if our bases were abandoned"—
I realise that Malta is not a base but, mutatis mutandis, the same argument applies—
"while they were still needed to promote peace in the areas concerned, though we recognise that they can be maintained only in agreement with the local governments and peoples. Our presence in these bases, our Commonwealth ties, and the mobility of our forces, permit us to make a contribution towards peace-keeping in vast areas"—

ROYAL ASSENT
4.1 p.m.
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners;
The House went:—and, having returned;
Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Appropriation Act 1965.

2. Severn Bridge Tolls Act 1965.

3. Finance Act 1965.

4. Criminal Justice Act 1965.

5. Lost Property (Scotland) Act 1965.

6. Justices of the Peace Act, 1965.

7. Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1965.

8. Highways (Amendment) Act 1965.

9. Solicitors Act 1965.

10. Administration of Estates (Small Payments) Act 1965.

11. Control of Office and Industrial Development Act 1965.

12. British Nationality Act 1965.

13. Shops (Early Closing Days) Act 1965.

14. Gas Act 1965.

15. Carriage of Goods by Road Act 1965.

16. Overseas Development and Service Act 1965.

17. Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1965.

18. Housing (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 1965.

1969

19. Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947 (Amendment) Act 1965.

20. Public Health (Notification of Births) Act 1965.

21. Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act 1965.

22. Firearms Act 1965.

23. Backing of Warrants (Republic of Ireland) Act 1965.

24. Highlands and Islands Development (Scotland) Act 1965.

25. Merchant Shipping Act 1965.

26. Trade Disputes Act 1965.

27. Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Scotland) Act 1965.

28. Monopolies and Mergers Act 1965.

29. National Insurance Act 1965.

30. National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act 1965.

31. Family Allowances Act 1965.

32. National Health Service Contributions Act 1965.

33. Statute Law Revision (Consequential Repeals) Act 1965.

34. Compulsory Purchase Act 1965.

35. Nuclear Installations Act 1965.

36. Ministerial Salaries Consolidation Act 1965.

37. New Towns Act 1965.

38. Gas (Borrowing Powers) Act 1965.

39. Judges' Remuneration Act 1965.

40. Redundancy Payments Act 1965.

41. Public Works Loans Act 1965.

42. Commons Registration Act 1965.

43. International Monetary Fund Act 1965.

44. Hire-Purchase Act 1965.

45. Hire-Purchase (Scotland) Act 1965.

46. Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1965.

47. Criminal Procedure (Attendance of Witnesses) Act 1965.

48. Coatbridge Burgh Extension Order Confirmation Act 1965.

49. Writers to the Signet Widows' Fund Order Confirmation Act 1965.

50. Royal Four Towns Fishing Order Confirmation Act 1965.

51. British Waterways Order Confirmation Act 1965.

52. Welsh Office Provisional Order Confirmation (Llanelly) Act 1965.

1970

53. Ministry of Housing and Local Government Provisional Order Confirmation (Melton Mowbray) Act 1965.

54. Ministry of Housing and Local Government Provisional Order Confirmation (Newton-le-Willows) Act 1965.

55. Ministry of Housing and Local Government Provisional Order Confirmation (Rotherham) Act 1965.

56. University of Leeds Act 1965.

57. Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1965.

58. British Railways Act 1965.

59. Birmingham Corporation Act 1965.

60. British Waterways Act 1965.

61. Gulf Oil Refining Act 1965.

62. Greater London Council (Money) Act 1965.

63. Aberdare Markets and Town Hall Act 1965.

64. Flintshire County Council (Higher Ferry Saltney Footbridge) Act 1965.

65. Crude Oil Terminals (Humber) Act 1965.

66. Devon County Council Act 1965.

67. Poole Corporation Act 1965.

68. Saint Laurence, Catford Act 1965.

69. Huddersfield Corporation Act 1965.

70. Rochester Bridge Act 1965.

71. Brighton Skydeck Act 1965.

72. Conway Corporation Act 1965.

73. Pembrokeshire County Council Act 1965.

74. Rochdale Canal Act 1965.

75. Birkenhead Corporation (Mersey Tunnel Approaches) Act 1965.

76. City of London (Various Powers) Act 1965.

77. Mersey Tunnel (Liverpool/Wallasey) &c. Act 1965.

78. London Transport Act 1965.

79. Manchester Corporation Act 1965.

And to the following Measure, passed under the provisions of the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act. 1919:
Prayer Book (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure, 1965.

BRITISH BASE, MALTA (FUTURE)
Question again proposed, That this House do now adjourn.
4.25 p.m.
Mr. Hay: Before the House went to another place, I was reminding it that in the Defence White Paper clear acknowledgment was given of our obligations and the need for the maintenance of bases and other military facilities to permit us to carry those obligations into effect if required.
That is the answer to the hon. Member for West Lothian as to the continued need for these facilities in Malta. Of course, I realise, as the House does, that his main interest has been to ensure that what he called "social development" in Malta should be extended and expanded. That is something with which I think all of us, in all quarters of the House, would agree. I would remind the hon. Gentleman—and, in view of the loss of time in this debate, I will not seek to quote from the various documents—of the various agreements entered into between the then Government and the Government of Malta in July of last year, when independence was obtained.
There is a financial agreement which obliged Britain to contribute something like £50 million over 10 years. Article 3 of that agreement specifically referred to a development plan. If one looks at the headings in the development plan, one sees references to higher and technical education, and to various other aspects of the sort of thing which the hon. Gentleman has in mind.
We must not lose sight of the other obligation we have to Malta, under the agreement, of mutual defence and assistance. This agreement was made at the same time as the other documents relating to independence. There is a clear obligation placed upon us, and it is one which I would suggest the Government should consider very carefully, because it is something which I do not believe that the people of this country would want lightly thrown aside, leaving apart altogether the possible dangers there may be in the Mediterranean, dangers which I have already outlined in relation to Libya and so on.
1972
We are discussing Malta in the defence context, and I should like to ask the Under-Secretary to acknowledge that there is a considerable degree of feeling in Malta, and among a lot of people in this country who know something about it, about the position of what is called the Royal Malta Artillery. This is a regiment of considerable age, which has rendered valiant service in two world wars. I am told that there has been, over the last nine months, a complete ban on recruiting to the Royal Malta Artillery. It is a unit of the British Army, and although the Under-Secretary has responsibility principally for the Royal Navy I hope that he will tell the Secretary of State that we on this side feel somewhat anxious about the situation. There seems to be no good reason for this ban on recruiting and no good reason which it should continue. I hope that it will be taken off as soon as possible.
4.28 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu): I am not quite certain to which of the three debates we have just had I should be replying. I think that perhaps I had better not mention anything that has taken place in your absence, Mr. Speaker, but deal solely with the two rather separate aspects of this issue which have been brought to the notice of the House today.
First, strictly on defence matters, I will deal with the Royal Malta Artillery. There is a section of the Royal Malta Artillery carrying out a transport rôle for B.A.O.R. In recent months there has been some doubt whether that rôle should continue to be played. I understand that this is the main reason why, for the time being at any rate, there has been a halt in enlistment. So far as I know, there is still a future, at any rate on a smaller scale, for that magnificent body of men who have done great service in times gone by.
It is quite true, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has said, that there has been some rundown in the use of Malta, particularly as a naval base. As the hon. Gentleman for Henley (Mr. Hay) pointed out, in the 1962 White Paper, Malta was declared to be no longer a base, but a position

1973
for forward operating facilities. That has meant a rundown in terms of the Navy. During the last three years the numbers of members of the Royal Navy and civilians working for it has gone down from 10,000 to 5,000. So far as we can foresee, by 1967 the figures will have been reduced to about 3,500, and they will be maintained at that level.
While the Navy has been running down there, the Army and the Royal Air Force have not. In the view of the Ministry of Defence, there is still a need to maintain considerable Air Force and Army facilities there. Therefore, I should not like my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian to assume that money is being spent on things which are obsolete in Service terms. This is not so. He said—and I am sure that the House agrees with this—that we in this country have a social obligation to Malta.
As the hon. Member for Henley mentioned, we have recognised that already. Between 1959 and 1964 this country made about £29½ million available for development in Malta. This has been put, not into obsolete things, but into new industries which have produced work for Maltese. About 2,500 Maltese are now employed in these new industries. During the next 10 years the figure will be increased to £50 million. We hope that that will provide employment for at least double the number already employed—
Mr. Hay: I want to get this clear because, with respect, I think that what the hon. Gentleman has said is inaccurate. I understood that under the independence agreements of last year £50 million, spread over the subsequent 10 years until 1974, was allocated or earmarked. The hon. Gentleman is now speaking of a further £50 million for the next 10 years.
Mr. Mallalieu: No.
Mr. Hay: Is this an announcement of a change of policy?
Mr. Mallalieu: No. I am stating the position as it is now.
The sum of £29½ million was spent in the period 1959–64. From 1965 to 1974 there will be a further £50 million. There is no new announcement. I am just reminding my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian that a great deal is
1974
being done to assist in social matters and in developing the economy in Malta. Probably that is the best help that we can give. The tourist trade in Malta—that lovely island—has enormous possibilities if we can help in building up the hotels and other services. The future of the light industries in Malta is also good.
But that should not necessarily preclude doing the sort of thing which my hon. Friend suggested about schools. There is, however, a Service difficulty here. As I understand him, if the Navy gets out of an establishment, he wants the establishment to be turned into a school. We cannot do that off our own bat because, under the independence agreement, whenever the Services give up an establishment—either buildings or land—they are compelled to hand it back to the Government of Malta. Such establishments as we have vacated are already in the possession of the Government of Malta and are under their control. Therefore, if we were to want to do what my hon. Friend has suggested, it would be necessary to get the co-operation and agreement of the Government of Malta. I do not say that this would be a great difficulty, but it is a limiting factor on what we can do independently.
As my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian said, he has had a good deal of correspondence with my hon. and right hon. Friends in the Department of Education and Science and elsewhere. He will know that the Department of Education and Science finds itself in some difficulty about agreeing to the ideas which he has put forward, especially about the school for British children. He has put forward something which is new to me—the idea of a teacher-training college there. I can say honestly that we in the Ministry of Defence should welcome it, for a number of reasons. We are most anxious to get Maltese recruits into the Royal Navy. Unhappily, we have had to fail a good many of them on the educational test. Anything which would improve the supply of teachers in Malta, and hence improve the standard of education there, would be certain of getting our best support.
I notice that my hon. Friend is showing the impatience of an enthusiast—and I do not blame him—at the delays which he finds in Government Departments in

1975
at once leaping to his suggestions. I do not think that he is being altogether fair. This is not a new idea. He has pioneered similar ideas on many occasions and has put something like these ideas into practice with enormous success, but they involve a good deal of money and a question of priorities, as he admits. It seems to me perfectly reasonable for the Departments concerned to look at my hon. Friend's ideas and, if it seems to them all that there is a reasonable chance of this being a viable proposition, then to get together by forming an interdepartmental committee, for which my hon. Friend is calling today.
I have the authority of my colleagues for saying that I do not want my hon. Friend to think that he is merely being fobbed off. This looks at first sight a very good idea. There are difficulties about it. We want to find out what the real difficulties are and how they can be overcome. We shall examine the idea with good will, and the points made by my hon. Friend during his speech will be noted by the Ministers concerned.

FOOTWEAR INDUSTRY (EXPORTS)
4.36 p.m.
Sir Geoffrey de Freitas: I am grateful to hon. Members, in all parts of the House, for making their speeches much shorter than they intended so that I should have this last Adjournment debate. We started off this morning with the difficulty of a great number of statements from the Front Bench and then we lost 23 minutes on a Royal Commission. I am all in favour of ritual and ceremony, such as when we have to attend the opening of Parliament and go to the House of Lords, but I regarded that lost 23 minutes as a reflection on us, as it is simply inefficient.
The British footwear industry is an important industry. It produces 200 million pairs of shoes a year and it is the biggest boot and shoe industry in Europe. It employs about 115,000 workers, more than half of whom are in the East Midlands, where the industry has been established for a long time.
We in this country are great buyers of boots and shoes. The average man or woman buys 4·3 pairs a year. Britain is
1976
the second highest consumer in the world, the United States being the first. It is reckoned that about half the shoes bought by women are bought because of changes of fashion and not for reasons of replacement. However, it is not about consumption but about exhort and the industry that I wish to speak this afternoon.
Our industry is built on a firm base. There is a very good and enterprising combined association and employers' organisation and there is an excellent trade union. This has brought about remarkably good relations in the industry. Except for the General Strike, there has not been a large scale stoppage in the industry since 1895.
We also have the world's leading research establishment, the Shoes and Allied Trades Research Association. It is established in the heart of the footwear industry in my constituency in Kettering. Last month, Her Majesty the Queen visited the establishment and, I understand, was most interested in what she saw. Certainly, the work of this Association, which includes laboratory research and consulting services on practical problems, as well as being an arbiter on complaints by the general public against the industry, is recognised all over the world. When I visited the establishment I was fascinated to see the trials. Because of the achievement of this research organisation and of the go-ahead nature of the industry, a fact which I cannot over-emphasise, we have taken the lead in many techniques of manufacture. The industry is a credit to this country. The industry has a good record for exports, especially on the leader side as opposed to the rubber side. This half year exports are 19 per cent. up in value on those of last year and they will probably amount to more than £15 million by the end of the year.
Our exports go to three different places in quantities of roughly equal value, one-third to Europe, one-third to North America, and one-third to the rest of the world, including the Commonwealth. When we ask the industry, "Where are you likely to extend your exports most?" the answer is, Europe. The industry's journal for May said this:
"Europe is our best potential area for expansion, and advantage has been taken of the reducing E.F.T.A. tariff. Although the E.E.C. external tariff on footwear is higher

1977
than ours, some inroads have been made there, but until Britain enters the Common Market progress will be limited."
As to the other part of Europe—Eastern Europe and the U.S.S.R.—the industry recognises that there are great possibilities, but of course the quota system of trade makes it almost impossible to forecast what is likely to happen.
What can the Government do to help? The first point is, of course, through our Ministries. The basis of everything is that it is the duty of the Board of Trade at home and the Diplomatic Service abroad to foster our export trade. I know from what I have seen in missions abroad that trade promotion is interesting, and even those who join a mission and who are not interested in trade, when they get there, and if they get the right leadership, become very interested in it. I want my hon. Friend the Minister of State—I am most grateful to him for coming here this afternoon—to urge his hon. and right hon. Friends when they visit foreign countries and travel abroad—and I hope, indeed, that Members of Parliament will do so also—to make a point of visiting the commercial sections of our high commissions and embassies to show how important they regard it, and to emphasise to the British business communities the fact that they exist.
Secondly, I ask him, when the Government are making trade agreements, not to regard this industry as something which is expendable in negotiation in order to gain some advantage in the export of capital goods. I take three illustrations from three countries. I understand that trade negotiations are going on with the Irish Republic. We must not accept the severe quota restriction we have on our exports to Ireland, of only 165,000 pairs a year. I know it is more than the 1966 quota which is only 20,000. It was stated in a very curious way as 40,000 pieces.
I suppose we must accept the fact that logically footwear for two one-legged men counts as much as footwear for one ordinary mart. However, the fact is that the quota is ridiculously small and we should not take it. Then, Japan. The Foreign Secretary is going to Japan in the autumn, I believe. We must not accept their present total quota of a few thousand pounds worth of footwear imports for
1978
the whole world. That is how Japan shuts out our exports. In Canada there is an enormous tariff, higher than the United States', and in our discussions with Canada we must remedy that.
Thirdly, in the Kennedy Round there are rumours that some of the countries at Geneva have asked all footwear to be excluded. I hope that we can have an assurance that we will not give in to that.
Fourthly, I wish that the Government could find some way of financing consignment stocks. E.C.G.D. cover for capital goods is admirable. It was good, and it has been improved, and I am grateful for that, but it should also cover consignment stocks up to £50,000 worth of stock. One cannot expect the average exporter from this country to be able to carry that in the United States, for example, without long-term low interest assistance.
Fifthly, there is the problem of the working of the docks. I shall not stress this because I know that the Government are well aware of the shortcomings in the docks, but the position must be improved. It is not only good in itself that it should be improved, but it will also prevent the inefficient exporter from blaming his inefficiency in shipping on the chaos in the docks. It will be good in itself, and it will also get rid of the excuse for inefficiency. It is a great industry and in exports it is a tremendous help to us.
Mr. Speaker, raising as I do the last Adjournment, I hope that you will have, as I hope I shall have, a pleasant Recess.
4.46 p.m.
Mr. Peter Emery: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas) on speaking about this industry in the able and sensible way that he has done.
I have one question to pose, which, I think, underlines what the right hon. Gentleman said. The industry believes that its greatest export expansion potential lies within Europe. Many of us who are associated with Europe know that in the negotiations for trade between E.F.T.A. and the E.E.C., many of our friends in E.F.T.A. expect us to take a lead. We are, after all, the largest partner in E.F.T.A. I hope, therefore, that in respect not only of footwear, but of other items, the Government will make

1979
every effort, in individual agreements with the E.E.C., to try to ensure that E.F.T.A. trade within the E.E.C. is expanded. I believe that footwear is an excellent example of the need for greater co-operation between the two trading areas.
4.47 p.m.
The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Edward Redhead): It is appropriate that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas) should have chosen this very important topic for this last Adjournment debate before we depart for the Summer Recess, because his constituency is one of the principal footwear centres.
I should like to express my appreciation of the very constructive way in which my right hon. Friend has approached this matter, and also my appreciation of the fact that he has had but a limited time in which to deploy the various points to which he alluded. He will, likewise, appreciate that my reply will have to be somewhat abbreviated, but if it is I hope he will not think that I am treating the points that he has made with anything less than the full consideration which they justifiably deserve.
I join my right hon. Friend in acknowledging the tremendous importance of the footwear industry to the country's economy, and the value of the quite significant contribution which it makes to our export earnings. I also join him in paying tribute to the industry for the undoubtedly remarkable technological advances which have taken place in recent years, which speak very highly for the progressive and forward-looking character of those who are engaged in it, on both sides.
In particular, I join my right hon. Friend in paying tribute to the good labour relations which exist within the industry. They are a credit to the manufacturers both management and workers. I also pay tribute to the part that is played by the trade and research establishments of the industry, to which my right hon. Friend rightly drew attention.
It is a matter of pride that the British footwear industry is among the most up-to-date in the world. This position has been created by modernising plant and equipment, a readiness to experiment and to introduce new techniques—setting
1980
an example which could well be followed by many other industries with the same commendable zeal. If this were to be followed it would, considerably ease many of our current economic problems.
Here it has been the means whereby production has risen despite a diminishing labour force. As my right hon. Friend said, in 1964 production reached the prodigious figure of 202 million pairs. My right hon. Friend spoke particularly about the contribution of the industry to exports. He rightly said that there has been a significant improvement in recent years—over £;14 million worth of exports of footwear in 1964 compared with £12·7 million in 1963. I am happy to say that all the indications are that exports are still rising.
But it is never my purpose, with the responsibilities that I hold today, to encourage anybody to believe that he can look with complacency upon his existing performance. I am sure that those in the footwear industry are not complacent, because these exports, after all, represent only a little more than 6 per cent. of the total production of the industry, and could be considerably improved. What has been achieved is the contribution of a comparatively few firms. I understand that one group in the industry, representative of only 18 per cent. of total production, was responsible for 52 per cent. of our 1964 footwear exports. If this example could be widely emulated we might soon see a welcome return to the position that obtained before 1960, when we were net exporters instead of net importers of footwear.
Early this year additional Government finance was made available for the encouragement of exports, in a number of ways which were announced by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. I am glad to acknowledge that the British Footwear Manufacturers' Federation has been quick to take advantage of these new facilities, and, in particular, has taken advantage of the financial assistance which has made possible the market surveys undertaken by the Federation's overseas manager.
Financial assistance is also currently being arranged for inward missions and for participation in overseas shoe trade fairs. I am glad to note and acknowledge the contribution which the industry hopes

1981
to make in the way of exhibitions to be held in the near future in Gothenberg, Dusseldorf and Chicago. I hope that the industry will respond to the progressive lead which has been given by the Federation in this connection.
The difficulties that exist in connection with exports are admitted. I acknowledge that the barriers which have been erected—tariff barriers and others—are formidable. I also acknowledge that to the extent that the Government can assist the industry to overcome some of those difficulties it is their duty to do so. Nevertheless, I am certain that the industry can and will regard these obstacles as a challenge rather than as a deterrent.
My right hon. Friend has referred to some of the assistance that is available, and to the fact that the industry has been glad to avail itself of it. He has drawn attention to a number of factors which affect the performance of the footwear industry. He touched upon the question of the Common Market. The industry acknowledges that it is to Europe that it must look for the most significant potentialities for increasing its exports. I also note the point made on this by the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Peter Emery).
Hon. Members will not expect me to dilate upon the question of this country's position in relation to the Common Market. The Government's point of view has repeatedly been made clear. Indeed, it was made clear by the Prime Minister only yesterday, when speaking from this Dispatch Box. It is only necessary for me to say that it remains our objective to see established in Europe a wider market embracing the United Kingdom, the countries of the Community, the members of E.F.T.A. and other European countries. I am glad to feel that the industry has been able to take advantage of the facilities that are available through E.F.T.A.
My hon. Friend also referred to the need to consider the possibilities of exports to Eastern Europe and to urge other Ministers to lose no opportunity in trade discussions of pressing for more generous admission of British footwear. That, let me assure him, is not absent from our minds. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be gratified to know that I recently visited Poland and made a particular point of the possibilities of our own footwear industry to supply some of
1982
Poland's needs. I have heard since my return of an order that has been placed for British footwear, the quantity of which I do not know, and I was encouraged to know that the Polish authorities have been persuaded to look in our direction for the possibilities of expansion.
My hon. Friend urges me to make a point of seeing the commercial sections of our posts when visiting countries overseas. Let me assure him that in all the visits I have made in the prosecution of my tasks I have made a particular point on every occasion of seeing them.
Sir G. de Freitas: I appreciate that my hon. Friend does that. My point is that he will ask his colleagues not connected with the Board of Trade at all to do the same thing.
Mr. Redhead: In that connection, may I say that I have had the advantage of special conferences with all other Departments that have any connection with trade at all outside the Board of Trade, and that is one of the points that I have stressed with my Ministerial colleagues.
Sir G. de Freitas: Even those who have nothing to do with trade?
Mr. Redhead: Yes, even if they have nothing to do with trade.
I cannot comment on the subject of Irish quotas, but I would ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind that the situation is very much in our minds at the moment. He will appreciate that there are currently negotiations with the Irish Republic and, on my hon. Friend's point in that regard as it affects footwear, I can assure him that that is one of the points which are going to be pursued in the course of those discussions.
He touched also upon the Kennedy Round and urged that we should do whatever we can to rebut the attempt on the part of some participants, as he alleges is the case, to exempt or except footwear from the operation of any tariff reductions that may be negotiated under the Kennedy Round. He will appreciate, first, that we have no control of the exceptions lists put forward by other participating countries, but it will be borne in mind that every one of those lists of the main countries has to be justified in those discussions on grounds of overriding national interest. I can only ask

1983
my hon. Friend to accept that his point will be borne in mind in the examinations of such exceptions lists which are now going on.
He made reference to the E.C.G.D. cover for consignment stocks. In answer to a Question from the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) on the 8th July, I explained that it is not possible to extend bank guarantees to cover the financing of consignment stocks abroad. Bank guarantees were designed to facilitate the provision of finance where a contract of sale has already been entered into. It does not apply to goods held on consignment. I hope that the industry will still look to E.C.G.D. for facilities and for the very much wider facilities that have recently been provided, and that they will avail themselves to the fullest extent of the facilities that are there to assist them in expanding the export trade.
I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I cannot in the time cover all the points to which he made reference, but they will all be studied with great care and consideration. I would not, for example, wish to dilate on the subject
1984
of dock delays, except to say that we accept that they are a very serious problem.
In view of the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour earlier, my hon. Friend will appreciate that the Government are now possessed of the very important and far-reaching Devlin Report, and he will be also aware that a "little Neddy" has been set up to consider the whole process of transport from factory to ship. These are very, very important studies warranting the fullest and most careful consideration which, accordingly, the Government will give to them. In so far as the footwear industry is involved, I hope that my hon. Friend will feel a sense of satisfaction that that serious consideration is to be given.
I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution, and I assure him that his point of view and his observations will be borne very much in mind.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Five o'clock, till Tuesday, 26th October, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of 3rd August.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Ex-Service Men (Teacher Training)
  Ex-Service Men (Teacher Training)
  Technical Colleges (Refresher Courses in General Education)
  Technical Colleges (Refresher Courses in General Education)
  British Academy (Research Awards)
  British Academy (Research Awards)
  Research Councils (Expenditure)
  Research Councils (Expenditure)
  Divinity Students (Assistance)
  Divinity Students (Assistance)
  Chromosomal Abnormalities (Benzene)
  Chromosomal Abnormalities (Benzene)
  University Students (Wales)
  University Students (Wales)
  Teachers (Remuneration and Pensions)
  Teachers (Remuneration and Pensions)
  Independent Schools (Buildings)
  Independent Schools (Buildings)
  Direct Grant Schools
  Direct Grant Schools
  Commonwealth Immigrants (Employment as Teachers)
  Commonwealth Immigrants (Employment as Teachers)
  Day Release Facilities (Nottinghamshire)
  Day Release Facilities (Nottinghamshire)
  Building Projects (Blackpool and Fylde)
  Building Projects (Blackpool and Fylde)
  New Primary School, Thetford
  New Primary School, Thetford
  Birmingham School of Architecture
  Birmingham School of Architecture
  Building Projects (North-East Essex)
  Building Projects (North-East Essex)
  University of Stirling
  University of Stirling
  Aberdeen University
  Aberdeen University
  National Film School (Committee)
  National Film School (Committee)
  Swimming Contests, Cardiff (Television)
  Swimming Contests, Cardiff (Television)
  Sports Clubs (Building and Capital Grants)
  Sports Clubs (Building and Capital Grants)
  Social Science Research Council
  Social Science Research Council
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Functions of Traffic Wardens Order
  Functions of Traffic Wardens Order
  Therapeutic Substances (Animals)
  Therapeutic Substances (Animals)
  Immigrants (Knowledge of English)
  Immigrants (Knowledge of English)
  Crime Prevention (Police)
  Crime Prevention (Police)
  Christopher Harold Williams
  Christopher Harold Williams
  Jury Service (Committee's Report)
  Jury Service (Committee's Report)
  Road Traffic Law (Law Society's Memorandum)
  Road Traffic Law (Law Society's Memorandum)
  Nuclear Attack
  Nuclear Attack
  Riding Establishments
  Riding Establishments
  50 m.p.h. Speed Limit
  50 m.p.h. Speed Limit
  Synagogues and Jewish Buildings (Arson)
  Synagogues and Jewish Buildings (Arson)
  Sir Roger Casement (Diaries and Papers)
  Sir Roger Casement (Diaries and Papers)
  Mental Patients (Detention by Police)
  Mental Patients (Detention by Police)
  Firearms and Ammunition (Surrender)
  Firearms and Ammunition (Surrender)
  Court of Criminal Appeal (Committee's Report)
  Court of Criminal Appeal (Committee's Report)
  Police (University Graduates)
  Police (University Graduates)
  Police Recruits (G.C.E. "A" Level Qualifications)
  Police Recruits (G.C.E. "A" Level Qualifications)
  Ingleby Committee's Report (Implementation)
  Ingleby Committee's Report (Implementation)
  Juvenile Delinquency
  Juvenile Delinquency
  Local Authority Welfare Services
  Local Authority Welfare Services
  Legal Aid (Cost)
  Legal Aid (Cost)
  Immigrants (Refusal of Entry)
  Immigrants (Refusal of Entry)
FIJI
  Constitutional Conference
  Constitutional Conference
SOUTH ARABIA AND EAST ADEN
  State Representatives (London Visit)
  State Representatives (London Visit)
FALKLAND ISLANDS
  Development
  Development
  Service Personnel (Taxation)
  Service Personnel (Taxation)
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  Fountain Pen Covers (Prices)
  Fountain Pen Covers (Prices)
  Prices and Incomes Policy
  Prices and Incomes Policy
  South-East Study (Sheppey)
  South-East Study (Sheppey)
BOARD OF TRADE
  Land, Wrexham (Disposal)
  Land, Wrexham (Disposal)
  Pre-Packed Potatoes
  Pre-Packed Potatoes
  Shipping Freight Rates
  Shipping Freight Rates
  Industrial Development, Wales
  Industrial Development, Wales
  Travel and Holiday Clubs Limited
  Travel and Holiday Clubs Limited
  Travel Agencies
  Travel Agencies
  Patent Office
  Patent Office
  Scotland-Ireland Steamer Service
  Scotland-Ireland Steamer Service
  Company Accounts (Disclosure of Information)
  Company Accounts (Disclosure of Information)
POST OFFICE
  Division Bells (Private Accommodation)
  Division Bells (Private Accommodation)
  Exhibition of Paintings
  Exhibition of Paintings
  Fellowship of Minuscule Design
  Fellowship of Minuscule Design
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Applications (Brighton)
  Applications (Brighton)
  Dialling Codes
  Dialling Codes
  London Railway Termini (Public Telephones)
  London Railway Termini (Public Telephones)
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Reception (Ayr)
  Reception (Ayr)
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
  Unofficial Strikes
  Unofficial Strikes
  Industrial Disputes (Withdrawal of Labour)
  Industrial Disputes (Withdrawal of Labour)
  Training Centres
  Training Centres
  Unemployment, Scotland
  Unemployment, Scotland
  Family Earnings
  Family Earnings
  Professional, Clerical and Manual Workers
  Professional, Clerical and Manual Workers
  Commonwealth Immigrants (White Paper)
  Commonwealth Immigrants (White Paper)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Government Work (Merseyside)
  Government Work (Merseyside)
  Investment Allowances
  Investment Allowances
  Customs Duties (Xmas Gifts)
  Customs Duties (Xmas Gifts)
  Housing, Schools and Hospitals
  Housing, Schools and Hospitals
  Export Goods (Sale)
  Export Goods (Sale)
  Stamp Duty
  Stamp Duty
  Civil Service (Applicants)
  Civil Service (Applicants)
  Revenue
  Revenue
  Balance of Payments
  Balance of Payments
ROADS
  Construction (Administrative Procedure)
  Construction (Administrative Procedure)
  Improvement Grants (The Wrekin)
  Improvement Grants (The Wrekin)
  Improvement Schemes (Lancashire)
  Improvement Schemes (Lancashire)
  Road Junction, Rugeley (Pedestrian Crossing)
  Road Junction, Rugeley (Pedestrian Crossing)
  Road Developments (Buchanan Report)
  Road Developments (Buchanan Report)
  North Circular Road (Drainage)
  North Circular Road (Drainage)
  Overhead Road, Birmingham
  Overhead Road, Birmingham
  Road Programme
  Road Programme
  M.2 and A.20(M) (Accidents)
  M.2 and A.20(M) (Accidents)
  Western By-pass, Kendal
  Western By-pass, Kendal
  Traffic Flow, Puddletown
  Traffic Flow, Puddletown
  Motorway Construction
  Motorway Construction
  Speed Limit Signs (Siting)
  Speed Limit Signs (Siting)
  M.1 Catering Establishments (Prices)
  M.1 Catering Establishments (Prices)
RAILWAYS
  Non-co-operation (Southern Region)
  Non-co-operation (Southern Region)
  Isle of Wight
  Isle of Wight
TRANSPORT
  Bus Services, Scotland
  Bus Services, Scotland
  B.R.S. (Meat Haulage) Ltd.
  B.R.S. (Meat Haulage) Ltd.
SCOTLAND
  Cheese
  Cheese
  Medical Screening, Glasgow
  Medical Screening, Glasgow
  Ayr Bypass
  Ayr Bypass
  Hospitals, Ayrshire
  Hospitals, Ayrshire
  School Building Programme
  School Building Programme
  Technical Colleges (Capital Projects)
  Technical Colleges (Capital Projects)
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
  Highlands and Islands Development Board (Chairman)
  Highlands and Islands Development Board (Chairman)
  Road Programme, Angus
  Road Programme, Angus
  Surgical Services, Angus (Reorganisation)
  Surgical Services, Angus (Reorganisation)
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Fire Losses
  Fire Losses
  Control of Private Construction (Scotland)
  Control of Private Construction (Scotland)
  Construction Industry (Metric System)
  Construction Industry (Metric System)
  House of Commons (Medical Facilities)
  House of Commons (Medical Facilities)
  Cement Supplies (Scotland)
  Cement Supplies (Scotland)
  Patent Office
  Patent Office
  Royal Palaces
  Royal Palaces
  House of Commons Terrace (Photographs)
  House of Commons Terrace (Photographs)
  Historic Buildings (Admission Charges)
  Historic Buildings (Admission Charges)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Territorial Reserve (Regular Officers and Other Ranks)
  Territorial Reserve (Regular Officers and Other Ranks)
  Reserve Army (Rôle)
  Reserve Army (Rôle)
  Officers (Recruitment)
  Officers (Recruitment)
  Dockyard Workers (Pay)
  Dockyard Workers (Pay)
  Territorial Army (Civilian Employees)
  Territorial Army (Civilian Employees)
  Underwater Research Vehicles
  Underwater Research Vehicles
  Reserve Army (Civilian Employees)
  Reserve Army (Civilian Employees)
  Women's Royal Army Corps
  Women's Royal Army Corps
  Armed Forces (Recruiting)
  Armed Forces (Recruiting)
  Armed Forces (Numbers)
  Armed Forces (Numbers)
  Aden Base
  Aden Base
  Overseas Bases (Annual Cost)
  Overseas Bases (Annual Cost)
  Forces, Persian Gulf Area (Cost)
  Forces, Persian Gulf Area (Cost)
  Forces, Aden and Libya (Cost)
  Forces, Aden and Libya (Cost)
  Aircraft Carrier Programme
  Aircraft Carrier Programme
  Other Ranks, Aden (Quarters)
  Other Ranks, Aden (Quarters)
  B.A.O.R. (Civilians)
  B.A.O.R. (Civilians)
  R.A.F. Staging Post, Can (Cost)
  R.A.F. Staging Post, Can (Cost)
  B.A.O.R.
  B.A.O.R.
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Crude Oil Imports (Prices)
  Crude Oil Imports (Prices)
  Advanced Gas-Cooled Nuclear Power Stations
  Advanced Gas-Cooled Nuclear Power Stations
  Energy Advisory Council Meetings (Attendances)
  Energy Advisory Council Meetings (Attendances)
  RATE INCREASES (LETTERS)
  RATE INCREASES (LETTERS)
  POLARIS MISSILE
  POLARIS MISSILE
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (SPEECH)
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (SPEECH)
  MINISTER OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SPEECH)
  MINISTER OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SPEECH)
  UNITED NATIONS DAY (FLAG)
  UNITED NATIONS DAY (FLAG)
  STEEL (NATIONALISATION)
  STEEL (NATIONALISATION)
  MINISTERS (LETTERS TO THE PRESS)
  MINISTERS (LETTERS TO THE PRESS)
  GENERAL DENTAL PRACTITIONERS (REMUNERATION)
  GENERAL DENTAL PRACTITIONERS (REMUNERATION)
  UNIVERSITIES (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)
  UNIVERSITIES (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)
  COUNCIL OF EUROPE (DELEGATION)
  COUNCIL OF EUROPE (DELEGATION)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Bulls (Licensing Procedure)
  Bulls (Licensing Procedure)
  Irish Milk
  Irish Milk
  Agriculture and Horticulture Act (Grants)
  Agriculture and Horticulture Act (Grants)
  Apple and Pear Development Council
  Apple and Pear Development Council
  Farm Business Recording Scheme
  Farm Business Recording Scheme
  STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATE, (MANCHESTER)
  STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATE, (MANCHESTER)
MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  Concord Project
  Concord Project
  United States Aircraft (Sub-contracts)
  United States Aircraft (Sub-contracts)
  London-Overseas Routes (Passenger Survey)
  London-Overseas Routes (Passenger Survey)
  Speke Airport Accident (Report)
  Speke Airport Accident (Report)
  Airports (Car Parking Charges)
  Airports (Car Parking Charges)
GHANA
  Former Residents (Repatriation of Capital)
  Former Residents (Repatriation of Capital)
DUCHY OF LANCASTER
  Social Services (Review)
  Social Services (Review)
  DIPLOMATIC SERVICE (VACANCIES)
  DIPLOMATIC SERVICE (VACANCIES)
  BRITISH VISITORS' PASSPORTS
  BRITISH VISITORS' PASSPORTS
  BRITISH AND YUGOSLAV TRAVELLERS (VISAS)
  BRITISH AND YUGOSLAV TRAVELLERS (VISAS)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Cervical Cancer Tests (Cost)
  Cervical Cancer Tests (Cost)
  Whooping Cough Vaccines
  Whooping Cough Vaccines
  Medic-Alert Foundation
  Medic-Alert Foundation
  Preventive Medicine
  Preventive Medicine
  Old People's Homes
  Old People's Homes
  Commonwealth Immigrants (Medical Tests)
  Commonwealth Immigrants (Medical Tests)
  Infertility Treatment (Hormones)
  Infertility Treatment (Hormones)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Knockholt
  Knockholt
  Life-Saving Apparatus
  Life-Saving Apparatus
  Regular Servicemen (Houses)
  Regular Servicemen (Houses)
  London Overspill
  London Overspill
  County Planning Committees (Teachers)
  County Planning Committees (Teachers)
LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES
  Natural Resources Advisory Committee (Appointment)
  Natural Resources Advisory Committee (Appointment)
  Forestry Commission (Headquarters)
  Forestry Commission (Headquarters)
  Tree Preservation Orders
  Tree Preservation Orders
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Zambia (Ex-Non-Designated Civil Service Officers)
  Zambia (Ex-Non-Designated Civil Service Officers)
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Personal Cases (Stoke-on-Trent)
  Personal Cases (Stoke-on-Trent)
  Pensioners (Local Authority and Welfare Services)
  Pensioners (Local Authority and Welfare Services)
  Old People (Assistance)
  Old People (Assistance)
TECHNOLOGY
  Police Forces (Computers)
  Police Forces (Computers)
  Computer Programmers
  Computer Programmers
WALES
  Local Government Reorganisation
  Local Government Reorganisation
  National Parks (Access Agreements)
  National Parks (Access Agreements)
  Industrial Sites (Register)
  Industrial Sites (Register)
  National Plan for Ports
  National Plan for Ports

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

FOURTH CLERK AT THE TABLE (JUDICIAL)
2.36 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. By Statute, the appointment of Clerks at the Table is vested in the Lord Chancellor, subject to the approval of your Lordships' House, and the reasons why I propose to appoint Mr. Cave as Fourth Clerk at the Table (Judicial), subject to the approval of your Lordships, are these. Mr. Cave is the head of the Judicial Office and as such supervises the arrangements for the appellate jurisdiction of this House. He has detailed knowledge of every appeal to your Lordships' House and it is fitting, therefore, that he should be able to officiate at the Judicial Sittings of the House. Those Sittings will take place in the Chamber either when judgment is being given in the mornings or during Recesses—for example, from now until October 26—when your Lordships' House are not sitting in a legislative capacity.
When Judicial Sittings are held in the Chamber there has to be a Clerk at the Table. At present he is one of the three Clerks at the Table, although of course they have no knowledge of judicial business, while Mr. Cave, who has, has to remain behind the Bar. It would therefore, subject to your Lordships' approval, seem more sensible that Mr. Cave should be appointed Fourth Clerk at the Table so that he could assist the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary on those occasions. The appointment would be personal to Mr. Cave and is not regarded as a precedent. It would carry no prescriptive right of succession to any of the other posts at the Table, and it does not involve any increase in Mr. Cave's remuneration. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do approve the appointment by the Lord Chancellor, pursuant to the Clerk of the Parliaments Act 1824, of Richard Philip Cave, to be Fourth Clerk at the Table (Judicial).—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I am sure that this is a very sensible proposal and will facilitate the discharge of the Business of this House. I should only like to add that from my knowledge of Mr. Cave I think this is an eminently suitable appointment.
LORD REA: My Lords, may I, as a layman, say that we on these Benches, and I think all of your Lordships, agree that this is a most excellent and sensible appointment. I hesitate to seek to correct the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, but I think he mentioned that it was within the Lord Chancellor's province to appoint the three Clerks at the Table. I have a suspicion, however, that the Clerk of the Parliaments is appointed by the Queen. That is quite by the way, and I think that this suggestion of appointing Mr. Cave is an extremely good one.
On Question, Motion agreed to, nemine dissentiente.

"TRAFFIC BOX" EXPERIMENT
2.39 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 whether the so-called "traffic boxes", such as the one in Oxford Street, have proved successful; and if so whether more of these are being introduced at other congested crossings throughout the country.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD LINDGREN): My Lords, generally traffic conditions have improved at those junctions in London where yellow box markings are laid down. The Greater London Council, as the traffic authority for London, is responsible for reviewing this experiment after it has had a fair period of trial. It is too early to reach comprehensive conclusions. No local authority outside London has yet decided to introduce this measure.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, may I ask whether it is not a fact that most accidents occur at crossings, rather than on the general straight run of the road?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, I think that is probably true. But the most successful of these boxes have been at busy junctions, where they have allowed an easier flow of the traffic from the side roads.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, while feeling that these yellow boxes have been a great success, I wonder whether I may call the attention of my noble friend to a problem that arises even where they are in operation. Is he aware that when traffic is allowed to turn right after it has crossed half the main road—in this case, Oxford Street—it is practically impossible for pedestrians to get across at all, while for elderly people it is both dangerous and difficult? May I also ask my noble friend whether he knows that by the time this traffic has finished filtering right the traffic lights have changed again, the main flow has resumed, and so far as the pedestrian is concerned this is just a continuous flow? Finally, am I not correct in saying that in New York pedestrians have the right of way under these circumstances, and that this is enforced? Could my noble friend look at this aspect of the matter?
LORD LINDGREN: Yes, my Lords. We shall be only too happy to look at it in the light of the noble Lady's statement.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that many people, particularly those living in the countryside, are confused and somewhat distracted by these yellow signs on the roads? Furthermore, if we do not have sufficient police to act as observers, how is the unfortunate motorist to be caught in this traffic "gimmick", in this yellow traffic box?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, the most frequent users, of course, are those already in town. The London police are pretty lenient, where it is obvious that the person who is using the road is not a frequent visitor, and we have had no difficulty up to the present time. I was going to say that the police are most enthusiastic, but at least they approve of this experiment because it is of considerable help to the traffic flow.
EARL HOWE: It will be interesting, my Lords, to see the result of this experiment.

VENTILATION OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS
2.42 p.m.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress is being made towards improving the ventilation of this Chamber.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES (LORD MITCHISON): My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, explained to the House on March 17, 1964, that a scheme for the installation of air-conditioning in your Lordships' Chamber was being examined. On December 21, 1964, I explained to the House that my right honourable friend the Minister of Public Building and Works was pressing ahead with his examination of proposals. Some of the necessary plant has been installed and satisfactory tests have been made. Preparatory work is continuing with a view to completion of the work by the end of the Summer Recess, 1966, subject to the necessary funds being available.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for his reply, may I ask him this further question? Is he aware that alternate blasts of hot and cold air have been blowing across this Chamber, between the Opposition and the Government Benches, in both directions, regardless of the temperature outside? Can he not give an assurance to the House that it will be able to meet again after the Recess under more healthy auspices?
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I do not think it is my right honourable friend's business to interfere with any of the political hot air to which my noble friend was referring; hut, as regards the condition of the Chamber, I am afraid that the work will not be finished before the date I indicated. I think there has already been some improvement—and so does my right

399
honourable friend—and I hope that it will continue as we get the machinery going.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, to us, it always seems that the hot air comes from that side of the House?
LORD MITCHISON: Yes, my Lords, but we think the cold feet are on the other side.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that when the House of Commons was using this Chamber this very point was raised and that it was promised that something would be done about it? That is now nearly 20 years ago, but still nothing has happened.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, this Government have got a move-on about it. We hope that the work will be finished by the date I indicated.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE PRESCRIPTIONS COSTS
2.45 p.m.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

ENGLAND AND WALES

ANALYSIS BY TYPE OF PREPARATION (a): FEBRUARY-APRIL

Estimated number of prescriptions

Estimated total net ingredient cost

Millions

Per cent.

£ Million

Per cent.

1964

1965

1964

1965

1964

1965

1964

1965

Total (b)

53·98

64·73

100·0

100·0

17·89

22·10

100·0

100·0

Non-proprietary preparations

14·60

16·52

27·1

25·5

1·07

1·34

6·0

6·1

Proprietary preparations (c)

37·88

46·19

70·2

71·4

16·17

19·82

90·4

89·7

Dressings, appliances, trusses and hosiery

1·50

2·01

2·8

3·1

0·64

0·94

3·6

4·3

(a) Except for the overall total number of prescriptions, all numbers shown are estimates based on a sample of 1 in 200 approximately, of the prescriptions dispensed in chemist contractors' establishments (including drug stores) and by appliance contractors.

(b) Figures may not add up to totals shown because of rounding.

(c) Includes prescriptions for items not specified by proprietary name available only in proprietary form.

LORD SEGAL: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for his reply, I would ask him this question. Would he not agree that the early figures are liable to be somewhat inconclusive, and that it would be advisable to await publication of later figures before any definite conclusions can be drawn about changes in doctors' prescribing habits?
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when the first analysis of prescription costs since the abolition of prescription charges can be made available, particularly with reference to proprietary and and non-proprietary medicines, and to regional variations in prescribing trends.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS AND FOR THE COLONIES (LORD TAYLOR): My Lords, an analysis of the costs of proprietary and non-proprietary medicines has been made for the period from February to April, 1965, and this shows that proprietary preparations represented 90 per cent. of the cost of the pharmaceutical services in this period. There has, therefore, been no significant change in this respect from the same period in 1964. I will circulate a table giving the full figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT. As regards regional variations in prescribing trends, a detailed therapeutic group analysis of regional prescribing is made annually. The first analysis since the abolition of charges will be made for the year 1965, and will therefore not be available before the spring of 1966.
Following is the table referred to:
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, what my noble friend says may be true, but I did point out that, in the particular respect about which he asked there appeared to have been no change.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, since, both in 1964 and in the three months, February to April, this year,

401
90 per cent. of the prescriptions have been for proprietary drugs, and the average cost of each prescription has now risen to a little over 10s., may I ask my noble friend when the Government are going to cry "Halt" and demand that the national formularies shall be used, where they provide an appropriate alternative?
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, the use of national formulary preparations is appropriate in about 5 per cent. of proprietary preparations. The Committee headed by my noble friend Lord Cohen of Birkenhead drew up a list of 53 commonly prescribed proprietary preparations for which there were non-proprietary alternatives, and a new list is being prepared by the Standing Joint Committee under Professor Macgregor.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I must press my noble friend on this matter. Every time it is raised, year after year, those of us who are deeply concerned with it are put off by being told that another Committee is looking into it. Could my noble friend tell me just how many Committees have looked into the drug industry?
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, there is a Royal Commission looking into it now, which, in my opinion, is the most effective way of all.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: No—because it takes five years.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, the noble Lord based his Answer on the period February to April of this year. Can he say, comparing that with the same period last year, what difference there has been in the total number of prescriptions given?
LORD TAYLOR: I can, my Lords, but it may take me a moment to find the appropriate record. I think I had better say that the information is included in the table that we shall be circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether there has been an increase or decrease, or whether the total is about the same?
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, there has been an increase.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, are Her Majesty's Government aware that nothing would do more to restore confidence in the pound abroad than the reimposition of prescription charges, the abolition of which appeared to our creditors abroad as an act of irresponsibility?
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, I cannot agree with either of the suppositions of the noble Lord.

PRESS DISLOSURES OF POLICE OFFICERS' NAMES
2.49 p.m.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: 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 do not think the pinpointing of names in the Press of police Officers, or detectives, may impede the prosecution of those believed to be in breach of the laws; also whether secrecy is self-evidently a part of security when acting against opponents.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, the extent to which the names of police officers are disclosed to the Press is a matter left to the discretion of individual chief officers of police. I understand that the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis considers that, in general, the advantages of disclosing the names of officers in charge of cases greatly outweigh the disadvantages, particularly where the police can be helped by receiving information from the public; but that, where it is undesirable for names to be disclosed, steps are taken to ensure anonymity.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: My Lords, may I ask a supplementary question? The noble Lord talked about the Metropolitan Police authority, but I did not understand him to say whether other police authorities have the same view as the Metropolitan authorities.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I was quoting the views of the Metropolitan Commissioner; and, of course, he is responsible for a number of very important cases. But when it comes to the smaller police forces, if the names of the

403
police were to be withheld it would create an impossible situation, because in court cases the names of the police have to be disclosed. Indeed, the difficulty of suppressing the names (quite apart from implication involving the freedom of the Press) would be even greater in small forces than in the Metropolis.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his answer.

PROPOSED SALE OF U.S.A. COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM TO INDONESIA
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question of which I have given Private Notice:
"Whether Her Majesty's Government have received a reply from the United States Government to their representations relating to the supply of an advanced electronic communications system to Indonesia; and, if so, what is the nature of the reply."
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD WALSTON): My Lords, there is nothing that I can at present add to the information which I gave to your Lordships' House on July 29. As I then observed, the official position of the United States Government in this matter is restricted to a question of approving or withholding an export licence. This question has not yet arisen since, so far as I am aware, no application for an export licence has yet been made. If and when it does, I have no doubt that the United States Government will give weight to our views, which have been made clear to them.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, could the noble Lord inform us what would be the reaction of the United States Government and people to the supply by a British manufacturer of an advanced electronic communications system to President Ho Chi-minh?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords: I am afraid that I am not empowered, or indeed qualified, to state what the attitude of the United States Government would be on any matter; but I think that the noble Lord's guess as to what their attitude would be would correspond very closely to my own.

RHODESIA: TIMES ARTICLE ON MILITARY INTERVENTION
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask Her Majesty's Government the Question of which I have given Private Notice:
Whether there is any truth in the statement published in the centre pages of yesterday's The Times that
"serious thought is being given to the problem of planning for possible military intervention in Rhodesia".
THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE FOR THE ROYAL AIR FORCE (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are not responsible for what appears in the Press. However, it would be appropriate on this occasion to say that Her Majesty's Government are surprised and sorry that this wholly speculative article with its rather sensational headlines should have been published in The Times, when the whole problem of Rhodesia is known to be in a delicate state and when negotiations are in train. I wish to make it clear that the article is inaccurate and in no way based on official sources.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his reply and to say that I agree with the sentiments that he has expressed. I would also express the hope that his answer will not be tucked away in the middle of a column but get at least equal publicity to the original statement.

HIRE-PURCHASE BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
HIRE-PURCHASE (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (ATTENDANCE OF WITNESSES) BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Bill read 2ª; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 22), Bill read 3ª, and passed.

MURDER (ABOLITION OF DEATH PENALTY) BILL
2.55 p.m.
Report of Amendments received (according to Order).
VISCOUNT DILHORNE VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved, before Clause 1, to insert the following new clause:
Release on licence of those sentenced for murder
".—(1) The Secretary of State may release on licence subject to compliance with such conditions, if any, as the Secretary of State may from time to time impose, a person serving a term of imprisonment for murder who has served five years imprisonment.
(2) The Secretary of State may at any time by order recall to prison a person released on licence under this section, but without prejudice to the power of the Secretary of State to release him on licence again; and where any person is so recalled his licence shall cease to have effect and he shall, if at large, be deemed to be unlawfully at large.
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, I am not really sure that we ought to be discussing this Bill to-day as, according to to-day's The Times, it has already passed through your Lordships' House. I read that with interest at breakfast this morning. Your Lordships will remember that, during the Committee stage, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parker of Wadding-ton, moved an Amendment the effect of which was to give a Judge discretion as to the sentence he passed on a conviction of murder. That Amendment was widely supported, and supported, be it noted, by many in favour of abolition of the death sentence. I am sure that the whole House was impressed by the arguments for the Amendment which were advanced
406
by the noble and learned Lord. Everyone knows that a life sentence does not ordinarily mean a man spending the rest of his life in prison; and the general impression (which is, I think, supported by statements made by the Home Secretary which I have already quoted) is that ordinarily a life sentence means something of the order of nine years, unless the prisoner would on release be a danger to society.
In view of this belief the passing of a long determinate sentence is, I think, on some occasions likely to prove a more effective deterrent. Logically there is no reason, once capital punishment has been abolished, why a Judge's powers, when a man who has murdered is found to be of diminished responsibility, should differ from his powers when the murderer has not diminished responsibility. Logically there is no reason for Judges, when sentencing for murder, having different powers from those they have when sentencing for attempted murder. The difference between the two cases is simply that in one the victim has died and, in the other, has survived.
But two criticisms were advanced on the Amendment moved by the noble Lord and carried into the Bill. The first criticism this Amendment in my name and in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parker of Waddington, is designed to meet. The second criticism is, in my belief, largely theoretical. The first criticism is really, I think, this: under our present system, if a life sentence is passed, a man can be let out on licence at any time; whereas if a determinate sentence is passed he has to serve two-thirds of it, unless the Royal Prerogative is exercised, before he can be released on licence. As I said on Second Reading, I have long thought that this is wrong; and it is something I should like to see changed. I should like to see the Home Secretary have much wider powers of releasing on licence in all cases—and not just in murder cases—where long sentences have been imposed. But this Bill deals only with convictions and sentences for murder; and it would not be right to seek to make this Bill a vehicle for such a general change, however desirable it may be—and I think it is very desirable indeed. This Amendment, therefore, applies only to where there has been a conviction for murder.
I should like to make this clear since it may not be readily apparent from reading the terms of the Amendment. The effect of it is to superimpose on the present system a power to release on licence any person sentenced to a term of imprisonment for murder after that person has served five years in prison. The two-thirds rule will still continue to apply where two-thirds of the sentence is less than five years, but no matter what the determinate sentence may be in excess of five years, this Amendment would give the Home Secretary power to release a man on licence after five years in prison.
The present position is, I think, very unsatisfactory. If a man is sentenced to 30 years' imprisonment, he cannot be released on licence until he has served 20 years and it may not be in the public interest that he should serve this length of time. I do not doubt that sometimes it is right and necessary to pass a long sentence or a very long sentence, to mark the gravity of an offence. I do not doubt, either, that such sentences, when imposed, have an immediate deterrent effect. Everyone knows that such a sentence will mean imprisonment for a long time, and I do not think that the deterrent effect of a long sentence is affected by the fact that if the prisoner behaves himself. he will be released on licence after he has served two-thirds of it. Nor do I believe that the deterrent effect of a long sentence would be materially affected if the power of the Home Secretary to release on licence were enlarged.
I must confess that I do not know why the line was drawn at two-thirds of the sentence imposed. It seems quite arbitrary, and as I have said, I believe that it could operate contrary to the public interest. May there not be cases where, if a man could be released earlier on licence, it would help in his reformation? Suppose a man is sentenced to thirty years' imprisonment and at the end of ten years the prison authorities, the Home Secretary. the Lord Chief Justice and the trial Judge think that he has been punished enough and is not likely to go wrong again. We have it on the authority of the Home Secretary that signs of breakdown become apparent after a man has been in prison for nine years or so. Is any useful purpose served by keeping such a man in prison for another
408
ten years? It may be said that I have taken an extreme case, but in all long-sentence cases may there not come a moment before the expiry of two-thirds of the sentence when, if a man was released on licence, he would lead a decent, honest life, but, if that opportunity is not taken, and he remains in prison, all chances of reformation might be lost? I think that there should be a Parole Board to advise the Home Secretary in all these cases, but I gather that does not, at present, meet with the approval of the Home Office. I must confess that I cannot understand why. I should have thought that any Home Secretary would welcome advice from an impartial, authoritative body on such questions.
I hope that I have said enough to explain the object of the Amendment. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parker of Waddington, for putting his name to it. If we could get this Amendment inserted in the Bill, I do not think that it would be long before this principle was generally recognised in all cases where long sentences had been imposed. This Amendment meets one criticism of a change made in the Bill in Committee; it does not attempt to meet another criticism, which is that if a determinate sentence is passed, it may result in the release, on the expiry of the sentence, of a person who would be a danger to society and who might kill again.
My Lords, I believe that that criticism is largely, if not entirely, theoretical. I should be interested to know whether it has ever happened. Is there any known case of a man convicted of attempted murder who has attempted to murder or kill on his release, after he has served his sentence? Where a Judge had any doubts about a man's future conduct in this connection I should think it certain that he would pass a life sentence, and only in exceptional cases would he pass a determinate sentence. As I have said before, I think that behind this whole matter lies an important principle. It is the function of the judiciary to decide what sentence should be imposed, but they have no discretion in relation to capital murder. I think the reason is that Judges have always been opposed to any suggestion that the grave burden of deciding whether a man should die or live should be placed on them. I can

409
see no logical reason for fettering the powers of a Judge in a capital murder case, for limiting them when the conviction is one of murder, and giving him far less power than he would have if the conviction were one of attempted murder. I think that the change, making it essential that he should pass a life sentence, and leaving it entirely to the discretion of the Home Secretary as to what that means, is a change of importance and not entirely desirable.
My Lords, I do not think I should say any more in exposition of this Amendment, but I should like to add that since it was tabled there have been tabled on the Order Paper Amendments in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parker of Waddington, one of which reverses an Amendment which the noble and learned Lord moved in Committee. No doubt we shall learn from the noble and learned Lord what has led him to take that course. It is, I think, unusual to move an Amendment during the Committee stage and then to seek to cancel an Amendment which was carried on a Division, but if the noble and learned Lord has, for reasons which no doubt he will tell the House, changed his mind, and his Amendment (which is Amendment No. 2 on the Marshalled List) is accepted, I recognise that this Amendment will be out of place. I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord has taken that course. I thought that the Amendment which he moved in Committee was a very good one, and it was supported by a majority in this House. I think that the Amendment to-day is not nearly so good.
Whatever may happen with regard to the second Amendment I am moving this Amendment because I hope that on this occasion I may get some answer from the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, to the question about extending the powers of licensing. Your Lordships will remember that I raised the point during my speech on Second Reading, and I think that I touched on it again during the Committee stage proceedings. The noble Lord has many other matters to deal with, but so far I have not had an answer, and if any excuse is needed for raising this matter again to-day, I crave that in aid. My Lords, I move this Amendment and, whatever else may follow from it, I hope that at least I shall hear something from the noble
410
Lord, Lord Stonham, amounting to a recognition of the desirability of making some change on these lines in the present system of releasing on licence. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Before Clause 1, insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Dilhorne.)
3.9 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I think that the noble and learned Viscount needs no excuse at all for raising this very important matter of the extension of licensing for long-term prisoners, and I can only apologise if, having raised it on several earlier stages of the Bill, the noble and learned Viscount has not had a reply from me. I will do my best to answer him on this occasion if, perhaps, not wholly to satisfy him.
Your Lordships will recall that when last week I unsuccessfully attempted to persuade your Lordships not to insert an Amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parker of Waddington, I cited what I regarded as three major objections to it. The first was that, with the abolition of the mandatory life sentence, murder, in the eyes of the public, would cease to be a crime apart. Secondly, if a murderer was sentenced to a term of years, the Home Secretary would be unable to hold him in prison after that term had expired, even though there was still a serious risk that after release the prisoner might commit another murder or serious crime. My third objection is one that the noble and learned Viscount has now dealt with, that a fixed term would prevent the Home Secretary releasing a man before it had expired even if the man was fit for release. The noble and learned Viscount has now made it clear that his intention by this Amendment is to remove that last disability. The Government, and I am sure noble Lords also, warmly welcome his constructive and helpful attitude in this matter. But, in my view, even if this Amendment were accepted, it would still leave the Bill, as it stands at present, open to the two remaining objection, which I regard as serious.
The noble and learned Viscount asked me if there was any one case of a man who had attempted murder, had later been released from prison, and had then committed a murder. I am sorry to say that, without notice, I cannot answer that question. But within my knowledge

411
there are two cases within this century—and fortunately only two—of men who had murdered and were released and who then committed a second murder. And in one of these two cases, that might not have happened, if the Home Secretary had been able to exercise his powers.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, were not both those cases where men had been released by the Home Secretary on licence?
LORD STONHAM: Certainly these are the only circumstances under which a murderer could be released. Although it is not clear from the noble and learned Viscount's Amendment as worded, he has indicated that it means that he wants a prisoner to stay in prison for at least five years, as distinct from five years less remission. But I do not want to pursue the technicalities of the Amendment and discuss whether it can be said to have that meaning, because, as the noble and learned Viscount indicated, if Amendment No. 2 is accepted by your Lordships, there will be no necessity for the Amendment we are now discussing.
In introducing the Amendment, the noble and learned Viscount raised the much wider and important question of whether some system of discriminatory release on licence, similar to that which has been used with some success with murderers serving a life sentence, could be extended to prisoners serving long sentences for other offences. That question, of course, is outside the scope of the present Bill and would be a matter for further legislation. Your Lordships will be aware that before coming to the Home Office I took a particular interest in prisoners serving long sentences, especially those in preventive detention. The noble and learned Viscount will realise that I am sorely tempted to follow the lead he has given. All I can say to-day is that the Home Secretary is studying the question of new and more flexible forms of treatment for medium-term and long-term prisoners, and that, as a Minister, I personally have spent more time working on these plans than on any other subject. But since they have not yet reached their final form, I cannot reveal any details. I can, however, say that we warmly welcome the views of the noble and learned Viscount
412
and if, as I hope, your Lordships support them, we shall not find ourselves far apart.
With regard to the other point raised by the noble and learned Viscount, I am in a somewhat similar difficulty. In dealing with the licensing of medium-term and long-term prisoners, he suggested that there should be a Parole Board to advise the Home Secretary about releases on licence in individual cases. Again thinking aloud, I would say that our past experience of nearly equivalent bodies does not encourage me to support that suggestion. Your Lordships will remember that a former Home Secretary, the right honourable Mr. Henry Brooke, abolished the preventive detention advisory boards in 1963. They used to recommend whether a preventive detainee should be given the hostel system and released after serving two-thirds instead of five-sixths of his sentence. These boards included prison visitors, senior probation officers and, in some cases, psychiatrists, as well as representatives of the Prison Commission. But, as was pointed out in the Report on preventive detention by the Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders, these boards and their decisions were a cause of bitterness, unrest and misunderstanding to prisoners, who found it difficult to understand or accept the boards' decisions and, in the judgment of their own Chairman, they were not successful in forming reliable opinions about the potentialities of individual prisoners.
It might also be thought that if legislative provisions for the licensing of medium-term and long-term prisoners were to be introduced, either at present or in the near future, it would be wise to keep them as simple as possible, until the Royal Commission on the Penal System has examined the whole complex of problems relating to sentencing and reported. If implemented, however, the noble and learned Viscount's suggestion and this Bill, in the form in which I hope finally to see it, will help towards the achievement of the penal system which the Government have in mind—namely, a system which will serve the public interest by awarding severe punishments when they are necessary, but which never loses sight of the possibility of the reclamation of offenders.
3.18 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, I think that the intention of this Amendment is extremely good, but there is one point which is not quite clear. Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount would explain it to us. It would seem from the first paragraph of the Amendment that anybody serving imprisonment for murder cannot possibly be released until four or five years have elapsed. What I have in mind is the occasional case which is sometimes called a "mercy killing" when perhaps a mother puts an end to the suffering of an imbecile or a painfully ill son. It would seem to some of us that in such a case, provided that the motive of mercy was proved, such a murderer should not serve even a five-year sentence, but might be released after six, or even four, months. I put this forward as a tentative suggestion, and I wonder whether the noble and learned Viscount can explain this to us.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, may I draw attention to what seems to me to be a drafting defect in the Amendment? Surely the last three words of subsection (1) should not be "five years imprisonment" but "five years of that term of imprisonment". Surely the correct meaning of this subsection, as now printed, would be that if a man had ever served five years' imprisonment, for any offence what ever, and was then sentenced to imprisonment for murder, he could be released on licence, could he not, by the Home Secretary on the day after he was sentenced, because he had in his life served a term of imprisonment of five years? I do not think that could possibly be what is intended, but that, I think, would be the result of adopting these words.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I do not think it is the result of the clause as now drawn, reading the subsection as a whole; but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, that it might be made clear beyond a doubt if the last part of the clause were altered as he suggests. This was drafted in the hope that it would make quite clear what one had in mind. One could not set out in this new clause exactly how it would apply in relation to the present system of licensing. But I did say in moving the Amendment that this clause was intended to enlarge the
414
Home Secretary's powers, and would be superimposed on the present system; that is to say, if the man was sentenced to a term of imprisonment two-thirds of which was not in excess of five years, he could be let out under the present system when he had served two-thirds of that sentence. That would still happen. This provision in no way restricts the release on licence of persons sentenced to short terms of imprisonment, but it is intended to enlarge the power so that, no matter what sentence he has been given, once he has spent five years of that sentence in prison the Home Secretary should then have power to release on licence. I hope I have cleared up the point for the noble Lord.
LORD REA: My Lords, I am afraid it is not altogether clear to me. The noble and learned Viscount seems to assume, quite rightly, I think—it would usually happen—that in the case of a difficult mercy killing the Judge would take the humane view and probably inflict a very short sentence. But what I have in mind is where a sentence of ten or fifteen years is given, where there seems to be no possibility of the prisoner being released after five years.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, in the case the noble Lord has mentioned I do not think there would be any chance of the original sentence being anything like as long as that. If it was the sort of case that he has put forward, one would assume that it would be five years or less, in which case the ordinary two-thirds rule would apply.
LORD PARKER OF WADDINGTON: My Lords, may I take this opportunity of associating myself with all that the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, has said about the need for reviewing long sentences, whether they be for murder or for any other type of offence. I am sure that this is an urgent necessity. I should also like to support the noble Lord in the hope that this review may be done by means of a Parole Board, who would clearly have all the available information from prison officers, medical experts and the like. I should hope that the Government, knowing the feeling of so many of us, would invite the Royal Commission on Penal Reform to study this question and make an Interim Report so that legislation could be introduced.
3.24 p.m.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, as the Member of your Lordships' House who introduced this Bill, I should like to say how much I appreciate, as many of my colleagues do, the large concessions which have been made by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, in his present Amendment, in comparison with the Amendments that he moved in Committee and the attitude he took at earlier stages of the Bill. I find myself to-day in the extremely happy situation—and I might say a little unexpectedly happy situation—of being in agreement with at least three-quarters of what the noble and learned Viscount has said. I should like to assure him that both on what has been called the "hot air" side of this House, and, equally, what I understand has been called the "cold feet" side of this House, there is a strong sentiment in favour of some system of review of long-term determinate sentences. Maybe if the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, feels strongly about this, and if he is not satisfied with the measures which may come in due course from the Government Benches, he will avail himself of the opportunity to introduce a Private Member's Bill dealing with the topic.
But in view of the trend in your Lordships' House, I think that perhaps we ought to remind ourselves at this stage that this is not a Bill on sentencing policy; it is a Bill primarily to abolish the death penalty. While the noble and learned Viscount may have great sympathy with the rather radical changes in sentencing policy, particularly on the flexibility of determinate sentences that he has suggested, we must, I think, ask ourselves whether it is wise to make these radical changes through what is, after all, the most serious offence of all—namely, the offence of murder. Would it not be much better to reserve this topic, and to review it in the context of parole boards, determinate sentences and flexibility of sentences all together, and to have in mind at the present juncture only the question of the appropriate sentence for those who have committed the gravest crime of all?
I think, in view of later Amendments on the Marshalled List which stand in the name of the Lord Chief Justice, that the primary object of the Amendment which is now before your Lord
416
ships' House might be achieved, though in a slightly different form, in the context of those Amendments. I wonder whether the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, might be willing to withhold his Amendment at this stage, in order that your Lordships may have an opportunity of possibly expressing your general sympathy with the concept of flexibility by your approval of the Amendments which appear later on the Marshalled List.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, for what she has said, and for the fact that for once she finds herself so much in agreement with what I said. I hope that this will be repeated, and I shall be glad of the opportunity to give her the lead on future occasions. The only matter on which rather differ from her in was what she said is as to my having made concessions. I am not aware that I have conceded anything. In fact I put this forward in the course of my Second Reading speech. and I think I have been entirely consistent about it. Indeed, I urged this years before this Bill ever saw the light of day.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I should be sorry to be thought to be misinterpreting the noble and learned Viscount. I had in mind that a good deal of play was made by him and other noble Lords about a mythical figure of nine years earlier in the debates, and I notice that the figure of five years is in the Amendment. I had in mind that perhaps this was a concession.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I am glad that the noble Baroness has explained that. I was not particularly wedded to the figure of five years, but I thought that would give the Home Secretary ample power to act properly; and if I put in too high a figure, again it would suffer from the arbitrary line like such as exists with the two-thirds rule.
I am grateful to the House for the way in which it has received this proposal, and to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parker of Waddington, for speaking in support of it. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for what he said, in which he held out, if I understood his words correctly, real hope that a change may be made and that this could

417
be made to apply throughout the whole field in the near future. I hope that it will not be delayed. I should be sorry (I do not know how long it will take the Royal Commission to report, but one knows that Royal Commissions take a considerable time to report) if this change had to be held back until the final Report of the Royal Commission. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to adopt the suggestion made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, and see whether he can encourage the Royal Commission to make an Interim Report on this matter, in which event it may be possible to introduce some change on these lines before the Final Report is received.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, may I be allowed to deal with this extremely important point? I made it clear in my speech that we thought, before adopting a very complex solution, that we should await the Report which we hope to receive from the Royal Commission on the whole subject of sentences. With regard to the point put to me by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, the position is that we expect the Report of the Royal Commission to deal with this subject. It is for the Royal Commission itself to order its business, but naturally we will see that this suggestion is put before it; and, indeed, a member of the Royal Commission, my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger, is immediately behind me. Finally, I should like to say, in reply to the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, that it is the Government's intention to go ahead in due course with the plans we have in mind.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that last statement. I am not quite sure how I interpret it, but I hope I interpret it aright as meaning that action will be taken pretty promptly. That being so, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, that it would be much more desirable to have a provision of this sort in general legislation, and not to seek out one category of offence for this change. If I had not got this pretty clear (not entirely clear) promise, I should have thought that perhaps there was something to be said for putting it in this Bill and making it certain that it was done in another Bill.
418
I do not think it is necessary for me to deal with these criticisms of drafting. If it was necessary for me to do so, I would rebut these charges that it is badly drafted. In the light of what has been said, I would ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw this Amendment. One can see what will happen to the later Amendments, and then, if need be—I do not think it will be likely—we can put something of this sort down on Third Reading. I would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1:
Abolition of death penalty for murder
1.—(1) No person shall suffer death for murder, and a person convicted of murder shall, subject to subsection (4) below, be liable at the discretion of the court to imprisonment for life.
3.32 p.m.
LORD PARKER OF WADDINGTON LORD PARKER OF WADDINGTON moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "liable at the discretion of the Court" and insert "sentenced". The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, if I may, I will deal with Amendment No. 3 together with this Amendment. Your Lordships will remember that at the Committee stage I introduced an Amendment which would enable the trial judge to give a sentence, not merely of life imprisonment but, in suitable cases, of a fixed determinate sentence, the idea being that in a suitable case a long sentence might be given which would act as a deterrent. That Amendment was carried in your Lordships' House, albeit by a small majority. I still think that it is right in principle and indeed, logical. But, as it was carried, I did not have the opportunity of moving an alternative Amendment which would, I think, meet many of the criticisms of those who were against the Amendment which was carried.
As my noble and learned friend Lord Stonham has said, there were really three criticisms, or fears. One was that murder was still a unique offence and should be marked by a unique penalty, in this case life imprisonment. Secondly, there was a fear, I think exaggerated, that judges might give what some people thought were inordinately long sentences, and that there is at the moment no machinery for review. Thirdly—and I think this was the point which largely influenced

419
those who voted against the Amendment—that there might be cases in which the Home Secretary would have to release a prisoner who had served the determinate sentence, less his remission, even though he might feel that it was unsafe to do so. I now beg to move the alternative Amendment, which means restoring subsection (1) of Clause 1 as it was originally, and adding Amendment No. 3. I think that this will meet the criticisms raised.
Murder will still be the only offence which carries a fixed statutory sentence, the life sentence. The Home Secretary will continue to exercise his power to release on licence, and to detain if it is felt that a man is unsafe to be let loose. All that the judge can do is to recommend—not fix—a minimum period, and that, I think, leaves the Home Secretary completely unhampered. At the same time, it preserves the right, for which I have been striving so long, of the trial judge to mark the gravity of the offence, the revulsion of public feeling, in a proper case by giving what appears to be a very long sentence, which it is hoped will deter others and afford some protection to the police, in particular. This alternative Amendment is a compromise, and I venture to think that it is a compromise to which no reasonable person can object.
On February 26, 1962, I received a letter from my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, then Mr. Gerald Gardiner, Q.C., in which, if I may quote, there is this passage:
"Suggested solution. I am wondering whether any reasonable person would object to the following proposal as a compromise to meet all views: namely, that if capital punishment for murder is abolished, the alternative should be (a) a sentence of imprisonment for life; (b) subject to the Home Secretary's power of release whenever he thinks it both right and safe to do so and, (c) but not before such term of years as the trial judge may fix."
Your Lordships will notice that the noble and learned Lord went a little further in saying that the trial judge should fix the minimum. I do not propose to suggest anything quite so drastic—merely that he should "recommend."
What argument can there be against this? I conceive only two possible arguments. The one may be that a prisoner who is not let out by the Home Secretary after he has served the minimum period recommended by the judge should feel
420
in some way aggrieved. Why he should feel aggrieved I do not know—it is a minimum period. Anyhow, are we to throw away a reasonable compromise merely because we think that some prisoner, some day, somewhere, may, unjustifiably, feel that he is aggrieved? Secondly, there is the possible argument that the Home Office—or, rather, the right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary—might feel in some way inhibited by receiving a recommendation from the judge. I think it is quite clear that no Home Secretary would desist from acting on clear, definite information before him merely because a trial judge. perhaps ten years before, had marked the severity of the offence by giving a long minimum period. But if it causes the Executive to pause, to think again, and to look at the case again, then, I venture to think, so much the better. After all, it is not dissimilar to a restrictive order which a judge can impose in making a hospital order under the Mental Health Act. The Home Secretary can allow the patient out at any time, but the presence of the restrictive period means that the Executive must take a second look at it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 7, leave out ("liable at the discretion of the Court") and insert ("sentenced").—(Lord Parker of Waddington.)
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, if these Amendments are accepted, as I hope they will be, Clause 1, with one important exception, will be restored to the condition in which it came to us on Second Reading. Her Majesty's Government and, I have no doubt, the sponsors of the Bill wish unreservedly to accept and welcome them. I acknowledge also with most grateful thanks the exceptional efforts of my noble and learned friend Lord Parker of Waddington and the high degree of co-operation which he and others have shown in making this happy solution possible. Personally, I was delighted to hear the Lord Chief Justice refer to me as his noble and learned friend. "Friend", I shall delightedly retain; "learned" I must, unfortunately, disclaim. I can only think that something of the aura of the Home Office has rubbed off on to my most unlearned person.
I entirely agree with my noble and learned friend that this is the right solution. There will still be a mandatory

421
sentence, the life sentence, for murder. The Home Secretary, or the Secretary of State for Scotland, in the exercise of his primary duty to protect the public, will retain complete discretion to release a murderer after a short or long period, or not at all, but will at all stages be able to avail themselves of the advice of the Judiciary. In making a recommendation as to the minimum period for which a murderer should be detained, the Court will be expressing the view it has formed, both of the relative seriousness of the particular crime and of the degree of public danger inherent in the convicted person. As I understand it, the Committee could recommend anything from a very short sentence to a very long one. Recommendations, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice said, will make an impression on the public mind if they are for a long term, and I think that they will make an impression, too, on the type of criminal who has figured frequently in our discussions on this Bill.
Secretaries of State will not be bound by a recommendation but they will take very careful account of it from the start. They will also retain full discretion with regard to release, but under Clause 2 they will have the great advantage of pre-release consultation with the Lord Chief Justice or the Lord Justice General, and with the trial judge, if he is available. In my view, these consultations will be of particular value to the Secretaries of State in those cases where it seems to them, on the basis of the facts then known, that the public interest demands that a prisoner should not be released at the expiry of the recommended minimum, or alternatively that he should be released before the minimum period has expired. Prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment, if released, will, of course, always be subject to recall.
Finally, on behalf of the Government, and, I trust, with the explicit agreement of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, I must make it clear that the recommended minimum period will not necessarily mean the maximum period. There will certainly be understandable pressure on the Secretaries of State by the prisoner, his representatives, and others interested in his case to release him on the expiry of the recommended minimum period. Nothing will prevent pressure of that kind from arising, but on behalf of the Government I take
422
this opportunity of declaring that when a person has been sentenced to life imprisonment for murder and the Court has recommended a minimum period which he should serve, there should be no automatic expectation that a prisoner will be released on the expiry of that minimum period.
My Lords, it would be unfortunate if, on this, as I regard it, happy occasion I were to end on that grim note. Therefore, I prefer to remind your Lordships of a comment in the Daily Telegraph leader on July 20, under the heading of "Lords and Gallows", in which we were reminded of Chesterton. It was suggested in that leader that we might have had
"a superlative chance for vindicating Chesterton's maxim that being born is a universal experience and that those who owe political power to nothing else are by definition more representative than those who earn it by submitting to an elaborate process of election."
The Daily Telegraph expressed the hope that we should not succumb to that temptation: and we did not.
I do not know whether it was because of that quotation, but certainly on Second Reading I ventured to suggest that we might agree the Bill without Division. On that occasion some people thought that was over-optimistic, but I hope no-one will think I am being over-optimistic now if I express the view that on Third Reading this Bill will not be opposed.
LORD MESTON: My Lords, I am unhappy in my mind about one question: what exactly is meant by "a very long sentence"? I hope I am not given a very long sentence for saying so, but I think that anything in excess of twenty years is nearly as terrifying as the horrible practice we are now abolishing.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I will not seek to define "a very long sentence" but I am sure we can agree that anything over twenty years comes within that description.
I listened with the greatest interest to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parker of Waddington, said in moving this Amendment. Of course, he had this Amendment on the Order Paper in the Committee stage. He brought on two runners in the race then and was only prepared to run one, and, if I may say so, he put back the horse that he thought was the better of the two. A lot of us followed his lead. That horse ran very

423
well. I think it got round the course the first time and might indeed have got round a second time in another place. But, however that may be, the noble and learned Lord has now obviously come to the conclusion that the second horse is the better of the two, and he has suggested that no reasonable person could possibly object to that second horse.
My Lords, I hope I am still a reasonable person. I must say I slightly prefer the first horse. I do not think there is all that much in it, but I believe that if a judge could pass a determinate sentence it would be likely to have a slightly more deterrent effect than just to say, "The minimum I think you will serve will be …"—whatever it may be. However, this is marginal and if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice is content with this Amendment, which I think improves the Bill, if now he believes that this horse is a better runner than the one he backed, and we backed, following his lead last time, I certainly shall not oppose this Amendment. I am certain that this Amendment, if carried into the Bill, would make a desirable improvement, although I should be willing to support him if he still wanted to risk some money on the horse he backed earlier.
3.46 p.m.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I do not feel equal to maintaining the racing metaphors which have been started by the noble and learned Viscount Lord Dilhorne, but I sometimes think that your Lordships' House presents a model of democracy which might well be copied—shall I say?—in other places We now have the spectacle of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, having carried the Amendment of his first choice, forgoing the sweets of victory and substituting the Amendment of his second choice in order to meet some criticisms which were made on the part of those who, on an earlier occasion, voted against him. As one of those who so voted I should feel it very ungracious not to acknowledge that democratic gesture. I would assure your Lordships that this Amendment meets with our approval, though perhaps I still have a little hankering and preference for the Bill without it.
LORD MESTON: My Lords, may I have a straight answer to the question which I have asked? Can a sentence of more than twenty years be given? If so, it is wicked.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER:
My Lords, I think the noble Lord is perhaps going back to the earlier Amendment. There is now no question of a determinate sentence. Under the present Amendment there will always be a life sentence and complete discretion.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, as an ordinary Member of your Lordships' House with a special interest in this subject, may I say, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice has said, that some two or three years ago I had some correspondence with him and the then Home Secretary to see whether I could achieve some accord between them as to what the consequence should be if capital punishment were abolished. I venture to hope in regard to these Amendments—and although, strictly speaking, only Amendment No. 2 is before your Lordships, No. 3 goes with it—that your Lordships will be able to accept them. Strictly speaking, even now there is nothing to prevent a judge from expressing an opinion of this kind when passing sentence. Judges have not done so in the past, and it would be proper that, if there is to be a change, it should be one embodied in a Statute. I should have thought that no one who is anxious to see capital punishment abolished, as I am, could find any reasonable cause to object to these Amendments, and I would venture to hope that my right honourable and honourable friends in another place might also give favourable consideration to them.
LORD PARKER OF WADDINGTON: My Lords, I have nothing to add. It is sometimes the second string that wins. and I hope that it does on this occasion.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PARKER OF WADDINGTON: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 3.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 7, at end insert—
("() On sentencing any person convicted of murder to imprisonment for life the Court may at the same time declare the period which it recommends to the Secretary of State as

425
the minimum period which in its view should elapse before the Secretary of State orders the release of that person on licence under Section 27 of the Prison Act 1952, or Section 21 of the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1952.")—(Lord Parker of Waddington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION
4.0 p.m.
The following Bills and Measure received the Royal Assent:

Appropriation,

Severn Bridge Tolls,

Finance,

Criminal Justice,

Lost Property (Scotland),

Justices of the Peace,

Solicitors (Scotland),

Highways (Amendment),

Solicitors,

Administration of Estates (Small Payments),

Control of Office and Industrial Development,

British Nationality,

Shops (Early Closing Days),

Gas,

Carriage of Goods by Road,

Overseas Development and Service,

Criminal Procedure (Scotland),

Housing (Amendment) (Scotland),

Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947 (Amendment),

Public Health (Notification of Births),

Statutory Orders (Special Procedure),

Firearms,

Backing of Warrants (Republic of Ireland),

Highlands and Islands Development (Scotland),

Merchant Shipping,

Trade Disputes,

Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Scotland),

Monopolies and Mergers,

National Insurance,

National Insurance (Industrial Injuries),

Family Allowances,

426

National Health Service Contributions,

Statute Law Revision (Consequential Repeals),

Compulsory Purchase,

Nuclear Installations,

Ministerial Salaries Consolidation,

New Towns,

Gas (Borrowing Powers),

Judges' Remuneration,

Redundancy Payments,

Public Works Loans,

Commons Registration,

International Monetary Fund,

Hire-Purchase,

Hire-Purchase (Scotland),

Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries,

Criminal Procedure (Attendance of Witnesses),

Coatbridge Burgh Extension Order Confirmation,

Writers to the Signet Widows' Fund Order Confirmation,

Royal Four Towns Fishing Order Confirmation,

British Waterways Order Confirmation,

Welsh Office Provisional Order Confirmation (Llanelly),

Ministry of Housing and Local Government Provisional Order Confirmation (Melton Mowbray),

Ministry of Housing and Local Government Provisional Order Confirmation (Newton-le-Willows),

Ministry of Housing and Local Government Provisional Order Confirmation (Rotherham),

University of Leeds,

Greater London Council (General Powers),

British Railways,

Birmingham Corporation,

British Waterways,

Gulf Oil Refining,

Greater London Council (Money),

Aberdare Markets and Town Hall,

Flintshire County Council (Higher Ferry Saltney Footbridge),

Crude Oil Terminals (Humber),

Devon County Council,

Poole Corporation,

Saint Laurence, Catford,

Huddersfield Corporation,

Rochester Bridge,

Brighton Skydeck,

Conway Corporation,

Pembrokeshire County Council,

Rochdale Canal,

427

Birkenhead Corporation (Mersey Tunnel Approaches),

City of London (Various Powers),

Mersey Tunnel (Liverpool/Wallasey) &c.,

London Transport,

Manchester Corporation.

Prayer Book (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure.

House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

RENT BILL
4.25 p.m.
Report of Amendments received (according to Order).
Clause 3:
Limit on contractual rent.
3.—
(3) Where no rent for the dwelling-house is registered under this Act (whether or not Part II of this Act is in operation in the area in which the dwelling-house is situated) the said limit shall, subject to any adjustment under section 4 of this Act, be—
(a) if not more than three years before the regulated tenancy began the dwelling-house was the subject of another regulated tenancy, the rent payable under that other tenancy (or, if there was more than one, the last of them) for the last rental period thereof;
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved, in subsection (3)(a), to leave out "three" and insert "two". The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is slightly different from the one I moved on the previous occasion, which was taken by the noble Lord, Lord Champion, and instead of inserting "one year", as I did on that occasion, I have inserted "two years". Noble Lords may remember that there was a difference of interpretation on this important clause, and with the permission of the House and of the noble Lord, Lord Champion, who has given it, I should like to read out part of a letter which he has sent to me, because I think it is useful to have the meaning of this clause cleared up once and for all.
The noble Lord wrote as follows:
"In Clause 3, then, we are dealing with rent payable whilst a tenancy agreement still governs the relationship of landlord and tenant, and what the clause does is to prescribe a limit on the rent that can be recovered; in other words, it establishes the rent freeze so far as that tenancy is concerned. The rent freeze will he 'thawed', of course, as soon as a fair rent is registered for a dwelling; there is no ques-
428
tion of the landlord having to wait three years before applying for a fair rent—he can do this as soon as Part I is brought into operation."
It will be seen, therefore, that the interpretation which I and the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, set upon this clause is the correct one, and this does deal with the initial phase and the rent freeze. It is precisely because of the last sentence in that paragraph of the letter, that there is no question of the landlord's having to wait three years before applying for a fair rent—
"he can do this as soon as Part I is brought into operation"—
that I put down originally "one year" and now "two years" as the right period. Perhaps one year would be a little close, as the rent officers may not be operating much before that time in all areas, and therefore it seemed to me very reasonable that two years should be inserted instead. That is the purpose of this Amendment, and I hope the noble Lord will find it acceptable.
There was another interesting matter arising out of this clause, and, if I may, will read a little more of the letter from the noble Lord, Lord Champion. He wrote:
"This clause, of course, applies not only in the initial stages of the working of this legislation; it will apply, given the right conditions, at any time in the future. Suppose, for example, I want to let a house two years hence; in considering the rent I can charge, I must ask myself: is there a registered rent? … If there isn't, I next have to ask: has there been a regulated tenancy within the last three years—that is to say, a tenancy for which a rent could have been registered. but in fact wasn't? If there has been such a tenancy I cannot charge more than I charged in the case of that earlier tenancy."
What occurs to one immediately after that is that if the period of three years had elapsed, the landlord and tenant would apparently be free to agree upon a new rent. But if that were the case, and the tenant subsequently regretted his agreement and took the matter to the rent officer, and was successful in getting a lower rent registered than that agreed, would the tenant then be able to recover the excess rent which he had been paying, perhaps for as much as a year? It seemed to me that the answer depended on whether or not that tenancy was a statutory tenancy.
I was under the impression that any second tenancy is a statutory tenancy

429
under Clause 5, and that therefore the tenant would be able to recover that excess rent. But apparently I am wrong and not all second tenancies are statutory tenancies. The enoble Lord, Lord Mitchison, to whom I wrote about this, was good enough to reply in the following terms:
"Firstly, you ask whether the second tenancy is a statutory tenancy, and the answer is No. A statutory tenancy, as I see it, comes into being only when a contractual tenancy (i.e., one created by a tenancy agreement between landlord and tenant) has been terminated by the landlord, and statute law (i.e., the Rent Acts) provides the legal basis for continued occupation of the dwelling by the former contractual tenant. By definition, if I agree to let my house afresh, the tenant and I will start off with a tenancy agreement and he will therefore be a contractual tenant, not a statutory one, though he will in all probability be a regulated contractual tenant."
I apologise for reading all that to your Lordships, but it makes absolutely clear the intent of this clause, which I think is extremely obscure, and it is very desirable that landlords and tenants should know what they are able to do by agreement and what the effects of that will be. Now that it can be read in the OFFICIAL REPORT there should be no doubt in the future, and I beg to move this Amendment which, for the reasons I stated in the beginning, I hope will prove acceptable.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 20, leave out ("three") and insert ("two").—(Lord Hastings.)
4.31 p.m.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I had read Lord Champion's letter previously, but may I apologise to the noble Lord for having been a minute or two late and missing only, I hope, little more than the beginning of the letter? May I try putting this in my own way, not because I differ in any way from my noble friend Lord Champion, but because one prefers to do it in one's own fashion? If the Minister has not brought Part II of the Bill into operation in the relevant area, paragraph 3(b) is going to operate in a normal case where the tenancy begins before (as I call it) the rent freeze—that is, the period when that Part is not in operation—and if it is continued right through the rent freeze. That is not this case. But suppose that during the period of rent freeze a tenancy ends because, say, the tenant leaves the house and the landlord relets Then paragraph 3(a)
430
comes into operation and the final rent payable for the first tenancy is the limit of the rent recoverable by the landlord under the second tenancy until a fair rent is fixed, and that will have to be done, if it is to be fixed otherwise than by agreement, under the Part II machinery when it comes into force. So far as this Amendment relates to that period at all, the only point to make clear, I think, is that everyone will be sadly disappointed and surprised if the period of freeze lasts for three years or anything like it.
Now suppose Part II has come into operation. The parties are bound to their contractual rent unless the tenant—or the landlord, for that matter—refers the agreement to the rent-fixing authorities and some other rent is fixed. But suppose the tenancy comes to an end and the landlord relets. The tenant is entitled to the protection of a maximum rent, if one is readily available, even though he has not yet referred his agreement to the rent officer. In these circumstances, paragraph (a) does this—and, as I see it, only this: it says that if the dwelling-house has been let in the last three years on a regulated tenancy and no rent is registered (we are now, of course, assuming Part II has come into operation) then the assumption is that the landlord was satisfied with the rent he was getting and the tenant was satisfied, and that that figure should be the limit of rent recoverable until a fair rent is registered. But once Part II is in operation, the landlord can at any time ask for a fair rent to be fixed. He is not bound for any period to the limit set by Clause 3.
In those circumstances, the only question is whether three years is a reasonable period to allow a fair rent fixed by the rent-fixing machinery to last; and whether, if the landlord tacitly accepts a rent as a fair rent, it is also a fair period. This is really a matter of judgment—how long, after a rent fixed either by the rent-fixing machinery or by express or tacit agreement, ought to be allowed before anyone reopens the bargain in these circumstances? Our conclusion has always been—and, agree, this is considerably a matter of judgment—that three years was right. The matter has been debated previously on an Amendment proposing one year, but we remain of the same opinion. I wonder whether the noble Lord would feel that, in a matter of this kind—

431
and I repeat it is really a matter of judgment—it is not unreasonable to accept the experience one generally attributes to the Ministry of Housing or the people whom the Ministry of Housing no doubt consult in the matter, and that we should leave it at three years.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 11:
Power to convert existing controlled tenancies into regulated tenancies
11.—
(6) A notice of increase served under section 7 of this Act in respect of an existing controlled tenancy which by virtue of an order under this section is treated as a regulated tenancy shall only he valid if the rent specified in it does not exceed by more than fifteen per cent. of the controlled rent the rent payable for the rental period beginning twelve months before the notice takes effect, except so far as the increase relates to such part of the rent registered under this Act as may in pursuance of the order be distinguished in the register as attributable to the provision of additional or improved services or furniture or the carrying out of an improvement; and in ascertaining for the purposes of this subsection the amount of the rent payable for any rental period, any amount payable in respect of rates borne by the landlord or a superior landlord shall be disregarded.
4.37 p.m.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved, in subsection (6), to leave out "fifteen per cent. of the controlled rent" and insert "the specified figure". The noble Duke said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2 which stands in my name on the Order Paper; and, with your Lordships' permission, I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 3, as Amendment No. 2 is just a paving Amendment for Amendment No. 3, which contains the bones of the matter. On the Committee stage of this Bill I moved an Amendment which would have had the effect of allowing the controlled rent to rise by 7s. 6d. per week each year until it had reached the so-called fair rent. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, who replied on behalf of the Government, opposed this for, as far as I can make out, three main reasons. The first was that it would hit hardest, percentage-wise, those who occupied the worst houses—the theory being that, on the whole, the worst houses have the lowest rent, which I think is a fair enough theory. Secondly, he did not like it because, he
432
said, it might double, or even in some cases treble, some rents, and he felt that these increases would be much too steep. Thirdly, he did not like it because the only rent increase which had been permitted during the course of the last fifteen years or so was the 1957 one of 25 per cent., and this Amendment would enable rents to rise far faster than appears to have been envisaged over the last fifteen years.
I might, in parenthesis, say that if I speak largely about Scotland so far as these Amendments are concerned, it is not because I do not realise that they apply to England but because, on the whole, the rents in England are so much fairer and so much more realistic that my new figures would have only a very marginal effect so far as the average rents in England are concerned, either because the fair rent and the controlled rent are not all that much different or because the 15 per cent. increase, of which the Government approve, would in many cases come to more than six shillings, anyway.
I have tabled a new Amendment this time to try to get over the three difficulties which the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, pointed out on the Committee stage. May I take them in the reverse order to that in which he put them? The third of his difficulties—namely, that my 7s. 6d. would have allowed a far greater increase than had been envisaged at any time since the war—is not, I submit, really a difficulty. I have, incidentally, reduced the 7s. 6d. to 6s. for this Amendment, because, on thinking it over, I am inclined to agree that in some cases 7s. 6d. is probably a little high and 6s. would be a better figure. I think that nearly everyone agrees that controlled rents in Scotland, at any rate, have not kept pace with the fall in the value of money and have not even done so sufficiently to allow the landlords to do the essential repairs unless they are prepared to dip substantially into their own pockets.
After all, the average rent of controlled houses in Scotland has risen by only 33 per cent. since 1914, whereas a joiner's jobbing rate has gone up from 1s. 0½d. to 11s. 8d. an hour, which is a rise of approximately 1,125 per cent. And this is only an average rent; in some places the actual rents of houses are worse in

433
money terms than they were in 1914. In other places, such as Lanarkshire, they are about equal to the 1914 figure. I am sure that noble Lords would agree that this makes it almost impossible for the landlord to do the essential repairs which we consider so desirable in these controlled houses.
The second of Lord Hughes's objections I have tried to meet by putting a limit of 50 per cent. on the amount by which the rent can be increased. Thus, if the weekly rent is less than 12s., the 6s. will not apply, but the landlord will be allowed to increase the weekly rent by only 50 per cent. of the present controlled rent. It is in regard to the first of the noble Lord's objections that our attitudes are fundamentally different. Many tenants pay such a small rent weekly (I gave some examples on Committee stage and I should be delighted to give further examples now if it would not weary your Lordships), that a 15 per cent. increase would amount to less than 1s. 6d. a week, which, in my opinion, is absolutely ridiculous.
I will give just one example to your Lordships: a house of three bedrooms, a kitchen and a bath room in Dundee is rented now at 9s. 4d. a week (incidentally, it was 6s. 8d. a week in 1914) and as the Bill now stands the rent would be increased by less than 1s. 5d. a week until the new fair rent was reached. I should like to point out in this connection that 6s. a week represents about one-and-a-quarter hours' work to even the lowest-paid worker in this country; but to many people in these heavily subsidised houses (and when I say "subsidised" I do not mean subsidised by the council, but subsidised by the private landlord) the 6s. represents just about three-quarters of an hour's work. This does not seem an unreasonable weekly increase.
The crux of this problem is the relation between the controlled rent and the gross annual value. In a survey conducted in 1963 by the Scottish Development Department and the National Federation of Property Owners in Scotland, the average rent of 56,740 controlled houses was £15 15s. 5d. per annum, and the gross annual value of the same houses averaged £27 16s. 7d. If the 15 per cent. increase remains the limit, it will take rover five years for the rent to reach the
434
present gross annual value. During those five years there is bound to be another quinquennial revaluation, which will once again, in all probability, increase the gross annual value quite substantially; so it will probably be eight or even nine years before the rent gets anywhere near the gross annual value.
That is the average; in many cases the position is considerably worse. Thus, in Ayrshire, 998 controlled rents averaged £12 6s. 6d. per annum while the gross annual value of the same houses was £26 6s. 3d. The 15 per cent. increase allowed would represent £1 17s. per annum or 8½d. a week, and it would be the eighth year before the rent reached the present gross annual value. This is surely much too slow a rate of progress and will not enable the landlord to do the repairs and to put these houses in good order, which is the whole object of this Bill. Under my suggestions I think it would be in the third year that the rent would reach the gross annual value in that particular example; and as a general average it would reach it in the second year.
Lastly, I should like to read a short extract from the Daily Mail which appeared two days after we had the Committee stage of this Bill. It reads as follows:
"Rent rises of up to £1 3s. 0d. a week for council tenants in the London constituencies of two Government Ministers have led to a demand for the resignation of the local Labour Party chairmen. The tenants are in Bermond sey, Southwark and Camberwell, now merged in one Greater London Council borough."
This borough, I believe, has a Labour council. I shall leave out the next paragraph, which is not relevant. The article goes on:
"The rent scheme, due to be announced on Wednesday, will affect 16,000 people and the average rise will be 8s. 6d. a week,"—
which is considerably more than the rise I have suggested in my Amendment—
"but some families will get a rebate."
I feel very strongly about this Amendment. I think almost the only hope of improving the standard of the controlled houses in Scotland is that the landlords should be allowed to make a reasonable increase as soon as possible in their rents. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 27, leave out ("fifteen per cent. of the controlled rent") and insert ("the specified figure").—(The Duke of Atholl.)
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I am not a landlord and I am only a quarter Scots. I support the concept in this Bill of a fair rent: but, pari passu with that, I think to make for fairness and common sense one should have a more or less uniform rate of advance from the present rent to the fair rent. As the Bill stands at the moment, as my noble friend pointed out, there is arithmetical nonsense in it. You cannot equate the present rents and the fair rents on the same scale or percentage where in some cases they will have to rise by a quarter or a half and in other cases fourfold or fivefold. I think the Government would be wise to accept some Amendment of this nature; because, as I say, their Bill in this respect is arithmetical nonsense without it.
4.48 p.m.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I do not think the case could have been put more fairly than it was put by the noble Duke who moved the Amendment, but I am afraid that I still have to resist it; and I will tell him why. There fell from his lips, in the course of moving the Amendment, a sentence with which I entirely disagree. The object of this Bill is not to enable landlords who have not repaired houses to repair them now: it is to give security to tenants; and the rent arrangements really follow on that. One of these arrangements is that, in certain circumstances, the landlord can apply to have a fair rent fixed, instead of the controlled rent which used to exist under the 1957 Act. The feature of this Bill is the way it departs from the principle of every previous Rent Act, which has tried to control rents on the basis of some arithmetical arrangement dependent usually upon the rateable value. That was the case in the 1957 Act. I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, still clinging to it, but I am not quite certain that he would have applied it to other points than the immediate one.
My Lords, the substantial point here is that if a fair rent is found to be higher than the present controlled rent, then a landlord will, in due course, be allowed to get his fair rent. That is the whole fabric and basis of the Bill. It was because of this arrangement towards substituting a fair rent for the previous controlled rent—not uniformly I agree, but as the basis of the matter—that the Bill
436
was, very rightly, welcomed in this House as a courageous Bill; and one does not want to get away from that in any sense. The principal point is that it does not follow that in every case every landlord will get a higher rent. It depends on whether the original controlled rent was or was not unfair to him. If it was unfair, then to the extent that it was unfair, he will be allowed to increase it. In some cases, the increases may be quite considerable in relation to the rent itself, and the result, as the Bill was originally brought forward in another place, would have been that a tenant might have been compelled to pay a rent increased by a very large proportion of his former rent in one jump—if I may so put it. Subsection (6) of Clause 11 was introduced as an Amendment to meet that difficulty. It is intended to apply particularly to tenants who are rather badly off and, on the whole, are paying small rents.
I entirely accept from the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, that there are a great many low rents in Scotland. But low rents are not confined entirely to Scotland, and this clause would bite on rents which are a great deal higher than the ones which the noble Duke gave as an instance. If I have done by arithmetic properly, paragraph (a) applies to rents of 12s. and lower, and paragraph (b) applies to rents between 12s. and 40s. We are therefore getting out of the region of the minimal rents which seem to exist in some parts of Scotland, and which were found by the survey to which the noble Duke referred. The Amendments are therefore of fairly wide application, and the whole object is to enable landlords to get increases more quickly. The reason given is that the landlord could not otherwise afford to do his repairs, or, putting it on another basis, that he ought to be put into a position to do his repairs out of the rent as increased. That is another question. I do not think I can accept it in that form, and I want to look at the matter from the point of view of the tenant.
When we are dealing with these small rents, an increase of 6s. may mean an increase of very nearly 100 per cent.—as in some cases which were given—or certainly 75 per cent. I think that that is too much to put on people suddenly; the right way to do it is to take a proportion of the rent. I do not think that we should be doing the right thing

437
if we made the tenant of a small house with a low rent bear such an increase.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, my Amendment limits the increase to 50 per cent. The noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, has talked about 100 per cent. or 75 per cent. throughout the range.
LORD MITCHISON: I do not think that we are quite at one about this. I was talking of what would happen if there were no provision in the Bill at all. That was the reason why subsection (6) was introduced in another place. Without it we should have had increases of that order. It was thought that a 15 per cent. increase at a time was reasonable. One could go on doing sums about how long it would take a landlord to get his full increase, but against that we have to weigh the fact that the tenant has to pay. In the case of a smallish house with a low rent, it does not seem to be right to have an increase of the order contemplated in the noble Duke's Amendment. Like so much else in this Bill, it is a matter of judgment. I appreciate the point of view of the landlord but I do not think that it would weigh very much in my mind—perhaps I am too prejudiced—against the hardship that a jump of the order contemplated in the present Amendment would impose on a tenant who is paying a low rent and usually is living in a small house. On that one ground, therefore, I would resist the Amendment.
In another place an Amendment was made to meet the case of two sudden jumps, and I think that the case has been met. It was in the nature of a compromise, and to extend it beyond what has been given would mean an interference in respect of the small tenant. If he is a Scots tenant I see the point made by the noble Duke, but I can only tell the noble Duke that this clause will apply all over the country. It is a balance, and when making a balance of this kind we do perhaps come down on the side of the more human factor, which in this case is the hardship that might be caused to the tenant. I cannot think it right to allow a 50 per cent. increase at the bottom, and to lower the increase in the higher range. I would not say that I would do it the other way round—that would be almost perverse; but I think that the percentage range is the right one, and
438
that an attempt to put a maximum figure, however qualified, is bound to impair the fairness of the arrangement. I hope that the noble Duke will accept that I, and I think I may speak for my honourable and right honourable friends also, have looked at this carefully and feel, on the grounds that I have tried to give, that we must stick to the percentage arrangement.
On question, Amendment negatived.
4.59 p.m.
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON moved, after Clause 14, to insert a new clause 10. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should point out that there is a printing error in the first word of the proposed new clause which is printed as "When"; it should be, "Where", but I do not think that makes very much difference. This Amendment is yet another attempt to meet the case of the man who obtains a house with vacant possession intending to live in it when he retires. During the Committee stage we had quite a good argument on the merits of treating this sort of man exceptionally. It seemed to me that there was general agreement about the desirability of doing so if a good way to do it could be found. The noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, was sympathetic about the purpose, just as were Ministers in another place, and it seems to me that there was no divergence of opinion between the two sides of the House on the merits of the objection. It was merely a question of how it could be done without opening the door too wide.
That, in fact, was the objection made by the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, to my noble friend Lord St. Helens, who moved a somewhat similar new clause during the Committee stage—namely that it went too wide. This Amendment is much narrower in two respects. The first is that my Amendment would bite only if the house is to be occupied by the owner or his widow. My noble friend's Amendment made it possible for the house to be occupied by members of the owner-occupier's family. The second is that the owner must apply to the court within five years of the date on which he rented the house, so there could be no question under this Amendment of turning out a tenant who had lived in a house for many years and had come to regard it as his own home.
This Amendment approaches the problem of the man about to retire in the same way as did my noble friend's Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, objected to this approach for various reasons. One was that to approach the problem in this way makes no mention either of retirement or of age. We fully accept the view that we cannot do it that way, and that if we tried to write retirement or age into the clause we should get into difficulty, and we have not attempted to do so. Another objection of the noble Lord was that the owner is already fully protected by the 1933 Act. We do not think that he is, and this is the reson why we keep putting down this Amendment.
The noble Lord's third objection is that the owner is given the absolute right to get his house back and this might result in hardship to the tenant. It is arguable how much hardship there would be to a tenant who agreed to live in a house, if he knew that within five years the landlord would require possession. It does not seem to me that this is a valid objection to this approach, if one accepts that it is right in principle to treat specially the man who requires a house for his retirement. I thought that there was no difference of opinion between the two sides of the House on this principle. Otherwise the noble Lord would not have said that he had tried hard to find a way to give effect to this principle. The fourth objection of the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, was that this provision would cover cases which have nothing to do with retirement. I do not believe that my new clause, as it is drawn, would give rise to many non-retirement cases. I think that it is sufficiently narrow. In any event, this seems to me to be a risk which it is right to take in order to achieve the very desirable object of assisting those about to retire. I commend this new clause to your Lordships and hope that the noble Lord will also commend it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 14, to insert the following new clause:
Recovery of possession of dwelling-house for residence by owner or his widow
(".—(1) Where a person has purchased or became the owner of a dwelling-house with vacant possession and intends to occupy it within five years from the date of obtaining
440
vacant possession and has let the dwelling-house on a regulated tenancy and the conditions mentioned in subsection (2) of this section are satisfied, then if—

(a) apart from the Rent Acts the landlord would he entitled to recover possession of the dwelling-house; and

(b) the court is satisfied that the dwelling-house is required as a residence for that person or his widow, and the said five years have not elapsed;

the court shall make an order for the possession of the dwelling-house, whether or not it would have power to do so under section 3 of the Act of 1933, and section 5(2) of the Act of 1920 shall not apply in relation to the order.
(2) The said conditions are—

(a) that not later than the commencement of the tenancy (or if the tenancy was created before the commencement of this Act, not later than six months after the commencement of this Act) the landlord has given notice in writing to the tenant that possession may be recovered under this section; and

(b) that the dwelling-house has not since the commencement of this Act been let by the owner-occupier on a regulated tenancy with respect to which the condition mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection was not satisfied.")—(Lord Newton.)

LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, the noble Lord is perfectly right in saying that both here and in another place we expressed sympathy with the man who wants to get a house to retire into and we sought to find a clause that would meet his case. The noble Lord's new clause differs in two points from the one moved by the noble Lord, Lord St. Helens. It brings in the widow and limits it to a period of five years out of occupation.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, it does not bring in the widow; it excludes the family.
LORD MITCHISON: I stand corrected. I put it the wrong way round. It refers to the widow and does not bring in the family. Like the clause of the noble Lord, Lord St. Helens, this clause does not mention the word "retirement". When we consider the substance of the matter, there are still the points of the age at which people retire and what is retirement, and the position of, for instance, members of learned professions who have repeated "retirements". A clause in these comparatively wide terms will, as the noble Lord recognised, bring in a number of cases that are not retirement cases at all.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I really believe that, drawn as it is, this new clause would not bring in a very large number of non-retirement cases. If the noble Lord disagrees, would he give a few examples of the sort of cases that would arise?
LORD MITCHISON: I see no particular reason why it should not bring in a large number of cases, unless it is felt that the five-year provision makes all the difference. I doubt if it does. It would still allow a man, having bought a house with vacant possession, to let it for five years and resume possession for some purpose quite unconnected with retirement.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I do not want to be difficult, but I ask the noble Lord to apply his mind to this point. A large number of people will not do that unless they are going to retire.
LORD MITCHISON: I think that there are a substantial number who might, and that is as far as one can go in cases of this sort. Neither the noble Lord nor I can estimate a matter of this kind. We can only use our ordinary judgment. And I think that is what would happen. People would buy houses, intending not to occupy them until five years later, and their reason for resuming occupation might not be the intention to retire to that house. The trouble is that, under this new clause, whatever the reason for which they wish to resume occupation, if they have given the requisite notice, they will be entitled to do so. If there were no other provision for these people, I think I should feel differently about this, but there is. There is the ordinary provision of the 1933 Act, to which the noble Lord referred, subject to limitations about the date of purchase, which has been pushed on with every Rent Act that has been passed.
The difference between the two provisions is that, when you are proceeding under the 1933 Act—and all these matters could be dealt with under that Act—you have to consider what is reasonable, and you have to bear in mind the balance of hardship. I think that is right, because you would get cases (I cannot tell the noble Lord how many, and he cannot tell me) in which it might be a considerable hardship. A man who had gone into
442
a house four years ahead, expecting that he would be turned out after such a period, might find that he had nowhere else to go.
I hope that we shall get out of the worst difficulties of London housing fairly soon, but there is the real possibility of hardship here to the four or five year tenant. It is not like letting accommodation for a holiday, or some short period; this is quite a substantial let. There must be people who will accept a let of this sort, with notice given, because at present they cannot get any other accommodation. It is true that one must hold them to their bargain. But there is this hardship in these cases, and under the 1933 Act you have to consider hardship, and hardship not only to the tenant but to the landlord, too.
I think, therefore, on balance—and this is a question of balance—that, in the long run, this is a better way of dealing with the matter than by putting in this additional remedy which will cover people other than people providing for their retirement. I feel that some noble Lord opposite will throw a book at me if I talk again about balance, judgment, and the rest of it, but you cannot avoid it in dealing with this type of Bill. I think the clause as now drawn is too wide. It might cover the people considering retirement; it might also cover others. It might help some cases, and it might be hard on others—and when I say "it might be hard on others", I am thinking particularly of the tenant's position in the matter. I am not saying this because of any prejudice in favour of the one or the other, but simply because of the feeling that the 1933 Act provides more suitable machinery in what I think is always bound to be a not altogether easy case.
I am sorry about this. Both I and my right honourable friend should have liked to find—I say this quite genuinely—a clause that would cover the case of "retirement people". But we gave it up. We looked at this clause hoping that it would provide an answer; but I do not think it does, and I must say to the House that I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I think what is so disappointing about the noble Lord's reply is that it is so negative. For instance, he talks of the matter of

443
judgment, and he thinks that it will let in a lot of people whom the Government do not want to benefit by this kind of clause. I think that is very bad judgment. In my view, it will let in remarkably few people. After all, most people who buy a house buy it for immediate occupation. Those who do not, buy it with a purpose, and usually that purpose is to retire to it. Would the noble Lord please take note that we have not even allowed for the wife to occupy such a house while her husband is still alive, but only in the event of his death? Surely this is a perfectly apt right; indeed, it is a moral duty for a man to provide for his widow. We only provide for that instance, and for no other; and that in itself makes it clear that it is a place for a person to retire to, or for his widow to retire to, but not to use while he is alive.
It seemed to us that a five-year period was reasonable. A man looks ahead to the day of his retirement at a certain age, whatever his profession may be, and he looks for and finds a house at a suitable moment and buys it for the purpose of I retiring to it. I think that is so in nine cases out of ten. But we do not tie ourselves to five years. I feel that if the noble Lord and the Government were willing, they could accept this proposal and put in three years, or even as little as two years. It would still be a step in the right direction. It would help the people who are going to retire, and diminish the extent of possible hardship, about which the noble Lord seems so anxious, on any temporary tenant in the house.
Certainly we have cut out any possibility of landlords who own a great many flats doing this with one after another of them and putting in various members of the family. I should have thought that this was strictly limited, and it seems to me to boil down to the simple question of whether the Government are seriously concerned about the position of the man who wishes to retire and make provision for his retirement by buying a house, or whether they are not. After listening to the noble Lord, both on the Committee stage and during this discussion, serious doubts enter my mind as to whether the Government are as seriously interested in this matter as they have professed to be. We have certainly shown ourselves strenuously endeavouring
444
to solve this problem. I should have thought that, with a little modification of the time factor, the Government could well accept this Amendment without any fear of leaving the door open to many people to take unfair advantage of the position.
5.17 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will be prepared to look at this Amendment again. He has gone some long way in the direction of accepting the principle. There are cases, as he admits, where a person buys a house without requiring to live in it at once, but foreseeing that within a certain period he will want to live in it, or that, if he happens to die, his widow will. He is limiting it only to cases of people who foresee retirement, but there are other cases equally meritorious. In my own practice, we have often had occasion to buy houses for people who are going abroad on a job, say, for three or five years, and who want to be quite certain that when they return at the end of their term of duty they will have a home to go to. That practice seems to me to be not unmeritorious, and there is nothing wrong in it or against public policy. That they should then be put in the position that they have to establish that their hardship is greater than the hardship of the person who has been in occupation seems to me to be manifestly unfair. They have bought the house for this express purpose, and at the end of their term of duty abroad, if they can satisfy the court that they genuinely want to live in the house and not just to be in a position to sell it at a profit, they ought to be able as a matter of right to live in that house.
It may be that the wording of the Amendment is not all that it should be, but I hope my noble friend will be prepared to look at it again, with a view to extending the principle, which he has already accepted, to those who have bought a house with the genuine intention of living in it at some future time.
I have mentioned a case of people who go to serve a term of duty abroad in their jobs. There are, also, of course, people in the Services. A man who knows that his duty in the Services will come to an end in three or four years' time may want to be assured of having a home to go to. He is not retiring. Such

445
men are in their early forties, perhaps, men who are looking forward to carrying on activities in other fields. They ought to be considered, and they are entitled to sympathy just as the person in retirement. So I would ask my noble friend not to say "No" flat out, but to be prepared to look at it again at the last stage of the consideration of this Bill.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, I should like to support this Amendment, as I supported the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord St. Helens, on Committee stage. I feel it is important. I have seen a little of this in my experience of local government officials. A policeman may build a house and let it for two or three years, but he wants to feel certain that he has somewhere to go when he retires, and when he has to get out of the local authority house. There are teachers, living in school houses, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said, people in the Services, going abroad, who want to make certain that when they return there is somewhere for them to live in their retirement from the Service. I cannot see why something should not be done for them. I feel strongly about this matter, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, will look at it again. He said that he has sympathy with the Amendment, but that there is difficulty over the drafting. Surely, with the ingenuity of the Department and this House we could find some words which will help these people.
BARONESS BROOKE OF YSTRADFELLTE: My Lords, I want to raise a point of sympathy towards clergy widows. I make this special plea because I happen myself to be the daughter of a vicarage. I know full well that many of my father's colleagues who were in possession of a Church house used to feel very strongly that they wanted to leave security for their widows when they died. The clergy widow not only loses her husband, but she loses her home, and she has to leave her home within three months of her husband's death. If her husband has bought a cottage or a small home for her within a year or two of his death, it seems to me that, unless this clause is looked at again, it will prevent her from having a home to go to. This is the point I wish to make, and I hope that it will be looked at again with sympathy.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, surely one snag of not accepting this Amendment would be that many dwellings which could house people satisfactorily for three or four years will be left empty—the people who own them knowing that in three or four years they will want possession for themselves.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, at the last stage of the Bill I made the point about the clergy. The point about the clergy's widow has just been made. The noble Lord said that they sought to try to find an Amendment to meet this point. I think that his colleague, an eminent old Wykehamist, ought to be ashamed if the ingenuity of his upbringing cannot manage to produce a solution.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, if I may have the leave of the House to speak again, out of courtesy to noble Lords who have spoken since I last spoke, I would say that I doubt whether there is a question of principle here. I think we are all agreed that if we could provide for the case of a man who buys a house with a view to retiring shortly into it, we would do so. My right honourable friend certainly said it quite clearly in another place; I repeated it here, and I have repeated it again to-day. The trouble is that this clause does not do that; it does a good deal more. On balance—and I repeat that it is a question of balance—we must stay with the 1933 Act machinery. The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, did not mention the 1933 Act machinery, and it is there.
LORD NEWTON: It is not enough, as I said.
LORD MITCHISON: The noble Lord says that he thinks it is not enough. The reason why he thinks that is presumably because it takes account of hardship on both sides. That is the difference.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, not only does it do that, but you cannot take account of hardship at ail if the man bought the house after March 23, 1965.
LORD MITCHISON: That is because this is the date of the current Rent Act. I really think that this kind of privilege is a matter for some other Amendment, not for this one. In the vast majority of cases the balance of hardship will have to he considered, and what noble

447
Lords are asking—and let us be quite clear about it—is that the hardship should be considered on one side, and not on the other. That does not appeal to me. I think it is right that in those circumstances we should rely on the 1933 Act. I agree there is always the case of the man who has bought a house quite recently and that comes, of course, in the application of the 1933 Act. On the whole, and on the best judgment I can take of it, I think this clause would go too far. We tried—tried desperately, I may say—to find something that would not go too far, and we could not find it.
May I, with great respect, point out one thing to my noble friend Lord Silkin? The burden of proof of hardship in these cases is not on the landlord; it is on the tenant, who has to show that an order for possession ought not to be made. That makes quite a considerable difference in the position. Broadly speaking, this question has cropped up in previous rent legislation. It has been very carefully considered, and carefully considered more than once, and Parliament has always thought it right to provide for both sides of the case to be taken into account and to strike a balance between the hardship on both sides.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, would my noble friend consider this? This is not a case of two equal contestants for accommodation. This is a case of a person who buys a house deliberately with the intention of occupying it in a few years. It is his only purpose in buying it. He gives notice to the tenant. The tenant goes in with the full knowledge that in a certain number of years he will be required to give up possession. Where then does the question of relative hardship come in? This is a bargain which both parties enter into with their eyes open.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, with great respect (I do not want to conduct this argument at any great length), this is just the sort of case that the county court judge has to consider. If my noble friend is telling me that there can be no hardship on the tenant, I beg leave to disagree with him.
LORD SILKIN: I am not saying that.
LORD MITCHISON: I did not think my noble friend meant to. It is left,
448
and has been left for years, to the judgment of the county court judge. I think that is the right way to do it—the burden being put on the tenant, if he wishes to resist an order for possession, to show that the greater hardship would be caused to him. As regards the question of the date, your Lordships will remember that this is a case of a house bought with vacant possession. In that case, I do not think noble Lords will find that the question of the date has anything whatever to do with it. I just mention that.
The question I have to consider, and the question the House has to consider, is not one of deep principle, concerning the form of the Amendment or anything of that sort. It is broadly the question of whether, in cases which are already dealt with by the 1933 Act—on consideration of the hardship involved to both sides—your Lordships should be (I hope you will allow me to say this) rather landlord-minded and eliminate the possibility of considering whether there is any hardship to the temporary tenant. If you ask me whether the tenant will usually succeed, I think the answer is that, in the cases your Lordships have been putting to me he will never succeed: he will always be turned out. I can think of cases—and I mentioned one or two when I was speaking—in which the tenant would suffer hardship if this clause were passed whereby the court would be precluded from considering any possible hardship on the tenant. It is a very old maxim that it is better to hear both sides, and that is what the 1933 Act provides in cases of this kind.
LORD NEWTON: I am exercising my right of reply. I must draw the noble Lord's attention to his own Clause 14 in the Bill, which deals with owner-occupied houses. There is nothing there to require the court to consider possible hardship to the tenant, and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, would like to consider this point.
LORD MITCHISON: I will gladly reply to that if the noble Lord wishes me to. Of course, I have noticed Clause 14, and it will cover a lot of cases. I am quite prepared to draw the distinction if the noble Lord wishes me to, but perhaps it is sufficient to consider this clause as it is.
LORD NEWTON: No, my Lords, because this is a basic principle as to whether or not powers of recovery of possession should be given without any requirement that the court should consider the possible hardship to the tenant; and the fact that Clause 14 is in the Bill appears to me completely to torpedo the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison. I think it must be quite obvious how strongly virtually every noble Lord in this Chamber this afternoon feels about the rightness of an Amendment of this kind. At any rate, there has not been a single speech in support of the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, and I would support the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in his suggestion that the noble Lord should think about this Amendment just once more. I know he has done it before, but I should like him to do it again.
Finally, may I try once again to get the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, to see the inconsistency of maintaining, on the one hand, that the Government accept the principle of giving exceptional treatment to the man who is going to retire, if only they can do it, and at the same time complaining, when we try to do it, that it is unacceptable because it ignores the hardship to the tenant. As I said in moving the Amendment, if the Government accept the principle that it is desirable to treat exceptionally the man who is going to retire, then, ipso facto, they must accept that in the end they are giving him absolute power to recover possession, irrespective of the hardship to the tenant. So, with great respect, it seems to me that all the argument about the balance of hardship is completely irrelevant provided that the Government accept the principle that it is desirable, if possible, to help these people.
The only objection then left to my new clause is that it would cover cases other than retirement. I still believe that there would not be many other cases, but the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, argued persuasively that there might be equally deserving cases, such as that of the man who wants to go abroad and wants to buy a house beforehand in order that he may return and live in it. I am going to withdraw this Amendment now, because I do not feel we shall get any further, but I may have yet another shot at it on Third Reading, and I should be grateful if the
450
noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, would accept the advice of his noble friend.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, if I may be allowed shortly to answer one point, the difference between Clause 14 and this proposed new clause is that Clause 14 deals with the owner-occupier—it is his home. The most that can be said in this case is not that the landlord has ever occupied the house but that he has bought it for some purpose or other in the future. This seems to me to make all the difference in a Bill which, after all, is founded on the right of people to stay in their homes at a fair rent. I do not expect for one moment that the noble Lord, Lord Newton, will agree with me. If he wishes I will certainly speak to my noble friend Lord Silkin, but with a view to persuading him rather than being persuaded myself.
LORD NEWTON: I really cannot accept that there is some basic distinction between a claim in respect of a house which you have already occupied and a house which you have bought in order that it may be your home in the future, but such difference as there is cannot be built up so that in the one instance it is right to ignore the hardship to the tenant and in the other instance it is wrong. However, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 [Recovery of possession of dwelling-house held for occupation by minister of religion.]
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. It covers one particular case where something is done at the commencement of the tenancy. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 13, leave out ("before") and insert ("not later than").—(Lord Mitchison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16:
Recovery of possession of dwelling-house held for occupation by a person employed in agriculture.
16.—(1) The following provisions of this section shall apply where a dwelling-house which was at any time occupied by a person under the terms of his employment as a person employed in agriculture has been let on a regulated tenancy to a person other than—

(a) a person who is or at any time was, so employed by the landlord; or

451

(b) the widow of any such person as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection.

5.36 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved, in subsection (1), to leave out all words after "tenancy". The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment deals with the case where an agricultural landlord who lets a vacant agricultural cottage to somebody who is not his agricultural employee, and who never was, can get it back when he needs it for agricultural purposes. The effect of my Amendment would be to take out of the clause the reference to his own agricultural ex-employee or that man's widow, and I propose this for reasons of which I have informed the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, in order to extract an answer to the question which I put three times on Committee stage to both noble Lords opposite without getting any reply, other than being asked to bring it up on another clause, when it did not arise.
What I am trying to find out is this. If the landlord lets a vacant agricultural cottage to a person who is, or at any time was, employed by him, or to that man's widow, can he and, if so, in what circumstances, reacquire possession of that cottage? It seems clear to me that, if that ex-employee or his widow stays in the cottage which was occupied by him during his employment, then the case would fall under Clause 32 because the cottage would be in the possession of the tenant who, under the former tenancy, occupied the premises under the terms of his employment. I presume that would come under Clause 32 and the courts would have to take into consideration all the matters set out in the clause. But in the more likely event of such tenants moving to another cottage because the one they were occupying was needed for an agricultural worker, possibly because of its more suitable location, then they would come outside the scope of Clause 32; but do they come within the scope of Clause 31? Clause 31 merely says that the court shall give an order for possession if the tenancy is not protected.
I have not been able to find out from looking at the Acts, which are rather involved, whether in this instance that would form a protected tenancy, because I imagine that in any circumstances they
452
could not be evicted. I am trying to clarify this position both for the landlord and for this type of ex-farm employee or his widow, because if the landlord is not able to evict them on any grounds whatever, he may be rather reluctant to help them out by letting them into the cottage, although at the moment landlords normally do so under some verbal arrangement. I am anxious to get an answer to this problem so that both parties in such a case will know the best way to conduct themselves in the future.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, on the merits of the Amendment I will give a fairly short answer. This clause was introduced after discussion with both sides of the industry, and it was intended to hold a fair balance between them; and speaking in effect for the agricultural workers my noble friend Lord Hilton of Upton made it very clear at the Committee stage that, whilst he could not support the clause, he would not oppose it so long as the tenant, to whom the house is let or from whom the farmer can recover possession, has not previously been employed by the farmer, is not now employed by him or is not going to be employed by him in the future. That being—I do not say a compromise, because neither side agreed to it, but a fair balance sought, and I hope attained, between the two sides of the industry, it seems very inadvisable to upset it.
I am still, however, not quite certain what the noble Lord is asking. I do apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Hastings; one always feels that this is one's own fault. I can only say I am not the only person who finds it a little difficult to discover what he is really asking. He is not asking what would happen in the case of a farm worker or his widow staying on in the house after he ceases employment. He is asking about the case in which a farm worker goes into another cottage.
LORD HASTINGS: After he has finished the employment.
LORD MITCHISON: I can only say to that that he would fall under the ordinary provisions of the Bill. There would be a regulated tenancy in that case, as I understand it, and Clause 32 does not apply to regulated tenancies. When one turns to Clause 31, this is a case about the prohibition of eviction without the due

453
process of the law. Is it that? Because here the occupier continues to reside in the premises. That cannot be the case of a man who has moved to new premises. I hope, therefore, I have answered the noble Lord's question. If I have not, will he make due allowance for human frailty and stupidity and tell me if I have not answered.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, may I have another try. Clause 31 seems to deal with tenancies which are described as not protected. Will these people whom we are talking about, who come into this vacant agricultural cottage after employment by the same landlord, have protected tenancies, or not? Because if they do, it seems to me that an order against them cannot be given in any circumstances. If they do not have protected tenancies, then of course it can. That is the point I am trying to have answered.
LORD MITCHISON: I think I answered it, with great respect to the noble Lord. They are protected tenants just as much as any other tenant is. If you look at Clause 31, it is quite true it starts off by talking about a dwelling which is "not a protected tenancy", but one of the conditions is that the occupier continues to reside in the premises, and that is not the case here. I can only assure the noble Lord I have tried to answer his question, and I think I have.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I think the noble Lord has, but I am worried because it may mean that the farmer will not be so anxious to make these cottages available to these particular people.
LORD MITCHISON: If I may speak again, by leave of the House—I have no right otherwise—may I say that there is a good deal to be said on this clause by both sides, and I think it is better to treat it as what it really is: a clause intended to balance conflicting interests in the industry itself, and to leave it at that. May I make a suggestion to the noble Lord? If he would like to write to me again—he has written once—I will get the answer for him, and he can find some opportunity, by putting down a suitable Amendment, to make the answer public, if he would like the answer public.
LORD HASTINGS: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I think it is clear now. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.45 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved, after Clause 16, to insert the following new clause:
Recovery of possession of dwelling-house for person employed in agriculture
".—(1) The following provisions of this section shall apply where a dwelling-house which was at any time occupied by a person engaged or employed in agriculture as defined in subsections (a) and (b) of section 72 of the Local Government Act 1929 has been let on a regulated tenancy to a person not so engaged or employed.
(2) If—

(a) not later than the commencement of the tenancy (or, if tenancy was created before the commencement of this Act, not later than six months after the commencement of this Act) the tenant has been given notice in writing that possession may be recovered under this section; and

(b) apart from the Rent Acts the landlord would be entitled to recover possession of the dwelling-house; and

(c) the court is satisfied that the dwelling-house is required for occupation by a person engaged or employed or to he engaged or employed in agriculture as defined in subsection (1) of this section;

the court shall make an Order for the possession of the dwelling-house, whether or not it would have power to do so under section 3 of the Act of 1933, and section 5(2) of the Act of 1920 shall not apply in relation to the Order."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment also deals with the position in the agricultural industry. On the previous occasion the Government moved in the one which we have just been discussing so that agricultural cottages would not be left vacant. That was really its purpose. I want this Amendment to be accepted, if possible, so that temporarily redundant farmhouses shall not be left vacant. I do not want to repeat what I said on Committee stage, but with amalgamations in farms, forming small units into large ones, farming companies, partnerships and so on, a number of farmhouses are becoming vacant and it is tempting to sell them off. I think it would he a pity if they were; they should be retained so that they can be used in the future if they are needed, as they may well be, in the agricultural industry.
In my definition of the people who, should be covered by this provision I

455
have gone to the Local Government Act, 1929, Section 72, where it refers to people who are:
"(a) primarily engaged in, carrying on or directing agricultural operations on that land ".
That would, of course, be the farmer, whether he is an owner farmer or a tenant farmer; and
"(b) anyone who is employed in agricultural operations on that land in the service of the occupier thereof and is entitled whether as tenant or otherwise so to use the house only while so employed".
I put that in as well because it would cover not only the ordinary agricultural employee but the farm manager as well. It may be that these houses are suitable for farm managers or stewards or whatever they may be called, or in due course these farmhouses might be converted into agricultural cottages. I think it is desirable to keep these houses available, and if this Amendment could be accepted I think it would have that effect. It is not designed to give any peculiar advantage to agricultural landowners or farmers, but I think it is in the interests of the industry as a whole. It is for that reason that I have put it down. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 16 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Hastings.)
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that this Amendment really covers a rather special kind of case. It is principally directed to owners of comparatively large estates, where they may have a redundant farmhouse on their hands. One has a good deal of sympathy with it. But this is a Bill on which the question of tied cottages, which is not the same question but round the corner from it, if I may put it that way, was the subject of a compromise, and I do not think, with great respect to the noble Lord, that we ought to introduce this new matter, particularly at this late stage. On the best information I can get, it is not a clause which would be likely to have any widespread effect, and I am not sure that in a way it is not more closely related to a Bill about agriculture than it is to this Bill. I quite see that it is a question of tenure and that it falls in that sense into a Rent Bill, but it really is a different question, and when we have had a good deal of difficulty settling the broad question of the tied house, between the
456
two sides of industry, I feel that on balance we cannot accept this Amendment at this stage of the Bill. It is a special case; I see that it has its merits—I do not deny that. But on balance, I think it is better not to press it at this stage, and I hope that the noble Lord will feel the same way.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am sorry to hear the noble Lord's remarks, after what he said at the outset of his speech, because I thought that he was going to accept this Amendment. Indeed, I think his right honourable friend in another place gave an undertaking that this particular point would be looked at. I think there is a strong argument that farmhouses, as such, should not be subjected to these particular provisions—for this reason. A farmer may quite easily amalgamate his farm with another, or he may move out of the farmhouse; and if the farmhouse is then let to somebody else not connected with the farm, it means that if the farmer should at any time wish to let that farm, or even to sell it, he will be at a grave disadvantage because the farmhouse which goes with the farm will be occupied by somebody else disconnected with it.
Here I must declare an interest. I did not know until about a week ago that I myself was in precisely this position. About two years ago I moved out of a farmhouse which is now occupied by somebody else. That is all quite satisfactory. But should the occasion arise—though I do not anticipate it will do so—when one wished to let the farm, or to sell it, it would be impossible for any farmer to take on the farm because there would be no house to go with it. Therefore, whilst a certain set of conditions arose which fully justified, and in many cases would justify, somebody being in the house although not connected with agriculture, if these provisions are kept I think that agriculture as a whole may be seriously inconvenienced, because the future letting of the farm in question will be made difficult.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I am a little disappointed with what the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, has said. As my noble friend behind me has just pointed out, this Amendment would do for farmhouses what we have just done under Clause 16 for farm cottages—that is, it would enable them to be let in between

457
agricultural occupancies or tenancies. It seemed to me to be a useful provision. I rather wish the noble Lord would not keep talking about this carefully worked out balance between the farmer and farm worker, or the employer and employee, because in respect of this new clause that does not come into the picture. It is not upsetting the balance in anyway whatsoever.
I think this is a matter worthy of consideration, and perhaps the noble Lord would look at it again between now and Third Reading, and see his right honourable friend, who may feel a little differently about this. I did not put this forward in Committee in connection with Clause 16, because I did not want to confuse that clause with this, or to interfere with the rights of the agricultural employee who may have been put into a vacant cottage by his former employer. I think it is better taken separately, precisely because it does not interfere with or upset the balance worked out previously. But for the moment I will withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 [Tenancies ending before commencement of Act]:
5.55 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, after subsection (1), to insert:
"() For the purposes of this section there shall be inserted in the First Schedule to the Act of 1933 as amended the following paragraph:—
'(cc) the landlord has, since the date of the order, contracted to sell or let the dwelling-house or has taken any other steps as a result of which he, or any person to whom he has contracted to sell or let the dwelling-house, would, in the opinion of the court, be seriously prejudiced if the landlord could not obtain possession.'"
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, it was at this point on the last stage of the Bill that Lord Mitchison's imagination, which I have always known to be extremely vivid, embarked upon cats getting out of the bag and highwaymen. It was on a point which was raised by my noble friend Lord Kinnoull, and I was certainly under the impression that, although there may have been something wrong with the drafting of my noble friend's Amendment, there was a point of substance in it. I know that we have many things to do to-day and I do not want
458
to take too long. But I wonder whether, by going through it, I may ask the noble Lord to say whether I have the situation right.
There will be houses occupied by tenants, which until this Bill was introduced were not protected by the Rent Acts but which would come within the rateable value of this Bill. Supposing, before the Bill became law, the landlord had got an order from the court, in a perfectly proper way, that the tenant should go on the ground that his tenancy had run out, and he had insisted on staying on and was therefore a trespasser. I imagine that this is the sort of situation that we are dealing with under this transitional clause, Clause 20. I hope I am right so far. The court is given power to vary this order on the application of the tenant.
There are two things that really worry me about it, and I wonder whether the noble Lord can help. First of all, am I right in supposing that the court, in deciding whether it will rescind or vary the order, or indeed refuse to do either of those things, will have regard solely to the criteria which affect the power to give possession under the Rent Acts? In other words, will the court say, "We will rescind this because there is no alternative accommodation", or, if that does not arise, "because one or other of the provisions of Schedule 1, as amended, to the Act of 1933 has not been complied with"? I do not know whether or not this is so. Certainly, as the clause stands, the court does not appear to have any direction given to it upon what kind of criteria it is to exercise its jurisdiction. I think I am right in that as well so far.
For some reason, when we were discussing this matter before, the case was put forward where the landlord, having got the order for possession of the house, although it had not been executed, had re-let it to somebody else; and the person to whom he had re-let it—the new tenant, shall we call him?—was concerned whether or not the order to get the old tenant out should be rescinded or varied, because obviously he was interested in taking up the tenancy that he had arranged. The noble Lord said—and here he confirmed something which had been said in another place—that under Clause 20 the new tenant would not be able to be called as a witness. I think

459
I have this right. Perhaps I had better check. I think that my noble friend Lord Kinnoull asked this specifically, and what my noble friend quoted was
"I confirm that the prospective tenant would not have the right of audience."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 268 (No. 109), col. 1120, July 26, 1965.]
That was the point. He would not have a right of audience; he would not be a party, but he would be a witness. He could be called by the landlord as a witness, as I understand it.
The noble Lord objected to Lord Kinnoull's Amendment because it appeared to mix up the position of parties and witnesses. I accept that one does not want to do that, and I have attempted to put down a definition, first of all on the assumption that the criteria to be adopted by the courts are those in the 1933 Act—I do not know whether or not this is so, but I assume that it is—and secondly, because none of the criteria set out in the First Schedule to the 1933 Act would give the landlord any opportunity for calling the new tenant as a witness upon any ground which the court was entitled to consider.
Where can he possibly find any case in which the court would be interested tinder the First Schedule as to the tenant's position? It could not be because the rent has not been paid by the old tenant; that has nothing to do with it. It could not be because the old tenant has made a nuisance. It could not be because the tenant has given a notice to quit, because there has been no notice to quit; there has been an order for possession. It could not be a matter of sub-letting by the tenant. It could not be anything to do with licensed premises. It could not be anything to do with dwelling-houses being required by the landlord for somebody in his whole-time employment. And it could not be because he requires it as a dwelling-house for his own residence. Therefore, there are no conditions laid down in the Schedule to the Act whereby the landlord could possibly get the hardship of the new tenant before the court.
I have done my best to see that the landlord, in these special transitional circumstances, ought to have an extra category for the court to consider within the framework of the First Schedule to the 1933 Act—that he should have a
460
specific reference, which this Amendment will give him, by which he can set out not only his own serious prejudice but also the serious prejudice of the new tenant. As I have tried to draft it, it would be by way of calling that new tenant as a witness, not by bringing him in as a party. I hope I have got over the main difficulty which the noble Lord saw. This is a transitional matter which will not last very long, but if we are really concerned with the comparisons of hardship as between landlords and tenants and other prospective tenants, I cannot understand why the noble Lord, representing the Party opposite, should wish to exclude consideration—for that is all it would be—of the position of the new tenant and refuse to allow that to be before the court. I think that that would be the effect of leaving the Bill without the Amendment I have proposed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 34, at end insert the said subsection.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
LORD MITCHISON: I agree that this Amendment gets out of the confusion between parties and witnesses which clouded the previous discussion, but I do not think it is right. I should like to examine where we are at the moment. If one looks at Clause 20(1)(b) one sees we are dealing with a case where the order has been made and has not been executed. The court which is called upon to look at the matter again has to be of opinion that the order would not have been made if this Act had been in force. If it is so of opinion, it may, on the application of the person against whom it was made, either rescind it or vary it in such manner as the court thinks fit for the purpose of giving effect to this Act.
What is really happening here is something which in a sense can be called retrospecive legislation. We are trying to give to people in this halfway position the respective rights they would have had if the Act had been passed. Exactly the same thing has been done in previous Rent Acts. I have the references here, this time I hope the right ones. The references are as follows: the Rent Act 1915, the Rent Act 1920 and the Rent Act 1939. It can be put quite simply: it is to give the protection of the Acts to persons still in possession of the premises but

461
whose tenancies have been brought to an end before the Act came into operation. It has been in a succession of Acts, and I do not think one ought to quarrel with the principle of it.
I turn from that to what is proposed here. I will put to the noble Lord just one case. Let us take a landlord who has tried to obtain vacant possession of dwelling-houses by seeking possession orders before the coming into operation of the Bill, and let us suppose he gets an order and then enters into contracts to sell or let the premises. He does this in order to get round the difficulties which he thinks may exist in the present Clause 20. I do not know that one is particularly concerned to help him over this. It is all very well to bring the prospective buyer in. He must have known perfectly well what was happening. At the moment the Protection from Eviction Act is in force, and therefore the occupier could not have been got out. Knowing that, and knowing also that it was introduced as a precursor of further legislation, he buys the house, reckoning on the landlord's ability to get possession. But has he really any right to reckon on the landlord's ability to get possession if the landlord's ability was not in the Bill until this House puts it there?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: This, in fact, is not so; with great respect, the noble Lord has not read my Amendment. It is that he has contracted since the date of the order; I specifically made that clear. There is no question of somebody taking a gamble on buying the house and hoping that the landlord will get an order. This is where the order has been given, and the Amendment is perfectly specific on the point.
LORD MITCHISON: I may have used the wrong words and, if so, I will gladly apologise, but I thought that I made myself clear. What I am talking about is the case in the noble Lord's Amendment where an order for possession was obtained before the Act came into force and then there was a sale. That sale may have been made at any time. It is that sale which brings in the third party whose interests we are expected to look after. But at the time when that sale was made, the third party knew perfectly well that the landlord might not be able to get possession of the dwelling-house so as to pass it over to him. If you bring
462
forward this kind of Amendment, it seems to me that you are simply playing into the hands of the landlords who have got possession orders before the Bill, but who could not have done anything about it but for Amendments of this kind, and who are therefore trying to get round the ordinary transitional provisions in Clause 20, which provisions seem to me to be quite sufficient.
This is the kind of thing that appeals to me as ordinary common sense as a point which the court has to take into consideration. It appeals to me as something which has always been done in other Rent Acts without Amendments of this kind. I do not see why we should be called on to vary the position in the interests of a third party who only became a third party after he must have known there was very considerable doubt whether the landlord could deliver the goods. I therefore see no sufficient reason for this Amendment, and in fact I see objections to it. I am not saying that these cases will necessarily be widespread. I am not one of those people who believe that all landlords or all tenants are good or are bad. I think that they are much like the rest of us, a mixture. But I consider there is no case for this. I do not believe there is any hardship against which anybody ought to be given special protection. I find no fault in the clause as it stands, and I find some justification for it in the fact that this is something whch has been done before and which has worked all right and not caused any trouble. Therefore, I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment.
6.10 p.m.
LORD LLOYD OF HAMPSTEAD: My Lords, I respectfully agree with my noble friend that this Amendment seems to be quite unnecessary. The point is that the paragraph gives the court complete discretion by using the word "may". Therefore the court, in doing justice between the parties, can take into account any circumstances it likes. I see no reason whatsoever for introducing a complicated addition of this kind, which, so far as I can see, is intended only to try to fetter the discretion of the court. Even if this Amendment were introduced, this discretion would still remain under the Rent Acts, because it would still be open to the court to say whether or not it was reasonable to make an order. But quite apart from that, I should have thought

463
that by saying that the court may rescind or vary, it is made quite clear in the normal form that the court has a discretion to take all the circumstances into account. I respectfully submit that there is no need to add anything at all.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, if he is right, has, of course, completely answered my point. In fact, I did ask—though the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, did not answer me: I entirely forgive him because I made a long speech—whether I was correct in my assumption that the only criteria the court could take into account were those in the Rent Acts—basically, those in the 1933 Act. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, says, No—
LORD MITCHISON: Does the noble Viscount want an answer? The answer is very simple. This paragraph means what it says; and that is what I said.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, has said that it means one thing, and that it means that the court can take into account the position of the tenant. If that is so, I am delighted, and there is absolutely no necessity for my Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, seemed to think that the court cannot take this into account.
LORD MITCHISON: With respect, I did not say anything of the sort. Let us be clear about this. We are both lawyers, and this paragraph means what it says—Statutes sometimes do. Moreover, what it says is perfectly clear. It does not say anything about taking into account, or not taking into account, the position of anybody. It simply says what I spun out at some length when I was previously speaking, and the noble Viscount understands that.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I am very sorry, my Lords, but I do not understand this at all, and, with great respect, this is a matter of such importance that it must be cleared up in Parliament. In referring to the wording of Clause 20, the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, read out subsection (1)(a):
"no order for the possession … shall be made which would not be made if this Act had come into force before the termination of the tenancy ".
464
An order which could not have been made if the Rent Bill had come into force must inevitably bring in the criteria of the Rent Acts; otherwise, there is no point in referring to "this Act". What the Rent Bill does is to extend the powers to recover possession under the Rent Acts to certain types of houses which were not previously covered. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, agrees with my point of view. I hope that he does.
LORD LLOYD OF HAMPSTEAD: My Lords, by leave of the House, may I suggest that the noble Viscount is confusing two points: first, the original order that was made; and, secondly, the question of varying and rescinding it. It is true that the original order would presumably have been made on some ground allowed in the First Schedule to the 1933 Act, had this new Bill been in operation at the critical time. But when the matter now comes before the court, the court has to consider not the circumstances of the original order, but whether it ought to be varied or rescinded. In this respect—and it seems to me that the words are quite clear—the court is given complete discretion, because it is said that the court "may vary or rescind", which is the normal way of giving the court a discretion.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, what the noble Lord has said would have been perfectly correct if the word between paragraphs (a) and (b) had been "or" instead of "and". The court can deal with this Act only if, had this Act been in operation at the end of the tenancy, the order would not have been given. The only means by which the court can say whether or not the order would have been given is by reference to the criteria in the Rent Acts, because that is the whole point of the operation.
The noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, shakes his head, and it may be that the only way to clear this up is for me to have a conversation with him afterwards, as we do not want to waste a great deal of Parliamentary time on it. But here we have a situation (I am no expert on the Rent Acts and I am probably wrong) where the court cannot take account of the new tenant. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, says that it can. If it cart, I am perfectly content; if

465
it cannot, I think it ought to be able to do so. Perhaps we need not take this matter any further to-night. We have another stage of the Bill, and I can put down another Amendment if I am not satisfied. If the noble Lord will be so good as to correspond with me on this subject, to see whether we can clear up the matter, then I shall be happy to withdraw the Amendment at this stage.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, that is an undertaking which I can easily and readily give. I will even talk with the noble Viscount or correspond with him, and do anything reasonable that he wishes me to do. My answer to some of his questions would have been that "it all depends". But I had better not give it now.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 [Operation of Part II]:
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, this is a paving Amendment for Amendment No. 12, and we may be able to discuss the two together. The object of the Amendments is simply to allow Part II of the Bill to be brought into operation as quickly as possible. The case it is intended to deal with is the case where in part of an area there is some difficulty in finding a suitable officer of some kind, probably a rent officer. This provision is intended to enable the rent regulation machinery to be set in motion in the rest of the area, without having to wait while one solves the difficult problem. This is purely a machinery Amendment. It introduces no question of principle. In Scotland it is unnecessary, because the machinery is more centralized and different. It is therefore confined only to England, and Wales. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 10, at end insert ("and, in England and Wales, for different parts of a registration area").—(Lord Mitchison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 22 [Registration areas and rent officers in England and Wales]:
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, this Amendment, and the following Amendment, No. 11, are both consequential on
466
the consolidation of the National Insurance Acts. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 7, leave out ("Acts 1946 to 1964") and insert ("Act 1965").—(Lord Mitchison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 11.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 8, leave out ("Acts 1946 to 1964") and insert ("Act 1965").—(Lord Mitchison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, this Amendment has been discussed already. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 14, at end insert—
("(7) If different days are appointed under section 21 of this Act for different parts of a registration area a scheme under this section—

(a) shall be a separate scheme for such a part if it is made to take effect before Part 11 of this Act has come into operation in all parts of the area; and

(b) may be such a separate scheme notwithstanding that it is made to take effect when the said Part II has come into operation in the whole of the area;

and the preceding provisions of this section shall have effect, in relation to a scheme made for part of a registration area, as if the references to the registration area were references to that part.").—(Lord Mitchison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.20 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, after Clause 27, to insert the following new clause:
Prohibition on making available to any person by valuation officer of returns to which s. 3 of Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1955 applies.
".—(1) If any valuation officer shall make available to any person, for the purposes of this Part of this Act, any returns to which section 3 of the Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1955 applies he shall be guilty of an offence.
(2)If any person who by virtue of the said section 3 has inspected or made extracts from any return to which that section applies shall make use, for the purposes of this Part of this Act, of any information so obtained he shall be guilty of an offence.
(3)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding ten pounds.
(4) In this section 'valuation officer' has the same meaning as in Part III of the Local Government Act 1948."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, on the face of it, I confess that this Amendment looks immensely obscure, but it is in fact a matter that I asked about during the Committee stage of the Bill, and I do not think that, in the general discussion which took place at that time, any answer was given to me, so I thought I would raise the matter again. The noble Lord, Lord Champion—and I am afraid he has had his leg pulled to a certain degree about it ever since—says that he can always tell what the right rent is if he is sitting on a rent assessment committee. Moreover, I think he is on record as having said that he will know what the rents are in the town, or a particular part of the town, both controlled and uncontrolled.
Now, in any area there is one person who really does know what the rents of any rented property are, and he is the valuation officer. It is certainly true that he may make a remarkably wrong conclusion from the returns, if any, that he has, but, at any rate, he is given power under Section 58 of the Local Government Act 1948 to require people to send him returns which, among other things, in practice, set out the amount of rent that they pay and the terms of their tenancy. As I understand it, these forms are, normally speaking, confidential. They are for purposes of making the valuation list, and for that purpose only.
But, in 1955, in the Act to which I have referred, there was a small breach or crack in this confidentiality in that, first of all, provided that he gives adequate notice, a valuation officer, when dealing either with a proposal to change an assessment or with resisting somebody else's proposal, can himself make a reference to some of the returns that he has received under Section 58 of the 1948 Act. If he does so, then his opposite number—the person who is either making the proposal or resisting it—can also go and have a look at a specified number of similar returns, of his own choice, which the valuation officer has received. Of course, there is a certain protection given by Section 3 of the 1955 Act as to what can be done with these. It says that they can be used only as evidence in valuation proceedings. More
468
over, there are certain items in these returns that cannot be used, even in those proceedings.
The case of Watney Mann, Limited v. Langley is reported in 1963(3) All England Reports, at page 967, and the reference that I should like to draw to your Lordships' attention is on page 982, where Mr. Justice Thompson refers to Parliament's intention in relaxing contidentality under Section 3. He said this:
"So far as concerns inferences as to what Parliament did intend or would have intended had the matter been raised"—
that is an indictment of your Lordships, I must say—
"I would say this. Section 3 of the Act of 1955 comes later in point of time than the provision with which I am concerned"—
which is, in fact, returns under Section 58—
"and enacts that returns made under that provision may be made available to be used in evidence in any valuation proceedings. It seems to me that to be usefully so used the contents of the return which Parliament must have had in mind were the intimate details relevant to valuation and not the mere factual details of the whereabouts of the hereditament or the name of its occupier. Section 3(4) does, as I have indicated, prohibit the use of the contents of returns in certain proceedings and the section provides also some protection against improper requests for the production of returns. I cannot, in the circumstances, infer that Parliament failed to recognise what kind of information would he contained in returns made under Section 58 of the Act of 1948, or that Parliament cannot have intended that particulars such as are asked for"
—in this particular case—
"should be able to be discovered by other persons in other rating proceedings, and that accordingly"—
I think one must construe it like this—
"I should hold that Parliament cannot have intended that particulars such as are sought by"
the section
"should be able to be included in a notice under Section 58".
Whether or not that particular case, and the questions asked there, were in point is neither here nor there. That case makes it perfectly clear that people mind very much about the confidentiality of their returns—and, indeed, about the use of information which is put in them. There is a loophole in this particular section whereby people can get hold of information in the returns. I should have thought it was quite clear that if rent

469
assessment committees wish to have the best possible information, particularly to begin with, about the level of rents, the terms and so on, in the area with which they are dealing, the first person they would go to is the valuation officer.
I have put down this Amendment with one aim in mind, and one only. I do not believe that Parliament ought to sanction the use of returns made under Section 58, or any of the other sections mentioned in Section 3 of the 1955 Act, for the purposes of this Bill, because I think that, if we once start eroding the principle of the confidentiality of these returns, it will be increasingly difficult for valuation officers to get the information they require. It will be said that certain information which has been asked for, and which is very necessary to the valuation officer—and it becomes more and more difficult to obtain it—ought not to be given under these returns. It will be said: "Look what use may be made of them! They may go in front of rent assessment committees; they may be used by rent officers; all sorts of things may happen". The whole principle which is at the moment based on the confidentiality of these returns will be eroded and undermined. This is a matter of some importance. What I want to know is the answer to the simple question: will the rent assessment committees and rent officers be allowed to use these returns or not? If they will, I think that it is wrong, and that is why I have put this Amendment down. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 27, insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
6.28 p.m.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, the 1955 Act, so far as I can discover, does not in terms impose any obligation as to the confidentiality of these papers, and it depends on the general principles followed by the valuation officers for the Inland Revenue—civil servants—in these cases. Generally speaking, the Inland Revenue does not disclose information of this kind unless there is some reason for it. But the Amendment goes quite a long way beyond that. In fact there are in Section 3 quite elaborate provisions about the use of these returns in what amounts to open court proceedings. They can be used before the local valuation court, the Lands Tribunal, the
470
Court of Appeal and all kinds of bodies, and, so used, of course, they become public property and anybody is entitled to take a note and to use that note. I think that, if the noble Viscount, in the light of that, looks at this Amendment, he may find that it goes a little too far.
Be that as it may, the real point, I think, is this. The information is obtained for an official purpose, and if it is used for some other purpose than that for which it is made available, then the provisions of the Official Secrets Act operate. That is the real safeguard. In trying to deal specially with this case, you would in fact be dealing with a particularly difficult matter because of the use of material in open court. There would be considerable difficulties if a person who had heard the valuation officer reciting a return in open court was allowed to refer to it but the poor valuation officer was not. I think it falls within the general principle that public servants getting information for a purpose should not disclose it for other purposes, and do not do so; and the criminal sanction lies in the rather fierce provisions of the Official Secrets Act. I thank the noble Viscount for having raised the point—and I mean that sincerely—but I think his Amendment is unnecessary, and perhaps he will withdraw it.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I have no doubt that the Amendment is unnecessary but I thought it better that the point should be cleared up. This is one aspect that I would raise. I do not know the Official Secrets Act as intimately as perhaps I ought, and I am not aware about the position of a person who has examined or made extracts from the returns under Section 3(5) of the 1933 Act, the second subsection of my Amendment.
LORD MITCHISON: It seems to me that this is the position. If someone, other than the valuation officer and someone other than the person who has made the return is, by Statute, empowered to make extracts from it, and if that is done for the purpose of proceedings before the valuation court of some other body, clearly he can refer to it there. I find no obligation of secrecy in a case of that sort. It may be somewhere in the Official Secrets Act. I am sure, however, that

471
the noble Viscount would not expect me to know it off by heart, any more than he does.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord. It conjures up possibilities of very special sorts of proposals being made in order to get information. I hope that is as far-fetched as most of the noble Lord's objections to the Amendments from this side. With your Lordships permission, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.34 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, after Clause 29, to insert the following new clause
Amendment of First Schedule to Act of 1933
". In paragraph (h) of the First Schedule to the Act of 1933 as amended the words '(not being a landlord who has become landlord by purchasing the dwelling-house or any interest therein after 7th November, 1956) shall cease to have effect."
The noble Viscount said: With your Lordships' permission, I should like to speak to this Amendment together with Amendment No. 21a. I think that will be the convenient course. I attach, and I think my noble friends do also, very considerable importance to getting an explanation about this matter. The situation is this. Until the Rent Act 1957, the ground which is now specified in paragraph (h), as amended, in the First Schedule to the 1933 Act, allowed the court to consider the respective hardships of a landlord and a tenant in circumstances where the landlord wished to recover possession of the house in order to live in it himself or to have any son or daughter over eighteen or his father or mother living in it. There was then put in, I think for the first time, a time-limit which, in fact, related to November 7, 1956. I imagine that was the date when the Bill was first printed in another place. If the landlord acquired the house after that date, the ground given in paragraph (h), as I understand it, is not open to him at all.
I have looked through the OFFICIAL REPORTS of both Houses. I am bound to say that I have not looked at the Standing Committee Reports of the other place on this particular Bill. There were
472
a great many polemics; but I do not think anybody explained the point of putting in this date. The date, as the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, said earlier, has now been changed, and changed to March 23 of this year, which was the date when this Bill was first printed in another place. Therefore any landlord who wishes to recover possession of a house which he bought from the 24th March, 1965, onwards will not be able to avail himself of the provision of paragraph (h) of the First Schedule to the 1933 Act. I hope I am right. That is the way I read it.
This will become increasingly important. At the moment it may not seem very significant, because we are not very far from that date; but in parts of this country regulated rents and rent control are likely to continue for some time, as one admits if one is realistic. The further one goes away from the 23rd March, 1965, the more people there will be who will have bought houses and left them and then will want to come back and live in them themselves. This is of cardinal importance when dealing with a person who wants to buy a house to go into on his retirement. It is all very well for the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, to say that it is perfectly all right for these people, because what will happen if the Amendments moved from this side on the retirement points are not accepted is that the man can go to the court and get it dealt with on the balance of hardship as between himself and the tenant. But this is not so. It is untrue. He can do that only if he bought his house before the 23rd March, 1965.
Suppose I buy a house in order to retire to—although I hasten to say that, being a member of the profession to which the noble Lord has referred, I do not intend doing so, either now or frequently—and I let it for five years, and then at the end of that time I want it back in order to live in it. I shall not have available to me the provision in paragraph (h) of the First Schedule of the Act, and the only thing I shall be able to do and the only way in which I shall be able to get possession of that house is by providing alternative accommodation. There will be no question of weighing up the two hardships as of myself and of the tenant in the house. It will not be open to me to plead it.
I have never understood why this date was in the Bill; it serves no function in relation to the matter of comparative hardship. I do not believe that Parliament has ever been told why it was put in. I do not believe that Parliament has ever been told why the date has been changed this time, or what is the principle which underlies it. I believe that if the noble Lord comes to the end of the proceedings on this Bill without accepting anything on the retirement point that we have made from this side and that we have discussed so frequently, if he comes to the end of the Bill and does not accept this Amendment and my consequential one, then all his promises of protection for the people who are going to buy a house for their retirement, are going to be absolutely valueless, providing they have bought the house after March 23, 1965. People ought to be perfectly clear what the situation is. Unless I have misinterpreted this Bill the question of comparative hardship will not arise; people will not be able to get their retirement houses back again. I think that this date ought to be struck out and left out of all future legislation, and it certainly ought to be left out of this Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 29, insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
LORD MITCHISON: I hope I can help the noble Viscount on one point. The reason why this particular provision was not discussed in the 1957 Rent Act was its almost hoary antiquity. Obviously, a provision referring to November 7, 1956, did not occur in the 1933 Act. I think even before that, if my memory serves me aright, some provision had been made in rent legislation, although I am not sure about that. The point is that it has been so for 32 years or thereabouts. First it was in the 1933 Act and then in the 1957 Act. The reason for it—I am charging my memory—was discussed at some length when it was first introduced. Certainly, there is hardly any provision in the Rent Act which I have heard more often discussed. It is quite a deliberate provision. Let us see what it is exactly. It does not apply to a person who buys with vacant possession. I was not sure whether the noble Viscount had that in mind when we were talking about a
474
previous Amendment. It does not apply in the case where a landlord grants the tenancy; because then he does not acquire it by purchase. It applies only in the case where the house is purchased subject to an existing tenancy, as I understand it, by the landlord after a certain date. That date has always been the date of the introduction of the preceding Rent Bill.
The reasons for it are, I think, that if a man buys a tenanted house knowing that the tenant has the protection of the rent legislation—whether it is the legislation in existence at the time of legislation introduced into Parliament—and goes into the transaction with his eyes open, he cannot expect to have any special ground for getting possession from the tenant. I can assure the noble Viscount that this is no new thing, and I am of opinion that we do not want to encourage the provision of special protection for landlords who buy knowing what the legislation is and knowing that they will not get protection because of it. I do not see any reason for altering the present arrangement which has served well for many years. I do not think it ought to be amended now, and therefore I cannot accept the Amendment.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, again I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I am bound to confess that he has the edge on me if he remembers the discussions on the 1933 rent legislation—
LORD MITCHISON: No, it is the discussions on the 1957 Bill that I remember.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS —because I was certainly not a Member of either House of Parliament at that time. I am very interested that he should now tell us that this does not apply to someone who buys with vacant possession. If that is so, a great deal of what I have said was, I fully admit incorrect.
LORD LLOYD OF HAMPSTEAD: My Lords, if the noble Viscount will forgive my intervention, may I say that if he will look at the case of Epps v. Rothnie, which was decided in the Court of Appeal in 1945, he will discover that the court decided that if you buy premises which are unoccupied and subsequently let, this

475
limitation has no operation. It only protects a sitting tenant. Therefore, I suggest that this qualification has in it none of the peril that the noble Viscount has suggested.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, it is the greatest pity that the new Rules of this House do not allow me to refer to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, as the "noble and learned Lord". His interventions are most helpful, and I am grateful to him. I should like to look at the case he mentioned. I think that the situation is probably not as I feared, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.47 p.m.
LORD MITCHISON LORD MITCHISON moved, after Clause 30, to insert the following new clause:
Restriction on re-entry without due process of law
". Where any premises are let as a dwelling on a lease which is subject to a right of re-entry or forfeiture it shall not be lawful to enforce that right otherwise than by proceedings in the court while any person is lawfully residing in the premises or part of them."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a proposed new clause, and I think that I had better read out to the House the first sentence of what I have been told about it. This new clause deals with a small and technical lacuna in Clauses 30 and 31. I am perfectly prepared to explain the small but technical lacuna, but it is very dull, and I wonder whether your Lordships will accept that from me. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 30, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Mitchison.)
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I think that we on this side would have no difficulty in accepting what the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, has said. We understand that there is—may I say?—a gap in the legislation. We agree with the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 31:
Prohibition of eviction without due process of law
31.—
(2) For the purposes of this Part of this Act a person who, under the terms of his employment, had exclusive possession of any premises otherwise than as a tenant shall be deemed to have been a tenant and the expressions "let" and "tenancy" shall be construed accordingly.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "exclusive possession of any premises" and to insert "exclusive occupation of any premises as a residence". The noble Viscount said: My Lords, it is very unwise for the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, to ask me to see whether I can improve on the drafting of the Bill. I think it would probably be equally unwise for me to try to accept his invitation. Nevertheless, I think it was agreed at the last stage of our discussions on the Bill that the terms of what is now Clause 31(2) are capable of construction in a way which is not intended.
I have put down two alternative versions, in Amendments Nos. 16 and 17, to see which, if either, the noble Lord would like. I believe that both have the merit of making it perfectly clear with what this subsection is intended to deal. On Committee stage, the noble Lord said that it was intended to give the protection of Part II to a person who was outwardly indistinguishable from a tenant but, because of some technicality, was not a tenant. I entirely appreciate that, and it is in that spirit that I have attempted to improve this subsection. It is a very bold thing to try.
Exclusive possession—the OFFICIAL REPORT put it as "exclusive occupation"—is not a common expression in law. The only case I can find relates to a man who bought a piece of land with a railway tunnel underneath it and electric wires running across it, and he did not know whether exclusive possession went down to the middle of the earth and included the tunnel, and up into the sky to include the electric wires. But the term "exclusive occupation" is extremely well known under rates legislation and was also widely dealt with under the old Parliamentary franchise legislation of the third quarter of the last century. If anything is a hoary old chestnut, exclusive occupation is that. What we are after is the person whose house it is—not the lodger, or the nanny, who has just the use of a bedroom. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord can go with me and

477
use the term "exclusive occupation" instead of "exclusive possession".
Then we come to the premises. I do not wish to interrupt the noble Lords in their conversation, but if I am going to explain this at all the noble Lord must listen to me. I have taken the words out of an adjacent part of the Bill. Clause 30(5) talks of occupying "premises as a residence". I do not think this gets us into any difficulty, as does the technical use of a "dwelling-house" in the Rent Acts. It seems to me that there is an occupation when the phrase is used with the words "as a residence". Amendment No. 17 uses the words "separate dwelling", which is part of the definition of dwelling-house "for the purposes of the Rent Acts, but not the dwelling-house itself, to which the noble Lord objected last time. Therefore possibly there is a value in the distinction for the purposes of trying to explain what we are getting at. I do not have any particular confidence in my own power to put the matter right, but I have suggested these Amendments and perhaps the noble Lord can say either that they are acceptable or whether he has been able to do better himself.
6.54 p.m.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I do not know if the noble Viscount does any wet fly fishing, but I have always found that putting two flies on a cast works tolerably well when the water is sufficiently murky. I think that the water here is rather murky, and though I appeciate the two flies offered to me, I am afraid that I cannot rise to either of them. The short answer would be to say that this is really a matter at which the Parliamentary draftsmen are better than any of us—and leave it at that. But as I said something of the same character last time, I had better try to say a little more now.
The reason why the term "exclusive occupation" in the first Amendment is disliked is that it is the normal sort of phrase for a tenancy, and the case we are trying to cover is not a tenancy, though it is something rather like a tenancy. The matter sought to be dealt with is the question of possession, and for that reason the draftsmen prefer "exclusive possession" to "exclusive occupation". That goes for the second Amendment, too, but with this firmer
478
point: that the words "as a separate dwelling" bring in all the difficulties of the Rent Acts—the sharing of kitchens and the rest of it. There is no real reason for them here, and if we put them in we might find ourselves doing something we do not intend to do. If I am too curt and abrupt I will gladly give the noble Viscount more information afterwards.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I think the noble Lord could give me it briefly now. He has dealt with "exclusive possession" and "exclusive occupation", but he did not deal with "premises as a residence". Could he say why he does not like that?
LORD MITCHISON: I took the clause as a whole and produced my objection to it. I hope that that will satisfy the noble Viscount.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I do not want to be tiresome about this matter. I appreciate that this is a matter for the Parliamentary draftsmen. But it was really the word "premises" that I was after, in the first place, because this word produces the crucial distinction between the case where you have a house as a person's home and the case where you simply have a bedroom and share the rest of the house. T wonder why the noble Lord does not like "premises as a residence".
LORD LLOYD OF HAMPSTEAD: My Lords, may I add a word that may conceivably help? As I understand it, Clause 31(2) merely extends the meaning of a tenancy. It does not deal with the question of premises. This is brought in by the words in subsection (1),
"where any premises have been let as a dwelling".
Therefore the words "as a dwelling" are in the clause in any case, and I venture to think that it is not necessary to add anything, because these words govern the whole clause. Subsection (2) deals only with the extended meaning of the notion of tenancy.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: The noble Lord appears not to be going to answer my question.
LORD MITCHISON: I should have thought that one sound objection to an Amendment was sufficient. If

479
there is an objection on one ground it does not very much matter whether there are objections also on other grounds. If I have the noble Viscount's point aright, he is talking about the words "as a residence" in the Amendment. The words in subsection (1) "as a dwelling" carry on into subsection (2), the draftsmen and I understand, and what is the point of saying "let as a dwelling" and then "let as a residence"? If we use "let as a dwelling", we run into Rent Act difficulties and if we used "let as a residence", then I should have thought we should run into another set of difficulties connected with the word "reside". I can only say to the noble Viscount that we have looked at his Amendments, as we would look at anything he suggests, with great respect, but we still prefer our own wording.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: This puts us in a most splendid dilemma in that I now understand that "premises" is to be construed as premises "let as a dwelling" attracted from Clause 1. The objection to the Amendment is that it would attract the meaning of "dwelling" in the Rent Acts, to which the noble Lord objected. Therefore, we have a situation where the definition of "premises" imports all the difficulties about what is or what is not a "dwelling", which is precisely the reason why the noble Lord rejected my Amendment. So we have gone full circle and got back to where we started, and the noble Lord has fallen into precisely the same trap as he tried to prevent me from falling into.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, the noble Viscount has performed the most difficult task of all—he has succeeded in convincing himself that he is right.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.58 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved to add to the clause:
"() The Court shall, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under this Part of this Act, award costs to the successful party to the action except and insofar as it shall deem it just to do otherwise."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I had intended to move this Amend
480
ment on Committee stage on behalf of my noble friend Lord Molson, who was unable to be present; but neither was I. What happened was this. A learned gentleman wrote a letter to The Times, which I have not been able to find, but I gather that he was not a legally learned gentleman, though he was learned in many other respects. He thought that under Part II of the Bill there was some doubt whether a successful litigant would get his costs following the event in the ordinary way. The learned gentleman's letter was never answered. The matter has never been raised in Parliament. The Times is read by a large number of people, though possibly not by all those who are going to deal with this Bill, and I thought it might be worth while asking the noble Lord whether there is any reason to suppose that the normal rule as regards costs will not apply under Part II of this Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 34, at end insert the said subsection.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, the court will, of course, have its ordinary discretion. There are some exceptions which I need not go into at length. Where an action for possession is brought against a tenant whose tenancy is controlled (this will now include regulated tenancies), the normal practice is not to give costs to the successful landlord. I see nothing here that interferes with that practice. Clause 31(6) displaces the normal rule as to costs by saying that where the court makes an order for possession but suspends its execution by virtue of the powers under that clause, the court shall not make any order for costs except in special circumstances. If the Amendment were accepted, it would conflict with that. I can assure the noble Viscount that the court has the normal discretion as applied in Rent Act cases and in this Statute.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: But, in particular, it has its ordinary discretion, not in either the Rent Act cases or in the special cases under Clause 32, but in the absolutely normal (if I can so call them) Protection from Eviction Act cases in Part II of the Bill. I should have been talking about Part II of the Bill, but I have referred to Part III. I have now made a mistake—I am sorry.

481
The noble Lord has satisfied me, and I hope he has satisfied my noble friend Lord Molson, that all is well under this. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 34 [The court]:
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, this is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 30, leave out from ("enforce") to ("or") in line 31 and insert ("a lessor's right of re-entry or forfeiture").—(Lord Mitchison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MITCH ISON: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on the consolidation of the Lands Clauses Acts. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 40, leave out paragraph (d) and insert—
("(d) section 13 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965.")—(Lord Mitchison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 38 [Furnished houses]:
7.2 p.m.
LORD MITCHISON LORD MITCHISON moved to leave out subsection (6). The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment and Amendment No. 190 were brought forward on the Committee stage. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, felt that they were a partial withdrawal of a concession which had been made in Committee or on Report in another place. There is a question as to what was intended and what was understood in another place. I have been in touch with the noble and learned Viscount, as he suggested, and I think I can say that we both agree that the Amendments should be accepted for the time being, and so leave it to another place to make their own decision as to what was intended and agreed at the time. For reasons which I need not go into, I expected the Amendment, when originally moved, to go through without difficulty. I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount, not only for having raised the point, but also for having considered it when he communicated with me, and having taken what I feel sure is the right course about it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 13, leave out subsection (6).—(Lord Mitchison.)
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation. It is true, of course, that he and my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne have been in communication. My noble and learned friend apologises for his absence, and has asked me to agree to accept these Amendments, in the circumstances of confusion which arose in another place. We feel, in all the circumstances, that perhaps it is not for this House to sort out rather unnecessary confusions that were raised in another place, and that we had better leave them to argue about it, as they will have the opportunity of doing on receiving this Amendment when the Bill returns to the other place.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, this is the second of the two Amendments to which I referred. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 7, at end insert—
("() No right to occupy a house or part of a house for a holiday shall be treated for the purposes of the Act of 1946 as a right to occupy it as a residence.")—(Lord Mitchison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 46 [Interpretation]:
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, this Amendment is intended to make clear beyond doubt the meaning of the phrase "agricultural holding", in Clause 33(1)(c). The meaning given to it is the same meaning as in the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948, and there is a certain technical sense in this. There are some tenancies of agricultural land which are not included within the definition of the 1948 Act, and we think that if no Amendment were made the expression might not be read in the sense of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948. Certainly it is our intention that it should be so read. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 20, at end insert—
("'agricultural holding' has the same meaning as in the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948").—(Lord Mitchison.)
VISCOUNT INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I can see that the definition of "agricultural holdings" here may well be an

483
improvement, and I am glad the noble Lord has referred to that particular point, because I can see that he now wants to define a farm which is let, because the term "agricultural holding" is frequently used, much more loosely, to mean any farm, owner-occupied as well as let, and the definition in the 1948 Act does refer to a holding that is let.
On the other hand, I am not sure that he has gone to the right Statute for his definition of "agriculture", because if he refers to the Agriculture Act, 1948, Section 1(1), he will find his definition; he will find the definition of "agricultural", in subsection (2); and he will find the definition of "agriculture" in the Interpretation Section, Section 94. He will remember that there are two functions of agriculture in the Act of 1948. The Agricultural Holdings Act 1948 is a consolidation Act, and therefore the definition of "agriculture" is something that is carried forward. It is rather old-fashioned drafting and laborious. In the Interpretation Section of the Agricultural Wages Act 1948 he will find a redraft, which was drawn in the early days when we were both Members of another place. It is a much clearer and shorter definition of "agriculture", and one which I should have thought could more appropriately be inserted in this Bill. I would ask the noble Lord to look into this point to see whether, by incorporating the definition of "agriculture" as contained in the Agricultural Wages Act 1948, he would not make a small improvement.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, the noble Lord has a special experience in this field which I am far from sharing. I am a simple soul compared with these agriculturists, and I thought that if we defined "agricultural holding" as it was defined in the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948 it must be right. I will not give an undertaking to make a change or anything of that sort, but I will look into the points which have been raised by the noble Viscount.
VISCOUNT INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 52 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, this Amendment is to exclude from Scotland the new Clause entitled "Restriction on re-entry without due process of law", the reason being that the Scots do it already, and have done for centuries. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 35, after ("23") insert ("(restriction on re-entry without due process of law)").—(Lord Mitchison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Rent assessment committees]:
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS had given Notice of an Amendment to leave out ("one or"). The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a point that we raised in Committee as to the constitution of rent assessment committees and whether they would be of a permanent or temporary nature. The noble Lord, Lord Champion, has been good enough to send me a letter, the upshot of which is that they will be of both natures. Normally the Minister intends to ask the president of the respective panel to appoint three members to any committee which can be considered of a permanent nature; but in order to deal with perhaps an overload of cases, or minor matters, and to help out generally, he should have power to constitute committees, of a temporary character, of perhaps only two members. I thought it was useful to obtain that explanation and I am grateful to the noble Lord. I therefore do not propose to move the Amendment in my name.
Schedule 3 [Registration of rents]:
7.10 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, in paragraph 3(a), to leave out "that application" and insert the confirmation". The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this was a point which I tried unsuccessfully to explain to the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, on the Committee stage, and which he was not at that moment willing to consider. I hope that I have now put down an Amendment which he agrees requires his consideration. The matter which raises my curiosity is this. If you apply for a change in the rent which is registered for the house in question, and if that application is made either by the landlord or by the tenant, but not by both

485
of them, there is a difference in the result according to whether the change in the registered rent is made before the old rent is confirmed. If the old rent is confirmed, you can have another "go" three years or more from the date of your application to have the rent changed. If, however, the registered rent is changed, you have another "go" three years from the date of the registration.
In many cases there may not be a great deal of difference between those two times, but there is a provision by which, not only can the registration go to the rent assessment committee, which might take a certain length of time to make up its mind, but it is not until after that that the rent officer registers or confirms according to whatever the decision of the committee is. But I understood, from something one noble Lord opposite said at an earlier stage, that there was going to be some provision for an appeal on a point of law to the High Court from the decisions of rent assessment committees. That is not in the Bill. I understand that it is to be done by means of some sort of order under the Tribunals and Inquiries Act, 1958, or something of that nature. At any rate, if this is going to be done, then presumably the decision of the rent assessment committee may take a great deal of time finally to become established. If that is so, it may be a long time after the application is originally made.
I do not know whether I have adequately explained my point to the noble Lord. If the rent is confirmed you can try three years after the application; if it is changed you can try three years after the registration of the change. Why is there a distinction? I have no idea. This Amendment was put down to try to find out, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 47 leave out ("that application") and insert ("the confirmation").(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, it looks as if the effect of this Amendment would be to defer the date of the next opportunity for going back to the rent officer to get a revised fair rent assessed. I can only say that not only must I be singularly stupid, but a large number of other people must be, too. That is what we thought about it. I wonder whether
486
the noble Viscount has considered that the registration of a fair rent has effect from the date of application—that is paragraph 13 of the Schedule. It seems reasonable, in those circumstances, that you should date this particular matter from the date of application, too.
All I can say about it is that we have considered it. We have been in a little difficulty in finding out exactly what the noble Viscount had in mind. I am still not quite clear about it. I think the point is that he does not like the wording of the Bill. I wonder whether he could tell us what the difference would be if the Amendment were carried. That might help. If it is any consolation to him, I think it very unlikely that I can accept this Amendment at the moment. Perhaps he will come and tell me what it is all about—I will gladly listen—and perhaps he can bring it up on another occasion.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I did not have any difficulty at all in understanding the point the noble Viscount was making in moving the Amendment. Nor did I have any difficulty in understanding the Minister who gave a very good answer to the point the noble Viscount advanced. It is a great sorrow to me that two noble Lords each do not understand the other, because I understood them both so well.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, the reason for this, if I may tell the House, is that whereas I was talking about one thing, the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, was talking about another. Therefore, there was no reason why either of us should understand the other. The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, as he understands the whole thing, of course understood both these matters. The point I was trying to make is this. Notwithstanding paragraph 13, which says the registration shall take effect from the date of the application, you are still forbidden from going back to apply for another change within three years of the date of the registration. That is what the Bill says.
LORD MITCHISON: No, my Lords. The two of them together can go back. That is the short answer.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Exactly, if there is a dispute. This provision applies only where there is only one party to it; where it is either an application by the landlord or the tenant,

487
but not by both. I started off by saying that if the rent is changed you can go back not less than three years after the registration was made. It does not make any difference that the registration took effect from the date of the application. That does not affect the fact, because you are still tied to the actual date of the registration, and it is three years from that date that has to elapse. The fact remains, as the noble Lord will see if he looks at it, that the three years runs from the application, and in the other case it runs from the date of registration. I can see no rhyme or reason for it at all. If the noble Lord likes, we will have it in both cases from the date of the application. I do not know whether I have made my point understood now. I think I will explain it to the noble Lord later. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved, in paragraph 4, to leave out "seven" and insert "fourteen". The noble Lord said: My Lords, on Committee stage I moved no fewer than ten Amendments of this nature dealing with the time period within which landlord and tenant must take action after receiving a notice from the rent officer or the rent assessment committee, as the case may be. I wanted to alter the time period of not less than seven days, and in some cases of not less than fourteen days, to not less than twenty-one days. During that discussion the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, for the Government moved four Amendments which he described as a concession. I replied that I did not think they were concessions and they did not affect any of my Amendments. In point of fact they did affect three of my Amendments, and I wish to apologise unreservedly to the noble Lord for having said they were not concessions when in fact they were. I am glad to accept them as such.
Now I have revised my demands upon Her Majesty's Government, and have put in five Amendments asking that the period should be not less than fourteen days instead of not less than twenty-one days. That lets out two of the remaining seven Amendments which were not affected by the Government's improvements, because they were already not less than fourteen
488
days, so we are reduced to five Amendments. On one of those, the last one, the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, has met my request, and he himself has moved to insert "fourteen" instead of "seven". I would point out that there is already in the Bill a discretion on the part of, I think, the rent assessment committee, to extend the time, but the noble Lord has altered the figure of seven to fourteen, which I think is much more satisfactory.
So we now are reduced to four Amendments. It is rather like the ten little nigger boys. Whether one is white, one brown, one black and the other yellow, I do not know, but I hope very much that all four may receive a welcome to the bosom of the Government, because otherwise it seems to me a little illogical. We are now left with only four cases where the minimum time within which the rent officer can require action by the landlord or tenant is seven days. It seems to me that this is really too short a period. Of course it would mean eight or nine days in some cases, but it would be an inconvenience in many circumstances to both landlord and tenant.
At Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, said the Government did not want to inconvenience the people who have to operate this Bill, and it seems to me that, as we have made the period fourteen days in all the other cases, to say "not less than fourteen" in these four cases would be more reasonable, and especially because there is no discretion in any of those four cases for the rent officer to give an extension of time. Admittedly he could say "twenty-one days" straight off if he found that the period of eight or nine days was not working, but there is no discretion for him to say, "Come before me in nine days' time or else you lose your chance", and then to extend it to fourteen or twenty-one days if he found it better to do so. I think it would be more reasonable to make the minimum fourteen days, especially as in all these cases it is a question of consultation with the parties if they happen to turn up at the time. Therefore, I think it important they should be given sufficient time. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 13, leave out ("seven") and insert ("fourteen").—(Lord Hastings.)
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, on Committee stage I said to the noble Lord,

489
Lord Hastings, that I thought this was a question of administration (indeed, I still think so) and that I would look at the matter again. I have looked at the matter, and I asked my advisers to see what concessions they could make to the noble Lord's point of view. That is the reason why my name appears with his on one of the Amendments. I can assure him we have gone into the matter carefully.
There is not very much to be said on this question, but we tried sympathetically to do what we could. This is a case of balancing two things. If you make the machinery too slow you may really put difficulties in the way of working the Bill, but, on the other hand, you must not hustle people unduly. I am not quite certain whether the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, fully appreciates what some of these time limits involve. I hope I am being respectful—I mean to be. For instance, the first one is in Schedule 3, page 38, line 13; and if one looks at it one finds that it empowers the rent officer to require the landlord or the tenant to give to the rent officer certain information
"within such period not less than seven days from the service of the notice as may be specified in the notice ".
Therefore, it gives the rent officer power to extend the time. He is given that because it is left to the rent officer to fix the time, except that it must not be less than seven days, in order not to hustle the parties.
This "not less" proviso applies to the next Amendment, which is to line 20, and I think also to the third Amendment, to line 40. Therefore, it is not intended to hustle anybody. A reasonable discretion is left with the rent officer, coupled with a reasonable protection against his trying to hustle the parties. I would say that was right. It is quite true that in all these cases one may say, "That is a bit short" or, "That is a bit long", but in the last resort one must leave it to the people who will be working the Act. In this case, of course, it is the rent officer. As regards the time limits themselves, there is some virtue in ministerial and local authority experience in cases of this kind, and I can only assure the noble Lord that I have tried to help as far as I could, but I have also tried to make it fair and reasonable.
490
Those are the cases under the registration of rents Schedule, and I think the other two cases concern the Certificates of Fair Rent Schedule, Schedule 4. I can go into this in detail if necessary, because there is quite a long argument involved here. It is, however, the same sort of point again, and perhaps the noble Lord will accept it from me that we took his suggestions very seriously. We met one of them, others he himself found sufficiently met by the provisions of the Bill, and on looking at the form of the time provisions I would regard what is left as reasonable and therefore, technically, I suppose, I cannot accept the Amendment.
LORD HASTINGS: I am grateful to the noble Lord for considering this matter carefully with his advisers, but I think that if he and they will read the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow they will find my argument is much the more logical of the two. However, I do not intend to press this point now, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 4 [Certificates of Fair Rent]:
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, this is our joint Amendment, which I move formally.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 4, leave out ("seven") and insert ("fourteen")—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, this is an Amendment in connection with houses near aerodromes and the grants which are made for soundproofing. This raises the same sort of point as that raised in the Committee stage in relation to regulated tenancies. It is intended to make this conform with that part of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 41, at end insert—
("9.—(1) In section 5(3) of the Rent Act 1957 after the words 'Housing Act 1949' there shall be inserted the words 'or a grant has been made in respect of the improvement under section 15 of the Airports Authority Act 1965'.
(2) In section 5(4) of the Rent Act 1957 after the words section 20' there shall be inserted

491
the words 'or under the said section 15'.")—(Lord Mitchison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Enactments repealed]:
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, this Amendment is to repeal subsections (3), (5) and (6) of Section 72 of the Housing Act 1964 because there are corresponding and more general provisions in Clauses 30 and 31 of this Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 48, at end insert—

("1964 c. 56.

The Housing Act 1964.

In section 72, subsection (3), in subsection (4) the words 'and (3)', subsections (5) and (6); and, in paragraph (d) of subsection (7), the words '(3)', the words 'and (5)' the words from '(3)' Subject' to 'both 'and the words and (3) '")

—(Lord Mitchison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, again, this Amendment is the result of consolidation. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 50, leave out lines 42 and 43.—(Lord Mitchison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, this is a similar point. The consolidating Act is the New Towns Act, 1965, and a reference to the appropriate section there is substituted for the previous reference to the 1944 Act. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 50, line 51, at end add—

("1965 c..

The New Towns Act 1965

Section 22(4)")

—(Lord Mitchison.)
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I am happy to agree to this final Amendment, and I am sorry the Report stage has taken a little longer than I personally estimated. I do not think we have wasted time. I shall look forward to renewing my battle with the noble Lord opposite, I believe on the first day of the resumed Session after the Recess. I hope noble Lords will enjoy their holiday.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, may I be allowed to say "Thank you", and
492
respectfully thank the Opposition for putting forward so many useful and constructive suggestions with hardly any of which I have agreed.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

RACE RELATIONS BILL
7.30 p.m.
Report of Amendments received (according to Order).
Clause 1:
Discrimination in places of public resort
1.—(1) It shall be unlawful for any person, being the proprietor or manager of or employed for the purposes of any place of public resort to which this section applies, to practise discrimination on the ground of colour, race, or ethnic or national origins against persons seeking access to or facilities or services at that place.
(2) This section applies to the following places of public resort, that is to say—
(a) any hotel, and any restaurant, café, public house or other place where food or drink is supplied for consumption by the public therein;
LORD AIREDALE LORD AIREDALE moved, in subsection (2), after "say" to insert:
"() the place of any public meeting;"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this clause seeks to prohibit discrimination on racial grounds in certain places of public resort to which the Bill applies. This is an Amendment to subsection (2), which lists those places of public resort. Perhaps I could preface my remarks by quoting the right honourable gentleman the Secretary of State for Home Affairs, who explained in Standing Committee in another place what the expression "places of public resort" in the Bill was intended to mean. The right honourable gentleman said, at col. 257 of the proceedings of the Standing Committee B on June 23 last:
"Places of public resort, in the concept which I would commend to the Committee, are places where, broadly speaking, a person goes to stay for a time to enjoy all the amenities which are provided in that place. That is the purport of the word 'resort'. Simply to use the phrase 'places of public resort' would have been to use a phrase of very indefinite import. We thought it wiser to say exactly what sort of places of public resort we had in mind, and those places are set out in subsection (2)."
I will leave out a few words, and then he goes on:
"We think that we have covered every kind of place—there may be some left out—which can be brought within the category of places which we have designated 'places of public resort'."
He gives examples, and then goes on:
"They all have the common characteristic that one goes there to stay there and to enjoy something which is provided for the public at large, and which one wishes to enjoy in common with fellow citizens whom one finds there. To be told that one cannot go to those places is particularly injurious and wounding to the feelings."
That is what the Home Secretary said in Standing Committee in the course of resisting an Amendment which would have included shops within the list of places in subsection (2).
I think I can claim that both this Amendment and the other two standing in my name all refer to places which come within this definition of "places of public resort" as stated by the right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary. This Amendment seeks to include in the list "the place of any public meeting". This Bill does deal with public meetings specifically. Clause 6(1)(b) deals with incitement to racial hatred at public meetings, and I should have thought it was only logical and common sense to include in the list in Clause 1 public meetings—that is to say, in the list of those places where discrimination shall not be practised against persons seeking access. Because it is not much comfort to a person who is denied access to a public meeting upon racial grounds to be told that he would have been protected by something in Clause 6 if he had succeeded in making his way in. The logic and common sense nature of this Amendment is so self-evident to me that I think I should be wasting the time of the House if I were to continue arguing the matter. I think the only sensible course is for me to move this Amendment and see what the Minister has to say in reply. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line, 13, at end insert ("() the place of any public meeting;").—(Lord Airedale.)
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord has quoted what my right honourable friend the Home Secretary
494
said on the subject of places of public resort, and in particular he referred to my right honourable friend as saying that they all had in common something to savour which would cause us distress if it were denied to us. That is to some extent a paraphrase of what my right honourable friend said, but I think the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, will agree it is good enough.
LORD AIREDALE: "To be told that one cannot go to those places is particularly injurious and wounding to the feelings".
LORD STONHAM: Your Lordships would expect my right honourable friend to put it more graphically than I have myself. The noble Lord also quoted in aid of his Amendment the fact that in Clause 6 and again in Clause 7 of this Bill the expression "public meeting" is used. I would point out to him, first of all, that he has inserted his Amendment in the part of the Bill dealing with discrimination and has quoted in aid those parts of the Bill which are specifically concerned with racial incitement or incitement to racial prejudice. I have to point out that the noble Lord's Amendment would apply to particular public meetings and is not therefore appropriate to the remedies in Clause 1 of the Bill, which are designed to effect a change in a course of conduct extending over a period of time. It is difficult, therefore, to envisage in those circumstances how conciliation committees could operate or how the civil law could in the last resort be particularly effective.
The noble Lord's Amendment seems to us to be based on the assumption that a public meeting is, or should be, open to all members of the public. This is not necessarily true. Often it is used to mean a meeting of a section of the public on a matter of public concern. Since there is no definition in the Bill of "public meeting", although the term is used, this would be bound to lead to uncertainty. "Public meeting" has been defined in a number of ways for different purposes. For example in the Law of Libel Amendment Act 1888, Section 4, it meant:
"any meeting, bona fide and lawfully held, for a lawful purpose, and for the furtherance of discussion of any matter of public concern, whether the admission thereto be general or restricted."

495
Subsection (1) of Section 9 of the Public Order Act 1936 states that a "public meeting":
"includes any meeting in a public place and any meeting which the public or any section thereof are admitted to attend, whether on payment or otherwise",
and meeting means,
"a meeting held for the purpose of the discussion of matters of public interest or for the purpose of the expression of views on such matters".
In the Report in 1909 of the Departmental Committee of the Home Office with respect to the preservation of order and public meetings, it was stated that:
"a public meeting may properly be defined to include any lawful meeting called for the furtherance or discussion of a matter of public concern to which the public, or any particular section of the public, is invited or admitted, whether the admission thereto is general or restricted."
I quote these definitions, which have endured, to make the point that in this context it is not possible to have a sort of "blanket" definition of a public meeting which would mean that all members of the public should necessarily be admitted. But the definitions I have given would include any meeting called for any political or municipal purpose to which the public are admitted, whether by ticket or otherwise. It would also include many non-political meetings, such as bazaars, public lectures and the like, but not shareholders or committee meetings to which the public are not admitted.
In so far as the noble Lord intends his Amendment to deal with a public meeting in a public place, there is no room for discrimination, since all members of the public, irrespective of their colour, race or nationality, have the right to be present, and on this count the Amendment is unnecessary. In so far as the Amendment deals with a public meeting held in private premises, it would unwarrantably limit the right of the promoters of the meeting to invite such members of the public as they saw fit. Such a limitation would be far-reaching and totally unacceptable. Is there any reason why, for instance, Turkish Cypriots or Greek Cypriots should not be able to hold meetings confined to members of their own racial group and to exclude members of the other racial group? Or, to quote a recent actual case which no doubt noble Lords remem-
496
ber, is there any reason why Asian or African members of a trade union in this country should not hold a meeting to discuss ways of removing alleged disabilities suffered in their employment? Such a public meeting would be for the purpose of discussing matters of common concern to them, and it would be an incitement to disorder if they were not able to exclude persons hostile to them on racial grounds.
In my view, the only case in which, in theory, the Amendment might serve a useful purpose is that in which there is a meeting in private premises, which is announced as being open to all members of the public but from which, in practice, certain racial groups of the public are excluded. Here, it might be argued that discrimination on grounds of race and so on should be prohibited. But the Amendment is not limited to this particular case. And in so far as there is a problem in relation to public meetings in private places it would not, as I have already indicated, be appropriate to deal with it by the procedure in Clauses 1 to 3 which relate to prohibiting a course of conduct.
To sum up, the Amendment fails in three ways. First, if "the place of any public meeting" means a public meeting in a public place, it is unnecessary because there is no room for discrimination. Secondly, if it means a public meeting confined to persons of a particular category, it would be an oppressive incitement to disorder; and, thirdly, if it means a public meeting in a private place, it is not appropriate to the section of the Bill in which it is proposed to insert it. On those grounds, therefore, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, will see fit to withdraw the Amendment.
7.46 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I had not intended to speak on this Amendment because I have a later Amendment which not only covers this item but subsequent items which are to be moved in Amendments by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. But the Minister will forgive me if his speech has incited me to take part in this debate. He began by saying that this Amendment was irrelevant.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am quite sure it is within the recollection of your Lordships that I did not use the

497
word "irrelevant" at all at any time during my speech.
LORD BROCKWAY: "Irrelevant" was my own word, and I would not suggest that the Minister used that word.
LORD AIREDALE: "Unnecessary".
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I meant by the term "irrelevant" the dictionary meaning: that this particular Amendment is not related to the item of the Bill because it is unnecessary and because it is inconsistent.
My noble friend argued, first, that this Amendment was not applicable because this clause of the Bill deals with discrimination which is continuous and persistent. I submit to the Minister and to noble Lords that frequently public meetings are continuous, and are persistent in their denial of racial equality. I have had handbills in my hand of meetings which have been organised by Fascist societies which have not only announced one meeting but a series of meetings and therefore, so far as those meetings are concerned, the discrimination is persistent and continuous. And it may well be that at those public meetings discrimination is practised against members of the public attending them, on the ground that they are of a particular race or colour.
The second argument which the Minister put forward was that meetings may be called for a particular purpose by a particular community. I would submit to him that those are not public meetings, in the sense of being places of public resort as defined in this clause. It may be that Greeks or Turks from Cyprus may seek to hold a meeting of Greeks or of Turks to express their view about the problem in Cyprus. If those meetings are specifically meetings of Greeks or Turks, I submit that they are not public meetings in the sense of this clause, which speaks of "places of public resort".
A third point which was put by the Minister was that there might be public meetings to which the general public were invited, and which seemed to me to be within the term of meetings in "places of public resort", but that if at those meetings persons were excluded on the ground of race or colour there are other provisions in the law (or if the incitement took place, there is a later clause in the
498
Bill) covering those conditions. I submit that that is not the case. A public meeting may easily be called, open to the general public, and when members of a particular race or particular colour desire to attend that meeting they may be either excluded from the meeting, or, when they have gained attendance, may be expelled from it. That is a public place, a public meeting. It is discrimination on the grounds of race and colour. Even if the Minister suggests that the actual wording of this Amendment goes beyond the kind of case which I have indicated, I would suggest very strongly to him that, even if he cannot accept the terms of this Amendment, it is one further argument in favour of the Amendment of a more comprehensive nature which I shall move later.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, I wish that we were not in such a hurry over this Bill. In the present circumstances, we are not able to do the thorough job on this most important measure which I am sure everybody in your Lordships' House would wish to do. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has put forward points of great substance and importance which I should much like to consider. I think that the noble Lord's point about the public meeting held in a private place could probably he met by a definition of "public meeting" for the purposes of this Act. If we have time to consider the matter thoroughly, and if the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has a chance to consult with his friends on the matter, no doubt a valuable Amendment could be put down on Third Reading—a right which the House is now being denied.
I am most disappointed that the possibility still exists that a coloured man may be excluded from a public meeting in a private place. I cannot see why exclusion from such a meeting should not come under the provisions of this clause. The exclusion is likely to take place by some act by an over-excited steward—and stewards do get rather excited—at a public meeting saying, "e don't want your sort here. There is no room for you." It would be perfectly possible to subject treatment of that kind to consideration by the conciliation committee. The organisers of the meeting could be told by the conciliation committee, "We are quite sure that you did not mean to exclude coloured persons

499
from the meeting. Will you in future instruct your stewards to take a reasonable line?"
In saying all this, I am afraid I am wasting your Lordships' time, because this measure is being rushed through this House. How much better it would have been if we had decided to meet rather earlier in October and to subject this Bill to the thorough and proper examination which it deserves!
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I am grateful for the support I have received from noble Lords. I propose to accept the advice which has been given by the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh. Before I do so, I would mention that "public meeting", which is referred to specifically in Clause 6 and 7, is defined in Clause 6 as having the same meaning as in the Public Order Act 1936. I do not know whether, if that definition were to be included in Clause 1, it would make my Amendment more acceptable than it is at present. However that may be, I put down the Amendment at short notice, and it has been amply demonstrated to me that Lord Stonham has gone into the matter with great throughness, and I should not feel it right to press the matter without studying in great detail what he has said in reply. The only proper course for me at this stage is to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.56 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE LORD AIREDALE moved, in subsection (2), after paragraph (a) to insert:
"() any museum or other place of an educational or cultural nature to which the public is normally admitted;"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, paragraph (b) of this subsection specifically lists places of public entertainment and recreation. I should have thought that it was equally important that foreign students and other serious-minded foreigners should not be liable to be excluded from museums and places of that nature which are the subject of this Amendment. I seek to include museums, et cetera, within the subsection. Among the other places to which I refer after the words "any museum", I have in mind such of Mr. Noel Coward's stately homes of England as open their doors to the members of the public, and
500
places of that kind. The words "of an educational or cultural nature" in the Amendment are already enshrined in the Statute Book in the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 16, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Airedale.)
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, before dealing with this Amendment, I ask your Lordships' indulgence as I suffer under two disabilities. The first is that on Report stage I cannot speak a second time without leave of the House, and for that reason I could not reply to the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, or those made by my noble friend Lord Brockway. The other disability was referred to by the noble Earl when he spoke about the hurry we were in. To be fair, we have had a reasonable time between Committee and Report stage for the tabling of Amendments, and the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, was kind enough to say that I had gone thoroughly into his Amendment and had given it a considered reply. I shall certainly do so on this one too. I think that all friends of the Bill will agree with me when I say that the most important thing is to get the Bill. As I understand the time-table, it is necessary for us, after the completion of the Report stage, to have a Third Reading to-night in order that we can get the Bill. Apart from that, I am in your Lordships hands with regard to the particular Amendments we are considering.
To come now to the Amendment which has just been moved, it includes among the places of resort covered by Clause 1 of the Bill, museums and other places of an educational or cultural nature, such as libraries and art galleries, to which the public are normally admitted. In large part, in our view, the Amendment is unnecessary, because subsection (2) (d) of Clause 1 has the effect of including museums, libraries, and so on, maintained by the local authority or other public authority, and the paragraph was designed for that very purpose. Admittedly, it would not cover places of the kind maintained by a Government Department—for instance, buildings scheduled as ancient monuments by the Ministry of Public Building and Works—because the Bill does not bind the

501
Crown. But this, of course, and for the same reason, would apply equally to the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, if it were accepted. In any case, I know your Lordships will agree that the point is of very little real significance or practical importance, because it can scarcely be suggested that the Government would itself practise discrimination or tolerate it among its employees.
But there remain museums, art galleries and similar buildings maintained by private individuals and organisations, to which the public are normally admitted. These may often be in private homes. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, made it clear in moving his Amendment that where it is the practice to open to the public private parks or historic or stately homes, no one member of the public should be excluded solely on grounds of colour or race. But I must say, quite frankly, that I am not aware of any case in which discrimination of this kind is practised. Many of those stately homes are in fact owned by Members of your Lordships' House, and it is quite inconceivable that anyone would dream of allowing discrimination of that kind.
In common, no doubt, with many of your Lordships, a week or two ago I saw a programme on television which illustrated some of the stately homes. Indeed, some noble Dukes who own those homes were interviewed frankly and freely on the subject, and, if I am not being unfair, it seemed to me that their greatest concern was the maximum number of half-crowns. Some, at least, took a particular pride in the fact that their homes and gardens were a source of great attraction to visitors from overseas and to people of many different races. I can assure your Lordships that. I listened carefully, but I did not hear any noble Duke suggest that anyone who visited his grounds or his house and who paid his 2s. 6d. or 3s. 6d. should be asked for a certificate of entry; and certainly no noble Duke questioned anyone about the number of dependants that the visitor had overseas. Their interest, if they had asked about the dependants, would probably have been in future business. In any case, it would be a quite unwarrantable intrusion on the freedom of the individual to require him to accept into his own home or precincts people whom he wished, however misguidedly, to exclude—
502
although I am certain that those people do not exclude them, and would not dream of excluding them.
This is a principle which the Bill has throughout been at pains to safeguard—for instance, by omitting from its provisions boarding houses and private hotels, and by the special saving in Clause 5 for landlords who share accommodation with their tenants—and there is certainly no reason for abandoning it here. Put in its most plausible form, the argument may be that people who own stately homes, libraries and collections should be considered as holding them in trust for the public and should be expected to act accordingly. But the logic of that would require that all these places should be open to the public whether the owners wished it or not, and, clearly, whatever may be thought of that principle, it is still a long way from being accepted or made acceptable.
I want to make it very clear that it is not serving the cause that we all have at heart to put up theoretical cases where discrimination could possibly be exercised but where we have no knowledge that it is being exercised. Also, in this case—although, of course, I fully appreciate the reasons why the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, is moving his Amendment and am glad that he has done so, because it gives the opportunity for this discussion—we feel that in great measure, and in so far as it is necessary at all, the point he has in mind is covered by the Bill. On those two grounds, therefore, we feel that the Amendment is not necessary.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, may I say that I have listened with great interest to these discussions? Surely, the criterion should be one of behaviour, whether the person is coloured or white, and if a person arrives at a museum or a concert hall, whether it is owned by the Government or privately-owned, in a truculent state, those who run it should have the right to refuse entry. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, that there has not really been sufficient time to discuss this Bill properly. I think that the Bill as drafted covers many of the points which the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, seeks to cover, but it is surely the criterion of behaviour and apearance which should dominate the precepts of this Bill.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I am sorry to say that I was not nearly so satisfied with the Minister's answer to this Amendment as I was with his answer to the first one. What the noble Lord's argument boils down to is this: "I cannot think of any cases where discrimination would be practised in the sort of circumstances that this Amendment envisages, and therefore it is unnecessary". In my submission, that sort of argument is never a very strong one. In this particular instance it seems to me that we have really reached a quite extraordinary position. Paragraph (b) specifically lists
"sports ground, swimming pool or other place of public entertainment or recreation ".
We may have this position. A noble Duke has a stately home which he opens to the public in order primarily that serious-minded people may enjoy the treasures there. In the grounds he puts a swimming pool and roundabouts, for the public entertainment of the children of the people who come primarily to enjoy the cultural surroundings of the stately home. As I understand it, under paragraph (b) the noble Duke cannot exclude persons on racial grounds from his public entertainment facilities—his swimming pool, and so on—but, unless my Amendment is accepted, he is going to be able (I am not suggesting that any noble Duke would do it, but he would be able) to exclude people upon racial grounds from going inside the stately home and enjoying seeing the treasures. That seems to me to be a perfectly ridiculous position to allow to exist. I really do not think I can withdraw this Amendment.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, if I may be allowed to speak again, I want to make only two points. First, I would remind the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, that, even in a place which is covered by the Bill, if a person is truculent or offensive in any way other than in regard to questions of race, ethnics, nationality or creed, then, of course, the proprietor has every right, and a continuing right, to exclude him.
On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, he said that a noble Duke could not exclude a person of colour from his swimming pool or roundabout but he could exclude him on those grounds
504
from his home. The answer to that, my Lords, is that an Englishman, Duke or otherwise, can exclude any person from his home on any grounds. Therefore, the noble Lord's Amendment would not alter or add to that position at all. I still feel that the case I made was a complete answer to his Amendment, and that it is unnecessary.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I suppose that if I say anything more I shall be in grave danger of being called out of order, but I shall chance it. I would suggest to the Minister that it is not reasonable to call those parts of a stately home of England which are not lived in but which are preserved as a museum for the enjoyment of members of the public, part of an Englishman's home. They are nothing of the kind. It is only the flat in which he lives privately which is the Englishman's home.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
8.11 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE LORD AIREDALE moved, in subsection (2), after paragraph (a) to insert.
"() any public exhibition;".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment seeks to include in the list any public exhibition. A public exhibition is not usually a cultural place, and it is not a place of entertainment such as comes within paragraph (b)—at least, not usually. That is not to say that the Antique Dealers' Fair is not primarily a cultural occasion, or that many of the people who go to the Boat Show do not go for the purpose of entertainment. But, my Lords, public exhibitions are very much part of our national life in these days. They deal with almost all the material facets of our national life, and they draw enormous crowds. I should have thought it would undoubtedly be felt by anybody to be a serious deprivation to be excluded upon racial grounds, or upon any other ground, for that matter, from attending one of the many public exhibitions which are held in this country all the year round.
If the words of the Home Secretary (which I quoted, which the Minister paraphrased, which I then requoted and which, if I may do so, I will quote once more) mean anything, I should have thought that it was quite evident that public exhibitions ought to be in this

505
list. The Home Secretary's words were:
"To be told that one cannot go to those places is particularly injurious and wounding to the feelings".
Again, I am not suggesting that this would happen, but I can imagine the feelings of somebody who, on racial grounds, might be told, "You cannot go into the Ideal Home Exhibition", or "You cannot go to the Boat Show". I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 16, at end insert: ("() any public exhibition;").—(Lord Airedale.)
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, quoted my right honourable friend again, and said that if you were told you could not go into one of those places it would be very wounding. I quite agree; but he did not give any indication when, if ever, anyone had been told that he could not go to those places on the grounds of race or colour, or for any of the reasons which are objected to in this Bill as a matter of discrimination.
However, to come to the particular Amendment, first of all I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale (always, of course, with the proviso that I have never regarded this as very important), that the drafting of his Amendment is at fault because its words do not necessarily convey the meaning which he has assigned to them. To include in Clause 1 of the Bill any place at a time when a public exhibition is being held there would mean, for example, that Olympia would qualify only when an exhibition was being held there. If that is what the noble Lord intends, then much the same objections apply as they did to the previous Amendment dealing with museums, art galleries and so on, when he found my answer singularly unconvincing. That is to say, it would apply except, perhaps, that the number of public exhibitions sponsored by individual organisations and undertakings is greater in proportion to the whole than the number of museums and art galleries privately maintained to those maintained by local or public authorities. In another way the consideration may also be said to differ in degree because public exhibitions, from their nature, tend more often to be held in premises specially hired for the purpose and frequently hired from public authorities.
506
The fact remains that we have had no complaints of discrimination being practised in public exhibitions, nor are they the sort of occasions on which we would expect it to be. Indeed, many trade exhibitions make a point of publishing each day the number of overseas visitors and buyers who have been at the exhibition. Most trade exhibitions, at least those of a national character or on a substantial scale, go to a great deal of expense and trouble to advertise overseas to attract visitors to the exhibition. It would therefore be ludicrous to suggest that any discrimination of this kind would be practised in those circumstances.
I believe that there is general agreement that it is not in large gatherings of that kind that the abuse which we all deplore tends to show itself, but in the more intimate circumstances—the circumstances, for example, of a public house, or in places at which people are served together, as in restaurants, or where they are engaged in a common activity such as at a swimming pool or at dances. These are the places where discrimination is likely to be practiced, and not—I repeat not—in public exhibitions where, by the very nature of things, all who will come and pay for admission or are qualified to enter by reason of their trade and occupation (and some exhibitions are limited in that way) are welcome.
The purpose of this Bill, I must say once more, is to strike at likely, actual or threatened abuses and not at purely theoretical ones. I would say this. If we were to try to cover every public place or occasion where discrimination might theoretically be practised, and where there is little or no reason to believe that it ever would, and where we have no evidence that it ever has been, it would be difficult to know where to stop. What is more important—and I hope the noble Lord will accept this point—is that, however long a list we compiled, we should be bound to leave something out. The result would be to encourage people to think that discrimination was all right in any of the places or circumstances not specifically mentioned in the Bill. I believe, therefore, much as I appreciate, as I always do, the noble Lord's reasons and arguments on this occasion, that the Bill would be much

507
better without his Amendment and I hope he will not press it.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, the arguments of the Minister on this Amendment are very much the same as his arguments on the other. He says he cannot think of any circumstances where discrimination would be practised in such places as exhibitions and therefore it is unnecessary to have exhibitions in the list. I can use that argument, too. Paragraph (b) includes sports grounds and swimming pools. I could have moved an Amendment to leave out "sports grounds and swimming pools" and, in support of that, I could have said that I cannot think of any sports ground or swimming pool where anyone is liable to be excluded on racial grounds. I could then ask the Minister whether he could give me examples of sports grounds or swimming pools where this would be so. If he could not do so, then I could say, "Let us leave those words out of the Bill." I imagine that the Minister's answer would be, "I have no specific instance in mind, but this is the sort of place which ought to be on the list."
My Lords, I think that exhibitions ought to be on the list. Not all exhibitions are enormous, or held at Olympia or Earl's Court. We have large, small and medium-size public exhibitions. If theatres, public houses, cafés, sports grounds and dance halls are to be included, I think that exhibitions ought also to be on the list, and I do not feel that I ought to withdraw the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
8.21 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY LORD BROCKWAY moved to add to subsection (2):
"() any other place to which the public is normally admitted."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think I should begin by expressing an apology to the Members of this House, because I had an Amendment down in the same terms during the Committee stage and was not in my place when it was called. This was due to the fact that I was working in the Government Peers' Room, which is in the dungeons of this House; the previous debate ended rather precipitately and I was not informed in
508
time to be in my place to move the Amendment. I apologise to those who were present on that occasion; I apologise even more to those who are present now, because they are being detained at a late hour.
I am moving this Amendment not because I am opposed to the principle of the Bill but because I am enthusiastically in favour of it. I hope that I may be able to argue the case quietly and reasonably, and in such a way that I may have a response from the Government. Clause 1(2) of the Bill includes as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, a list of places of public resort where discrimination would be regarded as unlawful. They are four in character: any place where food or drink is sup-lied for consumption by the public; any place of public entertainment or recreation; any premises used for the purpose of public transport, and any other place of public resort maintained by a local authority. Those are not inclusive words; those are the principles of the four sections. Subsection (2) not only lays down those principles but lists a number of places where the provisions of this Bill should apply: hotels, restaurants, cafes, public houses, theatres, cinemas, dance halls, sports grounds, swimming pools, vehicles, vessels or aircraft used for public transport.
If the purpose of this Bill were to take into a court of law, either in civil proceedings or in criminal proceedings, any person who practised discrimination in those places, I could understand that they should be specifically and directly mentioned in the Bill. The first draft of the Bill was made with that kind of purpose; but the amended Bill has a different purpose—and I am among those who welcome that purpose. The purpose now is not to take to a court of law an individual who practises discrimination in a series of specific places: the purpose now is, where discrimination is practised in places of public resort, to make the utmost effort to settle the difference by the method of reconciliation. I submit to the members of the Government who are here that that change in the character of the Bill makes unnecessary the listing of a series of places in which discrimination may take place (which nevertheless may omit some) and makes it desirable that

509
there should be a much broader definition. In my Amendment I have not suggested omitting the list, but in view of this change in the nature of the Bill, I propose that there should be added the words:
"any other place to which the public is normally admitted".
To emphasise my point, let me describe the procedure that will be followed under this Bill. First, if there is a charge of discrimination in one of these public places, a complaint will be made to the local conciliation committee. The object of that conciliation committee will be to use its best endeavours to secure a settlement of the difference. Only when it has used its utmost efforts to bring about conciliation, and has failed, will the case be reported to the Race Relations Board. Even when it is reported, it is not inevitable that the case will be taken to court. It is only if it is clear to the Race Relations Board that a contravention of this clause has taken place, and is likely to continue, that the case will be reported to the Attorney General, in England and Wales, or to the Lord Advocate, in Scotland. Even then, the case will not necessarily be taken to court: that will be a matter for the Attorney General or the Lord Advocate to decide. And even when the case has gone to court, and if the charge is proved, there will not be a sentence of imprisonment or a fine. The court can only grant an injunction to require that the offence is not continued.
What I am trying to do is to convince members of the Government, in a cooperative and constructive way, and the Members of this House, that when this Bill is aimed at conciliation, then the broadest possible definition of circumstances in which discrimination could take place should be included in the Bill, rather than the listing of possible places of discrimination which are not necessarily inclusive of all those where it occurs, and almost certainly will not be inclusive of all places where it will occur in future. This would seem to me to be ground, not for limiting an effort to settle differences in the stated places of public resort, but for giving the local conciliation committees authority to bring about conciliation in all places of public resort. I submit that argument to the Minister with all the persuasion that I
510
can, because I believe it is the only principle that is consistent with the changed character of the Bill.
There is another case for accepting the Amendment that I have on the Marshalled List. Indeed, I am tremendously fortified by the concluding passage of the speech which the Minister has just delivered. He has argued against a list of places where discrimination has not at present occurred on the very grounds on which I am arguing for the acceptance of this Amendment. There is a danger in listing a number of places without including all places of public resort, because those who control those other places will take the fact that they are not made unlawful under this Bill as justifying the practice of discrimination in those places. Discrimination (and I am almost using the words used by the Minister) could be practised with impunity in public places other than those which are specifically listed in this Bill.
I want to recognise at once that discrimination may not occur beyond the places which are recorded in the Bill. Indeed, I would say to the Minister—and I have made some examination of this problem—that there are places in the list already where it would be difficult to find the practice of discrimination at this moment. My study of this problem has led me to the view that the practice of discrimination at this moment is actually decreasing. It was at its height about eighteen months ago. I think the Minister would find it difficult, in certain of the places which he has included in this Bill, to prove that any discrimination is now taking place.
But, in my view, it is dangerous to gamble that this psychological situation will be maintained. It may be that, owing to the development of unforeseen and unhappy circumstances, discrimination will grow. It may easily be that it may grow in particular places. If it does grow in that way, discrimination will occur, not only in the specific places of public resort mentioned in this Bill, but also in other places.
May I indicate what I have in mind? In America now, there are certain public corporations which are providing beauty parlours and barbers' shops of an exclusive character, from which coloured persons and those of a different race are

511
excluded. Such places are not covered in this Bill. Is the Minister really suggesting that in the kind of atmosphere of business exploitation for profit which is now occurring, and particularly the epidemic (if I may so call it) of attempts to find a particular presentation of a business which will appeal to certain sections of the people, it is unlikely that a concern which is running a beauty parlour or a barber's establishment may not, if the feeling of colour and discrimination arises, apply—quite lawfully under this Bill—discrimination to its establishment?
In saying this I am not speaking without some evidence. I had a lady friend this week who went to a beauty parlour. The owner of that parlour said to her: "I am sorry that there are coloured people here. I hope that the time may come when it will be possible to run an establishment of this kind where only white women can have the services which we can provide".
The Minister cannot possibly say that the list of particular places set out in this Bill is the complete list of places of public resort where discrimination is likely to take place. I take another instance which is, I admit, on the borderline between the area of employment, which the noble Lord has already excluded from the Bill, and the area of public resort. We are now having for the first time large numbers of coloured children school-leavers. I was quite surprised to see in the White Paper on Immigration which has been distributed this week that there is very little difficulty for coloured teenagers leaving school. That is not my experience. My experience is that in town after town where there are Commonwealth immigrant communities, the Youth Employment Officers are finding the greatest difficulty in obtaining any opportunity for those children in offices in this country.
As I have said already, I recognise that that is partly a matter of employment. But it is not only a matter of employment. Those offices which are public offices, in the sense that anyone should have the opportunity to participate in the work of those offices—places of public resort in that sense—are excluding from a coloured child the opportunity to enter. The Minister has to look at
512
that problem very seriously indeed in view of the school leavers whom we now have in our midst. He has to look also at the problem, if racial discrimination increases in this country, that there may be some exclusion even from shops of a particular kind, in particular areas of a particularly snobbish character.
I suggest to him, further that he has got to look at the problem of clubs which are normally open to the general public. I am not asking him to apply this Bill to clubs of a particular character—it may be clubs of a religious community, it may be some special association—but to clubs which are normally open to the whole population, where the only restriction is colour or race; they ought to be included within the terms of this Bill. The Labour Club at Smethwick was an unfortunate example of that.
I have tried to put this case reasonably. I have put it, I hope, with some conviction. I want to know what is the objection of the Government and the Minister to this wider definition, when this is a matter of conciliation and agreement and trying to end racial feeling. The criticism of this Bill is that it is inadequate, that it does not deal with the most urgent cases of discrimination. I want to ask the Minister, in these last moments of the consideration of this Bill, whether he will do something to meet this criticism by accepting the Amendment which I have put forward.
May I add just this?—and I think the Minister knows how I feel about this matter. In one sense I was a pioneer, with my noble friend Lord Sorensen, of legislation in this sphere. I am terribly proud to-night that we are reaching the stage where this Bill is likely to become law. I am pleading with him to look at the Amendment which I have moved because I believe by this Amendment we shall be able to improve race relations in this country; we shall be placing the emphasis not so much on the penalisation of those who commit offences as on seeking by conciliation to bring about agreement. I beg to move.
Amendment moved
Page 2, line 2, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Brockway.)
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I should like to point out to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, that the wording of his

513
Amendment in fact covers both your Lordships' House and the other place. We all know, naturally, that so far as admission is concerned there is no problem there—and I am thankful there is not—but it is not impossible, although perhaps not likely, that words might be said during some debate which might be taken as being discrimination in one way or another. I think it would be a most serious thing if this Bill were to inhibit the freedom of speech of either Members of your Lordships' House or honourable Members in another place.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I just say to the noble Lord that your Lordships' House and the other place are not public places. The public are in fact outside the House, so the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Somers, is not valid.
LORD SOMERS: I think that is rather a technical point.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, I have listened carefully to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, which he has made with a good deal of sincerity, but I think his Amendment is much too widely drawn. As I understand it, it would take in places like Tower Hill and Speakers' Corner, where you not only may get a white man inciting racial hatred but you may get a Zambian or some other coloured national doing the same thing. I am not suggesting that this happens on a very big scale. I used to visit Tower Hill quite a lot and also, on occasions, Speakers' Corner. I think it would be a very great pity if the carryings on there were curbed through the means of this particular Bill. I would ask the Government to consider that point.
My second point is this. We are, of course, discussing Clause 1, but if there was really discrimination on a large scale the implications would surely turn towards Clause 6, because there may well be violence ensuing, and under Clause 6 there are very wide powers to deal with any incidents, or most incidents, of the kind which the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has mentioned.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, in sixty seconds I should like to support this Amendment to m the Bill compre-
514
hensive, if only in order to justify the Title of the Bill which is
"An Act prohibiting discrimination on racial grounds in places of public resort."
It does not say "in certain places of public resort"; still less does it say "in a few selected places of public resort chosen upon an arbitrary basis". I should have thought that Her Majesty's Government had only two choices: either to accept the noble Lord's Amendment or else to move on the Third Reading in a few minutes' time an Amendment of their own to amend the Title so as to read, not "places of public resort", but "certain places of public resort". I think I have taken 57 seconds.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I regret to have to inform the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, that I shall have no difficulty in resisting the temptation to accept either of the suggestions that he put to me as the only two possible alternatives. We have listened, as we might have expected to a speech from my noble friend Lord Brockway fired with sincerity, in which at different stages he presented his case passionately, sympathetically and engagingly. It is good that at this almost last stage of this Bill I should be speaking in the presence of my noble friends Lord Brockway and Lord Sorensen, who between them have done certainly more, I would say, than any two men in Parliament to bring about the state of affairs that we have now in this Bill. But I really do not think it is appropriate that at this stage we should be asked virtually to transform this Bill completely and fundamentally.
My noble friend said that the change in the character of the Bill, meaning that we have now related it to discrimination as a course of conduct as distinct from what it was in the original draft of the Bill, renders unnecessary any restriction with regard to type of place. Again, those may not be his exact words, but certainly that is the intention.
LORD BROCKWAY: To a type of public place.
LORD STONHAM: As my noble friend knows, I did not want to misquote him. But it seems to me impossible that we could, even for a moment, consider utterly and completely changing the whole concept of the Bill in the way that he suggests. He wishes to extend the provision

515
against discrimination to the generality of places to which the public are normally admitted, and of course this is a most attractive appeal. It is one which readily appeals, I should have thought, to most of us. Under his proposal, as he made clear, the Bill would cover all premises, all places to which the public is normally admitted—shops, hairdressing establishments, beauty parlours, clubs and similar places which are normally open to the public. Even when my noble friend quoted an example it was that of a hairdressing establishment, not where colour discrimination was practised, because coloured people were there, but where it was the hope of someone that it one day might be practised.
I am bound to say that in this context the Amendment itself, apart from my noble friend's exposition of it, is obscure; and we have to consider the Amendment and its effect if we accepted it. It would be at the least confusing and at the worst inflammatory, and it would also be misleading if, after setting out in the subsection that the provisions are to apply to certain specific places of public resort, we should add certain words which would mean they would apply to all. It is imperative that we should avoid imprecision in our legislation and particularly in this Bill, and that we should make the effect of the law as certain as it can be; but it would be almost impossible to put any exact limit on what may be comprised within the term "place to which the public is normally admitted", because the Amendment would provide a wide and indeterminate field within which neither the members of the immigrant communities would know whether they had rights of entry or service; nor would the proprietors or managers know whether they were entitled lawfully to exclude them or deny them service. Such a situation would inevitably cause friction and would be likely to impose intolerable difficulties on the local conciliation committees in deciding which complaints they were entitled to consider and which they were not.
The places to which Clause 1 applies have all been carefully selected and defined with as much precision as is possible. I am delighted to hear that it would be difficult in some cases to find or
516
to quote examples where discrimination was being or had been exercised in such places. It has not been thought necessary to extend the Bill to shops and similar places because there is no evidence that discrimination is in fact being practised in them. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, does not accept that as a convincing argument, but I do find that it is a proper argument to use. And there is the strong practical objection to including them that discrimination is widely defined in subsection (3) of Clause 1 so as to cover not only refusal to provide access facilities or services, but also to neglect to provide them in the like manner and on like terms as to the public in general. This opens up the prospect of innumerable complaints, for example, of delays in service in shops, most of which may well prove trivial or unfounded or imagined, but which might create feeling and prove excessively burdensome to the conciliation committee.
It is no proper answer to say that the same objections could apply to restaurants which would be brought under the clause, because this would ignore the question of degree, which cannot be lightly disregarded when you come to a practical issue of this kind. Moreover, if we include shops and the other establishments which my noble friend mentioned, it will make a major inroad into the whole basis of retail trading under which the display of merchandise with a price ticket is not regarded as an offer for sale which may be accepted by any customer. There is no doubt that it would be opposed by the whole trading community. The fact that there would be opposition is not in itself a reason for not accepting my noble friend's suggestion. A reason is that the trading community would resent it because the clause would be applied in a field where in fact there is no evidence of discrimination and where they do not discriminate.
Therefore, I must ask my noble friend to accept that an Amendment in such wide and definite terms as the one which he is proposing would create difficulties, not only for suppliers but for consumers in fields where they do not at present exist. I say again that I do not think it is going to serve the cause which we both have at heart if we go on imagining possible places or avenues of discrimination that do not at present exist or where

517
discrimination is not at present being exercised. If a situation should arise such as he fears might arise, then it is a matter which we could look at again. But, meanwhile, I am bound to advise my noble friend that we cannot possibly accept his Amendment, and I hope that he will withdraw it.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I will not pretend that I have been convinced by the speech which the Minister has delivered: but first, in view of his undertaking that, if conditions develop so that the Bill should be extended, that would be considered by the Government, and, second, because, like others, I am much more concerned that the Bill should be placed on the Statute Book than that one should press points about which there is difference, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 22):
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be read a third time. I will detain your Lordships for only a few moments. I think despite, or perhaps even because of, what has been said to-night, the Government can reasonably claim that the machinery devised for our purpose has been well-designed to provide the greatest possible opportunities for the settlement of disputes with the least possible cause for misunderstanding or friction. Its success will depend very greatly on the efforts of the Race Relations Board which the Home Secretary is to appoint. In making these appointments it will be my right honourable friend's object to find people of ability, of wide human sympathies and of some national reputation, capable of winning the confidence of all sections of the community, whether immigrant or native born.
But success will not only depend on the ability of the Board; it will depend even more on the good sense and restraint of the communities themselves. During the passage of the Bill, we have argued about the forms of discrimination and the places of public resort to which the provisions should apply. I do not wish, in these final words, to spend further time in explaining the principles that have
518
guided the Government's choice. It is sufficient to say that the aim throughout has been to find ways of easing racial tensions and not to carry principles—however excellent in themselves—to an extreme that is likely to alienate well-intentioned and moderate public opinion and so to provoke those very feelings of antagonism which we wish to allay.
The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, who informed me that he could not be here to-dad, has suggested, among others, that in some respects the Bill goes too far. I know that your Lordships felt considerable sympathy with the argument which he so clearly and ably advanced for extending to tenants who may be required to share kitchen and sanitary accommodation the protection already given to landlords under the Bill. I promised to look again at what he said, but I am bound to say that, after the most careful consideration we in the Home Office have been quite unable to find any way of effectively meeting the substance of his case without opening the provisions as a whole to wide-scale evasion and abuse. Equally, on the other side of the argument, I realise that there are others, like my noble friend Lord Brockway, who are disappointed that the Government have not felt it wise to go further and attempt to apply the provisions to a wide range of places and activities, in which it is said that discrimination has been, or may at some time in the future be, practised. This balancing of opinion, on the one side and the other, may well prove that the Government have not been so very far wrong in gauging the scone of the Bill. Clearly, however, this is not a matter capable of precise and objective assessment: it is something that time and experience can show.
My final word is this. Whether the Bill goes too far, or not far enough, I trust that all of us will give it every opportunity for the machinery to prove itself in an atmosphere free of unnecessary sectional controversy and provocation. It would, I am sure, be a tragedy if the work of the Race Relations Board and its local committees were to be impeded by well meaning but misguided people seeking to force upon their attention problems with which they will have no authority to deal. Whatever larger ends such action was intended to serve,

519
it would not, I am sure, be the way to promote that goal of racial harmony to which all people of goodwill, whatever their race or national origin, are united in dedication. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read ª.—(Lord Stonham.)
9.2 p.m.
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, although, as the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said, the Bill in some ways goes too far for some people and, on the other hand, not far enough for others, I am sure that all noble Lords will feel that this has now been thoroughly examined and gone into. I feel that the best thing we can do is to wish the Bill the very best luck it can have; and, as the noble Lord said, we shall do anything in our power to make it work well and be a success.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, I cannot entirely agree that we could not have improved the Bill, had we had the opportunity of exercising the privilege of this House and amending it on Third Reading, and had we had longer to consider it. But I entirely agree with the words of the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, that whatever criticisms and objections there may be in detail—and I felt that the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, had a point which deserved to be met—we greet the Bill with great satisfaction. We rely very much on the conciliation committees to enforce its provisions in a reasonable and sensible way, and we wish it full good fortune.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I am not sure that it is necessary to add anything to what has been said. I very much hope that we shall all co-operate in making the Bill successful in diminishing racial and colour feeling in this country. With the knowledge that will be obtained from the operation of this Bill, I hope that we may at a later stage be able to introduce further legislation which may deal more fully with the problem.
On Question, Bill read 3ª, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  GRANTS AND LOANS TO FORMER COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES
  GRANTS AND LOANS TO FORMER COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES
  RAIL CLOSURES IN ISLE OF WIGHT
  RAIL CLOSURES IN ISLE OF WIGHT