Sitting of 22 February 1966

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
MESSAGE FROM THE COUNSELLORS OF STATE

  DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF (CANADA)
  THE VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported the Answer of the Counsellors of State to the Address, as follows:
  We, Counsellors of State to whom have been delegated certain Royal Functions as specified in Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm dated January the 25th 1966, have received Your Address to Her Majesty praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Canada) Order 1966 be made in the form of the draft laid before Your House.
  On Her Majesty's behalf we will comply with your request.
  Elizabeth R.
  Margaret.

PRIVATE BUSINESS
  LEEDS CORPORATION BILL (By Order)
  Read a Second time and committed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Close Companies (Voluntary Liquidation)
    Mr. Barnettasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many solvent close companies have gone into voluntary liquidation since the Finance Act, 1965, came into effect; what estimate he has made of the number of cases in which the liquidation was due to the Finance Act; and what were the different trades.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Niall MacDermot): I regret that separate statistics are not available in relation to close companies.
    Mr. Barnett: While accepting that Answer from my hon. and learned Friend, may I ask whether he would agree that a great deal of nonsense is spoken on the subject by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and that in fact the Corporation Tax is very largely of great benefit to small family companies? Where, as they often do, they pay no dividends, Corporation Tax is of very great help to this type of company.
    Mr. MacDermot: I would agree with my hon. Friend. The figures that are available are for motions registered by private companies for voluntary liquidation. In the period mentioned in the Question, they show 2,135 out of a total of over half a million private companies, and there have been 15,000 new registrations in the same period. These figures do not support the idea that there has been widespread liquidation of close companies as a result of the Finance Act.
    Mr. William Clark: Does the Financial Secretary agree that the implications of Corporation Tax have not got through the pipeline to close companies, and also that this Question is quite irrelevant at this stage of our financial year?
    Mr. MacDermot: I think that the message is getting through to these companies who go in for a policy of a high level of ploughback, because they will have considerable benefit from the tax.

    Dollar Premium
    Mr. St. John-Stevasasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he proposes to take to reduce the present inflated dollar premium.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. James Callaghan): I have no statement to make on this matter.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: Since the dollar premium is now at a fantastic level of nearly 18 per cent., thanks to the actions taken by the Chancellor last April, would he now be gracious enough to do something to help the investor who has to pay the equivalent of a 5 per cent. capital levy when he realises dollar investments?
    Mr. Callaghan: This is a way in which an investor overseas can do something to help the official exchange reserves. He is doing so, and I am very grateful to him for doing it.

    Agriculture and Horticulture (Capital Allowances and Investment Incentives)
    Mr. John Wellsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the benefits to be derived from new tax arrangements for horticulturalists similar to those in force in Holland; and if he will clarify the Government's intentions on capital allowances and investment incentives for agriculture and horticulture, and in particular for horticultural glass.
    Mr. MacDermot: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement made yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in reply to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell).
    Mr. Wells: Will my hon. and learned Friend look at the account of this industry in the Westminster Bank Review for August of last year, and will he look specifically at the problems of the balance of payments situation arising from our imports of £15 million worth of Dutch glasshouse produce every year, with a view to helping our industry in the same way as the Dutch Government help theirs?
    Mr. MacDermot: I am not aware of any arrangements in Holland bestowing greater advantages on their horticulturalists than the provisions announced by my right hon. Friend yesterday bestow on ours.

    Double Taxation Agreements
    Mr. Hugh Fraserasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in his negotiations of further double taxation agreements, he will avoid using as a model his recent agreement with the United States of America whereby the United States revenue will, on average, take from the British investor and company 51·9 per cent. of distributed profits, whereas the British revenue will take only 44·5 per cent. from American investors in this country; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Callaghan: In negotiating double taxation agreements there are many factors to be taken into account not all of which are limited to the immediate taxation effects. Each case will be treated on its merits, having regard to the model treaty of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
    Mr. Fraser: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer three questions? First, has this treaty been signed? Secondly, will he agree that whereas in the past we have taken £56 for every £100 of American profit earned here, we now take £45, and further that this precedent will have an adverse effect in negotiating treaties with other States for the protection of British shareholders? Finally, will he agree that this will cost the Revenue £10 million this year and a very considerable loss of dollar exchange?
    Mr. Callaghan: I think that that is a rather loaded way of putting a very difficult series of propositions. The treaty has not technically been signed. The Americans and ourselves have reached heads of agreement which were made public for the convenience of those who wish to know about these matters. As regards the changes in deductions, I would not care to accept the right hon. Gentleman's figures quite in the way he put them. I think that he is over-stating the amount deducted initially. The amount to be deducted will depend partly on the rate of Corporation Tax. Whether it will have an adverse effect in negotiating treaties with other countries I do not know, but I do not think that it necessarily will. It is our aim to follow the O.E.C.D. convention, and indeed I have been pressed from the right hon. Gentleman's side of the House so to do. As for the cost to the balance of payments, it is impossible for the right hon. Gentleman or for any one else to quantify that. It depends on the amount of inward investment which flows from the fact that our tax rate is likely to be lower than that of the Americans.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Long questions produce long answers.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he does or does not accept the calculation which is made in the original Question on the Order Paper? If he does, will he explain why

    207
    he has made such a bad bargain on behalf of this country?
    Mr. Callaghan: Mr. Speaker, I hope you will agree that I did not waste any words in replying to the long question.
    These figures are correct as stated here, but I warn the right hon. Gentleman against simple arithmetic. Not all these issues are susceptible to that kind of treatment.
    Mr. Fraser: In view of the totally unsatisfactory nature of the reply, and in view of the abject—[Interruption.]—I will raise the matter—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman must give notice in the conventional way.

    Purchase Tax (Sports Equipment)
    Mr. Ioan L. Evansasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will seek to remove Purchase Tax on sports equipment.
    Mr. MacDermot: My right hon. Friend will bear this suggestion in mind.
    Mr. Evans: In view of the fact that the Treasury has done much in recent months to introduce a fairer system of taxation, will my hon. and learned Friend consider taking the tax off the football field and putting it on the roulette table, and taking it off the slow-arm bowler and putting it on the one-armed bandit?
    Mr. MacDermot: I do not know about the "slow arm bowler", but I think that my hon. Friend is bowling a wide.

    Gambling
    Mr. Ioan L. Evansasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from the Association of British Chambers of Commerce about the contribution that gambling makes to the national revenue; and what replies he has sent.
    Mr. Callaghan: I received a letter from the Association on this and other subjects, and replied that I would carefully consider the points made.
    Mr. Evans: Does my right hon. Friend realise that there is a great need for national revenue to meet the road,
    208
    school, health and educational programmes of the Government? Does he realise that if he introduced this he would be backing a winner, and that the odds would be as good as those on a Labour victory?
    Mr. Callaghan: This is very tempting indeed. I notice that the right hon. Gentleman opposite referred to it as being a milkable industry, but I warn my hon. Friend and anyone else against any expectations of large revenue from this type of activity.
    Mr. Fisherasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the increase in gambling, he will tax it more heavily.
    Mr. Shepherdasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to regulate gaming establishments through the medium of a tax upon the units of play, such as roulette tables and chemin de fer tables, of between £5,000 and £10,000 per annum, and a tax of £2,000 per annum per betting shop.
    Mr. Callaghan: I cannot anticipate my Budget statement.
    Mr. Fisher: Does not the Chancellor agree that as gambling is now legalised and is, from the point of view of the State, an entirely non-productive activity—and as it is relatively very under-taxed, compared with drink and tobacco—it can contribute in larger measure to the national Budget and thus, indirectly, to the social and perhaps even the defence needs of the people?
    Mr. Callaghan: These questions have been canvassed on many occasions. Every Chancellor has, perched on his shoulder, the ghost of Sir Winston Churchill, who last attempted to do this very thing.

    National Savings
    Mr. Stratton Millsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total net withdrawal of National Savings in 1965–66 to the nearest convenient date; and how this compares with the same period in 1963–64 and 1964–65.
    Mr. MacDermot: In the first 45 weeks the total outstanding fell by £2·7 million, compared with increases of £240·7 million and £268·9 million in the same period of 1963–64 and 1964–65.
    Mr. Mills: Is it not clear that those are alarming figures? Would not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the attitude of the small investor has undergone a revolutionary change because of concern about the prospects of inflation which has coloured his attitude? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman say when he can make a statement about changes in the whole future of National Savings and in particular Savings Certificates?
    Mr. MacDermot: I would not agree that the figures are very alarming. They are naturally disappointing, and we discussed the reasons for this at some length in a recent debate. I urge the hon. Gentleman not to take too pessimistic a view. The total outstanding in National Savings since the present Government took office has increased by about £140 million.
    Mr. William Clark: Would not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that a reduction in National Savings must indicate a lack of confidence in the Government of the day?
    Mr. MacDermot: Not at all. There are seasonal variations, and there are also variations when savers feel that there are other ways in which they can invest their savings more advantageously. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the total outstanding in National Savings at the end of October of last year, which is the latest figure I have, was £8,379 million.

    Banks (Credit Restraint)
    Mr. Kenneth Lewisasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in any future instructions he gives to the Bank of England on restrictions of credit by the banks he will take into account the proposed development of the credit card system.
    Mr. MacDermot: The banks are aware that credit restraint is intended to apply to all forms of bank lending to the private sector.
    Mr. Lewis: Would not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that this appears to go beyond normal overdrafts, and is an extension of personal credit? Does he see it as possibly inflationary?
    Mr. MacDermot: It need not be. It is a new form of credit, and it may be
    210
    a useful one. What is important is that bank credit should keep within those limits which are necessary in the national interest, and the banks have co-operated very fully with the policy which was laid down by my right hon. Friend earlier last year.

    Stock Exchange Dealings (Tax Avoidance)
    Mr. Hamlingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further steps the Treasury proposes to take to deal with tax avoidance in connection with dealings on the Stock Exchange.
    Mr. Callaghan: As I said in my Answer on 15th February it will take some time to complete the investigations into the recent series of transactions which may have involved tax irregularities. I cannot say yet what new tax legislation may be required to prevent these abuses.
    Mr. Hamling: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that there is some urgency in the matter because the small taxpayer pays his tax regularly and honestly and is much offended by this sort of practice on the Stock Exchange?
    Mr. Callaghan: I assure my hon. Friend and the House that there will be no delay in dealing with this matter; but these arrangements are so ingenious that they will involve separate examination of many individual transactions, and it will take a great deal of the Revenue's time to try to pin them down.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that although tax evasion is reprehensible, and can and should be corrected by this House, it has always been accepted that it is right for people, or at any rate open to them, so to arrange their affairs that they pay the least amount of tax on those transactions?
    Mr. Callaghan: That is a matter of philosophy on the general issue. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not apply his remarks to this particular case, because I think that it may well go much further than arranging one's affairs to avoid the payment of the maximum amount of tax. In this case—I am choosing my words carefully—there may well be an example of something that is much more reprehensible.
    Mr. Grant: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is the vigilance of the Stock Exchange Council which has brought many of these practices to the light of day?
    Mr. Callaghan: Yes, Sir. If the hon. Gentleman remembers, in my Answer of 15th February I said exactly that. The Revenue would not have discovered it if it had not been for the activities of the Stock Exchange Council; but the fact remains that whether suspension from the Floor of the Stock Exchange is sufficient to deal with this matter is something that must be further considered.
    Mr. Manuel: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that while it is all right for individuals to make the best possible tax arrangements, they should do so within the rules laid down by this House.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: That is the point I made.
    Mr. Callaghan: With respect, it was not. It may have been the point which the right hon. Gentleman was trying to make, but the reason why these members were suspended by the Stock Exchange Council was that they did not observe the rules which had been laid down.

    Public Works Loan Board
    Mr. Hamlingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with local authorities on improving facilities for borrowing from the Public Works Loan Board.
    Mr. Callaghan: My officials are frequently in touch with local authorities about their borrowing arrangements and the facilities for borrowing from the Public Works Loan Board have been improved in a number of respects since the Government took office.
    Mr. Hamling: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the improvements made in the last 15 months, but does not he agree that it is to this kind of operation that local authorities look for improvement in obtaining their capital requirements?
    Mr. Callaghan: Yes. I will not hark back to what we have just been discussing, but I am sure that, like tax-payers, local authorities make their financial arrangements in the way that will best suit themselves.
    212
    This is not always the way that suits the Exchequer.

    Capital Gains Tax
    Mr. Ridsdaleasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in order to encourage the small saver, he will introduce legislation to allow a moderate sum to be allowed free of Capital Gains Tax in any one year.
    Mr. Gowerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give exemption from Capital Gains Tax to the first £500 of gains.
    Mr. MacDermot: The hon. Member's suggestion has been noted.
    Mr. Ridsdale: Why are the Government doing everything they can to penalise individual savers? Do they want individuals to become as spendthrift as the Government themselves?
    Mr. MacDermot: I do not accept the hon. Member's proposition. He will realise that, whatever the advantages of his proposal might be, most of the benefit would go to the large investor who realises gains year by year.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Does not the hon. and learned Member appreciate that this proposal would reduce the almost intolerable load of administration of this tax, and that it should be considered seriously from that point of view, whatever the politics of the matter may be?
    Mr. MacDermot: It is very easy to over-estimate the amount of work that this proposal would save. It would still be necessary to calculate the precise amount of an individual's gains, unless they were clearly below the exemption limit.

    Dollar Securities
    Mr. Ridsdaleasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish a list of the British Government's present holding of dollar securities.
    Mr. Callaghan: No, Sir. As stated previously, the management of a very large holding of this character is best conducted without publicity.
    Mr. Ridsdale: In view of the recent rise on the American market, did not the selling of dollar securities last year

    213
    entail a large loss, running into millions of pounds of our securities? Which man in Whitehall was responsible for this grave misjudgment?
    Mr. Callaghan: I think that it was the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling). I have no doubt that he acted on good advice, and, equally, I have no doubt that he was right. At whatever time he sold securities there would always have to come a time when they were either above or below the selling point.
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any British Government dollar securities were sold in June, July and August last and the proceeds not reinvested.
    Mr. Callaghan: I have nothing to add to my reply of 3rd August, 1965.
    Mr. Digby: I recognise that it is not a good thing that there should be too much publicity on this, but is it not highly undesirable that it should be necessary to consult official American statistics to find out what is happening to these funds, which are the property of the British Government and that we should be able to learn a great deal more from them than the Chancellor appears willing to tell us in the House of Commons?
    Mr. Callaghan: I should not like that to be the case. I am not aware that it is precisely as the hon. Gentleman says, but I will, of course, look into the matter.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: May I press the Chancellor on this matter? If his answer is that this would do harm to sterling, I have nothing further to add, but the Prime Minister gave considerable details of the pressure which sterling was under in those months. Would the right hon. Gentleman not consider that it might help, at this distance of time, to have a more complete answer now?
    Mr. Callaghan: I do not think that this has anything to do with pressure on sterling. This is the conversion of dollar securities. I have, on many occasions, given the total value of the dollar securities which form the front line reserves. They amount to well over 1,250 million dollars. That amount is still there and still stands.

    World Monetary Problems
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he now expects to receive the report of the Ministers' deputies of the Group of Ten on world monetary problems.
    Mr. Callaghan: In the late spring or early summer.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Is not the Chancellor aware that there has been almost universal criticism of the Treasury's refusal to reveal even the outline of British ideas on these matters—if there are any? Will he think again about this and at the same time tell us why there has been such a long delay in the publication of this report?
    Mr. Callaghan: The British proposals, like the others, were handed in confidentially, and it was agreed among all the participants that there would not be publicity. In fact, I did what other Ministers of Finance did, namely, gave a broad outline in a speech some weeks ago. What I said then can be repeated. On the second part of the supplementary question, it was agreed at the International Monetary Fund meeting that this should be the time-table.

    State Unit Trust
    William Hamiltonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now consider establishing a State unit trust.
    Mr. Duffyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give priority to the creation of State unit trust.
    Mrs. Shirley Williamsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will authorise the creation of a State-owned unit trust; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Boxasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consultations he has had regarding the formation of a State unit trust.
    Mr. MacDermot: My right hon. Friend has taken note of these suggestions by hon. Members. He continues to keep this matter under review, but has not had any formal consultations outside Government circles about it. Naturally he would

    215
    study with the care they deserve any representations which might be made to him.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that he has been taking note of this question and keeping it under constant review for a very long time? Does not he recognise that this would be very attractive for the kind of small investor mentioned in an earlier Question? Can he say what are the insuperable difficulties that are holding the Government back from action in this matter?
    Mr. MacDermot: In his Budget speech last year my right hon. Friend said that the idea had many attractions but that he did not propose to embark upon it, as the Post Office would be busy with its new investment account, which he regarded as having first priority. There are difficulties about the scheme, although I do not suggest that they are insuperable. My right hon. Friend will need to consider them further. Some of them arise from the high cost of running a trust with a large number of small unit holdings and the very considerable administrative load that would be imposed on the Post Office.
    Mr. Duffy: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that there is now great support for the idea, notwithstanding the difficulties, some of which he has touched upon and many others that we must recognise? Might not this be a device for tapping new layers of potential savers, which cannot be tapped by any of the existing institutions?
    Mr. MacDermot: My right hon. Friend is aware of the support given by the N.E.D.C. to this proposal and will be glad to consider any representations that may be made on the subject.
    Mr. Box: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that many people feel that a State unit trust could be used as a device to spread Government control of industry? When the Chancellor is considering this question further, will the hon. and learned Gentleman advise him to bear in mind the possibility of forming a unit trust of unit trusts?
    Mr. MacDermot: That is an example of the way in which hon. Members opposite
    216
    are hoist with the petard of their own silly propaganda.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: As such a State unit trust would be based predominantly on British industrial securities, is it not pleasant to hear the confidence expressed by hon. Members opposite in British industry? Further, does it not highlight the fears of inflation that they have for the future?
    Mr. MacDermot: I would remind the hon. Member that for the most part my hon. Friends represent those who work in British industry.

    Piston-engined Aircraft (Fuel Duty)
    Mr. Martenasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in order to encourage low-cost inter-city air flights in Great Britain, he will reduce the tax on aviation gasoline for piston-engined aircraft to bring it into line with the tax on fuel for turbo-prop and jet aircraft.
    Mr. MacDermot: The hon. Member's suggestion has been noted.
    Mr. Marten: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the tax on fuel for jet aircraft is at the rate of 2d. a gallon whereas the tax on fuel for piston-engined aircraft is at the rate of 39d. a gallon? Since most of the intercity services are carried out by piston-engined aircraft will not the Chancellor do something to reduce the tax on the fuel of piston-engined aircraft, if he is not able to abolish the tax on both?
    Mr. MacDermot: My right hon. Friend is aware of the facts relating to the incidence of this duty, but he must have regard to wider considerations in determining what changes should be made in the level of taxation.

    Scotch Whisky
    Mr. Stodartasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the exporting for the first time of £100 million of Scotch whisky in a single year, he will now take steps to assist the in crease of the industry's sales at home.
    Mr. Callaghan: I raise my glass to the Scotch whisky industry on this splendid export achievement, but it does not enable me to anticipate my Budget.
    Mr. Stodart: Does not the Chancellor think that a celebration of this splendid achievement is called for in particularly good measures? Is it not a fact that for the first time for many years the revenue that he has received in the first nine months since the Budget has fallen? Would not a possible celebration be to recover the £5 million lost to the Revenue as a result of his action in this respect in the last Budget?
    Mr. Callaghan: I am ready to join the hon. Member in a celebration at any time, but it would be as well to wait for a longer period to elapse before judging the effect on the Revenue, because a considerable amount of forestalling went on before the last Budget.
    Mr. Shinwell: Will my right hon. Friend consider reducing the tax on whisky and also the tax on tobacco? Does he realise that the cost of my living is rapidly increasing?
    Mr. Callaghan: Perhaps I can help my right hon. Friend in another way, if he cares to see me afterwards.
    Mr. G. Campbellasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the reduction in volume of home sales of Scotch whisky in the nine months April to December, 1965, compared with the similar period of the previous year.
    Mr. George Y. Mackieasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue has been collected from whisky duty in 1965–66 as against a similar period in 1964–65.
    Mr. Callaghan: I have no figure for sales. Clearances from bonded warehouses were 7 per cent. lower, but there were unusually high clearances in anticipation of the last Budget. The amount of duty collected on whisky in the period April-December, 1965, was about £105 million compared with £100 million in the same period in 1964.
    Mr. Campbell: Does not this reduction show that the tax is too high and that the Chancellor may gain little, if any, extra revenue? Is not nine months a long enough period to even out any pre-Budget forestalling?
    Mr. Callaghan: No, Sir, I do not think it is. I think that, as the months go by—for example, April to December was
    218
    far better than the April to October figures which the hon. Member gave me when he came to see me—he will see the constant improvement continue.
    Mr. William Clark: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that, with the high taxation on whisky and tobacco, the law of diminishing returns is operating? How does the reduction on the produce of this revenue compare with his estimate in his last Budget?
    Mr. Callaghan: I am afraid that the figures do not show what the hon. Gentleman seems to have been misled into thinking they do. I will gladly give the figures, if he will put down a Question.
    Mr. Rankin: Do not the figures also show that the amount of whisky sold to the consumer as a tot is far too small? Is it not time that the tot was allowed to grow into a toddler, at least?
    Mr. Callaghan: My hon. Friend and I are completely at one on this, but I was under that impression long before the tax was put up.

    Tax Reserve Certificates
    Mr. J. H. Osbornasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether tax reserve certificates purchased by a company may be utilised in future in payment of Corporation Tax or in payment of Income Tax deducted from dividends to shareholders.
    Mr. MacDermot: It was announced some time ago that tax reserve certificates of the present series and of future series may be used for payment of Corporation Tax. My right hon. Friend has now decided that they may also be used for payment of Capital Gains Tax. Future series held by companies will not be available for payment of Income Tax deducted from dividends.
    Mr. Osborn: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the last part of his Answer will cause disappointment? We welcome the fact that he is able to give this statement now, but is it not a little late—12 months after the Finance Act? Will he now make certain that the usual channels are aware of this information, so that industries which have not known where to go may now obtain the correct advice?
    Mr. MacDermot: Full particulars will be available in the new prospectus for any new series. This is not the occasion either for great surprise or disappointment. Income Tax on dividends is not a tax on company profits; it is a tax on shareholders' incomes, which is paid by the company as collecting agent. The analogy is that of P.A.Y.E., and tax reserve certificates have never been available for that.
    Mr. Peter Emery: But does not the hon. and learned Gentleman realise that the tax situation has been greatly altered since last year's Finance Bill, that new principles now have to be observed by firms, and that there is a considerable pressure for the Chancellor to reconsider this matter so that the latter part of the Answer could be reversed?
    Mr. MacDermot: I am aware that substantial changes have been made in our taxation system by last year's Finance Bill. The decision made is clearly in accordance with the principles on which those tax reforms were based.

    Public Service Vehicles (Fuel Duty)
    Mr. Youngerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from local authorities in Ayrshire regarding tax policy on fuel oil used by public service vehicles.
    Mr. MacDermot: My right hon. Friend has received three letters favouring the abolition of the duty on bus fuel oil.
    Mr. Younger: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that local authorities representing all political views in Ayrshire are united in the view that the tax is against the public interest? Will he, therefore, state clearly whether it is desirable, in his opinion, that costs in public service transport should be reduced and fares to the travelling public reduced also?
    Mr. MacDermot: Part of that question is for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and I certainly cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget Statement. I am aware of the widespread representations—highly organised—which have been made by local authorities on this matter. They are perfectly properly made, of course. However, any proposition
    220
    to increase the grants—there is the grant of 6d. a gallon—must be looked at against our economic situation and the increased demands of public expenditure on our resources.
    Mr. Rankin: Were not these representations made to a succession of Tory Chancellors? What was the result?
    Mr. MacDermot: I do not know what the result was from them—I think it was nothing—but the result last year was that the present grant of 6d. a gallon was made, which costs over £4 million a year.

    Gross Domestic Product
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the gross domestic product for 1965, and what it would have been if it had increased during 1965 by the same percentage as the average annual increase of the previous six years.
    Mr. MacDermot: Estimates of the gross domestic product for the year 1965 will not be available until late in March.
    Mr. Ridley: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman concealing these figures for political purposes? Is he aware that they will almost certainly show much less growth than in the past? Does he remember his party fighting the election on the pledge that the cost of Socialism could be met out of increased growth? Is he now prepared to admit that the cost of Socialism is not only greater but results in less growth?
    Mr. MacDermot: It is impossible to conceal figures which are not available. I would remind the hon. Member that, under the previous Administration, pre-election booms, like that of 1964, were followed by several years of stagnation. When the figures are available, the hon. Member will see that, so far from stagnation, there has been continuing growth.

    Customs Officials, London Airport
    Mr. Onslowasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will extend the hours authorised for free attendance by Customs officials at London Airport.
    Mr. MacDermot: My right hon. Friend is considering this as part of a general review of charges for attendance by Customs officials.
    Mr. Onslow: Would not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the £100,000 which is at present levied on operators through London Airport for Customs attendance outside the permitted hours is a serious handicap for one of Britain's major ports?
    Mr. MacDermot: As I have said, the matter is being reviewed. I do not wish to comment further than that. I am aware of the figure mentioned.

    Travelling Expenses (Income Tax Relief)
    Mr. K. Lomasasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to allow Income Tax relief for travelling expenses where public transport is used and the annual amount exceeds £26.
    Mr. MacDermot: No, Sir.
    Mr. Lomas: Would not my hon. and learned Friend agree that not to give some form of tax relief for these people who are compelled to travel by public transport and incur a cost of 10s. a week or more places them at a gross disadvantage compared with those who obtain a car from the firm for which they work or receive a substantial car allowance?
    Mr. MacDermot: I think that my hon. Friend's proposal would work unfairly between different classes of taxpayers, including those for whom public transport may not be available. Generally speaking, our tax system does not take into account variations in living costs, and travelling costs are one such.

    National Savings Movement (50th Anniversary)
    Mr. Cordleasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposes to mark the fiftieth anniversary of the inauguration of the National Savings Committee in March, 1966; and whether he will use this opportunity to ensure a renewed inflow of National Savings, to encourage the voluntary workers in the savings movement.
    Mr. Callaghan: Yes, Sir. There will be a ceremony at the Guildhall on 30th March to which Her Majesty The Queen has accepted an invitation followed by functions in other cities and towns. This will help to encourage the work of the
    222
    National Savings Movement in its jubilee year.
    Mr. Cordle: Is it not satisfying that there are sufficient funds for the local and national committees to carry out the publicity of the celebrations of the jubilee? Would he not agree that, perhaps, a 1 per cent. bonus increase from 1st March would be a great incentive to savings?
    Mr. Callaghan: As regards the first part of the question, the voluntary work of so many thousands of National Savings workers is being recognised in a very marked way by the allocation of sufficient funds to enable the celebrations to go on. I can make no comment on the second part of the question.
    Mr. Stratton Mills: Is it not clear that public money is flowing out of savings certificates, in particular, in a torrent and that unless the Chancellor, in conjunction with the National Savings Movement, looks at some method of increasing the attraction of Savings Certificates, this trend will continue?

    Turnover Tax
    Mrs. Shirley Williamsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will initiate studies of turnover tax as a substitute for Great Britain's present system of indirect taxation.
    Mr. Callaghan: My hon. Friend will be aware of the Report of the Richardson Committee. None the less, I shall keep the issue under review.
    Mrs. Williams: May I ask the Chancellor to look at this urgently, in view of the fact that it is more possible to help exports without falling foul of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade under this system than under the one which we at present operate?
    Mr. Callaghan: There was an argument about how far it helped exporters and I do not think that it was clearly resolved. The Richardson Committee did not reach the conclusion of my hon. Friend; but there are other changes taking place on the Continent in relation to value-added taxes which could be met in some ways by adjustments of our own system. I do not want to pre-judge that issue: that is why I say that we shall keep it under review.

    Investment Clubs
    Mr. Geoffrey Lloydasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to encourage the growth of investment clubs.
    Mr. MacDermot: We are trying to reach agreement with the National Association of Investment Clubs on a simplified procedure in relation to Capital Gains Tax.

    Rhodesia (Private Pension Payments)
    Mr. Peter Walkerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why he decided to discontinue the ban he had placed on the payment of private pension payments to persons resident in Rhodesia.
    Mr. Callaghan: In order to safeguard the interests of individual pensioners.
    Mr. Walker: Would the right hon. Gentleman explain why, on 16th December, he firmly rejected the suggestion made by me that private pensioners should be included, that nothing further was said in the House, that a circular was sent out by the Bank of England in January and that no explanation has been given to the House for him completely changing his mind on this subject?
    Mr. Callaghan: I understand—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—wait for it—from some private exchanges that there is involved in the question the suggestion that I misled the hon. Gentleman. I have read my Answer of 16th December and I think that it was open to two constructions. [Interruption.] If an attempt at courtesy is to be met in this way, then I really will have to say to hon. Gentlemen opposite that, in my view, my Answer could bear only the construction which I put on it and that the hon. Gentleman drew a different conclusion. There has been no change in policy and he was not misled.

    Inspectors of Taxes (Instructions)
    Mr. A. Royleasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if comprehensive instructions have been issued to district inspectors of taxes from Somerset House, regarding the Finance Act, 1965, enabling them to give authoritative advice to tax payers on difficult tax questions.
    Mr. MacDermot: Inspectors of taxes have had detailed instructions on the main aspects of the Corporation Tax and more will follow soon. They have also received memoranda on various aspects of the Capital Gains Tax and comprehensive instructions will be issued next month.
    Mr. Royle: Would the Financial Secretary tell the House why there has been this long delay in the issue of comprehensive instructions? It is more than nine months since the last Budget. Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the situation has caused difficulty for inspectors and delay for business men who are trying to plan ahead?
    Mr. MacDermot: No, Sir. There has been no delay. This major task has been conducted as a matter of urgency. Inspectors have received detailed instructions about the various aspects of the new work when they needed them, and I understand that inspectors have generally been able to answer all the queries raised by taxpayers.

    House Mortgages (Stamp Duty)
    Mr. Fisherasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in order to assist home ownership, he will abolish the Stamp Duty on house mortgages up to £3,500.
    Mr. MacDermot: I have noted the hon. Member's suggestion.
    Mr. Fisher: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind, when he comes to consider these matters at the appropriate time, that Stamp Duty on home purchases up to £3,500 has been abolished but that the Stamp Duty on house mortgages is still levied? Are not those who must buy their houses on mortgages, certainly on the face of it, in greater need of relief than those who are able to purchase their houses outright?
    Mr. MacDermot: The transfer duty exemption in fact applies to houses with a value of £4,500. I am aware of the position and I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have looked into the matter carefully. I might add that the Stamp Duty on a mortgage of £3,500 is at present £4 7s. 6d.

    Rhodesia (Currency Restrictions)
    Mr. Ian Lloydasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will exempt from the currency restrictions at present applying to Rhodesia any funds specifically directed towards institutions supporting multi-racial education.
    Mr. MacDermot: No, Sir. Each case must be considered on its merits.
    Mr. Lloyd: Will not the Financial Secretary concede, whatever other objectives might be thought to be either the desirable or inevitable consequences of the sanctions, that the obstruction of multi-racial education cannot be thought to be one of them? Will he reconsider his Answer?
    Mr. MacDermot: The primary objective is to bring about a return to constitutional Government by making the sanctions affective. We do allow exemptions and each one must be very carefully considered. We realise the value of multi-racial education and some exemptions have been allowed.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is not the Financial Secretary aware that charitable funds intended for missionary schools for the education of Africans in Rhodesia are being held up because of the policy of Her Majesty's Government? Is this what the Financial Secretary really wants? Does not everyone agree that education is the key to a proper future for Rhodesia?
    Mr. MacDermot: I think that, generally speaking, charities have been appreciative and understanding of the Government's policy in this matter. The general rule is to allow remittances for current expenditure at the level of 75 per cent. of last year's remittances.

    Corporation Tax
    Mr. Gowerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in his decision to fix the level of Corporation Tax, he will take account of the need to encourage the smaller savers to invest in British industry.
    Mr. MacDermot: My right hon. Friend will take all relevant circumstances into account.
    Mr. Gower: May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his colleagues at the Treasury are particularly worried about the great drop which has occurred in savings of all kinds since this Government took responsibility for the affairs of the country?
    Mr. MacDermot: I do not accept that there has been a great drop in savings of all kinds.

    Balance of Payments
    Sir C. Osborneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the nation is still not living within its income; what are the main reasons for this; what new steps he proposes to take to achieve this end; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Callaghan: The facts about the balance of payments have been published and are well known but they cannot be too frequently repeated. However, we have made good progress towards our objective of eliminating the deficit by the end of 1966, and if I judge that further measures are required to reach that objective, I shall take them.
    Sir C. Osborne: Does the Chancellor remember that about a year ago he promised that he would try to make the nation live within its means? Why has he so far failed to achieve that objective?
    Mr. Callaghan: The answer is, I think, that we have not yet got there, because we set ourselves a two-year target—[Interruption.] I said "a two-year target"—to eliminate the deficit. There is a very good prospect that by the end of this year, certainly on our current account, we shall be in balance.

    £ Sterling (Purchasing Power)
    Sir C. Osborneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the internal purchasing power of the £ sterling to the most recent convenient date as compared with October, 1964.
    Mr. MacDermot: On the basis of the index of retail prices, the purchasing power of the £, taken as 20s. in October, 1964, was about 18s. 11d. in January, 1966.
    Sir C. Osborne: Did I hear the Financial Secretary aright—18s.?
    Mr. MacDermot: I said 18s. 11d.
    Sir C. Osborne: This is the greatest inflation since 1951. Can the Financial Secretary say what is the cause of this extraordinary and disastrous inflation?
    Mr. MacDermot: Yes, Sir. Quite simply, most of the increase was in the early months, as a result of the measures we had to take in order to deal with the deficit which was left to us. Hon. Members can take comfort from the fact that the rise in the index in the last 10 months has been 1·7 per cent.

    Temporary Import Surcharge
    Mr. Peter Emeryasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the future of the temporary import surcharge.
    Mr. MacDermot: My right hon. Friend has nothing to add to previous statements on this subject.
    Mr. Emery: Can the Financial Secretary give any estimate of the feather-bedding which industry is now obtaining in not having to compete because of the surcharge aspects? Is it not now a nonsense that this should have been originally described as a temporary import surcharge?
    Mr. MacDermot: No, Sir. I hope that industry has not been regarding this as a feather-bedding measure but has been taking advantage of it so as to be able to face the removal of the charge with equanimity.
    Mr. Duffy: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that some of the steepest increases in imports have been in just those categories covered by the temporary surcharge?
    Mr. MacDermot: In some cases that is so, but it surely emphasises that we were right to apply the surcharge where we did.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Can the Financial Secretary tell us how much longer he thinks the members of E.F.T.A. will tolerate this flagrant breach of the Treaty of Stockholm?
    Mr. MacDermot: I think our friends in E.F.T.A. are showing great understanding of our difficulties and also understand that it is our intention, which they accept, to abolish the charge as soon as our balance of payments position allows.

  SOUTH VIETNAM
  Dr. David Kerrasked the Prime Minister if, in pursuance of Her Majesty's Government's initiative to secure peace in Vietnam, and in view of the fact that it is the policy of the Government of South Vietnam not to assist peace negotiations, he will withdraw recognition from their Government.
  The First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. George Brown): I have been asked to reply.
  No, Sir.
  Dr. Kerr: Would my right hon. Friend consider the unchallenged evidence that the South Vietnamese Government are predominantly Fascist, about which the best thing the American Secretary of State could say was that it was the first Government which had the support of the armed forces? Would my right hon. Friend agree that that is not a very good way of describing a democratic Government, and should we not therefore condemn and not be associated with their policies?
  Mr. Brown: I would not accept all of that. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on 8th February in the House, there have been some difficulties in this quarter but there is not the slightest intention on our part to allow these to obstruct progress towards negotiations and peace in this area.

  SMALL COMPANIES (EXPORTS)
  Mr. Hopkinsasked the Prime Minister what steps he takes to co-ordinate the activities of the Treasury and the Board of Trade in the promotion of exports by small companies.
  Mr. George Brown: I have been asked to reply.
  The two Departments work closely and satisfactorily together on this.
  Mr. Hopkins: Would the First Secretary recognise that while the E.C.G.D. at the Board of Trade provides valuable assistance to small companies which are trying to export, one of the great hazards which such companies face is the question of credit terms, a matter which comes under the Treasury? Is he aware that several export orders have been lost because of the length of credit afforded by the Treasury?
  Mr. Brown: I do not accept that. It is the great help which the Treasury and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer give that has enabled the E.C.G.D. to do what it is doing.
  Mr. Hector Hughes: In considering this important matter will my right hon. Friend have special regard to the needs of the development areas?
  Mr. Brown: We are doing that and we recently announced a number of new measures which we are taking for that very purpose.

  MINISTER OF OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT (SPEECH)
  Mr. Grantasked the Prime Minister whether the public speech made by the Minister of Overseas Development at Hull on 16th January, 1966, about housing represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
  Mr. George Brown: I have been asked to reply.
  Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Grant: Is the First Secretary aware that in that speech the Minister of Overseas Development boasted that in the sphere of housing the Government had made an impressive start? How can this possibly be reconciled with the abject failure of the Government to keep their election pledge to build 400,000 houses?
  Mr. Brown: I commend the speech made by my right hon. Friend and if the hon. Gentleman reads all of it he will see all the evidence set out.

  RHODESIA (LAGOS CONFERENCE)
  Mr. Evelyn Kingasked the Prime Minister what were the commitments, other than those specified in the communiqué,
  230
  which he entered into at Lagos; and whether he will make a statement.
  Mr. George Brown: I have been asked to reply.
  None, Sir.
  Mr. King: Would the Deputy Prime Minister assure the House that the Prime Minister neither gave nor implied any kind of guarantee in regard to sanctions or laid down any timetable? Will he also assure us that in the event of sanctions not being successful we are completely free as to the course of action we may then take?
  Mr. Brown: Under this Government, as under our predecessors, these intergovernmental discussions must remain confidential, but the Answer I gave to the hon. Gentleman was conclusive and clear.
  Mr. Heath: Would the First Secretary say whether there have been any meetings of the Commonwealth Sanctions Committee and, if so, what advice it has given to Her Majesty's Government?
  Mr. Brown: That is an altogether different question and I do not think that I should go into that at all.
  Hon. Members: Why?
  Mr. Evelyn Kingasked the Prime Minister whether the statement in the Lagos communiqué approved by him stating that the principle of one man, one vote should be applied to Rhodesia has been broadcast to the Rhodesian people.
  Mr. George Brown: I have been asked to reply.
  I am satisfied that the contents of the Lagos communiqué, including the principle to which the hon. Member refers, have received wide publicity in Rhodesia and are well known to the Rhodesian people.
  Mr. King: Was not this pledge written into the Lagos communiqué without any qualification, and does it not directly conflict with the pledge given both to this House and to Mr. Smith that the principle of one man, one vote, was not immediately to be implemented? Does it not arouse mistrust if contradictory pledges are given to Europeans and Africans?
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is introducing quite a different question,

  231
  which is the question of the timing of the one man, one vote, principle. As I understand it, none of us has gone back on the principle. The question of timing is a different matter.

  AFRICA (GOVERNMENT AID)
  Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the discontinuation of British aid to African States giving facilities for the subversion of other African States and territories, contrary to the principle of the Commonwealth, the United Nations and the Organisation of African Unity.
  Mr. George Brown: I have been asked to reply.
  As my right hon. Friend indicated on 1st February, in general we consider it unprofitable to attach specific political conditions to our aid.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: Do not the Government realise that British aid is, in certain cases, freeing financial resources in certain African States for the subversion of other African territories and British interests; and will Her Majesty's Government think again on this issue?
  Mr. Brown: Any attempt to link economic aid, which has to do with humanitarian conditions as well as necessary economic development, with political conditions would be a very great mistake.
  Mr. Heath: I think that we take the same view as the Government in that no action should be taken with undue haste. However, is the First Secretary saying that when countries have broken off diplomatic relations with us and continue to refuse to regain diplomatic relations, we should then treat them in exactly the same way as friendly countries and other members of the Commonwealth with regard to aid?
  Mr. Brown: I think that, at the moment, it is wise to go on as we are doing.
  Mr. Hugh Fraser: In view of the humanitarian aims mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, would he now agree that there should be a restoration of the cut in missionary remittances, from 75 per cent. to 100 per cent., and that the figure should be even higher than that?
  Hon. Members: Answer.

  CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (SPEECH)
  Mr. Stratton Millsasked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on economic affairs at Hull on 24th January, 1966, represents Government policy.
  Mr. George Brown: I have been asked to reply.
  Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Mills: Did not the speech of the Chancellor admit that from the spring onwards prices would rise "much more slowly," in his own words? Is not this an admission that the Chancellor expects the floodgate of prices in the interim period to explode?
  Mr. Brown: I should have thought exactly the contrary. My right hon. Friend said that there was a real chance that they would go more slowly this year than last year. That is quite different from the point the hon. Gentleman makes.
  Mr. Lubbock: Does the First Secretary realise that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke of my speech in Hull referring to the possibility of the F.111 being purchased, as the greatest non-issue of the election? What has he to say about that now?
  Mr. Brown: As the election turned out, as far as he was concerned, it was.

  FOREIGN OFFICE AND COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS OFFICE
  Mr. David Steelasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that recent major crises in the Commonwealth have involved British foreign policy as a whole, he will reconsider his earlier decision about the merger of the Foreign Office and the Commonwealth Relations Office into one Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
  Mr. George Brown: I have been asked to reply.
  No, Sir.
  Mr. Steel: Does not the First Secretary think that to implement this proposal would not merely bring us into line with all other Commonwealth countries, but

  233
  would lead to the more efficient implementation of foreign policy and to considerable savings?
  Mr. Brown: I do not think so. At the moment we are making progress in co-ordinating the work of the Departments. We have a unified secretariat. I think that the way it is going is the right sort of pace.
  Sir G. de Freitas: Since the two external services are now to be combined into one service, is it not even more important that there should be one Minister here to deal with the relations of the 21 different countries, many very young and all looking to us for guidance?
  Mr. Brown: As things are at the moment, yes; we certainly believe that.

  MINISTER OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SPEECH)
  Mr. Bryanasked the Prime Minister whether the public speech on the Rent Act by the Minister of Housing and Local Government at Swansea on Friday, 10th December, 1965, represents Her Majesty's Government's policy.
  Mr. George Brown: I have been asked to reply.
  Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Bryan: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that in this speech the Minister of Housing and Local Government said that he thought that the Government were doing pretty well in holding prices? However he is doing, does the right hon. Gentleman think that he is carrying out to the letter what he suggested at the election time, which was that the cost of living
  "…can and must and will be held."
  Mr. Brown: And despite the obstruction from over there, it is.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Did the speech also indicate that the Government had earned out their pledge to introduce 3 per cent. mortgages?
  Mr. Brown: The speech made it quite clear that we will implement all our pledges.

  FIRST SECRETARY OF STATE (SPEECH)
  Mr. Bryanasked the Prime Minister if the public speech of the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs at Hull on 23rd January on prices and incomes represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
  Mr. George Brown: I have been asked to reply.
  Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Bryan: The House will realise from the right hon. Gentleman's reply on the last Question that someone else is always to be blamed. But will the First Secretary now tell us why both at Hull and in Camberwell he blamed industrialists for the rise in prices? Why did he not name the industrialists, and was not this a completely parallel allegation to the one for which the Prime Minister had to apologise to the chairman of Hardy Spicer?
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman has it all wrong—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and not for the first time. Both at Hull and Camberwell I said that there were right hon. Gentlemen opposite who were inciting industrialists to do this. To their credit—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Neither side helps itself by merely shouting at the other. Mr. Brown.
  Mr. Brown: I was going on to say that, to their credit, most industrialists had resisted this incitement.
  Mr. Heath: The First Secretary in his speech made specific accusations against my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) which he has been afraid to make this afternoon—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] He has generalised. He knows perfectly well that he is only trying to find an alibi for his own failures by seeking to accuse this side of sabotaging his policy. Will he either withdraw those accusations or make them specific?
  Mr. Brown: To make them perfectly specific, I think that what the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) said, addressed to the housewives, and I think that what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) said,

  235
  addressed to the business men, were both incitements to sabotage policies that are in the interests of the country.
  Mr. Heath: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is a grotesque distortion of the case made from this side, and will he withdraw those accusations against my right hon. Friends?
  Mr. Brown: I should like to add another. The right hon. Gentleman himself should stop hopping around from one foot to the other.
  Sir H. Legge-Bourke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—
  Several Hon. Members—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I am being addressed on a point of order.
  Sir H. Legge-Bourke: On a point of order. Can you rule, Mr. Speaker, on whether it is in order for an hon. Member to say of another hon. Member in this House that action taken by the other hon. Member is designed to bring about sabotage? How can an hon. Member accused of sabotage be regarded as an hon. Member?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The House is a place for the cut and thrust of debate. The Chair will rule when the cut and thrust of debate has exceeded the bounds of order.

  SUBNORMAL CHILDREN (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)
  Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Prime Minister what plans he has for transferring the responsibility for the training of severely subnormal children from the Ministry of Health to the Department of Education and Science.
  Mr. George Brown: I have been asked to reply.
  None at present, Sir.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: Has the right hon. Gentleman studied Friday's debate? Since the Prime Minister is in Moscow, he will, perhaps, have the opportunity of studying in broad terms Russian experience in this field, which is one from which we can learn something.
  Mr. Brown: We have certainly studied Friday's debate, and there is a good deal
  236
  to be said for keeping this matter under review, but one must make any change which may be in the interests of the children only when one is clear that it is in their interests. That is why we are not changing at the moment.

  HOME CIVIL SERVICE (COMMITTEE)
  Mr. Grimondasked the Prime Minister which members of the Committee on the Home Civil Service have served in administrative posts in Scotland; what posts these were; and which members have taught in a Scottish school, college or university.
  Mr. George Brown: I have been asked to reply.
  None, Sir.
  Mr. Grimond: As Scotland has contributed enormously to the public service and has very special problems, will the First Secretary look at this matter again?
  Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman should not think that there is any need, for the work this Committee has to do, to have a specifically Scottish civil servant. Lord Fulton is himself a very distinguished Scot, both by birth and education.

  ROYAL COMMISSION ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN SCOTLAND
  Mr. Grimondasked the Prime Minister if he will ensure that the Royal Commission on Local Government in Scotland is empowered to consider the desirability of devolving some functions of government from Whitehall to Edinburgh.
  Mr. George Brown: I have been asked to reply.
  I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to await the terms of reference of the Royal Commission, but he will realise that the purpose of the Commission is to review local not central government.
  Mr. Grimond: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I can hardly wait to read the terms? When they come, I hope that they will not prove a disappointment to the North.
  Mr. Brown: I am sure that they will be well worth the wait.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Mr. John Wells: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before the Financial Secretary leaves us, may I raise this point? In answer to Question No. 3 today he said that he had nothing to add to the Answer given by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food yesterday. The Answer given yesterday was a Written Answer to the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell). The hon. Member first tabled his Question on 16th February for an Oral Answer tomorrow by the Minister of Agriculture. Had it stayed on the Order Paper as an Oral Question for answer tomorrow, we would have had the opportunity of questioning the Minister on this most important point.
Unfortunately, for reasons best known to the hon. Member, he altered it from an Oral Question for tomorrow to a Written Question for yesterday. Consequently, when my Question, which was originally tabled 16 days earlier, namely, on 1st February, was reached today, the Treasury Minister was in the comfortable position of being able to duck any serious questioning. This is not the first time that a set of circumstances of this sort has occurred with reference to the Department—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] This is not the first time this has occurred with reference to Questions on agriculture. There was a very parallel episode over the Apple and Pear Order—
Mr. Speaker: I hope that the hon. Member will pursue only the single point of order he has and not go into history.
Mr. Wells: I am grateful, Mr. Speaker. My third point is that my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) tried to raise a similar matter in a Committee this morning and was ruled out of order there. We are in the difficulty that hon. Members on this side of the House—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I understood that the hon. Member was referring to something which happened in a Committee this morning. That is quite out of order.
Mr. Wells: That was a slip of the tongue, Mr. Speaker.
My point of order, in substance, is that hon. Members seeking to raise questions on agricultural and specific horticultural
238
topics are being flouted by members of the Government by having Written Questions put down after Oral Questions are tabled.
Mr. Hazell: Further to that point of order, as my name has been brought into this matter. My Question was for Oral Answer and presented on Friday, but the Table Office made a mistake. I received a written apology from the Table Office for putting the Question down as one for Written Answer.
Hon. Members: Withdraw!
Mr. Wells: I am grateful that the hon. Member for Norfolk, North, has given that explanation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] There is nothing to with draw. The Question was on the Order Paper as a Written Question and hon. Members on this side of the House were unaware of this chain of circumstances. That does prevent—
Hon. Members: Withdraw.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the House will allow the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) to conclude.
Mr. Wells: I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Norfolk, North, for his explanation. Naturally, our personal relationship in desiring—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The hon. Member and I both wish the best for British horticulture and it would be a good thing—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I know of the hon. Member's keen interest in horticulture, but he must pursue only his point of order and not start a debate on horticulture across the House. I think that I have heard enough—
Mr. John Hynd Mr. John Hynd rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe, (Mr. John Hynd) will wait until I have dealt with this point of order. I do not think that I need help on this one.
Hon. Members do suffer from time to time from the way in which Questions appear in various forms on the Order Paper, but this is not a question for the Chair unless the rules of order governing Questions are in some way infringed. I listened to the hon. Member for Maidstone with very great interest, but nothing he said raised any point of order for the Chair.
Mr. John Hynd: Is it not clear that the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) made an imputation of collusion against my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell) and against the Government? In those circumstances, should he not withdraw that?
Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: On a point of order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to raise a point of order on a point of order which is not a point of order?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am almost tempted to rule the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Sir W. Bromley-Davenport), who raised the point of order, out of order. I did not see any imputation in what the hon. Member for Maidstone said which called for a withdrawal. I understood from what the hon. Member said that he accepted the explanation by the hon. Member for Norfolk (Mr. Hazell) as to what took place. I hope that we can move on now to the business of the day.

DEFENCE REVIEW
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Denis Healey): With permission, I will make a statement about the defence review.
The House will recall that, on taking office 16 months ago, Her Majesty's Government set themselves to halt the runaway growth in Britain's defence expenditure by planning to limit the size of the defence budget in 1969–70 to that of 1964–65—or £2,000 million at constant prices.
As we stated in last year's defence White Paper, we assumed responsibility for forces which were seriously over-stretched and in certain respects dangerously under-equipped. It has been an equally important objective of the defence review to bring our commitments into balance with the manpower and equipment we could afford to have. We have already done better than the financial target of £2,000 million in the estimates for 1966–67, since they represent only £1,972 million at 1964 prices.
Part I of the White Paper indicates how we plan not only to stay within the same financial ceiling in three years' time, but also to undertake a major
240
programme of re-equipment, and to reduce the over-stretch from which our forces still suffer. In order to ensure the achievement of these objectives we have had to make a new assessment of the part which our Armed Forces should play in supporting our foreign policy in the 1970s, and of what rôle Britain should play in world affairs. It has been essentially an exercise in political and military realism.
The results may be summarised as follows. Broadly speaking, in cutting the previous Government's planned expenditure by 16 per cent., or £400 million, we have achieved three-quarters of our saving by getting better value for money and only one-quarter by reductions in our military capability. In order to reduce overstretch we plan to cut our tasks overseas and then to keep a larger proportion of our forces in a home station and fewer abroad, and to rely more on reinforcement by air in an emergency. This has meant certain changes in our current political commitments overseas.
We plan to reduce substantially the deployment of our forces in the Mediterranean; from 1968 we shall give up the Aden base and confine our presence in the Middle East to the Persian Gulf; in the Far East we shall cut the level of our forces once confrontation is over; and, within a few years, we shall maintain no forces permanently deployed in the Caribbean or Southern Africa. We shall be able to keep our forces in Germany at the present size only if the foreign exchange costs are met. We have made it clear that, in future, Britain will not accept commitments overseas which might require her to undertake major operations of war without the co-operation of allies; nor shall we attempt to maintain defence facilities in any independent country against its wishes.
Against this background we have taken certain major decisions on the equipment of our forces. The Canberra strike/reconnaissance aircraft must be replaced by 1970. The Anglo/French variable geometry aircraft, which is the core of our long-term operational and industrial aircraft programmes, will not be available until the mid-1970s. We have decided that the only way of bridging the gap is to buy the smallest possible number of F111As from the United States, and to

241
supplement these aircraft with the V-bombers which will be released from their current strategic role when the Polaris submarine force is fully operational. The foreign exchange cost of the F111A purchase will be met by sales of British equipment to the United States and to third countries.
We shall keep our existing carrier force as long as possible into the 1970s, but we shall not order a new carrier. In the light of the military tasks we envisage, and of the operational return we can expect from its cost of £1,400 million over the next 10 years, we do not believe that we should be justified in keeping a carrier force indefinitely. A new carrier could not become operational until 1973, when the rest of our carriers would be in the last phase of their active life. But by the mid-1970s we should be able to re-provide the necessary elements of the carriers' capability more cheaply by other means.
I believe that the majority of the House recognises that it has become essential to stop the automatic rise in British defence expenditure. As a result of their defence review, Her Majesty's Government have found a way of doing so without defaulting on Britain's commitments to her allies and partners in the Commonwealth, and without abandoning her influence either inside or outside Europe. Those who believe we have failed to bring our commitments and resources into proper balance must have the courage to say whether, in their view, the Government should spend more on defence, and where they will get the money, or cut Britain's commitments further, and, if so, where.
Mr. Powell: Is the right hon. Gentleman, who, less than a week ago, was saying that he did not expect any resignations on the Navy side because of a defence White Paper, aware that it is neither practicable nor appropriate to reply point by point at this stage to his long and tendentious statement? Is he aware that not only this side of the House, but the whole of the country, will study carefully and anxiously the outcome and the implications of the Government's 15-month long review; but is it not already evident that the nature of some of the decisions and the timing of others has been forced upon the Government by
242
their own absurd preoccupation with fudging a figure of £2,000 million in 1969–70 regardless of the consequences for the morale of the Services or the defence of the country?
Mr. Healey: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should have made the last point, since he himself resigned from the previous Government because they did not fix a limit for defence expenditure.
On the question of resignations, on which the right hon. Gentleman is, indeed, an expert, I would like to say this. Nobody could have fought harder than my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) to see that the Royal Navy got more equipment to use east of Suez, even though this meant that the defence budget should rise above the ceiling of £2,000 million; and I regret that my hon. Friend should have found it necessary to resign because the Chiefs of Staff, I myself, and the Government were unable to accept his advice.
I think that many of us in the House recognise integrity when we see it and that my hon. Friend has shown great courage in taking the step he has. Those who, like me, applaud his courage would like to know how the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) can remain a member of the Front Bench of a party shortly to stand at an election when his disagrees with its defence policy, its foreign policy, its social policy, and its economic policy.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order. Is it in order for the Secretary of State to report to the House what the Chiefs of Staff were or were not prepared to agree to—in other words, technical advice—when hon. Members are not allowed to table Questions asking what advice is or is not given to a Minister by the Chiefs of Staff?
Mr. Speaker: I have heard nothing out of order yet.
Mr. Healey: Mr. Speaker, if I may make a comment on that. I am following a precedent set by the right hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft). It is a precedent which I have never regarded as a fortunate one and which I do not intend to follow on another occasion. But I felt it essential for the good of the future of the Navy

243
to make it clear to the Navy that the Admiralty Board did not assent to the decision which the Government have taken on this issue; and if I were obliged, as I think I was, to make the Board's position clear, I think that I was similarly under an obligation to make clear the views of the other members of the Chiefs of Staff Committee.
Mr. Heath: Is the Secretary of State for Defence aware that he has made a statement which has the most momentous implications for the future for the defence of this country and for Britain's place in the world as a whole? It is regrettable that the right hon. Gentleman should have reduced such a statement in his answers to supplementary questions to the level of personal attacks, since he has made the statement not only against the background of the resignation of a Minister, but of the constitutional crisis of the resignation of the First Sea Lord.
Is the Secretary of State aware that the whole House, and, indeed, the country, will want to take part in the national debate which the Prime Minister referred to yesterday? Is he aware that when he speaks of the runaway nature of expenditure on defence there was, in fact, no increase in the proportion of the gross national product spent on defence in the last six years? Is he aware that what he is doing is reducing the amount of the gross national product spent on defence, which gives great pleasure to his right hon. and hon. Friends, but does not consider the defence of this country or its position in the world?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, as a result of this, he has made the political and foreign affairs handling of the problem of Aden, the Arabian Federation and the Middle East almost impossible, and that, in fact, he was not accurate in saying in his statement that he is carrying out all his commitments, because, by what he is doing, he is breaking the agreement which was made for the South Arabian Federation on its independence?
Further, is he aware that we do not believe that this is the moment to make a final decision on the carrier force in the middle of the 1970s, which is what the right hon. Gentleman is now doing?
244
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware also that in his statement—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] The Secretary of State for Defence made a long statement. The right hon. Gentleman said that the purchase of the F111s, would be paid for by British sales, but does not he realise that this is not what the White Paper says? It says that they will be bought on credit and that British manufacturers will be allowed to tender for sales, which is quite different and puts the responsibility for paying for the F111 on a future Government.
Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman take it that we shall judge the whole of this White Paper on the question whether it will ensure the future defence of this country and the Commonwealth and its position in the world?
Mr. Healey: I think that the country will be reassured by some of the elements in the right hon. Gentleman's questions, if that is what they were. No one will welcome more than we on this side a national debate on this issue. The Government have made clear their position both on the level of defence expenditure and Britain's rôle in the world. I hope that the Opposition will make their position equally clear and that those who disagree with the position that the Opposition then take will have the integrity to resign their positions as official spokesmen, as has been the case with one member of our Government.
On the question of the South Arabian Federation, the agreements which were made with the South Arabian States some years ago are not appropriate to an independent State of South Arabia, which, we hope, will come into existence as a result of constitutional decisions to be taken in the next two or three years, and those agreements will all lapse when the new independent State comes into being. There is no question here of "ratting" on our commitments. A country which wishes to become independent cannot assert the conditions for its independence as being exactly the same in the defence field as the conditions which it enjoyed when it was a dependent territory.
As regards the future of the carrier force, I am well aware that the party opposite never wished to take a decision on this matter ever. This is the reason why no new carrier has been laid down

245
in the last 20 years and why it is impossible for the Royal Navy to have a carrier—as would have made sense—in 1968 or 1969. I should welcome an opportunity to debate this in detail in the House with right hon. and hon. Members opposite and to justify the decision which the Government have taken not to build CVA01 and thereby to save £650 million on the plans of the previous Administration.
As regards sales of equipment to the United States and collaborative sales to third countries, we have set ceiling totals for sales which together will cover the total cost of the F111A. British manufacturers alone in the world will be able to tender for sales of British equipment to the United States, equipment which has been jointly identified by the two Governments, free from the 50 per cent. differential which now applies under the temporary balance of payments regulations of the United States and free, also, from the 12 per cent. and 6 per cent. differentials imposed by the Buy American Act.
If he has any interest in the interests of British exporters, the right hon. Gentleman should have had the grace to welcome these concessions which I have obtained from the American Government as presenting a great challenge and a great opportunity to British industry.
Mr. Grimond: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the crux of the matter is whether or not our rôle in the world has been altered and reduced, and that paragraph 19 of the White Paper, which deals with our rôle in the Far East, does not make at all clear that it has been reduced? The provisos appear to be mere common sense and, presumably, are in operation now.
Further, in his statement the right hon. Gentleman spoke of reducing our forces in the Far East once the confrontation is over. What confrontation is this? What change in policy does the Secretary of State envisage, and when does he think that this will come about?
Mr. Healey: I do not quite know what the right hon. Gentleman's view is about "ratting" on commitments to one's allies when they are under attack, but the view on this side is that we have an obligation to Malaysia and
246
Singapore which we intend to fulfil so long as Indonesia persists in its policy of confrontation. But we hope to negotiate an end to this confrontation at the earliest possible moment. I believe that recent events in Indonesia may have advanced the time when such a negotiated end to the confrontation will become possible.
I hope that the same view is taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, who expressed himself in very robust terms on this issue when he was recently in Singapore. I know that this view is not shared by the defence spokesman of the Opposition, since he said that one could only explain the deployment—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, listen to this—he said that one could explain the deployment of British troops in Malaysia at the present time only by ascribing it to a state of national hallucination.
Mr. Shinwell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in 12 years of Tory rule, this country spent more than £20,000 million on defence and that, in spite of the country being saddled with eight successive Tory Ministers of Defence, we have never had a fundamental review of our defence position until now? Will my right hon. Friend say whether, in spite of having spent £20,000 million on defence during 12 years of Tory rule, any carrier programme was ever formulated or carried out? Will he tell me at the same time—[Interruption.] Many questions have been asked from the other side. I am entitled to ask one or two.
Will my right hon. Friend, at the same time, tell the House, with reference to the proposed retention of our forces in Europe on the understanding that our foreign exchange costs are met, whether a time limit is to be imposed for the payment of those foreign exchange costs, or, otherwise, is it intended that we should withdraw some of our forces from Europe?
Finally—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]—is my right hon. Friend aware that we on this side will welcome what the Prime Minister has described as a national debate on defence, on all aspects of defence? Will he consult the Leader of the House to ensure that, when such a defence debate takes place in the House, we shall have ample

247
time—not merely one day or two days, but at least three days—in order to expose the deficiencies of the other side?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have been asked to preserve the cut and thrust of debate. The cuts should be short cuts. The thrusts should be short thrusts.
Sir K. Pickthorn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Am I wrong—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."]—in remembering that this is not a debate, that these are supplementary questions and answers, and that it is extremely difficult to see how those who ask and answer them in the manner we have listened to over the past half hour can be remembering that very important fact?
Mr. Speaker: I am grateful for the support which the right hon. Gentleman has given me in what I attempted to convey to the House a little more delicately.
Mr. Healey: In answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), I can tell the House that the party opposite laid down no new carrier in its 13 years of office and that our existing carrier force was first laid down in the early years of the last world war.
It is my wish that we shall have the greatest possible opportunity for a prolonged debate on these issues. I am only sorry that right hon. and hon. Members opposite have not found it possible to ask any relevant questions so far this afternoon.
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I think that I heard the right hon. Gentleman say that the strategic bombers would be released for other tasks when the nuclear submarines were completed. Must not this mean that the A.N.F. is, therefore, dead? Must not this mean that the Government have no longer the intention of revising the Nassau Agreement, but are to keep the nuclear submarines for our strategic purposes? If so, may I profoundly congratulate the Government on coming to a conclusion that we put forward at the last General Election?
Mr. Healey: I am sorry to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman, but he has got it wrong again. What we propose to do, as we made clear a year ago, is to build four Polaris submarines. We have
248
offered, and maintain our offer, to assign them to an Atlantic nuclear force irrevocably for the duration of the alliance? [An HON. MEMBER: "What for?"] The hon. Gentleman has asked that question many times and has had it answered as often. Whether or not our allies wish to pursue the idea of a collective nuclear force still remains to be seen.
Mr. Sheldon: While congratulating my right hon. Friend on his ability to keep defence expenditure within the limits in which he was constrained, may I ask whether he does not realise that there is considerable disappointment at our continuing rôle east of Suez well into the 1970s? He mentioned that British arms manufacturers will be allowed to tender for sales to the United States. What assurance has he obtained that sales will actually be made?
Mr. Healey: I know that some of my hon. Friends and many hon. Members opposite, including some on the Front Bench, are disappointed that Britain intends to maintain some military capability outside Europe. I shall welcome a debate on this matter and expect it to range widely inside both parties as well as between them.
In reply to my hon. Friend's second question, I point out that, as a start towards meeting this target, the American Government will this week be inviting tenders for the supply of naval auxiliaries for the United States Navy to the value of 50 million dollars and that those dollars will all be paid, if the tenders are successful, before we start paying dollars for the F.111A.
There are also a number of other items of equipment which have been identified and for which tenders will shortly be invited and bid for by British industry without discrimination.
Sir Richard Glyn: Is it not true that the reduction in the number of our overseas bases is by no means the same thing as a reduction in our present political commitments overseas? On pages 2 and 3 of the White Paper, the right hon. Gentleman says that political commitments overseas must be reduced. Will he say which commitments the Government are to give up?
Secondly, what tactical nuclear weapons will be available to B.O.A.R. in the next

249
few years? Will these be able to be used without express permission from the Americans?
Mr. Healey: The British forces in Germany have never had any tactical nuclear weapons which have not been subject to the control of the United States Government. That was the situation throughout the period of office of the last Government.
Sir Richard Glyn Sir Richard Glyn indicated dissent.
Mr. Healey: The hon. Gentleman can shake his head, but I notice that several right hon. Gentlemen who were previously Ministers of Defence nodded agreement with me.
The hon. Gentleman will find a statement on the reduction of commitments in the second part of Part I of the White Paper.
Sir Richard Glyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment.
Mr. Speaker: That notice has nothing to do with these questions.
Mr. Bellenger: Paragraph 24 says that it is in the Far East and Southern Asia that the greatest danger to peace may lie in the next decade. Can my right hon. Friend say something more about the Singapore base? Does he envisage in the foreseeable future the closing down of the base and in the meantime altering the rôle and the equipment of the base, which was mainly built for warships?
Mr. Healey: I have made it clear to all the allied Governments concerned that we would wish our forces to stay on in Malaysia and Singapore so long as the independent Governments of those countries wish them to do so on conditions which meet our military requirements.
In case the time develops in the future, perhaps when confrontation is ended, when the Governments of those countries no longer wish our forces to stay, or wish to fix conditions which we consider unacceptable, I have already begun discussions with the Australian Government about the possible provision of alternative facilities in Australia. But I make it clear that, in such a case, the size and nature of the forces we maintained would be considerably different from those we plan to
250
maintain even after confrontation in Malaysia and Singapore.
Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Apart from a few hundred miles around air bases, does not the right hon. Gentleman's decision on aircraft carriers mean that our surface forces in the mid-1970s will be left without any surface-to-surface weapons except those with horizon range? Is not he taking a considerable risk in the uncertain world of the Far East and the uncertain pressures which are developing?
Is it not honourable for the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) and for the First Sea Lord, in view of these facts, to resign—and much more honourable that they should do this than when the Prime Minister resigned over the question of National Health Service charges?
Mr. Healey: We plan to phase the carriers out by the mid-1970s and to provide the Navy with surface-to-surface weapons which are not now in the programme. After a careful study of the theatres in which our forces may be required to operate under threat, we are satisfied that it will be possible to provide protection for our Fleet and shipping in the 1970s from land bases with aircraft that we shall then have. I shall be glad to develop that in detail in the debate.
Mr. S. O. Davies: As the purchase of foreign aircraft will have a damaging effect on employment in the aircraft industry, what immediate steps are the Government taking to provide employment for those displaced?
Mr. Healey: I have made it clear in the White Paper that the military aircraft programme which we plan for the next 10 years will provide adequate production of military aircraft for our aircraft industry on which to build a viable civil aircraft production programme as well.
Mr. Sandys: The Secretary of State said that the existing agreement for the protection of the South Arabian peninsula would no longer be applicable on the independence of the South Arabian Federation. In 1964, when representatives of the Government of the Federation asked for independence not later than 1968, they coupled this with a request that Britain should conclude a new defence agreement for the protection of the Federation after independence.

251
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, as Colonial Secretary, I, on behalf of Britain, agreed to that request? Can he now give an assurance that this promise that we would conclude a defence agreement for the protection of the South Arabian Federation after independence will be honoured?
Mr. Healey: A large number of promises were made by the right hon. Gentleman when he was Commonwealth and Colonial Secretary with a Government of South Arabia which has now disappeared. There is a completely different Government there now. Of course, it is open to those with whom we negotiate to state the terms on which they would like to reach an agreement, but it is also the duty of the British Government to decide what the British interests are in the agreement that is finally reached.
Mr. Maxwell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that not only did the former Administration fail to build carriers, but had no hesitation during the whole period of its office about cooking the defence books of the nation, not just in respect of carriers? Can he say whether his discussions with the Australian Government about the base in Western Australia have reached the stage of planning, having regard to the fact that confrontation against Malaysia could end at short notice and that Singapore could invite us to leave the base? As it would take such a long time to build a base, has he started negotiating about it already?
Mr. Healey: Negotiations in the strict sense of the word have not yet begun, but, for the first time, when I was present in Canberra a fortnight ago the Australian Government agreed to discuss with technical experts on the British side the possibilities of providing facilities for British forces in the 1970s. I made it clear in public, as well as in private, that if we were unfortunately required to leave Singapore and Malaysia earlier than many people now expect, if there was nowhere else for us to go, we should have to go home.
Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: Would the right hon. Gentleman answer a question about the aircraft carrier? In Part II of the White Paper the aircraft carrier
252
is defined as the most important item in the Fleet for offensive and defensive action. In Part I it is said that the changes to achieve a major cut in expenditure have been made without any loss of military efficiency. How can those two statements possibly be reconciled?
Mr. Healey: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will read the note which prefaces Part I, he will see that Part II refers to the situation next year, while Part I refers to the situation 10 years hence. It is true that at the moment the carrier is the element round which the whole of the Fleet is built and to reshape the Fleet so that it can play its necessary rôle in the security of the nation without carriers is a long-term job. This is why I am most anxious that the existing carrier force should continue to operate for as long as possible into the 1970s so that we can assure ourselves that we have made adequate reprovision for those elements of the carrier capability which will still be required within the reduced tasks which we then envisage.
Mr. Frank Allaun: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, unlike hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, most of us on this side of the House would like to see far more drastic cuts than are proposed in the White Paper? Is he aware that the £52 million increase on last year is an increase on the highest total ever spent? Would it not be better to carry out his own wishes, which were to cut commitments—for he said that he could not otherwise cut the £400 million—and spend the money on better housing and social progress instead?
Mr. Healey: I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise that the increase to which he refers is more than accounted for by the increase in the pay of the Armed Services, and I believe that our soldiers, sailors and airmen fully deserve the rate for the job.
Sir A. V. Harvey: How does the right hon. Gentleman expect the carriers in the immediate years ahead to be manned with air crew? Why should naval officers volunteer for a branch of the Service which they know is to die in a few years?
Secondly, will he bear in mind that what he said about the United States ordering British equipment is not reassuring? Why does he not get the Americans

253
to place orders at the same time as he orders the F111? From past experience, there should be direct trading and not just tendering.
Mr. Healey: I do not want to minimise the problems which will arise in maintaining the morale and efficiency of the Fleet Air Arm for another 10 years. This is one of the most important questions which we have to consider. One of the reasons why the First Sea Lord thought it wise to retire now rather than in August was so that his successor should start from scratch now—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—to help the Navy to face the new situation which it would have had to face at some time or other.
Let me point out that many countries are now running down carriers and have no intention of building others. This is true, for example, of Australia, Holland and Canada. This is a problem which has been solved in many countries and which can be solved here. What I would say to members of the Fleet Air Arm is that the strongest case for them to maintain their current rôle as long as possible is if they believe, with the Admiralty Board, that it is necessary to spend some years in reproviding for the carriers' capability before the carriers are finally phased out.
In reply to the hon. Gentleman's second question, I wish that we had some items of British equipment which were as attractive to the United States and other foreign Governments as the F111A has been to us. It is a question of taking time to discover items of equipment which can be in terms of performance and price. All too often in the past British weapons have been designed with no attention whatever to the requirements of a possible market abroad.
Mr. Steele: On a point of order. Can you advise me, Mr. Speaker, whether it is a new departure that we should have a long statement and so many questions and answers about a White Paper which is to be debated the following week?
Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. This is a difficult decision. I regarded the statement as important and the reaction of the House and the number of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who sought to put supplementary questions were evidence of the importance
254
with which the House regarded it. However, I ought to call the attention of both sides of the House to the length of the questions and the answers which has precluded me from calling many hon. Members who have felt that they had a right to question the right hon. Gentleman on the White Paper.
Captain Litchfield: On a point of order. Can I have your advice, Mr. Speaker? Is it proper for the right hon. Gentleman to seek to put words into the mouth of the First Sea Lord which he himself has not uttered?
Mr. Speaker: That is a criticism which the hon. and gallant Gentleman makes of the right hon. Gentleman. The Chair cannot enter into it.
Sir G. Nicholson: On a point of order. With great respect, Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that the House is very anxious to hear the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew)? Can we not get on with that?
Mr. Speaker: I think that the House will not be unaware that I, too, have that in mind.
Sir G. de Freitas: May I ask my right hon. Friend to say something more about the Anglo-French variable geometry aircraft? In view of the enormous potential importance of this aircraft, will he try to press on with this programme, even if General de Gaulle dismantles N.A.T.O., as he threatens?
Mr. Healey: I can certainly reassure my hon. Friend. I have already arranged to meet M. Messmer, the French Minister of Defence, to further the programme of this and the Jaguar aircraft and certain other collaborative projects. We plan to meet, on a date still to be fixed between the middle of March and the middle of April, to discuss these matters.

PERSONAL STATEMENT
Mr. Christopher Mayhew: It is an old and generous custom of the House to permit a Minister who has resigned to explain his position in a personal statement. I am grateful to the House for this opportunity.
I begin by wishing my successor well. As he knows, it was my strongly expressed hope that he would succeed me. He has already earned, and will certainly

255
continue to receive, the full confidence of the Navy and he can be sure that in what I have to say now I shall do my utmost not to make his difficult task more difficult still.
I am afraid that he will feel severely the loss of the advice and support of Admiral Luce, whose help to the Admiralty Board and to the Navy and to myself personally I would regard as irreplaceable. One would have thought it impossible that the Fleet's long-held respect for Admiral Luce could be enhanced, were it not for the announcement which we have just heard this afternoon.
Anyone who has had, as I have had, responsibility for the management of the Royal Navy will always feel proud and grateful. I left with profound regret. Nevertheless, as I propose to show, decisions on defence have been taken by colleagues whom I respect, and who have treated me with kindness, which leave me no alternative but to resign.
I shall try to show that the approach to the Defence Review has been mistaken, that the proposed cuts in resources are not matched by the proposed cuts in commitments and that the result will be strain on the Armed Forces, or dependence on the United States beyond what this House should accept.
The principal mistake in the handling of the Defence Review was commitment to a world rôle with a presence east of Suez, and also to a budget of £2,000 million, before the review began. This was a very strange thing to do. No previous studies have been made to find out whether the two aims were compatible. It was simply assumed that they were and throughout the review the assumptions were never seriously challenged.
The figure of £2,000 million was a purely artificial one, simply a statistical projection of the cost of defence in 1964–65 into 1969–70. After it had been laid down the overseas Departments earnestly studied what should be our minimum commitments in the 1970s and the Ministry of Defence earnestly studied what would be the most economical way of meeting those commitments and then both came up with the figure which the Treasury first thought of.
The fact is that we have only to look back over the years of administration of
256
the previous Government to see that far stricter Treasury control was needed over our defence expenditure. Experience has now shown that there is danger in the opposite direction, too, in laying down a defence budget too early and too rigidly before working out its implications in foreign policy and defence. For one thing, it immediately inhibits any considerations of a budget of less than the stated sum. Surely, never in the whole history of public administration has a Department been offered money by the Treasury and not found the need for it. In practice, throughout the whole Defence Review no serious study has been given to a defence budget of less than £2,000 million related to reduced commitments.
The rigid fixing of the budget in advance placed a heavy strain on inter-Service relations. In the old days there was a dangerous tendency for the Services to gang up together and collectively present a demand for a defence budget in excess of their needs. This was bad, but, again, there is a danger in going to the opposite extreme, by rigidly fixing in advance a level compelling each Service to fight for its own vital interests by attacking the vital interests of the other Services. The result is that too little collective decision is given to the question whether the total sum is enough for the Armed Forces as a whole.
Not that the inter-Service rivalry was on anything like the scale that public opinion has been led to believe. It should be placed to the credit of the Admiralty Board that from the beginning to the end of the Defence Review it stoutly maintained that if we were to remain east of Suez we should need F111As for the job as well as carriers.
Now the sums of the defence review have been worked out and it is plain that £2,000 million is a bad figure for a defence budget—it is too small if we want to stay east of Suez and much too big if we do not. It lands us with an in-between presence east of Suez, which is still extremely expensive, especially in foreign currency, involves us in considerable risks, military and politically, and makes no equivalent contribution to our real national interest.
This, then, was the beginning of the trouble—a rigid laying down in advance of two incompatible objectives, a world

257
rôle and the £2,000 million. The inevitable consequence followed, cuts in resources out of all proportion to cuts in commitments. The House will not want me to spell out in detail the cuts involved in the reduction of £400 million in the planned budget for 1969. The House should note that not all these things are specified in the defence White Paper.
In the case of the Navy, they are much wider than merely the cancellation of the CVA01 but they are not specified. The cute apply to all three Services and amount to one-sixth of the total budget. Some of these reductions were to cut out waste. On the other hand, the cuts are overwhelmingly in the realm of equipment and weapons and not in the realm of administration, pay and pensions, which amount to one-half of the total budget. Thus, one-sixth of the total budget represents much more than one-sixth of the budget for arms weapons and equipment. It represents a very heavy cut indeed in military capabilities.
The most spectacular and controversial of the cuts was the cancellation of the new carrier. I would like to make it clear that my position throughout the defence review has been that if the Government insist on a world rôle east of Suez in the 1970s, then carriers are essential, and that my duty as Navy Minister was to fight for them.
At the same time, although not my direct personal responsibility, I did not hesitate to question whether we should adopt that rôle, whether that was the right rôle for Britain in the 1970s. As long ago as April, 1963, after visiting the Far East and the Gulf as deputy spokesman for the then Opposition on foreign affairs, I sent a report to the present Prime Minister expressing the same doubts about this rôle that I propose to express later on, and recommending a policy of gradual long-term disengagement. It seems to be perfectly logical and honourable to hold doubts about remaining east of Suez in the 1970s, but, at the same time, to say, as Navy Minister, that if the Government insist on remaining east of Suez in the 1970s, the Navy will need new carriers.
I will now like to explain the reasons why a viable carrier force is absolutely essential if we are to stay east of Suez in the 1970s and why the plan for carriers
258
given in the White Paper will not work. The four major reasons why the carriers would be essential are these. First, they enable us to exercise air power in any part of the ocean and not merely within an agreed manageable range of a land-air base. Outside this agreed range only carriers can provide the air strike and air defence to protect naval shipping or an amphibious force, or replenishment ships or merchant ships, and so on. Any military operation involving the use of such shipping must have carrier support, either British or American. That is agreed and no one disputes it. Outside of this range, without a carrier the Navy is unprotected. It is a "sitting duck" for any small country with a few Soviet bombers or missile patrol craft.
The second reason why carriers are essential if we are to stay east of Suez is that they provide essential reinsurance against the loss of a lang-air base. Land bases and carriers are both vulnerable. The most extensive analyses show that in Vietnam the carrier is less vulnerable and less expensive than the land-air base. Without the carrier one has all of one's eggs in one basket. Everything will depend on one air base. If it is sabotaged or mortared by guerrillas, one is left with no air cover at all.
The third reason why carriers are essential if we are to stay east of Suez is their deterrent power. This has been proved over and over again from practical experience and arises from the factors I have just mentioned. Phasing out the carriers will encourage our adversaries east of Suez at the very time that they will make it more difficult for us to cope with that challenge if it comes.
The fourth reason is that carriers are extremely flexible. They can provide air defence, ground attack and fulfil other functions which make them infinitely valuable for dealing with unpredictable occasions, as, again, has been shown in experience. Practically all our peacekeeping operations since the war were not, and could not have been, predicted
Those, then, are the reasons why, if we must stay east of Suez in the 1970s, we are, in my view, morally obliged to do so with a viable Navy and a viable carrier force. The cost is stated in the White Paper to be £1,400 million. This is misleading, because some of the

259
carriers' functions are essential and cannot be replaced by other means, which the White Paper points out. What the White Paper does not do is to cost the reprovisioning of the essential functions of the carrier. If that is done, the total cost of the carrier comes down to a small fraction of the £1,400 million; and that is a factor to be borne in mind.
The facts which I have stated are, I think, broadly agreed in the White Paper. The factor that the carriers are of vital importance and that some of their functions are irreplaceable is reflected in the statement in the White Paper that
"…we attach great importance to continuing the existing carrier force as far as possible into the 1970s".
But it is the considered professional view of the Navy and the unanimous opinion of the Board that the carrier plan in the White Paper is unworkable. The Fleet Air Arm is already short of air crew. The cancellation of CVA01 is bound to be a heavy blow to the members of the Fleet Air Arm. We cannot help but expect a bad effect on recruiting and re-engagement. With the maximum financial incentives and the greatest possible support from the Royal Air Force it might be possible to prolong the death throes of the Fleet Air Arm by three, perhaps four, years, but into the mid-1970s, no; that is impossible.
Meanwhile, when the carriers are phased out, where is the protection for the Fleet and how can honourable men be expected to take the risk to be personally, directly responsible in the posts, for example, of First Sea Lord, or of Minister, for a plan which their most expect professional advisers tell them is unworkable? Suppose that it is possible to carry on the old fleet of carriers into the mid-1970s. There are still operational disadvantages; I will not detail them now.
I cannot feel that it is right that a nation which considers itself strong enough to take on a world rôle and to act as peacemaker and guardian over other nations thousands of miles away can, at the same time, say that it is too poor to afford the sailors with the ships and equipment that they need for the tasks they are ordered to carry out. All
260
the same, it would be absurd to say—and the White Paper is right to stress this—that the phasing out of the carriers will be the end of the Navy. The Navy will remain an essential part of our national defence. It will continue to offer a fine and honourable career.
The White Paper lists the new ships and equipment which will come into service in the years ahead. By "new" I do not mean that they have been added to the programme. I mean that they have not been taken out of the programme. Of the 10 items listed, all except two have always been in our future programme. Moreover, as I have said, the White Paper does not specify the full range of cuts either in the Navy or in the other Services.
So much for the cuts in capability. What now of the cuts in commitments and the limitations on our military action east of Suez which are held to justify these very substantial cuts? The White Paper mentions Aden. But it also states that we intend to maintain our treaties with Libya and Malta and our commitments to N.A.T.O., S.E.A.T.O., CENTO, in the Gulf, in Gibraltar, in Hong Kong, in the island territories of the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific Oceans, in Cyprus and in Singapore. The undertaking to remain in Singapore as long as possible commits us to the defence of Malaysia and Singapore and may make more difficult and postpone the end of confrontation which is an essential assumption behind the Government's whole defence planning. The White Paper also notes our growing commitments in Africa.
We must note, too, that the power of our possible adversaries east of Suez is growing. As the White Paper points out, the arms race is continuing among smaller countries. Other countries are following the lead of Indonesia, which, with Soviet help, has made itself a formidable military proposition in only five years. Thus, all the time the challenge is growing, the task increases and our resources dwindle. It is quite plain that the defence policy set out in the White Paper will open up a vast gap in the 1970s between what the Service men are expected to do and what they are given to do the job with.
I come to the review's last line of defence: our allies—that is to say, the Americans—will help us out. This

261
assumption is contained in the White Paper's statement that
"…Britain will not undertake major operations of war except in co-operation with allies".
I hope that the implications of this statement will be very fully studied. First, it involves distinguishing in advance between a major military operation and a minor one. We promise only to undertake minor military operations alone. But the distinction is an extremely difficult one to make in advance. For example, how can we be sure that a minor operation will not escalate into a major operation? This is, in fact, how most major operations usually begin. Vietnam began as a minor operation in a small country.
Nor can we be sure that the minor operations which we undertake alone do not escalate. How can we? What do we do if they do escalate? Either we can withdraw and leave in the lurch those whom we have gone to help, which would be dishonourable, or we can ask our troops to go on fighting, having provided them, as the White Paper's own admission makes clear, without the resources necessary to enable them to get victory, which would be more dishonourable still. Or—and this is the heart of the matter—we could run to the Americans for help. But this means, in practice, that before even a minor operation is undertaken by us alone we shall need to get the agreement of the Americans and to make contingency plans with them in case things go wrong.
In practice, I believe that, unless we were to take unacceptable risks, the White Paper policy would mean virtually taking no action at all on our own initiative, even if appealed to by those whom we are supposed to be supporting. If they appeal for our help, we shall stand idly by. Alternatively, we shall act with the consent and support, or promised support, of our vastly more powerful ally, the United States, and the more we act the more we shall depend on their support. We shall be acting not as a power in our own right, but as an extension of United States power—not as allies, but as auxiliaries of the United States.
Even this assumes that we have solved the operational and logistic difficulties of interrelating American military support and carrier support with our own forces.
262
These practical difficulties have not yet been studied, nor has any suggestion been made that they should be studied. Nor is there any assurance that in a situation in which we might need American support it would be physically available. There would certainly be no American carriers available to us today.
More serious, however, are the political implications of what is proposed. How can we suppose that the Americans will always come to our aid and not ask us to come to their aid? They have come to the aid of the Australians with substantial military aid and, in return, quite naturally, the Australians have sent a battalion to Vietnam. In my view, the degree of military dependence involved in the Government's new plans would present serious problems even if there were solid political agreement with the Americans on the basic issues in the Far East.
But is that, in fact, true? In Europe, in the 1940s and 1950s, the situation was totally different. In a very minor way, I played a small part in helping the late Ernest Bevin to bring the Americans into an alliance in Europe at that time. But, of course, we and the Americans agreed about Stalin, and in that partnership there were European countries, too, with substantial military potential which helped as a counterweight to the overwhelming force, strength and influence of the United States.
Today in the Far East it is totally different. We do not agree with the United States about Communist China. We do not support the Formosan Government. We have a different emphasis in our interpretation of the problem of containing Communism there. Moreover, in military terms we are virtually alone in an absurdly unequal relationship with the vast power of the United States.
I have been, and still am, a warm supporter of the present Anglo-American Alliance. I respect and admire the United States. It would, however, be in the interests of both countries that if we stay east of Suez we should do so with a force with a substantial degree of self-sufficiency—that is, not wholly dependent upon the United States; a force including both F111As and carriers, a force costing substantially more than £2,000 million.
Should we, however, find more than £2,000 million for defence? If we insist

263
upon a world rôle, I am sure that we must. Had agreement been reached on this basis, my direct personal responsibility for the Navy would have been met and my personal position would, in my judgment, have been tolerable.
I am bound to say that I should still have had serious misgivings about a rôle so far beyond our economic strength. Surely, there would have been something totally incongruous about a nation performing a proud world rôle of peacekeeping on borrowed money with the sound of our gunfire drowned by the rattling of our collection boxes.
As I have explained, as has long been known to my friends, I have had doubts about this rôle east of Suez in itself. I seriously doubt whether, in the 1970s, with the growth of nationalism and racialism, any white nation, either alone or with others, can perform an effective peacekeeping task east of Suez. Already, the political and psychological obstacles to Western military deployment, let alone Western military action, in Asia and the Middle East are extremely strong. By the 1970s, they may well have become crippling.
While we sympathise with the United States in the harrowing experience which they have in Vietnam, ought we not also to learn from it and to draw the lessons of it? Should we not clearly take note that for all their gigantic military effort, the United States have so far been unable to contain North Vietnam—not China, but North Vietnam? May it not be, therefore, in the 1970s that the first white-faced soldier, sailor or airman who sets foot on the mainland of Asia or the Middle East will automatically unite against himself and his Government the coloured people whom he has come to help? Indeed, would we not feel the same in their shoes?
There is no specific mention in the White Paper of the policy of containing China. Is this one of the objectives of our policy or not? If it is, it should be stated. If it is not, that should be made quite plain to the United States, the Australians and the New Zealanders. Meanwhile, since, I think, the Government are not committed to that policy, I will not state my serious misgivings
264
about the policy of containing China on the narrow basis of two or three white nations.
Plainly, in the 1970s we shall still have some colonial responsibilities—for example, in Hong Kong—and also a moral commitment to the Australians and the New Zealanders to help in the defence of their territories. Apart from these things, however, we need have no commitment east of Suez in the 1970s, moral or otherwise, except as members of the United Nations.
That does not mean sudden or unilateral abandonment of obligations. We are not talking about this year or next year or even the year after. We are talking about the 1970s. It would be perfectly honourable and sensible for us now to decide to adjust ourselves to a changed world. In my view, it is no sign of vitality in a nation that it clings stubbornly to positions which it already holds. Indeed, not many years ago we criticised the French and the Dutch for a similar kind of stubbornness in the Far East.
A surer sign of vitality in a nation is an ability to take hard decisions to adapt ourselves to new circumstances. I should feel much greater faith in this country's future if we firmly decided now to withdraw over the years ahead from our increasingly exposed positions overseas.
The approach which I have suggested would make possible a defence budget below £1,800 million in 1969–70. This would help us immensely to put our own affairs in order. We should pay more attention to growing opportunities in Europe. We could extend our influence overseas out of the substantial saving of foreign currency which we could make.
If we decide to take some such course as this, now must be the moment to take the decision, because the Government's proposals to go east of Suez and to carry on east of Suez in this new joint basis will morally commit us to stay there for years and years to come. It is, in fact, a new commitment which we shall be taking on east of Suez. Therefore, if we are to decide this great matter, now is the moment to decide it and to make up our minds for ourselves.

265
The basic mistake of the Defence Review has been the classic crime of peacetime British Governments of giving the Armed Forces too large tasks and too few resources. The overseas Departments have laid down a proud defence rôle for Britain, the Treasury has laid down a humble defence budget for Britain, and the Service men "carry the can".
This has all happened before. It happened in 1939, when both parties were to blame. Admittedly, we then had a commitment that we could not possibly avoid, but then, again, we placed upon the Services a task far beyond the resources we had given them. I was myself a member of the first Territorial unit to land in France in September, 1939. We had field guns of an ancient design—converted 18-pounders. Equipped as we were, and trained as we were, we should never had been sent abroad on active service at all. Many of us had jobs which were quite unfamiliar to us. For several weeks, I was an officer's batman, and a very poor, patient officer he was.
Most of the men whom I knew then came back safely through Dunkirk. But more would have come back if they had had the tanks and air support which they needed and deserved, if they had not been let down by the nation, by Parliament and by their Service Ministers. I am convinced that the House will never allow that kind of thing to happen again.
Let us have a full and bold debate on all these great issues in the House and in the country, and God grant that we choose right for our nation.

PARLIAMENT OF SINGAPORE (GIFT)
Committee to consider of an humble Address to be presented to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty will give directions that there be presented on behalf of this House a bookcase containing parliamentary and constitutional reference books to the Parliament of Singapore, and assuring Her Majesty that the House will make good the expenses attending the same, Tomorrow.—[Mr. Bowden.]
COUNCIL NEGRI OF SARAWAK (GIFT)
Committee to consider of an humble Address to be presented to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty will give directions that there be presented on behalf of this House a Speaker's Chair to the Council Negri of Sarawak, and assuring Her Majesty that the House will make good the expenses attending the same, Tomorrow.—[Mr. Bowden.]
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF SABAH (GIFT)
Committee to consider of an humble Address to be presented to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty will give directions that there be presented on behalf of this House a Mace to the Legislative Assembly of Sabah, and assuring Her Majesty that the House will make good the expenses attending the same, Tomorrow.—[Mr. Bowden.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  COMMONWEALTH SECRETARIAT BILL [Lords]
  4.52 p.m.
  The Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Commonwealth Secretariat was conceived at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in 1964. The idea of some such central Commonwealth body was not new. I do not intend, nor is it necessary here, to give an historical summary of the various suggestions that have been made down the years for some such body. But when it had been raised previously, there had been misgivings on the part of some Commonwealth countries who felt that the activities of such a body might in some ways possibly encroach upon their sovereignty. The welcome given to the idea at the 1964 meeting was, therefore, the more striking.
  The final communiqué of the meeting issued in July 1964, stated as follows, and I think that it is right to repeat the words, because they are the base upon which the structure has been built. It said:
  "Finally, they were anxious that some permanent expression should be given to the desire, which had been evident through their deliberations, for closer and more informed understanding between their Governments on the many issues which engage their attention and for some continuing machinery for this purpose. They therefore instructed officials to consider the best basis for establishing a Commonwealth Secretariat".
  Then come the functions as they envisaged them—
  "…which would be available inter alia to disseminate factual information to all Member countries on matters of common concern; to assist existing agencies, both official and unofficial, in the promotion of Commonwealth links in all fields; and to help co-ordinate, in co-operation with the host country, the preparations for future Meetings of Commonwealth Heads of Government and, where appropriate, for meetings of other Commonwealth Ministers. This Secretariat, being recruited from Member countries and financed by their contributions, would be at the service of all Commonwealth Governments and would be a visible symbol of the spirit of co-operation which animates the Commonwealth."
  The change of Government in Britain did not change the attitude of the British
  268
  Government towards the establishment of the Commonwealth Secretariat. The meeting of officials which was envisaged in 1964 was held in January, 1965, and a plan for a Secretariat was produced. That was subsequently considered by Commonwealth Governments, who all confirmed their agreement in principle. Officials met again in June to identify matters requiring specific decisions by Heads of Government at their meeting later in the same month. The reports of officials were considered and approved by the Heads of Government, and a unanimously agreed memorandum on the Commonwealth Secretariat was attached to their final communiqué It is that agreed memorandum which was presented to Parliament in July last year as a White Paper (Command 2713).
  The Commonwealth Heads of Government thought it appropriate that Britain should be accorded the honour of acting as host Government to the Secretariat. We responded by offering to house the Secretariat in Marlborough House, which Her Majesty the Queen has graciously offered for use as a Commonwealth centre.
  Marlborough House has come to be accepted as a centre for Commonwealth meetings in London and particularly for meetings of Commonwealth Heads of Government. It was felt to be particularly appropriate that the Commonwealth Secretariat should be housed in part of this elegant and historic building situated in the heart of London. The Secretariat is now established in Marlborough House, for all practical purposes as a guest of Britain.
  Commonwealth Heads of Government have throughout laid great emphasis on the need to attract to the service of the Secretarait the highest possible quality of Commonwealth servant. The Commonwealth now has the services of Mr. Arnold Smith, one of the most senior and experienced members of the Canadian Diplomatic Service. His appointment as Secretary-General was unanimously approved by the Heads of Government in July last year, and so was that of his two distinguished Deputies, Mr. A. L. Adu, from Ghana, and Mr. T. E. Gooneratne, from Ceylon. Mr. Smith has appointed other staff from other member countries of the Commonwealth, and it is expected that, within the next few months,

  269
  the initial establishment approved in July will be complete.
  Very commendably, Mr. Smith did not wait until all his staff were recruited before energetically embarking on the tasks laid down in the agreed memorandum to which I have already referred.
  It was not to be expected that within the first few months of its existence, still not at full strength and with no collective experience behind it, the Secretariat would be able to undertake all the functions laid down in the agreed memorandum. But, as hon. Members will know, the Secretary-General and his staff have been far from inactive. There is hardly a function mentioned in the agreed memorandum which the Secretariat has not already undertaken, including one of the most important of its functions, the immense task of servicing, at very short notice, the meeting last month of Commonwealth Heads of Government in Lagos, and this they did to the satisfaction of all concerned.
  The position of the Secretary General and the members of his staff is, therefore, one of great trust and responsibility. They will have in their care a great deal of confidential information about Commonwealth affairs. They must clearly be in a position properly to perform the duties allotted to them, and to bear the trust and responsibility placed on them.
  I will deal briefly with the operative Clauses of the Bill. Clause 1(1) gives the Secretariat the legal capacity of a body corporate. The Secretariat has to be given this capacity so that it may undertake legal obligations and enter into agreements, and, if this should ever unfortunately prove necessary, to sue and to be sued in its corporate name.
  Clause 1(2), read with the Schedule, confers on the Secretariat and the members of its staff similar immunities and privileges—with two exceptions to which I shall refer later—to those accorded to Commonwealth High Commissioners in London, and in other Commonwealth capitals, and members of their staffs. These privileges and immunities are those agreed by Commonwealth Heads of Government at their meeting last June, and they are specified in Annex "A" to the Agreed Memorandum.
  During the several discussions on the establishment of the Secretariat, most
  270
  careful and lengthy consideration was given to the question whether the Secretariat and its staff should, in respect of immunities and privileges, be given treatment comparable with a Commonwealth High Commission and its staff. It was appreciated that such treatment could not be as of right, as the Secretariat is not the representative of one sovereign independent State. But the Commonwealth is a unique organisation, and Commonwealth leaders saw the Secretariat as a unique body within that organisation
  "at the service of all Commonwealth Governments and…a visible symbol of the spirit of co-operation which animates the Commonwealth".
  It is the servant of not one, but of 22, sovereign independent States, and answerable directly to them. It was considered to be of the greatest importance that this body should be treated in a special way, and this has been recognised by all parties in the House.
  I have already mentioned the great stress which was laid by all concerned in the setting up of this Secretariat on the need to attract to its service the very best quality of Commonwealth servant, and I think that all right hon. and hon. Members will agree that this is right if the Secretariat is to be a continuing success. It was realised that in most cases the individuals of the calibre and experience required would come from the diplomatic services of the Commonwealth itself, or would certainly be qualified for senior posts in those services, and that their duties would bring them into constant and direct contact with the diplomatic staff of Commonwealth High Commissions in London.
  It was, therefore, felt that it would be right that the status of senior officers of the Secretariat should be equated with that of the diplomatic staff of Commonwealth High Commissions. Other Commonwealth Governments said that they would be prepared to accord to the senior officers of the Secretariat treatment comparable to that accorded to the diplomatic staff of High Commissions, an existing class of people to whom they are closely related, and with whom they will be in close and constant touch. The British Government felt throughout that this was the right course.
  The senior officers of the Secretariat must also be permitted to carry out the

  271
  duties expected of them by Commonwealth Governments without fear or favour, without let or hindrance. The Secretariat will, as I have indicated, have in trust from these Commonwealth Governments a great deal of confidential information. To maintain this trust and the responsibility imposed on it, and to perform the confidential duties entrusted to it, the Secretariat must, clearly, be free from all other compulsion. It must be independent, and to this end the senior officers have been accorded immunity from suit and legal process, and other officers have been accorded immunity in respect of their official acts. The Secretary General, as hon. Members will see, has the power to waive this immunity in any circumstances.
  There are, however, to be two important exceptions to this provision for immunity, and I should like to deal with these for a few moments because I think that they will be very much in the minds of hon. Members. The first is Income Tax liability. Paradoxically, the exception is necessary to ensure that, in practice, the staff of the Secretariat will be given the same kind of treatment in this respect as is accorded to the staffs of High Commissions in London. The staffs of Commonwealth High Commissions in London, who are nationals of the sending country, are exempt from United Kingdom Income Tax, but they are, of course, taxed by their own countries.
  The same effect for senior officers of the Secretariat who are not United Kingdom citizens could be obtained by not levying tax at all and paying them a net tax-free salary appropriate for their rank and duties, but this would create a special class of Income Tax-free people, and this the British Government, as well as most other Governments, are anxious to avoid. It is therefore, proposed that the staff of the Secretariat should be paid the normal gross salaries appropriate to their rank and duties, and that they should be liable to British Income Tax on their salaries in the normal way.
  But that would mean that the extra amounts payable by the Secretariat in paying salaries gross instead of net would all come back to the British Government as tax, and this would not be fair to other Commonwealth Governments, so it
  272
  has been decided by Her Majesty's Government that the Treasury will refund the tax collected on the salaries to the budget of the Secretariat—not, I assure the House, to the officers of the Secretariat—in addition to this country's contribution to the expenses of the Secretariat.
  That may seem to be an elaborate procedure—and a good deal of thought has been given to the Income Tax position during the last few months—but it is desirable that a new tax-free class of persons should not be created. It was thought that this was important. The alternative to this, that is, an internal tax levied by the Secretariat itself, would be an unnecessary burden at this stage on the administrative powers of so small an organisation. The House will note that in the case of some international organisations internal tax is levied, but these organisations are fairly large. In this case the organisation is at this stage so small that it was thought that this would not be the appropriate procedure.
  Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would deal with one point arising out of that, which was dealt with in another place. Do I take it that the contribution of £175,000 is exclusive of the tax money returned, that is to say, it is over and above the £175,000? Will he say a word later about the contribution to the budget, whether it is to be a fixed percentage, or a fixed sum?
  Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is right in what he said. The £175,000 is exclusive, and the sum which will be refundable in the shape of tax to the budget of the Secretariat will be over and above that.
  Mr. Hector Hughes: Does the exemption with regard to Income Tax and Capital Gains Tax apply to investments in this country in British stocks and shares, or to all stocks and shares wherever they are domiciled, or wherever they come from, in Britain or outside Britain?
  Mr. Hughes: Additional sources of income in this country which accrue to members of the staff of the Secretariat, over and above their emoluments, would be taxable in the ordinary way, but income which accrues to the staff from

  273
  overseas—that is, from the sending countries—would be free of tax.
  I now turn to the second important question which concerns immunity from suit and legal process in respect of civil action for damage alleged to have been caused by a motor vehicle belonging to or operated on behalf of, the Secretariat, or of a motor traffic offence involving such a vehicle, or in respect of arbitration proceedings relating to any written contract entered into by or on behalf of the Secretariat. I do not need to explain the thought behind these limitations in the privileges and immunities of the Secretariat; the House over the years has been particularly sensitive on this point, and rightly so. These limitations are acceptable to all other Commonwealth Governments.
  Clause 2(2) brings the Act into effect from 1st July, 1965, the date from which it was agreed at the June meeting that the Secretariat would come formally into being. The purpose of giving the Act retrospective effect is to establish legal validity to anything already done in the name of the Secretariat and to give legal cover to exemption from such matters as customs duty already granted to it and its officers. However, hon. Members will see that it is not intended that retrospection shall prevent the enforcement of any liability which has been incurred by the Secretariat or its staff for the period between the establishment of the Secretariat and the enacting of this Bill.
  I have now put before the House the main features of the Bill. It is one which is desired by other Commonwealth Governments, to give the appropriate status to a unique Commonwealth organisation which we all hope will contribute considerably to the strengthening of the Commonwealth association.
  I commend this short Bill to the House.
  5.13 p.m.
  Mr. Nigel Fisher: At a point of time when the Commonwealth scene is somewhat sombre, and when in certain respects and in certain areas of the world the Commonwealth is in disarray, many of us here who believe in the Commonwealth and who have faith in its future, especially as a bridge between the races, would have welcomed the opportunity of a rather wide-ranging debate to refute the defeatism which we
  274
  sometimes hear outside and to rebut the feeling of disenchantment with the Commonwealth which seems, wrongly and regrettably, to be gaining some currency in this country. Some people who criticise do so because they expected too much too soon.
  I would dearly like an opportunity to make the case for the modern Commonwealth, and I know that most hon. Members who are now present would love to do the same, but I feel sure that if I tried to do that this afternoon you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would rule me out of order, because the Bill is no doubt too narrow to use as a vehicle for a Commonwealth debate, much as we should like to have one.
  But the Bill does show that the Commonwealth is evolving—slowly, perhaps and with several setbacks—and the creation of a Commonwealth Secretariat is a very good example of this. The idea of a Commonwealth Secretariat has often been discussed over the years, and for various reasons rejected; and as the Minister of State has said, it was not until the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference of 1964 that it received general support and approval. I believe that it will prove a constructive, forward-looking and important factor in Commonwealth relations in the years ahead. I had felt for some time that for all Commonwealth relations and information to be handled by the Commonwealth Relations Office was becoming, in a sense—because it was resented elsewhere—an embarrassment to Britain. The creation of the Secretariat, for which this Bill makes provision, means that the Commonwealth will in future take a much larger part in the handling of its own affairs. I am sure that that is right in 1966 and that we should welcome and encourage it.
  I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman will feel inclined to reply to what I am now saying—no doubt it depends on the trend of the debate—but, if he does, I should appreciate his advice on the question of the addition of a legal section, to which I referred at Question Time some time ago and which was discussed and recommended by the Commonwealth Law Conference at Sydney last year. I wonder whether that addition is to be made to the Secretariat and, if so, when?

  275
  The main object of the Bill is to confer upon the Secretary-General and the staff of the Secretariat the immunities to which their status and the importance of their diplomatic duties entitle them. This is probably the only opportunity that the House will have to say something about some of the people upon whom we are conferring special immunities. Many of us have already got to know the new Secretary-General, Mr. Arnold Smith, a senior and most distinguished Canadian diplomat, and his two deputies. I can only say that the Commonwealth is fortunate in their selection.
  I first met Mr. Adu six years ago, in Central Africa, when he was advising the Government of Nyasaland, as it then was, on the development of the Civil Service there, and I have never forgotten the immense impression he made upon me at that time. I have not yet had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Gooneratne, but his record is a very distinguished one in Ceylon. Mr. Arnold. Smith is one of the most charming men I have met anywhere at any time. He is devoted to the concept of the Commonwealth, yet fully alive to its problems. He is constructive and progressive in his views and tactful and imaginative in the execution of his responsibilities. And as wives are always very important in diplomacy, may I say how fortunate the Commonwealth is that Mr. Smith married such a delightful one. It is more true of the Commonwealth than of almost any other institution that I know that if one likes the person with whom one is dealing one is more than half way towards solving the difficulty that one is discussing. No one could fail to like Mr. Arnold Smith, and he has already proved his value to the Commonwealth by his travels in East and Central Africa and by his smooth and successful organisation of the Lagos Conference. He and his staff, drawn from all over the Commonwealth, will have many such responsibilities in the future.
  The Bill is designed to give them the facilities and privileges they need to discharge their duties effectively, and it is right that they should be accorded the same treatment and the same sort of immunities as are enjoyed by the diplomatic staffs of the Commonwealth High Commissions. The Bill makes two exceptions to the normal immunities—
  276
  one the motor vehicle exception and the other the Income Tax exception. Mr. Arnold Smith and his senior staff will have all the usual motoring immunities when they are driving their own cars, but the more junior staff—including the drivers of official Secretariat cars—will not enjoy diplomatic immunity.
  The House has always been rather sensitive about the extension of this sort of privilege to new categories of people, which puts them above the ordinary laws of the land, and I am sure that the strict limitations of this immunity in this case will be welcomed by most hon. Members so far as the tax exception is concerned.
  As I understood the hon. Gentleman, the members of the Secretariat will be paid their salaries gross and these salaries will be subject to United Kingdom Income Tax, but, in order that the British Exchequer should not make a profit from these payments, the total of the tax will be refunded, not to the individuals who paid it initially but to the budget of the Secretariat. This is, possibly, a somewhat complicated procedure, but I see the point of it and I make no complaint about it.
  I am sure that it is right that an organisation which exists to serve the 22 Governments of the Commonwealth collectively should have broadly the same privileges in Britain as the missions of the 22 Governments of the Commonwealth already enjoy here individually.
  The value of the Secretariat and of the Bill is that they give the Commonwealth an organisational form and structure which it lacked and which I believe it needed. I do not think that anybody wishes—certainly I do not—the Secretariat to assume executive powers or to develop into a sort of Commonwealth United Nations; but its creation does give a substance to the Commonwealth relationship which was missing in the past and which I believe will be beneficial and unifying in the future.
  On this side of the House, we welcome the Bill and hope that it will have as quick and uncontroversial a passage through this House as it recently received in another place.
  5.22 p.m.
  Sir Geoffrey de Freitas: I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) said.

  277
  Like him, I would have preferred to turn this into a general Commonwealth debate, but we have to abide by the rules of order. Therefore, I shall limit myself to finding out what the Commonwealth Secretariat will be doing to justify our giving it these immunities.
  The establishment of the Secretariat is a clear sign that the Commonwealth of today is completely different from the Commonwealth of only 20 years ago. I should like to be corrected in what I say if I am wrong. I hope that the Secretariat, in interpreting its terms of reference, will be willing to put suggestions to Governments whenever it appears to the Secretariat that some Governments have not caught up with the new organisation and terminology of the Commonwealth today. The Governments concerned could turn down those suggestions, but I hope that the Secretariat—working as it does in private—will be able to make such suggestions.
  I would give an illustration by taking an example of terminology. Some people still refer to the Commonwealth as the "British" Commonwealth, although the title "Commonwealth" was designed some years ago to make it clear that this is a voluntary association of States in no way subordinate to Britain. From time to time we appear to confuse people by slipping into the terminology "British" Commonwealth.
  At a reception after Sir Winston Churchill's funeral service I was asked by some Francophone African Heads of Government, including Mr. Tshombe, what was the constitutional significance of the fact that in the prayers in St. Paul's reference had been made to "people of this land and of the British Commonwealth".
  They pointed out to me that one of the great differences between the French association with its former colonies and we with ours was that France still dominated the association not only in fact but in name, whereas we were only one of 22. I answered that there was no significance in this at all: it was simply that the Church of England had not caught up with the constitutional lawyers and that—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Samuel Storey): I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is doing exactly what he said he must not do—widening the debate.
  Sir G. de Freitas: May I not ask what the Commonwealth Secretariat will do in order to justify our giving it these immunities? Supposing a point had not been settled which was the sort of point which a Government could not bring to the notice of another Government because, for instance, it would give offence to another Government. Suppose we were asked, "Why do you call your Governor in Aden a High Commissioner, thus confusing a man who is really a Governor with a man who is a diplomat"?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am afraid that I cannot see what this has to do with the single purpose of the Bill.
  Sir G. de Freitas: If we are to give these immunities, surely we have to be satisfied that the Secretariat will do something in return for them. I seek to know whether they will be encouraged to make such suggestions as would otherwise never be made because Governments are frightened of giving offence to other Governments. I will not develop the point, but I seek to know whether they will be encouraged to make these subtle points which will never be made Government to Government but which could be put by anonymous civil servants for the future of the Commonwealth and to remove possibilities of misunderstanding. I will not mention any more of these points.
  We have seen, even in the House, misunderstandings about the nature of the Secretariat's work. I remember one Question in the House which implied that the Secretariat was taking over work from the Commonwealth Relations Office. In fact, the Question asked what, in view of the establishment of the Secretariat, would be the reduction in the staff of the Commonwealth Relations Office. Of course, the Commonwealth Relations Office is like the Foreign Office: its task is to carry out Government policy, that is, the policy of the British Government. It serves only one Government, the Government of the United Kingdom, whereas the Commonwealth Secretariat serves 22 Governments.
  One last point made by the hon. Member for Surbiton was that, in a small organisation—I understand that there are only seven senior officials in the Secretariat—quality is very important. I know one of the three senior

  279
  officers very well indeed—Mr. Adu of Ghana. He is a most distinguished civil servant who has served not only his own but other countries in Africa and the United Nations and who is in every way a remarkable man. The Commonwealth is fortunate that he is working for the Secretariat.
  I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.
  5.29 p.m.
  Mr. Douglas Dodds-Parker: Like other hon. Members, I will be very careful how I tread, because I realise that this is a narrow Bill. I am glad that the Minister of State widened it a little to explain some of the background, which will be of use not only to us in the House but to others beyond. I should like to support my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) in welcoming the Bill as an addition to the structure of the Commonwealth.
  It must be some satisfaction to the Secretary of State, because 20 years ago he and I, from approximately the same position, discussed this matter and wondered whether some such secretariat would not be useful to the Commonwealth. As the hon. Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas) said, it is a different Commonwealth today to what it was 20 years ago. There was in those days some suspicion—entirely unjustified—that some of the enthusiasts in the House were trying to construct something which had an ulterior motive.
  It was, therefore, satisfying to the Secretary of State, as to all of us who are interested in the Commonwealth, that the Prime Ministers' Conference in 1964 took a sufficient interest to suggest that the Secretariat should be established. I am certain that it will further strengthen the Commonwealth association, and I join in the tributes which have been paid to Mr. Arnold Smith and his colleagues.
  The House is rightly sensitive about the granting of immunities. We guard these jealously. I am glad to hear that the immunities proposed are the same as those applying to Commonwealth High Commissions. However, one point is not clear to me. Reference is made to "officers and servants". In the past some hon. Members have wondered whether these individuals should be seconded from
  280
  their own national diplomatic services or should be permanent officials recruited on their merits and taken into the Commonwealth Service with no national service to which to return. A case could be made out for either system, although today the latter is probably the best. I have always believed that the system of secondment has led to a cross-fertilisation which not only in this but in other instances has proved of the greatest use. I am not certain whether these seven individuals are permanent members of the Commonwealth Secretariat or have been seconded from their national services.
  As yet, there is no such thing as Commonwealth citizenship. In this country one remains a British subject by our law. One remains a citizen of whatever Commonwealth country to which one belongs. Whether one day we will work towards the idea of Commonwealth citizenship I do not know and I appreciate that this is a difficult and dangerous path to tread because there are dangers which cannot be foreseen and which—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This does not arise on this Bill.
  Mr. Dodds-Parker: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Suffice to say that I hope the Secretary of State will make it clear whether the seven individuals have been seconded or are permanent members of the Commonwealth Secretariat.
  Until the Minister spoke it was not clear whether the privileges and immunities would be the same for any citizens of the United Kingdom who are appointed to the Commonwealth Secretariat. I regret what I might call the levelling down of Commonwealth citizens who will have to endure the rate of taxation which we at present must endure in this country. Although I understand that the tax to be levied will be refunded to the Secretariat, it must not in any way discourage those who will take up these occupations.
  I do not suggest that we should create a special privileged class from the tax point of view, but I am putting in a word for those who must carry out diplomatic functions in a country in which they pay the local taxation. Various forms of social entertainment are not entirely covered by the allowance and I am sorry

  281
  that these individuals will have to pay the full rate of tax. It is easy to say that they should do the job like the rest of us, but I trust that it will be remembered that they are carrying out these semi-diplomatic jobs and that on occasions they find these task difficult to perform.
  5.34 p.m.
  Mr. James Johnson: Since entering the Chamber and looking through the text of the Bill, coupled with hearing your comments about what is and what is not in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is obviously not the day for long historical speeches. Considering what has been said in past years by my hon. Friends and I about Commonwealth matters, it is only right that a back bencher on this side of the House should utter a few sentences to welcome the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) spoke about the organisational form of the Commonwealth. This matter has been discussed and advocated for many years, notably by the first post-war Labour Government. The Bill is to be welcomed for that reason, recalling that at least 20 years, ago Lord Attlee took this line. The Commonwealth is indeed a particularly fluid organisation. Some call it dynamic.
  The Minister of State referred to the suspicions of some Colonial Territories. A formal set-up along the lines proposed for the Commonwealth Secretariat could not be contemplated just a few years ago. Those past ideas have gone, particularly since the Secretariat is not based on London. It will convene conferences in, for example, Lagos. The last one was an extremely successful conference. Bearing in mind our difficulties in Rhodesia, we see that the Secretariat is able to serve the sort of purpose which was mentioned by the Minister and which Mr. Arnold Smith and his distinguished colleagues will be able to carry out.
  The Minister of State spoke about the Ghanaian and Singalese colleagues of Mr. Smith. They are all men. We are fortunate in our choice of the Secretary- General because, Being a Canadian, he is midway between Washington and Paris, so to speak, but—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting away from the purpose of the Bill.
  Mr. Johnson: In that case Mr. Deputy Speaker, I fear that the odd notes which I jotted down will have to be decapitated, truncated and almost amortised. I was able to say that there is a place for women in the Commonwealth Secretariat. This was mentioned in another place, and I am sure that the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) will refer to this if she catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  In a debate such as this it is difficult to keep within the rules of order. I will conclude merely by saying that I believe in the Commonwealth, I believe in cementing the bonds of the Commonwealth and I believe that the Commonwealth Secretariat, with able people like Mr. Smith in it, will do that. I wish them a very happy future and all success in their endeavours.
  5.37 p.m.
  Dame Joan Vickers: I rise to welcome the Bill and the setting up of the Commonwealth Secretariat as a body with a corporate identity. This is a major achievement. Considering how difficult it is to get hon. Members of this House to agree on certain problems, for 22 Commonwealth countries, comprised of different races, to set up this corporate body is an amazing achievement.
  It is interesting to consider the powers which this corporate body will have. I always remember President Nehru of India saying that the Commonwealth was all the stronger because of its invisible links. I hope that this corporate body will bind those links even tighter together, but I equally hope that the organisation will not be too formal; the more informality there is in its operation the better. I therefore suggest that the co-operation which would be most successful in this organisation would be that of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. I do not want to see the Commonwealth Secretariat taking over the work of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, but it would be an enormous asset if the two could work together.
  In the debate in another place the question of recruiting people to the Secretariat was discussed, along with the question of who would be given these

  283
  diplomatic privileges. It was pointed out:
  "This Secretariat, being recruited from member countries and financed by their contributions, would be at the service of all Commonwealth Governments and would be a visible symbol of the spirit of co-operation which animates the Commonwealth.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 25th Jan., 1966; Vol. 272, c. 12.]
  I would like to know the method by which these high calibre people are recruited. Is it done on an area basis? So far we have three major appointments, one from Canada, one from Ghana and one from Ceylon. Will we try to keep it on a Commonwealth area basis so that a really good representation from the Commonwealth is achieved?
  The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) spoke about the recruitment of women to the Secretariat. I was disappointed to learn that no women are to get this diplomatic immunity because no women have been recruited. I hope that they will be able to play their part in the future, as we have to remember that we have already had two women Prime Ministers in Commonwealth countries.
  How will these individuals on the staff work in future? For instance, mention was made in another place of
  "…helping with the processing of Singapore's application for membership of the Commonwealth".—[OFFICIAL REPORT; House of Lords, 25th January, 1966; Vol. 272, c. 14.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This does not arise on the Bill.
  Dame Joan Vickers: The gentlemen for whom we are asking for this immunity have done the work, and if we are to give them the privileges I should like to know just how their work will be done. If these individuals are to arrange conferences in future, how will they get their agendas together? Will this be a Commonwealth exercise, or will it be settled in this country—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must keep to the purposes of the Bill.
  Dame Joan Vickers: When these people travel overseas to another country—because I hope that all meetings will not be held in this country—will their diplomatic immunities go with them?
  284
  What salaries are we to pay these individuals—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That does not arise either.
  Dame Joan Vickers: I am having a rather difficult time.
  In Part II of the Schedule, we read in paragraph 5(1):
  "Every senior officer of the Commonwealth Secretariat, who is a citizen…."
  Can we be told how many senior officers will get this immunity? Perhaps we could also be told their salary scales.
  As other territories become full members of the Commonwealth, will they be able to joint this corporate body? For instance, when Fiji becomes independent, will it automatically become a member of the Commonwealth Secretariat, or will it have to apply to join?
  I hope that what I have said about women being employed in the Commonwealth Secretariat and being given the same immunity as men will be specially considered, as I think they can be additional assets to the work of the Secretariat. I would like formally to welcome this Bill.
  5.42 p.m.
  Mr. Hector Hughes: I congratulate the Minister on his lucid presentation of this Measure. My intervention earlier was not intended to unbalance my hon. Friend but to draw attention to one peculiarity in the Bill. Before turning to that point, however, let me say that I welcome the Bill, because I welcome anything that may increase the solidarity and effectiveness of the Commonwealth, which stands for the rule of law in international and in national affairs.
  My criticism of the Bill is twofold. It contains no Interpretation Clause. There is nothing to indicate what the Commonwealth is. It is implied, of course, that it means the British Commonwealth of Nations, but there is nothing explicitly in the Bill, as there should be in any Act of Parliament, to indicate what the Commonwealth is.
  The Schedule to the Bill mentions certain inviolabilities, of which there are three. The first is:
  "The Commonwealth Secretariat shall have the like inviolability of premises…"

  285
  That is correct. Just as an embassy has inviolability of precises, so should this Secretariat.
  The second is that the Secretariat
  "…shall be exempt from income tax and the capital gains tax…"
  It was on that point that I ventured to interrupt the Minister in order to find out whether that referred only to Commonwealth stocks and shares or to all stocks and shares. Does it apply to the stocks and shares envisaged by last year's Budget in this country? We are now dealing not only with Britain but with various parts of the Commonwealth, and the elements or entities in the Commonwealth which are having this benefit of inviolability from Income Tax and Capital Gains Tax should have that inviolability clearly defined.
  The third inviolability is:
  "The Commonwealth Secretariat shall be exempt from duties on the importation of goods…"
  That, again, should be clearly defined.
  I do not make these criticisms in an adverse way. As I have said, I welcome the Bill and anything that will increase the effectiveness and solidarity of the Commonwealth. This Commonwealth is a natural sequence and development from the time when we had the British Empire consisting of colonies rightly struggling to be free. They got their freedom, and became representative entities in the great Commonwealth. I shall not go further into the history, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I only gave that little bit of history in order to say that in giving these inviolabilities and benefits and advantages of the Commonwealth we are doing a very good thing.
  It is an anomaly that the more we benefit the entities—or whatever we may choose to call them—in the British Commonwealth of Nations, and the more we develop them and give them individuality, the more we increase the solidarity of the Commonwealth. That seems to me to be an anomaly of a very beneficial kind. I therefore have great pleasure in offering these few words of welcome to the Bill.
  5.48 p.m.
  Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: I, too, welcome the Bill on behalf of the Liberal Party. It represents a new and exciting development in the history of the Commonwealth. It seeks to clothe with diplomatic status those who have already
  286
  become the civil servants of the Commonwealth. These provisions are necessary, first, to enhance the status of those who are called upon to serve the Commonwealth and, secondly, to give them the powers it will be necessary for them to hold if they are to discharge the obligations which the Commonwealth has placed upon them.
  I welcome the two somewhat different diplomatic provisions—that relating to taxation and that relating to liability for civil proceedings in regard to damage caused by motor vehicles. They are very happy compromises and, in a sense, are the sort of compromise one would expect of any legal arrangement in regard to the Commonwealth. One example of compromise is that we have High Commissioners as opposed to Ambassadors, and we therefore expect to find somewhat different legal treatment when dealing with the Commonwealth than when dealing with other countries.
  There are two matters about which I wish to ask. The first relates to the granting of diplomatic status. In the Schedule to the Bill in paragraph 10(3) there is the provision:
  "References…to the United Kingdom shall be construed as including references to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man."
  This perhaps is a drafting point. There is not any reference in the Bill to the United Kingdom. I speak subject to correction, but since this body is to extend diplomatic immunity to Northern Ireland and to Scotland, the provision could perhaps be improved in Committee and we could put in some greater definition.
  Very often when we grant diplomatic status questions are asked as to what reciprocity there is to be; that is to say, whether the same privileges are to be accorded in return. If the Secretary of State is to reply, I hope he will indicate whether it is the intention, as I assume it to be, of the 21 other Commonwealth countries to accord the same sort of diplomatic status to these Commonwealth servants that they are accorded in other Commonwealth countries.
  Clause 2(3) specifically refers to the budget. It is that part of the Bill marked by a black line in order that another place shall not raise questions of privilege between the two Houses. The question was

  287
  asked in another place, what the contribution of this country would be. The reply was made that it would be £175,000, which represented a third of the proposed budget. I should like to know whether that is a percentage which will vary as the budget varies, or a once-and-for-all block grant of £175,000. I think it relevant to ask this particularly as the Secretariat, clothed with these powers, will, we hope, greatly extend its activities and we shall see a growing budget in the next two or three years.
  I think it in order—I shall be told very quickly if it is not—before we grant power to any body to ask rhetorically what it has already done and, more pertinently, what it is likely to do? Can we justify the grant of these very extensive powers? This organisation came into being only in July 1965. All told, down to the humblest typist, I think the total staff is 35, but it has already held one meeting of Commonwealth trade officials and a second is to be held, which we hope will lead to a Ministerial meeting in May. It has already entered the diplomatic sphere by setting up a committee dealing with the question of Rhodesian sanctions and a sub-committee dealing with Zambia.
  It therefore seems that this aspect of diplomatic immunity and certainly diplomatic status is of the very essence of the job the Secretariat is being asked to do. This Bill is most timely in that regard. As the Minister said, it was this body which organised the Lagos Conference and, so to speak, even before the introduction of this Bill, was given a supra-national character in relation to the rest of the Commonwealth. So much for the powers which it has already exercised, which clearly make the case for granting this measure of diplomatic immunity enshrined in the Bill.
  I think that equally we shall see an extension of its operations both in the economic and political spheres which will make it essential that it should have the status envisaged by the Bill. As I think was said in another place, the diplomatic activities—after all it is diplomatic immunity that we are granting—and diplomatic exchanges which now take place between the Secretary-General and his colleagues and members of Commonwealth Governments are a vital part
  288
  today in international diplomacy. It is particularly important that this diplomatic status should exist at a time when two members of the Commonwealth have broken off relations with this country, and the same is also true in regard to Malaysia and Pakistan.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member is now getting far too wide.
  Mr. Thorpe: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall try very strictly to keep in order. In regard to the individuals upon whom we are granting this status I re-echo what every hon. and right hon. Member has said in this debate. We could not be more fortunate in the Commonwealth than to have someone of the character and calibre of Mr. Arnold Smith as the Secretary-General. Within the British Commonwealth there are Smiths and Smiths and he is a good one.
  When I visited Marlborough House and had discussions with members of the Secretariat I thought the heading of this Bill "Commonwealth Secretariat Bill", could not be more appropriate. There one meets within two or three minutes not only a Canadian Secretary-General but a New Zealand deputy, a Ceylon national in charge of the economic sphere, a Nigerian, a Ghanaian and representatives from practically every member country of the Commonwealth. I hope that these powers will enable the Secretariat to carry out and expand its duties in strengthening the Commonwealth and, to quote the 1964 communiqué, be:
  "A permanent expression of closer and more informed understanding."
  It is particularly appropriate that it should be housed in Marlborough House, a very historic building last occupied by a most gracious lady who herself did a tremendous amount for the British Empire, as it was then, who was much travelled and beloved in many corners of the world. I hope this Bill will do something to indicate to the Secretariat that we wish it well and want to see that it has all the powers needed to discharge its functions.
  5.58 p.m.
  Mr. Gordon Oakes: Like every hon. Member who has spoken in this debate from both parts of the House, I welcome the Bill. I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the

  289
  House for the fact that I was not present when my hon. Friend the Minister of State opened the debate.
  The hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) quite rightly said that it was a remarkable feat of statesmanship, understanding and diplomacy that people from 22 nations should get together and agree to set up the Secretariat. It is particularly fortunate that the Secretariat is here in London. We tend to take the Commonwealth for granted a great deal, both in this House and by the ordinary man in the street.
  There are many other nations in the Commonwealth which no doubt would welcome the Secretariat in their countries. There are Commonwealth nations which are larger and some which have a civilisation as old as ours. There are many which have a climate far better than ours. Yet we have the Secretariat in London and by the Bill we are welcoming it and conferring on it the status of a body corporate.
  The Bill exempts members of the Secretariat, and the Secretariat itself as a body corporate, from diplomatic immunity in respect of civil actions arising from motor accidents and proceedings for motoring offences. As members of the Secretariat will be living here amongst us, it is important not only that the House and Government Departments but that the ordinary public do not get at cross-purposes with them. The average British citizen, no matter what his political party and no matter where he lives, has a healthy dislike of official cars, whether they be Ministerial cars—I hope that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench are listening—whether they be mayoral cars, embassy cars, or Secretariat cars. The general public dislikes cars being on the road which operate under a law different from that under which all other motorists operate. To them these cars are something foreign and faintly sinister. If any incident takes place, the Press echoes this distrust felt by the ordinary citizen.
  The last thing we want is for a minor official of the Secretariat to be involved in a motor accident, or to commit a motoring offence, and then to find that, although he might be willing to waive diplomatic privilege, under ancient Acts he is not able to do so. That would be the position, unless a provision is inserted
  290
  into the Bill. The whole Secretariat would have to waive its immunity, and there is some doubt whether it could waive it retrospectively.
  I wonder whether this could not be extended to senior officers and their families, because there is no reason why these citizens of the Commonwealth would ever seek to use their diplomatic privilege to avoid the consequences of traffic accidents or motoring offences. This is a departure from most diplomatic practice, which has gone on possibly since Roman times, certainly from an Act of 1708, when motor cars were not foreseen. This is the first Measure which, in terms, excludes from diplomatic privilege actions of tort or criminal offences arising from motoring. The 1964 Act does not do it. I do not think that the 1950 Act, which relates to other international organisations, does it.
  Although this is a very minor point in the Bill, it is one to be welcomed because of the precedent it sets and also because, when the Secretariat or any member of it is, through no fault of his own and from some minor reason, involved in an accident, or jumps the traffic light, or commits a minor traffic offence, he cannot claim to be in a separate class of motorist. Consequently, there cannot be any Press uproar and the public can accept him as a motorist who must obey our rules, as they must.
  6.3 p.m.
  Mr. Brian Harrison: I hope that the House will forgive me if I strike a somewhat discordant note. I shall try, if I may go so far as to quote one phrase from the White Paper, to
  "begin modestly and remain careful not to trespass"
  on the points of order.
  I have gained the impression, from listening to the debate and from hearing the House talking with its usual thinness and enthusiasm about the Commonwealth, that we are perpetrating one of the things that makes me feel that the U.K-ers—I must not use the word "British"; I do not want to offend the hon. Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas)—still have their sense of humour, because they have welcomed the granting of diplomatic privileges to a Secretariat that emerged from a Commonwealth conference that caused us to lose Rhodesia from the Commonwealth and

  291
  which is an institution being built up after the Commonwealth has stopped meaning anything in the world.
  It seems to me that we are now trying to institutionalise something which has failed almost completely in modern times. We are trying to give dipomatic privileges to a small "United Nations", an organisation which will probably conflict with some of the jobs which could be done much better by the United Nations itself. This effort at reviving in the last dying days of the Commonwealth an institution to try to keep it alive, giving it diplomatic privileges and developing at this stage a Secretariat with ill-defined duties, is a joke which has gone a little too far.
  After reading the White Paper which was referred to by the Minister of State, with all its "ifs", "buts" and "possibilities", "guided by principles" this way and that, but containing practically nothing definite, no one, if he is honest, can fail to come to the same conclusion as I do. The moment has come when the House must pull itself together, particularly after the statements we heard earlier today, when it was shown by the conflict which has arisen over the defence of the Commonwealth that Britain is quite incapable of defending the Commonwealth.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Samuel Storey): Order. This does not arise on the present Bill, which deals only with two small points.
  Mr. Harrison: The granting of diplomatic privilege to an institution which is set up to maintain an non-existent Commonwealth seems to me to be a farce which is going almost beyond a joke. I hope that the Government will think very seriously before they go much further with this. I ask them to consider whether they are not making this country, by giving these powers and exemptions to the Secretariat, a laughing stock.
  6.8 p.m.
  Sir Frederic Bennett: First, may I say how truly delighted I am that my first appearance at this Dispatch Box should be on a Commonwealth subject. I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House will concede that we have worked together in the interests of the Commonwealth for many years past. For this reason, I was perhaps all the more
  292
  distressed at parts of the last speech we heard, but I had better try to remember my rôle and speak on that a little later.
  It is lucky that the Chair has been so severe, because any sort of controversy is almost totally precluded. In some way, I rather regret this, because in my usual position on the back benches I rather enjoy controversy. I realise, however, that I shall in any event be granted a certain amount of indulgence by right hon. and hon. Members opposite.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) was allowed to say a few general words about the background of the Secretariat, and in view of the last speech we have heard, I hope that I shall be forgiven one general observation very much along the lines of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton.
  In this debate and generally in talking about the Commonwealth we are in danger nowadays of falling into the second of two traps. Over the years, there has sometimes been a tendency to expect more of the Commonwealth and to overrate its possibilities. Many of us have been deluded at times on that account. Now, there has been an altogether too dramatic conversion to down-rating the Commonwealth and granting it no influence at all in the world today. It is for this reason that I regard the setting up of the Secretariat as a positive step forward.
  There is one matter of history in connection with the setting up of the Secretariat which is of importance in connection with our thoughts on how we see it working. In earlier times, it was usually the British who wanted to create some sort of organisation which would integrate the Commonwealth centrally, and the other Commonwealth countries at that time were, quite naturally, suspicious that this might tend to undermine the advance to sovereignty which they wanted to achieve.
  Nowadays, as we have heard, the boot is on the other foot. It is the other Commonwealth countries which look for greater organisation in the Commonwealth, for no more noble motives, I suppose, than we used to have, save that, naturally, they feel that their numerical importance is such that their influence in the Commonwealth entitles them to a greater say in the central direction and

  293
  organisation of it than they have had in the past. I think that it is for this reason that we have been able to secure agreement so readily on the setting up of the Secretariat and the rôle which it has to fulfil.
  I differ on one point from the hon. Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas) in that I hope that the Secretary of State will not yield to the invitation to be more precise about the rôle which the Secretariat has to play. This is an extremely tender plant and, if we try to overload it at the beginning, we may cause to arise fresh suspicions of the sort which have now died away. All the words of the White Paper in this respect are very wise. Whether we like it or not, this is an innovation, and it is a matter very much of "softly, softly" if we are not to create suspicions which, I am sure, it would be a pity to create.
  Sir G. de Freitas: It was for that reason, to show that there was no need to suspect Britain of trying to dominate the Secretariat, that I deliberately referred to points which could be critical of Britain.
  Sir F. Bennett: If that is the line, I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Brian Harrison). But we are also British in this House, and in these matters we must be careful of our own sensitivities as well as of those of other Commonwealth countries.
  I hope that, at least in the initial stages, the Commonwealth Secretariat will move very slowly—this is the whole purpose of the White Paper—lest we cause more discord than concord between the various countries concerned.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman a certain amount of latitude. He is now going very far from the Bill.
  Sir F. Bennett: I was only trying to answer a point which was made, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and at that point, if I may say so, I was replying to an intervention.
  I come now to a matter of fact which I should like the Secretary of State to clarify. I had thought that it was intended that the Secretariat should do some of the work previously done by the C.R.O. in matters of information and
  294
  organisation, and, therefore, it is not quite true that the C.R.O. has always been completely the servant of the United Kingdom in this respect. Is it not a fact that, in the past, it has fulfilled a certain rôle in connection with information and the organisation of conferences which will now be taken over, or which to some extent has already been taken over, by the new Secretariat?
  I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Dodds-Parker) reminded the House, on such a happy all-party occasion, that both sides have done a great deal together over the years to achieve this sort of end.
  I should like a little information—I have not been able to glean it from the Bill, after a very careful study of it—on whether the senior and other officials are meant to be permanent in the same way as other civil servants in other international bodies become, so to speak, international individuals, although they are to be seconded from their Governments or come as volunteers from other countries and be liable at any time, at the wish of their Governments, to revert to their national rôles. This is an important question to be answered at this stage, because it must affect our view of the privileges and immunities which we expect these people to have.
  After your warning, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not know how far I can go in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson), but, as you allowed each of them a word or two in support of the female element in this organisation, perhaps I may add my earnest plea to the Secretary of State to consider this matter carefully. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the present Prime Minister of the largest country in the Commonwealth is a woman and that the Leader of the Opposition in the second largest is a woman. There are one or two notable women ambassadors as well. This is a question to be taken quite seriously for the future.
  I hope that I shall not be thought in any way unsympathetic to someone we all like very much when I say of the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes), who is not in his place at the moment, that I at least found

  295
  it rather difficult to understand the somewhat complex questions which he put. I can only hope that the Secretary of State has been more successful in that effort than I have been.
  In response to what was said by the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes), I can only say that, as I understand it, it is only the senior officers who are to have this rare exemption in respect of motor traffic offences. In view of the doubts which the hon. Gentleman cast on the matter, I should like the point to be cleared up. I believe that there is not, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, an innovation here, because these senior officers will be very much in the same position as a High Commissioner or Ambassador in any other country, and we should, indeed, be making an exception if we did not accord them the same privileges as are accorded to other people of similar rank.
  Mr. Oakes: I think that the hon. Gentleman is quite right when he says that only the senior officers will have this privilege, but I was pointing out that many embassy representatives, including even junior members of the staff and the Ambassador's household have these privileges. This would not be so as regards the Secretariat.
  Sir F. Bennett: Then we are not at cross-purposes.
  I welcome what is proposed in the respect of the Secretariat, but I understood the hon. Gentleman to be suggesting that we were making a departure. I do not believe that we are, because it is expressly stated that only the senior officers will have diplomatic rank in this context, and the others cannot be compared with junior diplomats and the like at embassies because they are seconded personnel from their Governments without the diplomatic rank which would otherwise go with it.
  I have worked very closely on Commonwealth affairs with my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon, and I was sorry that he spoke as he did today. However valid his criticisms of new trends and tendencies within the Commonwealth may be, I feel that the best answer to those criticisms is to try to strengthen the organisation which he now
  296
  feels has become too weak. This Bill is designed precisely for that purpose, representing at least one element of unity at a time when there are so many elements of discord in the Commonwealth and elsewhere in the world.
  If my hon. Friend has excuse—I think that he has—to feel doubtful about certain trends in the Commonwealth, his energies, like those of all the rest of us, should be directed towards an acceptance of the reality of the situation and an effort to mend bridges. If the Secretariat is to be any good at all, it will work by consultation and by trying to iron out differences; and if we all bend our efforts in this direction the end which we desire can be achieved.
  Mr. Brian Harrison: Will not my hon. Friend admit that the Commonwealth has ceased to exist completely, and, therefore, we ought to recognise the true realities of the situation?
  Sir F. Bennett: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I have now been asked whether I will admit that the Commonwealth has ceased to exist. If I were to answer that question, I should, I am sure, bring down your displeasure. May I say merely that I would not accept that conclusion at all, certainly not if the interpretation which most of us put on the Commonwealth is the right one, that it is an organisation which, though it has its imperfections, is in the interests of the world as a whole and which we ought to try to keep going and to improve.
  Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for keeping within the realms of order.
  Sir F. Bennett: I think that it was a very near thing, Sir.
  I come now to the two detailed points which, I am sure, are strictly within order. The first is on the question of Income Tax. After the Minister of State had spoken, I thought I realised why we had adopted the rather cumbersome method proposed. Now, however, I am not quite sure, and I do not follow why it should apply to the officials of other Governments who, as I have said, will be seconded, but will be working with the Secretariat on a temporary basis as though they were in a High Commission. Why should they have to pay British Income

  297
  Tax and then have it paid back to the Secretariat? It seems a little odd.
  I understand the reasoning in the case of British citizens, who will pay British Income Tax and be given commensurate salaries and which will then have the tax returned to the Secretariat. I have no quarrel with that proposition. But I find it a strange and new principle that overseas citizens in the permanent employ of their own Governments and seconded here for temporary employment should be treated in this way. An explanation is required of what is, however, a minor anomaly.
  The hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), in discussing the financial aspects, asked whether the figures mentioned—£175,000, or 30 per cent. of the total—were permanent. Of course, the Commonwealth is a changing body. Unless the Bill gets the Royal Assent very rapidly—and that depends on the election intentions of the Prime Minister—by the time it gets the Royal Assent one or two more members of the Commonwealth will soon be entitled to be members of the Secretariat.
  At the moment, the table of cost is set out in percentages. Whenever a new member joins, is the percentage to be varied or will the total subscription go up while the percentage remains the same? The British taxpayer is entitled to know. Is there to be an annual review so that membership of the Secretariat dates only from a certain period after a country becomes a Commonwealth member?
  Again, with the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon in mind, one remembers how, a long while ago—it seems now to have been almost in one's childhood—one was told that the strength of the Commonwealth was as an association of like-minded peoples. That was a proud boast. But now it is the only association in the world of non like-minded peoples who manage to work together. I welcome that development of the Commonwealth and I therefore welcome the Bill.
  6.23 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Arthur Bottomley): It falls to my lot to congratulate the hon. Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett) on his first appearance on the Opposition Front Bench—and I welcome it the more
  298
  because his speech was so competent and agreeable. I particularly liked the way in which he dealt with the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Brian Harrison) who, unusually, failed to show the same strong support for the Commonwealth that he has in the past.
  All of us, with the exception of the hon. Member for Maldon, I am sure, welcome the Bill. We believe that the creation of the Secretariat is a Commonwealth initiative of major importance. The idea of some form of central Commonwealth organisation is perhaps as old as the Commonwealth itself. Certainly the proposal for a secretariat was made in the 1940s. As the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Dodds-Parker) has said, it arose in the 1945–46 period when I was on the Government and he was then also in Opposition. After that, it was my good fortune as a "shadow" Minister to press for a Secretariat. Thus it gives me great pleasure today to be the Secretary of State responsible for introducing the Bill.
  In 1946 there was a feeling of suspicion about a Commonwealth Secretariat—a feeling that a central organisation would somehow be used as an instrument of British control over the policies of other Commonwealth Governments. Since those days the Commonwealth has greatly evolved. No one now would question the concept that each and every member country is free and in control of its own policies and that no machinery of Commonwealth co-operation should, or indeed, could, get in the way of that concept.
  It has clearly been in the minds of the Commonwealth Heads of Government that, in the situation resulting from this evolution, the objections could no longer be sustained and it was for this reason that the Secretariat was formed. The Prime Ministers' Conference during the period of office of the last Government unanimously decided that the Secretariat should come into being. Thus, an all-party effort has resulted in the Secretariat being formed.
  I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas) mentioned the Lagos conference and I take the opportunity, as other hon. Members have done, to pay tribute to Mr. Arnold Smith for the very helpful part that he played. I agree with the

  299
  opinion expressed about him. He is a great Commonwealth officer and will be an admirable Secretary-General.
  For the Secretariat, the Lagos conference was a baptism of fire and as a result of its experience it has grown much stronger. But it has also helped in the administration and organisation of other conferences. In September, there was the Commonwealth Finance Ministers' meeting in Jamaica and then the Commonwealth Medical Conference in Edinburgh in October. Indeed, Mr. Smith's activities have included consultations with Commonwealth Governments and their representatives on a wide range of subjects, including helping with the processes of Singapore's membership of the Commonwealth, which was sponsored by the Prime Minister of Malaysia. There have also been meetings between Mr. Smith and the Ministers and officials of Commonwealth Governments and with representatives of Commonwealth organisations. In addition, Mr. Smith has visited countries in East and Central Africa and has met Heads of Government, Ministers and officials.
  So it may be seen that the Secretariat has already done a good deal of very useful work for the Commonwealth and it is hoped that, in November, it will be able to service the Commonwealth Trade Ministers' Conference which will be held, I believe, in Jamaica.
  The Secretariat also has the responsibility of looking after two committees set up, as a result of the Lagos Conference, to deal with Rhodesia, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe). One is to deal with sanctions and the other is giving training assistance so that Africans can go into Rhodesia and run services in due course. It may be seen that the unanimity of the Commonwealth heads of Government in wanting the Secretariat demonstrates their faith in the Commonwealth.
  The hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) asked about the recruitment of women to the Secretariat. I hope that I am not committing a breach of confidence or privilege in revealing that Mr. Smith has told me that he himself has a bias towards enlarging the staff to include female employees. The problem is to
  300
  persuade Governments to let these very competent and charming ladies leave their own countries. However, I am glad to tell the hon. Lady that a former member of the Jamaican Foreign Service, Mrs. Robertson, is in charge of information and public relations within the Secretariat. In addition, as hon. Members know as well as I do, the Commonwealth itself leads the world because it has had two Lady Prime Ministers. I assure the hon. Lady that what she wants is very dear to the heart of Mr. Smith.
  The hon. Lady also asked whether I could give details about appointments. There are now 11 senior staff and the countries of origin are Canada, Ghana, Ceylon, the United Kingdom, India, New Zealand and Australia. Four posts are vacant and these will be filled in due course.
  I was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) and by the hon. Lady the Member for Devonport how the staff were appointed. The Secretary-General is appointed by Commonwealth heads of Governments acting collectively and the Deputy Secretaries-General are appointed by Commonwealth heads of Government acting through their representatives in London. Other senior staff are appointed by the Secretary-General from panels of names submitted by Commonwealth Governments. Junior staff are appointed directly by the Secretary-General.
  I was also asked what factors governed the selection of staff. The paramount consideration is the highest possible standards of efficiency, competence and integrity, but due regard is paid to the importance of recruiting staff on as wide a geographical basis of the Commonwealth as possible.
  The hon. Member for Devon, North asked how long members of the staff would serve. Senior officers are to be appointed in the first instance for not more than five and preferably not less than three years. There must be some flexibility in contract terms in order to secure some continuity of administration. I was asked whether it would not be better to appoint staff on a permanent basis to provide continuity and stability. The view was taken that this would not be the best way to deal with it. The Secretariat is a new venture and no one

  301
  would attempt at this stage to fossilise the Secretariat in the way suggested. The organisation is not big enough yet to afford the luxury of a permanent staff.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes) asked about the use of cars and diplomatic immunity. This is an innovation and I am glad that it has been welcomed. I can tell him that my experience with diplomats is that they seldom abuse their position. I remember on one occasion travelling with a diplomat in a car in London and being late for an appointment. The driver asked, "Should I go faster?" and the diplomat said, "Certainly not; we have privileges in this country and that is all the more reason to remember to keep the law." I do not think that there is much abuse, although there is a black sheep in every family.
  The hon. Member for Cheltenham asked whether taxes could be a discouragement to recruitment. The evidence does not indicate that the Income Tax arrangements are in any way discouraging to recruitment. Salaries have been determined, as the Minister of State said, in such a way that after tax has been deducted, net salaries will be in line with those of comparable staff in High Commissions in London.
  The hon. Member for Torquay said that the position was still not quite clear. I will do my best to try to explain further. We feel that it would not be right to create a special tax-free class. It is not the practice of other countries to do so, and we are conforming to customary international practice. It is only right to say that the Commonwealth Prime Ministers approve. An alternative would be to ask the Secretariat to operate its own internal tax system. It is too small an organisation to make that worth while. The administrative cost would be out of all proportion to the benefits which could be derived. It would also be necessary for locally recruited staff, in accordance with normal practice, to remain liable to British Income Tax law, which would further complicate the matter. The other alternative is to ask all of them to pay our taxes and we have decided that this is the best way of handling the matter. The staff of the Secretariat will be at no disadvantage compared with other diplomats.
  Sir F. Bennett: I was asking only about senior officers who for this purpose are seconded from their own country and who would be compared in this innovation with High Commission Staff of equivalent rank who do not pay our Income Tax.
  Mr. Bottomley: Their salaries and allowances would take account of the fact that they were paying British Income Tax, and net incomes would be in line with those of comparable staff of the High Commissions. To avoid in practice taxing the contributions of other countries, an amount equivalent to the tax collected is paid into the account of the Secretariat. Senior officers are no worse off.
  The hon. Member for Devon, North wanted to know whether the contribution was a fixed sum or a percentage. The contribution of Britain, as of other countries, is on a fixed percentage basis of the actual cost of the Secretariat. The sum of £175,000 was an estimate of the cost for the first full year, of which Britain's share of 30 per cent. was £52,500. But, of course, the budget is bound to vary from year to year.
  I was also asked whether the staff would have diplomatic immunities when going overseas. The Commonwealth Prime Ministers have undertaken to take steps to accord corresponding immunities and privileges to the staff of the Secretariat when visiting their territories, subject to whatever constitutional processes are required. This was in the agreed memorandum. I am not in a position to say whether all other Commonwealth countries have taken steps to make this possible, but there is an obligation to do so.
  The hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) asked whether there was any news of the addition of a legal section. As the hon. Gentleman said, it was the wish of the Law Ministers meeting in (Canberra that Britain should initiate the setting up a legal section of the Secretariat. The British Government felt the best way to do this entirely within the spirit which led to the establishment of the Secretariat would be for the processing to be undertaken by the Secretary-General himself. There have been discussions about this with Mr. Arnold Smith and I have no doubt that

  303
  in the near future he will be taking steps to bring this to the notice of other Commonwealth countries.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas) asked whether the Secretariat would be able to raise points of procedure with Commonwealth Governments. One of the reasons for the establishment of the Secretariat was of course to ease Commonwealth procedure. I have no doubt that when there is any question of the efficacy or appropriateness of Commonwealth procedures in current circumstances, the Secretary-General and members of the Secretariat will do their best to ease and, where possible, to modernise the procedures, without, of course, encroaching on the sovereign rights of other countries.
  New members, once admitted to the Commonwealth, will accept their obligations and after a full year they will pay their percentage in accordance with decisions reached by the Commonwealth members as a whole.
  The hon. Member for Cheltenham asked whether the senior officers so far recruited were on a permanent or secondment basis from their own services. None is permanent and they are all members of their foreign or home civil services according to their status in the Commonwealth Secretariat.
  There is no doubt that over the years the Commonwealth has fashioned a lot of official and unofficial links, and this Commonwealth Secretariat is one of the latest. This is a difficult and dangerous world which makes these links even more valuable than before. It is only sensible that we should preserve the links we have and strengthen them where possible. It is remarkable that, with few exceptions, former dependencies have chosen to remain linked in free and equal association with each other and with Britain, the former Imperial Power.
  Mr. Hector Hughes: My right hon. Friend has said nothing about the absence of an Interpretation Clause.
  Mr. Bottomley: If the hon. and learned Gentleman had been here earlier he would have noticed that I deliberately avoided that, and now that he is back I am not in a position to give him the answer. I have already undertaken to
  304
  write to him, and I will do so. I was going on to ask why it is that we still have Commonwealth ties stronger than in the past. The hon. Member for Maldon made the point that some of the Commonwealth countries such as Ghana and Tanzania had left. They have not left the Commonwealth but broken an association with Britain. Most African countries, although they belong to another organisation, when urged by that organisation to break with Britain did not do so.
  This Secretariat has already proved its great value and service to the Commonwealth. I have mentioned the major part played by it in the servicing of the controversial Lagos Conference. I must confess that I was not looking forward with any joy to attending that Conference. There were many people who said, "The Commonwealth cannot last long now". There were some who did not like its multiracial nature. Many despaired of the Commonwealth, but all must agree that, following the Lagos Conference, the Commonwealth was strengthened. They were dark days in which many felt impelled to take a long hard look at the Commonwealth and what it stood for, its achievements and failures, its strength and weaknesses in the world.
  I am very happy to say that within the Commonwealth, because we speak the same language, literally and metaphorically, we have developed a style of conversation permitting a franker and freer exchange of information. This is made possible by the establishment of the Secretariat. In all of this the relationship between Governments is given extra life and meaning by the links which exist in every conceivable form of human activity and which pass largely unrecognised because we take them so much for granted. I said that the first major task undertaken by the Commonwealth Secretariat was the servicing of the Lagos Conference. The Secretariat did a splendid job, unobtrusively and efficiently, justifying the high hopes that we had of it.
  What happeneed at the Commonwealth Conference? The Commonwealth was confirmed and the critics confounded. I am a realist and in Lagos the Commonwealth weathered one more storm. It is because I believe in the Commonwealth that I believe that it is humanity's best

  305
  bet for multiracial co-operation in a world bubbling with racial animosities. The birth of the Commonwealth Secretariat is a happy event and is visible evidence of the Commonwealth's faith in its own future. It is a voluntary strenthening of the airy ties that lightly bind 22 sovereign nations in a free and friendly association without parallel in history. It is because I believe the Commonwealth Secretariat will do much and play on important part in strengthening these ties that I commend the Bill heartily to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House—[Mr. Harper.]
  Committee Tomorrow.

  WOOL TEXTILE INDUSTRY (LEVIES)
  6.45 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. George Darling): I beg to move,
  That the Wool Textile Industry (Scientific Research Levy) (Amendment No. 2) Order 1966, a draft of which was laid before this House on 2nd February, be approved.
  With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I think that it would be convenient to take, at the same time, the second Order:
  That the Wool Textile Industry (Export Promotion Levy) (Amendment) Order 1966, a draft of which was laid before this House on 2nd February, be approved.
  Both Orders are closely connected.
  Mr. Speaker: I understand that both sides of the House share that opinion. So be it.
  Mr. Darling: The purpose of the Orders is to amend Orders at present in force under the Industrial Organisation and Development Act, 1947. The levies were first introduced at the request of the employers and trade unions in the industry. The first Orders were made in 1950 and have been varied from time to time since. One levy is for the promotion of exports of woollen goods and the other is for scientific research into the technical problems of the industry.
  I should explain that the levies are paid by both the suppliers of wool and the
  306
  processors. The terms are based upon the quantities of wool, supplied or consumed and on the number of persons employed in processing it. The accounting periods for this arrangement are the six months ending 31st March and 30th September of each year. To get the purpose of the organisation of the levies into focus it should be explained that they are collected by the Board of Trade and paid to the National Textile Export Corporation to reimburse expenses incurred by it in the promotion of overseas sales and to the Wool Textile Research Council, the body which is responsible for co-ordinating research in the industry.
  The purpose of the Orders is to increase the total current annual yield of the two levies by about one-third—in other words, from about £369,000 to approximately £500,000 a year. This is done by increasing the rates of charge and, at the same time, adjusting the incidence of the rates so as to reduce the proportion paid in respect of the supply or the consumption of wool, and increasing the proportion based on the processing operations.
  In recent years the raw material section of the industry has been contributing a greater proportion than it should have done. The rates per worker—in my brief it says employment units, but I think that this is going a bit too far—are now to be increased by 45 per cent., while the rates on the sale and consumption of wool are to be increased by 31 per cent. This differential should correct the balance to the proportions originally agreed in 1950 between the raw material and processing sections.
  The new rates are intended to operate for the period beginning 1st April, 1966. This means that the returns will fall to be made after 1st October. On previous occasions, and we are following the same arrangements, the charges have been requested by the industry with the support of the trade unions. I might mention, in passing, that I wish that all industries had the same kind of friendly labour relations which exist in this industry.
  The main reason for the increased charges are the continued rising costs since the levies were last increased and the continuing decline in the industry's labour force. The falling off in the number of workers employed, is I hope, due

  307
  to increasing efficiency and is important because 75 per cent. of the levy that is collected is charged in respect of the number of workers employed. On the export promotion side, the levy, when it was instituted in 1950, was expected to produce about £100,000 to £120,000 a year. The last increase in the rates, in 1957, was expected to produce a total of about £200,000 a year. But for the reasons I have given, the current annual yield has fallen to about £160,000. The amended rates proposed in the Orders should produce initially about £214,000 a year and it is calculated that this sum amounts to about l/27th of 1 per cent. of the turnover of the industry, so that the incidence of the levy on the industry is very small indeed.
  Mr. Peter Emery: Do I understand that the figures which are being given relate only to the export promotion side, and do not relate to the two Statutory Instruments?
  Mr. Darling: That is perfectly true. I am sorry if I confused the hon. Gentleman and perhaps other hon. Members. This is purely for the export promotion levy. As I say, the amended rates now proposed should, we think, to begin with at any rate, produce about £214,000 a year, and the increased income is needed so that there may be an extension of the export promotion work done in overseas markets.
  As everyone knows, the industry is meeting ever increasing competition overseas and the income from the levy is no longer adequate to maintain the export promotional effort which has been stepped up in recent years and, at the same time, allow for increased expenditure in the United States. It is necessary to have this apparently high level of expenditure in the United States to take advantage of the recent change in the United States labelling regulations relating to the marking of imported woollen cloth.
  It has been announced already that to assist the Corporation in this endeavour the Government have agreed to contribute £50,000 towards expenditure incurred between 1st April last year and 31st March this year. This is being incurred on publicity in the United States and is being provided on condition that the Corporation spends an equivalent sum on this
  308
  work in the United States. To compete successfully, not only in Europe and the United States, but in all overseas markets, it is necessary for the industry to participate in major trade exhibitions overseas, such as that held in Tokyo last September, and in British weeks—in Amsterdam last year, Copenhagen, Düsseldorf and Milan. These are recent instances. Hon. Members may be interested to know that the Corporation's outlay on the Tokyo exhibition alone was about £24,000. The cost of this sort of enterprise will undoubtedly continue to represent, on occasions, quite a large proportion of the Corporation's budget for promotional expenditure.
  Alongside the promotional work there is the need to maintain the industry's measures for protecting the interests of exporters against adverse tariffs and quota legislation in overseas markets. As hon. Members probably know, missions are sent abroad to put the industry's case at tariff hearings.
  That is the case for the export promotion levy. I turn to the levy for scientific research. When this was instituted it was expected to produce much the same amount—about £100,000 to £120,000 a year. That was in 1950. The last increase, which was made in 1962, was expected to produce a total of about £245,000 a year. But again, for the reasons which I have given, the current annual yield has fallen to a little over £200,000. This is considered to be insufficient. It is estimated that the proposed amended rates will produce about £286,000 in the financial year which starts in 1966. We reckon that this sum will amount to about one-twentieth of 1 per cent. of the turnover of the industry. The increase proposed is not designed to cater for an expanded programme of scientific research, but is required to meet the rising costs of maintaining research at its existing level.
  The Wool Textile Research Council reimburses expenses incurred by the various bodies which are carrying out programmes of research approved by the Council. The bulk of the proceeds of the levy is allocated to research schemes carried out by the Wool Industries Research Association, and this constitutes the major part of the Association's income. In addition, the Association receives a grant from the

  309
  Ministry of Technology which, in the current year, amounts to about £82,500.
  But it is Government policy to ensure that an increased percentage of the cost of research is borne by industry. While the Ministry of Technology cannot yet say what grant terms will be offered to the Wool Industries Research Association in the next quinquennium which begins in October this year, the Association will probably have to find a greater proportion of the funds which it needs from industry rather than from the Government. This is a factor which the industry has taken into account in seeking the increased rates of levy proposed in the Orders. Without the increase now proposed, it is doubtful whether adequate research could continue in the industry. At a time when world competition is intensifying, the need for research is more important that ever.
  As is required by the 1947 Act, the Board of Trade has consulted the various organisations concerned. The Orders were requested by the Wool Textile Delegation, representing about 85 per cent. of the employers in the industry, and its application is supported by the National Association of Unions in the Textile Trade and the National Union of General and Municipal Workers, which are the principal organisations of employees in the industry.
  In addition, 21 other trade associations, some of whose members are directly or indirectly affected by the levy, have been consulted and three have sent in objections. Although these three represent a very small proportion of the interests affected by the levies, the representations which they made have been carefully examined but have not been found to be of sufficient substance to outweigh the support given to the Orders by the overwhelming majority of the industry. The industry in general values the work paid for from these two levies and wishes it to be continued and extended. This is borne out by the fact that the increased rates have been requested by the principal organisations in the industry and are warmly supported by the trade unions.
  6.58 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Emery: We on this side of the House welcome these two Statutory Instruments, which increase the levies of the wool industry of Great Britain. I was intrigued to listen to the
  310
  Minister of State, or perhaps I should say to follow him through his speech, because it is printed almost word for word in today's HANSARD of another place—with one or two minor alterations.
  It is important to make plain that, on the whole, these Orders are required by the wool industry. Obviously, we in this House would want to do everything we could to assist the work of the industry in the vital part which it plays, not only in the manufacturing process and the opportunities for work which it provides, but in the export effort of industry generally.
  I should like to deal, first, as did the Minister of State, with the Export Promotion Levy Order. The hon. Gentleman's argument for the alteration in the percentage did not altogether follow the facts as I understand them. It is true that there has been a decline in the labour force within the industry. What we in this House should face, however, is that there has been great competition with man-made fibres, which accounts for the decline in the increase which might normally be expected for wool. I should have thought that the arguments put forward by the wool industry for alteration of the percentages relate as much to this specific factor as to any other.
  I suggest that the total sum of the export levy is not as high as the industry might like. It is a difficult matter when the industry has to provide this money, but I wonder whether the Minister of State has any views about the total which is required for export promotion, which is the purpose of the levy. How much does he consider that this sum should be?
  The increase from £160,000 to £214,000 is considerable. It is slightly above the norm and might be said to be about 36 per cent. I gather, however, that it can be argued that it is still not as much as the industry might like. Therefore, as the Government are at all times at pains to point out that they will do everything they can to help exports, I wonder whether they would not consider anteing up a little bit of extra money to increase that specific side of the levy.
  Does the Minister have any new ideas about how the money is to be spent? We have heard from him about trade fairs and trade weeks which are being organised in different parts of the world. I do

  311
  not know whether I should declare an interest, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, I have specific connections with purchasing in industry and I am aware of the need to have the ear of buyers. I am not always certain that trade fairs are the best places for obtaining the ear of potential overseas buyers.
  I should be worried if I were of the view that the greater percentage of the increase was to be spent only upon more and more trade fairs throughout the world. Can the Minister say what proportion of the levy will be spent upon trade fairs, or, if that is not possible, what the percentage has been in the last year or accounting period for which he has figures Frequently, it is the ear of the buyer which has to be obtained.
  It is not always buyers who visit trade fairs. One has only to go to a trade fair to realise how often—and this is much more the case outside Britain—it is an occasion for visiting by all sections of the community, who, much more than the ordinary buyer, are the main people who visit these fairs. I wonder, therefore, whether the use of journals has been sufficiently considered as a means of advertising to reach the bulk buyers who spend the money and whether there are not other methods which should not be more fully considered by the Wool Export Council.
  In saying this, I am not suggesting that the Council does not take as many opportunities as possible, but when the Japanese Trade Fair, for example, cost £24,000, which was way over 10 per cent. of the total amount of money available last year, one wonders whether, if a lot more were spent on trade fairs, the proportion devoted to this purpose might be excessive.
  The scientific research levy also has increased, from £209,000 to £286,000. This, too, is an increase of about 36 per cent. and it is considerable. It has been demanded, I believe, by all sections of the industry. It is interesting to note that the Wool Textile Research Council receives the proceeds of the levy and, as the Minister has stated, reimburses the expenses incurred by various bodies. These include the Wool Industries Research Association, which, I believe, receives the bulk of the money which is collected.
  312
  The universities and certain technical colleges also benefit. I should like to know from the Minister of State how much money has been given by this manner of grant to universities and technical colleges during the last accounting year. This is a matter of interest, because it is in this direction that much more original research can often be stimulated.
  I wonder whether the money available is sufficient. Can the Minister—I have given him notice of the question—say how much of the research work is being done on wool mixtures? By this I mean the new fibres which are blended with wool, which often are able to create fabrics which have a modern appeal, sometimes greater than that of wool. I realise that I must be guarded in what I say about that from the Dispatch Box. Nevertheless, there is great potential for an extension of the form of fabrics in which there is a mixture between man-made fibres and wool. I wonder how much of the grants have been used for experiments in this direction.
  The other thing which concerns me is the amount of aid which smaller firms have been able to get from the scientific research levy. When one considers the matter, it is fairly obvious that the larger firms are to a much greater extent able to carry out research. They have the necessary facilities and they have the money and the personnel to allow them to do it. It is the smaller firms which frequently do not have the capital backing and, therefore, are not able to carry out the types of research that they might desire. Is the Minister satisfied that the smaller firms are getting a fair and proper return from the scientific research levy?
  In looking round the industry, one cannot help but be impressed by the number of small firms which play their full part, whether in Yorkshire or Scotland, from which I have just returned. The Scottish wool industry has kept well abreast of advances in both manufacture and export in the past few years. However, I wonder what the crofters know about the Scientific Research Levy and how much they are likely to benefit from it.
  I noticed a Scottish Member on the Front Bench opposite, and I say at once that it is not my intention to encroach into his world for very long, but I am

  313
  certain that he would be the first to agree with me that the crofters have the right to be assured that, in new processes, new aspects of production and new skills, their interests will be considered and that they will be able to benefit just as much as the biggest firms in the country. Therefore, I wonder if the crofters themselves have been considered, and I ask the question because I do not know. I am not trying to make a political point, but it is of importance, because I see no reason why they should not benefit.
  I come then to something which was said by the Minister of State in his speech, because I found it more worrying than anything else that he said. Apparently, notice has been given to the industry that the grant of £82,500 is to be cut. I do not see how the Minister's words can be interpreted in any other way. Direct notice has been given to the Ministry of Technology that the Government are not to continue the grant at the same level as they saw fit to make last time.
  That is a major error, because I suggest that, if anything is to be done, there is a need for more money and not less. It hardly seems to fit in with the Minister of Technology's supposed desire at all times to help in scientific advance to find that, when we come to deal with an export industry which is achieving £160 million of foreign earnings, the Government should be mealy-mouthed in cutting a figure of £82,500. That, surely, is a nonsense.
  If I pursue that argument for very long, doubtless I shall be wandering a little wider than the Statutory Instruments allow—
  Mr. Speaker: I shall call the hon. Gentleman to order if he wanders too far away.
  Mr. Emery: I have no doubt about that, Mr. Speaker.
  If the Ministry of Technology grant of £82,500 is to be cut, then we say quite categorically that it should be considered again whether the amount of the new levy as envisaged by the Order is enough. Before we pass the Orders, I hope that I can have a clear answer to my specific question on that grant.
  That, apparently, is the only discord which exists between the two sides of the House on the main parts of the two
  314
  Orders, and, therefore, I would urge my hon. Friends to support them.
  7.15 p.m.
  Mr. George Craddock: Unfortunately, the debate was expected to come on at a much later hour, and therefore many hon. Members did not hear my right hon. Friend from the Front Bench. Nevertheless, I think that the Orders have the firm approval of hon. Members representing Bradford constituencies, three of whom are present. We have been giving them serious consideration, as we are particularly concerned with holding the £160 million worth of world trade which is done by the woollen industry, very largely in the heavy woollen district. We find that there has been a rundown in recent years because of man-made fibres, such as Terylene and other similar materials mentioned by the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Peter Emery).
  These are just casual thoughts that occur to me, not having heard the beginning of the debate, but I can say that we feel we have a special interest, and we hope that what occurred in the other place yesterday, when approval was given to these two Orders, will be repeated here.
  The hon. Member for Reading made a good deal about the increased levies in the two Orders from £369,000 to £500,000. He thought that it was insufficient. At least the Government have given attention to the matter and tried to redress the position to some extent. Having regard to the enormous trade of Bradford in particular, the heavy woollen district has built up a powerful image for good grade material throughout the world, and, when we are still doing £160 million worth of trade, I feel that the Minister might give further consideration, a bit later on, to an increase beyond the £500,000 suggested by the hon. Gentleman.
  Finally, may I say that we in the Bradford area—members of all parties and the trade unions—support both the Orders.
  7.18 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Tiley: I am happy to be associated with and to follow the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. George Craddock) in making

  315
  a short speech in support of the two Orders in his presence and that of the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Ford) as well.
  I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Peter Emery) that there is nothing as good as wool. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I nearly shot out of my seat when I heard my hon. Friend talking about other fibres mixed with wool. We have to put up with them, and the wool textile trade owes its success at the moment in no small measure to the way that it has reharnessed itself to mixtures of man-made fibre with animal fibre. Hon. Members on both sides of the House hope that that success will be extended. But it does not alter my first definite statement that there is nothing to take the place of wool.
  I join with the Minister in his tribute to industrial relations in the great wool textile industry. In Bradford, it is over 50 years since there was a strike of any sort in the industry, and that has been due to the two matters which the Minister mentioned. First, we have been blessed with wise trade union leadership for more than half a century. Secondly, because small firms—hundreds of them—together with the big ones, take part in this great industry, and we have had the tradition of the employer knowing almost everybody on his staff by name, and knowing their family troubles. I have experienced this tradition of friendship all my life. I was born in Bradford, and the Wool Textile Delegation, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Bradford, South has its head office in the centre of the city.
  Mr. Speaker: I am moved by what the hon. Gentleman has said, but he must come to the Order.
  Mr. Tiley: I was only congratulating the Minister on the way in which he introduced the Order and referred to the wonderful industrial relations in this trade. I regret that I trod outside the narrow path.
  I do not think that successive Governments have appreciated the extent of the competition which the wool textile trade has had to face during the last 15 or 20 years, but we are still sixth in the country's
  316
  exporting table and we export £170 million worth of goods, at a time when markets throughout the world have been closing to the textile exporting trade.
  The first thing that people do when they begin to manufacture things, or to advance their way of life, is to make their own clothes. In spite of the fact that many markets have closed to our products, we have maintained our place in the country's export league table, and have achieved this magnificent total of £170 million a year in exports. I am glad to support these Orders and to be associated with what has been said by the Minister, by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, and by the hon. Member for Bradford, South.
  7.22 p.m.
  Mr. Hector Monro: These two Orders have been of great benefit to the wool industry of Scotland, and I rise to add my general support for them if only to break the Bradford monopoly. Both the Orders have particular reference to my constituency, with hosiery in Dumfries, and tweed in Langholm. In fact, in Langholm, virtually all the manufacturing capacity is concentrated in the tweed mills where cloth of the highest quality is made. The woollen industry is, of course, the staple employer in the Borders, and is of prime importance to the economy of the south of Scotland, in much the same way as the Harris tweed industry is to the Islands, and those who have been to the Island of Stornoway know how vital it is to have a good tweed industry in the North-West. These Orders are valuable to Langholm, because any recession there will have the gravest consequences to a town which has no alternative employment.
  Continued promotion and research into the products of this industry is the stepping stone for expansion and advancement. I propose to deal, first, with research. There is general praise for the Wool Industries Research Association, and particularly for the help which it is giving in testing materials and in improving quality. It has done excellent work as an arbiter, and in encouraging university research, but more of the money that we are voting tonight should be devoted to this end, and particularly to the technical colleges. I wonder whether the Minister knows that a proportion of this money goes to the technical college at Galashiels,

  317
  which is the basis for education in the woollen industry in the Border area.
  The export levy is of vital importance to an industry which is made up basically of a large number of relatively small businesses, often long-standing and progressive family businesses. Indeed, firms with a staff of more than 300 are very much the exception, and most are very much smaller. Their resources as individuals are limited, but co-operative efforts under the wing of the Wool Textile Delegation and the Export Corporation are producing good results.
  Exports are exceptionally high. Some mills are sending about 80 per cent. of their production overseas. This is something of which we can all be justly proud. It must be particularly heartening to the President of the Board of Trade when he sees the way in which this industry has responded to the call for exports, and I believe that the hosiery industry alone exported more than £10 million worth of goods last year.
  In their export activity I have heard a suspicion of criticism, and this was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Emery). It is that perhaps these big trade fairs are not so advantageous in producing results as are the smaller exhibitions attended primarily by buyers, but this is a matter where their long experience is probably producing the best results.
  I agree with what has been said about the good relations which exist in this industry between workers and management, and I conclude by welcoming the extension of these Orders, which I am sure will stimulate all concerned to even greater efforts, and will go a long way to ensuring that the craftsmen and crafts-women of Langholm and the Borders will have employment for many years to come.
  7.26 p.m.
  Mr. A. E. Duffy: I start by apologising to my hon. Friend the Minister of State and to the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Peter Emery) for having missed their speeches. I very much wanted to hear what they had to say.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. George Craddock) will forgive me if I say that it is not good enough to welcome these
  318
  Orders and then paint such a complacent picture of the industry. If it were in such a fine state we would not need these Orders. The levies would not need to be hoisted up as they are being done here. I think that it does the industry a disservice to talk as though all is well.
  It is true that management and labour relations are fine and that the industry has a good export record, but it does not mean that notes of discord are not creeping into the relations between management and labour. Nor does it mean that there are no blemishes on the industry's export record. During 1964 and the early part of 1965 exports fell, and I think that we know why. We know the markets in which this happened, and it does not do the industry anything but a disservice to conceal this or to gloss over it.
  Mr. Tiley: The hon. Gentleman was not here when I made my speech, and I think that he has misunderstood me. It is a good thing now and again to let the heart rejoice about things that are right, be it in Bradford or anywhere else—that is what we have been trying to do for a few moments—and to get away from the great pressures of life. We have been enjoying ourselves, and have not been doing a disservice to the textile industry.
  Mr. Duffy: I heard the hon. Gentleman's speech. I was not aware that this was a place in which one rejoiced. I have heard it described as many things. Many constructions are put on the behaviour of right hon. and hon. Members, but never the one which the hon. Gentleman has just advanced.
  The hon. Gentleman talked about the raw material now going into the industry, and the percentage of it which was accounted for by man-made fibres. It is not good enough to say that wool is best. We know that it is. Being emotional will not help the people in Bradford. It is much better, for their sake, to be rational. It is much better to look ahead to 1968 and 1969. We know that wool is best, but that will not prevent man-made fibres accounting for a larger and larger percentage of the raw material being consumed by the industry. Of course it is fine to see, as the hon. Member might have said, and as many others have said. It seems to be an article of Conservative faith to pay

  319
  tribute to small family businesses. That is a virtue of the industry that we are discussing. But in some ways it is the great fault of this industry that it is still dominated by these small family businesses—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I must remind the hon. Member that it is not in order to keep entirely away from the Orders that we are discussing.
  Mr. Duffy: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. Big changes are pending in this industry. as in other industries. The lessons of the cotton textile industry have not been lost upon the more farsighted firms in the wool textile industry, of which there are several in the Colne Valley. These firms are very interested in these Orders and, like myself, would like to see a much higher levy. They are introducing more automatic machinery into their mills.
  Nowadays, unfortunately, the best machinery is not British but foreign. It is perhaps three times as expensive as the home-produced equipment, and if it is to be used to the best advantage there will have to be a different relationship between management and the unions. It will require a different basis of shift work—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Member to come to the levies that we are discussing in the two Orders.
  Mr. Duffy: I shall certainly do so, Mr. Speaker. The introduction of the machinery that I have been describing is reflected in the declining labour force. Questions that I have put in the House since I came here have revealed—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must keep to the terms of the Orders.
  Mr. Duffy: If you will bear with me for a moment, Mr. Speaker, I shall show how relevant my remarks are to the Orders. The labour force in the industry declined from 131,000 in December, 1960, to 116,000 in December, 1963. The assessment of the levies is based, as to about 75 per cent., on the number of persons employed. In those circumstances I ask the Minister whether he thinks that this is a satisfactory basis for arriving at the levies. Does he think, in view of the big changes that will take place in the industry, that it will be able to cope
  320
  if it does not have added resources for research and export promotion?
  Does he think that the industry will receive the help that it should have when the basis for the assessment of the levy is self-defeating for the industry and is based largely on the number of persons employed?
  7.34 p.m.
  Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: Several hon. Members have been surprised at the early starting of this debate. I rise only to make three points. I do not want anybody to imagine that the places that have been referred to are the only important wool textile centres. I represent Shipley, which is also an important centre, and which adjoins Bradford, I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Tiley) has said. I deprecate much of what was said by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Duffy).
  Not sufficient tribute is paid to the enormous extent to which voluntary efforts in research have been responsible for export promotion in the wool textile industry. These efforts went on long before the House ever thought fit to bring in Orders of this kind. They characterise the industry as being rather more wide awake than the cotton industry.
  The sums to be raised under the Orders do not represent all the money that is spent on research in the wool textile industry. There is a co-operative movement in the industry, and much bigger sums than those to which reference has been made tonight have been spent by the collective endeavour of individual firms. The hon. Member for Colne Valley is not being fair to the industry in denigrating its efforts. I am sure that he did not wish to do so, but that is the impression he gave in his speech. I agree that all is not well in the industry, but all is not well in many industries. There is always room for greater efficiency and co-operative effort. But I have always paid tribute to what the industry has done and is doing.
  Mr. Duffy: Why does the hon. Member deprecate what I have said and then go on to make exactly the points that I have made?
  Mr. Hirst: Nobody listening to the debate could imagine that I was making the same points as the hon. Member for

  321
  Colne Valley made. I am prepared to stand by what HANSARD says tomorrow. That question does not arise out of the Orders and I shall not pursue it, but I am not making the same point. I am pointing out that considerable sums of money, far beyond the sums involved in the Orders, are spent by the industry, and that it is not right to give the impression that it is not doing very well, and has had to come to the House for permission to raise a few hundred thousand pounds.
  When making mandatory Orders of this nature we must think of the many small firms which are doing exceptionally good things. The idea that these small firms are of no value is nonsense. Some of the small runs bring out the individuality of this trade. People pay far more than the normal price for something which has an individual character, and some of the small firms are doing a very good job in this respect. It must be remembered that they do not benefit as much from co-operative research as do the large units. We must therefore ration our enthusiasm for statutory Orders, providing we know that a great deal of money is already being spent in the industry and that it has always recognised, from the word "go", that however valuable wool is, and despite the fact that wool is best, it must march with the times.
  The industry does recognise the merits of man-made fibres, and it has carried out research work to see how far these fibres can be combined with wool, so that although less wool is sold in any one article more wool is sold in total. That is the purpose of these Orders, and that is why I support them.
  7.38 p.m.
  Mr. Cyril Bence: I want to make one or two points concerning the weavers of the Hebrides. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) mentioned them in passing, as did the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Peter Emery). The Orders state that the Board of Trade has consulted organisations concerning exports and the processing of wool. If my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan) had been here he would have taken part in the debate. Unfortunately;, he has had to attend a meeting. I apologise
  322
  if I do not make the case as well as he would have made it.
  The weavers in the Hebrides produce Harris Tweed, which is probably the finest woollen produce in the world—and I say that with due respect to the Borders. That is a different product, but Harris Tweed is well known all over the world. The Harris Tweed weavers in the Hebrides are organised on a different basis from most weavers in the United Kingdom. I hope that these weavers in the Hebrides were consulted through organisations, either of trade unions or employers, about the extent to which these levies—or any Government assistance—will go towards marketing their products all over the world.
  Harris Tweed is such a splendid product, and is recognised as such all over the world, that its imitators are many. There is no wool product so imitated. As my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles has said so often, the weavers in the Western Isles often find their markets prejudiced by imitations. I hope that Government assistance and grants will be made available and that consultations will be held with the weavers to help extend their markets for the genuine Harris product.
  This product plays a great part in the Highlands and will play a part in the Highlands' expansion. Any other industry and activity there must be complementary to it and not a substitute for it. I hope that there will be regular consultations and that the weavers can be assured that the Government are doing as much, if not more, for them in their remote fastnesses of Scotland as they are doing for Bradford or even the Borders.
  7.41 p.m.
  Mr. David Ginsburg: I wish to interpose myself between the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) who has now left, and my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Duffy). Much of what my hon. Friend said in criticism of the industry is valid, but it would be wrong to let the order go without the House paying some tribute to this important British industry. In my own constituency, there is still no substitute for wool. The industry has a very fine export and labour relations record. One could wish that other industries had this collective levy

  323
  arrangement to finance greater scientific research.
  Of course, one could wish for more scientific research by individual firms. It is essential that there should be more. The difficulty with this important industry is that it is still, unfortunately, a low wage industry. Therefore, the more that can be spent on scientific research the better will be the long-term outlook for the industry.
  I have studied the recommendations of the National Plan about this industry, about its needs in finance, building and re-equipment, all of which one recognises. The passing of these two Orders will give much help to the efficiency and the health of an industry on which the prosperity and well being of the vast majority of my constituents depends.
  7.45 p.m.
  Mr. Darling: I would tell the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Peter Emery) that, if the previous debate had run its expected course, I might have had time to paraphrase a joint brief more into my usual style. All the same, it was a very good brief.
  I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Duffy) put his finger on the key to the debate. He said that the woollen industry is doing well, but that it should not be complacent. The levies and the increased expenditure on research and exports promotion which they involve are proof that the industry is not complacent. I think all would agree that there is room for improvement. It is to seek in certain ways the improvement which is needed that we ask the House to agree to these increased levies.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) raised the question of consultation with the weavers in the Western Isles. There has been consultation and I regret to tell him that one or two of the members of the Harris Tweed Association are not very happy about the increased levies. I will not go over their arguments, but they think that they do not get enough benefit from them. The Board of Trade has pointed out in answer to these objections that the work done, for instance, by the research association contributes to the development of even the section of the woollen industry
  324
  in the Western Isles. Also, of course, what is spent on export promotion is surely of general benefit to the Harris Tweed Industry.
  My hon. Friend raised the question of protecting the trade mark of Harris Tweed. The new Protection of Consumers (Trade Descriptions) Bill, now going through another place, will, of course, give the Board of Trade the authority it needs to protect the agreed trade description and mark of products in this country, so that if anyone tries to put the agreed trade mark on a product which does not come up to that definition, that body of people—industry or any other group—would be committing an offence under the Bill. I am sure that, when that Bill is considered by this House, my hon. Friends the Members for Dunbartonshire, East and the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan) will give it a warm welcome.
  The hon. Member for Reading asked a number of pertinent questions. He wanted to know whether the levy will be sufficient for export promotion. This is, of course, a very difficult question to answer. No industry raising its money in this way will ever find enough to pay for the real export drive which the industry wants to mount. For instance, it is a matter of judgment whether the trade fair, the British Week or any other form of export promotion is the right form on which to spend the money available. Also, there is difficulty if one tries to spend the money too thinly over too many projects. Yet I would mention that additional funds are available for trade fairs from the Board of Trade and the British National Export Council, as well as from the industry itself.
  Discussions are going on all the time to try to find the best way of using the money for export promotion. I say this without reflection on the industry, but I think that British industry as a whole does not pay enough attention to market research in overseas countries. This line could perhaps be profitably exploited, from wherever the money comes.
  Mr. Peter Emery: I do not wish to embarrass the hon. Gentleman, but I asked him to give the percentage of the levy which is being used for trade fairs. If he does not have the figure, would he obtain it and give it to me later?
  Mr. Darling: I do not know how the money is broken down as between the various projects and it must be remembered that other money, in addition to that provided by the levy, is available for certain projects. I do not have the precise figure the hon. Gentleman wants but I will attempt to get it and give it to him.
  The hon. Member for Reading then asked if we could find out how much was spent on research into mixtures of textiles, that is, research involving man-made fibres and wool. I am afraid that these figures are not with me. Man-made fibres are being increasingly used in the woollen industry and the Research Association is at present undertaking research involving mixtures of wool and man-made fibres. I cannot give a breakdown of the figures, but if it is possible to obtain them I will let the hon. Gentleman have them.
  The hon. Gentleman wanted to know the amount of expenditure on research done by firms in the industry in addition to that carried out by the research association. It is difficult to arrive at precise figures, but the Federation of British Industries conducted an inquiry—an industrial research survey—covering a number of industries in 1960. It appeared that the total expenditure on research by individual firms in the wool and textile industry was about £55,000, but I do not suggest that that was a reliable figure, even for 1960, remembering that the survey represented a small sample.
  The hon. Member for Reading then asked about the amount of research done, in addition to that carried out by the research association, at universities, technical colleges, and so on, and the spread of the expenditure. The latest figures I have come from the thirteenth Annual Report of the Wool Textile Research Council and are for the 12 months to September, 1964, but I imagine that the breakdown would be much the same now. In that year the proceeds from the levy available to the Wool Textile Research Council amounted to about £238,000. About £225,000 of that was spent by the research association within the industry.
  I will go through the list of additional research because it might interest hon. Members. Leeds University came at the top, with its textile department getting about £13,000. Smaller sums went to
  326
  other departments, for example, for research on colour, dyeing, chemistry, and so on. The Bradford Institute of Technology also got a large sum, and the Huddersfield College of Technology and Keighley Technical College also received amounts, although I notice that the Galashiels Technical College received nothing that year, but had done in earlier years.
  The Glasgow Royal Technical College, Manchester College of Science and Technology, Birmingham University's Chemistry Department and a body called the Trade Effluent Research Association also received amounts. I gather that the latter spent the money on research into trade effluent, which is an important matter in the part of the country which the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Tiley) and I know well and which has more anglers per head of the population than any other part of the country. We want to do our utmost to stop the pollution of our rivers.
  The hon. Member for Reading went on to question the views which I had put forward about the Government expecting the industry to contribute more for research and said that he had been led to believe, from what I had said, that this would result in a smaller sum of money coming from the Government. Government aid to the industry is not likely to be reduced. In fact, it may well be raised, although the research association, if the Government's suggestions are carried out, will have to find a greater proportion of the funds it needs from its industrial sources.
  I am not able to report precisely the terms of what the grant will be over the next five years. It has not yet been fixed. However, I think that it will be at such a level that while the industry will have to raise more money itself, it will not mean that the Government's contribution will be reduced. As I say, it is more than likely that the grant will be increased. I cannot say more as the terms of the grant have not yet been worked out.
  Mr. Peter Emery: This is an important point. The hon. Gentleman will know that I do not wish in any way to misapply what he said. I got the impression initially that the Ministry of Technology's grant of £82,500 was likely to be cut.

  327
  Can the hon. Gentleman say categorically that that specific grant will not be cut in future?
  Mr. Darling: I cannot say categorically that it will not be reduced. This depends on what contribution the industry makes. These increased levies mean that the industry is proposing over the next five years to spend more on research. If that is so, then, whatever may be the terms arranged for the Ministry of Technology's contribution, I would expect that the Government's contribution would be increased. I cannot give a categorical assurance, because this is a matter for the Ministry of Technology. Discussions between the Ministry and the industry about the form which the grant will take in future are involved in this.
  The hon. Member for Reading then referred to crofters. The Wool Textile Delegation has indicated that it has arrangements in hand for a comprehensive inquiry into research covering the whole of the industry and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's valuable contribution to the debate will be drawn to the attention of that delegation.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley questioned me about the way in which the levy is organised as between productive processes—the consumption of wool and the labour force in the industry. It could be argued, bearing in mind the way my hon. Friend adduced his arguments, that with a declining labour force some new arrangement might be arrived at for the levy. The industry itself has given a good deal of thought to this matter. Both sides of the industry have decided that it is not at present feasible to make any change in the basis of the levy in order to offset both higher costs and the reduction of the labour force.
  The industry is, however, continuing to study other possible methods of assessment for the levy, and I think that we have to leave it there for the time being. I have not had a chance to check over either the hon. Gentleman's or my own arithmetic in this respect, but I am sure that the changes that have been made in the amount of the levy that comes from the two different sources will restore the proportion to the 75 per cent. that comes from the labour force and the 25 per cent. from the productive process.
  328
  I am very pleased indeed that these two levies have been received in this constructive way, and with a deal of enthusiasm. I am sure that this is the right kind of collective response from the firms in the industry and will help to break down any complacency in the industry that might exist. I am sure that there is a very good future for the woollen industry, whether it will base for all time its main operations on the theory that wool is best, or whether the introduction of mixtures with man-made fibres will change the character of the industry. I do not know what will happen eventually in that respect, but I do know that the industry will go on making the best textiles in the world, and that it is an industry with a very bright future before it.
  8.3 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Emery: By leave of the House, there is just one point I should like to make following the very helpful and considerate speech of the Minister of State. One thing that has been evident, and it was not dealt with by the hon. Gentleman—I am sure, by an oversight—is that, whether one accepts the views of the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Duffy) or those of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Tiley), there can be no argument at all that much of this industry is made up of small firms. That must be accepted.
  I should like to carry a stage further the point I made. The Minister of State pointed out that some Harris Tweed weavers did not feel that they were getting as much benefit from the levy as possible. I believe it to be true that smaller firms perhaps do not always know, perhaps do not always understand, how they can best benefit from the aspects of the levy. It is of the greatest importance that they should, and it is specifically for that reason that I speak a second time.
  I must press the point that that is necessary for success in both the export and the home markets, and in fostering advance in the wool industry. I do not intend to debate with my hon. Friend, whether wool is best or not, because I have a number of Friends from Lancashire constituencies as well. It will probably be a future of mixtures of the products of the wool industry and man-made fibres. But the benefits of research

  329
  into the operation of mixtures are not always open or seen and are not always able to be obtained by the smaller firms. However, it is very important that the smaller firms as well as the major firms should be able, for the benefit of the wool industry, the export trade and the country as a whole, to obtain this form of knowledge.
  Mr. Darling: With permission, I should like to answer briefly on that point. It was raised by the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) and I did not answer it earlier because the hon. Gentle man seems to have disappeared—
  Mr. Tiley: My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) regretted that he had to leave, and asked me personally to apologise. He had a dinner engagement, and was coming back at ten o'clock.
  Mr. Darling: I quite understand. I apologise for suggesting that the hon. Member came in and ran out again.
  There are many cases were quite small firms within the industry who are doing very well by themselves in their own line of activity must find these levies a fairly heavy burden. I have mentioned three cases and there may be one or two more. But it is important to note that the trade
  330
  associations in the industry, which have a large number of small firms as members, have agreed to bear these levies. This is something which is worth bearing in mind.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about the dissemination of the results of research, and how they could be made available to the small firms. The research association within the industry publishes annual reports, quarterly bulletins, newsletters and publications on particplar subjects and projects, and these are circulated to all members. I understand that recently quite a number of Saturday mornings during the year have been used for—I dislike using the term, but it is in the brief—"teach-ins". In addition, the research association has liaison officers who visit these smaller firms and so carry the information round.
  Question put and agreed to
  Resolved,
  That the Wool Textile Industry (Scientific Research Levy) (Amendment No. 2) Order 1966, a draft of which was laid before this House on 2nd February, be approved.
  Wool Textile Industry (Export Promotion Levy) (Amendment) Order 1966, [draft laid before the House, 2nd February], approved.—[Mr. Darling.]

  SCOTLAND (TRAFFIC WARDENS)
  8.7 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. George Willis): I beg to move,
  That the Functions of Traffic Wardens (Scotland) Order, 1966, a draft of which was laid before this House on 8th February, be approved.
  This Order lays down functions which can be carried out by traffic wardens in Scotland additional to those prescribed in the Functions of Traffic Wardens (Scotland) Order, 1962. It is in similar terms to the Order approved for England and Wales in May of last year. The broad effect of the Order is to permit traffic wardens to carry out functions normally carried out by the police in connection with the control and regulation of traffic. It will enable them to deal with moving as well as stationary vehicles, and to direct traffic at road junctions and other places.
  Paragraphs (2) and (3) of Article 2 make it clear that wardens are not to operate as members of traffic patrol crews and are not to be given the powers expressly conferred on constables by Parliament. When the Scottish Order of 1962 was made, the understanding was that the functions of traffic wardens in Scotland would not be extended until experience had been gained of their use under the existing provisions. This experience was a long time in coming, since for a long time Edinburgh was the only authority which employed traffic wardens. However, about the middle of last year we considered that there was sufficient justification for consulting the interested bodies about an extension on the lines of that agreed in England and Wales. The Scottish chief constables strongly favoured an Order on these lines, and it was also acceptable to the Scottish local authority associations.
  Whilst the growth of traffic warden services in Scotland has been disappointingly slow, and there are as yet only about 120 wardens in service, more and more police authorities are appointing wardens or have approved of or are contemplating their introduction. We are hopeful that this Order will stimulate authorities to give further consideration to the desirability of traffic wardens, and one or two have indeed indicated that
  332
  they will do this when the functions have been extended on the lines proposed in the Order.
  The employment of traffic wardens on a wider scale would be of considerable help in relieving the police of relatively unproductive duties and enabling them to concentrate on their primary tasks of crime prevention and crime detection. This Order will, we hope, serve to encourage the appointment of traffic wardens. I therefore hope that the House will give approval to the Motion.
  8.10 p.m.
  Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I am glad of the opportunity to say a few words on this Order. When we discussed the previous Orders hon. Members referred to the fact that they had come on earlier than had been expected. My problem is the reverse, and I hope the Minister will forgive me if I do not wait for the full reply to the debate.
  The argument for this measure is the shortage of police and the need to concentrate their efforts on what might be regarded as their most important functions. Despite the fact that the shortage of police in Scotland is as serious as in England, this Order comes before us about six months after the discussion we had on the English Order. Even on the previous Orders relating to non-moving vehicles the Scottish one was made in 1962, whereas the English one had been made in 1960. As the Minister of State said, the progress made in Scotland in the use of traffic wardens has been disappointing. He said that 132 were employed in Scotland. That in itself is quite a considerable progress, because in the latest report on the constabulary in Scotland, issued recently, it was stated that at the end of 1964 only 32 wardens were employed.
  It was a rather pessimistic report, for in the same paragraph it said:
  "It is to be hoped that traffic wardens will become familiar bodies on the streets."
  That shows what a dangerous job we are talking about.
  We are making a considerable extension in the duties of traffic wardens. Up to now they have been concerned only with questions of parking and so on, but they are to be concerned with controlling traffic. The question of training is very

  333
  vital. The parent Act, the Road Traffic Act, 1960, simply says:
  "A police authority shall not employ as a traffic warden any person as constable but shall take steps to ensure that only persons adequately qualified shall be appointed as traffic wardens".
  and also that traffic wardens shall be suitably trained before taking up their duties.
  The police authority or the chief con stable is the authority concerned in saying whether traffic wardens are suitably trained. It is unfortunate that there were not powers in the 1960 Act to specify the training—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is confined to discussing whether these additional functions should be given to traffic wardens.
  Mr. Taylor: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry about that. I did not intend to stray.
  The point I make is whether when we are extending the functions of traffic wardens so considerably it is wise to do so unless at the same time we have made arrangements for training them? In the Act from which this Order stems there was only a general invitation, but I do not rest my criticism on that.
  The second point, which is important, is that we are extending the powers of traffic wardens very considerably. That will mean greatly increasing the number and responsibility, but there appears to be no career structure for traffic wardens in Scotland, England or elsewhere. When we are encouraging larger numbers of traffic wardens in Scotland and giving them greater responsibility, we have to ask if we shall get the right calibre of men to undertake these extra responsibilities if there appears to be no career structure.
  When we were discussing the English Order on exactly the same matter an hon. Member referred to the question of controlling traffic as "a very ordinary chore". He said that there was no point in having policemen engaged on that duty. My experience—and I think the experience of most hon. Members, particularly in large cities such as Glasgow, where traffic problems are so serious and accidents are so frequent—is that controlling traffic at busy city crossings is not by any means "an ordinary chore".
  334
  It involves complex work and depends on great responsibility and physical efficiency.
  I hope that we shall not extend these powers without at the same time making sure that we have the right men entering what can be a real profession with a career structure, men suitably trained for the job. I should not like to think that we should put on the streets of our cities and towns where there are so many accidents, which seem to be increasing in number—10 million vehicles on the roads expected to increase to 27 million by 1980—and put this extra responsibility on them without making real provision for the training of wardens.
  I agree with the basis of the Order. We are short of police in Scotland. The last figure I saw showed that we were 858 short of establishment, a very considerable number, round about an 8 per cent. deficiency, and in the cities it was far greater. One in every five police trainees left before completing their initial probationary period. Something must be done about this serious situation, but I hope that in making this decision we shall also make arrangements for good training for the men we are to give this job to perform.
  8.15 p.m.
  Mr. Archie Manuel: I welcome this Order. The Functions of Traffic Wardens (Scotland) Order, 1966 is a logical development of the Order of 1962. The Minister of State, who so very expertly and briefly introduced the Order, was an expert in making probing speeches during his period on the Opposition benches. I am sure he will be delighted that I who am something of a disciple of his should try to ask one or two questions this evening.
  I agree with the general need for this Order and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for bringing it forward. My hon. Friend the Minister of State indicated that Edinburgh was the only local authority until last year which used traffic wardens. Edinburgh is to be highly commended for its initiative in trying to use police more expertly on other duties and making a success with the traffic wardens employed in the city. That should allay the fears expressed by the representative of the other large city which, possibly, has different objectives from those of Edinburgh.

  335
  If the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) consults his hon. and right hon. Friends they will tell him that he need have no fear about traffic wardens carrying out the duties given to them.
  Mr. Edward M. Taylor: In case the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) is under a misapprehension, I should tell him that we have had traffic wardens for a considerable time, and, I think, far more than Edinburgh.
  Mr. Manuel: I was thinking of wardens being used in a wider sense, developing from the rather limited parking duties they have performed. Edinburgh has made a success of that and it was a logical development. Perhaps I did not put the point clearly.
  It is quite understandable that when these added duties are to be undertaken by traffic wardens local authorities will approach the question with a rather more open mind. There will be added impetus to employ traffic wardens and therefore to use the police strength in various areas much more effectively than in keeping police on the duties of regulating traffic at busy street crossings and the like. This, I agree, is an extension of the duties previously undertaken by traffic wardens, but we should recognise that at many of our busiest crossings in Scotland we see policewomen effectively carrying out these duties. I agree about the quality of women and about the farmer's wife being as good as the lawyer's wife. Seeing the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) present encourages me to make that comment, as he takes an active interest in this matter. I imagine that the traffic wardens will equal the work done by policewomen in this connection.
  The Order begins with these words:
  "In exercise of the powers conferred upon me by section 2(3) and (12) of the Road Traffic and Roads Improvement Act 1960…"
  Just how far will that Act allow my right hon. Friend to proceed? Is the power unlimited?
  Article 2 of the Order says:
  "Without prejudice to the provisions of the Functions of Traffic Wardens (Scotland) Order, the following functions are hereby prescribed as appropriate for discharge by traffic wardens, namely, the control and regulation of road traffic at road junctions or at other places, whether on the highway or not".
  336
  What does "whether on the highway or not" mean? Presumably wardens will operate at busy street junctions where traffic needs regulating.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart), who is interested in agriculture, stages some brilliant and very busy agricultural exhibitions on land that has no highways giving access to it. However, by some means or other many vehicles get on to that land. Does it mean that wardens can be drawn out-with the Edinburgh area to regulate cars coming in their thousands to examine agricultural stock, intensive farming, or whatever other activity the hon. Gentleman engages in on his large and lucrative farm? I agree that, if the stock were all gathered together, they would make a very fine exhibition.
  The meaning of "whether on the high way or not" should be clarified. Anyone who thinks of traffic wardens visualises them operating on highways. We are not thinking of their being used to control crowds at dirt track racing or scrambles over hills or mountain passes. If an endurance test were staged for motor cyclists under the auspices of somebody—
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman surely knows that at football matches, race meetings, many sports gatherings and, indeed, at agricultural shows, on which he is chiding my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart), vehicles are accommodated off the road. To get them all fitted in, there must be somebody to give guidance. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have read the Order and arrived at that very sensible conclusion.
  Mr. Manuel: I have had experience of the hon. Gentleman in previous debates. I should have thought that he would have read the Order before making such an intervention. Traffic wardens can already be used for the purpose he is talking about—simple parking duties at, for instance, football matches. But the Order goes much further and envisages their use at busy road junctions. Then the Order goes on to use the words
  "whether on the highway or not".
  as if it is a new development. What range of activity could be covered by

  337
  this? Would the use of traffic wardens by private bodies at certain events staged in the countryside be covered? Football clubs which require the attendance of police to control crowds at matches must pay for the police. If traffic wardens were required to be present at a private venture, would the same charges be made and would the same principles apply as apply in connection with police officers officiating at public events?
  8.26 p.m.
  Mr. Hector Monro: I was glad to have the assurance of the Minister of State that the chief constables welcome this plan, because they have always been concerned at the use of special constables on traffic work, or even for controlling crowds at football matches, because their use might in some respects reduce the amount of overtime which could be paid to members of the regular force. Although I should very much like to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) and discuss the reasons for the shortage of policemen, such as the lack of sufficient pay, I will content myself by putting to the Minister what I regard as an omission from the Order. If included it would do much—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Roderic Bowen): The hon. Gentleman will be out of order if he does that.
  Mr. Monro: I will try to relate it to the Order. It is a desirable aim to secure co-operation between wardens and motorists, with the object of clearing the streets of unnecessary vehicles. Those of us who travel into the meter zone of Edinburgh and who go up and down George Street looking for a parking meter—an exercise rather like musical chairs—are frequently short of the correct change when we get out of our cars. It is a great disappointment that wardens are not able by Order to give change to motorists. If this were made possible by law it would go a long way towards securing co-operation between motorists and wardens.
  8.28 p.m.
  Mr. Neil Carmichael: I welcome the Order. Those Members of the House who are not Scotsmen must have been very interested in the little fracas between Glasgow and
  338
  Edinburgh. Perhaps it will be helpful to them if I say that I have recently discovered that one of the well-known Glasgow characters who was my opponent at two elections is a member of an association containing an equal number of Glasgow people and Edinburgh people—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that there is nothing about a fracas in the Order.
  Mr. Carmichael: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker—the difference of opinion between Glasgow and Edinburgh. However, there is an asociation composed of equal numbers of Glasgow and Edinburgh people devoted to keeping this rivalry alive. They spend their time thinking up anti-Glasgow or anti-Edinburgh stories, and perhaps the references to meters being in Edinburgh first and Glasgow now having more wardens have something to do with that.
  I welcome the Order. I am sure that it is the first of many on similar lines that we shall see as time goes on because the motor car has come more and more to dominate our society. All of us who are motorists are pedestrians as well, and we realise that something must be done about the problem of the motor vehicle and the drain on police manpower which it causes.
  The hon. Member for Cathcart spoke about the shortage of police. These traffic wardens will help to make up the shortage. Moreover, the shortage of police is almost a function of traffic density; as the traffic becomes greater, so the apparent shortage of police and the actual shortage on establishments put forward by chief constables become greater. An Order such as this which will allow chief constables to train, supervise and control auxiliaries to help in the control of the motor vehicle should be welcomed on all sides.
  I am certain that, ultimately, traffic wardens will become, as it were, a special group of traffic police. To my mind, this is the obvious step. I realise the difficulties. The motor vehicle is frequently associated with crime, that is, real crime and not motoring offences in the sense that we all think of them, and there could be a problem in giving special traffic police too much power and taking

  339
  away some apparent power from the ordinary police. Nevertheless, I am sure that we shall reach a stage when we have a special corps of traffic policemen.
  Most of the chief constables to whom I have spoken, whether they are happy about the training of wardens or not, are at their wit's end to find men for certain jobs, and they are quite willing to accept this idea. As long as the training of traffic wardens is in the hands of the body of chief constables we have in Scotland now, I shall be quite satisfied. This is the first bite in attempting to deal with the problems created by the motor vehicle in Scotland. The Order makes a good start, and I hope that the House will give it enthusiastic support.
  8.33 p.m.
  Mr. N. R. Wylie: This Order is of particular interest to me, and I want to say a few words about it. Like the hon. Member for Glasgow, Woodside (Mr. Carmichael) and all others who have spoken, I very much welcome it. It is a logical follow-on from the 1962 Order which confined the jurisdiction, as it were, of the traffic warden to stationary vehicles. It was essentially concerned with parking problems under earlier Statutes, and the next logical step, after the experience to which the Minister of State referred, was to move on to deal with road traffic as this Order is designed to do.
  It is all the more important to pursue this matter in Scotland. Like the hon. Member for Woodside, I hope that this is only one step along the road. I do not think it is right to call it the first bite. I think that, properly speaking, it is the second bite at the problem, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman, none the less, in hoping that there will be more to follow. It will be more and more necessary in future to make wider use of traffic wardens, and it is in the general interest so to do. Our rules of evidence in Scotland are such that we always have to have two witnesses to prove a criminal offence, and parking offences or road traffic offences are criminal offences, so that the road traffic burden is that much heavier.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): It is not necessary to have two witnesses in all cases.
  Mr. Wylie: I am confining myself to the subject before us, road traffic. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, in salmon poaching, deer poaching and certain other cases one witness will do; but the general rule of law is that two witnesses are necessary, and this applies to road traffic cases as it does generally. A heavy strain is imposed on the limited resources of our police in Scotland, and it is all the more important, therefore, that we should supplement those resources by wider use of traffic wardens. It is no use giving the local authorities power to do this unless they use it.
  I hope that they will make greater use of their powers under both this Order and the 1962 Order. I visualise the situation in Edinburgh, where, in George Street, a parking meter area, two traffic wardens are walking up and down while, round the corner, in Hanover Street, two police officers are doing the same thing. Surely we could make use of traffic wardens for more general duties, and, as I say, I hope that the local authorities will do so. They need not be confined simply to parking meter areas laid down in the 1960 Act.
  If the local authorities take this course, the police will be relieved of time- consuming duties. I shall not pursue this matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I have been impressed by the criminal statistics. It is clear that we must leave the police free to deal with the crime with which they are peculiarly suited to cope. The increase in crime is largely occasioned by crime against property, in which the clear-up rate is only about 27 per cent. A criminal exercising his genius against property, therefore, has a four-to-one chance of getting away with it. Crime pays in that context. For offences against the person, however, the clear-up rate is very high—90 per cent. This shows that the police should be free to deal with—
  Mr. William Hannan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Order refers to
  "…any other function normally undertaken by the police in connection with the control and regulation of road traffic."
  That seems to go far. In the context of what the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) and other hon. Members have been saying, therefore, may we have a Ruling on how

  341
  far we are able to go in discussing the Order?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) will be in order in discussing the expansion of the functions of traffic wardens and, of course, illustrating the difficulties of the police in advocating such expansion in the way in which the Order prescribes. But hon. Members are not in order in entering into general discussion as to the rate of crime detection in Scotland.
  Mr. Wylie: I merely intended to illutrate that the demands on the police in common law crime are such that we must relieve them of as much traffic duty as possible. To the extent that the Order seeks to do so and follows logically on the experimental nature of the 1962 Order, I welcome it.
  8.40 p.m.
  Mr. William Hannan: The Order arises out of the Road Traffic and Roads Improvement Act, 1960. In 1962, an Order was made to prescribe the functions of traffic wardens. The authorities are the police authorities and the 1962 Order, mentioned in paragraph 2 of the present Order, gives limited powers to traffic wardens. The 1962 Order authorised wardens to enforce the law in regard to certain offences and to exact fixed penalties for some offences, for example, parking, while for offences such as obstruction or leaving a vehicle in a dangerous situation it provided that wardens could only report such an incident to the police.
  The present Order widens those powers. Section 2(3) of the 1960 Act provided that wardens should not be employed to discharge functions other than those prescribed by the Secretary of State. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) complimented my hon. Friend the Minister of State who, when the 1962 Order was introduced, was the only hon. Member of the then Opposition to probe it. He sought, as we now seek, further information.
  A number of questions arise on that subsection (3). The basic question is when a traffic warden is a traffic warden and when he becomes a constable. He can become a constable for certain purposes
  342
  under subsection (3). When motorists want to make a complaint, they want to know how far the authority of a traffic warden goes. Their powers at present are limited to what is in the 1962 Order.
  Two or three important questions arise on subsection (12). First, it is quite clear that the police authorities are the employers, but this leads to the question which was posed by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor). As the employers, the police authorities are responsible for seeing that the wardens are adequately qualified and trained before beginning duty. It is the Secretary of State who determines the kind of uniform, but who supplies the uniform?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting rather wide of the specific matters dealt with in the Order.
  Mr. Hannan: I shall not quarrel with the Chair. I thought that, as subsection (12) was mentioned and as the Order confers powers under provisions of the 1960 Act, I would be in order in mentioning those provisions. Will these questions be in order? How many wardens are employed? Who pays the bill—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: This Order is concerned with additional functions for wardens and the hon. Gentleman will be in order in discussing the merits or demerits of those additional functions. He will not be in order in discussing anything else.
  Mr. Hannan: I will leave those points and go to Article 2 of the Order dealing with other functions normally undertaken by the police, such as the control and regulation of road traffic at road junctions and other places, whether on the highway or not.
  Can my hon. Friend tell me whether the powers which wardens are being given by this Order will enable them to deal with the situation in, for example, the City of Glasgow, where congestion is caused through buses pulling up away from the kerb so that passengers have to walk into the road and the traffic flow behind is held up? This is against the law, but in the City of Glasgow the law is not always observed.
  The S.M.T. and Glasgow Corporation seem to be the worst culprits. Congestion

  343
  is caused unnecessarily because drivers will not pull into the bus stop because of parked cars nearby. The tramcar system of Glasgow was withdrawn because, running on fixed rails, traffic on the inside was held up. If congestion is to be eased I would hope that the wardens will be empowered in this Order, or in some future legislation, to deal with this situation. I think that it is very desirable that police authorities should be relieved of clerical or other duties, thus freeing them to deal with greater responsibilities.
  I hope that my hon. Friend may, as a result of this Order, and the experience gained from it, be able to add other powers which he thinks will be wise.
  8.54 p.m.
  Mr. Cyril Bence: I, too, support this Order and am grateful for Article 2 which suggests that traffic wardens' functions can be expanded to enable them to control the flow of traffic. Going back over 40 years, I have always thought it unfortunate that the regulating of motor traffic was in the hands of the police. Traditionally, the policeman is a man who protects public order and who is on his beat to detect crime. When a policeman looks at one, or when a patrol car pulls in front of one when driving, one gets an inferiority complex and feels that one has committed some offence. The function of the police as controllers of traffic has been a contributory factor to the bad relationship in some areas and among certain groups of the population between the police and the public. The motorist feels that the purpose of the police is to detect him committing an offence rather than to help him on his way. It is desirable that we should have a force in the country which is solely concerned with the regulation and flow of traffic.
  I appreciate that in order that the extended functions laid down in Article 2 of the Order are carried out more training will be necessary. It is unfortunate that this is linked, and will be seen to be linked, with the police. We should think of traffic wardens not only as regulators and controllers of the flow of traffic but as controllers of pedestrians in areas of heavy traffic density in city centres.
  344
  Pedestrians can often, by unregulated behaviour, add to the traffic chaos caused by motor cars. I hope that the traffic wardens will play their part in this matter, just as school wardens outside schools conduct children across busy thoroughfares. We often see policemen holding up traffic in order that pedestrians may cross the road. I hope that this force will be seen not only as a means of easing the flow of traffic but as a means of helping motorists on their way through a town or in seeking parking facilities in a town.
  We are seeking, by the Order, to ensure that traffic wardens take the place of police in practically every motoring respect. I am all for that. This will have to be a gradual process. I hope that there will be on Scottish radio and in the Scottish Press a high pressure campaign to bring home to the motorist and the public that traffic wardens and the expansion of their functions is the development in our towns and cities of a new traffic control force.
  I think that the word "warden" too closely resembles the word "warder". "Traffic wardens" was perhaps an unfortunate phrase. "Traffic controllers", "traffic regulators" or "traffic patrols" might be more appropriate. There are groups of traffic controllers in blue uniforms on motor cycles on all main roads on the Continent. They are informed of areas of traffic congestion by radio. I have seen this done dozens of times in Germany, France and Switzerland. A traffic control force on the motorways, in the big cities and on the link roads between cities, complementary to and co-operating with the A.A. or R.A.C., which is completely divorced from the police could bring about a new outlook among members of the public to those regulating the traffic.
  I hope that publicity will be given to this new force of traffic controllers or wardens to show the motorist and the public that the Government are concerned to speed up the flow of traffic through our cities and to relieve the police of a function which they should not, perhaps, perform. The police could be far better engaged in the work of crime prevention and detection.
  Let us have a new force, completely divorced from the police, employed by the local authorities and supported by

  345
  the State, to try to get rid of the chaos on our roads and the frustration from which every motorist suffers in many of our cities—for example, by experimental one-way streets. Let us be honest about this. I should be sceptical of anyone who claimed to be an expert in traffic regulation and control, because I know no problem more difficult than controlling masses of pedestrians or motorists all wanting to get to the same place as quickly as they can on a narrow roadway.
  The policeman is not a suitable man for this task and I hope that we will progressively—
  Mr. Paul B. Rose: Would not my hon. Friend agree that a by-product of this would be an improvement in relations between police and public? I ask him to excuse my incursion over the Border.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member would not be in order in dealing with that intervention.
  Mr. Bence: Given five years and an expansion of the arrangements envisaged in the Order, we might get a relationship between the new traffic controllers and the motorist, a relationship much superior to that which has existed in the past and in the present between the motorist and the policeman. I believe that the Order will help us to create a new body with a new and better relationship. Notwithstanding the proposals and developments in our towns and cities, I hope and believe that we will have a better and freer flow of traffic in our cities and conurbations in Scotland.
  8.57 p.m.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: If hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies will allow a mere Sassenach briefly to intervene, I should like to make a protest, though not against what is in the Order. Indeed, its terms are very good and acceptable. When I saw it announced on the Order Paper, I did not think that there would be any talk on it and I expected that my Adjournment debate, on a really important subject, would have been reached well before now.
  The reason why hon. Members are making such hard going of the Order and are so confused about what, from the title, seemed to me to be a straightforward
  346
  Order is the badly-drawn Explanatory Note on its reverse. The Explanatory Note is gibberish. An Explanatory Note is intended to help hon. Members, to save their time and to tell them what an Order is all about, but this one does exactly the opposite.
  My only reason for intervening was to say to the Secretary of State for Scotland that if we are to have an Explanatory Note, not only on Scottish Orders but on English Orders, too, let us have a note that really explains and is understandable. I was disturbed in wanting to raise the point because the Explanatory Note carries a line in very small print which states:
  "This Note is not part of the Order"
  I thought that I might be out of order in referring to it.
  8.59 p.m.
  Mr. Ian MacArthur: I am sure that the whole House will welcome the two English interventions which we have had in the debate. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) that it is not our intention unduly to delay his Adjournment debate. If, however, he is reproaching us with undue length, I remind him that the debate on the corresponding Order for England and Wales earlier this year ran to 47 columns of HANSARD.
  It was good of the Minister of State to introduce the Order as he did. It was pleasant to hear him again. We do not often hear him nowadays.
  Mr. Willis: I spoke last week.
  Mr. MacArthur: He introduced the Order briefly, and to hear him was a whiff of old times, of the verbal expansiveness which used to haunt us not so long ago.
  The debate has shown that quite a number of questions arise. We welcome the Order in principle, but there are a number of points to which I hope the hon. Gentleman will be able to reply in a moment. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) and the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) both described the Order as a logical extension of the previous Order of 1962. So it is. It extends the powers of traffic wardens

  347
  quite substantially. The original Order restricted their functions to parked vehicles and the like, whereas the present one extends their functions to the control of moving vehicles. It is quite a wide extension which we should consider carefully, and there is one particular point which I should like the hon. Gentleman to consider, if he will.
  It relates to the last line or two of Article 2(1), which sets out the detailed functions which it is intended to apply to traffic wardens. The earlier part of the Article says quite specifically that the new functions are to be
  "…the control and regulation of road traffic at road junctions or at other places, whether on the highway or not, which are or are likely to be congested with traffic".
  So far, so good. It then goes on to say that traffic wardens are to be given powers to conduct
  "…any other functions normally undertaken by the police in connection with the control and regulation of road traffic."
  Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could give us some examples of what those functions would be. I should have thought that all the illustrations introduced into the debate so far were amply covered by the earlier words. What are the other functions to which the Order refers? I should like the hon. Gentleman to be a little more specific.
  There are precedents for extending the traffic control powers of the police to other persons; for example, to controllers of children's crossings. I can see no objection to extending traffic control further within the limited extent provided for in the Order. Although the Order is attractive at first sight, there are a number of questions which must be answered before it is approved by the House.
  Some years ago there was a feeling among the public that the introduction of what was then the traffic warden experiment might not be a happy experience either for the public or for the wardens. It is fair to say, however, that as the number of traffic wardens has increased and their spread has gone more widely across the country, so those fears have weakened to the point where they have almost disappeared. Experience has shown that traffic wardens perform their duties efficiently and courteously
  348
  in an area of responsibility which must often call for extreme tact and great patience.
  In introducing the Order, the hon. Gentleman indicated that one of its main purposes was to release police officers for other more pressing duties, and that point was touched on by other hon. Members, notably by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Pent-lands. I agree that this is an important purpose of the Order. We should as a result of it see the release of police officers to duties in other spheres where their presence is more urgently required. We make large demands on our policemen, and the more we can enable them to concentrate on the major problems of maintaining law and order, the better the nation will be served, no doubt to the greater professional satisfaction of the police officers themselves.
  I hope that I can stay in order by saying that we should consider the pressure on the police as one of the reasons for extending the functions of traffic wardens. The extent of the problem confronting the police is illustrated by the alarming rate of increase in crime. I propose to mention only one or two figures. In a Written Answer today the Secretary of State for Scotland said that the number of crimes and offences made known to the police in Scotland had increased from nearly 196,000 in 1955, to 352,000 in 1964, and in the same period the percentage of crimes cleared up fell from 40·7 to 37·2; a small fall, but one which follows a steady fall over the years, and illustrates yet again the great problem which confronts the police. They are trying to fulfil their functions nobly, at a time when their numbers are low, and often at personal danger. One sees that 310 police officers were injured by assault in Scotland in the five years 1961 to 1965.
  When the Minister of State introduced this Order, he said that there were 120 wardens in Scotland. This is a disappointing figure. I had hoped that there would be more, and it does not suggest that the development of the traffic warden system has progressed very well over these last years. Forces of traffic wardens in Edinburgh and Glasgow have been referred to, but I think that there are now traffic wardens in Stirling and also in

  349
  Kilmarnock, the Secretary of State's constituency. Can the Minister say what plans are being made elsewhere for the extension of the traffic warden system?
  The hon. Gentleman said that chief constables and local authorities had welcomed the Order, and I am glad to know that, but can he say to what extent he expects them to follow up their welcome by positive action in extending the areas covered by the traffic warden system? On the face of it, 120 wardens in our enormous country hardly suggests that we have yet reached the proper time to extend the functions of traffic wardens in this way.
  Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can say how recruiting has been progressing.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member should now come some way nearer the specific matter dealt with in this Order.
  Mr. MacArthur: I shall do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I suggest, with respect, that the recruitment of traffic wardens has a direct bearing on this Order, in that I do not believe that it is right to extend the functions of traffic wardens until there are enough of them in Scotland to carry out those functions efficiently, but I shall leave the point there. If, however, the hon. Gentleman can remain in order and touch on this point of recruitment pay, and so on, I shall be very much obliged.
  I appreciate that the Order is permissive, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some details of the likely extent of its implementation, and also, in the light of the low numbers which he has disclosed tonight, assure us that the organisation of the traffic warden system in Scotland is sufficiently advanced to meet the added responsibility which may follow this Order.
  Another question which arises is the extent of the authority of traffic wardens in carrying out these proposed functions. Article 2(3) of the Order states:
  "Nothing in this Article shall confer on a traffic warden a function conferred expressly on a constable as such by or under any enactment."
  What will be the position of a traffic warden if a signal is disobeyed by a motorist? There is a world of difference between dealing with parked vehicles, which is the present limit of the warden's function, and dealing with moving vehicles,
  350
  which will be his function under the Order. What sanction can he apply if he finds himself dealing with a drunken driver? I suspect that the answer is "None". If it is, I suggest that the legal relationship between the traffic warden and the public should be considered in detail.
  The debate also touched upon the question of training wardens to fulfil their new functions. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us something about the proposed programme of training. Can he also tell us what will be the standard of physical fitness? There may be a lower physical requirement for a warden whose function is to supervise the parking of vehicles than the requirement for a warden who has to supervise moving vehicles. This is not a small point. There may be many wardens whose eyesight does not enable them to control moving traffic as efficiently as is required.
  The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) made the helpful suggestion that if this extended system is to work successfully there must not only be more and properly trained wardens of the required fitness; the public must be educated to understand the functions of wardens, and to recognise them as persons of authority. I hope that some attempt will be made to call the attention of the motoring public to the extent of the duties of the wardens, so that when action is taken under the Order the authority of the wardens will be recognised and their instructions obeyed.
  9.12 p.m.
  Mr. Willis: We have had an interesting debate, which has ranged over a large area. Many questions have been raised concerning the future development of the warden service and the possible functions that might be given to wardens—all of which I have no intention of answering tonight. They are interesting questions, but it is not my function to deal with them in explaining this Order.
  I want to try to answer some of the points that have been raised. The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur), the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor)—who has apologised for having to leave—and one or two other hon. Members referred to the question of training. It is laid down under Section 2(5) of the 1960 Act that only persons who are

  351
  adequately qualified may be appointed as traffic wardens, and, also, that they must be suitably trained before undertaking their duties.
  This job is now left to the good sense of the police authorities and the chief constables, and I think that we can continue to leave it there for the time being. I do not believe that chief constables would appoint men who are not trained. Chief constables are men of responsibility, who know what qualifications and training are required if a person is to do this kind of work efficiently.
  The hon. Member also raised the question of numbers, and asked about the development of the service. The first traffic wardens to be employed in Scotland began work in Edinburgh in 1962. Today, there are 32 wardens there. Other Scottish local authorities, however, were slow to set up traffic warden sections and it was not until 1963 that 70 wardens were approved for Glasgow, although they did not commence operations until some time after that. A further six wardens were approved for Kilmarnock in 1964 and these are now in the post. In 1965, eight wardens were approved for Stirling and Clackmannan and six for Hamilton Burgh, though not all these are yet in the post. Twenty-eight have been authorised this year, 24 in Aberdeen and four in Inverness. Two other authorities have made provision to introduce wardens in 1966–67.
  Therefore, although it has been three and a half years since the original 1962 Scottish Order was made, traffic wardens are operating or are proposed in only nine areas. A number of other inquiries have been received, however, and it is hoped that this Order will stimulate interest in the setting up of warden sec-sections as local authorities become aware of their value in releasing police officers for other duties. It is difficult to explain why Scotland has lagged behind in the appointment of wardens, out perhaps local authorities have felt that it was not worth while introducing them when their functions were restricted solely to those laid down in the first Order.
  The opposite argument, of course, was that it seemed pointless to give consideration to extending their functions when there were so few in the post. But we
  352
  have decided to do that. We hope that this will have a beneficial result and that local authorities will now proceed faster in this respect. I may remind local authorities that the costs are grant-aided, which is a help.
  The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) also raised the question of what powers of enforcement the traffic wardens have. The answer, as he suggested, is none. It would require legislation to give them specific powers of enforcement. We think that we can give them the powers in this Order even though they have not powers of enforcement.
  After all, the vast number of motorists are law-abiding citizens. The vast bulk of them, seeing someone helping them by controlling and regulating traffic, will obey that person. If there is an accident on the road, and a lorry has broken down, the lorry driver gets out and directs traffic. In such cases that I have seen, nobody disobeys him. Yet he has no authority, but is only trying to assist in keeping traffic moving. We think that the same principle applies to wardens, that their functions under the Order will be generally supported by motorists, and that few people will disobey.
  The hon. Gentleman also asked what is covered by the words "other functions" in the penultimate line of Article 2(1). Some of the examples given during the English debate were these: placing road signs under police direction, driving and parking of vehicles, advising and assisting motorists on routes through towns and on parking problems, controlling traffic at road accidents.
  Personally, I am not certain that all the examples quoted tonight would be covered by the words:
  "…the control and regulation of road traffic at road junctions or at other places, whether on the highway or not…".
  There might be certain difficulties about interpretation of the words "on the highway or not". Some of the suggestions made tonight might not be strictly covered by these words and lawyers usually like to make certain by putting in a general provision of this kind.
  I was asked what sort of functions would be covered by the words
  "…whether on the highway or not…".
  Such functions could be associated with, say, the Highland Show at Ingliston or a rugby match at Murrayfield.
  Mr. Bence: Car parking activities?
  Mr. Willis: Yes. Large numbers of police are required to assist at the international rugby matches at Murrayfield, or when there are crowds of up to 100,000 people at Hampden for the football match. It was suggested that if wardens were available they could assist at Ding-wall next Thursday night, when Ross County meet Glasgow Rangers. These and others are the sort of functions which are visualised as coming within the term
  "…whether on the highway or not…".
  A number of questions were asked about how these functions and arrangements would be organised and who would arrange for payment. Arrangements of this kind are generally made by the chief constable. In any case, they would be made by the police authority concerned. This seems the desirable way of approaching the matter and the detailed arrangements in respect of payment and so on would also be worked out by the police authority.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) asked about buses in Glasgow streets and said that they were not stopping at the pavement. This is a common complaint in every city and town. The answer to his question is, Yes. They could be used for this purpose.
  I have answered the questions of considerable substance and although other questions were put to me I have, as I pointed out at the beginning of my remarks, answered as many questions as possible".
  I was asked if we were suffering from a shortage of policemen. This is true. However, I would not like that shortage to be exaggerated. There are serious

  WAYS AND MEANS [21st February]
  Resolutions reported,

  COMPANIES

  1. That, upon the re-registration of a company under the Companies Act 1948 in pursuance of any provision included in an Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to companies (hereinafter referred to as " the new Act"), there shall—

  (a) if the company is registered with limited liability and is to be re-registered as unlimited, be charged, on articles lodged with the registrar of companies with the application for re-registration, a stamp duty of ten shillings; and

  (b) if the company is unlimited and is to be re-registered with limited liability and a share capital, be charged, on a statement of the amount of the share capital to be delivered to the registrar of companies, the like ad valorem stamp duty as would be charged if the company were being registered under the Companies Act 1948 with limited liability and a share capital of that amount.

  First Resolution read a Second time.
  Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution,
  shortages in certain places, but it would be wrong to overstate the position, because we must remember that although such shortages exist, we have been increasing establishments in the last few years. Naturally, as one increases the establishment in an area one tends to increase the shortage unless there is an improvement in recruitment. This is natural. However, bearing the shortage of policemen in mind, it must be true that anything we can do to assist the police in their duties is of great value. There is no doubt that traffic wardens can relieve the police of a great deal of the work which the police could hand over to them.
  I hope that, for these reasons, local authorities will take advantage of the provisions of the 1960 Act and of Measures of this kind and will give a trial to traffic wardens. I am sure that they will find them of value. Towns which have experimented with the traffic warden system have found their activities to be of great value and that is evidenced by the warm welcome which the chief constables have given to this Order.
  I will not comment on any further points which were made during the debate. It has been suggested that other powers might possibly be given to wardens in the future. That suggestion has been noted and will be borne in mind. I am grateful to the House for the reponse it has given to the Order.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Functions of Traffic Wardens (Scotland) Order 1966, a draft of which was laid before this House on 8th February, be approved.
  put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 90 (Ways and Means Motions and Resolutions), and agreed to.

  2. That, in respect of the several matters mentioned in column 1 of the Table set out below, there shall be paid to the registrar of companies the several fees specified in column 2 of that Table or such greater fees as may be specified in regulations made by the Board of Trade.

  Second Resolution agreed to.

  HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS)(SCOTLAND) [MONEY]
  Resolution reported,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision for the giving of financial assistance towards the provision of houses in Scotland, and for matters connected with the aforesaid matters it is expedient to authorise—

  (1) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

  (a) of subsidies in respect of houses, or of the cost of houses or of the cost of sites of houses, approved by the Secretary of State and provided by—

  (i) a local authority, or

  (ii) a development corporation, in pursuance of authorised arrangements made with a local authority or otherwise, or

  (iii) a housing association in pursuance of arrangements made with a local authority or with the Secretary of State, or

  (iv) the Scottish Special Housing Association; and

  358

  (b) of sums in lieu of subsidies which have ceased to be payable on the transfer or lease of any houses, hostels or other land;

  (2) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the said Act of this Session in the amounts payable—

  (a) under section 89 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1950; and

  (b) by reason of the amendment of Schedules 1 and 2 to the Housing (Scotland) Act 1962;

  (3) such increases in the sums which may be issued out of the consolidated fund, raised by borrowing, or paid or repaid into the Exchequer, as may result from increasing to £145 million (or such greater sum, not exceeding £170 million, as the Secretary of State may by order specify) the limit imposed on the aggregate amount of advances which may be made to the Scottish Special Housing Association under proviso (i) to section 18(1) of the said Act of 1962, and such in creases as may thus result in any sums pay able under section 1 or 19 of the said Act out of moneys provided by Parliament.

  Resolution agreed to.

  REFRESHMENT HOUSES
  9.25 p.m.
  Mr. Henry Brooke: I beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Refreshment Houses Acts, 1860 and 1964; and for purposes connected therewith.
  I can hardly claim this as a maiden speech, as it is 28 years since I first entered the House and I have introduced a great number of Government Bills in the meantime. However, this is the first occasion on which I have sought to introduce a Private Member's Bill, so I hope that I may receive the traditional kindly indulgence. So far as I know, there is no element of party politics in my Bill.
  The Bill springs directly from the experience of many of my Hampstead constituents. I have received the strongest representations that something effective must quickly be done to mitigate the nuisance caused to all the neighbourhood by a certain type of coffee bar in the middle of the night and the early hours of the morning. These are places which do not sell alcohol, so they have no need for a licence of that sort.
  There are admirable refreshment places which stay open all night and create no trouble at all, and the Bill need not make any difference whatever to them. But there are others that give rise to constant complaints, and they are not confined to my constituency, as is evidenced by the readiness with which numbers of hon. Members have promised support for my Bill—Members from both sides of the House.
  The complaints made to me relate not to what goes on inside the restaurant or coffee bar—there are powers in the Refreshment Houses Act, 1860, to deal with that—but to the noise and nuisance created outside, late at night or in the early hours of the morning, in the street, by the crowds and the types of people which some of these places attract, and which that Act does not in any way cover.
  If no one was trying to get to sleep in the neighbourhood that might not much matter, but it is when one of these late-night or all-night restaurants establishes itself in the middle of a residential area that complaints arise, and naturally so. Any premises with planning permission
  360
  for use as a shop can be turned into an all-night restaurant without any further planning permission being needed.
  The complaints I have received include blocking the footway shouting and throwing abuse at people passing along the street, who are perhaps on their way home, banging of car doors and starting up of motor bikes and racing of engines when the place closes long after midnight—because, of course, at that time there is no public transport to get home by—and other nuisances of a fouler character.
  One might imagine that existing statutory powers would be effective to quell all this. But the experience of the police and of many local authorities which have tried them have proved that that is not the case. Neither the Public Health Acts nor the Noise Abatement Act nor good rule and government byelaws under the Local Government Act are effective in practice to deal with the root of the trouble.
  For example, when I asked a constituent who found life quite intolerable in a flat opposite one of these all-night places whether he had tried lodging a complaint under the Noise Abatement Act, he replied quite simply that under that Act he would have to give his name and address as complainant, and that would certainly mean that he would get stones through his windows—not, of course, from the owners of the place, but from some of the less desirable customers. Some very queer types of teen-agers frequent some of these coffee bars. I am quite certain that many of them gravitate to them from a distance and do not live locally.
  The police, as I say, help as far as they can. But there have been nights or early mornings when up to 50 per cent. of the available police manpower in my constituency has been called out to try to deal with complaints about these coffee bars, and that, of course, is splendid for the burglars who are practising their profession elsewhere.
  The only way to deal effectively with this very real nuisance is, in my view, to give the local authority a power, which strangely enough it does not possess at present, to fix a definite closing hour in any case where it thinks fit to do so.
  The principal Act which my Bill seeks to amend was passed no less than 106 years ago, in days very different from

  361
  these. That Act, the Refreshment Houses Act, 1860, says that anyone who wishes to keep open:
  "a house, room, shop or building…for public refreshment, resort and entertainment at any time between 10 p.m. and 5 a.m."
  must obtain a licence. The licence costs only a guinea and is obtainable on demand, like a dog licence. The local authority which issues the licence has no power to attach any conditions to it, however many complaints there may be about the nuisance which the place causes locally.
  My Bill will, quite simply, empower the local authority, if—and only if—it thinks fit, when it issues a licence, to stipulate a closing hour. It may be 11 o'clock, it may be midnight, it may be 1 o'clock in the morning, it may be such hour as the local authority thinks fit; but I suggest that it should not be before 11 p.m. If the place gives rise to no complaints at all, the authority need not fix any closing hour.
  There must, of course, be some safeguard against arbitrary action by the licensing authority, and the Bill will lay down that those who are running the coffee bar or refreshment house should have a right of appeal against an authority's decision to the magistrates' court.
  The Bill will not apply to Scotland. Nor will it attempt to deal with clubs, which often produce a more difficult and, indeed, a more serious problem. I hope that in due course the Government, whatever Government there may be, will bring forward fresh proposals to deal with those. My Bill deals only with places which are open to the public. I hope the House will give leave for the introduction of this Bill, which is designed to make good a gap in an Act now more than a century old, and to give my constituents and the constituents of many other hon. Members the right which, I believe, we should wish all our constituents to enjoy, even if we cannot always enjoy it ourselves when we are here—the right to sleep undisturbed through the night.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Henry Brooke, Mr. Goodhart, Mr. Berry, Lady Gammans, Mrs. Joyce Butler, Mr. Blaker, Mr. Patrick Jenkin, Mr. Atkinson, Mr. A. Royle, Mr. Burden, Mr. Higgins, and Mr. Gresham Cooke.

  REFRESHMENT HOUSES
    REFRESHMENT HOUSES
    Bill to amend the Refreshment Houses Acts 1860 and 1964 and for purposes connected therewith; presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday 11th March and to be printed. [Bill 75.]

  APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr, Grey.]
  9.35 p.m.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: By the good fortune of the day's business having been concluded so quickly, it may well be that more hon. Members will be able to contribute to this short debate than would normally have been the case. I shall welcome that. I am very pleased indeed that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour is to reply to the debate, because I have found him keen, courteous and helpful. I know that, if any points are made to which effect should be given, he the one to pass them on.
  The hon. Gentleman will have recognised that my Questions in December on apprenticeship and the industrial training boards were a preview to this debate. I know that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that those Questions, as indeed this debate, were prompted by my deep concern about the country's shortage of skilled manpower at this important time in our history. I believe that this worrying situation can only deteriorate still further, unless drastic and urgent steps are taken at national level. These words are not too strong, because the National Plan itself estimates that by 1970 we shall be short of about 200,000 men. We have all got to make our contribution by pooling our thought, experience and knowledge if by 1970 we are to minimise the problems which will arise from that.
  I believe that the formation of the Engineering Industrial Training Board was a step in the right direction. I believe that the methods of arranging the financial incentive for industry to extend its training facilities are absolutely right. The base from which they are working seems to be sensible. I also think that the means and mechanics of condensing

  363
  training into the shortest possible period should be treated as a matter of national urgency.
  The whole purpose of the debate from my point of view is to call upon the Government to give an unambiguous directive to the training boards to reduce engineering apprenticeships from five years to three years, if by using modern training methods it can be shown that the necessary "know-how" and skill can be acquired in that period. The experience that I shall bring to the notice of the House will show that it can be done.
  The initiative for speeding up training must come from the Government. If industry is to meet the serious manpower requirements which it will be faced with in the years ahead, industry on all sides will welcome any prodding the Government may think fit to give. We all know that over the centuries industry has evolved a method of passing down manual skills through the institution of apprenticeship. This is a very well thought of and accepted institution. Twenty-five years ago, when I was first aware of it, all apprenticeships were of seven years' duration. More recently the period has been reduced to five years, but on the Continent it has been much less than that for many years. If Britain is to maintain her true position in the industrial world, it must do better than some Continental countries, and do so as soon as it possibly can.
  I believe that it can be done without interfering with the standard required from this highly technical engineering country. The reduction in the period of apprenticeship can be brought about if a modern scientific approach is made in the training period. The old-fashioned time-wasting shuffle from teaboy to craftsman taking five years can, by what I call programming, be reduced, and I suggest that we ought to aim to reduce it to three years.
  Some of our larger industrial companies have already tackled this problem and they are providing training facilities and methods to meet their needs within their own industries. But my complaint is that companies which do this are too few and far between, and a real lead to bring more people in to work in this way must be given at the highest level if we are to
  364
  overcome the shortage which, as I said at the beginning, is such a worrying problem for the nation.
  I wish to draw attention to the work already being undertaken in this direction by several companies in my constituency, with special reference to what is being done by one company in particular. Peterborough is now one of the leading engineering centres in the country. It has moved from being a marketing town to become a centre of precision engineering at its highest level, and I am proud to know that in Peterborough we have some of the leaders along the road which I am now urging others should follow. I have in mind Perkins Diesel, Hotpoint, Newall Engineering, Mitchell Construction. All of these have good training schemes, and I pay tribute to them, but I shall concentrate tonight upon the special scheme operated by Baker Perkins Limited, a company which, in conjunction with Sheffield University, has given a great deal of thought to this question, has achieved some notable success and has set a pattern which other industries would do well to follow.
  With full union backing, Baker Perkins has been able to reduce the period of apprenticeship from five years to four in certain crafts. All hon. Members—I see several in their places tonight—who understand industrial dealings of this sort will know that to have got the period reduced from five to four years was a major breakthrough in training methods and in industrial co-operation. They will know also that to secure the agreement of the union would have been impossible if the arrangements for the four-year period had not satisfied the people with practical knowledge of these matters and ensured that the quality of the training was in no way interfered with.
  It is well known that Baker Perkins of Peterborough has long been in the forefront of industrial training. Over the years, this company has built up an apprenticeship training scheme second to none. As early as 1954, it built its own apprentice school with a capacity for over 90 apprentices to be trained at one time. The school was fully equipped with the complete range of machine and hand tools which any future craftsman would be likely to meet. It was staffed by ex-craftsmen trained as instructors, men who knew the job from a practical standpoint

  365
  and who had a deep interest in teaching young men the fundamentals of industrial practice. All this has shown itself in the results which have been achieved.
  Lectures, physical education, film shows and an intensive course of practical work were instigated and integrated with the respective academic courses run at the local technical college. This is the sort of partnership which is right today. This is the base of the pattern which everyone must follow—the practical man who has gone through his own apprenticeship and who has a special capacity for passing on his knowledge to others working in with the local authority schemes upon which we are spending so much money and from which so much value can be obtained if we work them properly.
  Throughout the Baker Perkins group, over 1,000 young men are in apprenticeship at any one time. In Peterborough alone this figure is about 350, with an annual intake of up to 80 craft apprentices. Baker Perkins, needing as it does a very high percentage of skilled craftsmen, has properly given a lot of thought to this. But the company has never been satisfied with what I call the traditional method. It says that every time we get new knowledge and new ideas we ought to move forward and the only way in which new ideas can be of any general use is if the benefits that flow from them are passed on to everyone involved.
  With this as its outlook, it has explored many new avenues of approach in the critical problem of getting people through the apprenticeship period up to the stage where they really are craftsmen, and the techniques that the firm has worked out and applied, and which are proving so successful, are techniques which I suggest must be followed at a national level.
  The Baker Perkins background of enjoying an excellent relationship with the A.E.U. has proved of immense value in breaking through the traditions and introducing the four-year apprenticeship period, but it has done it by using what I would call, in the certainty that it is true, a revolutionary teaching technique.
  The scheme that comes under that description was prepared over a number of years and, after careful consideration, agreement was reached in July, 1964, covering the major engineering crafts of fitting, turning, milling, mill wrighting
  366
  and toolmaking. The craft apprentices of this company, for the first time ever in this country are given the chance to become fully qualified craftsmen at the age of 20 as opposed to the conventional age of 21. I am glad that this has happened.
  I have never believed that there is any logic in assuming that a novice becomes competent and skilled just because he reaches the age of 21. The knowledge that the years have been put in and that a person has reached the age of 21 is no proof that he has reached the required level and if one has apprentices who are more skilled and above the average, let them get the benefit of coming out and being craftsmen at an earlier age.
  In the scheme, emphasis has quite properly been placed upon being skilled in certain work and not on the assumption that one qualifies merely by learning the subject for a given length of time. To ensure that competence is achieved to everyone's approval, the apprentices have to complete a test to satisfy both management and the A.E.U. representative and I believe that if both management and union can be satisfied—the management because it wants skilled people using the title of "skilled men" and the union because it wants a high level—that is all that should be wanted.
  I am sure that hon. Members will agree that this arrangement is a marked advance on any previous arrangements that have operated up to now. How did the company achieve it? It did so by what I call "programming". We know about programming of computers, in which one feeds in the right sort of information in the right way and generally, I understand, gets the right sort of answer. Certainly, programming has been the answer for the Baker Perkins scheme.
  The firm instituted a four month pre-apprenticeship period which all apprentices have to go through. The E.I.T.B. has also concluded that a pre-apprenticeship training is an essential prerequisite to formal apprenticeship. There again, great minds think alike. Then the firm looked forward at the work that craftsmen are required to do now and estimated what will be required in future. From these estimates and

  367
  this knowledge, it prepared training manuals, which break down into easy and progressive steps. There is the learning of basic and theoretical study and the firm also introduced instruction for workshop practice. The firm also includes the operating of machine tools.
  It found out all the teaching and guidance which would have to be given over a longer period of apprenticeship and broke it down into easily understood programmes which could be put in manual form, or in a card index, or on a screen for visual instruction, so that a progression could be arranged to provide for the apprentice thoroughly to understand the first step before moving on to the second.
  The training manuals provided by this company have all been closely studied by the officers of the Engineering Industry Training Board who have praised them highly. They are set out in clear and progressive steps showing the fundamentals of craft practice which all apprentices have to know in their chosen craft. The firm has written 29 different programme tests covering four craft groups—fitting, turning, milling and sheet metal work. These programmes are in book or card index form and others are on teaching machines. Each apprentice progresses entirely at his own speed. If there are 20 apprentices and one has a capacity for learning quickly, the card indexes and the manuals are available and he can absorb information at his own speed, while the slower thinker who wants more time is allowed to proceed at his own speed. The fast learner is not held up by the slow thinker, which is often the case when people are taught in groups or classes.
  Let us suppose that a programme deals with the hacksaw. The trainee studies diagrams of the hacksaw and reads about its uses and its limitations. He must be able to answer written questions on that tool and about its use before he can go to the next stage, which may be going into the workshop actually to use it. In this way, the trainee receives individual instruction and is not dominated, which would mean sometimes being penalised, by the average speed which a group would have to follow. It means that the quick thinker and the able chap can get to the standard of competence required
  368
  in three years when the slower thinker might take four or even five years.
  The system also enables much better use to be made of the instructors. They are no longer expected to spend endless hours repeating the same lecture and using the old diagrams on the blackboard. The instructor is free to give individual instruction to the individual apprentices who want it. If one man does not need to have extra tuition from the instructor because he is following the card index, the instructor is left free and able to look after those who really need his help. If the instructor is not immediately available to assist an apprentice, the apprentice can tackle another programme by himself until the instructor is ready. In this way programmed instruction is a most efficient and useful time saver.
  Having said that, I stress very strongly that other facilities still have to be provided. Quiet rooms are needed in which the trainee can follow the programme through. Machine hand tools on which to practise are still needed, and certainly fully qualified instructors are essential. I repeat that we must have the co-operation of the local technical college in order to see that academic and practical work are properly integrated.
  Because the firm which I am citing as an example is a large firm, it may be thought that the scheme can be used only by large companies, but nothing could be further from the truth. The technique of programmed instruction as I have described it is invaluable for small companies and perhaps even better for small companies I believe that the brochures and manuals which have been prepared by Baker Perkins, and which are available for smaller companies to use would be of greater advantage to such companies than they would be to the large companies. The correctness of the material contained in the manuals is beyond question. The programmes were written by a supervisor, himself a young man and an ex-apprentice. He was assisted at every stage by a research member of the Department of Psvchology of the University of Sheffield. A balanced emphasis on the different needs of industry and the correct psychological approach has been effectively achieved.
  So far the results have been good, and I believe that the Minister, through the training boards, should take urgent steps

  369
  to apply this lesson to industry. It is in the hope that he will do this that I have initiated this debate. I am only too well aware that to attempt to convey the whole scheme through words alone can, at the very best, be most inadequate. I am happy, therefore, to invite the Minister, members of the training boards and any of my colleagues in the House to come to Peterborough and see the scheme working. It would present a picture which my words cannot hope to paint. If they could come and see these manuals and teaching machines, and the scheme working, they would be as enthusiastic about it as I am. I hope that without any further delay, even without seeing the scheme, the Minister will agree to give the necessary directive to the training boards to see if, by this or some other method, the apprenticeship period cannot be reduced to a level more in keeping with modern times.
  9.57 p.m.
  Mr. James Hamilton: I welcome the opportunity of taking part in this debate and congratulate the hon. Gentleman the Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) on bringing forward this subject. My experience has been entirely different from that of the hon. Gentleman. He has mentioned the firm of Newall. I am very pleased to know that there is one forward-looking firm which is taking cognisance of the fact that we need craftsmen in industry and will need more by 1970. We must realise that there are in industry many industrialists who are not prepared to play their full part in the provision of craftsmen. We find that some of them, even in 1966, are not prepared to allow apprentices to attend day-release classes.
  It has also been my experience that many of the lads who are able, by the efforts of the trade unions, to attend day-release courses, are not prepared to measure up to their responsibilities. They do not apply their minds to their work at the technical colleges and, because of the shortage of craftsmen, firms are saddled with boys who, in many instances, do not want to enter the engineering industry.
  A further criticism that I want to make is that many American industrial firms which are establishing themselves in this country are not prepared to employ apprentices. They require craftsmen,
  370
  but what they are doing is permitting British firms to train apprentices and then taking them when they have qualified as craftsmen. They are not prepared to make a contribution to industry. Many of the trade unions have for a long time put forward the same views as have been put forward by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Peter borough. At the same time, the employers are not prepared to accept that view. In the engineering industry the unions have been trying to reach agreement with the employers to give them the right to negotiate for apprentices only. Up to now, this has never been agreed to, and—
  It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Grey.]
  Mr. Hamilton: —that, in my opinion, is a contributory factor to the state of affairs which exists.
  I will not go as far as the hon. Member for Peterborough went on the question of the first year of apprenticeship. He knows that in the engineering industry if a boy continues at school until 17 years of age that year counts towards his apprenticeship training, which is acceptable to all of us. But many lads going into industry, during the first year of apprenticeship, run errands and make tea and do not serve any useful purpose in their apprenticeship training. Most of us deplore this, and we must do something about it if we are to get the craftsmen who are so urgently required.
  When a boy reaches the fourth year of apprenticeship he is, in many industries, a craftsman, to all intents and purposes. He does the work of a craftsman. He is capable of doing the piecework which craftsmen are doing in certain industries. But the rate which he receives is only 90 per cent. of the rate paid to the craftsman. Employers must measure up to their responsibilities. They must pay attention to the point of view which the trade union movement has been expressing for a considerable time. If the American firms play their part and allow apprentices to work in their establishment, and if the employers play their part concerning wages, I am sure

  371
  that the craftsmen who are so vitally essential will come into industry and that by 1970 we will have solved this very serious problem.
  Scotland is denuded of craftsmen for a reason which is well known to every hon. Member. When we had craftsmen, we did not have jobs for them to do. In 1962, under the previous Administration, there were 136,000 unemployed in Scotland. Boys were not going into industry because craftsmen were not working in the industries to give boys the opportunity of learning the work. Therefore, to get the necessary apprentices, there must be full employment to ensure that they get the opportunity to serve their full apprenticeship training.
  One firm has been mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. I do not want the House to think that we do not have forward-looking firms in Lanarkshire. There is an American firm in my constituency which is the opposite of the view which I have already expressed, Honeywell Controls Ltd., which, to its eternal credit, gives boys ample opportunity. It has its own training centre. I have visited the centre and seen the sort of training which boys are given. I have also seen the incentives which are given to the boys. Most important of all, the boys are working under first-class conditions.
  These boys are giving the necessary good performance at technical colleges. They are also showing the necessary adaptability in the various factories. Because of the method of selection, however, we find that boys who have the requisite ability stay only at shop-floor level. The opportunity is not afforded to them to get to their proper status and reach the drawing office. This is in many circumstances a case of "jobs for the boys".
  Some of my hon. Friends may be dismayed to hear this point of view expressed, but I can prove it 100 per cent. Before I became a Member of Parliament, when the opportunities were afforded to me on some of the boards and also as a trade union official, I expressed this very point which I am expressing tonight.
  Unless all three parties in industry—not only the industrialist, but the trade
  372
  unions and, probably most important of all at this serious stage in industry, the Government—work together, I am convinced that we shall not make the progress that we should. I believe, however, that these young men could easily become expert craftsmen in a period of four years. If we take this sort of approach and if we get the expected leadership from the Government, I am sure that by 1970 we can solve this serious problem.
  10.7 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ernest Thornton): I hope to leave a little time available for one or two others of my hon. Friends who have great practical experience in this subject. I thank the hon. Baronet the Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) for his kindly reference and also for his courtesy in giving me a detailed indication of the line he intended to take, which enables me to give a more considered and intelligible reply to his case.
  The hon. Baronet has argued persuasively that it is high time that industry took a long, hard look at the five-year apprenticeship. He also argued that it is high time that industry faced the fact that that period no longer reflects the time it takes to acquire most craft skills. The point was made also by my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton).
  The hon. Baronet has suggested that modern training methods, particularly programmed instruction, enable skill and knowledge to be acquired more rapidly and he has well demonstrated this by giving the experience of a firm in his constituency. The hon. Member has also pointed out that unless the training period is reduced there is little incentive to firms to apply these new methods. He has also argued that by reducing the period of apprenticeship, industry will be forced to train more effectively and that more trainees could then be taken on.
  I listened with particular interest to the hon. Gentleman's account of training activities in the firm to which he referred. I shall have something to say later in my remarks about the use of programmed instruction, which he dealt with in some detail. But I should like to say now that the advantages and disadvantages of

  373
  this method of instruction are well known to our Department. Indeed, we are experimenting in the use of these very techniques for the training of some of our Employment Exchange staff. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased and perhaps a little surprised to learn that.
  Having said that, I should sound a note of caution. Programmed instruction has its uses, but let us not regard it as the universal panacea for our training shortcomings. I am not suggesting for a moment that the hon. Gentleman thinks that it is a universal panacea. There are other solutions, as I hope to show in a few minutes.
  I now turn to the main part of what I have to say. I want to make it clear at the outset that I agree with almost everything that the hon. Member said. In the time available, I hope to show that a good deal of progress is being made in the direction so strongly urged by him. However, before I do that, perhaps I may be permitted one or two observations about the nature of the problem.
  First of all, our main concern should be with the effectiveness and the relevance of training. We should not start out by saying that training should last five years, four years or three years. We should ask first, what training is necessary, how can it best be given, and what education course is appropriate. In the light of the answers to those questions, we can then say how long the training period should be. As I think the hon. Gentleman would admit, the answer will be different for different trades and for different occupations. That is why I believe that we should be cautious about simply substituting four years or three years instead of five years. Some trades still need five years. Others may not need even as much as three years.
  Secondly, we should remember that the length of an apprenticeship reflects not only the time required to learn a skill but also the time that it takes to gain the speed, maturity and experience which are expected of the skilled craftsman. It also reflects the age at which it is thought reasonable to pay the full adult rate, and that was a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell.
  The age at which it is thought reasonable to pay the full adult rate is one of
  374
  the terms and conditions of employment which should not logically influence the period of training. I am afraid that in the past it has tended to do so, since it has been difficult to dissociate the length of training from the period during which the trainee received less than the full skilled rate. It is the appropriate training period with which the Training Boards will be concerned, and not the age at which a young person becomes entitled to a man's wage.
  Thirdly, it does not necessarily follow—and I emphasise the word "necessarily"—that by reducing the period of training that an apprentice receives we shall increase automatically the total number of apprentices. If, for example, a firm needs to replace a dozen skilled tradesmen each year, it will take on, say, 14 apprentices each year, whether the training period is four years or five years. That will mean no increase in the number of apprenticeships available to school leavers. It will mean simply a shorter time before they become qualified.
  In my view, the most important reason for adjusting the period of apprenticeship is the stimulus that it will give employers to review and improve their training arrangements. I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree with that—to make training more purposeful and systematic, to make it better supervised and directed, and less wasteful of talent. All this would be pure gain, but let us not fall into the error of reducing the period of apprenticeship just for its own sake, without ensuring a corresponding improvement in the quality of training. I think that this is of prime importance.
  This will be the responsibility largely of the training boards set up under the Industrial Training Act. Ten boards have now been established, covering over 7 million of the country's labour force—and a majority of the annual intake of apprentices. These boards have already made a considerable impact, and at least two of them—the Engineering and Iron and Steel Boards—have made a great deal of progress in a thorough review of training for craft apprentices.
  I am quite sure that these and similar efforts by other Boards will bring about important reforms in the way these young people are trained—reforms which will take account of the advantages of more

  375
  intensive methods of instruction and which will embody a more flexible and adaptable approach to craft training.
  On the question of length of training, the boards have received clear guidance from the Central Training Council. In its first Report to the Minister of Labour, the Council stated its view that
  "The length of the period of training should be related realistically to the content of the course; and the Minister will expect proposals under this heading to demonstrate that this principle has been followed."
  We endorse these views, and we shall expect the boards to heed them.
  It is fair to say that there has been some move in recent years towards a shorter period of apprenticeship—moves which the previous and present Governments have consistently advocated and encouraged. This movement has taken two forms: first, where a boy has remained at school after his 16th birthday, the period so spent has been regarded as counting in full towards the apprenticeship; and, secondly, there has been a reduction in the period of apprenticeship for all apprentices.
  For example, in the building industry all regions have, from the last year, operated a four-year apprenticeship scheme. In the engineering industry a boy who remains at school for full-time education after his 16th birthday can count the time spent at school up to the 17th birthday towards his apprenticeship, and boys starting after their 17th birthday serve four years apprenticeship. Other industries which have reduced the length of apprenticeship schemes are electricity supply and hotel and catering.
  I admit that we have some way to go before the length of apprenticeship is clearly and specifically based on, and derived from, a close analysis of the training and educational requirements of the job. But now that we have industrial boards with substantial powers and clearly defined responsibilities, I am confident that progress will be much more rapid.
  The hon. Member spoke of the advantages of programmed instruction in apprenticeship training. He will be interested to know that the Central Training Council has in the last year given a lot of time to an examination of various forms of programmed instruction, and
  376
  to the benefits which can be secured from them. The Council is convinced that programmed instruction can be an invaluable aid to the instructor and to the trainee, and that it can encourage a systematic approach to training on the part of firms.
  In the hope of encouraging wider experiment with programmed instruction, the council has today published a memorandum on the subject. It is a coincidence that it should have done so today, and when the debate ends I shall be pleased to hand a copy of the memorandum to the hon. Member. The Ministry will be commending the memorandum to the attention of all training boards, several of whom have already shown considerable interest in ways of using this form of instruction.
  I am grateful to the hon. Member for what he has said tonight and for giving me the opportunity of indicating our interest and our actions in this important field.
  Mr. R. W. Brown: Will my hon. Friend take up with the boards the necessity to ensure, when they are considering reducing the amount of time spent in training, the use of any spare time that is available to turn out whole men, in the sense that they are given training outside the craft side, and learn how to live in industry? If this is done it will pay off at the end of their training, when they become skilled men.
  Mr. Thornton: I shall certainly consider that important point.
  10.21 p.m.
  Mr. John Page: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) for giving the Parliamentary Secretary the opportunity of making such an interesting and forward-looking speech. I am convinced that the apprentices who are coming into industry today will not, as in the past, stick to one last throughout their working lives. What we need is a shorter period of broad industrial training, to give them flexibility in the use of their abilities over the period of their working lives.
  I was disappointed by the references made by the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton) to American companies. I happen to know personally of

  377
  three American companies which take a special interest in the training of apprentices. I am sure that when the benefits of the Industrial Training Act filter through to a wider section of our industry, in Scotland and elsewhere, the hon. Member will not feel it necessary to make these criticisms of American companies.
  10.22 p.m.
  Mr. Ted Leadbitter: At this time of night, having listened to the excellent reply by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the questions raised by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls), brevity is the best approach, especially as it may allow one of my hon. Friends, who has waited for an hour or so, to make a few remarks during the last minutes of this debate.
  We ought to place on record, for special mention, the kind of work that is done by the various bodies which are concerned with training young people. The House has a tendency to concern itself with the crux of a problem and to confine its attention to the need to do something which has not been done before, forgetting for a while what has been done well in the past, and what, because it has been done well, has had a lasting influence within industry.
  Special mention should be made of local education authorities' technical and further training colleges. We should also mention individual employer training schemes, and to complete the picture some reference should be made to the widening influence of training centres, especially in the special and designated areas. Nevertheless, we must admit that in dealing with apprenticeships we are dealing with an anachronism. Our apprenticeship schemes are out of date. At best, they are inadequate. At their worst, they still represent the exploitation of young labour. Therefore, I am glad to learn from the Parliamentary Secretary of the changes which are taking place.
  However, when we look at the question of training as a whole and the high place of broad streams of effort for the training of our people, we must admit that not enough is being done. It does not mean that the right type of training is achieved, that it is being applied in the right places, enjoyed by the right people for the right
  378
  reasons, that we are getting the best value for money, or that enough research is directed towards our proper manpower needs in a scientific age.
  The hon. Member for Peterborough has done the House a service by bringing this very important subject to our notice. The country should take note of some of the lessons which have already been brought before the House. I conclude with some of these lessons.
  First, our apprenticeship schemes must change in form as well as in pace. Second, the employer-employee tie should be modified and the base for training provision should be broadened to an industrial level. Third, the restrictions between journeymen and apprenticeship ratios which are reminiscent of an insecure past should be removed or modified or there should be an agreed transitional period to seek that modification. This is a serious deterrent.
  Fourth, the number of years for any apprenticeship should be reduced. Fifth, a person should not be debarred from apprenticeship because of age. Lastly, apprenticeship schemes and all other schemes should be co-ordinated and our-sued in an overall plan for national industrial training.
  10.27 p.m.
  Mr. Stanley Orme: I also congratulate the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) on the way in which he introduced the debate and the moderate way in which he put forward his views. I feel, however, that the emphasis has been laid on reducing the present apprenticeship period as though that in itself was the main objective, and the way to achieve more skilled labour in Britain. I do not think that this is necessarily the right way to approach it. As we move more and more into a technological age and need more skill, the emphasis should be on turning out the skilled man. If it takes four or five years, the country will be well served in future.
  The hon. Member knows and the Parliamentary Secretary knows—as does any hon. Member with experience of these matters—that while there are many excellent firms, far too many still have insufficient apprenticeships. Men are not turned out fully skilled but, in many cases, under-trained. We know now that, with technical school training, the methods

  379
  have changed. Particularly in more modern and advanced firms, boys are finishing apprenticeships far more highly skilled than in the past.
  It is ironical to me as an engineer that engineering apprenticeships should be debated on the floor of the House in such a constructive way, because this industry is vital to the nation's economy. Without the manufacturing industries, of which engineering is the base, we will not solve
  380
  the many economic problems which face us. Engineering and engineering apprentices are not rated correctly in this country. We still do not have our values right as to their importance—
  The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Ten o'clock.

NATIONAL FINANCE
  Rhodesia (Mission Funds)
  Rhodesia (Mission Funds)
  Scottish Bank Notes
  Scottish Bank Notes
  Claims Against Newspapers and Periodicals (Out of Court Settlements)
  Claims Against Newspapers and Periodicals (Out of Court Settlements)
  Railway Dispute (Cost)
  Railway Dispute (Cost)
  Whisky
  Whisky
  Agricultural Shows (Exhibitors' Entertainment Expenses)
  Agricultural Shows (Exhibitors' Entertainment Expenses)
  Cusoms and Excise Officers (Working Conditions)
  Cusoms and Excise Officers (Working Conditions)
  East India Docks (Furniture Container)
  East India Docks (Furniture Container)
  Schoolchildren's Footwear
  Schoolchildren's Footwear
  Parliamentary Commissioner
  Parliamentary Commissioner
  Trustee Savings Banks (Interest Rates)
  Trustee Savings Banks (Interest Rates)
  Discounted Cash Flow Analysis (Public Sector)
  Discounted Cash Flow Analysis (Public Sector)
  Bank Notes
  Bank Notes
  Fruit Machines
  Fruit Machines
  Decimal Currency
  Decimal Currency
  Overseas Investment (Africa)
  Overseas Investment (Africa)
  Wales (Public Investment)
  Wales (Public Investment)
  Import Surcharge
  Import Surcharge
  Rhodesia Gold Sales
  Rhodesia Gold Sales
  Unit and Investment Trusts (Taxation)
  Unit and Investment Trusts (Taxation)
  Capital Gains and Corporation Taxes (Booklets)
  Capital Gains and Corporation Taxes (Booklets)
HOUSING
  Private Dwellings (Neglect)
  Private Dwellings (Neglect)
  Council Houses (Rents)
  Council Houses (Rents)
  Immigrants
  Immigrants
  Tenants (Rent Agreements)
  Tenants (Rent Agreements)
  East and West Ridings
  East and West Ridings
  Housing Completions
  Housing Completions
  Yorkshire and Humberside
  Yorkshire and Humberside
  Holiday Accommodation
  Holiday Accommodation
  Rent Act, 1965 (Essex)
  Rent Act, 1965 (Essex)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Industrial Premises (Dangerous Substances)
  Industrial Premises (Dangerous Substances)
  Planning Appeals
  Planning Appeals
  Whitehall Plan (Inquiry)
  Whitehall Plan (Inquiry)
  Site, Headington (Development)
  Site, Headington (Development)
  Building Contractors (Union Workers)
  Building Contractors (Union Workers)
  River Water Abstractions (Metering)
  River Water Abstractions (Metering)
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Road Development Scheme (Halesowen)
  Road Development Scheme (Halesowen)
  Litter Offences
  Litter Offences
  Abingdon Review Town Map
  Abingdon Review Town Map
  Clean Air Act, 1956 (London Boroughs)
  Clean Air Act, 1956 (London Boroughs)
  Location of Offices (London)
  Location of Offices (London)
IRISH REPUBLIC
  Anglo-Irish Trade Agreement
  Anglo-Irish Trade Agreement
ZAMBIA
  Oil Lift
  Oil Lift
  Contingency (Assistance)
  Contingency (Assistance)
RHODESIA
  Sanctions
  Sanctions
  U.D.I. (Resignation of Public Servants)
  U.D.I. (Resignation of Public Servants)
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Retirement Pensions
  Retirement Pensions
  Family Allowances
  Family Allowances
BOARD OF TRADE
  Exporters (Facilities)
  Exporters (Facilities)
  Boat Hire Trade (Initial Allowances)
  Boat Hire Trade (Initial Allowances)
  Employment (Darlington and South-West Durham)
  Employment (Darlington and South-West Durham)
  N.E.D.C. Booklet "Investment Appraisal"
  N.E.D.C. Booklet "Investment Appraisal"
  Timber (Imports)
  Timber (Imports)
  Export Credits
  Export Credits
SCOTLAND
  Projects, Berwick and East Lothian (Deferment)
  Projects, Berwick and East Lothian (Deferment)
  Scottish Office (Staff)
  Scottish Office (Staff)
  Mountain Climbing Fatalities (Causes)
  Mountain Climbing Fatalities (Causes)
  Crimes and Offences (Statistics)
  Crimes and Offences (Statistics)
  Police Forces (Statistics)
  Police Forces (Statistics)
  Prison Officers (Assaults)
  Prison Officers (Assaults)
  Police Officers (Assaults)
  Police Officers (Assaults)
  Youths (Convictions)
  Youths (Convictions)
  Dentists (Remuneration)
  Dentists (Remuneration)
  Nursing (Administrative Grades)
  Nursing (Administrative Grades)
  Farming Grants and Subsidies
  Farming Grants and Subsidies
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Potatoes
  Potatoes
  Export of Horses
  Export of Horses
MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  Air Routes (Anglo-American Talks)
  Air Routes (Anglo-American Talks)
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  Road Haulage
  Road Haulage
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Northern Ireland Ports (Ships' Visits)
  Northern Ireland Ports (Ships' Visits)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Audio-Visual Aids (First-aid Instruction)
  Audio-Visual Aids (First-aid Instruction)
  Severely Subnormal
  Severely Subnormal
  Scientific Research and Redevelopment (Expenditure)
  Scientific Research and Redevelopment (Expenditure)
  Colleges of Advanced Technology
  Colleges of Advanced Technology
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
  Road Haulage Wages Council
  Road Haulage Wages Council
  Road Haulage Industry (Negotiating Machinery)
  Road Haulage Industry (Negotiating Machinery)
HOSPITALS
  Patients (Sheffield Area)
  Patients (Sheffield Area)
  Staff (Sheffield Area)
  Staff (Sheffield Area)
  Nursing and Midwifery (Administrative Posts)
  Nursing and Midwifery (Administrative Posts)
  Manchester Royal Infirmary (Private Patients)
  Manchester Royal Infirmary (Private Patients)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  General Practitioners, Rhondda
  General Practitioners, Rhondda
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Administration of Justice Act, 1956 (Isle of Man)
  Administration of Justice Act, 1956 (Isle of Man)
  Taxi Drivers (Assaults)
  Taxi Drivers (Assaults)
  Taxi Trade (Pirate Vehicles)
  Taxi Trade (Pirate Vehicles)
  Electric Blankets
  Electric Blankets
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  School of Tropical Agriculture, West Indies (U.K. Studentships)
  School of Tropical Agriculture, West Indies (U.K. Studentships)
  Rhodesia (Tanganyika Pensioners)
  Rhodesia (Tanganyika Pensioners)
  Expatriate Officers (Pensions)
  Expatriate Officers (Pensions)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Directory (London Postal Area)
  Directory (London Postal Area)
  Kiosks (Wales and Monmouthshire)
  Kiosks (Wales and Monmouthshire)
  Shared Lines (Belfast)
  Shared Lines (Belfast)
  Exchanges (Waiting Lists)
  Exchanges (Waiting Lists)
  Palace of Westminster (Service Charges)
  Palace of Westminster (Service Charges)
POST OFFICE
  Letter Post (London-Louth Delivery Delay)
  Letter Post (London-Louth Delivery Delay)
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Television Programmes (Motorists and First Aid)
  Television Programmes (Motorists and First Aid)
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Nationalised Industries (Advertising)
  Nationalised Industries (Advertising)
TECHNOLOGY
  Computer Industry (Maddock Committee Report)
  Computer Industry (Maddock Committee Report)
  Advisory Council (Meeting Dates)
  Advisory Council (Meeting Dates)
ROADS
  A.4 (Offset-Double White Lines)
  A.4 (Offset-Double White Lines)
WALES
  Road Programme
  Road Programme

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

70 M.P.H. SPEED LIMIT EXPERIMENT
2.35 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM: 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 what are the detailed arrangements for collecting information about, and analysing the results of, the 70 m.p.h. speed limit experiment, and whether they will give an assurance that no decisions will be made to extend the period of the 70 m.p.h. speed limit experiment or to introduce other similar experiments until a report justifying the results of the present experiment has been published and laid before Parliament.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF POWER (LORD LINDGREN): My Lords, I have written to the noble Lord, giving him details of the arrangements for assessing the results of the present experiment. In brief, there will be a preliminary assessment by the Road Research Laboratory in March, and additional information will be supplied at the same time by the police. The views of representative bodies will also be sought, including the motoring organisations, which have agreed to give us information based on their patrols' assessment of driver behaviour. A full Road Research Laboratory report will be published later in the summer. My right honourable friend the Minister of Transport and I will announce the results of the preliminary assessment of the 70 m.p.h. speed limit at the earliest practicable date, and, in doing so, we will set out the main factors leading to the decision taken. As I indicated to noble Lords on February 16, this may
88
be to prolong the experiment, change it or drop it altogether, depending upon the evidence available. I can assure noble Lords that there is no question of introducing any general speed limit, other than on an experimental basis, until all the relevant factors, including adequate statistical results, have been completely assembled and published.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, am I to take it from the noble Lord's Answer that he is not prepared to give the assurance for which the second part of my Question asks?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, I could, if the noble Lord can tell me when the General Election is to be.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that that is not an answer to my Question in any shape or form? Could he please address himself to the second half of my Question?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, if Parliament is sitting when this experiment finishes, a statement will be made in Parliament. If Parliament is not sitting, the Statement will be made other than in Parliament and will be justified in Parliament afterwards.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I, your Lordships' House and the public will take it that the noble Lord cannot give the assurance for which I have asked? May I ask him, by way of another supplementary, whether he feels that the provisional arrangement he mentioned that the report would be ready by mid-March will be sufficient for his right honourable friend and him to make further decisions about experiments?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, if it is not, then no decision will be made and the experiment might be carried on. Referring to the noble Lord's previous statement, I do not think that I could have been more explicit than I have been. If Parliament is sitting when the experiment comes to an end, a statement will be made in Parliament. If Parliament is not sitting, then Government has to go on. The noble Lord will know that under two Acts, of 1960 and 1962, for which his Government were responsible, the Minister for the time being has the right to extend the experiment and it

89
can be for a longer or shorter period than the four months of the original experiment.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in a report from the Automobile Association, referred to in the Daily Telegraph of January 17, the Director of the Road Research Laboratory is quoted as saying that he did not think that a proper conclusion could be reached at that time? Therefore, would the noble Lord—since he will not give me any form of assurance—say whether he feels that a decision even to extend the experiment could legitimately be taken in that inconclusive state of affairs?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, with the greatest respect, I do not see how I can say anything more definite than I have already said.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that a notice warning motorists not to exceed 70 m.p.h. has been erected at the Maidenhead end of the M.4 motorway? Would it not be more logical to place it at the beginning or somewhere along the course of the motorway instead of at the end?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lord, it is all according to which way you come to it.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, if my noble friend would allow me to say so, whichever way he is going that advice is shown to the motorist as he emerges from the M.4 motorway.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I shall have to study his very indeterminate answer and perhaps return to this matter again?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, I am most grateful because the noble Lord is going to study it. If he does, I am certain that he will then appreciate that many of his questions were pushing at an open door.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that it would be in the public interest to have a further trial period of four months without speed limits, so that by police observation and statistics a more accurate comparison might be made?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, that may be so. It all depends on the evidence that is available. After all, the results will be assessed on the basis of evidence which the Road Research Laboratory and the police will submit to my right honourable friend by the middle of March on an experiment of only about six weeks or two months.

RHODESIA: PAYMENT OF TANZANIAN SERVICE PENSIONS
2.43 p.m.
LORD GRIDLEY: 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 action is being taken in the case of 30 former members of Her Majesty's Oversea Civil Service now resident in Rhodesia whose pensions payable for service in Tanzania have not been paid by that Government since October, 1965.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS AND FOR THE COLONIES (LORD BESWICK):My Lords, arrangements have been made to pay loan advances to these pensioners from United Kingdom funds.
LORD GRIDLEY: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that reply, stating that the British Government have now resumed responsibility for the payment of pensions in Rhodesia where the Tanzanian Government is in default. At the same time, would it not have been better if the British Government had not stopped the payment of pensions originally, a fact to which we drew attention in our debates in December, because we then feared that it would be followed by independent Governments as in this case it appears to have been followed?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I think I ought to make it clear that the Tanzanian Government is not in default. It has been paying the pensions, although they have been paid into a blocked account. Moreover, it is not true that the change in the method of payment here started with the Rhodesian difficulty the change began before that time.
LORD OAKSHOTT: My Lords, can the noble Lord say something about the responsibilities of Her Majesty's Government for the payment of pensions of all the civil servants of the defunct Central Africa Federation, about which there have been difficulties in the last few days?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords I shall be glad to answer any Question which the noble Lord may care to put down on the Order Paper.

GHANAIAN TAX ON OVERSEA CIVIL SERVICE PENSIONS
2.43 p.m.
LORD GRIDLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that by a recent increase in income tax imposed by the Government of Ghana, former members of Her Majesty's Oversea Civil Service who served in that country have suffered an arbitrary deduction for tax purposes of their January, 1966, pensions, and that this has been carried out without prior notification, or assessment of the pensions of individual officers so affected, causing financial worry and a general feeling of insecurity over the whole question of pensions to former loyal servants of the Crown.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are aware that some Ghana pensioners are being required to pay higher amounts of tax without receiving assessments from the Ghana Government. There are no direct diplomatic relations with Ghana, but the representative of the protecting Power in Ghana has been asked to make representations to the Ghana authorities about the non-receipt of tax assessments by Ghana pensioners. The latest information is that the assessments will be sent without further delay.
LORD GRIDLEY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, would he not agree that the position is most unsatisfactory? With the January pension payments pensioners received a notice from the Ghana Commonwealth
92
Bank with a notification saying that their pensions had been subjected to tax deductions, and that their only course for rectification was to approach the Ghana income tax authorities. Would Her Majesty's Government not agree that it is altogether too much for individual pensioners to take up these questions with the Ghana income tax authorities, when experience has shown that they do not acknowledge the communications they receive, or give any replies to the letters which are sent to them?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I think it would be wrong for Her Majesty's Government to accept any responsibility in this matter. The responsibility for the levying of taxation is that of the Government of Ghana. But as the noble Lord probably knows, a delegation of representatives of the Oversea Service Pensioners Association has discussed this matter with the Ministry of Overseas Development, and I think that what can be done is being done.

THE DEFENCE REVIEW
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I make a short Business statement? At a suitable moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Shackleton will be making a Statement on the Defence Review.
The House will also be aware that the Order Paper to-day is particularly heavy, and I wonder whether noble Lords would bear that in mind. The House will adjourn during pleasure between 7.30 and 8.30 p.m., and it is hoped to adjourn for the conclusion of Business at 10 p.m. Dinner will be available.

ABORTION BILL [H.L.]
2.47 p.m.
Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendments read.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report he now received. This is a Report from the Committee stage, and I had hoped that this would be a straightforward Report stage in the usual way. But your Lordships will remember that I gave an undertaking that the Bill would be looked at again after the Committee stage, in conjunction with Parliamentary draftsmen, so that

93
many of the difficulties of drafting could be remedied. Unfortunately, this has involved a good deal of redrafting, and the Bill in form, although not in actual content, is rather different from the Bill, with the Amendments, which emerged from the Committee stage.
It has been represented to me that although the Amendments which I put down were available to noble Lords on Friday morning, that did not give adequate time for Amendments to be moved to the revised wording. There is, of course, some force in that. There is also the point that some of the Amendments which have been put down are no longer applicable to the revised wording, if that wording proves acceptable. I therefore feel that it would be fair to the House to deal with as many Amendments as possible, and perhaps come to a decision on them, particularly those which do not affect the form of the Bill. In some cases, they are merely a repetition of what has been debated before, but under new names, while others are purely drafting. As to the rest, while one may make a comment about them, I will not move the Amendments in my name, and I hope that other noble Lords will take the same course, so far as their Amendments are no longer applicable to the revised wording. Then at the end of the proceedings I propose to move that the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
I hope that this course will commend itself to your Lordships. It will involve a saving of time to-day, but it will mean that further time will have to be given to the Bill later. I would only say to my noble friend and to his corresponding number on the other side, that if we proceed in this way, the Bill will have been fully threshed out by the time we have passed the Committee stage again, and we could then move quickly towards a Report stage and Third Reading.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Silkin.)
2.50 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I have listened with interest to what the noble Lord has said. Of course, if this Motion is carried we shall be starting a Report stage to-day. I took special care to see that I got the noble Lord's Amend-
94
ments as soon as possible. I received them on Saturday morning, and I was able to draft Amendments and send them back so that they reached this House on Monday. Those were Amendments to the noble Lord's Amendments, and I do not think it is ever easy or satisfactory to deal with Amendments to Amendments.
I cannot entirely agree with the noble Lord that the changes be proposes are just matters of drafting. For instance, he has left out the provision requiring the consent of the woman and, indeed, there is an Amendment down in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, to provide for that in somewhat different wording. But it is the case that some of the Amendments tabled before the noble Lord's Amendments were tabled, would, as I understand it, fall. So far as I am concerned, I think the course which the noble Lord recommends is a convenient one. I gather that our discussion would then proceed almost immediately to a discussion of Amendment No. 5, which is in the name of the noble Baroness, and Amendment No. 6, on which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and I are for once in agreement. Therefore, I would assume that on Amendment No. 6 there need be no debate. I should also like the opportunity of moving Amendment No. 2, just to bring a point to the attention of the noble Lord and of the House, in the hope that the noble Lord could deal with the matter by the Re-committal stage and to give him the opportunity of tabling the necessary Amendment for that. Of course, this is a matter entirely for the House, but I must say that I should have thought we could deal with this matter more conveniently if we took the course the noble Lord has suggested.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I must confess that I find this procedure rather odd; and it is not the first time that I have found the procedure of your Lordships' House a little odd. Some of us have come here at great personal difficulty in order to move Amendments to which we attach great importance, and we now learn, without any notice whatever, that these Amendments are to be postponed to next Monday, which for us may or may not be a convenient day on which to move them. I personally feel very strongly, not only

95
about Amendment No. 5, which I understand it is proposed to take to-day, but equally about Amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 11, which stand in the name of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne. I should have thought that, in view of the fact that the House has been convened in order to discuss these Amendments to-day, it would be right and proper that they should be discussed to-day and not postponed to a day of which we have had no notice.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, what I have to say is not in contravention of the proposed course because, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, knows, I wish well to this Bill in some form or another. What has happened is something which has long been a grievance which affects every Member of your Lordships' House who does not sit on a Front Bench. This Bill came before your Lordships and was read a second time in one form; your Lordships discussed it in Committee in quite a different form, and now we are to have a Report stage on the form as amended in Committee. But in the interval the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has had the advantage of the assistance of Parliamentary draftsmen, and he is to move that the Bill be re-committed and that your Lordships consider it in Committee in the new form. As the noble Lord, Lady Wootton of Abinger, has so clearly said, I submit that that procedure is very unfair to your Lordships, although I know that your Lordships are capable of dealing efficiently with it, notwithstanding the disadvantages.
However, the point I wish to make is this. The Back Benchers in your Lordships' House have never been able to have the assistance of Parliamentary draftsmen in drawing up measures which they wished to submit to your Lordships for approval. The Back Benchers in your Lordships' House are conscious of a deeply felt grievance which they would like to put right by legislation; and the best way to do it is to consider what form that legislation should take. We have always asked whether we could have the services of Parliamentary draftsmen, and we have always been refused. I must say, in favour of the Government, that for the last year or two they have been much more helpful in this matter. I should like the Government to con-
96
sider this, because it would make your Lordships' House much more efficient. It would prevent useless debates on matters which could not be dealt with, and it would assist a great many matters which ought properly to be dealt with.
What I should like to suggest is that some form of assistance to your Lordships from a Parliamentary draftsman should be provided. The ordinary Parliamentary draftsmen are much too busy, but if there were an Officer of your Lordships' House skilled in Parliamentary drafting who could be at the service of those Back Benchers, then I think it would greatly contribute to the efficiency of your Lordships, and would be a great boon to Back Benchers, and something they have always desired. I hope that the Government will consider this suggestion. Had the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, had the advantage of such assistance in the first place in relation to this Bill, this curious form of procedure would not have been necessary. We should have had a Bill which was properly drafted and we could have dealt with it on that basis. As it is, it was only last Friday that the Parliamentary draftsmen exercised their talent on it and entirely reorganised the Bill. I hope the Government will be sympathetic to this suggestion and come to our assistance.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, perhaps I ought to say one word on the last point, which the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, mentioned to me just before we came into the House. I think it would be quite impossible for any Government to promise to give unconditional assistance to any Back Bencher or non-Governmental Member who wished to bring forward an Amendment. I think that would be quite outside the bounds of possibility. I think that all the Government of the day can do is to be as liberal as possible, which I am glad to think this Government are being in the assistance they provide. But, as the noble Lord is aware, the work of the Parliamentary draftsmen is about as complex a job as any in the country. They are in short supply, and it would be quite impossible to express general sympathy with the noble Lord's proposition, although it will be considered.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I did not suggest that the normal staff of Parliamentary draftsmen should be engaged in this way. I suggested that it should be an extra Parliamentary draftsman on the staff of the House, who would rapidly acquire the necessary skill.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: That may well be so, but this gentleman would have to be at least as expert as the ordinary Parliamentary draftsman if he were to do the job.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I am in sympathy with the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, on the problems of procedure. I came here in order to take part in this debate—I wish I were more free to take a part in your Lordships' proceedings. In this case, some of us were prepared to discuss some aspects of the Bill, and some others. We could do the best we can to-day, and get as far as we can, and let the future look after itself.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, may I suggest a solution? I had tabled Amendments, which do not appear on the Marshalled List because I withdrew them on hearing that the whole of this Bill, apart from these particular provisions, would be re-committed. There is one Amendment I have tabled which I think would take precedence over the noble Lady's Amendment although it was to the same effect as her Amendment to Clause 2—namely, Amendment No. 9. It is a distinct and separate issue and it is bound to arise some time, and if it suits the noble Lady's convenience I would suggest that perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, would agree that we should take that to-day, immediately after Amendment No. 6, and re-commit the rest.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I do not think there is any difference in principle about this. It is largely a matter of drafting. I am advised that it is the normal practice in the medical profession for doctors to carry out operations after obtaining the consent of the patient, and that there is no need to provide for it specifically in legislation. Members of the medical profession will be able to confirm that or otherwise. If that is so, then that is the reason why no reference is made to getting the written consent of the patient or guardian, but that is all there is between us. There is no inten-
98
tion that doctors should take it upon themselves to carry out abortions without the consent of the patient. It is only a matter of wording.
As to the rest, I am sorry that my noble friend is inconvenienced, but I have been pushed around from all sides. I was quite ready to go on with the Report stage to-day in the normal way, but I have had strong representations made to me that it would be unfair and that noble Lords were being deprived of the opportunity of moving Amendments to the revised draft, and I think that is right. If, on the other hand, your Lordships would prefer to go right ahead, I am willing to do so.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, may I put this to the noble Lord? I think his late tabling of Amendments, which I have no doubt he could not help, has created a difficulty. Amendments have been tabled to those Amendments which do not appear on the Marshalled List, but that does not apply to Amendments 5, 6 and 9. Why should we not deal with those Amendments and with Nos. 10 and 11 if we have time, because they are connected with Amendment No. 9, and leave the Amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for consideration next Monday?
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I should be perfectly well satisfied if we could take to-day Amendments 5, 6, 9, 10 and 11. I do not think my noble friend can really say that the Amendments dealing with the consent of a woman to abortion are matters of drafting. They involve very grave matters of principle. Abortion is not like any other surgical operation, and I do not think that those Amendments can be pushed to one side.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, perhaps I may rise to make one comment about this. We are faced with a Marshalled List and it is the practice of the House that all Amendments are called. Therefore, if we were to proceed on the basis that I believe the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has suggested and to which the noble Lady has agreed, we should have to use (shall I say?) some restraint in this matter in that we should take up only those Amendments that we have agreed to do. If I may say so, as Chief Whip I am in some slight difficulty. As the House will be aware, we have

99
considerable business in front of us, and if we are to have a protracted discussion to-day and then to have the Bill recommitted next Monday, and then have to go through another long procedure in order to discuss points, other important business is bound to be delayed or to be dealt with at an hour which is unfair, not only to the interests of those who have to take part but to the subject involved. Bearing in mind that all these Amendments would have to be called, I would hope that your Lordships could come to a decision now which the House would accept and would then respond only when those particular Amendments were called.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I would support that. The noble Lady mentioned Nos. 5, 6, 9, 10 and 11. I think Nos. 9, 10 and 11 could be discussed together. I did say that I should like to say a word or two on Amendment No. 2.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount has referred to Amendment No. 6, on which he was glad to find that we were in agreement, but in fact that Amendment is only a paving Amendment to No. 7, as he will realise, and it would be unfair to discuss No. 6 by itself, without also discussing No. 7. Amendment No. 7 gives rise to the important principle in the Bill of an abortion on a girl under sixteen. The point then is whether or not we want to discuss this to-day. I am perfectly willing to do so, but it would be quite wrong merely to delete paragraph (d) without putting in what I have proposed in substitution for it. I would suggest that we should leave that for another day.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, if the noble Lord takes that view I do not mind leaving Amendment No. 6 over until another day, but before he can move Amendment No. 7 he has to carry Amendment No. 6. I am sorry he seems to resent the fact that, for once, our names appear on the same Amendment, but the fact is that if we have got rid of paragraph(d)we shall be making some progress in the direction that he wants. I should be content to deal with that to-day, but it is entirely up to him; if he does not want it, I do not mind.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 1:
Medical termination of pregnancy
1. Subject to the provisions of this Act it shall be lawful for a registered medical practitioner to terminate a pregnancy:
Provided that two registered medical practitioners, being either the pregnant woman's regular doctor and a registered medical practitioner employed in a hospital under the National Health Service or two registered medical practitioners so employed, certify in writing that in their opinion the termination of the pregnancy is necessary on the ground that—

(a) the continuance of the pregnancy would involve serious risk to the life or grave injury to the health whether physical or mental of the pregnant woman whether before at or after the birth of the child; Or

(b) the child if born would be likely to suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to deprive it of any prospect of reasonable enjoyment of life; or

(c) the pregnant woman is or will be physically or mentally inadequate to be the mother of a child or of another child as the case may be; or

(d) the pregnant woman is a defective o became pregnant when under the age of sixteen or as the result of intercourse which was an offence under section 128 of the Mental Health Act 1959 or section 97 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1960 (relating to sexual intercourse with patients).

3.8 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved, after the first "shall" to insert "only". The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, I said that I wanted to say a word on this particular Amendment. I think it is the general desire of the House that a Statute should clearly lay down in what circumstances and on what grounds a pregnancy may lawfully be terminated, and that this Statute should replace the Common Law as it is now understood since Bourne's case.As the Bill stands, and as it would stand if all the Amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, were accepted, it would be lawful to terminate a pregnancy either under the Common Law as it now is or under this Bill if it becomes an Act.
I am sure that most of those who supported this Bill on Second Reading felt that if it were passed abortions would be legal only if the provisions of the Bill were complied with. If that be so, then there should be some provision in the Bill annulling the Common Law provisions, so that if the Bill is enacted, what is done lawfully can be done only

101
under the terms of the Bill, whereas unless there is such provision it can be done either under the Common Law, under the Bourne'case decision, or under the Bill. I would ask the noble Lord to consider that point and I think he will find it necessary to table some provision to make that clear. Effect would have been given to it by the insertion of the word "only" as proposed by this Amendment, but, in fact, that Amendment would fall if Amendment No. 1 was discussed. I move this Amendment only to draw attention to this point.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 5 after (" shall ") insert (" only ").—(Viscount Dilhorne.)
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount is not pursuing this Amendment. I am quite willing to consider it and to seek advice on it, but I should like to understand whether he is laying clown a doctrine, that where there is Case Law which is subsequently translated into Statute, all the Case Law falls to the ground and cannot thereafter be relied upon. Is that the point he is trying to make?
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I am sorry if, by trying to deal with it very briefly, I have not made myself clear. I thought, and certainly it was my desire, to see Common Law replaced by statutory provisions in the clearest terms. I say "replaced". That means that what you will have to look at for the law is the Act of Parliament, not cases decided before the Act of Parliament came into existence. I think it would be confusing, to say the least, if after this Bill was enacted you could look at the statutory provisions and say, "It is lawful under the Statute, but over and above that I can act independently of the Statute, without following the procedure laid down by the Statute, without reporting the matter to the chief medical officer, under the decisions of the Common Law in Bourne'case and subsequent cases."
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount has made his intentions perfectly clear, and I am grateful to him for raising it now with the object of considering it again on recommittal; because this is an extremely im-
102
portant matter. This word "only", if inserted in the Bill, will be a change of major significance. I would submit for your Lordships' consideration one or two possible consequences. If we are to have provisions such as the noble and learned Viscount has suggested, there will be other consequential Amendments which I am sure will be necessary. For example, if the noble and learned Viscount will just read the clause with his phrase, he will see that it will read:
" Subject to the provisions of this Act it shall only be lawful for a registered medical practitioner to terminate a pregnancy …"
if the conditions set out in the Bill are satisfied. In other words, it would be this Bill and nothing else—not the Common Law. It would appear in that case that it would exclude a doctor inducing childbirth. These are the kind of matters that should be considered. Artificially induced childbirth is, of course, termination of pregnancy. Another possibility arises in regard to Amendment No. 1. It has not been moved, but next Monday we shall be considering a different form of words beginning the Bill. Circumstances may arise where it may be necessary, in order to save a life, to waive not only the place of the operation but the need for a concurring opinion. There is another Amendment on the Order Paper, which we are not taking to-day but which might be ruled out by the word "only" unless we had yet another Amendment.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I might save a little time by saying I was not proposing to argue this Amendment to-day. I put the word "only", as I thought conveniently, for raising this very important point. All I am seeking to secure is that there is consideration of what I think is a very important question, namely, that you do not have abortions lawfully performed under the Common Law and also lawfully performed under the Statute intended to replace the Common Law. How it is achieved is perhaps a matter we can discuss on Monday. I was not seeking to argue it or to say that this Amendment was the best for the purpose.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount. I did understand that. The position is that in the view of the Government it is advisable to make it clear

103
to-day that when you make a thing exclusive there are all sorts of considerations which then arise which might have to be covered, and we have not yet had time to consider all the possibilities from the medical point of view. For example, there are some 2,800 therapeutic abortions in hospitals. Many of them might not be covered by the Bill if we had the word "only" in it. I would say, therefore, that before accepting this position we should have to be certain that all circumstances in which abortion could properly be performed had been covered. I hope that all these considerations will be borne in mind before next Monday when we come to this matter again.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.14 p.m.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER moved to leave out paragraph (c). The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I very much regret that for urgent personal reasons I was not able to be present in your Lordships' House at the earlier stages of this Bill, and I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I take this opportunity of making abundantly clear that I am not opposed in any sense to the intention of this Bill. Indeed, I should greatly welcome the Bill; no one would welcome more than I a Bill which did something effective to get rid of the back-street abortion. I would assure my noble friend that I am entirely with him in his intention on this. What I do criticise is the fact that I think this Bill has gone very much beyond this and into fields into which we are not justified in entering.
The particular provision to which I now take exception is paragraph (c), which provides that an abortion may be performed if
" the pregnant woman is or will be physically or mentally inadequate to be the mother of a child or of another child …"
This is a very profound decision for anybody to make about anybody else: that that other person is not, or will not be in nine months' time, physically or mentally fit to be the mother of a child. I doubt very much whether many of your Lordships would like to make that decision in an individual capacity; and if we are not prepared to make
104
it in an individual capacity we should think more than once about making it in our collective capacity. At the Committee stage my noble friend Lord Silkin quoted a number of possible examples in which he felt that that decision might well be rightly made. But in making a provision of this kind we have to think not only of when the decision will be rightly made but, equally, when it might be wrongly made.
Let me put to your Lordships what I think is a by no means unlikely case. Suppose there is a husband who is selfish—and there are selfish husbands—who does not wish to be bothered with children, who does not wish to have the expense of providing for children. And suppose that, when he finds that his wife has become pregnant, he sees the family doctor and tells him that his wife is extremely neurotic, is not fit to be a mother, and gives a certain amount of information which perhaps would support that view. This paragraph lays upon the doctor an extraordinary burden of responsibility in assessing the validity of that information. Unless he is intimately acquainted with the family, and unless the second doctor who is called in is equally intimately connected with the family—which is very improbable—neither of them will be in a position to assess that information. The doctor may feel that there are great tensions in the marriage, and that the fact of the pregnancy is going to aggravate those tensions, and that, in the interests of the marriage, it might be better to terminate the pregnancy. And the woman herself may give her consent (although my noble friend intends later, I think, to move an Amendment removing the explicit requirement of consent) merely because she feels that this is the only way to make peace in the home.
That is not an improbable situation. It is perhaps a situation which we have all known in our personal experience. I do not think that it is a responsibility which ought to be put on the doctor, or that the doctor is able in certain cases to discharge it with full knowledge of all the circumstances. My noble friend quoted in Committee a large number of cases in which he felt that this principle would be properly applied. Some of them he may probably be anxious to reconsider. I think that when he referred to shoplifters he was perhaps carried a

105
little too far by his own eloquence. But among the cases quoted was that of a woman who is married to a drunken and ne'er-do-well husband. Can you imagine its being actually laid down that a woman who is married to a drunken and ne'er-do-well husband is physically and mentally inadequate to be a mother? It might be reasonable to write into this Bill a provision that her husband is physically and mentally inadequate to be a father; but no such suggestion has been made.
LORD SILKIN: I did not write this into the Bill. There is nothing in the Bill about that at all.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: This is one of the examples which my noble friend quoted, and it is one of the situations which he contemplated. If what my noble friend said in Committee is to be carried out in fact, a woman who is in that position may find that she is marked as being physically and mentally inadequate to be a mother.
There were also a number of references to slum conditions, to women who have a number of childen in slum conditions, and to what we call problem families. We know that it is distressing that many children are born into physical and environmental conditions which are deeply regrettable. But I should have thought that we were tackling this problem from entirely the wrong end, and that particularly my noble friends on these Benches were doing so. What we are concerned about is the removal of slum conditions rather than the removal of the birth of children. After all, it is something which my noble friends on these Benches have stood for for a good many years. It is also true that many children who are born into what are, physically and environmentally, unsatisfactory conditions—let us admit it—are greatly loved. I have known many problem families which show much greater warmth and affection than others who were entirely respectable and in which all the beds were made by mid-day—a test which is sometimes applied, I think, in determining the standard of a family.
I believe that we can learn something from experience in another field, that of adoptions. In that field we are much stricter—perhaps illogically, perhaps rightly—about parents who may adopt a child
106
than about parents who may beget a child. But we can learn something from experience of adoptions. I have taken part in a large number of adoptions. I recall one or two cases in which, I must say, I and my colleagues took what one can only regard as a big risk; and the risk has paid off. I recall one case in which a couple who had a long criminal record, including a record for criminal abortion, for keeping a brothel and for keeping a child in a brothel, wished to adopt a child. Rather surprisingly, having review the whole circumstances, the court made the adoption order. I have kept in touch with that case. The child is now grown up and the adoption has been an absolutely "corking" success. The child has turned out admirably. The parents have abandoned all their criminal ways and are living extremely useful and respectable lives, largely owing to the child's influence.
You may say, that in a case like this the child did not share the biological inheritance of the parents. Actually, I think the child probably did, because I think it was a relative—but we let that pass. But in many of the cases which my noble friend Lord Silkin quoted, no biological inheritance would have been shared. So far as I know, shoplifting is not biologically inherited.
LORD SILKIN: It could be.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF AB1NGER: My noble friend says that it could be. To me, this is a new and revealing line about the limits of biology. I think that this is a serious matter. It affects profoundly the liberty of the individual, and a vital liberty of the individual.
What this provision, as it stands, really proposes to do is to say that people of whom we do not approve are not to propagate, and to lay upon the medical profession the responsibility of deciding of whom we do approve and of whom we do not approve. I do not think that this is a responsibility that many of the most distinguished members of the medical profession wish to carry. In that opinion I am reinforced by the name of the noble Lord, Lord Brain, in support of this Amendment; and I think and hope that I may claim also the support of the noble Lord, Lord Amulree. This is not a responsibility that they wish to carry. It is not a responsibility that they ought to

107
carry, because in this responsibility much more than medical issues are involved. Moral and social issues are involved. It is not for us, and it is not for the doctors, in the present state of knowledge—perhaps not in any state of knowledge—to say who is to have the right to propagate children and who has not. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 20, leave out paragraph (c).—(Baroness Wootton of Abinger.)
3.28 p.m.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I wish to support the noble Baroness in the deletion of this paragraph. Let me first refer to the place of this paragraph in the Bill as a whole. During the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, went so far as to say that this is about the most important clause in the Bill—in fact, the only thing which makes much difference. I think that that judgment should be challenged. What, then, is the rest of the Bill for? What, then, has been the point of the many hours spent, carefully, on all the other provisions of the Bill? Quite obviously, the Bill has considerable value. Parts of it have much value to my own views on this matter, quite apart from this provision which some of us believe to be most undesirable.
I note that the Bill on this subject that has been introduced into another place lacks this provision; yet it is evidently thought worthwhile by its promotors. My own belief is that the paragraph we are discussing is so bad that, if it is allowed to remain, it will vitiate the Bill. I was sorry that I had to be absent during the greater part of the debate on the Committee stage; but when, while addressing an audience in another part of the country, I was asked for my views on this subject, I said that I greatly deprecated this paragraph as it seemed to me to admit abortion for almost anything. I subsequently asked myself if those words had been an exaggeration. But then I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Cones-ford, who always uses words with great care, went further than my "almost anything" by using the phrase "absolutely anything ". Are phrases like that really exaggerations or not?
I noted very carefully the various forms of inadequacy in the mother that were
108
mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and it is important to remember that the catalogue was not necessarily an exhaustive one. These were specimens of the inadequacy about which he was pleading—the woman in prison, the woman who is a persistent offender, the woman who is a shoplifter, the alcoholic, the drug-taker, the woman who has to go out to work in hard circumstances; and illnesses which, while they do not effect the pregnancy itself, will nevertheless make her less able to bear the burdens of motherhood.
It is important to analyse this variety of grounds and see the variety of principle behind them. The varieties of priciple are these: the woman physically strong but in sad moral circumstances; the woman with certain defects of character; the woman who is very unhealthy; the woman with hard physical circumstances in her life, and the woman with various illnesses. This big variety of categories will provide the case for abortion. While I think it would be an exaggeration to say that the categories amount to "almost anything ", or "absolutely anything ", it seems inevitable that for the forming of a judgment on the rightness of the abortion in any of these cases an almost unlimited range of considerations will come into view. What sort of judgment is the doctor to be asked to make?—not only a medical judgment coming under paragraph (a ), but judgments about the woman's moral state, about her social relationships, about her economic position, and about her future moral and spiritual capacity, which is a matter concerning which human powers of prophecy are very limited indeed. It seems inevitable that there is going to be arbitrariness if the doctor or a group of doctors form a judgment on this whole range of human circumstances.
What about the child and what about the mother? Society must do its utmost to help both in all the sorts of circumstances to which the noble Lord referred. But one recalls children born of pretty unhappy circumstances. Society has cared for them, and they have turned out to be happy and useful, and it seems impossible to say that the fœtus ought originally to have been destroyed. As for the mother, I feel the utmost sympathy with the mother in many of the circumstances described; and I am sure

109
we can all understand that human sympathy is equally divided on both sides of the discussion about this Clause. We have all had to help people at different times in heartbreaking circumstances, and I think that the sympathies of all of us have had a very great deal of experience. Because I feel that sympathy, I was very glad to hear it stated by the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, with his great medical competence—and one gets this from other medical evidence, too—that the hard cases of danger to life and health mentioned by the noble Lord would sufficiently come within Clause 1(a). That is very reassuring indeed.
I will say a word more about sympathy. I believe that a true sympathy with human nature includes a certain reverence for its capacity to overcome troubles with the aid of society and with the spiritual help that God can give. I think it would be undesirable to legislate in disregard of these lovely factors about human nature. I had brought with me one or two stories from my own personal experience about mothers quite well known to me, who would certainly have been ruled out as inadequate—and yet the final issue was good and glorious. But the illustrations given by the noble Baroness were to my mind so good and so convincing, that I have no wish to add to them at all.
I want this Bill to pass. My fear is that the inclusion of this paragraph will make the Bill a Bill that will not deserve to pass. I have little doubt that in the Committee stage a number of noble Lords voted for this paragraph, and against the Amendment to delete it, in the belief that it was somehow progressive: that it was a sign of being progressive to support this particular part of the legislation. I do not believe that this paragraph is the way of progress at all. I believe the way of progress is along the line of that limited legislative provision concerning abortion on which the distinctions are carefully drawn in the document known to some of your Lordships, which I believe it to be a very valuable document, called Abortion—An Ethical Discussion.I think the way of progress lies along a limited legislation on that path, and in doing far more for the helping of homes and mothers to avoid the troubles coming, and, when they do come, to show what human nature can do with the aid
110
of the spiritual resources available and with all the help that society can give.
3.47 p.m.
LORD SOPER: My Lords, I hope that I may follow with a sense of due seriousness and responsibility of what has already been said. If I take and endeavour to support the contrary view, it is not because of any sense that this is either a trivial matter, or indeed a matter upon which the advocacy of various reasons for which this particular provision should not operate is sufficient to justify a negation of this clause. In listening to my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger it seemed to me that she spent a great deal of her time saying that in certain circumstances, as I entirely agree, it would be highly improper to regard this clause as operative. This does not necessarily deal with those particular issues which might make the clause operative, and in my judgment would do so—questions of acute alcoholism, questions of chronic sickness aggravated by numerous pregnancies.
It seems to me that this has to be faced in the first instance as a matter of principle, because the whole conception of abortion is rooted in principle, or rather it is rooted in what has been assumed to be principle, the Christian principle; that it is inherently sinful because the semen is the vital fluid and the woman, traditionally, is merely the receptacle of this vitality, and because of the sacrosanct nature of the fœtus. This argument reminds me of the schoolboy's report which read, "This boy's writing has now so vastly improved that we can at last see how very bad his work is". The more critically this particular and traditional principle is examined, the more insupportable it becomes in the light of what we are pleased to call modern scientific knowledge.
I think it would be honest and right for us who are churchmen to admit that we have got ourselves into a mess. Having disposed of one series of arguments, we have not yet taken sufficient trouble to arrive at a better system of arguments. The disarray in the Church Assembly, which would be paralleled, I am quite sure, in the Methodist Conference if we were to be exposed to the same kind of argument, suggests that we have not sufficiently thought out what is the position which must take the place of

111
that traditional attitude which is now insupportable and must necessarily be rejected.
It seems to me that here is a breach in the traditional principle. When once you admit that for any reason at all an abortion is justifiable, then the matter no longer becomes an absolute question. It is circumstantial and speculative, and for various reasons we have to ask ourselves what are the conditions in which abortions are justifiable, because in some conditions they are. I believe there is good cause for believing that such reasons as are found in this clause are justifiable. As the noble Lord, Lord Reay, said very cogently the last time this matter was discussed in your Lordships' House, it is of vital importance precisely because it underlies about 80 per cent. of the abortions which are desired. Secondly, it is of vital importance, as The Times records this morning, because it at least investigates the possibility of voluntary social eugenics. If this is so, then it ought to be recognised for what it is—a very large increase in the area for which abortions are possible, and a test of the adequacy of our own principles with which we seek to face this problem.
Once the door has been opened; once there is a "justifiable reason" for abortion; once abortion is regarded as the continuation of an intervention which starts with contraception; once it be agreed that one cannot say at what precise stage the soul enters the body—in fact, I would not believe that the soul ever enters the body; I believe that the soul and the body are alternative ways of looking at the same reality, but, whatever the speculative philosophy in this matter may be—that for certain reasons it is justifiable to terminate a pregnancy, then I want most strenuously to advocate that here, if anywhere in the whole realm of social eugenics and the whole concept of our responsibility for using the implements of our wisdom and the instruments which have been put into our hands, I believe by God, we have a responsibility which we cannot discharge.
If there are verbal difficulties in this particular clause, let us deal with them. But you do not repudiate a debt by finding a fault in the drawing of the IOU. You do not repudiate a debt that you owe because it happens that the date is wrongly stated or the amount is wrongly
112
calculated. We have a responsibility which is thrust upon us. A man who falls off a roof cannot halfway down decide what he is thereupon going to do. Better still, if you put your hand to a plough it seems to me that you cannot at an arbitrary moment refuse to finish the furrow.
There are many occasions, and with great eloquence the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, exposed them and ridiculed them as properly she had so to do, when it would be highly improper to terminate a pregnancy on the grounds that the husband would like it, or that the woman would fear the results of that pregnancy. But as a practising parson I know of many others where, awaiting the arrival of that blessed age when circumstances and general social conditions and medical supervision will give added opportunities of a full life to all, we dare not, it seems to me, withdraw from this battle at this stage. Whatever new desired and desirable amendments ought to be made to the framing of this provision, I believe it is integral to the worthwhileness of the Bill and I most earnestly support it.

THE DEFENCE REVIEW
3.45 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE FOR THE ROYAL AIR FORCE (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to intervene to repeat a statement which is being made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence in another place on the Defence Review, details of which are set out in Part I of the Statement on Defence Estimates 1966/67,which has been available for an hour in the Printed Paper Office. The Statement is as follows:
" The House will recall that, on taking office 16 months ago, Her Majesty's Government set itself to halt the runaway growth in Britain's Defence expenditure by planning to limit the size of the Defence budget in 1969/70 to that of 1964/65—or£2,000 million at constant prices. As we stated in last year's Defence White Paper, we assumed responsibility for forces which were seriously overstretched and in certain respects dangerously under-equipped. It has been

113
an equally important objective of the Defence Review to bring our commitments into balance with the manpower and equipment we could afford to have.
" We have already done better than the financial target of £2,000 million in the Estimates for 1966–67, since they represent only £1,972 million at 1964 prices. Part I of the White Paper indicates how we plan, not only to stay within the same financial target in three years' time, but also to undertake a major programme of re-equipment, and to reduce the over-stretch from which our forces still suffer. In order to ensure the achievement of these objectives we have had to make a new assessment of the part which our armed forces should play in supporting our foreign policy in the 1970s, and of what rôle Britain should play in world affairs. It has been essentially an exercise in political and military realism.
" The results may be summarised as follows. Broadly speaking, in cutting the previous Government's planned expenditure by 16 per cent. or£400 million, we have achieved three-quarters of our saving by getting better value for money and only one-quarter by reductions in our military capability. In order to reduce over-stretch we plan to cut our tasks overseas and then to keep a larger proportion of our forces in a home station and fewer abroad, and to rely more on reinforcement by air in an emergency. This has meant certain changes in our current political commitments overseas.
" We plan to reduce substantially the deployment of our forces in the Mediterranean; from 1968 we shall give up the Aden base and confine our presence in the Middle East to the Persian Gulf; in the Far East we shall cut the level of our forces once confrontation is over; and, within a few years, we shall maintain no forces permanently deployed in the Caribbean or Southern Africa. We shall be able to keep our forces in Germany at the present size only if the foreign exchange costs are met. We have made it clear that, in future, Britain will not accept commitments overseas which might require her to undertake major operations of war without the co-operation of allies; nor shall we attempt to main-
114
tain defence facilities in any independent country against its wishes.
" Against this background we have taken certain major decisions on the equipment of our forces. The Canberra strike/reconnaissance aircraft must be replaced by 1970. The Anglo-French variable geometry aircraft, which is the core of our long-term operational and industrial aircraft programmes, will not be available until the mid-1970s. We have therefore decided that the only way of bridging the gap is to buy the smallest possible number of F.111As from the United States, and to supplement these aircraft with the V-bombers which will be released from their current strategic role when the Polaris submarine force is fully operational. The foreign exchange cost of the F.111A purchase will be met by sales of British equipment to the United States and third countries.
" We shall keep our existing carrier force as long as possible into the 1970s, but we shall not order a new carrier. In the light of the military tasks we envisage, and of the operational return we can expect from its cost of £1,400 million over the next 10 years, we do not believe that we should be justified in keeping a carrier force indefinitely. A new carrier could not become operational until 1973, when the rest of our carriers would be in the last phase of their active life. By the mid-1970s we should be able to reprovide the necessary elements of the carriers' capability more cheaply by other means.
" I believe that the majority of the House recognise that it has become essential to stop the automatic rise in British Defence expenditure. As a result of its Defence Review, Her Majesty's Government have found a way of doing so without defaulting on Britain's commitments to her allies and partners in the Commonwealth, and without abandoning her influence either inside or outsidé Europe. Those who believe we have failed to bring our commitments and resources into proper balance must have the courage to say whether in their view the Government should spend more on defence, and where they will get the money, or cut Britain's commitments further and, if so, where."
3.51 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, your Lordships will be obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, for repeating this Statement. It is a very grave Statement which, in my view, will call into question, and does call into question, the whole of Britain's position throughout the world. My Lords, we on this side will ask for an early debate in which we can discuss these matters, and I will confine myself this afternoon to saying only three things.
First, those of us who sit on this side of the House think it quite wrong to tackle the admittedly costly and difficult problems of Defence by setting a financial target without regard to commitments. It may be politically popular, but it is thoroughly irresponsible. Secondly, so far as I can judge, the Government have cut no commitments of any consequence; and, consequently, the artificial financial ceiling will make it impossible to honour those commitments. If it be said that Aden is a cut in commitment, I would point out that it is not: it is a cut in the means of honouring our commitments. May I ask the noble Lord why it is necessary to say now, firmly, that we shall have no base in Aden in 1968? Is there anything more likely to cause political unrest in the intervening years than to announce in advance the creation of a military vacuum?
Lastly, my Lords, I view almost with despair the announcement of the decision not to order an aircraft carrier. This, in my view—and I speak with four years' experience as First Lord of the Admiralty—is the end of the Royal Navy as a force capable of global operation. How can it so operate when deprived of all its air reconnaissance and of all but a trivial part of its offensive armament? In the light of this decision, I do not believe that, for morale and other factors, the Fleet Air Arm can continue for more than a very short time.
My Lords, the Government seem determined to deprive themselves and, what is perhaps even more important, their successors of the flexibility and mobility of the Royal Navy and its comparative lack of dependence on foreign bases. I believe they are disastrously and wholly wrong, and we shall do everything in our power to reverse this decision.
LORD REA: My Lords, from these Benches I should like also to thank the noble Lord for his Statement. I think this position to-day shows the very clear division between the three Parties, for the smallest of which I speak. We, as the Liberal Party, would admire Her Majesty's Government for having taken the steps which they have taken, to some extent. We have said for a long time that our commitments are far too big and that the money available is far too small. We should therefore like to cut the money and the commitments, and we hope that Her Majesty's Government will see their way to doing this. Like the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, I should not like to prolong this intimate debate. I think we must all have great personal sympathy for him, whom we all admire, as the last First Lord of the Admiralty, in taking the particular line which he has. But, my Lords, we are not the nation that we were. The world is changing; we cannot act in such a wide sense; nor shall we ever have the money again to act as widely as we should like.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington: we cannot debate this matter now. Clearly, in his careful statement, he has indicated the views of the Opposition in criticism of this Defence Review. I would appeal to your Lordships to read it very carefully. This Review is the result—and this is a definite fact—of the most intensive series of studies that has been put into effect in this country. I do not agree with the noble Lord when he says that we have not brought our commitments into line with our financial target. We could discuss this point at great length, but I hope when the time comes he will tell us how else he would have organised it.
The noble Lord asked me why it was necessary to make an announcement about Aden now. This is one of the most delicate political judgments that any Government can make; but it seems to me fundamental that, if we are to disengage from a certain area of the world, we should not mislead the people whom we hope, afterwards, will achieve an established and settled way of government. It seems to me that it is a matter

117
both of honesty and of prudence that they should be told.
On the question of the carrier, I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington—who, of course, was not the last First Lord; the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, was the last First Lord—feels very strongly, and in the circumstances I think it would be perfectly right to depart from the usual rule of not referring to the advice that is given by the Chiefs of Staff and to indicate that many of the Naval Board were not in favour of, and, indeed, were strongly opposed to, cutting the carriers. It seems to me quite right, in honesty to them and to the understanding of their position in the Service, that this should be said. I do not propose to pursue this point further than saying that their views did not prevail, and that in the very intensive series of studies the conclusion was arrived at that, unless we had a large force of carriers—and let me make it clear to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. and to the House that no new carrier has been ordered in the last 20 years—and unless we were to see a prolongation of the carrier force, followed by CVA 01 and followed by several other carriers, we were arriving at the least cost-effective solution to the problems. My Lords, we shall no doubt have an opportunity to discuss this, but I think the noble Lord. Lord Carrington, will find that not all those who sit on his Benches agree with him on this matter.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I do not want to continue this discussion, but the noble Lord very fairly said that many of the Naval Staff did not agree with this decision not to continue with the carriers. I think, in all fairness, he ought to say whether there were any who agreed with that decision.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I think I have really gone as far as I can. Let me just say, "the members of the Navy Board ". The noble Lord, in fairness, must not press me. I have tried to be fair by indicating that the members of the Navy Board were opposed to this decision.
LORD CARRINGTON: You said "many".
LORD SHACKLETON: I think I said "many of the Naval Staff", but I am
118
sorry; I will say "the members of the Navy Board". I hope the noble Lord will not press me on this matter, because, if so, I shall have to indicate that there are others, in all the Services, who fully agree with this decision.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I do not, of course, want to press the noble Lord (I am not at all sure he should have said what he did, and I know he was trying to be helpful) but the implication of what he said—that many of the Navy Staff do not agree with this—was that some of them did, and I think that is very unlikely.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, could I also thank the noble Lord for repeating this Statement? It struck me as having a much higher political content than Statements of this sort, to which we are accustomed, normally do; and, indeed, to sound in certain respects more like an electioneering pamphlet than a considered Statement of Defence policy. Secondly, I should like to say that I take issue with the reference to the runaway costs of Defence under the last Administration. This bears very little relation to reality, and, here again, I feel it is another myth which Labour Party propagandists are anxious to foster at the present time.
Having said that, could I ask three questions of the noble Lord? I noted what he had said about the reduction in the deployment of our forces in the Mediterranean. Can he assure the House that, nevertheless, the Government will be able in the future fully to honour their obligations toward the CENTO Powers? Secondly, on the F111 buy, there was reference to the foreign exchange costs of the buy. Can he tell us what the foreign exchange costs will, in fact, amount to? Can he also, in that connection, assure the House that there is, in fact, a definite agreement with the French Government now to go ahead with the development of the variable geometry aircraft?—otherwise there may be serious disquiet in France about this particular decision. Thirdly, in echoing what the last First Lord but one has said about the disastrous decision regarding the carriers, may I ask the noble Lord whether the Government really mean to say that the fully modernised "Eagle" and the fully modernised "Ark Royal" would not

119
have been effective operationally within the latter half of the next decade?
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, would the noble Lord perhaps agree that, given our existing resources, the real choice before Britain as revealed in this Review—which, I confess, like other noble Lords, I have had no more than a moment to glance at—is whether to become an effective European or an increasingly ineffective world Power? And, in the second place, would the noble Lord agree that there is no inherent reason—there is none so far as I can see—why we alone among the medium-sized Powers should voluntarily assume any individual world peace-keeping mission?
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord just two questions? He referred to the Anglo-French variable geometry aircraft in his Statement, and he went on to say that both operationally and industrially this aircraft is the core of our long-term—I repeat, long-term—aircraft programme. In the White Paper it is said that this aircraft will come into service in the mid-1970s. Does he not think that possibly greater stress could have been placed on Anglo-French co-operation on an intermediate or immediate-term aircraft programme? Because as one goes through the White Paper one reads about the long-term implications of the Defence Review on the aircraft side and of co-operation with France, which is so important. But does the noble Lord not agree that greater stress could have been placed on intermediate or short-term objectives; and, for instance, would he not then think that greater attention could have been paid to the advantages of the Spey-Mirage which was available as from 1969, for otherwise we should become excessively dependent on American advanced technology?
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, as my noble friend has been asked so many questions from the other side, may I ask him one or two more? First, is he not aware that all the patriots in this House are not on the other side? Secondly, is he not aware that if we were to lay down an aircraft carrier now it would probably take seven to ten years to build, and that by that time the progress in the building of killer submarines
120
would be such that they could blow it out of the sea in ten minutes? Thirdly, is he not aware that the Party on the opposite side have left this country gravely undefended during the last thirteen years? And, fourthly, if it is so urgent that we should have an aircraft carrier built now, why was it not laid down in the last thirteen years?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, before we get too far into the next General Election, I wonder whether the noble Lord could possibly answer my question.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I think that perhaps this is turning into a debate, and if the noble Lord would reply, as he is only too anxious to do, I would hope that that would be an end of it for the moment.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am only too happy to reply. I was trying to save the time of the House by allowing noble Lords to ask their questions, which was a practice followed regularly when noble Lords on the other side sat on this side of the House. May I thank the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, for his extremely helpful questions, the answers to which, I think, are apparent to all noble Lords on this side and, I suspect, to some noble Lords on the other side. On the subject raised by the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, I should be willing to debate the merits of the Spey-Mirage 4 and the F 111; but I do not think there is time. I would only say, with absolute certainty, that it was the combined view of all those who studied this matter, that in fact the F 111 best meets our needs and best fits into the time-scale of the Anglo-French aircraft. I may say that I have no reason to suppose that the French Government do not fully understand our position; indeed, it has been explained, and I have not heard any criticism.
I should have acknowledged the helpful remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Rea. I have been stimulated to say that the policy of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, certainly appeals to some people in the House and in the country, but it does not, in my view, represent the views of the other two political Parties; nor do I reckon that it represents the views wholly of his own Party. It seems to me that we are confronted with

121
a series of difficult choices. We have attempted to arrive at the best answer which will enable us to fulfil our obligations—and they are very important obligations—in keeping the peace of the world. It is all very well to assume that we can just opt out; but I think we have a duty, and that it is in our own interests to contribute to maintaining the peace in areas of the world other than Europe.
The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, was anxious to have an answer to his questions. It rather surprised me when he talked about elections and about the terms of the Statement—he is trying hard to be a good Conservative and I noticed this coming out in his opening remarks. I can only say that if the last Government considered that the views on runaway costs are different from those they believed, their realities were a dream world. This Government will be in a position to honour their obligations in the Mediterranean within the limits of our power; in fact, I would hope that we shall be in a better position to do so, because of the better and more efficient organisation of our defence forces.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, may I, while still attempting to be a good Conservative, as the noble Lord so politely suggested, ask the noble Lord what he really meant by that answer? Does he mean that we shall be able, after our withdrawal or reduction of forces in the Mediterranean, fully to discharge our obligations towards the CENTO alliance or not?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, this would trigger off a large debate. I am doubtful whether, in any event, with the forces that we had been left with by the previous Government, we were fully able to discharge them. It is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to honour our obligations to the best of our ability, and the steps we are taking to economise in regard to the Mediterranean do not reduce our capability of fulfilling our obligations to CENTO; or, indeed, of fulfilling other obligations. I am afraid that I cannot tell the noble Lord what the total figures are in relation to the F.111 buy. We have given a great deal more information in this Defence White Paper than has ever been previously given, both as regards number and unit costs, but I am afraid I am not in a
122
position to give him an answer. I have already referred to the French Government and their co-operation in regard to the development not only of the variable geometric aircraft but also of the Jaguar. These, it is clear to anyone who reads the White Paper, play a major part in our future aircraft planning, and the French Government are well aware of our intention in this matter. We are in close touch with them, and from all the reports I have had they have a perfectly satisfactory understanding of our position.
I should like to debate the question of carriers, but there is a certain difficulty in that older emotions are liable to take effect. I find myself, not only as Minister of the Air Force, but also as a former member of the Air Force—and I have never concealed my personal attitude on this subject—in a certain difficulty in making the case against carriers to-day. There may be noble Lords who may wish to pursue this further. I can only say that this subject was most exhaustively considered. A decision has been taken and the Government believe it to be the best decision in terms of getting best value for money for this country, but I deprecate the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that this is the end of the Royal Navy. It is not. The Royal Navy has a great future and I am sure that it will flourish in future.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I did not say that this was the end of the Royal Navy. I said that without the Fleet Air Arm the Royal Navy would he incapable playing a global rôle, and I believe that to be right.

ABORTION BILL [H.L.]
4.12 p.m.
Report stage resumed.
LORD BRAIN: My Lords, there is little I need add to what has been said already by the noble Baroness in moving this Amendment and by the most reverend Primate in supporting it, but I think I should say something about what I believe to be the views of many doctors, of probably the majority of doctors. If the state of a pregnant woman is such that another child would be a serious physical or mental strain, carrying with it the risk of a deterioration in her

123
physical and mental health, this contingency is already covered, I am sure, by paragraph (a). If some lesser effect on health than this is contemplated, in my view, it would be extremely hard to assess.
Doctors already take extremely seriously their responsibilities when it comes to a decision about recommending and carrying out abortion. As it is, the existing requirements are often a source of considerable anxiety to them. In my view, it would be an impossible task and an intolerable burden on doctors, if they were asked to decide what is meant by physical or mental inadequacy. On the other hand, if physical and mental inadequacy are not to be based purely on medical considerations, but are also to depend, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, implied in what he said in the Committee stage debate, upon social considerations, then these issues ought not to be left to doctors—or, at any rate, not to doctors alone. I believe this to be the view of the large majority of doctors. I have here the views of the British Medical Association, which I think have already been sent to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. They say:
" Quite apart from difficulties of definition, we do not think that termination is justifiable on grounds of physical or mental inadequacy to be a mother."
I have done my best to ascertain the views of private gynæcologists and psychologists and they have all come to the same view. They are, in fact, opposed to the paragraph to which this Amendment is proposed. Therefore, I support the Amendment.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, this Amendment is identical with one moved on Committee stage, which your Lordships passed by a large majority. It is concerned with the mother who will survive childbirth but who may be mentally inadequate, the centre of a problem family, or who may be suffering from some disability. I observed that the most reverend Primate did not mention any specific conditions. May I remind your Lordships that these would include women who are crippled, blind, epileptic, arthritic, diabetic or suffering from some chronic condition. I do not agree with noble Lords who have said that the medical profession would regard paragraph(a)as covering these conditions. May I remind the House that since
124
we last discussed this problem there has been a case, which was given prominence in the newspapers, of a woman who had two abnormal children and went to get an abortion, but was refused, and who subsequently was delivered of a stillborn child and died?
I suggest to my noble colleague who has just spoken that he has been rather sweeping. We find that doctors, like lawyers and laymen, approach this matter in entirely different ways. My noble friend Lord Amulree belongs to the University College Hospital, one of whose doctors, Professor Nixon, a wonderful man, probably known to many of your Lordships, died last week. Professor Nixon was a man with a big heart, who would have interpreted the first part of this Bill in a way all of us who believe in what I am now saying would appreciate. Doctors are different. Some have big hearts and some have desiccated little hearts. Some are moved by their consciences and some would say, "Let us think of this poor devil of a woman, who has this chronic complaint and has to live under these appalling conditions, and give her some relief". We cannot put all doctors in one category. But we have to legislate for the whole country and for the surgeon in a little town who perhaps fears that everybody is watching him or that the church may think of him very unfavourably if he interpreted the first part of the Bill in the way I should like him to do. What we are asking for is that every surgeon should have the freedom to do as his heart, as well as his intelligence, demands.
To my noble friend who spoke about the woman who sought an abortion because she was married to man who did not want another baby, I would say that the maternal instinct is so strong that few women would allow their husbands to force them to do that. We really must not be guided by the assumption that, if this paragraph were included in the Bill, some women would he persuaded not to have babies though they were healthy, had enough money and had good homes. In these circumstances, a woman would defy her husband. Again, a woman will have to go to a surgeon with some gynecological experience in a hospital. There is no question of her going to a general practitioner who would feel himself under pressure. We altered this on

125
the first stage, so that a woman would go to the best people in the country.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, may I interrupt my noble friend? The Bill provides that two medical practitioners have this power, either the woman's regular doctor or a practitioner employed in a hospital. So, she may go to her own doctor.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I am sorry, but we have amended it. The Amendment in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, was the first one on the Marshalled List, and I supported it. My noble friend is reading from the wrong Bill.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: With respect to the noble Baroness, perhaps I can help. The noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, supported me in moving into the Bill the Amendment that the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, read. There are Amendments down for discussion next Monday to define more precisely, as the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, wanted, the kind of medical practitioner to give the certificate.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I think that I may indulge in a little intelligent anticipation. The Committee agreed with the noble and learned Viscount when he put the case that the doctor who should be chosen should be one from a hospital (it can be, in the first place, the woman's own doctor), but that she should also be advised by a surgeon with gynæcological experience. I am pleased to say that the Amendment uses the words that I used. That will be the position. When she goes to the hospital these doctors will be under no pressure to do something which they do not want to do. She will have the best possible advice.
I ask your Lordships to think of the woman with a chronic condition who, on becoming pregnant, feels that she is incapable of coping with another child, because the burden will be too great. We want, therefore, all the surgeons in the country to be free to help this woman. I feel, having listened to the most reverend Primate, and before him, on the Committee stage, to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter, that the
126
question before us to-day, so far as the Church is concerned, is whether precedence should be given to the wishes of this mother, with her fully developed personality, and with the responsibilities of her children, her husband and her home, or to the survival of a few weeks' old fœtus. I have not been favoured with Divine guidance. I can speak in this debate only as a mother, and as one with 40 years' experience of medical practice, during which time I have met very many of these women: I cannot enter into the arena of theological disputation. But I think it should be drawn to the notice of those who might be influenced at this stage by the fact that the name of the most reverend Primate appears on this Amendment that I do not think he has received a mandate to speak for the whole Church, or for the mothers of the country.
I would remind your Lordships that the National Opinion Poll that was taken on the subject revealed that 73 per cent. of the population would like a change in the abortion laws. I would remind your Lordships that women's organisations, one after the other, have pressed for this relief in their lives. On the subject of the Church's approach, we must realise this. In The Times of February 17—only last Thursday—under the heading, "Church Assembly Confusion Over Abortion Report", the Church correspondent wrote this—and I think it should be on the Record:
" Attempts by the Church Assembly yesterday to clarify the attitude of the Church of England towards abortion, and at the same time provide a lead to the legislature now considering amendments in the law, did little towards this end. The debate became so confused that the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Ramsey, rescued it from—as he said—running into chaos, by rescinding what had been decided and starting again…Confusion arose when five amendments and an amendment to one of them were introduced. The report itself…argues that abortion should be allowed if the health or wellbeing of the mother is endangered.
" The Rev. D. Stevens, Lichfield, wanted the Assembly to add the words: ' Reaffirms that the vital principle involved is the sanctity of human life ', and the Bishop of Leicester, Dr. Williams, chairman of the board, wanted ' Christian compassion' as well as the sanctity of human life."
THE LORD BISHOP OF LINCOLN: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lady, I think there are two points which might be made.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Perhaps I might finish the quotation first. The report goes on:
" Dr. Williams said …' The Church has erred in the past and can still err '. He went on: 'We erred over the burning of heretics, and the burning of witches. No doubt many of the arguments heard in this debate were heard then. We had to eat our words, and I think that Rome is showing signs that it may have to eat its words over contraception. Even the Pope has made one exception to the question of abortion, and I think that doctors who have spoken have made it plain that they make exceptions.'
" Finally, the Assembly decided that they welcomed the report because ' it stresses the principle of the sanctity of life for mother and foetus and urges the church to preserve and demonstrate a balance between compassion for the mother and proper responsibility for the life of the unborn child.' "
My Lords, I am asking this House to-day to show that Christian compassion for which the Church asked last Thursday for the mother, for which the more liberal members of the Church ask, rather than be committed to dogma. If it is a question of balance, then give first consideration to the needs of a full-grown woman with her children and home responsibilities.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LINCOLN: My Lords, I intervened in the speech of the noble Baroness only because she said she wished this to go down as a record of the proceedings of the Church Assembly. I read the report the following morning, and noted two things. There was a confusion, but, rather like the introductory business of this House, it was a procedural confusion and not a confusion concerning the issue of debate. Secondly, the noble Baroness quoted from my brother the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester, again from The Times. The Times significantly omitted the first part of his speech, which said that, along with the exercise of Christian compassion, there was also the other principle, with which I am sure the noble Lady would agree: that Christian man had to recognise that modern knowledge gave to man a greater responsibility concerning the processes both of living and dying than hitherto had been exercised, and that such processes must be exercised responsibly, though humbly. He then went on to talk about Christian compassion. The report suggested that all that the right reverend Prelate said was to speak about compassion, without first
128
having made the Church Assembly think about the more important principle.
4.28 p.m.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, The Times in a leading article to-day said that this Bill ought to be withdrawn because so much confusion has been aroused. I think that a number of things have emerged quite clearly from our debate. There is complete unanimity, in which the Bench of Bishops join, that abortion in certain circumstances should be legalised. There is almost universal agreement that it is desirable that legislation should lay down that abortion is justifiable in order to preserve the life or health of the mother. There is a fair degree of agreement, also, that abortion is justified where there is a great likelihood of a severely abnormal child being born.
The paragraph we are discussing at the moment, however, goes rather further than that. I think that the issue which is now before the House is this: are the only circumstances in which abortion is justified those which relate to the health, physical or mental, of the mother, and the probable abnormality of the child? That, as I understand it—although I do not find the ethical discussion of abortion by the Church Assembly entirely easy to follow—is as far as the Bench of Bishops is prepared to go.
I hope that the House as a whole will be prepared to say that there are other circumstances in which an abortion is justifiable: the birth of a child into a family which is very vicious, which is habitually criminal, where there is illhealth—which, I should have thought, did not fall within paragraph (a) that we have been discussing—and where a family is so numerous that almost any addition to the family will be greatly to the disadvantage of the existing members of the family, as well as to the newborn child. In many circumstances of this kind, which we can all imagine but which it is extremely difficult to define in a single word, or even in a great many words, I should think that abortion is also justifiable. I should have thought that it was wrong for us to stop at this particular point of physical or mental illness.
It has been argued, notably by the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, and also by

129
the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, that most of the cases—that is what Lord Dilhorne said—to which I have drawn attention, and with which he himself said he had great sympathy, would be included in paragraph(a). As the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said in the Committee stage debate, in order to include these cases for which we all have compassion it means straining the words of paragraph (a). The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, went so far as to say that it was dishonest to interpret that paragraph in that way. I certainly think it is wrong to legislate with narrow words, intending those words to be widely interpreted by those responsible.
There is another point. Those who will have to interpret the words are doctors. It is not for them to have any extensive knowledge of the law, and if they feel, in looking at the words and reading them as a layman would, that they are narrow words, they will not be disposed to interpret them more widely, because they will be fearful of the consequences—the danger of criminal proceedings and, what is perhaps worse, serious charges of unprofessional conduct. Therefore, if it is the case that noble Lords in this House—and I refer particularly to my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne, who expressed his sympathy in these cases—wish these hard cases to be included, then, surely, it is right and wise for us to include a paragraph which deals with them explicitly.
It is not easy, in discussing an Amendment of this kind, to see what the Bill is ultimately going to be. I will not take up your Lordships' time by referring to the special problem of mental deficiency, because that should come up under a subsequent Amendment, but it may well be that if your Lordships accept paragraph (c), with its wider ambit, it may not be necessary for us to press so strongly the special provision for mental deficiency, which we shall certainly have to press if paragraph (c) is dropped.
There is another extremely important matter closely connected with this, and I hope no one will say that it is not a reasonable and proper argument to put forward. One of the main purposes of codifying and, as I hope, extending the law legalising abortion, is in order to make it unnecessary for so many women
130
to have recourse to the illegal abortionist in the back streets. A very large number of the cases who feel that they are driven to those illegal abortionists are those who cannot really come under paragraph (a) or paragraph (b), but who would come under paragraph (c). For that important sociological reason I urge your Lordships to take a broad and generous view of this measure, and to resist the Amendment which will narrow its ambit.
4.35 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I should like to reply straight away to the noble Lord, Lord Molson, because I think his speech requires an immediate answer. It is all very well to say that the words of paragraph(a)are narrow and restrictive, and then to say that we must go further from there without regard to the words which it is proposed to leave out and which are now contained in paragraph(c). I wonder whether my noble friend recognises that not only does paragraph (a) go in some respects beyond the existing law, but how widely that paragraph is interpreted at the present time by the medical profession. When he posed the question: Are the only circumstances those of the health of the mother or the child?—again, the answer to that question depends to a great extent on what are the circumstances the medical profession can take into account in considering the health of the mother or the child. This Bill makes it clear. I do not think my noble friend observed that regard can be had to the health of the mother or the child before, at, or after birth. In the hard cases which he mentioned, where there would be a disadvantage to the existing family—a case which was dealt with, I think, at some length by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter on Second Reading—surely the doctors would be entitled to have regard to the effect on the mother if the family's economic circumstances were such as to subject her to an intolerable strain, mental or physical.
The fallacy in my noble friend's argument is to suppose that every other kind of case which he, for one, would like to see included, is covered by paragraph (c). We are not being asked to decide whether paragraphs (a) and (b) go far enough, but to decide whether paragraph (c) should be included. The terms of paragraph (c) are

131
not nearly as wide as my noble friend would think. They are narrow, but difficult of interpretation, because all that doctors have to look at in relation to paragraph (c) is the question of the physical or mental adequacy of the woman. I would say to my noble friend that if you are considering the physical or mental adequacy of the woman to be a mother, you are not considering the size of her family, or the effect on the other members of the family. I hope the House will not be misled by that sort of observation.
My noble friend went on to suggest that the wording of paragraph (a) would be strained. I do not think it is strained, and I should like to give some information to your Lordships which I have received since the Committee stage. The noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, referred to the National Opinion Polls. I agree, as I think we all do, about the desirability of having a Bill on the Statute Book. But it is another thing to say that a National Opinion Poll is in favour of this particular provision. I do not believe that for a moment.
If I may, I should now like to express my pleasure that the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, has tabled to-day the Amendment which I moved in Committee, and I express my gratitude to her for moving it in such an eloquent and persuasive fashion. I think she put the real point of this extremely well: Are we really to say that people of whom we do not approve should not be allowed to propogate? I know there are those whose hold a sincere belief that any woman should have the right to have her pregnancy terminated if she so desires. I am not sure, but I think this is the view of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and of the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, particularly in view of what she said to-day. But, my Lords, if that is their view it would be easy to draw a Bill to give effect to it, and then we could have a direct vote on it; but I suspect that such a Bill would stand little chance of passing.
I think it is the case that this Bill, with paragraph (c), will produce the effect, and is intended to produce the effect, as nearly as possible, as if a specific and clear right had been given to the woman to have her pregnancy
132
terminated at her request at any time. Might I remind your Lordships of the original terms of paragraph (c). They read as follows:
" The health of the patient or the social conditions in which she is living (including the social conditions of her existing children) make her unsuitable to assume the legal and moral responsibility for caring for a child or another child."
On that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said—and I quote from Hansard:
" This proposal is not included in the declared aims of the Abortion Law Reform Association, and I venture to think that it will not command the same sympathy as some of the other proposals. It is aimed against a very real social problem: the situation, for example, of the harassed mother who already has a family of children and simply cannot cope with another; and it is stimulated by concern not only for the mother but also for the unborn child."
That seems to me almost to summarise the speech of my noble friend. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, continued:
" But many, I think, will feel that the proposed ground is too imprecise. It is not primarily a medical ground, and it is arguable that it should not be left to doctors to decide. Social conditions ', would presumably cover the case of a woman with five or six children living in two rooms. It may be undesirable to bring another child into the world in such conditions; but it is surely arguable that rehousing, not abortion, is the answer."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 270 (No. 11), col. 1168: 30/11 /65.]
My Lords, I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said, and it seems to me that the words he then uttered are equally applicable to this particular provision in the light of the interpretation sought to be put upon it by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, and the noble Lord, Lord Molson. In Committee I suggested that these words meant that if a pregnant woman went to a doctor and said, "I do not want this child", the doctor would be entitled to say that she would not be an adequate mother to the unwanted child. What would have to be looked at is not her health, or that of her child, not her social conditions but just her personal physical or mental adequacy; and of that the medical profession is to judge.
When the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, replied to me in Committee he did not deny this. He did not deal with it at all, and if I am right about this it means

133
that this provision provides for abortion, not directly but indirectly, if the woman can find two doctors who will say this, at the request of the pregnant woman. Instead of dealing with this point the noble Lord, as we know, gave a long list of the kind of cases he intended to be covered by this provision. The noble Lady referred to the first one again to-day, epileptics. Is it really the case that a woman who has suffered, most unfortunately, from epilepsy is an inadequate mother? Surely there are many adequate mothers who have children at the present time and also have the misfortune to suffer to some degree with epilepsy.
Women in prison, persistent offenders, shoplifters, women married to drunkards and ne'er-do-wells, women who go out to work—those were some of the cases mentioned. They are not really covered by this provision at all, because this provision relates only to a woman's mental or physical inadequacy, not to her social condition. So it would seem from what the noble Lord said that he has tried, by the use of another form of words, to cover the same ground as that covered by his original paragraph (c) which was so severely and rightly criticised by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham.
Listening to these discussions I wonder whether it is sufficiently realised how far the present law goes, and how dangerous this operation is, even if it is performed in hospitals under the best of conditions. From the debates we have had on this Bill the impression might well have arisen that the operation is one of the simplest character, with very little risk attached. My Lords, after the Committee stage I received a letter from a distinguished surgeon whom I have never met but who is head of the gynecological department of a big hospital. He wrote—and I should like to quote to your Lordships his words:
"The termination of pregnancy is a dangerous operation with mortality in the best conditions. No safe technique has yet been devised and no responsible doctor would countenance the death of a woman from abortion unless her pregnancy constituted a real risk to her life, health or family security."
Now, my Lords, I put this question to Her Majesty's Government. Have not a number of deaths occurred in the last year following upon the termination of
134
pregnancies, lawfully terminated in hospitals in proper circumstances?
I asked the surgeon who wrote to me whether he could give me any further information, of his own knowledge; and he did. He has written to tell me that in the last five years there were 59 terminations of pregnancy at his hospital, lawfully performed under the existing law. Thirty were done for psychiatric reasons; in 23 cases there were medical reasons—disease; in 6 cases there were obstetric reasons—risks associated with childbirth or pregnancy. In two of those six cases it was done because of German measles infection early in pregnancy, which made the birth of an abnormal child likely. All those cases were dealt with under the existing law.
Now, what of the consequences? The consequences were as follows: two women very nearly died; two women had very severe infections from the operation. Of the 59 women 44 had some fever after the operation, and 14 of them had temperatures above 100°F. Eight needed treatment by antibiotics and three required blood transfusion. One of those who nearly died had a severe infection. So that there were six cases in which the consequences were serious—the two near-deaths, the serious infection and blood transfusion cases. That amounts to this, in the records of one particular hospital: that in nearly 10 per cent. of the cases following upon a lawful abortion properly performed there were serious consequences to the patient.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords. could the noble and learned Viscount make it clear whether at this particular hospital he is dealing with what we usually call therapeutic abortions, or all abortions, including unavoidable ones?
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I was giving the entire figures for the abortions performed at this hospital. I gave the reasons, psychiatric, obstetric and medical. I think those figures cause one to think very seriously indeed. I do not know (I am no doctor) whether they apply generally over the whole of the country. But it means that we ought to think long and hard before extending the right to termination to grounds other than those of health, as is proposed by this paragraph (c). It may be difficult, but doctors are the people who are

135
surely best qualified to weigh the risks to the health of the woman or of the child if the pregnancy is allowed to go on against the risks involved in the operation. But what will happen if this Amendment is not carried? They will not have to consider the health of the woman or the child at the present time; they will have to assess the adequacy of the woman as a mother when no health considerations are involved, and they will have to try to balance that against the risks of the operation. It seems to me that if we do not pass this Amendment cutting out paragraph (c) we shall be placing the medical profession in a very unenviable position.
Many people appear to be under the impression, as I say, that this is a minor operation involving little risk, but if doctors, knowing the risk, refuse to terminate the pregnancy of a woman who wants that done and who has satisfied them of her inadequacy as a mother, that woman will have a grievance against society and against the medical profession. And judging from the pamphlet I have recently received from the Abortion Law Reform Society it would seem that their real complaint is not so much that the present law is inadequate—because of all the cases they set out in that pamphlet the vast majority were cases where there had been termination under the existing law—but that doctors, knowing the risks involved, are reluctant, and I would say rightly reluctant, to perform these operations. I do not want to repeat the arguments I advanced last time or review the arguments which have been so ably put forward on both sides, but I hope for the reasons that have been put forward we shall soon—as I think myself most of the arguments have been fully covered—proceed to a Division upon this matter and reject paragraph (c).
4.54 p.m.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, reluctant as I am to detain the House at this stage, I feel nevertheless it would be quite wrong to be silent and not voice some of the very serious doubts and misgivings which I have about paragraph (c). I should like to put to the House the doubts that must run through the minds of a great many general practitioners if this particular paragraph is retained in the Bill. I feel, in common with many
136
other noble Lords who have already spoken, that from the general practitioner's point of view the shorter, the simpler form of Bill that we pass into law the easier it will be for the doctor to carry out the intention of the promoters of this Bill. What I cannot quite accept from my noble friend Lady Summerskill is the absolute degree of finality with which she expects the general practitioner to approach this problem. Unfortunately, general practitioners are not represented in this House. That is something which the House, I hope, in the future might seek to remedy. Even if we had here three or four general practitioners in active practice, the chances are we should find that they themselves would disagree almost violently about some of the provisions of this Bill, and notably about this paragraph (c). I cannot for a moment accept the degree of finality of judgment that my noble friend Lady Summerskill put forward to the House.
Every doctor knows that during the course of normal pregnancy in the early months a mother may approach her coming confinement with a great deal of misgiving and anxiety which may later on become pathological. But equally it is true—and I would ask my noble friend, Lady Summerskill, to deny this if she can—that during the course of the pregnancy, especially after the fifth or sixth month, the whole outlook of the mother tends to undergo a change, and over and over again an expectant mother will go to the doctor and say quite frankly, "I am feeling better now than I have ever felt at any time before in my life". And equally the doctor, who may form a decisive judgment during the third or fourth month of the pregnancy, if he retains an open mind and allows the pregnancy to go on, will often have to admit to himself, "I was wise not to terminate this pregnancy ". I just put forward these considerations which the House must take into account before it seeks to add to the difficulties with which a general practitioner would be faced.
Over and over again, although it is many years now since I was last in general practice, I have had a mother come to me and say, "I was very glad later on that I decided to have this child ". In instances where a husband has been a confirmed alcoholic, the mother has said,

137
" Well, at least I have the child by me to look after. My husband has deserted me, my home has been broken up. At least I have this child to care for and look after during my life ", and she is so thankful that the child has been spared to her. According to some of the grounds for abortion which have been put before the House, chronic alcoholism might be considered as a sufficient ground for terminating pregnancy.
We have even had the question of kleptomania brought up. I am glad the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, had the wisdom to withdraw that word. Imagine a doctor faced with a doubt: "Here is an expectant mother coming to ask me to perform an abortion. I personally cannot see any ground for performing it. All I need do is to tell this mother, ' Just go round the corner and indulge in a little bout of kleptomania. Do it so that it is seen, and this might be sufficient ground for committing the abortion '." Surely this is a case of reform run riot. I am very glad that my noble friend, Lord Silkin, asked that this word be forgotten.
LORD SILKIN: No, I did not.
LORD SEGAL: Well, at least he did not persist in putting that forward as ground for justifying committing abortion. I have a great deal of misgivings about this paragraph (c). I have thought it over for a long time, and I am still open to be convinced by my noble friend, Lord Silkin, when he comes to reply. But I cannot accept any finality of judgment, either of the doctor or of the expectant mother, during those anxious first few weeks when she comes to discover that she has become pregnant.
Something else which has struck me over and over again is the errors of judgment to which the general practitioner is liable. My noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger spoke about the difficulties of adoption. I remember vividly cases where a mother, twenty years after her child was adopted, has been on the verge of a severe nervous breakdown, torn by the agony of a child that she allowed to be adopted twenty years before. So there is no finality about this Bill; there is no finality about the doctor's judgment; there is no finality about the judgment of an expectant mother in the early weeks of pregnancy.
138
One of the things that impressed me, perhaps more than any other, in my own experience in general practice was the extraordinary capacity of the average child to rise above conditions of adversity. During the previous stages of the debate on this Bill there has been mention of various distinguished men who were brought up in difficult circumstances, or born of doubtful parentage. I cannot help feeling that two recent Prime Ministers in the history of this country, one of Welsh origin, the other of Scottish origin, were brought up under conditions of extreme adversity. One may say, "Yes, but why inflict these conditions upon them? Why not give them, as most children are entitled to have, a decent start in their lives?" Perhaps they, too, would have been glad of these things; but I am sure they would have been the first to admit that if they had been brought up under ideal conditions, surrounded by a proper parental home, the possibility is that neither of them would have ended up by becoming Prime Minister. So we have to accept the circumstances of life. We have to accept the fallibility of human judgment. We have to approach this Bill, not with an air of absolute conviction, of dogmatism, that we know what is best. Let us rather approach it from a human point of view, from the point of view of sympathy and profound understanding.
My noble friend Lady Summerskill quoted, as an argument in favour of the retention of paragraph (c), the tragic instance of an inquest which was held quite recently. But surely this, to my mind, is an argument amply covered by paragraph(a). If for just a moment I may detain the House, that case referred to a sergeant who said that his wife had already given birth to three subnormal children and had difficulty with the birth of one of them, and in August, 1965, she was found to be pregnant. After examination at two hospitals it was suggested that the pregnancy should be ended. She was admitted to a hospital where an Army psychiatrist did not agree that the pregnancy should be terminated. Something obviously went wrong. If she had accepted the advice of one or two of the previous consultants and had the pregnancy terminated without being referred to the psychiatrist for advice, her life would have been saved. Later she developed toxæmia and, on admittance

139
to a hospital, the child was found to be dead. A sterilisation operation was carried out with her consent. After making a good recovery from the operation she collapsed and died.
The risks of this operation have already been pointed out by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne. Her case did not require the retention of paragraph(c). That she collapsed and died after the quite straightforward sterilisation operation is presumably due to the fact that she was suffering from toxemia, which has always been recognised in the majority of cases as ample medical grounds for termination of pregnancy.
I am afraid that I have already detained the House too long. But I have spoken now because I am all in favour of the shortest and the simplest possible drafting of this Bill. Heaven knows! a general practitioner is already beset by so many doubts and difficulties in everyday practice. Why should we inflict on him extra doubts and extra advice, as it is proposed to do by lengthening the clauses of this Bill? I should almost be willing to retain only paragraph (a), extending it by saying
" the continuance of pregnancy would involve serious risk to the life or grave injury to the health whether physical or mental of the pregnant woman or of the child "
and leave it at that, so that the doctors can use their own judgment and allow for a possible change of view on the part of the woman if the pregnancy were allowed to develop.
I think we are making a mistake in some of the other Amendments to this Bill, where we say that the registered medical practitioner may take into account such circumstances; where we are trying to presume to give advice to a general practitioner, not as to what he should not do, but requiring him to take into account certain circumstances. Is this not going a little beyond the point of our confidence in the good sense and wisdom of our general practitioners? I conclude by again saying that I have had a great deal of doubt about the retention of paragraph(c). On balance, I am still in favour of supporting my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger and other noble Lords who have spoken in favour of having it deleted. But I am still open to be convinced by my noble friend Lord Silkin when he rises to reply.
5.8 p.m.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I feel in harmony with the noble Lord, Lord Molson. I am in favour of the retention of paragraph (c). Unlike so many of my noble friends, I am not a doctor, and so cannot speak from that partisan attitude. Unlike some of my noble friends, I am not even a woman, and so cannot speak from their specific point of view. I noticed that my noble friend Lord Segal—and this was one of the many "red herrings" that has been drawn across the discussion of this problem—mentioned certain Prime Ministers who perhaps spent their early years under difficult circumstances. But neither of those Prime Ministers come within the category mentioned in paragraph (c) which we are discussing to-day. So please let us keep our minds directed upon paragraph (c) and the various qualifications which are enumerated there.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Segal that there are many cases where a woman, in the early period of her pregnancy, feels that she does not want a baby—she says, "I have been caught", and that is something horrible from her point of view. However, later, as the baby begins to move, she begins to feel a certain maternal affection and she is glad that she went on with the pregnancy. I concede all that. But another of the "red herrings" that was drawn across our path was that drawn by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, who told us of 59 cases of abortion which took place in a hospital. There were two who nearly died. But they did not die. There were two who were severely affected. But they did not die. There were several who had high temperatures. But they did not die. There were three cases of blood transfusions being given. But the women concerned did not die. Nearly 10 per cent. of the cases had serious consequences, as the noble and learned Viscount told us. But the women did not die. Surely all those 59 examples about which the noble and learned Viscount told us were arguments for not permitting the extension and expansion of this back-street abortion business, and for allowing the operation to take place in hospitals where the women would receive up-to-date medical attention and their death would thus be prevented.

141
This is a very delicate question and, as a mere man, who is only a 50 per cent. partner in this, I feel rather hesitant, but there are a few things that should be said. One of the right reverend Prelates said in the course of his remarks that the Press had misrepresented a statement made by one of his right reverend brethren. I have been engaged in the production of newspapers in this country for over forty years, and I know that people who make speeches and issue documents sometimes incorporate in them all sorts of equivocations and qualifications. But I know that the normal journalist on a national daily newspaper is capable of pushing aside all those qualifications and getting down to the "guts" of the impression which the person wanted to create. So whether or not the right reverend Prelate wants to blame the Press for alleged misrepresentation of a statement, I say that the impression which it was desired to create was the one the Press took notice of.
We have heard many technicalities in this debate. I think it is time we heard about the human considerations. We have heard the voice of the doctors—some on one side, some on the other, some against abortions, some in favour of taking money in regard to operating for abortions. We have heard the voice of the clerics, perhaps in some way muted, on the lines, "We are prepared to go so far, but not to go all the way ". But the voice of the ordinary person, the ordinary husband, the ordinary wife, has also to be heard. We have in recent weeks heard the voice of the Church pronouncing in favour of sodomy. That may be correct; it may be not. Personally I find myself differing—
THE LORD BISHOP OF EXETER: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord to say that I cannot believe that anybody would speak in praise of sodomy.
LORD LEATHERLAND: Sodomy has been pronounced upon by the Church as a sin, but it has been pronounced by the Church as something which, within the law of the land, may take place between adult persons in private. I am not going to equivocate upon this. I am saying that that is in favour of sodomy. Therefore, I do not find myself compelled to have regard to the voice of the Church when I make up my mind on the moral aspects of this issue. I do not feel that
142
pregnancy is an act of God. I think that pregnancy is the result of an operation in which two human beings are concerned.
Now we come to the gist of the whole matter. I feel that the woman has a right to say what shall happen within her own body and with her own body. If she says she does not want to have a child, I think her voice must be regarded. I would not say that that is the final voice. In the case of married couples, the voice of the husband should also be heard. I am very regretful of the fact that the voice of the husband has never been heard in any of our debates on this Bill up to the present.
VISCOUNT BARRINGTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one question on this? I always listen with interest to what he says. Would he apply what he says to a case that took place in India, the case of Suttee, where there was no question of a third party—because I should regard the foetus as a third party —and where only two persons were concerned, the wife and the husband? It was made illegal in India after a good deal of thought. We did try to keep it legal by having a magistrate's opinion that it was in order.
LORD LEATHERLAND: I am quite sure that if I were the Prime Minister of India, or an Indian Prince, I should be able to legislate satisfactorily for the needs of that country. But I am discussing the state of affairs in the United Kingdom, and that is the matter to which I wish to direct my observations. I say that the woman should determine what happens to her own body and within her own body. If she happens to be a married woman, the voice of her husband should be clearly heard. I think that their views should prevail.
Let us come back to the actual provisions of paragraph (c) of the Bill. We have skated rather outside that in our discussions from all sides of the House. What does paragraph (c) say. It refers to the pregnant woman being
" physically or mentally inadequate to be the mother of a child ".
We are men of the world; we have had experience of life. We know that there are physical conditions which would make it extremely dangerous for a respectably married woman to proceed with a further

143
pregnancy. There are questions of albuminuria, toxemia and conditions like it, apart from physical malformations.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, has the noble Lord overlooked the fact that those are covered by paragraph (a)?
LORD LEATHERLAND: The noble Lord has not overlooked anything. He is discussing paragraph (c) at the moment. That is the matter to which your Lordships should direct your attention. Paragraph (c) says "physically or mentally inadequate". As to the word "physically", I suggest there are certain circumstances in which it would be really dangerous for a wife to proceed with her pregnancy. If a doctor corroborates that point of view, it is desirable that the pregnancy should be terminated.
Paragraph(c)goes on to say "mentally inadequate" as a reason for terminating a pregnancy. I have been a member of a county council for twenty years; I have known examples of mentally inadequate women, mentally subnormal women, and it would be cruel, it would be against all that we believe is right in life, for those people to be able to reproduce their kind. I think paragraph (c) properly covers that kind of woman as making her eligible for termination of pregnancy.
Paragraph (c) also deals with the case of girls under sixteen. Which of your Lordships is going to hold up his hand and say, "That girl of sixteen must go on and have her baby "? I am not concerned with questions of morality—
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: Would the noble Lord pay attention to the fact that there is no reference in paragraph (c) to girls under 16?
LORD LEATHERLAND: Paragraph (c), according to the typewritten version of the Bill which is before me, says
" or of another child as the case may be";
or that
" the pregnant woman is a defective or became pregnant when under the age of sixteen ".
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: Perhaps the noble Lord would look at the Bill as amended in Committee, which is the Bill before the House.
LORD LEATHERLAND: The spirit of the debate is that girls under sixteen should be allowed to go on and have their babies, and I say that they should not. That is the difference between my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger and myself. There is the danger that two "quack" doctors— and I hope this example will not offend my noble friend, Lady Summerskill— could get together and say, "We will run an abortion racket". I think that situation has already been coped with by the provision that one of the doctors shall be a hospital doctor under the National Health Service.
From all these points of view, I feel that I should be a hypocrite if I said to a woman, "You are ill. You are suffering from toxæmia. You are suffering from some malformation which would make it very dangerous indeed for you to have this further baby. Nevertheless, I say, with all my virtue, that you must go on and have it." Because paragraph (c) deals with such questions, I am wholeheartedly in support of it.
NOBLE LORDS: Divide. Divide!
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I shall detain the House only a very few moments. I think the point was so admirably put by the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, in proposing this Amendment, and on the whole it has been so well argued, that I wish only to supplement two points. The most reverend Primate quoted me as making a very similar statement to one which he had made in the country, and I think that there is no difficulty in justifying what we both said. I would remind the noble Lord who has just sat down that we are not considering now whether anything additional to what is contained in paragraphs(a) or (b) is or is not required; we are considering the merits of what is contained in paragraph (c). The reason why I said that the paragraph might mean anything is quite simple. If a woman goes to a doctor and says, "I want an abortion", the doctor could bona fide hold that that in itself showed that she was mentally inadequate within the meaning of paragraph (c). That is why I said, and why I think the most reverend Primate was quite right in saying, that this paragraph could be taken as meaning almost anything, and it is to my mind an impossible provision with which to amend the criminal law.

145
The only other point I wish to mention is the argument, which puzzled me, of the noble Lord, Lord Soper. He was interested in the philosophy behind all this—as, if I may say so, am I. He thought there was something very artificial in holding that the fœtus could be said to have, in an important and moral way, a life and soul. But I wonder at what point he thinks that a soul does come into existence? I was wondering, when he was attacking the philosophy that underlay the view of the most reverend Primate, for example, and some of the other speakers, what his own philosophy was.
If the paragraph that we are now considering is right, why is the exposure of infants at birth not equally right? Indeed, if the pregnancy is very far advanced, so that the operation permitted under this Bill would be dangerous to the mother, might not the exposure of the infant be infinitely preferable? I bring this matter into consideration only in order to show the noble Lord, Lord Soper, that some who may have a philosophy on this subject are not, perhaps, people who have thought out the matter less than he has, and may not differ from him in humanity. Because I think that, for the reasons given by those who oppose it, this paragraph is impossibly wide and dangerous, I shall support its deletion.
NOBLE LORDS: Divide, divide!
5.25 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I know that the House wants to divide, but I am sure you will feel it is right that I, as the author of the original provision, should have the opportunity of saying a word in its favour. Of course we have had a very good debate this afternoon, as we had on the occasion of the Committee stage a fortnight ago. On that occasion we had two hours of debate on this particular provision, we had sixteen speeches, and we eventually had a Division in which the clause as it stood was carried by 75 votes to 51—a very large vote which I should have thought represented the opinions of this House. On that occasion we did not have the benefit of contributions from the most reverend Primate or from my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger. They had other business to attend to, and of course that is quite understandable. But we have
146
heard them to-day, and they have taken advantage of the opportunity to reopen the whole matter on Report.
I want to say, quite frankly, to my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger that she produced no single new argument in favour of deleting this provision. Everything that she said had already been said—nobody can say it as well as she—in the course of the debate on Committee. Nor, with great respect to the other speakers, have they said anything new. We have had all this already, and it is going to be very difficult for me to say anything new in support of paragraph (c) as it stands. But I should like to ask noble Lords who have doubts about this, whether they would not agree that there is such a thing as inadequacy in a mother.
We can have differences of opinon as to what constitutes inadequacy. I mentioned kleptomania, and what I had in mind was the kind of home where theft was the practice and where people went to prison (I used the words "in and out of prison ") and I thought of a child being brought up under those conditions. That might well be an example of inadequacy of the mother as a result of mental defect. But I gave other examples, and nobody has referred to those. I mentioned the case of a mother who has deliberately ill-treated her children or neglected them. Nobody thought it right to mention that example of mine. Would your Lordships think that a mother who had been convicted of ill-treating her children would make an adequate mother? You may say, "Of course not, but even that should not be a ground for abortion." I could understand the most reverend Primate saying that—that is the view which the Church takes—but I cannot understand ordinary people taking the view that a mother should be regarded as adequate when she already has children whom she has deliberately ill-treated or neglected.
I would ask noble Lords, who have already accepted the principle of abortion, to accept this as one of the grounds on which abortion should take place. I do not know whether it is sufficiently realised—it certainly was not in the course of the debate—that no abortion can possibly take place unless the mother wishes it, unless she applies for it. There

147
cannot be an abortion without her consent. My noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger made some play on the fact that we were deleting a provision about written consent. I am sure she does not believe that nonsense. Of course, no abortion will be carried out unless the patient wants it and asks for it.
The form in which the consent is given is not really material—that is a point which we can debate later. But it will be on the initiative of the mother herself, and there will be two doctors who will have to form a judgment as to whether, by reason of her mental or physical defects, she will be adequate as a mother. It is a difficult judgment to make—I admit that—but doctors are accustomed to making difficult judgments, not only on mental or physical questions but generally. One is constantly going to one's doctor and seeking advice on questions where the factors of one's physical or mental condition are subsidiary. Doctors are able to form a judgment as to whether a mother is likely to be adequate or not. Very often, they know the conditions of the mother. Where they do not, it is always possible for them to refuse: they are under no obligation. If the case is not made out, and they are not satisfied, they are under no obligation to agree to an abortion. If the first doctor the mother sees agrees to it, there has still to be a second opinion, that of a gynæcologist. It is only where the mother wants an abortion and both doctors are satisfied that the conditions apply that an abortion will take place.
There is, of course, the further possibility, especially now that it is proposed that the abortion should take place, in a hospital or a clinic, of getting the opinion of a social worker in difficult conditions. The woman may have made out a plausible or prima facie case, but the doctor may not be satisfied and he might very well say, "I am not quite satisfied; I should like to get the opinion of a social worker". It is only after he has done that that he need agree that the abortion should take place.
So the real question for the House this afternoon, as it was in Committee, is whether, having accepted the principle of abortion—and abortion not only on the ground of the health of the mother but also on the ground that there is a likelihood of the child being born
148
deformed—we should extend it so that we provide for the case where a mother it to give birth to a child which she is wholly incapable, for one reason or another, or being able to rear. I hope that the House will reaffirm the decision we arrived at a fortnight ago, and will allow this paragraph to remain in the Bill.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I know that the House is anxious to divide, but I hope that I may reply, very shortly, to this debate. I think the essence of the matter has been put most eloquently by the most reverend Primate and by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne: that is, that the genuine cases in which an abortion is legitimate, or should be legitimate, are covered by paragraph (a). I think it is significant that most of the argument against this Amendment has really not dealt with the Amendment at all. My noble friend Lady Summerskill argued on the basis that Amendments which are not yet before your Lordships' House were already carried; my noble friend Lord Leatherland argued from a version of the Bill which is not before your Lordships' House; and the bulk of the argument of those who have opposed the Amendment has not dealt with the specific terms of the Amendment. It has dealt with the general case of women in circumstances of distress being allowed to have an abortion. Compassion has been invoked—a compassion which, I must assure my noble friend Lady Summerskill, I share with her and, indeed, is the reason for my support of a Bill that would deal with those genuine cases.
But there is one crucial point that I think has not been given due weight. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said that the initiative lay with the woman. There is nothing whatever in this Bill that gives the initiative to the woman. There is nothing whatever in paragraph (c) that gives the initiative to the woman—and this is a very important point. It may well be that the initiative will not be with the woman, and that all the woman has to do is to sign a paper which possibly she does not fully understand. I must remind your Lordships that if a woman is beguiled by a salesman into purchasing a refrigerator which she does not want, she has three days in which

149
she can revoke that consent. If a woman wants her child to be adopted, she must sign her consent before a magistrate and she has power to revoke it right up to the moment of the court hearing. But at present this Bill says simply that she gives her consent in writing, with no other safeguards whatever; and there are no indications that the initiative is necessarily with her.
I can very well see that a woman may go to her doctor and say, "If I have a child I shall be a nervous and physical wreck", but this is provided for in paragraph (a).
LORD SILKIN: It is not.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: If she is convinced that she will be a nervous and physical wreck, it is, because paragraph (a) provides for an abortion in cases where there is grave injury to her health, and to be a nervous and physical wreck is indeed to suffer grave injury to health. But I cannot see that a woman is going to take the initiative and go to her doctor and say, "I am unfit to be a mother; I shall be an inadequate mother." For this reason I think that this paragraph opens the door to other people's decisions about the capacity of particular women to be mothers.
The noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, said that some doctors had "desiccated little hearts." That is not a statement I would ever have dared to make about her distinguished profession: still less would I dare to say that any of them have desiccated little heads. But I would say, my Lords, that if we are going to ask the medical profession, in their present state of knowledge, to make these amateur exercises in pseudo-eugenics, we are really asking them not to have desiccated little heads but enormously swollen heads. I think this is a very dangerous provision. It is a dangerous provision to say that two men—who, after all, are only human, even if they are doctors—should have the right to say whether a woman is or is not fit to be the mother of her child. I think it is dangerous because it is the thin edge of a wedge that might lead us a great deal further than we think.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!Reply,
reply!
5.38 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 81; Not-Contents, 51.

CONTENTS

Alport, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Milvertin, L.

Amherst, E.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Ampthill, L.

Exeter, L. Bp. [Teller.]

Morris of Borth-y-Gest, L.

Amulree, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mowbray and stourton, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Forster of Harraby, L.

Newton, L.

Atholl, D.

Fortescue, E.

Norwich, L. Bp

Attlee, E.

Furness, V.

Ogmore, L.

Auckland, L.

Goschen, V.

Parker of Waddington, L.

Audley, Bs.

Grenfell, L.

Perth, E.

Barrington, V.

Gridley, L.

Rennell, L.

Bowles, L.

Harlech, L.

Rockley, L. St.

Brain, L.

Hawke, L.

St. Just, L.

Brock, L.

Henderson, L.

Saltoun, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Sandford, L.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Iddesleigh, E.

Segal, L.

Chesham, L.

Ilford, L.

Selkirk, E.

Colville of Culross, V.

Inglewood, L.

Shephered, L.

Conesford, L.

King-Hall, L.

Simonds, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Lilford, L.

Somers, L.

Daventry, V.

Lincoln, L. Bp.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Derwent, L.

London, L. Bp.

Swanborough, Bs.

Devonshire, D.

Longford, E.

Thurlow, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Lothian, M.

Waverly, V.

Drumalbyn, L.

Luke, L.

Winchester, L. Bp.

Dudley, L.

Margadale, L.

Wootton of Abinger, Bs. [Teller.]

Dundee, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Ebbisham, L.

Mersey, V.

Ypres, E.

Eccles, V.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Mottistone, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Gifford, L.

Moynihan, L.

Albemarle, E.

Greenway, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Archibald, L.

Henley, L.

Raglan, L.

Arwyn, L.

Hertford, M.

Rusholme, L.

Blyton, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

St. Davids, V.

Burton of Coventry, Bs.

Kirkwood, L.

Shackleton, L.

Byers, L.

Latham, L.

Silkin, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Leatherland, L. [Teller.]

Soper, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Listowel, E.

Stocks, Bs.

Chorley, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Citrine, L.

MacAndrew, L.

Strange, L.

Colwyn, L.

Mitchison, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Effingham, E.

Molson, L.

Taylor, L.

Falkland, V.

Monsell, V.

Wellington, D.

Ferrier, L.

Monson, L.

Willis, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Morrison, L.

Winterbottom, L. [Teller.]

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.48 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, as the House knows, we still have a lot of Business before us, and we have had a long debate. I believe the next Amendment raises another matter of principle and I wonder whether it would be the wish of the House—I believe my noble friend Lord Silkin is agreeable—that we should complete the Report Stage now and then proceed with what Amendments the House wishes to put down on the recommittal on Monday. If that be the case, I wonder whether my noble friend Lord Silkin could express his views in agreement.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I am perfectly willing not to move the remainder of the Amendments and to ask that the Bill be recommitted.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, so far as I am concerned, that course is perfectly satisfactory. I do not know whether the noble Lady will take the same view; but I can assure her that if she does, as we are again on the same side on Monday, if she cannot be here—and I hope she will be—I will do my utmost
152
to put the case as persuasively and eloquently as she has put the case to-day.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, that is very acceptable. I understand that we have to call all the Amendments in order that the Report stage be completed properly. I hope that nobody will respond to the calling of the Amendments.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Moved, That the Bill be now re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House.—(Lord Silkin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Bill re-committed accordingly.

CONSOLIDATED FUND 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.

PROTECTION OF CONSUMERS (TRADE DESCRIPTIONS) BILL [H.L.]
5.54 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Champion.)
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD AILWYN in the Chair.]
Clause 4:
Trade descriptions used in advertisements
4.—(1) The following provisions of this section shall have effect with respect to a trade description used in an advertisement in relation to any class of goods.
(2) The trade description shall be taken as referring to all goods of the class, whether or not in existence at the time the advertisement is published—

(a)for the purpose of determining whether an offence has been committed under paragraph (a) of section 1(1) of this Act; and

(b)where the goods are supplied or offered to be supplied by a person publishing or displaying the advertisement, also for the purpose of determining whether an offence has been committed under paragraph (b) of the said section 1(1).

(3) In determining for the purposes of this section whether any goods are of a class to which an advertisement relates regard shall be had not only to the form and content of the advertisement but to the time, place, manner and frequency of its publication and all other matters making it likely or unlikely that a person to whom the goods are supplied would associate the advertisement with the goods.
LORD AIREDALE LORD AIREDALE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "any class of".
The noble Lord said: Clause 4, which deals with trade descriptions used in advertisements, uses the expression "any class of goods ". I cannot help feeling that this expression may give rise to difficulties. How does one define a class of goods, or to what class particular goods belong? Take, for instance, lemonade. Does lemonade belong to the class of goods known as beverages? I suppose it does. If so, that puts it in the same class as tea. But does one expect tea and lemonade to be within the same class of goods? I do not know. I should have thought that if we could get rid of the expression "a class of goods" without doing mortal injury to the Bill, we should be doing a good service.
I must not anticipate what is going to be said later, but I observe that the very next Amendment seeks to remove the expression "any class" and insert, "any brand or specific description" of goods. At the moment I cannot see that that is very much better. When we consider branded goods, there is a well-known brand "St. Michael ". There are "St. Michael" shirts and "St. Michael ginger biscuits and "St. Michael "all sorts of things. I should think that if we adopted this alternative to "any class" we might then have an enormously wide-ranging variety of goods under one heading. My Amendment, taken in conjunction with Nos. 18 and 23, seeks to remove the necessity for talking about a "class of goods" at all without, in my submission, doing any damage to the Bill. I hope that this will be acceptable to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 23, leave out (" any class of ").—(Lord Airedale.)
LORD CAWLEY: I would support my noble friend Lord Airedale. I think that the word "class" is somewhat misleading because in Section 3 of the Trade Marks Act it is provided that
" A trade mark must be registered in respect of particular goods or classes of goods …"
Then, in the Trade Mark Rules, there is a schedule, laid down by the Registrar of Trade Marks, of the names of classes. For example, Class 8 is "Hand tools and instruments, cutlery, forks and spoons and side arms ". I am certain that that type of class is not intended in this Bill, and I believe that the word "class" will cause some confusion. What should replace it, I do not know.
I wish to raise one other matter. I inadvertently misled the Committee yesterday, when I said (col. 25):
" There is an alteration as between the Act of 1887 and 1953 and the present Bill. Under the 1953 Act the magistrates could award costs to the prosecution or the defence, regardless of the results of the case."
That was in Section 14 of the 1887 Act, but I am afraid that I did not notice that it had been repealed and is not in force at present.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES (LORD MITCHISON): May I thank the noble Lord, on behalf of the Committee, for

155
correcting a minor matter which, indeed, but for his frankness, we may never have noticed. I am sure that he is right, though, and we are all grateful to him. On the Amendment, we have to consider the mischief this clause is aimed at—namely, that in the past we have had advertisements referring to classes of goods. For instance, if we take mineral waters, some misguided person may say that mineral waters are always better than beer and then proceed to sum up their commendatory words in a way which may contain a mis-statement. The difficulty has been to link up a general advertisement with particular cases and the clause tries to do just that. It is literally referring to a class of goods and using the broadest and simplest term to indicate that it is not a reference to specific goods but to a class of goods. It goes on to attach, as it were, in certain circumstances, that general statement in the advertisement to particular cases. That is the whole object of the clause.
If it were made to refer to goods in general, I am afraid that it would miss the point, and miss the mischief (I do not use that word in any vicious sense, of course) it is intended to cover. One can think of a number of cases, but, broadly speaking, it is intended to relate statements in advertisements about a class of goods to particular cases. For instance, if somebody comes in and says "I want the kind of tea which was recommended in a paper the other day", and the paper contained laudatory references to tea in general (tea merchants are a bit more shy about doing it than brewers, as a rule) and there was an irrelevant mis-statement in it, this would provide in subsection (3) the link between the two things. Subsection (3) says:
" In determining for the purposes of this section whether any goods are of a class to which an advertisement relates "—
and it then goes on to say what you have to look at for the purpose. Therefore, the whole object of the clause is this one particular mischief or difficulty, and the removal of "class" here is not just a simplification and shortening; it avoids the whole purpose of the clause. I hope that I have made myself clear.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I think this is a difficult question. I wonder whether he
156
has covered the whole intended meaning of the clause, because, if he has, I fail to see what "class" means in subsection (2). That subsection says:
"The trade description shall be taken as re-referring to all goods of the class…".
Most advertisements do not refer to all goods of the class. They refer to a particular brand, one of the groups of goods under a particular brand in a class. Some, of course, advertise the product as a whole, whatever it may be— "Beer is best" or Drinka Pinta Milka Day "and that sort of thing. But, generally speaking, the class of goods is not the subject of most advertisements; it is a particular brand within the class. I thought that the words "class of goods" meant the particular brand with in the class. In other words, if somebody is advertising a particular brand of shirts, let us say, what this means is that all the shirts of that brand, or of that specification or designation, as the case may be, are treated as a class. In the particular case which the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, had in mind, it would be true that the "St. Michael" brand covered many different classes of goods. But the alternative or special designation was designed in our Amendment to get over that.
What I have difficulty in seeing, if the noble Lord's explanation is correct, is what possible meaning can be attached to the words in subsection (2):
" The trade description shall be taken as referring to all goods of the class …",
when obviously a trade description, if it is a false trade description, is a false trade description in relation to a particular brand within that class. There seem to be at least two separate meanings of the word "class" here. If the noble Lord will have another "shot" at it, I should be grateful, because it is perplexing.
LORD MITCHISON: By all means. Not all advertisements are specific. They do not always refer to "St. Michael" brand. But if I may take beer as an instance, let us suppose that the Brewers' Association put in a general advertisement that beer never contains arsenic—and I remember a reported case of a brewer who put too much arsenic in his beer. I think the evidence was that there was always a little, but that he put in too much. But the sort of thing that is

157
intended to he covered can be illustrated in this way. If a man comes in, and says: "I want to have some beer, but I am very susceptible to arsenic, and I want to be sure that this beer has no arsenic in it"; and he goes on: "I saw an advertisement the other day saying that beer never has arsenic in it. Does that relate to this beer? ", that is the kind of thing it is intended to cover.
The word "class" is a very broad word. No doubt you could seek to apply it in narrower cases, but I am taking those to which it obviously applies. This is not an unreal difficulty; it has happened before. The difficulty has been to link the general advertisement to the particular sale. That is what this clause intends to do. When we come to subsection (2) (and I am as anxious as the noble Lord not to anticipate too much), he will see that it is taken as referring to "all goods of the class", but "for the purpose", which is in paragraph (a), and for a second purpose, in certain circumstances, which is in paragraph b). It is only for those purposes that subsection (2) must be brought in. I hope that I have made it clear. The Amendment we have to consider now is to take out the words "any class", and to do that would miss the point completely. In saying that, I do not intend to be discourteous to the noble Lord, and perhaps I should say that it would miss the point we intended to deal with.
LORD HAWKE: This is an extremely difficult matter to understand. I do not want to embarrass the noble Lord while his divisional reserves do not seem to be in their usual place, but who is commiting an offence? Is it the person who says, "Beer is best", or is it the person who sells the brand that does not conform to the general advertisement? If the particular advertiser is to be made responsible for any advertisement conducted by somebody else, it seems rather difficult.
LORD MITCHISON: I do not think it is as difficult as all that. The only person who can commit an offence under the first six clauses of this Bill is the person who applies a false trade description to goods, or supplies or offers to supply any goods to which a false trade description is applied. If you take the instance that I gave just now (I have no doubt that I could even improve on it), obviously the
158
man who sells the beer in such circumstances—and those are stated here—has to connect it with the trade advertisement, "There is no arsenic in beer", as describing it falsely, because he is saying, by reference to the advertisement, that it contains no arsenic, when in fact it does contain arsenic.
This trouble, I repeat, is not just an ingenious difficulty invented by a perverse Government; it is one that has occurred time and time again in the enforcement of the Merchandise Marks Act. There will not be, I should have thought, an enormous number of cases under this provision, but it is intended to link up the general advertisement of a class of goods to a particular sale in circumstances which are described in subsections (2) and (3).
LORD HAWKE: Am I right in thinking that if a big egg producer advertised on television, "Eggs, two days old only", and a single producer then put an advertisement in the Press to say, "As advertised on television", and his eggs were five days old, he would be committing an offence under this clause?
LORD MITCHISON: I am not sure whether one would need this clause for that case. But supposing somebody said, "No hen's egg is ever sold if it is more than two days old ", that would be a bit of a whopper! If you could link up a particular sale to that in the way described in Clauses 2 and 3, then obviously there would in common sense have been a misdescription, a misstatement. The difficulty has been to link them; that is to say, to know in what circumstances you should be entitled to rely in prosecuting on some general advertisement of a class of goods.
LORD CAWLEY: I am not quite certain whether eggs are a class of goods. This worries me a little, because as I pointed out, in the other Statute, "class of goods" has been a mixed hag, and I am not certain that you will achieve your object.
LORD MITCHISON: I hope the noble Lord will not press me too far on this matter. I should have thought they were, but we need not argue it now.
LORD SOMERS: I wonder whether I could ask the noble Lord if there are not

159
some goods which it is rather difficult to define as to whether they come into the class or not. For instance, no doubt the noble Lord is familiar with the statement, "There is no substitute for wool." There are many fabrics which contain wool, but which are not 100 per cent wool. Do they come into that class or not?
LORD MITCHISON: I should have thought that the class there was wool in general. It is not for me to say whether they are wool or whether the are not, and this is the kind of case where you might have to have recourse to descriptions, standards, and questions of that kind. But, broadly speaking, the object of this is simply—this is rather a limited object, but one which has caused difficulty—to link up particular cases with a general statement. I can think of cases where you could link it up with, "There is no substitute for wool", but perhaps that is such a general path, if I may so put it, that it might be a little difficult to avoid.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: Am I to understand from the noble Lord that an individual manufacturer or producer of goods is responsible under this clause for the advertising of an organisation such as the Egg Marketing Board or the Newspaper Society, according to which particular trade we are considering, even if he is not a member of this employers' organisation, and may thoroughly disapprove of their line of advertising? Because it seems to me to be going too far if these manufacturers or producers would be caught under this clause.
LORD MITCHISON: It is a very interesting question, but I am not sure that it arises on this rather more limited clause. All one is trying to do here is to state the circumstances in which a trade description used in an advertisement in relation to a class of goods shall apply to instances of that class, if I may so put it.
LORD AIREDALE: I think we have had a very interesting discussion. I was not alone in not understanding, until the Minister explained, what was the mischief which this clause is designed to prevent. Now that the Minister has explained it, it may well be that the clause as it stands is better than it would be as amended by
160
me, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.15 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "any class" and insert "any brand or specific designation". The noble Lord said: With this Amendment I think the direction of attack, if I may put it in that way, changes somewhat. The rubric is:
" Trade descriptions used in advertisements ".
That is extremely wide. As the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, said on the last Amendment, he had not understood what was in the Government's mind on this, and he did not think that many other people had either. I have discussed this clause with a great many people, and I can assure the noble Lord that no one has interpreted it in the very narrow way in which the noble Lord has done. I think he will probably understand how it was, in those circumstances, that my Amendment came to be put down, which would immensely widen the scope of the clause. It would take in the trade description made in regard to any brand of goods, any special designation of goods, and a special designation, of course, would include a particular type of goods under a brand name, where the name is used for several types, or it would take a special designation of goods in general, whatever it might be—brown ale or something of that sort. You can make the class narrow or you can make it wide. I am not quite certain that I agree entirely with my noble friend here that the clause was intended to be related to the Trade Marks Act, though whether it is desirable that it should be is another matter. I am sure the noble Lord will argue that at greater length.
Surely, it cannot be the case that, where you have as wide a rubric as this, and the whole of Clause 2, dealing with paragraphs (a) to (i), and several headings within those of various trade descriptions, it is to be concerned merely with the class of goods and nothing else; not with the trade description in relation to the class which the clause says. The noble Lord has been arguing as if it were a trade description of the class of goods. I do not believe that that is so. I do not see how it can possibly be interpreted in that way. He has given one narrow interpretation of it, but is not the problem this?

161
So far as advertisements are concerned, what has happened, as I understand it, is that there has been difficulty in the conception of applying the trade description to particular goods, because it has been possible for the advertiser, or, rather, the supplier, to say, "the goods advertised are not the goods that are sold in this particular transaction."
It has been difficult to relate the advertisement to the goods. It has been difficult to say that the trade description applied in the advertisement is applied to the goods. As I understand it, that is got over in subsection (3). But I thought the purpose of Clause 4 was to ensure that the trade description applied to all the goods of the class, or brand or special designation, irrespective of the fact that the goods being sold over the counter were not in existence at the time when the advertisement was made. This has been one of the arguments in the past, regarding the application of trade descriptions in advertisements and where it has fallen short and has proved impossible to link the advertisement with the actual goods sold in the shop. I thought this was the purpose of this clause, and that is why I put down "brand or specific designation of the goods ".
I do not for one moment say that that is the best alternative one could possibly find. I dare say that other noble Lords could put down a better Amendment. But it is something different from "the class of goods ", because it brings it to a much narrower range, without releasing the cover over the wider range. This is what I thought the clause was intended to do, and I thought that the word "class" was used, not only in relation to a generic name of goods, taking that as the class, or possibly to the class as defined in the Trade Marks Act, but in regard to a class of goods in a different sense.
Again, I have had recourse to the dictionary on this because I was not at all clear what was meant. I found one definition to be "division according to quality"; another was "a number of individuals having a common name", and "like in any respect". That, of course, is not the same as "class" according to the interpretation given by the noble Lord. What I thought was only a drafting Amendment has now become a substan-
162
tive Amendment, because of the narrow interpretation which the noble Lord has placed on "class".
LORD MITCHISON: May I ask which Amendment we are discussing, because the last I heard was an application to withdraw No. 16 and I do not think that that was ever put.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Amendment No. 16 was withdrawn and No. 17 has been called.
LORD MITCHISON: I see; I am sorry.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I hope that I have not to start all over again for the benefit of the noble Lord. I quite understand his difficulty, but the point I am trying to make is that in view of the narrow interpretation that he has given of the word "class" the Amendment, which I thought was merely a drafting Amendment, has become a substantive Amendment because this will greatly widen the scope. It will not only be the question of the misrepresenting of a class—which I take it means the description of flannelette as flannel, or something like that—but will relate to any of the trade descriptions in subsection (2) in relation to the particular goods advertised.
When a man advertises his goods he advertises all the goods in that class, if one can put it in that way. That is to say, to take the example we had before (though I do not think it happens in fact), if "St. Michael" brand shirts were advertised as such, then the advertisement would relate to the brand and the particular designation; in this case it would be the special designation of shirts supplied by the suppliers who own the "St. Michael" brand. This was what I thought the clause was intended to do, and that is why I thought the word "class" was not apposite. But if the interpretation of "class" is as narrow as the noble Lord has said it is, then I think we are on a point of substance, since, as I say, the words I have put down will greatly widen the application of the clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 23, leave out (" any class") and insert (" any brand or specific designation").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I wonder if I may make one comment.

163
Obviously, this is rather difficult. I thought that Lord Drumalbyn's Amendment was one which was going to narrow the operation of this clause, and I think I can prove that it would in fact narrow it, if I understood him aright, he thinks that it would widen the application of this clause. I understood from the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, that the Bill, in using the words "any class of ", was using them in a wide sense. In my view the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, would be of a more restricting kind than he perhaps imagines.
LORD DRUMALBYN: May I interrupt the noble Lady for a moment I wonder whether, when she thought of this before, she was not thinking of it in terms of a class in a much wider sense than the noble Lord opposite has indicated it was expected to be taken? I think that is the difficulty.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: Perhaps I am misinterpreting the noble Lord. I thought he was saying that the word "class" was an umbrella word which covered a great many things. If Lord Drumalbyn's view is right, then I have not understood what he has said. Perhaps I may put my point and then, when the noble Lord replies, he can say which of us is giving the right interpretation. My feeling is that if we put in the words "any brand or specific designation" it would mean that an advertisement would not be an offence unless it could be clearly linked to a particular brand of goods or to goods which are fairly clearly defined. I will give two examples of what I mean. If a secondhand motor car dealer made a general claim, such as "All our vehicles have reconditioned engines", he would not be caught because he would be selling a number of different makes of cars, Land-rovers, lorries and motor bicycles, and the words "All our vehicles have reconditioned engines" would not come under "brand or specific designation". That is not something he would be using.
Again, if one were to put a notice in the window of a general dealer saying "2s. in the £ off all goods" that would not be caught because the claim does not refer to any particular brand or named article—
LORD DRUMALBYN: Or class.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD:—which it would need to do if this Amendment were passed, and my interpretation of Lord Drumalbyn's Amendment is that it would narrow the clause, because in fact people who make a general advertisement could not be caught unless they mentioned a brand or specific designation. Therefore I think it would seriously weaken the application of the Bill to advertisements if we put in something of the nature of these words. However, I think we are interpreting the Minister's speech in two different ways. I look upon the Minister's speech as saying, "This is an all-embracing clause" and the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, thinks otherwise. I do not know which is right, but I want it to be as wide as possible in order that people shall not escape by producing advertisements which can be used in a different sense.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: May I just reply to the noble Lady? The way she has taken it is the interpretation taken by my noble friend. Does the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, want me to reply?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes, I should be grateful if the noble Lady would reply.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I am not quite used to this confused procedure, but no doubt I shall get used to it in time. I think the important point is that we are searching for a word. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, feels that the word "class" is probably not going to give us the correct definition.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Would the noble Lady forgive me? I do not think we are yet clear what it is that the Government want to achieve by this clause. As I understood the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, he was limiting this only to classes of goods and not to specific things, which would exclude specific brands and designations, which are certainly not a class of goods.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: The point is that if we look at subsection (3) the class of goods is determined very much by the terms of the advertisement. This is the important point. One cannot look at one subsection without the other. The example which I have, which is similar to that given by the noble Lady and

165
which may provide the answer, is that if John Smith advertises "My handbags are pure leather" then all John Smith's handbags must be leather, But it does not mean that Tom Jones's handbags have to be leather. In other words, the advertisement in this particular context is the determining factor of the class of goods in the words of the advertisement. Am I further confusing the point, or clarifying it? We hope the Committee will accept this, because we take it that this is—or at any rate was—in the nature of a probing Amendment. I hope your Lordships will accept that subsection (3) will clarify the point.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I should like to study more closely what the noble Lady has said. I am very grateful for her explanation. I hope that it will clarify the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.31 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved, in subsection (2), after "not" to insert "all the goods were ". The noble Lord said: This Amendment may be barking right up the wrong tree; I am not sure. It was put down according to the interpretation that I had placed on the clause, and it may therefore be right out, but I do not think it is. I was not sure even as I put it down that it was quite right; I think it should have been "or any of the goods were ". I am prepared to move a manuscript Amendment if it makes it clearer.
There is a second point, which is a very minor one, and that is that on the most pedantic interpretation the words "whether or not in existence" ought to relate to "class" and not "goods". The major point was really to make it plain that we were dealing with the case where some of the goods were not in existence at all at the time that the advertisement was made, but the person who had read the advertisement came to get goods which were not in existence at the time the advertisement was made. It was intended to cover that. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 25, after (" not ") insert (" all the goods were ").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD MITCHISON: I think that when one considers the meaning of "class", it is fairly clear what we have here. It is
166
" The trade description shall be taken as referring to all goods of the class…"
and if it refers to all goods of the class, it refers to any goods of the class, too; it must. If it is taken to refer to all, it must be taken to include any. When it says
" whether or not in existence at the time the advertisement is published ",
I think, as a matter of sense and construction, having decided what "class" means, that cannot refer to" class." The "class" is the class in the advertisement, as my noble friend said just now. It is a very broad phrase. But it is the goods which are in existence, and the kind of case we have in mind is the preliminary advertisement of a class of goods some of which come to be manufactured afterwards.
They were then linked up with the advertisement by the circumstances of the sale. But you might object in a somewhat critical spirit that the description could not have referred to that particular thing because that particular thing was not in existence at the time of the publication of the advertisment. I hope the noble Lord will feel that the language is reasonably clear. I am bound to say it did not cause me too much difficulty, but that is probably because I received guidance on the wording. I thought "class" was a nice broad word and its application must depend on the terms of the advertisement. I hope the noble Lord will feel it is reasonably clear and would not be elucidated any further by the addition he suggests.
LORD HAWKE: I am a little puzzled by the impact of the words "whether or not in existence ". I understand what is intended, but I am wondering if it might not do a bit more. Suppose someone put an advertisement in a Saturday column of the Daily Telegraph, for goods, some of which he had in stock while some were on order. If that advertisement lapsed or was withdrawn and two months later somebody came to buy from him, and he had in stock the nearest thing he had been able to get to the terms of the original specification and yet it was not the same as was originally advertised, would that clause not bite on that particular person, who in all innocence was supplying two months later the best he could get, perhaps having forgotten that he had advertised at all?
LORD MITCHISON: What we are trying to do is to protect the consumer. Let us say that there is advertisement of some sort relating to a class of goods and the class of goods, goods in stock or immediately after manufacture, are disposed of. Then two months later, there having been no fresh advertisment, something rather like that comes on sale. What the noble Lord is saying is that it it not really right to relate that to the original advertisement. I think my answer is that one has got to look at subsection (3); you have got to look among other things to
" all other matters making it likely or unlikely that a person to whom the goods are supplied would associate the advertisement with the goods ".
If you said to the buyer, "Do you read the Daily Telegraph?", and he replied "No, I cannot stand the paper; I always read the Sun", it would be that much more unlikely he had ever seen the Daily Telegraph advertisement. It might be that he might say, "I saw something of this kind advertised a couple months ago, and I meant to come at the time but I have been busy ". In that case I think it is right he should be protected by the provision of the clause because the advertisement had been made. It would be quite easy for the seller to say that related to another lot of goods, not this one. But unless he did so, I think the buyer would be entitled to protection. He would probably say, "That was the last consignment; nothing to do with this lot," and then everybody would be all right, and nobody would have committed any offence.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.39 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE: This is a drafting Amendment which I put forward with some trepidation. I always put forward any drafting Amendment with some trepidation. This is an Amendment to subsection (2), which is divided into paragraphs (a) and (b). Paragraphs (a) and (b) contain eleven words which are common to both of them. Those words are
"for the purpose of determining whether an offence has been committed ".
I should have thought it was good draftsmanship to state first the words which are common to the two paragraphs and then
168
to divide off to paragraph (a) and paragraph (b). I should have thought that was very much clearer than having a paragraph (a) and a paragraph (b) both of which contain the expression I have referred to. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 26, leave out from (" published ") to end of line 34 and insert (" for the purpose of determining whether an offence has been committed

(a) under paragraph (a) of section 1(1) of this Act; and

(b) where the goods are supplied or offered to be supplied by a person publishing or displaying the advertisement, under paragraph (b) of the said section 1(1).").—(Lord Airedale.)

6.40 p.m.
LORD MITCHISON: This is a tempting drafting Amendment, but it does not do quite the same thing as does the original text. The original text applies for the purpose of determining an offence under paragraph (a) of Clause 1(1) in general. That is the general purpose. If one looks back at paragraph (a) one finds it covers those who apply a false trade description to any goods. It applies in all cases. When one comes to paragraph(b)of Clause 4(2) one gets to the other cases where the goods are supplied (I summarise) in connection with advertisements,
" also for the purpose of determining whether an offence has been committed under paragraph(b)".
—of Clause 1(1). I think the noble Lord sees the point. The original text is rather wider than his Amendment.
LORD AIREDALE: I should not like to spend time on a purely drafting Amendment. I think the Minister has got something here, and I am pleased to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.42 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI moved, in subsection (3), after "advertisement" (where that word occurs a second time) to insert "and other advertisements in relation to such goods." The noble Lord said: Arising out of the discussion that we had on the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, in respect of "class", it appears from what my noble friend Lord Mitchison said that Clause 4(3) is of immense importance, because it is through this subsection that we are going

169
to determine the meaning of the words "class of goods". My Amendment seeks to add the words
" and other advertisements in relation to such goods."
I am rather surprised that when the whole case is going to be based on advertisements this is put into the singular, although I admit that there will also be taken into consideration the time, place, manner and frequency of its publication. I agree that that is possible with an advertisement with the same selling slant which is repeated in different forms in different media, either in the Press or "on the air ". But I suggest that it would be well worth adding other advertisements as well which may be selling the same goods in a different way, and which should be taken into account. In fact, I think that the whole campaign should be taken into account—every facet of it—when deciding whether the goods which are advertised have a false description or not; otherwise it would be possible to base a prosecution on a quite small advertisement, perhaps in a trade paper into which it has been inserted for quite a different purpose, not being meant to be seen at all by the general consumer but by the stockist. It would be possible to base a prosecution upon that without taking into account other advertisements of the same kind which are put out for the purpose of selling to the consumer. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 38, after (" advertisement ") insert (" and other advertisements in relation to such goods ").—(Lord Strabolgi.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: I should like to support this Amendment. I think it is a point that is relevant to that which was raised, I think, by my noble friend Lord Hawke. It is a fact, of course, that circumstances in commerical affairs change quickly and it may well be that another advertisement has been published which entirely supersedes the series, or supersedes the state of affairs so far as the consumer is concerned. Therefore it would seem entirely right and proper that there should be considered not only the particular advertisement, together with the time, which may have been some time ago, and the frequency of publication, but also whether there have been any further advertise
170
ments which say something different, which change the offer, possibly withdraw the offer and so on. I think the noble Lord opposite has made this point quite clearly, and I would support it.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: In replying to this Amendment, I hope that both noble Lords will accept that the same observations apply to this Amendment and to Amendment No. 27. Since both noble Lords are concerned, I think that in a way they have answered the point—certainly the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has. Line 39 says:
" and all other matters making it likely or unlikely that a person to whom the goods are supplied would associate the advertisement with the goods ".
We feel that this covers the point which has been made. Before an advertisement is held to relate to any particular goods, naturally regard would have to be taken of any other advertisement which was relevant. These words in fact cover that situation.
LORD STRABOLGI: With respect to the noble Baroness, I really cannot agree with her. I quite understand what she means. I know it is clear in her mind, and her explanation has now made it clear in mine. But we are legislating for a great many years, and whether it will be clear to the courts or even to members of the public who are bringing cases, or appeals, or are defending cases, I do not know. I should have thought that this was a perfectly harmless and rather helpful Amendment. I cannot see what objection there is to adding this wording. The noble Baroness could keep the Government's wording in as well. The term "all other matters" merely makes it all the more embracing. I suggest to the noble Baroness that it may well be worth the Government's while to have another look at this matter, to try to make the provision as wide as possible. If the noble Baroness would give me the undertaking that perhaps on Report stage she will let the House know what is the Government's considered view, I should be prepared to withdraw the Amendment.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: I should like to ask the noble Baroness whether she would be willing to look at this matter again. I have listened carefully, and I cannot understand—I quite accept that it may be me and not the

171
noble Baroness—these words cannot be included. If the noble Baroness does not feel able to look at it again, I wonder whether she would spell out simply, for me anyway, the reasons of the Government for feeling that these words should not be included?
LORD DRUMALBYN: May I say another word about this? I think it is perhaps a more important Amendment than the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, thinks. Of course the point is included in the words in the Bill as it stands; but this is a question really of priorities. My own view is that this is a matter which is at least as important as the time, place, manner and frequency of publication, and probably more important, particularly in relation to the words that follow. The words that follow mention
" other matters making it likely or unlikely that a person to whom the goods are supplied would associate the advertisement with the goods."
It is extremely important that this particular matter should be placed in the forefront of those points which could reasonably be expected to make a person associate the advertisement which is superseded with the goods. It is most important that a supplier should not be deemed to have committed an offence when he has completely changed the copy of his advertisement, has changed the offer, the price, and so on, and when this has been completely superseded by a new advertisement. This is as important as any other consideration. It ought to be put in, and I hope that the noble Lord will not turn it down out of hand but will consider it further before the next stage.
LORD HAWKE: We are not only legislating for the poor, innocent consumer. We have also to deal with the sea-lawyers and the smart-Alecks who may bring before the Weights and Measures people complaints based on the slight dubiety of the wording of the Bill and use this as a form of blackmail. We want to make certain that they cannot do that.
LORD MITCHISON: If on consideration, noble Lords want us to look at this point, we will, but I cannot hold out much hope in the matter. It seems to me to be perfectly clear from the language of the subsection:
172
" In determining…whether any goods are of a class to which an advertisement relates regard shall be had not only to the form and content of the advertisement …"—
that is the first thing to look at, and then the subsection goes on to mention the other things. We are being asked to include not only "the form and content of the advertisement ", but also "and other advertisements in relation to such goods ". It must depend on the circumstances, whether there are any other advertisements, and so on. In some places the matter would be clear; in others it would not be clear. The right way to bring in a question of this sort—which is only one of many questions—is to see whether it is
" likely or unlikely that a person would associate the advertisement with the goods."
Those general words clearly cover this point I should find the subsection much more obscure if it said that not only had one to look at "the form and content of the advertisement" but at "other advertisements in relation to such goods" and to a number of other things, including all the circumstances of the case. It would be a much more difficult clause to construe if those words were included, and it would not add one whit to the subsection.
LORD DRUMALBYN: It is quite plain from what the noble Lord has said that the words themselves will not do. But the purpose of the Amendment, and what we are asking him to look at, is that other subsequent advertisements by the same advertiser should also be taken into account.
LORD MITCHISON: I suggest that one must consider the circumstances of the case. If they are relevant, by all means consider them; but one does not want to enjoin people to consider a whole lot of other advertisements which may have nothing whatever to do with the matter. Surely the right way to bring in this kind of consideration is to say
" all other matters making it likely or unlikely that a person…would associate the advertisement with the goods ".
That really is the point. If one is enjoined to bring in other advertisements in relation to such goods, they may have nothing whatever to do with it. They may be advertisements which the buyer never sees. They may be advertisements

173
which are years old. The Amendment seeks to put in the forefront of the picture something which may or may not deserve to be put there The way to discover whether it deserves to be put there is to see whether the person to whom the goods are supplied would be likely to associate the advertisement in question with the goods.
I speak with some confidence about this. While I appreciate what the noble Lord has in mind, I am quite sure that this point is already covered and that the inclusion of these words would make the matter far more difficult. I hope that in the light of what I have said, the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, will withdraw the Amendment. I assure him that the inclusion of the words of his Amendment would do nothing but obscure the issue. In some cases it would be obliging the courts to look at matters which might have nothing to do with the question which they were deciding. I do not really know what further consideration one could give to a point of construction, but if it will make my noble friend any happier I will say that will look at it to see whether I might be wrong. I remember the injunction given by Cromwell to his soldiers on one occasion, that in circumstances which it would be un-Parliamentary to quote they should examine whether they might not be mistaken. I will gladly do that much. I rather hope my noble friend will withdraw it.
LORD STRABOLGI: I do not know whether my noble friend is going to try to redraft this subsection or not. He says he is going to look at it, but he cannot give any promise or undertaking except to look at it and think about it. I do not know whether there is any hope of getting this subsection amended in a clear manner by Report stage.
LORD MITCHISON: Let me make it perfectly clear. I will invite my noble friend to withdraw the Amendment. I am saying to him that if he or any other noble Lord wants me to look at it again, I will gladly try to find whether I am wrong. This happens to be a case where I feel confident that I am dead right. Therefore I cannot hold out any hope. In these drafting matters, one sometimes feels that there may be a point in them, and sometimes one feels the other way. Frankly,
174
I do not think there is anything in this whatever, except the possibility of causing a certain amount of confusion. Having said that, I have offered—and I offer again, if the noble Lord tells me he wants me to do so—to try to find if I was mistaken in some way.
LORD DRUMALBYN: May I assist the noble Lord opposite and the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison? Could I suggest to Lord Strabolgi that he and I discuss the wording of this Amendment and put the matter down again at the next stage'? That will give the noble Lord an opportunity to reconsider it.
LORD STRABOLGI: In view of what my noble friend has said, and having regard to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved, in subsection (3), after "manner" to insert "style". The noble Duke said: It is with a certain amount of trepidation, after all the discussion which we have had on this subsection, that I rise to move this Amendment. The word "style", which I should like to see inserted in line 38, is obviously covered by
" all other matters making it likely or unlikely that a person to whom the goods are supplied would associate the advertisement with the goods."
I feel that if we include in the more specific considerations the time, place, manner and frequency of the advertisement, we also ought to take into account the style of the advertisement. Advertisements vary considerably in style, usually according to the quality of the goods they are selling.
Thus if you are selling something which costs £100, you tend to have an advertisement which most people would regard as of a rather better style and less flashy, than if you are selling something which costs Is. Therefore, I should have thought that one of the considerations which ought to be enumerated was the style. The noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, may say that "manner" already includes style, but I can assure him that to me manner and style are quite different. However, if he does say that, I am quite prepared to accept his word for it.
LORD MITCHISON: What I am going to say is that "form and content" cover it.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 38, after (" manner ") insert (" style ").—(The Duke of Atholl.)
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I am sorry to disappoint the noble Duke, but I am replying this time. We are trying to divide policy and law, in order to avoid wasting the time of the Committee. I take it that in this connection the noble Duke means literary style, as otherwise the word "manner" would cover this point. I see exactly what he means when he describes the advertisements—I believe this comes in the law of defamation, also—but we feel, as we have said before, that "and all other matters making it likely or unlikely" would in fact cover the point that he is making. I hope he will appreciate that.
LORD AIREDALE: May I just ask out of curiosity why the "not only but also" form of construction is used here, when the subsection says
" not only to the form and content…but to the time place, manner and frequency "?
Why not string them all together and say
" regard shall be had to the form, content, time, place, manner and frequency "?
Why "not only but also "?
LORD MITCHISON: If I may answer, I think the reason is that, obviously, you must look at the form and content of the advertisement. You might stop there, if it were not for this indication of other points which you would also have to consider. Therefore, you take the obvious thing and say, "Now judge, but do not stop at that point. Go on and look at the others, too ".
LORD HAWKE: May I suggest that this is a wonderful chance for the noble Baroness to hit her first four by accepting this Amendment, because it cannot do the slightest harm to the Bill and it can certainly emphasise a slight difference of opinion. Unfortunately, we do not have the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, here to argue about nuances of the English language, but let us take the comic advertisements for, say, Guinness. Somebody
176
might go, with his tongue in his cheek, to a seriously minded inspector of weights and measures, and say, "It is not really true that I can carry an iron girder after a glass of this beverage". That would certainly be covered by the style of the advertisement, which would be regarded as comic, and it might be covered to some extent by "other matters making it likely or unlikely". But "style" would do no harm, so why should the noble Baroness not get a good mark by accepting something?
LORD MITCHISON: I am awfully sorry to interject. I was told by someone well versed in these matters that, if you put unnecessary words into an Act of Parliament, they tend to fester, and think I that really is the short way of putting it. I think it is quite clear that this point is covered. As the noble Duke himself said, it does not make any difference, but if you take to accepting things because they do not make any difference, you are rather apt to find that their insertion makes rather more difference than you supposed. Any discrepancy between my noble friend and myself arises from the fact that "style" has various meanings. Advertisements can be snappy or weighty, and I can think of other descriptions, too. I think this is all covered in the clause as it is, and if one goes on adding, one runs a risk with every unnecessary word that is put in.
LORD AUCKLAND: Whether or not "style" is the right word, I think there is substance in this Amendment. I am reminded, for example, of an advertisement for lager beer where one sees a beautiful blonde on the poster, with no relevancy at all to what is advertised. I may be barking up the wrong tree here, but I assume that this Amendment really refers to that kind of advertisement. Whether or not "relevancy" would be a better word I do not know, but I think that "style" is quite relevant to the example which I have quoted. I hope that the Government will at least consider this Amendment before the next stage of the Bill.
LORD MITCHISON: I feel inclined to say that one is always ready to consider anything. I think that is a very proper way in which to approach a Bill. But I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, as

177
distinct from the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, that this point is already covered. I do not know about barking up the wrong tree at the blonde, but I should have said that the lady was a "matter making it likely or unlikely that a person to whom the goods are supplied would associate the advertisement with the goods", and if she was not that she would not matter.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I think we have had an interesting discussion on this Amendment. I quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, that we want to have as few words as possible in this Bill. It is already quite long enough, and I should not wish to press this Amendment. But I want to warn the noble Lord that at the Report stage I shall probably move to delete "time, place, manner and frequency ", as those words would also appear to be covered by "all other matters". I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.7 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD moved to add to the clause:
" ( )—(a) Where it is proved that any statement or advertisement is false in so far that it induces a person to accept an offer for goods, services or facilities, which but for such false statement or advertisement the offer would not otherwise have been accepted, such false statement or advertisements shall be deemed to be a false trade description for the purposes of the Act.
(b) In determining whether or not a statement or advertisement is false for the purposes of this subsection, a court shall have regard not only to the express words contained in the statement or advertisement but also to false indications arising from ambiguity, omission or inference."
The noble Baroness said: I rise to move this Amendment—and I speak here on behalf of my Consumer Council—because I think it is known to the noble Lord opposite that we are not entirely satisfied with Clause 4 as it stands, and I am suggesting adding another clause. The reason for doing this is that, unless a description in an advertisement can be brought within one of the heads in Clause 2, it is not a trade description for the purposes of the Bill, as however false it may be its application to goods does not constitute an offence.
My noble friend Lord Peddie has already discussed this shortcoming during the Second Reading of the Bill, and although I am very glad that we have in the course of our discussions extended the ambit of Clause 2, it would still not catch the effect of false advertising, whether that is brought about by ambiguity, omission or inference, unless it is clearly linked to one or other of the heads in Clause 2. This is really a philosophical difference, because we believe that the criterion of falseness should be judged by its effect on the buyer. This is the method adopted in many foreign countries, and indeed in America an advertisement must reach a very high standard of accuracy, for advertisements there must not mislead even the most ignorant or least suspicious buyer. This may be setting a rather high standard. None the less, the principle of judging a false statement by its effect on the buyer is, I believe, the only realistic one.
In the Second Reading debate, my noble friend Lord Peddie gave two examples of this formula which have already been adopted in British law. I refer to the Labelling of Food Order 1963, Section 8, and the Bread and Flour Regulations 1963, Section 23. This is, I think, the right course, for whatever the length of the list of heads under Clause 2, it can never be truly comprehensive and will not catch the subtle inferences and significant omissions in advertisements which are so common in modern advertising practice, particularly on the television screen. What we want to be quite sure about is that a misrepresentation by omission is also caught under this Bill, and this new paragraph which we are proposing, brings an advertisement which gives a false impression by an omission into the same position as those covered by the existing categories in Clause 4, which we have been discussing. It adds one more group to those already in the clause. I hope very much that the Government will be able to see their way clear to accept this Amendment, if not as I have drafted it then in a way that puts into Clause 4 a subsection which will catch those advertisers who achieve results in ways which are not now designated in Clause 4. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 41, at end insert the said subsection.—(Baroness Elliot of Harwood.)
LORD PEDDIE: I hope the Committee will support this Amendment. I think that, in the first place, we should recognise the basic purpose of this Bill, which is to penalise the person who is trying, by misrepresentation of his products, to mislead a buyer. It is quite true that the Bill lays down a series of characteristics by which one will be able to judge misrepresentation, but I think it has been indicated quite clearly that the characteristics, physical or otherwise, do not include all the means by which it is possible for a customer to be misled. Indeed, as the noble Baroness has indicated, I quoted on Second Reading instances in which legislation already in existence recognises the fact that people can be misled by omission or by inference; and, in indicating that on the last occasion, I actually quoted a case where it was possible, in a television advertisement, for a white-coated person to represent himself as a doctor, and by that means, of course, obviously, to create the impression that the product advertised was backed by the medical profession.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: If my noble friend—
LORD PEDDIE: The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, intervened at that point, quite rightly, and pointed out that no longer were such advertisements in existence. I accepted that correction; but, at the same time, I would remind the Committee that, whilst doctors are not represented in such a way, as recently as about two or three weeks ago there was an advertisement for a very well known medical product in which a person in a white coat was demonstrating the effects of a particular commodity. It is true that he was not a doctor, but the white coat itself is a symbol of the medical profession—and one could go on.
LORD HAWKE: May I correct the noble Lord there? I happen to be a director of a company which hires out many tens of thousands of white coats, and remarkably few of them are worn by doctors.
LORD PEDDIE: But I am quite certain that the persons to whom the noble Lord refers are not handling and demonstrating these particular pills. You can use white coats for all sorts of purposes,
180
which clearly indicates that a white coat can be used for a purpose other than the one with which you are concerned; but in this particular one it was used to demonstrate a medical product. The mere fact that the noble Lord has intervened and has indicated that a white coat can be used for another purpose strengthens my point, because when it is associated with a medical product, as here, it has an entirely different meaning.
In consequence of that, we are suggesting in this Amendment, which is quite a reasonable one—there is nothing new about it; it merely recognises the fact that a list of physical characteristics cannot itself include all forms of misrepresentation; no more than that—that, where it is possible to prove that a person has, by omission or by inference, in any way caused a person to be wrongly influenced to purchase a commodity, then he should be penalised—and that, after all, is the sole purpose of the Bill. The sole purpose of the Bill is to penalise individuals who indulge in misrepresentation to sell their goods. It is contended through this Amendment that this misrepresentation can be effected by means other than those classified in the list of physical characteristics, and I therefore hope that the Committee will support the Amendment moved by the noble Lady.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: I should like to make a comment here. I find myself in some difficulty, and I should like to tell the Committee why. I am a member of the Independent Television Authority, and, whether we call it the Addison Rule or not, we obviously do not in either House take part in debates connected with the work of a board or authority of which we are a member. I do not of course, propose to do so, but what has really brought me to my feet is the noble Lady opposite. I may have remembered her words incorrectly, but I think the gist of what she implied was this: that the type of advertisement of which she was complaining here was to be found—I do not know if she used the word "particularly", but, anyway, was to be found—among television advertisements.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I did not use the word "particularly"; I merely added television advertisements

181
to other advertisements. I am not pressing television as opposed to any other medium.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: I know, but unfortunately that is what has brought me to my feet. Before I became a member of the Independent Television Authority, and when I was in another place and was pursuing the question of advertisements—in that case it happened to be dental advertisements—I said then, and I still say now, that I think the type of advertisement on our television screens is. if I may use the word, better (which is always a bad word to use) than the type of advertisement used in other media; and I thought then that this was because the control exercised by the Independent Television Authority, as a result of what is laid upon it by Parliament, was very much better. That, as I say, was long before I came to this House.
I was about to rise and correct the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, who saw me out of the corner of his eye and made it very evident that he did not require any correction, because I knew what the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, had said during the previous debate. But I want to raise this point. I have sympathy, even if she does not think it, with what the noble Lady is after, but I am very concerned over these words "ambiguity, omission or inference ". I think this is almost impossible to decide. We can obviously decide whether or not an advertisement is factually correct. That is something we can ascertain; and, if the noble Lady would not think I was being unfair—I am sure she will not—I should like to remind her that, of the considerable list of advertisements (I think some 36 in number) about which her Council complained to the Independent Television Authority some little time ago, one had some substance and the others were found not to have. I think that, in that respect—and it is difficult for other Members of the Committee, who, unlike the noble Lady and myself, do not know in detail what we are talking about—
LORD CHAMPION: Hear, hear!
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: I am trying to be clear, and I think I am being as clear as anything, after what went on before—I mean earlier this after
182
noon, not during the remarks of the previous speaker. But what is very difficult, it seems to me, is to decide what somebody thinks as a result of what he has seen. This is a matter of opinion, and that creates a difficulty. Is it the noble Lady's opinion or mine if we each see an advertisement and arrive at different conclusions? And for whom are the courts to find in this particular respect? I also feel that the noble Lady is on a very sticky wicket when she gets on to the question of omission. The essence of good advertising is to be able to use a succinct phrase which exactly puts the point. This you cannot do without omitting something. You cannot have an essay; it would then cease to be an advertisement. These are the only remarks I wish to make. I have sympathy with this; but I do not think it practicable because I think a court cannot decide between different opinions. But I was drawn to my feet by the fact that I believe that the control of advertising on television is better than that on other media—and I do not think I am alone in that opinion.
LORD STRABOLGI: I should like to support everything that my noble friend Lady Burton of Coventry has said, and also to suggest to the critics of television commercials that they might try to see how difficult it would be to get the whole information into some fifteen seconds, or less.
LORD PEDDIE: The trend of the debate is tending to go along in the wrong direction. We are not expressing any criticism of television as such. It may be—I think it is—that the measure of control over television advertising is better than, say, that of the newspapers. I concede that. All that has been stated in this Amendment is that it is possible to mislead a potential buyer in a manner that does not come within the list of characteristics. There is no doubt about that. That is all that is being stated. If we want a precedent for what is now being suggested—and I appreciate the difficulty mentioned by my noble friend—I would refer to the precedent which I quoted on a previous occasion, and which is to be found in the Labelling of Food Order 1953, and again in the Bread and Flour Regulations 1963. I quote:
" It is an offence for any person to publish an advertisement which indicates or is calculated to indicate by words device or description

183
either directly or by ambiguity, omission or inference that a food is an aid to slimming."
So there is a precedent in that legislation. The only point now is, if the true purpose of the Bill is to protect the consumer against any misrepresentation, what is the difficulty about accepting this Amendment, which would tighten it a little more?
7.25 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I should like, first of all, to assure both the noble Lady and the noble Lord that certainly the purpose of the Bill is as he has outlined. But, having said that, I would emphasise that if the range of matters which can be treated as trade descriptions were to be extended in this way, it would include a number of highly subjective elements. We have very carefully constructed the "misdescription" parts of the Bill to make them workable and not to expose the courts to the difficulty—or even, as we have already heard, the impossibility—of reaching decisions on the basis of these subjective factors. In Clause 2 we have provided a virtually all—embracing list of objective matters as to which false statements might be made and which could be relatively easily assessed for the purpose of determining whether or not a false trade description had been used.
The noble Lord, Lord Peddie, referred to other legislation; but I think he would agree that particular matters connected with health were dealt with in that legislation. They could not be taken as a pattern for a general Bill of this kind, which ranges over goods and advertisements of every possible kind. I should like particularly to quote the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, who I think has some marvellous quotes, which I use on frequent occasions. I believe he said yesterday that it is undesirable to extend the scope of criminal law to an undefined extent. This is the thinking behind the Government's request to the noble Lady to withdraw her Amendment.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I rise to thank the noble Lady for her answer, which I am afraid I do not find very satisfactory. It is a curious thing that this question of omission, false interpretation or ambiguity or inference does in fact exist in the legislation of a number of other countries. It exists, I understand, in West Germany, France, America and in Spain. Their advertising laws all
184
employ this principle which I am advocating. They have done this successfully; and I cannot see why, as it is one of the necessary protections for the public, our Government should not discover that it could also be put into this Bill. I do not want to argue with the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, about the Independent Television Authority and advertising that is complained of. The figures she gave I do not think were correct. I do not carry them in my head, but I will write to her on this matter from my office. We have had a lot of discussion with them and, as the noble Lady knows, the Independent Television Authority advertising is governed by a code, and that code is the important thing. But this does not really apply to the discussion here to-day.
However, I still feel that this is something that this Bill lacks. I shall not press this Amendment to a Division at this moment. I shall withdraw it, but I shall put something down at Report stage. I hope very much that in the meantime the Board of Trade and the Ministers concerned will be able to look again at this matter. It may be that I have not the right phraseology. It may be that something better could be put in; but if it can be done in other countries, I do not see why it cannot it done in this country. I think it is of some importance. I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment now, but reserve the right to put something down on Report.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Before my noble friend withdraws her Amendment, I wonder whether when she considers what to put down at the Report stage, she will have regard to the framework of this Bill, because we must get a Bill which is workable within this framework. She has quoted the experience of other countries where the framework of the law is different; it may be that we may have to meet the kind of point she has in mind by a different method.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: While accepting what the noble Lady has to say, I would ask that she should look at Clause 2, because I feel there is a statement there,
" an indication direct or indirect by whatever means given "
which might go a long way to cover ambiguity, omission or inference.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[The Sitting was suspended at twenty-eight minutes past seven o'clock, and resumed at half past eight.]
On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall be agreed to?
LORD AIREDALE: Before we leave Clause 4, there is one matter I should like to mention, which was put into my mind by something said earlier by the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl. Clause 4 deals with trade descriptions used in advertisements relating to any class of goods, and it operates, according to subsection (2)
" for the purpose of determining whether an offence has been committed ".
What worries me is this. Suppose an organisation whose job is the marketing of milk find they have more milk than they can sell in liquid form and decide to sell the milk in the form of milk chocolate. They have a campaign to, "Eat more milk chocolate—every half-pound contains a pint of milk!" If that statement is false, no doubt that organisation would deserve to be prosecuted.
However, suppose a shopper goes into a shop and buys half a pound of some brand of milk chocolate, which is analysed and found not to contain so much as a pint of milk, I think it would be monstrous if the shopkeeper or his supplier or the manufacturer of the chocolate were to be prosecuted for something amounting to a misdescription under an advertisement published by an organisation which had nothing whatever to do with them. I am not quite satisfied that under the Bill as it stands that shopkeeper or supplier or manufacturer may not be prosecuted. This is not a matter I can expect a reply to from the Minister this evening, but it might be worth looking at before the next stage of the Bill.
LORD DRUMALBYN: May I make one comment here? If this clause deals only with trade descriptions in relation to a class of goods, may I respectfully submit to the noble Lord that the rubric is misleading? If it had not been so, I would not have fallen into the error which I apparently did in my interpretation of this clause. I wonder whether we could not have a more restricted rubric to make clear what the clause is really dealing with.
LORD MITCHISON: I hesitate to take responsibility for rubrics. If we make them too long, they often appear to be misleading. I think that this is a good general description, but I will gladly look at the rubric to see whether we can think of some words that will cover it a little better.
On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, clearly the people who issued the advertisement would have done nothing wrong, because they would not have sold any goods or supplied or offered to supply any goods, or applied a trade description to them. No doubt they are out of the wood. The only circumstances in which anyone else may be liable would be those in which one could charge that the person who was buying associated the advertisement with the goods. I think that one could get out of this on the common sense of the courts or on the de minimis rule. If one could prove that the half pound did not contain a pint but eleven ounces of milk, nobody would be likely to prosecute. But if there was a gross error, I am inclined to think that the person who sold the goods ought to be liable, because he had in one way or another represented to the buyer that these were goods which contained a quantity of milk that was much larger than the actual quantity of milk in them. That is what we do not want people to do, whether by reference to advertisements or in any other way.
There is no injustice here that I can see, and it does not really turn on this clause. It turns, I should have thought, on the matters one has to take into account as regards the trade description in Clause 2, particularly in this case, perhaps, of composition, or possibly method of manufacture. I think that if a trader effects a sale on the footing that there is a given quantity of milk, then, subject to de minimis, he ought to be liable; and the whole tenor of this Bill is, like the food and drugs legislation, to make people liable for letting the consumer in on a point of this sort, irrespective of intention. I think one has to do it that way—I see the difficulties, of course—otherwise one becomes involved in subjective considerations which are not, I think, appropriate to this form of legislation, or indeed, so far as one can avoid them, to criminal matters at all.
Clause 4 agreed to.
8.38 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved, after Clause 4, to insert the following new clause:
Definition of False Trade Description
" . The expression ' false trade description ' means a trade description which is likely to be taken as true but is false in a material respect as regards the goods to which it is applied, that is to say, in a respect of such substance that it is capable of inducing a purchase."
The noble Lord said: I hope I shall not be out of order if I start by saying that, while in discussion we are bound to quote illustrations that come to mind, I hope it will not be thought that in doing so we are referring (as they say at the beginning of novels) to any living persons.
I can explain this Amendment quite simply. The reason why we have put it down is that when we come to Clause 5 we are dealing with statements deemed to be "false trade descriptions ". That seems to me to be a new kind of beast, the "false trade description". In view of the way in which it is treated in Clause 5 we thought that the term ought to be defined. What we have done here is to attempt to reproduce the Molony recommendation in words as close to Molony's own words as possible, with one addition which I shall explain. It would have been possible to define a false trade description in Clause 1, but that we have not done: what we have done is to say what we mean by "false". A definition could, I think, come in here, or after Clause 5, or in the Interpretation Clause. But I think this is the right place to put it, in view of the fact that you then read on to Clause 5. In any case, from the point of view of debating Clause 5, I think it is a good idea to get clear in our minds what we mean by a false trade description, even if the Government are unable to accept this Amendment at the present time.
The basic offence is in applying a false trade description. We have been discussing trade descriptions in Clause 2, and we have been discussing applying them in Clauses 3 and 4. Now we come to this false trade description. The first leg of this clause deals with the point of whether or not the description is likely to be taken as true. This is something I mentioned at an earlier stage. It seems to me that unless the thing is likely to be
188
taken as true, it is not deceptive; it does not deceive anybody, and it does no harm. Therefore, this seems to be a good leg to start on.
Then it goes on to introduce once again the words "in a material respect", and to define their meaning in the terms which Molony himself used as indicating what he, at any rate, thought was meant; that is to say, is "capable of inducing a purchase" of the goods to which the description is applied. This is really the crux of the matter. I think it covers the point which my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood was raising earlier; that, to do any harm, this false description must be capable of inducing a purchase. I thought this was a good place to put it in, and I thought it was a good idea to define what we meant by a "false trade description ". I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 4 insert the said new clause—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I should like to support this clause. It has for me only one disadvantage, which is that I was not in favour, and still am not in favour, of the phrase "in a material respect ". As that is now in the Bill, I have to swallow that one, but I think it is a good idea that we should have something in the Bill which makes the point I made when moving my Amendment: that in some respects people are being induced to make a purchase which might or might not be what they think it is—in other words, that there might be a false emphasis which would be wrong and which would induce someone to make a purchase when he did not know what he was purchasing. I think it is an advantage to have a description of this kind, and I would support the noble Lord.
LORD STRABOLGI: I should like to support this Amendment, to which I have added my name. As the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said, we have construed the word "false" in Clause 1, and without going over the arguments which were accepted by the Committee yesterday, I think the noble Lord is perfectly right in asking for this Amendment to be included. The effect would be that this construction would be put on "a false trade description" only if, as the noble Lady has said, it is of such substance that it is capable of inducing a purchase. It would

189
not be operative if it is false due to overenthusiastic belief in a product by a manufacturer or his advertiser. It is probably quite a good thing for people to feel enthusiastic about their goods, although sometimes they may stray from the strict frontiers of accuracy. In other words, the clause would only be operative if it were of such a nature that it would induce a purchase.
LORD AIREDALE: I should like this Amendment to have all-Party support, but I must say that I wonder whether the expression "capable of inducing a purchase" has any limitation at all. I should not have thought that it was incapable of inducing a purchase if you took a 1s. 6d. packet of detergent and stuck a 3d. bit on the packet with a bit of adhesive tape, and sold the packet for 1s. 9d. So I wonder whether there is anything under the sun which can be said not to be capable of inducing a purchase. With that reservation I support the Amendment.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will be glad to have this news. Your Lordships will appreciate that he made some drastic alterations to his earlier Amendment. As it is clearly linked with a decision taken in Committee yesterday, we can assure the noble Lord that we will give due consideration to this point between now and the Report stage. I hope the noble Lord will accept this assurance and withdraw the Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I most willingly accept it. I have no pretensions about being able to draft expertly, and I am most grateful for the undertaking the noble Lady has given. I willingly withdraw the Amendment.
LORD MITCHISON: Before the Amendment is withdrawn, I think I should point out that at some stage we shall have to consider the effect of the Amendment that was added the other day. When we read the two things together we come to some rather curious results, because according to the Amendment passed the other day the word "false "shall be construed as meaning" false in a material respect "as regards the goods to which it is applied. We now have added the expression
190
"'false trade description ' means a trade description which is false in a material respect as regards the goods to which it is applied".
That is exactly what was passed the other day, and the only addition to it is the words
" that is to say, in a respect of such substance that it is capable of inducing a purchase ".
I rather thought I heard the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, commenting on an Amendment which was moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, before the adjournment and pointing out, quite rightly, that this kind of consideration introduced subjective conditions which were possibly rather unworkable. I make that comment, not with a view to saying that we will not consider it, but in order to warn the noble Lord that the two things must be considered together and that, so considered, that is the only addition which they make.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am not quite certain whether the noble Lord has got the original version of this Amendment, but there is the other side of it which adds the words "likely to be taken as true". I fully take the noble Lord's point and I was aware of this. If I may say so, it was one of the reasons why I moved this Amendment fairly quickly and I got the answer that I expected from the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips.
LORD MITCHISON: I did not want the noble Lord to be unduly disappointed.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5:
Misleading indications treated as false trade descriptions
5.—(1) A trade description which, though not false, is misleading, that is to say, calculated to be taken for such an indication of any of the matters specified in section 2 of this Act as would be false, shall be deemed to be a false trade description.
(2) Anything which, though not a trade description, is calculated to be taken for an indication of any of those matters and, as such an indication, would he false, shall be deemed to be a false trade description.
(3) A false indication, or anything calculated to be taken as an indication which would be false, that any goods comply with a standard specified or recognised by any person or implied by the approval of any person shall be deemed to be a false trade description, notwithstanding that there is no such person or no standard so specified, recognised or implied.
8.47 p.m.
LORD CAWLEY LORD CAWLEY moved, in subsection (1), to leave out all words from "misleading" to "shall". The noble Lord said: I quite understand what subsection (1) is meant to achieve, but it is rather mysterious because it starts with the words "A trade description ". Clause 2 states:
" A trade description is an indicationa…of any of the following matters with respect to any goods or parts of goods, that is to say "—
and then there is a series of different criteria. That is therefore an indication, but subsection (1) here says:
" A trade description "—
that is an indication—
" which though not false, is misleading, that is to say calculated to be taken for such an indication of any of the matters specified in Section 2 of this Act as would be false …"—
therefore it is an indication which is calculated to be taken as an indication—
" shall be deemed to be a false trade description."
My Amendment is to delete all the surplus, as I consider it, in the middle, and to return to the form:
" A trade description, which, though not false, is misleading, shall be deemed to be a false trade description."
In the 1953 Act the word "misleading" was introduced by saying simply:
" after the word ' false' in the 1887 Act shall be added the words ' or misleading '."
I think the words in the middle of this subsection simply make matters more complicated. It is rather like the old riddle, "When is a door not a door?" and the answer is "When it is ajar ". I really cannot see the point of these words in the middle. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 43, leave out from (" misleading ") to (" shall ") in line 45.—(Lord Cawley.)
LORD MITCHISON: I think that if we leave out the words it is proposed to omit we shall get an entirely different meaning. The words are limiting words, and what is intended is
" A trade description which, though not false, is misleading "—
then follow the words to be left out—
" shall be deemed to be a false trade description ".
192
It is not intended to say that a trade description which, though not false, is misleading shall be deemed to be a false trade description, because that would mean it might be misleading in any respect and therefore be a false trade description, and it would enlarge very considerably the possibilities of what can be treated as a false trade description, though in fact it is a misleading trade description.
The effect of the words which it is proposed to leave out is to limit this, because what they say is that it is to be
"calculated to be taken for such an indication of any of the matters specified in section 2 of this Act as would be false ",
and that is the whole point of the subsection. Clause 2 of the Bill lists the matters which must be misstated in order to constitute a false trade description, but of course without impinging on any matters of that kind you might have something which though not false was misleading in some other respect, and it would then have to be deemed to be a false trade description. That is enlarging very considerably what it intended by the subsection as regards the misleading false description. It would let in all kinds of things which would not be covered in the case of a simple false trade description but would be admitted by this clause as regards a misleading description and therefore be deemed to be a false trade description. It is really a drafting point.
I suggest to the noble Lord that to omit these limiting words opens the door far wider than I fancy he or I would intend, and I hope therefore that the Amendment is not going to be pressed. If I may give an instance, the quality of goods is not included in Clause 2. If this clause were to be amended, a misleading indication of quality would in fact be caught though the false description of quality would not be, and that I think can hardly be anybody's intention. I hope, therefore, that the Amendment will not be pressed. I think it has been put forward under a slight misunderstanding of what we had in mind in the clause.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am not quite certain of this. Trade descriptions are carefully and fully defined in Clause 2. So you have to start from the point, as

193
this clause does, that it must be a trade description within the meaning of Clause 2.
LORD MITCHISON: That is right.
LORD DRUMALBYN: So that limits the grounds very much indeed. First of all, it must be a trade description and therefore we are limited to what are trade descriptions. That is point number one. Then the clause goes on, "though not false, is misleading ". I pointed out in my Second Reading speech that it was quite possible to have a trade description which was perfectly true but nevertheless misleading. I instanced the case of jewels in watches; one can advertise a fifteen-jewel watch to give the impression it is of very much better quality and workmanship than it really is. Some of these jewels—which are very cheap I understand; they are industrially produced—may play no effective part in the movement of the watch at all. It is a true description; the watch has got fifteen jewels; but it is misleading to the extent that it is intended to indicate that the watch is of very much better quality than it really is.
If you keep those words in, I am not certain that that would be covered. It might be said that in relation to performance, or something like that, it would be a false trade description, because it is making out that the performance is better than it really is. I am not sure. That is just an example that comes to mind. If you take out those words, I do not think it makes any difference. But certainly, if you take out the words there is no dubiety about it at all.
I am sure my noble friend does not want to press this Amendment, but one would like to have it thought of a little more. It may well be that the noble Lord is right and that to take out these words would extend the definition much further. I think it would extend it some distance, but it would always be within the compass of a trade description. At any rate, so long as it is within the compass of a trade description I should have thought it would not be objectionable to take out those words. I am sure my noble friend does not want to press this Amendment. I think we might leave it at that, and perhaps the noble Lord will be able to say a little more about it.
LORD MITCHISON: I do not want to persuade people too often to put down the same Amendment again on Report. I have little doubt in this case. The point is this: that we may have a trade description which refers to, or even may include, one of the items in Clause 2(1). But it may also be misleading in another respect. It will still be a trade description, because it includes something referring to these things. You may have a mixed trade description, if I may put it that way; and if you do not define that a little more accurately, then you may get people "had" for a misleading description when that misleading description does not really refer to one of the Clause 2 matters. Therefore I think it is for the protection of the public to put these words in.
I agree it is arguable that if you take them out it might not make much difference. I think I go as far as that. But, it is advisable not to extend criminal legislation too far; and it is clear to me, at any rate, that in some cases you might be "had" for a misleading description, deemed to be false, when you would not be "had" for a false one. It is a rather fine point, I agree. I do not think there are many things in it. But when you are dealing with this kind of matter—" misleading deemed to be false "—it is better to be on the safe side.
I would recommend your Lordships, with respect, to leave the words in. I hope that the noble Lord who moved the Amendment will feel that he can withdraw it. I can assure him that we shall look through all these debates, irrespective of any particular promise that has been made, to see whether there is, in the course of argument, not necessarily on an Amendment, some point which we ought to have covered. But this has been a difficult Bill to draw. I think it has been remarkably well done. Alterations are sometimes rather difficult. I hope I am not being too discouraging.
LORD AIREDALE: All this cross-reference between Clause 5(1) and Clause 2(1) is most confusing. It seems a long time ago now, but I moved an Amendment to take the gist of Clause 5(1) and put it into Clause 1(1), where I still submit it properly belongs. I imagine that, by now, the Government are beginning to regret that they did not accept that Amendment.
LORD MITCHISON LORD MITCHISON: I am afraid not.
LORD CAWLEY: It is quite obvious that the noble Lord and I construe this subsection differently. Although I shall not press this Amendment, I should like to read to the House the words of Lord Justice Goddard in the case of Statcher v. mence Smith when he said of the 1887 Act:
" It is a most difficult Act to construe and has given rise to many appeals. Those who are responsible might well consider whether new legislation should not be introduced to set up the law on this matter in clear language which lay justices and others concerned in its administration could understand."
The 1953 Act simply added, after "false", the words "or misleading", and things went along perfectly well. We did not require these extraordinary subsections such as subsections (1) and (2). I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I do not know whether it is necessary to move all the Amendments on this point as they come along. They are all consequential. I beg to move Amendment No. 32A.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 43, leave out (" calculated ") and insert (" likely ").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
BARONESS PHILLIPS: What the noble Lord has said is correct. The Government want to have the one word throughout the Bill and, as the noble Lord has said, the Amendment is consequential and can be accepted.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN: I beg to move Amendment 35A.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 5, leave out (" calculated ") and insert (" likely ").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Whether Clause 5, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Although the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, did not move his Amendment to leave out subsection (2), one would like to have a clearer idea as to its real scope. It says:
" Anything which, though not a trade description, is likely to be taken for an indication of any of those matters and, as such an indication, would be false, shall be deemed to be a false trade description."
196
Any of those matters are, I presume, matters set out in Clause 2 of the Bill. As those matters all come within "trade description", I am not clear how it can be not a trade description. I am not clear what the scheme of this is, or what is intended by it. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could give some examples of this. The subsection has not been understood, and it would be an act of kindness if the noble Lord were to make this clear. Certainly the various trades would like to know what it really means.
LORD CAWLEY: I think I can help the noble Lord. This provision came first in the 1953 Act. The example I have always taken of this is that of a retailer selling knives who puts in his advertisement: "They make good knives in Sheffield—Buy Smith's knives!" "They make good knives in Sheffield" is not a trade description as such. It is obviously meant to indicate to the purchasers that Smith's knives are made in Sheffield, contrary to the fact.
LORD MITCHISON: There is really little that I can add. The noble Lord will remember that "those matters" here are not the matters specified in Clause 2 of this Bill, and in that form I think the subsection is tolerably clear. Perhaps, in view of the number of Amendments on the Marshalled List, I had better not say any more, as the more I say, the more questions I may be asked.
LORD DRUMALBYN: May I just express my gratitude to my noble friend for making this point? As I said, this is a matter which has given rise to a certain amount of difficulty, and I am grateful to him for his illustration.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6:
Offer to supply.
6. A person exposing goods for sale or having goods in his possession for sale shall be deemed to offer them for sale, and similarly with respect to any manner of supplying goods otherwise than by sale.
9.6 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: With this clause we seem to be venturing on new territory, and it seems to be very widely drawn. The purpose of my Amendment is to make clear that it has application only for the purposes of Clauses 1 to 6 of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 11, at beginning insert (" For the purposes of sections 1 to 6 of this Act "). —(Lord Strabolgi.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: It might be convenient if we were to discuss Amendment No. 37 at the same time, which is simply to insert "For the purposes of this Act ". I am not sure whether the Amendment in my name would serve the purpose better than "For the purposes of sections 1 to 6 ". Those clauses create the offences and, after all, there are also the defences and the enforcement to consider. It is for that reason that my Amendment says "For the purposes of this Act ". I think the main point is that nobody wants this clause to alter the general law of contract. I thought that all that was intended was to deal with the situation under this particular Bill.
LORD MITCHISON: That is quite right: that is all that it is intended to do. I think the simplest way of dealing with the matter is to look at Clause 38, which is called "Interpretation" and says:
" The following provisions shall have effect, in addition to sections 2 to 6 of this Act, with respect to expressions used in this Act."
That quite clearly points out that Clauses 2 to 6 are, in fact, interpretation clauses. I agree that that is in a rather broad sense, but that is what they are.
Earlier in the discussion I tried to indicate that Clause 1 was intended to cover in the simplest possible terms the offences that would be chargeable under this part of the Bill, and really all that Clauses 2 to 6 do is to interpret that in the broadest sense. That is the effect of Clause 6. Even if Clause 38 were not there, a reasonable interpretation of Clause 6 as it is must mean that it relates to Clauses 1 to 5 and to nothing else. This cannot represent a general amendment about the sale of goods or anything of that sort. This Bill has different objects and, therefore, there must be the limited effect which the noble Lord very rightly mentioned at the end of his speech. I think the intention is clear, and it is absolutely clear when you look at Clause 38.
We should not want to put in "For the purposes of this Act "or" For the purposes of sections 1 to 6 of this Act", not because it is not perfectly true, but because it would have to be inserted in
198
a number of other places, too, and there might be some very nice points as to where it should be inserted. I think it is better to take the five clauses (that is to say, Clauses 2 to 6) together, as they are, as interpretative clauses.
Clause 1 of course, is even clearer, because subsection (2) says:
" In this Act expressions used in this section shall be construed in accordance with sections 2 to 6 of this Act ".
It would be extraordinary if Clause 6 were dealing with something quite different and those words were inserted. I would suggest that in fact there is no doubt about it: these are interpretative sections, and this is one of them. It cannot be making an amendment of the general law; it is in truth "for the purposes of this Act," but it is inadvisable to insert the words in that form because you would have to spatter "Clauses 2 to 6" up and down the rest. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will feel that that explanation meets the point that is raised, not only by these two Amendments but by Amendment No. 39 also which, although we have not come to it, is really the same point.
LORD STRABOLGI: I thank my noble friend for his explanation, and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved to leave out "or having goods in his possession for sale." The noble Lord said: I bee to move this Amendment. I am not certain that these words are applicable in all cases, and I think that to deem that they should be applicable in all cases may raise acute difficulties. It is perfectly clear that a person exposing goods for sale for the purposes of Clauses 1 to 5 should be deemed to be offering them for sale, but I can conceive of circumstances where merely having goods in one's possession would not be tantamount to offering them for sale, and I do not see why such a person should be deemed to be offering them for sale. For example, a man may have goods in his factory, having withdrawn them for the purpose of altering some false description, or something of that kind. So I am not sure that this wording would be appropriate in all cases. If the noble Lord can advise me on this, I shall be grateful. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 11, leave out from (" sale ") to (" shall ") in line 12.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY:I should be grateful if my noble friend could explain this a little further, because representations have been made to me as to the possibility of these words rendering a person liable to be penalised when it was not right that he should be. I noted that on Second Reading Lord Drumalbyn said that he felt that Clause 6 went too far—and he has said it again to-night. I agree with him. Obviously, a person offering goods for sale should be penalised if he has offended against this point; but it was put to me that a person might have goods in his possession for sale or in stock without actually exposing them to sale, and I wanted to ask my noble friend whether this is so.
The person who discussed this with me —because I myself have no particular knowledge of this point—said that he felt someone might have goods in stock when they had just arrived and before he had had any opportunity to inspect them in order to see that any trade description they might have was accurate. That was the first point. The second point raised with me was the point which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, mentioned: the position where a person had noticed that the trade description was false and had withdrawn the goods from the shop. The third point put to me was that when a shopkeeper was perhaps holding them for export in circumstances in which, once he had received a specific order for them, a Board of Trade order under Clause 32 would apply. I had not the knowledge to give an answer to these questions, but I should be grateful if my noble friend could do so.
LORD MITCHISON: I will do the best I can to help. I must confess that I asked a number of questions myself about this phrase. The phrase is:
" a person exposing goods for sale or having goods in his possession for sale "
That is what we have to consider. There are obvious cases to which, I am sure, we would all agree readily. A man in a small shop may get a case full of, say, gloves or cigarettes and there is a mis-description on them. He may have a quarter of the case in the shop window and the other three-quarters in a box at the back of the shop. One can draw no
200
distinction between the two; we could all agree about that. Then there is this kind of case where a man has noticed that the first half-dozen, say, contain a mis-description on them, and he says to himself, "Well, there are a lot more of these behind. I had better be careful about this." He might say, "I will go and see if they have the same description on them as have the lot I have got out." Or he might say, "I had better withdraw the lot and put them in the back of the shop." He might be intending to sell them if he came to the conclusion that it was all right; but not otherwise. I should have thought, and I am so advised, that in that case he would not be having those goods for sale. The most that could be said of him was that he had them for what I might call a contingency sale; that is, if it proved to be all right. That, I think, is the key to the clause. They must be in his possession for sale—and they must be for sale without his looking at them again or putting conditions on them. They must be in the same sort of position, otherwise than geographically, as the goods in the window, if I may put it that way. I hope I have answered what my noble friend asked me.
I did not catch the point about Clause 32; but it looks to me to be a rather difficult one and I should like to look at it before I commit myself about it one way or another. I think that is the best one can do. If you start trying to give a definition you really make things worse rather than better. This is criminal legislation which one wants to be as clear as may be; but it remains the case that the prosecutor would have to show that the goods were in the accused's possession for sale. I think he would fail in the case the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, stated and I think he would fail, too, in the case my noble friend stated. I must repeat that we can only say what we are advised and what we intend. We cannot vouch for what the courts may do. This is the right interpretation so far as I can see. I hope that will satisfy the noble Lord.
LORD AIREDALE: With great respect, that explanation really will not do at all. Take the most honest shopkeeper in England and presume that he gets a stock of corkscrews, each of them in a packet saying, "Made in Hong Kong ". That is wrong. The shopkeeper

201
finds out that it is wrong. He keeps the corkscrews in his warehouse at the back, and says to himself that he is going to sell them when he has had time to sort them out and throw all the boxes away. Then he puts the corkscrews in the window and sells them. But there will not be any trade description on them. To say that those corkscrews in that warehouse are not in the possession of the shopkeeper for sale really is mincing matters in the most extraordinary degree. Of course, he has the corkscrews for sale and that is what he always intended to do. The only question is about his throwing away the false description. I really think that we must divide on this.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I take a different point of view from my noble friend Lord Cawley. If we left out the words, "having goods in his possession for sale," it would mean that it would not be an offence to have falsely labelled goods in stock until the moment of exposing them for sale. This would hamper the weights and measures authorities, because, taking the case of one-day carpet sales (about which, your Lordships will remember, the Molony Report had a whole section) the huckster keeps most of the carpets he is selling in the back regions. When confronted by an inspector, he will say that they are not exposed for sale, although they may have been fraudulently advertised in the local paper the day before. The inspector is put to the very difficult task of witnessing an actual sale and trying to prove that the article relates to the false advertisement. This was one of the problems which the Molony Report mentioned as having been raised by many people. I think that it would be a mistake to take out these words, and in spite of what my noble friends Lord Cawley and Lord Drumalbyn have said, I hope that the Minister will not abandon this phrase.
LORD CAWLEY: With the greatest respect to the noble Lady, I have not said anything on this Amendment.
9.23 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I concede that there is a slight difference in interpretation between my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison. As I understand my noble friend, she assumes, as does the noble Lord, Lord Airedale
202
—and she may be right—that if a shopkeeper has goods on the premises the presumption is that he has them for sale. Certainly a retailer normally does not have goods there unless he has them for sale. But what we are getting at is where the onus of proof lies.
The noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, felt, no doubt correctly, that it would be for the prosecution to show that the retailer had the goods in his possession for sale. I wonder if the noble Lord would confirm that. It seems to me that the presumption would be that the shopkeeper had the goods for sale, and that, as the clause is drafted, it would be for him to prove that he had not got them for sale. This might be very difficult in many circumstances. I see my noble friend's point, but what I am anxious to do is to make certain that the man who had goods, not for sale but for some other purpose, was covered. He might have them but might not want to sell them at that time—perhaps because he wanted to sell off damaged goods before he sold the main consignment, or for some such reason. I am worried about this clause because there are no necessary limitations placed on it. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that in the ordinary way the onus of proof that the goods in a retail shop are not there for sale is very heavy. It was in order to alleviate this in appropriate cases that I put the Amendment down.
LORD MITCHISON: There is, of course, no doubt that the prosecution would have to prove that, if he had goods in his possession, he had them for sale. There is nothing in the Bill or in what I said about a shopkeeper with goods in the shop, or anything of that sort, or about the presumptions which might arise if he had them in the shop. The fact remains that in this, as in any other criminal procedure, the prosecution have to prove their case. Therefore it is the case—and there are many other instances of it—with regard to goods in the back of the shop, that if you want to prosecute by virtue of this clause you must show that the goods were in the shopkeeper's possession for the purpose of sale.
I am not sure that I agree with the noble Lord about the heaviness of the presumption. It must depend on the circumstances, and it is hard to generalise about it. But may I say this, in the

203
hope of appeasing the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, and other noble Lords who are uneasy about the matter? The Act of 1887 has these words:
" or has in his possession for sale or any purpose of trade or manufacture …"
Those words have never caused any trouble.
LORD AIREDALE: But are there the following words, "shall be deemed to offer them for sale "?—because that is the trouble here. If the Government want to make it an offence for somebody to have in his possession for sale goods bearing a false trade description, then they should say so in Clause 1 of the Bill. But here we have the mischief of deeming something to be something else. This clause says that if he has the goods in his possession for sale he shall be deemed to offer them for sale. What is the honest shopkeeper to do when he discovers the false description on the packet? He says: "I must not offer these goods for sale, because I shall be committing an offence. I must keep them at the back of the warehouse where nobody will see them, othewise I shall be committing the offence of offering them for sale." This clause says that if he has them in his possession for sale he is deemed to offer them for sale. How is he to escape?
LORD MITCHISON: The answer is by not selling them. And it is the commonsense answer, too. As soon as he discovers that these goods contain a false trade description, and he hangs on to them, the shopkeeper is not necessarily committing an offence. He may have decided that he is not going to sell them until the description is taken off, and he may take it off in due course. This is really—I would not say the letter of the law—but it is pushing the language of the Statute much too far. It really is not sense. No court is going to accept that kind of case.
I assure the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, that we certainly intend that people who have goods in their possession for sale, if those goods have a false trade description, shall be liable; and the kind of case we intend to cover, and the obvious and common case, is the opened receptacle of some sort, half the contents of which is on the counter and the other half is in the back. Nobody would want us not to try to
204
cover the part for which there was not room on the counter. We are not penalising anyone here for having too small or too large counters. What we are dealing with is the question of selling goods.
I see Lord Airedale's point; but it is a strictly verbal one. If he chooses to divide the Committee on it, I cannot prevent him; but he will be dividing it on the finest piece of hair-splitting that I have met for a long time. I hope the noble Lord will not think that I am being rude —I do not intend to be—but I would say this to him. We had an original clause, Clause 1, that defined the offence, and now we are on the interpretative sections of the Bill. The noble Lord dislikes the word "deemed". I rather dislike it, too, but I think it is the best and most convenient way of doing what we are trying to do here.
I have thought about it and one can have differences of opinion. At the end of the day, I look at this passage in the Bill and I say, "This is reasonably clear ".On the point we are on now, I think the difficulty is that you must catch the man who has a lot of stuff at the back of the shop and is going to sell it in a short time without any reservation, just as much as the man who has it on the counter to sell it. This is not a distinction to found a difference of guilt or innocence on between two cases. If you wish to do that, I do not see how you can do it, except by this sort of language.
Of course, it is easy to think of hard cases, and cases which are rather doubtful. It is very much the case with a lot of criminal legislation. I think I am entitled to look back at the language of the Act of 1887, and say that nobody has ever got into trouble about the penalties that are covered by that sort of case. I repeat the language again:
" Or has in his possession for sale or any purpose or trade or manufacture."
That is a far more difficult thing to apply than what is in this Bill, and it has not caused any trouble. I think one must occasionally be guided by what has happened in the past, and one must not omit cases which clearly ought to be covered simply because one finds it a little difficult to go into sufficient detail in the wording of the clause, provided that the meaning is clear to a court—and I believe this meaning would be clear.

205
I cannot say any more than that, and if the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, or anybody else wants to divide the House, divide it they must.
LORD AIREDALE: I was not referring to the case where a shopkeeper has half the goods on the counter, and half in the warehouse at the back. I am referring to the case where he has the whole lot in the warehouse at the back, and is desperately anxious not to sell any of them while they bear this false trade description. The Minister's reply to that—and he has just made it again—is that his answer is not to sell the goods. That is not the answer, because he still commits the offence under paragraph (b) which not only says:
" Supplies goods bearing a false trade description ",
but also
" offers to supply goods bearing a false trade description ".
Clause 6 says that if he has goods in his warehouse at the back, though none in the shop, bearing a false trade description, he is deemed to offer them for sale.
LORD MITCHISON: No.
LORD AIREDALE: He is deemed to offer them for sale. That is an offence under paragraph (b). Whether we can get this right this evening, or at the next stage of the Bill, I do not mind, but we shall have to get it right.
LORD MITCHISON: If I may say so, I have so much respect for the noble Lord, Lord Airedale—I do not know whether it is permissible to add a bit of liking, too—that I should hope to try to make myself a little clearer. The operative words here are, "in his possession for sale ". That is the point. I quite agree that this involves drawing a line, and that it is therefore occasionally rather difficult to see what is on one side of it and what is on the other. But I think it is the right line to draw, and this is as near as you can get. It is not a question of where he has them, provided they are in his possession. It is a question of whether he has them for sale or not. That is the real test.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I think this Amendment has been given a full hearing, and we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, for having ex-
206
plained it so much more fully. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, for having given the answers, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.35 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI moved, to add to the clause:
"Provided that the fact that any offer is deemed to have been made for the purpose of this section shall not of itself render such an offer capable of being accepted to form a contract "
The noble Lord said: In my view this Amendment is necessary, since the clause as at present drafted would change the accepted principles of the law of contract that shop displays are not offers capable of being accepted to form a contract. Perhaps I might read a short passage from Modern Advertising Law, which puts the matter very simply:
" From the legal point of view an advertisement is regarded, at any rate in the majority of cases, not as being a firm offer but simply as a statement of the terms on which the advertiser is prepared to do business, called technically a notice to treat. If goods are advertised for sale at a certain price, this does not mean that any person who informs the advertiser that he is willing to buy some of the goods at that price thereby acquires a contractual right to buy them. The advertisement is a mere announcement. It is the would-be purchaser who makes the offer which the advertiser may accept or reject as he wishes. This is so whether the advertisement is in a newspaper or a catalogue or attached to the goods in the window of a shop."
So I would submit that it does not really matter whether a shopkeeper has the goods in his possession for sale; under this clause as at present worded, he is deemed to offer them for sale, unless we add this Amendment to give him some protection, so that the mere fact of exposing goods for sale does not mean that he has got to sell them. They merely represent an offer to treat, and it has to be a two-way business between him and his purchaser. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 14 at end insert the said proviso —(Lord Strabolgi.)
LORD MITCHISON: This is the point with which we were dealing a few minutes ago. This is not a statement of the law about the sale of goods and, if I may respectfully say so, I agree entirely with what my noble friend read out on that subject. We are dealing here with

207
an interpretative clause: it is interpreting the offence in Clause 1 of the Bill, and it is not doing anything else. It has nothing to do with contracts, and although I would quite agree that if the only thing in the Bill were this clause one would require some proviso of this sort, in the context here that is shown by Clause 2 and by the passage, to which I referred previously in Clause 38. I must say to my noble friend that when I looked at this I thought to myself, "What are we in for here?" Then I began to look a little further, and I came to the conclusion that the judge who had listened to, and agreed with, the argument we have just heard would then say, "But where do we find this clause?" And we should reply, "That is there for another purpose, and in another context, and in another Act ". I hope that my noble friend will accept that explanation.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am sure the noble Lord was right to raise this point again, because it is one of extraordinary importance and one that has been widely misunderstood. I am personally quite prepared to rest on the interpretation given by the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, which I am sure is that which is intended, and, speaking for myself, I would say that this is now quite satisfactory.
LORD STRABOLGI: I thank my noble friend for his explanation. Before withdrawing this Amendment, which of course I shall do, I should like to point out, with respect to the noble Lord, that while he has described many cases where the court would be on the side of the accused, because of the loopholes in the Bill, what we are trying to do with these Amendments is to ensure that prosecutions will be minimised, so that people do not even have to be taken to court; and that, even when they have got to court, they may be acquitted.
I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7:
Definition orders
7.—(1) Where it appears to the Board of Trade—
(a) that it would be in the interest of persons to whom any goods are supplied; or
208
that any expressions used in relation to the goods should be understood as having definite meanings, the Board may by order assign such meanings either—
9.40 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved, in subsection (1)(a), to leave out "supplied" and insert "offered". The noble Lord said: Looking at this Bill, I take it that the phrase here used is, so to speak, longhand for "consumer", because no one can define "consumer"—" persons to whom any goods are supplied ". In the context of this clause it seems rather inapposite, because we are not concerned with the point at which the goods are supplied to people; we are concerned with the point at which they are offered. The whole purpose of a definition is to deal with the offering of goods so that people may know at the time they are offered that they are getting what they expect to get in accordance with the normal definitions. It seems to me that the word here, "supplied", is wrong. I see that this may be said to be a phrase to cover consumers or customers. I should have doubted in this context, or in the next clause, or the next, whether the phrase "persons to whom any goods are supplied" means very much. I suppose it just means customers. Why not just say "customers"? I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4. line 19, leave out (" supplied ") and insert (" offered ").—(Lord Drumulbyn.)
LORD MITCHISON: It is a choice between two words and I am not sure there is very much principle involved, but such as there is comes from the Short Title of the Bill, which is called The Protection of Consumers Bill. That is good electioneering advertisement, if I may say so. But when one comes to look at the Long Title, one finds it is rather wider. It is
"… by fresh provisions prohibiting mis-descriptions of goods, services, accommodation and facilities provided in the course of trade ".
There is no mention of consumers in the Long Title, and if one looks at the language of the Bill it could equally cover the case of a wholesaler supplying goods to a retailer, or some industrial user who perhaps ordered three tons of something or other every month for six months. The effective thing is really the supplying.

209
I agree it also included offers to supply, but I think of the two words "supplying" really provides the meaning of the intention of the Bill rather better; and if one pushes it a little further one finds that we really want to protect the people to whom goods are supplied rather than people to whom they are offered and who then reject them. This is a clause giving the Board of Trade power in certain circumstances to issue a definition order. I think, therefore, it is appropriate in cases of actual supply rather than cases of offer.
One sees that in the industrial user instance, and one can think of a great many others where there would be supply without the kind of offer at which this Amendment is aimed. There might be something supplied, three tons of so-and-so, and nothing so far that would involve a trade description, and then the goods might arrive with a trade description on them which might be false. That would be where the act would relate to supplying, rather than offering. I quite agree that there will be cases where it would relate to offering. But I think that when the Board of Trade have got to act—and that is the point here; this is not a criminal clause or anything of that sort, but simply a consideration that the Board of Trade have to bear in mind—it is phrased
" in the interests of persons to whom any goods are supplied."
So I hope that the noble Lord, on what is perhaps rather a narrow point—
210
I quite see it—will feel that the language in the Bill is sufficient for the purpose.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I do not want to press this matter. It seemed to me, and still seems to me, that the word "offered" would be more appropriate. But, as the noble Lord said, this is a matter for the Board of Trade to act on, and the only point on which I rather disagree with the noble Lord is that he was arguing as if the words were "any persons to whom any goods are supplied ". That is not what it says: it says "persons to whom ", and it is really a whole class. It means everybody qua customer; because goods are supplied to everybody. However, the Board of Trade is to look at this matter, as I understand it, in the interests of customers. It is not necessarily consumers in the ordinary sense, who might be manufacturers. It is in the interest of customers, and really at the point where the goods are being offered to them. However, I will not press this Amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CHAMPION): My Lords, I think that this would be a convenient moment to move that the House be resumed. I beg to move.
House resumed.
House adjourned at twelve minutes before ten o'clock.