Sitting of 4 December 1967

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  DEATH OF A MEMBER
  Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of the right honourable Sir John Hobson, O.B.E., Q.C., Member for Warwick and Leamington, and I desire, on behalf of the House, to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the right honourable Member.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SOCIAL SECURITY

    Labour Force Limited 'Selective Employment Tax)
    Mr. Hiltonasked the Minister of Social Security if she is now able to report on the firm of Labour Force Limited in relation to the amount of selective employment tax paid on men supplied to the construction industry on a labour-only sub-contracting basis, and for the staff directly employed by Labour Force Limited for the purpose of administration.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Social Security (Mr. Norman Pentland): As my hon. Friend knows, it is not our practice to disclose payments by individual employers. But I should add that the company to which he refers was fined £10 in the Croydon Magistrates' Court in September for not providing information which it had been required to give under Section 90 of the National Insurance Act, for the purpose of ascertaining the contribution position of the persons involved; and that further proceedings against the Company under section 90 are now pending.
    Mr. Hilton: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the reason advanced by Labour Force Limited for not supplying this information is that it would take two years to collect? Does not he agree that it is paradoxical that a firm which claims to be efficient enough to negotiate 75,000 individual contracts a week should advance such a claim? If the firm proves obstructionist in getting this information, can my hon. Friend tell me what action he intends to take?
    Mr. Pentland: Not without notice, on the legal aspects of the latter part of my hon. Friend's question, but on the contributions aspect and the question of S.E.T. liability, the court proceedings to which I have referred are now going forward.

    Single Women
    Mr. Hamlingasked the Minister of Social Security what steps she will now take to provide social security benefits for single women who, because they are taking care of dependent relatives, have incurred responsibilities normally assumed by the head of a family, or because of these responsibilities are prevented from earning an income of their own.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Social Security (Mr. Charles Loughlin): These women are already eligible for supplementary benefit if their relatives cannot reasonably be expected to pay for their services.
    Mr. Hamling: Does my hon. Friend not agree that in many cases these women are saving the State about £15 or £20 a week, and that it would be a liability on the State if they were not taking care of their dependants in this way?
    Mr. Loughlin: I agree that there is a saving to the State, but I think that the best way of dealing with the situation is to have the review that we are now undertaking. It may prove to be the case that the best solution is a supplementary payment not to the attendant but to the person who is handicapped.
    Mr. Worsley: Is the Minister aware that his original Answer was extraordinarily unsympathetic, and that there

    923
    is a case for looking at the whole question of single women in connection with our insurance system? Will he undertake to do this?
    Mr. Loughlin: I was not intending to be unsympathetic, even if I may have appeared to be. I assumed that my reference to the review that we are undertaking was indicative of the fact that we are sympathetic and are investigating the problem. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman misunderstood me.

    Widows
    Mr. Hamlingasked the Minister of Social Security what steps she will now take to deal with anomalies in the payment of social security benefits to widows.
    Mr. Loughlin: The provisions for widow's benefit are being carefully considered in the Government's current review of social security.
    Mr. Hamling: Is my hon. Friend aware that in many cases widows in identical circumstances are being treated quite differently, in terms of social security?
    Mr. Loughlin: I appreciate that the situation is that if we forget the age factor even some widows who are receiving pensions are treated differently. We have to be careful about this because, as my hon. Friend will know, there are for example the war widows' preferences, and many hon. Members would resent any reduction in those preferences. We are carefully examining the whole question of widows.
    Mr. Farrasked the Minister of Social Security if she will seek to reduce to 50 years the age at which a widow is placed in receipt of the full widow's pension.
    Mr. Loughlin: I think the hon. Member has perhaps confused the conditions for widow's pension with the conditions for retirement pension. A woman widowed at 50 already gets a widow's pension. Reduction of the minimum pension age of 60 for retirement pensions, which applies to all women, would not seem justified for widows more than for other women.
    Mr. Farr: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I have not confused the question at all, and that what is of great concern to me is that a widow whose husband dies 10 days before she reaches the age of 50 will have to wait over 10 years before she receives a widow's pension? There is no confusion in this, and I ask that the Minister should look at this anomaly.
    Mr. Loughlin: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for assuming that he was confused on this point. I only raised it to enable him to raise the subject of retirement pensions, and I had no other intention. I am afraid that the demarcation factor is one of the features of any setting of age, and that, wherever the line is fixed, there are bound to be some just below it, leading to anomalies. It is very difficult.
    Lord Balniel: Could there not be a sliding scale?
    Mr. Loughlin: It is possible to have a sliding scale, but there would still be anomalies—we must face this—at the bottom end of the sliding scale. This is something which is worth looking at, but I would remind the House that we are dealing with a very long tradition of age levels for widows' pensions.
    Mr. Arthur Davidson: Would my hon. Friend consider the possibility of paying all widows the same pension when they reach the age of 50, whether or not they were eligible before that?
    Mr. Loughlin: I answered this point on an earlier Question.

    Industrial Deafness
    Dr. Winstanleyasked the Minister of Social Security if she will add industrial deafness to the list of conditions qualifying for benefit under the Industrial Injuries Scheme.
    Mr. Loughlin: Before industrial deafness can be prescribed for industrial injuries benefit purposes the requirements of Section 56(2) of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1965, have to be satisfied. The large-scale Government research project into the effects of industrial noise, which is aimed at resolving the issues involved, should be completed in July, 1968. Until its

    925
    results become available my right hon. Friend cannot come to any conclusions on the question of prescription.
    Dr. Winstanley: Is the hon. Member aware that it is now 150 years since deafness was professionally recognised as a hazard of blacksmiths, nearly 100 years since it was recognised in the case of weaving, and that we have had many additions to the list since then? Is it not time we caught up with other countries which now lead us in this statutory recognition of a disability like this?
    Mr. Loughlin: I should not like the House to be confused by what is done in other countries, because most of them have a different basis of compensation for industrial injuries and industrial diseases. There has been a very intensive research project into this matter. It was originally intended that it should be completed in 1968. It would be a little premature to start making statements at this stage, before we receive the review.

    Benefits (Payment)
    Mr. Archerasked the Minister of Social Security whether she has now received the report of the National Insurance Advisory Committee into the advisability of conferring upon insurance officers a discretion to pay benefits which are not paid within six months from the date when they were receivable; and what action she is taking.
    The Minister of Social Security (Mrs. Judith Hart): No, Sir. The time limits on payment of benefits which are under review involve the consideration of a complex of inter-related problems.
    The Committee will, of course, report to me as soon as they can, and I shall then consider what action is needed.
    Mr. Archer: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the people concerned do not move in well-informed circles and that all the provision which she makes for them is completely frustrated at the moment, when they find out too late?
    Mrs. Hart: Yes, it is exactly in this context that the Committee will be considering the three kinds of time limit involved.
    Mr. Worsley: Will the right hon. Lady seek to expedite this review? Is she aware, for instance, that real hardship is caused in the case of a widow who, because she was separated from her husband, did not know of his death?
    Mrs. Hart: Yes, I am sure that the Committee will work as fast as it can. There were three months for the receipt of representations on this matter, which has just now expired, so I am sure that the Committee will be continuing as fast as it can.

    Unemployment Benefit
    Mr. Archerasked the Minister of Social Security whether she will arrange for the payment of daily unemployment benefit to claimants who normally work a five-day week on the basis of one-fifth of the weekly rate and not one-sixth.
    Mr. Pentland: No, Sir. Even if this were practicable, the administrative costs would be out of all proportion to the amount of benefit involved for individual claimants.
    Mr. Archer: Will my hon. Friend consider this again? Does he appreciate that the people concerned are already suffering financial hardship because they are on short time? Is it really a good reason for failing to pay them the proper amount that it is administratively inconvenient to do what is right?
    Mr. Pentland: No, Sir, not at all. The present rule mainly concerns five-day workers on short-time, and, in the Govment's view, unemployment benefit should be concentrated upon workers who have lost their jobs.

    Supplementary Benefits
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Minister of Social Security what plans she has for increasing supplementary benefits; and if she will make a statement.
    Mrs. Hart: Supplementary Benefit rates were increased at the end of October, but we shall of course continue to keep their level under constant review.
    Mr. Roberts: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that supplementary benefits were decreased at the end of October, 1967, and that some adjustment in these benefits will soon be called for to meet

    927
    the problems of devaluation and the general increase in earnings which is to be expected?
    Mrs. Hart: My hon. Friend will be aware, I think, of what I said in the House about devaluation, but he is, I believe, in some confusion about the rates of supplementary benefits, which were, in fact, increased at the end of October.
    Lord Balniel: Could the right hon. Lady, if possible, answer this question with a "Yes" or "No"? Does she intend to increase the supplementary benefit level before Christmas?
    Mrs. Hart: If the hon. Gentleman has read what I said—indeed, he heard it—in the House last week, he will be quite clear that, in terms of supplementary benefit, we regard the position as it stood in October, just over a month ago, as an extremely good starting point for the winter.
    Mr. Spriggs: Will my right hon. Friend consider increasing supplementary allowances at the same time as the statutory benefits are increased?
    Mrs. Hart: I am well aware of the kind of problems which my hon. Friend raises. There is a great deal of confusion among pensioners as between those who receive supplementary benefits and those who do not. It has always been found necessary to take full account of the real needs of the poorer section of the community in raising supplementary benefits at different times for those on retirement pensions. However, there is a problem here and I am considering it closely.
    Mr. Frederic Harris: Does the right hon. Lady appreciate that hon. Members are under daily pressure from poor people in regard to increasing supplementary benefits, and that they cannot understand how the Government can give a general increase in family allowances and yet not face up to this problem, which is causing considerable distress?
    Mrs. Hart: If the hon. Gentleman would care to write to me, as a number of my hon. Friends have done, I will be able to explain the position to him in terms which his constituents will understand.

    Contributions
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Minister of Social Security how many recipients of social security payments obtained a weekly increase of 9s. 6d. and not 10s. as from 30th October, 1967, due to some past failure in their contribution record; what was the saving involved; and what plans she has for providing non-contributory social security payments.
    Mr. Pentland: I regret that the information requested in the first two parts of the Question is not available. As my hon. Friend knows, anyone whose income from National Insurance benefits and other sources is not enough for his requirements as laid down in the Ministry of Social Security Act may claim a supplementary pension or allowance.
    Mr. Roberts: Would my hon. Friend not agree, however, that this reduction of 6d. a week in the increases is a simple example of red tape gone mad? What investigations are being carried out into the possibilities and the practicabilities of non-contributory systems?
    Mr. Pentland: We are considering many aspects in our present comprehensive review, and have been for some time. However, my hon. Friend must be aware that, in a contributory scheme, the award of benefit must be subject to the satisfaction of the relevant contribution conditions.

    Supplementary Benefits (Rent and Rate Increases)
    Mr. Mappasked the Minister of Social Security why her regulations do not provide for the supplementary pension or allowance to be adjusted following a rent or rates variation unless the amount payable would be affected by more than two shillings per week.
    Mr. Loughlin: The supplementary pension or allowance is adjusted to take account of minor changes of this kind up or down, when a new determination is made, usually on the expiry of the current order book. One of the objects of the supplementary benefits scheme is to provide a person with a stable income for a fixed period, and the Regulations therefore provide that for the limited

    929
    period changes of circumstances leading to an increase, or decrease, of not more than 2s. are not to affect the determination.
    Mr. Mapp: Is my hon. Friend aware that a variation in costs of up to £5 a year in this large area of poverty among our people cannot be justified by administrative convenience? Would he consider whether the relevant amount should be reduced at least to half, or even down to 6d. a week?
    Mr. Loughlin: I do not know. Wherever one sets the figure, there will be pressures for a reduction. We are trying to give a stable income over a period. There are swings and roundabouts here, and, on balance, we think that this is the better way.

    Long-Term Sick
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Minister of Social Security what proposals she now has for improving the position of the long-term sick.
    Mrs. Hart: This and related matters are being studied.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will not the right hon. Lady go a little further than that and say that she accepts that there is increasing evidence of need for some addition, perhaps on a selective basis, to ordinary sickness benefits for people who are sick or disabled for a very long time, perhaps for life? Has she considered applying to them some of the experience of the war pension scheme, such as introducing constant attendance allowance or unemployability supplement?
    Mrs. Hart: I am prepared to go further than in my original Answer and to say that a number of these points are among those being studied. As I am sure the right hon. Gentleman appreciates, the whole subject is full of complexities. What is important is that we are taking one move forward in that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health at the moment is about to initiate a survey which will cover many of the long-term disabled, to many of whom a constant attendance allowance would be relevant. That should take us some way forward.

    Social Security Scheme (Review)
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Minister of Social Security when she proposes to hold a comprehensive review of current bene
    930
    fits, in view of the existing anomalies; and if she will make a statement.
    Mr. Will Owenasked the Minister of Social Security when she will submit to the House her proposals for a new social security scheme; and whether she will make a statement.
    Mrs. Hart: The Government's further proposals will be brought before the House as soon as possible. A great deal of complex work is now in mid-stream.
    Mr. Dempsey: Will my right hon. Friend confirm whether one of the proposals will be a provision to end the present graduated pension scheme which before the last election we all described as a swindle? Is she aware that trade unionists and other workpeople are getting restless about the delay and would like a definite date when the report will be introduced to the House?
    Mrs. Hart: I can affirm what has been said from this bench a number of times—that the new wage-related pension scheme will end completely the existing graduated scheme. As for my hon. Friend's anxieties about having a definite date, I am sorry that I cannot oblige him with an answer. Things are working quite fast, but at this stage it is not possible to give a date.
    Mr. Farr: Will the Minister say exactly what effect the conditions which have been attached to our recent international loan are likely to have on these proposals?
    Mrs. Hart: I do not expect any conditions, such as there may be—and I would dispute the hon. Member's possible interpretation of them—to have any effect. I do not expect any international repercussions to have any effect on our wage-related pension scheme.

    Supplementary Pensions
    Sir J. Langford-Holtasked the Minister of Social Security whether she is aware that on page 5 of the new guide to supplementary pensions for people under pensionable age it is stated that for supplementary pension purposes capital of £2,000 is assumed to produce an income of £7 per week; and how this figure is calculated.
    Mr. Loughlin: Yes, Sir. Under the Act capital over £800 is treated as equivalent to a weekly income of 2s. 6d. for

    931
    each complete £25. This is higher than the actual income which the capital would produce, because it is right, in a scheme of supplementary benefits, to assume that people with substantial sums of capital should draw on them to some extent for day-to-day living expenses.
    Sir J. Langford-Holt: When those needs are prolonged, to what extent are these people intended by the Minister's policy to draw on these reserves?
    Mr. Loughlin: Provided that recipients of supplementary benefit have no other source of income, they can have up to £2,000 and still be entitled to supplementary benefits. Under the old National Assistance scheme the capital allowed was £600. There has been a substantial improvement in that respect since we came to power.
    Mr. Rankin: Can my hon. Friend tell me where £2,000 could be invested to produce an income of £7 a week?
    Mr. Loughlin: My hon. Friend evidently misheard the Answer to the Question. What I said to the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Sir J. Langford-Holt) was that we did not expect them to get an income out of interest on that basis but that they were expected to use some of their capital for day-to-day living purposes.

    Low-Income Families
    Mr. Barnesasked the Minister of Social Security what steps she is taking to protect low-income families from the effects of devaluation; and if she will make a statement.
    Lord Balnielasked the Minister of Social Security what steps she intends to take to ensure that help is given this winter to the poorest families and others in need who will suffer most from the rise in prices following the devaluation of the £ sterling.
    Mr. Ridsdaleasked the Minister of Social Security (1) what steps are to be taken to increase supplementary benefits, so as to help those most in need because of devaluation; and
    (2) what is her estimate of the cost of restoring the purchasing powers of pensions over the next year paid by her Department, including supplementary
    932
    and other benefits, to what it was before devaluation; and what action she proposes to take to help those most in need.
    Mrs. Hart: I would refer the hon. Members to my remarks in the House on 29th November. We shall take action at the right time in the light of the price trends which emerge and it is not possible to say now what the cost will be.—[Vol. 755, col. 458–9.]
    Mr. Barnes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that though the old and the sick could be given further help through the supplementary benefits system, the predicament of those families living below the supplementary benefit level where the fathers are in full-time work ought more properly to be dealt with in the framework of an effective incomes policy embodying the principle of a national minimum wage?
    Mrs. Hart: I am aware that several of my hon. Friends share that view. I have always made it clear that the problem of low-income families is in essence related to the problem of low incomes.
    Lord Balniel: The right hon. Lady will agree that her statement was rather empty of content. How will she help the 250,000 children living in families where the father is at work but who are below the poverty line after the passing of the Family Allowances Bill?
    Mrs. Hart: I am afraid that the noble Lord must accept that he will have to be patient about this. I have made it clear that we are committed to helping not only the old and the sick but also families on low incomes. He must now wait and see what the Government's proposals will be at the right time.
    Mr. Ridsdale: May I press the right hon. Lady to answer the question whether she intends to help these low-income families before or after Christmas?
    Mrs. Hart: I am sorry, but I am not going to be browbeaten by the Opposition in going beyond what I have just said, which is perfectly reasonable. At the right time and in the light of price trends we shall take whatever action is necessary, and we shall put our proposals before the House.
    Mr. Hugh D. Brown: Is my right hon. Friend willing to take any special steps

    933
    in the Department to examine closely and in detail the possible effects of devaluation a, distinct from the normal cost of living increase, because the Opposition have been having fun and games about this for a long time?
    Mrs. Hart: Yes, I am indeed proposing to do that.
    Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Lady has used the expression "the right time" more than once. Will she accept that the right time is a question not simply for her but for the whole House?
    Mrs. Hart: Right hon, and hon. Gentlemen opposite are perfectly entitled to have their view on what is the right time. All I can say is that the Government's proposals will be produced at what the Government consider to be the right time.

    Old People
    Mr. Higginsasked the Minister of Social Security (1) how many people over retirement age, who are not in receipt of a National Insurance retirement or widows pension, are in receipt of supplementary benefit; and by how much she estimates the cost of supplementary benefit would be reduced on their receiving a National Insurance pension as of right;
    (2) what she estimates to be the cost to the National Insurance Fund of paying a National Insurance pension as of all old people excluded from National Insurance in 1948 at current rates; how many old people there are who were excluded from National Insurance in 1948; and what their average age is at present.
    Mrs. Hart: It is estimated that by next March the number of old people who were excluded in 1948 will be of the order of 150,000. Their average age is thought to be about 85. The immediate annual cost to the National Insurance Fund of paying them pensions at the present standard rates would be £35 million; though, to be equitable to other classes of old people, an additional annual cost of £75 million would be involved. Out of 400,000; people over pension age without National Insurance pensions, about 184,000 are receiving supplementary benefit; the cost of this benefit would be reduced by £42 million a year if they
    934
    were all given standard insurance pensions.
    Mr. Higgins: Has the Minister made any calculation of how the cost would change over the next 10 years?
    Mrs. Hart: The way in which the cost would change over the next 10 years would be affected in part by the group of old people whom I know the hon. Member has very much in mind—but only in part, because the other group to whom such an extension of insurance would have to apply would not be so much affected.
    Mr. Worsley: Will the right hon. Lady accept that the groups mentioned by my hon. Friend will be particularly hard hit by devaluation? Has she noticed that he has a Bill on the stocks about this matter? Will she persuade her right hon. Friends to support it?
    Mrs. Hart: I have noted that the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) has a Bill on this matter. I am very well aware of the problem. Hon. Members opposite are also aware of the other side of the problem, and they know that it is a difficult matter. I am looking at it very hard. We shall have to see exactly what emerges at the time of the hon. Member's Bill.
    Mr. Neaveasked the Minister of Social Security how many old people excluded from the National Insurance Scheme and receiving no retirement pension die on average each week.
    Mrs. Hart: I regret that there are no statistics available to give this information.
    Mr. Neave: Would not the right hon. Lady consider a suggestion which I have made several times in the House—the registration of these old people? In what is very clearly an unhappy problem, could not her Department do something in that way?
    Mrs. Hart: The great difficulty about getting an accurate figure is that there are many of these old people who might well be eligible for supplementary benefit if they applied, but since they do not apply, we have no knowledge of who they are, or how many of them there are. That is the essential nature of the difficulty in compiling statistics.
    Mr. Neaveasked the Minister of Social Security upon the deaths of how many people above pension age in the United Kingdom the National Insurance death grant will not be payable.
    Mr. Pentland: About one million assuming that the hon. Member's Question relates to those people who, when the National Insurance Scheme began on 5th July, 1948, were too old to become insured for death grant.
    Mr. Neave: The Parliamentary Secretary must have known that I was referring to pensionless old people. Does he not realise that this is one of the most cruel aspects of the problem which we are discussing and that the public are most concerned about it?
    Mr. Pentland: The hon. Member well knows that the scheme is based on the contributory principle, with the result that when the contributions conditions are not satisfied, benefit cannot be awarded. That is the law as it stands and as it has stood since 1946.
    Mr. Manuel: Is my hon. Friend aware that there was a much greater number of these old people during the 13 years that the previous Government were in office and that they did nothing about it? Why are they asking us to take up the cudgels for them?
    Mr. Pentland: My hon. Friend should recognise that the Tory conscience is very much stirred these days.
    Lord Balniel: The hon. Member should appreciate that on both sides of the House there is general agreement that there is a greater concentration of poverty among this section of the community than ever. As the numbers are much smaller than they used to be, would he not agree that we all accept this as an anomaly and consider whether it is possible for us to reach some agreement to help solve the problem of this very limited section of the community which is suffering great distress?
    Mr. Pentland: The noble Lord knows full well that supplementary benefits are available for many thousands of these people, but his hon. Friend's Question refers to the death grant, which, under the Act as it stands, cannot be paid in these circumstances.

    Pensions (Payment Overseas)
    Mr. Ronald Bellasked the Minister of Social Security what measures she will take to mitigate the effect on National Insurance pensioners living abroad of the recent devaluation of the £ sterling.
    Mr. Loughlin: None, Sir. It would be wrong, in principle, to modify the ordinary rules of National Insurance so as to mitigate the effect of devaluation.
    Mr. Bell: Why so, since the Prime Minister has made it clear that the £ is not being devalued in people's pockets? What about those who have contributed for pension and then for some adequate reason have gone abroad for their retirement, perhaps because they originated abroad? Certainly the £ is being depreciated in their pockets, is it not?
    Mr. Loughlin: National Insurance is designed to meet the needs of people in this country. It has been a long-standing rule that if people go abroad they do not receive the pension increases. If we were to take into account devaluation, inherent in the Question, we should also have to take into account all the increases in the cost of living which take place in other countries.
    Sir Stephen McAdden: This is all very well, but has not the Ministry in answer to several questions insisted upon the contributory principle? If it is right that these people should pay contributions, surely they should not get their benefits at a devalued rate?
    Mr. Loughlin: I assure the hon. Member that if he looks at the whole question of the amount of contributions which they have paid, he will see that the rate at which benefits are paid at present is very good.

    Disputed Pension Claims (Appeals)
    Earl of Dalkeithasked the Minister of Social Security how many cases of disputed pensions claims have been submitted to her decision under Section 64(1) of the National Insurance Act, 1965; how many were decided in favour of the claimant; how many were rejected; how many have been the subject of an appeal to the High Court; and how many appeals have been won by appellants.
    Mrs. Hart: I will, with permission, circulate the available information in the OFFICIAL REPORT. It will be seen that since 61h September, 1965, when the 1965 consolidating Act came into force, no such case has been the subject of an appeal to the High Court. Between the start of the national insurance scheme in 1948 and the above date, there were six appeals to the High Court in this type of case and in all of them the Minister's decision was upheld.
    The following is the information:
    Decisions since 6th September, 1965, under Section 54(1) of the National Insurance Act, 1965, on contribution questions arising out of claims for retirement pension or widow's benefit:

    Number

    Ministers decisions

    1,835

    Cases in which contribution record improved

    508

    Cases in which contribution record not improved

    1,327

    Cases taken to the High Court

    NIL

    Discretionary Allowance
    Mr. Blenkinsopasked the Minister of Social Security whether she will review the operation of the discretionary allowance for those in receipt of supplementary allowance.
    Mr. Loughlin: The Supplementary Benefits Commission, whose responsibility this is, is keeping it under continuous watch and review.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: While welcoming that reply, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he agrees that in the course of the development of the scheme it has been shown that there is not quite the same amount of discretion in the hands of local officials as perhaps in the past and that this results in some very unfortunate decisions?
    Mr. Loughlin: I do not think that it results in too many unfortunate decisions. The new construction of supplementary benefits is in favour of the recipient. I know that my hon. Friend has a case of this kind in mind, and I am shortly writing to him about the details of that case.

    Earnings Rule
    Mr. Sharplesasked the Minister of Social Security how many retirement pensioners have had their pensions reduced as a result of the withdrawal of
    938
    the pay-as-you-earn tax concession in June, 1967.
    Mr. Deanasked the Minister of Social Security whether she will undertake to find out how many pensioners are worse off following the recent change in the operation of the earnings rule as a result of which the rule operates on gross earnings instead of net earnings.
    Mr. Pentland: The number of pensioners affected in this way is not known, but the other changes made at the same time ensure that it is small. An expensive inquiry to determine the exact number would not be justified.
    Mr. Sharples: Has the Minister seen the details of a case, which I have sent to the Ministry, of one of my constituents whose total earnings were £11 10s. and who had his pension reduced by £2 a week as a result of this change? Would it not be a good thing for the Department to find out the effects of the change?
    Mr. Pentland: This matter was fully debated when we introduced the new Regulations in regard to the earnings rule. As the hon. Gentleman knows full well, the National Insurance Advisory Committee recommended the changes which we made, recognising at that time that some pensioners were enjoying what was, in effect, a higher earnings rule than other pensioners with low incomes.
    Mr. Lipton: Does my hon. Friend accept that there are a number of pensioners—however small that number may be—who have been adversely affected by the operation of this new rule? Will he take these individual cases into account if and when hon. Members submit specific cases to him?
    Mr. Pentland: Yes, Sir. We of course look at every individual case that is presented to us, but my hon. Friend must bear in mind that the new rule was applied to even things up. There are now hundreds of thousands of pensioners benefiting as the result of the action which we took. What was an anomalous position has now been corrected.
    Mr. Sharples: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Parliamentary Secretary's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

    Supplementary Benefits Commission (Wage-Stop)
    Mr. Winnickasked the Minister of Social Security what recent instructions she has given as to how the wage standstill regulation should be administered.
    Mr. Eadieasked the Minister of Social Security if she has now received the report from the Supplementary Benefits Commission on the wage-stop.
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Minister of Social Security what action is proposed in the report on the wage-stop which she has now received from the Supplementary Benefits Commission.
    Mr. Alec Jonesasked the Minister of Social Security when she proposes to publish the report from the Supplementary Benefits Commission on the wage-stop.
    Mrs. Hart: I shall, with permission, answer these Questions together at the end of Question Time.

    Dockers' Families (Social Security Payments)
    Mr. Kenneth Lewisasked the Minister of Social Security how much in social security payments was paid to the families of dockers during the recent strike in the London Docks.
    Mrs. Hart: Supplementary benefits amounting to £102,640 were paid.
    Mr. Lewis: Would not the right hon. Lady agree that we would seem to have reached the position that when damaging, irresponsible and unofficial strikes take place, the country is taking the view that it should not both suffer and pay?
    Mrs. Hart: I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman has in mind, but there is a real difficulty here. I am sure that he would not be suggesting that the wives and children should have nothing at all. This is the difficulty.

    Retirement Pension (Supplementary Benefits)
    Mr. Worsleyasked the Minister of Social Security whether she will take steps to allow increments to the retirement pension to be disregarded when
    940
    assessing eligibility for supplementary benefits.
    Mr. Pentland: No, Sir. As I said last week, to disregard part of the retirement pension would not be consistent with the principle that supplementary benefits should be complementary to the National Insurance Scheme.
    Mr. Worsley: Will the Parliamentary Secretary consider this matter in any future review, in that a change of this sort would encourage workers to stay in full-time and useful work?
    Mr. Pentland: We are prepared to consider these points at all times. If the hon. Gentleman has a particular case in mind, outside of what I said, I assure him that I would be glad to look into it.

    Local Offices (Inquiries)
    Mr. Montgomeryasked the Minister of Social Security whether she is satisfied that all officers at the local branches of her Department can now deal with the full range of inquiries about both contributory benefits as well as supplementary benefits.
    Mrs. Hart: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Holland) on 23rd October.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 751, c. 343–4.]
    Mr. Montgomery: Is the right hon. Lady aware that New Society published an article earlier this year in which it cited the case of a lady who went to one of the Ministry's offices, a former Ministry of Pensions office, to inquire about supplementary benefits and said that nobody there could help her, but they sent her to another office, which was an old National Assistance Board office, some distance away? While appreciating that this is a difficult problem, may I ask what the Ministry is doing in the sphere of retraining to cope with this sort of situation?
    Mrs. Hart: There has been a great deal of retraining going on during the year. The process of integrating these offices is moving forward, but it must, by its nature, be a slow process. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recognises that we are moving forward in this respect, and I am sure that he will find today

    941
    that it would be most unusual if a caller at any of these offices was unable to get help on any question.

    Constant Attendance Allowance
    Mr. Astorasked the Minister of Social Security (1) if she will extend the provision of an allowance for constant attendance in cases of disablement arising from industrial accident or disease to all severely disabled people requiring constant attendance because of loss of faculty, irrespective of its cause;
    (2) if she will amend the rates of benefit payable under the National Insurance Scheme in respect of severe disablement, to make them comparable to the benefits payable under the Industrial Injuries Insurance Scheme.
    Mrs. Hart: Provision is already made under the National Insurance and Supplementary Benefits Schemes for severely disabled people who are unable or too old to work. The benefits under both schemes have keen increased in recent weeks. The special problems of the severely disabled are being studied at present.
    Mr. Astor: Does the right hon. Lady agree that it is desirable that severely disabled people should be encouraged and enabled to live at home? Is she aware that a group of these people do not get any support now? Can she indicate when she may be able to bring forward proposals to help this group of people?
    Mrs. Hart: As I said in reply to an earlier Question by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), one of the main problems here is getting information about incidence. We have not had this information before and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health's survey should help a great deal in this respect. I am very much aware of this problem, but this is a question of doing a good deal of research before one can produce proposals.
    Mr. Lubbock: What representations has the right hon. Lady had about people who are not covered by the National Insurance Scheme? Is she prepared to introduced an allowance for these people and so see that they can pay for home attendants and not have to go into hospital?
    Mrs. Hart: This is exactly the problem with which I am concerned and at which I am looking. Where chronic disablement or sickness arises and where those concerned are not insured, a real problem of course occurs. There is a gap in the Welfare State here and I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am prepared to examine this problem.

    Supplementary Assistance Claims (Interviews)
    Mr. Huntasked the Minister of Social Security what instructions have been issued to local social security advisory committees regarding the interviewing of applicants for supplementary assistance.
    Mr. Loughlin: None, Sir. There is, however, a departure from the National Assistance practice under which certain applicants were interviewed by subcommittees. Claimants are now able to discuss their problems on a personal basis with an individual committee member rather than to be interviewed by subcommittees. This is more in accord with the spirit of the 1966 Act.
    Mr. Hunt: Is the Minister aware that some members of the Bromley and Bexley Committee are under the impression that interviewing is being actively discouraged? Would he not agree that public confidence in the administration of social security would be seriously undermined if members of these local committees were not able, as a subcommittee, to fulfil a watchdog rôle with regard to the granting of supplementary assistance?
    Mr. Loughlin: I am not prepared to agree that we will even look at the possibility of a return to sub-committee interviewing. This very often created a situation in which the applicant was under some embarrassment. If the hon. Member has a particular case in which the new system of an individual member of the committee interviewing applicants is not working properly, I will be very glad to look into it and see what can be done about it.

    Rate Rebates
    Mr. Deanasked the Minister of Social Security what action she proposes to take to ensure that pensioners do not

    943
    lose part of the value of the increase in pension through reductions in rate rebates.
    Mr. Loughlin: None, Sir. Increases in National Insurance retirement pensions form part of a pensioner's income and, as such, are liable to be taken into account by those responsible for any assessment based on income, whether for tax, rate rebate or any other purpose. Those receiving supplementary pensions normally receive an allowance to cover their rent and rates in full, and are not eligible for a rate rebate in addition.
    Mr. Dean: I am not talking about those who are getting this supplementary benefit. Does not the Minister realise that the effect of the pension increase will be partly nullified unless changes are made in the rate rebate schemes? Will he speak to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government and ensure that that Minister seeks from Parliament powers to operate the provisions which already exist in the Rating Act, to ensure that the income limits in the rate rebate scheme are increased, so that the pension is not diminished for these pensioners?
    Mr. Loughlin: We will have to be a little careful about this. If a rate rebate scheme is introduced, as a consequence of the upgrading of pensions some people are bound to come outside the minimum level for rate rebates. I think that this applied in the old scheme under which the previous Government, the Conservative Government, gave £200,000 in rate rebate. It applied there, but it applies more to us, because of the increases we have made in pensions.

    Part-Time Workers (Employers' Contribution)
    Mrs. Knightasked the Minister of Social Security if she will now reduce the scale of National Insurance contributions paid by employers for part-time workers, in order to encourage the use of such workers to assist the export drive.
    Mr. Pentland: It has never been found practicable to introduce a reduced rate of contribution for part-time workers within the framework of the existing scheme of flat-rate contributions and
    944
    benefits, but the position of such workers is being considered in our general review of the social security provisions.
    Mrs. Knight: Will not the Minister accept that the rules as they at present are militate against the employment of part-time workers; and that not only might such workers make a useful contribution to exports but that, in the present climate of falling standards of living, they need employment very badly? Will he please bear all these points in mind?
    Mr. Pentland: We are doing just that, but it has also to be borne in mind that it could be quite unfair if the employers' contribution depended on the personal position of the employee. We should then have a situation which could lead to discrimination against certain employees.
    Mr. Worsley: But would not the hon. Gentleman agree that, particularly in the case of the single woman looking after a dependant, this is a very severe disincentive to going out to work? Will he not have second thoughts about this, as his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had about S.E.T.?
    Mr. Pentland: No, Sir. This is the kind of difficult problem which we are already looking into in the review.

    Research (Departmental Staff)
    Mr. Worsleyasked the Minister of Social Security how many full-time research staff are employed by her Department.
    Mrs. Hart: Two statisticians and one senior research officer, who are professionally qualified, plus 38 supporting staff. A chief statistician and another research officer are being appointed, and I have plans in hand to increase the number of professionally qualified staff.
    Mr. Worsley: Would not the right hon. Lady agree that this number is nothing like enough; and that it is perhaps the reason why she was unable to give answers to many of the questions we asked last Wednesday? Will she take steps to see that there is a co-ordinated and systematic approach to the whole question of research in her Ministry?
    Mrs. Hart: That is exactly what I seek to do. However, it must be understood that even a considerable increase in professionally qualified research staff—and I want economists and social scientists—will be unlikely to be able to undertake the kind of continuing mass survey research that we discussed last week. Nevertheless, I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is most important that we should have more research staff in my Ministry.

  VIETNAM INFORMATION GROUP
  Mr. Blakerasked the Attorney-General whether he is now able to announce the result of the investigation by the Director of Public Prosecutions into the activities of the Vietnam Information Group.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): The Director of Public Prosecutions has decided not to bring any criminal proceedings in respect of such activities of this group as have been reported to him.
  Mr. Blaker: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House on what grounds that decision was taken? Is it because it is not an offence to encourage the members of allied forces to desert?
  The Attorney-General: The answer to the last part of that supplementary question is, of course, "No." It is an offence, under the Army Act, to encourage desertion among members of the American Armed Forces. I do not know that it is appropriate for the Attorney-General to give the reasons why the Director has, in any given case, decided not to prosecute, but he came to the conclusion that, in this case, the public interest would not be served by a prosecution.
  Mr. Hogg: In asking a supplementary question, may I ask whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman is aware that we on this side of the House have suffered a tragic loss in the death of Sir John Hobson? May I ask him to accept that my hon. Friends and I fully realise the impartial nature of the office which he holds in deciding whether or not to institute criminal proceedings?
  The Attorney-General: If I may, I should like to share the emotions and
  946
  feelings expressed by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) and to add that the loss of Sir John to the House and to the Bar is a grave loss and that the personal loss to each one of us is considerable.

  YOUNG GUARDSMEN (POLICE INVESTIGATION)
  Sir C. Osborneasked the Attorney-General if he will ask for the report of the investigation made by the Metropolitan Police into the corruption of young guardsmen by a well-to-do vice ring promoting homosexuality in the Household Cavalry and the Welsh Guards; and if he will pass the papers to the Director of Public Prosecutions for the appropriate action in the courts.
  The Attorney-General: The Director of Public Prosecutions has received the police report of their investigation into these allegations. The Director is considering whether criminal proceedings should be taken.
  Sir C. Osborne: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman do his utmost to expedite this matter? Is he aware that on the front page of the Daily Mail this morning is an article, the allegations of which touch the honour of an hon. Member of this House? In view of this, should not this matter be cleared up as quickly as possible, one way or the other?
  The Attorney-General: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the matter is being dealt with with the utmost expedition and care.

  GOODS (HIRE AND HIRE PURCHASE)
  Mr. Martenasked the Attorney-General whether he is satisfied with the adequacy of the protection of the owners of goods on hire or hire purchase under the present law; and if he will make a statement.
  The Attorney-General: I am not aware of any inadequacy in the protection afforded to the owners of goods on hire or hire purchase under the present law, but if the hon. Gentleman has any particular point in mind, I will gladly see that it is considered.
  Mr. Marten: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that local authorities are distraining on tenants in arrears on goods on hire purchase or rented television sets? Rather than wait for the Report of the Payne Committee, which has been sitting since 1965, cannot we have some interim amendment of the law, instead of waiting for perhaps another three years for this Committee's Report?
  The Attorney-General: I would be glad to look into the matter the hon. Gentleman raises and also to refer it to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, who is primarily responsible for the hire and hire-purchase sphere.

  LAWYERS (LIABILITY FOR NEGLIGENCE)
  Mr. Whitakerasked the Attorney-General whether he will set up an independent commission composed of laymen to consider whether it is in the public interest for lawyers to be liable for negligence.
  The Attorney-General: The first necessity, I think, is to give careful consideration to the complex judgment relating to this matter, which was delivered by the House of Lords in the case of Rondel v. Worsley on 22nd November. This, my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor and I are undertaking.
  Mr. Whitaker: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many people, including lawyers, feel that the public cannot be satisfied as to the natural justice of lawyers being judges in their own cause as to what the public interest is, any more than as to A.S.L.E.F.'s views on its own restrictive practices?
  The Attorney-General: I am aware of this and other considerations, but the rôle of the Bar in the administration is quite fundamental. The relationship and trust between the Bench and the Bar is basic in the administration of justice. I therefore believe that it is most appropriate, in the first instance, that my noble Friend and I should consider the implications of this important judgment.
  Mr. Clegg: Would the Attorney-General inform his hon. Friend that
  948
  solicitors, who are sometimes included as lawyers, are already liable in negligence and wisely insure against it?
  The Attorney-General: I did not completely hear the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, but I am willing to concede that "lawyers" embrace "solicitors".
  Mr. Hogg: In his consideration of the matter with the Lord Chancellor, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman make quite sure that he fully acknowledges that the first duty of an advocate is to the court and to the administration of justice?
  The Attorney-General: This is precisely one of the difficulties of the situation which the layman may not always understand.

  NEWSPAPERS (CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS)
  Mr. Whitakerasked the Attorney-General what plans he has for holding a review of the position of newspapers in contempt proceedings.
  The Attorney-General: None, Sir, save that the recommendations made by the Press Council in its booklet relating to proceedings before tribunals of inquiry are being studied.
  Mr. Whitaker: Would my right hon. and learned Friend agree that many members of the public feel that it is more realistic to indict lawyers who give wrong advice on a particular piece of writing in a newspaper rather than the editor, who has not even read it?
  The Attorney-General: I do not know whether my hon. Friend is referring to a recent case which was dealt with in the Divisional Court, in proceedings which, I apprehend, have given general satisfaction, save, perhaps, to the defendants.

  LOW-INCOME FAMILIES
  Mr. Barnesasked the First Secretary of State what steps he is taking to make it easier for low-income families to claim the various benefits to which they are entitled.
  The First Secretary of State (Mr. Michael Stewart): Increasing efforts are being made by a variety of means to

  949
  bring these benefits to the notice of eligible families.
  Mr. Barnes: Will my right hon. Friend take steps to co-ordinate the various selective services which local authorities administer and, in particular, encourage local authorities to carry out research to discover the extent to which these services are being under-used in their areas?
  Mr. Stewart: A study is now under way in regard to local authority health and welfare services to see the extent to which low-income families are using these services and what further steps may be needed.
  Mr. Worsley: Is the right hon. Gentleman in particular aware of the low proportion of families which are entitled to free school meals but are not taking them, and will he include this subject in the survey?
  Mr. Stewart: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has sent a circular to all local education departments about this matter and has prepared a personal message to all parents.
  Mr. McNamara: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in that circular there is no mention of the fact that the fourth child of any family is entitled to free school meals and that this is an important step forward which should have been brought to the attention of all parents?
  Mr. Stewart: I will draw that to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

  SOCIAL SERVICES
  Mr. Christopher Priceasked the First Secretary of State whether he will introduce legislation to extend the priority principle of the Plowden Report on Primary Schools to all the social services.
  Mr. Stewart: The possibility of concentrating effort from the appropriate social services upon selected deprived areas is one of the matters which the Government would wish to consider in the light of the recommendations of the committee now reviewing the organisation and responsibilities of the local authority personal social services.
  Mr. Price: I thank my right hon. Friend for that Answer. Is he aware that to apply selectivity to personal benefits is often a very difficult thing to do and that these benefits, as we have heard, are not taken up? But is he aware that to apply selectivity to whole areas is quite the best way of doing it? How much preparation is going into this process at the moment, before the Seebohm Report is published?
  Mr. Stewart: One cannot generalise about all these social services. I believe that with those which take the form of, for example, cash benefits, it might be difficult to apply this principle. In regard to others, it might be much more practicable, but I think that before taking decisions we should await the report of the Committee. It is not clear at the moment whether this would necessarily need legislation; some things could possibly be done by administrative action.
  Sir C. Osborne: How far will the social services generally be affected by the I.M.F.'s demand that public expenditure in this country should be cut by about £900 million a year? Does not that mean that these services will have to be reduced rather than increased?
  Mr. Stewart: A Question similar to the third part of the hon. Member's supplementary question was answered earlier by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Social Security. The hon. Member should refer to the Answer already given.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH

    Fluoridation
    Mr. John Hallasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that a letter from his Department, dated 26th September, 1967, incorrectly stated that Professor Sir Arthur Amies, Dean of the Faculty of Dental Science at the University of Melbourne, had denied that he was opposed to fluoridation; and if he will take an early opportunity to correct the misstatement.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): The letter to which the hon. Member refers correctly stated that this gentleman had published a statement contradicting the propaganda that he is

    951
    opposed to fluoridation. This he did in a letter of 29th May, 1963, to the President of the Australian Dental Association in which he said he was neither for nor against the proposition to fluoridate. I have, however, now become aware that he has recently said that he holds the opinion that artificial fluoridation should not be employed until a great deal more knowledge is obtained concerning toxic effects. I am also aware that, with one exception, his colleagues in the Melbourne Faculty of Dentistry and Dental Hospital have dissociated themselves from his views.
    Mr. Hall: Is the Minister aware that the House will be glad to hear that he has been able to correct the wrong impression held that the professor had opposed fluoridation; and that his statement at least has clarified this misunderstanding?
    Dr. David Kerrasked the Minister of Health how many local authorities have agreed to support the fluoridation of their local water supplies; how many have refused; and what further advice he is offering on this subject.
    Mr. K. Robinson: Of the 203 local health authorities in England and Wales, 110 have decided in favour of fluoridation of water supplies and 73 against. In addition to encouraging the implementation of individual proposals, I am considering what further advice and encouragement can best be given.
    Dr. Kerr: Does not my right hon. Friend think that this situation is rather unsatisfactory? This matter has been hanging fire for much too long. Should we not be getting on in a much more forceful way if we are to protect children's teeth adequately?
    Mr. Robinson: I would agree that progress has been disappointingly slow, but in three areas fluoridation has been carried out and 16 water undertakers are discussing with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government the possibility of introducing schemes. A further seven schemes are being examined in detail, and seven have been approved but not yet put into operation.
    Mr. Lubbock: Is the Minister not aware that much tendentious and in
    952
    accurate propaganda is being disseminated against fluoridation by the so-called "pure water association "? Will he publish the 10-year results in Watford and Anglesey, which will completely refute the arguments of the "pure water" people?
    Mr. Robinson: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the tendentious propaganda going on. I will certainly look into the question of the publication of the results obtained by these two authorities.
    Mr. Rankin: Will my right hon. Friend congratulate the 73 local authorities which have had the good sense to oppose the fluoridation of the water supply? Is he aware that the Kilmarnock Town Council carried out an experiment which has shown that fluoridation does not protect the teeth of young people?
    Mr. Robinson: I do not agree with the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. I certainly will not congratulate those 73 councils, which I think are misguided.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Can the Minister say whether it is still his policy that the final decision in this matter should be the local authority's, and not that of his Ministry?
    Mr. Robinson: Yes, Sir. I am still hopeful that we shall get the right results by persuasion.

SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFITS COMMISSION (WAGE-STOP)
The Minister of Social Security (Mrs. Judith Hart): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to reply now to Questions Nos. 30, 51, 52 and 53, and answer them together.
With my full support, the Supplementary Benefits Commission has been making an examination of the administration of the wage-stop, that is, the statutory rule whereby the supplementary benefit of the man who is unemployed or temporarily sick is limited so that his income does not exceed what it would be if he were employed full-time in his normal occupation. The Commission has now reported to me. I am publishing

953
the Report, and copies will be available in the Vote Office now.
The Commission points out that the problems inherent in the wage-stop stem from low wages associated with family responsibilities, and that the wage-stop is not, therefore, in itself a cause of family poverty. It is a reflection of the fact that there are many men in work living on incomes below the supplementary benefit standard. As the House will know, the Government have already taken measures bearing on this problem.
While accepting the necessity for the wage-stop, the Commission is, nevertheless, determined to ensure that claimants who are subject to it, are dealt with as sympathetically and fairly as possible.
Summarised, the Commission's decisions are as follows:
Up to now, estimates of labourers' earnings have where necessary been based on local average earnings. In future, the Commission will, in these cases, use the rates fixed by the National Joint Council for Local Authorities (Manual Workers). This will mean, in many areas, a higher rate than before.
At present, earnings rates are reviewed twice yearly. They will in future be kept under continuous review, to make sure that improvements are fully reflected.
In estimating earnings the Commission at present deducts 7s. 6d. for intangible expenses. This will no longer be done.
The Commission will ensure that there is a full discussion with each claimant about the way in which his benefit, if it is subject to the wage-stop, is calculated, and that he is notified of the details.
At present, if the wife of a claimant with wage-stopped benefit starts work, the full amount of her earnings is deducted; this practice will cease, and the family will benefit from the wife's employment.
As the House knows, the wage-stop is applied in cases of temporary sickness. The present period of six months used as a measure of the temporary nature of sickness will now be reduced to three months. Similarly, the limitation of the benefit paid to a prisoner's wife where the sentence is for only six months or less will in future apply only to sentences of three months or less.
954
For blind people who have been continuously unemployed for two years, the Commission will see whether the requirement to register for work, which carries with it liability to the wage-stop, can be removed.
The Commission will review all wage-stopped cases where there is an element of disability, and will be examining the question whether people who are virtually unemployable should be required to register for work.
The Commission is concerned that some claimants subject to the wage-stop are not taking full advantage of other public benefits, in particular, rent and rate rebates. It will be instructing the staff to make sure that claimants understand their entitlement to these benefits, and also to help them to apply.
As I have said, the Report is a clear indication of the Commission's intention to administer the law on this subject as sympathetically as possible, and I welcome the decisions that it has reached.
Mr. Winnick: Although I am opposed to the wage-stop continuing, is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us. certainly Socialists, are grateful that the rules are being relaxed so that people involved will get more money for their families? Will she consult the Minister of Labour about the need to increase wages of people who are so poorly paid that when they are out of work they are subject to the wage-stop?
Mrs. Hart: I think my hon. Friend knows that there is a great deal more understanding today about the actual cause of poverty among low-income families. Certainly, actual low earnings are a very major contributory cause. I share with him the welcome given to these proposals.
Mr. Eadie: Is my right hon Friend aware that the announcement she has made will be welcomed on this side of the House? Does she agree that the announcement will prove beneficial to the blind, the disabled and women, particularly women who have had all their earnings taken away as a consequence of the wage-stop?
Mrs. Hart: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks. I know of his enthusiasm for the Commission's proposals. It

955
is certainly shared by myself and the Ministry.
Mr. Hooley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, while we welcome the steps taken for a more humane administration of this principle, some of us object altogether to the operation of the wage-stop? Will she consider the possibility of excluding from calculations for wage-stopping any benefits relating to dependent children, since it is the children who suffer?
Mrs. Hart: I think that my hon. Friend will find, when he reads the Commission's Report, that the Commission interprets the reasons for the existence of the wage-stop today in terms very differently from those which existed when it was originally introduced. It was then held on the whole to be necessary mainly as a deterrent to unemployment and as an incentive to a man to take a job. The reason it is now held necessary to continue it is in order to be fair to men in work as against men not in work. This new interpretation makes a great difference.
Lord Balniel: Does the right hon. Lady appreciate that her detailed statement will require very careful consideration? It is not rather regrettable that this statement of a change of policy should be made now although the House is not in possession of the Report of the Supplementary Benefits Commission on this subject, which has been in her hands for a fortnight, and we asked that it should be made available to the House before the Committee stage of the Family Allowances Bill?
Am I not right in thinking that only one-eighth of the quarter of a million children living in families below the poverty level are affected by these proposals? Would not a much more valuable step to help the disabled and those chronically sick and therefore, able to undertake only low income work, have been the abolition of Selective Employment Tax?
Mrs. Hart: I am very sorry indeed to know that the noble Lord does not share the welcome given by this side of the House to the Supplementary Benefits Commission's Report.
On the question of timing, I am sure he will appreciate that it is remarkably
956
quick to publish a report and to make a statement on it in the House within a fortnight of it coming into the Minister's Hands. This has been done in this case and the Report should be available in the Vote Office now.
As to the noble Lord's question about one-eighth of children in families in poverty who may be affected by the change of practice, I think he will find when he reads the Report that we are not concerned here just with statistics or proportions. He will find this is an immensely human document which the Commission has published about the quality of life of those living on the wage-stop.
Mr. Tapsell: Is the right hon. Lady satisfied that the recommendations of this Report, if implemented, will meet the case of agricultural labourers with very large families who fall sick in such low-wage areas as South-East Lincolnshire?
Mrs. Hart: This is part of the problem of families on low incomes, but it has to be remembered that this Report has to be seen in the context of our other proposals, particularly the proposal for an increase in family allowances. This, particularly, will help the hon. Member's constituency.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: is my right hon. Friend aware that much of the injustice in the wage-stop arises because the comparison is with a notional average earnings rather than with actual earnings by the work in, say, the last six months of his working period? Could not the regulations be amended so that he would be given the alternative either of the notional average or of the actual earnings?
Mrs. Hart: The practice varies according to the circumstances of the individual. Where he has a record of earnings immediately preceding his unemployment, it is that record which is taken as the basis for calculation of the wage-stop. The Commission proposes now that, where there may have been an increase in wage rates which would have brought his earnings up had he been in work, this will be taken fully into account. In those cases where there is no immediate past record of earnings, the Commission's proposals should be very helpful in many areas because, in arriving at notional earnings, they substitute what tends to

957
be the highest rate prevailing for labourers—the local authority rate—for the various levels of labourers' earnings which may be lower than the local authority rate.
Sir S. McAdden: Does not the right hon. Lady realise that she was a little unjust in gibbing at us for not giving a rapturous welcome to a report we have not yet read? Does not she recall that, last week, the House gave an enthusiastic welcome to a letter which it had not read, only to change its mind afterwards?
Mrs. Hart: It is perfectly normal and correct for hon. Members to be asked to make at least some preliminary judgment on the basis of a Minister's summary of a report which has not yet been published. My comment was related to the fact that, whereas a number of my hon. Friends, though they may still have some reservations, have welcomed the statement, I have not yet heard one word of welcome from the benches opposite.
Lord Balniel: Is the right hon. Lady aware that we certainly now have reservations about Government summaries or statements of reports we have not yet read? We have learnt now to read the small print which come afterwards. The right hon. Lady completely distorted my remarks. I merely said that we wanted time to read the Report. I did not refuse to welcome the statement. I am sure that the Commission has done a most valuable job in this respect.
Mrs. Hart: I can only say that the hon. Gentleman, when he reads the small print, will be even more impressed by the Commission's Report.
Mr. Alfred Morris: I thank my right hon. Friend for this much-needed help for poorer families, but is she aware of the mean, petty and shabby welfare cuts imposed by certain Conservative-controlled councils? In view of the remarks by the hon. Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel), will she ask him to join her in appealing to these councils to stop their persecuting of poorer people?
Mr. Speaker: Order. This question is about the wage-stop.

RAILWAYS (DISPUTE)
Mr. Edward M. Taylorasked the Minister of Transport what effect the work to rule by members of A.S.L.E.F. has had on the services provided by British Rail; and what plans she has to minimise the hardship and inconvenience that passengers and industry will experience as a result of this dispute.
The Minister of Transport (Mrs. Barbara Castle): It is too early to make a full assessment. The situation this morning was that over 100 passenger trains were cancelled on Southern Region, and there was some late running. In other regions the effect has not so far become serious.
In London and other conurbations a series of special arrangements was made in advance to facilitate the in-flow and out-flow of rush-hour car traffic such as freeways for tidal flows. Extra car parking space was made available and many parking meter restrictions were relaxed. Any necessary relaxations of licensing and other restrictions on freight and passenger traffic by road will be introduced as demanded by the situation as it develops.
Mr. Taylor: As the travelling public will inevitably suffer severe hardship, will the right hon. Lady inform people in each locality, by leaflet, through the Press and the television, if need be, of the precise state of the situation locally, the trains which are running and the alternative services available? As A.S.L.E.F.'s Scottish organiser said last night that his aim is to create chaos, will consideration now be given by the Government to taking emergency powers? Is she further aware that the greatest contribution she can make to a long-term solution of the problem is to remove forthwith the uncertainty over the chairmanship of the British Railways Board, which has dragged on for so many weeks?
Mrs. Castle: A great deal of information is already given daily over the radio about the position. I will consider whether anything more can be done.
The hon. Gentleman asked about emergency powers. It is not for me to speculate about a possible Government

959
decision. I am not prepared to go further than I have done already in my statement.
The hon. Gentleman's point about the chairmanship has no relationship to what he said in the rest of his supplementary question. Sir Stanley Raymond's resignation does not become operative until the end of the year. He is still carrying out his responsibilities for the Board's affairs.
Mr. Manuel: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Minister of Labour hardened the position and fomented feelings by his silly statement about A.S.L.E.F.'s intentions previous to negotiations starting? Is she further aware that the deliberate exclusion of A.S.L.E.F. from the negotiations during the guards dispute directly resulted in the guards being placed on the footplate without consultation with A.S.L.E.F.? This is quite inexcusable, of course, and shows quite conclusively a lack of managerial ability on the railways.
Mrs. Castle: I am sorry, but I cannot agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) that either my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour's statement to the House on Thursday or his broadcast last night were provocative. I think that he set out the position with great objectivity and feelings and I stand by what he said.
Mr. Peter Walker: Is the right hon. Lady aware that we on this side fully support the Minister of Labour in the attitude he has taken on this problem and also join him in deploring the irresponsibility of this go-slow and the effect it will have on the travelling public? Will she assure the House that there will be no delay on the Government's part in taking emergency powers if they are necessary and that every possible facility will be given to keeping vital services and exports going.
Mrs. Castle: It is the Government's intention to see that vital services are maintained. As I have said, we will take such steps as are necessary in the situation as it develops, but I still hope that there may be a possibility of A.S.L.E.F. members themselves realising that this development cannot do any good to them
960
and certainly not to the policy of stability for the railways that I am so anxious to introduce.
Mr. Lubbock: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the ovefwhelming majority of the people, including the passengers, who will suffer most from this dispute, will support the Minister of Labour in the attitude he has taken to the dispute?
Mr. Manuel: What do you know about it?
Mr. Lubbock: Is the right hon. Lady also aware that this problem—
Mr. Manuel: Sit down.
Mr. Lubbock:—is much more acute for the people of Greater London than for the people of Glasgow?
Mr. Rankin: Leave Glasgow out of it.
Mr. Lubbock: Is the right hon. Lady—
Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Lubbock:—satisfied that the measures—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I suspect that I am being addressed on a point of order.
Mr. Rankin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel), for whom I have great friendship, does not represent Glasgow. I have something to say on that.
Mr. Speaker: That is a point of information, not of order.
Mr. Lubbock: I am asking whether the right hon. Lady is satisfied that the measures she has already taken to ensure the free flow of traffic in the Greater London area are sufficient? The emergency clearways seemed to be working very well this morning. Will she advise people whether it is necessary for them to take their cars if they want to be certain of keeping an appointment in London, or whether they can rely on the railway service?
Mrs. Castle: I think the House will agree that the arrangements which were made in advance have worked very smoothly this morning. That is a matter for congratulation to all concerned. I will, of course, continue to watch the

961
situation. I will certainly give any advice which I think will help people who have got to get into work.
Mr. Mapp: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that her right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour was to have had a meeting of some significance tomorrow? Will she press her right hon. Friend to rearrange that meeting if possible so that the opportunities for conciliation will be present throughout this difficulty?
Mrs. Castle: No one regrets more than my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and myself the fact that obviously progress cannot, in the present situation, be made with the talks, which again can make a vital contribution to the solution of the problems of the railways.
Sir G. Nabarro: Could the right hon. Lady make it clear, in view of the grave threat in the movement of freight to the docks for export, that if this go-slow continues for longer than three days she will remove all restrictions on the use of C licence vehicles in plying for hire and reward, thereby enabling more than 1 million road vehicles to carry additional goods to the docks for export and thereby offsetting this go-slow on the railways?
Mrs. Castle: This is the same point as the point that has previously been raised. The effect on freight has not so far been serious, but, of course, there is a danger of a cumulative build-up if the dispute continues. I can only repeat what I have already said, that the Government are watching the situation and will take any steps they think necessary as the situation develops.
Mr. Spriggs: Is my right hon. Friend aware that rather than sharpen the knives ready for battle, we would rather rely on her good offices to bring about industrial peace?
Mrs. Castle: I can assure my hon. Friend that there is certainly no desire on the Government's part to sharpen any knives for battle. All we want is an early settlement on a basis which will enable us to have an effective railway policy in this country.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In view of the certainty of serious hardship on commuters on the Southern Region tonight, and the desirability on traffic grounds of making as much use as possible of public
962
service transport on the roads, will she take action today to grant licences in the London area to bus operators who are prepared to run services in and out of central London?
Mrs. Castle: I do not think it is possible for that to be done quite off the cuff as the right hon. Gentleman suggests.
Mr. Bidwell: Will my right hon. Friend not agree that when the Minister of Labour takes a one-sided view in a major industrial dispute he is doing more harm than good? Is it not a fact that in this case Mr. Albert Griffiths, the General Secretary of A.S.L.E.F., pleaded for just a little more time so that the matter of the manning agreement could be thoroughly discussed? Was it not worth waiting a few more weeks rather than helping to precipitate such a catastrophe?
Mrs. Castle: It is, of course, for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour to answer for himself, as he did on television yesterday and in the House on Thursday of last week. I think that he made perfectly clear why the dispute occurred and how much we all regret it.
Mr. Goodhart: As regular commuters will be particularly hard hit if this disruption continues, will the right hon. Lady consider asking British Railways to extend the period for which current season tickets are valid?
Mrs. Castle: I will certainly consider that point and see whether it has any relevance to the difficulties.
Mr. Tinn: Will my right hon. Friend tell us what was the urgency that apparently compelled British Railways to withdraw the coaches in advance of negotiations with A.S.L.E.F.? Surely it is unreasonable to expect the union to enter into negotiations after this action has already been taken?
Mrs. Castle: British Railways are responsible for these industrial matters. I think that we can rest on the inside knowledge and the judgment of the Railways Board, and, in particular, on its industrial relations man, Mr. Neal.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Since the right hon. Lady is Minister of Transport, can she tell us where the division of responsibility in this matter lies between her and the Minister of Labour?
Mrs. Castle: The position is that, as Minister of Transport, I have to take what steps I can to maintain the mobility of our people in such situations, but matters of industrial conciliation are, of course, for my right hon. Friend.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Fred Mulley, Statement.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS (NON PROLIFERATION)
3.55 p.m.
The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Frederick Mulley): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.
As the House will know, a key issue in the negotiations at present taking place in Geneva to secure a non-proliferation treaty has been the safeguards to be applied to ensure that there is no diversion by the non-nuclear weapon signatories of the treaty of materials from their civil nuclear programmes to nuclear weapon purposes.
To assist these negotiations, Her Majesty's Government have decided that, at such time as international safeguards are put into effect in the non-nuclear weapon states in implementation of the provisions of a treaty, they will be
prepared to offer an opportunity for the application of similar safeguards in the United Kingdom subject to exclusions for national security reasons only.
Her Majesty's Government welcome the similar decision announced by President Johnson on behalf of the United States.
Viscount Lambton: While giving a general welcome to this statement, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions? First, have we discussed this decision with our N.A.T.O. allies; and, second, have we discussed it with the French Government to see whether it is their intention to follow suit?
Mr. Mulley: The matter arises from the very extensive consultations with N.A.T.O. on the drafting of a non-proliferation treaty and, of course, France,
964
as a member of N.A.T.O., has been represented in these consultations. It is probably unlikely that France will give a similar undertaking, but, of course, I am not authorised to speak on behalf of the French Government.
Mr. Mendelson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the statement he has made will be widely welcomed as a contribution to these negotiations, but will he also bear in mind that the Government, having done a great deal of work on this, should firmly oppose any suggestions like those made by Herr Strauss, a powerful member of the West German Government, that the non-proliferation treaty should be not under the control of the United Nations agency in Vienna but under some other agency? The reason given by that Minister, that he wants to keep the door open for a new nuclear command under the European Economic Community, would lead to the stultification of these negotiations and would be against the best interests of this country.
Mr. Mulley: I cannot accept that Herr Strauss is against the international safeguard system, because this treaty naturally, to be effective, has got to be worldwide. The argument, which one understands, is to try to find a way by which the Vienna system can be worked in conjunction with the existing controls that Euratom applies to its own members. It is a difficult problem, but I hope that an acceptable solution can be found very soon.
Mr. Lubbock: Will these safeguards involve publishing inventories of fissionable material in the countries concerned? If that is the case, why could not the United Nations take the initiative and publish the inventories now? Secondly, will there be any provision for international verification?
Mr. Mulley: The whole system is one of international verification to ensure, particularly in the non-nuclear States, that no civil material is diverted for military purposes. So it involves inspection on the site and not merely inventories. In placing one of our own civil plants under the International Atomic Energy Agency, we have already made an initiative in the direction which the hon. Member indicated.
Dr. Ernest A. Davies: Is the Minister aware that the safeguards team is already working very effectively in the United States of America under the leadership of a British subject? Would my right hon. Friend make it known to the Minister of Technology that if such safeguard teams are to be effective on the spot by British subjects, we should provide them with adequate safeguards for their own employment?
Mr. Mulley: That question seems to go a little further than my statement, but it is important that the safeguard system should be fully international and should be recognised as such by all the many non-nuclear weapon States which we hope will adhere to the treaty.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that he will approach the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China to see that they accept the same inspection of their civil nuclear programmes? Second, was there consultation with Euratom before the statement was made? Third, as President Johnson has named about 80 American civil reactors which are now to be subject to inspection, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is reasonable that the United Kingdom as well should identify those nuclear plants in this country which will now fall to be inspected?
Mr. Mulley: I think that identification will have to come at a later stage. I thought that, this decision having been made, the House would wish to be informed at the earliest opportunity. I should like to think that the signing and ratification of the treaty can follow swiftly, but I fear that some time is bound to elapse, in which we shall be able to examine the point which the hon. Gentleman makes. I cannot give any assurance on behalf of the Soviet Union or China that they will accept such arrangements. We would very much hope that the nuclear Powers signatory to the treaty will follow our example.
Mr. Paget: Is my right hon. Friend aware that although probably everyone would like to see it go a little further, this is a very remarkable step forward in international co-operation and the result of most able negotiation upon which he is much to be congratulated?
Mr. Mulley: I am very much obliged to my hon. and learned Friend.

NOTICES OF QUESTIONS
Mr. Speaker: I have a brief statement to make about Questions.
Since I made my statement last Friday about the mistake in printing certain Questions in alphabetical order of the names of the questioners, I have discovered that the Order Book contains two further instances of this practice, namely, the first 62 starred Notices of Questions for Wednesday, 6th December, and the first 17 for Tuesday, 12th December.
These were, of course, already on the Paper at the time when I made my statement about the supererogatory practice of an enthusiastic printer.
I have asked the Table Office to take exactly the same action regarding these Questions as has already been taken in regard to those to which I referred on Friday.

INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND (LETTER OF INTENT)
Mr. Michael Foot: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the Letter of Intent sent by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund on 23rd November and made public on the evening of 30th November, and the immediate consequences of that Letter for the conduct of the British economy".
When my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) raised this, or a kindred matter, on Thursday, he necessarily and quite properly relied upon the statements which had appeared in the Press at that time, well-authenticated statements as it now appears. However, when replying on that occasion, the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred my hon. Friend and the House to a statement which was to be published in HANSARD and the publication of the letter to which I have referred. Therefore, the House was not able to see the letter until it was published in HANSARD.

967
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is the first occasion, under the rules of the House, on which it has been possible for a Member to raise the specific matter of the Letter of Intent as published. I draw to your attention also, Sir, that the letter was written on 23rd November, the day after our debate on economic affairs, so that it was not possible for the contents of the Letter of Intent to be discussed during that debate.
As I have said, this is the first occasion since publication of the letter when we have been able to bring the matter forward, and, moreover, as far as one can see, there would be no possibility in the immediate future of discussing the Letter of Intent unless we were able to raise a debate by invoking Standing Order No. 9.
Many of us, when we read the Letter of Intent, believed that it imposed intolerable shackles on the British economy. In our view, there can be no dispute about the paramount importance of the matter. Indeed, in all the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I submit that this is preeminently a case for which the House decided that there should be provision for an emergency debate. I ask you, Sir, to consider the application on that basis.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the Letter of Intent sent by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer to the managing director of the International Monetary Fund on 23rd November and made public on the evening of 30th November, and the immediate consequences of that letter for the conduct of the British economy."
I am satisfied that the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman is proper to be discussed under Standing Order No. 9. Does the hon. Gentleman have the leave of the House?
968
The leave of the House having been given—
Mr. Speaker: The Motion for the Adjournment of the House will now stand over until the commencement of public business tomorrow, when a debate on the matter will take place for three hours. This is as provided for under the terms of the revised Standing Order No. 9 as agreed to by the House on 14th November, 1967.
The Motion stood over under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) until the commencement of public business Tomorrow.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS
  Thames Lighterage Industry
  Mr. Alan Lee Williams: I beg to give notice that on Monday, 18th December, I shall call attention to the problems of the Thames lighterage industry, and move a Resolution.
  Development Areas (Unemployment)
  Dr. John Dunwoody: I beg to give notice that on Monday, 18th December, I shall call attention to unemployment in the development areas, and move a Resolution.
  Vietnam War
  Mr. Dickens: I beg to give notice that on Monday, 18th December, I shall call attention to the war in Vietnam, and move a Resolution.
  Vietnam War
    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)
    Ordered, That this day Business other that the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. McBride.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [4TH ALLOTTED DAY], considered.
  SUPPLY
    ADJOURNMENT
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Neil McBride.]

  AGRICULTURE
  4.8 p.m.
  Mr. J. B. Godber: In our debate on agriculture today we on this side want the Government to give us their view on a number of questions. We shall ask them their view about the state of agriculture today and, more particularly, what effects they say devaluation has had on the industry. What about the increased costs which will fall on the industry? What about the greater opportunities which should accrue to the industry? What do the Government propose to do to give a clear lead in these matters? These are the major issues about which we shall speak.
  This debate takes place in the shadow of the most disastrous epidemic of foot-and-mouth disease which has confronted the country in recent times. Before turning to the wider issues, I want to express my concern and that of, I am sure, all hon. Members on both sides of the House for all who have suffered and are suffering loss in the epidemic. More than that, I want, on behalf of those people and of the many others who feel themselves in proximity to the spread of the dread disease, to question the Minister on certain issues relating to the outbreak and the way in which it is being handled.
  A week ago, when I questioned him, the Minister seemed unduly sensitive. He accused me of seeking to make party capital because I chose to question the way in which he was carrying out his duties. It is a strange new doctrine in the House that one must not presume to criticise a Minister simply because he is involved in handling a national disaster. It is not a doctrine that has been practised by hon. Members opposite in the past. I criticised the Minister then for
  970
  lack of leadership, and I shall have a work to say on that today, although he has shown more activity since I last spoke. However, what the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Members behind him should realise is that he is very lucky indeed to have such a responsible Opposition against him on this subject.
  The main issue of policy that I put to the right hon. Gentleman arises from the retention of the policy of slaughter. This is always unpopular with many people who do not know all the facts. It would be very easy for anyone in opposition to harry the Government of the day about it. Yet not a single hon. Member on the Opposition benches has attempted to jump on that bandwagon in spite of the unprecedented number of animals involved. Can the Minister put his hand on his heart and say that if the positions had been reversed no hen. Member of his party would have raised this issue at this time? I doubt very much whether he would dare say that. When I think of the reputation for independent opposition of some of his hon. Friends, I have no doubt what the answer would be.
  It may yet be necessary, if the disaster continues to spread, to introduce vaccination as well. This is a possibility which the Minister has recognised in the arrangements that he has made for getting a supply of vaccine. But let no one have any doubt that if that were to be done it would be to admit a heavy defeat. In that sense, I fully support the policy that the Minister has been following in the broad issue. I am not seeking for a change in that major policy today. The stocks of vaccine, he tells us, are being secured elsewhere. I only wish that he had started stockpiling vaccine at home earlier Perhaps he can tell us a little more about that today. I agree with him in having it ready and also agree in not having any idea of using it at the present time.
  There are three major categories that I want to look at in regard to foot-and-mouth disease. The first consists of those who are farming outside the infected areas. People are very anxious, particularly those near the affected areas, about preventing the spread of disease reaching their farms. The second category is those inside the existing areas who have not at this time got the disease, and the

  971
  questions that are worrying them are even more acute. The third category is those who have had the disease and had their animals slaughtered. They want to know what plans are being made for assistance to them.
  The first category is the one about which there is the widest measure of concern, because there are so many more people affected and so many more people with very acute anxieties. This was what I was referring to last week when I questioned the Minister. I asked for certain things to be done. The Minister has taken action on some of them. Racing has been cancelled. He made his television appeal about the spread of the disease. But he decided not to cancel the Royal Smithfield Show. That has gone forward. I will not dwell on the issue now. I only hope that farmers as a whole will stay away from the Show, because I have not changed my view that there was danger in attending it. I still feel that it would have been better if it had been cancelled.
  What about other public functions? During the last 48 hours I have been getting many inquiries about, in particular, football matches where teams are coming out of infected areas and visiting other areas. This arises in my constituency, where a team is supposed to be coming from Cheshire next week to play in the cup-tie against my home town, Grantham. Is this being discouraged or not? We want to know what advice the Government are giving on issues of this kind. A line has to be drawn somewhere, obviously, as to what shall be limited, but it seems to me that where teams are coming out of infected areas there is danger and that if they travel advice should be given to them about their activities other than playing football—about not visiting people in the area outside the town, for instance.
  There is still not sufficient evidence of co-ordination about the various steps that are being taken to prevent the spread to new areas. The classic case is the question of barriers across roads. The matter has been highlighted as a direct result of a statement that the Minister put out last Friday. Until then the impression had gained ground among farmers and county councils and thers—the Army had become involved in at least one case—
  972
  that there was real value in having disinfectant barriers across main roads. It had developed to a considerable degree. But on Friday last week the Minister stated that he considered that it should not be necessary to establish disinfectant pads or splashes on those roads.
  There may well be an argument for saying that. It may be—I presume it is—that the Minsiter is saying this on the best veterinary advice. But if it was to be said, why was it not said a month earlier? If there is no benefit to be gained, why let those people go to all those lengths and then afterwards tell them that there is no point in it? The first outbreak came on 25th October. This statement came out on 1st December. It is incredible that there should have been this delay in giving that degree of guidance; that is, if it is the right guidance. There are many people who do not feel that it is.
  In a statement put out on Friday night the National Farmers' Union claimed that farmers were 100 per cent. right to go for certainty and disinfect roads.
  Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is my right hon. Friend aware that support for the view that he has just expressed was given on the wireless this morning by the Professor of Veterinary Science at Bristol University?
  Mr. Godber: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I did not hear that broadcast. There is no doubt that what he says confirms that there is certainly a divergence of view on this. Whatever may be said in relation to it, no harm could result from putting the pads on the roads and some good could have followed. Therefore, I am surprised that the Minister took so long to make the statement and then merely poured cold water on what was being done.
  I have had many letters on this subject, and I must quote one which reached me this morning. It seems to put the issue particularly clearly in regard to areas such as Devon and Cornwall. The letter came from Cornwall. It says:
  "In the debate on Monday perhaps you will find out why the Minister of Agriculture is in favour of our putting disinfectant baths at our gates, but against it on the roads. Surely the only farm entrances to Bodmin Moor, Dartmoor, Exmoor, New Forest, etc., are on the roads."

  973
  There was a desire in Devon and Cornwall to shut those two counties off. It was felt that it could be done practically. It was desired to contain this enormous area of open land with animals grazing freely on it. Therefore, even if one accepts that this is for farm gates alone, surely he must face up to the particular problems of areas such as these and I would ask him specifically to deal with the when he replies.
  I say to the Minister that if he is discouraging the setting up of these disinfectant barriers it is necessary for him to make clearer other ways of disinfecting and to secure the most effective form of disinfection barriers. If he says that the alternative is to do it at the farm gates, if he believes that it is necessary in areas not affected, why has not far clearer guidance been given to farmers? This should have been provided in the early stages of the outbreak, when it was seen how virulent this outbreak was. I claim that here, once again there has been a lack of guidance.
  What I believe is really needed, particularly in the counties adjacent to the infected areas, are senior administrative officers of his Department—available on the spot in each of the counties, to give advice on the best way of disinfecting and of preventing spread. They should be on the spot, ready to give quick advice.
  Sir Douglas Glover: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Cheshire they have pads which are not wide enough for the farm gates and, therefore, are not providing enough security?
  Mr. Godber: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that comment. It just shows the need for clear guidance on this matter if it is to be really effective.
  There is a very genuine desire on the part of these people to have clear guidance. I am quite sure that if it were given they would respond, for they are desperately anxious to prevent spread, and this would seem to be one clear way in which they could be helped. They want advice and help, for instance, on the size of the pads and about any preventive measures which could be taken, as the comment which my hon. Friend has made has shown.
  There are other activities going on in many of the country areas, activities
  974
  which, again, call for comment. I have had a number of complaints about a development taking place in laying pipelines across the countryside. I gave the Minister notice that I would raise this point. Pipelines are being laid right across large areas at the present time. There was one specific case brought to my attention where pipes are being brought out of an infected area and being laid straight across an uninfected area. There is a very real risk of infection arising here from the vehicles, and from the men.
  I can give the Minister the specific case if he would like to have it. It is near Droitwich and affects Droitwich New Town. Pipelines are being laid across a very considerable area of Worcestershire. Apparently the contractors in this case have a penalty clause, so they say they have to continue the work. They have offered to stop the work at present if Droitwich New Town will cancel the penalty clause. I suggest that here is a practical case where the Minister could intervene and seek to have this pipelaying brought to a halt, if there is a danger, as these pipes are being brought directly from an infected area. This is not the only case of pipelines being laid, and I would ask the Minister once more to give guidance in cases of that kind.
  Then there is the case, of which one still hears in areas outside infected areas, where fishing is still going on. I know that the Minister has appealed for this to be given up, but I was told only last weekend of fishing in the River Wye, and the fishermen are still going there. Will the Minister say what his powers are in relation to this? Is he merely seeking to persuade, or are there powers to act? And if he has not got powers to ensure this comes to an end, will he come to the House and get them? This is the sort of thing which causes really acute alarm, that large numbers of people are moving from area to area along riversides and causing great danger in this way.
  Sir Gerald Nabarro: Is my right hon. Friend aware that last weekend a reputable agency in Evesham appealed to an angling association to discontinue its exercise in the River Avon, and it refused, that I telephoned the Minister for his approval on Friday afternoon at 4 o'clock and was told that the Ministerial view was that

  975
  organisations for that purpose—angling—coming from non-infected areas did not represent a risk of spread of infection?
  Mr. Godber: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that comment, but I am amazed. If that was indeed the Minister's attitude, I hope that he will quickly revise it, because these men going from field to field in this way are a very serious danger in spreading the disease. I am glad my hon. Friend has stated those facts, which reinforce the point I was making a moment ago.
  After all, we have to accept that in this epidemic there is a greater degree of virulence, at least a greater degree of infection, than we have seen in any outbreak, and therefore precautions which may have been adequate on previous occasions may certainly not be adequate at a time when we are getting this very large number of cases. I was happy to see there was some fall in the number, but I understand that there were 55 new outbreaks yesterday. So I say to the Minister, let us have clear guidance, where we can, on the spot to stop the spread outside the existing areas.
  I come now to the infected areas and to those farmers who have not as yet suffered, and I hope they will not suffer, from the disease. Theirs is a particularly difficult position. They are in a state of siege. They need all the help and encouragement they can get at the present time. I would pay a tribute to what the Ministry's vets have done. They, and others, have done a great job in working under very great strain. They deserve congratulation. I am glad that the Minister has been able to get reinforcement of the numbers he has got—and surely they will need relieving, because they have been under such strain since the outbreak first started.
  The farmers whose farms have not yet got it should have as much help as can be given to them, with, for instance, disinfectant sprayers which can be provided to keep infection away. It seems to me that some form of power spraying equipment is urgently required. There are in this country a very large number of high-powered sprayers not in use at this time of year in the orchard areas of Kent and Herefordshire, ones which are used on apple crops and which can readily
  976
  be adapted for use in uninfected areas and which can do a very good job. I do not mean a sort of watering-can approach but a very powerful jet spray with the right kind of disinfectant.
  Again, if there were administrators on the spot they could give advice on these sorts of things. It cannot be properly done from Whitehall, but these men should be in the counties, with power to act, and with money to back them up. These people in the areas which are still free must be given all the help and all the encouragement they can be given.
  Now I come to the third category I mentioned. What about the ones who has suffered the slaughter of their animals? I asked in the House two weeks ago that the Minister should set up a committee to look into the long-term needs. I specifically ask about it now because if it was urgent then it is even more urgent now. I believe that we should set up a very high-powered committee. I suggest that a Joint Parliamentary Secretary should be chairman, that there should be the Minister's own liaison officers, and that one or two senior people from the areas affected should be members of it, so that they can look over a period of weeks at the real problems affecting the farms where animals have been slaughtered, and see what is now needed to help those farmers in those areas.
  There is a very real need for help over and above the ordinary terms of compensation which they receive. If such a committee looked at the problem I am sure it would want to consider whether supplementary compensation were necessary. Certainly when it comes to restocking, animals will cost more.
  Farmers will also want clear guidance concerning tax on their compensation. In particular, those who change to the herd basis for tax purposes will be faced with a very special problem when it comes to restocking. They must have sympathetic treatment in regard to tax or they will not be able to restock, even at the present levels of price.
  Will some special help be needed to rehabilitate whole areas? Will something have to be done to help ordinary grassland farmers to plough up and take an arable crop? These are the practical issues which a high powered committee should be working on at the present time.
  Sir John Foster: Would my right hon. Friend also consider whether it is necessary to take account of the position of an agricultural worker, a herdsman, who may be out of work while the farm is sterilised?
  Mr. Godber: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. Certainly they should be included. Any farmworkers affected should come within the purview of this committee and I hope that generous provision will be made. It is worth pointing out to the Minister that, although the cost of compensation is high, he. is gaining a benefit. I am sure it is not one that he would wish to gain, but he is gaining a benefit by the rapid rise in the price of beef and the fact that the deficiency payments which, up until two months ago, were at least £1 million a week, are now almost nil.
  The change in the Exchequer cost brought about by this foot-and-mouth disease epidemic is so extraordinary that, while the cost of compensation is heavy, the saving to the Exchequer under the deficiency payments will probably be greater than the cost so far involved. If that is so—and I would like the Minister to tell me if it is—surely this re-emphasises the fact that the Government has the ability to provide that additional compensation which will make all the difference to those farmers whose cattle are being slaughtered in the interests of all farmers. I am sure that all farmers want to see that they are properly cared for.
  The cause of the outbreak of the epidemic is much longer term and I want to dwell on it for only a moment or two. It has never been identified; nobody can say where it arose. Under this heading the question of the importation of meat from South America arises. Guidance has presumably been given to the Press, because there have been a lot of statements which lead us to believe that the Minister will tell us about it. We shall be interested to hear what he has to tell us. If the intention is that importation of meat from these areas shall be banned, clearly this will have a widespread impact. However, what we want to know, if it is to be done, is from what period of time it is to be done. Is it to be done on a voluntary basis or by compulsion?
  978
  Concerning the cause of the outbreak, the Minister will be aware, as I am, that a tremendous number of rumours are flying around in the infected areas. I received a copy of a letter this morning which one farmer sent to the Minister in which he talked of bad meat being buried at Otterspool. That is not the first time I have heard that story. I do not know whether it is true or not, but, as this letter has been sent to the Minister, perhaps he has considered it.
  This is the sort of thing which has to be looked at, after the outbreak is over, by a high powered committee different from the one I was proposing. I think that this is urgent. We want a long-term high-powered committee. We want a rehash of the Gowers Committee to look at the whole problem and advise us on the wider aspects which occur in regard to an outbreak as virulent as this. These, indeed, are the issues upon which we seek a clear lead and guidance from the Minister. If that is given I believe that the people involved will respond. All of us in this House want to see the end of this epidemic.
  Mr. Charles Mapp: I have listened with great care to the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber). May I ask why there is a complete omission to deal with the only wild animal that we have in the countryside? What is the position concerning the fox? Would both sides of the House, under an emergency of this kind, be prepared to deal with the fox peremptorily without waiting for any other consideration?
  Mr. Godber: I would say to the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) that it is not only the fox. There are a lot of wild animals, including red deer, otters, badgers—all sorts of animals. I think that they have to be dealt with in the infected areas, and I imagine that they are being dealt with. I should be surprised if they are not. There is no fear about that. Naturally, fox hunting has been stopped all over the country, but I am sure that wherever wild animals are seen they are being dealt with in the same way as farm animals.
  We all want to see the end of this epidemic, and where the Minister takes effective action he will have our full support. If he fails, he will not only invite, but will receive, our full criticism.

  979
  Apart from foot-and-mouth, what is the position in agriculture today? This year has been a favourable season from the climatic point of view. We have had favourable weather and good hay and corn harvests. The September Return, which the Ministry issued a short time ago, shows some increase in cows and in heifers in calf; a reduction in calves under a year; a slight fall in sheep; some increase in pigs and poultry; and a fall in the number of workers leaving the land.
  If the declared policy was that agriculture should be going along on an even keel, this sort of picture might be satisfactory, or, indeed, if the growth over the last three years had been rapid, but neither of these things is true.
  First, growth over the last three years. The best way to judge that is to look at the Minister's own White Paper at the last Price Review. Paragraph 5 of that White Paper quite clearly states:
  "Overall, net output is tending to decline. In 1965/66 the index of net output fell slightly; the forecast for 1966/67 shows a further slight fall."
  The figures in fact were 137, 136 and 135 over the last three years—a steady drop on the graph.
  When one looks at net income it is the same. Paragraph 6 states,
  "… net income has remained static…"
  In fact, it is lower than 1964/65.
  This is repeated throughout the White Paper, as the Minister knows well. Indeed, he refers in paragraphs 21 and 23 to the loss of confidence in the beef producing sector and the need to restore that confidence. There is no doubt—and it is agreed between both sides of the House—that there was a loss of confidence and that there has been a complete "stagnation"—I think that was the Minister's own word—in production, which he tried to do something about in the last Price Review. That is the position over growth.
  What is the declared policy against which this is taking place? The declared policy is the selective expansion programme of the National Plan. That is and has been the Government's policy since 16th September, 1965.
  On Wednesday of last week the Minister reminded us of this. He said, in answer to a supplementary question,
  980
  "…I have always defended selective expansion programme and the rôle which home agriculture can play."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th November, 1967; Vol. 755, c. 406–7.]
  Always defended it. I could not help wondering: against whom he has defended it. It certainly was not against this side. We wanted to see expansion. It must have been against some of his own colleagues that he had been defending it. It will be interesting to see if he will tell us who he has been defending it against.
  If the right hon. Gentleman was seeking to defend the way in which it had been implemented, that is a different matter. The expansion programme may have been all right temporarily, but the way in which it has been handled has been that there has not been any growth at all. As I pointed out in the quotation from his own White Paper on the day the National Plan was published, the Minister said,
  "For farmers and farm workers and landowners alike, the call is to expand the output of those products which are wanted under this programme…"
  In the guidance which the right hon. Gentleman gave, he made clear what these products were. The Government wanted the industry to meet
  "a major part of the additional demand expected by 1970 totalling some £200 million…and also to supply much of the cereals required for the increase in livestock production."
  We were told that meat would have a most important part to play:
  "Mutton and lamb and pig meat can make a substantial contribution…But the main emphasis must be on the expansion of beef and veal production which will have to be increased to the full extent of the technical possibilities."
  Those were the words,
  "the full extent of the technical possibilities",
  and this is the policy under which we are operating now. As I have said, the 1967 Price Review White Paper showed how miserably that policy was failing to live up to what was claimed for it in 1965.
  After the Price Review the Minister said:
  "I firmly believe that, provided farmers respond to the capital injection given at this Review, output and income will resume their upward trend and, most important of all, the industry will be able to make an even greater contribution to the nation's needs."

  981
  That was in March of this year. What results have been achieved so far? I have shown, from the September return, that there is very little improvement, but I think that the most significant figure which I can give the Minister, having quoted what he said about this being increased to
  "the full extent of the technical possibilities",
  is that for calves slaughtered.
  I have taken the first nine months of 1965, 1966 and 1967 to avoid any feeling that foot and mouth have played ducks and drakes with the figures. In 1965, 261,000 calves were slaughtered. In 1966 the figure was 342,000, and in 1967 it was 459,000, an increase of nearly 200,000 compared with 1965. This is the industry's answer to the Minister's statement about increasing beef production to
  "the full extent of the technical possibilities."
  Indeed. the increase in calves slaughtered since 1965 is greater than the number of cattle slaughtered to date because of the foot-an 3-mouth epidemic.
  That is the extent of it, and it shows the complete lack of confidence which has existed—and must exist—since the Price Review White Paper, because this figure could not have been accounted for by the period to March of this year when the White Paper was produced. This is a clear indication of the position which obtains at the moment. If there is to be expansion, there must be something quite different from the present policy to bring it about.
  There is no dispute about the policy, but it has not achieved the required results. Had we been in line with the targets in the National Plan, we would by now have been producing another £100;million worth of food and feedingstuffs, with a corresponding reduction in imports, and one can see what a help that would have been to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to the balance of payments position.
  I come, next, to the problems arising from devaluation. This is not the debate in which to discuss the wider issues of devaluation, the way in which it might have been avoided, the loan which accompanied it, or the strings attached to it. I gather that this will be the subject of debate tomorrow, and we shall be ready to take part in it, so I am not today asking
  982
  the right hon. Gentleman to respond on that issue.
  I propose to bring the Minister back to its effect on British agriculture, because for this industry it does two things: First, it puts up farmers' costs. Secondly, it makes increased home production more important than ever, because, apart from those countries which have devalued with us, it makes food imports a bigger burden than ever on our balance of payments.
  For every other industry which is engaged either in exports or in import substitution, the stimulus provided by devaluation should be automatic and immediate. For the exporter, his prices are immediately more competitive abroad. For the import saver, as imported goods become more expensive on the home market, he will be better able to compete. Why does the second benefit not apply to farmers? The answer is simply because, under the present system of support, the price which determines his return is fixed at the Annual Price Review.
  Higher import prices will put up the price of food to the consumer, but the benefits will not go to farmers. They will accrue to the Government, in the reduction of deficiency payments which have to be made. Over the weekend we saw the supplementary estimate for substantially higher deficiency payments which we expect to see, but this will change the whole picture and sharply reduce the liability over the remainder of the financial year.
  I mention in passing that this problem would not have arisen under the system of support which we advocate, but farmers are operating under the deficiency payments system, whether they like it or not, and if the Government pin their faith on the system it is up to them to make it work, and to give farmers an adequate return from it.
  In his now discredited broadcast to the nation about devaluation, the Prime Minister said:
  "Farm production, too, will be stimulated and will be able to do more to replace food imported from abroad."
  If he was meaning by that that it would automatically be stimulated, it is untrue, for the reasons which I have given, but if he was implying that action would be taken to stimulate it, it is time that

  983
  farmers were told what that action is to be. I fear that the unpleasant truth is that today very few people set much store by what the Prime Minister says.
  Farmers remember the Prime Minister's earlier speech. Perhaps some hon. Gentlemen opposite do not. They remember the pledge which he gave, and which was reported in The Farmers' Weekly of 30th July, 1965. Speaking at Newtown in Montgomeryshire he said:
  "We shall not solve our economic problems without a vigorous import substitution policy through agricultural expansion."
  I have told the House what that has achieved over these two years. Referring to the roadside "fair deal" posters saying, "Why import, we can grow it?" the Prime Minister said:
  "I agree with what they said. George Brown is hard at work with Fred Peart and other Ministers to set the guide lines to save imports, not only by increasing production in industry, but on the farms as well."
  That was the story which at that time was built up in a very big way as a real pledge to the farmers. We have seen the results of the right hon. Gentleman's work and his co-operation with the Minister. [An HON. MEMBER: "How to win an Election."] That may have had some bearing on it.
  At the last Annual Price Review farmers received a considerable increase in the level of the guarantees, in order, as the Minister admitted, to restore confidence, and to give some element of capital injection, yet even before devaluation a large part of this had been swallowed up by increased costs, including a substantial, and fully justified increase, in farm-workers' pay.
  Costs will now rise much more sharply as a result of devaluation, and imported feedingstuffs will be the largest item in this increase. There is also the effect of devaluation on fuel oil, potash, and phosphate fertilisers, while the present high interest rates represent a savage increase in farmers' credit costs. I have estimated the total increase in farmers' costs due to devaluation as £50 million. If the Minister does not agree, perhaps he will give us his figure.
  Thus, even if no increase in home production is called for, there is still an urgent need for a statement on how
  984
  farmers are to be recouped for their heavy increase in costs. If, as we believe, production from our farms should be increased, and really increased this time, it is essential that we have a clear statement from the Minister about this.
  We have not called for a special Price Review, but we have called for the Annual Review during February to be brought forward. I called for new prices to be established by Christmas, and last week the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) asked for a statement by 15th January. What was the Minister's response when that question was asked last week by the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian? The Minister said:
  "I hope that the hon. Member will not tie me to a date for making an announcement…It would come sooner. I will decide and nobody else."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th November, 1967; Vol. 755, c. 416.]
  The arrogance of that answer will not go unnoticed in the countryside. I suggest that the Minister might do well to withdraw it, because that approach does not do credit to any Minister, at any time, still less when it comes from a member of a discredited Government, living on borrowed time—when it becomes really deplorable. I hope that the Minister will realise that that was a very unwise thing to say. He seems to be resenting the discussion of these matters, because I imagine that some guidance had been given to one of this morning's newspapers.
  In The Guardian I see a report that
  "Ministers are more than a little annoyed with the Opposition for forcing a full scale debate on agriculture at this time. It is felt that insufficient time has been allowed to the Government to prepare detailed plans at a moment when much of the Ministry of Agriculture's energies are being devoted to the foot-and-mouth epidemic."
  Is that really so? Do not they want to have a debate, so that they can tell us? The function of Parliament is to help, by advising Ministers how they should handle matters. Parliament should not merely be presented with a fait accompli afterwards. The Minister should welcome the advice that he will be receiving today from myself and my hon. Friends. It is essential to have an early statement if it is to influence farmers' plans for 1968. If those plans are not considered

  985
  important by the Government, how urgent is their approach to solving the nations problems?
  Last Wednesday, the Minister also said:
  "I am examining this matter, and if I have to make an announcement I will do so. There is no attempt at delay."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th November, 1967; Vol. 755, c. 407.]
  As if he were deliberately seeking to delay! Nobody accused him of that. We say that there has been delay, and that there should be an attempt at bringing things forward. I tell him bluntly that this sort of half-hearted approach will not do. The farmers are entitled to be told speedily what is required of them.
  What do we recommend? First, we believe that the method of agricultural support should be changed, but we recognise that even if the Government were willing to do this—and they show no sign—there is no time to change the system at this stage before an announcement on higher production is made. Therefore, we want to see new price levels established under the present system which not only recoup farmers' increased costs but pass on to them some of the added incentive which every other import-saving industry will receive from devaluation. That is essential.
  Secondly, there must be clear indications that specific, substantially increased production is required for clearly specified commodities. Beef is obviously essential because of foot-and-mouth disease, but it was already supposed to be being increased "to the limit of the technical possibilities". Everybody knows that that is not happening. What about lamb, bacon and wheat—both hard and soft, but especially hard? The Minister should give a direct incentive to the expansion of hard wheat production, which can cut our heavy imports of Canadian wheat. What about still more barley to replace much of the maize which is still being imported?
  Thirdly, there must be positive steps on import control. Without that, confidence among our farmers cannot be fully restored. It may take time to implement such controls, but a firm and unequivocal pledge is called for, followed by action as soon as possible. We are virtually the only free market for food in the world today. The
  986
  Common Market does not allow free imports of food, nor does the United States. It is time that we faced reality and the fact that we no longer derive the advantages from cheap food imports that we did half a century ago. In any case, devaluation has changed the whole picture in favour of home production.
  Mr. Elystan Morgan: Does the right hon. Gentleman advocate import controls operating against E.E.C. countries as well?
  Mr. Godber: Certainly, when we are not in. If and when we enter, the position will be different and we shall be safeguarded by Common Market controls. At present, they operate against us.
  Many people are talking of targets. There was a target of £200 million in the National Plan, the N.F.U. mentioned a figure of £300 million, and Mr. Wallace Day, in a clear and well-argued paper, has set out a much higher target. I am not setting any target, but if the farmers of Britain are given two things they will reach any reasonable target set for them. Those two things are, first, real incentives in the form of higher prices and, secondly, real and effective assurances on the limitation of imports.
  This Government, after all their pledges to the contrary, have devalued the £. A weakened Britain can no longer afford to neglect any of her assets. In her farms, her farmers and her farmworkers Britain has a priceless asset which is being under-used today. The opportunity is there, the need is there, as well as the ability and the desire of everyone to expand production economically and effectively. The one thing missing at the moment is an effective lead from the Government. We call upon the right hon. Gentleman to wake up and give it.
  4.56 p.m.
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Fred Peart): As the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) has said, in his very long speech—[HON. MEMBERS "A very good one."] It was a very long one, and I thought it rather tedious. I am likely to be shorter.
  Quite rightly, the debate has ranged widely over many problems. Also, the

  987
  debate must inevitably be concerned with the achievements of the industry. I shall be saying something about what the Government have done and are doing to help the industry's progress. First, however, I must respond to what the right hon. Gentleman said and deal with the question which must again be our immediate concern, namely, foot-and-mouth disease.
  I shall try to deal with the many points which have been raised by the right hon. Gentleman and also answer some of the queries raised by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Nabarro). In previous statements I have made it clear that this is the most serious epidemic that has occurred in this century. I am sure that the House will join me in expressing sympathy to all who have suffered. This sympathy goes especially to those who have lost their stock and also to those other farmers throughout the country whose farming operations have been upset.
  The disease struck in the area of dense livestock population in the West Midlands. It was bad enough when this happened in 1952, as some hon. Members will recall, but it is an even worse threat today, because the density of the livestock population is so much greater. This virus has shown extreme virulence in the speed with which the disease has spread from herd to herd. Thus the epidemic took on the character of an explosion. There is still much that we do not understand about the rapid spread of the disease on this occasion. Scientists from my own laboratory at Weybridge and from the Pirbright Institute are continuing their investigations on the spot.
  The dangers that we now have to fear are not those of the dispersal of disease due to movement of livestock. The greatest menace, so far, has come from the high daily number of new outbreaks in the main infected area, rising rapidly to a peak of 80 a day in the week before last. Such a level of outbreaks invitably raised the question whether it would be physically possible for my hard-pressed staff to cope with diagnosis, slaughter and burial of so many animals in rapid succession. With magnificent help from the police, contractors, and the Armed Services, as well as from veterinary surgeons in the private profession
  988
  and from overseas, they have been able to keep pace with this task. In the last few days, welcome relief has come from a steep fall in the daily number of outbreaks, but they are still at a dangerously high level.
  The main weight of the epidemic is still concentrated in the original West Midlands area. Nevertheless, there have been jumps into other areas, particularly Lancashire, Derby, Stafford, Hereford, Monmouth, Leicester and Northampton. None of these has yet developed into a major centre of spread.
  There has also been a persistent spread southwards from the main area. There is a continuing series of outbreaks in Worcestershire. Most recently, there has also been an outbreak among sheep in South Shropshire. This is a cause for anxiety and is a most unfortunate counterweight to the slowing down of the spread in the main area. This situation today therefore offers some hopeful and some disturbing features. There is not the slightest reason for complacency and for relaxation, but neither is there any reason for despair. I emphasise this.
  I am glad to say that the work of those coping with the epidemic in the field has been widely and deservedly praised, but I and my Department have been accused of lack of leadership by the right hon. Member for Grantham. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman may say that I was rather sensitive about this. I was, for the reason that I arranged for him to meet my deputy chief veterinary officer and staff. I talked to him the day after, and asked him to co-operate, and said that, if there was anything constructive he had to offer, I would certainly take it up. But he chose to come to the House and say what he did before he had listened to the points which I had to make in reply to certain questions.
  I did resent it, and I think that the House and the nation resent any attempt to make political capital out of a national disaster—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—I am glad that he now says that there is no complacency on my part. I hope that we shall not debate this. We can argue about our policy in regard to the second part of his speech, but the matter which I am now describing is too serious for party political speeches. We should all be working together to stamp out this dreadful disease, instead of playing politics

  989
  with it while the epidemic is at its height—[HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful."]—After the right hon. Gentleman studies some of the views of his own hon. Friends, he will find that I am right about this—
  Sir G. Nabarro: Not me.
  Mr. Peart: I was not thinking of the hon. Gentleman. He will make political capital out of anything—
  Sir G. Nabarro: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Peart: No, I hope that the hon. Member will be serious and I hope that all hon. Members will accept what I say sincerely. I believe that, if I had been leading for the Opposition, I would not in any way have sought to make political capital out of a disaster. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is. That is all that I am saying—
  Hon. Members: Disgraceful.
  Sir G. Nabarro: Would the right hon. Gentleman not concede to me that, in an area where the outbreak has been most virulent and concentrated, I have not made one single party political point in the House or in my constituency on this matter? I have sought to co-operate with him to the utmost.
  Mr. Peart: I concede that, certainly, to the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South. I am merely saying that I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Grantham the other day brought in this political implication.
  However, I now turn—
  Mr. Godber: The Minister has made a special reference to me
  Mr. Peart: I will now turn—
  Mr. Godber: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): Order. Unless the Minister gives way, the right hon. Gentleman must not persist.
  Mr. Godber: On a point of order. I must finish this point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister has accused me in regard to a personal interview which I had with some of his officials and will not allow me to reply. That is surely utterly disgraceful.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order. It is always a matter for discretion whether a Minister gives way or not.
  Mr. Peart rose—
  Hon. Members: Withdraw.
  Mr. Peart: I am not withdrawing. I am not accusing the right hon Gentleman of seeing my officials. I arranged for them to see him. I am merely referring to his attitude and behaviour in the House—
  Mr. Godber rose—
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: On a point of order—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Only one hon. Member may speak at a time. Mr. Eldon Griffiths, point of order.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Can you advise me, Mr. Deputy Speaker? The Minister has just courteously given way to an hon. Member on this side of the House, but he has not given way to the official spokesman of the Opposition, against whom he has made a most serious accusation. Is it in accordance with the customs of the House that such gross and unfair discourtesy should be shown by the Government Front Bench?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The conventions of the House are quite clear. It is always open to a Minister or any other hon. Member to decide whether he will give way. If charges or accusations are made in the course of a speech, they can be answered subsequently in a debate. Whether a Minister or an hon. Member gives way immediately to enable challenges to be answered is entirely a matter for his discretion.
  Mr. Peart rose—
  Mr. Godber: Will the right hon. Gentleman now give way?
  Mr. Peart: I am not giving way. I want to finish my point—
  Mr. Ian MacArthur: On a point of order. With the greatest respect to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I remind you—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—that my right hon. Friend will not have an opportunity to reply to a most grievous charge. His only opportunity to reply, surely, is to intervene in the Minister's speech. The

  991
  Minister, quite improperly and against the convention of the House, is not giving way.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order—
  Mr. Godber rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that I may explain, for the benefit of the House.
  If accusations are made in debate on one side of the House, they can be answered subsequently in debate by any other hon. Member who takes part. It is always at the discretion of the hon. Member who is addressing the House to decide whether he will give way to an intervention or not.
  Mr. Peart rose—
  Mr. Godber: Will the Minister now give way?
  Mr. Peart: No, I have been patient with the right hon. Gentleman, who made a 50-minute speech—
  Mr. MacArthur: Withdraw.
  Mr. Pearl: Why should I withdraw? What I have said is right. If I may now proceed to deal with the points, the right hon. Member can intervene later in my speech if he so wishes—[HON. MEMBERS: "Now."]—Not on this point. I have made my point.
  There are hon. Members on both sides, I was going to say, particularly those whose constituencies have been severely hit by the disease, and many others, who have put to me many constructive suggestions which I have greatly welcomed. I note carefully the point made by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South. This was the first that I had heard of it. I understand that he was making a major point about anglers. I will check this and contact the hon. Member. I have tried in turn to meet many of the points constructively.
  On the wider activity, I have not attempted to close down every recreational activity and a good many commercial activities throughout the country. Nothing would have been easier than to ask for everything to be stopped, but I have sought all along to obtain the co-operation of the public, and this means
  992
  taking reasonable care not to interfere unnecessarily with activities which involve no risks.
  I have here relied, certainly, on the advice of my veterinary staff who, with their great experience of disease control and close contact with the leading scientists, are best able to assess what the risks are. What might be a necessary precaution near the infected areas might be quite unnecessary in the remoter parts of the country. Moreover, the position changes from day to day and we have had to revise our assessment of risks with the extension of the disease. I have not hesitated to ask for the cessation of activities which involve risk, and I have never been refused co-operation.
  Mr. Nicholas Ridley: Would the Minister say a word about markets? Cirencester cattle market is apparently going on within 25 miles of an outbreak and in an infected county. Would he make a statement clearing up what the position should be about holding livestock markets, not for slaughter but for sale?
  Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: In my constituency, Macclesfield, where the disease is fairly widespread, three poultry sales are advertised between now and Christmas. Will the Minister give guidance on this important point?
  Mr. Peart: I have said that unless the animals were for immediate slaughter, sales in an infected area should be stopped. I will look at the two markets concerned. I made a general statement on the position, but I will certainly follow it up, and before the debate is ended I will give a further answer about those two cases.
  Where powers are available I have been ready to use them. Both nationally and in the field we have brought to the attention of every farmer and of the public what they can best do to help. There has been an excellent response. Farmers have been asked to observe the four rules of keeping visitors off their farms, keeping their livestock under cover, splitting their livestock into separate units and watching daily for symptoms of disease. The public have been asked to keep out of the infected areas and not to go on farm land elsewhere which carries stock unless it is necessary to do so and

  993
  then only with the farmer's permission. This appeal has been kept before them through the Press, television and radio.
  The right hon. Gentleman spoke about guidance for fishermen. I have made a public appeal, and I believe that there has been a response. The point which I mentioned earlier is relevant. I made a special appeal, and fishermen were included in the broadcast. Many public events have been cancelled or curtailed on the advice of my Department.
  The right hon. Gentleman raised the question of pipelines. My Department and the National Farmers' Union have collaborated in giving advice not only to firms engaged in laying pipelines but to public utility undertakings—gas, water and electricity—asking them to restrict entry on farms in infected areas to essential or emergency visits, to keep vehicles off farms, to pay attention to disinfection and to keep in touch with my regional and divisional organisations where they need advice. The Ministries of Transport, Power and Housing and the Post Office are playing their part in reinforcing the advice.
  The right hon. Gentleman referred to the question of disinfectants on roads.
  Mr. Edward du Cann: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the point, may I quickly put two questions to him? There are a number of Chistmas fatstock shows taking place at present. Many hon. Members, and certainly many members of the farming community, feel that these should be cancelled. Will he give a view about that? Secondly, in connection with markets, surely it would be wiser at least to set up emergency plans whereby beasts can go straight to the abattoir? Surely if we are in a war against this disease we should behave as if we were in a war against it.
  Mr. Peart: I do not dissent from that. Where we can get animals to the abattoir, that is the right course. We have that in mind. The right hon. Gentleman asked me a question about specific shows. In principle, I agree with the point which the hon. Member made. On the other hand, where specific areas or parts of the country are concerned, I must first of all take advice from my veterinary staff who are giving guidance on the day-to-day running of the control of the disease. In
  994
  principle, I think that the right hon. Member is right, and I accept his point. But I must judge each issue on its merits.
  Mr. Godber: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for giving way now on this issue and on these points of which, incidentally, I have given him private notice. I say that because he accuses me of doing things in private. I have given him notice in order that he may reply. Is he considering taking powers on these issues to enable him to take specific action, for example, in connection with angling, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) said, or in connection with pipelines?
  Mr. Peart: I certainly give that assurance. I have never complained about the right hon. Gentleman raising matters with me privately and I hope that we can forget our main controversy. He has rightly put those points to me, and I have them in mind.
  Sir G. Nabarro: Every possible appeal, including an appeal from his Department, was made that this angling gathering on the Avon last Sunday afternoon should be cancelled. As I am reminded, it was also on the River Wye. The men concerned with the organisation of the gathering refused to cancel it. Has the right hon. Gentleman the power, or has he not the power, to refuse a gathering of that kind permission to go forward?
  Mr. Peart: I have not those powers, but in view of what the hon. Member said I should certainly be prepared to come to the House and take them, and I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House would let me have them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Too late."] I do not believe that it is too late. I have tried to deal with this by the co-operation of all those concerned, and so far I have had a tremendous response.
  Sir J. Foster: Would the Minister not consider it better to take powers, when he does not possess them, and to give orders rather than advice?
  Mr. Peart: Advice is important. When I toured the areas at Oswestry and Chester, it was felt there by many official farmers' representatives whom I met that it was right to make an appeal, and this I did. I made my television broadcast the other day. We have had a series of

  995
  leaflets to the individual farming community and a series of continuous Press bulletins and also broadcasts. But if we felt that an Order were necessary, I believe that there would be no delay because the House would pass it immediately
  May I turn to the question of disinfectants on roads. Here there has been argument and controversy and my right hon. Friend has been pressed about it when dealing with the Scottish situation. My veterinary advice is quite definite that the proper place to take precautions is at the farm gate and that splashes on roads are of little or no value in themselves as a precaution against the spread of disease. I have not wanted to discourage local initiatives for setting up these splashes, since they may remind the public of the presence of disease and of the need to take precautions. But I cannot go so far as to say that they are necessary. If I thought they were, I should not have hesitated to require them to be provided.
  The control of the disease depends for its success very largely on rapid slaughter and burial of infected carcases and strict control of livestock movements. The Committee will not expect me today to discuss the pros and cons of vaccination as an adjunct to slaughter in the control of the disease. I am well aware that our knowledge of viruses and vaccines has grown rapidly in recent years, and that several countries on the Continent of Europe have been able to bring the disease under control by the use of vaccines in conjunction with slaughter. But I am convinced that the stamping out policy is still the best in our circumstances. I want to emphasise this. I am glad to have the support of hon. Members opposite on it. Indeed, I think that responsible opinion in the farming world also agrees.
  Nevertheless, I recognise that vaccination might be required as a second line of defence if, in spite of all our efforts, we are not able to check the spread of the disease by the stamping out policy. Some little time ago I took a decision to obtain and store in this country 5 million doses of vaccine of the appropriate type so that livestock in an area around the main centres of infection could be vaccinated. All the necessary
  996
  preparations are being made. But I cannot state too emphatically that I believe that we can still stamp out the disease and that this is what we must do. Hon. Members will have seen the statement today which supports this policy—the statement from the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the British Veterinary Association.
  I accept what the right hon. Gentleman said. When this epidemic is over we must be sure that we have learned all the lessons which it can give us for our future guidance.
  Viscount Lambton: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that we shall have a public inquiry into all the outbreaks which have occurred in the last two years so the lessons can be learned which can avoid all these muddles which are occurring today?
  Mr. Peart: There is no question of a muddle today. What we need is a particular inquiry rather like the Gowers Inquiry in the 1950s. Obviously the situation has changed. This is a matter which I shall have to consider. I responded to what the spokesman of the Opposition said—that there should be an inquiry. We shall have an examination in depth of our policy and our methods of control. I do not think that we should be limited to two years. We should examine the broad spectrum of policy over a period of time. Indeed, an inquiry like the Gowers Inquiry might be the appropriate way. I hope that the noble Lord will not press me for a precise answer. I have conceded in principle that we shall have an examination in depth of our policy and our methods of control.
  We must be sure that we learn all the lessons that we can learn from what has happened in the epidemic and which might help us for future guidance. I hope that I shall have the noble Lord's support. When we are no longer preoccupied with the urgent task of coping with the epidemic, I intend to set up an independent committee—it is important that it should be independent—to examine both our policy and our arrangements for dealing with foot and mouth disease and to advise whether any changes are necessary. It is also clear that after the epidemic is over—
  Mr. Peter Bessell: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He has been most generous is doing so. Would he repeat what he said a moment ago—that disinfectant bars are of little or no use? If there is any question of their being of any use, would it not be worth while to keep the precaution going by the voluntary efforts of farmers, if only for the psychological effect on people?
  Mr. Arthur Woodburn: Is my right hon. Friend aware—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. We ought not to have intervention on intervention. I am sure that the Minister will give way to his right hon. Friend in a moment or two.
  Mr. Woodburn: I am sure that the public recognise the tremendous way in which the Minister has tried to cooperate with everybody to try to stop the disease, but is he aware that there is very high scientific opinion which believes that vaccination may be a danger and not a help if it permits the virus to remain in the body of the animal so that it becomes a carrier rather than a diseased animal?
  Mr. Peart: The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) was dealing with disinfectant. I have confirmed what I said in my Press statement. I accept that there are dangers from vaccination. Anyone who reads the (lowers Report and examines the statements of leading scientists will see that there are difficulties—such as that of obtaining complete immunity and that of carriers.
  I want to deal with an important point raised by the right hon. Gentleman in connection with what I term reconstruction. It is also a fact that, after the epidemic is over, there will be the most serious problems of rehabilitation and restocking in the area. These are already receiving consideration and I shall press ahead with an examination of the practical financial problems which may be involved, and I shall discuss them with the National Farmers' Union. I have also announced about farmers' guidance panels in the areas concerned. That is important, and I am glad that I am able to deal with it.
  998
  I come to the subject of meat imports, because this is very relevant to the debate and because there has been much Press speculation about it. I have already made it clear that it has not been possible to trace the origin of the present epidemic. Hon. Members know that our veterinary resources are now fully stretched in fighting the present epidemic. For this reason, a new primary outbreak elsewhere could be very dangerous.
  The Government are, therefore, making temporary changes forthwith in the arrangements for importing meat into Great Britain in order to reduce, as far as possible, the risk of any new primary outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease while the present emergency is being brought under control. These changes do not imply that the present epidemic was necessarily caused by imported meat, but the Government must minimise the risk of any new infection from any source at this time.
  The meat importing trade has offered its co-operation, which the Government have gratefully accepted. The trade has agreed to control the storage and distribution of meat already shipped. It will also suspend for the time being new shipments from all countries of the world, except those very few countries where foot-and-mouth disease is unknown or which have a long history of freedom from it. The Government have also been in consultation with the Governments of meat supplying countries, other than those few, about the need for urgent general action during this emergency.
  The response from a number of countries has been sympathetic and encouraging. The Government hope that supplying countries concerned will be willing and able to take similar steps. In order that a complete and effective control can be exercised, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I have made an Order, coming into force today, altering the present licensing arrangements. Details are being posted to all existing licence holders.
  The countries in which foot-and-mouth diseases is effectively unknown and which are exporting meat to Great Britain are Australia, Canada, Finland, Iceland, Irish Republic, New Zealand, Norway, the Republic of South Africa and the United States of America. These countries are not affected by the new measures.

  999
  From all other countries in the world, the landing of carcase meat and offal without an animal health licence will be prohibited. No further licences will, for the present, be issued. This will not prevent the landing of meat already shipped, but the Imported Meat Trade Association has undertaken to limit its distribution, by putting frozen meat into cold store and by confining chilled beef to the London area. Frozen meat already in cold store will be held there.
  These arrangements are temporary. They will last until the present emergency has been brought under control and will, in any event, be reviewed in three months' time, if still in operation. Imports of canned meat and of bacon and ham are not affected.
  Mr. Frederic Harris: Do the Government anticipate that these measures will create a considerable meat shortage for the consumers in this country?
  Mr. Peart: They are bound to create some difficulty. I accept this and I hope that all hon. Members will, where possible, inform the public, as I shall, that they must understand this. We believe that these steps are necessary in the battle of foot-and-mouth which we face.
  I come to other problems and opportunities before the agriculture industry. It is clear, from what the hon. Member for Grantham said, that the Opposition are trying to show that devaluation has confronted agriculture with a new challenge and that the Government have done nothing to enable the industry to meet it. This was the theme of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. Two weeks have gone by since devaluation, and they criticise me because I have as yet made no dramatic announcement on agriculture. They hope that if they press hard enough and shout "complacency" loud enough, they will panic me into rushing into hasty and ill-considered measures.
  I will not be, and have never been panicked. I want to give the industry a sensible lead, not to take action just to meet the clamour of some right hon. Gentlemen. It is right that we should have a careful examination of the situation. I said last week that we were examining the implications of the new
  1000
  situation for agriculture. When we had done so, I said, we would take the measures that were necessary.
  Mr. Godber: The right hon. Gentleman has pointed out that it is only a short time since devaluation. Is he aware of the statement issued by the N.F.U. saying that an exchange of correspondence has been going on with the Prime Minister since 7th September about the expansion of the industry in this context? Surely the right hon. Gentleman is, therefore, in a position to make some statement about this whole matter.
  Mr. Peart: The right hon. Gentleman should listen to what I am saying, which is that since the statement made in the House about devaluation—the recent statement—it would be wrong for us to take panic measures to deal with the position. In other words, the effects of devaluation and the important rôle which agriculture must play are subjects which must be carefully examined.
  The right hon. Member for Grantham said that he wished to give me advice and would like to help. If, as he said, he wishes to be constructive, I assure him that I shall be prepared to listen to advice from him or any other hon. Member. I am not complaining about this debate but merely saying that the debate is taking place only a short time after a major decision was taken. I need time. I will note what hon. Members say in this debate—which is the purpose of the debate—but the Government cannot make a full statement today. I still believe that this is right.
  We must consider the general situation of the agricultural industry. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, and particularly the right hon. Member for Grantham, complain about defects in our policy and in the action we have taken. I shall deal with those complaints in my speech.
  Since we came to office we have taken positive measures to create conditions for a strong and competitive British agricultural industry. We set out our objectives in the selective expansion programme. That was right and it was endorsed by the industry. This is more than the Opposition ever did when they were in

  1001
  office. We recognise the vital contribution that the industry can make to the nation's economy. We have stressed the help that it can give to our balance of payments through import saving.
  Some hon. Gentlemen opposite, at Question Time last Wednesday, seem to have thought that there was something new in the importance of import saving. But this has been a key feature of our policies since we took office. That is why the selective expansion programme is so important. Hon. Gentlemen opposite know that the target was that by 1970 the British people would be consuming £200 million worth more food and that most of that must come from home production.
  The last two Annual Reviews have been directed to securing its objectives. I am not for a moment suggesting that devaluation makes no difference to our position or requires no adjustments in our policies. I will be saying more about this. But the direction of our agricultural policy was right before devaluation and it is right now. But we have a fundamentally strong industry on which we can build.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: With a fundamentally weak Government, though.
  Mr. Peart: It is easy for hon. Gentlemen opposite to throw abuse. That was a silly intervention.
  I will review the progress that is being made. I have never claimed that progress under the selective expansion programme has been all that we had hoped. This we recognised at the last Review. There was substantial progress on the arable side but I admitted, and I admit again, that on the livestock side progress was lagging. So, at the last Review, we injected extra resources amounting to about £40 million to help finance the necessary investment if expansion was to be maintained. I think farmers recognise that this was the best Review since a Labour Government were last in office; and it was not an election year bonanza. We are now seeing results, although the foot-and-mouth epidemic is a tragic setback.
  This year, we have had a record cereals harvest of 14½ million tons and
  1002
  we expect record milk output of 2,630 million gallons. The size of the dairy and beef herds was rising and pig numbers were recovering. But, as I say, foot-and-mouth disease has been a setback. Some hon. Gentlemen opposite have accused me of words rather than deeds. Let them remember the increases we have awarded, for example, in the milk guarantee, the pig guarantee, the sheep guarantee, the beef guarantee and the hill subsidies.
  At the same time, we have been pursuing a consistent policy for making the industry even more efficient than it is; and I pay tribute to its outstanding record. This provides a sound basis for expansion and increased competitiveness. We have recognised the importance of farm management and have taken positive action to reinforce it by advice and through production grant schemes. Improved farm management gives increasing scope for streamlining our production methods, for making the best use of resources and for planning the most effective methods for increased productivity. In the National Agricultural Advisory Service we have something which is the envy of other industries and other countries. We have strengthened it and we have reinforced the technical backing behind the industry. This is the more valuable because it has the support of the industry. It has made a major contribution to agriculture's outstanding record of increasing productivity.
  In this year's Agriculture Act we have taken wide-ranging measures to help to improve farm structure and to encourage improvements in production, marketing and co-operation. It is action of this kind that increases the underlying strength of the industry. Consistent and well thought out policies are required—not panic measures.
  I will give some other examples of how we appraise the situation and take action to meet it when we have properly considered the implications. When faced with the temporary break in the meat market due to an unforeseeable combination of circumstances, we agreed—with the support of the farmers' unions—to change the beef guarantee arrangements to meet the situation. Similarly on bacon; we introduced the stabilisation scheme, facing a problem which the Conservatives had consistently run away from. The

  1003
  industry welcomed this action. It ill befits hon. Gentlemen opposite to accuse us of failing to act when the situation requires.
  It is not only on immediate questions that we concentrate. We look further ahead. We have set up the Economic Development Committee for agriculture, the members of which include farmers, workers, landowners and independent economists. They have been putting in a great amount of work examining the technical possibilities of import saving by the industry in the early 1970s, after the end of the present selective expansion programme. This will provide information of great value as a basis for fundamental thinking about agriculture in the years ahead.
  I have made this brief review of what the Government have done to give the true background to the state of our agriculture. However, I recognise that, since the last Annual Review, farming costs have been rising. I understand the concern which farmers feel about this. But it does no one any good to exaggerate the position, as hon. Gentlemen opposite are so tempted to do. Some of the more important cost increases, such as those arising from the recent wage awards, will have their impact only towards the end of the present farm year. It is too early to say what the total effect of these cost increases will be on the full year basis on whch they are taken into account at the Annual Review. There is no doubt, however, that they will be considerable and greatly exceed the figure of £15 million taken into account at the last Review.
  The right hon. Member for Grantham asked me to be precise about the £40 million figure, but I cannot. He knows that it is impossible to have such precision. I can only say that the cost increases will be considerable, but I cannot go beyond that. When we have established the true amount of the cost increase, we shall fully examine the implications with the unions, together with other considerations such as market prospects, farming incomes, and so on. This gives a picture of the position of the industry, and enables us to take proper judgments in the course of the Review.
  What will be the impact of devaluation on the industry? It will be some
  1004
  time before the full effects can be seen, but two things are immediately clear. First, devaluation, of itself, gives no stimulus to the main sectors of home agriculture, because farm returns depend on guaranteed prices rather than on market prices. Second, we must expect increases in farming costs. We shall now be examining these questions. On the one hand, they present a challenge and an opportunity; on the other, they raise the question of resources and how they can be provided.
  I have been pressed by some hon. Members to hold a special review and by others to bring forward the Annual Review itself.
  A special review at this stage of the year would be inappropriate. The arguments for bringing forward the Review are more understandable. A Review is held for the purpose of providing information about the conditions and prospects of the industry on which the Government can base sensible decisions about the level of grants and guaranteed prices for a year ahead.
  Formally speaking, the Review takes place over quite a short period, but this can be misleading. The decisions taken at the Review must, to be of real value, be based on sound and properly compiled data. The responsible leaders of the industry recognise this. So the preliminary to the Review is the preparation of much complex data digested and appraised in consultation with the experts of the farmers unions.
  I can assure the House that I shall personally ensure that this detailed work is speeded up to the maximum extent possible. I have already brought forward the date of the technical discussions between the experts. I am in close touch with the unions, and shall consider with them at the right time whether it would be practicable and appropriate to advance the main Review timetable.
  I must remind the House, however, that it is quite essential to have as clear a picture as possible of the effects of devaluation on costs and prospects. Moreover, I would remind the House that these effects have implications for the whole economy. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the then Chancellor of the Exchequer have already said that we are reviewing the

  1005
  implications of the new situation for agriculture in particular. We, and, indeed, the farmers' unions will be able to take soundly based and sensible decisions on the course of our future policies in the light of these considerations.
  We can, however, now see clearly that devaluation will put up the cost of some of our most important food imports. This underlines the importance of growing as much of our food as we reasonably can here at home. I have mentioned the increase in costs that has been occurring since the last Review. Farmers are understandably worried whether, in view of this increasing pressure of costs, they will be able to go ahead with their plans. I have explained why it would not have been vise to bring forward the Price Review without the information we need to make sensible final judgments. Whilst we cannot anticipate the detailed prices that will emerge from the Price Review, we recognise the need for an increase at the Review in the guaranteed price for wheat, and the need for a wider differential between wheat and barley and for a review of the standard quantity provisions. We shall enter the Price Review on that basis.
  I believe that what I have just said will not only enable the arable farmers now to get ahead with confidence but will be seen as an important reassurance by the whole industry.
  Winter wheat sowings have been delayed by the bad autumn. The need is to get the seed in now. Wheat is particularly important in the new situation created by devaluation because it can be used as a substitute in more than one way for imported wheat. Wheat is already the most costly of our cereals imports, and its sterling price has already gone up following the change in the exchange-rate. I hope that farmers will now put in winter wheat during the next few weeks to make good, and more than make good, the present arrears, and will step up spring wheat, where this is possible.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am most grateful to the Minister for what he says, and it is most important. Is he aware that many wheat farmers have sold forward in accordance with the Cereals Marketing Act, and may find themselves in a situation in which, if they had not sold forward they would, because of devalua
  1006
  tion, have got a very much higher price in the spring? This is a matter of some concern to wheat farmers, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will say a word or two to encourage them.
  Mr. Peart: I have made what I think is a major statement. I recognise the need in the Review for an increase in the guaranteed price for wheat. I have given this assurance, and it is important. The precise details are a matter for discussion with the unions, and I will note the point that the hon. Gentleman has made. I cannot go further than what I have said today. As I have said, I believe that this assurance will enable farmers to get ahead. I hope that it will be beneficial, and that they will now put in winter wheat during the next few weeks, and more than make up the present arrears.
  Turning now to beef, this is also a commodity on which the Government recognise devaluation gives us a new opportunity for competitive production at home. But the foot-and-mouth outbreaks have been a very severe setback to the livestock sector of the industry. It is too early yet to say what the full impact will be, but the flourishing dairy herds that have had to be slaughtered will need to be replaced. The direct contribution that they would have made to our beef supplies in the years ahead, and the calves they would have produced for beef have now been lost. The first call upon existing calf resources will be for replacement. It is, therefore, even more important that full use should be made of calves which are suitable for rearing and finishing as beef.
  We shall be looking very fully into the livestock sector of the industry, and I shall make a further announcement in the House before the Christmas Recess on the basis upon which we shall approach this problem in the Price Review. I give that assurance that I will make an announcement, and the right hon. Gentleman has accepted it.
  The pig herd has been going ahead. Farmers may fear that increases now to be expected in feed costs as a result of higher prices for imported grains will keep down the profitability of pigs and diminish the resources available for investment in additional sows and equipment. I think, therefore, that I should remind them that the feed formula which

  1007
  operates as part of the guarantee arrangements should safeguard them against any increase in feed costs pending fuller examination of the pig situation at the 1968 Price Review.
  Since devaluation was announced, I have seen the leaders of the industry. Talks with the unions have been started, and will be going on until the Review. Hon. Members will have seen the statement which the unions have just issued. I appreciate their statesmanlike attitude. I am particularly interested to see that among the points to which they attach importance are those which I have recognised in what I have just said.
  I had intended to deal with the ideas about levies expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Grantham—we could have a long argument about those—but time is getting on and I know that hon. Members will be getting Impatient. Devaluation will put up costs of many of the things we buy. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that we should add further to the costs of food by making levies on imported foods. If he means what he says, he must accept that this is bound to be the consequence. If he argues that he would only proceed slowly, putting levies on gradually and raising prices bit by bit, does he expect that this is going to give agriculture the stimulus he says it needs? Of course it will not. That is why I prefer the straightforward approach that we take. Does he really accept the implications for the housewife of greatly increased prices for the food she needs for the family? Does he accept the implications for our export traders in their overseas markets? I prefer our approach.
  Mr. Godber: I say that devaluation has put up the cost of living by more than the total effect of the policies we would introduce. And in regard to our gradual introduction, we have said that deficiency payments would remain as before the introduction. The right hon. Gentleman is completely distorting our policy.
  Mr. Peart: The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. Either he wants levies put on immediately, or he wants them to be applied gradually. This would be on top of the present policy and on top of the decision to devalue. This would create further increases in
  1008
  food prices. I have never believed that to be the right approach.
  Mr. Jeremy Thorpe rose—
  Mr. Peart: I will give way to the Leader of the Liberal Party in a moment, because I think that he also believes in levies.
  I have never adopted a doctrinaire line, When my predecessor introduced his Act of 1964 providing for minimum import price arrangements, I said that I would accept the principle behind it, provided I was assured—as I was then—that it would not be used deliberately to force up food prices but that its only purpose was that of introducing greater stability into the market. On this basis I have maintained minimum prices for cereals and the bacon market sharing understanding. I accept the importance of avoiding distortion and disruption of markets caused by unco-ordinated supplies.
  Mr. Thorpe: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that many farmers are in favour of the levy system on the basis that they prefer to get their return from the markets rather than from subsidies. Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that he opposes the levy system? Is he aware that the Prime Minister, in applying to join the Common Market, has accepted precisely that as the sort of policy which agriculture should adopt?
  Mr. Peart: We have never said that we would support dismantling our main Agriculture Acts, which were supported by the Opposition—and by some Liberals, despite the views of the right hon. Gentleman. What was said was that if we went into the negotiations we would see how best to link our two systems together and phase our agriculture into the common agricultural policy. That is something different from supporting levies before we go into the Common Market. That is a different approach from the Liberal Party. Our system has worked well, but in present circumstances the policy of the Tory Party would inevitably mean increased prices. I believe this would happen and of course it is important that these issues should be debated today.
  I hope that what I have said will reassure the industry on the importance

  1009
  that the Government and the country attach to its efforts so that it will go ahead with its work and plans between now and the Annual Review.
  5.52 p.m.
  Mr. R. H. Turton: Before the debate the whole House had great sympathy with the Minister because he was faced with the biggest outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease that any Minister has ever faced. In the course of his speech I felt that he lost a great deal of our sympathy because when—as we shall continue to do—we questioned his administration in detail he took it as a charge of playing party politics.
  Mr. Peart: No.
  Mr. Turton: This is much too big a thing far playing party politics and I regretted very much that part of his speech.
  I have always taken the view, although I had some doubts 15 years ago, that the slaughter policy for foot-and-mouth disease is the only sensible policy for Britain if we set store by our livestock industry, and if we attach importance to the livestock export trade which amounts to £14 million a year. But if we have a slaughter policy I have always felt that we are playing with safety by importing animals and meat from disease-ridden countries.
  While I welcome the Minister's announcement about imports, I deeply regret that he talked merely of some temporary arrangements. If we care for our livestock industry we have to make it quite clear that we are no longer to tolerate imported animals or meat from disease-infected countries. One of the remarkable things is that this year imports of animals from France have gone up 50 per cent. in nine months. That does not concern only cloven-hoofed animals but my figures do not differentiate. A 50 per cent. rise requires a great deal of explanation when we have this very quickly spreading virus. Meat from the Argentine increased in quantity before the outbreak by 14 per cent. this year.
  That meat is not admitted into the United States of America because foot-and-mouth is endemic in the Argentine. Australia will not admit any animal from France because of the danger of infection
  1010
  from foot-and-mouth disease. I beg the Minister—all hon. Members, for this is not a party matter—to reconsider this policy. If we are to try to have immunity from foot-and-mouth disease and to build up that immunity, we cannot take the risk of importing meat or animals from those countries. I welcome the Minister's announcement today, but I beg him to make the temporary arrangements permanent.
  The only other comment I make is prompted by his remark that he had never hesitated to make restrictions. What alarms me about the present outbreak is that in 41 days we have gone from one outbreak to 1,400. All of us must be anxious from the point of view of constituents that the Minister without hesitation should take the necessary precautions to stop the disease spreading and to see that none of the spread has been due to any lack of speed in taking those precautions.
  A fortnight ago I got back to my constituency and found that the farmers and the police were extremely disturbed because the international R.A.C. rally was to go through my constituency on the Sunday. Hearing the National Farmers' Union had protested without any result, I immediately got in touch with the Ministry of Transport and asked if the Ministry could cancel the rally. I was informed that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food would not say that it was dangerous for the rally to be held.
  I got on to the right hon. Gentleman's office and found that he was away in his constituency. One of his officers dealt with me most courteously, but he explained that it was the Ministry's view—this was 5 o'clock on Friday, 18th November—that it was not dangerous for the rally to be held. I pointed out that spectators would come to that rally from all over the country. It was incredible. All the branches of the National Farmers' Union were protesting about it all day. The chief veterinary officer had told the farmers that in his view the rally should be stopped and the police were quite certain that it should be cancelled. Of course it was cancelled at 7.30 p.m. that day but why was there all this hesitation? Why could it not have been done before?

  1011
  The other illustration of the Minister's hesitation in taking action brought to my notice is that, last week, consignments of Irish cattle were being brought from Birkenhead to York by rail through the infected counties and then unloaded at York Station and taken by road to my constituency. I was told that the Minister had authorised this transport because it was by rail and therefore there was no risk. He would not have permitted it by road.
  My constituents find that very hard to understand. They cannot understand how it can be safe for cattle—not for slaughter but Irish stores—to be brought right through infected counties to York. Since Birkenhead has itself had an outbreak, the traffic has been stopped, but I beg those in charge to realise that the instances make farmers feel that the Minister is hesitant about taking the necessary precautions and I ask him to be not so keen on giving an appearance of taking, time and being prudent. Caution in an emergency can itself make the risk much greater and I think that all hon. Members would ask the right hon. Gentleman to be much more drastic and quicker in the action he takes to prevent foot and mouth disease.
  Now I turn to the problem of agriculture after devaluation. There again, I have found the right hon. Gentleman hesitant—taking the attitude "No panic—everything must take time". He does not realise that this is not a question of agricultural policy but of national policy.
  I have been comparing Britain's economy of 30 years ago with that of today. Thirty years ago, half our total imports were in food, one-third in raw materials and one-quarter in manufactured goods. Now, the food import bill has gone up by four times and raw materials by three times but the manufactured goods bill has gone up by nine times.
  One of the major difficulties of our balance of payments is that we import too much. For our economy, we must, of course, encourage and continue the import of raw materials and I believe that the great change-over to getting more manufactured goods is all to the good for the standard of living of our people. But, as far as food is concerned, we must change the balance and grow more at home. If
  1012
  we are to do that and successfully ride out the problems after devaluation, the change will have to come very quickly. The Minister seems to talk as though this were the old problem of the selective expansion programme which he embarked upon when be became Minister. But this problem is of new dimensions.
  The other factor which the right hon. Gentleman does not appear to realise is that agriculture is in a different position from the export industries. Here, our main competitors, Denmark and New Zealand, have also devalued, so that our agriculture will have the greater costs incidental to devaluation, which my right hon. Friend put at £40 million to £50 million, but will still have to face the devalued prices of our main competitors.
  There is real need for urgent action—more urgent action than the Minister outlined today. The first point I have been pressing on him—and I am sorry that here my right hon. Friend does not agree with me, but that has happened before—is that we have to have a special agricultural review. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) has said, there are farmers who have forward contracts for the current cereal year and their situation has been altered by devaluation. If we are to wait until the next regular review, however much the Minister ante-dates it, it will still be applying to the next cereal year and the next meat year.
  I want to see expansion faster than that. I want to encourage the farmers to plant more. The Minister can give great help with encouraging words about his intentions for cereals but I want the farmers to plough up very much larger acreages of grassland into arable at present in order to relieve our balance of payments.
  Then again the right hon. Gentleman must do something to encourage the pig farmers who are, despite all the help he claims to have given them, in a difficult situation. The livestock farmers of my constituency have been having a very rough time.
  I also believe—and this is another aspect on which the right hon. Gentleman did not touch to-day—that we could get a big transfer in the balance of payments, possibly about £200 million food import savings in the next 12 months or so and

  1013
  looking forward to about £500 million in two years. This kind of programme, which is necessary if we are to carry through devaluation, means, however, that the right hon. Gentleman will have to renegotiate some of our agreements with other countries.
  In particular, it means a re-negotiation of the Anglo-Danish Bacon Agreement and the Anglo-Irish Treaty, which was a mistake. The Prime Minister for once interfered too much with the work of the Minister of Agriculture and made a treaty not in the interests of our agriculture. I am sure that, if the Minister were not sitting on the benches opposite, he would admit as much. Both these treaties need re-negotiation in order to get this shift.
  Again, is it really necessary for us to import food which is at present surplus in this country? I know it is a small matter, but why, when our egg production is 125 per cent. of consumption, do we spend £2½ million a year on the import of eggs in shell or in liquid form? The Government should prohibit imports of food that is in surplus in this country—eggs and possibly, as I believe, also pork.
  Thirdly, I believe that we must have a system of minimum import prices so arranged that it will prevent the undercutting of efficient British production by imports from overseas. This is particularly necessary in view of the fact that our main competitors have devalued at the same time as we have done.
  Those are the three main prongs of policy which the Minister should be putting forward at present, together not only with a special review but a true February review, thus giving the farmers encouragement and guarantees for next year which would reflect the change in the value of money. I believe this is necessary for our survival. I am not satisfied that exports alone will change the balance of payments situation. Agriculture has got to play a much larger share in import saving, and I do not believe we have much time. Unless we can make a rapid change in our balance of payments and balance of trade this coming year, we shall again face the problem of not being able to hold the £ at its present 2·40 dollars rate of exchange.
  1014
  That is why I beg the Minister not to be so hesitant and not to be so keen to acquire the reputation of being a cautious, prudent man, but to show powers of leadership. If he does this, he will be supported by the farmers and the friends of the countryside, and by hon. Members on both sides of the House, but especially on these benches. For too long have I been worried about the disparity between town and country, and between the wages in agriculture and in industry. The drift from the land stems from the fact that in the last 30 years we have treated our agricultural policy on the wrong basis, on the basis of bleeding the farmers. We should enable agriculture to help save the country so that we can secure a proper balance of payments.
  6.12 p.m.
  Dr. John Dunwoody: In this debate on the present state of agriculture, there are many major issues that we could be discussing. The whole future of the industry is at present in the melting pot, and two of the most recent developments in this country—devaluation and our apparent failure to get into the E.E.C. in the immediate future—underline this fact.
  I could discuss the whole problem of import saving and exports in agriculture, of agricultural expansion which I believe is in the interests of our country as a whole. I could devote time, if I had sufficient of it, to some aspects of the Specialist Committee on Agriculture. However, I hope there will be another occasion when time will be found to talk about these matters.
  I want to concentrate this afternoon on the foot-and-mouth epidemic, and I wish to do so for three particular reasons. First, I consider that this is perhaps an unprecedented disaster for agriculture. Second, I have some technical knowledge in this field which I hope will enable me to put before the House some points which otherwise might not be made. Third, I had the misfortune some years ago to live through a foot-and-mouth epidemic in the far South-West.
  I wish to start by paying a tribute to those involved in this epidemic. We have already expressed our sympathy to those

  1015
  farmers who have lost stock, and I believe all hon. Members will wholeheartedly support me in sympathising with those farmers who day by day are faced with the threat that the same will happen to them. I wish to pay tribute to the whole rural community who have been hit so hard by this disaster. I pay particular tribute to the veterinary surgeons who have done a phenomenal job during the last few weeks—not only the Ministry team of veterinary surgeons but also the private "vets", and particularly those who have come from overseas, from the Irish Republic, Commonwealth countries and North America, to help us in our hour of need.
  I also pay tribute to the Minister for the way in which he has handled his part of this exceedingly difficult problem during the last six weeks. He has had to take a series of major decisions, and, tragically, he will have to continue doing so during the weeks and months ahead, judging each time on the situation as he sees it. He is dependent on technical and expert advice, and he alone has to take into consideration the economic and political consequences of his decisions.
  As has been said, this is not a party issue. Indeed, the agricultural community as a whole would reject out of hand anyone who attempted to make party politics out of this disaster. I personally resent the suggestion by the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) that we on these benches who are interested in agriculture would make party political points out of this situation if we were on the Opposition benches. I believe that the vast majority of Opposition hon. Members have no intention of doing this, and, certainly, those of us on these benches who are concerned about the future of agriculture in Britain would not do it either.
  This epidemic is unprecedented. We have this malignant growth of disease spreading through the country. Over a period of six weeks nearly 1,500 outbreaks have occurred and we have slaughtered nearly 250,000 beasts. But let us keep this in proportion. The number of cattle slaughtered is still no more than we normally slaughter in three weeks or so for food purposes. The number of pigs and sheep we have slaughtered is little more than we
  1016
  slaughter in a matter of days for food purposes.
  Nevertheless, this is the worst epidemic in living memory. In the early 1950s we had the epidemic which was covered in the Gower Report, when there were 600 outbreaks over a period of 12 months. In the early years of the war there was a larger epidemic when there were nearly 1,000 outbreaks spread over a year or so. In the early 1920s, there was a three year period when we had between 1,000 and 2,000 outbreaks each year. Before that, one has to go back to the middle years of the last century to find an epidemic of any magnitude.
  This epidemic, however, is unprecedented in other ways as well, and I want to spell out the unprecedented and unique features of this epidemic.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: An 8 per cent. Bank Rate.
  Dr. Dunwoody: I ignore the sort of contribution that the hon. Gentleman is attempting to make. It would make very little impact in his constituency where, I know from my experience some years ago, there will be great concern at the problem we are facing.
  The first unique feature of the epidemic is the explosive nature of the disease. We have had in such a short time 1,500 outbreaks and, as hon. Members will realise from the figures that I have quoted, in no previous epidemic have we had anything like the same number of outbreaks in such a short time. The remarkable feature of this epidemic is that despite the explosive nature of the epidemic and the vast number of outbreaks, it remains relatively contained. We have never had a epidemic approaching this one in size which has not spread throughout the country. In each case, the past epidemics to which I have alluded spread throughout the whole of Britain. The present epidemic is still relatively contained, and this shows the enormous benefit resulting from the traditional methods that we have been using. It shows the phenomenal degree of co-operation that the Government have had from the agricultural community and everyone involved. There has been no distant spread worth speaking of. I think I am right in saying that 15 or 20 miles is about as far as the disease has gone in any one case.

  1017
  I cannot emphasise too strongly this remarkable feature of the present epidemic. In my view, it shows how the traditional methods are giving as great a dividend as we could possibly expect. However, the other feature of the epidemic, the one which gives me far more concern than the daily record of the number of outbreaks, is the gradual though inexorable spread across the country, how one sees an affected area spread from one day to another just a few miles, first in one direction and then in another.
  The unique features of this epidemic lead to certain inescapable conclusions. First, there is the one I have already mentioned: the usual precautions are particularly effective in this epidemic, and they are being rigorously applied by those responsible for them. The second inescapable conclusion is that the particular strain of virus with which we are dealing is uniquely virulent, a virus more liable to spread than any before. In the early days of the epidemic, many of us suspected that there might be some hidden source, perhaps a herd in which the disease had not been recognised or notified or, perhaps, some other source such as water or food which was causing the disease to occur at a number of points over an area simultaneously.
  This might have been possible in the earlier days, but I think that the way in which the epidemic is spreading leads us to realise that that was not a possible explanation, and one now has to look no further than to the uniquely virulent nature of the particular virus.
  Mr. David Mitchell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, up till today, large quantities of meat have been imported outside the official certificate procedure for feed for animals, including animals which may well have died with foot-and-mouth disease? Is not this likely to be the source for which the hon. Gentleman is looking?
  Dr. Dunwoody: The hon. Gentleman is underlining the point I am trying to make. Precisely because of the nature of the !Tread, with the disease starting in one limited area and only gradually spreading from that area over the six weeks, I am sure that we are not dealing with a source of the kind which he suggests, which would have led to a far
  1018
  wider spread and scatter of the disease. In my view, we can explain the way in which the disease has spread by pointing to the nature of the virus, a uniquely virulent strain, rather than to some common source of that kind.
  Together with the uniquely virulent nature of the virus, we have to take account also of the much greater importance of windborne infection in this epidemic than in any previous epidemic, and this much greater importance of windborne infection is underlined by the very efficiency of the traditional methods of controlling spread by vehicles, by diseased animals and by human contacts.
  We see one of the most interesting features of the epidemic by reference to the map of the spread of the disease in the West Midlands. There has been a good deal of concern expressed, understandably and justifiably in some ways—we have had much of it in the far SouthWest—about spread by vehicle tyres. However, it is interesting to look at the map of the West Midlands and see how the disease has gone from the original outbreak, fanning out predominantly, though not entirely, in a north-easterly direction as though carried by the prevailing winds from the far South-West.
  It is interesting, also, to look at the line of the A5 trunk road running right through the most heavily infected area from the South-East to the North-West. In fact, there is no spread of the disease up and down the line of the road, which would have been almost inevitable in a heavily infected area if vehicles were playing any part in the spread of the disease.
  What of the future? Let us consider what may happen if the epidemic continues, and whether we shall see gradual extension of it over a bigger and bigger area of the country. Shall we see the literal decimation of our livestock?
  Mr. Airey Neave: I understood the hon. Gentleman to say something of great importance. As he has some technical knowledge in the matter, will he tell us whether it is his view that there is no danger of spread by vehicle? Is he saying that?
  Dr. Dunwoody: No.
  Mr. Neave: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that precautions of the kind already taken should be maintained? Has he noticed that troops have been removed from the bridges over the Thames?
  Dr. Dunwoody: I did not say that there was no danger from vehicles. There is danger of spread by vehicles, but I think that the accepted and traditional methods of vehicle disinfection at the farm gate and in other ways in infected areas are proving efficient. I think that the illustration I gave of the failure of the disease to spread along the main road through a heavily infected area underlines that. I am not suggesting that the disease cannot be spread by vehicles—I am sure that it can—but I think that the methods we use are controlling it.
  There is the possibility of the literal decimation of livestock in heavily infected areas. Already, in parts of Shropshire and Cheshire, 20, 30, 40 or even 50 per cent. of livestock have had to be slaughtered. We must now seriously consider the future control of the epidemic and possible additional methods of control. I have outlined how the existing traditional methods are being used to the full and are almost 100 per cent. effective at present.
  This brings one to the question of vaccination. It is worth while discussing this and underlining some of the difficulties and disadvantages as well as the possible advantages of this method of control. We should not adopt the sort of attitude which, in months gone by, perhaps for good reasons, we have adopted in not mentioning the word "vaccination", rather as we did not mention the word "devaluation" in the economic context.
  Our traditional policy is one of slaughter, a stamping-out policy, and there is no doubt that it has paid enormous dividends over the years. We have a virtually disease-free cattle herd in this country. Anyone who suggests that we should switch over to a complete vaccination policy has only to look at what has happened in countries in Western Europe or South America to see the incidence of the disease there and realise at once how wrong that would
  1020
  be. In our situation, vaccination has many serious disadvantages.
  First, vaccination against this disease does not give complete protection. We cannot think of vaccination in terms of vaccinating human beings against, say, smallpox, in which case there is virtually 100 per cent. success. This is not possible with foot-and-mouth disease. Second, vaccination will protect animals against only one particular strain. Thus, there would be the risk, perhaps a serious risk, of another strain entering a vaccinated herd and causing the disease to break out again.
  Third, vaccination does not give instant protection. It takes at least a fortnight build up to full protection. Fourth, vaccination provides protection for only four, five or six months—a period of that kind. Moreover, it is ineffective in calves certainly up to six months and possibly to a greater age. Some South American veterinary authorities say that it is ineffective in calves up to 12 or 15 months. Certainly, there is less protection for young animals. Moreover, vaccination is less effective in sheep and pigs than in cattle.
  All these factors show that there is a real risk of masked infection taking place and of the disease occurring without clinical signs in animals which will none the less spread it to other cattle, which will then contract the disease.
  Vaccination would cost a good deal not only in cash, but in manpower. If we were to vaccinate a large proportion of our cattle herd, we should have to call on a considerable amount of quite skilled manpower. Finally, vaccination would end the export of livestock from this country to those parts of the world which are virtually or completely disease-free, such as Australia, New Zealand and America. These are export efforts which one would like to see expanding, not contracting.
  Nevertheless, although these disadvantages are real and important, we must, in the context of the present situation, balance them against the alternatives. What are the prospects for us if the epidemic continues? This is an exceedingly difficult field in which to be certain, and anything one says must be guesswork. Viruses are unpredictable organisms, changing their characteristics from time to time.

  1021
  We have had only six weeks of epidemic so far. In each of the major epidemics we have had in this century, the disease has been in the country for at least a year. One has only to point out that we have had 1,500 outbreaks of the disease so far and 250,000 beasts slaughtered to realise the consequences of the epidemic if it should continue as it has done over the past six weeks and spread for a whole year or more. It could be not just months, not just a year or so, but even a number of years. The whole problem of restocking in infected areas is much more difficult when the disease is as rampant and as virulent as it is at present. The number of cases could become truly astronomical.
  Next, we must consider the effect of restrictions which we must inevitably continue to use. What would be the effect of continuing these restrictions over a very long period? It is all very well to tell farmers that they must not move their livestock or go outside the farm gate for some weeks, but for how many months can we expect the farming community to do that? Is it reasonable to expect them to do it for a year or even more? These are practical problems which we may have to face.
  There is also the economic cost, not only in terms of compensation but also the consequential losses, of a continued epidemic running at the pitch which it has reached in the last six weeks. The cost would be enormous. We have to consider the effect of a continuation of the epidemic on the supply of meat and milk to the public, because to a large extent this regular supply of an enormous quantity of liquid milk has been built up by having a disease-free herd.
  I have shown the two sets of facts which we have to weigh in the balance. Vaccination, on a mass scale, nationwide, would be little short of a disaster and I for one would never countenance it. Local vaccination combined with slaughter in the infected areas would do little or nothing to control the disease. But there is the possibility, which must be balanced against the disadvantages, of vaccinating around the infected areas. The Minister hinted at this possibility, and obviously it must be considered on a day-to-day basis.
  Vaccination in a disease-free band to create a fire break around a limited area
  1022
  where the disease is occurring is a policy for consideration. We know from the way in which the disease is spreading within the area how wide the fire break should be—perhaps 30, 40, or 50 miles wide. It would be an enormous undertaking and a very serious step to take, but it would not mean abandoning the stamping out policy because it would be a once-for-all effort to create a limit to the disease and to restrict it to certain parts of the country. We should later be able to go back to a stamping out policy. We have to balance the serious disadvantages of vaccination against the estimated progress of the disease, and this is a balance which has to be struck at present virtually daily.
  On balance, I believe, we are right to continue to depend entirely on stamping out, but every day that the epidemic continues at the level of the last few weeks means that the balance is moving a little in favour of some partial and geographically and specifically limited area of vaccination. Serious consideration must be given to it, because if we are to introduce any such campaign, the sooner it is done the better.
  The other measures which have been mentioned today are of secondary importance. I welcome the restriction on meat imports because to have another primary outbreak during the epidemic would be disastrous. We must look to the future and ask whether this sort of restriction of meat importation should be an integral part of the stamping out policy against the disease. I have mentioned vehicle disinfection. It is vital in and around the infected area, but the further we move from the area the less important it is. The use of disinfactants should be examined in a little more detail. There is the question of disinfactant sprays of one sort or another to be used in cow sheds to do for animals what Lister did when he introduced antiseptic surgery in the latter years of the last century.
  It is essential that this critical situation should be evalued day by day as the epidemic progresses. I believe that in the not-too-distant future, although it may be longer than many people at present realise, the dairy and meat-producing industries will return to the happier days of more than six weeks ago. If they can do that, they will be able to play their part

  1023
  in the expansion and the progress which I am sure will occur in British agriculture in the years to come.
  6.35 p.m.
  Mr. Hugh Fraser: I shall not detain the House for long as I know that many hon. Members who wish to speak have this affliction in their constituency.
  On all sides of the House there is an absolute determination to see that this disease is stamped out. I congratulate the Minister on many things. First, on going ahead with the Smithfield Show, which is a right decision, and on his attitude to the main highways, proposals in respect of which were totally impracticable. The key to the problem, which has saved Staffordshire, is the great common sense of the individual farmer. The defence must be on the farm itself.
  May I suggest that the areas of vehicle movement should be wider. I agree that at present they are too narrow. There is a great deal to be said, too, for getting hold of the powerful jet sprays which are available in other parts of the world. But without becoming political, I suggest that two points emerge from the Ministry's attitude during the campaign. First, the Minister was a little late in recognising the seriousness and the turning point of the epidemic, which was about 18th November. At that point the Government should have taken more strenuous measures than they took. This Ministry, and perhaps the last Ministry, too, are somewhat responsible for not implementing some of the recommendations of the Gowers Report which should have been implemented. If the Minister had carried out more review and research after the outbreak last year some of the obvious points in the Gowers Report could have been implemented.
  The most important issue is that of feedingstuffs, either for human beings or for animals, being imported, and I hope that the Ministry will look seriously at two factors. The first concerns the powers which they have under the 1925 legislation, revived in 1947, concerning dispensation for the boiling of feeding-stuffs. It is very difficult to enforce, but hon. Members know that quite often swill is not properly boiled. It appears to boil at the top, but lower down the porridge
  1024
  does not reach boiling point. There are two Acts covering this matter which are difficult to enforce, but it would be helpful if they were drawn to the attention of farmers. The second point concerns refuse collected by private charter or by municipalities. We must see that it is properly sterilised. Speaking from memory, I think that it is a recommendation of the Gowers Report.
  In addition, there is the question of the importation of meat from overseas. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) said, that covers a very wide area. We want confirmation from the Minister before the end of the debate whether it does or does not apply to Danish bacon. They have had outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease. There were 26 outbreaks in 1966, speaking from memory. This is an important point which needs to be clarified. It raises the widest possible issues when we consider the three-month ban on imports covering a very wide field except for certain countries which have been specified. It is the right course to take, but it raises great issues from the point of view of the farmer, the Ministry and public policy. If we prevent for ever the importation of meat from overseas this will create a revolutionary situation in British agriculture. What is more, it will be an extremely difficult object to achieve. I speak as someone very much connected with the beef industry. It is all in my interest that this should happen.
  However, if one looks at the agronomic facts one sees it is almost impossible for this country to produce enough beef on its own and it has got to import beef. Where, because of the effects of devaluation, we can make the biggest increase in production is in milk and in pigs. This is where the biggest growth can be. Therefore, it should not be a long-term policy, if it can possibly be avoided, to prevent the import of meat from overseas. From the point of view of the wellbeing of the country, and of overseas trade, it is important that we should go on importing a certain amount of meat. We ought to grow more here at home, but, nevertheless, there must be a margin of supplies to be imported.
  The next three months of the ban should be spent by the Ministry in sending out teams to discover whether or not

  1025
  it is possible to control the medicinal, the non-virus, quality of imports from overseas. In Argentina, I believe that there are three resident Brtish "vets"; it may be four. What we should surely try to work out between now and the lifting of the ban is whether or not there can be a system of proper inspection. This, I believe, is worth doing. The same is worth doing in other areas. This is what the Minister should be deciding upon, because, I warn hon. Members if there is an import ban in perpetuity on meat coming in from overseas there will be a great danger that there will be a demand for vaccination in this country. I am certain, therefore, that these two things ought to be considered.
  Sir G. Nabarro: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Fraser: No. I will not. I am in a hurry, because other hon. Members want to speak and I want to be only a few moments. There have been far too many interruptions in the debate already.
  This is the issue which I put to the Minister and to my right hon. Friend, that unless we can somehow improve the safety of imports there will be a danger that there will be a demand from people for a vaccination policy which would facilitate undesirable imports.
  I congratulate both sides of the House, humbly, for the contribution which they have made to this operation, and I wish the Minister well in stamping out this pestilential plague.
  6.43 p.m.
  Mr. John P. Mackintosh: We are considering the agricultural industry in the extremely awkward and unpleasant situation of this attack of foot-and-mouth disease, but I feel that, in a sense, there is some small entry on the credit side, in that the disease has brought home to many people who do not normally think about the agricultural industry just how widespread it is, just how much capital is invested in it, and at just what risk farmers proceed. I think that, the fact that the average townsman has seen, night after night on his television, evidence of the sort of industry this is, has helped to create the kind of atmosphere in which we might now well rethink our agricultural policy in one or two respects.
  1026
  We all know that, on major issues, policy congeals over a number of years; it takes time to develop. We in this country have been running since the 1957 Act on a series of assumptions about our agricultural policy, assumptions which were only slightly altered by the publication of the National Plan. These were the 1950s assumptions—that we had an adequate surplus on the balance of payments; secondly, that there was a world surplus of food; and, finally, that the chief objective of Government policy was to limit the open-ended guarantees by the Exchequer, and therefore to cut down the dependence of the farming industry on the Exchequer. It was on those principles that the 1957 Act was based.
  I think we all detected, when this Government came into power, a slight change of emphasis with this discussion of selective expansion. The expansion was meant to cover an increase in consumption which would take place in this country up to 1970 without fundamentally changing the free import policy we had been pursuing.
  Now it seems to me that the shock effect of recent economic troubles and of devaluation is that this has forced us to re-examine our policy and to consider carefully whether we wish to continue on precisely these same assumptions. That is why many hon. Members, agricultural organisations, and many independent observers have been pressing the Government, because it has been evident that the Government are carrying out this type of reconsideration.
  I am a little unhappy, sometimes, that my right hon. Friend the Minister has not fully realised that our pressure is not aimed at him but through him to all other members of the Government, to enable them to rethink this question. I am a little distressed that when a number of hon. Members make speeches about industries which are vital—such as mining, shipbuilding, the car industry—all of these concerned with devaluation—it is accepted that those speeches are directed to the national economy, but when one discusses import saving by agriculture and fisheries, one is thought to be suddenly retreating into a narrow constituency interest. It is a most unfair attitude, when our object is to strengthen the Minister and in no way to weaken him in his dealings with these questions.

  1027
  What, then, can we do to try to influence the Government in their thinking about the whole basis on which agricultural policy has been pursued for the last ten years? Here, I think, there are two elements. The first element is clear and straightforward. It is the continuing element in the economic equation that any Price Review would have to look at next March; that is to say, the very sharp increase in costs taking place normally because of the increases in wages and in increases in fuel prices and increases in import prices.
  I think that these have now been pretty accurately estimated. I made estimates of these figures in an earlier debate, but I think that it can now be said that present increases in costs as a result of normal factors, are something like £32 million in a full year. The Minister kindly answered me that he reckoned they were £27 million up to November. Increased costs due to devaluation are more difficult to estimate. I think they run at something between £17 million and £24 million. The total of £60 million being the amount of increase in costs which the farming industry will have to recover if it is to continue even at its present level.
  The second element in the equation is a much more difficult one. What changes do we need in Government policy towards the industry in order to contribute positively to import saving? It is very difficult because it involves an elaborate number of calculations.
  I am a little upset at the reluctance of the Ministry to divulge information on which hon. Members and the public can base their calculations. I asked a series of Questions which were purely aimed at finding information in order to be able to make an informed contribution when we came to debate this subject. I asked the Minister on 30th November, what studies he had made of the anticipated increase in agricultural output resulting from specific increases in agricultural support. I think all hon. Members know that we have had assumptions so varied as, at one extreme, that coming from the National Farmers' Union, that for every £1 increase in Government assistance we get £4 savings on our balance of payments, to the opposite one, which I have read in Oxford economic journals, that it takes £4 of
  1028
  Government spending to have £1 saving on the balance of payments.
  I wanted to know what view the Ministry took of this question and whether it would publish some figures so that we could digest them and try to assess how much the interests of the farming section of the community could be met in this way and how much we could balance the particular interests against the general interest. The answer that I received from the Minister was that it was not practicable to publish this type of information.
  My second question on this matter was more specific. It asked what would be the effect on output and what would be the cost to the Government of removing the standard quantities limitation. The standard quantities limitation was the keystone of the 1950s policy. We did not want to have more than a limited amount of agricultural production. It was introduced by hon. Gentlemen opposite. In many ways, the removal of this standard quantities restriction—and I was delighted when my right hon. Friend the Minister said that he would look into this—would be one of the biggest possible pieces of evidence that the Government were changing their policy and wanting expansion. It was, therefore, legitimate to ask the Minister what the cost would be to the Government of doing this and what was estimated to be the maxima and minima of the effects on agricultural output. I was again shocked to receive the answer that it was not practicable to answer either of those questions.
  Last Session I asked a Question in much the same fact-finding way about the administrative costs of each of the 29 basic subsidies in agriculture. I was told that the Ministry either did not collect the figures or that it was not practicable to release them.
  When I went upstairs to the Select Committee on Agriculture and put this same question to a senior official of the Ministry, he said, "We have these figures. We produce them every month." I believe that the Ministry does not know the answers to my two questions about the costs and the probable effects of certain changes in Government policy. I know that the Ministry has a team of brilliant statisticians. I protest at the withholding of information from the

  1029
  House, because it is the sort of information without which neither the farming community, the public, nor hon. Members can decide on which side of given options they want to come down.
  We are not here plugging narrow sectional interests; we have the interests of the taxpayer and the community at heart. But if we can find that money put into these interests would yield an adequate return to the taxpayer and a worthwhile improvement in the balance of payments, we would be in a position to discuss the matter. I feel that this systematic attempt to fob us off with this kind of answer—and I do not blame the Minister. I think it leads to trouble for the Minister which he need not have, because if he informed us of these matters we would be in a position to discuss much more constructively and positively the possibilities open to us. I will do my best to—
  Mr. William Baxter: My hon. Friend says that he does not blame the Minister. Who does he blame? The Minister in charge of a Government Department is entirely to blame for the actions of his officials, so who does he blame if he does not blame the Minister?
  Mr. Mackintosh: I take my hon. Friends point on this. It is the correct constitutional procedure to blame the Minister, but I have noticed a tendency to give this kind of reply to fact-finding questions spreading over many years and over many Departments. It is a habit of modern British Government to think that the less they tell people of the fundamental facts on which policies are based the more convenient it is for governing. I think that this is wrong.
  Mr. Baxter rose—
  Mr. Mackintosh: I hope that my hon. Friend will not keep me on this.
  Mr. Baxter: I think it is bad practice for any hon. Member to make statements that some person or persons unknown is or are denying us the right to have facts and figures and absolving Ministers from blame. I do not subscribe to that method of approach. I deprecate it very much indeed. I think that my hon. Friend should withdraw any allegations about
  1030
  officials withholding information and absolving the Minister in the way that he has.
  Mr. Mackintosh: I am not choosing to blame the officials and I am not choosing to blame the Minister.
  Mr. Baxter: That is what my hon. Friend said.
  Mr. Mackintosh: I think it is fair enough. It is a habit of Government which I have seen spreading across Departments over a number of years. I do not think that this was a personal decision by the Minister in reply to me. It is a particular practice which I deprecate, because we are starved of information.
  To give another example, when my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) last year asked for a White Paper on the effects on agriculture of our entry into the Common Market, he was told again that this information either was not available or was too difficult to collect. A month later the Select Committee on Agriculture asked for and obtained just such a White Paper. It did not do any political damage to the Government and it did not lead to more partisan attacks. It merely meant that we were better informed as a House and as a country on this problem.
  I return to the major question on this matter of agricultural expansion. As hon. Members know, we import about £1,000 million worth of foodstuffs from temperate areas. The problem is at what cost and how easily could we replace these imports with domestic production. Returning to my positive proposals, I feel that the most important single step—I regret that we do not know the cost—would be the removal of the standard quantities limitation. I am delighted that the Minister announced that this question is being considered. He said that it is being reviewed at the moment.
  The second question one has to consider is the possible expansion of beef. Here again, the Minister will be widely applauded for his statement that he will make an announcement on this matter before Christmas. The expansion of beef production is extremely difficult, particularly if we are to fulfil even the National Plan target of 125,000 tons. This is where hon. Members will want facts,

  1031
  because 125,000 tons of extra beef means 600,000 head of cattle extra, which means 800,000 tons of extra feedingstuffs. Therefore, the whole balance within the farming industry would be affected, so one has to consider the ramifications of this type of change.
  I believe that there could be a considerable expansion in beef production. I gather that if the agricultural industry could get about £12 per live cwt. for beef this would be a sufficient inducement. One can calculate the present total Government aid by adding in the calf subsidy and the cow subsidy and this shows it is between £10 and £11 per live cwt. Therefore, this is a feasible increase, but it carries repercussions. For the rest of the pattern of farming it would require feed crops to be grown on existing arable ground as break crops where they are not grown now. It would have to be considered in conjunction with the plans for increasing arable production which the Minister has clearly announced this evening.
  On the question of ancillary effects of increased beef production, part of this would be an increase in milk output, as a good deal of the beef would come from dairy herds. We are self-sufficient in milk production. The problem is what we would do with the extra milk. Some thought will have to be given to this. The Milk Marketing Board believes that it could be processed and we could save £30 million with the butter, cheese and skimmed milk produced, but this might be at uneconomic cost. The problem is complicated in that much of what we import of this particular type of dairy product is produced at an uneconomic cost abroad so we must ask how much we are meeting the real costs of the foreign producer when we enter into competition in these products. In this case I would not in any way object to specific Government help to stop this type of gap in our balance of payments.
  The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) said that we would have to renegotiate the Danish Agreement on pork and pig meat. I see no reason why we should not announce that this is our intention, because these agreements will not go on for ever and some change in this could be for the benefit of the agricultural industry. The Danes
  1032
  having partially devalued, there is a likelihood of a slight rise in the; price of bacon and it is, therefore, possible that we will see a rise in the price in the shops. If this is correct, the pig meat industry may become more profitable and it may be possible to gradually increase the percentage produced in this country and thus make a case for the re-negotiation of this agreement.
  On cereals, which is a fundamental factor in our balance of payments, the positive pledge that the Minister gave that something would be done to increase the price of wheat will be very welcome indeed, because £80 million per annum is spent on cereal imports by this country. Part of this will be replacement of soft wheat imports and part of it will presumably be the use of new strains of wheat which we hope will replace our hard wheat imports. In general, I see no reason why this country could not expand to a cereal production of 20 million tons per annum. This was the possible expansion envisaged at E.E.C. prices if we joined the Common Market.
  This level of inducement will not be given at the moment, but if all our arable producers were as efficient as the best ones, who produce two tons of wheat per acre, while the average for the country is about 30 cwt., there would be no problem and we would achieve this great expansion in cereal production. It is partly a matter of improved techniques over the next five years, and partly the question of price which the Minister mentioned.
  The last category in which we can change and expand is horticulture. This is an extremely elaborate industry, but we have evidence from a recent report by the Wye Agricultural College that the problem facing the horticulture industry is not so much price and quality as marketing. This is a long-term strategic problem. We have to improve the whole marketing system.
  If we are to have this type of expansion, we must have the facts, we must have an estimate of costs, we must have an estimate of the difference to the balance of payments, and we must see the repercussions of these changes throughout the agriculture industry. If we are to continue with our policy of applying to join the Common Market, which I hope we

  1033
  will, this is an extra reason for proceeding with this type of change, because it will pave the way towards the type of policy which we will eventually have to adopt when we enter the Common Market. It will be extra evidence of our seriousness of purpose if we are prepared to make this type of change.
  I ask the Minister, in his statement to which we look forward between now and Christmas, to consider removing the standard quantities, to say something about credit, and to say something about renegotiating certain import agreements when they come up for reconsideration. If he will, in general, explain what I believe to be the case, that we are now rethinking our agriculture policy in the direction of a positive replacement of imports, for the first time in many years, or if one likes for the first time for a century, and if his statement is backed by the information which we require, he will receive the support of the farming industry, and of a large section of the country.
  7.2 p.m.
  Mr. Grant-Ferris: I greatly welcome the opportunity to bring before the House the appalling state of the agriculture industry in my constituency. For many weeks we have been in a state of seige. Every day this terrible virus obtains a greater hold. I have had confirmed in my constituency no fewer than 350 cases, which is exceeded only by the number in my neighbour's constituency, Oswestry. This means that between the two of use we have more than half the trouble.
  This debate, which takes place at the seat of Government where the great decisions have to be made, is necessarily somewhat academic to people in the country. When I say that the desolation and sorrow which reigns in the Cheshire countryside is something which no words of mine can describe, I ask the House and the country to believe that that is true. The milk cow is a different sort of animal from the general run of farm animals. If she is a good cow, she is there for a long time, and the farmer, his wife, and children get to love that animal as we all love our pets, and perhaps even more because they live by the product which she produces daily. Hens cannot compare with her. The feelings
  1034
  of farmers and their families have to be seen and known to be appreciated, and I hope that the House will not think that I am over sentimentalising the subject when I say that, because I think we should realise these things.
  If I say some hard things about the Minister, I assure him that I do so in a non-party spirit. I say them simply because they have been brought to my notice by my constituents. I am referring now to how they think the right hon. Gentleman's administration has been carried out.
  I begin by saying some really nice things about the conduct of the veterinary officers, the field staff, and those dealing with cases at the veterinary centres. I have found no farmers who have anything but complete confidence in, and acclaim for the work which has been done at that level in most difficult and trying circumstances.
  At the Crewe centre, no fewer than 200 people, veterinary surgeons and others, have had to be recruited to run the operation. This has thrown a good deal of work on to other people, and I pay tribute to the members of the Women's Voluntary Service who have looked after these workers, fed them, and made them comfortable. I also pay tribute to the police for the wonderful co-operation which they have given. I pay tribute, too, to those—I do not know who they are—who organise the helicopters and direct these ponderous machines in the best possible way to the fields where this harsh and horrible work has to be done. All of them deserve the highest praise, and this is what my constituents would like to pay them.
  Having said that, I must turn to the higher direction of the national effort, which I think leaves a good deal to be criticised. That we were in for a most terrible outbreak must have been obvious to everybody from the very early stages. All the external activities of the countryside ought to have been curtailed by energetic action at a much earlier stage than they were.
  I think that perhaps one of the greatest criticisms of the right hon. Gentleman's Ministry is that local authorities were not brought sufficiently into contact with what was going on and did not receive proper instructions. If one looks at the

  1035
  letter in The Times the other day from the Clerk to the North Shropshire Rural District Council, who must at last have been driven to say something, one can see how bad this part of the Ministry's work has been.
  In the early days, it was very difficult to get time on the B.B.C. for those who wanted to say what should be done. The telephone system in Cheshire has been jammed because subscribers were not told that they must not use it unless it was essential, and, perhaps above all, that they must not use it in the early morning and in the evening, when most of the cases are notified. Sometimes it has been impossible to get calls through. If this were a time for joking, one could say that one of the things which this situation has brought to light is the extraordinary amount of telephone time occupied by courting couples. This has come to light in trying to get them off the line to enable it to be used for the work in hand.
  Mr. Peart: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise matters which he thinks show that there is a need for improvement in administration. I went to Crewe and to Chester. I met a number of local people and put questions to them to satisfy myself that the administration was working effectively. The hon. Gentleman's colleague put various suggestions to me, and we acted on them. A week later I sent my Permanent Secretary to the area. We have had no lack of co-operation from the local authorities there.
  Mr. Grant-Ferris: I am obliged to the Minister, but perhaps I can now tell him of a deplorable incident. It happens that the Chairman of the Cheshire County Council, together with the Clerk, the Deputy Chief Constable and the Chairman of the Agriculture Committee waited upon the regional veterinary officer—I believe at his invitation—to talk about the problem and how they could help, but because one of the right hon. Gentleman's senior officers was engaging that officer in conversation, or in a meeting of some kind, they were unable to see him, and they went away empty-handed. I have been told that—not in confidence—by the Clerk to the Cheshire County Council. It is absolutely true.
  What I want to do is to make sure that the right hon. Gentleman now acts
  1036
  with the utmost energy. I am sure that he will get everybody's support if he does. I hope that he will also deal with the anglers while he is about it, because they do a lot of traipsing about.
  There is a very dense cow population in this part of Cheshire; in fact, the whole of Cheshire is one great farm. This population has increased by about two-thirds in the last seven to 10 years, and it is, therefore, difficult to isolate one farm from another—just the conditions in which a virus is likely to thrive.
  I do not say that the Government have not done anything in the way of research; I realise that a good deal of research has been done at Pirbright, and I do not want to belittle it. But the Minister has now hit upon the real source of all our trouble—the importation of meat from countries where this disease is endemic. I am sure that the House, the farming community and the rest of the country will greatly welcome the steps that the Minister has taken this afternoon. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we shall use every endeavour to see that the policy is converted into a firm and permanent one.
  Why should we consider the Argentine in this situation? We do not owe them a living; we owe ourselves and British agriculture a living. I am grateful for the timely letter from the chairman of the N.F.U. this morning, in which he gave some illuminating figures about our trading with the Argentine. Perhaps not everyone realises that in the last two years before this we bought goods to the value of £71 million from the Argentine and they bought goods to the value of £23 million from us in 1965, and only £20 million last year. So who gets the better of this bargain? Why should we consider them at all? It is we who should be considered.
  Besides, we should get our meat from countries which are free from this disease. The Gowers Committee said that it was its firm opinion that this disease was most likely to be caused by such importations. If we took a vote of all the veterinary officers in this country today we would find that the overwhelming majority support that view. Let us produce more meat at home and import meat from countries which are free from

  1037
  this disease. I can assure the Minister that we shall keep on and on at him about this matter until he finally sees with provide open eyes the light of which he has at last got a glimmer.
  I want now to pass to the financial aspect of the problem, and especially to the matter of compensation. It is in this matter that I want to enlist the right hon. Gentleman's sympathetic consideration and attention. Owing to the scarcity value of animals, valuers are now valuing them higher than they were doing. This is causing a lot of bad feeling and apprehension among farmers generally. Apart from that, it may create a situation in which the farmer is much worse off in spite of the compensation he receives.
  I want to quote a short paragraph from a letter which puts what I am trying to say mere clearly than I can. The writer says:
  "Further is the concern of compensation and book values. It has been the practice of farmers not to have fluctuating values on their hooks but a static value, this in its turn gives a fair assessment of the annual profit which is acceptable to Inland Revenue. In a large percentage of cases I suggest this will lead to a taxable discrepancy, i.e., book value, £60; compensation value, £100; taxable, £40; amount of £100 after tax, £83 10s. When a tarmer goes into the market to restock presumptive value not £100 but £130 or more, leaving a deficit to be found by the farmer of £46 10s. or more for every £100 compensation. Where is this to be found, and how are farmers to raise it?"
  I received that letter from a constituent only this morning, and it puts the problem very clearly.
  Sir G. Nabarro: As I have not been able to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I ask my hon. Friend to ask for a Ministerial assurance that compensation will be totally free of taxation—free of Corporation Tax, Capital Gains Tax, Income Tax and Surtax? That is the assurance that we want.
  Mr. Grant-Ferris: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I have certain suggestions to make to the Minister, and I do not mind his having my hon. Friend's as well.
  Most farmers are insured against a loss of milk income—probably about 75 per cent.—but many small men are not so insured, and this raises the question whether they should not have some form of compulsory insurance by the Ministry,
  1038
  on reasonable terms, anyway to meet the situation. In any case, none of them should suffer in the present crisis.
  This compensation goes nowhere when one thinks of unproductive wages. That is the problem—that people will have to pay wages in these dark days when there are no cattle to milk. The cost of pedigree herds is very difficult to value. The loss to a man who has spent his life and his money raising the finest stock we have in England is difficult to understand. We cannot properly recompense him for that loss.
  There is another minor matter in regard to feedingstuffs left on the farm unopened, the value of which the farmer will also lose. Finally, this situation mucks up his whole farming rotation. What will he do now with his hay and straw? I suggest that some system should be introduced, perhaps along the lines of the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) or a more palatable method on the lines of the scheme first introduced by Sir John Anderson in the Budget of 1945, by way of which the money spent on farm buildings could be paid back at a rate of 10 per cent. over 10 years. That would greatly help the farmer to meet any Income Tax bills he might have to pay.
  Another important matter of which some people have lost sight is the large number of inspectors of Inland Revenue. Even in my constituency there are four. They are human beings. Some are kind and some are tough. Some people have said that they find out who the inspectors are before they go to live in certain parts of the country. Inspectors should act fairly, and well together. It would be a good point if he could get his right hon. Friend the Chancellor to impress on inspectors that they should act together and, above all, be generous.
  One of the other points which is worrying farmers, especially the more thoughtful ones, in my constituency, is what will happen when it is all over and restocking begins. That is when they foresee possibilities of great trouble. There will tend to be a great rush to get started again, and we in Cheshire do not want an enormous number of useless animals brought in simply because they are the

  1039
  only ones available. I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider this and to have a word with his own man, Mr. Eric Carter, of Lindsay, who is doing a splendid job in creating a pool of cattle from which people will be able to purchase when the time comes. Could that not be applied to the whole country, so that good cattle can be brought back into Cheshire?
  Some scheme of herd inspection such as exists for pedigree herds might be possible, so that Cheshire farmers could certify the type of animal which should go back into the Cheshire herd. We have had wonderful cattle in Cheshire, and we want our fields occupied by fine cattle again. However well it is done, it will be many years before we can return to that degree of excellence.
  I realise that the right hon. Gentleman's office is by no means a bed of roses—indeed, no Minister of Agriculture in my time has had a bed of roses—but I ask that special attention should be given to seeing that justice is done. We should remember particularly the words of our much-beloved Lord-Lieutenant of Cheshire, Lord Leverhulme:
  "What has been a great disaster for England is a very great catastrophe for Cheshire. Do please help us to get back to somewhere where we were before."
  We should remember that a quarter of a million cattle have been killed so that our glorious national herd may have the best chance of avoiding the plague without lasting damage being done to the nation.
  Our farmers, my constituents, have made a great sacrifice. We look to Her Majesty's Government to see that that sacrifice is not used as a way of making money for the Revenue or of treating us unfairly. Above all, let us deal not only with Argentine meat, but with all the meat in which the disease is endemic and keep it out of our country once and for all.
  7.23 p.m.
  Mr. David Ensor: If the debate has done nothing else, I hope that it has brought home to the general public the seriousness of the agricultural situation as a result of what can be described as nothing less than the national disaster of the outbreak of
  1040
  foot-and-mouth disease. It is, perhaps, easy to be wise after the event, but I am certain that our sympathies go out to the hon. Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris) and the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) because of the appalling situation in their constituencies.
  My sympathy also goes out to the Minister because of the situation in which he finds himself and to the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber), who is also in a difficult situation. What the right hon. Member for Grantham said in the House a week or two ago, when we were discussing something entirely different, has some bearing on the present situation, that, grave disaster though it is, we must try to look at it as far as possible with our heads rather than our hearts, because it concerns us all vitally.
  It is a little unfair to say that my right right hon. Friend the Minister has not done this or that in the light of what has happened in a very short time. This disaster, of appalling magnitude, spread with appalling rapidity, but the fact remains that, at a very early stage, my right hon. Friend and his Permanent Secretary cancelled a visit to the Far East because the situation was clearly getting out of hand. His Ministry has done much to deal with a situation which has spread with alarming rapidity.
  People outside, and hon. Members on both sides, should do everything possible to prevent the spread of infection. Although I agree with my right hon. Friend when he said that he does not think that the disinfection of main roads will help a great deal, I join issue with him on one point. Anything which we can do at present can be of possible assistance. For once, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro)—
  Sir G. Nabarro: Hon. Gentleman, not hon. Friend.
  Mr. Ensor: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon.
  I read this morning that he said that, as he lives in an infected area, he does not propose to travel outside it to clean areas. I have done exactly the same in reverse. I live in a clean area and do not propose to travel to my constituency, which would mean travelling through a highly-infected area.

  1041
  My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Dr. John Dunwoody) dealt purely with the technical side, and I had some doubts about his remarks about the inefficacy of possible vaccination. The time has come for us to spend a great deal of money on research into vaccination. The House should realise that, over the past 40 or 50 years, vast amounts of money have been spent on the eradication of tuberculosis in cattle, on brucellosis or contagious abortion, and on other serious diseases which have now, to all intents and purposes, been practically eradicated. The time has now come for the Ministry to spend a large sum of money on further research along these lines. The result may not be satisfactory, but at least we should try, knowing perfectly well what the present situation is.
  If I have any criticism or complaint to make with regard to the Minister, it is that I believe that the Smithfield Show should have been cancelled altogether, because it is not so much a question of bringing cattle together in a show but of bringing farmers together in such a concentrated area.
  The poultry industry is to be congratulated for having cancelled the National Poultry Show without even being asked by my right hon. Friend. Although poultry do not carry the disease, if they come from an infected area they can carry the virus into Olympia, where gatherings of farmers might cause untold damage. They showed a statesmanlike attitude in cancelling the show without being asked.
  This is a lamentable situation. My right hon. Friend has done the right thing in cancelling the imports of beef from infected areas, and I hope that we shall continue to keep that ban for a very long time until, by our present slaughter policy, we have eradicated the disease or stopped it as far as we can and until we have seriously considered, in consultation with the experts, whether we ought also to adopt a policy of vaccination.
  A debate of this kind generally ranges over a wide area connected with agriculture, but today the debate can have importance only in dealing with the present tragedy. I hope that every hon. Member will do all that he can to assist the Government in meeting this tragedy and
  1042
  will also bring home to the notice of everyone in his constituency the necessity for co-operation in attempting in every way to check the disease.
  7.31 p.m.
  Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie: We are conducting this debate under a cloud, and faced with the worst outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease within living memory. I express sympathy with the Minister in the very difficult situation which faces him and I pay tribute to the Ministry's veterinary officers and all others who have been fighting this virulent attack.
  I believe that the Minister will have to tighten restrictions still further. We are approaching the Christmas holiday season, when people move around freely, many from England to Scotland, and when there are various sporting events attracting large gatherings of people in many parts of the country. It seems to me that the Minister will have to take additional powers to control such gatherings and to prevent the further spread of the disease.
  This is a most timely debate because the general public realise now, more than they have realised for a very long time—if ever before—the importance of agriculture to the well-being of the country. At a time when the major problem facing the nation is the balance of payments, and when it is generally agreed that agriculture can make as large a contribution as, if not larger than, that of any other industry, the time has come to give the necessary incentives for the industry to expand. The Minister said that he would listen to suggestions, and I want to make a few.
  What incentives do we require to expand our production? First, we require a substantial increase in the end product, particularly beef and mutton. We should remove the limitation of standard quantities once and for all if we want to expand. We must also have easier access to capital at more reasonable rates of interest. I understand that at the moment interest on overdrafts is at 10 per cent., so there is no incentive for anybody to expand or increase production on those terms.
  This is the time to take advantage of the vast potential of our hills and uplands, and I ask the Minister and the

  1043
  Secretary of State for Scotland, who is with us, to bear in mind that there is more scope for this type of development in the Highlands of Scotland than anywhere else in Great Britain. As the increase in the use of lime and fertilisers is a prerequisite to expansion in those areas, I hope that the Minister will implement the recommendations of the Estimates Committee by giving different rates of grant and subsidy to those special areas. Transport is also vital to those areas, and I hope that the Minister will have another hard look at the transport problem in Scotland.
  There is also the question of extending the grant which was introduced for field beans at the last Price Review to other break crops such as turnips and rape. By changing over from grain temporarily to those crops, many low-ground farmers would be in a position to fatten lambs, and this would enlarge the market for lambs from the hills and uplands.
  I hope that for the time being the Minister will forget about the Common Market when he is working out his plans for expansion. It is quite clear that the conditions prevailing in the E.E.C. would not produce the confidence in the future of the industry which is necessary if we are to get the increased production which is so vital to the nation at this time. It is very revealing to read some of the statements in a recent issue of European Community, which I believe to be a reliable periodical. From it we gather that there is unrest and even violence in some rural areas because of farmers' discontent at what they are paid for their produce. The Community cannot increase the producers' incomes sufficiently by stepping up production because it has already reached the limit.
  There is also a social problem facing the agricultural worker in the Community. The farmer and his wife are in danger of becoming slaves to their farms, because most of them can no longer afford to hire farm workers. The disparity between the incomes of farmers and those of workers belonging to comparable occupational groups in other industry has not been reduced, and the consequence of this state of affairs is particularly marked in backward and outlying areas. While the Commission accepts—and this is important—that the
  1044
  farmers' income situation in the Community is critical it does not agree with the Parliaments' request for what would amount to a general 5 per cent. rise in farm prices. I hope that the Minister will take note of these facts and that he will not allow his judgment to be unduly influenced by the enthusiasts in all parts of the House who see in our entry into Europe the beginning of a prosperous new era and a solution to most of our problems.
  One point I should make to the Minister is that the sooner he makes a statement about what extra effort is expected of the industry, the better. I realise that certain details may have to await the Price Review, but a start must be made now. I strongly appeal to him to take this opportunity to give agriculture a lead and to give it an opportunity to show what it can do for the benefit of the nation.
  7.40 p.m.
  Mr. Clifford Kenyon: I am interested to see a split in the Liberal Party, even if it is on the Common Market.
  This is a most important debate on a tragic situation. The foot-and-mouth disease is very virulent, but it is also very puzzling, and I want to deal with four outbreaks which have taken place in the North of England.
  There was an outbreak in Westmorland which was away from any contact with the large infected areas. That was about a month ago, and there has been no outbreak there since. There was another outbreak in North Lancashire, at Cam-forth, followed by two adjoining outbreaks, but that must be three or four weeks ago and there has been no other outbreak since. Next came an outbreak at Feniscawles, near Blackburn, miles away from any other infected area. That was three weeks ago. No outbreak has occurred there since. On Saturday last the disease came into my constituency at Eccleston, which is miles away from any other contact. So far these four outbreaks have not extended.
  It seems to me that there is some connection between these four outbreaks. Why should there be four isolated outbreaks with no contact whatever with the main areas? Someone should examine these outbreaks to find

  1045
  out whether anyone has moved from the infected areas into these areas or vice versa. What has been the contact which has brought these outbreaks in isolated areas, away from the main areas?
  We have heard much about the manner of disinfecting. We have put straw on the roads and soaked it with disinfectant, and the cars run over it. We have stopped all lorries and vans and other vehicles from going on to the farms. The vehicles are disinfected. Yet we omit to disinfect the main contact—the cow itself. How many farmers in these areas thoroughly disinfect their shippons? Very few. The virus enters the cow through the mouth or the nostrils. We are told that it is airborne. We are also told that it can be taken into the cow by food. Would it not be advisable to spray the cows as we spray the wheels of cars? That would be much nearer to the affected areas. If the farmers had to spray their animals—heads, nostrils and mouths of the animals—at least once a day we should be nearer to stopping the infection from spreading. At the moment we do not do that. The farmers never touch the cows. Many of them never touch the shippons. They spray their doors, their gates and their roads, but the shippons and the cattle are left untouched. This omission should be rectified.
  I was interested to hear the Minister say that he is stopping, at any rate for a time, imports of meat from the Argentine. The hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) and I were in the Argentine last March and had a chance to talk things over with the Minister of Trade there. I heard on the radio this morning that someone in that country has threatened that if we stop buying their meat they will retaliate. With a balance against us of about £30 million a year, how will they retaliate? We have every opportunity of stopping the importation, if it comes this way, of this virus, and assisting our balance of payments at the same time.
  We learn from the original case that the farmer concerned has never used swill or waste food. It has not, therefore, come from this waste product but from some other cause.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: That does not mean that it has not come from another
  1046
  animal which is a carrier and which was fed on swill.
  Mr. Kenyon: It means what I said; that this farmer does not use swill and that, therefore, the disease has not come from any swill which he has brought on to his farm. I am merely quoting what has been shown on television and said on the wireless about this case.
  This farmer had these animals for three days before he realised—in fact, even then he did not realise—that his animals were suffering from the disease. Not until he sent for the "vet" to look at his animals, because he thought that they were suffering from an entirely different disease, was it discovered that they had foot-and-mouth. Only when the "vet" told him that they had foot-and-mouth did he realise that the disease was on his farm, and by that time he had taken his cattle to the auction, and the disease had spread.
  This is a puzzling situation because we as yet have no idea of the exact origin of the disease. Did it come from imported meat? We do not know. In the cases which occurred in the North, and which I quoted, it has not come through swill or imported meat. However, for the safety of everyone, countries which have this disease endemic in their herds should not be permitted to send their meat here.
  It has been pointed out that the agriculture industry will suffer. Several hon. Members have asked for help so that we can grow more arable crops in order to build up our livestock. The greatest crop we have in Britain is grass. It is our most valuable crop, and if we can develop, cultivate and bring our grassland up to standard, we can thereby increase our herds and flocks.
  Another puzzling point arises in the N.A.A.S. advice. We have been told for years to plough up and reseed to grow better quality grass. It has been proved conclusively at the experimental farm at Helmshore that we get a better return from permanent grass than from reseeded grass. Per acre, in terms of milk and meat, over a period of years permanent grass gives a better return.
  We are somewhat mystified by the changes which we are recommended to undertake. For example, grassland is undoubtedly one of our great assets if we

  1047
  can develop it properly and stock it thoroughly. But if we are to do this, we require capital. It needs a tremendous amount of capital to improve this country's grassland. Much of it needs draining, lining, slagging and fertilising, and all this costs a lot of money. Capital at the present rate of interest is too expensive to enable the majority of farmers to undertake this work. I therefore urge the Government to reduce the interest rate as quickly as possible so that farmers may have the advantage of cheaper borrowing.
  Looking at the question as a whole, I suggest that there are more puzzling points in this whole outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease than we have yet been able to ascertain.
  7.53 p.m.
  Sir Clive Bossom: The hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon) spoke about four isolated outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease and raised some interesting points. I was particularly interested in his remarks about spraying cattle. I believe that much more should have been done about disinfecting such things as the clothes of lorry drivers.
  I wish to concentrate on the situation in Herefordshire. It is a small county and to us this outbreak has been like "The Plague". We are the most heavily stocked county in England, having nearly 1 million livestock, worth at least £20 million.
  I have always liked and respected the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I regret that he is not in his place, because I have some critical remarks to make about his handling of the epidemic. First, however, I wish him to know that he has my backing 100 per cent. on two of the policies he announced today. His rigid policy of slaughtering and stamping out has the backing of every farmer with whom I have spoken in the last six weeks. They agree that there cannot be any compromise and that we cannot afford to devalue this policy. We must not weaken to what appears to be, or could be an easier and more attractive policy of vaccination. Once one start vaccinating, one must keep it up year after year.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Dr. John Dunwoody) that it is not 100 per cent. effective, especially for young animals and pigs. Our export market of pedigree
  1048
  cattle would fly out of the window if we once adopted such a policy, and it would take a long time to coax it back. In Hereford, when we had a sale at The Vern last year, 136 animals were sold for £231,000, an average of £1,696 per animal. Many of those went for export and this is small proof of how valuable pedigree cattle are to this country.
  I agree with the remarks of the Minister when he spoke about restricting the import of Argentine meat. Such a restriction has paid dividends in Ireland, New Zealand, Australia, Canada and America. It is the right and only policy and I hope that, even after the three months are up, he will carefully reconsider this policy because it makes no sense at all to believe in a slaughter policy, on the one hand, while, at the same time, allowing meat imports from countries where foot-and-mouth is endemic.
  My criticism of the Minister is on three counts—the woolly advice that has been given, the lack of decisive orders at the beginning of the last outbreak, and the delay. The right hon. Gentleman talked earlier of a battle plan, yet there has been no general at the top to run it and to put it straight into operation when the epidemic broke out at Oswestry on 25th October, although it was the third serious outbreak this year.
  As to the woolly advice that has been given, no urgent or firm policy has emanated about banning fatstock markets near infected areas; for example, at Bridgnorth and at our market in Hereford. On the one hand, the Minister has been asking farmers to avoid foregathering at meetings and the general public to stop rambling, hunting, racing and shooting—
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: No, not shooting.
  Sir C. Bossom: I am not sure about that—anyhow, the markets were allowed to continue, and this is strange logic indeed.
  I represent four market towns and I am, therefore, well aware that to close a market might create difficulties—the disruption of supplies, prices, deficiency payments, and so on—but "might" is the operative word, because if a clear policy was laid down the wholesale trade would soon adjust itself to the new conditions.

  1049
  Direct negotiations with butchers and auctioneers could take place and I believe that the farmers would take more care to see that no risks were taken at their own farm gates rather than going into a "controlled" market.
  Woolly advice was certainly given about the use of disinfectant and how it should be used on road vehicles and road barriers. It took five weeks for the Minister to say that it was not necessary on roads. Nor do I agree that the official advice has been anything but woolly, because in the official handout it is stated:
  "The Minister is reluctant to dissuade anyone from taking these precautions. His veterinary advisers say that disinfectant at the farm gate is a far better precaution."
  This is not only woolly advice, but bad public relations, because if we had proper dips and baths, properly manned, with clear lighted warning signs well out in front, it would be a tangible piece of evidence and far better publicity for urban dwellers and even farmers than anything the Minister can say on the air or publish. These people would see the urgency and seriousness of the epidemic. It would be an example for them to pay much more careful attention themselves and also to take these precautions at their own farm gate. Although the experts may say that it is not the right answer to have baths on main roads why did it take the Minister five weeks to find that out?
  The Minister should have sought powers from Parliament to take over control and order local authorities to take whatever action was necessary to be carried out. He should have stated clearly what type of disinfectant should be used—I gather that the Ministry is now saying that soda is better—the type of equipment that should be used and what type of sterilising equipment should be used in the markets.
  Local authorities in infected areas were and are anxious and willing to do everything in their power to be helpful but they have received no proper guidance. The Minister should not have left such important decisions to laymen and local authorities which in most cases know very little if anything about foot-and-mouth disease. It was all left to them to make these important decisions.
  I asked the Minister 10 days ago to make more use of radio and television to
  1050
  give better and more exact information of new infected areas on T.V. maps, but there is still extremely poor co-ordination at the top. For example, the 1 p.m. News on Saturday spoke with two voices: the Midland News said that the outbreak was on the decrease while, at the same time, the B.B.C. News gave it out that the disease was on the increase. There is a lack of co-ordination at the top.
  The Minister himself disappointed the farming community in his own broadcast last week. He then had the opportunity of saying positively how he wanted the present epidemic to be controlled and contained. Instead of making general appeals for co-operation, he should have given forthright directions on the steps that must be taken. We must not forget that nearly all members of the farming community were listening to that very important programme.
  On Saturday and Sunday I visited the control centre at Ledbury, in Herefordshire. It was working smoothly and efficiently, and I join with so many other hon. Members in saying that great praise is due to the veterinary staff and the police. I felt that up to regional level the system worked well, though I still believe that more authority should be given at that level. Even now, the man in the regional H.Q. has to pass information back to London and get the authority he needs. He should have more authority on the spot. But it is at the top that co-ordination is still lacking.
  I am sorry to have been critical of the Minister, because I believe that he is doing his best, but I felt, as have other hon. Members, that I must pass on what farmers are saying so that he can put these matters right as soon as possible. If this terrible and tragic disease should ever break out again the Minister of Agriculture must be ready to give firm control and direction right from the start which, unfortunately, on this occasion he has not done.
  8.02 p.m.
  Mr. Elystan Morgan: As a countryman, and as one who has the privilege to represent a rural constituency, I want to join in the sympathy tendered by many hon. and right hon. Members on both sides to the farming community on the dreadful blows and losses it is now suffering. No one can deny that

  1051
  this is a very grave tragedy for the agricultural industry and a threat of disaster of terrifying magnitude to the British economy as a whole.
  I am glad that so much publicity has been given to this matter so that the public at large can understand the issues that are at stake. Now, more than at any other time, there is a general acceptance of the truth that however sophisticated society may become and whatever may be the developments of modern science and commerce, it is still possible for an industry such as farming to be subjected to a peril such as this present terrible scourge.
  Like many other hon. Members, I am disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman for Grantham (Mr. Godber) has seen fit to reduce this problem and peril to the level of a miserable little political squabble. He may have gladdened the hearts of the mandarins of Toryism, but in my view he has not added an inch to his stature in the estimation of the farming community. From what he and one or two other hon. Members opposite said, I gathered that the real gravamen of the charge was that Ministry officials and Ministers were not definite and specific in their advice and in their analysis of the situation. How can one be specific, how can one be definite, when so little is known the world over of the exact conditions and character of this plague?
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) sought to say that this was not an attack on the Minister but on the Ministry staff. Is there no doctrine of ministerial responsibility? Is not the impugning of Ministry officials an indictment of the Minister himself? Surely, in view of what happened some 10 years ago it should be better appreciated in agriculture than anywhere else that a Minister does carry full responsibility for everything done by his officials.
  By departmental circulars sent to farmers, by all the information disseminated through officials, and by his own public utterances, the Minister has done everything that could be expected of a Minister of the Crown in this connection. I am very glad that my right hon. Friend has made his statement on the banning
  1052
  of meat imported from countries that are not clean areas in respect of foot-and-mouth disease. Some may argue that there is an element of injustice in this ban, but if one studies the facts of outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in Britain, from the first, in 1839, to the present day, there is a mass of circumstantial evidence in support of the contention that many, if not most, of the outbreaks suffered by Britain are traceable to the import of meat from such countries.
  Mr. W. Baxter: There is a widely held view that this disease comes from the importation of meat, but we import more than meat from some of the countries referred to. From South America, for example, we import a considerable amount of bone meal, and there is just as much chance of our importing contaminated bone meal for distribution within the British Isles, and that that could be the cause of the trouble. When my hon. Friend talks, as everyone does so glibly, of the importantion of meat, has he given consideration to other aspects of the problem that may have a bearing on the outbreak of this disease?
  Mr. Morgan: I readily concede my hon. Friend's point. The reference should not be to meat alone but to all animal products coming from such countries. Scientists know that this virus, which is about one-10,000th the size of the smallpox virus, is one of the most resilient of all viruses. They have proved that the foot-and-mouth virus can exist in active state in the bone marrow of a frozen bovine carcase 76 days after the animal has been slaughtered. I believe that it is more than a coincidence that most of those countries that are free in respect of foot-and-mouth disease are those that do not import animal products from the non-clean countries. I hope that this ban will not be of short duration and that it will continue until it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that foot-and-mouth disease is no longer possible from these sources.
  Several hon. Members have mentioned that the legal powers now enjoyed by the Minister under the Diseases of Animals Act are not sufficient to allow him properly to combat this disease. That point is properly made, but nevertheless

  1053
  it should be qualified by the consideration that it is not statutory restrictions that enable a disease of this magnitude to be fought. It is the co-operation and good will of the public at large, the sense of fellow feeling with the farmers in their dreadful peril and of responsibility both towards farmers and the community as a whole.
  Nevertheless, there is a very strong case for arguing that the Minister should look again very carefully at the powers he has. There should be wider powers dealing with the congregation of people for any purpose in an infected area or areas contiguous to it. Particular attention should be paid to the movement of fodder, feed, agricultural machinery and so forth from infected areas into areas which are not infected. Special thought should be given to the powers of local authorities to spend money in relation to seeking to check the spread of the disease.
  I think they have no powers for this at the moment. It is highly unlikely, however, that any auditor would be so inhumanly legalistic as to demand a surcharge for moneys which have been already expended. I trust the Minister will confirm that this probably is the legal situation at the moment. I hope that consideration will also be given to whether or not it would be proper to make a grant available to local authorities many of whom have only scanty financial resources to help them with the expenditure they have inevitably had to incur in this connection.
  The question of compensation has been raised by many hon. Members and I heartily endorse it. Merely assessing the capital value of animals which are slaughtered cannot cover but a fraction of the losses suffered by the farming community. Recompense must be given in respect of the grave disruption to the process of husbandry. I give full support to the suggestion that some compensation should be given to agricultural labourers who might be unemployed for many months while land is sterile after the slaughter of animals.
  I am certain that the Minister has taken cognizance of everything that has been said in favour of examining the possibility of a totally new and effective strategy for combating not only this outbreak, but future outbreaks, if we are unfortunate enough to suffer them.
  1054
  I was interested in what my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon) said about disinfection of animals. There are difficulties here. There are four or five points on a cow's body at which this virus could enter. In the case of the hoof, the coronary band above the hoof, the udder and the teats, it is probably not beyond the wit of man to devise some form of disinfection but the question of disinfecting the mouth and the lips is complicated. If a break-through were made here it might be possible to have an effective cordon sanitaire around an outbreak when it occurs.
  This crisis may last very much longer than we expect, as was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Dr. John Dunwoody). It would be proper for the Minister to consider the appointment of a Minister from his Department to be responsible for combating this outbreak. He should have full charge of the Ministry's activities and be in liaison with the Ministry's officials, local authorities and farming organisations. This is a desperate situation; it properly demands drastic action of that nature.
  8.15 p.m.
  Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: I crave the indulgence of the House for my second "maiden speech". If I have learned one thing it is that maiden speeches have to be brief. I am also aware that many of my hon. Friends wish to make contributions to this debate.
  I have the good fortune to follow as the Member for Derbyshire, West, Mr. Aidan Crawley. As my predecessor he looked after the constituency extremely well. I take the opportunity of wishing him the best of luck in his new occupation. He has a very responsible job.
  In West Derbyshire we have not suffered quite so badly from the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease as have the constituencies of my hon. Friends in Cheshire and Shropshire. Nevertheless, we have suffered in that county quite severely enough. Unfortunately, last week there was a fresh outbreak in my constituency.
  The Minister's speech today contained some extremely important facts. One must not be too controversial in making a "maiden speech", otherwise I would have taken him up on the point he made

  1055
  in his opening remarks about my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber). It is surely our duty to criticise the Minister when he is handling a matter of such great importance as this disaster. The Minister said that he will have an inquiry. I welcome that remark and I am delighted, but I hope that it will be a public inquiry held when the outbreak has been contained and has died out.
  One cannot help wondering why only this last weekend disinfectant precautions were taken in my constituency. The Minister did not at first approve of that. Surely those who have been handling bulldozers and carting quicklime to places where the outbreak has taken place should be decontaminated. I hope that matters such as this will be very closely investigated when the outbreak ends.
  In my constituency, and I think elsewhere, cattle are still seen grazing in fields adjacent to roads. I hope that the Minister has issued, or will issue, advice to farmers to remove cattle from fields adjoining main roads.
  There has been controversy in this debate about whether the disease can be carried on car wheels. I do not know about that any more than anyone else, but so long as there is a possibility of its being carried in that way farmers would be right to take cattle well inside their farms. The Minister would be wrong in not recommending dips on the main road right up to where an outbreak had taken place. This is the correct thing to do and I hope he will look at that question again. I welcome his suggestion for an inquiry and I hope it will be public and that we shall be able to give evidence to it.
  I am glad that the Minister made the point about voluntary banning of imported meat from infected areas. Some years ago there was difficulty over the outbreak of typhoid in Scotland. The point was then made about the examination of meat processed in Argentina. With the best will in the world, I do not believe that the Ministry's veterinary staff overseas, particularly in Argentina, have any possibility of being able to check properly on whether there is a chance of foot-and-mouth infection reaching this country. I welcome his
  1056
  statement, therefore, that meat imports from there are to be stopped, certainly for three months, and I hope that he will review the situation in the light of what happens during that period.
  The banning of importation of meat from Argentina will inevitably create shortage and prices will rise in the coming months. I would like to hear what the right hon. Gentleman intends to do immediately to stimulate British beef production. One appreciates that a two-year cycle is involved in beef production, but there is, nevertheless, great urgency, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman realises, and steps should be taken at once to increase meat production on our own farms, particularly of beef.
  Is the Minister negotiating with countries free of disease, such as Australia, New Zealand, Norway and Sweden, for increased supplies to try and fill the gap in the coming three months, particularly during the Christmas period? If he has not been able to succeed in negotiating extra supplies from there and other uninfected countries, what is he doing to be able to buy other types of meat as a substitute for beef, such as lamb and pig meat?
  One of the things which emerges clearly from the debate is that the industry has not been able to expand as had been hoped. When going through Derbyshire, before the outbreak, I found the farming community cheerful but in a state of frustration at not being able to expand production as much as it wished. Now the opportunity is thrust down the right hon. Gentleman's throat. He must help the industry to expand, particularly the fatstock section. Perhaps this is the good which will come out of the disaster.
  I join my right hon. Friend in pressing for an immediate review. The beef cycle means that one has to stimulate production a long time in advance. I welcome the statement by the right hon. Gentleman that he will make an announcement before Christmas about the level of deficiency payments. But there are brakes on subsidies and deficiency payments and perhaps he will consider removing the seasonal scale. I am sure that he can find some method whereby beef production can be stimulated in the near future, for it is essential to do so.
  I do not want to continue too long, particularly in a maiden speech, but I

  1057
  earnestly ask the right hon. Gentleman to do what he can to see that the farmers who have been hit, not only in West Derbyshire and elsewhere, are compensated and that they get their compensation without suffering taxation on it. I ask also for a special inquiry to be carried out, after the outbreak is over, into the rehabilitation which will be necessary on those farms which suffer. Finally, I welcome the statements which the right hon. Gentleman has made in relation to these points that I have mentioned. I am certain that they will help the industry forward after this grave disaster.
  8.25 p.m.
  Mr. Bert Hazell: It is a privilege to welcome back the old-new hon. Gentleman the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins). I have known him a considerable number of years and I know that most people associated with agriculture will agree on his ability to debate and support the claims of agriculture both in this House and outside it.
  During the 1964–66 Parliament, the hon. Gentleman and I served on opposite sides of Standing Committees dealing with a number of Bills and there I was able to appreciate his knowledge of the industry and his capacity for putting forth the point of view about which he felt strongly at the time.
  I am sure that, now that the hon. Gentleman has come back, we shall hear a great deal from him, particularly with reference to agriculture and rural life generally and I am sure, also, that hon. Members on both sides are delighted to see him in our midst again, even though we may not necessarily always agree with him.
  Like my right hon. Friend the Minister, I am glad that the Opposition chose this subject for debate. It provides us with an opportunity to discuss, in a way which is detached from the detailed considerations of the Price Review or a specific Order or Prayer, what is still one of our largest industries. Unfortunately, we have to discuss the position of agriculture against the background of the disaster which has attacked so much of the country.
  I have no intention of going into detail as to how this disease may have come about and how it has spread so far and
  1058
  wide. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his endeavours to create the organisation to contain the disease so far as it has been practicable so to do. But, like my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon), I find it a little difficult to understand how these isolated cases appeared in different counties, apparently unattached to the general areas of infection.
  I also congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appeal to all sections of the community. While there may have been isolated instances where the general pub-lice have not responded as one would have wished, by and large they have played the game and are conscious, I believe, of their responsibilities. But had my right hon. Friend taken any other steps than he did at the time, perhaps the co-operation would not have been as great as has proved to be the case.
  I want to mention one particular aspect that has not been touched upon during this debate when obviously everyone's thoughts are overshadowed by the foot-and-mouth disaster, and that is the position of the workers within the industry. So far in the debate nobody has mentioned the agricultural workers. This is perhaps understandable. We recognise that the farmers suffer a great personal loss when they see their pigs, sheep and cattle destroyed, but equally the workers engaged on the affected farms feel just as strongly as their employers do. Indeed, many of our best stockmen probably know the herds much more intimately than do the owners of those herds.
  I remind hon. Members that if the farmer is confined to his farmhouse during the many weeks of the disaster, so is the farm worker and his family. I say quite sincerely that there is a good deal of concern amongst the farmworkers about their future. Some farmers who may have been hit more than once by this disease may decide that it is not worth the candle to continue in stock breeding, milk production, and so on, in which event the workers, experts in stock handling, may find themselves out of work.
  It is true that a number of farmers—in fact, most—will be paying their men during the period of this disease, but the pay that most of those men will receive will probably be the basic minimum wage. They will suffer a good deal in

  1059
  loss of earnings. A cowman with a large herd puts in a considerable amount of overtime, labour being as scarce as it is. Obviously, with the herd destroyed there will be no necessity for overtime. We have to face the fact that most people base their standard of living on their earnings, and those with relatively high earnings enjoy a standard of life that is greater than those who receive the basic minimum wage.
  Those employees in receipt of the basic minimum wage are experiencing hardship. Thus, while expressing our sympathy to the farmers and others affected by this great tragedy, let us not lost sight of the fact that the workers employed in the affected areas are also suffering considerable loss. If compensation is to be given to the farmers—and I support this to the hilt—I suggest that consideration should also be given to providing compensation for the workers whose livelihoods have been affected.
  Some of our workers will, no doubt, seek employment in other occupations. If this should happen to any extent, the industry as a whole will be the poorer for the loss of skilled stockmen, and this is something that the industry can ill afford. I hope that in assessing the cost, some of these points will not be overlooked.
  Debates of such a nature often bring forth little response, but today I think there is a growing awareness of the importance of agriculture. Perhaps this is due to recent events. If so, I hope that awareness will be maintained because I am sure that hon. Members in all quarters of the House will agree with me that there are some influential Members on both sides of the House who have felt from time to time that we should give up our agriculture, or at least reduce it substantially, and concentrate our manpower on the production of manufactured goods, buying our food overseas more cheaply, so it is argued, than it can be produced at home. We should recognise that there is this large volume of opinion which does not encourage or stimulate the interest in agriculture which the industry is entitled to receive.
  All arguments on these lines are usually based on two main points: first, that to which I have already referred,
  1060
  that we are an industrial nation and should, therefore, concentrate the whole of our energies in the production and sale of manufactured goods; and, secondly, that by following a policy of this sort we would be reducing the burden on the taxpayer.
  A healthy agriculture is not just a good thing for those employed in the industry. It is good for manufacturing industry, as well. If our agriculture were to decline, there would be a marked impact on our agricultural engineering industry, to take but one example. Those who go to Smithfield—if any hon. Member goes to Smithfield this week—will see there the shop window of the mechanical developments which have taken place in our agricultural industry. In tractors and equipment alone, we exported last year about £179 million worth of agricultural machinery. This is a big contribution towards correcting our adverse balance of payments. If there were a decline in our agriculture, because of lack of interest or because, as it is sometimes said, it would pay us to buy all our food from abroad, there would be repercussions upon our agricultural engineering industry and the markets throughout the world which machines tested and tried on British farms are able to command.
  The second ground for arguing that our home agriculture should decline is said to be the cost to the taxpayer. Most nations, by one system or another, support their home agriculture. There is a good deal of argument within the European Economic Community about the form of support which should be given to the home agriculture of the six nations. If my memory serves me aright, the Economic Community as a whole almost foundered on the question of agricultural support. There are some of us who feel that, from the point of view of British agriculture, it would not have mattered much if it had foundered on the set-up as it is now.
  For all its imperfections, our system has enabled our farmers to plan ahead, and has given them a measure of security. There may be faults. No scheme is perfect. But our system, enduring as it has over the past 20 years, has provided a foundation upon which some measure of prosperity could be looked for and

  1061
  upon which plans for the future could be laid.
  As has been said, agriculture is not a short-term industry; it needs long-term planning. We may talk tonight about the need to step up home beef production, but it will be almost two years before we see any tangible results. This aspect of the matter must never be overlooked. I hope that, when the heat of the debate is passed, when the present scourge of foot-and-mouth disease has receded into the background, when we have forgotten about the extra cost which the consumer and the taxpayer will have to bear because of the current situation, the claims of the industry itself will not be forgotten. I hope that agriculture will be recognised as having a proper function to perform. It is anxious and willing to perform it, but it must have the support of the community as a whole.
  In spite of rebuffs, agriculture has a record of which it may justly be proud. If every industry had increased it.; productivity and production on the scale of agriculture, perhaps we should not have been facing the economic difficulties in which we have found ourselves during recent years.
  The Government have encouraged the agricultural industry. The very formation of the National Plan, with its section for agriculture, indicated the views and the approaches of the Government with regard to the part that agriculture could play in the general economy. Whatever may have happened to the genet al basis of the plan, the fact remains that the section dealing with agriculture is unaltered. In the last Price Review, of which we have heard very little today, there was injected into the industry an additional £40 million as recognition of the need for increasing investment and confidence on the part of those engaged in the occupation.
  While output of agriculture has increased over the years, it should not be overlooked that this has been achieved in spite of diminishing land for agricultural purposes. The creation of roads, homes, schools and factories has taken land away from the industry. Year by year we are faced with the problem of how to encourage industry to go to the poorer types of land. The inroads upon agricultural land have been colossal, and there is no sign of any abatement. To
  1062
  maintain and steadily increase production against that background is an achievement for which those employed and engaged in the industry can take full credit.
  However, if we are to achieve increased production, we must still maintain a labour force to bring it about—in spite of all the equipment that one would see at the Royal Smithfield Show this week. I know that the National Plan provided for a reduction—employers and workers combined—of about 140,000 by the end of 1970, but in reply to a Question last Wednesday the Joint Parliamentary Secretary stated that between June, 1964, and June, 1967, more than 84,000 workers had left the land. If this pace is maintained the efforts to step up production will be materially hampered through lack of manpower.
  I know that taking a long-term view the industry will have a much smaller force of workers than at the moment, and I recognise that the decline will continue, but at what pace? It is the pace that concerns us at present. It has been far too great for the good of the industry. We cannot blame workers for leaving the land. They go largely because of their economic conditions. However much this might be disputed, the facts speak for themselves.
  Earlier today my right hon. Friend the Minister of Social Security made reference to wage-stop benefits. Does the House realise that every farmworker who finds himself out of work for some reason or another is controlled by the wage-stop business because his wages fall below the level at which full benefits are prescribed?
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Is the hon. Gentleman also aware that in certain circumstances an unemployed car worker in the Midlands can draw more in full social security and other benefits than a farm-worker gets after spending five hard days working on the land?
  Mr. Hazell: I am grateful for that comment, because it is the next point I was going to make.
  It is a fact that, in the main, an industrial worker, being out of work, can secure more money through our social insurance benefits than a farmworker can obtain as a result of all his skill and knowledge in our agricultural industry. These

  1063
  facts are not lost sight of by the farm-workers. This is the reason why, when opportunities come along offering higher wages, better opportunities, they quit our agricultural industry. One thing which does not help and is not likely to help the retention of skilled farmworkers is the very fact that we have just recently negotiated a new minimum wage for the industry and yet we have to wait till 6th February, 1968, before that award can be put into operation. If this is not enough to put any farmworker's back up I do not know what is. No other induswould tolerate this sort of business.
  Nevertheless, it is a fact that our workers, by and large, do retain their interest in the industry, and it is a good thing that they do, and I am glad to note in this regard that it has been agreed to set up an industrial training board in the industry, because, with the smaller manpower in future, that manpower will have to be highly skilled to cope with the many types of jobs they are and will be called upon to do and the new equipment which is constantly coming off the line.
  Training through the industrial training board set up by the industry will provide the means which the present generation has not had, who have had to pick up as they have gone along the skill and knowledge which modern agriculture requires. But, of course, side by side with the training board there must be a ladder of opportunity for our young people and we must have a wages structure within the agricultural industry.
  Devaluation merely focuses the nation's attention on its food supplies, its increases in costs, and the need to produce more. I am satisfied that the industry will respond. It always has. In the last Price Review a clear indication was given by my right hon. Friend of the line of development which the industry would be called upon to meet. I would say to my right hon. Friend that he has got to keep spelling this out time and time again, and re-emphasise, because memories are short, the requirements of the nation. If this is continually spelt out I believe that the achievement will be forthcoming. Our agricultural industry, in the lifetime of most of us in this Chamber, has been faced with challenges and it has responded to those challenges.
  1064
  I believe that the industry will respond now. It means that the appeal made should not be a short-term one; it must be a long-term one if we are to retain the confidence of all those in agriculture in the years which lie ahead.
  8.50 p.m.
  Mr. John M. Temple: Over the last 30 days I have had the experience of living in an infected area in the stricken countryside of Cheshire. I will not go over the many points tonight which have been made in this debate, because I had the unique opportunity in those days of speaking to Ministers and senior officials in the Ministry. I have made various constructive suggestions, and I believe that they have taken those suggestions very seriously.
  I have but one further suggestion to make tonight, because I am certain that we should counter-attack this disease. We should, by all means in our power, step up our precautions and do everything we can to avoid having to fall back on vaccination. I make this one suggestion tonight, because I believe that it is of unique importance. The one thing in this whole problem which is not protected is the animal. I would remind the Minister of the offer which he has had made to him by a good friend of mine, Mr. Stuart Ponsford-Raymond. He has offered the Minister two of his cows which have had the unique protection of homeopathic borax administered to them for about 10 days. Those cows, along with 2,500 other cattle in Cheshire similarly protected have been surviving in the midst of the area where this disease has been raging.
  A unique opportunity may have been missed by this country in giving protection to our animals. This homeopathic borax is cheap. I was brought up as an homeopath. I have today spoken to a veterinary surgeon who is also an homeopath and he has immense confidence in this homeopathic borax. It is giving protection to 2,500 cattle in the County of Cheshire at the present time. This is no gimmick. It has been tried out effectively in Switzerland. The Ministry had full details of it in 1960, and I ask how far the Ministry has investigated the evidence which it was given then.
  My emphasis tonight—I make only this one point—is on counter-attacking.

  1065
  I believe that the Minister can give further encouragement to more safeguards which can be used on our farms. I believe that some of the old wives' tales or some of the old farmers' tales could help. On my own dairy farm we use every possible precaution, and all the old wives' tales, including onion protection. I am thankful to say that at the moment we are surviving, and we are pretty well surrounded by this devastating plague.
  I emphasise tonight the words "counter attack". I hope that the Minister listened to his hon. Friend who advocated the appointment of a Minister with special responsibility for controlling this particular disease. A Minister should be appointed here and now. When we had the stranding of the "Torrey Canyon" we had Ministers resident on the South Coast for weeks and weeks on end. We deserve a Minister and we also deserve a supreme commander of the administrative machine. If those two things were done, our counter attack might well be successful and we might never need to fall back on the vaccine.
  8.54 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: The debate to which we have listened today, has, quite naturally, fallen into two parts. The agriculture industry of this country is at present under a cloud of uncertainty. It has been faced with the tragically vast problem of the foot-and-mouth disease. I do not propose to spend much of the time available to me on that aspect, but that is not because it is not recognised that the effects of this tragic outbreak go a great deal beyond the area immediately affected.
  I would ask my right hon. Friend one point about the foot-and-mouth outbreak concerning vaccination. I realise that a vaccination policy, as opposed to a slaughter policy, is a revolutionary proposal which is not acceptable in this country, but is it agreed by the Ministry that the only real objection to such a policy is the cost of the vaccination, or is it that the vaccination itself is not thought to be—
  Mr. Peart: It is not a question of cost. As the Gowers Committee said, and it was confirmed subsequently by scientific opinion, the problem is that of getting vaccine of the right strain. Added to that there is the difficulty of providing im
  1066
  munity for animals under six months old. There is also the difficulty presented by pigs. Tremendous veterinary difficulties are involved.
  Mr. Maclennan: I am glad to have my right hon. Friend's reassurance about that.
  The principal element of uncertainty overhanging the agriculture industry stems from the declining profitability of agriculture, and the lack of opportunity before it in the post-devaluation situation for a radical reappraisal of farming policy and the policy of agricultural support. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) when he says that there is an urgent need for a new look at our whole system of agricultural support, but I think it is fair to recognise that under the present Government our agricultural industry has enjoyed a much greater degree of certainty than it did under the previous Administration, and that this stems from the selective expansion plan enunciated in 1965.
  The short-fall in production which has occurred since then, and which was recognised in last year's Price Review, makes it all the more imperative for the Minister to review the situation, because it seems clear that despite the enormous assistance which is being given to the industry in the form of major structural alterations which are being encouraged under the new Agriculture Act, despite the encouragement to co-operation, despite the improvements in marketing which we can envisage from the setting up of the Meat and Livestock Commission, and despite the tremendous assistance which will be given to the hill and upland farming industry under the new hill land improvement schemes, and despite, too, the range of response to these long-term needs, there is, and it must be faced, a real uncertainty in the industry.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian drew attention to the unwillingness, or in effect the refusal, of the Minister to answer certain factual questions about the estimated cost of the switch to a new form of agricultural support. I wholeheartedly associate myself with my hon. Friend's strictures, and draw attention to an Answer given by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury,

  1067
  which, while it was more specific, did not show that appreciation of the rôle which agriculture can play in our economy which one would expect to follow from the Prime Minister's speech after devaluation was announced. I am referring to the Answer to a Question about the availability of credit to the farming industry. In his Answer the Chief Secretary stated that:
  "Within the overall ceiling on advances (which does not apply to advances for exports and shipbuilding finance), one of the categories of lending which the banks are asked to give priority to is lending for agriculture, in so far as it promotes import saving."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd November, 1967; Vol. 754, c. 417.]
  It is clear from that reply that the Treasury Ministers, at least, do not—as I submit they should—give the fullest priority to agriculture in terms of credit.
  If I devote the remainder of my remarks to the predicament of the hill and upland sections of the farming industry, it is in part, at least, because it is recognised widely—as was referred to in the letter from the N.F.U. which all hon. Members received today—that the hill and uplands section can make one of the major contributions to import saving, especially in livestock.
  Here again, there are some important reasons for the uncertainty to which I referred earlier. I take issue with the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie) about the Common Market. I know that he is at odds with his party on this subject and that his views are not shared by other spokesmen from the benches opposite. But he painted an altogether too melodramatic picture of the uncertainties of the Community and also the possible effects of joining upon hill and upland areas.
  In its Report the Select Committee on Agriculture drew special attention to the problems which would have to be faced. It emphasised that the Community's policy was flexible in these matters. The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty could have mentioned that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, in speaking to the Council of the Western European Union on 4th July last, made special mention of the predicament of this area if we should begin to negotiate, and he made it quite clear that the interests of
  1068
  the hill and upland areas of Scotland—and this applies particularly to the Highlands—was a matter on which Her Majesty's Government would wish to negotiate.
  This afternoon my right hon. Friend made two important points which indicated that there is a fundamental reappraisal of British agricultural policy under way. I am thinking of his reference to the review of standard quantity restrictions and to his very welcome statement about a guaranteed price for wheat. Those statements will go far to encourage the view that this reappraisal is necessary.
  In the 9 million acres of hill and upland land in the Highlands of Scotland we have an example of the gross under-use of our nation's resources. The area, which constitutes nearly half the land mass of Scotland, is responsible for the production of only 11 per cent. of its agricultural output. This is extremely regrettable, and is due to a number of related causes, some of which have been pointed out by the Government in their Economic Plan for Scotland. Among the causes quoted are the sparse population, the poor quality of the soil and the smallness of the holdings. This is one area, par excellence, where the sparseness of population is reversible, since it arises partly from abuse of the land over many years and partly from its use for primarily sporting purposes. It is in many cases good productive land.
  It is now time for action. We have had report after report on this. The Highlands and Islands Development Board referred favourably, as the Government have done many times, to the Cameron Report, which is probably the most detailed survey. The rôle of the Board in this area has not been sufficiently clarified. I understand that discussions are proceeding between the Board and the Scottish Office's Department of Agriculture and Fisheries to consider what rôle it should play.
  The time has come for a clear statement and I have one or two suggestions. First, it appears—if I am wrong, I hope to be corrected by my right hon. Friend—that if the Development Board agrees to make a grant to a farmer for some scheme of hill land improvement that is automatically deducted from the grant available to him under the Hill Land

  1069
  Improvement Scheme. If so, this is regrettable. There are special reasons for regarding the Highlands as needing special assistance. I draw attention to the recommendation of the Select Committee on Estimates, on which I have the honour to serve, on the improvement of agricultural land—that the type of fertiliser scheme which operates in the Scottish Islands should be available in other parts of the country, particularly in this area.
  The extra costs of transport in this area make this a particularly pressing need. Devaluation, of course, presents opportunities, but only if the Government give a clear lead and set their targets for agricultural production considerably higher than those set in the selective expansion programme, and if they provide the wherewithal.
  My last point is of considerable importance, particularly in the Highlands, and concerns the security of tenure of tenant farmers. Considerable hardship and declining agcriultural production has been experienced in Scotland because of a grossly misconceived amendment of the 1948 Act by the Party opposite. In Section 6 of the 1958 Act, the security of tenure of near relatives of tenant farmers was removed, and this has been of great concern to the National Farmers' Union in Scotland and to individuals in the Highlands in particular. A number of very serious cases have come to my attention of tenant farmers, who have worked land for many years, being turned off their farms to make way for proprietors who may wish to put cultivated land to a non-agricultural use. That is a deplorable situation which calls for most urgent action, as I am sure the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty wholeheartedly agrees. I hope that the Government will assist farming in this area in that important way.
  If the Government are not prepared to advance the date of the Price Review this year—and I fully understand the difficulties of such an action, which have been explained by the Minister—I hope that they will make clear at the earliest possible date that the selective expansion programme is not to be the ceiling on agricultural production in Britain in the post-devaluation period.
  9.11 p.m.
  Mr. Jasper More: As time is short, I hope that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) will forgive me if I do not follow his arguments.
  My constituency is the latest to be hit by this scourge of foot-and-mouth disease, and I want to say a few words about it. Dealing, first, with the long-term policy, I add my voice to those who have urged that the Government should look generously on the payment of compensation for those who have suffered. I understand that the Gowers Report recommended that compensation should not exceed the market value of the stock which has been lost, but I hope that the Government will review that recommendation, because when the Report was published there was no expectation of an outbreak on the scale of that from which the country is suffering.
  I also add my support to the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell), who pleaded that in this emergency we should not forget the agricultural workers who might lose their jobs as a result of the diminution in the herds.
  I press the Government to consider the whole question of imports from such countries as those in South America. Surely that is the most important of all questions to be considered in the long term. One question to which insufficient attention has been paid in the debate is that of research. We know that at Pirbright we have the finest veterinary research, but it is astounding—if what I am told is true—that in agriculture in this country we devote to research only 0·7 per cent. of the gross national product compared with over 2 per cent. as an average in other industries. The visitation from which we are suffering raises the question whether we ought to have a larger allocation of finance for agricultural research.
  Dealing, next, with the short term, I add my tribute to those which have been paid to the veterinary service of the Ministry. I am sure that it has done a wonderful job, and it is remarkable how the officers are managing to sustain the effort. But I am afraid that I must be critical of the Minister on what might be called his administration. The visit which

  1071
  he paid to Oswestry the Friday before last was much appreciated. When I listened to him on television that evening, however, I was perturbed at what appeared to be his tone of optimism, and I was not alone in that view, because my evening paper the next day had a heading "Optimist Peart". I am not saying that to be critical or humorous, but it is regrettable because, until the emergency has passed the last thing we should do is to raise false hopes that the war is won. We are at war.
  This affects me because in my consituency we have been lucky enough to be free from the disease until four days ago. Now we have the first outbreak. This is defeat, because we are at a distance from the centre of the outbreak in Oswestry. The outbreak in my constituency, which occurred at a sheep farm must be at least 20 miles from the nearest existing case. That must be defeat, because one is driven to the conclusion that it must be a failure of administration in the Ministry of Agriculture in the control of the movement of vehicles and personnel.
  Mr. Mackintosh: It may have been carried by the wind.
  Mr. More: The wind has not been blowing from the north-west, as would have had to be the case.
  There has been grave concern in my part of the country about markets, and I was concerned about it in the debate, too, because even today we have not had the clear-cut answers which we might have expected from the Minister about markets. Last Monday, in my constituency, a fatstock market took place at Bridgnorth. I was informed on the Monday evening that it had been decided that no further markets would take place. Either of those decisions in isolation could have been correct, but together they must be wrong because they amount to indecision. Only four days after that market took place we had an outbreak about 12 miles from the market. All this leads inevitably to lack of confidence among the farming community and the public at large.
  I suggest to the Minister that we must be so organised that when we are faced with an outbreak of foot-and-mouth
  1072
  disease we can move into action as an already organised team. It should be a military operation in which the jobs are known from the start. I do not think that that was the case in the present outbreak. Of course, the organisation must be complicated, involving the county council, the district councils, and, in particular, the police, but it is essential that everybody should know from the moment the outbreak occurs what their jobs are so that as soon as the Minister gives them the word they can all move into action. That has not been so in this case.
  As part of the review which the Minister is making in the whole of this tragic story, I hope that he will look again at the recommendations of the Gowers Report. We in this House should be brought up to date about this: first, about how far the recommendations of the Report have been implemented; and, secondly, to what extent, in the light of what has happened and is happening, the recommendations need to be expanded and strengthened.
  I conclude by reiterating my admiration for the efforts of the Minister's staff. I hope that my few remarks may not prove altogether useless should be ever again face an emergency on this scale.
  9.18 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Noble: This debate has inevitably been largely about the tragic foot-and-mouth outbreak which we have been watching with apprehension for the last six weeks.
  The Minister, having chided my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) for speaking for a long time, spoke for 10 minutes longer himself; and so the Secretary of State for Scotland and I have agreed—and we hope that it has been of help to the House—to start the wind-up and reply speeches 20 minutes later than usual. It I cannot, as I would normally do, be courteous and refer to all Members who have spoken, I trust that they will forgive me.
  The Minister accused my right hon. Friend of playing politics. This was unworthy of the right hon. Gentleman. I have been in the House on I think every occasion when the problems of foot-and-mouth disease have been debated in recent days and I cannot help but look back to the days when I had rather a similar

  1073
  problem on my hands as the Minister has on his—the typhoid epidemic in Aberdeen. I vividly remember that a great many of his hon. Friends questioned me closely and were often critical of my decisions, as they had every right to be.
  The Minister is relying on expert evidence and advice on subjects about which he inevitably knows comparatively little. Nevertheless, he is responsible to the House and if he feels that hon. Members on either side are critical of him he should realise that that has nothing whatever to do with playing politics. Ministers should retain their responsibility to Parliament and, in this respect, I differ only once from the excellent speech of the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Macintosh), who seemed to suggest that the Minister was not responsible for bad answers which his Ministry gave to Questions asked by hon. Members.
  I shall be brief and fair. I agree entirely with the Minister's slaughter policy, but I disagree with him about Smithfield. Like every other livestock producer in Scotland, I felt that it should have been closed immediately. I agree with his meat import policy but I disagree profoundly with the way in which he has handled the problem of straw mats and dips. It seems a remarkable lack of a sense of public relations or leadership to have allowed the spread of a disease as fast as this for six weeks and then suddenly to say, or at any rate to strongly infer, that the putting of mats across roadways was something which people could do if they wished, but which was basically a waste of time.
  I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland—I feel sure that he will do this—will take full responsibility for any decision he may take now or in future to put some form of disinfectant barrier on the Scottish Border. We cannot tell—we do not have the top medical veterinary advice which is available to Ministers—whether this is satisfactory, but we believe that it makes a great deal of difference to many people to feel that this sort of protection is available, if it is needed. Nobody but the Secretary of State can give that lead and make the necessary Order, if it is right, and I hope that he will do it.
  We in Scotland have been extraordinarily lucky so far and we pray that it
  1074
  may continue. We have as yet not had any cases in our country, unlike our sister Celtic country, Wales, which has already had more than 200 cases.
  I regret that I did not hear the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple). I understand that he suggested that some evidence exists that a new homeopathic cure might be of value and interest for protecting herds. If this is so, I hope that the Minister will try it out to see whether it has a useful effect.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that considerable dissatisfaction exists among the farmers of south-west Scotland about shooting parties coming from England—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is no use hon. Gentlemen opposite complaining. I am speaking on behalf of my constituents. Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this practice should be discouraged during the period of the epidemic?
  Mr. Noble: Anybody who organises a shooting party in which people come from areas where foot-and-mouth is rampant is seriously to blame.
  I hope that the Minister of Agriculture will quickly be able to consider the problem of supplementary compensation, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham referred. Most recent outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease have involved only a comparatively small number of cases, and though the replacing of slaughtered animals may have been difficult it has not been, I suspect, anything like as difficult as it will be on this occasion when, because of shortage of animals, prices will rise very considerably.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris) has said, and as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Knutsford (Sir W. Bromley-Davenport) has written to me, allied to this problem is the problem of taxation, when we have a large increase in costs which not only affects farmers who have suffered but those in the area round about. As my right hon. Friend said, the Minister has at least got some advantage in savings in deficiency payments.
  Having covered, all too quickly, the main foot-and-mouth problems as I see them, I know that the right hon. Gentleman will look carefully at the very many

  1075
  points put by my hon Friends who have had experience of this matter. I am sure that he will have noticed, as we all did, that although my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen), in whose constituency this epidemic started, tried steadily throughout the debate to contribute to it, he was unable to do so. I am sure that if he has a particular point that he wants to make to the Minister, the right hon. Gentleman will pay attention to it.
  I want now to discuss the general policy which the Government will, I hope, adopt soon as an immediate result of the post-devaluation period. The Minister seems, at times at least, to be a little impatient that the House should expect him to announce decisions or to take any action so soon after devaluation has taken place, but it is fairly clear that the devaluation decision was taken over a fortnight ago, and announced. The Chancellor of the Exchequer indicated to the House that he knew that devaluation was likely to occur perhaps a fortnight earlier than that.
  While I accept the fact that the right hon. Gentleman obviously cannot discuss with the lower strata of his civil servants whether the Government are to devalue, it seems to me to be right an proper that he could—at least in the last month or two, when almost every country was saying that Britain intended to devalue—have discussed with his senior civil servants what the position was likely to be if we devalued. I therefore find it a little odd that the right hon. Gentleman should say to me and to the House that he does not like the idea that we should suggest that he should take panic measures. What more panic measure have the Minister and the Government taken than devaluing? I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman will deny it, but if he then says that devaluation was the result of a long, carefully thought-out plan, his whole defence for having nothing ready falls to the ground.
  I am quite certain that I speak for the vast majority of the people in the farming community in England and Wales and Scotland when I say that this is, perhaps, a disaster for the country but also a considerable opportunity for agriculture really to help the country in a very difficult position. I think that I
  1076
  also speak for the farmers when I say that at the moment I do not find in the Minister of Agriculture the person who is clearly leading the industry in the very difficult battle that it has to fight if it is to play its part in the devaluation war.
  One or two of my hon. Friends have been trying to keep a record of the things which, over the last few weeks, the Minister of Agriculture has said he has under careful consideration. Several pages of foolscap are now covered. It may be very useful for the" right hon. Gentleman to have so much under careful consideration, but it is not the sort of thing that makes the farming community feel that we have a great leader, who knows where he is going; that he may not know the details but knows where he is going and the part he wants us to play; that there are one or two details to solve, but that we can follow him. We have had no indication, not even five minutes in any speech, in any Question Time, or in any statement by the Minister, that has given me the impression that he was keen to lead the agricultural industry in a campaign to help solve the balance of payments problem. It may be that he naturally has a lugubrious manner in the House, or it may be that he has the widest collection of platitudes I have heard from any Minister.
  The Government in their thinking on devaluation—and I had a little experience in exporting before I became a Minister—are over-optimistic in their hopes of the speed at which exports can build up. I do not want to develop this because obviously this is not the time to do so, but equally if the farming community is given the right lead and incentive it can make up for the over-optimism of the Government in exports by providing a considerably greater saving of imports than looks likely at the moment. Do not let us in any way minimise the importance of saving imports because, after all, it is the balance of payments that matters, not the crude figures one way or the other.
  I welcomed, as did, I think, most hon. Members, the Minister's statement about the planting of extra wheat. One or two of my colleagues, more expert than I am in growing winter cereals—they do not grow very well in Argyll—thought this a little late. They thought that if we could have had the information a fortnight

  1077
  ago that would have given the crops a better chance of developing fully. I do not argue that from my experience; I merely record what my hon. Friends who know about these things have told me.
  I welcome that the Minister—I think I have it right—is to make a statement on the beef and the livestock situation before Christmas. As most hon. Members know, it takes about as long to breed a bullock as to build a battleship. Unless one has clear guidance early there is no doubt that a great deal of the calf slaughtering, which has been rising substantially—and, I think, frighteningly from the point of view of the Minister—will continue and not enough calves will be kept for the future.
  What are the major things the farming industry must know if, with the Minister, it is to go in for a real policy of expansion? First, every farmer in the country must know that we have sufficient capital at our elbow to expand at the rate the Minister wants us to achieve. At present the bank overdraft position in Scotland is about £81 million. In the United Kingdom the bank overdraft for farmers is running at about £600 million. These are very big figures. With Bank Rate at 8 per cent., most farmers, if they have an overdraft, are probably paying 10 per cent. The Minister and the House can see the sort of drain there is on existing overdrafts, let alone any money farmers borrow for anything else to help the industry to expand.
  The Minister has to talk seriously to his colleagues in order to make certain that the banks are given a clear instruction that it is just as important to put money behind the farming industry for import saving as it is to put money behind industries which are exporting over the next six months. I hope he will be able to do that.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) would have liked an immediate Price Review. I realise how difficult it is for any Minister to stage an immediate Price Review at this moment. But I do not think that it is impossible for the right hon. Gentleman and his staff and for the Secretary of State for Scotland, if they really try, to move forward the Price Review to perhaps the middle of February. After all, it is the "February Price Review"
  1078
  and if they could advance it they would at least be helping the whole industry, because it would know where it was a month or six weeks earlier than usual.
  The right hon. Gentleman told us, not quite accurately, that it had been the Government's policy to go in for import substitution ever since they took office. This is not true. Import substitution figured first—and I pressed for it at least six or nine months before that—in 1966 in the Prime Minister's speech which has been referred to. But the House must realise that the livestock
  Mr. Elystan Morgan rose—
  Mr. Noble: I have only a few minutes. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way.
  Mr. Elystan Morgan: I merely wished to refer the right hon. Gentleman to the White Paper on the future of agriculture published in August, 1965, which had a section dealing with import substitution.
  Mr. Noble: On many occasions in 1965 and early 1966 we pressed the Government to say whether or not they would go in for such a policy and never got an answer.
  I was referring to import substitution, particularly in livestock. We do not produce at home 26 per cent. of our beef, 56 per cent. of our lamb and mutton, 67 per cent. of our bacon, 93 per cent. of our butter and 56 per cent. of our cheese. I know that there are problems, but this is an enormous amount of food, the vast bulk of which could be produced at home.
  I think that the Minister, in casting back to what the Government have done over the last few years, might have referred to the fact that, in the ten years immediately before 1964, the extra output which had come from our farms had saved over £250 million a year in imports. This was an important achievement over a long period which was of great value to the balance of payments.
  If I am right that the development of an intensive livestock industry is very important, I hope that the Government will immediately look at various problems connected with it. We will certainly need, because a great deal of this will have to be intensively produced, extra help with buildings and investment grants. We shall certainly need a great

  1079
  deal of extra support for research. As an industry, we shall need an assurance that, if we do go in for the sort of intensive livestock rearing the Government need, our buildings will not then be rated.
  I believe that the arable farmers, many of whom I know, will be able to produce a great deal of the extra food this livestock will need—not all of it, perhaps, but certainly a great deal. But that will not be needed for presumably 18 months or two years because the livestock industry builds up comparatively slowly.
  For the hill and upland areas which have an important part to play, I ask the Ministers to consider carefully whether they cannot do more to help the lime subsidies. This is a fertiliser of great importance to these areas. It is not imported. It is a natural resource and is a necessity for the expansion of livestock areas.
  Another factor which I hope the Government will look at, and which has so far not been mentioned, is the fishing industry—and the right hon. Gentleman knows my interest—which at the moment is in a period of very great indecision, as are the Government. We have been waiting month by month for the review the Government keep promising of the way the industry is to go.
  There has not been a period since the war when the trawling industry has been in greater difficulty. A decision has to be taken by many companies on whether to scrap their boats or not, and unless the right hon. Gentleman can come out clearly—as I hope he will to the agricultural industry as well—with his proposals, the fishing industry will not be able to play its part in providing a first-class wholesome food which needs, as far as I know, no foreign currency or help at all to provide it for the housewife's plate, except, perhaps, for some oil in the trawlers.
  I appeal to the Minister and to the Secretary of State for Scotland to look at the whole problem of agriculture with a completely unpolitical eye. There is a wealth of good will amongst the farming community to help the nation if it is in difficulties with its balance of payments, in exactly the same way as we helped the nation when it was in difficulties during the war and could not import food.
  1080
  There is a vast amount of good will there which is available to the Minister if he will give a clear indication of what he wants. As he knows, I have farmed for the whole of my life. I have made every penny I could out of my farm, and I have spent on it every penny I have made. This may have been bad business, but this applies to a vast number of farmers. They will do almost anything to improve their land and livestock to help the country. I hope the Minister will give them every chance to do so.
  9.41 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): As the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) said at the outset, this debate has taken place under some of the darkest clouds that have ever appeared over the farming industry. I think that it is a tribute to this House that nobody, during the debate, has adopted a political attitude to it. I found the debate very constructive and, certainly, most hon. Members have fastened on points which really matter.
  We are concerned to contain the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease within the infected areas and to try to reduce the possibilities of spread. As my hon. Friends the Members for Falmouth and Camborne (Dr. John Dunwoody) and for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon) said, there are puzzling factors, but one of the successes has been the extent to which the disease has been contained within the main areas. Here, I should pay tribute to the veterinary staff and all the voluntary workers; and in this connection I am glad that one hon. Member mentioned the W.V.S. I think that this shows that the concentration of effort has been right and that we have adopted the right policy.
  I want to try to cover as many points as possible. First, let me deal with compensation. A concession was given under the Finance Act, 1953 to provide special treatment, for taxation purposes, in respect of compensation payable for slaughtered livestock. This, I know, is not the complete answer. The trouble is that we have to deal with every case individually, and so difficulties may arise. We understand that the farmer does not

  1081
  wish compensation to be eroded by taxation. The taxation law and its incidence is very complicated indeed.
  As I say, it varies from individual to individual, but my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture has arranged for the whole problem to be thrashed out with the N.F.U. and the Inland Revenue. I can assure the hon. Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris), who, I think, raised this matter first, that we are very sympathetic and we shall do all we can to ensure that fair and adequate compensation is provided.
  The hon. Member for Nantwich paid a moving tribute to all that was being done. We join in that tribute and in the sympathy which he expressed to all those who are affected. It is tragic to see men whose herds have been wiped out, herds built up not just over years but over generations.
  The hon. Member for Nantwich made certain criticisms of the higher direction, and he was joined by others in this, including the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins). I welcome the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West back to the House. We are very glad to see him and to hear him on what is probably his favourite subject. Seldom does one have a chance to take part so quickly on a subject dear to one's heart, though I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would rather not have had to make the kind of speech which he did make today.
  There have been these criticisms of the higher direction, but I ask the House to take into account the virulent nature of the virus in this epidemic. I am certain that many hon. Members opposite with experience in these matters could not have predicted how it would effect such a quick spread within particular areas. It is wrong to say that, in the first few days, we could have done this, that or the other. The Ministry has the basis for fairly immediate action, and what follows thereafter must be determined by the progress of the disease itself.
  The right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) spoke about my responsibilities in respect of the Border. I take full responsibility for what is being done there at the moment. If I feel that more should be done, I shall do it. I was in Edinburgh on Friday and had a conversation with
  1082
  G.O.C. Scottish Command. He will have 2,000 men ready at my disposal if we feel that we must act and act quickly. The plans are there. I was asked, also, about people in adjacent areas, and it was suggested that someone should be there to give advice. Someone is there to give advice. The regional veterinary officer is there and individuals or local authorities should get in touch with him.
  I should tell the House, and particularly hon. Members from Scotland, that I am not responsible for action in these matters, unless it be action taken by the local authorities, because the 1950 Act provided for a general command, recognising that action must be within one hand. The Minister of Agriculture is responsible throughout the whole United Kingdom. In this way, we are able to take uniform and speedy action. Just as I do, where necessity requires, my right hon. Friend takes the advice of our veterinary officers. We should be very foolish if we did not. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Argyll took the advice of his veterinary officers when dealing with the situation in Aberdeen in the outbreak there.
  Mr. Gordon Campbell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Ross: I am sorry—no. I have not the time.
  A very good point was made by the hon. Member for Nantwich when he said that we should look beyond compensation to rehabilitation. This is already being done, not just from the point of view of the pool of stock but going well beyond that. It is well in hand now under the N.A.A.S.
  I am glad that the import ban has been generally welcomed. The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) asked us to go further, but I am sure that it would be foolish to do so at present. My right hon. Friend assured the House that there will be a full study of the matter. Hon. Members have asked whether the inquiry would be in public. It will be an independent study, and, as a general rule, the question as to whether evidence is taken in public or in private tends to be left to the people who are given the job to do. The fact that the inquiry is to go on should

  1083
  give us some assurance that we shall not lose sight of the lessons to be learnt and lay ourselves open to a similar outbreak in the future. We must be guided by past experience in these matters.
  There have been comments about mats. One of the pieces of guidance here is the evidence given to Gowers. The information given by Canada was that this method was of limited or, perhaps, no practical value but it has a psychological value, creating the feeling that people were altered and they had to take certain precautions. This has a carry-over into other things, and I hope that that will be borne in mind. We may pass all the statutory bans we like, but what is really needed is acceptance by the urban public that they ought not to go into the countryside, and certainly not go over farms, and acceptance by farmers of their responsibility not to mix in congregations of people where there may be other farmers and other persons in touch with livestock. This is vital.
  The broadcast by my right hon. Friend was criticised. He was not broadcasting to farmers. Most of the farmers know the difficulties and also know the drill, which is to get one's animals under cover and take the necessary precautions.
  The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West spoke of seeing animals out grazing flanking the main roads. Advice is given about the need to take further precautions, and, if necessary, we have compulsory powers, and they have been applied in certain areas. In Cheshire, for instance, the animals are under cover.
  It must be appreciated that my right hon. Friend was talking to the general public and not to farmers. I believe that appreciation of this by the general public is almost 100 per cent. now. I hope that we do not have a repetition of angling clubs insisting on holding gatherings where they may well be endangering valuable herds far from the present outbreak. This is common sense, and we must get this over to people.
  It is not 250,000 cattle, as the hon. Member for Nantwich suggested. It is 125,000 to 130,000 altogether. The total number of livestock is about 250,000. It is all very well saying that this is a very small percentage of our livestock population, but when one reduces it to
  1084
  areas the disaster becomes a catastrophe. No one inside those areas or outside should put any other area at risk by unnecessary movement and contact. I am very grateful for the measure of co-operation that we have had.
  The hon. Member for Leominster (Sir Clive Bossom) was also critical of the Minister, but I think that he was unfair. I know of no Minister of Agriculture who has worked harder and right away. My right hon. Friend cancelled his visit to Pakistan and went into the area and saw that the administrative machine was working. It is wrong to talk now about "woolly advice, no decisive orders and no general at the top". If we had not had a general at the top the position would have been very much worse. My right hon. Friend is at the top. He has his chief veterinary officer, a man of experience and knowledge, giving his advice.
  I thank the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) for his very useful speech. He did not agree with his right hon. Friend on the decision about Smithfield. I think that, on balance, it was the right one.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon) asked whether the sporadic and seemingly puzzling and leaping outbreaks were being studied to ascertain whether any connection between them could be found. The answer is that they are. Scientific officers and epidemiologists have been in the area and are at present studying these points.
  The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton and the hon. Member for Nantwich spoke about the temporary suspension of imports. My right hon. Friend has made clear that it has not been possible to trace the origin of the present epidemic. But I think that the need now is to minimise the risk of new infection from any source while our veterinary resources are fully stretched. The urgent need has been recognised by the meat importing trade. The extent of the cooperation that we have obtained is an indication of the alertness of everyone to the importance of this matter, and it has been recognised, too, by the sympathetic response that we have had from the countries which may be affected.
  One of the best suggestions made was made by the right hon. Gentleman the

  1085
  Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser), that, in co-operation with our overseas suppliers, we should see what improvements they can make in their control of the disease. That was a constructive suggestion, and we shall certainly consider that when the present outbreak is over, and it will be covered by the inquiry which was mentioned.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick a id East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) made, if I may say so, a number of niggling points. [Laughter.] They were. He must face it. If he is going to say he has not got the statistics he requires, and which are available, the person responsible is the Minister. Let him say so, and not be so mealy mouthed about it, even if he is going to be niggling.
  I can assure my hon. Friend, on his suggestion in relation to what would be the costs of the removing of standard quantities, and on the answer which he got, that it was not practical, that he got the right answer. There are so many variables—about the amounts, about the prices and all the rest of it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite know that what I am saying is true, and they must face it.
  Hon Gentlemen, I think on both sides of the House, mentioned the question, which was also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian, of the renegotiation of agreements, and more than one Member mentioned the bacon understanding. It is looked at every year—[HON. MEMBERS: "This year?"]—and this year will be no exception.
  I want to pay tribute to what I think was one of the most formidable speeches we had today, and that was by my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne. I think that his was a masterly account of the difficulties and dangers of changing over from slaughtering to vaccination. I think that, generally speaking, and apart from one or two hon. Members, there has been agreement in the House that our policy of slaughter is the right one. I think that history has already proved that, and we must not be panicked into a change.
  My hon. Friend drew attention to all the difficulties which would arise and he mentioned the possibility of ring vac
  1086
  cination. This is part of the emergency plans which my right hon. Friend spoke about last week, but remember, it is the last ditch, and I hope we never get to the point where we have to put this into operation, because it could change very effectively our outlook.
  Mr. Michael Jopling rose—
  Mr. Ross: I cannot give way. I have only a few minutes. I had only 17 minutes altogether. [HON. MEMBERS: "And wasted them." I do not think that the farmers who are worried about compensation and the spread of this disease will think that what I have said has been a waste of time.
  The question was raised about the effects of devaluation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Well, in facing the problem of devaluation we build, as my right hon. Friend has already said, upon a strong agriculture, and if hon. Gentlemen would like to have a look at our last White Paper, page 31, they will see the statistics, going right back to 1953, they will see the nine years of neglect—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—when output went down and down and down and down and never got to what it is today. [An HON. MEMBER: "Rubbish."] It is not rubbish. It is a fact. It is the kind of fact the hon. Gentleman will not ask for, because he knows that it is available.
  What I would like to tell him is that we have not quite suddenly discovered we can save imports by improving the position of agriculture. This has been the basis on the selective expansion programme which was announced in 1965, and it has been expanding during the year, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it, and the figures were given by my right hon. Friend today about that. We have set out—
  It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

  AGRICULTURE
    IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES
    Commonwealth Countries and Republic of Ireland (Immunities) (No. 3) Order, 1967, draft laid before the House, 3rd November, approved.—[Mr. Whitlock.]

  BUILDING SOCIETIES (ADVANCES)
  Motion made and Question proposed,
  That the Building Societies (Special Advances) Order, 1967, a draft of which was laid before this House on 10th November, be approved.—[Mr. Varley.]
  10.1 p.m.
  Mr. Graham Page: I was hoping that we might have had the Government's explanation of this Order which is laid in draft before the House, but, if the Minister is not willing to explain it, I shall have to do it for him, because there are a number of points on which I wish to raise questions.
  This Order deals with special advances by building societies. Special advances are those advances made by building societies to corporations or advances exceeding a certain prescribed limit. The conception of special advances originated in the Building Societies Act, 1960, which came into operation in October, 1960, and was repeated in the consolidation Act of 1962, under which the present draft Order is sought to be made.
  Of all the money advanced by any individual building society in a year, not more than 10 per cent. may be advanced as special advances. This Order seeks to prescribe the amount above which an advance is a special advance. Under a previous Order made in 1963, but taking effect for the year 1964, the limit of advances, after which they become special advances, was prescribed at £7,000. This Order now seeks to prescribe the limit at £10,000.
  I understand that the principle behind this limitation on the powers of a building society is that the funds of a building society, which, after all, are contributed by the general public, should be spread over advances to the ordinary owner-occupier of a reasonably priced home.
  I understand that the principle is that advances to developers—advances upon what one might call luxury dwellings—should be restricted and that building societies should be guided at least, by legislation, to advance on the normal family residence. In 1964, when the previous Order was made, sums under £7,000 would buy the normal family residence. It is a shocking indictment of the present Government's policy, and
  1088
  their failure to carry out their election promises, that they have to admit in this Order that a dwelling-house which cost £7,000 in 1964 costs nearly half as much again in 1967, after this Government has had three years of office. They are obliged to increase this special advance figure from £7,000 to £10,000. I think that in view of the present price of houses it is right to do so, but it is an indictment of the Government's policy over the past three years.
  I may be exaggerating when I say that a £7,000 house in 1964 now costs £10,000. Taking the Ministry of Housing and Local Government's figures, I notice that the index figure in 1964 was 142, and that the latest index figure for the price of houses in the second quarter of 1967 was 177. If my mathematics are right, a modestly-priced house in 1964, of, say, £3,000, would now cost £3,700, an increase of £700 over this short period. Taking the type of house which we are considering, a £7,000 house in 1964 would now cost £8,800, an increase of £1,800 over the period 1964–67 while the Government have been in office. I wonder whether, in the face of devaluation, this increase to £10,000 in the limit of special advances will be enough.
  During Question Time a short while ago the House was told by the Minister of Public Building and Works that devaluation would result in an increase of only about £30 to £40 in the cost of a house. I have never heard any greater nonsense spoken in this House. It is obvious that devaluation will increase the cost of a modest house by about 4 per cent. to 5 per cent. This is why I question whether the increased figure of £10,000 in this Order will be sufficient to cope with the increase in price due to devaluation.
  There will be an increase in the cost of imported timber, in the cost of metals used in the construction of houses, and in the cost of paint and other materials. In addition, there will be an increase in the cost of financing the building of houses, by reason of the increase in Bank Rate. When a builder has to pay 10 per cent. to his bank on money which he may hope to use in the construction of a house, or when a purchaser or a vendor has to bridge the gap between a sale and a purchase by paying his bank 10 per cent. on the money that he

  1089
  borrows, it is a grave addition to the price of houses.
  This is the situation, despite the promise which we had from the party opposite before it came into office, and from the Government since they have been in office, that they would reduce the price of houses. In fact, the figure has increased substantially over these three years, and it is this which has made this draft Order necessary. My information is that as a result of devaluation the price of houses will increase by 4 per cent. to 5 per cent. over the next six months, which means an increase of as much as £200 in the price of a £4,000 house and one cannot get a new house built for much less than £4,000 in these days. This will have a serious effect on the private house building market.
  It is necessary that this Order should be accepted by the House because of this increase in the cost of housing. It is right for the Government to bring it forward now, but with the very serious increase in the cost of houses that one can see in the future, as a result of devaluation, I wonder whether the Order will be sufficient.
  10.10 p.m.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Harold Lever): First, I apologise to the House for being momentarily late, in the assumption that the Commonwealth would be intervening in the House's affairs for a few minutes. Apparently, owing to a technical hitch, that was not so. I am obliged to the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), in his criticism of the Government in finding it necessary to bring in the Order, for outlining with his usual erudition the history of this matter. I shall want to supplement what he said with one or two brief comments.
  First, any lending by a building society to a limited company is outside the definition of a loan to an owner-occupier—whatever the size of that loan—the idea being that loans to individuals who own their own houses is the primary purpose of building societies. And for the purpose of assessing those loans the 1960 Act—later consolidated in the 1962 Act—defined a loan to an owner-occupier as excluding any loan for more than £5,000. By 1963 the price of houses had risen by over 30
  1090
  per cent. and the then Conservative Government—if my recollection is correct found it necessary, because of that sharp increase in prices in three years—to "up" the limit from £5,000 to £7,000.
  By 1967, to the astonishment of the hon. Member for Crosby, prices had risen again by over 30 per cent. I am not clear why the hon. Member is more shocked by the 30 per cent.-plus increase in prices in the years during which the Labour Government have been in office than he appears to be at the fairly similar rate of rise that occurred under the Conservative Government. I can attribute it only to the fact that he has a higher opinion of the abilities of a Labour Government than he had expectations of his own Government.
  The hon. Member has repeated the complaint that this was a shocking indictment of the Government. I am not sure whether he thinks it was a shocking indictment because prices rose by over 30 per cent. since the Labour Government came in but not a shocking indictment of their predecessor Government, who had a similar record, but if I take his point it is that the Conservatives promised nothing and nobody expected much from them and that, therefore, nobody has any complaints about, still less any indictment of, the Conservative Government.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We are debating this Order, not one in the last Parliament, or the one before that.
  Mr. Lever: I am coming to this Order now, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member says that it is necessary because of a breach of promise by this Government to reduce house prices. He did not condescend to particularise these promises or to read any of them out, although we know that the reading out of pledges and promises made by Government speakers at different times is a favourite occupation of the party opposite. I can only ask the hon. Member to be more precise in his indication of promises which have been broken and which make the Order necessary.
  He more or less castigated us for our past success; he has taken occasion also to appear in the future to castigate us for those which he sees upon the horizon. I can only take it that if the sins occur he

  1091
  will not attempt to beat us again with the same criticism, having already performed his duty of chastisement well in advance. In fact, the £10,000 limit now proposed takes into account some possible further increase in prices. It does not represent the increase which has already occurred but takes into account the fact that, despite the admonitions of successive Governments and the best quality oratory by Government spokesmen of both parties, prices tend to rise. Therefore, as a precautionary measure, in case this obduracy of prices continues, we have given a small margin to discount the future. Price rises are generally larger in the London area, but it is not practicable neither Government found it so to regionalise the limits, so there is a flat limit for the whole country.
  The Order is brought in at the request of the building societies movement because it is clear that, if they are to go on working on the same basis as
  1092
  before, a higher price limit is required. No one need be afraid that the small man will be short of funds for his house because this limit has been extended. The building societies tell us that they have ample funds to service the small borrower as well as to take care of the reasonable increase in the limit which we propose for the lending to owner-occupiers. In these circumstances, I must ask the House to approve the Order, and I gather that the hon. Member for Crosby recognises the need for it.
  Sir John Foster: Just one sentence, Mr. Speaker. This Order is a confession of failure, just like devaluation.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Building Societies (Special Advances) Order 1967, a draft which was laid before this House on 10th November, be approved.

  SCOTLAND (HOUSING)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Varley.]
  10.17 p.m.
  Mr. William Hamilton: I applied for this Adjournment debate because I feared that no hon. Member of the Opposition would apply for it. They have been strangely quiet about Scottish housing for a long time and the reason is not far to seek. If they had so applied, they would have had to eat many words which they have uttered in Scottish housing debates in the last three years.
  For example, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor), who is not present, forecast last November that fewer than 35,000 houses would be completed in 1966. In fact, 36,029 were completed. This year, the 1967 figure, I guess, will probably be higher still and may be up to 38,000 or thereabouts. Next year should see the highest post-war figure of completions, exceeding the 39,000-odd of 1953. In the 13 years of the Tory Government, there were not 35,000 completions except in three years—1953, 1954 and the election year of 1964. This Government have exceeded that figure in 1965, 1966 and will, no doubt, 1967.
  In the public sector, building completions in 1966 totalled 28,159, compared with fewer than 19,000 in 1962—after approximately 11 years of the previous Government. One has heard, too, over the last three years a complaint about the discouragement of private ownership or privately built houses in Scotland and the figures are in fact revealing even in that sector. In 1954, the number of houses built by private owners was 2,608. In 1963, that had gone up to 6,622. In 1966 it was 7,780. Thus, even in the private sector there is a substantial increase in the number of houses completed.
  There was a lot of grumbling about the reduction in house starts early in 1966 and it is true that in the first quarter of that year only 6,767 houses were started. To that extent the complaint was legitimate and valid. But there was quite a substantial pick up in the subsequent quarters of that year, and in the first three quarters of this year according
  1094
  to the latest quarter's return there were 32,649 starts.
  In parenthesis, I want to make a criticism about the way in which the figures are published. I realise that this is not my hon. Friend's responsibility. The figures are no longer available in the Vote Office. One can get them only in the Library, and that is very unsatisfactory. Every Scottish hon. Member should have the right to a copy of these figures at the Vote Office and to keep them in his personal possession. I do not know the reason for the present situation, but I hope that it will be put right in the not-too-distant future.
  I should like my hon. Friend to give me the latest figure for starts beyond the figure given in the latest returns. But even from the first three quarters one finds that the total starts is greater than the whole of the starts in 1951, 1952, 1956, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961 and 1962. That is a record which deserves a good deal of publicity.
  If one takes the figure under construction one finds well over 55,000 under construction. In fact, in the second quarter of this year it was nearly 56,000–55,935—and in the third quarter it was 55,852.
  These, I believe, are the highest figures of starts ever recorded in Scottish history and they compare with the record in 1961, for instance, when the number of starts was just over 31,000 and even in 1964, again in the election year, it was just over 43,000. These figures highlight the stupidity and the irresponsibility of the hon. Member for Cathcart who said only last November,
  "As every return comes in it is the same story of dismal failure …"—OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Grand Committee, 13th November 1966, c. 80.]
  If this is failure, let us have a lot more of it and let us have no more success like the Tories—and here I quote the hon. Member for Cathcart again—" trafficking in human misery "depicted by the figures in the late 1950s and the early 1960s.
  At this point it is appropriate for the House to pay tribute to the Scottish Special Housing Association, one of the most successful public enterprises of the post-war era. I do not think that English Members are aware of what the Scottish Special Housing Association does and

  1095
  what it is. The Government have invested over £130 million in this unique organisation since the end of the war in 1945—extremely wise and sound investment in the future of Scotland. It is right that the Government have plans to increase it from the present £10 million a year to about £25 million, I think, by 1970–71.
  I understand that the target of the S.S.H.A. of completions this year is 2,500 rising to 5,000 by 1970. What is at least as important as the number of houses completed is the number of houses started, and the Association state that they will start 3,500 this year. I should be glad if my hon. Friend would confirm that.
  In the November debate the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis), speaking on the Scottish Housing Bill, complained that the record of the S.S.H.A. was poor on the number of tenders approved. At that point his complaint had some validity. There were only 810 houses approved in the first three quarters of 1966. But he will be glad to know and the House will be glad to know that in the first three quarters of 1967 the number of houses for which tenders were approved was 1,653, almost exactly double the figure for the comparable three quarters of last year.
  I could quote the local authority house building programme, new towns and the rest. From all the evidence available it is undeniable that a very great deal has been done in this field. It is clear that the enormous, almost terrifying housing problem of Scotland is being tackled with greater energy, greater determination and greater drive than ever before in history. The completions in the first three years of this Government will be 109,000 to 110,000—give or take a thousand—and that, I think, is the best three years' performance in the last 12 years. It is exceeded only by 1953–54–55, and not exceeded by very much even then.
  Clearly, tremendous tasks lie ahead. In answer to a Question on 23rd November we were told that in Scotland we still have 700,000 houses over 50 years old out of a total stock of 1¾ million and that 200,000 of those were built before 1875, so that roughly one in every ten houses in
  1096
  Scotland is over 100 years old. This represents a massive indictment of private landlordism in Scotland over the last century. The Government's target of 50,000 completions a year by 1970 is ambitious by any standard. It means an increase of about 50 per cent. on the present figures over three years. I want to ask my hon Friend, can it be done? What new policy have the Government initiated to achieve the target?
  I have a string of questions which I must put to him as briefly as I can. It is clear that local authorities in Scotland are having to concentrate more and more on slum clearance and redevelopment, which is both more difficult and costly than building on clear open sites. The figures for slum clearance show that this work was running, between 1961 and 1964, at an average of 12,000 a year, while it is now running at an average of 16,000 a year. Is anything being done to help local authorities in this extremely difficult exercise?
  Is the Minister of State satisfied that everything is being done to eliminate, or at least reduce, administrative bottlenecks in the approval of local authority building proposals? What action are the Government taking on Reports of the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee, which was revived by the Labour Government after it had been placed in abeyance in 1951? Its Reports make extremely fascinating reading and contain a wealth of information, which is essential if one is to understand the magnitude of the problem which faces us. It would be a tragedy if these Reports were to find their way into some dusty pigeon hole in St. Andrew's House, although I am sure that that will not happen.
  While building more and more new houses is fine, exciting and essential work, just as important is the need to ensure that the existing houses, both public and private, are used to the best possible advantage. What new measures or policies have the Government to ensure that this happens? I had intended to ask my hon. Friend about the possible repercussions on existing housing subsidies of the increased Bank Rate, but I assume that the subsidies bill will be increased to take care of that.
  What progress has been made with the option mortgage scheme in Scotland.

  1097
  The housing record in Scotland in the last three years is inspiring by any test, but it cannot be allowed to engender any trace of complacency. There is still a tremendous job to be done to remedy a century of neglect, slums and squalor, which must be wiped from the face of Scotland.
  10.32 p.m.
  The Minister of State for Scotland (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) for approaching this matter in such a constructive way. I am only sorry that previous contributions from elsewhere have not been made in the same spirit.
  I confirm that the Government's target of 50,000 houses by 1970 still stands. However, despite all we say. Governments do not build houses. The contractors and operatives do that, after orders have been placed by local authorities, new towns, the Scottish Special Housing Association and private developers.
  I take my hon. Friend's last question first; about the Option Mortgage Scheme? While I confess that it does not concern as many people in Scotland as it does in England, we are doing our best to impress, by advertisements and other means, its importance and to bring it to the attention of all those who do not pay Income Tax at the standard rate and who could profit by the Scheme if they are engaged in, or are considering, buying a house now.
  I have always believed that the development of the private market was one of the most important things for any Government to try to achieve, and that applies particularly at economic times like these. Our intention is to reach the target of 50,000 houses by 1970 and, of that figure, we want to see local authorities ordering 28,000, the new towns—which are directly in the hands of the Government—5,000, the Scottish Special Housing Association 5,000—and I confirm what my hon. Friend said about the objective and about how well the S.S.H.A. has done this year compared with last—and to get 12,000 houses from the private sector.
  This is, perhaps, the greatest challenge for the Government. That is why I confirm that the Option Mortgage Scheme
  1098
  and everything else, with the working party of builders, and so on, has been directed to getting the private sector to reach this figure, for if we do not get 12,000 from the private sector, we may have to resort to getting a compensating increase in the local authority sector.
  Mr. Gordon Campbell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Secretary of State for Scotland has been unable to answer Questions of mine about the operation of the Option Mortgage Scheme in Scotland, which means that at present it does not seem possible to assess what effect the Scheme is having in Scotland? Cannot something be done to improve this state of affairs?
  Dr. Mabon: We have been discussing this position with the builders and building societies. The trouble is that out of 200 or so building societies, only two operate with headquarters in Scotland. It is difficult to get the figures broken down. We estimated the figure to be about 20,000 at the beginning of the Scheme, but we cannot be certain about that. I accept that it is reasonable that we should try to see how the Scheme is working, but at present we have to rely on the figures for the United Kingdom as a whole.
  I must not be led away from answering the questions asked by my hon. Friend. He put a number of questions to me and I have so far answered only one.
  The Government accept that responsibility. They have not just announced a target and then hoped that it would fulfil itself. They have gone out to the local authorities and other public sector agencies, and to both sides of the building industry, and have established day-to-day co-operation in a way which has never before been attempted, let alone achieved, in Scotland. This is a new, positive concept of the Government's rôle in a field such as this.
  In 1965, 35,116 houses were completed and, more important for building up a programme, 42,228 houses were started. And when we asked local authorities, for the first time—I repeat, for the first time—to plan house building programmes five years ahead and to tell us what they proposed, they put in some very big

  1099
  programmes. They had been encouraged by the very much improved subsidies which the Government promised, and which we put into Statute form in the Housing (Financial Provisions Etc.) (Scotland) Act, 1967.
  But in the first quarter of 1966—as the Opposition were quick to remind us—there was a fall in the number of houses started. The orders were not being placed. The Government acted immediately on this warning, and tried to find the reasons for the shortfall. Much of the trouble seemed to be lack of planning far enough ahead in sufficient detail and not enough allowance for the inevitable difficulties in redevelopment schemes. I know this is not easy, but many local authorities are taking up the challenge of critical path and net work analysis.
  Let me say a word about specific Government action. First, we have had a continuous series of Ministerial meetings with the housing convenors. This has been very good. I held two such meetings in May and September of last year, my noble Friend, Lord Hughes held another series in February, 1967, and he proposes a fourth series of meetings, probably next January. Nobody appreciates these meetings more than the housing convenors. They feel that they get contact with Ministers and officials, and misunderstandings are ironed out. Secondly, Ministers have made personal visits to a large number of individual authorities to discuss their particular difficulties.
  Thirdly, local authorities were asked, at the end of 1966, to move their five-year programmes one year forward into 1971, to make their returns in much greater detail, and to give us target dates for each stage in the house building process. The idea is to get sites coming forward in steady sequence.
  Again, the building industry has been given information, from these detailed reports, about the size and geographical distribution of housing programmes which should enable the industry to plan the use of its resources more efficiently.
  I cannot praise too highly the officials of the Scottish Development Department, who have all worked very hard. I am delighted to say that we now have progress officers. The Secretary of State has agreed to their appointment. Although
  1100
  this may be criticised as meaning more civil servants, these progress officers will be vital in the battle to get rid of Scotland's bad houses and to get a really strong build-up of houses in Scotland such as we need.
  Orders are now flowing in again. Starts are well up this year—in the public sector, 28,397 as against 22,813 last year, which is an increase of about a quarter. This work is now just beginning to be seen coming out at the other end in terms of completions—nearly 25,000 public sector completions in the ten months so far, against 20,902 for last year, an increase of one-fifth.
  Of course, the Government inherited a situation in which more houses were completed than started. In 1964, although we had a very good number of houses completed—37,171, as we are constantly reminded—only 35,902 houses were started. It seems to be inevitable logic that what one starts one can usually finish, but that what one does not start one cannot ever finish. This was a falling programme which we inherited in 1964. Perhaps we were optimistic in what we sought to achieve in 1966, but it is, nevertheless, quite remarkable to see the change in public opinion about this. We are now quarrelling over figures of 35,000, yet these were incredible figures in the period from 1953 to 1964.
  But let me stick to the results. During the first 10 months of the year—
  Mr. Ian MacArthur rose—
  Dr. Mabon: No, I must finish. I still have to deal with three points, and I have only five minutes in which to do so. During the first 10 months of this year to the end of October the approval of tenders for public sector housing was up by 39 per cent.
  During the three years since October, 1964, 109,636 houses were completed, compared with 88,224 in the three years before October, 1964, and 82,522 in the three years before that again. So even in terms of completions, three years of this Government show 24 per cent. and 33 per cent. increases over the two three-year periods before that under the previous Government. With approvals and starts now going up, it is clear that

  1101
  the falling programme which the Government inherited has been checked and reversed.
  It is strange that the 36,000 houses built in 1966 are regarded by hon. Members opposite as inadequate when in any of the nine years from 1955 to 1963 inclusive that figure would have been hailed as a marvellous achievement. There was no consistent effort in this field. The average output was only 29,850, taking the good and the bad years together. By contrast, this will be the fourth successive year in which 35,000 houses have been completed and the starts this year guarantee even more comple:ions next year.
  Mr. MacArthur: In March, 1966, the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues promised a completion rate of at least 40,000 a year.
  Dr. Mabon: The hon. Member should wait until we get to the target year. We must complete more each year. Hon. Members opposite were wrong last year. To their intense disappointment we completed more houses than in 1965. I am sure that a few more of them will be disappointed this year when we complete more than last year.
  We are seeking to complete more each year so that by 1970 we can get to 50,000. I like this peaceful rivalry between us if it is a rivalry of expectations and not of fluctuating figures such as we had under the party opposite. It murdered the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee.
  To study the problems of the existing stock we revived the Committee and in the last three years it has produced three excellent Reports. There has been the Report on Scotland's Older Houses—the Cullingworth Report—the Kay Report on Local Authority Allocations, and the Clark Report on Housing Management. Each will be discussed by local authorities and the Secretary of State will take decisions on each as the full Housing Advisory Committee reports to him.
  My hon. Friend asked about the Cullingworth Report on clearing away the slums and dealing with substandard houses which are worth saving. The Secretary of State will make a detailed statement on this early in the New Year. I cannot anticipate that statement
  1102
  because you, Mr. Speaker, would rule that out of order as it would be a matter involving future legislation. All I can say at this juncture is that the Secretary of State is very much in sympathy with the objectives and we shall seek to achieve them. The Committee has done valuable work on the other Reports and the Secretary of State will make a statement on them after the evidence has been submitted to him.
  The other Reports deal with allocations and concern mobility of labour as well as the justice of allocation of houses, and the better management of housing estates. I am sure that in addition to providing more houses and the right jobs this is of importance to get the right social ambience and amenities so that we can see that we are on all fours with the United Kingdom.
  10.44 p.m.
  Mr. Gordon Campbell: There is no disappointment on this side of the House when there are good results in housing. What we are worried about is when Ministers and hon. Members opposite make bland statements that something will happen and something far short of it happens.
  There has not been an argument about the figures, but of the statements made by the Government as compared with the results. The question which now arises is why it has taken so long for houses to be completed. The hon. Gentleman is able to produce a huge figure for houses under construction but this is because it seems to be taking longer and longer before they are completed. I will gladly give way if he can explain that. It is completions which matter, not just the number under construction. That is what we are worrying about at the moment.
  Dr. Dickson Mabon: The major concern we had was over multi-storeys, which take a very long time to come up in these figures. It takes nine months from the start of a multi-storey and the laying of the foundations before we can count it as a start, whereas with low-rise houses this take only a few months. One-third of the programme in some places—certainly one-quarter of the whole programme—are multi-storey, which show a delay in recording of figures.
  Mr. Campbell: I am glad of that information. But the Government are discouraging multi-storey houses. The House passed an Act in the last Session to discourage them. There were more of them in the previous housing programmes. I accept what he has said—it is obvious—but it is no explanation of the very long time being taken. The hon. Gentleman was also asked about the high Bank Rate—at 8 per cent. it is the highest for a very long time—and its effect on the
  1104
  housing programme. Although he had time, he did not answer the point. I know that under the present subsidy system—
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at thirteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

SOCIAL SECURITY
  Supplementary Benefits
  Supplementary Benefits
  Retirement Pensions
  Retirement Pensions
  Benefits (Scotland)
  Benefits (Scotland)
  Family Allowances
  Family Allowances
  Social Services
  Social Services
  War Widow Pensioners
  War Widow Pensioners
  Departmental Costs
  Departmental Costs
  National Insurance (Prisoners)
  National Insurance (Prisoners)
  War Disablement Pensions
  War Disablement Pensions
  Wage Stop
  Wage Stop
  Low Paid Workers
  Low Paid Workers
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Drug Exports (Parent Companies)
  Drug Exports (Parent Companies)
  Doctors (Foreign Degrees)
  Doctors (Foreign Degrees)
  Firework Injuries (Cost to N.H.S.)
  Firework Injuries (Cost to N.H.S.)
HOSPITALS
  Staffed Beds
  Staffed Beds
  In-Patient Departments (Waiting Lists)
  In-Patient Departments (Waiting Lists)
  Welfare Milk
  Welfare Milk
  General Medical Practitioners (Wales and Monmouthshire)
  General Medical Practitioners (Wales and Monmouthshire)
  Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Gateshead
  Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Gateshead
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
  Retail Price Index (Scotland)
  Retail Price Index (Scotland)
  Strikes (Secret Ballot)
  Strikes (Secret Ballot)
  Government Training Centres
  Government Training Centres
  Cost of Living Advisory Committee (Report)
  Cost of Living Advisory Committee (Report)
  Redundancy Payments
  Redundancy Payments
  Wool Industry Board (Levies and Grants)
  Wool Industry Board (Levies and Grants)
  Regional Employment Premium (Scotland)
  Regional Employment Premium (Scotland)
  Shipbuilding Industry (Employees)
  Shipbuilding Industry (Employees)
  SOUTHERN YEMEN
  SOUTHERN YEMEN
  SOUTH ARABIA
  SOUTH ARABIA
  MIDDLE EAST
  MIDDLE EAST
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Government Missions, Brussels (Accommodation)
  Government Missions, Brussels (Accommodation)
  Woomera Project
  Woomera Project
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Widow's Pension (Personal Case)
  Widow's Pension (Personal Case)
  Exchange Rates
  Exchange Rates
  Income Groups
  Income Groups
  Cotton Trade
  Cotton Trade
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease
  Cyclamates
  Cyclamates
  International Poultry Show (Cancellation)
  International Poultry Show (Cancellation)
  Meat Prices (Scotland)
  Meat Prices (Scotland)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Arts Council (Grant)
  Arts Council (Grant)
  Strontium 90 (Levels)
  Strontium 90 (Levels)
  Mentally Subnormal Children (Ministerial Responsibility)
  Mentally Subnormal Children (Ministerial Responsibility)
BOARD OF TRADE
  Unclaimed Dividends
  Unclaimed Dividends
  Hotel Loans Scheme (Approvals)
  Hotel Loans Scheme (Approvals)
  Investment Grants
  Investment Grants
  Industrial Development Act 1966 (Derelict Land)
  Industrial Development Act 1966 (Derelict Land)
  Local Employment Act 1960 (Loans and Grants)
  Local Employment Act 1960 (Loans and Grants)
  Acrylic Fibres (Price Increase)
  Acrylic Fibres (Price Increase)
  Advance Factories (Wales)
  Advance Factories (Wales)
  Industrial Development Certificates
  Industrial Development Certificates
AVIATION
  British Overseas Airways
  British Overseas Airways
  Transatlantic Services (Licence Applications)
  Transatlantic Services (Licence Applications)
  OBSCENE PUBLICATIONS (PROSECUTIONS)
  OBSCENE PUBLICATIONS (PROSECUTIONS)
COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Cyprus
  Cyprus
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Singapore Base (Cost)
  Singapore Base (Cost)
  Royal Air Force, Gibraltar
  Royal Air Force, Gibraltar
  British Staff, Washington (Cost)
  British Staff, Washington (Cost)
  Parliamentary Questions (Press)
  Parliamentary Questions (Press)
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  Imports (Price Increases)
  Imports (Price Increases)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  House of Commons (Disqualification)
  House of Commons (Disqualification)
  Detention Centres (Training)
  Detention Centres (Training)
  Young Detainees (Recidivism)
  Young Detainees (Recidivism)
  Finance Act 1967 (Licences)
  Finance Act 1967 (Licences)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Shopping Centres (Development)
  Shopping Centres (Development)
  Planning Appeals
  Planning Appeals
  Industrial Development Act, 1966 (Grants)
  Industrial Development Act, 1966 (Grants)
HOUSING
  Local Authority Advances
  Local Authority Advances
  RADIO SPECTRA COMPUTER
  RADIO SPECTRA COMPUTER
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Television Relay Stations, Montgomeryshire
  Television Relay Stations, Montgomeryshire
SCOTLAND
  Housing Management (Adviser)
  Housing Management (Adviser)
  Intoxicating Liquor (Sale to Young Persons)
  Intoxicating Liquor (Sale to Young Persons)
  Migration
  Migration
  Industrial Development Act, 1966 (Grants)
  Industrial Development Act, 1966 (Grants)
  Fens
  Fens
  Horticultural Produce (Home Production)
  Horticultural Produce (Home Production)
  Sugar Beet and Field Beans (Starch Equivalent)
  Sugar Beet and Field Beans (Starch Equivalent)
  Tenant Farmers (Tenure)
  Tenant Farmers (Tenure)
COAL
  Mining Industry, Midlothian (Redundant Workers)
  Mining Industry, Midlothian (Redundant Workers)
ROADS
  A62 (Pedestrian Subway)
  A62 (Pedestrian Subway)
  Signposts
  Signposts
  Motorways (Reflecting Roadstuds)
  Motorways (Reflecting Roadstuds)
RAILWAYS
  Rolling Stock (Colour)
  Rolling Stock (Colour)
  Edinburgh-Hawick-Carlisle Line (Closure)
  Edinburgh-Hawick-Carlisle Line (Closure)
  Wagons (Scottish Potatoes)
  Wagons (Scottish Potatoes)
TRANSPORT
  Motor Vehicles (Mud-Flaps)
  Motor Vehicles (Mud-Flaps)
  Goods Vehicles (Taxation)
  Goods Vehicles (Taxation)
WALES
  Industrial Development Act 1966 (Grants)
  Industrial Development Act 1966 (Grants)

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

BRITAIN AND THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
2.35 p.m.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will now withdraw their application to the Common Market in order to save Britain further humiliation; and whether they will now concentrate on the policy as announced in the 1964 and 1966 Election Manifestos.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD CHALFONT): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have no intention of withdrawing their application for membership of the European Communities, which is fully in accordance with the policy set out in the Manifesto on which they were elected.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the present policy is in contradistinction to the speech made by the Prime Minister at Bristol in 1966? Is he further aware that by de Gaulle's veto we cannot now expect anything but humiliation, and we cannot expect the Five to save us because they are mixed up in this economic "omelette"? Is it not now time for us to sit up and seek our livelihood in the world without the Common Market?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I take leave to differ with my noble friend that the Prime Minister has ever said anything that has contradicted our present policy of seeking entry into the Common Market. As my noble friend mentioned the 1966 Manifesto in his original Question I would remind him that this stated:
358
"Labour believes that Britain, in consultation with her EFTA partners, should be ready to enter the European Economic Communities provided essential British and Commonwealth interests are safeguarded."
This is the policy by which Her Majesty's Government stand. My noble friend referred to a veto by the President of the French Republic, but all we have had so far is a Press Conference given by President de Gaulle. We now await the answer of the Six of the European Communities to the application which we have made under Article 237 of the Treaty of Rome.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that when we were vetoed in 1963 it was preceded by the same kind of speech by General de Gaulle?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, of course we are aware of what happened in 1963. There are, however, a number of differences between the situation in 1963 and the situation now. The major difference is that the previous Administration had not applied for membership under Article 237 of the Treaty. Their approach to the Common Market was of a slightly different kind. I make the point again: we have made application under Article 237 of the Treaty of Rome This Article says that any European country may apply for membership and it goes on to say that the opinion of the Commission should be given on such an application. The opinion of the Commission has now been given. But it says that there shall be a unanimous 'decision by the Six members of the Community. We await that unanimous decision.
LORD BLYTON: By Lords, would my noble friend assure me that, whenever we are humiliated again, we will not stand at the door of the Common Market kicking our heels, but with some dignity will try to seek our livelihood in the rest of the world?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I cannot agree with the implication in my noble friend's question, that there is any humiliation involved in this. Her Majesty's Government are involved in a major act of foreign policy concerning the unity, the strength and the future of Europe. We do not regard anything that

359
has happened so far as being a humiliation. We do not contemplate anything that might happen in the future as being a humiliation. We shall continue this policy until we are members of the European Communities.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, by way of agreeing with what the noble Lord has now said, may I ask whether he could possibly persuade his noble friends behind him, such as the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, that the real humiliation for Britain would be to admit, quite erroneously, that we had lost the campaign for entry into Europe, whereas we have merely lost a skirmish at the present moment?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I take the point of what the noble Lord has said. Of course, my noble friend Lord Blyton is entirely entitled to his views, and I respect his views, which he holds very sincerely. I can only agree with what the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, has said, that the Press Conference of the President of the French Republic is not a humiliation. It is not a defeat. It might, perhaps, be regarded as a temporary reverse. We shall see on December 18 when the Council of Ministers meets.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, would the Minister agree that if we were to withdraw our application we should let down our friends in Europe and give great encouragement to the General?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, of course I should agree with this. We have no intention of withdrawing our application. It is there, and there it remains.

BAC 2–11 AIRCRAFT AND B.E.A. REQUEST
2.40 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have decided that Government support is to be given to the development of the BAC 2–11 asked for by British European Airways; or whether support is to be given for the development of some alternative type.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, devaluation has necessitated a reappraisal of the relevant financial data, and I am sorry that it is not yet possible to reach a decision.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, arising out of that reply, and while quite understanding the complications involved in a reappraisal, would the Minister be so good as to say how long he thinks will still be needed before a decision is reached, in view of the increasing degree of damage to British civil aviation prospects in the future through these unfortunate delays?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, may I first of all say that the noble Lord is very kind to me. I thought he was going to quote the forecast I gave the last time he asked the question; namely, that I anticipated a decision within the last month. But after that experience I am reluctant to say anything more except that the decision will be given as soon as possible.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, if I put down a Question in a fortnight's time, does the Minister feel that there would be a positive and definite response then?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I really refuse to be drawn. Having been bitten once, I am shy about a second time. But let me put it this way to the noble Lord. I should have thought that the delay was a good sign, so far as he was concerned, knowing as I do that he favours the purchase of the 2–11.
EARL AMHERST: My Lords, may I ask the Minister this question, of which I have not given him prior notice? In view of the changed circumstances, both the devaluation and the fact that Lufthansa is reported not to be in favour of buying the air bus, is there any news which the noble Lord can give us about the development of that aircraft?
LORD BESWICK: No, my Lords. The position about the air bus remains as before. There has been an agreement between the three Governments, and although I know of the statement to which the noble Lord refers, that of course was not a statement by representatives of the German Government, and the joint study is proceeding.

EUROPEAN POLITICAL UNITY
2.42 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE: 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, in view of the statement in this House by the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs that the first and most important reasons for applying for Membership of the E.E.C. are political, whether they have any plan for a political rapprochement with the Six towards a common political destiny, and what initiatives have so far been taken to that end.]
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I would refer the noble Lord to a subsequent passage in the same speech, in which I said:
"The Government therefore see the widening of the Common Market, to include ourselves and other Western European countries, as the means of bringing about this closer political unity".
I would only add to that to-day that the essential first step is to join the European Communities.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his remarks, but in view of the state of things at the moment does he not think that Her Majesty's Government could take a greater initiative in this matter; that is, in the political field? In other words, could they not take a lead with regard to political consultations with the Six to see whether common guidelines could be achieved in, say, the field of defence, the field of aid to under-developed countries and the field of military construction and procurement; and, as a long-term aim, could not efforts be made to start political discussions with the Six with a view to ultimately achieving a common foreign policy?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to the situation as it is now. The situation as it is now is that we have applied to join the European Communities, and the European Commission has delivered its opinion on that application and has said that negotiations should open. We now await the decision of the Council of Ministers, and
362
the Council of Ministers has a meeting on December 18. I therefore think the position is quite simple: we await their decision. In the meantime, perhaps I could refer the noble Lord to the words of my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary in the opening statement in this approach to the Common Market, which he made in The Hague on July 4. In that, he said among other things:
"We believe that Europe can emerge as a community expressing its own point of view and exercising influence in world affairs, not only in the commercial and economic but also in the political and defence fields."
I do not believe there can be anything clearer or more unequivocal than that.
LORD MERRIVALE: Yes, my Lords, I would agree. Indeed, I thank the noble Lord for reminding me of those remarks, which he sent me in reply to a Written Question I put to him earlier. But does he not think that Her Majesty's Government could show a greater lead, as we are not yet in the Community, in the light of of the fact that M. Jean Rey is here in London at the moment seeking arguments to support the Commission's claim that negotiations should start at the earliest possible moment, and also in light of M. Lipkowski's proposal last week in Strasbourg that this country should have a pre-membership status? In the light of those considerations, does the noble Lord not feel that Her Majesty's Government could take a lead in this matter?
Finally, may I ask the noble Lord why it is that the Prime Minister, in his sixteen-point reply last Wednesday to the remarks made the previous Monday by General de Gaulle, made no reference whatsoever to the contention or statement by the President of France that it was obvious that a complete transformation in this country was necessary before we could join the Continental countries?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Speech!
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, it has always been the view of Her Majesty's Government that before becoming an effective member of the European Economic Communities we should have to be in a healthy economic position. That view has not changed. What we are talking about now is the possibility of entering into negotiations to join the Communities. We have made it clear to

363
our partners in the Communities that we should be prepared—indeed, we should like—to be associated with any discussion on political unity at the earliest possible moment, instead of waiting until the formal negotiations to join are complete. But we believe that all this kind of discussion ought to take place in the context of negotiations to join the Community on the application that now lies on the table with the Council of Ministers of the Six. Certainly we are prepared to discuss all these things in the context of those negotiations. I know that the noble Lord's intentions here are to be helpful, but I suggest to all noble Lords that we should wait until we have an answer from the Six on our application and for negotiations to begin. All these other things can then be discussed in the context of those negotiations.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, could my noble friend tell me whether a pre-member is a candidate who has been "blackballed"?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I do not want to get into any discussion about that sort of semantic definition. I can only say that we have applied according to Article 237 of the Treaty of Rome. It now requires a unanimous decision of the Six on our application. Whatever has happened in the meantime, that decision has not yet been given.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, could my noble friend say whether, in seeking the objective of political unity in the context of his own speech and that of the Foreign Secretary, it means that we hand over the sovereignty of our Parliament to a Federal Parliament of Europe?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, the extent to which political integration will eventually arrive in Europe is a matter for speculation, and long-term speculation at that. I would only remind my noble friend and your Lordships' House that in many respects already we accept a diminution of our national sovereignty—in our membership of NATO and in our membership of the United Nations. I believe it would be wrong to be too emotional about this issue. But certainly when we talk about handing over the sovereignty of our Parliament to some supranational Parliament we are talking
364
in very hypothetical and speculative terms indeed.
LORD BLYTON: Would not my noble friend agree that we can leave NATO at six months' notice, whereas we cannot leave the Common Market—it is for ever?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am not aware that we can leave NATO at six months' notice, and I believe that my noble friend, when he has checked his reference, will find that that is not so.
LORD BLYTON: General de Gaulle did.

VIETNAM AND THE UNITED NATIONS
2.50 p.m.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is their policy to welcome the consideration of the Vietnam situation by the Security Council of the United Nations with a view to the convening of a Peace Conference.]
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, we should naturally welcome any consideration of the Vietnam problem, in the Security Council or elsewhere, that seemed to offer a chance of progress towards peace.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, in view of the failure, through no fault of Her Majesty's Government, to reconvene the 1954 Geneva Conference, is it not time that the Security Council should at least discuss the Vietnam situation with a view to ending the present deadlock and bringing about peace negotiations? Is my noble friend aware of the resolution passed unanimously last Thursday by the United States Senate asking the Security Council to take this course; and should not their proposal be strongly supported by Her Majesty's Government?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am aware of a report that the American Senate has asked for action in the Security Council; but, of course, the American Senate is not the American Administration. I

365
think it would be wrong of me, as a Minister of Government, to comment on this matter until we know what, if anything, the American Government propose to do. When we know that, then, as I said in my earlier reply, we should be delighted to discuss, and support, anything that offers the slightest chance of bringing about peace in Vietnam.
LORD ROWLEY: I thank the noble Lord for that reply; but may I, with respect, request an answer to the first part of my supplementary question? Do the Government not agree that because of the failure to reconvene the 1954 Geneva Conference we have had five years of bloody warfare? Is it not possible for the Security Council to discuss—if only discuss—the problem?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, while I respect the passion and sincerity of my noble friend in this matter—and no one agrees with him more than I—I can only say again that we should all like to see an end to the war in Vietnam. But what happens in the Security Council is a matter for the Security Council. I can only repeat that Her Majesty's Government would welcome any consideration of that problem in this Council or elsewhere that would offer a chance of progress towards peace.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, is not our position, as a member of a Security Council, such that we could ourselves initiate this discussion?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, this is a matter for decision by Her Majesty's Government in the light of all the considerations that apply in New York. I will bear in mind the questions that have been asked. I can only say again—and I ask my noble friend to believe me when I say so—that we shall welcome any consideration of this problem in the Security Council. I ask my noble friend to note that word "welcome"; for it has, as he will know, a certain United Nations connotation.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, cannot we take the initiative in this matter? Why are we not in a position, like anyone else, to take the initiative?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I think my noble friend will know that for a Government to take an initiative it is usually better for them to know that that
366
initiative will have some profitable end. An initiative that is unlikely to arrive at a profitable end has only a sort of moral impact and moral content. We should like to take the initiative when we know that it will be successful.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while welcoming the spirit of the reply of the Minister, may I ask this? Is not the difficulty that the Government of neither North Vietnam nor China is represented in the Security Council? And is not the road towards peace the suggestion that U Thant, who has wide acceptance in this matter, should take the initiative in bringing about a peace conference in which both China and North Vietnam would be represented?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, perhaps I had better answer my noble friend by saying that in so far as the North Vietnamese are concerned—for we all realise that the People's Republic of China is not represented in the United Nations—their co-operation is essential to the eventual success of any move designed to end the war. But I would make the point that the North Vietnamese have consistently rejected any consideration that the United Nations should concern itself with the affairs of Vietnam.
LORD BROCKWAY: Is my noble friend aware that that is why I have made the alternative suggestion that U Thant, who himself is so widely accepted, should be given the responsibility of seeking a peace conference which would include both the Government of North Vietnam and that of China?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, that is a constructive suggestion from my noble friend; but I think we must realise that U Thant, as Secretary-General of the United Nations, is a man closely identified with the United Nations and its organisation; and I repeat that the North Vietnamese have rejected any suggestion that the United Nations should be involved in their affairs.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, may I put a last supplementary question? Would my noble friend reply to Lord Brockway by reminding him that in the 1954 Geneva Conference both the Viet Cong (now North Vietnam) and the People's Republic of North China were

367
represented although neither was a member of the United Nations? And will he not be aware that, although it is true that the Conference was not actually under the ægis of the United Nations, it was organised by members of the United Nations?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I think my noble friend has performed that task more effectively than I could have done myself.

GOVERNMENT STATEMENTS
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have already given Private Notice. The Question is:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what effect the "work to rule" by members of the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen has had on the services provided by British Railways and what plans they have to minimise the hardship and inconvenience which passengers and industry will experience as a result of this dispute.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Shepherd will answer this Question in the form of a Statement at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. My noble friend Lord Shackleton will then make a Statement on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons. It may be for the convenience of the House if I inform your Lordships that it is intended to adjourn the Committee stage of the Consumer Protection Bill for one hour this evening, from 7.30 p.m. to 8.30 p.m., when a buffet dinner will be available in the Dining Room.

CONSUMER PROTECTION BILL [H.L.]
2.58 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS (LORD WINTERBOTTOM): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Winter-bottom.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 11:
False or misleading indications as to price of goods
11.—(1) If any person offering to supply goods of any description gives, by whatever means, any false indication to the effect that the price at which the goods are offered is equal to or less than—

(a) a recommended price; or

(b) the price at which the goods or goods of the same description were previously offered by him or are being offered by others;

or is less than such a price by a specified amount, he shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be guilty of an offence.
(3) For the purposes of this section—

(a) an indication that goods were previously offered at a higher price or at a particular price shall be taken, unless the contrary is expressed, as an indication that they were so offered for a substantial period within the preceding six months;

(b) anything likely to be taken as an indication as to a recommended price or as to the price at which goods are being or were previously offered shall be treated as such an indication; and

LORD DRUMALBYNmoved, in subsection (1), to leave out paragraph (a). The noble Lord said: In introducing this Amendment, the first to Clause 11, perhaps I may be allowed to say first of all that this is one of the most difficult clauses, and that I have a later Amendment down—so has my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood—dealing with the whole of the clause. But because those Amendments are dealing with the generality of the principle, and because that clause to some extent incorporates the Amendment that I am now about to

369
move, it seems appropriate that we should discuss, rather paradoxically, the details first. In so doing, we can clear out of the way the details, and when we get to the Question, That the clause stand part, deal with the principle. I hope that will be agreeable to the Committee.
The purpose of this particular Amendment is to leave out the words "a recommended price; or". The effect of that is that it removes from the clause the provision as regards a false indication to the effect that the price at which the goods are offered is equal to or less than a recommended price. Apart from pharmaceutical products, comparatively few goods can be said to be normally or usually sold at a recommended price; although food products of low unit values are an exception. In fact it is not really clear what is meant by "a recommended price"—it is not defined in the Bill or anywhere else.
The nearest to a definition is that contained in Section 1(4) of the Resale Prices Act 1964, which refers to prices recommended as:
"appropriate for the resale of goods supplied or to be supplied by the supplier."
In fact, it is in some cases impossible to find any resale transactions taking place at the recommended price. There are certain branded products where there are no transactions which take place at the recommended price so far as anybody can find out. In other cases the list price, as has been found in the United States of America, is sometimes not taken, and is quoted purely in order to enable dealers to attract buyers by pretending that they are getting a bargain. Experience shows that it is not difficult for a dealer to get the person who supplies him to recommend a fictitious price. It is also found that prices are sometimes quoted, by way of comparison with list prices or recommended prices, from lists which are quite out of date. For that reason my Amendment seeks to exclude recommended prices altogether. I would only add that, if they are to be included, I would ask whether it would not have been desirable that they should be qualified by the words with which I qualified them on Second Reading, that is, "genuine and current". I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, leave out line 30.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for his explanation of the way he proposes that we should tackle this clause, which everybody agrees is complex and at the moment unsatisfactory. I make the following proposal to the noble Lord. As my noble friend intimated during the Second Reading debate, we are very conscious that we have not achieved the most satisfactory formulation of the clause as it stands at present. It may be it would be better to consider the approach then suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, of barring comparative pricing altogether, except in defined circumstances. This would be quite a drastic step, but if it is desired to cover all the great variety of misleading claims involving imprecise and often meaningless comparisons, such as the usual retail price, or the price charged for comparable goods, direct prohibition may be the only effective way. What we should now like to do is consider the alternatives again, in consultation with the noble Lord and with others, with a view to putting forward a remodelled Clause 11 in another place.
The noble Lord has attempted to remodel the clause, as has the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, and I can give an undertaking that we shall, in the light of to-day's discussions, try to recast this clause in a more acceptable form. This may be a somewhat lengthy piece of work. I hope your Lordships noticed that I said that we propose to table a remodelled clause in another place. We must obviously have conversations with people interested in the subject, which will take time, so I do not see that we shall be able to do anything with this clause in this House. This is not necessarily true of, for instance, Amendment No. 14 which I undertook to have another look at. I hope that we shall be able to produce an Amendment at a later stage in the passage of the Bill in this House, but this clause is so complex an affair that we shall have to give time for discussion, and so on. But as the noble Lord suggested let us take the various Amendments to the clause as part of the business of remoulding it.
The noble Lord has, in fact, drawn on the American practice to argue that we should leave out the words "a recommended price". I presume we can argue

371
that in marketing matters we tend to follow the United States and that what we are afraid of is that the practice will grow in which unrealistic price lists will be issued so that retailers can say that they are selling at below the recommended price, and thus get "phoney" publicity for what they are trying to do. The noble Lord says that because this is an extremely uncommon practice it is unnecessary that we should alter this clause, but since this form of mis-statement exists, and can grow in this country, we are anxious that we should have the power to control a mis-statement of this type. There are two positive reasons for retaining this provision. In the first place, there are cases in which a false claim to be undercutting the recommended price is a serious mischief in itself and ought to be penalised; and secondly, even where a false claim to be undercutting the recommended price is also the means of giving a false indication that the prices of others are being undercut, it is going to be much easier to bring home the offence of undercutting the recommended price. I think we all realise that it is not always going to be easy to prove the offence of making a false claim to be undercutting the prices of others. For this reason, I think that Clause 11 will be seriously weakened if the reference to a recommended price were omitted.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: With regard to the general statement of my noble friend, I should like to offer my humble congratulations to the Government for the course of action which they propose. I have never been happy about Clause 11, and while very strongly supporting the principle of what it is endeavouring to do, I said on Second Reading that I had had discussions with people who were knowledgeable in this matter and that they felt that this clause needed re-writing. I should like to congratulate my noble friend very much on what he has decided to do.
LORD SAINSBURY: If it is in order to do so, I should like to support what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, about recommended prices. As a retailer, I think that to-day there is a tremendous lot of unreality about recommended prices, when in towns there is not a single retailer selling at the recommended price. This is a Consumer
372
Protection Bill, and to talk in this connection about recommended prices is, to my way of thinking, of no great aid or help to the consumer.
LORD HAWKE: I greatly welcome the statement of the Minister that he intends to withdraw this clause, because this is one clause which I thought to be rather sillier than most in a Bill which, as the noble Lord knows, I think a rather silly Bill. I am not quite sure that what the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, has said applies universally. It definitely applies, of course, in his line of retailing, but if I am going to buy, say, a bottle of whisky, or something of that sort, I cannot carry in my head what is the full price; and I like to be able to be told that the full price was so-and-so, and that the price asked was a reduction of so much on that figure. So I do not think there is much in that point.
When we get on to some of the rest of the phrases in the clause I think we shall have the greatest difficulty in producing a clause which is in the least workable. I can quite see the object of the exercise, but when I suggested to the female element of my entourage that this was one of the objects of the Bill they were all rather pleased, until I pointed out (which made them have serious thoughts) that it was a "spoil-sport" clause; because if there is one thing that the female sex really enjoys it is sallying off to the sales, and using knees and elbows, and possibly hatpins. They derive great pleasure from bringing back an armful of spoils which have been heavily marked down from a fictitious price, probably, to the proper price. But if the noble Lord is going to make that sort of thing completely illegal, he will be killing one of the joys of life for a great many of very harmless respectable ladies. That would be a very great pity, and, I think, a quite impracticable thing to try to do.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I would make only one point in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Hawke. I did not wish to withdraw the clause, but was undertaking to make certain that it was remodelled before it reached another place. I believe that for technical reasons we have to let the clause stand part, otherwise we have nothing to talk about.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I certainly welcome the noble Lord's intention of

373
remodelling the clause. I am not quite so happy about his broad suggestion that comparative prices should be banned, except in defined circumstances, because the difficulty will be to define the circumstances in which they are permitted. I am not clear about the reasons why the noble Lord is rejecting this proposition. If it is because he is of the opinion that it may be permissible to give a false indication of a price in relation to a recommended price if we take out the words "recommended price". I had formed the impression that this would not be so in the light of subsection (2). I go further and say to him that if this is his objection, then I think that a much easier way of avoiding that difficulty could be found. If the noble Lord makes a specific reference to a recommended price here, I think he is asking for trouble. I will not put it higher than that just now. But if he wants to avoid a false indication in relation to recommended price, then he could do it in another way. I thought that this was already done in the clause, without a specific reference to recommended price, but if that is not so, I would ask leave to withdraw my Amendment on the supposition that this will be one of the matters that will be looked at generally in connection with the remodelling of the clause.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.15 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYNmoved, in subsection (1)(b), to leave out "goods or goods of the same description" and insert "same or comparable goods". The noble Lord said: This Amendment seeks to leave out the words "goods of any description" and insert "same or comparable goods". This is a good deal more than a drafting Amendment, though it has a drafting aspect. The heading of the clause is: "Misstatements other than false trade descriptions". In the very next line are the words "any description", which clearly have a different meaning from "false trade description". That itself seems a little undesirable. The description on line 26 is likely to be taken as meaning the same as the words in line 25, although I doubt whether it is intended to be so taken. But in this Bill we are not dealing with what the person who supplies the goods or the Government intend; we are deal-
374
ing with the way in which the Bill is going to be construed. The same word is used in line 31 and presumably refers back to line 26, but whatever it may be I suggest that it is not appropriate. It seems to me that the word can only mean the sum of the trade descriptions—that is to say, all the physical characteristics and other things mentioned in Clause 2.
There are three kinds of price comparison. There is price comparison between two sets of goods which are identical—that is, of the same brand or quality. Secondly, there is price comparison between two sets which are not identical but similar enough to be comparable. Thirdly, there is price comparison between two sets of goods similar but not comparable. If the comparison were false in the third case it would be because the rival goods were mis-described, because to say they were comparable was, by implication, to apply a false description to them, and if I understand the Bill correctly it is equally wrong to apply a false description to somebody else's goods as to apply it to one's own. If I am right in that, this would be caught under Clause 3, even under Clause 2. The reason for putting in "same or comparable" is that there does not seem to be any reason why comparisons should not be caught by the clause if, in fact, they were false. As the clause is drafted at the moment, that would not be so, unless there was a very wide and woolly interpretation of the word "descriptions", which I cannot believe is intended in this connection. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 31, leave out from second ("the") to ("were") in line 32 and insert ("same or comparable goods").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD CAWLEY: I support my noble friend fully on this Amendment, but I have another reason for doing so. The words "goods of the same description" are taken from the Trade Marks Act 1938 and are possibly some of the most obscure words in that "fuliginous" Act, to Use a word used by Lord Justice Mackinnon about one of its sections. To define "goods of the same description" is a matter which usually takes one to the Courts of Appeal of the House of Lords. I can give your Lordships some

375
examples. Shoes and shoe polish were held to be goods of a different description. Mustard and semolina were held to be goods of a different description. On the other hand, ice-cream and jelly were held to be of the same description and so were wines and spirits. Strange to relate, by a recent description rum and rum cocktails were held to be goods of a different description. I hope that my noble friend will not retain this phrase in the Bill because I am sure that lay magistrates are going to have a lot of trouble with it. Otherwise, I am glad that my noble friend is going to withdraw his clause and that it will be remodelled, and I hope that note will be taken of the point. I beg to support my noble friend.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I am certain that the lucid explanation of his point of view by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will be helpful to the Parliamentary draftsmen who will have to work on this clause. I agree with him that the problem is to get the Bill drafted in such a way that it is easy to construe. It is the construction that we put on these clauses that will be important when the Bill is turned into an Act. If I may give the point of view of the Department concerned, it may be helpful to the noble Lord to understand what we are driving at. The word "description" does not frighten us unduly. It has been used as a perfectly common word equivalent to "class" or "kind", and has no technical meaning in this clause. In the opinion of the Government, the Amendment as drafted would unduly extend the scope of this clause. In subsection (1) the expression "goods of the same description" means goods that are identical in all respects. To replace it by the expression "comparable goods" would mean that a retailer would be liable to prosecution in a much wider range of cases.
There is much room for argument about when goods are comparable, as the noble Lord, Lord Cawley, has reminded us. Indeed, the effect of the Amendment might well be to bring in claims which are not really claims to reduce prices, but claims to be offering better value for money and, as we know, this is impossible to define. In the view of Her Majesty's Government, the result would be a wider, vaguer and less easily enforced provision.
376
For this reason, I should be grateful to the noble Lord if he would withdraw his Amendment.
LORD HAWKE: If we are giving hints and tips to the draftsmen on how to draft the replacement clause, would they look at this phrase "or are being offered by others". I think that by trying to bring in that particular concession he is landing himself in a lot of unnecessary difficulty, because, presumably, subsection (3)(a) qualifies that the same as everything else. It means that if a trader—and I believe it is rather unethical, and is not usually done—puts up a notice saying that something is two guineas cheaper than the one sold by the chap up the road, he has not only to satisfy himself that that is so to-day, but also that it is two guineas cheaper than the one the chap up the road has been offering for a substantial period. The whole conception has become so complicated that I should be inclined to leave it out.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I find it a little difficult to understand exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, has in mind, because he has said two things. At one time he was saying that "description" was understood as "class"—in fact, I think at one time he said it did not have a meaning.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: If it will help the noble Lord, I will say again what I said. "Description" is a perfectly common word equivalent to "class" or "kind" and has no technical meaning in this clause.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I see: it has no technical meaning. It is a general word like "class" or "kind".
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: Yes.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The trouble is that "class" or "kind" is much wider than the words "the same goods". If you take in the class or kind that is bound to comprise goods of different size and different in quality. "Class" is not a very narrow thing: it is wider than "same". "Class" is really considered as being more than goods absolutely identical. Yet the noble Lord said that the comparison here is intended to catch only goods that are absolutely identical. The noble Lord has now understood what the clause is intended to mean, and we

377
have to consider whether it is right to have a class confined so narrowly as that. All I can say is that a great many of the abuses concern comparisons of price as between comparable goods, and if this is not to be caught, it will mean that it is left outside the legal prohibitions altogether. I think this is something that has to be carefully considered in its implications. Again, I do not think it would be right to pursue it at this stage, but, for my part, I shall certainly be pleased to accept the invitation of the Government to discuss this matter with them further. On that understanding, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.24 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYNmoved, after subsection (2), to insert:
"( ) A person shall not be convicted of an offence under this section if an indication appears on any goods which he supplies or offers to supply for re-sale or any container or advertisement for those goods that the price has been reduced by a specified amount, if he has reduced his price by an amount sufficient to allow the goods to be re-sold at a price reduced by the specified amount."
The noble Lord said: This is an attempt to deal with what some people regard as an abuse that is certainly widespread; that is, the technique of marking goods "3d. off", or anything of that sort. People are inclined to say that it tells them nothing, and they ask, "Off what?". I have always felt that a moment's thought would tell them the answer. If we may just occupy a moment or so, let us see what it is.
It seems to me that "3d. off" is an indication put on by the manufacturer, and not by the retailer. Furthermore, as everybody knows, the manufacturer can no longer dictate to the retailer the price at which he must sell. The words, therefore, can mean only that the manufacturer is claiming that he has reduced his price by enough to make it possible for the retailer to reduce his price by 3d. If that claim is true, then the manufacturer ought not, in my view, to be taken to court and convicted simply because the retailer may have pocketed the difference—not that that is likely to happen very often. But the retailer is perfectly entitled to vary his price, and could, for example, offer the goods for more than the 3d. reduction one day and then return to the 3d. reduction
378
the next. Every shopper knows that, or ought to know it, by now. All the manufacturer is doing is to say what he has done with his price, as a rule for a limited period, and sometimes in a limited area.
At a time when it is important that prices should not rise in the shops, and when manufacturers are expected to cut their prices if they can, to me it makes sense to allow manufacturers to continue this practice, because it pretty well forces retailers to pass on to their customers any reductions made by manufacturers. That being so, it seems to me to be against the public interest that manufacturers should be forced to discontinue this practice for fear of falling foul of this clause. Of course, if the retailer did pocket the difference, and did not reduce his price, he might well be prosecuted. If he does not choose to run the risk he has his own remedy, in that he need not accept goods marked in this way. But at least the manufacturer ought not to be prosecuted if he has played his part and done enough to justify the claim. The point in moving this Amendment is to find out what is the Government's attitude and their intention by this Bill in regard to what is a widespread and, I would almost say, established practice. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 40, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD STRABOLGI: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, on this Amendment for the reasons that he has given, and also for an additional reason: that this method of reducing prices, to which the noble Lord referred as "3d. off", is a useful form of manufacturers' promotion in introducing customers to new lines, and is used extensively and quite openly in respect of fast-moving consumer goods. As the noble Lord has said, there is grave danger that the clause as at present drawn may put such promotions as I have indicated at considerable risk. Following the noble Lord, I, too, shall be interested to know what my noble friend has to say, and what form of interpretation he puts on to this clause and the implications which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and I have raised.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My noble friend has asked me what interpretation I put upon this clause, and I will say at once that it happens to be completely the opposite interpretation put upon it by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. As I see the situation, no retailer would display in his shop a packet with "3d. off" printed on the packet in large letters unless it was part of a promotion campaign agreed between himself and the manufacturer.
It is the view of the Government that the noble Lord's view is based on a misconception. Take the case of a manufacturer of soap powder who makes up his product in the packets in which they will ultimately reach the consumer, and marks those packets "3d. off". We believe that when the manufacturer sells such packets to the retailer he is not indicating that his price to the retailer is 3d. less than that at which he previously supplied him with soap powder—
LORD DRUMALBYN: I did not say that. I said that he cut the price sufficiently to enable the retailer to take 3d. off.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I am saying the contrary. He is saying in this statement that he is not indicating that he has reduced his price to the retailer.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Not at all.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: Not at all. It is the same as before, but it is part of the promotion campaign. The retailer is taking a lower margin than before. Therefore, there is no question, in those circumstances, of the manufacturer's committing an offence under Clause 11. The same is true where the manufacturer advertises a price reduction and it is clear that the price referred to is the price to the consumer and not the price to the retailer. In so far, therefore, as the Amendment seeks to protect the manufacturer or wholesaler in such cases, it is unnecessary. It is for this reason that I ask your Lordships to reject this Amendment.
LORD HAWKE: I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, disagree with the interpretation put on this by my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, because I could not make head or tail
380
of the clause. As expounded by the Minister it certainly makes slightly more sense to me than it did when explained from this side. Could we have a distinguished neutral on the subject? Could the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, say how he interpretes it, because I imagine that he has spent much of his waking hours on it.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I think his particular interpretation might well be something that happens occasionally. My information is that it is not something that happens normally. This illustrates how very wide is the spectrum we have to cover in cases of this kind. I am afraid the upshot of this is that very little guidance is given as to the legality or otherwise of this sort of practice. All the noble Lord has said, in effect, if I understood him correctly, is that it will depend on the circumstances; and the circumstances he indicated, he said, would be legal. He did not pronounce on the circumstances I indicated. But again I think we have done enough in airing this problem to enable the Government to continue studying it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DRUMALBYNmoved, in subsection (3)(a), to leave out "the contrary" and insert "a different meaning". The noble Lord said: This Amendment is very nearly a drafting Amendment. The words that appear in the context are "the contrary", and the clause at present states that an indication that goods are being offered at a higher price by others shall be taken, unless the contrary is expressed, as an indication that they are being so offered by others carrying on a business which is comparable as respects prices at which goods are offered in the course thereof. It seems that what is intended is that it will be perfectly lawful for the person offering the goods to attach to the price comparison any different meaning from the meaning that is implied here; and, as that appears to be the intention, it seems to us that "a different meaning" would be the right words to use, rather than "the contrary". There is no contrary of "a substantial period within the preceding six months". There might be a contradiction, but not a contrary. I think the present wording is wrong in

381
logic, and in the English language, and I think my words are simpler. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 44, leave out ("the contrary") and insert ("a different meaning").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: Her Majesty's Government in fact agree that the noble Lord's wording is somewhat superior to their own, though equally complex. It is not certain that the Amendment would alter significantly the practical effect of subsection (3)(a). Nevertheless, if the noble Lord is willing to withdraw it, we will certainly consider his Amendment in the context of our proposed further examination of the clause as a whole.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. On that understanding, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DRUMALBYNmoved, in subsection (3)(a), after "period" to insert "appropriate to the goods". The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals purely with the interpretation of the word "substantial". Some misgiving has been expressed that the courts will tend to give a rather fixed meaning to the word "substantial" in relation to the period of six months. I think it is intended by the Government that it should be a relative and not an absolute term. What is a substantial period in relation to some kinds of goods may not be substantial in relation to others. It is not the same, for example, for cabbages as for motor cars; not the same for ladies' ready-made fashion goods as for gentlemen's bespoke suits. It seems desirable, therefore, that the wording of the clause should draw the attention of the courts to the relative character of the word "substantial", and that is the purpose of this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 45, after ("period") insert ("appropriate to the goods").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD HAWKE: I am not sure that this is the essence of the "spoil-sportness" of this particular clause, because it means that if the goods have had to be at a certain place for a "substantial period",
382
in the preceding six or eight months, or some period as defined by my noble friend, they will have had to be there in fact. As your Lordships are well aware, most goods in sales, in shops that have sales, have never been there before. In fact, I have often made the department manager of a certain store blush when I have walked into his department in the middle of a sale and asked him, "Are there any goods here not brought in specially for this sale?". He has generally had to confess that there were not; or at any rate that there were remarkably few. Therefore, this is the clause which, so far as I can see, is going to "kill" the idea of having a sale at all.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: When I listen to the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, I have the greatest possible sympathy with him. When I tried to study my share of this Bill, I felt that much the best thing to do would be to pass a single clause which enforced all retail establishments to put over their doors a notice, "Let the buyer beware", and leave it at that; and I think we should get just as good results. Nevertheless, we must do our duty.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, I think there is something in what he says. Clause 11(3)(a) provides that an indication that goods were previously offered at a higher price, or at a particular price, shall be taken as an indication that they were offered at that higher or particular price for a substantial period within the preceding six months. I agree, of course, that what amounts to a "substantial period" must be affected by the nature of the goods concerned—the noble Lord referred to the difference between cabbages and cars—and this is obviously relevant. I suggest, however, that the Amendment is unnecessary. What amounts to a "substantial period" in this context must depend on al] the relevant factors, of which the nature of the goods is only one. It is undesirable and unnecessary to specify just one of the factors to be taken into account—this limits things unnecessarily—and for this reason I ask your Lordships to reject the Amendment.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: I wish to comment on what the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, said. I do not dissent in general from his remarks about

383
sales, but I think it would be good to place on the Record that, certainly in London, and I imagine in some provincial cities, there are stores which take a contrary and very reputable view. I should like to pay tribute to the Retail Trading Standards Association, which has asked its members, when they hold sales, to put on their price tickets, "Member of the Retail Trading Standards Association", which carries with it a guarantee that the price crossed out is the real price of the goods sold in that store prior to the sale, and that the cheaper price is a real sale price. I can think of one large organisation in this connection—there may be others. I can remember seeing in the stores of the John Lewis Partnership, when the sales were on last autumn, cards in the various departments which explained to customers how goods for sales were obtained. They explained that they were goods held in the stores which, for some reason or other, had not been sold. Or perhaps it was that the buyer wanted to get a new range. It explained the whole system of reductions. While I am not dissenting from the fact that, I think, there are many fraudulent practices in sales, I believe that some reputable stores do a very good job in this respect, and I think we should pay a tribute to them.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I agree with the tribute the noble Baroness has just paid to the majority of stores. So far as what my noble friend Lord Hawke has stated is concerned, of course if the goods are brought in particularly for the occasion, then the question of the comparison with the price at which those goods were sold previously can scarcely arise. That is not what we are talking about on this particular Amendment. In view of what the noble Lord has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.40 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYNmoved, to leave out Clause 11 and insert the following new clause:
"11.—(1) If any person offering to supply goods of any description gives, by whatever means, any false indication, direct or indirect, of the price at which he was previously supplying the goods or at which any other person is offering the same or comparable goods he
384
shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be guilty of an offence.
(2) For the purposes of this section—

(a) any such indication that goods were previously offered at a higher price shall be taken, unless a different meaning is expressed, as an indication that they were so offered for a substantial period within the preceding six months;

(b) a person advertising goods as available for supply shall be taken as offering to supply them;

(c) in considering whether or not the period is substantial in relation to the goods, regard shall be had to their nature."

The noble Lord said: We now come to consider the clause as a whole, and I am afraid at this stage I must trouble your Lordships with a wider consideration of the clause. I think it is important to recognise, and it is of course emphasised by the heading, that it differs in character from the previous clauses. We have been dealing with the attributes of goods, characteristics which are ascertainable as a matter of analysis or historical inquiry, and what is said or implied about them. Goods are offered for sale by description or by brand name, which is a shorthand way of describing them. It is assumed that all cartons of a particular pack of washing powder have identical characteristics. It is assumed that all cars of a particular type are the same, except possibly for colour—or as nearly the same as the limits of man-made machinery and human error will permit.
But price varies from time to time, from town to town, and from shop to shop—and even from transaction to transaction. Indeed, this is what the Resale Prices Act sought to achieve. The price marked on the goods is the price at which they are being offered for sale. It is always open to the purchaser to make a counter-offer. Of course, if one made an offer at a self-service store one would probably get a dusty answer, unless the goods were obviously damaged; and in the same way if one wrote and offered a lower price for goods that were advertised in a bargain space advertisement one might wait for ever for a reply. But the fact remains that the price tag is an offer to sell at a price not higher than that marked, and it is no argument to say that most consumers will either buy at that price or go elsewhere. Of course they will; but that does not alter the nature of price, which must be agreed, even if under duress

385
on the part either of the seller or of the buyer.
It is perfectly legitimate for the supplier to tell the public that his price is lower than it was, or is lower than the price at which the public can buy elsewhere, and it was on this point that I was slightly concerned with what the noble Lord said about banning comparative prices except in certain defined cases. It is, after all, in the interests of the public to be told when they can get a good "buy". The difficulty is that a statement made at nine o'clock in the morning may be falsified at five minutes past nine when the shop down the street brings its price into line. What happens if a weights and measures inspector comes along at ten minutes past nine? It so often happens that the price from which an article was originally reduced, and which is used to compare the price at which it is now being offered with the price at which it is sold elsewhere by other persons, is reduced also in the other shop, and so a false statement is being made, the statement having been falsified by the fact of the shop next door altering its price.
The clause as drafted implicitly admits the difficulty. What is meant by the price at which goods "are being offered by others"? Even if the goods are identical—a particular brand of goods of the same vintage, so to speak—how many others must there be? Does the plural include the singular? Are two others enough? All this is vital to the interpretation of the clause. I suspect that the Board of Trade would have liked the clause to refer to the normal or usual price. But how do you establish the normal or usual price—even in a particular locality? The object of the Resale Prices Act was to ensure that there would be no normal price. In a competitive market, prices do, and should, vary from day to day, and from hour to hour.
It might be possible for the Board of Trade to define by order what is meant by a normal or usual price under Clause 7, so that the public would know that the "normal" or "usual" price meant the price at which the supplier himself usually sells, and nothing else. Is not what is said about price an "expression used in relation to goods"? Perhaps the Bill should make clear that this
386
applies to prices but, if it did so, it could relate only to identical goods and not to similar or comparable goods, although I recognise that the Government do not intend that it should relate to comparable goods.
I do not want to give the impression hat I am in any way opposed to steps which will protect the consumer from being misled as to price. Far from it. Nor do I differ from organisations which seek to protect traders from other traders who try to obtain an unfair advantage by misrepresenting their prices in relation to those charged by others. What I want is that any legislation should be both rational and enforceable, and I have serious doubts whether the clause as it now stands is either. At present the voluntary control requires that price claims, like all other claims, should be capable of substantiation. Admittedly, the voluntary system does not work perfectly, any more than any statutory system does or could, but it is gradually becoming more effective. Its strength lies in the fact that it has the support of decent traders. I think the noble Lord and I are at one in seeing the voluntary system and statutory controls not as alternatives but as complementary to each other.
In the matter of price—and I am here talking only of price and value—there is a serious risk in the field of advertising that if the law proved unenforceable the consumer would be worse off than he is now, because there would be an opportunity for dishonest traders (and there are some, though they are proportionately few) and even for honest traders who had made an honest error of judgment, to refuse to comply with the rules of the voluntary system and the decisions of the Advertising Standards Authority as to their application, and to say, "I am doing nothing against the law. If you disagree, prosecute me". Therefore, if the law proved unenforceable—and there is a strong body of opinion which says that as at present drafted Clause 11 would prove unenforceable—the last case would be worse than the first. The voluntary system would also be weakened and dishonesty would increase. I think that is the great difficulty of this clause.
To summarise, I hope the Government will look at this clause again and will consider these points. I think there are good grounds for believing that the clause

387
drafted as loosely as it now is would seldom prove enforceable. It could be argued that it would be better to leave it out altogether. That is not my view. But I do submit that it should be confined to misstatements of ascertainable fact and not extended to matters of opinion.
To some extent this is a matter of degree. If the clause is to cover comparable goods, it may be difficult to say that a price comparison is false if the differences are small. On the other hand, there may be no doubt at all if the trader states that his price is 25 per cent. below that at which comparable goods can be obtained elsewhere. There is an element of opinion here, but it lies within the range of trade description, not price. As the Bill is drafted, a person commits an offence if he applies a false trade description to any goods, not merely to goods which he himself is supplying or offering to supply. The range of prices for goods of different quality can be ascertained as a fact, though not easily; but to ascertain the normal or usual price would require a full survey. Opinion, then, may enter into a comparison of quality, but on price I hope that the Government will confine the clause to what can be ascertained as facts. It will be difficult enough even then.
Finally, is the clause intended to catch statements as to value or worth? I ask this because if it does not, its effect will undoubtedly be that less scrupulous traders will cease to compare the prices of their goods with the prices charged elsewhere and will rely on statements such as "Worth £50; our price £30". It is difficult to see that if anyone were prosecuted for such a statement under Clause 11 (3)(b) he could possibly be convicted. But doubts have been expressed. Therefore, I hope the noble Lord will give an answer to that particular question and will make clear the intention of the Government. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 11 and insert the said new clause.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I think the value of the noble Lord's speech on his Amendment is his statement of his view of the problems of drafting such a clause and his approach to it. May I
388
get one point out of the way before replying to that Amendment? It is on this question of value and worth: statements like "Value £4 for 35s."; or "Worth £5". As of now, we do not believe we can catch this mis-statement. As of now, "value" and "worth" used in this way are outside the scope of the Bill, as drafted. If the noble Lord can think of any way of overcoming this difficulty we shall, I know, be grateful; but it is difficult. I agree with him completely that legislation of this sort must be rational and enforceable, and that it should be based only on cases where there has been a mis-statement of an ascertainable fact. I would say that these are very important principles which should lie behind the drafting of this or any similar clause.
One point made by the noble Lord which struck me as being extremely important was the point about a claim which may be correct at 9 o'clock in the morning but may be falsified, and therefore false, by 9.15. If a statement is made saying, "10 per cent. cheaper than any shop in this street", this can, of course, be corrected very quickly by the neighbouring shopkeepers. It is obviously a state of affairs for which the actual shopkeeper cannot be blamed. I think I have stated Her Majesty's Government's attitude to this clause. We are asking for the help of this House to study and comment upon it, and we shall be turning to the noble Lord opposite and other interested parties in the light of to-day's discussion to provide a new clause which we hope will be a better clause by the time the Bill reaches another place.
House resumed.

RAIL SERVICES: THE A.S.L.E.F. DISPUTE
3.53 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, with permission I will now answer the Private Notice Question that was put earlier this afternoon in terms of the ASLEF work-to-rule.
It is too early to make a full assessment. The situation this morning was that over 100 passenger trains were cancelled on Southern Region, and there was some late running. In other regions the effect has not so far become serious.

389
In London and other conurbations a series of special arrangements was made in advance to facilitate the inflow and outflow of rush-hour car traffic such as freeways for tidal flows. Extra car parking space was made available and many parking meter restrictions were relaxed. Any necessary relaxations of licensing and other restrictions on freight and passenger traffic by road will be introduced as demanded by the situation as it develops.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for his statement about the ASLEF work-to-rule. Whilst I am sorry to hear of the dislocation in the Southern Region this morning, may I welcome the news that most ASLEF members are evidently continuing to work and serve the public, and ignoring the unwise advice of their union. Is the noble Lord aware that there is a growing awareness that continuous concessions by British Railways management in the face of union pressures eventually lead to worsening service and higher cost; and even if greater hardship and inconvenience are temporarily involved, the Government should avoid the line taken in earlier disputes and firmly support the management in taking a stand this time?
There are two other small points that I should like to put. Would the noble Lord tell us what the traffic conditions were in London to-day in the light of the emergency arrangements? Secondly, have the Government asked employers for any special arrangements for the staggering of hours in order to ease peak-time movements? Finally, would the noble Lord tell us whether he can give any prediction as to the future course of the dispute?
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord for the statement he has just made. There is one minor question that I would put. Are the Government considering urging some kind of relaxation of the "no-standing" rule in buses?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am not quite sure whether the earlier remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, were meant to be helpful. This is one of those difficult industries, in the sense that it is contracting and there has naturally been concern amongst the workers. Efforts have been made in
390
the past by Governments—Governments before the present Government—to find ways of seeking a solution. But at least I agree with the noble Lord to this extent; that it is argued that the present dispute is unnecessary, and the sooner it is over the better, not only in the interests of the commuters but in the interests of the country as a whole.
In regard to traffic conditions, I understand that in London the traffic flow was no greater than on a normal Monday. This is perhaps due to the increased car-parking facilities and the very strict rule about off-loading of vehicles. In regard to what employers can do in London, clearly if we could get an increase in the staggering of working hours, particularly in terms of the evening, so taking the pressure off the railways at peak period, this would be of very great assistance.
The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, asked me about the "no-standing" rule on buses. I am sorry that is a piece of information I did not seek, but I will find out what I can on it. As to predictions, I only hope that the workers who are involved will see that a solution can be obtained fairly and honourably across the table and that there is no need to hold the country to ransom.
LORD RATHCAVAN: My Lords, can the noble Lords say whether these drivers who are working to rule are entitled to receive full wages all the time?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the problems involved, as I understand it, arise basically at the moment from exercising what are called rest days. It is interesting to note that 20 to 25 per cent. of our present service is carried out by drivers who work on their rest days. A driver who refuses to take out a freight train, and is sent home for the shift, clearly does not receive the pay for that shift. He will have an opportunity of reporting to-morrow, and if he then wishes to take the train out he may so do; but there is no question of his receiving pay for duty not carried out.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I came up from East Kent this morning and the train was completely on time, but almost empty.

391
I am wondering whether perhaps the papers, in all good faith, have rather caused unnecessary panic over this matter, because, so far as I could ascertain, the Ashford—London line trains are apparently running on schedule.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am rather like the noble Viscount. I came up by car at 6 o'clock this morning in order to miss the rush hour, and found I could get across London Bridge a good deal easier than on any day last week. The noble Viscount may be right. While there may have been some wild speculation, I think one must not assume that what have been relatively easy conditions will be the same later in the week when the full effects of the work-to-rule are felt.
LORD ROBERTSON OF OAKRIDGE: My Lords, in view of the Minister's statement that the railway industry is a difficult industry, and indeed one that is riddled by industrial disputes at the present time, can he assure us that something will be done soon to end the present state of uncertainty and disarray that surrounds leadership in the industry?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I would think that that goes well beyond the Question that I was asked earlier this afternoon.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his replies to my questions. Is he aware that the first part of my question was entirely intended to be helpful, and that of course I am aware of the complexities of a shrinking industry? Is he also aware that it really is in the interests not only of the national economy, but also of the majority of; the workers themselves, if management can stand firm and be backed by the Government in doing so?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, it has been this Government's intention, and particularly that of my right honourable friend the Minister of Labour, who is a railway man, to see that the railways are put on to a economic basis; and the sooner that can be done the sooner we can get the true standard of labour which this industry so desperately requires.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS TREATY: INSPECTION SAFEGUARDS
4.2 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, with permission I should like to repeat a Statement which my right honourable friend the Minister of State For Foreign Affairs is making in another place on the subject of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.
As the House will know, a key issue in the negotiations at present taking place in Geneva to secure a non-proliferation treaty has been the safeguards to be applied in order to ensure that there is no diversion by the non-nuclear weapon signatories of the treaty of materials from their civil nuclear programmes to nuclear weapon purposes.
In order to assist these negotiations Her Majesty's Government have decided that, at such time as international safeguards are put into effect in the non-nuclear weapon States in implementation of the provisions of a treaty, they will be prepared to offer an opportunity for the application of similar safeguards in the United Kingdom subject to exclusions for national security reasons only. Her Majesty's Government welcome the similar decision announced by President Johnson on behalf of the United States.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for repeating the Statement of his right honourable friend, I should like to congratulate him on his mastery of Sanskrit in which language his Statement apparently is couched. His right honourable friend in another place might as well have been speaking in his native Welsh. What I did understand enables me to be happy for once at the guarded phraseology of the terms of the undertaking at this stage. Her Majesty's Government, we understand,
"will be prepared to offer an opportunity for the application of similar safeguards in the United Kingdom subject to exclusions for national security reasons only."
Most of the implied italics are mine, although I noticed one that I shared with the noble Lord. But none of them will be repeated in Hansard. But since "the key issue", as the noble Lord called it, has been the safeguards, I would ask: what

393
sort of safeguards have the Government in mind? I think that is the only question I should like to put to him at this point.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am sorry, but if the noble Lord would like it in Arabic I will supply it to him next time. I should have thought that because of the noble Lord's interest in national security the position would be clear. The safeguards relate to the diversion of particular materials to the making of weapons, and this statement relates particularly to fissile materials. These are the international safeguards. But clearly since we ourselves are a nuclear Power involved in making nuclear weapons, it is also necessary for us to reserve our position with regard to that nuclear weapon-making. The safeguards are to ensure that products which might be turned into nuclear weapons in States which sign these treaties do not go into that direction. Clearly, this imposes on them somewhat onerous obligations of inspection, and the United States and the United Kingdom have agreed that we are prepared to make our own facilities available for inspections of this sort.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for making this Statement, may I ask him how rigorous it is intended the inspection will be under the treaty, and who are the type of people who are to do the inspecting? Will they be, for instance, in this country, nationals of this country, or may we expect Russians to come here? Or who are likely to be the inspectors? Secondly, if this reservation is in the agreement on the part both of the United States and of the United Kingdom, how will the inspector be able to inspect if at any time one of these Powers tells him that a particular inspection is excluded because it is against the national interest of the party whose plants are to be inspected?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Lord is raising one of the fundamental difficulties that arise in relation to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the difficulty of the position of those who are nuclear Powers, and have nuclear weapons, and those who are non-nuclear Powers and accept the limitations of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It is hoped, none the less, that it will be regarded as in the international interest, and indeed
394
in the interests of the countries concerned themselves, to accept that general proliferation would be a dangerous thing for the world and that they will accept that limitation.
As for the safeguards, it is a little early for me to attempt to describe them. Obviously, they involve a most technical and detailed form of monitoring. It is likely that this will be carried out under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna. On the other hand, if we join Euratom, Euratom also has a system of safeguards, and that might be appropriate. But, of course, the Treaty is a little way off at the moment, I am afraid. This Statement is merely an indication of willingness on our part o accept the obligations, and indeed the disadvantages, because such inspection can be an expensive business.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I wonder whether I might ask the noble Lord a question. Perhaps I should have understood this, but it is a complicated subject. Does the exclusion for national security reasons apply only to the United States and to this country, or does it apply also to other countries who are participants in the Treaty?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, this particular undertaking that I gave referred to the United Kingdom; and it relates, of course, to the production of nuclear weapons. The undertaking given so far by nuclear Powers has been given only by the United States and the United Kingdom. As I understand it, it is not relevant to other Powers, since they themselves, I presume, under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, will not be making nuclear weapons at all. But I think the noble Lord is on an interesting point. I hope that I have construed correctly for him the answer I have. But I should be happy to pursue that further.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I wonder whether I may pursue the matter to just this point? I quite understand what the Gvernment are trying to do, which is to put the nuclear Powers on the same footing as the non-nuclear Powers. But surely if you exclude from the operation of the safeguards the only reason whereby anybody would want to be excluded, while you may be trying to do some good, in practice you are not doing very much.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point. We are back on the fundamental difficulties of all forms of disarmament negotiations. But, as I understand it, the particular exclusions to which I was referring were the exclusions which related to our own nuclear weapon system and, therefore, would not be relevant in the case of other countries which will be fully exposed so far as their nuclear activities are concerned. Their production and use of fissile material, for example, will be under continuous international check. But, clearly, so far as the United Kingdom is concerned, so far as we may be involved in producing fissile material for weapons, there is clearly a cut-off point where this inspection may no longer have effect.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, may I ask whether there is any reason to expect that the Soviet Government will give a similar undertaking, or is this matter tied up with the discussions which are taking place on Article 3 of the Treaty in regard to general inspection? Is it not a fact that this undertaking is relevant to the Russian position?
LORD SHACKLETON: Yes, it is, my Lords. I am afraid that I cannot make any statement on the Russian position. They may decide that it is not necessary for them. I should say—I do not want to mislead the House—that this is no protection against the making of nuclear weapons by a nuclear Power like the United States, ourselves, or Russia. I should have thought (again I would speak subject to ultimate correction) that the burden of the matter is the fact that commercial information may be derived. Where a non-nuclear Power is concerned, the problem is not related quite so much to national security. I should also add that every country has the right to refuse an inspector nominated by the Agency, and we should not be obliged to accept, say, an inspector from the Soviet Union.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord has yet told the House who will do the actual inspecting.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I thought that I did tell the House.
LORD SOMERS: I am sorry.

CONSUMER PROTECTION BILL [H.L.]
4.13 p.m.
Committee stage resumed.
LORD HAWKE: My noble friend's amended clause, Amendment 32, is obviously much better than the original, but to my mind it has one fatal drawback in that it will make a great number of sales impossible. That is why I call this new clause the "spoilsport" clause. The noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, is correct when she says that there are many genuine sales, particularly of women's wear which goes out of fashion and has to be got rid of. But when one comes to men's wear, and so on, the vast bulk of the goods in sales has been specially bought and specially manufactured to sell at a particular price in that sale. The reason why the goods go like "hot cakes" is because a—shall we say?—fictitious previous price is put on them. They are perfectly good value for the money paid for them, but the consumer flocks into the shop and scrambles to buy them because he thinks they have been marked down. I am inclined to think that that sort of sale will become impossible under a clause of this nature, and with it the standby orders for the mills which presumably make this sort of stuff in between fulfilling their more important orders. For that reason, I do not like this new clause.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Winter-bottom, for what he has said about this Amendment, but there were one or two points which he did not specifically answer. May I put them to him again? Can he tell us whether Clause 7 is intended to apply to price? Clause 7 says:
"Where it appears to the Board of Trade … that any expressions used in relation to the goods should be understood as having definite meanings, the Board may assign such meanings …"
and orders can be made to that effect. I was asking whether, as drafted, what is said about price is an expression in relation to the goods—it would certainly seem that in ordinary use of language it may be, although in strict drafting it may not be. If it is not intended to cover price, perhaps the noble Lord would

397
have a look at this point, as it may prove to be a more convenient way of dealing with some matters of price.
My Amendment excluded subsection (2) of the present clause as drafted. I did this for two reasons. First, because I felt that this was a very small matter to put in conjunction with the whole difficult question of comparative prices and that comparative prices were sufficiently important to have a clause to themselves; and secondly, that I thought this was a matter which again could perhaps be conveniently dealt with in Clause 7. For example, presumably one of the things it is intended to cover is the practice of some barrowboys of put-, ting "½" in small letters and "lb." in big letters, which is obviously likely to be taken as an indication that the goods are being offered at a price less than that at which they are in fact being offered. But I realise that this also affects credit terms, and so on. Part of the object of this re-draft was to enable the question of comparative prices to be dealt with by themselves in one clause.
I do not share my noble friend's views on the "spoilsport" nature of this new clause. All it is intended to do is to prevent the consumer being misled by false statements. Surely that is a desirable object. There is nothing to prevent stores carrying out these sales, and many of them do. In fact, the Retail Standards Association lays down rules for this. When they offer "seconds" specially for sale, they have to be described as such, although you are at liberty to mark also what the goods in their perfect state would cost, so long as you say that they are not in their perfect state and make a comparison on that basis.
LORD HAWKE: I am not talking about "seconds", but orders which have been put with the mills for goods, specially made, of good value to sell at a special retail price.
LORD MITCHISON: Before this Amendment is withdrawn, may I ask one question?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I understood that my noble friend was interrupting me, and perhaps I may complete the point. I quite see the noble Lord's point. The only question is whether they ought to be allowed to make a comparison with a perfectly fictitious price. As
398
he rightly said, the goods are made to be sold at a certain price, and it seems wrong that it should be implied that they have been sold or were being sold elsewhere at another price, if that is not so.
LORD MITCHISON: May I ask a question, both of the noble Lord opposite and also of the Government? I may have missed something in the course of the discussion, but why does this Amendment omit any reference to a recommended price? I should have thought that this was a question of fact. There is no great difficulty in finding out what is a recommended price, so perhaps a definition would be useful.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The short answer to the noble Lord's question is that this was the subject of a discussion on the first Amendment on the Order Paper, to leave out line 30.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: May I revert again to the point which my noble friend raised, because I am not quite happy about it? I think none of us is naïve enough to deny that for the summer and winter sales a great many of the goods are specially manufactured. The sales attract people, because they are supposed to be sales of some goods which were on sale earlier at a higher price. However, I have often heard it said, "We are going to the sales, but of course we know that half the stuff there has been specially manufactured for the sales." But the sales have their point. They keep the mills occupied at periods when otherwise they might not be fully occupied. There does not seem to be any harm so far as the public are concerned. Is it the intention of the Government that that sort of thing should definitely be stopped?
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: May I say that I find the attitude of the two noble Lords opposite quite incredible? They are condoning, and indeed supporting, a dishonest trade description. They are saying, in effect, that customers who go into shops and see perhaps "£6" crossed out and "£3" pet in are going to be deprived of something very valuable to them if that sort of labelling is not to be allowed to continue. I do not know whether the male sex is much weaker than the female sex, but listening to the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, one would imagine that this is

399
the case, because we have heard about this practice being particularly valuable in men's wear and that the men are going to miss it if it does not continue.
What I find quite amazing is the argument that the mills which produce this type of merchandise are going to be deprived of their work if they are not allowed to make it. But, as I understand it, nobody is suggesting that they should not be allowed to make it. We are merely putting forward—at least, I think the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, is patting forward when he is not interrupted so frequently—the proposal that goods shall be sold at a correct price. I really cannot see any argument, and I do not imagine any noble Lord in this House can see any argument, for a contention that the only way, and the best way, to sell goods is to mark them at a higher price, to cross it out and then to put on a lower price; and I hope that the Minister, when he comes to reply, will refute any such suggestion.
LORD MITCHISON: Before my noble friend replies, may I explain that though, no doubt, the question of leaving out a recommended price is being discussed, it is left out by this Amendment, and I can find no change in the Bill which has made it unnecessary. It seems to me quite wrong that it should be left out, and if this Amendment were to go to the vote, apart from any other consideration, I should vote against it on the ground that it did omit this. Having said that in fairly cordial support of the Government, I should like them to put in a definition. I think it is needed. I do not think "recommended price" would always be as clear as that. There may be a definition in the Bill, but I cannot see it.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD BROWN): I rose to deal with this matter, because it seemed to me that the time had come when it was necessary for me, on behalf of the Board of Trade, to make some sort of general statement of policy, for we are virtually debating the whole of the clause on the Amendments so far taken. The noble Lord, Lord Grimston of Westbury, has asked whether it is our intention to introduce the sort of legislation which would result in sales being stopped, and the answer
400
is, "No, of course not". I do not necessarily see why sales with the dishonest connotation that many of them have at the moment should go on in the same form as now, but there is no reason why a sale should not be perfectly honest if goods are brought in at a lower price for that purpose, without being dishonest about it.
The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, asked specifically whether Clause 7 was making any reference to price That is not the intention of the Government. I hope the clause is already clear on that point. If it is not, we shall have to look at it again. The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, referred with dismay to the prospect of mills being short of orders at a vital time, owing to the abolition of sales. As I have said, there is no need to abolish this special period of the year when goods are sold at lower prices than at others, merely because we are having a debate about dishonest practices on pricing.
The noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, drew attention to the omission of "recommended price". I think it is clear, and I am so informed, that the whole absoluteness of recommended prices is rapidly disappearing. A few years ago it might well have been something to which one could attach oneself for comparative purposes. It is rapidly becoming something that has less and less meaning as time goes by, and it would be difficult for the Government to use this term in a particularly meaningful way, although it is in the Bill at the moment.
LORD MITCHISON: Before my noble friend leaves that point, may I ask why it is in the Bill?
LORD BROWN: Perhaps I can answer that by coming to this point now. The debate that has taken place on this clause so far has been extremely useful. It has drawn attention to the fact that there are great difficulties. I think it would be true, in general, to say that in our discussions about this clause we are arguing not about aims but largely about means, and "means" means drafting. We really are faced with very peculiar difficulties in relation to this matter, and the use of the term "recommended" in the clause is just one of the difficulties.
There are various possibilities open. We can leave the Bill somewhat in its

401
present form, probably improved a little as a result of discussion, but still leaving us in a situation where, when we come to consider price comparisons made by retailers with other prices, we shall find that many of the provisions are unenforceable. We have to recognise that the difficulty which we have in enforcing is also a difficulty for the retailer, because the man who says, "My prices are cheaper than others" is really saying something that he would have great difficulty in finding out, if he wanted to do so. So the general proposition which I put to the Committee is that, if this Amendment and, I hope, others which follow on this clause are withdrawn, we will look at the matter very seriously indeed to see what can be done. I do not want to commit the Government more than that at this stage, because we are in for a very difficult time in considering what to do about this whole issue; but we shall take full account of all that has been said in this debate.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: I do not wish to delay the Committee for very long, but the word "dishonest" has been bandied about. A shop which normally sells socks for 5s. a pair may have a sale at Christmas-time, or in the summer, where they are disposing of a lot of other things which have been in the shop at lower prices, and decide, "We have a lot of people in the shop. We can get rid of a lot of these 5s. socks if we sell them at 4s. 10d. or 4s. 6d." How would they have to label those socks which were being sold at a lower price during the sale, and which had been manufactured specially for the sale, but which would normally have sold at a higher price? I do not know whether I have made myself clear.
LORD BROWN: They would say, "Our price for the socks was 5s. We have now reduced it to 4s. 10d."
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: That would still be all right?
LORD BROWN: It would be perfectly legal. There would be nothing at all illegal about it.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: Although the goods would have been specially manufactured for the sale?
LORD BROWN: I am sorry, but I misunderstood the noble Lord. I thought
402
he was referring to socks which they had had in the shop and were selling at 5s. Would he please make his meaning clear, because I have misunderstood him?
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: Let me put it this way. They normally sell the socks at 5s., but they put in a very much bigger order for the socks during the time of the sale and sell them at a lower price.
LORD BROWN: Are they virtually identical goods?
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: Yes, the same.
LORD BROWN: Then the answer which I am given stands in that case. If they are identical goods, they may say, "These goods were sold at 5s. and we are now selling them at 4s. 6d." It is a perfectly honest, straightforward description, and there is everything to be recommended in it.
LORD FORSTER OF HARRABY: It is a common practice for traders to buy up bankrupt stock and to put it in their sales. How would a trader describe such bankrupt stock when he is reselling?
LORD BROWN: There is no necessity at all, in my view, for him to make any reference to a price comparison. He has bought up some goods at a very cheap price. He puts them on sale at a low p-ice, and says, "Here are these goods on sale at a low price. We think you will find the price rather lower." He can put in something like that, but he does not have to put in a comparison, and he cannot do it honestly, in any case.
LORD STRABOLGI: May I suggest, with great respect to the Committee, that as the Government have said that they me going to reconsider this whole clause with a view to redrafting it, and that they will consult with all interested parties before the Bill goes to another place, we should really not deal with these Amendments in any great detail but pass on to the next clause? Because it would appear to me that many of these discussions which we are having, interesting as they are, are mainly academic.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am not so sure that I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. It seems to me that the question raised by my noble

403
friend behind me was a severely practical one; and, if I may say so, I think the noble Lord, Lord Brown, gave the wrong answer, because it would be perfectly possible for the person selling the goods to find out what the goods were being sold at (if they were being sold, as presumably they were) elsewhere, and it would be perfectly lawful under this Bill as drafted for him to say what they were being sold at elsewhere. One could get into great intricacies, but perhaps the noble Lord has unwittingly misled my noble friend about the possibilities open to the seller in those circumstances. I think there would be possibilities. On the more general point, I think the sense of the Committee is that we have discussed this very difficult clause enough. I hope that the discussion has been helpful to the Government, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.32 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOODhad given Notice of her intention to move to leave out Clause 11 and insert a new clause.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER): I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, wishes to move her Amendment in a slightly different form from that which appears on the Paper. In lines 3 and 4 of her Amendment she wishes to leave out the words,
"whether by reason of ambiguity, omission, inference or otherwise".
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I hesitate to talk any more about Clause 11, since the remarks made by Lord Strabolgi; and I quite appreciate that we have had a very long discussion. I was waiting, in fact, because the form in which my Amendment in respect of Clause 11 is drafted—and the noble Lord who has just left the Chamber encouraged us to help the Government with different kinds of drafting—is slightly different from that of my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn. However, I am in the hands of the Committee. If your Lordships feel that you would like to go on to the next Amendment, I should be happy to let my remarks go to the Board
404
of Trade via the Minister; that is, such contribution as the Consumer Council—I am speaking for the Consumer Council on this matter—can make to the redrafting of this clause. I should be happy to let the Minister have that, provided I can be assured that the views that I represent in this debate are known to and considered by the Board of Trade. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 11 and insert the following new clause:
(".—(1) It shall be an offence for any person supplying goods of any description to give, by whatever means, any indication or anything likely to be taken as an indication to the effect that the price at which the goods are offered is less than another price, unless the same or comparable goods

(i) are being sold at the other price or

(ii) have been sold at the other price for a substantial period within the preceding six months or

(iii) have been sold by him at the other price

in substantial quantities in relation to the total volume of such goods which are or have been offered.
(2) Where it is proved by any person that an article supplied by him is unique or custom-built, the provisions in the preceding subsection shall not apply.
(3) For the purposes of this section a person advertising goods as available for supply shall be taken as offering to supply them.")—(Baroness Elliot of Harwood.)
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: The noble Baroness is being extremely helpful. I gather that she is speaking at the moment not so much in her own capacity but as a member of the Consumer Council, and that this attempt to improve Clause 11 is in line with the thinking of the Consumer Council. The noble Baroness may remember that earlier on I said that the Government were only too willing to enter into discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, or with any other noble Lord or organisation which could help us in improving this particular clause. I am certain that the Consumer Council has an important role to play in this process of improvement. I am certain I can commit my right honourable friend and the Board of Trade to discussions with the Consumer Council in the course of our attempt to improve Clause 11. I can make that commitment now.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I thank the noble Lord very much indeed. In those circumstances, I will spare the Committee my speech and the points I was going to make, and will make them to the Board of Trade instead. But I should like to say just one word on the general subject of sales. I am afraid I do not hold the same views as my noble friend Lord Hawke. I do not think that the speeches which have been made from this side on the subject are indeed correct. What we are seeking to do in Clause 11 is to protect the buyer from being cheated or tricked in any way by false prices. I think that what the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, said is entirely correct; and I hope that, in the drafting of this clause, any idea that we are acting as a sort of spoil-sport, or whatever you like to call it, to shoppers is quite erroneous. This is not the fact at all. This clause is to encourage honest trading and to do what we can to help the consumer. The remarks I was going to make are of a technical and legal nature, and I should like to be sure that the arguments of the Consumer Council are considered by the Board of Trade. I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Before the noble Lady withdraws it, may I say one word? Of course, it should never be overlooked that the prevention of dishonesty not only protects the consumer but protects other members of the trade who wish to be honest.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I shall not take it any further. On the understanding that we shall be consulted about this, I withdraw this Amendment now.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12:
False representations as to royal approval or award, etc.
12.—(1) If any person, in the course of any trade or business, gives, by whatever means, any false indication, direct or indirect, that any goods or services supplied by him or any methods adopted by him are, or are of a kind, supplied to or approved by Her Majesty, any member of the Royal Family, any Government department or any local authority, he shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be guilty of an offence.
4.37 p.m.
LORD CAWLEYhad given Notice of two Amendments to subsection (1), the first being to omit "or", where that word last occurs. The noble Lord said: This Amendment is consequential upon the one that follows, No. 35, so I ask the Committee's permission to speak on both. This is not a drafting Amendment, and I spoke on this point during the Second Reading of this Bill and during the Second Reading of the former Bill. This clause deals with false indications that a trader supplies to, or is approved by, certain persons and bodies. At the present moment the words in the clause refer to goods supplied to or approved by:
"Her Majesty, any member of the Royal Family, any Government department or any local authority…"
My Amendment No. 35 seeks to go further and to include also:
"any person or institution, whether in existence or not."
I shall ask leave to exclude the words "or institution", because I understand that under the terms of the Interpretation Act those are unnecessary, since "person" covers an institution.
I think that the present wording is far too narrow, and my grounds are, first, that there are a great many other bodies, other than rural district councils, parish councils and Government Departments, that need protection—for example, the National Coal Board, British Railways, I.C.I., or even any person. At present traders may falsely say that they supply briar pipes to the Prime Minister, but they must not say, falsely, that they supply them to the Royal Mint. There is something wrong with this. The clause ought to be extended to cover "any person". A trader takes an unfair advantage by saying that he supplies something to a person to whom he does not supply it, or that he is approved by somebody when in fact he is not.
The second point concerns imaginary persons. I am not trying to cover, and I do not think this clause would cover, such frivolous statements as, "As approved by Old King Cole", or, "As supplied to the Queen of Hearts". They, quite obviously, would not be thought to be false indications of anything. But if, for example, a trader said, "As approved by the Ministry of Supply", the fact is

407
that the Ministry of Supply does not exist; it is a non-existent Government Department. If a trader invents a Government Department, a local authority or some big company, then I think there should be some sanction against him: he ought not to get the advantage. Nor should he if he invents somebody holding some public office which does not exist. That is the reason why I desire to move these Amendments. I beg to move the first Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 12, leave out ("or").—(Lord Cawley.)
LORD MITCHISON: This is a very remarkable Amendment. You must not pretend that you have supplied goods to a non-existent person or institution. I just wonder how far this is meant to go. What about a non-existent Monarch? Is it all right for a person to say that he used to supply cheese to the late King William I? Is that all right? Would a more recent Monarch do? I feel this leads us into some very strange places indeed. The Amendment refers to non-existent people and non-existent institutions—though the non-existent institutions have now disappeared. I do not even know whether the Interpretation Act intends to include as a non-existent person a nonexistent institution. It seems to me to be a very nice philosophical question. I suggest that the purpose of the Amendment might have been carried forward better by omitting the reference to nonexistent persons and institutions.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: The noble Lord, Lord Cawley, has raised one or two questions that came to my mind as I studied this clause. My noble friend Lord Mitchison has mentioned the claim to have supplied a Monarch with certain equipment. At many tailors' shops one finds a series of coats of arms (most of them related to Monarchs who have long since passed away) still on the walls, presumably to give one confidence in ordering a suit there. But this really is a little wide of the general intention of the Bill.
Clause 12 is intended to deal with a very special type of false claim; namely, that there is some special cachet attached to goods or services because they are
408
supplied to or approved by Royalty or other specified classes of person. The assumption behind this is that before buying any person's goods or services, or approving his methods, the Royal Family, Government Departments and local authorities can be relied upon to have satisfied themselves that the person and his goods, services, or methods are sound; and that the ordinary consumer can reasonably expect similar satisfaction. This is obviously not the case with all other persons—although admittedly it may be with some—and to say that a product has been supplied to a non-existent person conveys nothing at all. For that reason the Amendments are not appropriate to the purpose of this subsection which is limited in its aim. I think we should be very slow to extend it any further, particularly since many false claims which the Amendments would bring in are already dealt with elsewhere in the Bill.
Clause 2(1) deals with indications that goods are in conformity with a type approved by any person, and that would cover genuine organisations outside this particular clause. Clause 3 deals with claims to comply with non-existent standards (a non-existent human being presumably has non-existent standards), and therefore we could get any statement of this type under Clause 3. Clause 13 deals with the examination or evaluation of services by any person. I think it would be best to leave the sort of case which the Amendments envisage to the general provisions of the Bill and not attach it to a very specialised subsection of this sort. The clause is designed to deal with these limited cases mentioned in the clause itself. The rest I believe we can catch elsewhere if there is intention to mislead.
LORD CAWLEY: The noble Lord believes that most of these matters can be dealt with under other clauses, but I myself am doubtful about that. For example, the Post Office is covered by the provisions of this clause; but what will be the position when the new Act removes its Government Department status?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: Will the noble Lord permit me to give consideration to this point? There may be something in it. Perhaps we could consider

409
it later. That is where the thought behind the Coal Board, which the noble Lord mentioned as a parallel to the future of the Post Office, applies.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I hesitate to add to this discussion, but the noble Lord has referred to the point we considered before, on Clause 2(1)(g):
"a type approved by any person".
Surely the purpose of moving this Amendment, when it was originally moved by Lord Peddie, was to deal with types and the approval of types. This is quite different from the question of a particular article which may be approved by particular persons. Let me put it this way. Royalty does not approve of types of things: it approves of things themselves. You supply those things to Royalty. That is why, if a trader chose to say he was supplying to Royalty a particular thing, he would be caught by this clause. But surely the same thing applies, from the point of view of misleading the public, if a statement of this kind is made about any prominent person. This is what we had in mind in considering this Amendment. Partly it deals with persons, and partly, as originally drafted, it deals with institutions. This was the point which in an earlier stage the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack specifically mentioned. I should have thought it was a point that should have been caught here.
There is also the other side of this Amendment which raises the question of whether the person is fictitious—not obviously fictitious, but where the public are misled by references to someone who appears to exist but who in fact does not exist. I hope that the noble Lord will look at this point again. I am confident that it is not even mainly covered by the Bill as it stands; it is hardly covered at all.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I can give the noble Lord that assurance. It may cause us to alter the scope of this clause somewhat, but our minds are not closed on the subject. I will give an undertaking to do that.
LORD CAWLEY: On the noble Lord's undertaking I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.48 p.m.
LORD CAWLEY: This Amendment is designed to discourage self-advertisers who might want to defend Her Majesty. We all know that there are a certain number of people who ought not to do so but who meddle in litigation. As private prosecutions can still take place under this Bill, this is a way of stopping that sort of thing. I have no doubt that the Lord Chamberlain would express an opinion on this, so I think I need say no more. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 19, at end insert—
("( ) Where the interests of Her Majesty in person are concerned no prosecution shall be commenced under this section without the consent in writing of the Lord Chamberlain.")— (Lord Cawley.)
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: This Amendment provides that the consent of the Lord Chamberlain would be required for prosecutions for offences relating to false indications of use or approval by the Queen herself of any goods, services or methods or to unauthorised use of an emblem signifying an award by the Queen. Under the clause as drafted, it is open to anyone, including a Government Department and the Lord Chamberlain, to take proceedings for any of the offences which it creates, including those to which this Amendment relates—as for offences under the rest of the Bill. This is no anomaly because the primary purpose of the clause, in common with that of the rest of the Bill, is to ensure that the consumer is not misled. It does, of course, also serve to protect the dignity of Her Majesty. In addition, the local authorities which are weights and measures authorities have a duty to enforce this provision, as well as all the other provisions of the Bill. In no case is anyone given a power to veto proceedings. This is as I think it should be.
As your Lordships will know, local authorities will be required under Clause 29(2) to give notice to the Board of Trade of any intended proceedings under the Bill. This would give the Board of Trade an opportunity to consult the Lord Chamberlain about any prospective cases of the kind referred to in the Amendment.
LORD CAWLEY: Does not the noble Lord realise that this is not aimed at

411
local authorities? I am aiming it at private people who come in and make themselves a nuisance.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: Yes, but surely the four groups, Her Majesty the Queen and the three other groups mentioned, are protected by this clause against the private dealer who is misusing the name of one of these groups. I am sorry, perhaps I have not grasped what concerns the noble Lord.
LORD CAWLEY: I am not concerned with weights and measures authorities in this case. I hope I am right in saying that any person, you or I, may prosecute any trader who uses what is thought to be a Royal emblem, without any semblance of reason for doing so, in order to advertise himself. That is what I am trying to keep out.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: There are a whole range of people who may take action: a Government Department, the Board of Trade, the Lord Chamberlain and local authorities acting as weights and measures authorities.
LORD CAWLEY: It is true that all those people can take action, but this is to prevent quixotic people from taking action in defence of Her Majesty. Your Lordships may know that there is a gentleman who goes round trying to prosecute well-known people if they are involved in motor accidents and there would be nothing to prevent somebody advertising himself by prosecuting in the name of Her Majesty. By Section 61 of the Trade Marks Act 1938 the Lord Chamberlain's permission is required before civil proceedings are started, and I think it would be a good thing to apply that to this Bill, in order to protect Her Majesty from interfering busybodies.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I gather from my reading of the Bill that in cases such as have been mentioned by the noble Lord it would be normal procedure for the Government Department or the local authority first to consult the Lord Chamberlain about any prospective cases of the kind referred to in the Amendment. I think that is common ground between us. We do not want the average individual rushing to defend Her Majesty on entirely imaginary grounds. In the way in which the noble Lord has expressed it,
412
I think the matter goes somewhat beyond his intention. We are at one on this, that the Lord Chamberlain will be consulted by any of the authorities who are responsible for taking action before a prosecution takes place in the matter of Her Majesty's Prerogative.
LORD STRABOLGI: The noble Lord, Lord Cawley, has raised a very important point which I do not think has been fully answered by my noble friend, Lord Winterbottom. We are not here talking about local authorities acting as weights and meaures authorities, or anybody else: we are talking about private persons bringing private prosecutions. Pursuing that line of thought, the noble Lord, Lord Cawley, has with great force put forward the idea that similar private prosecutions could be brought over the misuse of Royal emblems, coats of arms and Warrants of Her Majesty. The noble Lord, Lord Cawley, is seeking to amend the Bill so that in the case of these private prosecutions, some of which might be mischievous or brought for notoriety, the permission of the Lord Chamberlain should be obtained, and I think that is an important point. I suggest to my noble friend that the Government ought to take this back and have another look at it.
LORD MITCHISON: Why the Lord Chamberlain? What has he to do with it? We are passing a Statute to provide against the misuse of descriptions of a Royal Warrant. This is a Statute for the benefit of the public generally, and what is suggested is that where there has been such a misdescription the Statute is to provide specially that the Lord Chamberlain may have a veto on a prosecution. Why the Lord Chamberlain? The Trade Marks Act seems to me a good bit out of date. This is 1967 and it will soon be 1968, and I think we established in the 17th century that this country was governed by a Constitutional Monarchy—if we did not do it then, we did it a bit later. Why the Lord Chamberlain? I simply cannot understand this. If it is required to do anything of the the sort, the proper authority, I think, is the Attorney General. But I should have thought it was quite unnecessary. If the Lord Chamberlain does not consider that there is a case for prosecution, then it ought to be open to a citizen of a free country, which still has private prosecutions, to institute

413
a prosecution—unless he is the kind of person who can be, and is, restrained by due process of law from starting that kind of thing. There are arrangements about this already, and I sit down saying once more that this is the year 1967 and, I repeat, why the Lord Chamberlain?
LORD ILFORD: My recollection is that under the Weights and Measures Act 1963 there is an express prohibition on private prosecutions. There does not appear to be anything of that sort in this Bill; and it may be that if it has been found desirable to have an express prohibition on private prosecutions under the Weights and Measures Act, there should be some restriction on private prosecutions in this Bill.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: This is a rather abstruse point of law. I have considerable sympathy with what my noble friend Lord Mitchison has said. It strikes me as very difficult for us, when debating a subject in so narrow a field as this, to bring the Lord Chamberlain, shall we say, into the legal processes surrounding the misuse of symbols relating to the Royal Family. I think the noble Lord has done a service in pointing out the difficult situation which may arise from the actions of a private individual, but without due consideration by my Department of the point made by the noble, Lord, I feel that I cannot to-day agree to accept this Amendment. I will have it studied and will try to get an informed reply for the noble Lord. But as things stand, I cannot agree that this Amendment would improve the Bill.
LORD AUCKLAND: There is one additional difficulty which possibly relates to Clause 12(1) rather than to the Amendment we are now discussing. It is that there is a tendency now for Sunday newspaper supplements and the like to carry articles, often quite intimate articles, about the Royal Family. Recently, one newspaper supplement went so far as to show, in photographic form, a number of foodstuffs which the Royal Family eat. The question I would put to the Government, which relates to a point of law, is: would these particular firms who make the foodstuffs concerned be permitted to use the Royal Warrant for their foodstuffs because they are supplied to Buckingham Palace? And, if not, how would a prosecution be made within the ambit of
414
this clause? I think this an important point, and with the growth of the practice of highlighting the Royal Family, it seems to me to be a relevant point.
LORD CAWLEY: On the undertaking that this will be looked at, and possibly the Lord Chamberlain might be consulted, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13:
False or misleading statements as to services, etc.
13.—(1) It shall be an offence for any person in the course of any trade or business—
(a) to make a statement which he knows to be false; or
5.0 p.m.
LORD REDESDALEmoved, in subsection (1), after the first "business", to insert "with the intention to mislead". The noble Lord said: Despite the somewhat exotic number of my Amendment, it covers a simple point. I feel that the situation in regard to services is different from that applying to goods. Services are much more intangible and it is difficult to describe them satisfactorily. The clause covers a number of services. The one in which I have an interest is dry cleaning, which usually gives the public a service which is advertised in terms of speed—of "24-hour", "4-hour", "2-hour" or "1-hour" cleaning. These services are carried out adequately in 99 per cent. of cases, but on occasion something can go wrong. The service is dependent on people and machines. We know only too well that machines can break down, that sickness can affect staff and that, as often happens in the dry cleaning service, at certain times of the year there is a sudden influx of work which was not accounted for and the service may break down.
Any claim for a speedy service used in advertising or on the shop front is made in good faith. Despite the fact that Clause 23 gives protection, I feel that this comes a little after the fact and it would be as well to put in the beginning of the Bill a clause to protect those responsible for providing services by saving that the onus of proving that an offence has been committed should be on the basis that an intention to mislead

415
existed as opposed to something going wrong. Furthermore, private prosecutions can be made, and if this is the case I feel that the 1967 Misrepresentation Act provides adequate remedies of a civil nature. This Bill deals with criminal offences. Therefore I would ask for some consideration to be given to amending this clause so that it turns on intention rather than on a breakdown of services. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 21, after ("business") insert ("with the intention to mislead").—(Lord Redesdale.)
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: The fears expressed by the noble Lord have been foreseen in drafting the Bill. If he will look at Clause 23(1)(a), he will find that an adequate defence exists for the situation described by him. It says that it shall be a defence
"that the commission of the offence was due to a mistake or to an accident or some other cause beyond his control;"
The dry cleaner mentioned by the noble Lord who provides a 24-hour service may have had a breakdown at the factory and therefore an accident beyond his control has caused him to break his advertised undertaking. This is not an intention to mislead and it is a proper defence. I hope that the noble Lord will accept this explanation and withdraw his Amendment, because the restriction he wishes to include in the clause at this point would make the restriction far too severe. In the circumstances mentioned by the noble Lord, an individual is protected under the defence clauses of the Bill.
LORD DRUMALBYN: It seems to me that as the clause is drafted there is a considerable degree of protection for those offering services. In order to get a conviction, the prosecution would have to prove a statement to have been false. Obviously, if anyone knows a statement to be false, he makes it with the intention to mislead or alternatively he makes it recklessly. Perhaps if he makes it without due circumspection he is to that extent guilty, though he would not have the absolute intention to mislead. But the clause as drafted seems to go a long way to meet my noble friend's Amendment.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: I hope that the noble Lord will feel able
416
to withdraw his Amendment. I listened with considerable sympathy to what he had to say. I am sure that all of us who use dry cleaners and washing facilities know that the machines can break down and it is no fault of the proprietor when this happens. But the noble Lord went on, honestly, to cut the ground from under his own feet by making us look at Clause 23, where I feel the matter is taken care of.
LORD REDESDALE: I am grateful for all that has been said. As the noble Lady said, I did mention Clause 23 but my feeling in raising this Amendment was that it would be better if it were not only stated as a defence but written into the clause itself. I agree with what has been said and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD REDESDALEmoved, in subsection (1)(a), after "statement" to insert, "as to any matter of fact". The noble Lord said: I should like to talk on Amendment No. 36Z as well as this one Clause 2 goes into considerable detail as to fact when referring to goods, but from Clause 13 this reference to fact is omitted. I should like consideration to be given to the inclusion of the words I propose in order to bring this clause into line with Clause 2. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 22, after ("statement") insert ("as to any matter of fact").—(Lord Redesdale).
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: This Amendment proposes to confine offences under Clause 13(1) to cases where the false statement relates to any matter of fact. This is unnecessary since the subsection goes on to provide that a false statement can be an offence only if it relates to any matters specified in paragraphs (i) to (v). I believe that the noble Lord may agree that these are all matters of fact. The provision of services in the course of trade, the nature of the services, the time, their examination and valuation and their location—all these are matters of fact. In the process of drafting this clause relating to services, in which, as the noble Lord will realise, we are moving on to new ground (we have not attempted to do anything like this before), we deliberately

417
selected characteristics which are capable of objective assessment, and in the opinion of the Government there is no need to make this proposed Amendment. We are confining ourselves to matters of defined fact. I hope that the noble Lord will accept my assurance.
LORD REDESDALE: I raised this, as I said, quite briefly, and I am grateful for the information supplied. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question: Whether Clause 13 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD AIREDALE: May I briefly refer to subsection (4) of Clause 13, which begins with the words:
"In this section 'false' means …"
I should like to ask the Minister to regard this as a model upon which to frame his new subsection (1) of Clause 3, which attempts to describe a false trade description. The noble Lord will remember that during the debate on subsection (1) of Clause 3 the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, made the striking statement with respect to the Minister:
"… I do not think he believes a word of what he has said. I am quite sure that he himself is fully in agreement with this Amendment. It is common sense, and it ought to be made."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30/11/67; col. 268.]
I hope that when an Amendment is made it will be made on the model of subsection (4) of Clause 13.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I should like to raise three points on the clause as a whole. First, the rubric to this is:
"False or misleading statements as to services, etc."
I suppose that one could have a misleading statement as to matters of fact—and the noble Lord has just been dealing with my noble friend's Amendment—but by and large, this clause, as drafted, seems to relate mainly to false statements of fact, even though they are likely to be taken as such. I am wondering whether the rubric is correct. Secondly, when one starts off on a new course (and as the noble Lord has said, this is the first time that this has been applied to services) it is often desirable to restrict it to start with, and it may well be that it would be better to restrict this clause entirely to what is false.
418
The third point I want to mention is one to which I referred on Second Reading—I did not get an answer, because I had not given notice that I would raise it; that is, whether tipsters give services. I am wondering whether the noble Lord can now tell us whether what tipsters do is to be regarded as a service. This is as area in which there is a great deal of dubious practice, and if we are to cover this kind of thing I should have thought it should be brought into the ambit of the clause.
LORD STRABOLGI: Before we leave this clause, I should like to ask my noble friend how it is to be interpreted when one comes to the area where subjective judgment applies. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, brought up the question of the Misrepresentation Act 1967. I did not hear my noble friend reply to the point. I should have thought that the Misrepresentation Act 1967 covered a great many of the areas of services which depend upon subjective judgment, and I should be interested to hear why this clause, as a whole, is considered necessary, and why it is thought that the Misrepresentation Act does not cover the points in it.
LORD BROWN: There are one or two questions that have arisen on this clause. First of all, I note the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. I hope I need say no more about that; we will look into it. I note also the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, about the inclusion in the rubric of the reference to "misleading statements". I think the noble Lord will find that this derives from subsection (2)(a), which provides that the rubric should make reference to "misleading statements". It may be debatable, but I think it is justified.
The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, referred also to the question of tipsters. It would seem to me that if the tipster is providing a service in response to a regular fee there might be something to be said for his being regarded as providing a service. But, as I understand it, on the whole, tipsters do not do this. However, I am not familiar with the fraternity, and I may be wrong about that. I think one would have to put tipsters into the more dignified category of those who do this as a formal service for a fee, and others into the category

419
of those who do it in the hope of acting as a bookmaker if a person is influenced by their tips.
The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, raised the question of the relevance of the Merchandise Marks Act to this clause. I have to confess that I cannot answer this question.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend, but I referred to the Misrepresentation Act, 1967, not to the Merchandise Marks Act.
LORD HAWKE: Before the noble Lord continues, perhaps I can ask him this question. Does this clause apply to pictorial representations? Suppose somebody published a picture of a Lancashire coast resort with the tide out, would he be held to be recklessly misrepresenting the nature of the place in comparison with what it was like when the tide was in?
LORD BROWN: Perhaps I may answer the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, first. I am sorry I mistook the Act to which he referred. The Misrepresentation Act provides for civil remedies, whereas this Bill provides for criminal remedies. That is why the wording of the one is not entirely appropriate to the other. On the question of misrepresentation by picture, I feel sure that there is an Amendment which makes reference to this point. I think it comes later, and if I am right it is an Amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood. I may be wrong about that. We may have to consider at a later stage whether a statement is enforced by a picture of a beautiful coastline where some amenity is provided, and when in point of fact the picture is a picture of somewhere else. Perhaps we can leave that matter and have a debate when the relevant Amendment is moved.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clauses 14 and 15 agreed to.
Clause 16:
Restriction on importation of goods bearing infringing trade marks
16. In the Trade Marks Act 1938 the following section shall be inserted after section 64:—
"64A.—(1) The person who is registered as the proprietor of a trade mark in respect of any goods may give notice in writing
420
to the Commissioners of Customs and Excise (in this section referred to as the Commissioners)—
(b) that such goods bearing the trade mark are expected to arrive in the United Kingdom at a time and place and by a consignment specified in the notice, and
5.18 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYNmoved, in subsection (1)(b) of the proposed insertion in the Trade Marks Act 1938, after "mark" to insert "have been arriving or". The noble Lord said: With your Lordships' permission, I should like to discuss this Amendment and the next Amendment together. The purpose of these two Amendments is to relieve the proprietor of a trade mark of the heavy onus put upon him by paragraph (b) of supplying information in regard to goods which are expected to arrive in this country. As Clause 16 is drafted, it says:
"The person who is registered as the proprietor of a trade mark in respect of any goods may give notice in writing to the Commissioners of Customs and Excise … (b) that such goods bearing the trade mark are expected to arrive in the United Kingdom at a time and place and by a consignment specified in the notice …"
We hear a great deal about industrial espionage, but this seems to be carrying it to too great extremes. I am aware that this has happened in the past, I think in regard to a large consignment of plastic materials which arrived from the United States of America. It has happened once but it must indeed have been fortuitous if one was able to get such full information. Surely one could get the co-operation of the Customs without so much information being supplied. All that is required, surely, is that the proprietor of the trade mark should be able to satisfy the Customs that goods have been arriving or are expected to arrive. If he can satisfy the Customs of that, it is then up to them to look out for the goods. I do not know how the individual can be expected to name the actual consignment, the ship, when that ship is going to arrive and the destination at which it is to arrive. This is putting an absolutely impossible onus on the proprietor of the trade mark. The destination of the ship might be changed en route. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 34, after ("mark") insert ("have been arriving or").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
BARONESS PHILLIPS: The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will appreciate that as this clause is drafted the import prohibition is limited to particular consignments identified by the trade mark owner himself, and Clause 16 implements the United Kingdom's international commitment in the context of a system of control which the Commissioners of Customs and Excise can operate effectively. Under the clause as it stands, the proprietor of a registered trade mark may give notice to Customs of the expected arrival in the United Kingdom of a specific consignment or consignments of goods bearing his trade mark. Customs will then stop the import of the goods. If this Amendment were accepted it would mean that once the trade make owner had notified Customs that goods bearing his trade mark were to be imported, the Customs would be required to detect and prohibit the import of any goods bearing that trade mark, regardless of when, where and by whom the goods were imported. Such a requirement would involve a system of control on the lines of the existing Customs register of trade marks which it is simply not possible to operate effectively in the context of the present volume of imports.
In the light of current conditions it is quite impossible for Customs officers to detect trade mark infringements, and this means that the system contemplated by the Amendment is not a feasible alternative to that proposed in the Bill. Therefore I ask the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, whether he will accept this explanation and withdraw his Amendment.
LORD HAWKE: I am not sure that the Government's interpretation of my noble friend's Amendment is quite the one that I should have expected. Surely this is only a case of giving the Customs notice that my trade mark has been infringed, that I am expecting another consignment to come along, and will they please stop it. That occurred to me on several occasions in another country many years ago, and it was always perfectly workable.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: As I understand the present clause, if that were
422
the case there would be no need for the Amendment, because this would surely be the situation where the Customs would be informed that there is this one consignment and there will be another one at a particular time.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I fail to understand how, except in the most unusual circumstances, the proprietor of the trade mark could possibly supply this information. It must be extraordinarily rare. The noble Lord, Lord Pargiter, has an Amendment later in the Bill which might make it a little easier to trace goods which have been arriving, and if information as to the goods which have been arriving is available and the name of the importer is known, then—and then only—it might be possible to trace goods that were likely to arrive in the future. But unless the noble Lord, Lord Pargiter's Amendment is accepted it seems to me there is no way, except by an absolute fluke, in which this clause could possibly be operated for the protection of trade marks.
I hope the Government will think about this again, because it is not satisfactory as it stands; indeed it makes things very much worse. I quite agree that in order to get a fully effective control this is perhaps the only way, but one does not expect things to be 100 per cent. effective in life. One wants the Customs to give such assistance as they can. Nobody is going to blame them if goods go through with a false trade mark, but we want to be certain that the owners of trade marks will get co-operation to protect those trade marks when it looks as though they are being infringed and that the infringement is likely to continue.
LORD BROWN: I do not want to appear to be difficult, because along with those moving this Amendment I should very much like to see the situation brought about by the Amendment corning into existence. It would be satisfactory if we could agree to this Amendment, but the fact of the matter is that for a long time it has been the practice in the ports for firms to register their trade marks and to attempt to see that goods bearing those marks falsely were not imported. The Customs are hard pressed to-day, and it would mean a substantial expansion of their inspection techniques in order to carry this out.

423
The Amendment simply means that if the Customs are notified that goods have been arriving which infringe this Part of the Bill it would be their duty in future to watch out for them. This is an expensive business, and it should be remembered that this is not the only recourse the importer has of attacking the problem of false use of his trade marks. These goods go on to the market; they are a type of goods with which he is very familiar, probably being sold to many of his own customers, and he can take action against the person selling those goods. He has a much better opportunity of seeing them than the Customs, because the Customs have to break open packing cases, and this is an extremely difficult and expensive operation which I do not think would work. It would give traders in this country a quite false sense of security that they were being protected, and might cause them not to take other appropriate steps to look after their own interests. I do not think I ought to hold out any hope of accepting an Amendment on these lines.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am sorry the noble Lord cannot help us. If my information is correct, I think the real reason for this not being acceptable is because the Customs are afraid of making mistakes and stopping the wrong trade mark. There is no other reason why they should not give such co-operation as they can, without undertaking to give 100 per cent. co-operation. If the noble Lord cannot meet us in this, perhaps he will consider it, as well as other things, to see whether the great tightness of the drafting here cannot be somewhat relaxed. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 agreed to.
House resumed.

CONSULAR RELATIONS BILL [H.L.]
5.30 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD STRANG in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Agreements providing for additional or reduced privileges and immunities]:
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, told us on Second Reading of this Bill that one of the purposes of Clause 3 is to give the power to ratify the Anglo-Soviet Consular Convention which was signed on December 2, 1965, and the noble Lord pointed out that Article 36 of that Convention regulates the right of a consular officer to be notified of the arrest or detention of a national and to have access to him. This passage of the Convention, as the noble Lord said, is very relevant to the case of Mr. Gerald Brooke, which we discussed on Second Reading and with which your Lordships expressed considerable concern. But the noble Lord did not say whether the Soviet Government had shown itself willing to ratify this bilateral Convention, and I should like to press the noble Lord on this point and ask him whether he considers it likely that they will do so.
The more your Lordships look at the case of Mr. Gerald Brooke the more distressing I think you will consider it to be. I should like to make here a point which I implied on Second Reading. If the Soviet Government will not allow our Consul to visit Mr. Brooke again, they should allow a doctor to see him. Preferably, I should have thought, a doctor from this country would have been appropriate. But if this is not acceptable, then I suggest that, at the very least, they should permit a neutral doctor from, say,

425
the International Red Cross to visit him. I am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Snow, is with us this evening. I hope that he will confirm that this case is a matter of great concern to friends of the Soviet Union in this country, and I hope that the Russians will listen to what we have to say and agree to take the kind of humane action which we advocate.
There is another point on Clause 3 which I would make, and which is not related to the case of Mr. Brooke. The Bill once again extends the frontier of privileges enjoyed by representatives in this country of foreign Governments. It is understandable that in certain countries our Consuls need additional privileges if they are to function effectively, and that we may, therefore, have to grant additional privileges as provided in this clause. Nevertheless, it seems to me, and I think most of your Lordships will agree, that this may be a somewhat slippery slope. I hope, therefore, that the Government will watch this point carefully and, where necessary, use their powers to exclude by Order in Council any privileges and immunities which are not provided for by any bilateral Agreement made between this country and any other State. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to give me an assurance on that point.
LORD SNOW: My Lords, I should like to add one word to the first point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough. I do so because many of my Soviet friends, and many of your Lordships, know that I should be the last person here willingly to take part in any attempt to make a political use of a distressing case. Having said that, I have to say that I support what the noble Earl said about the principle of consular visitations. The right of a Consul to receive notification of arrest and to have access to any of his nationals incarcerated in a foreign country is a most important right. It is most important for two reasons; partly because it eliminates suspicion and the possibility of political friction, and partly—and in my view more importantly—from purely human considerations. I believe that these human considerations should apply to the case of Gerald Brooke, and that it is important that he should be allowed visits from our Consul. I hope that the Soviet Government will believe that this is the considered view of those
426
who have nothing but good feelings towards their country and wish it well.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, has again drawn your Lordships' attention to the unhappy story of Mr. Gerald Brooke. I, for one, hope that the words of the noble Lord, Lord Snow—words, if I may say so, that may well have influence in the Soviet Union, since the Government of that country well know his attitude towards them over many years—will have some real effect in this particular case. Since I spoke on the Second Reading we have had further discussions, through diplomatic channels, in regard to Mr. Brooke, and I regret that those discussions did not reveal any progress on the various aspects of his case which are the subject of the exchanges with the Soviet Government. In regard to the health of Mr. Brooke, in the light of Mr. Weatherly's report to us we have asked the Soviet Government to let us have a specific statement as to whether or not he has tuberculosis. I would suggest that until we receive a specific statement from the Soviet authorities the question of asking for a doctor to see him should be left aside.
In regard to the Consular Convention, the bilateral Agreement between the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union, Article 36 makes it perfectly clear that a Consul should be allowed to see any prisoner, first of all on his arrest and then, in the case of a sentence, during his period of arrest on a recurrent basis. Certainly we ourselves could not ratify that Agreement, that Convention, unless we were satisfied that the Soviet authorities recognised quite clearly that the bilateral Agreement applies to Mr. Brooke. I understand that the Soviet authorities are anxious that the bilateral Agreement should be ratified and I understand that they themselves are ready to ratify. But I think I should make it quite clear that until Her Majesty's Government are satisfied that the position of Mr. Brooke is quite clear in the minds of the Soviet Union, we ourselves could not embark on our own ratification.
With regard to Lord Bessborough's request that grant of privileges should not be a "slippery slope". I well know your Lordships' view on immunities and privileges of the Diplomatic Service and other international bodies. But, as the

427
noble Earl himself said, these immunities and privileges are essential if the diplomatic and consular services are to operate not only in this country but in other countries on our own behalf. I would assure the noble Earl that in many cases the Vienna Convention could be regarded as insufficient for the consular services in some of the Eastern countries. That is why we have entered into two particular bilateral Agreements, one with Poland and one with the Soviet Union; and we may well enter into others.
I would assure the noble Earl that we shall agree only to those immunities and privileges which in our view are necessary for our own staff serving in the particular countries. On the other hand, of course, they have to be reciprocal. If any country were to reduce its immunities and privileges to our staff in that country, then clearly under Clause 2 we should have the power by Order in Council to reduce the immunities and privileges of that country here. I hope that I have answered all the questions, and also that the words of my noble friend Lord Snow will bear fruit and that we shall be able to get a proper answer from the Soviet Union regarding Mr. Gerald Brooke.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clauses 4 to 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Refund of customs duty on hydrocarbon oils]:
On Question, Whether Clause 8 shall stand part of the Bill?
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: The same consideration which I raised in regard to Clause 3 about the extension in privileges seems to me to apply also in regard to Clause 8, on hydrocarbon oils. The noble Lord told me on Second Reading that it was proposed to amend the Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964 in order to give statutory authority for the refund to diplomatic missions and personnel of duties on hydrocarbon oils. May I ask the noble Lord whether such refunds are made at present and, if so, on what authority? The noble Lord estimated that the consular concession on hydrocarbon oils costs the Exchequer some £6,000 a year; but presumably there is also the cost of administering the concession. May I ask him whether he
428
is satisfied that this concession is, in fact, essential?
LORD SHEPHERD: This is a reciprocal refund on duty, and it will apply not only to consular staff serving in this country but also to our own consular staff serving overseas. The figure that I gave in terms of the consular staff, of some £6,000 was, I think, the total figure, but I certainly have not been given any cost of administration. The noble Earl referred also to the Diplomatic Corps and to the fact that I said we should need to amend the Diplomatic Privileges Act to bring this into line with the Consular Relations Bill. This is not in itself an extension of the privileges that now exist; it is really to give them statutory authority. At present, the authority for such refunds arises from the various departmental Votes. In the case of foreign consular representatives, it is the Foreign Office Vote. If there were Commonwealth Consuls, then of course this would be done under the Commonwealth Office; but at the moment, in practice, it comes under the Foreign Office Vote, which, as the noble Earl knows, is approved annually by Parliament. That is the authority for these refunds. But again, as the noble Earl has said, we do not wish this to be a "slippery slope", and I give the noble Earl the assurance for which he asks.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clauses 9 to 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Commonwealth and Irish consular officers]:
LORD SHEPHERD: This is a technical Amendment. The purpose of Clause 13 is, in the event of consular relations being established between the United Kingdom and any other Commonwealth country to regulate the position as regards the performance of certain functions laid down by Statute of United Kingdom consular officers serving in an independent Commonwealth country and of Commonwealth consular officers serving in the United Kingdom. The Committee will see that in Clause 13 a reference is made to the Merchant Shipping Act 1965. This needs to be extended to include the Merchant Shipping (Load Lines) Act 1967, Section 27 of which amends Section 69 of the

429
Merchant Shipping (Safety and Load Line Conventions) Act 1932. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8 line 6 leave out ("1965") and insert ("1967").—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses and Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported, with the Amendment.

CONSUMER PROTECTION BILL [H.L.]
5.48 p.m.
Committee stage resumed.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARDmoved, in subsection (2), to leave out "goods or other thing of that person in relation to or by means of which the offence was committed", and to insert "such goods as may have been necessary to prove the offence". The noble Viscount said: My reason for putting down this Amendment is that I consider that Clause 17(2) has been drawn too widely. Subsection (2) says:
"The court by or before which a person is convicted of an offence under this Act may order any goods or other thing of that person in relation to or by means of which the offence was committed to be forfeited",
and so on. This could lead to great injustice. For instance, if that subsection was interpreted literally a shopkeeper might commit an offence in relation to the words in this subsection, "in relation to or by means of which", and not only could he have all his stock of goods forfeited but as I read it he could also be required to forfeit his shop premises if he owned those premises.
If one wants to take it even further, one could read into it that even the factory which had made the offending goods could be forfeited. That may seem rather far-fetched, but as I read the subsection it might mean that. For instance, one may have a factory which manufactured jam, and this jam might be sold as "full fruit jam" and yet have in it some turnip. Under the clause as at present drafted the manufacturer would be committing an offence, and he might have perhaps £20,000 worth or more of this jam. Under the subsection as now drawn
430
all this stock could be seized, and if this were done it might throw many people out of work. The object of my Amendment is to provide that only such goods should be seized as would be necessary to prove the offence.
When one looks at the fines to be imposed, one sees that they are extremely heavy. One can be fined £400 on summary conviction, and on conviction on indictment one is liable to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or both. Surely these penalties are quite severe enough without whole premises or a whole factory having to be forfeited, as appears to be the case under the subsection. I hope that the Government will see some way in which to narrow this subsection so as to make it not so far-reaching in its application. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 9, leave out from ("any") to first ("to") in line 11 and insert the said new words.—(Viscount Massereene and Ferrard.)
LORD CAWLEY: I feel that this subsection has been resurrected from the 1887 Act, although I have not looked it up. In the 1887 Act there was the offence of forging a trade mark, so the words in the subsection
"in relation to or by means of which the offence was committed "
obviously refer to the dies or stamps which were put on the goods. I feel that it would be a good thing if this subsection were looked at again, both in the light of modern conditions and of the fact that forging a trade mark is no longer an offence.
LORD STRABOLGI: I hope the Government will not accept this Amendment. The whole point surely is that confiscation takes place only after conviction. As I read subsection (2), the goods are the goods in relation to or by means of which the offence was committed—not any goods in the factory. I should have thought that it was essential to remove all this category of goods, otherwise the guilty person might go on selling them either directly or through his association. Therefore, I hope the Government will not accept this Amendment.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I also hope that the Government will not

431
accept this Amendment. One of the things in the Molony Report which was adversely commented upon was the one-day sale of various goods, particularly that involving carpets. This subsection would make it impossible, for instance, for someone who was having a one-day sale and selling articles which he should not be selling to go on doing so. It would, in fact, be an offence at the discretion of the court, and this would be a powerful deterrent. What is more, he would not then be able to use the goods he was selling at any other sale or take them somewhere else and produce them three or four months later, which was one of the things the Molony Committee was anxious should not take place. In fact the offending goods would be forfeited, and I think that is only right.
LORD AIREDALE: I feel that the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, clearly has a point here. It is surely going rather wide to allow the court to order forfeiture of "any goods or other thing", as this subsection does. To take the case of goods sold by a vending machine, suppose that bars of chocolate, improperly misdescribed, are sold in a vending machine. It is no doubt quite right that the forfeiture of the bars of chocolate should be ordered by the court, but is it intended in such a case that it should be possible also for the court to order forfeiture of the vending machine? Unless this subsection is amended in some way, that vending machine surely comes within the words
"or other thing by means of which the offence was committed …"
Do Her Majesty's Government intend this kind of result to happen? If not, surely the subsection requires to be looked at again.
LORD DRUMALBYN: May I probe this a little further, in light of what the noble Lord, Lord Brown, said on Second Reading? This was a point to which I made reference on Second Reading. The noble Lord said:
"The Bill calls for forfeiture of goods which have actually been used only to prove an infringement of the law. So that the idea that a court, having found an infringement of the law on the basis of a few samples, can then order forfeiture of the whole of the contents of the warehouse, worth £100,000, is
432
not in accordance with the Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14/11/67, col. 674.]
I should have thought the principle here was that although goods which are going to do harm to the public may be confiscated, if the goods themselves can do no harm, and it is merely that their qualities, or something in relation to them, or a comparison with some other goods has been misrepresented, that cannot be a reason for their confiscation. The matter simply has to be put right and steps taken to see that they are sold with the right descriptions on them. I hope that this is the intention, but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, that it is not clear in the Bill.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I think that the Committee are divided on this point. The noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, and my noble friend Lord Strabolgi are for taking draconian measures in this matter, but the Government have considerable sympathy with the point of view put by the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, and the noble Lords, Lord Drumalbyn and Lord Airedale. We believe that the situation is as was set out by my noble friend Lord Brown in his Second Reading speech. It is not intended to spread the net wide for confiscation. Although we believe that the actual phrasing of this Amendment is not quite what we should like to see, we believe that the intention is correct. We believe, for instance, to take Clause 27(1)(d), that the powers are somewhat undefined:
"A duly authorised officer … may … seize and detain any goods which he has reasonable cause to believe are liable to be forfeited …".
We feel that that is somewhat too wide. If the noble Viscount will agree to withdraw his Amendment, perhaps he will take our assurance that we are in sympathy with his intentions. It is not our wish to spread the net of confiscation wider than is absolutely necessary, and we will see whether we can provide wording which will satisfy the whole Committee.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I thank the noble Lord very much for that answer, and on his assurance I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, "by leave, withdrawn.
6.0 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOODmoved to add to the clause:
"( ) The court by or before which any person is convicted of an offence under this Act may order the person guilty of such offence to make payment by way of compensation to the purchaser of the goods or services misdescribed."
The noble Baroness said: I rise to move Amendment No. 40, which is not really a very revolutionary Amendment. It has a respectable precedent in the Criminal Justice Act 1948, which provides that in certain cases a criminal court may, as part of its sentence, instruct the defendant to pay compensation to the person who has suffered as a result of a criminal act. My proposal will allow a court which has convicted a person under the new law to require him, as part of the penalty, to make compensation to the person who has purchased goods to which a false trade description has been applied, or who has entered into a contract for services which have been falsely or misleadingly described.
There are two strong arguments in favour of giving this discretionary power to the courts. First, people who have suffered loss will be more eager to assist the local authority or other enforcement body, and to give evidence if a case is brought by the State. Secondly, in the great majority of cases this arrangement would place no extra burden on the convicted defendant, but the amount of any award made would be taken into account when the penalty was being assessed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 12, at end insert the said subsection.—(Baroness Elliot of Harwood.)
LORD STRABOLGI: I hope that the Government will not accept this Amendment. I think it will encourage the bringing of frivolous prosecutions by those who wish to have their cake and eat it. It would also, in most cases, be very difficult to assess the amount of compensation due to the purchaser, especially with fast-moving, low-priced goods. How is one to assess how many purchasers are to be awarded compensation? It may be that the local authority will prosecute a retailer because of one line of goods which he has been selling. It will be necessary to trace all the
434
customers who bought those goods, and I suppose that if the goods were shoes everybody would have to be given a new pair of shoes. It would be a very large undertaking, and largely unworkable, and would be out of all proportion to the amount of damage done to those unfortunate people who happened to buy something which did not turn out to be what they expected. For those reasons, I hope that the Government will not accept the Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I think I am right in saying that this would be a very novel provision to introduce into the criminal legislation. I do not know whether the noble Lord will tell us if it is precedented in any way, but it is as if a man was prosecuted for dangerous driving and, at the same time, the same court had to assess the damages of any person who was injured as a result of that dangerous driving. It seems a very curious combination of the civil and criminal law, and I doubt whether either the civil or the criminal courts would welcome this novelty.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: Not being a lawyer, I cannot assist the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, by quoting any precedent. But what I do know is that the Government are opposed to this Amendment, for the reasons outlined by my noble friend Lord Strabolgi. In the majority of cases where goods are misdescribed, a whole line of goods are affected and many people have bought them. I see no justification for arranging compensation for the few who may chance to be concerned in prosecutions. To provide for the granting of compensation to all purchasers upon a conviction by a criminal court for an offence committed against one purchaser would be quite unworkable, since it would mean that each of them (and there might well be thousands) would have to prove that he had been supplied with the goods or services concerned, and to show what loss he had suffered as a result of the misdescription. We believe that this is simply not a practical measure, and for this reason I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her Amendment.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I think the noble Lord exaggerates, as indeed did the noble Lord, Lord Stratiolgi, the effect the Amendment

435
would have, since it is, in effect, already in the Criminal Justice Act 1948. It might work in a different way from what was suggested. I thought of the person who was the complainant, and who had been given false goods or been cheated in some way, being the person who received the compensation. I accept that if the compensation had to go to a great many people who had not taken the trouble to prosecute that would add to the complications and would make the Amendment unworkable. But I should have thought it only right that it should be possible for an offence under this Bill to be treated in the same way as an offence under the Criminal Justice Act 1948. However, if that is not possible perhaps the noble Lord will consider giving an indication that compensation might be paid in some other way. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Before my noble friend withdraws the Amendment, I wonder if she could make plain whether the Amendment was intended to mean that compensation would be paid to the purchaser only where the purchaser was the prosecutor.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: Yes.
LORD DRUMALBYN: That is not what the Amendment says.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My intention was that the person who initiated the prosecution and won the case should be given compensation. If the wording that I have put forward is not correct, I am sorry. But that was my point.
LORD LEATHERLAND: I am not a lawyer, but would it not be possible in such an event for the court to award costs in favour of the prosecutor, those costs to include any time lost from her work, and also the expenditure in which she had been involved in purchasing the tins of goods which became the subject of the prosecution?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: No. I am quite sure that the costs would not include all that. But I should have thought there were really two points on this. The first is that I know very well that at the moment a Committee is
436
considering the whole question of the supplementary payment of compensation in the case of criminal prosecutions. This is a matter that was discussed under the Criminal Law Act which we had last Session, and I remember that at that time the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, told me there was a Committee looking into this matter. I should have thought it would be a mistake to introduce an ad hoc provision of this kind in advance of the Report of that Committee.
The second point is that criminal courts are not really set up in order to assess civil damages. If there are cases in which somebody has really suffered damage as a result of the misdescription or false description of goods, and has a real pecuniary damage to show for it, that is what the county courts are for.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.8 p.m.
LORD ILFORDmoved to add to the clause:
"( ) A prosecution for an offence under this Act may be instituted either at the place where the offence is alleged to have been committed or at the place where the offence is detected."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with an administrative matter. Your Lordships will recall that the local authorities who are weights and measures authorities are made responsible by the Bill for the administration of the Act. They are the chosen instruments by which the Act is to be operated. The local authorities are very anxious to obtain this Amendment, and it will certainly facilitate their task very considerably. I hope that your Lordships, and the noble Lord who is going to speak for the Government, will agree that this Amendment should be introduced into the Bill. It provides that a prosecution for an offence under the Act may be instituted either at the place where the offence was detected, or at the place where the offence was committed. In the normal way, of course, the prosecution would occur at the place where the offence was committed. Rather different considerations apply. I think, to prosecutions under this Bill.
There are several reasons why the Bill should include this provision, which might not be acceptable in the case of a Bill of another character. Here it is very possible that an offence may be

437
committed in one town and detected in another. That would mean that the authority which would prosecute for the offence might not be the authority which had detected it. That, I think, is in itself not a satisfactory arrangement. Or, equally, it might mean that if the offence was committed in an area outside the area of the authority in which it was detected, the prosecution would have to be undertaken by one authority in the area of another. All those factors make this rather different, I think, from an ordinary case; and I should have thought that no injustice could be done by making this provision. I hope that your Lordships will agree to it and will give the local authorities, who are going to have a difficult task in administering this Bill, this additional power which they are very anxious to receive. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 12, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Ilford.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: May I ask a question about this Amendment and its effect, first of all? Does this mean that, as between England and Scotland, an offence which was committed in England could be prosecuted in Scotland, and vice versa? Again, it seems to be going rather wide. Also, is it not desirable, broadly speaking, in a measure of this kind, that prosecutions should be undertaken in relation to offences over certain areas, rather than that a weights and measures authority should be able to prosecute in respect of offences that are not committed or detected in their areas? I am not quite certain how far this particular provision would go.
LORD ILFORD: If I may speak again, I am not quite sure that I followed my noble friend. It would certainly make it possible to prosecute for an offence which had not been committed within the area of the prosecuting authority, the prosecuting authority having detected the offence. They might very well have to prosecute it outside their area.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: May I add just one word? My Council are in very close touch with the weights and measures authorities, and the inspectors find it a great handicap under the present law that they can prosecute only where an offence affects their own locality.
438
The goods may have been labelled in London and the offence committed there. Although two authorities can co-operate to bring a prosecution, the difficulties and expenses of providing witnesses from another part of the country make this very difficult. Therefore, as the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, has said, the Amendment would make matters much easier and more practicable for those local authority officials about whom we are on this occasion talking—namely, the weights and measures officials who are the employees of the local authorities. I beg to support this Amendment.
LORD PARGITER: It would seem that there is a real difficulty here in these modern days, when so many goods, having been packed in one place, are distributed over a very wide area. The person actually selling the article over the counter may rot be guilty of any offence at all: he may be acting in perfectly good faith. Obviously, therefore, no prosecution ought to lie against him. But the person who supplied him with the goods may well have been guilty of an offence, whether wilfully or otherwise. It seems to me that, in those circumstances, the prosecution ought to take place at the point where the offence is committed, and not in some remote shop where the goods happened to have been sold. It seems to me that the object of the Amendment is to provide for this.
I appreciate the difficulties that arise from this method. There may be a number of authorities who discover this particular offence at about the same sort of time, or within a reasonably short time of one another while the thing is boiling up, and who might equally want to prosecute. Being obliged to prosecute in their own area, it could well be that there would be several prosecutions for what is virtually the same offence; whereas if the whole prosecution could be taken at the point where the offence is committed, one authority could do the prosecuting. I am not arguing about which one should do it, but certainly the authority which discovers the offence would have the right to prosecute at that point. The other authorities concerned would then be quite willing to leave this with a single prosecution. It seems to me quite wrong to have the possibility of a dozen prosecutions where

439
one prosecution could settle the issue. I think that is the point which the noble Lord has in mind in his Amendment. It is one, I know, which the county councils, as weights and measures authorities, would support, and I hope that my noble friend will find it possible to accept it.
This is about the only thing that gives any weight to the requirement of notice to the Board of Trade. It may well be that a limited period of notice might be given to the Board of Trade when it was proposed to prosecute in another area, so that there might be some collation of these things which have boiled up at the same time, in order that there should be not more than one prosecution. That might justify the Board of Trade in becoming a sort of co-ordinating authority for the purpose of the prosecution. I cannot think of any other circumstances in which the Board of Trade would require to deal with or give an authority for a prosecution. I am rather trespassing on another point, but I thought your Lordships would be willing to allow me to do so in order to illustrate perhaps the only thing that the Board of Trade could usefully do with regard to prosecutions themselves.
LORD FORSTER OF HARRABY: Is there not a practical disadvantage in this proposal? Suppose an offence which is committed in London is detected in Newcastle. If you are going to try it in Newcastle, you have to take all the witnesses necessary for its proof from London to Newcastle. If you try it in London, all you need do is to bring the man back to London. Are you not going to make very heavy weather by prosecuting him in a place where the offence was not committed at all?
LORD ILFORD: May I speak again? The Amendment will, of course, give the local authority an option as to at which place they prosecute. I do not think the difficulty that my noble friend has raised is really a substantial one.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: First of all, may I answer the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, on the question of England and Scotland? The effect of the Amendment would in fact be, as the noble Lord foresaw, that if this Amendment were carried it would be possible to try in Scotland an offence
440
committed in England, and I believe this would cause very great complications. On balance, Her Majesty's Government are against this Amendment for the following reasons. The general rule of the criminal law is that a prosecution must be instituted in the place where the offence is alleged to have been committed. This applies whether the offence is tried summarily or on indictment. This basic rule has been extended by Statute, principally by the Criminal Justice Act 1925 and the Magistrates' Court Act 1952, and the extensions are complicated. But, very broadly speaking, a person may be prosecuted for an indictable offence also in the place where he is apprehended or is in custody, or where he has appeared in answer to a summons. For summary offences, the general rule—that is, the place where the offence was committed—applies, subject to some very limited exceptions not relevant here.
This Amendment, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, would make a special extension, not known to the criminal law generally, for offences under the Bill. I think the noble Lord would have to show much stronger ground than he has to justify an exceptional case here. It would cause serious injustice. The case has been made by one noble Lord who mentioned an offence which was committed in London but detected in the North of England. It would be difficult to try the case at the point of detection. The mere wish to strengthen the arm of the enforcing authorities, laudable though that may be, is not sufficient to make such a drastic change desirable solely for the purposes of this Bill. I have listened carefully to what was said but I do not believe that the noble Lord has made a sufficiently strong case to alter the present Rules which apply over the whole field of criminal law. Therefore I cannot advise the Committee to accept this Amendment.
LORD PARGITER: Before the noble Lord sits down, would he just explain the words "where the offence is committed"? Is it committed when the article is sold or is it committed at the time when it was packed? Where is the offence actually committed?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: The prosecuting authorities will, in fact, form an opinion where the offence has been committed, whether it be at a factory or a

441
packing station or at the counter of a retail shop. The prosecuting authority will have to decide this.
LORD ILFORD: I am sorry the noble Lord has not been able to do a little more than that to encourage the local authorities in what they have to do. In the circumstances, I have no alternative but to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Time limit for prosecutions]:
6.23 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYNmoved to add to subsection (2):
"except in the case of an offence in respect of an oral statement about goods."
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to restrict to six months from the commission of the offence, in place of twelve months, the period of time within which a magistrates' court may try an information. The way this is done, simply by putting in the words,
"except in the case of an offence in respect of an oral statement about goods",
takes out oral statements alone and brings them within Section 104 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1952, which lays down a period of six months. The Bill extends the normal period of six months to twelve months in the case of offences under this Bill. The reason for doing this is, I think, obvious. With offences not connected with oral misdescription there is generally some documentary evidence: whereas by the nature of the case of oral misdescription there can be no documentary evidence, for the people concerned, the shop assistants, may have left the employment and gone elsewhere. In any case, after six months memories grow dim. Altogether, there seems to be a good case, so far as oral misdirection is concerned, to stick to the usual rule of six months. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 21, at end insert ("except in the case of an offence in respect of an oral statement about goods.").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: The Government have a great deal of sympathy
442
with the object of this Amendment. For the reason stated by the noble Lord, it is accepted that it would be desirable to ensure that summary offences in respect of oral statements should be tried as soon as possible. But the Amendment has several implications which I think need further thought. For instance, if a different rule could be adopted for offences related to oral misdescription it would seem odd to confine it to statements about goods. Do not the same arguments apply to all statements about prices and services? We are also not sure at this stage whether there may not be technical difficulties about adopting a different period of limitation. I am also bearing in mind that the Amendment as it stands would apply only to England and Wales; so the position in Scotland and Northern Ireland would have to be considered.
If the noble Lord would agree to withdraw his Amendment we should be ready to consider whether it will be practicable at a later stage to put forward a proposal which would secure the object he has in mind. But at the moment—and I say this as a warning—we are not certain that it will prove practicable. With my promise to do the best I can, will the noble Lord withdraw his Amendment?
LORD DRUMALBYN: With that statement of good will on the part of the Government towards this Amendment, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 18 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DRUMALBYN: May I ask a question on Clause 18? Am I right in thinking that subsection (1) of this clause restricts the period, as opposed to subsection (2) under which the period is extended? I understood at some stage that the normal rule is that, so far as offences on indictment are concerned, there is no limit to the period within which the prosecution must be brought. In the Bill, the period is three years. Is it the case that an especially long period is being prescribed here?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: It was chosen as a particularly long period. That is all I can tell the noble Lord at this stage.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Longer, that is to say, than the normal period for prosecutions on indictment? Then perhaps the noble Lord can explain why a particularly long period is necessary in this case.
LORD BROWN: These are difficult questions—not that I blame the noble Lord for asking them. I think the nature of the offences that may arise under this Bill are such as to warrant this extension of period. There will obviously be some offences which may not be detected for a long time. It would be a pity in some cases to allow people to get away with serious offences because the period since they were committed has outstripped the length of time during which prosecutions can be brought. Therefore the period has been lengthened.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19:
Offences by corporations
19.—(1) Where an offence under this Act which has been committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent and connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or any person who was purporting to act in any such capacity, he as well as the body corporate shall be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
LORD AIREDALEmoved, in subsection (1), after the first "or", to insert "not being an offence under section 13 of this Act". The noble Lord said: Clause 19 deals with offences by directors, managers, secretaries and so on by consent and connivance or by negligence. This Amendment applies only in the case of negligence, and also only in the case of offences that have been committed under Clause 13, which is the clause dealing with false or misleading statements as to services. The Committee will remember that an offence is committed under Clause 13 only if it is made knowingly, that is to say, deliberately, or recklessly.
I am seeking by this Amendment to introduce a safeguard against the case that whereas a person behind the counter
444
has committed an offence only because he has acted deliberately or recklessly, under this clause (if it is not amended in the way I seek to amend it) some manager or director, who must of course be only in remote control of the person behind the counter, will be liable to be prosecuted for a criminal offence for mere negligence. I do not use the expression "mere negligence" as suggesting that negligence is not something to be deplored. But negligence is a very much lower degree of culpability than deliberate responsibility or recklessness. So I am seeking to ensure that in a case where the person behind the counter dealing with a customer has committed an offence only because he has acted recklessly or deliberately, the director or manager in remote control shall not automatically be liable to prosecution for mere negligence, seeing that he has only remote control over the person who commits the principal offence. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 32, after ("or") insert ("not being an offence under section 13 of this Act").—(Lord Airedale.)
LORD PARGITER: I cannot understand the reason for an Amendment of this kind when one looks at what the clause says. It says that an offence
"is proved to have been committed with the consent and connivance of, or to be attributable to … "
Surely this implies, whether it is under Clause 13 or any other clause, that someone has deliberately connived at what has been done. I should have thought that this interpretation shows that a person must be proved to have been guilty at least of assisting in the commission of the offence.
LORD AIREDALE: If the noble Lord, Lord Pargiter, reads subsection (1) he will see that it says:
"… committed with the consent and connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of any director, manager …"
There is the contrast of connivance and consent on the one hand and mere neglect on the other hand.
LORD PARGITER: With respect, if it is proved that he has neglected to do his duty would not he be prosecuted?
LORD DRUMALBYN: That would be so, but for the way in which Clause 13 is drafted. It says:
"It shall be an offence for any person in the course of any trade or business—

(a) to make a statement which he knows to be false; or

(b) recklessly to make a statement which is false."

It is very difficult to find that that is compatible with neglect. I think that here my noble friend is on a logical point. It is a question of compatibility between the two clauses.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: This is a legal argument. Our view at the moment is that Clause 19, both in form and substance, is the provision which is found in nearly all modern Statutes under which an offence may be committed by a company, which is a purely legal person, and which is actually responsible afterwards. It has long been recognised in our Statute Law that if those officers consent or connive at the company's criminal offence or if it is attributable to their neglect, then they as well as the company shall be guilty of an offence. This is very necessary if the criminal law is to be enforced adequately. The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has sought to convince us that we should depart from part of this well-established policy in cases where the offence in question is one relating to false or misleading statements as to services under Clause 13.
Having listened to the noble Lord's speech with the care that I find necessary to listen to all legal arguments, I am afraid that I am not completely convinced. If the company is guilty of knowingly or recklessly making a false statement about its services, regardless of whether it is true or false, but it does so owing to neglect on the part of, say, a director who has failed to exercise proper control over the employee who made the false statement, the director should not be permitted to escape liability. We believe that it would seriously weaken the deterrent effect of Clause 13 were he allowed to do so. That is the present view of the Government. Nevertheless, the opposite case has been argued forcibly by two noble Lords, and we will have a look at it before we finally make up our minds.
LORD AIREDALE: I am obliged to the Minister for that assurance. I was not going to weary the Committee with an example, but in view of the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Pargiter, may I shortly explain the sort of situation I have in mind? A company runs a travel agency, and the manager has failed negligently to supply all the details about a particular coastal resort. Somebody has come into the shop and asked the person behind the counter, "Has this place got a nice sandy beach and safe bathing?" The assistant is usually a very reliable person, but it is a hot day and near closing time, and so he is suddenly a bit reckless and says, "Yes, safe bathing and a nice sandy beach", which is all wrong. Under Clause 19 as unamended, the manager who had negligently failed to give his assistant all the particulars is liable to be convicted for mere negligence when the assistant ought to, have said to the customer, "I cannot answer your question, because I have not the particulars." In such a case I do not think that the manager ought to be liable for criminal prosecution. That is all I am suggesting. Since the matter is to be looked at again, I am very pleased to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20:
Accessories to offences committed abroad
20.—(1) Any person who, in the United Kingdom, assists in or induces the commission in a country outside the United Kingdom of an act in respect of any goods which would be an offence under section 1 of this Act if the act were committed in the United Kingdom and the goods were intended for despatch to that country shall be guilty of an offence, if the trade description concerned is false—
(a) in giving an indication (or anything likely to be taken as an indication) that the goods or any part thereof were manufactured, produced, processed or reconditioned in the United Kingdom, being an indication which could not on any reasonable view be regarded as true; or
6.37 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSSmoved, in subsection (1), to leave out "a" and insert "any other". The noble Viscount said: This is the clause which was mentioned on Second Reading. Although I have found a certain amount of difficulty in seeing exactly what all the words are

447
intended to do, a great deal of assistance was given to the Committee by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brown, during the Second Reading debate. The noble Lord said he was trying to catch the person who prints or, I suppose, induces somebody abroad to print, labels to be used in connection with whisky which had been made in some foreign country and was to be sold there with a label on it saying that it was made in Scotland. The noble Lord said this was a very serious thing to do and should be covered by the Bill.
The Amendment which I have put down is primarily one intended to obtain clarification, but I hope that it may be in order if, having introduced the Amendment, I make a slightly wider speech. It is quite clear that the person concerned has to be in the United Kingdom, otherwise the criminal law of this country will not bear upon him, but he may assist or induce the commission of an offence by an act somewhere else, in a foreign country, and it will be an offence for him to do it—or it would have been, under subsection (1), had the offence been committed in this country, and also, as I understand it, if the goods were to be despatched to the country in which the offence was committed. The way that this clause reads seems to be to be capable of a double construction. It might be that in line 6 "that country" could relate back to the last mentioned country, which is, of course, the United Kingdom. I do not think that that is what is intended; I think it is meant to relate back to the foreign country which is referred to in line 2. Therefore, in order to make quite clear that this is the case, I consider that the words I suggest in this and Amendment No. 44, which should be read together, would be an advantage.
I know that no draftsman is anxious to have extra words put into his Bill, but I should have thought that this was a difficult clause on the face of it, in any event, and if we could give a few more guide posts it might not be a bad thing. The broader issue is, what is the point of introducing the words in lines 5 and 6:
"and the goods were intended for despatch to that country …"?
I do not understand why we have to put them in the clause. If we could leave them out, my problem would not
448
arise. Perhaps the noble Lord will explain. He might also consider whether it is right to extend the criminal jurisdiction of our courts over activities which are committed in other countries where, I assume, they may not be illegal. I appreciate that this clause has to do almost entirely with the labelling of goods as being made in England, Scotland or Wales or in whatever part of the country it may be, and it is a rather narrower offence than the whole gamut of offences which could be committed under this Bill, but I wonder whether the noble Lord has considered the situation where it is perfectly legal to do this in a foreign country but the man is nevertheless penalised because he happened to have started a telephone conversation in London. There is a point of force here, even if it is a dreadful thing to say that foreign Scotch was "made in Scotland".
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 2, leave out ("a") and insert ("any other").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
LORD CAWLEY: On this clause, I have submitted a memorandum to the noble Lord, Lord Brown, because I find it extremely difficult. I find subsection (2) easy but the rest very difficult to understand. I will not repeat what the noble Viscount said. I put that point on Second Reading. The clause suggests that there may be some situation in this country where the application of a false trade description may be an offence only if the goods are intended for despatch to some country overseas. That appears to be something not contemplated by Clause 1 of the Bill. A false description is a false description wherever the goods are going to be sent. I think it would be better if this was removed. We get the curious phrase in subsection (1)(a),
"… being an indication which could not on any reasonable view be regarded as true;"
I think that this presents a great difficulty for a magistrate, because it appears to be another interpretation of the meaning of "false". I should have thought that there was no difference between "an indication which could not on any reasonable view be regarded as true" and false.
In paragraph (b) I find great difficulty in the words "in using", because they must refer to trade descriptions, so that it would read:
"… the trade description concerned is false … in using an expression …"

449
Noble Lords and I can use expressions but I very much doubt if a trade description can, though it may be able to do so. The paragraph continues:
"… (or anything likely to be taken as an expression) to which, when used in the circumstances in which it is used, …"
Surely that must be a different type of user. It must be application to goods. I find this extremely difficult.
In the past, there have been cases where a jury of matrons has been empanelled to decide certain facts. Surely in this case we could empanel a jury of lay magistrates and put this section before them, to see whether they could make head or tail of it. I am not against its principle—I think it is absolutely right—but I do not want malefactors to "get away with it" simply because magistrates cannot interpret the clause.
LORD HAWKE: I am thoroughly in favour of the clause but, as my past experience as a merchant shows, one can often commit an offence such as this if one cannot disentangle precisely what offence is intended to be caught by the clause. I find it difficult to understand this clause, and by the time it is translated into Japanese it will be still more difficult. If one gets something done in Ruritania which is an offence in this country and has the goods shipped to any country in the world, including the United Kingdom, that should be and could be an offence here. I cannot understand why it is only an offence if one causes the action to be committed in respect of goods which are to be despatched to Ruritania itself. What happens if you despatch goods to Ruritania and they are falsely labelled in Ruritania? There seems to be something defective dwelling here. I think that the clause wants redrafting.
LORD BROWN: It would be just as well if I started my reply in support of this clause by saying that I discussed the whole clause with those who drafted it. They believe that though it is difficult in wording, it is clear in law. Noting the criticisms on Second Reading and the criticisms in Committee to-day and other communications I have received, I have come to the conclusion that we ought to make an attempt to straighten the clause out and see whether
450
we cannot do something better. But I cannot assure your Lordships that the attempt will be successful. There may be more difficulties in straightening this out than noble Lords believe to be the case.
Rather than let the points raised by noble Lords go by default, I ought to point out the defence against some of the criticisms that have been made, especially, though I hope this will not be the case, if we have to bring the clause back in its present form. Dealing with the noble Viscount's Amendment, I suggest that as the clause is now drafted the words "that country" in line 6 can refer only to the country outside the United Kingdom referred to in lines 2 and 3. I ought to point out that to speak of any country outside the United Kingdom suggests that reference has already been made to some country outside the United Kingdom when previous references are to the United Kingdom. These are debating points on wording and I do not want to pursue them.
LORD HAWKE: I am absolutely agog with curiosity about what the words "to that country" really mean. Will the noble Lord translate them?
LORD BROWN: To the country to which the goods have been exported, of course.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: The whole point is that the goods were never here in the first place. They were always in Ruritania. All that has happened here is that either the criminal has printed the labels and sent them to Ruritania or he has encouraged a Ruritanian to print the labels in Ruritania, but the goods never have to be in this country at all.
LORD BROWN: As regards the labels being sent out to be attached to goods in that country, the reference is to the labels being sent to some other country.
LORD HAWKE: I think that this is a hare. What we want to discover is the meaning of the phrase "that country". I should have thought that it was an offence to commit in Ruritania an act in regard to goods that were going to any country in the world. Why the phrase "that country"?
LORD BROWN: Because we are referring to a particular offence, and "that country" in line 6 refers to the country in line 2. That is a straight answer to the question.
LORD CAWLEY: This is a hypothetical case. We have to consider hypothetically whether an act done abroad is an offence here. A false trade description is an offence, whether the goods are to be exported to Timbuctoo or to Russia. If they have "Gran Bretagna" on them, do we say that they are going to be exported to Italy and therefore it is an offence there?
LORD HAWKE: Perhaps it is the word "despatch" that is misleading. If we put in the words "for sale in that country", that would make sense. But that means that you can still do anything in Ruritania and ship the stuff to Utopia and it is no offence.
LORD BROWN: We could carry on this debate for a long time if we pursue the meaning of words. It might be useful for the record if I made a further statement on the purpose of this clause. Subsequent to that, if the noble Lord, Lord Cawley, will gracefully agree, I will not take up the specific points he raised in the memorandum that he sent me, but I will certainly write to him about them. I think the main crux of the discussion that we have had so far is likely to be covered by my undertaking that we will look at the clause and see whether we cannot do better. That rests on the assumption that noble Lords are basically agreed that the general drive of the clause is in accord with their desires. I will now describe the general drive of the clause.
The purpose is to make it an offence for a person in the United Kingdom to act as an accessory to the commission in a country outside the United Kingdom of an act which, if committed in the United Kingdom in respect of goods intended for export to that country—if you like, I will say "any country"—would constitute one or more of the following types of offence under other clauses of the Bill. First, an offence under Clause 1 consisting of the ascription of British origin to goods which could not on any reasonable view be described as British; for example, a dealer carrying on business in
452
the United Kingdom buys a consignment of Polish cotton goods which have no connection of any sort with the United Kingdom. He orders his agent in, say, Amsterdam, to mark them "Made in England" before they are resold—
LORD CAWLEY: Surely that is false. The word "false" is enough.
LORD BROWN: We are dealing with false descriptions.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My noble friend is referring to "on any reasonable view". I think it would be better, as the noble Lord, Lord Brown, has suggested, to leave that point.
LORD BROWN: I see. Secondly, an offence under Clause I consisting of the incorrect use of a term which has been defined under the power provided by Clause 7 in the interests of exporters of the goods concerned; for example, the Board might use their powers under Clause 7 to define "whisky" because they thought this would help British distillers to combat the misuse of the expression in foreign markets. If "X" exports labels marked "Whisky" to be applied to a spirit which is not "whisky" as defined by an Order made under Clause 7 in the interests of exporters of whisky, he commits an offence under this clause.
Thirdly, an offence under Clause 12 relating in the main to false representations as to Royal approval or award. This would cover a British manufacturer who ordered his agent in Canada to mark a consignment of shoes then lying in Montreal "As supplied to the Prince of Wales" when the claim was not true.
Let me make it quite clear that this is not an attempt to make laws for foreign countries, nor to assist in the enforcement of their laws. It is designed to prevent people from doing things in this country to assist actions done abroad which could injure or unfairly exploit our commercial good name or the dignity of the Crown. In the light of that expression of the function of the clause, my undertaking to take into account all that has been said, particularly the cogent remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Cawley, about which he has written to me, and my assurance to attempt to see whether we cannot produce a simpler clause which gives effect to those intentions, I hope

453
the noble Viscount will find it possible to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I do not think the noble Lord has actually dealt with the words "in the United Kingdom", in the first line. I think my noble friend drew attention to the fact that it does not matter where he does this action provided the accessory is a British subject, normally resident in Britain, and he is doing it with a view to the sale of the goods in Britain. But it does not matter whether he assists in or induces the commission in the United Kingdom, or whether, when he actually assists in or induces the commission he does it in Amsterdam.
LORD BROWN: I take the noble Lord's point. He could be prosecuted when he came back.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Brown, for suggesting that this might be reconsidered. I should like to read carefully what he has said, because, if I may be a little unkind, the sentence in which he described the drive of the Bill was almost as long and complicated as the sentence in subsection (1) of the clause itself. I think that it will require some study. Noble Lords should not think that those on this side of the Committee have not tried to redraft subsection (1). Some of them have, and have found it very difficult. I thought that it would probably be better to start on the Committee stage with the simple language and leave the noble Lord to deal with that.
There is one point which the noble Lord made about which I am not quite happy. He took my illustration of the labels for whisky. If we can, for the moment, exclude the possibility of "whisky" being defined as a technical term, it is, I think, quite plain that those labels themselves are not the goods, because until they are attached to a bottle of something which is not Scotch whisky there is no falsity and, I should think, no offence under the Bill. Labels in themselves are quite harmless until they become attached to something. Therefore, they are not the goods. The goods must be the bottle with the label on it and the spirit inside. If the noble Lord's advisers suggested otherwise, then I think
454
they must be wrong. Perhaps that is another point that might be looked at. Meanwhile, I have pleasure in asking leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CAWLEY: I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Brown, for the apparent use of unparliamentary language when I used the word "false". It was not addressed to the noble Lord's argument, but merely to the definition of the word. I think my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross picked it up.
LORD BROWN: I assure the noble Lord that no offence is taken.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Restrictions on institution of proceedings and admission of evidence]:
6.57 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYNmoved to leave cut subsection (1) and insert:
"(1) Where any act or omission constitutes both an offence under this Act and an offence under the Food and Drugs Act 1955 or the Weights and Measures Act, 1963 or the Weights acid Measures Act (Northern Ireland) 1967 proceedings for the offence shall not be instituted under this Act".
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Cawley. As it stands, Clause 21 provides for the steps, such as service of notices and evidence concerning analysis, to be taken where any act or omission constitutes both an offence under the Bill and also an offence under one or more of the other Acts set out and any instrument made thereunder. This means that persons are at risk under two or possibly three Statutes, each of which provides for different procedures (including notices), different defences and different penalties. The proceedings under these Acts already on the Statute Book are well known, and weights and measures authorities have no difficulty in carrying them out. The food trade, on its side, has enough to contend with in complying with the complicated regulations made under the Food and Drugs Act, without having to look over its shoulder at possible additional charges based on the same alleged offence. It is surely only equitable that where an offence is covered by one of the existing

455
Statutes no charge should lie under this Bill.
It is possible that a tendency will develop for the prosecution to bring alternative charges under the different Statutes and later to stop prosecution under the more specific Food and Drugs Act and Weights and Measures Act, and opt instead for the wider provisions and stiffer penalties of this Bill. Where legislation exists to deal with specific offences prosecutions should surely be brought under that legislation and not under alternative more general measures. Overlapping legislation can only lead to confusion. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 23, leave out subsection (1) and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD BROWN: I agree with the noble Lord about the attraction of this and the next Amendment, and we should be glad to adopt such a neat and tidy arrangement if we thought it would work satisfactorily. In practice, however, we fear that it would give rise to difficulties. There are bound to be cases where goods are described in a way which would seem clearly to offend against this Bill and which might possibly, but less certainly, offend against one of the other Statutes. Under the Food and Drugs Act, for example, it is an offence to label or advertise food in a manner likely to mislead as to its nature, substance or quality. In given circumstances it may be doubtful whether a description would be held to be misleading when there is little or no doubt that it amounts to a false trade description under this Bill. In such circumstances it would obviously be sensible for the prosecutor to proceed under this Bill.
Similarly, in the case of weights and measures there might be some doubt whether a misdescription of quantity under this Bill would or would not also be an offence under the Weights and Measures Act, bearing in mind that the expression "quantity" is not precisely defined in the latter Act.
If this Amendment were accepted it would be necessary, in any case which was near the borderline, to prefer charges under this Bill and under the other legislation, because no one would know which was appropriate. Furthermore, it would
456
be essential that the court—which would be prohibited from convicting on both charges—should convict under the right Act, or its decision would be liable to be reversed. There would be a danger of endless argument about which Act was appropriate; and a more serious danger that the Amendment would create the very situation which reform of the criminal law should avoid; namely, that in which a person commits an act which it is intended should be penalised and escapes conviction because of a technical difficulty in formulating the charge. It is on these grounds, and in view of the possibility that criminals might escape through the loopholes created by the Amendment, that I strongly ask your Lordships not to accept it.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am grateful to the noble Lord for having explained this matter, and in the light of his explanation I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.3 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYNmoved to add to the clause:
"( ) No proceedings under this Act in respect of an oral misdescription of goods shall be brought if the oral statement conflicts with any statement marked on or accompanying the goods and that information is not false, unless the purchaser had no opportunity of examining the goods on or before purchase."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is self-explanatory, and I think it is intelligible. The point of the Amendment is quite clear. We have these complicated labelling regulations, and if the manufacturer complies with them the least that the customer can be expected to do is to read them and not to rely on some passing remark of the retailer. As the saying is: why look at the crystal when you can look at the book? It is exactly the same here: why ask the retailer to make a statement which is clearly contained on the label? Of course there is the case that the label might be concealed, or the purchaser might not have an opportunity of examining the goods on or before purchase, and in such a case an exception is made in the Amendment. But it seems that this would be sensible. Although we want to protect the consumer from being cheated, I think the last thing any of us want to do is to over-cosset the consumers and get them out of the way of protecting

457
their own interests by taking reasonable steps such as reading the label. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 21, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD SAINSBURY: As a retailer I think this is a fair and very reasonable Amendment in the circumstances, and I am happy to support it.
LORD AIREDALE: I feel some difficulty in interpreting the words at the end of this Amendment: "no opportunity of examining the goods on or before purchase". In these days so many goods are available for sale, sealed up in containers, boxes, bottles and so on. In such cases does the customer in the shop have an opportunity to examine the goods? In what sense does he have such an opportunity? The goods are inside the sealed packets or bottles. In theory they are there, ready to be examined by the customer; but in practice the shopkeeper will say, "If you break that seal you will have to take those goods because I shall not be able to sell them to anybody else". How will the court construe the words "opportunity of examining the goods on or before purchase"?
LORD BROWN: At first sight this is one of the Amendments which one looks at and says, "This is absolute common sense. Obviously one must accept it". But when one looks a little further it is not so certain. When goods are clearly labelled with information which is quite clearly visible on the outside, it is not at all unreasonable to expect shoppers to look at the information. Unfortunately, as the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has said, labels are not always clear and obvious. For example, nowadays it is not at all uncommon for a label saying whether a garment is washable to be tucked away inside: in fact I think this is becoming the predominant habit rather than the exception. The shopper may not bother to hunt for it, because she may not know that it is there, and in such circumstances it is very easy for her to ask the question of the shop assistant, who ought to know what is on the label, yet she could be given totally wrong information.
The precise objection to the Amendment is that it would create a loophole in
458
the Bill of which dishonest traders could take advantage, I question whether it is wise to allow such a loophole to emerge because it allows a shopkeeper to deceive customers. For instance, if a label said that a garment was made of wool and rayon the shopkeeper might assure the customer that in fact it was practically all wool. Again, the label might say that a garment could not be washed, but the shopkeeper might assure the customer that it was perfectly all right to wash it, and in fact this was just a case of the manufacturer being over-cautious. I have had such statements made to me. I question the advisability of adopting this Amendment, and I should like to hear whether noble Lords opposite have anything further to say in defence of it.
LORD AUCKLAND: I am not particularly convinced by the explanation given by the noble Lord, Lord Brown. So far as the labelling of garments is concerned, surely it is common sense that the label should be on the inside of the garment, and it is usually fairly easy to see. If, as this Bill intends, there is to be protection for the consumer, the label or the instructions must be placed somewhere where they can not only be fairly easily read but also easily kept on the object concerned, so that they do not fall off or come off in the wash. A good deal of publicity has been given to this over the last few years, and I hope the Government will have second thoughts about accepting this Amendment.
LORD PARGITER: The thing that wo ries me about this Amendment, and similar Amendments, is the impression that the weights and measures authorities, or the appropriate authority, want to rush into prosecutions in every possible circumstance. Surely one can trust the local authority and the inspector, on being faced with the possibility of something being done which ought not to have been done, to examine it and say to the person who has made the complaint, "It is perfectly clear for you to see; it is printed on the label", or something of that kind. If he feels that the person is reasonably protected, it seems to me that to give further protection is not really necessary. One ought to leave something to the good sense of the authorities whose job it is to see that the law is observed. This is really leaning over

459
backwards to do something that the inspectors themselves would very naturally do.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am afraid that I must, with respect, disagree with my noble friend Lord Pargiter. I think this is a very good Amendment, as my noble friend Lord Sainsbury has said, and one which should be considered very carefully by the Government. What is the manufacturer, or the retailer, to do? He takes every trouble to label the garments and to include information with them—for example, that a woollen garment will not shrink—and then a customer is misled by a sales assistant, possibly a young inexperienced assistant who may have taken on the job only that morning, who may be nervous, who may be anxious to please or anxious to make a sale. I think we must allow some protection to the retailer, who, after all, is anxious to please his customers, anxious to sell the goods, anxious that the customers will return and buy them again. He does everything he can, and now he is put at the mercy of some inaccurate oral misdescription, although he has done everything to mark his goods properly. If the customer has not got the wit or enterprise to look at the labels, I do not think local authorities should be allowed to rely on oral misdescription in this way in order to bring prosecutions.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: As the Committee know, I do not agree with the bringing of prosecutions for oral misdescription, but on this I should have thought that if an assistant commented wrongly while the correct information was on a label the crime (if that is the word) of the assistant was all the worse. I really and truly can see no excuse at all for anybody selling goods on which there is a label or on which there is an adequate description giving wrong information, and therefore I would certainly not support this Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Plainly there are two views on this Amendment, and for my part I appreciate in particular the loophole to which the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has drawn attention. This was imperfect drafting, but it could have been improved. Dealing with the principle of the Amendment, I still feel this is something that would be worth doing.
460
I am rather horrified at the idea (and I am sure my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood would have squirmed at it) that while manufacturers, in co-operation with the Consumer Council, could go to all the trouble of putting on a tag, the customer may not look for it, or even know that it is there. I should have thought this was extremely unlikely.
We are really dealing with two sets of cases; those cases where, for example, in the clothing industry, a descriptive label is attached, and the other in the food industry, where a label is on the goods and often a part of the goods. I should have thought that in both cases the consumer could be expected to read the label, and I should have thought the possibility of deliberately attempting to deceive the consumer was very remote indeed. The reason why I put this Amendment down was that I felt it could be only because the shopkeeper had made a mistake. The noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, takes the opposite view, and thinks this is very reprehensible; that even if it is a mistake the shop assistant should know better. There are two points of view. I rather gathered that the noble Lord, Lord Brown, felt this was opening another loophole. This is certainly not the intention here. I do not know whether the same object could be achieved in a different way without opening a loophole, but as it is not my intention to open loopholes I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 22 shall stand part of the Bill?
7.17 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I realise that my noble friend has some Amendments down on Clause 23, but I think it might be appropriate to ask the noble Lord, Lord Brown, about the way that this part of the Bill has been dealt with. Clauses 22 and 23 together cover very much the same ground as the provision in the Food and Drugs Act 1955. I hope it is the latest Act. The section concerned is 113. What that provision does is to ensure that when an offence is committed, and the person who was originally charged says it is somebody else's fault, machinery is provided by which thy can all be

461
dealt with together: they all come up before the magistrates court. I am aware it causes considerable difficulty sometimes because the machinery is not particularly easy to follow. But at least it has the merit that everybody is there at once. It seems to me the way that these two clauses have been set out is liable to lead to individual and separate prosecutions.
It may be that under Clause 23, whether it is amended or not, the person originally charged puts up a defence which is successful, and since the enforcing authority are not happy about this, and since the person originally charged has convinced the court, and them too, that it was really somebody else's fault, they then have to go off and bring another charge against that other person now found to have been the culprit. That is messy and it takes up more time than should be taken up. I wonder whether there is not something to be said for using the type of machinery in the Food and Drugs Act, so that before the case is heard by the magistrates the person charged can say, "Yes, but it was not my fault; it was the fault of my supplier". He can serve the necessary notice and have everybody there at the same time for the magistrates to sort out the position. It is really a matter of putting these two clauses together. I think there is a gap now which might lead to the administrative difficulty I have suggested. I wonder whether the noble Lord has any views on this.
LORD BROWN: Is the noble Viscount referring to the third-party procedure which was in the 1966 version of this Bill?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Yes, I was comparing the two and seeing whether there was perhaps not the possibility of what I was suggesting occurring under this particular method of drafting. There may be good reasons for it, but I think there is this difficulty.
LORD CAWLEY: I have had some experience of the Food and Drugs Act and it is very effective.
LORD BROWN: This is a complex matter, and I have a very long technical note. I am wondering whether to read it in full or to say merely that we take note of what your Lordships have said. I
462
know that this has been the subject of great consideration since the 1966 version. On balance the conclusion was that this Clause 22 should be introduced, which effectively cuts out third-party procedure and makes it unnecessary, and the law can proceed straight to the behind-the-scenes offender, if I may put it that way, without necessarily troubling the ostensible offender.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: That is perfectly true, but that is possible anyway under subsection (3) of Section 113 of the Food and Drugs Act; it is possible to go straight to the original culprit if desired, and the third-party procedure is to provide for the occasion where the enforcing authority have not done that and the person charged feels they should have done so.
LORD BROWN: Is the noble Viscount advocating that the third party procedure should have been retained in this Bill in order that the original, the superficial offender shall I call him—the man who is apparently an offender—has the right to go through this procedure even if the prosecuting authority want to take it to the "behind the scenes" offender right away?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: No, I am not; I am not suggesting anything of the kind. I approve of subsection (3) of Clause 113 of the 1955 Act, whereby the enforcing authority can start with the original offender if they know who it is. All that concerns me is this. If you do not have the third party machinery, are you not liable to have to bother the magistrates and everybody else concerned twice, because it is not until the first hearing that the defence in Clause 23 is established, and it is not until then that the enforcing authority know that there is somebody else for whom they should go? Therefore you have two cases instead of one. It may be that on balance it is better to do it that way, but I wanted to hear the noble Lord's arguments as to why the Government wish to introduce this possibility of dual proceedings into the law.
LORD DRUMALBYN: May I say this to the noble Lord opposite. I think he is aware that there is considerable interest in this point, and I think it would be of considerable advantage outside the House

463
as well as within it if he were to trouble the Committee with his technical information.
LORD BROWN: I shall proceed to do that. It will be easier for me, because this is a matter outside my normal experience. We have been advised that a third party procedure was incompatible with the more formal procedure and stricter rules of evidence of a trial on indictment. We have now received further advice on this subject and the difficulties of reconciling the third party procedure with the rules applicable to the conduct of a trial on indictment have been more precisely specified.
A trial on indictment is a trial before a jury. The jury reaches its verdict under the direction of the Judge whose duty it is to give them very careful directions on the rules of evidence and to ensure that no inadmissible evidence is put before them during the trial. The Judge has to warn the jury that they must not convict except upon evidence that establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. On the other hand, the standard of proof required for the defendant to establish a defence is that of the balance of probabilities. The introduction of a third party procedure would involve great practical difficulty over the application of these rules. The prosecution will produce evidence to show that the defendant is guilty, and the Judge must warn the jury that before they can find him guilty they must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt. If, on the other hand, the defendant says that the person who is really responsible is a third party, the Judge must tell the jury that it is enough for the defendant to establish his allegation on the balance of probabilities. In these circumstances there is a danger that the jury will unconsciously set too high a standard for the defendant, because they feel that in acquitting him they are, in effect, finding the third party guilty. This will obviously be unfair to the defendant.
The rules of procedure applicable at a trial on indictment are strict and complex. The order in which the prosecution and the defence may address the court, in particular the right to the last word, are minutely regulated. These are all based on the fact that a trial under our system of criminal procedure is essentially a contest between prosecution and defence with
464
the Judge acting as the umpire who sees that the rules are observed. If the third party procedure were introduced, and a third party took advantage of his right to be heard and to give evidence, the whole procedure would become unmanageably complicated.
Confusion would also arise over the application of the rules relating to the admissibility of evidence of character. The general rule is that the prosecution may not call evidence to attack the character of the defendant unless he has put it in issue (that is, unless he says in effect "the jury cannot possibly believe that I would do a thing like that, see what a high reputation I have amongst by business associates") or attacked the character of a prosecution witness. If a third party were permitted to intervene in order to defend his reputation against the defendant's allegation that he (the third party) is the real villain of the piece, it would be extremely difficult to apply this rule sensibly to the conduct of the dispute between the third party and the defendant. The third party is in effect a kind of "sub-defendant". In other words, the defendant stands in the same relation to him as the prosecution to the defendant in the main proceeding. It follows that the defendant should not be allowed to produce evidence attacking the third party or his witnesses unless the third party has put his character in issue or has attacked the character of the defendant or of his witnesses. But, if this rule is applied, the defendant will be hampered in the conduct of his defence and one of the main purposes of the rules governing the conduct of criminal prosecutions; namely, that the defendant is not to be unfairly prejudiced, will be defeated. An equally grave difficulty will arise if the third party wishes to attack the character of the defendant. As between him and the defendant it seems reasonable that he should have the same right to attack the defendant's character as the defendant has to attack the character of the prosecution witnesses. But the effect of this would be to defeat the rule that the prosecution cannot, except in the special cases mentioned above, attack the character of the defendant. It is true that it is the third party who would be attacking, but it is not reasonable to expect the jury to put out of their minds the evidence produced by the third

465
party about the character of the defendant when reaching their verdict on the issue between the prosecution and the defendant. That is the technical information that I have.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: That, if I may say so to the noble Lord, is a most impressive note, and it seems to me that in so far as the conviction on indictment under Clause 17(1)(b) is concerned there is a great deal to be said for it. But, of course, there is still Clause 17(1)(a) which is the magistrates' court procedure. I quite agree with the noble Lord that the rules which should be applied at quarter sessions or assizes are probably rightly more strict than those which work in the magistrates' courts. I would not disagree with him at all about that, or about anything that he read out. But I am still talking really about summary jurisdiction, about magistrates' courts. It is there that the Food and Drugs Act, the third party procedure, works; and it is there that I am suggesting that we could possibly save time and a great deal of trouble to all the people concerned if we at any rate consider whether the same procedure (which I am glad to hear from my noble friend Lord Cawley is efficacious) is perhaps incorporated into this Bill.
Perhaps the noble Lord would like to consider whether there should be a divergence of practice between the magistrates' courts procedure, where the old third party machinery could continue, and the more serious cases which go to quarter sessions where of course it is only right that the prosecution should weigh carefully who they are going to charge, and if they get the wrong chap that is their fault. I would see no objection to that, but it means that you must alter the way the Bill is drafted at the moment.
LORD AIREDALE: I should have thought there was great advantage in having similar procedure throughout that group of Statutes which come under the consumer protection umbrella.
LORD BROWN: I could not possibly refuse to consider this matter, particularly as it is one that to a large extent arises outside the compass of my own experience. I will have it considered. I note the noble Lord, Lord Airedale's comment; but of course, by having a similar procedure to that of the other
466
Statutes one has two procedures applying to this particular Bill. That may not be a disadvantage. I do not want to argue the case. I will have it considered.
Clause 22 agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended at 7.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.30 p.m.]
Clause 23:
Defence of mistake, accident, etc.
23.—
(2) In any proceedings for an offence under this Act of supplying or offering to supply goods to which a false trade description is applied it shall be a defence for the person charged to prove that he did not know, and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained, that the goods did not conform to the description or that the description had been applied to the goods.
LORD AUCKLAND LORD AUCKLAND moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "and (b)" and insert:
"or
(b) that he had relied in good faith upon information supplied by another person; and
(c)".
The noble Lord said: We now come to the clause dealing with defence of mistakes, accidents, and so on. There has already been reference to this clause, which is obviously one of the more important clauses in the Bill. What has to be decided by Parliament is as to what can be interpreted as a defence and what is deliberately going against the rules aid violating them. The purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that there is an adequate defence for, say, the advertising agency which is preparing "copy" and which, after some kind of inquiry, must rely upon the information which the advertiser supplies. That is but one example.
As the Bill stands, paragraph (b) of subsection (1) puts the onus upon the person concerned to consult these people himself, whether the manufacturer or the retailer. This must obviously be a very difficult matter. He may find that the other person concerned is many miles away, or that he may have left for another job. Therefore the Amendment puts the onus to some extent the other way round and allows time for some inquiry into

467
circumstances, which might mean that it is the advertising agency which is preparing the "copy" and not merely the advertiser. It is clear that Clause 23 as a whole needs a good deal of study, because it is important that we should get it absolutely right as to upon whom the onus should be laid in relation to this defence clause. This Amendment is one idea which I hope the Government will consider. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 33, leave out ("and (b)") and insert the said new words.—(Lord Auckland.)
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: I am sorry, but I regard this Amendment as completely unnecessary. I contend that if we look at what the Amendment seeks to replace we find that every possible defence is given to the person called upon to defend himself. I do not see that one can take more than "all reasonable precautions" or do more than "exercise all due diligence", and I hope that the Government will reject this Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am not quite certain that the noble Baroness's reading of this clause is the same as mine. Subsection (1)(b) says:
"that he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of such an offence by himself or any person under his control"
only where paragraph (a) applies; that is:
"that the commission of the offence was due to a mistake, or to an accident or some other cause beyond his control".
This is not really enough, because there are many cases where a person who is connected with merchandising in general is not in a position to say both of those things. He may have taken all reasonable precautions, but the offence may not have been due to a mistake, or accident or something beyond his control. It may have been within his control.
The point of the Amendment is to try to fill the gap, and the kind of gap I had in mind was not only the one to which my noble friend has referred—that of the advertising agent who is briefed by the advertiser and who is not expected to check every detail of his brief. Indeed, he probably is not in a position to do so. Why should he? This
468
is the advertiser's advertisement. He is paying for it and he is paying the advertising agent to present in the best possible way, in the most advantageous media and so forth, the case that he, the advertiser, puts to him. He is not expected to check in detail all the technical data and the rest. Unless you put in:
"that he had relied in good faith upon information supplied by another person".
he will not be covered by the taking of "all reasonable precautions", because you have, first of all, to make it clear that he is relying on information supplied by some other person before you can decide whether the precautions were reasonable or not and the exercise of diligence was due or not. If he is accustomed to rely on the information provided by somebody else, then of course the same amount of diligence will not be due and the same amount of precautions, which would be reasonable if he were not so accustomed, would be well beyond the normal.
That is not the only case. There is also the case of the retailer. One has to remember that, in the Bill as drafted, the warranty as to trade description has been removed. Surely the retailer is normally accustomed to rely upon information supplied by his supplier, by the manufacturer or the wholesaler. This is not a question of mistake; mistake does not arise. It is a question of not knowing. The question is: what degree of diligence and what precautions should the retailer be expected to take? It seems to me right, in view of the removal of the warranty clause, that the retailer should be allowed this defence: that he relied in good faith upon information supplied by the manufacturer. Let us take, for example, the descriptions that he puts up in his shop by way of selling, and the advertisements in the local press. Naturally, he will take what the manufacturer says, because he is accustomed to rely on the manufacturer in these matters. It seems to me that this is an essential defence for the retailer, and he should not have to find out that some mistakes have been made before he can avail himself of this—
LORD PEDDIE: Would not all the points mentioned by the noble Lord be covered by
"some other cause beyond his control"?
LORD DRUMALBYN: No; this is not a "cause beyond his control", in my view. One must read the words,
"some other cause beyond his control"
in the light of the clause as a whole. This clause refers to mistakes and accidents, or other such causes, not lack of knowledge. My contention is that this is an essential defence that should be added if anything like reasonably fair play is to be given to the retailer and the advertising agent.
LORD BROWN: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I say that although I could say this in my general reply I should like to give him an opportunity to respond to it. It seems to me that the defence of the retailer lies in Clause 23(2), because it there states quite clearly:
"In any proceedings for an offence under this Act of supplying or offering to supply goods to which a false trade description is applied it shall be a defence for the person charged to prove that he did not know, and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained, that the goods did not conform to the description or that the description had been applied to the goods."
Is that not a complete answer to this point about retailers?
LORD DRUMALBYN: No, indeed not, because of course he can prove that he did not know, but you have to add on to that,
"and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained".
Nobody is saying that the advertising agent "could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained", or that the retailer could not have reasonably ascertained. He could open the goods and examine them, at considerable loss to himself, but he is not expected to do that; and the advertising agent is not expected to go to the British Museum and check all the data that he has been given. It is really ludicrous that that should be expected. I am quite certain that the noble Lord thought, and probably the Government thought, that they were offering enough by way of defence in subsection (2), but they certainly are not. I hope I have convinced the noble Lord of this, because it seems to me that this really is important.
LORD CAWLEY: This question of reasonable diligence comes from the old Act. I think the leading case on it was Allard v. Selfridge, in which Selfridges
470
were selling stockings which were called silk but which in fact were not silk. It was proved that in order to find out whether they were silk or not they would have had to destroy a stocking, and it was held that they ought to have destroyed a stocking. It was said that that was reasonable diligence. That is what reasonable diligence must mean, I think, in this Bill.
LORD AIREDALE: I would support this Amendment, too. Take the case of a retailer of complicated pieces of machinery. He could, of course, exercising reasonable diligence, take a complicated machine to pieces and examine the parts to discover whether the manufacturer's description is accurate, but I think no-one would expect him to do that. He ought to be allowed to rely in good faith upon the information supplied by the manufacturer.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I wonder whether the noble Lord can supply an example of the circumstances in which he thinks this defence could be proved, because, having heard my noble friends and other noble Lords speak, what I am a little afraid of is that it will be so difficult to rely on either subsection (1) or subsection (2) of this clause that in actual fact it is going to become an almost absolute offence, and that the only way that people will be able to avoid it is by not being prosecuted at all. I wonder whether the noble Lord can give any sort of example, first under the one subsection and then under the other, because this may help the Committee.
LORD BROWN: I am thinking about this matter. It seems to me that the burden of the attack on the clause as it is now drafted rests in fact on the provision in Clause 23(2),
"and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained …"
That is where the attack comes. I am affected by the argument, because I am inclined to agree with the mover of this Amendment that it is a fairly stringent condition to attach to a retailer. I can comment on this, and I have a note on the whole subject; but in order to save time I think I will undertake to take a note of the arguments used—I think they may be cogent—and have a close look at this. Unless there is a stronger argument put forward by the drafters of the

471
Bill which indicates that the drafting meets the points that have been made we will do something at a later date. If the noble Lord will accept that and withdraw his Amendment now, I shall be happy.
LORD AUCKLAND: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brown, for the attitude he has taken on this matter. It seems to me that as the clause is drafted, subsection (1)(b) gives the indication that manufacturers and retailers are in some way unscrupulous beings when they communicate with each other. I think the term "reasonable precautions" is very vague and needs a firmer interpretation, whatever view the Government may subsequenty take. But in view of what the noble Lord has said, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.47 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYNmoved, in subsection (2), after "applied", to insert:
"or a false indication is given of any of the matters specified in Sections 11, 12 or 13 of this Act".
The noble Lord said: The point of this Amendment is to make certain that the defences available in the case of an offence of supplying or offering to supply goods is also available in the case of supplying or offering to supply services, and, indeed, in comparing prices. The point is simply that, so far as I can see, this particular defence,
"that he did not know, and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained",
does not appear to be available as a defence against a charge under Clauses 11, 12 or 13. These are the clauses which deal with comparison of prices, false representations as to Royal approval or award and false or misleading statements as to services, accommodation or facilities. And if one may take Clause 23(1)(a) and (b) together, then Clauses 11, 12 and 13 are brought into 23(2), and after the words:
"the goods did not conform to the description or that the description had been applied to the goods"
are added the words: "in the case of services" and so forth, or "that the indication was false" as the case may be. It may be that one should say
472
"false or misleading"; but I think the word "false" is sufficient. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 39, after ("applied") insert ("or a false indication is given of any of the matters specified in Sections 11, 12 or 13 of this Act").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD BROWN: With respect, I think this Amendment is misconceived. Clause 23(2) provides what has been referred to as the "ignorance" defence for the person who supplies goods for which a false trade description is applied, and it has been included because we think that the supplier of misdescribed goods should be treated somewhat more leniently than the applier of the false description. Both supplier and applier, and persons who have committed offences under Clauses 11 and 12 of the Bill, have a defence under Clause 23(1). This Amendment seeks to give the "ignorance" defence to the person who supplies goods in respect of which a false indication as to price is given, contrary to Clause 11, to the person who supplies goods or services in respect of which a false representation as to Royal approval is given, contrary to Clause 12, and to the person who provides services in respect of which a false statement is made, contrary to Clause 13.
But if you look at Clauses 11, 12 and 13 you will see that the offence is not that of supplying goods or services, but giving a false indication as to the price of goods, giving a false indication of Royal aproval or making a false statement as to services. In other words, the offender under Clause 11, 12 or 13 corresponds to the applier of a false description and to the supplier of misdescribed goods. We cannot agree that the "ignorance" defence should be extended to offenders under Clauses 11 and 12. As regards Clause 13, it is of course an ingredient of the offence that a false statement was made knowingly or recklessly, and in these circumstances there can be no room for the "ignorance" defence. I hope that your Lordships have understood the argument I am using, and on those grounds I ask that the Amendment be withdrawn.
LORD DRUMALBYN: For once, at any rate, the noble Lord, Lord Brown, has convinced me that he is right, and therefore I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Enforcing authorities]:
LORD CAWLEYmoved, at the beginning of subsection (1), to insert: "Subject to subsection (6) of this section". The noble Lord said: This Amendment is consequential upon Amendment No. 50, and so with permission I will speak to both of them. When the 1953 Merchandise Marks Act was passed it was thought that a new era in trade protection was about to commence. The first case brought under the new Act was Davenport v. Prophylaxis, Ltd. which concerned a homœoeopathic medicine for cows. The result of that case was that the Buckinghamshire County Council lost and had to pay £500 costs. During the Second Reading debate of this Bill on November 14, the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, said about Clause 13 (col. 597):
"This is a tricky area to venture into."
I agree that it is. We do not want Clause 13 to get off on the wrong foot. It would be disastrous if some weights and measures authority chose some subject quite inapplicable, some doubtful case, and the experience of the Buckinghamshire County Council were repeated. That is why I think the Board of Trade should keep a firm grip on this, and see that at any rate the first case they bring is one that they are going to win and not lose. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 10, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (6) of this section").—(Lord Cawley.)
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: We all sympathise with the Buckinghamshire County Council, but there are other factors to be considered than the risk to which we are putting local authorities. The Amendment moved by the noble Lord would prevent any prosecution in relation to statements about services under Clause 13 without the prior consent of the Board of Trade. In this Bill we have deliberately adopted the principle that the right to prosecute for offences under it should not be restricted by making it subject to the consent of any central Government authority. I see no justification for singling out offences under Clause 13 for different treatment in this respect.
474
I agree that the clause ventures into a new field in which we have no previous experience to guide us, and for this reason we have placed on the prosecution the burden of proving the elements of guilty knowledge or recklessness. But that is not a reason for restricting the bringing of prosecutions. Local authorities will be well aware of the special features of this clause and will be quite as competent as the Board of Trade to judge whether a prosecution ought to be brought. I am in favour of devolution of responsibility. I think it would be undesirable that local authorities should always have to refer problems of this type to the Board of Trade. They are quite capable of acting on their own initiative. For this reason we believe that, although there are instances of the kind which the noble Lord pointed out, responsibility should remain with the local authority and should not be referred to the Board of Trade just in case an accident should happen.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The noble Lord is getting along very well, but I am not sure that I entirely agree with his last remarks. Am I not right in thinking that under Clause 29 proceedings can only be taken by a local weights and measures authority if notice is given to the Board of Trade, so that in any case the Board will know of the intention to prosecute? On Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Brown, said:
"This Bill is of an exploratory nature, as I think we all recognise."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14/11/67, col. 669.]
Clause 13 is particularly exploratory.
It is for that reason that my noble friend and I feel that it would be a good idea, at any rate for a time, to keep this under the control of the Board of Trade, to see how it goes. When this deals with matters such as accommodation, it is essentially a local problem. On the other hand, when it deals with travel and other services of a national character, there is a good deal to be said for having the matter dealt with in a national way. I think that the arguments are fairly evenly balanced but, in spite of what the noble Lord has said, we still feel that this would be a wise precaution in the early stages. If the noble Lord feels that he can keep sufficient control through the normal process of notification, the 28 days' delay and the advice he will give

475
to weights and measures authorities, the balance may be tilted in the opposite way against this form of controlled experiment.
LORD AIREDALE: I feel that the Minister is right about this. I do not think it is much good saying to local authorities, as the Bill says, "You are big boys now and must go out into the wicked world and prosecute in these cases, but you must not do it without asking Auntie Board of Trade first". That is what it seems to me this Amendment is seeking to introduce, and I do not think that it is justified.
LORD STRABOLGI: Before my noble friend replies, I should like to ask him about the position concerning private prosecutions either by individuals or by quasi-official bodies. It appears that these are allowed under this clause. If this is so, how can the Board of Trade exercise control over these private prosecutions when under Clause 29 it appears that the Board do not even have to be notified about them?
LORD ILFORD: I am glad that the noble Lord has resisted this Amendment, and I hope that he will not allow himself to be deflected from his course by anything said by my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn. As the noble Lord has said, this would be a complete departure from the principle upon which this Bill has been framed—that local authorities who have to administer it should have a perfectly free discretion to prosecute or not to prosecute as they think fit or right. That is in accordance with all existing weights and measures legislation and, I believe, in accordance with the Trade Descriptions Act, too. If the noble Lord were to accept the Amendment it would be a complete departure from anything that has been put into an Act of this sort before, and I very much hope that he will continue to resist it.
LORD CAWLEY: I think that in the homoeopathic case an enormous amount of damage was done, but that may not be repeated. I have issued my warning, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.1 p.m.
LORD AUCKLANDmoved to insert after subsection (1):
"( ) In England and Wales proceedings for an offence under this Act or any order made under this Act shall not be instituted except by the Board of Trade or by or on behalf of a local weights and measures authority".
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment primarily is to make quite sure that bodies and individuals who have no real knowledge of the terms of the Bill are not allowed to prosecute. It is indeed possible, under the Bill as at present drafted, even for advertisers' competitors to issue prosecutions against their rivals if they so wish, either from a feeling of sour grapes or otherwise. A good deal was said on the previous Amendment, and I need not say very much now, but surely it is the Board of Trade and the weights and measures authorities, who, after all, are experienced in these matters, who should carry out these duties.
The real danger at the present time is that there could be a whole surfeit of prosecutions going forward, or at least efforts at prosecuting on all kinds of ground. If this should happen, the courts would be overladen with all sorts of cases which have probably been very badly made out. It is certainly not the intention of this Amendment to allow those who have transgressed to get away with it, but it seems logical that the Board of Trade and the local authorities between them should carry out these duties. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 16, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Auckland.)
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: If the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, had been able to draft an Amendment which said that people who were not competent to prosecute should not prosecute, which is what he implied, that, I think, would have been a different matter. I rise to speak strongly against this Amendment. I was sorry to see it on the Marshalled List. If it had not been there, I had intended to ask the Government whether they could enlighten us as to what was meant by Clause 25 (1), because, looking at this, I thought it might be inferred that enforcement of the Consumer Protection Act would be confined to local weights and measures authorities and, presumably, the Board of Trade.

477
My reason for rising—and I think it is one with which the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, would not disagree—is that I come back once more to a very competent organisation, the Retail Trading Standards Association. I have mentioned them several times, and I must say that I have no connection with them. However, in my battles in another place during the 'fifties I was given considerable help by this organisation. I think it is known to your Lordships and held in very high repute. The Retail Trading Standards Association already co-operate closely with a number of local authorities, and, as Ministers will know, from time to time they help them with expert evidence, particularly as to the material content of textiles.
As I see it, in the future there may be times when the R.T.S.A. will be extremely anxious to lay down a principle by taking its own prosecution in respect of an offence. I want to ask the Government, before we come to the Amendment to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, whether under Clause 25(1) we could be assured that there was no question at all that prosecutions h' the R.T.S.A. will have to cease with the present Merchandise Marks Act. If this Amendment were passed, I feel that industry and manufacturers would be deprived of an opportunity of defending themselves. I sympathise with the noble Lord in his wish to prevent people who are not competent from bringing cases, but I think if that were carried it would rule out organisations which were competent, and I hope the Government will not accept the Amendment.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I support those views. The Retail Trading Standards Association are continually taking up cases, and doing it extremely well. I think it would be most unfortunate if we were to confine the right to prosecution to a Government department, and I hope the Government will not accept the Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: For once I find myself differing from my noble friend Lord Auckland. Of course, it would be tidy if the right to prosecute were limited in the same way, as in the Weights and Measures Act, to the local authorities and the Board of Trade. But there are other Government departments which in certain
478
circumstances might prosecute. Apart from that, I think the Retail Trading Standards Association has regarded itself in the past as rather a gadfly—in other words, when local authorities would not prosecute it has sometimes stepped in and done so. This is healthy. If the law is there, and if a private person thinks that the authorities are not doing all that they should by way of enforcement, it is healthy that a private person should come in and prosecute. The danger lies along the lines suggested by my noble friend Lord Cawley. One can get malicious prosecutions and prosecutions by competitors in order to establish some point which suits their own particular propaganda. It is difficult to hold the balance between these things. I do not know of any way of doing the one without the other, and on balance it seems better for the Government not to accept this Amendment. Therefore, I hope my noble friend will not press it.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: The noble Lord, Lord Auckland, does not seem to have the support of the Committee for which he might have hoped, but I think it was valuable that he should point out the risk of private individuals pursuing a vendetta by private prosecutions of their rivals in retail trade. In answer to my noble friend Lady Burton of Coventry, who asked whether the Retail Trading Standards Association would be prevented from bringing prosecutions, I would reply that the Amendment as drafted is undesirable because it would prevent trading associations, such as the one mentioned by my noble friend, from bringing prosecutions. The Government believe this is unreasonable and undesirable, and I can assure my noble friend that in fact the position of the R.T.S.A. remains unaltered.
LORD AUCKLAND: It is quite clear that this Amendment has not received very much support, and having read it myself several times I must confess to the Committee that I moved it with a certain cynicism. The real point is—and I do maintain this—that it is primarily to stop unscrupulous people such as competitors from instigating malicious prosecutions. May I emphasise one thing more? I am certainly not casting aspersions either on the Consumer Council or the Retail Trading Standards

479
Association, for both of which bodies I have a great respect and whose work I very much admire. It is obvious that this Amendment needs redrafting in a way in which those who are not competent to prosecute are not put in a position where they are able to do so.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Would the noble Lord consider this point: that if people who are incompetent to prosecute or are prosecuting maliciously are found to be in that position the courts have powers to award costs against them? I should have thought that that was far the best deterrent and it was quite unnecessary to write anything into the Bill.
LORD AUCKLAND: My noble friend, who is a very accomplished lawyer, has made a very fair point. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DRUMALBYNhad given notice of his intention to move to add to the clause:
"(7) No proceedings for an offence under this Act shall be taken by a local weights and measures authority except after not less than twenty-eight clays' notice to the Board of Trade of the intended proceedings, and any such notice shall be accompanied by a summary of the facts on which the charges are to be founded."
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment, which would require consequental Amendments if it were carried, is merely to draw the attention of the Government to the desirability of moving subsection (2) of Clause 29 to this point. As my noble friend Lord Ilford and the noble Lord, Lord Pargiter, have put down an Amendment to leave this out, this would pre-empt its discussion and therefore I will not move this Amendment at the present time.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clause 26 agreed to.
Clause 27:
Power to enter premises and inspect and seize goods and documents
27.—(1) A duly authorised officer of a local weights and measures authority or of a Government department may, on production, if required, of his credentials—

(a) inspect any goods for the purpose of ascertaining whether any offence under this
480
Act has been or is being committed in respect of them;

(b) enter any premises, other than premises used only as a dwelling, for the purpose of ascertaining whether any offence under this Act has been or is being committed;

(c) for the purpose of ascertaining whether an offence under this Act has been or is being committed, require any person carrying on a trade or business or employed in connection with a trade or business to produce any books or documents relating to the trade or business and take copies of them or extracts from them; and

(d) seize and detain any goods which he has reasonable cause to believe are liable to be forfeited under this Act and any document which he has reason to believe may be required as evidence in proceedings under this Act;

and may for the purpose of exercising his powers under paragraph (d) of this subsection require any person having authority to do so to break open any container or open any vending machine or permit the officer to do so, but only if and to the extent that it is reasonably necessary in order to secure that the provisions of this Act and of any order made thereunder are duly observed.
(2) An officer seizing any goods or documents in the exercise of his powers under this section shall inform the person from whom they are seized and, in the case of goods seized from a vending machine, the person whose name and address are stated on the machine as being the proprietor's or, if no name and address are so stated, the occupier of the premises on which the machine stands or to which it is affixed.
9.14 p.m.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: May I point out to the Committee that if Amendment No. 52 is agreed to I cannot call Amendments numbers 53 to 62 inclusive.
LORD STRABOLGImoved to leave out subsection (1) and insert—

"(1) Subject to the production of his credentials, a duly authorised officer of a local weights and measures authority or of a government department may, at all reasonable times—

(a) inspect any goods to which any of the provisions of this Act applies or which he has reasonable cause to believe to be such goods;

(b) enter any premises, other than premises used only as a dwelling, at which he has reasonable cause to believe an offence under this Act has been or is being committed.

(2) If a justice of the peace, on sworn information in writing is satisfied that there is reasonable ground to believe that any offence under this Act has been, is being or is about to be committed on any premises, the justice may by warrant under his hand, which shall

481
continue in force for a period of one month, authorise an officer of a local weights and measures authority or of a government department to enter the premises, if need be by force,

(a) to require any person carrying on a trade or business or employed in connection with a trade or business to produce any hooks or documents relating to the trade or business and take copies of them or extracts from them; and

(b) seize and detain any goods which he has reasonable cause to believe are liable to be forfeited under this Act and any document which he has reason to believe may be required as evidence in proceedings under this Act."

The noble Lord said: This Amendment which I venture to put forward is, I believe, an important one. There are four main differences between it and the clause as it stands at present. These are, first, that the inspector has the right to inspect goods and enter the premises, as in the Bill, but he has not the right to inspect any goods; these must be the goods to which the provisions of the Bill apply. Secondly, the Amendment requires him to obtain a warrant before he demands the production of books and documents or the seizure of the goods. Thirdly, my Amendment also requires the inspector to produce his credentials before he enters, whether he is asked for them or not. This would seem to me to be not only normal courtesy but essential these days when there are so many criminals about. It also gives added protection to the nervous or shy citizen who is apt to be in awe of officials. Fourthly, the Amendment restricts the time of entry to "all reasonable times". Therefore it does not put the citizen at risk from the knock on the door in the middle of the night, possibly by some thug posing as an inspector. In my submission, the clause as drafted is drawn far too widely. My Amendment retains the position which has been in force under Section 13 of the Merchandise Marks Act since 1887.
I am aware that there are similar powers in the Food and Drugs and Weights and Measures Acts, but in those cases you are dealing with specific matters affecting public health. I believe that these powers are not justified in the case of merchandise marks legislation. They go far too wide; they are just one more encroachment on the liberty of the subject. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 10, leave out subsection (1) and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
9.16 p.m.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: The noble Lord is wielding a most terrible weapon.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am not.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I mean in the sense that if we carry his Amendment we shall almost have finished business for the night. Perhaps he is to be congratulated upon that. Nevertheless, it is not the view of Her Majesty's Government that we should finish quite so early—perhaps in terms of time, yes; in terms of discussion, no.
I should like to make a few comments upon my noble friend's proposed subsection. If we take paragraphs (a) and (b), the Amendment would, in the first place, restrict the power given to enforcement officers to enter premises—and consequently their power to inspect goods—to premises at which the officer has reasonable cause to believe that an offence has been, or is being, committed.
If we take paragraphs (c) and (d) in the new subsection (2), which require a justice's warrant, they would limit the power of an authorised officer even more severely in relation to the inspection and copying of documents and books, and the seizing of goods and documents. I cannot see that this sort of severe restriction is at all necessary or desirable, and I cannot recommend acceptance of the Amendment.
The power contained in the final paragraph of subsection (1), to require a person to break open a container, would be deleted from the Bill by the Amendment. I cannot see any justification for this. I would emphasise that, as the Bill stands, this power is severely restricted—it can be exercised only where it is reasonably necessary in order to secure due observance of the Act, and will therefore be used only on rare occasions. It would be unsafe for an officer to use it unless he had cast-iron reasons for thinking he was reasonably justified in doing so. I can therefore see no objection to this power, which is similar to that provided in Section 29(1) of the Weights and Measures Act.

483
Lastly, we have the words "exercised at all reasonable times". I recognise that the comparable powers in the Weights and Measures and the Food and Drugs Acts are subject to the qualification that they may be exercised "at all reasonable times". This seems to me to be an unnecessary qualification. I do not believe that local authorities are likely to seek to enforce their powers at unreasonable times; and in any case, an omission of express qualification would not entitle them to do so. If anything, the qualification may hinder the enforcement of the Bill by enabling a person with something to hide to delay the entry of the enforcement officer by quibbling over whether the time was reasonable or not. It is for this reason, and the rather explosive impact of the noble Lord's proposals on the Bill as a whole, that I request him to withdraw the Amendment, while, however, considering the points he has made in the discussion.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him a question in regard to "reasonable time"? He will be aware that this is included both in the Food and Drugs Act and in the Weights and Measures Act, although I think one says "hours" and the other says "time". Has any difficulty been experienced by people, as he says, quibbling as to whether or not it is a reasonable time?
LORD BROWN: Perhaps I may make a general comment. The noble Lord realises that the ambit of this Bill is considerably wider than the ambit of the other two Bills to which he has referred. It is true that a case can be made out for confining these powers to reasonable hours. But the noble Lord well knows that the Board of Trade has in the past had enormous difficulty in enforcing some Acts and they find it peculiarly burdensome to be limited in terms of hours. It is not that they want to go in at hours which would be regarded by any reasonable judge of the situation as being unreasonable. It is that this is a sort of alibi for the person whose premises they wish to enter properly to argue that the hour is unreasonable, so keeping them out in pursuit of their duties. It thus gives a handle to an objection which is often unreasonable and would limit the
484
extent to which the Board of Trade could properly pursue potential criminals under this Bill.
LORD STRABOLGI: I have carefully noted what my noble friend has said. I think that the Government ought to have another look at the part about the credentials. I take the points he has made about warrants. I think it is highly undesirable, though I suppose it is necessary to bring this legislation into line with the other relevant legislation, but I cannot see why the wording about producing his credentials cannot be changed to that in the Amendment. It is very important in these days, when there are so many criminals about, that an inspector should automatically have to produce his credentials before he asks to enter premises, and that it is not left to the owner of the premises to ask him. I hone the Government will have another look at this before the Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.24 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYNmoved to insert at the beginning of subsection (1): "If". The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 53, and with it I should like to discuss No. 55. The effect of these Amendments would be to make the clause read as follows:
"If a duly authorised officer of a local weights and measures authority or of a Government Department".
and then, turning to Amendment No. 55:
"has reasonable grounds to believe "
and so on. In drafting this Amendment in this way I had two objects in mind. The first was to simplify the drafting as a whole, and the other was to try to ensure that some of the safeguards included in the Food and Drugs Act were included here. I notice that in answering the last Amendment the noble Lord did not refer to the Food and Drugs Act. I was a little disappointed at this because the procedure in the last Amendment more or less follows the procedure in the Food and Drugs Acts, and I was hoping that the Government would reply to this point, if only because there are a number of people who feel there is no reason in this Bill in the severity of the powers taken to go further than in the Food and Drugs Act. Indeed, they feel that the Food and Drugs Act needs more

485
severe powers because it deals with matters which constitute more of an immediate menace to the health and safety of the public.
I have drafted my Amendment on the assumption that what the Government had in mind was that, in any case, there would be enforcement officers going into retail shops, and all the rest of it, in the course of their normal duties. They are entitled to go there to check up, and they will go in the course of their duties. I took it that if they find, in the course of those duties, that some offence is being committed, they do not want to say, "Look at that", and then go back and get a warrant, because by the time they get back "that" will have changed and the evidence may well have been removed. Therefore I took it that what the Government wanted to achieve here was for an officer to be able to act immediately he went on to premises in the course of his duties.
Of course, it is a fact that if enforcement officers are on premises they will be able to carry on. At the same time, it seemed to me right that if they were going particularly for the purpose of ascertaining that an offence under this Act was being committed, they should have reasonable grounds to believe that an offence was being committed, and in such a case they should, if required, produce their credentials.
As the Amendments are drafted, they secure that officers should inspect or enter only if they have reasonable cause to believe that an offence under the Act has been or is being committed; secondly that they should do so only at reasonable times (the Food and Drugs Act says "hours", and the Weight and Measures Act says "time"); and, thirdly, that they should seize and detain goods, only for the purpose of ascertaining whether an offence has been or is being committed, and should seize and detain only such quantity as is reasonably required for the purposes of prosecution. That brings in also Amendment No. 57. The last point really gives effect to what the noble Lord said on Second Reading; that they should seize and detain only such quantity as is reasonably required for the purposes of testing and prosecution.
I have not dealt with Amendment No. 57, because I hope that the Government
486
will be able to accept that in any case. I am a little more doubtful whether they will be able to accept No. 55, but if they do not propose to accept it I hope they will be able to give a fairly full answer as to why they think it should not be adopted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved
Page 14, line 10, at beginning insert ("If").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I thought I made the point in relation to "at all reasonable times", when I was replying to my noble friend. I acknowledged that comparable powers in the Weights and Measures Act and the Food and Drugs Act are subject to the qualification that they must be exercised at all reasonable times. I went on to say that I thought the local authorities are not likely to seek to enforce their powers at unreasonable times and that, in certain circumstances, there might be occasions when they would want to come in at what to some people might seem an unreasonable time: at a time when they might surprise the occupant, which could be the object of the exercise.
If the noble Lord's qualification is carried, it might hinder the enforcement of the Bill by enabling a person to delay the entry of the enforcement officer, by quibbling over whether or not the time was reasonable. We are not dealing with normal law-abiding citizens: we are tending to deal with the "smart alecs" who probably have a smart answer for the situation. For this reason, we want to be unreasonable with unreasonable people, if that is necessary. But I am certain that local authorities do not want their officers to be staying up at all sorts of odd hours, and in all normal circumstances I am sure that the local authorities will exercise their powers in a reasonable manner.
I do not think we ought to limit the powers of authorised enforcement officers in the way proposed by the noble Lord. If the local authorities are properly to carry out the duty which Clause 25 places on them, their officers must be able to enter premises and inspect goods and documents, not only when they suspect an offence, but as part of their normal routine duties. We have, rightly I think, limited the power to seize and detain goods in paragraph (d) to cases where there is a prima facie offence. But

487
in the other cases covered by paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), the power should not be limited in this way. The powers given by this subsection to authorised officers are broadly similar to those given to weights and measures inspectors under the Weights and Meaures Act 1963 and to the authorised officers of a food and drugs authority under the Food and Drugs Act 1955, and there can surely be no justification for giving less extensive powers to the Akers who would be responsible for enforcing the present Bill. We do not want to hamstring them in their work. The powers of entry and inspection conferred by paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection are, for all practical purposes, the same as those in the Weights and Measures Act. Neither may be exercised except for the purpose of ascertaining whether an offence under the Bill has been or is being committed.
The power to inspect books or documents relating to the trade or business, conferred by paragraph (c), is admittedly much wider than the parallel powers in the Weights and Measures Act. This again, however, is not unreasonable, I believe, considering the much wider scope of this Bill. For instance where an offence under Clause 11 in respect of a price claim is suspected, it might often be necessary to inspect the business records to see whether the claimed reduction was justified. In the case of offences relating to service under Clause 13, inspection of all the books and papers might be necessary in order to judge whether a statement appeared both to be false and to have been made knowingly or recklessly. There may also be cases where a trader is suspected of systematic infringements of a provision of the Bill, which could be proved or disproved only by investigating his own records and those of other traders with whom he has had dealings. In view of the importance of ensuring that the Bill can be effectively enforced, I feel that the proposed power to require the production of books and documents is fully justified, as are the powers of inspection of goods and entry of premises. For this reason I should be grateful if noble Lords would reject this Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The clause as drafted seems a little cumbersome. At
488
least I attempted to simplify the drafting. I hope the noble Lord will at least see whether the drafting can be simplified, even if he cannot meet the points of substance in this Amendment. I should have thought that would have been possible; but, subject to saying that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.33 p.m.
LORD AIREDALEmoved, in subsection (1), after "department" to insert
"having reasonable grounds to believe that any offence under this Act has been, is being or is about to be committed".
The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment because I think it will rivet the attention of the Committee upon the question: does the Committee want these officials to have power to make spot checks or not? As I read the clause without this Amendment, the officials are going to be able to use these powers to make spot checks if they want to. I must confess that I have not studied the kindred legislation which has been referred to, and it may be that power to make spot checks exists in this kindred legislation; but, if that is so, I should have thought that that was an argument for Parliament looking at these other Acts on this point rather than being influenced as to what this Bill should contain on the question of spot checks.
In my submission, the argument against spot checks here is exactly, or almost exactly, the same as the argument against them in the case of those infernal breathalysers—and may I again congratulate Her Majesty's Government, as they have been congratulated many times before, for having had second thoughts about spot checks with breathalysers, having at first decided to introduce spot checks and then abandoning the idea? In my submission, this is a very similar case. The argument against is that it is extremely wasteful of the manpower of busy officials to have spot checks. You have to use a very great many man hours to catch a very few criminals. Furthermore what is perhaps more important still is that you are going to get the officials a bad name among the people they are supposed to be supervising. If they have power to make spot checks, and use them, they are going to become known as a crowd of snoopers and "Nosey Parkering" officials.
May I finally point out to the Committee that if the officials are to have power to make spot checks this will mean that the very sweeping powers given to magistrates under subsection (3) are going to be—shall I give way?
LORD BROWN: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but it seems that we are going to develop an argument about spot checks. Surely it is obvious that a great deal of the enforcement of all types of law is dependent upon spot checks. When a police constable goes round he will spot check certain premises to see whether someone has entered them unlawfully. Tests of people driving over the speed limit and all sorts of laws are subject to spot checks. It is the only way to do it economically. If you do not spot check, you do not check anybody. I am in difficulty in understanding the argument about spot checks.
LORD AIREDALE: I know that the noble Lord was not in charge of the Road Traffic Bill, but does the Minister defend the spot checking of motorists with breathalysers?—which his Government first of all thought was a good idea and then, wisely, abandoned it.
LORD BROWN: I am not prepared to enter into a discussion of that Act; I do not know much about it. I am basing my remarks on industrial and other experience. Either you continuously enforce the law by watching every act; or you spot check; or you do not watch anybody. The principle of pilot inspection, of random sampling, is so well established in the maintenance of given conditions that to criticise it in a general way seems to me to be extraordinary.
LORD AIREDALE: May I say that I could not disagree more with the Minister. The officials who will be operating this Bill when it becomes an Act are not policemen; so the noble Lord is making an unfair comparison. I should have thought it was abundantly desirable that the officials operating this should act only upon a reasonable suspicion; that they should not be expected to have power to walk into somebody's shop or warehouse without having any inkling that an offence is being committed, purely in order to spot check to find out whether, by some unlikely chance, an offence is being committed. I should think that the Committee would
490
be against such power being enjoyed by the officials of the local authority enforcing this Act and—
LORD BROWN: I think it may be useful for me to interrupt the noble Lord. How does the official get the inkling that something is wrong without a spot check?—which may be nothing more than looking into the window of a shop. How does he get the notion that something may be wrong which may lead to further action without a spot check?
LORD AIREDALE: If he looks into a shop window and sees goods which bear a false trade description he is not making a spot check as he walks into the shop. Surely the Minister is not going to argue that point. However, it is not a question of him or of anybody else seeing something in a shop window. I should have thought the other obvious way in which he hears about this is that somebody walks into the office of the local authority and says, "Here is an orange in a wrapper which appears to me to have an odd description on it. Will you look at it please and investigate the matter?" The officer does so. And when he does so, he is not making a spot check or anything like it.
Now perhaps I may be allowed to come on to my third point, the very sweeping powers conferred by subsection (3) upon the magistrates to authorise officials to do all sorts of extremely drastic things. These powers will be available to magistrates to empower the officials to do these things for the purpose of spot checks if the magistrates so decide. I am not suggesting that magistrates are normally tin-reasonable and would act unreasonably in consequence of their powers under subsection (3). But I see no reason to give magistrates enormous powers to enable officials to take drastic action when this is not absolutely necessary. So I hope that we shall be able to argue out the whole question of whether we really want this clause to give powers to make spot checks. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 11, after ("department") insert the said words.—(Lord Airedale.)
LORD PARGITERThere is one point that occurs to me. It is easy enough to talk about isolation, but the officer carrying out these duties may well be a

491
weights and measures inspector, or someone acting under the provisions of the Food and Drugs Act and carrying out certain duties, as he would have a perfect right to do. It seems to me that it would be meaningless to insert these words in the clause, having regard to the fairly large powers which the person concerned would already possess.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I think that is quite true, and that is what was influencing me, but something the noble Lord, Lord Brown, said in reply makes me wonder whether the powers as a whole may not go too far. May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, that I am sorry he did not support my Amendment? We might have combined and it might have been more effective, but I thought that on this question I had not much support in the Committee. It is quite clear that in the course of performing duties in connection with weights and measures it is the duty of officers to go into and inspect certain types of premises. But this Bill is extending the kinds of premises and the kinds of activities.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, would accept that in many instances inspectors would in any case go into premises. They make an annual inspection of all premises in their area to check weighing machines and so forth, and they could do other things when they were there. The question is whether it is necessary to give the same powers where there are no weights and balances and so forth to be checked. The kind of spot check required is quite different in the case of somebody giving services than it is in respect of someone selling goods. It may well be that we are going a little too far.
Here again it may be that there should be refinements and a distinction between the two kinds of instances, where people are going into premises in any case (which was what influenced me when drafting my Amendment: I thought there was no point in getting a justice's warrant, as has to be done under the Food and Drugs Act, if they are to go into the premises anyway). But what about the other kind of premises, where they would not enter? Ought they, in such a case, to go in unless they have reasonable grounds to believe that
492
an offence is being committed? This is the kind of consideration to which noble Lords should be directing their attention.
LORD BROWN: May I draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, again to the question of spot checks? The Food and Drugs Act and the Weights and Measures Act do enable spot checks to be made; that is, they enable inspectors to act:
"for the purpose of ascertaining whether an offence is being or has been committed."
It is quite clear that these laws allow spot checks. I want to rely on the general statement as an argument for the Committee to reject this limitation on the powers of these inspectors. The number of cases where a Government Department is accused justifiably of the misuse of powers given under other Acts is miniscule. The number of cases where the law is offended and the offenders are not brought to book is enormous, and it is growing daily.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said some weeks ago that the way to reduce crime is to make detection more certain. If we reduce the powers of these inspectors—and they are going to have an extremely difficult job, because there will be loopholes in the Bill, whatever we do—in the way proposed in these Amendments, we shall increase substantially the difficulties of their job. They will have to prove in all cases that they are acting on reasonable grounds, when they are acting on suspicions; and suspicion founded on local circumstances is not always ground for reasonable cause. I think that this is a first-class way of enabling a criminal to refute the presence of an inspector. I beg the House not to accept this Amendment.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I do not think that this is right. The noble Lord has made a powerful plea that the powers of the inspectors should not be limited, but I am not aware that, under the existing powers in the Food and Drugs Act and weights and measures legislation under which these inspectors operate they have carte blanche to go into anybody's premises, without having the slightest suspicion that there is anything wrong, and inspect forcibly every single document and book relating to the business. The noble Lord cannot say

493
that we are restricting the powers of inspectors. We are not. The Bill is extending their powers considerably, whether it is done under the phrasing of the Bill or under the phrasing suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, or by my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn.
What we are really arguing about is whether or not, in extending the powers of inspectors, particularly under paragraph (c), we should allow them to have these powers in order to act when they have no suspicion, or only to do so when they have some reasonable suspicion in the first place. I am bound to say that I should not fall over backwards to extend their powers quite so far as the Bill does without having further thought about it. I hope that the noble Lord will look at paragraph (c), which is a departure, to see whether it is not going a little too far.
LORD STRANGE: The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, touched on a rather important point on the last Amendment which has not been touched on on this Amendment. Two people can go into a public house, put down their money, order two brandies, pour them into bottles, seal them and take them away. That is all right. Under this Bill, two phoney men can go in, show a phoney licence, and say they want to see a trader's cigarettes. The trader does not know much about this Bill and they can tell him, "Look at this serial number here; look at that one. These are 'hot' cigarettes. We will take them round to the station. Here is a receipt for them". Then they put them into their car and take them back to their den. I have read the Bill carefully and there is nothing in it to prevent thieves from using this power, which does not exist under these other Acts. I think that in the final draft of the Bill something should be done so that a proprietor could ring up the police station and check on these inspectors. There is nothing in the Bill about checking people who come in and say they are inspectors.
LORD BROWN: When the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, withdrew his Amendment, my noble friend was about to agree that we would look at this point of insisting that inspectors should show their credentials when they entered premises, because we felt that this point
494
was one of value. Perhaps this will go some way to satisfying the noble Lord.
LORD STRANGE: I agree, but it is not just the showing of credentials. They will have them faked before they go in. There should be some way of ringing up the police station, if these inspectors are suspected, to see whether they are genuine.
LORD BROWN: May I point out that there is no law that prohibits a criminal from breaking the law. The point is that the law enables you to arrest and to prosecute him after he has broken the law. You cannot prevent people making themselves out to be detectives, and so on. You cannot ask us to safeguard in that way, because this cannot be done by Statute.
LORD CHAMPION: Would there not be a safeguard in the case of credentials? If someone came to my premises and I thought that his credentials were phoney, I should get in touch with the authority which appeared to have issued the credentials and check with them whether the man was in fact the man represented on the document produced to me. I have listened to this argument carefully, and it seems to me that these officers ought to have the power to make a spot check. I do not feel anything like as doubtful about this as the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. I think he was particularly drawing attention to (d)—
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: No; to paragraph (c).
LORD CHAMPION: I am mistaken. On paragraph (d) he must have reasonable grounds and cause to believe that the goods are such as to be liable to forfeiture, and so on. That would appear to me to be ample in that case. On paragraph (c) it might perhaps be slightly different, but I must say I feel that these powers will be carried out and used by people who are responsible, and we have to recognise that they are responsible. They will be doing this check on behalf of the community. We want to stop many of the things that are going on, and it is right that we should use this Bill and any powers that we grant under it to prevent some of the abuses on honesty and decent dealing which are taking place.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Is the noble Lord, Lord Brown, going to answer the point about paragraph (c)? I believe that this is the point which really crystallises the argument. I think it is accepted that under (a) and (b) the inspector will have got in perfectly properly under the jurisdiction of the other Act. But here is paragraph (c), which is a novel power, as I am sure the noble Lord appreciates. Paragraph (d) is a novel power for the purposes of this particular jurisdiction: and on that paragraph, as the noble Lord, Lord Champion, has said, he has to have a reasonable cause.
I would suggest that the Government might consider whether they would not use some formula on (c) as they have on (d), and leave (a) and (b) as they are. This is, at any rate, a compromise. It does not seem to me to do any great harm to the power to carry out a spot check of the sort the noble Lord, Lord Brown, is talking about, but it might in some way mitigate the extremity of the power that I fear is being given by the clause as it is now.
LORD BROWN: I have used these arguments before on other portions of this Bill, because other attempts have been made to limit the authority of those who will police this Bill. This Bill is much wider than other Acts that have been referred to, and it covers a vast variety of goods. I believe it is better to have fewer criminal offences, and more authority to enforce the law in respect of those offences rather than to have more criminal offences with less authority to see that criminal prosecutions follow offences against the law.
We are getting into the other position. I have used the argument that from inside the Board of Trade, over a fairly short experience, I have encountered a number of cases where events are reported to us which would appear to people like me to be serious offences, though we are informed by the Solicitor's Department: "We cannot act in these circumstances. It would be a risk. We have taken counsel's opinion. We might get an injunction against us." Every time the powers of officers to enforce are limited in cases of this sort there is the risk of a growing number of cases of serious offences against the law and of damage to individuals concerned.
496
In my experience the Board of Trade is very careful indeed in regard to the use of its powers. It is hesitant to use them, and if it is limited in this way and the word "reasonable" is introduced, then the officer concerned must have reasonable grounds before he acts. He would not be able to act on suspicion, and I think he should be able to. Likewise he would not be able to act on hearsay evidence from somebody. He has to be able to demonstrate later to some authority that he has had reasonable grounds. This is an awkward position to put him in if you want him to do the job with zeal in order to cut out these malefactors. I ask the Committee not to interfere with this clause.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The more I look at this the less I think is in the noble Lord's contentions in this case. He referred to one or two of the clauses here; Clause 11 for example. If there are only one or two clauses to which this applies, then the Bill should be drafted so that it is directed to offences under those clauses and is not so wide as it is now. I say in all sincerity to the noble Lord that it is nonsense to contend that because this Bill goes wider therefore there must be much wider powers of entry. The particular powers required are related to the particular offences. Surely what emerges from this discussion is that these powers are far too widely drawn. If you have to see what prices were charged in the last six months no doubt you have to look at the books, but surely you should not do that unless you are acting on suspicion.
In general, of course, inspectors will not be able to go round all the time at large; they must direct their attention to where a complaint has arisen. Spot checks are just not possible. They have great difficulty in getting round the whole of their area once a year, and now they will have further responsibilities. They will have to work on complaints. If there is a complaint then they can look at the books; but what is the point of doing that if there is a false trade description? If there has been a complaint, let that complaint be investigated. You can seize goods if necessary, if they are related to the proving of an offence, and nobody would deny that power. I think my noble friend is right about this. It is a sweeping power and it should be

497
strictly limited to the purpose for which it is required.
LORD AUCKLAND: There is one passage in subsection (1)(c) which seems to me to be extremely dangerous. That is where it says:
"relating to the trade or business and take copies of them or extracts from them;".
If one takes extracts from the sales register, or something of that kind, it is very easy to get them out of context. Either you must take the whole thing, which is often eminently undesirable, or you must take nothing at all. If you take extracts you are subjecting the whole matter to extreme dangers.
LORD AIREDALE: First of all, I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for appearing to fail to give him support on his last Amendment. I can assure him that I was strongly inclined to do so, but was curbing the number of speeches I was going to make to the Committee. I am sorry about that, in view of the very strong support he has given me on my Amendment, and I am enormously indebted to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, for the very strong speech in support he has made.
May I once more make absolutely clear, clearer than I did before, to the Minister the consequences of subsection (3) if we are going to allow these spot checks? I am tired of that expression; I am going to change it and talk about random checking, because it is a nicer expression. Look at subsection (3); look at line 20; you find that a justice of the peace on a sworn information may authorise an officer "to enter the premises, if need be by force". Imagine this situation: a local government officer goes before a justice of the peace and says, "Will you give me a warrant to go into Mr. Green's grocer's shop and make an inspection under the Consumer Protection Act?" The magistrate says, "I do not know about that. What suspicions have you against Mr. Green?" The inspector says, "I have no suspicions whatever against Mr. Green, but I think it would be a good thing if I went and inspected his grocery store." The magistrate says, "I very much doubt whether I have power to give you authority to enter by force into Mr. Green's grocery store." The official says, "Pardon me, you have; it
498
is here, in subsection (3) of Section 27 of the Act. It authorises you to empower me to enter Mr. Green's premises by force, and I do not have to have any suspicion: I only have to exercise my power under subsection (1), and it does not say anything about my having to have any suspicions." The magistrate may say, "Well I do not like this very much"—a sort of Pontius Pilate attitude; he may say "All right, there is your warrant." Does the Minister want that situation to be allowed to eventuate? That is what I should like to know.
I am going to say one or two more words and then sit down. I think I now understand from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, why the power to make random checking is given under the Weights and Measures Acts and the Food and Drugs Acts but should not be given under this Act. If we take the case of the Weights and Measures Acts, I do not suppose that any honest trader resents the arrival at random of the inspector. He is as pleased as his customers that a check should be made on his scales, because everybody knows that scales get out of adjustment from time to time. So there is no sort of resentment about the sudden arrival of the official in that case. When we come to the Food and Drugs Acts, this very often is a matter of public health, and although I dare say there might be a certain amount of resentment at the sudden arrival of officials acting under these Acts, if it is a case of public health it is probably worth while in the public interest. But I have heard nothing from the Minister which convinces me that random checking under this Trade Descriptions Bill, as it ought to be called, ought to be justified at all, particularly having regard to the powers of magistrates to issue warrants to enter by force. I hope that the Minister will think about this again, and very seriously.
LORD CAWLEY: I see no objection to subsection (3). A justice of the peace has to have sworn information put before him, and that is what a policeman does when he has reasonable ground to believe something nefarious is going on in the house.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: With great respect, that is just what

499
the justice does not have to be satisfied of. All he has to be satisfied of is that there is reasonable ground to believe that there are—let me take one example—books which a duly authorised officer has power to inspect on the premises. It does not say "and that any offence under this Act … is being committed"; it says "or that any offence under this Act … is being committed". So that all that the justice of the peace has to be satisfied about is that there are books on the premises; that under subsection (1) he has power to inspect them, which he has whether or not he has any grounds to suspect that there is anything going on at all. Further, he then has to satisfy the justice that (to take the noble Lord's example) Mr. Green is not going to let him in unless he has a warrant. That is all he has to do, and it seems to me, to take the noble Lord's example to its logical conclusion, that any policeman ought to be allowed to get a warrant to enter any premises by force to see whether anybody inside is committing any criminal act. That is I think what is going on here.
LORD BROWN: It is quite clear that we could go on with this discussion all night, and I do not think any of us wants to do that. I am prepared to say this. I will undertake to read carefully all that has been said about this clause this evening, and if the conviction which it brings to me, that a change is necessary, is stronger than the conviction that has been brought by listening to it—I admit I have been a little confused at times about what has been said—I will take measures to see whether a change can be made. I am not committing myself too much, as I am at pains to make clear, because I firmly believe that the clause is perfectly correctly drafted. But I open the door one-tenth of an inch in an effort to get the withdrawal of these Amendments so that we can proceed with our business.
LORD AIREDALE: I do not think that that is at all a handsome offer. I weigh in the scales whether I will take this to a Division now or withdraw the Amendment. By one-tenth of a dram I decide that I will ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.7 p.m.
LORD AIREDALEmoved, in subsection (1), to leave out paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), and insert:
"( ) inspect any goods;
( ) enter any premises, other than premises used only as a dwelling;
( ) require any person carrying on a trade or business or employed in connection with a trade or business to produce any books or documents relating to the trade or business;
( ) take copies of such books or documents; and"
The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment only for the purpose of explaining the last paragraph, which says:
"take copies of such books or documents; and"
I have put this into a separate paragraph, because the Committee will notice that the words in the Bill come at the end of paragraph (c). In my submission, a possible construction of paragraph (c) is that the words, "take copies of them or extracts from them" may apply to the preceding words, "require any person"; that is to say, that under paragraph (c) as drawn the officer would have power to require the shopkeeper, or whoever it may be, to take copies of documents for the officer. I do not believe that that is what is intended and I believe it would put it beyond doubt if the power to take copies of books or documents were put into a separate paragraph, which would make it abundantly clear that the power to do this was vested in the officer himself and that he had no power to require the other person to provide these copies.
The other point is simply this. The Act says, "take copies of them or extracts from them". In my Amendment I have left out the words "take extracts from them". The reason is that I do not understand the difference between "copies" and "extracts" in this connection. I should have thought that they meant the same thing. There is a possible meaning in the words "taking extracts", that is to say, tearing pages out of books or out of a bundle of documents. If the Government do not intend to give to officials the rather ruthless power to tear out pages, I should have thought that the words "take copies" were sufficient, and that by leaving out the words "take extracts" it would make it clear that the officials were not being

501
given power to tear out pages, but only to take copies. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, leave out lines 13–24 and insert the said new paragraphs.—(Lord Airedale.)
LORD BROWN: My noble friend and I split up the clauses of this Bill and it fell to my lot that I had no clause on which I could be gracious. But half-a-loaf is better than no bread, and this part of the Amendment which we are now taking is one which I can assure the noble Lord we will be prepared to consider very seriously indeed—in fact, we almost like it! With those enticing words, I hope that the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD AIREDALE: Now that the door is only one tenth of an inch closed instead of being only one tenth of an inch open I, with positive pleasure, beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CAWLEYmoved, in subsection (1)(d), after "goods" to insert "which are reasonably required for purposes of testing or prosecution under this Act and". The noble Lord said: The subsection as at present drafted gives very wide powers indeed. In fact, in the case of a large consignment of goods it would give power to the officer to seize the whole consignment, and if they were perishable goods they would be completely destroyed. He would have a right to seize them, and if they were destroyed it would be too bad. This Amendment seeks to reduce that power merely to taking samples necessary for the purposes of testing or prosecution under the Act. I think that this is very reasonable, and would avoid the possibility of a bogus inspector running off with the whole consignment in a van and never being heard of again. I feel that in order to prosecute one requires only an adequate amount of goods, and that this is the power which ought to be given. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 25, after ("goods") insert the said new words.—(Lord Cawley.)
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: The noble Lord may remember that a little earlier the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, moved Amendment No. 39, which is similar in intention to this Amendment, No. 57. It provided that
502
one should forfeit only goods which are reasonably required for the purpose of testing or prosecution under the Act—which roughly coincides with what the noble Lord has said on this Amendment. The undertaking which I gave to the noble Viscount I would repeat to the noble Lord: that we are sympathetic to this particular Amendment, but I should like to consider it together with my undertaking to reconsider Clause 17(2), Amendment No. 39, in order to get the definition as equally satisfactory on the noble Lord's Amendment as on the noble Viscount's. If he would agree to allow me to treat it on an equal footing with the noble Viscount's Amendment, I should be grateful if he would withdraw his Amendment.
LORD CAWLEY: I am grateful to the noble Lord, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD AIREDALE: This is a very small point, indeed. Line 27 refers to "any document", and I am moving to insert the words "book or" so as to make the paragraph read "any book or document". I am quite prepared to be told in reply that this is unnecessary, because "document" includes "book", but if I am to be told that I am going to say, "In that case, why does the previous paragraph refer to 'books or documents'"? I do not understand this. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 27, after ("any") insert ("book or").—(Lord Airedale.)
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: Would the noble Lord accept our undertaking to consider this rather interesting point?
LORD AIREDALE: Certainly.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Before the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment, may I say that surely there is a very distinct difference between "book" and "document" here. You cannot get on in your business if you do not have your books there. You do not want to have the books taken away—I think this is a common form—but a particular document may well be taken away. I should have thought it would be very sad indeed for a firm if the whole of the books went.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: May I go a little further? We accept this Amendment.
LORD AIREDALE: I am so impressed by what the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has said that I am going to throw another spanner into the works and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.17 p.m.
LORD AIREDALEmoved, in subsection (1), to leave out "break". The noble Lord said: I think my course on the last Amendment was probably foolish, because I am sure I shall not get any more sympathy from Her Majesty's Government. I am now dealing with line 32, which says that an officer may require any person to break open any container or open any vending machine. The first question which I should like to ask is: is not a vending machine a container? I should have thought it clearly was. And if it is, since there is power to require a person to break open any container, it surely follows that there is power for him to break open any vending machine. But if he does have power to order someone to break open a vending machine, why go on to say that he may order him to open any vending machine? This does not seem to make sense.
The gravamen of this is that it is rather a savage power to require a person to break open a container. Why should he? I can quite see that if there is a locked box a person may be required to open it, and I can quite see that if he does not get the keys he may eventually be told, "You will have to break it open." But why should an official have power in the first instance to require somebody to break open a container? I should have thought this was an unnecessary and rather savage power to give, and that the subsection would be much better without the word "break". Accordingly, I move to leave it out. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 32, leave out ("break").—(Lord Airedale.)
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: The word "break", which so upsets the noble Lord, is present in a precisely similar context in the Weights and Measures Act
504
1963. I agree with the noble Lord that there is not a great deal of difference generally between a power to require someone to open a container and one to require him to break it open. This is charging emotionally something which is really simple. I break open a box of chocolates which is wrapped in cellophane. I do not open it; I break it open, as that is the only way of opening it. I am not quite certain what impelled the draftsmen of this Bill to strengthen the word "open". If I have the power to open anything, I open it in the best and simplest way that I can. I lift the latch, I turn the key, or I take an axe and hit it hard; but if I have the power to open it, I open it, whatever the state of the container. I think the noble Lord has become rather sensitive in trying to distinguish between opening a container and breaking it open. I realise that there is a literal difference, but in point of fact I should have thought that in lay, the power to open something, without defining how, and actually defining breaking it open, is different.
LORD AUCKLAND: Surely there is a very important point here. If it is a container of an expensive kind, which may have quite an expensive look on it, and he breaks it open and it is subsequently found that the container has perfectly genuine documents, who pays the compensation? This may be a trivial point taken in isolation, but if there are a number of cases here it could prove very expensive, and very burdensome for the courts.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: It must be a principle of some significance that a word is not used in a Statute unless it is intended to mean something. As I understand the answer of the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, this adds nothing to the meaning of the clause, and I should therefore have thought there must be everything to be said for leaving it out, because otherwise the only way a court can construe this part of subsection (1) is to say that there is a difference between "break open" and "open" because Parliament has said so; it has used two different phrases, and it must have meant something different. I do not understand there to be any difference intended, and I should therefore have thought we must leave it out.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I must refrain from trying to attempt a little light relief at this late hour of the night. I think the noble Lord will agree that there is a difference between the two situations. The power to require a container to be broken open is necessary where breaking is the only way of opening the container. We do not want someone who is in some way or other committing an offence under this Bill to be able to get away with it simply by saying, "No, you cannot open this container, this vending machine"—or whatever it is—"because it is expensive". The officer undertaking this duty is presumably a responsible official. He operates in a democracy, and he knows that he will get his knuckles rapped heavily if he oversteps his powers. If he finds it necessary to break open a container, he will doubtless do so bearing in mind the fact that he is in fact running a risk of having his knuckles rapped if he oversteps his powers.
I think that in certain circumstances your Lordships will see that the officer can exercise his power only if and to the extent that it is reasonably necessary to secure the observance of the Act and the orders made under it. He is not going to do this wantonly; he is not going to take a sledgehammer and have a smashing time. He is going to do it only if he thinks it is reasonably necessary to do so. If the officer were challenged, he would have to prove, by reference to objective criteria rather than simply to his own views, that it was necessary to have the container broken open. This is saying in "officialese" what I was saying in simple terms, that he will not make a fool of himself. He knows he will get his knuckles rapped if he oversteps the mark; but I am sure the Committee will realise that in certain circumstances it is reasonable that he will break open a container, whatever its shape or size or system of closure, if he believes it to be necessary. We want him to have this power.
LORD AIREDALE: The Minister has not dealt with my first point, and I do not blame him, because it was raised some time ago. Why is there power only to "open" a vending machine, specifically given, and not to "break open" a vending machine? And what is the point of that, because is not a vending machine
506
a container? And if there is power to break open a container, surely there is power to break open a vending machine. And, if so, what is the point of going on to say that he may open the vending machine?
LORD BROWN: The noble Lord is basing his case on the idea that the word "container" and the words "vending machine" have very little between them; that the word "container" embraces a vending machine. I think this is a wrong construction to put on the words. They are two quite separate descriptions, and the case he is building up based on that construction of these words is, in my submission, not correct.
LORD AIREDALE: We are not getting along very fast, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.25 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE: We now come to the odd expression that the officer may require any person to do this breaking open or permit the officer to do so. How do you require a person to permit you to do something? This surely is not ordinary English at all. I know that behind the Iron Curtain people get brain-washed into permitting things to be done, but we do not do that sort of thing in this country. Surely the object is to say that the officer himself may do so if the person required to do so does not. You cannot require a person to permit you to do something. It makes nonsense. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 33, leave out "or permit the officer to "and insert" otherwise the officer may".—(Lord Airedale.)
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: The noble Lord has made a point which we must consider. As in the case of suggestions of other noble Lords, the Government are in sympathy with the point he made. I do not think the Amendment is quite acceptable as it stands; but if the noble Lord is willing to withdraw it we shall try to put down a Government Amendment at a later date which will have the same effect in slightly different words.
LORD AIREDALE: I am much obliged.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I have an Amendment which overlaps that of the noble Lord. In my view there is no point in having those words there at all; for the reason that either the person has authority to do so or he has not. If he has not, then you send for the person who has and require him to do so. There seems to be no reason whatever why you should proceed to open a vending machine—if you can; for there is this big distinction between "breaking open" and "opening"—if you cannot open it in such a way as to be able to restore it. If you open a door then after you have opened it it is still the same door. But in the case of a vending machine it is no longer the same and may need repair. There seems no reason for breaking if you can get the person with authority to open it properly. In any case, as the clause is drafted, you have to get his permission. I am not sure that there is
508
any reason at all to break into a vending machine; you can always wait until somebody comes with the key.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Perhaps I should have informed the Committee that if Amendment 60 is carried this will partly preempt Amendment No. 61 and I shall have to put it in a different way.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: Since the two Amendments are relating to the same matter perhaps we could consider them together. We have given an undertaking to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, to try to find something better. Can we consider the noble Lord's Amendment in relation to Amendment No. 60?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Willingly.
LORD AIREDALE: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD AIREDALEmoved, in subsection (1), to leave out all words after "permit the officer to do so" to the end of the subsection, and insert:
"( ) An officer may act in accordance with subsection (1) of this section only if and to the extent that it is reasonably necessary in order to secure that the provisions of this Act and of any order made thereunder are duly observed."
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to make it possible to remove the ponderous phrase which I will not read out, and which is common to paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (1). I am not quite accurate in saying that. I would point out, in case the Government have not already noticed it, what I think is a printing error here, because whereas paragraphs (a) and (b) refer in this lengthy phrase to "any offence", paragraph (c) refers to "an offence". I cannot but think the word "any" is intended in all three cases. That is the purpose of the Amendment. Probably I shall have to withdraw it, but I have explained its purpose as best I can. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 33, leave out from ("so") to the end of line 36 and insert the said subsection.—(Lord Airedale.)
LORD WINTEREOTTOM: The noble Lord said he thought he might have to withdraw the Amendment because of a printing error. May I consider it in relation to the other points?
LORD AIREDALE: In that case, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.31 p.m.
LORD AIREDALEmoved, in subsection (2), to leave out "the person whose name and address are stated on the machine as being the proprietor's", and to insert instead:
"any person whom he believes to be the owner of the goods'"
The noble Lord said: Subsection (2) requires an officer in the case when goods are seized from a vending machine to inform
"the person whose name and address are stated on the machine as being the proprietor's".
The question I ask is: does "proprietor" mean the proprietor of the machine or
510
the proprietor of the goods? I imagine that what is intended is the proprietor of the goods; he is the gentleman with whom presumably the official wishes to get in touch, because the machine is probably on hire from a company hundreds of miles away who would have no interest in the goods in the machine. I should have thought that, as drafted, the subsection is genuinely ambiguous. "Proprietor" might mean the proprietor of the vending machine or the proprietor of the goods. I am moving this Amendment to make clear that what is intended is the person whom the officer believes to be the owner of the goods. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 40, leave out from ("machine") to ("or") in line 41 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Airedale.)
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: May I explain to the noble Lord what we are trying to achieve? The noble Lord may have misunderstood the subsection. If goods are seized from a vending machine two persons must be informed. The first is the person from whom the goods are seized. He is the person described in subsection (1) as the person Who has authority to open the machine and give permission for it to be opened. If he controls the opening of the machine, the goods are in his custody, therefore he is the person from whom the goods are seized. His authority will come, directly or indirectly, from the owner of the goods, therefore the fact that he is informed will usually ensure that the owner of the goods is informed—indeed, in many cases he will be the owner.
On the other hand, the proprietor of the machine has an interest in knowing that the machine has been opened and the goods seized. The subsection therefore requires him to be told if his name is on the machine. If it is not, the customer must do the best he can in the circumstances by telling the occupier of the premises on which the machine is found. We believe that the noble Lord's Amendment is therefore unnecessary, in so far as it seeks to improve the protection given to the owner of the goods and unfair in so far as it would prejudice the interests of the owner of the machine.
LORD AIREDALE: I am obliged to the noble Lord. I had misunderstood the intention of the subsection. But since I misunderstood it, I suppose it is possible that others may do so, and therefore I should have thought it might be useful if at the next stage of the Bill the Government moved an Amendment making abundantly clear what they mean. I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 27 agreed to.
Clause 28 agreed to.
Clause 29:
Notice of test and intended prosecution
29.—
(2) No proceedings for an offence under this Act shall be taken by a local weights and measures authority except after not less than twenty-eight days' notice to the Board of Trade of the intended proceedings, and any such notice shall be accompanied by a summary of the facts on which the charges are to be founded.
LORD DRUMALBYNmoved, after subsection (1), to insert:
"( ) No proceedings for an offence under this Act shall be taken by a local weights and measures authority in respect of an advertisement other than an advertisement circulated mainly in the area of that authority except with the consent of the Board of Trade."
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to explore the intention of the Government as to how this Bill will operate with regard to national advertising. Clearly, with regard to local advertisements in the local Press or even on the local radio, the local weights and measures authority are the appropriate people to prosecute. Where there is national advertising, covering a wide area or the whole country, it seems incongruous that a particular weights and measures authority should prosecute. These are the two extremes. No doubt, if there was something wrong several authorities would suspect this and would give notice to the Board of Trade of their intention to prosecute.
The logic of this seems to me that in certain cases the Board of Trade should take on the prosecution. It may be going too far to say that a prosecution should not be undertaken by a weights and measures authority without the consent of the Board. I should hope that there
512
would be the closest understanding between the authorities and the Board. I should think that if the Board had received 25 notices of intention to prosecute in a case, it would be sensible for the Board to say that it would pool all the evidence and prosecute, and that would be acceptable. Either the Board of Trade should not allow prosecutions by weights and measures authorities in regard to advertisements circulating over a wide area without its consent or the Board should be prepared to take on all prosecutions of national advertising where it is appropriate. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 30, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD PARGITER: I should like to be clear on one point. Nowhere else in this Bill is a local authority prohibited from going forward with a prosecution. I appreciate what the noble Lord would like to do and I think it is sensible, but I do not think that there should be an absolute prohibition on a properly constituted local authority from undertaking its own prosecutions.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: This Amendment attacks the principle which we have adopted in this Bill, that the Board of Trade shall not interfere with the rights of local authorities to institute proceedings in respect of offences which they have discovered in their area. I know that the advertising industry are greatly worried about the possibility of proceedings in more than one place in respect of the same advertisement, as the noble Lord has told us. But if your Lordships will look at subsection (2) of this clause you will see that we have provided that the Board of Trade must be given notice of any intention to prosecute. This provision has been inserted specifically to enable the Board of Trade to act as a link between local authorities and to keep them informed where other authorities appear to have discovered, and wish to prosecute, offences which are identical or very similar.
We believe that this procedure will be perfectly adequate, in practice, to avoid unjustifiable multiple prosecutions for what is in effect the same offence. The similar procedure under the Food and Drugs Act has certainly proved to be so. But it must be left to the local

513
authorities to decide in the last resort whether or not to prosecute. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that this is right. We must recognise that local authorities are responsible and reasonable bodies. They have also a great deal of work to do and must account for the money they spend. They are not going to want to rush into prosecutions just for the joy of it. In some cases they will be only too glad to feel relieved of the obligation to do so.
There is, of course, another aspect of the situation. The Board of Trade will also have a right to prosecute. It is very possible that if a number of local authorities were to report to the Board of Trade that they wished to prosecute in respect of the same advertisement, the Board of Trade would offer to bring a central prosecution. This would not always happen. But it would happen, particularly where the offence was one of national interest. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I think that what the noble Baroness has said is quite satisfactory. I accept that at the end of the day if the weights and measures authorities feel strongly about something they should be allowed to go on with the prosecution, provided that they are not doing it along with a lot of other authorities. But, on the other hand, I personally think that it would be a good idea if the Board of Trade took over prosecutions in the cases of the greatest importance. I think we can agree upon that and, in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.42 p.m.
LORD ILFORDmoved to leave out subsection (2). The noble Lord said: The significance of this Amendment has largely evaporated in the light of what was said by the noble Lord earlier in the evening, when he said, quite clearly and frankly, that the policy of the Bill was to permit prosecutions at the discretion of the local authority. Frankly, this proposal for 28 days' notice aroused a certain degree of uneasiness and suspicion. It was felt that this was really an attempt by the Board of Trade to drive from the back seat, and that it would be
514
used for the purpose of controlling the discretion of the local authority in initiating proceedings. I think the noble Lord made it clear that that is not the case; indeed, I believe the noble Baroness a few moments ago repeated the same thing. It is a little puzzling to know why as much as 28 days' notice is required for prosecution. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has an Amendment down to substitute 14 days, and I should have thought that this was an adequate number of days, and that 28 days errs on the excessive side.
May I say one more word about the freedom of discretion, which I think it is desirable that the local authorities should have? Your Lordships may recall that in the Report of the Commission presided over by Lord Redcliffe-Maud, on management in local government, which was published a short time ago, the attempt of central Departments to interfere in the discretion of local authorities in carrying out matters which were assigned to them was very firmly condemned. That would apply very much to this Bill. It would be quite wrong for the Board of Trade, either directly or indirectly, to attempt to interfere with the general discretion which local authorities are given. I understand from what the noble Lord said earlier that that is certainly not intended, and I was glad to hear him say it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 31, leave out subsection (2).—(Lord Ilford.)
LORD PARGITER: I wish to support this Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ilford. If I may say so, I think it was quite indefensible on the part of the Government to use the argument they did on Clause 2 to deal with a relatively simple and straightforward position with regard to national advertising. In other words, the noble Baroness said, "Yes, but we have covered this because they cannot do it without reference to the Board of Trade anyway." If it happens to be a matter of simple marking or misdirection by a barrow boy, it still has to go to the Board of Trade and it will still take 28 days. This is before they start work on it. Where the barrow boy will be in that time, goodness knows!

515
The only previous authority for this is Section 109(3) of the Food and Drugs Act, which requires 14 days' notice, but also in that Act the Board of Trade have the power to dispense with this notice, and in most of the Orders they have published they have done so. So in effect what the Government might rely on as a precedent is not a precedent at all, because so far as this Bill is concerned there is no question of discretion. Just imagine the sort of things that will have to be referred to the Board of Trade, with no discretion and a further 28 days' waiting. After all, it must go through the mill of the local authority, through the weights and measures department, to their solicitor, and then a case is built up and sent to the Board of Trade.
While there is to be no interference with the discretion of the local authority, what the Board of Trade are required to do under the next clause is to give a certificate which is required to be produced in the courts, and presumably if it is not so produced the prosecution would fail. So unquestionably there is a complete and deliberate interference with the local authorities on the part of the Board of Trade, whether or not they intend it. I hope the Government will take this back and look at it, with a view to leaving the position at least no worse than it is under the Food and Drugs Act—that is, 14 days' notice with discretion to dispense with it.
I agree it is desirable that there should be uniformity under the Food and Drugs Act, but to deal with the multiplicity of things which will come under the question of marking of goods, and so on, and say that willy-nilly they must all go to the Board of Trade, 28 days' notice must be given and a certificate produced in court, makes one wonder what sort of procedure we shall get into on quite simple matters. I really do not think that the Government can have thought this out, and I hope they will give an undertaking to look at it again.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I hope very much that the Government will not change this. My reason is that we obviously have to get co-ordination in this Bill, and I greatly deprecate the implication—which I think is somewhat contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Pargiter, said earlier—that there will be
516
a tremendous number of prosecutions. This is not the way the weights and measures authorities have worked so far. They go round to their advisers and to those to whom they are responsible in their area, and they bring prosecutions only against the real "shysters"—the people who really do something extremely negligent or who are obviously deceiving somebody.
The same will apply under this Bill. I do not say that the Board of Trade will be inundated with reports, but if they were they might need more than 28 days' notice. It seems to me that there must be some room for manœuvre, and 28 days seems to be a fair compromise. This will not just be a question of notification and receiving the certificate. The Board of Trade must look at this, if only to see whether there are other proposals to prosecute in the same case. It seems to me, with great respect, that the Board of Trade have given great thought to this. It was 14 days at the earlier stage and as a result of further thought they have come to the conclusion that administratively this would not work unless they had 28 days. If one accepts the principle of notification, I think that 28 days is needed.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I think the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, with his great skill and experience, as he has shown throughout the whole of this Bill, has rather effectively answered the noble Lord, Lord Pargiter, but as it falls to me to reply to this Amendment I will reinforce what he has said. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Pargiter, will appreciate that if this subsection were omitted the authorities would not then be required to give notice, and it would not enable the Board of Trade to promote a uniform policy among enforcement authorities. This is a very important point. The establishment of a clearing house of this kind should go a long way towards preventing multiple prosecutions for identical offences in respect of widely distributed or advertised goods or services. The subsection would also enable the Board of Trade, in agreement with the local authorities, to take over the prosecution in cases of outstanding importance. This subsection would serve a very useful purpose, and I must ask your Lordships not to accept the Amendment.

517
With regard to the 14 days or 28 days, when the Protection of Consumers (Trade Descriptions) Bill was before the House in 1956 it was suggested it was advisable for the Board of Trade to have longer notice of intended prosecution than 14 days. It followed a similar provision in the Food and Drugs Act 1955. On consideration we came to the conclusion that a period of 14 days might prove too short, particularly for the purpose of ensuring that adequate guidance could be given to local authorities where numbers of them were pursuing identical offences. We have taken into account the very much wider field covered by this Bill as compared with the Food and Drugs Act, and the consequently greater number of cases which will arise, particularly in the case of a national advertising campaign or mass distribution of a manufactured product bearing a false trade description. I agree that it is important to avoid delay in bringing prosecutions, but on balance we feel that the advantage lies with having the longer period of 28 days' notice which this Bill now proposes. I must ask your Lordships to reject the Amendment.
LORD PARGITER: I am prepared to accept that in a national case something must be done to co-ordinate action, but there are a great many local cases where it is highly desirable to let the authority proceed. Could the Minister not look at the possibility of trying to frame the subsection so that matters of local interest—local barrow boys and stalls, and the like—can be dealt with expeditiously by the local authority, under its powers, without interfering with those matters which require co-ordination over a wider area?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I cannot give that undertaking. The noble Lord seems to assume that the Board of Trade would of necessity work slowly. Surely, if it is a straightforward case there would be no need for any delay. I am afraid that to adopt this proposal would cut right across the whole subsection of the Bill.
LORD AIREDALE: I am bound to say that that reply did not seem to me satisfactorily to answer Lord Pargiter's point. I should have thought that the valid point the noble Lord was making could perhaps be dealt with by introducing wording to say that where the
518
local authorities "have reasonable grounds to suppose that multiplicity of prosecutions might follow" (or something of that kind) they may themselves prosecute. That would avoid their bothering the Board of Trade on purely local matters in cases where they felt quite sure complications of that kind were not going to be involved.
I should like to say a word or two about my next Amendment in which I shall be moving to reduce the period horn 28 days to 14 days. I already have some support from noble Lords for this. To my mind, the paramount consideration is that the administration of criminal justice must be as swift as possible. In the case of animals it must be instant, otherwise it is of no use at all; and in the case of human beings it should be as quick as possible. I do not think that in all cases the Board of Trade need 28 days delay in which to consider the matter. In the first instance, I think some official in the Board of Trade can be primed to deal with these things with a 14-day programme. If the 14 days run out I do not think it will matter in these cases because all that the Board of Trade have to do is, towards the end of the fortnight, to write to the local authority saying "We have done our best, but we have not yet made all the inquiries that we wanted to make in this particular case, and we should be obliged if you would hold your hand a little longer and not proceed with this prosecution until we have made further inquiries. We shall be writing to you again as soon as possible".
I think that to take the general rule it would be quite sufficient to say that the Board of Trade should try to deal with their side of the matter within 14 days.
LORD ILFORD: If the purpose of this provision is to avoid a multiplicity of prosecutions, it is really not necessary. The local authorities are quite accustomed to dealing with nationally distributed pre-packed articles. They are doing it constantly. There is an effective cooperation between different local authorities. I think that the main purpose of this Amendment has really been met by what the noble Lord said earlier this afternoon, and what the noble Baroness

519
has just repeated. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.58 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE: I will not inflict another speech upon your Lordships, but I will formally move this Amendment just in case the Minister has anything further to say to the view I expressed just now about fourteen instead of twenty-eight days. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 33, leave out ("twenty-eight") and insert ("fourteen").—(Lord Airedale.)
LORD BROWN: I would ask the Committee not to press us on this Amendment. Here, we are really between two fires of argument, one of them being that expounded by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. We want to prevent all sorts of sporadic prosecutions on the same issue all over the country. On the other hand, we have the perfectly reasonable argument that justice should be speedy and that a period of twenty-eight days is too long. This was deeply considered, and the 1966 Bill contained the fourteen-day provision. It was debated at great length by the experts inside the Board of Trade, and by others, who came to the conclusion that in the light of all the circumstances twenty-eight days would be necessary. So that this is in any case a compromise between the demands for something much longer and for something much shorter. Like all compromises, it satisfies nobody; but at least it does not leave anybody completely out in the cold. I beg the Committee not to press this Amendment on us now.
LORD AIREDALE: Very well. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BROWN: In the light of the fact that it is quite clear that we shall not finish the Committee stage of the Bill tonight, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I say that it is the intention to resume consideration of the Committee stage of the Consumer Protection Bill to-morrow.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord at what hour we are likely to reach the Bill?
LORD BESWICK: I understand that it will be at an hour when noble Lords can return to the House; in other words, at about 6 o'clock.

  ARMED FORCES: RELEASE OF YOUNG SERVICEMEN
  ARMED FORCES: RELEASE OF YOUNG SERVICEMEN