Sitting of 18 December 1967

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

  Stansted Airport
  Mr. Kirk: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to present a Petition by the Rural District Council of Saffron Walden concerning the decision of Her Majesty's Government to site the third London Airport at Stansted. The Petition sets out the intentions of Her Majesty's Government, and submits that they would have
  disastrous consequences to agriculture and village life
  and are against the advice and findings of the inspector appointed by the Government.
  The Petition continues
  Wherefore your Petitioner prays that Her Majesty's Government may be called upon to examine afresh its policy for national airports and the suitability of Stansted and other alternative sites for the Third London Airport and to refrain from granting planning permission for the development of the airport at Stansted until this has been done and a final decision can be taken in the context of an overall national airports policy.
  The Petition concludes in the customary way, with the words
  And your Petitioner, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

Account ordered,
relating to Overseas Trade in the United Kingdom for each month during the year 1968.— [Mr. Crosland.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  MINISTRY OF LABOUR

    Selective Employment Tax
    Mr. Blakerasked the Minister of Labour (1) whether he will make an order under Section 9(1) of the Selective Employment Payments Act, 1966, making the hotel and catering industries eligible for refund of selective employment tax;
    (2) whether he will make an order under Section 9(1) of the Selective Employment Payments Act, 1966, making the retail distributive trades eligible for refund of selective employment tax.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Roy Hattersley): My right hon. Friend has asked me to apologise for his unavoidable absence. He is taking part in urgent discussions elsewhere.
    The Answer is, No, Sir.
    Mr. Blaker: Is it not rather odd that the hon. Gentleman should take these two Questions together, since they deal with different industries. With regard to Question No. 1, is it not clear that the Government have seriously underestimated the potential of the hotel and catering industries for saving and earning foreign currency? Is it not time to relieve them of the burdens of S.E.T.?
    Does the hon. Gentleman recall that the imposition of the tax on the distributive trades was justified on the grounds that it would redress the balance of taxation between manufacturing and Service industries? Is not Purchase Tax at least as heavy a burden on the retail and distributive trades as on manufacturing? Should not they be relieved of this burden?
    Mr. Hattersley: Questions numbers 1 and 2 were answered together because they both ask for fundamental and unacceptable alterations to the principles of Selective Employment Tax. Clearly, the Government accept the importance of the hotel and catering industry, and they provide many incentives to its expansion. Specific Questions about them should be referred to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. I

    889
    remind the hon. Gentleman that he outlined only one of the fundamental purposes of S.E.T. It has many purposes, and they are being successfully carried out.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is my hon. Friend reconsidering the application of the tax at all? If so, will he reconsider its application to the theatres, for example?
    Mr. Hattersley: The House will know that, in answer to previous Questions, I have said that we are looking at the incidence of the tax, but that I could not give individual assurances about what alterations there might be.
    Mr. John Hall: Does the hon. Gentleman remember that the main purpose of the tax was to encourage the movement of labour from the service industries to manufacturing? Has it had such an effect?
    Mr. Hattersley: There is a Question on the Order Paper later about that purpose. If the hon. Gentleman reads again the Budget speech of my right hon. Friend the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, he will find that the purpose the hon. Gentleman outlined is only one—and a subsidiary purpose—of the tax.
    Dr. John Dunwoody: When my hon. Friend is looking at the tax and taking into consideration the catering and hotel trades, will he look at the special Problems of that industry in the development areas, where there are higher unemployment rates?
    Mr. Hattersley: When we are looking at the incidence of the tax, we look at all these points.
    Mr. Blaker: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Minister of Labour what have been the changes in the number of workers employed by the service industries and in manufacturing industry between the introduction of the Selective Employment Tax and the latest convenient date.
    Mr. Hattersley: Provisional estimates of employees in employment in manufacturing industries in Great Britain show a decrease of about 395,000 between
    890
    September, 1966 and October, 1967. Comparable estimates are not available for the service industries. Final estimates for each industry and service in the Standard Industrial Classification are made in respect of June each year; June, 1967 estimates will become available early in 1968.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If when the Minister of Labour emerges from the Cabinet he is still a member of it, will the hon. Gentleman advise him to drop the argument that S.E.T. assists the redeployment of labour and suggest to him that the tax should be argued solely as a revenue raiser?
    Mr. Hattersley: Several times already today I have reminded the House that the shift between service and manufacturing employment is only one of the purposes of the tax. I believe that that purpose is being served, as are the other purposes.
    Mr. R. Carr: Is the Minister now expecting a change in the pattern of redeployment following the removal of the premium from manufacturing industry? If so, what change?
    Mr. Hattersley: One of the changes I would certainly expect is that the new incentive in the development areas will be even greater because of the difference between the regional employment premium and the general employment taxation, with the result that there will be a move of work opportunities into development areas—a very necessary move.
    Mr. G. Campbellasked the Minister of Labour if he will introduce legislation to provide for the repayment of all the Selective Employment Tax collected in Scotland over the period of this winter.
    Mr. Hattersley: No, Sir.
    Mr. Campbell: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that this would be one of the most effective ways of helping Scotland immediately through this winter?
    Mr. Hattersley: I hope that another way which results from the existence of the S.E.T. and the regional employment premium, will provide Scotland with £40 million of assistance during the winter.
    Mr. John Page: Does the hon. Gentleman recall the Answer he gave on 5th December, showing that in Scotland nearly twice as many people are employed in non-manufacturing industry as in manufacturing industry? Does this not prove the discriminatory way in which the S.E.T. acts in Scotland?
    Mr. Hattersley: I have never accepted that the premium would only bring benefits to manufacturing industry. One of its functions is to increase demand generated by manufacturing industry, which will produce greater demand for Services in these areas.

    Bank Employees (Union Representation)
    Mr. Winnickasked the Minister of Labour what further action has been taken by his Department in the current dispute to gain recognition for the National Union of Bank Employees from those banking firms that do not as yet recognise this union.
    Mr. Montgomeryasked the Minister of Labour whether he has been asked to intervene in the dispute between banks and bank employees; and what reply he has sent.
    Mr. Arnold Shawasked the Minister of Labour whether he will make a Statement on the current dispute between the National Union of Bank Employees and certain banking undertakings.
    Mr. Bidwellasked the Minister of Labour if he now proposes to intervene in the dispute between some members of the National Union of Bank Employees and the employers concerning the recognition of the National Union of Bank Employees for negotiating purposes.
    Mr. Huntasked the Minister of Labour whether he will make a further Statement on his discussions regarding the dispute arising from the refusal of certain banks to recognise the right of the National Union of Bank Employees to negotiate on behalf of their members.
    Mr. Hattersley: My right hon. Friend has received requests that he should intervene in this dispute from the T.U.C. and from the National Union of Bank Employees. Officers of the Ministry have had informal discussions over the past week with all the interests concerned
    892
    and following these, the Committee of London Clearing Bankers will be holding meetings within the next two days with the union and with the Central Council of Bank Staff Associations to discuss the question of negotiating machinery in the banks.
    Mr. Winnick: Is not it disgraceful that bank workers are still on strike in this day and age to win recognition from their employers? Does my hon. Friend hold out much hope that the bank employers will begin to see sense on this matter, and thus prevent strikes taking place in the next few weeks which will cause great inconvenience to the people and the country?
    Mr. Hattersley: The chances of a happy settlement have appreciably improved in the last fortnight. I would not want to do or say anything to diminish those chances by describing the actions of either party as disgraceful.
    Mr. Montgomery: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why his right hon. Friend said that he would not act until the Royal Commission reported in 1968 but has now taken the action he refused to take earlier and which, if he had taken it earlier, would have prevented a great deal of bitterness?
    Mr. Hattersley: My right hon. Friend said that the Royal Commission would have something to say about recognition of staff unions, and we must be bound by consideration for the possible findings of the report before doing something about this matter generally. But that does not exclude an intervention by my right hon. Friend, and when he was asked to intervene in this dispute he accepted the invitation and took the action he did.
    Mr. Hunt: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the attitude of some of the banks towards trade unions is more reminiscent of 1867 than 1967? Will he ask his right hon. Friend to continue to endeavour to persuade the banks to recognise this eminently respectable and responsible body of men?
    Mr. Hattersley: I agree that the attitudes of the banks differ, but during a week when consultations are taking place I would not want to put a date to any of those attitudes.
    Mr. K. Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, in many cases, the employees are quite happy with the staff unions? Will he try to get a compromise rather than pressurise one side against the other?
    Mr. Hattersley: I am sure that some employees are happy with the staff unions, but it is interesting to note that the N.U.B.E. has shown an appreciable increase in membership during the last fortnight.

    Women (Equal Pay)
    Dr. Summerskillasked the Minister of Labour whether he will make a Statement as a result of his meeting with representatives of the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress on 7th December concerning equal pay for women.
    Mr. Hattersley: I met representatives of the C.B.I. and the T.U.C. on 7th December to consider a report by a Joint group of officials on certain technical aspects of implementing the principle of equal pay. I am arranging for a copy of the agreed Statement issued after this meeting to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Dr. Summerskill: Does not my hon. Friend agree that, as we are a party of principle, implementation of equal pay should not be delayed until after the next general election, and that a prices and incomes policy is neither fair nor just unless women are paid the rate for the job?
    Mr. Hattersley: The Government have stated on many occasions that they are committed to the principle of equal pay, and I am happy to reiterate that commitment. But I am sure that the House will agree that the present economic Situation is not propitious for implementation. The Government have made plans to take some technical steps to ensure that we are ready to implement it when the economic Situation is right, however, and that is why I had talks with the C.B.I. and the T.U.C. on 7th December.
    Following is the Statement :
    Equal Pay
    Mr. Roy Hattersley, Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour today
    894
    (Thursday, 7th December, 1967) saw representatives of the C.B.I. and the T.U.C. to resume discussion of equal pay following a study of technical Problems by officials of the Ministry of Labour, the C.B.I. and the T.U.C.
    Mr. Hattersley reaffirmed the Government's commitment to the principle of equal pay but said that in the present economic circumstances it was not possible to take immediate steps to give full implementation to the principle. But the Government was anxious to take action to be ready to implement the principle when circumstances were more favourable.
    The meeting endorsed the conclusions of the Joint group of officials

    (a) that the problem of defining equal pay could, for all practical purposes, to confined to the interpretation of I.L.O. Convention No. 100 and Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome.

    (b) that voluntary methods of implementing equal pay were to be preferred to legislation (subject to the T.U.C.'s call for certain minimum conditions to ensure positive action); but that if Britain were to join the European Common Market a review of existing statutory wage legislation would be needed to give effect to the requirements of the Treaty.

    (c) that although it was possible to roughly estimate the total direct cost of equal pay within broad limits, on the basis of existing knowledge all that could be said about the impact on particular sectors was that it would probably be very much greater in some industries than in others.

    (d) that (apart from incomes policy considerations) the pace of implementation might have to take into account the particular circumstances of different sectors.

    The meeting also agreed to the proposals for further action recommended by the Joint group of officials:

    (1) A study might be commissioned of the cost implications for particular sectors of applying equal pay. If the findings of such a study were to be generally acceptable, it would however be necessary for the researcher(s) to secure the mutual agreement of both sides of industry as to the bases on which the research would be conducted.

    (2) The Ministry could prepare a paper setting out the implications for legislation of the equal pay provisions of the Treaty of Rome.

    Solely for the purpose of the proposed study of costs it was agreed that the working definitions to be used should be equal pay for the same work.
    The meeting agreed that the Joint group of officials should be instructed to plan and launch the studies. The C.B.I. and T.U.C. representatives undertook to give full support and Cooperation to this work.

    Remploy Factories
    Mr. Willeyasked the Minister of Labour when he expects to plan a renewed increase in the number of disabled persons employed in Remploy factories.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. E. Fernyhough): The increase has already started; the current strength of over 7,000 severely disabled persons is the highest in Remploy's history, and I hope this trend will continue in 1968.
    Mr. Willey: Will my hon. Friend think of continuing his good work by relating the Ministry grant proportionately to the increase in the company's sales over, say, the past few years?
    Mr. Fernyhough: I would like to look at that Suggestion without making any specific promise.

    Northern Region (Training Places)
    Mr. Willeyasked the Minister of Labour what is the current waiting list for entry into Government training centres in the Northern Region.
    Mr. Hattersley: 528.
    Mr. Willey: Does my hon. Friend realise that the question of training has top priority in the Northern Region? We have made a marginal improvement, but far more must be done, and immediately.
    Mr. Hattersley: I accept that more must be done, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will take as evidence of my acceptance of that the fact that during the next two years training places in Government training centres in the North-East will more than double.
    Mr. R. W. Elliott: Will the hon. Gentleman look with urgency at the range of training courses in Government training centres in the North-East, as the complaint from incoming industrialists of there not being a sufficient width of training courses is causing regular and increasing concern?
    Mr. Hattersley: I hope to answer a Question specifically about this later.

    Redundant Workers (Retraining)
    Mr. G. Campbellasked the Minister of Labour if he is satisfied with retraining arrangements for redundant workers, especially miners in Scotland; and if he will make a Statement.
    Mr. Hattersley: Most of the retraining required by redundant workers is at semiskilled level and is best undertaken by their new employers with assistance from the industrial training boards, and the Government grants available to firms which train workers for new Jobs in development areas. Accelerated training for skill is given by eight Government training centres in Scotland with a potential annual output of over 1,700 trained men; by the spring of 1970 there will be nine centres with an annual output of about 2,500. These arrangements will go a long way towards meeting the needs of redundant workers, but retraining needs in Scotland will be kept under review.
    Mr. Campbell: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that this is now an urgent and important matter which requires high priority, particularly in view of the impending pit closures in Scotland?
    Mr. Hattersley: I am aware of that. I hope the hon. Gentleman will take as evidence of that the fact that training places have been doubled since October 1964 and will treble on the October 1964 figure by the end of next year.
    Mr. W. Hamilton: Can my hon. Friend State the number of miners who have applied for retraining facilities and how many have been accepted, and whether there has been any acceleration of the Programme of industrial training consequent upon publication of the Government White Paper on Fuel Policy?
    Mr. Hattersley: The answer to the last part of that supplementary question is in the affirmative. I would like notice of the first part.
    Mr. Monro: As the pit closure Programme begins again in February, cannot the hon. Gentleman site the new training centres nearer the areas of colliery closure?
    Mr. Hattersley: A good deal of the new programme for training centres is

    897
    concentrated in the development areas and therefore in many cases is particularly convenient to redundant mine workers.

    Industrial Retraining
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Minister of Labour how many applications for entry into industrial retraining were refused in the year ended September 1967 due to the non-availability of places; and what plan he had for increasing the number of places available.
    Mr. Hattersley: None. But some applicants have had to wait a long time for admission to Government training centres. The waiting time will be considerably reduced by the 10 new centres and over 4,000 additional training places which will become available between now and early 1970. Four—Beilshill (North Lanarkshire), Maryport (Cumberland), Port Talbot and Runcorn—are expected to open in 1968; the remaining six—at Darlington, near Durham, in North Staffordshire, near Wakeneid, in West London and at Wrexham—by early 1970.
    Mr. Roberts: While the whole House welcomes this information, would not my hon. Friend agree that, since retraining is a vital factor in technological change, if British industry is to have the degree of skill required to maintain its position in world markets, we must go even further and somehow or other treble the number of retraining places between now and 1970?
    Mr. Hattersley: I agree that there has to be a renewed expansion of industrial training. But I think my hon. Friend is wrong if he implies that all this renewal should and must come from Government training centres. Much of it must and will be done by industry through encouragement by the industrial training boards.

    Government Training Centres
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Minister of Labour if he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the number of different skills and trades offered at Government retraining centres and the location of the training; and what plans he had for extending the range of skills available.
    Mr. Hattersley: Yes, Sir, the OFFICIAL REPORT will show that 40 trades are
    898
    taught at 38 Government training centres. Each centre teaches a selection of these trades. The trades are kept under constant review and a number of new skills are to be introduced into training courses during the next few months.
    Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Would my hon. Friends agree that, in view of this great need to increase the number of skills, there is room for even further co-operation between the Colleges of technology and the Colleges of further education and the facilities which are already available in large industrial firms?
    Mr. Hattersley: These consultations already go on. It is as a result of them that we have new courses introduced into the G.T.C.s.
    Mr. Scott: I wonder if the Minister can say what progress he has made in overcoming trade union resistance to the acceptance of adult trainees from Government training centres? Is it true that the trading centre in Manchester has been closed because of the obstacles put up by the trade unions?
    Mr. Hattersley: I do not want to anticipate a Question on exactly that point, which appears later on the Paper today.
    Following are the lists:
    Trades taught at Government Training Centres

    Bricklaying.

    Carpentry.

    Heating and ventilating fitting.

    House painting and decorating.

    Plastering.

    Plumbing.

    Slating and Tiling.

    Contractors' plant maintenance.

    Electrical installation.

    Street masonry and paving.

    Draughtsmanship.

    Fitting—General.

    Fitting—Jig and Tool.

    Instrument fitting and machining.

    Instrument maintenance.

    Centre lathe turning.

    Capstan setting/operating.

    Milling setting/operating.

    Precision grinding.

    Sheet metal work.

    Welding—Electric arc.

    Welding—Oxy-acetylene.

    Agricultural machinery repairing.

    Cabinet making.

    Scientific glassblowing.

    Radio, television and electronic servicing.

    Screen process printing.

    Typewriter repairing.

    Motor repairing.

    Heavy vehicle repairing.

    Vehicle body building.

    Motor vehicle—spray painting.

    899

    Motor body repair.

    Watch and clock repairing.

    Woodcutting machining.

    Storekeeping.

    Men's hairdressing.

    Tailoring (Retail Bespoke).

    Canteen cooking.

    Light engineering (for blind persons).

    List of Government Training Centres
    Northern Region

    Billingham.

    Felling.

    Killingworth.

    Tursdale (near Durham).

    Yorkshire and Humberside Region

    Hull.

    Leeds.

    Sheffield.

    Eastern and Southern Region

    Letchworth.

    Norwich.

    Slough.

    Southampton.

    London and South Eastern Region

    Enfield.

    Medway (Gillingham).

    Perivale.

    Poplar.

    Waddon.

    West Sussex (Lancing).

    South Western Region

    Bristol

    Gloucester.

    Plymouth.

    Wales

    Cardiff.

    Llanelli.

    Midlands Region

    Birmingham.

    Coventry.

    Leicester.

    Long Eaton.

    North Western Region

    Blackburn.

    Manchester.

    Hindley.

    Liverpool.

    Scotland

    Dumbarton.

    Dunfermline.

    Glasgow (Hillington).

    Irvine.

    Port Glasgow.

    Motherwell.

    Queenslie.

    Edinburgh.

    Wages and Salaries
    Mr. Biffenasked the Minister of Labour if he is satisfied that the vetting committee of the Trades Union Congress is sufficiently effective to control the movement of wages and salaries during the period of extreme moderation; and if he will make a Statement of Government policy in this respect.
    Mr. Hattersley: I would refer the hon. Member to the Written Reply my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs gave to the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dickens) on 5th December, 1967.—[Vol. 755, c. 289.]
    Mr. Biffen: That is a pretty poor reply. Is the Joint Parliamentary Secretary aware that Article 12 of the Letter of Intent sent to Mr. Schweitzer said specifically that vetting arrangements would be strengthened? Now in what way have the T.U.C. vetting arrangements been strengthened since that letter was sent? Can the House be told that in explicit and forthright terms?
    Mr. Hattersley: I am afraid it cannot be told in explicit and forthright terms at this moment. The hon. Member will know that the T.U.C. is at this moment considering its incomes policy in this Situation. I am sure that when it is ready to make a Statement it will do so. Till that happens I believe it would be quite wrong for me to say what it may say or to comment on the probable outcome of its discussions.
    Mr. Biffenasked the Minister of Labour what minimum level of earnings constitutes a lowest paid worker for the purposes of the Government's prices and incomes policy.
    Mr. Hattersley: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 4th April, 1967.—[Vol. 744, c. 30.]
    Mr. Biffen: Yes, but is the hon. Gentleman aware that those replies are so unsatisfactory that one comes back constantly to this question? Is the Joint Parliamentary Secretary aware that this question is of such significance that it cannot be shuffled off on to the Aubrey Jones Board? In the Situation of post-devaluation, can the Government State quite clearly what, in their view, constitutes the earnings that qualify for the definition of the lowest paid worker?
    Mr. Hattersley: Our view is and always has been that there is no simple answer, certainly no simple figure, which can be given. The Government accept that their Obligation is to look at individual industries and individual decisions and consider whether they cover the lowest paid workers on the case presented to them.
    Mr. Leadbitter: Is my hon. Friend aware that in 1964 over 8 million people in this country were receiving National Assistance for payments at those levels or below? I would suggest that the Labour Government would not have thought those would be the only "lowest paid workers" since devaluation.

    Industrial Manpower
    Sir J. Edenasked the Minister of Labour what immediate steps he proposes to take to promote the more efficient use of manpower in industry so as to help the increase in exports now necessary in the light of the devaluation of the £ Sterling.
    Mr. Hattersley: The promotion of the more efficient use of manpower is a continuing and complex process which the Government have assisted through a number of measures. This policy will be continued and developed.
    Sir J. Eden: The Government are always paying lip service to this, but when are they really going to do something about restrictive practices? When will they act? Is not the matter now extremely urgent?
    Mr. Hattersley: I am not sure what restrictive practices the hon. Member refers to. If they are some of those we have heard about over the last fortnight or month, I think he will remember that we regard our Obligation as one which involves waiting for the report of the Royal Commission on trade unions.
    Mr. John Hall: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when I have tried to obtain Information by means of Parliamentary Questions about productivity of our own industries compared with that of our major overseas rivals, I have been told that no such information or comparison existed? How can the Government help productivity when they do not know this?
    Mr. Hattersley: I am aware that the hon. Member has sought that information, but I am not surprised that he has found it impossible to come by it. Clearly the problem is so complex that international comparisons are meaningless. What I think I can assure him and the House is that we are doing all we can to build up productivity levels and to improve the position here in Britain.

    Cost of Living
    Sir J. Edenasked the Minister of Labour what is his estimate of the effect of devaluation of the £ Sterling on the cost of living index; and what will be the resulting total additional cost in increased wages where wage rates are automatically linked to the index.
    Mr. Hattersley: I estimate that the devaluation of the £ Sterling will raise the Index of Retail Prices by 2½ to 3 per cent. The effect of future index movements on cost-of-living sliding-scale arrangements for manual workers cannot be forecast with any precision, but it is estimated that it might add something of the order of £100,000 to the weekly wages bill.
    Sir J. Eden: Is it not a fact that prices are rising very rapidly at the moment, and has not the hon. Gentleman taken very clearly into account the consequential effects on wage rates of the movement of prices themselves?
    Mr. Hattersley: No. We have considered all these things and the best estimate we can give to the House is 2½ per cent. or 3 per cent.

    Redundant Miners, Consett-Stanley
    Mr. David Watkinsasked the Minister of Labour if he will establish a Government training centre to re-train redundant miners in the Consett-Stanley area of County Durham.
    Mr. Hattersley: A new centre is to be set up near Durham and is planned to Start training by the end of 1969. It will be available to retrain redundant miners from the Consett-Stanley area who want and are suitable for the accelerated training given at Government training centres. Two existing training centers—Felling and Tursdale—are within daily travelling distance of Consett and Stanley.
    Mr. Watkins: While appreciating my hon. Friend's Answer, may I ask him whether he is aware that it will be necessary in the next three years to create 3,000 to 3,500 new jobs in the Consett-Stanley area? Is he satisfied that those training facilities will be sufficient for retraining on that scale?
    Mr. Hattersley: We certainly understand the need to create new Jobs in the area and to make sure that some of those jobs are for skilled men and that there are skilled men available to All them. That is why we have accelerated the programme for training in all development areas.

    Strikes
    Mr. Cordleasked the Minister of Labour what proportion of strikes in the last 18 months was in breach of collective agreements.
    Mr. Hattersley: From the figures of strikes known to be official it can be estimated that between 90 and 95 per cent. of the strikes which occurred in the 18 months covering 1966 and the first half of 1967 were unofficial. Most of these strikes were in breach of procedura agreements.
    Mr. Cordle: When will the Minister of Labour introduce legislation to enable collective agreements to be enforceable at law?
    Mr. Hattersley: The question presupposes that the Minister of Labour will introduce some legislation at some time. If that supposition is right, I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that he will know that we have no intention of that till after the report of the Royal Commission on trade unions.
    Mr. John Page: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this quite extraordinary answer will cause great disquiet in the country and that the country is expecting the Government to take action on the lines suggested by my hon. Friend?
    Mr. Hattersley: I hope, if there is disquiet in the country, the country will get the matter clearly in perspective. For the first nine months of this year, the ratio of days lost through unofficial strikes as opposed to official strikes was about four to one. This is by no means the worst record. For the first nine months in 1960, for instance, the figure was six to one.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Labour movement and even the most intelligent Conservatives recognise that it is impossible to stop industrial disputes by legal action?
    Mr. Hattersley: I think we need to see if the report of the Royal Commission on trade unions upholds that view.
    Mr. Ridsdale: The Minister has three times mentioned the Royal Commission on trade unions. Would he care to say when this Commission will report? Does he realise that this is a matter of the utmost urgency for the country?
    Mr. Hattersley: We certainly realise the urgency of all these matters. I think the House will recall that my right hon. Friend once said that he looked forward to good advice in the spring, and that is the time when we hope to have something from the Royal Commission.
    Mr. Edward M. Taylorasked the Minister of Labour how many hours were lost in strikes in the first nine months of 1967; how many hours were lost by men and women made redundant in consequence of these strikes; and what were the comparable figures for the first nine months of each of the previous five years.
    Mr. Hattersley: As the reply includes a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate a Statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Taylor: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the modern arrangement of industry means that a large number of innocent people are put out of work when there is an unofficial strike, and will he consider, after the Royal Commission, a cooling-off period?
    Mr. Hattersley: I am sure that the Royal Commission will consider it, and we will consider anything that it recommends. However, I could not give an undertaking before its report is published.
    Following is the reply:
    The number of days lost at the establishments where the disputes occurred through stoppages of work due to industrial disputes in the United Kingdom in the first nine months in each of the years 1962 to 1967 was as follows:

    1962

    4,980,000

    1963

    1,265,000

    1964

    1,890,000

    1965

    2,511,000

    1966

    2,043,000

    1967 (Provisional)

    1,730,000

    General Information is not available about time lost at establishments other than those where the disputes occurred.

    Airline Pilots (Dispute)
    Captain Orrasked the Minister of Labour whether he will make a further Statement on the dispute between the British Airline Pilots Association and the Airline Corporations.
    Mr. Hattersley: I would refer the hon. Member to the Reply given to the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) on 11th December, 1967. My right hon. Friend has now appointed the Court of Inquiry under the chairmanship of Lord Pearson.—[Vol. 756, c. 11–12.]
    Captain Orr: May I ask the Minister two questions arising out of that? First, as a matter of clarification of the terms of reference of the Court of Inquiry, to inquire into the causes and circumstances of the dispute, could the Minister say what dispute? Is this dispute between B.O.A.C. and the Association, or does it cover B.E.A. pilots as well? Is he aware that, pending the report of this inquiry, there are no talks on any subject whatever between the Corporations and their pilots, and that the matter is one of very great urgency indeed? Would he press this upon his right hon. Friend?
    Mr. Hattersley: My right hon. Friend accepts the urgency. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be comforted to know that we understand that the outcome of the inquiry is likely to apply to B.E.A. as well as to B.O.A.C. As for talks between the parties during the time that the inquiry is being carried on, an undertaking has been given that, at least while the inquiry is taking place, there will be no industrial action by either side.
    Mr. Rankin: To try to avoid these disputes in the future, will my hon. Friend encourage top-level management in B.O.A.C. to take a closer interest in the Problems of the pilots than hitherto and not leave everything in that direction in the hands of second line executives?
    Mr. Hattersley: Whatever encouragement is given to the Corporations, either by my right hon. Friend or by the President of the Board of Trade, had better await the outcome of the inquiry.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: To ensure good working arrangements in future, would not the hon. Gentleman suggest to the
    906
    President of the Board of Trade that if the Corporations were to appoint senior captains as members of their boards who could keep in dose touch with aircrew problems much of the troubles could be overcome?
    Mr. Hattersley: Again, I would not like to endorse or accept suggestions before the inquiry is over.

    Thorne
    Mr. George Jegerasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the unemployment figure at Thorne is now 8·6 per cent.; and what action is being taken to provide full employment there.
    Mr. Fernyhough: I am aware that the percentage rate of unemployment for Thorne is high, but the figures are distorted by extensive travel to work movements in the area. My local officers are doing all they can to help those unemployed to find other work and to offer training facilities where appropriate. In considering applications for industrial development certificates, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will take full account of the level of unemployment in the area.
    Mr. Jeger: Is my hon. Friend not aware that if there was not considerable movement by workers in Thorne to employment elsewhere the figure would be much higher than 8·6 per cent.? Since his is the fifth Government Department to acknowledge this unemployment figure, will he tell the House which Department will do something about it?
    Mr. Fernyhough: I think all Government Departments want to do something about it. I accept that it is a totally unsatisfactory and completely indefensible figure.

    Scotland
    Mr. Edward M. Taylorasked the Minister of Labour how many people were unemployed in Scotland at the most recent date for which figures are available; and how many unfilled vacancies existed in Scotland on that date.
    Mr. Fernyhough: At November, 1967, there were 83,200 registered as wholly unemployed and 2,700 as temporarily

    907
    stopped; 14,400 notified vacancies remained unfilled.
    Mr. Taylor: As a good number of these were in shipbuilding, and as two Clyde yards are building their last ships, with no Orders to come, will the hon. Gentleman agree that we cannot afford to turn down valuable and major Orders from South Africa, and will he tell his right hon. Friend so?
    Mr. Fernyhough: If the future of the British shipbuilding industry has to depend upon orders of that kind alone, then it has no future—[Interruption.] But I believe that the Clyde, the Tyne, the Mersey and the rest of the British shipyards are in a better position today, as a result of what this Government have done, to obtain a greater proportion of the world's new ships.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Can my hon. Friend specify where these unemployed are and what are the areas where there are unfilled vacancies?
    Mr. Fernyhough: Not without notice. I have given the figure for the whole of Scotland.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he cleared the first part of his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) with the Cabinet?
    Mr. Fernyhough: No. The hon. Gentleman asked for my opinion and I gave it.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Minister of Labour what was the number of persons in employment in Scotland in October, 1964, and at the latest available date; and what percentage change this represented.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Estimates of the total numbers employed in Scotland were made at mid-year only up to June, 1965, and subsequently at quarterly intervals.
    Between June, 1964, and March, 1967, the latest date for which information is available, the numbers decreased by 1·1 per cent. from 2,132,000 to 2,108,000.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Is it not deplorable that we do not have more up-to-date figures? These figures are already six months late and they show a very unsatisfactory trend under the present Government. Should we not
    908
    have something more up to date to show how much worse the Situation has become since March?
    Mr. Fernyhough: I do not know whether that is possible, but we will look into it.
    Mr. Rankin: Could my hon. Friend say how far that reduction has been affected by the advance of technological industry in Scotland?
    Mr. Fernyhough: No. I would say, quite frankly, that much of this reduction is a consequence of the neglect of Scotland over the years.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Minister of Labour if he will seek powers to enable him to ensure that men trained in engineering in Government training centres in Scotland are not prevented from taking employment for which their training has qualified them by union regulations.
    Mr. Hattersley: We are not aware of any union regulations which prevent the employment of men trained in Government training centres in their training trades. We have the co-operation at national level of the unions concerned in the acceptance of men trained in engineering, but there are restrictions in a few areas including parts of Scotland. We are continuing our efforts to overcome these by persuasion, through the good Offices of the T.U.C. and the executives of the unions concerned.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Is the hon. Member aware that that is a pretty unsatisfactory answer, in the light of the correspondence that I have sent to his right hon. Friend? Will he study that correspondence again and confirm that this shows a disgraceful Situation persisting in this matter in eastern Scotland?
    Mr. Hattersley: I am aware of the correspondence that the hon. Member has sent to my right hon. Friend. The difficulties that I outlined in my Answer occur in areas within the hon. Member's constituency—
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) to be on his feet at the same time as the Minister?
    Mr. Speaker: It is not in order.
    Mr. Hattersley: Certainly the Problems to which the hon. Member referred occur in certain parts of his constituency, but the letter that he wrote to my right hon. Friend did not include an entirely accurate description of the position.

    Immigrant Trainees (Language Tuition)
    Sir G. Sinclairasked the Minister of Labour what Provision is made, under the industrial training boards, for supplementary language tuition for immigrant trainees who may seek it to make their training more effective.
    Mr. Hattersley: Facilities for language tuition for immigrants are provided by the education Service and industrial training boards are free to recognise for grant purposes any costs incurred.
    Sir G. Sinclair: As a language difficulties are a main obstacle for many young immigrants who have not had much education in this country, will the hon. Gentleman, in consultation with his colleagues in the Department of Education and Science, not take more positive action towards helping them?
    Mr. Hattersley: If the hon. Gentleman examines the recommendations of the 21 industrial training boards, he will find that virtually all of them allow language tuition, as long as the course is appropriate. The only bar placed on grant is according to the nature of the course. I think the hon. Gentleman will find that the Situation meets his demand.
    Miss Quennell: Have the recommendations in this respect been followed by all the boards concerned?
    Mr. Hattersley: My information is that language tuition of some sort rates for grant in every board. However, I emphasise the words "of some sort". The recommendations vary from board to board, as one would anticipate, because boards are supposed to meet the specific demands of their own industries.

    Gibraltarians
    Mr. Braineasked the Minister of Labour if he is satisfied that Gibraltarians seeking vouchers to take up work in the United Kingdom are being given reasonable facilities to do so; and how
    910
    such facilities compare with those enjoyed by Spaniards seeking work in this country.
    Mr. Fernyhough: To the first part of the Question the answer is, Yes, As regards the second part, the circumstances differ so much that comparisons cannot properly be made.
    Mr. Braine: Does the hon. Gentleman not recall his answer to a Question on 30th November which showed that the Proportion of Gibraltarian applicants getting work in this country was far lower than the proportion of Spanish applicants? Does he not consider this sort of discrimination against Commonwealth Citizens to be most unfair, particularly at a time when Gibraltarians are under such intolerable pressures?
    Mr. Fernyhough: The circumstances are not identical. Once a Commonwealth Citizen has a permit given to him he can, if he likes, remain here for ever. A Spaniard gets a permit for only 12 months and can be sent back, though it is possible for it to be reviewed. If the hon. Gentleman does not appreciate the difference between those who can come and stay here for ever and those who are granted vouchers for only 12 months, he is not facing up to the realities of the Situation.
    Mr. George Jeger: Would my hon. Friend not agree that, since special concessions have been made for the unemployed of Malta who wish to come here, there is a precedent for making special concessions for Gibraltarians, especially when only a handful would want to come?
    Mr. Fernyhough: We are looking closely at the possibility of a special allocation to dependent territories.

    Municipal Bus Industry
    Mr. Brooksasked the Minister of Labour whether he will make a Statement on the dispute in the municipal bus industry, with particular reference to the restoration of national negotiating machinery in that industry.
    Mr. Hattersley: As a result of direct negotiations between representatives of the employers' federation and the trade unions, an agreement was reached on

    911
    14th December which is leading to a return to normal working within the industry. The agreement covers improvements in the terms and conditions of employment and commits both sides to continuance of discussions within the National Joint Council. The agreement will, of course, be subject to review by the Government under the prices and incomes policy in the light of the report of the N.B.P.I. on pay and productivity in the industry which is due to be published this week.
    Mr. Brooks: Is my hon. Friend aware of the widespread satisfaction that there will be that this damaging dispute is now ending? Would he clarify the extent to which local negotiations for payments above the national basic minimum will be constrained by the forthcoming report to which he has referred?
    Mr. Hattersley: I am afraid that I cannot help my hon. Friend. We cannot make any comments about constraints which the report will impose until we have seen it.
    Mr. Brooksasked the Minister of Labour whether he will introduce legislation to protect the public from such disruption of essential municipal transport Services as has occurred throughout the country, including the Wirral peninsula, Cheshire, in recent weeks.
    Mr. Hattersley: I do not think it would be right to consider this in advance of the report of the Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers' Associations.
    Mr. Brooks: Is my hon. Friend aware that the bus strike which has affected my own constituency since l0th November is still on? In these winter months, is it not essential for the Government to ensure that the public, including old-age pensioners and school children, are not made the pawns of disputes of this character?
    Mr. Hattersley: These are very complex issues. Even if we were to accept the contention that essential industries should be treated in this way, there would still be a dispute about what constituted an essential industry. I understand that the Passenger Transport Board is being examined by the Royal Com-
    912
    mission in the light of this definition. Therefore, it is not a decision which we should rush.
    Mr. R. Carr: Will the hon. Gentleman convey to his right hon. Friend that the public are not prepared to go on tolerating the leisurely procedures of this Government in this matter and really demand action more quickly? Even now, is it not possible to ask the Royal Commission to produce a short interim report on one or two of the more essential but nevertheless easier matters on which it is to recommend?
    Mr. Hattersley: I am sure that no one is suggesting that in December we should ask for an interim report when a full report is expected in the spring of next year.
    Concerning public opinion, no Member of this House is more in touch with it than my right hon. Friend.

    Development Areas (Apprentice Training)
    Mr. Probertasked the Minister of Labour what plans he has for encouraging apprentice training in development areas.
    Mr. Hattersley: We are making a new Provision, through industrial training Boards, for grants to employers in development areas who provide additional off-the-job training facilities for apprentices or technicians or otherwise increase their numbers of such trainees. There are two alternative types of grant—a capital grant of 60 per cent. of the relevant costs of additional training places or per capita grants of £100 a year for up to five years in respect of any approved trainees in excess of the numbers under training on 1st January, 1968. Under the latter scheme, an additional per capita grant of £50 will be available in mid-1968 for employers who increase their number of approved trainees by then.
    Mr. Probert: I thank my hon. Friend for that very welcome news. Can he say whether the grants which he has announced are additional to the training grants already available from the industrial training boards?
    Mr. Hattersley: These grants from a totally new incentive for employers in

    913
    development areas. The new grants will be supplementary to the wide range of grants already available for industrial training boards, and will therefore afford a potent Stimulus for increased training in these important areas.
    Mr. R. Carr: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the new grants are to be limited to apprentices and technicians, and are not available, for example, for adult retrainees?
    Mr. Hattersley: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows that there is already a large apparatus of grants available for training in the development areas, including grants for some upgrading training of adults. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, announced a comprehensive addition to that range of grants. This is the penultimate item in that addition, and more is yet to come.

    South-West
    Mr. Mawbyasked the Minister of Labour what is the latest figure in total numbers and percentage for unemployment in the South-West; and how this compares with the equivalent month in 1962.
    Mr. Fernyhough: The figures were 76,700 and 2·7 per cent. in November, 1967, and 27,900 and 2·2 per cent. in November, 1962.
    Mr. Mawby: Is the Minister aware that this is a rise of 0·3 per cent. from one month to the next, and, at this rate of increase, is it not time that the Government took positive steps to check unemployment?
    Mr. Fernyhough: The figures which I gave are for comparative months in 1962 and 1967.
    Dr. John Dunwoody: Would not my hon. Friend agree that the real problem is not the total number of unemployed in this region, but the fact that a high proportion of them is concentrated in the far South-West, in the South-West Development Area?
    Mr. Fernyhough: It is precisely because we recognise that that the grants have been made availble to the development areas.

    Manpower Demand
    Mr. Mawbyasked the Minister of Labour when he expects to have the report on manpower demand for the next 10 years; and if he will publish the report.
    Mr. Fernyhough: The Government are as a matter of course examining future employment prospects in all industries as part of their assessment of developments in the economy generally, but no special report is being prepared on the next 10 years.
    Mr. Mawby: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that most of the Opposition to the introduction of adult trained people arises from a sense of insecurity among those already engaged in industry? If an accurate study could be issued, surely it would reduce this sense of insecurity, and therefore allow for a much wider acceptance of adult, retrained employees?
    Mr. Fernyhough: I readily accept that until we can remove the uncertainty we cannot get men to give up practices which they think are self-protecting.

    Industrial Accidents
    Dame Joan Vickersasked the Minister of Labour, in view of the increased number of industrial accidents, what action he is taking to improve the service provided by his factory inspectors.
    Mr. Fernyhough: A number of steps are being taken to strengthen the Inspectorate, including the establishment of a new class of construction inspector for inspection and advisory work in the construction industry; the recruitment of a number of fire officers for fire certification of premises under the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act, 1963, an increase in the staff of the specialist branches and the extension of the scheme started in 1965 under which Departmental officers are attached to the Inspectorate as assistant inspectors.
    Dame Joan Vickers: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. May I ask when the schemes will Start?
    Mr. Fernyhough: Starts have been made in particular industries.
    Mr. Pavitt: Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to look at the whole

    915
    question of an occupational health service in reviewing the work of his Factory Inspectorate and its possible relationship to the Ministry of Health?
    Mr. Fernyhough: We will look at it, yes.

    Building Trade Operatives (Accidents)
    Dame Joan Vickersasked the Minister of Labour how many building trade operatives have been injured while working at their trade in 1966 and 1967.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Thirty-seven thousand, five hundred and fifty eight in 1966. The experience of the first nine months of this year suggests that the total number of reported accidents will slightly increase, but that there is likely to be a significant and very welcome drop in the number of fatal accidents.
    Dame Joan Vickers: Would not the Minister agree that that is a large number? Will he say how many people receive training before they undertake this type of work?
    Mr. Fernyhough: I could not give the hon. Lady that figure without notice, but I assure her that it is an increasing number.

    Adult Trainees
    Mr. Kenneth Lewisasked the Minister of Labour whether he will make a Statement on his talks with the Confederation of British Industry, the Trades Union Congress and nationalised industries on the wide acceptance of adult trainees.
    Mr. Hattersley: My right hon. Friend met representatives of these bodies on November 7th, when they agreed that an increase in the training of adults for skilled occupations was necessary in the development areas.
    Detailed information is now being assembled about the places and industries in the development areas where there is difficulty in arranging such training. When the information is available we will have discussions with the two sides of industry on the further action that can be taken.
    Mr. Lewis: I heard only the tail end of that Answer. Will the Minister bear
    916
    in mind that discussions on this matter have gone on for long enough and that it is time the trade unions were convinced by the Government, or by someone, that these trainees are acceptable to industry?
    Mr. Hattersley: The Government have made their attitude on this matter clear, and I am sure that the next few months should be characterised by negotiations, rather than by bellicose action which may imperil the progress which has been made.

  LAND REGISTRY
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Attorney-General why, and by what authority, Her Majesty's Land Registry sent form B10A to a constituent of the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames informing him that unless a reply was received from him within 21 days an entry in respect of a bankruptcy of another Citizen would be made in the Land Registry in respect of his property; and if he will direct the Land Registry to desist from this practice.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): The Chief Land Registrar is authorised by rules made under the Land Registration Act, 1925, to send form B10A to persons with names similar to that of a debtor involved in bankruptcy proceedings, in order to protect the interests of creditors by preventing a quick disposal of the debtor's assets. This is in my view a necessary protection. The Chief Land Registrar is, however, considering an amendment to the form, to make it clear that an erroneous entry can be cancelled even though no reply is received with 21 days.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: But is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman's sense of justice affronted by the action of a Government Department in sending a form to a Citizen, who may well be away or ill, telling him that if, within three weeks, he has not established that he is not the person concerned a highly damaging entry will be made against his property in the Land Registry?
  The Attorney-General: I am well aware of the need for the interests of justice to be protected, and they include creditors whose interests should not be adversely affected by a quick transaction by the debtor. Concerning the damage

  917
  to the innocent person who may receive this form, which is by way of inquiry, I am satisfied that no harm could result to such a person. If harm did result, an indemnity would be due from the Department.

  ROLLS RAZOR LIMITED
  Mr. Maddanasked the Attorney-General whether he has now received the report of the Director of Public Prosecutions into the affairs of Rolls Razor Limited; and whether he will make a Statement.
  The Attorney-General: The Director of Public Prosecutions has received the report from the police and is considering it in consultation with counsel. Counsel have advised that certain further inquiries should be made. These are now taking place and should be completed shortly. The Director will then be in a Position to decide what action, if any, should be taken.
  Mr. Maddan: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman urge counsel to complete their inquiries speedily? It is three and a half years since the Company went into voluntary liquidation and we were told six months ago that the Director of Public Prosecutions' report would be imminent. This seems to go on for a very long time, and there are many who hope that a conclusion will now be reached.
  The Attorney-General: I am indeed aware of the need for urgency in this matter. As the hon. Member knows it is a complex matter involving investigation into the affairs of several companies over the course of a number of years. It is obviously in the public interest that a matter of this nature should be fully and carefully investigated. But I assure the hon. Member that I am bringing any pressure that is available to me to bear upon the need for speed in this matter.
  Mr. Carlisle: Would not the Attorney-General agree that the length of time that these highly complicated inquiries take is a matter of great concern to many people? What steps has he in mind to improve both the efficiency and the number of people involved in the fraud squad?
  The Attorney-General: The problem is not lack of members in the fraud squad,
  918
  so much as the complexity of the transactions that are being investigated. Not more than a given number of minds can helpfully apply themselves to the problem, but I am aware of the anxiety at the delay in proceedings of this kind.
  Mr. Paget: Would my right hon. and learned Friend agree that swiftness is of the essence of criminal justice and that a delay of three and a half years is a terrible hardship.
  The Attorney-General: I agree that swiftness is important, but so also is thoroughness, both to the public and possibly to those who are liable to be charged.

  LAW OF CONTEMPT
  Mr. Roebuckasked the Attorney-General whether he will now advise the appointment of a Royal Commission to examine the law of contempt, with particular reference to its application to the Press and broadcasting.
  The Attorney-General: I am not aware of any general criticism of the law of contempt in relation to the administration of justice. However, there have been criticisms of the provisions of the Tribunals of Inquiry Act, 1921, which apply the provisions of the law of contempt to proceedings under that Act, and the Government is considering a recent Press Council booklet on this subject.
  Mr. Roebuck: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that news that the Government are considering this matter is very welcome? There has been confusion about this aspect of the law for many decades, and can he acknowledge that very serious consideration will be given to Clearing the matter up? Can my right hon. and learned Friend also say to what extent his patient examination of the law and his exposition of it at the time of the Aberfan inquiry has contributed to this development?
  The Attorney-General: I do not want to enter into that much disputed matter at this moment, without notice, but this aspect is being considered. There is no doubt that the law of contempt applies to proceedings before tribunals of inquiry, and this aspect of the matter is being considered.
  Sir P. Rawlinson: Would the Attorney-General not agree that, leaving aside the Tribunals of Inquiry Act, it would be very poor if we got to a position in the law of contempt where there was trial by television or trial by Press? It is most important that fair trials should not in any way be endangered by comment.
  The Attorney-General: I entirely agree. As I said in my original Answer, I am not aware of any criticism of the law of contempt in that sphere.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Would my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, though there may not be criticism of the law, there is a good deal of confusion about the exact extent of the law of contempt and that it might be cleared up quite simply by a Statement from the Court of Appeal, or even the Lord Chief Justice, about its limits?
  The Attorney-General: With respect, I think that the principles relating to the law of contempt are quite clear. Generally speaking, proceedings are now brought only through the Attorney-General. They take place before the Lord Chief Justice and two judges of the High Court. I should have thought that both the law and its machinery, particularly in the matter of the administration of justice, are satisfactory.

  SETTLED LAND ACT
  Sir D. Walker-Smithasked the Attorney-General whether he has considered the observations of the Court of Appeal in England versus Public Trustee as to the desirability of amending the Settled Land Act, 1925, so that notice of a proposed sale of settled land by the tenant for life should be given to the other beneficiaries under the settlement; and if he will seek to amend the law accordingly.
  The Attorney-General: I am aware of these observations, but I do not think it would be desirable to amend the law on this subject in advance of the general study of the law relating to Settlements which the Law Commission has stated in its Second Annual Report it hopes to initiate in due course.
  Sir D. Walker-Smith: As there may no doubt be many other cases, especially
  920
  in this inflationary age, in which an injustice is done to remainder-men and a result brought about which, in the words of Lord Justice Wynn, Parliament would not have wished, does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that there is an element of urgency in this matter?
  The Attorney-General: There is an element that calls for consideration, but the subject is a very complex one. It is much better, in my view, that there should be a general review of the Settled Land Act rather than an attempt to deal with an isolated part of it.

  LEGAL AID
  Sir D. Walker-Smithasked the Attorney-General if he will introduce regulations under the Legal Aid and Advice Act, 1949, to enable the Legal Aid Fund to forgo recovery of costs, in whole or in part, from legally assisted plaintiffs, where it is judged to be in the business interest of the fund to do so.
  The Attorney-General: Generally I do not think it can be in the business interest of the Legal Aid Fund to forgo its Charge on property recovered or preserved. If there is evidence to the contrary I will be glad to examine it.
  Sir D. Walker-Smith: Will the Attorney-General accept that this may well arise if it inhibits the conclusion of a realistic settlement which may in the long run be beneficial to both parties, and save the Fund costs being thrown away in subsequent litigation?
  The Attorney-General: I am willing to look at any facts to support that proposition. The basic principle of the Act is that the legally assisted litigant should be in no better position than the litigant who is paying his own costs, but I will be very glad to look at any Information which the right hon. and learned Gentleman cares to bring to my notice.

  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Education
    Mr. Peter Millsasked the hon. and learned Member for Brigg as Second Church Estates Commissioner what plans the Church Commissioners have for extending Church of England secondary

    921
    education and primary school education; and if he will make a Statement.
    Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: The extension of Church of England secondary and primary school education is a matter outside the Jurisdiction of the Church Commissioners.
    Mr. Peter Millsasked the hon. and learned Member for Brigg as Second Church Estates Commissioner, whether tae Church Commissioners will release large sums of money in view of local reorganisation projects for the furtherance of church schools, particularly secondary education.
    Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: The Church Commissioners are empowered by Measure of the Church Assembly to make payments from their general fund to the Central Board of Finance for the improvement or extension of Church of England schools. These payments must not exceed £1 million in total over a period of 25 years ending in 1983. Subject to this limitation and to the availability of money the Commissioners make payments when requested by the Central Board of Finance.
    Mr. Mills: Is it not time that the Church Commissioners showed a little more interest in education? If they really believe in Church education in primary and secondary schools, they should seek to allocate a far larger share of money for this work.
    Mr. Mallalieu: The Church Commissioners have to take an interest in those duties put upon them by Statute, and I think it is generally admitted that they show great interest in these subjects.

ECONOMIC SITUATION
The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): Mr. Speaker, with permission I should like to make a Statement.
I feel it right, before the House rises for the Recess, to make a full Statement of the Government's intentions about the way in which we are now engaged in deciding on the measures necessary to ensure that industry, trade, agriculture— indeed, the country as a whole—take full advantage of the opportunity presented by devaluation.
922
The Government have made clear that, in order to achieve a progressive and massive swing in our balance of payments over the next two years, a substantial diversion of resources will be needed to exports, to import replacement and to investment.
The Statement of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 20th November outlined the first package of measures directed to this end.
The Government have made clear that progressively up to the Budget, and indeed at any time afterwards, when this becomes necessary, steps will be taken to ensure that home demand, including Government expenditure, is not allowed to develop to a point where the necessary shift of resources to the priority purposes of earning a payments surplus is for one moment endangered.
As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made clear, the intention is to ensure beyond all doubt that as exports, import saving and investment build up, the resources will be available to meet them.
It is our intention to maintain economic growth and rising employment, taking progressively the measures needed to shift the emphasis from a consumer-led expansion to an export-led expansion. At the same time, it will be the determination of Her Majesty's Government not to allow that steady expansion, as it develops over the next year and into 1969, to degenerate into a Situation of inflation and excessive pressure on resources and capacity.
As the policy develops through the period of the Estimates, the Budget and subsequently, it will mean reductions in the growth of personal expenditure and reductions in the growth of public expenditure. On personal expenditure, the success of the Government's prices and incomes policy is of crucial importance. While I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget Statement or any other measures which may be needed to restrain consumption, the severity of such restraint will clearly depend on the Cooperation which the Government receive in implementing their prices and incomes policy.
So far as public expenditure is concerned, the House will be aware, through long experience, that expenditure programmes take several years to mature and that decisions taken at any moment

923
of time may have little impact on immediate Estimates. But decisions taken now can in certain spending areas have a growing effect in the second year and a decisive effect in the third and subsequent years, provided that the decisions are taken now.
The examination of spending programmes which this involves is being tackled in a mood of urgency. While I should like to have given the House all the necessary details before the Recess, hon. Members will, I think, agree, in view of the important nature of the expenditure areas to be considered, that it would be wrong to press on with over-hasty decisions without considering all the implications. Full details will be given to the House and decisions which have to be taken will be taken in time to govern the 1968–69 Estimates, as well as subsequent Estimates.
But I should tell the House this: first, we are not approaching this expenditure review, whether in respect of home or overseas expenditure, on the basis of candle ends, or simply on the basis of minor administrative economies, though we shall not, of course, neglect any opportunities here. Neither are we looking for prospects of under-spending or the shifting of expenditure from one financial year to another. We are bringing under stringent review all major areas of policy, both at home and overseas, where substantial expenditure is involved.
Secondly, no area of expenditure can be regarded as sacrosanct for the purposes of the searching examination we are making; no spending commitment whether inherited three years ago, or incurred since.
Thirdly, it will cover local government expenditure as well as central Government expenditure.
Fourthly, as I have made clear, the review will cover defence and overseas expenditure as well as home civil expenditure.
The review as a whole is being related to what is essential in expenditure here at home, and to what is appropriate at a time when we have been, and are, reassessing Britain's role in the World. This must involve overseas policy.
In this connection, the Government have completed their examination of the
924
question of the supply of defence equipment to South Africa and have decided that their policy on this matter, namely to conform to the Security Council Resolution of 18th June, 1964, remains unchanged.
I should add that I have the authority of the whole Cabinet categorically to repudiate as inaccurate reported Statements about the position taken by the Cabinet as a whole, by a Cabinet Committee which met a week earlier, and also about the position taken by the Prime Minister and other individual Ministers.
When, next month, the House is given the results of our examination of all the expenditure programmes—and, indeed, throughout the further development of all our policies—I intend to ensure that the totality of decisions taken will be fair as between Citizen and Citizen; that while everyone must bear burdens the burdens will be fairly shared; and that, while established assumptions and traditional spending commitments will have to be called in question and, in appropriate cases, sacrificed, the questioning and the sacrifices equally will be fairly borne.
At the end of the day the Government will be responsible for achieving a fair balance, whether of economic or political sacrifice, and submitting it to this House. They will then call on the House to take its full responsibility in endorsing it.
Mr. Heath: That slob of wet blancmange hardly sounded like the smack of firm government. The intention of the general economic Statement, which the Leader of the House told us on Thursday would be made only in the event of an emergency, is very clear. It is to wrap up and disguise a Statement about South African arms in an attempt to preserve a spurious unity in the Cabinet.
Seldom can the House have heard a general economic Statement so flatulent and platitudinous as this has been. It can only do more harm than good—[HON.
MEMBERS: "A question."]—and will further undermine any confidence which
is left in the Administration—
Mr. Whitaker: On a point of Order. Is this question time or debate?
Mr. Speaker: The Chair usually allows a little latitude to the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Heath: It can only make the Chancellor's task more difficult. In a critical Situation, when the world is waiting for a Statement of Government action, we expected something more —
Mr. Faulds: Can't they find better than him?
Hon. Members: Name.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must contain themselves.
Mr. Heath: —we expected more than general Statements of pious intent.
I want to put two questions to the Prime Minister. Does his Statement mean that the South African Government's request for arms for self-defence has been turned down by Her Majesty's Government? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Has it been turned down? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes"] The Prime Minister said that the policy remains the same, but has this request been turned down? Has it been turned down only for the present? Is it to be reconsidered in the policy review, including overseas policy, which the Prime Minister has included in his Statement? May we have clear and specific answers to those questions?
The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I will not compete with the right hon. Gentleman in such flights of Parliamentary oratory as "blancmange" and "flatulent", because we are concerned this afternoon with important issues of policy, and the right hon. Gentleman, as usual, failed to face up to it.
First of all, on the economic Statement that I have made, the right hon. Gentleman could use his time better—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] He will get the answer, but I am going to—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer"] He will get the answer; I am commenting on some of his Statements, which as usual, of course, will be taken outside as a support for those who want to undermine Sterling.
The right hon. Gentleman would spend his time better preaching to his friends in industry and telling them to do what we say here—go out and get those export orders.
Secondly, with regard to the right hon. Gentleman's Statement about my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the examination on which we have begun, which will be reported to the
926
House, will be the greatest possible help to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Since the right hon. Gentleman has repeatedly called for cuts in expenditure, I confidently expect his full support for every measure of Government economy which we will put to the House.
With regard to South Africa—[HON. MEMBERS: "At last."] I have got to this answer much more quickly than the right hon. Gentleman got to the question. With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's question about South Africa, when I said that the policy of adhering to the line taken by the Security Council would not be changed that meant that this arms order will not be supplied and that we are not changing the policy. When the right hon. Gentleman asked if this would be reconsidered, I made it clear in my Statement that this, in view of the great public interest in this question, is an item of policy which we have considered ahead of the general package on expenditure which will be reported to the House.
Mr. Heath: Does the Prime Ministers last Statement mean that this request for arms cannot again be considered under the overseas policy review? May we be quite clear about that?
The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. That is exactly what it means.
Mr. Thorpe: Is the Prime Minister aware that there will be delayed relief that he has rejected the advice which he has been receiving from many quarters that this country can maintain those principles which we hold provided only that they are not expensive? But is he aware that his Statement today adds up only to a series of good intentions and no hard policy? May I ask him whether we will be considering cancelling the F111 contract, withdrawing from the Persian Gulf, cutting tariffs and boosting home agriculture?
The Prime Minister: I am aware, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, that I have only announced that we are engaged in this very searching expenditure review. I think—I hope—that the House will agree that the areas to be examined are so important, both at home and abroad, that we must give them very thorough consideration and report to the House as early as possible.

927
I will not indicate what the outcome will be, but no area of expenditure, including those referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, is sacrosanct in the sense that it will not be subject to the most searching review. As to the outcome of the review, it would be wrong for me to try to anticipate it until we have reached our conclusions.
Mr. John Hynd: In resisting this pressure for the sale of arms to South Africa, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the figure of £200 million—or whatever the cost to this country—should be set against the infinitely greater sacrifices which this country made to defend principles in Europe only a few years ago? Will he seek economies in other areas where we are spending even greater amounts of money in the face of only Potential dangers?
The Prime Minister: As I say, these are very difficult matters. We have considered all the implications, economic and international, and this is the decision which we have reached.
Mr. Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be great satisfaction within the Parliamentary Labour Party and in the Labour Party outside that arms are not to be sent to South Africa, and that there is no change in policy? Is he aware that there is a great feeling of contempt for those hon. Members opposite who want to sell arms to a Nazi-like State which bases itself on police terror and brutality in Order to keep going?
The Prime Minister: This decision is one which was taken many years ago, in Opposition. Indeed, it was taken in the time of my predecessor as Leader of the Labour Party. We have considered this and we have often debated it in the House, and I will not join at this stage, unless I am tempted too much, in saying what I think of the policy of right hon. Gentlemen opposite in this matter.
Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: What did the right hon. Gentleman mean by the phrase "political sacrifices"?
The Prime Minister: Simply that it is not possible to review any substantial area of Government expenditure—the right hon. and learned Gentleman has great experience of this—if cuts are
928
made, without trampling on doctrines cherished by one party or another, or by one group or another, inside or outside the House, and that, if there is to be a successful attack on this problem of public expenditure, it is inevitable that some political doctrines—at this stage, I cannot indicate which they are likely to be—will be sacrificed, and that, just as there will be economic sacrifices, there will have to be sacrifices of certain ideological considerations.
Mr. Paget: Would my right hon. Friend tell me how democracy is served, or how the United Nations is served, by providing that South Africa should be armed by France instead of by Britain and by adding Simonstown to the Suez Canal as the property of what is becoming the Franco-Arab bloc, hostile to this country?
The Prime Minister: We are not handing the South African question over to France: we are carrying out the policy which we have announced, which was laid down by the resolution of the Security Council. If other countries decide not to follow that resolution, that is a matter for them and not for us. We have decided our own policy in this matter.
Mr. Marten: The right hon. Gentleman said that no area is sacrosanct. How does he Square that with the reference in his television broadcast to housing, schools and hospitals?
The Prime Minister: All areas will be reviewed. I have said that, and it includes all those areas. At the end of the day we will take decisions in accordance with our priorities and principles.
Mr. Barnett: Would my right hon. Friend inform hon. Gentlemen opposite that no price is too high to pay for one's principles? Will he also expose the fallacies contained in the point that is constantly made about the price of this particular arms deal with South Africa, in that we already expect to see full employment next year, including in the companies which would be supplying these arms; so that, in a sense, will not this be nothing other than a marginal cost to this country?
The Prime Minister: I refuse to believe that this country can pay its way abroad

929
only on the basis of shipments of this kind. The fact that right hon. Gentlemen opposite reached the conclusion in 1964 that, under their régime, we could pay our way only by shipments of this kind, does not provide a precedent which we want to follow.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: Would the right hon. Gentleman now identify the group of nations, to which he referred on Thursday, which sells arms to South Africa ii breach of the United Nations resolution? What proportion of them would, in any event, be in a position—of those who took the decision—to sell any arms? Is the policy of this country now to make the economic decisions of Britain dependent on the views of other countries which will not suffer the economic loss flowing from the decision, and in some cases may benefit from it?
The Prime Minister: The group to which I referred contained those which had dissociated themselves from the Security Council resolution. I would want notice of the question before giving the exact list, because I would want to make sure that it was exhaustive; but I would be glad to make it available to the House.
Mr. Whitaker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Cabinet's decision on this South African matter will be welcomed by all who believe that Britain is something greater than a nation of shop-keepers? Will he also bear in mind that the ancestors of his Lancashire constituents were proud to make the necessary financial sacrifices to end the slave trade?
The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend and I referred to that matter in a debate on a similar issue when the House discussed Rhodesia after the H.M.S. "Tiger" agreement about a year ago.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Before deciding to turn down this immensely valuable South African order, which would have brought lifeblood to our shipyards, did the right hon. Gentleman seek assurances from the French Government—the French also being a member of the Security Council—that they would not fill such Orders which were refused? If he did not seek or obtain such assurances, what Practical effect does his decision have?
The Prime Minister: We did not, of course, seek these assurances. I have said that we have decided our line in relation to the Security Council. It must be for France and other countries to decide theirs. I do not feel that, in other matters, where profits can be earned for particular activities—for example, from the sale of drugs—it would be the right answer for us to say, "We had better sell these noxious drugs. If we do not do so someone else will sell them". We have our Standards to maintain. Other countries must judge theirs.
Mr. Wyatt: Would my right hon. Friend explain why it is all right to sell large quantities of arms to Saudi Arabia, where slavery still flourishes, and to Spain and Portugal from time to time, but not to South Africa, although the United Nations' resolution is not mandatory?
The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that this is not a mandatory resolution of the United Nations. That is certainly true. These questions have to be decided in accordance with their merits and the principles which we are trying to follow in these matters, as I explained a moment ago. We do not, for example, supply arms to Portugal for use in her colonial territories.
This is a quite clear policy on the part of Her Majesty's Government. I think that it is justified and, for the same reason, the announcement which I have made today merely reiterates our Position, which is right.
Mr. Hugh Fraser: In view of the absence today of any serious Statement as to what the Government propose to do, would the right hon. Gentleman seriously consider the recall of Parliament earlier than 22nd January so that the Government may make a Statement about their plans, in view of the uncertainty in industry, among trade unions and on the foreign exchange market; since, after 30 days, there has been no serious Statement made by the Government?
The Prime Minister: Serious Statements have been made. However, the right hon. Gentleman's question is a fair one. We will get on with this review as quickly as is humanly possible, having regard to the very big issues which are involved. Certainly, if it is possible to make a Statement, we would regard it as

931
right to recommend the recall of Parliament rather than to make any such Statement during the Recess, when Parliament was not sitting.
I cannot promise that it will be possible —there are very big international as well as domestic implications involved in this —to complete this at an earlier date than the end of the Recess, but if it is possible we would certainly recommend the recall of Parliament.
Mr. Mikardo: While warmly joining with those who have welcomed what my right hon. Friend said about no arms for South Africa, may I ask him to assure us that, in considering other possible changes, he will not reject any merely on the grounds that they have been consistently proposed to him from these benches and brusquely rejected in the past by the Treasury Bench and the benches opposite?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that helpful Suggestion. I must make it clear—and this must have stood out in everything I have been saying and in everything that my right hon. Friend is doing—that we shall neither preclude economies merely because they have been suggested and rejected in the past, nor shall we reject economies because my hon. Friends put Motions on the Order Paper saying that certain areas must remain sacrosanct.
Mr. Tapsell: Would the Prime Minister tell the House whether revelation to an unauthorised person of discussions held in Cabinet, or Cabinet committee, would constitute a breach of the Privy Councillor's oath or of the Official Secrets Act?
The Prime Minister: These must be matters for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, certainly so far as the Act is concerned. I have already made it clear that the Statements which I read over the weekend—and which, I understand, other hon. Members have read—have been categorically repudiated as being incorrect by the whole Cabinet.
Mr. Sheldon: While congratulating my right hon. Friend on his Statement, may I ask him to say what action he is contemplating in an effort to make sure that he has international support for his
932
action, bearing in mind that the demand for arms will not be stopped by our refusal to give them but that South Africa may be Shopping in many other countries?
The Prime Minister: This must be a matter for continuous international discussion through the United Nations and elsewhere. However, in view of the great interest in this question, it was thought right, as I have said, that we should settle our policy on it; and our policy is to continue the line which we have so far taken.
Mr. Hastings: Is it not a fact that the U.N. resolution concerning arms to South Africa is not even mandatory? Has this been taken into account?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. If he had been listening a few moments ago, he would have heard that the same question was put by my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Wyatt), and I confirmed that it is not mandatory. However, that does not mean that we do not have an Obligation to consider and then to decide our action upon it. Rather than wait for others to decide their policy, we have considered it and have decided ours.
Mr. Molloy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this issue is not merely confined to this House or our nation, but that millions of ordinary people all over the world, and especially in oppressed countries, will welcome what has been said in the House this afternoon, and will deplore the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, who purports to know the price of everything and confirms that he knows the value of nothing?
The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I do not think that very much interest will be taken in the line of right hon. Gentlemen opposite in these matters, but this was, as my hon. Friend mentioned, one big consideration. It is a very difficult decision: I do not pretend that it is not. I am not ashamed of the fact that on his side we have been divided on the matter—[HON. MEMBERS; "Oh"] I am not ashamed of that— [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I said that I am not ashamed of the fact—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I said that the whole Cabinet denies those particular stories—

933
[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] I am not ashamed of the fact that there are divisions on this side of the House on this matter—not ashamed at all. I would be ashamed to be a member of the party opposite, united and in their own way.
Sir C. Osborne: The Prime Minister said that burdens would have to be shared by all. Will he tell the House and the country how big those burdens will be; how soon they will be imposed; how soon the people will be told of the burdens? If we refuse to export to all the countries with whom we disagree, will it not bring mass unemployment and bread rationing nearer?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Member will recognise from my answer that, as I said, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer must continue to see that the resources are available on a developing basis to switch from home consumption to exports. Therefore, the first step will be the announcement of expenditure economies to which I referred and, as I have said, this will be at the earliest possible time, either when the House resumes or even on an earlier recall. These are the public expenditure reviews. As I said, I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget Statement, but this must be a continuing development because, obviously, the whole switch from home consumption, private or public, to exports, does not take place all at once. So I would say that the two stages the hon. Gentleman should watch for are the economy in expenditure Statement and, of course, the Budget.
Mr. Dickens: While I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's Statement on arms to South Africa, will he, in making this forthcoming review, bear in mind that the reality facing the country is that we would have no deficit on balance of payments were it not for heavy foreign exchange costs on military spending and the net outflow of private investment to advanced industrial countries abroad?
The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I said that the burdens will be fairly shared, fairly borne. It will be for the House to decide whether our conception of this is fair in the view of the House as well as of the Government, but it also means not only that areas of defence expendi-
934
ture, home and overseas, must come under review, but so must every item of home expenditure. My hon. Friend must be prepared to find that there are some cuts that are not as acceptable to him as the one he keeps on urging on the Front Bench.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on.

SOUTH AFRICA (ARMS SUPPLIES)
Mr. Hastings: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your 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 refusal of the Prime Minister to allow the sale of British military equipment to South Africa for her external defence, and the serious effect of this decision on the balance of payments."
I hold that this matter is specific because the extent of the order for ships, aircraft and anti-aircraft missiles is now known to be between £150 million and £250 million. It is specific in the sense that it is equally well known that, if we fail to meet the order, others will.
It is important and urgent, first, because at a time when the Government have just devalued the £ for the express purposes of increasing exports, this decision may well result in further loss of foreign confidence and a fresh run on the £; and, secondly, because the decision may equally result, and before very long, in further unemployment in this country.
We are about to go into recess, Mr. Speaker, and in these grave circumstances I submit to you that we should have an opportunity in the House to discuss this issue.
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 refusal of the Prime Minister to allow the sale of British military equipment to South Africa for her external defence, and the

935
serious effect of this decision on the balance of payments."
I have given serious consideration to this matter. 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?
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.
Mr. Heath: Further to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Leader of the House to take note that, in these circumstances, we should like to have discussions through the usual Channels about the rest of tomorrow's business?
Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for the House, and not for Mr. Speaker.
Mr. English: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Will the scope of the discussion tomorrow be wide enough to include the other matters in the Prime Ministers Statement?
Mr. Speaker: The debate will be on the subject matter raised by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire, (Mr. Hastings), who sought leave to move the Adjournment of the House.
The Motion stood over under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) until the beginning of public business tomorrow.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (ERSKINE BRIDGE TOLLS BILL)
Ordered,
That the Third Reading of the Erskine Bridge Tolls Bill may be taken immediately after the consideration of the Bill notwithstanding the practice of this House as to the interval between the stages of such a Bill.—[Mr. Crossman.]

THAMES LIGHTERAGE INDUSTRY
4.8 p.m.
Mr. Alan Lee Williams: I beg to move,
That this House deplores the decline of the Thames lighterage industry, regrets the under-utilisation of the commercial potentialities of the River Thames, and calls upon the Government to establish an inquiry into the Thames lighterage industry to ascertain the future organisation and contribution of the industry in a co-ordinated transport policy for the River Thames within the projected port authority.
I should first, make it clear to the House that I am a Freeman of the Company of Watermen and Lightermen, but have no financial interest in the industry.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members leave the Chamber quietly.
Mr. Williams: As every hon. Member knows, the greatest river highway in the country and, in my view, the principal highway, is the River Thames. The growth of the British economy can be traced by the growth of tonnage handled upon the River Thames. Historically, as early as Roman times, and certainly as far back as the 13th Century, the country's principal highway was the River Thames. Previous Parliaments have been concerned about the position of the watermen and lightermen. Respective Governments have been forced to take legislative action. The Acts if 1514 and 1555 and the foundation of the Watermen's Company in 1556 give testimony to this fact.
As early as the 16th Century the watermen, as opposed to the lightermen, were already feeling the competition of the coaches—in other words, the roads. The watermen were quite undaunted by a failure of their Bill in 1600 to resist the use of coaches. John Taylor, commonly known as the "Water Poet", and himself an active waterman, put it rather well in 1622. He was, incidentally, a prolific writer of the time and he described accurately the conditions of watermen during that period. He wrote in 1622:
" Carroaches, coaches, jades and flander's manes,
Doe rob us of our shares, our wares, our fares,
Against the ground we stand and knocke our heeles,
Whilest all our profit runnes away on wheeles ".

937
For some years after the introduction of coaches by the Dutchman Booned they were used by only a relatively small number of people, but the year 1634 saw the growth of hackney carriages which plied for hire in the streets. The water-men at that time petitioned the King in Council by pointing out that their existence was threatened by this rival means of transport and that the King's Majesty would thereby be deprived of many useful and able subjects who always proved helpful to man the Navy in times of war. The Privy Council became completely beguiled by those specious arguments and issued a proclamation prohibiting hackney carriages in London except for journeys for at least three miles outside London.
Right up to the 18th Century, the watermen fought every proposal for a bridge. It was not until the 18th Century that the first bridge was built, and subsequently they fought against every bridge which was built It is certainly not in that spirit that I wish to introduce my Motion this afternoon, because the rôle of watermen has been greatly reduced by progress over the years and they are now mainly responsible for the mooring and unmooring of ships. It is the lighterage industry about which I wish to speak, but one has to mention watermen when speaking of the lightermen because they arc all part of the same Company.
The golden age for lightermen was reached in 1795. Shipping was dependent on lighters and barges, but it is significant that even in 1795 the coasting trade of the port was greater than the foreign trade. This is certainly not true today and is one of the main reasons why the industry has found itself in difficulties.
Even before the challenge of the railways and modern roads, there were signs of what could only be, in terms of years, a decline in the industry. At one time, the Thames enjoyed the Services of 85,000 barges. Today, in 1967, the figure is 4,650 barges. These figures do not include the punts, sloops and cutters that have long gone out of existence.
In addition, the advent of the various docks—the West India Docks, Surrey Commercial Docks and the Royal Group of Docks, for example—has dealt successive blows to the lighterage industry. The growth of the docks was supported
938
by the merchants and the shipowners. All these actions threatened the lighterage industry fax before modern times.
The lightermen fought fiercely. At one time they forced the Houses of Parliament to set up a Select Committee to resist the establishment of the docks. Subsequently, however, they lost, and rightly so, because they were fighting on the wrong side of progress. Eventually, all the main docks were established.
The lightermen obtained, however, an exceedingly important concession which has subsequently become known as the free water clause. I certainly ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State to ensure that his right hon. Friend makes sure that in any alteration in the authority of the Port of London, the free water clause will be maintained. To get it altered would, in fact, require the permission of Parliament.
Easily the most important part of the Thames lighterage business consists in conveying goods from ships in the docks or lower reaches of the river to public wharves and warehouses situated near the heart of London. This again raises the problem acutely, because there is no doubt that the wharves and public warehouses in the Lower and Upper Pool are gradually handling less tonnage, and some of them are closing.
The emphasis is now on the lower reaches of the Thames. Perhaps this was brought forcibly home to the industry by the closure of Brentford Dock, to which I should like presently to refer, as well as by the closure of various railway docks at Battersea, Blackfriars, Poplar, Victoria Dock, Canning Town, Charlton, Chelsea, Nine Elms and Deptford. All those decisions have had an effect on the volume of the lighterage industry. No doubt, the case for closing many of those depots can be justified on economic grounds, but the sad fact is that the traffic previously carried by lighter or barge is now being carried by road transport.
The most tragic example that one can find is in respect of the closure of Brentford Dock, because that dock had all the potentialities of a terminal exit point at the westward end of the Thames which would allow cargoes to go all the way through London by water without going on to the congested roads and eventually

939
feeding through to the South-West and the Midlands.
I should like to give some practical examples of what that means in terms of social cost. About 350 tons of coal a day used to go by river from Chelsea Basin to a factory at Battersea. It is now transported by road, and many trucks and many journeys are required to get it to its destination. Covent Garden, as everyone knows, is being moved to a new site at Nine Elms, and yet to date there is no proper Provision for waterside activity, either for small coasting ships or for lighters. This is something which, I hope, even at this stage, my hon. Friend will examine closely.
Paradoxically, it is the Corporation of the City of London, steeped in ancient history, which has shown the way by the building of a modern refuse exit point at Cannon Street. So attractively is it built that people do not know that it is a refuse depot. From there, how-ever, rubbish from the Corporation of London area finds its way out to the lower reaches by a barge which carries 300 tons at one go. It would take 20 trucks—and 15-tonners at that—to take it by road through the congested streets of the City of London.
Another example is the rundown and the eventual selling-off of the stock owned by River Lighterage Limited. This concern used to be a partial subsidiary of the North Thames Gas Board, which held 50 per cent. of the shares. The Company was allowed to run down and was eventually sold. Today, over 200 tons of coal, which used to be transported by barge, is taken by road from Becton to Bromley gas works, causing congestion and havoc in that area. Seventy thousand tons of coal from Honnerton Tip to Hackney power Station now also go by road, taking 30 lorries per day on 60 trips to get through London's crowded streets.
The lighterage industry is particularly fitted to handle in large quantities meat and provisions such as butter and eggs from the Commonwealth and South American trade. In fact, in the pre-war years it handled the majority of these imports. I regret to have to report again that a considerable amount of this side of the industry's work has been lost to the
940
roads. I must say in all honesty that the trade has in many respects been rather slow to react to change.
For example, it is only recently that it has introduced refrigerated barges as opposed to insulated barges, although these now are appearing on the Thames in greater numbers. Refrigerated barges could so easily tie up with the refrigerated railway freight terminals. Barges also excel in the transport of bulk commodities, such as grain, sulphur, groundnuts, ballast, coal, oil and petroleum, and dangerous commodities such as acid and explosives.
I believe that, with the growth of containerisation, as it is called, the lighterage industry, if it wishes to adapt and change to modern conditions, could build lighters and barges which could take full advantage of Containers. Containers could be loaded directly into a barge. This requires considerable sums of money and a lot of investment.
In this respect, I should like to refer to a letter written by the Association of Master Lightermen and Barge Owners to the Transport and General Workers' Union and to the Watermen's Union in respect of investment grants. The background to this is that investment grants were recently withdrawn from this industry. The letter from the Association reads thus:
" As you will appreciate the Ministry of Transport's distinction is highly arbitrary and appears designed specifically to exclude normal lighterage Operations which must of course involve travelling from the Enclosed Docks to riverside destinations. It quite ignores the geography of the Port of London with its five docks and chain of river wharves. It seems incredible that we are regarded as an essential part of port Operations for the purposes of the Dock Labour Scheme but merely a competitive method of transport when Government grants are involved."
The effect of the withdrawal of investment grants will undoubtedly be to make the lighterage industry slow to respond to change, because, in my view, with the possible development in the next 20 to 50 years of the techniques of the hovercraft and hydrofoil, considerable sums of money will be needed for the lighterage industry to respond to modern needs. It could be said that, if it is intended to run down the lighterage industry, if it is intended to develop the lower reaches of the Thames and ignore the potentialities of some of the things which I have

941
been mentioning, clearly the withdrawl of investment grants makes sense; but, if not, it is nonsense.
Reference must be made also to the possibility of Thames barrier. There are differences in the industry as to how such a barrier would affect the commercial potentialities in the upper part of the stream. I think that a Thames barrier would help and not hinder the lighterage industry. I believe that the majority of people who reflect on this will come to the same conclusion. In fact, it would bring the waterman back into his own, because it would mean that, with hydro-foil and other forms of quick river transport, it would be possible, perhaps, to go quicker by river than by train or by road, so the waterman himself, apart from the lighterman, would come back into his own.
Even with a permanent Thames barrier, there are grounds for optimism in believing that the river could still be used by lighters carrying goods to various existing points at various parts of the Thames. In fact, in spite of the closure of the Brentford Dock, to which I have already referred, it is possible to build an exit point at the western end of the Thames.
The real and immediate problems of the Thames lighterage industry are those to which I shall now refer. The employers, if asked what they consider to be their immediate problems, will immediately answer that they are being asked to carry too many lightermen, that decasualisation has now brought a heavy responsibility upon every firm to employ an allocated number of men, and that already a number of small firms have been forced out of business or are on the verge of going out of business as a result of the heavy labour costs.
The trade union side mentions no figure of a possible reduction, but every-where in trade union documents and in the speeches of the General Secretary of the Watermen's Union and of officials of the Transport and General Workers' Union there is an awareness on this question of an overall figure satisfactory to the industry's needs. A figure of 1,500 has been mentioned by the Association of Master Lightermen as being an optimum figure in the 1970s. It is exceedingly difficult for somebody outside
942
the industry to come to any valid conclusion about the appropriate figure at which the industry could run with appropriate safeguards and while also being competitive. That is why I think that the responsibilities arising from decasualisation have shown up very sharply the decline of the industry.
However, it has not at the same time, in my view, shown up the potentialities of the industry. I am firmly of the opinion that there are too many lighterage firms and that, if it were possible to have bigger, and therefore fewer, Units, the units of production would be cheaper and they would be able to modernise and take advantage of the technical change which is, in any case, being forced upon the industry. In other words, I am saying that there are too many firms and that they must slim themselves down. There has already been a reduction to about 60 firms. The signs are that this trend will continue.
Left to themselves, the change will be too slow. If we really want to take effective action to stop further cargoes from going on to the roads, action must be taken now. That is why I should like to see the setting up of an inquiry— not a departmental inquiry, but an independent one; not an inquiry composed of both sides of industry—that produces too many compromises—but an independent inquiry to establish the rôle of the lighterage industry in terms of the next 70 years.
Such an inquiry could, at the same time, examine the present working arrangements and look at the question of labour allocation as well. In this latter category, it would to a certain extent duplicate some of the work of the Devlin Report, but that Report was concerned only with the labour side, and the inquiry for which I ask would be comprehensive. Eventually, the inquiry should make its recommendations to the Minister of Transport, who could then pass the recommendations to the projected port authority, whatever form that ultimately takes.
Speed is of the essence of the matter, because there is a great deal of uncertainty in the industry. On the one hand, there is talk of nationalisation. This term has come up several times in the discussions I have had with the master

943
lightermen and with the unions concerned. From my own knowledge of the industry, however, I think that the term "nationalisation" is misleading, because it implies a board with a chairman and a separate independent existence such as the established nationalised boards have. Nevertheless, the question of public ownership is clearly one which could fall within the terms of the inquiry. I am not a dogmatist in these matters. In my view, the criterion should be efficiency, and whether this particular industry is serving the port authority. Only an independent inquiry could establish the facts. It would be up to the port authority to decide how best to act on the report.
It could be that the port authority will in any case be given powers by the Minister to go into the lighterage industry, either in competition with the private sector or being given authority to assume a rôle as the lighterage operator in the Port of London. In my opinion, all these matters should be left to the independent inquiry to assess for the future.
The rundown of the lighterage industry is symptomatic of the rundown of the commercial use of the Thames and its under-utilisation as a whole. I have spoken of only one aspect, an aspect which I am particularly concerned, but it is only part of the picture. I hope that my hon. Friend, having heard my speech and my expression of the anxieties felt by both sides of the industry, will concede the establishment of an inquiry so that the industry may in the future make a contribution as unique and as important as it has done in the last 400 years.
4.33 p.m.
Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: I am glad that the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Alan Lee Williams) has raised this subject. Many of us who have been interested in the River Thames have for some years felt that it was rather sad to see the lighterage trade declining year by year. We have heard of the coke and coal of the North Thames Gas Board going by road instead of by water, and so on, and many of us have felt that this was a decline which we could do little to arrest, but to which more thought ought to be given. I am interested to see the Minister of State at the Ministry of Transport present today, and I hope that
944
he will have something enlightening to tell us.
As we stand on the Terrace and watch the lighters and barges going by, we probably give no more thought to them than we do to the buses passing over Westminster Bridge. Nevertheless, all the traffic going up and down the river every day, thousands of tons of it, is of great importance to the life of London as a whole, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to it. As he said, much of the traffic which used to go by river now goes by road because of the greater speed involved.
I was a director of a small Company in Middlesex on the Grand Union Canal which used timber supplies. More than once, we tried to bring our timber from the Port of London up to West Drayton by canal. There was not very much difference in the cost, but the difference in speed—by road only a few hours, and 24 hours, or a couple of days, by water—meant that the works people always said that they wanted it more rapidly and it was necessary to bring the timber by road. I am sure that the same must have happened in very many cases.
Thought is being given to these matters now. The hon. Gentleman was modest enough not to say that he has just been appointed Secretary of the all-party River Thames Parliamentary Group which has recently been formed, of which I have the honour to be Chairman and of which my hon. Friend the Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith) is a member.
The amount of passenger and goods traffic going by water a Century ago was phenomenal. One has only to look at the House of Commons Christmas card this year to see the craft which were on the Thames in those days—ferries, sailing craft, barges, rowing boats, skiffs and boats of all kinds. It is said that about 20 million people a year used the Thames in those days. There has been a long tradition in river traffic carried on by the Company of Watermen and Lightermen, the tradition of rowing races, Doggett's Coat and Badge, and so on. But this tradition is now dying, with the closing of Brentford Dock, and less traffic is being carried.

945
I have given much thought to the matter, and I can see no good Solution being brought about unless we look at the problem radically. What is the Thames? It is really a tidal creek, a very large and important tidal creek on which the docks of London were built many years ago. But what is happening now is that the important Port of London is moving downstream from the old St. Catharine's and Royal Docks area. The heavy traffic is moving to Tilbury. If one goes there now one can see, for example, a ship of 20,000 tons bringing timber from Canada, and one can appreciate the enormous size of modern tramp ships.
This movement of the Port of London downstream may give us an opportunity, not this year or next, but in due course, as the hon. Member hinted, to build a permanent barrage with locks below Woolwich, perhaps somewhere near Purfleet. I am not now referring to the movable flood barrier which we all hope that the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Greater London Council will bring in as a temporary measure to prevent the flooding of London. I am referring to permanent looks and a barrage somewhere down below the built-up area of London. This would stop the Thames being a tidal creek and make it what I would call a 24-hour river.
At present, lighters and barges can use the Thames outside Westminster for only about two hours either side of high title, that is, for about four hours of every tide of eight hours a day. Thus, the Thames is being used for only one-third of its capacity. If we had a permanent barrage with locks somewhere near Purfleet, we should have 30 miles of deep-water frontage, and we should have use of the River Thames for 24 hours a day, with deep water all the time. In those conditions, we could bring into use fast craft, sidewall hovercroft, and so on, running rapidly up and down the river and competing with road transport for both passengers and goods. There are markets on either side, Covent Garden Market, and so on, which could have access to the river.
It is always said that this sort of thing cannot be done, but I have seen two examples in the last year or two. In the United States, in Boston, I was Struck
946
by the beauty of the Charles River, where there is a barrage separating the docks of Boston from the city itself. One realises at once why Harvard University is so good at rowing—it has water to row on 24 hours a day, because there is no tide. The barrage has turned the Charles River into a very beautiful river for use at all times.
In France, there is the Rance barrage above St. Malo near Dinan, which is mainly an electricity barrage but which still keeps the water above the barrage permanently at a fairly high level. One possible Solution to the problem in the Thames would be a permanent barrage, and that is a matter which I would like an inquiry to consider.
Another possible but temporary Solution has been put to me recently. I put it forward only tentatively and the Ministry of Transport may be able to examine it. At Richmond, just below my constituency, there is a half lock on the River Thames by Richmond Bridge. When the tide is half down this half lock is brought into Operation and holds back the tide, preventing the River at Twickenham and Teddington from degenerating into a muddy stream. The river is made much more boatable, as it were, for sailing and boating craft on that part of the river.
The disadvantage of a half lock is that at a low State of the water it is a hindrance to navigation and the passenger craft from Westminster might not be able to get down to Greenwich for some part of the tide, but a half lock at London Bridge, for instance, would give a much greater height of water between Teddington and London Bridge than we now have at low tide, which is at least half of the day.
I do not want this lighterage traffic to be driven away altogether, but at its present rate of decline it looks as though that could happen. If it does, the streets will get even more congested with even more lorries carrying coal and oil, and so on, which is now carried on the river. It is a serious problem affecting what should be one of our chief communication arteries, 30 or 40 miles of river flowing through London.
I therefore add my voice to the demand for an inquiry into the short-term measures mentioned by the hon. Member for Hornchurch and the long-term measures

947
which I have mentioned, quite apart from the mobile barrage to deal with the possible flooding of London which should be separately inquired into.
4.43 p.m.
Mr. John Smith: The hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Alan Lee Williams), who is a Freeman of the City of London, as I am, has done the House a service by raising this matter and doing so in such a temperate and scholarly manner. It may be thought that the Thames lighterage industry is rather a narrow subject for the House to debate, especially coming immediately after our exchanges about South Africa; but, in fact, the industry illustrates in itself all this country's present ills, and can indeed even shed light on what we ought to do about our trade with South Africa.
It is an old industry with all the disadvantages of that. Many of our industries suffer from having been developed much earlier in this country than those of our modern competitors abroad, some of whom have the extra advantage over us that the arthritis and adhesions of the past, which we retain, have been cured for them by the surgery of war and defeat.
It is also a surprisingly large industry. There are perhaps 6,000 barges and similar craft engaged in the trade, carrying more than 10 million tons of cargo a year.
Those who wish to study this trade, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may do so very conveniently from the balcony of the Angel Inn, at Rotherhithe, from which, at high tide on a summer's evening, one of the noblest of all prospects of London can be gained; or from the Grapes Public House, at the corner of Ropemakers Fields between Wapping Old Stairs and Limehouse Pier. From either of those places at high tide you may observe the commerce of the world moving on the flood. Nearly half the tonnage of the Port of London is handled in barges and before the war it was very much more than that, nearly three-quarters. One would imagine that one was looking at the busiest port in the world, and that was so until after this recent war; but now, to our shame, and for reasons which we all know, it is the fifth port of the world.
948
The lighterage industry has suffered even more than the port. Being an old industry, it has suffered from technical progress in other directions—from bulk cargo ships, from palletised cargo ships, from new quays, from the development of Containers, which the Minister of Technology tells us he is pushing forward. Also, because it is old, it is divided into many firms, perhaps 50 or 60.
The hon. Member for Hornchurch mentioned the need for an inquiry, which I endorse, but I would like to see the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation, since we are, at any rate for the time being, saddled with that body, looking into the number of different firms, because it might be able to help the industry more quickly in that direction than could an inquiry.
The industry also suffers from the general conditions in the Port of London. It has lost much of its trans-shipment trade. The slowness, stoppages and consequent unreliability of the Port of London have driven many thousands of tons of this trade to Rotterdam; and many of those who have not been driven away are yet determined to warehouse their goods away from the river, inland out of the reach of the Dock Labour Scheme, which means that the goods have to go by lorry and not by barge. I hope that the Minister of State will take account of that.
The industry also suffers from its own wage structure and arrangements. Under the decasualisation scheme the industry has to employ 400 men, which is one in seven in the industry, for whom there is no work at all. These are good men who start as apprentices and who are members of a "blue" union, a colour which has no political connotation in the Port of London—it is a term of praise to be a member of a "blue" union—and these men are completely lost to the country. Is it sensible to keep them marking time like this when there is so much else which needs to be done? Moreover, keeping those men idle costs the industry £500,000 a year in their basic pay, stamps, and percentage paid to the Dock Labour Board, etc. It also costs the country that sum and more in trade lost as a result.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, there are not many of us here this afternoon, but

949
great issues are at stake. We debate here whether it is right or wrong to sell arms to South Africa; whether sanctions against Rhodesia are good or bad; whether prescription charges are desirable or undesirable. But we are like men arguing on a raft which is being swept out to sea. We are committing all over again, in a different context, the fatal errors of the 1930s. Then, hon. Members here argued—for example, on the Air Estimates—whether we should have four more squadrons or no more; while all the time unimaginable forces were being built up against us abroad.
In just the same way now, unimaginable commercial forces are being built up against us abroad; and we sit here, very often sniping or sneering at commerce, when what is most desperately wanted is commercial rearmament, just as much as we needed military rearmament in the 1930s. We do not now particularly admire those pipe-smoking Governments of the 1930s. Equally, our successors will not forgive us if we dally here complaining about being insulted abroad, discussing new ways of spending more money on ourselves, and generally treating industry as the Fat Boy of Britain, greedy and stupid and good for a little bullying.
We succeeded in the past because we were not ashamed of commerce, as were some other countries, such as Spain. The Thames lighterage industry is a good example of this. Now we are making tie same mistakes as those other countries made. We shall suffer the same eclipse, unless we encourage, respect and emulate those who create wealth. We can start now—and the hon. Member for Hornchurch has produced a splendid example of how we can do so in this debate—in the centre of the commercial capital of our country, by resolving to liberate the Thames lighterage industry from the burden of £500,000 a year which drives our trade away—the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation is the body to consider that—and also by sorting out the absurd, and humiliating, over-manning in the industry, which should be referred to the inquiry suggested by the hon. Gentleman.
4.54 p.m.
Sir Douglas Glover: We are all grateful to the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Alan Lee Williams) for
950
initiating the debate. Hon. Members on this side of the House seem to outnumber hon. Members opposite by about three to one in showing their interest in Old Father Thames and the problem of the watermen and lightermen. The hon. Gentleman's historical references were very interesting. All of us have great pride in the way the River Thames used to be the great artery running through all our major affairs. I suppose that if the watermen still held their pride of place this side of the House would be moving a Motion that the Prime Minister be taken to Traitors' Gate at the Tower of London by water tonight, because so many great events have taken place on that Stretch of water.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith) was right to say that our pride in our nation and our history could have an enormous boost from the debate. All of us want the Thames to be a flourishing waterway and the Port of London to be the first port in the world once again. I think that we could make it so. But I am not certain that the hon. Gentleman was right to say that we need an inquiry into the lighterage industry. Perhaps it would be a good thing, but I wonder if he would be prepared for the inquiry to say, for example, that the free water clause should go.
That would be only too likely if there were an inquiry into this ancient and honourable industry, for how can one find the commercial value of an activity when a great many of the things involved in it are free? For example, I understand that all the locks must be opened for the lightermen at no charge, and that they have free entry to the docks at any time. I accept the problem of a tidal river, but those factors, whilst perhaps increasing the lightermen's ability to carry out their job, mean that costs are incurred which are not paid for by the lighterage Community. If that is so, an inquiry might find that there should be an increase in the lightermen's charges to cover those costs incurred by the Port of London Authority.
Similarly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster said, an inquiry would have to go into the question of over-manning. The hon. Gentleman said that he did not want an inquiry composed of the owners and

951
the workers, which I thought showed great courage on his part, connected as he is with the industry. That appears to mean that he wants the inquiry to produce the right answer on the industry's future working. After decasualisation, any inquiry is bound to say that without the casual dement the industry should work with a smaller number on its payroll. I am not sufficient of an expert to know whether the reduction would be 300, 400 or 500, but such a drop would do a great deal to make the industry more efficient, while still carrying out the same Jobs, and would make a substantial difference to the on-cost of transporting goods.
It would make us that much more competitive, and if we were, the transhipment of goods might begin to drift back to the Thames from Rotterdam. I understand that Rotterdam is beginning to encounter problems, as all new developments are bound to do, which are taking a bit of the cream off the top of the milk there. There is a to-ing and fro-ing in tidal industries connected with the sea, and it may be that the Port of London, with the experience gained by Rotterdam, could now so modernise its labour force that we could regain a good deal of the traffic we have lost.
I think that the lighterage industry on the River Thames carries 10 million tons of merchandise every year. I do not speak as one involved in the industry, but my impression is that the river's traffic-carrying capacity could be doubled or trebled as a result of the suggestions put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke).
When I go to Venice, and see the vaporetti carrying passengers, it astonishes me that far more people are not carried in London by water. People in Venice are whisked about by the vaporetti. Many of these motorboats go very fast and they could on the Thames provide an equally rapid Service from Governmental palaces in Whitehall to the city temples of iniquity. There is an enormous amount of to-ing and fro-ing between the City and Whitehall and the speed with which people would be able to get from Whitehall to the City by a modern system of motor launches would be much better than by motor traction, despite all the
952
improvements brought about by successive Ministers of Transport and the City of London.
The hon. Gentleman began by talking about the watermen going on strike or creating a hullaballoo because of the advent of hackney carriages. Everything in this world goes full circle. If the hon. Gentleman studies the Order Paper, he will see that part of our business for later today is the London Cab Bill. That Bill is about the London hackney carriage driver trying to get some protection against a new form of competition and I suppose that this inevitably is how life goes on.
The watermen, rightly, lost their battle against the advent of the hackney carriage; the hackney carriage today is having to come to an accommodation with the hire car. What we are trying to do, as did our predecessors 300 years ago, is, as it were, to soften the blow and give justice to both sides. But inevitably, when society changes, the answer is often that something has to go.
Most of the watermen in passenger transport went out of business. Now, I think, there is an opportunity for some of that business to come back. I am sure that there is room now for a great deal more water traffic to ease the congestion in our river. A really good motor launch service could be provided as though the Thames were a trunk route.
I would like an inquiry, but I think that the hon. Gentleman must realise that, out of it, might come a lot of answers which both sides of the lighterage industry would find unpalatable. But if they did accept genuine modernisation of the trade, then they could do a great deal to tackle, in one small sector, the problems which confront this country.
5.3 p.m.
Mr. Patrick Jenkiu (Wanstead and Woodford): I am sure that the whole House is grateful to the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Alan Lee Williams) for having chosen this subject for the debate, and I add my congratulations to those of my hon. Friends to him for having opened the debate in the manner he did. I am sure that he will forgive me if I use the occasion more as a vehicle for airing some of the problems with which the industry is undoubtedly confronted rather than perhaps for endorsing

953
too wholeheartedly his specific proposal for an inquiry.
I see the case which the hon. Member made but, on the whole, I believe that the existing machinery, such as the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith), ought to be sufficient for dealing with the problems. However, there is an essential proviso— that the Government should be prepared for their part to approach the problems with sympathy and imagination.
No one who has given attention to this industry or studied it in detail can fail to be impressed by the enormously important role which the Thames lighterage industry has fulfilled over the centuries, as the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, in the Operations of the Port of London and by the great contribution it has made to the development and growth of this mighty port.
The use of lighters is vastly greater in London than in almost any other port in Britain. It arises directly out of the geographical features of the Thames. The Port of London Jurisdiction runs for 69 miles of the Thames from Teddington to the Nore, and much of the river is lined on both sides with wharves operated by wharfingers, warehousemen and industries of all sorts. These wharves cannot for the most part be served by ocean-going ships. Their only link with the world outside is via the lighterage trade.
These riverside wharves, although I accept entirely what the hon. Gentleman said about the decline in their use, still play a very important part in the trade of the Port of London and will continue to do so for many years. This will undoubtedly create a need for a lighterage Service in the port for as long ahead as can be Seen. Many of the industries on the Thames are served and will be served, many cargoes will continue to be handled and many factories will have access to the Port of London only via these riverside wharves. That fact is not, I believe, disputed by anyone.
The lighters also have another very important function in the overside trade within the enclosed docks. The ability to load and unload a ship from both sides instead of merely the side on which she is tied up allows the loading and unload-
954
ing to be carried out much more rapidly and thus saves on demurrage charges.
Lighters also give access to the waters further inland and I listened with interest to what the hon. Gentleman had to say about the closure of Brentford Docks. The River Lea navigation via Barking Creek, somewhat nearer to my constituency, is still important and one hopes to see this developed over the next few years so that it can play a major part in bringing the hinterland into contact with the Port of London.
But all this depends on the existence of an efficient, economic, flexible and versatile lighterage industry which performs a Service for the other users of the docks. This was a point made by Mr. Henman —as he then was—Chairman of the Transport Development Group, in a lecture to the Institute of Transport more than ten years ago. He said:
" Lighterage in London is a ' tailor-made ' Service to meet a variety of conditions rather than a standardised organisation where uniformity is the order of the day."
The hon. Member has drawn attention to the decline in the use of lighters and perhaps I may be forgiven for mentioning one or two more figures. In 1957 there were some 6,600 dumb lighters— lighters which are not self-propelled—in use in London. By this year, the number had fallen to about 4,500, a decline of over 30 per cent. in only ten years. The traffic figures—goods handled by lighters —show that the bulk of the decline has occurred in recent years.
Figures which are provided by a firm of chartered accountants for the Association of Master Lightermen and Barge Owners show that whereas in 1963 the Association members, who account for the great bulk of the traffic handled by the lighterage industry, accounted for about 13 million tons, by 1966 this figure had fallen to 9| million tons, a decline of 27 per cent. in only three years. Therefore we are talking, as one of my hon. Friends has pointed out, about a very familiar subject, a declining industry.
It is not difficult to look for reasons for this. New techniques in the handling of goods have made great advances, and rightly so, in recent years. One can instance the new bulk sugar handling berth at Woolwich operated by Messrs. Tate and Lyle. That put out of business

955
a substantial part of the lighterage trade. The Port of London Authority's Annual Report this year contains a picture of the new Tilbury Dock, No. 34, for handling timber in packages—again, a major development, which is bound to reduce the dependence of the timber trade on lighterage.
It is interesting in this context to compare what was being said only five years ago by the Rochdale Committee when it reported in September, 1962, because it referred to the problems of the timber trade, in particular in relation to the Surrey timber docks. It had this to say in paragraph 510:
" It is clear, therefore, that adequate Provision of lighters is one of the chief Problems. We understand that at peak periods congestion in the Docks can be seriously aggravated by a shortage of lighters, one result of which is that ships wishing to discharge overside into barge cannot do so."
I doubt whether the Committee would write the same paragraph today. There may indeed be an occasional problem of congestion in the Surrey Docks, but the developments at Tilbury and elsewhere make it clear that technical progress is in fact rapidly overtaking the proposition to which the Rochdale Committee there committed itself.
Then, of course, there is the Container traffic, which is now having what one can only describe as an explosive boom. This is being assisted, rightly, by the development of Tilbury as a Container port in conjunction with the inland Container facilities, the freight liner trains, and so on. All these represent a significant advance in handling, significant improvements in productivity, and are, therefore, to be welcomed, but they inevitably displace, where it was relevant, the lighterage trade, which, whatever its advantages, whatever benefits it conferred, undoubtedly always involved a measure of double handling.
In spite of these, my studies lead me to the conclusion that there will be a place for lighterage as far ahead as can be foreseen. We shall never see it in London as it is in the north-west Continental ports. Rotterdam, Antwerp, and other ports of north-west Europe stand at the opening of a vast System of internal navigable waterways, rivers and canals, which a country of this size can
956
never hope to match simply because it is not endowed with natural resources of that sort. But still the London lighterage trade will be very substantial, and it will continue for many years to offer employment to many hundreds of water-men and it will, undoubtedly, handle millions of tons of goods. Therefore, I maintain, and I repeat, that it is essential that the trade should be as efficient and economical as it is possible to make it.
I should like to raise two specific points, and we should be grateful to the Minister of State if he would deal with them in his reply. The hon. Member for Hornchurch has already drawn attention to the decline in manpower in the industry, and we are facing here many of the familiar problems of redeployment, but the problem—my hon. Friend the Member for the Cities of London and Westminster brought this out very clearly— is that manpower has not declined in parallel with the decline in traffic. I mentioned a few moments ago that tonnage had declined in three years by 27 per cent. During that period, in December, 1963, the number of men on the live lighterage register was 3,327; in December, 1966, it was 2,915, which is a decline of only 12 per cent., less than half the rate of decline in tonnage.
The number which the Lighterage Association now needs is probably below 2,500 men, which means that there are between 350 and 400 men too many on the lighterage register. This is a serious matter because it is imposing additional costs on the lighterage firms and, therefore, adding to the problems of the industry in its efforts to try to retain traffic in competition with other firms.
Decasualisation has undoubtedly brought this matter to a head. I think it is right to point out—what the hon. Member for Hornchurch, perhaps due to pressure of time, did not entirely make clear—that there has always been in the lighterage trade a vastly higher Proportion of men who have been on regular employment, who have been weekly employees of the firms, or alternatively more or less permanently attached to the individual firms, than has been the case with employment in the docks industry as a whole.

957
It is very clearly brought out in the Devlin Report in paragraph 160:
" The organisation of labour in the lighterage industry is very different from that in the port generally. 807 men, including all the tug crews, are weekly employees. The great majority of the remainder, although theoretically on a daily basis, are ' attached' to particular employers. There are only about 200 unattached men. Thus about 90 per Cent, of the labour force is regularly employed."
This means that the effects of decasualisation were substantially different from those which applied to other port employees.
However, as the lighterage trade has declined so has the need for manpower, and on decasualisation there was a considerable surplus which, of course, under the decasualisation rules had to be absorbed, and it has represented a substantial and immediate additional cost which the firms themselves must now meet. The figure which my hon. Friend put on this, of £500,000 does not seem to me to be in any way an exaggeration.
I think it is right to point out that the leaders of the two unions involved do not seriously dispute this question. They may have other solutions to put forward, but this is generally agreed in the industry. But there is as yet no agreement as to how it should be resolved. The Minister of State will know that last month the deputation which waited on his right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour put these problems before him very fairly and fully, but the Association is still waiting for some indication of how the Ministry feels it can help.
For myself, I believe that the problem here is probably one of earlier retirement. This is hard, heavy work. The retirement age has only recently been brought to 65, and indeed, there are many men who have not exercised the Option to retire at 65, and it would seem in these circumstances that there would be room for streamlining, by giving inducements —and there must, of course, be inducements—to the older men to retire and so make it easier to provide continued employment for those who still have work in this industry for many years to come.
May I mention under this head of man power problems one special problem. The Government chose for decasualisation day—D-day one might describe it—18th
958
September. This was opposed by the port employers' association because it had not finalised its agreements with the unions on many of the ancillary problems which decasualisation was undoubtedly going to involve. There was no agreement yet as to what was to happen in the event of severance, or redundancy, and, in particular, no agreement about what was to happen to men who became allocated to particular employers and might find themselves with no work due to strikes in other parts of the port industry. A provisional agreement, which has not yet been signed, and has not been agreed by both sides, would allow for Suspension of men in this case after one week. In the first week they would be paid by their employer, but after a week they would be regarded as falling within the National Insurance Scheme.
A difficulty which arises is that for some reason, registered port workers are not entitled to the normal unemployment benefit under the National Insurance scheme. Therefore, one well understands why the trade unions have regarded that as a thoroughly unacceptable clause in the agreement. Nevertheless, this is something which must be dealt with.
During the recent dock strike, for example, by the end of the strike on 27th November, nearly one-half of the employees in the lighterage industry—about 1,300—were without work due to the strike. Under the decasualisation scheme, they were having to be paid the basic pay attributable to such workers—about £19 a week. It is quite impossible to expect firms which already have difficulty in keeping themselves afloat to face that additional cost due to factors entirely outside their control, namely, the unofficial strike in the docks. This was a cost which was crippling the industry. Reluctantly, one must face the possibility that that might happen again. The Government have a direct responsibility to act in this matter. It must be dealt with as one of urgency.
Over the years, there has been a deteriorating trend in the profits of the lighterage business and a number of firms, as, I believe, the Government accept, are making losses on this part of their trade. The Government have introduced decasualisation, which was welcomed on all sides of the industry, and certainly on

959
both sides of the House, but the industry is entitled to the Government's help in trying to solve some of the consequential Problems of which this is certainly one.
The second topic which I should like to air is what I can only describe as the shabby treatment meted out to the industry under the Industrial Development Act, because it is not now entitled to Investment grants although it was entitled to investment allowances under the preceding legislation.
Again, Mr. Henman in his paper drew attention to one of the problems of the industry: namely, that the barges have a very long life, but, at the same time, their capital cost has increased substantially. In the period which he was considering, it was an increase of over five times.
Mr. Alan Lee Williams: If I may emphasise the important point which the hon. Member is making, it is estimated that the present capital cost of the fleet afloat, barges and lighters, costed on prewar prices, would be about £7 million. the same fleet today would cost £35 million.
Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his intervention. It accords closely with the figure which Mr. Henman mentioned of approximately a five-fold increase. That is certainly true. It is a problem of management accounting to make sure that the rates charged for the use of lighters reflect in some measure their replacement costs.
When writing in 1957, however, Mr. Henman went on to point out that the problem had been recognised by the Government. He wrote:
" The depth of the problem has been recognised by the Government in so far as a lighter is treated as a ship and an investment allowance of 40 per cent. is given by the Inland Revenue authorities in respect of purchases of new craft."
Since then, there has been additional help in the form of free depreciation. On 16th January, investment allowances were abolished and we subsequently learned that there were to be no grants for vessels of that sort. The grants were limited under the Act to self-propelled vessels or vessels of over 100 tons.
In Committee on the Industrial Development Bill, my right hon. Friend
960
the Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble; moved two Amendments, one of which was to reduce the tonnage figure from 100 to 20 tons. That was opposed by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), then President of the Board of Trade, in Standing Committee on 21sl June, 1966, when the right hon. Gentleman said—I quote the passage because it is relevant in this matter:
" When we come to shipping we are in the difficulty that the overseas shipping industry, the foreign-going ships, are clearly making, as we all know, an exceedingly valuable contribution to the balance of payments, whereas on the other hand purely internal transport, coastal transport, although valuable in many ways, is preponderantly in competition with other forms of internal transport which are not getting the grant.
Therefore, we are bound to draw a distinction somewhere between those ships preponderantly in use in coastal, or in effect internal, transport, and ocean-going ships."
That argument entirely misses the point of the lighterage industry in a port such as London. For the most part, it is not in competition with internal transport. It is an inevitable and necessary extension of the ocean-going freight business, which, the Government clearly recognised, should continue to qualify for grant. In many cases, the goods simply cannot reach the shore without the use of the lighterage industry.
The second Amendment was to omit "self-propelled", as a result of which dumb barges would qualify for grants. Again, the right hon. Member for Battersea, North rejected the Amendment. He said:
" The issue is the same as on the previous Amendment. As we are going to exclude internal transport entirely whether by road, rail or other method from the payment of these grants, it would be extremely difficult to include barges which are almost wholly used for what is in effect internal transport, and not for the carriage of goods overseas. It may well be that those responsible for supplying barge Services or lighterage Services may feel they ought to have a claim to be classed as ships."
I would only comment that they do indeed.
" On the other hand, if we exclude road and rail transport, and then give grants to barges which might in many cases be in direct competition, there would be a justifiable grievance which could be put forward by the other means of internal transport."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 21st June, 1966; c. 284–5, 287–8.]
That, again, entirely misses the point. The barges are not in this context in

961
competition with road and rail. They are in a special and unique category, an essential adjunct of the ocean-going function which the Port of London exists to serve.
I entirely concede that grants for this purpose are outside the terms of the Act, but I would like the Minister of State to consult his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to see whether this is a matter which could be referred to the Board of Trade's Advisory Committee set up under the Industrial Development Act to see whether it would not be appropriate that that matter should be looked at again. It could be dealt with simply. A short Clause in next year's Finance Bill could deal with the matter shortly and simply and bring these barges, which perform this important function in the Port of London, within the investment grant System. They used to get the investment allowances. They no longer get the grant. This is a special problem of a rather narrow and specific nature, but it is one in which the responsibility rests firmly on the Government.
Finally, may I mention a special point under this head?
When the White Paper "Investment Incentives", Cmnd. 2874, was published, it contained a reference to ships and it was indicated in paragraph 18(6) that
" certain types of asset including ships and Computer? will receive special treatment on the lines indicated in paragraphs 29–35."
Paragraph 29 stated:
" Ships. Special arrangements were made in the Finance Act 1965 in order to made the needs of the shipping industry "—
that included these barges;
" in addition to the 40 per cent. rate of investment allowance already in force, free depreciation was also made available. Free depreciation will continue and new ships will also he eligible for grants at the national rate of 20 per cent. in place of investment allowances."
The dismay can be imagined with which, four months later, when the Bill was issued on 4th May, the industry discovered that a wholly new definition of ships was introduced for the first time and that the definition which the industry had thought would continue to apply, as had been applied by the Inland Revenue over the years, was no longer applicable
962
and that barges such as we are discussing this afternoon would not be eligible for grants.
This was taken up with the Treasury, and the Chief Secretary, in a letter dated 29th September, 1967, dealt with the argument in these words:
"The Inland Revenue tell me that as a general rule they do not regard barges and lighters as ships unless they are self-propelled, but, in the case of such vessels used on the Thames and registered under the Merchant Shipping Acts, these have been regarded by a generous Interpretation of the statutory language as ships. The White Paper contained, as you will appreciate, only a general outline of the new grant scheme, but it made it clear that the scope of the new System would be, quite deliberately, less wide than that of investment allowances, and in view of this it was perhaps unfortunate that your members did not consider it prudent to defer their investment decisions until the full details of the scheme were published in the Bill."
I suggest that that is an outrageous letter from the Chief Secretary to have sent. There was nothing in the White Paper to indicate that the definition of "ships" was to be different under the new scheme from that under the old. It is a fact that some firms continued to order new barges since 16th January, 1966, and before the Bill was published, and their legitimate expectations were defeated.
The Government have power to do justice, not under the Industrial Development Act, but under the Harbours Act, 1964, and the Docks and Harbours Act, 1966. The Minister knows that his right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has power to make grants towards the expense of carrying out harbour Operations, and, by Section 57 of the 1964 Act, "harbour Operations" include lighterage. The power is there. The limitations which the hon. Member for Hornchurch detailed to the House in his opening speech on the Operation of those powers to make grants, which are not powers of the Board of Trade but the Ministry of Transport, are entirely self-imposed. There are no restrictions in the Acts such as the hon. Member read out. We have here a case of substantial hard-ship. These firms were misled by the Government. While I accept that there is no power to make grants under the Industrial Development Act, 1966, as drafted, there is power under the Docks and Harbours Act, and it is my contention that it ought to be used.

963
In conclusion, this is a traditional craft with a long and proud history, and lightermen are rightly jealous of their skills and reputation. Conditions on the river are changing fast. New techniques and a new era in labour relations are bringing their consequences. Yet all agree that the lighterage industry will continue to play a vital part in the Operation of the Port of London for many years to come. But, to succeed, it must have guidance and encouragement and sympathetic understanding from the Government. While men and managers are rightly imbued with the spirit of drama and romance even which has always surrounded Operations on this great tideway, there is widespread acknowledgment of what has to be done to modernise this industry. Indeed, there is a recognition that the industry must do more than react to change. It must foster and promote it. This is a three-way partnership: the Government, the firms and the unions. I hope that the Minister in reply will demonstrate clearly and equivocally, by actions as well as by words, that the Government are now ready and willing to play their part in the future development of what is, by any Standards, a crucially important link with the nation's lifeline.
5.34 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): I
congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Alan Lee Williams) on taking the initiative in selecting the under-utilisation of the River Thames as a subject for debate today. I wish more power to the elbows of those who foregather here on an all-party basis to stimulate greater and wider interest in the use of the Thames. I hope that makes plain my sympathy with the Motion and some of the issues to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention.
The Government are seriously concerned about the problems of the lighterage industry and its prospects for the future. Our attention was drawn to them very vividly by the inspector, Mr. Gilbert Williams, who held the inquiry into licensing appeals in London, and also in discussions which were held subsequently by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour with all parties concerned.
964
Many facts have been given. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch sketched, in a romantic way, some of the past history of the lighters on the Thames, and other hon. Members have added facts and figures about recent times.
The hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) drew attention to the serious fact that in the last three or four years the tonnage carried by lighters in London has declined by about 27 per cent. from a figure of some 13 million tons to 9½ million tons. There has, of course, been an additional Sharp setback during the temporary disruption of the London Docks by unofficial action. As he and other hon. Members mentioned, the decline in the number of lightermen in that same period has been comparatively small. It has not marched in step with the decline in trade. Therefore, as hon. Members have said, there could well be a surplus of men in the industry even when trade recovers fully from the recent stoppage. This is a matter which is being considered urgently by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour.
The hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith) drew attention to the problem of overmanning. We all knew that this was a matter that had to be gone into on the morrow of decasualisation and had to be discussed chiefly between the Government, the employers, the Port of London Authority and the unions concerned. That was why my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour immediately invited both sides of industry to put forward their proposals for the future on the basis that the decasualisation scheme was being carried through. That is why serious discussions on these matters are continuing under my right hon. Friend's authority.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and others were rightly concerned about the nature and causes of the decline in the lighterage trade. The root cause is that major changes, which have been mentioned, are taking place in cargo handling, in shipping and in the economics of transport which make it uneconomic to use lighters for some of their traditional trades. Sugar was mentioned. Sugar used to be a substantial trade, but,

965
since the opening of the new bulk handling at Silvertown, much of this trade has disappeared.
Similarly, the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford mentioned timber. The timber carried in lighters is now decreasing rapidly because of the development of packaged timber, handled direct over the new specialised quays at Tilbury, in place of the traditional loose timber handled largely in the Surrey Docks overside to barges. Less oil, coal and grain are carried in dumb barges as a result of modern technological developments, and on the inland waterways, as we have known for some time, traffic has been declining.
These are some of the technical changes. In other respects economics have been the determining feature. The plain fact is that there are many respects, and we had better face it, in which lighterage no longer fits the requirements of transport in modern times. But this does not mean that the river need lose its importance. There have been a number of developments in favour of the use of the river: the larger self-propelled oil barges, which are increasingly coming into use, is one instance, and the development for the Port of London Authority of a new "pusher" tug, which will push instead of pulling their 1,000 ton spoil barges for disposal of dredged material, is another example. I understand that if this experiment is successful, the idea that well catch on. A pushed barge is locked to its tug, and is more easily manœuvred in a narrow space than a pulled barge.
Looking further ahead, another development is in sight which could have considerable implications for River Thames traffic. I am referring to the so-called "Lighter Aboard Ship" System, known as LASH. Lighters are lifted bodily out of the water into a ship which carries them across the ocean. This System is already in an advanced State of development by American shipping companies, but I cannot yet say whether so-called LASH ships are likely to prove economic in British waters.
Meanwhile, the Port of London Authority is alive to the need for improvements in facilities where these will clearly show an economic return. Indeed, ii has recently reconditioned the barge entrance to the Royal Docks at a cost of
966
about £1·9 million. This enables lighters to avoid 3½ miles of river navigation, and is now used by nearly 500 barges per week. Measures such as this are some-times overlooked when criticism is levelled from some quarters that the Port Authority is not being helpful to the future of the lighterage trade.
The Freight Group of the Transport Co-ordinating Council for London is currency devoting much of its attention to ways in which better use can be made of the river for transport purposes, and I am sure that its studies, made in Cooperation with the P.L.A. and the local authorities concerned, including the G.L.C., will ensure that no practical and economic proposals are overlooked.
My hon. Friend recalled the story of the Brentford Dock. I do not propose to go into the history of that. It was something in which the Government had no Standing. It was a matter between British Railways management, the G.L.C., and the local Council. I hope that all those who are concerned in stimulating use of the river in this way will not forget the other Brentford dock, that of the British Waterways Board. Though the width of its lock precludes the acceptance of the biggest craft on the river, it can, nevertheless, take barges of up to 175 tons and provide them with an excellent cargo handling service.
I would like to take this opportunity of especially welcoming the development by the British Waterways Board of its new export barge trans-shipment service, which enables goods brought to West London by lorry to be taken direct to the docks by barge from Brentford. I hope that all those who are concerned with stimulating this development will draw attention to the fact that there is spare capacity and potential for development there.
I would like, now, to come to that part of my hon. Friend's speech in which he dealt with the future reorganisation of the lighterage industry in the context of the proposals for the ports put forward by the Government. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) is now in the Chamber. I was about to mention that the Mikardo Report on the port transport industry drew attention to the present inefficient Organisation of lighterage and gave a graphic description of the failure of the

967
management side to co-operate in giving the service required.
For instance, it is possible for empty barges belonging to various companies to be waiting at the side of a ship for the chance to unload cargo which is stowed low in the hold, while the Company which is supposed to be loading the upper layer of cargo is unable to supply the barges to start the work. Meanwhile, the ship, the gangs of dockers, and the road and rail connections have to wait. Here is a prime example of inefficiency resulting from the fragmentation of management in the ports, the sort of thing with which we have to grapple.
The Watermen, Lightermen, Tugmen and Bargemen's Union has also drawn attention to this kind of inefficiency, and this kind of problem. The union wishes to see a flourishing lighterage industry on the Thames, and it advocates the extension of public ownership, not in a doctrinaire spirit, but because it feels that in the interests of its members it must have a stronger and more cohesive management capable of giving lighters a fair share of the trade on the river.
Mr. John Smith: Does it also say that decasualisation was supposed to be accompanied by the removal of restrictive practices, that is to say Category A and B practices, and how much progress has been made with this?
Mr. Swingler: I referred to that earlier. We know that arising out of the achievement of decasualisation negotiations have to take place between the managers and the organised workers throughout the London docks, under the authority of the Government, to achieve the removal of restrictive practices, and to achieve proper manning scales. These are the discussions which I said are going forward under the authority of my right hon Friend the Minister of Labour. We accept that the case for reorganisation is a strong one. Nevertheless, I must point out that there are certain complications which make it necessary for a thorough review to be carried out before reorganisation can take place. This is the sort of review which we believe must be undertaken by the port management.
The problems arise from the fact that lighterage is not merely a port service but merges on the one side into the in-
968
land waterway System and on the other into the maritime transport System. It is not our intention that under public ownership the port authorities should run either of these two Systems. Even within the Port of London we find some lighterage using the river as a highway, but not using the port—for example, barges which collect ash from power stations and dump it. There are, too, examples of "single-user" lighterage integrated into the processes of, let us say, an oil Company, or some other concern. The functions and ownership of lighterage on the Thames are complex in their pattern. Certain lighterage firms are connected with shipping, and, in particular, with towage of various sorts—sea-going tugs as well as the craft tugs which are used for moving lighters.
I know that some of my hon. Friends have expressed concern that we did not propose at the outset that lighterage should be taken over in the scheme for public ownership of the ports. I have quoted those examples in reply to my hon. Friend to explain why, in the Government's working document on the reorganisation of the ports—our provisional proposals issued in July as a basis for discussion—envisaged that lighterage and towage would not, at the outset, be taken over, but that a duty would be put on the port authority to review the position of the lighterage and towage industries, and to put forward schemes where they see these as necessary to integrate their Operations for the purpose of raising the efficiency of the ports.
My hon. Friend and other hon. Members know that consultations on this document are still proceeding, and that it will be impossible for the Government to reach a decision on this and other points until all the interested parties have had their say. From my experience of the consultations, I believe that on all sides there is a genuine desire to find a Solution to these problems, and one that will bring into being more cohesive management and public responsibility for port management in the interests of the future economic well-being of the country.
Because of these consultations, and because we believe that the port authorities themselves ought to exercise initiative in this matter, I cannot here and now undertake that an independent inquiry of

969
the kind suggested by my hon. Friend will be established to go into the future of the lighterage industry. But I should like to assure hon. Members who have supported the case put forward in the Motion for such an independent inquiry that we are prepared to consider this matter in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, because we recognise the strength of my hon. Friend's case.
The hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford raised the question of grants. I know that he will agree that in any scheme of grants put forward where definitions are required—whether concerning the functions and use of a certain grant, or based on a certain cut-off point in relation to weight—there may be what some people regard as anomalies and special cases which ought to be considered.
In relation to the hon. Member's question about port modernisation grants, for which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport is responsible, it was with reluctance that we came to the conclusion that the primary function of the sort of craft that we have been discussing this evening is to transport goods to and from ships; these craft are not a part of what we should define as a port handling Operation, and therefore we should not make port modernisation grants available.
The wider question raised by the hon. member—whether transport within the United Kingdom should qualify for Investment incentives—was considered by Her Majesty's Government before the White Paper on investment incentives was published in January of last year. The Government, for reasons that were not only fully set out but thoroughly debated —as the hon. Member showed from his speech—decided not to give incentive grants to the service industries. This is still the position, though I shall naturally draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to the grievances which the hon. Member expressed about the way in which this grant System is working.
Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Adverting to the powers of the Minister of Transport to make grants under the Harbours Act, 1964, did I understand the Minister of State to say that, albeit reluctantly, the
970
Ministry had come to the conclusion that there could be no grants under that Act for lighterage? If so, what was the purpose of including in the 1964 Act—and picking it up without amendment in the 1966 Act as one of the subjects which would qualify for grant—lighterage, or the handling of goods in harbour?
Mr. Swingler: I am not saying that under no circumstances can it be considered; I am speaking now of the administrative application of the provisions included in those Statutes and saying that up to now, in relation to the position of the lighterage industry and the sort of schemes being talked of, we had reluctantly come to the conclusion that they do not come under the heading of port modernisation or port handling Operations, as they should be defined, because of the nature of the craft being used and the function which they are fulfilling. Nevertheless, arising from the point made by the hon. Member, I am prepared to consider the matter again in regard to our interpretation of our obligations and responsibilities, and to discuss it with those specifically concerned in the trade, as well as to draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to the matters that concern him under the scheme of investment grants.
We are therefore sympathetic to my hon. Friend's desire and the desire expressed by other hon. Members to see the maximum use made of the River Thames, and to grapple with the serious Problems that undoubtedly confront the lighterage trade on account of technical and economic developments. But in considering them it is no good burying our heads in the sand.
As we are on the eve of the Second Reading debate on the Transport Bill, I should mention that we are bringing forward certain proposals for a further taxing of heavy lorries, because we consider that the economic weightings between the various modes of transport may not be as efficient or as just as they should be. Bearing in mind that heavy lorries will have to pay extra because of their wear and tear on the roads, those who consider that road transport has so far been having an unfair advantage may agree that we have done something in the Bill to redress the balance, in the

971
interests of those who are advocating a greater use of the river.
Nevertheless, I agree that it would be wrong for us merely to set out to prop up a form of transport in circumstances where its continued use would be inimical to the full development of modern means of goods handling, on which the ultimate prosperity and efficiency of our ports depend. We must all see that developments in lighterage are in line with efficient cargo handling developments which are now expanding throughout our ports. I believe that the proposals for ports reorganisation, which we are now discussing with all concerned, will contribute towards this end. We shall consider carefully any other proposals put forward in the course of this interesting debate.
Mr. Alan Lee Williams: Owing to the reasonably satisfactory reply of my hon. Friend, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

UNEMPLOYMENT (DEVELOPMENT AREAS)
5.57 p.m.
Dr. John Dunwoody (Falmouth and Camborne): I beg to move.
That this House expresses its concern at the high unemployment rates to be found in the development areas; and, while welcoming those Government actions which have stimulated the economy of the regions, calls, as a matter of urgency, for further measures to attract new industries and to raise social and economic Standards as well as employment levels to at least the national average.
Unemployment is a social Cancer. It is evil, not just for the individual who is out of work but for the Community, especially when the unemployment level rises to a high figure. It is an evil on which can grow despondency, disillusion, and social disruption, and from which, all too often, come delinquency and crime. It is a cause of much misery today— misery that is concentrated in certain areas.
I am concerned about the problem of unemployment at a national level, but my main concern this evening is with the development areas—those parts of the country that we recognise to be facing
972
serious economic problems, often of long Standing; parts of our country that also have to put up with higher rates of unemployment than the country as a whole.
I want to quote figures for the last two months to demonstrate this. In October, unemployment over the whole country was 2·4 per cent. In November, it was 2·5 per cent. Taking the development areas as a whole we find that for those two months the respective figures were 4 per cent. and 4·1 per cent. Indeed, in relation to some of the more difficult development areas—and undoubtedly in parts of other development areas; because in the bigger development areas these figures do not demonstrate the variations from place to place very well —there was an even greater gap between the average and the average for the whole country. The South-West Development Area—a part of which I have the honour to represent—had an October unemployment rate of 4·8 per cent., which rose in November to 5·7 per cent.
At the same time, if we look around one or two of the big cities outside the development areas we see a different picture. In October, unemployment in London was 1·2 per cent., in Birmingham and Manchester 2·2 per cent., in Sheffield 2·1 per cent. and in Leeds 1·9 per cent. These figures are not only much below those in any development areas but are also well below the national average, which underlines the problem which I hope to describe.
But, as I said, these figures conceal the variations which exist in the bigger development areas. This is probably particularly true of the Northern development area and of the Welsh and Scottish development areas. Even so, however, these statistics which we so lightly use are only the tip of an iceberg which represents the neglect of human resources in many parts of the country. The much larger hidden part is represented by the numbers of workers on short time, by those who do not have the opportunity to do the overtime which is accepted as the rule elsewhere, by the number of unemployed women and elderly workers who are not registered as unemployed in many development areas, and, perhaps more seriously than any other factor, by emigration from these areas of a significant proportion, particularly of the most able young men and women.

973
I welcome the fact that many able young men and women in the development areas want to move to other parts of Britain and of the world, but I object to young people with skills being driven out of the development areas because there are not the occupational opportunities there near their homes which they have both the skill and the ability as well as the wish to take up.
I must welcome what has already been done. For the first time, over the last few years, we have begun to tackle this Problem. We may not be much nearer a Solution, but real progress has been made. Particularly when one considers the development areas as a whole, which includes a large proportion of our surface area, the results of the measures already taken are encouraging, but the picture is less cheering for particular places in the development area.
When one compares one development area with another or one part of a given development area with the less fortunate parts one finds the black Spots, the hard core problem areas, which have been recently encouragingly recognised by the designation of "special" development areas, sections of existing development areas to which expert extra assistance will be given. Regrettably, these are at the moment linked almost exclusively with colliery closures. I do not object to this, but I hope that we may be assured that the concept of a special development area will not be linked to just one industry, since there are many other parts of the country which possibly face problems of defining traditional industries.
We must re-examine our methods of assisting development areas and ask our-selves whether we can now, after the experience of the last few years, make the existing measures, which we are using with effect, much more sophisticated! At the moment, the whole of the country is either a development area or not a development area. There is no halfway house. Until the concept of the special development area was introduced, there was no distinction between development areas. I hope that, in the not too distant future, a greater degree of selectivity will be introduced in our means of assisting development areas, along with much greater sensitivity, so that the assistance to and Stimulus of industry there is much more directly proportional to their needs
974
In this context, I am talking about comparatively small areas. I would like us to go right down to labour exchange level, so that we could solve some of the difficult problems of certain areas which have consistent unemployment rates of 10, 12 and 15 per cent., areas which often require only some extra incentive for an industrialist to move in to solve their problems.
I know that the Hunt Committee is considering related problems to that of introducing greater selectivity and sensitivity in encouraging the movement of industry. The Committee's prime concern, of course, is with the grey areas which often lie geographically just outside the existing development areas, but I hope that we will use its recommendations and suggestions when they appear to help solve some of the problems of existing development areas.
Eventually, I would like the aid and Stimulus to industrialists to move into development areas and build up the social fabric, aid to be graduated, and some thought to be given to the problem in terms of central Government assistance to local authorities, as we do at the moment. We have a complex formula for determining how much each local authority should receive from central Government, which takes into account all sorts of variables between areas, like density of population, age structure, number of school children and old folk and so on.
These are all important factors in local authority finance but it should be possible now to create a similar formula for reaching a figure for each area, so that there is an index of social and industrial economic need instead of this black and white concept, with aid graduated in direct proportion to the needs of a given Community at a given time, since these needs vary from time to time.
More jobs are needed in our development areas. This is not a simple question of new industries but one of attracting the right industries for each place, industries with a real future, reasonably sound economically and employing the sort of people who are lining up outside the local labour exchanges, whether skilled men, women or any other workers. We should also consider the problems of existing

975
industry—not only the serious problems of the declining, more traditional industries, but also the problems of those which are established and are doing reasonably well in the development areas.
We should also pay much more attention to some means of indicating when an industrial concern in a development area is about to close down. There was a recent example in my constituency, of which my hon. Friend knows—and there must be many others in other parts of the country—of no prior notice of such a closure being given to the Government. It makes nonsense of much of Government policy if we devote so much time, effort, money and manpower to attracting new industries without any means of retaining existing industry and employment opportunities.
We should seriously consider the place of public ownership in development areas. I am thinking not only of the advance factories which have in some cases been lying idle, but also of the whole question of stimulating the economy of some of these difficult areas. I do not suggest the use of public ownership for doctrinaire reasons. There is a sound and practical reason, when it is patently obvious that private industry, although not unwilling, is incapable of solving particular problems.
More than anything, a sense of urgency is needed. For too long we have tended to take time, appoint committees and discuss these matters, but time is not on our side. We also need a sense of enthusiasm, which I sometimes think is lacking in Government Departments, particularly when we are trying to attract industry to development areas. All too often we rely on the financial carrot which we dangle before the industrialist's mouth.
Let us talk about the wonderful opportunities for firms moving to development areas and about the advantages of living in areas like the far South-West, Scotland, Wales and the North. All too often we do not talk about the positive reasons for industrialists to move out of the dark, dirty and congested areas of London, the South-East and the Midlands. We should approach this more positively than we have perhaps done in the last two or three years; we must "sell" the development areas.
976
We must do more to raise social Standards in the development areas. One need only consider housing to see what is happening in these poorer parts of the country. Housing Standards in the development areas are deplorable and are far worse than elsewhere in the country. There are many houses in my constituency without mains sanitation or the possibility of having this amenity in the foreseeable future. The lowest percentage of bathrooms in homes exists in the development areas and the same applies to most other facilities.
Social Standards must be raised in other spheres; including, for example, in education. I was shocked to note recently in a reference book that the 24 universities opened since the war—only three of them in Scotland—are not in development areas. In other words, even in education we are concentrating more opportunities for young people in the already prosperous parts of the country. The same can be said of the health Services. The shortage of doctors is most acute in the old industrial areas of South Wales, the North country and Scotland. And hospital Services in the development areas are nowhere near as good as in the other parts of the country.
Consider Communications. We have completed an impressive Programme of building motorways and an even more impressive programme lies ahead, but most of this building has taken place outside the development areas. Only a very few miles of motorways have been built in, or are planned for the development areas. Communications are good until they reach these areas, but they virtually collapse upon reaching the development areas. This applies to main road, rail and, to some extent, air links.
When trying to attract new industries to the depressed areas, when endeavouring to bring in opportunities for employment and when trying to enhance the Standard of life in these areas, we must consider the cultural side of life. This has been neglected in the development areas. An indication of this is the way in which the B.B.C. and, to a lesser extent, I.T.V. developed in the early days of television. At first it was the development of a second Station and, later, the introduction of colour television. No one ever suggested starting those developments in the development areas.

977
Why should they always be started in London and the Midlands? Why should my constituents have to pay the same licence fees but have the opportunity of seeing only two television Channels, neither of them in colour? Why should my constituents be obliged to invest money so that experiments can be conducted for the benefit, certainly initially, of people living in more prosperous areas far away?
Dr. Hugh Gray: Would my hon. Friend agree that it would be a good idea if, when large grants are being given to, say, symphony orchestras in London, a condition should be that for a certain number of months each year the orchestra should tour the provinces, as they must do in Czechoslovakia?
Dr. Dunwoody: That is an interesting idea which I would like to see pursued. A great deal more should be done to spend money on cultural activities in the development areas. If only a small Proportion of the financial assistance that is at present given for cultural activities to the more prosperous areas was given to the development areas, the whole cultural quality of life would be improved.
We must improve the economic Standards in the development areas, for it is in these areas that rates of pay are at their lowest. Having noticed that the rates of pay in the County of Cornwall, which is virtually the South-West Development Area, were the lowest in England, I inquired to discover where rates of pay were even lower, and when I was given the answer I found that although those localities were few, they were all in the development areas. Yet it is in these outlying parts that, partly because of transport costs, costs generally are higher, with the Single exception of housing. We therefore expect the people living in the development areas to tolerate not only a lower Standard of pay and, therefore, a lower Standard of living, but also higher costs of living.
It would be a measure of social justice for us to attempt to improve this State of affairs. I therefore ask in the Motion that we bring the Standards in the development areas up to at least those of the national average. I appreciate that this will require a massive, co-ordinated effort. In these areas we face at least a
978
century of neglect and I accept that the errors of the past cannot be put right overnight. To suggest that they could be put right in one, two or three years would be naïve. However, almost every Government Department must be involved in this battle, and I am glad to see a Minister representing the Department of Economic Affairs here to answer the debate because that Department has the duty to co-ordinate these efforts.
If we do not take this step, there will be no Solution to the economic ills of this country and there will be little hope for the deprived areas as a whole. The whole nation must share in the economic progress which, I am sure, will be ours in the years ahead. This means that every development area has a right to share in this progress. They are prepared to share the burdens. They must also share the benefits. Every individual has the right to work. It is our duty to transform that right into reality.
6.16 p.m.
Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Scots will recall that unemployment peaks are nothing new in Scotland. There have been nine squeezes since the war and I need not remind the experienced politicians around me of the dates. In July 1966, the latest freeze and squeeze started, but we are still enduring it, and recently we had devaluation.
There are a few complaints which I must get out of my System at the beginning of my speech. I agree with Dr. Dunwoody that the rate of unemployment in Scotland is far too high—this is the theme on which I wish to concentrate today—and is not acceptable, whatever one means for "acceptable". We have been told that 2·4 per cent. is acceptable, but since the Scottish unemployment rate has not been at the acceptable rate in the memory of many hon. Members present today, I wonder why successive Governments have gone on accepting it.
We in Scotland get the worst of all possible worlds. Combined with this high unemployment rate, we have fewer Jobs and must pay higher prices for our food, fuel and many other essentials required by people in the lower wage brackets— and we have lower wages as well. The Situation is disguised by our disgraceful emigration rate, which is running at about 45.000 a year of our best Citizens.

979
We do not lose the lame, blind, delinquent, physically and mentally handicapped. We lose out best people, those who are readily employable and who comprise the skilled and professional classes.
We were told that the July, 1966, measures would be the springboard to expansion, but we in Scotland have found that they are proving to be the gangway to the emigrants' ship for many of the Citizens we cannot afford to lose. We are told that things will get worse before they get better. Lord Robens has estimated that we will lose 30,000 jobs in Scotland's coal mining industry. Devaluation can only make the Situation blacker. The unemployment rate in Lanarkshire is far from "acceptable". In the autumn it increased from 5·6 per cent to 6·5 per cent. Where it Stands today I do not know, but I am hopeful of finding out.
The freeze and squeeze has not been the right policy to cure the unemployment and other ills of which Dr. Dunwoody spoke. We were told that this policy was designed to cure us of over-spending and luxury living. If one goes around the development area about which I am speaking—which is almost the whole of Scotland—one finds that, in addition to finding all the other social ills, that very few people indeed are suffering from either of these two diseases. But we got the freeze and the squeeze just the same.
A comparison of export figures for Scotland and the United Kingdom, provided by the Scottish Council (Development and Industry), expressed as a percentage of total Output of manufacturing industry, demonstrates that Scotland is above the level of the United Kingdom. It is also demonstrated that in 1966 the Scottish worker's export rate was higher than that in the United Kingdom, and second only to that in West Germany. Whereas in the first part of 1967 United Kingdom Output dropped, Scotland's Output did not. Many of us in Scotland feel that we have already done our bit to bolster the economy. We do not have a balance of payments problem. Our exports are rising. The Selective Employment Tax was an unsuitable measure for Scotland. It hit many areas of life with disastrous results. It directly and im-
980
mediately affected the number of houses being built, and lack of housing is one of Scotland's most crucial social ills.
The freeze-and-squeeze was not justifiable, and it is time that we had policies tailor-made to fit us in Scotland. As it is, Westminster is for us the West End misfit shop. I shall not repeat the excellent arguments advanced by Dr. Dunwoody, though I take them as being applicable to my case also. I agree with him that it is surprisingly difficult to sell certain areas, I cannot imagine why any-one would not move to live in Scotland as against England if they could choose freely.
As I want to be construetive, let me quickly suggest one or two things I would do were I at the helm. Time will not permit me to go into them in detail in an Adjournment debate, and in any case, the House might not wish me to do so. Basically, Communications are the heart of a great deal of industry, but we are not getting them. Norway, a country comparable with Scotland, has managed to encourage the growth of population in remote areas. In Scotland, we have a declining population. Norway regards Communications as a social Service, and that should be the basic attitude to the development area of which I speak.
Freight charges should also be looked at from this point of view, and decentralisation should really be carried out. That the head Office of the Forestry Commission should be in England is a very curious comment on the future development of the industry. The effect on Bank Rate of devaluation will be disastrous for us.
The retraining of our unemployed in Scotland seems to need a great deal of investigation. It appears that when issuing the necessary forms to applicants certain employment exchanges in Scotland indicate that unless the applicants are prepared to delete from their application form those parts that would enable them to remain in Scotland the applications will not be considered. Applicants have been told that if they are not prepared to work in England, they cannot be accepted for vocational training. This attitude to retraining makes cynics of all those in Scotland who come into contact with it.
Mr. Tarn Dalyell: The hon. Lady has referred to forestry. Is it

981
not the fact that massive advances have been made during the past three years, and that planting in Scotland is now up to 32,000 acres per annum?
Mrs. Ewing: That strengthens my argument that the head office should be in Scotland, where the industry's major development really lies. But I agree that much has been done, and that more acreage has been authorised for the future.
Some cuts and stringencies should begin at home—in Whitehall. I find that from 1964 to 1967 the number of civil servants increased by 44,400, with an increased wage bill of £75 million. I find that the Ministry of Technology has seven buildings in Scotland, but 86 in England and that its proportion of expenditure is £28 million in Scotland and £580 million in England. The Ministry of Defence alone has 33 buildings in London, with over 2 million Square feet of office space. This seems to be an example of Parkinson's Law gone wild. A lot of defence spending might be spent more wisely in developing the development areas.
Addressing himself recently to the people of Britain, the Prime Minister asked us all to put Britain first. Scotland has been doing precisely that for too long, but the Scots are at last finding out, and have decided to take steps at elections to express their view.
Mr. Willie Ross, speaking, presumably, for the Government, said that we could not isolate Scotland from the freeze and the squeeze, but there is a way in which Scotland can do this and get measures to improve her Situation in all the respects that have been discussed by voting for the party which can.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I did not interrupt the hon. Lady at the time, but hon. Members refer to each other here not by name but by the names of constituencies.
Mrs. Ewing: I am very sorry, Mr. Speaker.
6.26 p.m.
Mr. Alec Jones: A week of two ago we debated a White Paper, Wales: The Way Ahead, part of which read:
" The greatest resource of Wales is its people ‖"
982
That is equally true of the remainder of the United Kingdom. Yet in all the development areas we find that these human resources have in the past been most shamelessly neglected. Representing a Rhondda constiuency, in the development area of Wales, it is natural that I should concentrate my remarks on Wales, but I believe that what I have to say about Rhondda and Wales is equally true and valid of every other development area.
Throughout my life so far, unemployment in Rhondda has been a matter of varying degrees of height. Sometimes it has been exceptionally high, sometimes rather high, but always it has been too high. Today, the problem is much more acute, because we have to deal not only with the closure of collieries and the run-down of the coal mining industry, but with past neglect—something for which the party opposite bears a very heavy responsibility.
During the decade 1956–66, the total number of employees in Great Britain as a whole rose by 8·4 per cent. but in Wales it grew only by 5·3 per cent. In addition, the whole of the Welsh increase was represented by female employment. This is certainly evidence of the neglect of those 10 years. This Government will be judged by the people on the success of their regional policies. I want the Government to succeed, because they are my Government and because they come from my own party. Above all, I want them to succeed because that will be for the betterment of the people whom I represent.
If we look at the Government's chosen instruments of regional policy—the advance factory programmes, the investment grants, the I.D.C.s and the dispersal policies—they are all more powerful than any used by previous Governments. However, I am convinced that such weapons are not enough to attract new and viable industries to development areas such as Rhondda and Wales. They are inadequate and slothful. They take too long to have any impact upon the problem.
Furthermore, these measures could not hope to succeed against a background of national deflation, and I hope that we will use the opportunity presented to us by devaluation to return speedily to the policies of expansion and full employment.

983
In most development areas it seems to me that the problem can only be solved by the rapid introduction of new, modern, viable industries. The Government's present instruments are too slow to deal with the problem.
In my own constituency, almost the whole of the few new developments taking place are by existing long-established firms. We have failed completely to attract new industry and, without it, we cannot recreate a modern industrial background to give us all the social advantages spoken about by my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Dr. John Dunwoody).
During the Summer Recess, I visited a considerable number of factories in Rhondda and found evidence of management and men working hard to make a success of the industries in which they are engaged. Without those existing industries, we should be in a pretty dreadful plight.
What worries me is the complete failure to attract new industries. In Rhondda, there are two factories, one of which has been empty for a 12-month and the other for two years. If present policies of inducement and persuasion fail to fill these factories quickly, it is time that we implemented new policies. I believe that the policies which we should implement are those which we on this side advocated as a Party in 1964 with regard to the extension of public enterprise. It is interesting to note that we said then that we would establish control over the location of new factories, and we have done that through the I.D.C. policy. We said that we would offer inducements to firms to move to certain areas, and we have offered massive inducements. Further, we said that we would accept the idea of the establishment of new public enterprises where these proved to be necessary. The delay in solving the employment problem in development areas shows that the time is now ripe for public enterprises to be established.
I have read the recent Report by my hon. Friend the Member for Bucking-ham (Mr. Maxwell) in which he draws attention to the fact that public spending accounts for about 41 per cent. of the gross national product. Can this vast purchasing power not be used to promote growth in the development areas? Can
984
the Government not persuade and encourage local authorities to combine and use their purchasing power to promote growth inside their own areas? I know that I am repeating what has been said in the House on many occasions. Tragically, they are suggestions which have been dismissed.
I conclude by quoting from The Guardian of 28th November. It contains a contribution by Mr. Dan Smith, Chair-man of the Northern Economic Planning Council, a man with considerable experience of trying to tackle the problem of unemployment in the development areas. He said:
" If, among the many other things, devaluation buys the time to begin the major correction of the imbalance between the various regions in the country, it can be of historic significance. But it needs drastic action in this direction now. The Government must use its own purchasing power to influence the movement of industry and commerce on a massive scale. It can make a decisive beginning on this at once. An efficient public sector can do as much to make our exports competitive as any other factor."
The interesting feature of those remarks is the emphasis on the need for drastic action now. It seems to me that the problem of unemployment will be solved only when the Government accept that there is a vital rôle which can be and ought to be played by public enterprise.
6.36 p.m.
Mr. Nicholas Scott: The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Dr. John Dunwoody) was fortunate in drawing first place in the Ballot, but slightly less fortunate in having his subject come up for debate on a day on which the Prime Minister has told us that there will be a need for further political sacrifices from the nation. We look forward to hearing from the Minister what degree of political sacrifice will be required from the development regions, because I am certain that much of the burden will fall on them. I do not suppose that one needs to warn hon. Members opposite that, even if the Minister seeks to say that they will be insulated or exempted from the effects of the proposed measures, they should take that sort of Statement with a large pinch of salt.
We have heard the promise before. On 20th July, when the freeze was intensified, the Prime Minister said that

985
the development areas would be exempted from the effects of the measures then announced, yet, steadily and relentlessly, unemployment in the development areas has risen since then. It was 2·7 per cent. in August, 1966, 2·8 per cent. the following month, 3·2 per cent. the following month, and the figure Stands at 4·1 per cent. today. There has been a steady and remorseless rise, and in no way have the development areas been exempted from the Government's measures.
It might be possible to argue that the development areas have done rather better in times of squeeze than they did under previous Administrations. How-ever, if one compares the 16-month period from July, 1961 to November, 1962 with that from July, 1966 to November, 1967, one finds that three of the development areas have done rather better under the present Administration, but three have done rather worse. Certainly, they have done no better, and in no sense have they been exempted from the Government's economic measures. I do not expect that they will be exempted from the additional burdens which the whole country will have to share because of the incompetence of this Government.
One particularly disturbing feature of the present Situation in the regions is that long-term unemployment is well above average. If one compares the present figures for those unemployed for periods of over eight weeks, which is the most serious type of unemployment, they are above average and well in excess of those for November, 1962, which is the comparable point of the squeeze under the Conservative Administration. In the Northern Region, the figure is 59 per cent., as opposed to 53 per cent. In the South-West, it is 51 per cent., as opposed to 41 per cent. In the North-West, it is 53 per cent., as opposed to 51 per cent. Overall for Great Britain, 54 per cent. of those wholly unemployed have been unemployed for more than eight weeks, compared with 49 per cent. in November, 1962.
This is one of the most disturbing aspects of the present impact of Government policy, because it is long-term unemployment—unemployment for periods of eight weeks and longer—which is the most damaging, the most souldestroying, and the most akin to a cancer, as was
986
pointed out by the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne. It argues for a massive training Programme on the part of the Government.
One point that I want to raise with the Minister is the extent to which adult retraining is still being hampered by the attitude of the trade unions towards adult trainees. The Minister of Labour has told us that there are still parts of the country where the attitude of the trade unions is a considerable obstacle to the acceptance of adult trainees. It has been said that the Manchester G.T.C. was closed largely as a result of the un-helpful attitude of the trade unions in that area. It would be helpful to hear from the Minister what progress has been made on the front of securing increased co-operation on the part of the trade unions towards adult trainees.
Far from exempting the regions from the effect of their policies, the Government have done positive damage to the regions. The hon. Lady the Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing) drew attention to the way in which the Selective Employment Tax has hit particularly hard at the regions. Of course, this is true of Scotland, but in the South-West, which has the highest proportion of any region of people employed in Service industries, the impact of the Selective Employment Tax has been savage.
The Guardian, in an article in May, 1966, said, in trying to assess the impact of Selective Employment Tax, that the Midlands stood to gain most from the tax and the South-West stood to lose most from it. I believe that all our experience since then has borne out that forecast. The attempt to mitigate the follies of S.E.T. by moving to R.E.P. has only compounded, and will be shown only to have compounded, those follies. We need a much more serious study of the best tax methods of helping the development regions.
In two minutes I want to run through the points which we believe the Government should adopt to help the regions. First, it must be realised that the regions can be looked at only in the context of the whole country. There cannot be prosperous and growing development areas in the context of a stagnant, poor country. It is a contradiction in terms. We shall get prosperous development regions with a rising Standard of living

987
and the rising social and cultural Standards referred to by the hon. Member for Falmouth and Cambome only when the country again has a high growth rate. I am very doubtful whether this can ever be achieved under this Administration. Until we return to a high growth rate, factories in the regions will remain empty and firms will not move to the regions.
Progress in the regions depends upon confidence—upon confidence in the future, upon confidence in the ability to make profits and build up businesses. This is a confidence which is notably lacking in the context of the present economic Situation. This is a confidence which demands changes in our taxation policy and a return to incentives.
The Government should give up their investment grant system and return to investment allowances and free depreciation. A thorough study should be made of the reasons why firms have in the past moved to development areas. We should analyse their motives for doing so and their experiences since they have gone there. We should work out what changes are needed in inducements to firms to move to development areas. More should be spent on the infrastructure and transport Systems in development areas.
Only when we get a return to prosperity in Britain as a whole can the regions look forward themselves to prosperity. We need incentives on the taxation front. We need the pressures of competition. We need a new structure of industrial relations. We need an attack on restrictive practices. We need a whole new outlook and a return to a high-earning, high-efficiency economy. I do not believe that we can get that under this Administration.
6.45 p.m.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. Alan Williams): I want, first to thank the hon. Member for Paddington, South (Mr. Scott) for his courtesy in agreeing to curtail his remarks. I know how difficult it is when an hon. Member who wants to get through a substantial speech finds that he has been left with only 10 minutes. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's co-operation.
The hon. Gentleman said that in the present economic circumstances, where
988
changes in certain policies may be envisaged, the development areas might suffer. A fundamental facet of the policy is that the development areas shall have top priority in the move into the exportled boom, which I shall deal with later. I want to make it clear that it is a far higher priority than the development areas ever had under the Conservatives.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Dr. John Dunwoody) for giving us this opportunity to discuss development areas. I represent a development area constituency and I have the utmost sympathy with the points my hon. Friend made in his most helpful and very constructive speech. I have noted his point about prior notice of closure of firms. Although mention was not made of it today, I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones) would have particular sympathy in this respect because of experiences he has had of firms closing in his constituency at short notice. I have noted this point and will study it.
I further agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne that it is imperative, when we try to sell the development areas, that we sell them for their social opportunity as well as for their industrial opportunity. We should sell the good and attractive side of life in development areas instead of showing gloomy terraced houses and slag heaps, thus deterring people from going to such areas.
My hon. Friend also touched on the problem of motorways. We must bear in mind that a true indication of the transport provision in an area is not gained merely by looking at the transport figures within that area. It is not only the transport within the locality. Hon. Members opposite will agree that the Strategic road Services to a locality matter every bit as much. For example, the M4 across England is as important to Wales as it is to England, because it links Wales with the mass markets of London.
In the short time left to me I want to deal with the general position of Government policy. I intimated earlier that we regard development area policy as fundamental to our economic strategy. I will not go into this in any depth. We have covered this topic in many past debates. We do not merely regard the unused resources as unacceptable in human

989
terms, as my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne said. We are not particularly happy that the slack is there, but given that it is there, economically we have the slack on which we can found an expansion for our exports in the next few years.
Secondly, we regard the regions with fundamental sympathy, because this is a way in which we can avoid the continuous cycle of regional inflation which has beset us in the London area, in the South-East, and in the Midlands, in the past.
It would be naïve to pretend, and no hon. Member has pretended, that the nature of the development area problem is simple. It is a complex problem, because there is a whole series of variables at work at one and the same time. These areas start from a position of disadvantage in that they have very low activity rates. They start from another position of disadvantage, in that they are by definition—this is why they are scheduled as development areas—areas which already have a high unemployment rate. The third disadvantage from which they suffer—this was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, West—is that they had a grossly inadequate share of development in Britain during the period when the Conservatives were in office.
In the period during which right hon. Gentlemen opposite were in office regions containing development areas saw an expansion in Jobs of 6 per cent. compared with 15 per cent. in regions without development areas. In Wales, for example, if the increase in the labour Force had been the same as that in the labour force in Britain as a whole, there would have been 30,000 more jobs when hon. Members opposite left office, while in Scotland there would have been 190,000 and in the North 65,000 more. One can imagine what would have been the impact of the diversification which would have followed in the events of the last few years and on our economic difficulties. One can imagine the impact on the very high emigration from these areas, 200,000 people leaving them during the last ten years of office of right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
The Motion asks for further and urgent measures and my hon. Friend the Mem-
990
ber for Falmouth and Camborne said that we should try to make our development area policy more sophisticated. The Government completely agree with him and I should like to demonstrate that we do not have a static approach to the problem. Essentially, we have an evolving and dynamic policy towards these localities, and the Hunt Committee demonstrates that we are willing to refine the policy even further if that should be necessary.
The first change which we undertook when we came to office was from the district concept, so liked by right hon. Gentlemen opposite, to the area concept. Whereas in 1962 7·5 per cent. of the working population was in development districts, and 12·5 per cent. in 1963, today the figure is 21 per cent. We made the change because we felt that it was necessary to create a wider industrial base both within and outside the localities of great difficulty. We did that to make the areas viable and so to generate the purchasing power which in turn would perpetuate the development of market-based firms, the type of firms which now tend to be attracted to the Midlands and London.
We then undertook another change of approach. We switched from tax allowances to investment grants. The old allowance System was too slow in Operation and worked only as the firm actually made profits, and yet the early years of its establishment in a development area might be the time when it most needed help and also might be the time when its profits were lowest and it would there-fore get the least benefit from allowances. Allowances were therefore unpredictable to a business man making decisions and were consequently of little help as an inducement to firms to go to these localities.
We moved to a grant System to meet these very problems. It is now quicker in payment, which is now made in 12 months—we have already accelerated payment from 18 to 12 months—and we hope to be able to reduce the period even more in the not too distant future. A further advantage is that the amounts are predictable, so that business men can therefore undertake investment decisions knowing precisely what sort of return they would get from the Government.

991
Already the 20 per cent. differential enjoyed by development areas is costing the Government £40 million a year.
We have undertaken further development of the policy again to demonstrate that our approach is not static. We have added to incentives tied to capital the incentives for labour-intensive industry and it is against that background that we have to see the regional employment premium of £100 million expenditure which we hope will create 100,000 Jobs in the next four or five years.
A further refinement since we came to office is that we have changed from a single-tier System to a System of differentiated areas. We have now added the special areas which get further inducements over and above those given to development areas generally. In addition to all these factors we have stepped up the grants under the Local Employment Acts so that we are now paying grants at virtually double the rate paid by right hon. Gentlemen opposite in the early 1960s.
Training has also been accelerated. Firms undertaking training are given help with capital costs and help with costs per head and we have set up the G.T.C.s. The hon. Lady the Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing) spoke of certain limitations being imposed in Scotland on those applying for places at the G.T.C.s. We have no knowledge whatever of that and if she is right—and I do not suggest that she is misleading the House—I would appreciate it if as quickly as possible she would let us have documentary evidence so that we can examine it and ensure that it does not happen again.
We have also to bear in mind the massive programme of advance factories for the development areas. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot sit disinterestedly, as they now do, and then justify the fact that during the whole period of their office only 49 advance factories were completed, whereas we have already completed 53 and have approved 124 since October, 1964. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite were so complacent about development areas that they actually suspended the building of advance factories in the 1950s and we are now having to make up for that backlog of inadequacy. There is also the incentive for dealing with derelict land and there is the dispersal of Government Offices.
992
How effective is the Government's policy proving?
Mr. Neil Marten: Very ineffective.
Mr. Williams: No one would deny that the prevailing unemployment figures are high, higher than we would like them to be. It is no consolation to say that the proportionate increase has been less than in other parts of the country. That is not much satisfaction to the people in the dole queue. But the important factor which was overlooked by the hon. Member for Hamilton and others is that the trend is to an improvement. The basic seasonably adjusted figures are showing that unemployment in the development areas is falling and vacancies are increasing.
During the three years 1961, 1962 and 1963 right hon. Gentlemen opposite made i.d.c. provision for 36 million sq. ft. whereas in the last two and a half years we have given i.d.c. approval for 70 million sq. ft., double the amount in less time.
Hon. Members opposite have spoken of the possible effect of devaluation. If, as I suggest, we are moving into an upturn in the economy, that upturn will be accentuated by devaluation and that will have an important effect for the development areas and for industries in them. It will affect ship building, tourism and steel. If hon. Members opposite are violently against devaluation, they must equally be against the benefits which devaluation is bringing to those areas, or they must alternatively support a policy of deflation to deal with the economic Situation, and we all know what that would mean to the development area policy.
Hon. Members opposite have talked about the development area policy as though they approved of its breadth. In fact, when they were in office they had a far narrower development area concept. There are now 4 million people enjoying the benefits of development area Status who would not be enjoying it if we returned to the System of hon. Members opposite.
It being Seven o'clock, the Proceedings thereon lapsed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 5 (Precedence of Government business).

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL
As amended {in the Standing Committee), considered.
Motion made and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 55 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

TRLSTEE SAVINGS BANKS BILL
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 55 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Crossman): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, in view of the discussion tomorrow on the export of arms, I wish to make a Statement on the rearrangement of business.
Tomorrow, following a debate arising under Standing Order No. 9, we propose to deal with a Motion setting out the arrangements for the Christmas Adjournment.
In consequence, the business on Wednesday, 20th December, will be the Second Reading of the Transport Bill, when the rule will be suspended for one hour.
The 6th Supply day previously arranged for Wednesday, 20th December will be deferred until Wednesday, 17th January.
It will be proposed that on Thursday, 2Ist December, the House should meet at 11 a.m., take Questions until 12 noon and adjourn at 5 p.m., until Wednesday, 17th January, 1968.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman may move the Adjournment of the House so that we may discuss what he has said.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Crossman.]
Mr. Edward Heath: I thank the Leader of the House for making that Statement about business.
The right hon. Gentleman will recall that the Opposition were promised a Supply day, which we allotted to a debate on the Middle East. We constantly asked for that and were promised it for before the House rose for the Christmas Recess. Under the new arrangement of business we are denied a Supply day and a debate on the Middle East. The Leader of the House must realise that this is unsatisfactory to us. The alternatives are to set aside an extra day before Christmas so that may we continue to have our debate on foreign affairs, which is what we should like to do, or the Leader of the House could postpone the Second Reading of the Transport Bill, which would not only give us our debate but be for the good of the country.
As the right hon. Gentleman will probably not wish to do that, can we sit an extra day before Christmas to debate the very important events in the Middle East, which have not been debated in the House since Aden took its independence?
Mr. Crossman: I am grateful to the Leader of the Opposition for what he has said. He has very fairly put before the House the alternatives resulting from the unexpected debate tomorrow. We all agree that we should not have a three-hour debate interrupting the Second Reading of the Transport Bill. That is why we must have a change.
The two alternatives were either to sit for an extra day before Christmas, until 5, or to come back two or three days earlier, and, as I have suggested, to have a two-day foreign affairs debate on 17th and 18th January and then to have Friday, making three days of extra parliamentary time in January, rather than having an extra day before Christmas.
I very much want to do what the House wants. I examined the question very carefully. My impression was that an extra day before Christmas, when everybody had made their plans already for going away on Thursday, could not only be to our disadvantage, but even more to the

995
disadvantage of the staff of the House, for whom I know the Opposition are very solicitous. I therefore thought it better, on balance, to keep things as they were before Christmas and to come back in the week before we were to have come back and to have our two days' foreign affairs debate in January.
Mr. Heath: I must place on record that we consider this entirely unsatisfactory. We have waited for the debate on the Middle East for so long and now we shall have to wait for it for another month. The right hon. Gentleman should take the Opposition's views more into account, because it is a Supply day for which the Opposition settle the business.
Mr. Crossman Mr. Crossman rose—
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will wait a moment or two. He must have the leave of the House every time he speaks now.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is it not the Opposition's fault that the business of the House has been disorganised so much?
Mr. Edward M. Taylor: In view of the Prime Minister's Statement today, would the Leader of the House postpone the Second Reading of the Transport Bill on Wednesday?, Is he aware that the Prime Minister said that we shall have a ruthless pruning of Government spending? How can he justify a Second Reading debate on a Bill which will involve spending £9,100 million on loans, write-offs and debts? How can he possibly justify it when we are cutting down the building of houses and schools?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The debate on the Transport Bill is not tonight.
Mr. Mark Carlisle: Can the Leader of the House explain how a three-hour debate tomorrow necessitates four extra days of Government business in January?
Mr. Hngh Jenkins: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that one day of the two-day foreign affairs debate which will take place when we resume will be devoted to Vietnam? I take it that that is the intention. Does he agree that it does not lie in the mouths of hon. Mem-
996
bers opposite, who stood up earlier today when Mr. Speaker asked if hon. Members had leave of the House, to have a special debate to complain of the consequences of their actions?
Mr. Neil Marten: While we on this side of the House are very mindful of the staff of the House, we are a Parliament and we must react to events as they are. Would the Leader of the House reconsider having the debate on the Middle East on the Thursday, because the Situation there is very serious and could be further developing in that way between now and January?
Mr. William Hamilton: On a point of Order. I think that I heard my right hon. Friend say that we were to debate the Motion for the Christmas Adjournment tomorrow. That would mean that back bench Members would not be able to table Amendments. Would you, Mr. Speaker, be prepared to accept manuscript Amendments, because some of us feel very strongly about the length of not only the Christmas Recess, but other recesses.
Mr. Speaker: I shall deal with that point of Order when it comes tomorrow.
Mr. Peter Walker: Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor). Surely it would be much more reasonable, in view of the Prime Minister's Statement, if the Second Reading of the Transport Bill is to be proceeded with, to take it at the end of January, as the Bill provides for £450 million extra loans to nationalised industries and £150 million of extra Government grants. If it were in January, perhaps by that time the Government could have amended the whole Bill and we could have two days debate instead of one?
Mr. Charles Pannell: I always was rather doubtful about the arrangement to have such a long Christmas Recess. I should have thought that the country generally would be behind taking a week off it. Therefore, we are left with the question whether to have the debate on the Transport Bill before Christmas. One thing that I see in favour of that—and I speak purely on parliamentary business and shall not discuss the merits—is that with such a long and

997
voluminous Bill we need to get it off:he ground as soon as we can. I feel sure that if the Leader of the Opposition were in the position of my right hon. Friend's position he would take the same view as my right hon. Friend does today.
It is a good idea that we should come back a week earlier. It will allow two days for a foreign affairs debate, which is very much overdue, and it will allow the Opposition, who will not be disadvantaged by the passage of an extra week or two, to discuss the matter, on which I feel a great deal of sympathy for them. Generally speaking, the country would think that we are addressing ourselves to i he problem as vigilantly as we should.
Mr. F. P. Crowder (Ruislip-North-wood): I should like to know why, at the moment, the Leader of the House should try to change the business at short notice without giving reason. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] He has given no reason whatsoever. Such reasons as he has put forward are short in the extreme and inadequate. The fact is that nobody is the least interested in a Second Reading of the Transport Bill. People are much more interested in the split in the Cabinet, which, I suppose, is the reason for these wet hen tactics. Why are we faced with this Situation? I do not see why the Leader of the House should be able to change the business at short notice without giving ample reasons.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that we can get on with the day's business.
Mr. Michael Jopling: Has not a new Situation arisen in that it is only three and a half hours since the Prime Minister stated that there was to be a fundamental review of Government expenditure and that nothing would be sacrosanct? Now, the Leader of the House says that the Transport Bill is to go on as before. It appears that the Bill is sacrosanct and that this is already a break in the Statement. In view of the Situation, and since what the Prime Minister said is shown to be completely false, should we not have further time tomorrow to consider what he said and the new Situation which has arisen?
Sir Robert Cary (Manchester, Withington): If the House is to come back a
998
week earlier, would it not be more sensible to postpone the Transport Bill until after Christmas, when Parliamentary time will be easier and we could do the proper thing by this enormous Measure, giving two days to the Second Reading?
Mr. Bob Brown (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West): Will my right hon. Friend resist every pressure from the benches opposite to delay the Second Reading of the Transport Bill? I assure him that, un-like hon. Members opposite, thousands of old-age pensioners who will benefit from its travel concessions are desperately anxious to see the passage of the Bill.
Mr. Crossman: By leave of the House, perhaps I may now reply. Two points have arisen. The first is that, if we are to come back earlier after the Recess, we should postpone the Transport Bill instead of the foreign affairs debate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) made the proper answer to that. I appreciate the desire of the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) to get the Bill into Committee as quickly as possible, because he has a mass of hard work to do on it there. If we get the Second Reading before Christmas, we shall have an extra week in Committee, which will give him more opportunity to put constructive points. That emphasises the reason for having the Second Reading before Christmas.
I appreciate the disappointment of the Opposition in having the debate on the Middle East postponed until (7th January. The debate on 18th January will also be on foreign affairs, but particularly the Far East, so that we shall have one day on the Middle East and one day on the Far East and we hope to keep them as separate as we can. On Friday, 19th January, we might debate the Report of the Committee of Privileges. We should have time to debate it then. Those are three good. solid Parliamentary occasions.
Secondly, complaint has been made about our returning earlier after the Recess. I must say that I am disappointed by the inconsistency shown. An early day Motion has been put down by Conservative back-benchers, among them the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor). I am glad that the

999
agreement now is that we should not stay a day longer this week, but should, instead, have the alternative of returning earlier after Christmas. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not do both?"] That proposition has not been put to me, but I am prepared to consider all propositions.
If it is now suggested by hon. Members opposite that they want both to come here on Friday and still have three extra days after the Recess, I will consider that, but I feel that, on reflection, they will not like that as much as my proposal. The hon. Member for Cathcart and some of his hon. Friends have been urging us to come back earlier after Christmas and I have acceded to their request. The choice was between sitting a day longer this week and getting the debate on the Middle East before Christmas and Coming back earlier in January. On reflection, I think that hon. Members will agree that it is the best Solution to come back earlier.
I have been asked why I have made this Statement. I have done so because of the debate arranged for tomorrow, which was supported unanimously by the Opposition. I thought hon. Members were entitled to the courtesy of knowing that we have now rearranged the business because of the three-hour debate tomorrow—the result of the Opposition's initiative, which I do not grudge. I have tried to make the best rearrangement I could and I hope that the House will agree.
Mr. Joseph Harper (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

COAL EVDUSTRY BILL
Lords Amendments considered.
Clause 7.
(INCREASE IN MEMBERSHIP OF THE NATIONAL COAL BOARD.)
Lords Amendment No. 1: In page 4, line 24, leave out Clause 7.
7.16 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. Reginald Free-son): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
During the Committee stage in the Commons, my right hon. Friend undertook to consider the points which had been made on proposed Amendments to Clause 7 which were later withdrawn.
The Government now propose the deletion of this Clause. It was the intention that the Clause should provide for five additional members of the Board. The need arose because the Board had reorganised its structure and had eliminated divisions. There are now 17 areas with direct responsibility to the Board, and while this provides suitable groupings of collieries for proper management there are no longer regional entities for Scotland, Wales and parts of England where regional co-ordination is now a growing feature in many fields of economic activity. This is a characteristic which is likely to grow.
It was with this in mind, among other things, that my right hon. Friend originally proposed that there should be members of the Board with direct regional responsibility so far as the future of the coal industry was concerned. The main object, therefore, of increasing the numbers of members was to give the Board a means of dealing with regional Problems while maintaining the advantages in the management rôle of the reorganised Board structure recently introduced.
Following further consideration and in the light of the representations made in Parliament during the progress of the Bill, the Government are satisfied that the object can be attained by other means without the appointment of the additional members originally proposed and that the Clause is not necessary.

1001
I hope, therefore, that, since the Government are meeting the wishes of hon. Members on both sides, there will be no lengthy controversy or even debate this evening. I hope that the House will agree with the Amendment.
Mr. Edward M. Taylor: The Parliamentary Secretary is referring to an Amendment which stood in my name which we discussed at about 7 a.m. during the Committee stage of the Bill. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House appreciate a Minister who is prepared to reconsider. In our view, the original proposal was crazy in seeking to increase the size of the National Coal Board at a time when the industry was declining. Far too often in the House, points which are made as we sit long into the night seem to have not the slightest effect on the Government. This is one case where the Government were prepared to think again, and I am grateful to them.
Mr. Eric Ogden: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will, I hope, not think us uncharitable if we suspect that Clause 7 was originally put in so that it could be taken out to show that the Minister was making a concession during the progress of the Bill. However, I welcome the decision.
My hon. Friend referred to other means of achieving regional co-ordination, which is not simply to find places for regional members of the area organisation but to maintain the contact which is more vital now than ever between the regions of the Board, the areas and central headquarters.
I think that, having accepted advice from both sides of the House about this, he may be able to say, or give some indication a little later, perhaps, in some other way, what kind of machinery will now be used to maintain this link. We were all agreed that the link ought to be established and maintained; we differed about the way. I think that now some further information could perhaps be made available to the House on this point.
Mr. G. Elfed Davies: I want to say how pleased I am that the Minister has listened to both sides in
1002
the discussion we had in Committee and has taken that advice and put things right. I am not with my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden), who thought Clause 7 was put in so that it could be taken out.
I believe that the Minister was genuine in putting it in. I think that he was wrong. He has admitted he was, after all, if we have a rule amongst Ministers that they sometimes admit they are wrong there is some hope not only for this Government, but for democracy. I want to congratulate the Minister for doing exactly what he said he was going to do —reconsider it and put the thing right. I welcome this Lords Amendment.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: I wish to add my congratulations to the Minister upon his acceptance of this Amendment, because the provision as it stood would have been an extremely difficult thing to explain to miners unemployed as a result of pit closures. I have no doubt that the Minister intended that provision as a method of improving the reorganisation and the efficiency of the Coal Board. This Amendment is a very timely concession, and it is hoped that when we discuss the White Paper on fuel policy there will be a similar attitude of reconciliation on the part of the Government.
Mr. Thomas Swain: I should like to add my words of congratulation to the Minister for seeing wisdom—with one eye open: I do not think he saw wisdom with both eyes open, or he would have accepted more of the Amendments which my hon. Friends and I moved or attempted to move in Committee. But, as the beggar said, we are very thankful for small mercies.
Acceptance of this Lords Amendment will no doubt have a psychological effect in the coalfields. I was in the Kent coalfield on Saturday and I heard a lot of very rough things said about the Government and the Coal Board. Still, in Kent they gave the Minister credit for having seen common sense in having had this Amendment moved in the other place to delete Clause 7.
I must again emphasise that had the Minister seen fit to accept all the Amendments which I —
Mr. Speaker: It is those Amendments which the hon. Member cannot talk about now.
Mr. Swain: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, and I apologise to you. I still think it would have been a better Bill if they had been accepted.
With those few short words, let us hope the Bill will now have the effect—this is the main point—which this House desires it to have on the industry. Let us hope and trust that the moneys which will be available under the Bill will be spent wisely, and let us hope that there will be plenty of money available under the Bill to satisfy the social consequences thrown up as a result of pit closures.
Mrs. Margaret Thatcher: Just to prove that a woman can make the relevant point in much quicker time than men, may I say to the Minister, "Thank you"?
Question put and agreed to.
Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

ERSKINE BRIDGE TOLLS BILL
Not amended {in the Standing Committee), considered.
Clause 6.
(TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OR REDUCTION OF TOLLS.)
7.24 p.m
Mr. Gordon Campbell (Moray and Nairn): I beg to move, in page 6, line 33, to leave out "twenty-one" and insert "fourteen".
Clause 6 deals with the question of a reduction or Suspension of tolls on the bridge. The Clause as at present written provides that there shall not be fewer than 21 days' notice of an order for Suspension or the reduction of tolls. If the Clause we are dealing with increased tolls I and my hon. Friends would perfectly well understand the need for a considerable notice of a change so that users of the bridge would have a chance to learn beforehand that extra money would be required of them when they reached the bridge, but I submit that no
1004
user of the bridge is likely to complain about getting rather short notice if the toll is to be reduced or suspended—that is to say, no payment is required at all.
For this reason, in Committee, we pro-posed an Amendment suggesting that the 21 days should be reduced to seven. In advising us not to press that Amendment the Minister said that it would cause some administrative difficulties if the period were as short as that. At the same time, he did indicate—he gave a broad indication, perhaps I should say—that an Amendment suggesting 14 days would be acceptable and would cause less administrative difficulty.
In the Bill we are dealing with the whole machinery for setting up a toll System for this bridge, but nothing as yet has been divulged by the Government of their views or intentions concerning the amount of the toll, or about whether there will be larger tolls for some vehicles and lesser tolls for others. This has still to be decided in the future. We certainly tried in Committee to find this out from the hon. Gentleman, but the Government, clearly, are not going to say at this stage what their own ideas are, or what intentions they have.
For this reason we feel all the more that if there are to be reductions or suspensions of whatever tolls are to be imposed on the bridge nobody using the bridge will object to having shorter notice of that than that which is provided in the Bill. Everybody will say, the sooner the Suspension or reduction the better. I move the Amendment in the confident hope that the Minister will be able to accept it.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): I am very happy, on behalf of the Government, to advise the House that we would like to see this Amendment made. I have had plenty of time since the Committee to go into the administrative difficulties which there are. I quite agree that it is a very good Amendment—in the sense which I hinted at in broad terms, that it would be a more reasonable one then, and to be preferred, to the other, which suggested seven days; and the House will understand why I support it.
Amendment agreed to.
Motion made, That the Bill be now read the Third time (Queen's Consent, on

1005
behalf of the Crown, signified):— Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 55 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

LONDON CAB BILL
7.30 p.m.
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
Mr. Speaker: I have already announced what Amendments I have selected: No. 1 in the name of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) and No. 2, No. 4, No. 5, and No. 6. Amendment No. 3 k not selected.
Clause 1.
(POWER TO REGULATE FARES FOR NON-OBLIGATORY JOURNEYS.)
Mr. Eric Lubbock: I beg to move Amendment No. 1 in page 1, line 11, at end insert:
', provided that for any such journey which exceeds six miles the fare shall be not less than double the amount which the meter shows'.
This Amendment is a very simple one, as the words show. I have tabled it so that the Home Office can give some indication of its plans for the exercise of its powers under Clause 1. I do not think that it is entirely satisfactory for us to leave complete discretion in the matter in the hands of the Home Office, without any indication of how the power is to be exercised.
Mr. Speaker, I am wondering how I am to get any reaction to my Amendment, bearing in mind that there is no Minister from the Home Office present on the Government Front Bench. It is extraordinary to see two Ministers from the Scottish Office sitting there to deal with the London Cab Bill. I cannot believe that either will reply to this debate, detailed though their knowledge may be of the affairs of the Metropolis. Before I conclude my brief remarks, I hope that someone from the Home Office will appear to reinforce the large contingent from Scotland.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): I can assure
1006
the hon. Gentleman that we will take a careful note of what he says. We shall do it with great sympathy, since we have to travel in London taxicabs all too frequently and very expensively. The hon. Gentleman must forgive my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, who has been detained for a short time.
Mr. Lubbock: It is very unsatisfactory to have a Minister of State listening to me moving my Amendment, rather than someone from the Home Office. His remarks indicate a lack of sympathy with the problems of taxi drivers in Greater London, which is all too evident in Government spokesmen these days. It is evident, too, in the Bill, which does not go nearly far enough to help London cab drivers to get over some of the problems which have been drawn to the attention of the Government—
[Interruption.] I am glad to see that the Under-Secretary has appeared at last and will be able to listen to what I have to say.
Mr. Gordon Campbell (Moray and Nairn): In the past, I have had cause to complain about Scottish Ministers not being in the Chamber. It is surprising to find not only the Minister of State but the Secretary of State for Scotland here for a debate which does not affect them.
Mr. Lubbock: It is fantastic to see no one but Scottish Ministers on the Treasury Bench and, indeed, Scottish Tory hon. Members on this side of the House—
Mr. Speaker: Order. As an English-man, I must ask the hon. Gentleman to come back to his Amendment.
Mr. Lubbock: I was trying to give the Under-Secretary of State a little time to reappear, because he rushed into the Chamber, grinned across at us, and disappeared again. That is most extraordinary behaviour, and I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to miss the very important remarks which I wish to make.
Mr. Mark Woodnutt: The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) should be a little lenient. I would remind him that he only just "made it" himself. A little later, and his Amendment would have fallen.
Mr. Lubbock: That indicates that my timing is a good deal better than that of the Under-Secretary of State. I was watching the annunciator to ensure that I did not miss the chance of moving my Amendment. As soon as I saw the previous business appear on it, I obtained a copy of the Amendments to this Bill which I needed to make my case.
However, I cannot wait any longer to say why this Amendment should be made, in spite of the fact that the Under-Secretary of State has not reappeared. I hope that—[HON. MEMBERS: "He is here now."] I see that the hon. Gentleman is now with us. Perhaps I might start again and explain why it is necessary to make this Amendment rather than leave the powers of the Secretary of State under Clause 1 as discretionary as they are at present.
Many taxi-drivers feel that Clause 1 will be used as a means of hitting at their pockets. Once we give these powers to the Secretary of State, it may be that he will prescribe fares which are so low for journeys longer than six miles that it will be impossible to make a living out of these Operations. Taken in conjunction with Clause 2, where the Secretary of State has power to make journeys longer than six miles obligatory, taxi-drivers could be forced to go to Orpington or to London Airport for a remuneration which would not give them a living wage.
The Minister of State for Scotland indicated his prejudices when he said that frequently he has been overcharged for the journey from London Airport. That is the case with only a small minority of taxi-drivers who have exploited the Situation there, but it is not true of the vast majority who are only too pleased to take hon. Members to London Airport from the House or from London Airport to the House at a reasonable charge. If the hon. Gentleman does not accept that, he must have a distorted idea of what should be charged, unless of course he was looking back to prewar days when the cost of operating vehicles and of petrol was much less than it is today.
Although the hon. Gentleman says that he has a lot of experience of taking taxis in London, I doubt if he knows anything about it. He cannot be aware of the stringent regulations imposed by the Metropolitan Carriage Office with regard to the inspection of vehicles and the
1008
requirement on taxi-drivers to undergo medical examinations and tests of all kinds which make it a difficult and onerous occupation. Those facts should be taken into account in determining the level of fares.
As a reasonable estimate, I think that we should write into the Bill that for any journey over six miles the fare shown on the meter should be doubled. Taking the journey to London Airport as an example, it would mean that the fare would be £3. I know that it is recommended that the fare be £2 15s., and that that is the figure displayed on notices which one finds at the Airport. However, when one considers the increasing costs imposed on taxi-drivers, I think that £3 would not be an unreasonable fare. Certainly if I were coming from London Airport to the House, I should be happy to pay £3, and I think that that is the view of the majority of people who use taxis for that journey.
If a taxi-driver is asked to go all the way to Orpington where, generally speaking, it is quite impossible to get a return fare to the centre of London, £3 would not pay him. If one takes into account all journeys of longer than six miles, double the amount shown on the meter is not at all unreasonable.
Another point in favour of the Amendment is that it would mean no alterations to meters. On Second Reading, an hon. Member pointed out that when decimal currency comes in, a further alteration to taxi meters will be necessary. That is to happen as soon as 1971, and it would be highly undesirable to have two changes in the mechanism in such a short time, thus imposing a great deal of work on the Metropolitan Carriage Office and on the cab drivers.
Between now and 1971, wherever the Secretary of State exercised his power under Clause 1, he would do it merely in the sense that double the fare shown on the meter would apply. It means no alterations. The passenger looks at the meter, does a simple piece of arithmetic, and knows what he is to be charged. Similarly, it is easy for the driver to tell the passenger how much he has to pay, there can be no dispute about the fare, and no mechanical alteration of the meter is necessary.
If the hon. Gentleman is not prepared to accept my Suggestion, perhaps he will

1009
at least agree that there are taxi-drivers in Greater London who have expressed grave anxiety about the Home Secretary's intentions in interpreting this Clause. They see his reluctance to come forward with a positive figure during the proceedings on this Bill as an indication that his views will be harmful to them. If the hon. Gentleman is not prepared to say that the Home Office accepts my Amendment, I hope that he will give the House a concrete idea of what his Department has in mind.
Mr. Woodnutt: This is a ridiculous Amendment and I hope that the House will reject it, because we should not go to such detail in a Bill.
The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), much as I respect his attitude and his worthy intentions in defending the taxi-drivers of London, which I also wish to do, talk in an airy fairy way about £3 being a reasonable fare to London Airport. I should not think he has ever travelled out to London Airport if he thinks that is a reasonable fare, because dl the taxi-drivers in London are prepared to do it for £2 10s.
I suggest that it would be much more reasonable to leave the question of what the fare should be out of the Bill. It should be left for the Home Secretary to sort this out with the trade, and have graduated meters—and there should be graduated meters. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will repeat the assurance which he gave in Committee on that point, so that a fair fare is agreed between the Home Secretary and the cabbies. To say that it should be double or treble is a lot of nonsense. One cannot put this sort of idea in Acts of Parliament. I hope that the House will reject the Amendment and leave it to the good sense of the Home Office and the trade to work out what the scale of fares should be.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Ennals): First, I owe the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) an apology for not having been in my place when he started moving his Amendment. I congratulate the House on proceeding with is other business with such remarkable rapidity. I hope that we will do the same on our present business.
1010
I cannot accept the Amendment, partly for the reason which I thought was well put by the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt). In Committee I gave an assurance that when the new rates for the longer journey are prescribed, arrangements will be made to ensure that they are automatically recorded on the meters in the same way as rates for journeys of up to six miles. This is the Home Secretary's intention.
Secondly, it is only right that the Secretary of State should be able to negotiate with the trade before any rate is fixed. This is properly a matter for negotiation with the proprietors and others who represent the interests of taximen, as well as those who represent the interests of the passengers. I gave an assurance in Committee that the Secretary of State will have these consultations. Since 1869 the Secretary of State has had unfettered discretion to determine what should be the rates of Charge for journeys within the compellable limit, and there seemed to be no ground for restricting that discretion because in future it will be exercised in respect of rates of Charge for longer journeys.
Apart from the question of principle—
Sir Eric Errington rose—
Mr. Ennals: I will give way in a moment.
Apart from the question of principle whether it is or is not right to try to prescribe the amount that should be paid in an Act rather than by negotiation with the Secretary of State, I think the principle that the hon. Gentleman submits would lead to the maximum amount of difficulty. His Amendment says,
" provided that for any such journey which exceeds six miles the fare shall be not less than double the amount which the meter shows "
Therefore, a passenger who travelled six and a half miles, just slightly over the six-mile limit, for which the charge would be, let us say, 15s., would have to pay about 32s. 6d. This would appear to be unreasonable. It would not only be unreasonable for the passenger, but it would lead almost inevitably to argument and debate between the passenger and the taxi driver.
It may be that the hon. Gentleman intended to suggest that the double fares

1011
would come in after the six-mile limit, but this is not the effect of his Amendment. Why he should suggest that it would be less confusing for the passenger to know other than what the meter says, namely, that he should pay double the fare, I cannot understand. It seems to me far better that the meter should properly record the amount that he is expected to pay, whether he has travelled six miles or more.
Sir E. Errington: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that there is a difference, which was emphasised by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), between going out to London Airport, where there are opportunities to come back with fares, and going to Orpington or anywhere further away from the centre of London, where there is no chance of getting a fare back?
7.45 p.m.
Mr. Ennals: It is for this reason that, as was pointed out in Committee, while the Bill gives to the Secretary of State power to extend the compellable limit, this is a power which he hopes not to use and which, therefore, is not obligatory upon the taxi-driver. He is not obliged to undertake a journey of that dimension.
Mr. Woodnutt: I remind the Minister that he gave an assurance in Committee that we would have graduated meters. Therefore, this Amendment is a nonsense, because it says that the fare should be double the amount which the meter shows. If we are to have graduated meters we cannot have a section of the Bill saying that someone will pay double the amount, because the meter will show the correct amount.
Mr. Ennals: That serves only to emphasise the case that both the hon. Gentleman and I put forward, and I hope that the House will agree to reject the Amendment.
Amendment negatived.
Clause 2.
(POWER TO INCREASE LENGTH OF OBLIGATORY JOURNEYS.)
Mr. Ennals: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 15, at end insert:
1012
(4) Before making any order under this section the Secretary of State shall consult with such bodies appearing to him to represent the owners and drivers of cabs as he considers appropriate.
The effect of this Amendment is to require the Secretary of State to consult with bodies representing London cab owners or drivers before making an order under Clause 2, which gives power to extend the six-mile compellable limit.
I gave an undertaking to the hon. Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Raymond Fletcher) in Committee that the Government would consider further whether something might be written into the Bill to make mandatory the right of prior consultation which it had already been stated that the Secretary of State would carry out before making an order under Clause 2.
The new subsection (4) has been so framed as to leave it to the Secretary of State to decide which bodies he might consider appropriately representative of the trade for the purpose of consultation. This follows the normal pattern for such provisions.
The Amendment is a genuine attempt to give some form to the views which have been expressed on both sides, not only by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilkeston but also from spokesmen on the Opposition benches. I hope that they will agree that this is a genuine attempt to meet the points that were made.
Mr. Marcus Worsley: We welcome this Amendment. As the Minister has said, it goes all the way to meet the points made by his hon. Friend the Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Raymond Fletcher) and supported on this side.
I would add that he is right in framing the Amendment in such a way as to give to the Secretary of State discretion as to who he should consult. This I fully accept. The only point I want to make is that in this trade the bodies consulted in the past may at some future date, or indeed now, have ceased to be the only bodies representing the interests in that trade.
I therefore hope the hon. Gentleman will agree that as the years go by it will be part of the discretion of the Secretary of State to look at the various bodies who claim to represent various interests in the trade, and that he will keep an open mind

1013
about whom he consults when he operates the Amendment, which I thoroughly Support.
Mr. Michael English: I do not think that anyone would object to what is in the Amendment, but there is one point which was mentioned in Committee which is not covered by it. In Committee I asked the Minister whether he would consider representing the consumer interest in this connection, and indeed in others. It seems to me that the Bill is an example of the consumer rot being consulted.
The Amendment says that the Secretary of State
" shall consult with such bodies appearing to him to represent the owners and drivers of cabs as he considers appropriate."
Why is there no representation of the consumer interest? In Committee the hon. Gentleman said that the Secretary of State himself represented the consumer interest. It seems to me that this is stretching a principle just a little too far. One knows that other Ministers consult representatives of consumer interests in other respects. Why cannot the Secretary of State do it in this connection? Presumably the right hon. Gentleman does not even use taxis, since he is driven a round in an official car.
It is possible, and reasonable, for other Ministers to consult the representatives of consumer interests on other subjects. It would be possible to do this through local authorities in the area. Indeed, it would be peculiarly appropriate to do it in London, because outside London the decision is made by local authorities and not by the Secretary of State. It seems at least reasonable to say that the G.L.C., the borough Councils, and other local authorities within the area should be consulted. I have yet to hear a good reason why they should not be. Not only do they not have the power of decision which such authorities have outside London, but according to the Amendment they will not even be consulted.
There is a second way in which consumer opinion could be consulted. There is no reason why there should not be a public opinion survey among the users of taxis, or among people generally within the area. I think that this would be peculiarly appropriate in the context of
1014
the distance of travel. It would be a simple issue. Any user of a taxi could say whether he found the present distance convenient, or inconvenient, or whether he would find some other distance more convenient. It would be a simple matter of having a public opinion survey.
The danger of Consulting only owners and drivers of taxis is precisely the danger which might arise in any other sphere. If we were to consult only employers' associations in connection with the prices and incomes policy, or if we were to consult only the trade unions in connection with it, considerable trouble would arise.
There is another opportunity for dealing with this in another place, and I suggest that the Government should consider inserting some words to show that they are prepared to consult the consumer, as well as the producer, of the service.
Mr. Philip Goodhart: I agree with most of what the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) has just said. I do not agree entirely with him about the practicality of a public opinion survey, because if the question is asked, "Do you want cheaper taxis?", obviously 99 per cent. of the people questioned will opt for a cheaper Service.
I agree that consumer interests should be consulted. I do not believe that the Home Secretary will be in a position to represent the consumer unless he makes some effort to try to find out what responsible consumer organisations believe. I therefore join the hon. Member for Nottingham, West in hoping that when the Bill goes to another place some extra words will be inserted to make sure that the consumer's voiced is heard.
Mr. Ennals: I cannot give the assurance that in another place we are likely to recommend any change. This will be for the noble Lords in the other place, but there are two points which I should like to make. First, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) said, the Secretary of State represents the interests of the Community.
I was once criticised for referring too frequently to the Stamp Committee. As is well known, part of the purpose of

1015
establishing this Committee is to look into the
" Operation, structure, and economy of the taxi cab and private hire car trades in London, to consider the respective rôles of the two Services, and the carriage of passengers in London, and the statutory controls needed for their safe and efficient Performance, and to make recommendations."
The Committee is not drawn from the trade, but from those who represent the consumer. The Committee may make recommendations which go beyond a number of provisions in the Bill. I cannot at this stage offer any hope that at a later stage in the passage of the Bill there will be any further Amendment.
Mr. Worsley: If it wishes to do so, will it be within the remit of the Stamp Committee to recommend that responsibility for licensing taxis in London should He with the G.L.C., instead of the Home Department?
Mr. Ennals: The Committee's terms of reference are very wide. It is asking for evidence from individual consumers. Some hon. Members may have read the letter in The Times inviting the public to give their views. The views of the G.L.C. and other representative bodies have also been asked for. If, in the light of these representations and considerations, the Stamp Committee were to make this recommendation, my right hon. Friend would give serious consideration to it.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4.
(PROHIBITION OF THE DISPLAY OF CERTAIN SIGNS OR NOTICES ON PRIVATE HIRE-CARS.)
Mr. Ennals: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 39, leave out from beginning to ' "private' in line 13 on page 3 and insert:
(b) which consists of the words ' for hire', or the form or wording of which is in any other way such as to suggest that the vehicle on which it is displayed is presently available to take up any passenger wishing to hire it, or would be so available if not already hired.
(2) No advertisement—

(a) indicating that motor vehicles can be hired on application to a specified address or telephone number, being the address or telephone number of premises in the metropolitan police district or the City of London; or

1016

(b) on or near any such premises indicating that motor vehicles can be hired at those premises.

shall include the word ' taxi' or ' cab', whether in the Singular or plural and whether alone or as part of another word, unless the vehicles offered for hire are licensed cabs or the advertisement makes it clear that they are not.
(3) Any person who—

(a) drives a vehicle in respect of which subsection (1) of this section is contravened or causes or permits that subsection to be contravened in respect of any vehicle; or

(b) subject to subsection (4) of this section, issues, or causes to be issued, an advertisement which contravenes subsection (2) of this section,

shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction, in the case of a first offence under the paragraph of this subsection in question, to a fine not exceeding £20 and, in the case of a second or subsequent offence under that paragraph, to a fine not exceeding £50.
(4) Where a person is charged with an offence under paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of this section, it shall be a defence to prove that he is a person whose business it is to publish or arrange for the publication of advertisements and that he received the advertisement in question for publication in the ordinary course of business and did not know and had no reason to suspect that its publication would amount to an offence under that paragraph.
(5) In this section—
' advertisement' includes every form of advertising, whether in a publication or by the display of notices or by means of circulars or other documents or by an exhibition of photographs or a cinematograph film, or by way of sound broadcasting or television, and references to the issue of an advertisement shall be construed accordingly;
I understand that it might be convenient if, with that Amendment, we take Amendments Nos. 5 and 6.
These three Amendments go together. The effect of the first Amendment is to extend the scope of the Clause in two quite separate ways, first, by generalising to some extent the restrictions on what may be displayed on vehicles, and, secondly, by imposing parallel restrictions on the use of certain words in advertisements.
Perhaps I might take first those parts of the Amendment which relate to what may be displayed on vehicles. It proposes to delete subsection (1,b) and subsection (2) which deal with the prohibitions on the use of variants on the word "hire", and to replace them with a new

1017
Paragraph (b). This repeats the previous absolute prohibition on the display of the words "for hire" when Standing alone, and then proceeds to generalise the restrictions previously contained in subsection (1,b, ii) and subsection (2), so as to prohibit the display of any sign or notice,
" the form or wording of which is in any other way such as to suggest that the vehicle on which it is displayed is presently available to take up any passenger wishing to hire it, or would be so available if not already hired."
This meets the point made in Committee by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzraan), who tabled an Amendment to the Clause.
The specific references to variants of the words "hire" or "hired" previously contained in paragraph (b,ii) have been dropped. I submit that they are superfluous now that the prohibition has been generalised so as to apply to any word which is misleading in the way set out in the latter part of the new paragraph (b). The Amendment does not meet the point covered by the second Amendment proposed by my hon. and learned Friend in Committee and I do not need to refer to that now.
8.0 p.m.
I move on to the part that deals with advertisements, which was a matter of considerable controversy in Committee. At the conclusion of our debate I said that I would reconsider the points made by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. The Amendment extends Clause 4 so as to apply to advertisements, and provision is made for a new subsection (2,a) which makes it an offence for any advertisement which indicates that a motor vehicle may be hired on application to an address or telephone n amber in London—that is, the Metropolitan Police District and the City of London—to include the word "taxi" or "cab" or any combinations thereof with other words unless the vehicles to which the advertisement relates are licensed cabs or, if not, the advertisement makes it clear that they are not.
There is parallel provision under paragraph (a) for advertisements displayed on the premises where vehicles may be hired to be subject to the same restrictions, even if they do not include a London
1018
address or telephone number, and this new restriction on advertising would affect the signs displayed in telephone boxes or in any other way, and therefore require that in such an advertisement it should be made clear whether or not the firm advertising was licensed as a hackney carriage operator.
The device of relating the prohibition only to advertisements carrying a London address or telephone number has been adopted to get around the difficulty to which I referred in answering the hon. Member when he originally proposed his Amendment, namely, that without some limitation of this kind the prohibition would affect provincial private hire car firms advertising locally. This would enlarge the scope of this part of the Bill in a quite unjustifiable way. The Bill deals with London problems, and it is neither desirable nor appropriate to extend its scope outside London, where we have no official knowledge that this problem even exists, although hon. Members have told us that many such problems do exist outside the London area. In any case, outside London local authorities who are responsible for the licensing of taxis already have wide powers to deal with this kind of problem in local legislation.
In the Amendment we have sought to define the word "advertisement". When the hon. Member moved his Amendment in Committee I referred to some of the difficulties that would arise without a definition. That is why we have sought to define the word. It is defined in the new subsection (5) as including
" every form of advertising, whether in a publication or by the display of notices or by means of circulars or other documents or by an exhibition of photographs or as cinematograph film, or by way of sound broadcasting or television …"
It will not apply to the trade name of a firm written up over the firm's premises, because that is not an advertisement, but advertisements displayed on those premises and incorporating the name will be caught in the same way as they would be if displayed elsewhere. By the same token a bare entry in a telephone directory will not be caught, although advertisements appearing in the same directory will be. The Amendment is designed to apply to misleading advertisements. Neither a name written up over the business premises nor a bare telephone directory entry is properly an advertisement soliciting

1019
custom, and it is only with the latter that the provisions is intended to be concerned.
The Amendment also deals with penalties, and the new subsection (3,a) repeats the relevant penalty provisions of the existing subsection (3) in relation to the offence of displaying a prohibited sign on a vehicle. Paragraph (b) makes Provision for the appropriate offence of issuing or causing to be issued an advertisement which contravenes the new subsection (2). The penalties will be the same for either offence.
The House, and especially those who were members of the Standing Committee, will probably agree that in this group of Amendments I have gone a long way, on behalf of the Government, to meet the arguments which were so cogently presented in Committee. It will be recalled that at the conclusion of our debate on an Amendment dealing in part with this subject I gave assurances to the Committee that I would look sincerely at the points that had been argued. I refuse to go as far as the hon. Member's Amendment, which would in my view have quite unfairly restricted the rights of private hire firms to advertise in fields in which they have every bit as much right to do their business as have taxi firms.
The proposal might have denied private hire car firms the use of titles and names which may have been theirs for years, and might have put a number of them out of business. This would have been very unfair, although I know that some people in the taxi trade would have been happy to put them out of business. This is not the purpose of the Bill.
We have attempted to strengthen still further the protection that we have given to taxi-cabs against private hire firms masquerading as taxi cab firms. Now they must make it clear in any advertisement that they are not licensed hackney carriages. This means that there is less likely to be a misunderstanding as to the conditions or obligations that have been undertaken by the private hire car firms, which are not licensed in the same way as are hackney carriages.
I submit that I have carried out to the full the assurances that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Raymond Fletcher) in Committee after a long and constructive debate.
Mr. Woodnutt: In view of the Amendment, does the Minister consider that this restriction on advertising now brings these firms within the relevant sections of the Companies Acts, and that it would be illegal for a Company to include the word "cab" or "taxi" in its name if it did not operate licensed taxis, and would make it subject to Board of Trade disapproval?
Mr. Ennals: I would hesitate to give a definitive answer to that question, which is a matter for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, but the Companies Acts deal with companies, and does not necessarily apply to all firms. Even though it might affect some it would not bite on all firms.
Mr. Worsley: The Government have come all the way to meet the substance of our Amendments in this case, and the Minister will find that he has a contented Opposition. Indeed, I venture to hope that the Government will follow our advice in other matters of greater moment. If they do they may find they will get on rather better. All I say in welcoming the Amendment is that it meets the substance of what we were arguing in Committee and it puts what we were trying to put much better than we could have put it.
It is different from the Situation in Committee, when the Minister was resisting us with all the powers at his command because, he said, the Stamp Committee was sitting, and if we moved the Amendment that we were then discussing that Committee would go home. I hope that he can assure us that the Committee has not gone home, but will continue its consideration of these important matters. On that amiable note I welcome the Amendment.
Mr. Ennals: I think that the hon. Member will recall that in Committee I said that the Stamp Committee might feel that it would be reasonable for it to go home if the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member and his hon. Friends were carried. I can assure him that even though he has welcomed the wisdom of the Government Amendments, the Amendment which we have discussed does not contain any of the serious dangers which were inherent in his Amendment, which I was strongly resisting. I think

1021
that the Stamp Committee will feel well satisfied with the result of our deliberations.
Mr. English: This is an extraordinary Amendment. I am sorry to discover that this is a case of two Front Benches ganging up to do something which is quite ridiculous. This proposal is an attempt to delete the word "minicab" from the English language in London— [An HON. MEMBER: "Not at all."] Of course it is. What is being said here is simply that one must use no word eluding the word "taxi" or "cab". The official title of the vehicles which we call taxis—the term of art in law, I believe —is hackney carriages, but the original Act is so out-dated that no one uses it.
What is actually said is that none of these advertisements shall include "taxi" or "cab"
"… whether in the singular or plural and whether alone or as part of another word, unless the vehicles offered for hire are licensed cabs or the advertisement makes it clear that they are not."
So one will be allowed only to use the word "minicab"—and this in London and nowhere else—provided only that one stipulates "minicab which is not a hackney carriage". Presumably, one should say, "taxi which is a hackney carriage". This is extraordinary—
Mr. Lubbock: If one put at the top of the advertisement, "Private car operators", that would be within the terms of the Amendment.
Mr. English: That would be, but the word "minicab" has now sunk into the English language. I suppose that Parliament can do anything, but this is an extraordinary attempt to delete a word which people commonly use. One will not now be able to refer in any advertisement simply to a "minicab", although every Citizen of London knows perfectly well that a minicab is not a taxi in the normally accepted meaning of the word. In other words, it is not a hackney carriage and a taxi is.
One will now be able to mention only "minicab, not being a hackney carriage". One will have to use a phrase instead of this common word. I do not know of another instance in which Parliament has tried to delete a word from the English language and replace it with a phrase,
1022
and that only in one city. Therefore, the Amendment is ridiculous in this sense.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary made great play on a previous Amendment with the fact that he would consult the owners and drivers of taxi-cabs. Has he consulted the owners and drivers of private hire cars? Has he consulted the Board of Trade, in view of the fact that it is responsible for the Consumer Protection Bill, dealing with misleading advertisements generally and not, in particular, and on the principle that the advertisements should simply tell the truth and not use an incorrect phrase? Has he consulted the advertising interests?
Since he is so keen to consult the interests of the producers, has he consulted the Board of Trade and the advertisers—either through the Advertising Association or the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising—and have the owners and drivers of private hire vehicles been consulted? This is an extraordinary Clause, especially when Parliament is about to consider a Consumer Protection Bill, dealing with all misleading advertisements. To see this one Clause on this one industry in this one city relating to advertisements of only one sort and attempting to delete this word from the English language, is quite extraordinary.
8.15 p.m.
Mr. Lubbock:, I do not agree with the hon. Member for Nottingham West (Mr. English). I am in the unusual Situation for me of agreeing with the two Front Benches. The advertisement provisions in the Amendment are an improvement on the original. To eliminate the use of the words "cab" and "taxi" either by themselves or in any combination is a step towards ensuring that the public are not misled into thinking that these vehicles are something which they are not.
Whatever the hon. Gentleman may say about the use of the word "minicab" having become ingrained in the English language, it is an undesirable word, because it does not give a correct description of the vehicles. They are no longer small. Most are Ford Zephyrs, or similar vehicles, so the prefix "mini", at any rate, is misleading. The word "cab" is equally misleading, because it implies that these vehicles are likely to ply for

1023
hire. Many of them have done so and it is only because it is so difficult to find evidence which will stand up in a court of law that there have not been many prosecutions of these people.
The first part of the Amendment, concerning the display of words on the vehicle, is not nearly so satisfactory. Although you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have not been pleased to call the Amendment which I tabled, it might at least be possible to draw the Under-Secretary's attention to the alternative to his Suggestion. If one is trying to prevent private hire operators giving the public the misleading impression that their vehicles may be stopped on the street and taken as taxis to a destination, one must examine carefully any signs whatever.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that these vehicles sometimes have illuminated signs displaying the company's name and telephone number above the roof, from which anybody might be entitled to assume that it could be stopped, like an ordinary taxi, and taken to his destination. The new wording of subsection (b) seems to mean that there would be nothing to prevent this hypothetical private hire firm from displaying not only its name and telephone number on this illuminated sign, but also other words which were calculated to mislead.
One or two examples occurred to me as I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West. It would be perfectly in order for this hypothetical firm to carry on an illuminated roof sign such words or phrases as "minicar", "minitax", "taxy", or "taxee". Therefore, the wording of the Amendment does not go nearly far enough. What is the point of these illuminated display signs at all, if they are not meant to indicate that these vehicles may be hired on the street? It is obvious to me—I know this from my own experience and from the stories told me by taxi drivers—that a member of the public sees a vehicle, his attention is drawn by the illuminated sign and he hails it and takes it to his destination—a practice which, as the Under-Secretary knows, is highly illegal but extremely difficult to prove in practice.
Therefore, why have we not prohibited the display of all these signs and not just those which contain the offending
1024
words "for hire" or anything suggesting that the vehicle can take up any passenger wishing to hire it?
This Clause will cause many difficulties in courts. The hon. Member for Nottingham, West is a lawyer —
Mr. English: I am not.
Mr. Lubbock: Well, he took a law degree, although he has never practised. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can define a limit within which words might be said to indicate that a vehicle is available for hire. I would not care to say what words might give this impression and what might not.
The only words substantially concerned in the Clause are the words "for hire" and those which I have mentioned. "Taxi" or "cab" are not affected by the Amendment, because they are in subsection (1).
Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: I think that the hon. Gentleman is misreading the Clause with the Amendment. Subsection l(a) will remain in the Bill and will, therefore, effectively prohibit the use of the words "taxi" and "cab" from being displayed on any vehicle.
Mr. Lubbock: I said that we were not altering subsection 1(a) but were adding a new paragraph (b). I pointed out the sort of variations that would be perfectly legal to be displayed on illuminated signs, such as leaving the "i" off the end of "taxi"—I mentioned this on Second Reading—or by spelling "taxi" with a "y" or "ee". These variants would be legal and I want to know why the Minister will not adopt the simpler Solution which I have proposed. In other words, no signs should be displayed on private hire cars.
To adopt this Suggestion would not damage the business of hire car firms, because we are allowing them to advertise within sensible limits. If these signs are displayed, I fear that the public will be incited to halt these cars on roads and make their drivers commit the offence of plying for hire. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will give this matter further thought. It may be too late for him to amend the Bill at this stage, but I trust that it will be amended in another place. I hope that the Minister will see the wisdom of the advice I have given and alter the Bill accordingly.
Mr. John Ellis: I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on the expedition and skill he has shown in drafting these new provisions. We had an extremely robust debate on these matters in Committee upstairs and my hon. Friend has amply lived up to the assurances he gave on that occasion. He promised to look at the suggestions made to him in Committee, and he has certainly done so.
The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) has made some interesting suggestions and has illustrated the difficulty of drafting provisions to cover all eventualities. I agree that such matters as illuminated signs and other variations make it difficult to legislate in this sphere. Certainly a great deal of difficulty might arise from the proposed new paragraph (b), which contains the words:
"… which consists of the words ' for hire', or the form or wording of which is in any way such as to suggest that the vehicle … is presently available to take up any passenger wishing to hire it…".
The reference there to "the form of wording" makes one wonder whether that Provision would apply to, for example, numbers. Would it apply to signs? An illuminated coloured triangle inside the vehicle—perhaps on the windscreen— night denote that the vehicle was for hire. When we discussed this matter in Committee hon. Members pointed out the difficulties facing us in legislating for these eventualities.
The wording of the proposed new subsection (2,a) seems better, but I wonder whether "advertisement" covers numbers. Certainly, "advertisement" represents an endeavour to get something over to the public, and I therefore prefer its use, although when the subsection goes on to refer to an advertisement not
"… indicating that motor vehicles can be h red on application to a specified address or telephone number, being the address or telephone number of premises in the metropolitan police district, or the City of London …".
I am not sure whether that refers to, say, a telephone kiosk where cards are displayed, the place where an advertisement is displayed or the vehicle itself. This may take into account the point which the hon. Member for Orpington has in mind about an advertisement being placed in a lighted dome on the roof of one of these vehicles.
Mr. Lubbock: The hon. Gentleman must read paragraph (a) with the words following at the end of subsection (2), that is:
" No advertisement…indicating that motor vehicles can be hired on application to a specified address or telephone number…shall include the word ' taxi' or ' cab '…".
Mr. Ellis: That intervention shows the sort of deep water in which we are swimming when legislating in this sphere. For this reason, I trust that the Minister will explain how wide he considers the Amendment goes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Raymond Fletcher), who is unable to be here, would, I am sure, be pleased to have seen these Amendments being tabled. My hon. Friend has done a tremendous amount of work in this matter, in consultation with the Transport and General Workers' Union. Although we have asked the Minister a number of searching questions, I assure him that we appreciate the immense complexity of this subject, for not only is it necessary that we make the law; we must ensure that it can be enforced. While it is true that the legitimate car hire firm has a place, we must ensure that it obeys the law and that the law can be enforced.
If we were to consider every variant of every type of sign that could be used… with every type of symbol and advertisement that could be thought up…we might spend years on this one aspect of the subject. Indeed, I suppose that tyres could be painted in certain colours. The Minister has made a first-class attempt to try to solve this difficult problem.
Mr. Goodhart: I am sorry to find that, once again, I am in agreement with the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) and against almost every other hon. Member who has spoken so far. If I needed anything to convince me that the hon. Gentleman was right, it was not so much his speech—although I agreed with it—but the complexity of the Minister's remarks and of the Amendment. It seems that when we must go into these difficult verbal contortions in an attempt to provide a service to the public, we are really getting to the point of some lunacy.
I am not anxious to see taxi-drivers subjected to unfair competition, partly

1027
because I have a large number of taxi-drivers in my constituency—although, alas, few hackney cabs are plying for hire in my area—and partly because, if they are subject to unfair competition and the number of hackney cabs goes down, the public as a whole will suffer.
On the other hand, when people are trying to provide a service to the public— as I think everyone has acknowledged the private hire car firms attempt—it cannot be right, in order to redress the balance for the cab drivers, to make the private car hire people offer their Services, as it were, in secrecy. There must be a better way of protecting the competitiveness of the cab drivers than to lay down that it is perfectly legal for a car hire firm to insert a small card in a telephone kiosk—and so often the telephones in the kiosks do not work that one has little reason to go into them to look for the cards—but not to have a card displayed on the windscreen of the car.
8.30 p.m.
Mr. English: I thank the hon. Member for his support, but is he aware that other local authorities get round the whole difficulty by taking the same powers over private hire vehicles that they have over taxis?
Mr. Goodhart: That would be a legitimate and sensible way of redressing the balance between the cab owners and the private hire companies. Let there be rather fewer restrictions on cab drivers than there are at present on private car hire operators, but let us not try to redress the balance by making secret the service offered by the private hire car people. I am against the idea put forward by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), that these people should not be allowed to have on their cards the telephone numbers of their firms. Such cards are a perfectly legitimate means of letting strangers to the area—who, perhaps, are those most in need of these hire cars—have some idea of how to get in touch with the firms. To adopt the hon. Gentleman's idea would mean that the public as a whole would suffer, while the cab drivers themselves would derive no benefit.
Mr. Lubbock: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that private hire car operators can still leave cards in telephone kiosks, and
1028
can advertise in any other manner they choose, as long as they do not use the word "taxi" or "cab", whether in the singular or the plural, or whether "owners" is another part of the word? Within those limitations they are still absolutely free to put advertisements in the newspapers or cards in kiosks.
Mr. Goodhart: That makes it even sillier.
8.33 p.m.
Mr. Arnold Shaw: One of the Committee's main debates on Clause 4 was whether plying for hire or advertising, as it were, from base, was the more important issue. Plying for hire is already illegal. I know that the law is not observed in every case, but that is a matter for the police. The present object is to make the Situation as between the car hire operator and the taxicab operator fairer than it is now. Although the Amendment might have gone further in certain ways, I am sure that it goes a long way to meet the requirements of the trade.
The Stamp Committee has to some extent been derided, but that Committee is examining the whole issue in a much wider way altogether and will report later. In the meantime, although the Bill seemed to be introduced as a sort of mild interim Measure, it now has a merit of its own. I am convinced that as an interim Measure, it will be heartily welcomed by the taxicab trade.
Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I represent a number of owners and drivers in the taxi trade in my constituency and on their behalf I would like to say how grateful they will be to the Government for the Amendment. It is necessary to give the licensed taxi trade a measure of protection. I appreciate what the Under-Secretary has said—that this is not a Bill to deal with the whole problem in this connection—but it is right, proper and fair at this moment to include a provision which gives the licensed taxi trade what is intended to be the monopoly use of the words "taxi" and "cab".
Whatever the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) may say, that does not worry me in the slightest. The public know perfectly well what a taxi or cab is. They know that it is a licensed taxi or cab. If people are misusing those words, they should not be

1029
allowed to do so to the detriment of other people's legitimate interest.
To give an example of the sort of thing which has happened, I came across a case a year or so ago of a firm which made it its business to get a list of names of owners of private cars who used their vehicles for their business and for recreation and other purposes. The intention was that they should earn money in their spare time by bringing the cars into the organisation and collecting money by operating simply as taxis and nothing else.
Clearly, if the Cream of the trade is to be taken off in that way, it is grossly unfair on those who have to pay substantial sums of money for the purpose of buying and keeping taxis which have to comply with the limits of the licence and, even more particularly, to those who drive taxis and who have to spend anything up to a year learning their trade before they can earn any money. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to give this special privilege to those who are licensed. The Amendment does not in any way go beyond what is necessary. It does not seem to me that it can do any damage to the legitimate hire-car trade. For that reason, I welcome it and I thank the Government.
Amendment agreed to.

Title.
Amendments made: No. 5, in line 7, leave out ' and '.
No. 6, in line 9, leave out
' or certain other speeified words'
and insert
' and signs or notices of certain other descriptions; and to restrict the issue, in connection with certain vehicles, of advertisements containing either of those words.'.—[Mr. Ennals.]
Motion made, and Question, That the Hill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 55 (Third Reading) and agreed to.
Bill accordingly, read the Third time. and passed.

SEWERAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Bill referred to the Scottish Grand Committee.—[Dr. Dickson Mahon.]

SCOTLAND (SALE OF COUNCIL HOUSES)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Grey.]
8.39 p.m.
Mr. Gordon Campbell (Moray and Nairn): I wish to raise tonight the question of the sale of Council houses in Scotland. As you will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have been applying since October for this debate and I am glad that I have at last been successful in the Ballot. It gives me an opportunity before the Recess to persuade the Secretary of State for Scotland to change an attitude which he seems to have adopted only since February this year. Cases have have arisen in my constituency to which I will refer later. No doubt similar cases have arisen and are arising elsewhere in Scotland.
As I understand the position in Scotland, the Secretary of State's approval is required before a local authority can sell a house which has been let for general needs purposes. If this is not the position, no doubt the Minister of State will tell us. I recognise that this Government could not be expected to give their approval to mass sales of Council houses. They have made it clear that it is their party policy to oppose such sales of houses in very large numbers. I entirely understand the Government taking a negative view and rejecting any proposals of that kind in Scotland.
What I want to find out from the Government tonight is whether they are opposed to any sale of a Council house now in a place where there is a housing list with applicants waiting for Council houses. I had hoped that the Government would be prepared to consider the circumstances of individual cases and decide whether to give permission. It appears that the Government have changed their policy since earlier this year.
Up till February of this year the Secretary of State has given his approval to the selling of Council houses in my constituency and in the particular burgh whose cases I will mention shortly. The last case was as recent as last February. I claim that there are situations in which the sale of a house can be of advantage

1031
to both the Council and the tenant and can, at the same time, help the local housing Situation and, therefore, be an advantage to those who are on the waiting list. Applicants on the waiting list can gain rather than lose from such a transaction.
Such a house cannot be available for reletting, unless the Council evicts the sitting tenant. Money from the sale can contribute towards new housing. The Council is relieved, in the case of older houses, of maintenance and repair, which can amount to a considerable sum. In the cases which I am considering, I would expect the sale price to be an economic price. I am not dealing with any case where a house is being given away at a nominal price. I am concerned with cases where an economic price is being asked.
A house is also a home. If a family has lived in it for 20 years or so, will a Council evict the family, for example if a wife is widowed and the children have grown up and departed? In almost every case, a Council will not evict in those circumstances. The House knows many other examples where families have been good tenants and paid their rates well and, either because their children have grown up or because of misfortune, the person occupying the house, or the couple, may be over-housed.
Sometimes the Council suggests that they move to a smaller house, and this is happily carried out. That still hardly affects the position of the stock of houses as a whole. They are still in a Council house, and Councils are understandably reluctant to evict such people from Council houses because, as I have said, the house is a home, especially when the family have lived in it for so long.
I come now to the cases in my constituency. I wish to make clear at the outset that politics, as I think the Minister knows, do not arise in my constituency on this matter at all. There are no political labels attached to local government in Moray and Nairn. The candidates stand as individuals and, when they are councillors in Council, the Councils themselves have no politics and there are no majorities or minorities.
The cases to which I refer tonight have arisen in the Burgh of Lossiemouth, but a principle is involved which could
1032
apply, and may be applying, anywhere else in Scotland. Fifteen years ago, the town Council of Lossiemouth earmarked 32 old houses for sale, houses which had all been built before 1930. During the fifteen years, 22 of those houses have been sold, the sale of the last one having been authorised by the Secretary of State, as I said, in February last. Since then, however, the Secretary of State has refused approval for the sale of three more, and this apparent change is now preventing the Council from carrying out its policy in regard to those older houses.
The Council has not changed its policy. Its policy has been perfectly clear, and the Council has been pursuing it as appropriate moments came for the sale of these houses. It has restricted its offers of sale for these houses to its tenants or to people on the housing waiting list; it has not made the houses available to other persons.
The position of the tenants is of concern to me also because tenants can be adversely affected by the Secretary of State's attitude. In one of the houses a widow has lived for more than 30 years. She was willing to buy the house, which, incidentally, is only two doors away from the one in respect of which the Secretary of State gave approval last February. Her house is not available for letting to any applicant on the housing list, and the Council would not, surely, evict her in the circumstances.
On 14th December a year ago, in answer to a Question, the Secretary of State stated that he would give his consent in future only in very special cases, but it seems now that he is withholding his consent in cases for which it would previously have been expected. Perhaps the Minister of State can tell us more about it, but that is how I understand the position.
Lossiemouth town Council is operating the policy which it thought best for the whole Community it serves. The ratepayers, tenants and applicants on the housing list are all likely to benefit from the sale of these houses in appropriate circumstances. The Council is pressing on with its own building programme which will make the main contribution to meeting the housing needs of die burgh.
Anomalies arise from a Situation of this kind. One is that, without having to

1033
seek the Secretary of State's permission, the town council is able to sell some newly-built houses, houses built only within the last year or two and which have never been occupied. It has done this as pert of a road widening scheme. Because these houses have never been let, the Secretary of State's approval for their sale is not required. So we have a Situation in which, while the Council can sell new empty houses and advertise them for sale without any trouble, the Secretary of State is stopping the sale of old houses to the sitting tenants, the present occupants. This must be an anomaly.
The second anomaly to which I draw attention is what is happening in England and especially in Birmingham. According to newspaper reports, Birmingham is selling Council houses at the rate of about 50 a month, but the Minister of Housing in England and Wales is not intervening. In The Times of 14th November, the Minister of Housing was reported as saying that he did not think that the situation required him to step in or use his powers. In Scotland we have the Secretary of State apparently being dictatorial in a field entirely within Scottish administration, nothing to do with Whitehall, or the Treasury, or anything like that, while the equivalent Minister in England is not intervening in the sale of Council houses on a considerably larger scale.
I understand that the position in England is that a general consent was given some time ago by the Minister of Housing in a circular to local authorities, so that at present they do not need to apply to the Minister in each case, but of course, the Minister could rescind that and take back powers if he wished and alter the Situation so that he could intervene as the Secretary of State is doing in Scotland.
I recognise that the Secretary of State may wish to impose conditions on a sale and that is perfectly reasonable. I have mentioned the purchase price. I accept at once that when the Secretary of State has given his approval to the sale of Council houses he will wish to satisfy him-self that the price is sensible and economic. Where there is a housing shortage it would be perfectly reasonable for him to insist that the Council should retain rights over the house for a period of years, say, five years. This would ensure that there could be no question of abuse, such
1034
as quick resale at a profit by the person who had bought the house, or some curious anomaly arising as a result of a sudden and unforeseen death of the tenant.
If the Secretary of State wished to make such conditions which were not automatically in the proposals which Councils were putting to him, I would say that those were reasonable conditions which most Councils would be prepared to consider and probably accept. But there may be other conditions about which the Minister of State might tell us and which the Government might wish to include in any arrangement for the sale of individual Council houses in this way. Those, too, I would have thought would be reasonable and could be included.
The Chief way to meet the housing shortage, as has been said on both sides of the House many times, is by building. Instead of waiting for a tenant to die or leave, surely it is better, if the circum-stances are right and the tenant is willing, to obtain the money from the sale of a house and use it to increase the building Programme. This is especially true at a time of financial stringency, such as the present, when, as we have heard again only today from the Prime Minister, Government expenditure is to be further restricted and when the public is being encouraged to save. Councils should not be forbidden from selling Council houses, but at the same time they should not be compelled to sell them. This is a subject in which reasonable discretion should be given to local authorities to do what they consider to be best.
The tenants in the cases that I have looked into are upset by the Government's decision and the change of policy. In addition, Lossiemouth Town Council, which has no political colour, feels that its views are either not fully understood by the Government are not properly considered. I understand that it is seeking further discussions with the Government, and I hope that a Minister at the Scottish Office will arrange that they take place.
In the case of Lossiemouth, there is no question of mass sales of Council houses. It is a straightforward matter of administration and examining the pros and cons of particular transactions for all concerned. Consent should not be withheld from a proposal by a Council unless the

1035
Government proves to it that there is a valid objection, and that has not been done in the cases I have mentioned, especially as the Government previously gave their approval to similar sales up to February.
The refusals in these cases, where there seemed to be advantages to all concerned, make one wonder whether in any Situation where the Secretary of State's approval is required such consent will now be given. The impression has been created that the Government will not now approve of any such proposals. The Minister of State indicates dissent. I am glad, but that is certainly the impression. I hope that the Minister will say tonight that the Government will reconsider the Position. There could possibly have been misunderstanding at St. Andrew's House about the council's purposes and plans, but I understand that all the relevant facts and information about the proposed sales have been provided by it.
As he indicated dissent when I said that the impression had been created that there was now a general prohibition on such sales, will the Minister tell us tonight the circumstances in which a sale would be authorised? I hope that he can give us examples of cases where the circumstances would be right in the Government's view for a sale to be authorised. That would greatly help Councils like Lossiemouth with such proposals and plans.
The refusals in those cases have raised doubts and considerable anxiety amongst tenants, besides giving the Council a more difficult task in its housing programme. On behalf of my constituents who are tenants, ratepayers, councillors, and applicants on the housing list, I ask the Scottish Office Ministers to reconsider carefully these cases and the policy decision which seems to have been taken about a year ago.
The Minister accepted an Amendment which I moved a short time ago to a Scottish Bill, having changed his mind between the Committee stage and our consideration of it tonight. I hope that similarly he will be prepared to reconsider this question. In any case, I hope that the Secretary of State will keep an open mind and will still be ready to listen fully to the details of particular cases, where proposals are put forward for the
1036
sale of Council houses, and to the arguments in favour of such sales.
9.0 p.m.
Mr. William Small: I listened to the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) with scepticism. He is a prominent spokesman of the Tory Party on broader horizons and into this narrow subject of the sale of Council houses in Lossiemouth he managed to bring Birmingham, over the Border. There may be discretionary features among local authorities, but the generality of his speech surprised me.
The hon. Gentleman's case is that he wants the houses sold at an economic price. But an economic price is arrived at on scarcity value as between a willing seller and a willing buyer. Of course, to satisfy the general public, he should have added the philosophy of admission of the Press to the sale as well. Is the sale to be by auction? After all, this is public property subsidised by public money. Is it to be a private contract between a sitting tenant and the Council at an agreed price? If so, one does not get the economic price. Nor is there access by the Press, and local authority accounts are shown in the generality in such cases.
Mr. G. Campbell: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was here— [HON. MEMBERS: "He was."] Then he has misunderstood what I said. I mentioned Birmingham simply to show the anomaly that one Minister in the Government is not intervening there, where a considerable number of sales are taking place, whereas, in Scotland, another Minister who has been authorising sales stopped authorising them only a few months ago.
Mr. Small: I probably misinterpreted the hon. Gentleman. But I am sure that he was giving general support to the sale of Council houses as policy. He referred to Lossiemouth Council as being nonpolitical, but to me that means that it is a non-Labour Council. However, we need not go into semantics. The argument is about who is to represent the tenant.
The Situation is that the hon. Gentleman is advocating a policy for the Tory Party. Does he carry his party with him? If that is his standing in the Tory Party, I am surprised at the lack of support for

1037
him on the benches opposite. One assumes always that, when a Front Bench spokesman for any party speaks in the House, he has the support of his back benches. It is one of the weaknesses of his argument that he apparently has no back-bench support.
The hon. Gentleman referred to restricted sales. On what principle would this be applied? Would they be sales of casual vacancies? Or would it be the nomination of the tenant that his house should not go back into the pool? How would one arrive at the decision? Would it be by the desire of the tenant to buy the house? The hon. Gentleman has not satisfied us about the criteria on which to make this a policy.
If it were to be by private contract between a sitting tenant and the local authority, it would become a dangerous line to follow. It would be dangerous to those on the housing list, who would see their opportunities for housing being usurped. I have never felt that housing was a social Service. I have always argued that it is a public Service available to those who need it, and to reduce the pool of houses available is a dangerous road to travel in the light of the requirements of the Community at the moment.
Nor did the hon. Gentleman indicate whether the houses he has in mind would be older houses or new stock. In any case, such a policy would not guarantee security of tenure for the rest of the family involved. There is security of tenure at the moment. When a tenant dies the house goes to the oldest unmarried member of the family.
That is the general run and rule of local authority administration. It goes to the eldest unmarried member of the tenant's family, who is protected by the local authority. What is the nature of the succession? Does it go back for sale, orfor redistribution for economic reasons? The hon. Member must recognize—indeed, he said—that a house, be it a Council house or not, becomes a home, and so security of tenure to a family is very important indeed. Under the law of succession at present operating under municipal administration, it is the eldest unmarried member of the tenant's family who generally gets the gift of the tenancy. There will not be the same protection if
1038
houses are brought within the category of sale and private contract.
I hope that the Minister will resist the introduction of that into local authority administration of housing in Scotland.
9.6 p.m.
Mr. John Robertson: I have the same difficulty as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun (Mr. Small) in knowing just exactly what the case was which the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) was making. If he had confined himself to Lossiemouth we would have been in some difficulty in speaking in this Adjournment debate at all, but, of his own choosing, he sought to extend the argument beyond Lossiemouth and to the rest of the country, as a general principle affecting all Scottish local authorities.
I felt, too, that the hon. Member might have helped the House a great deal if he had told us something about the Lossiemouth housing list, the number of houses Lossiemouth has built and the number of people who want houses to let. That would have assisted the House in knowing whether or not he had a good argument.
Mr. G. Campbell: I could have made an exceedingly long speech on this subject, but I can certainly supply that information. The number of people on the housing list was 170 the last time I heard.
Mr. Robertson: That tells us one side of the problem—how many houses are to let in Lossiemouth.
I remember one hon. Gentleman on that side of the House, when he was sitting on this, the Government, side arguing very eloquently and with a great deal of force that what we needed in Scotland was houses to let. We remember how hon. and right hon. Members opposite would solve the housing problem in 1961, how they solved it again in 1962, how they solved it again in 1963! The housing lists have never disappeared—even when they told us the Problem was solved. I remember one of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends speaking from the Government Front Bench saying that in Paisley the housing problem was solved. Afterwards, he changed his mind and said it was in Hamilton. In fact, the only place where

1039
they solved the problem was in their own minds. They wanted to get rid of it. Then they came with a Bill to encourage people to build houses for renting because, they said, that was where the lack was.
Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that, if he sells off the older Council houses, then, in order to meet the rating bill, he will have to increase the rents of the houses that are left? Does he not remember himself arguing that the only way we could count the subsidy being paid for houses was to take the whole stock of houses—to take the pre-war houses as well as the post-war houses, put them all together, in order to calculate an adequate subsidy?
If a local authority sells off all its pre-war houses and has only post-war houses left, it will have to fix rents on them which people cannot afford to pay or the cost will have to be borne on the rates. The economic rent of a pre-war house will never meet the cost of building a new Council house today. What could be expected from a pre-war house? Many such houses would be over-priced at £2,500, whereas it costs between £3,000 and £4,000 to build a new house. The problem cannot be solved by selling existing Council houses. We have argued this one out often in the past, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should attempt to raise it again now.
The hon. Gentleman has not really studied the problem. What is needed in Scotland more than anything today is houses to let, even in Hamilton and Paisley. The number of people who come asking for my help to get a house to rent is fantastic. It is one of my major tasks in my surgery, and I know that my hon. Friends all find the same problem. I suggest that it is the major housing problem in Lossiemouth, too. If people can afford to buy up-to-date Council houses at economic prices, I suggest that they can get private enterprise builders to build similar houses for the same money.
I agree that a problem arises here in that it is more expensive to build a house in Scotland than it is in the South-East of England. The most expensive house in Britain is the private enterprise-built house in Scotland. It is a problem which
1040
we have tried to tackle over the years, and I agree that it is difficult. Nevertheless, when one considers the economic price of an up-to-date Council house, anyone who can afford to buy that kind of house can afford to buy a house built by a private enterprise builder. That is the way to increase the housing—not selling off Stocks of houses for rent. The only thing achieved by doing that is to remove the hope of people on the housing list of getting a decent house in which to live.
I agree that Glasgow has a terrible housing problem, but the worst houses in Scotland are not in Glasgow. They can be found in the little towns and villages in the countryside. These small burghs, particularly in the rural areas, need to get down to the job of building decent houses for their populations. That is the first priority, and it is that with which the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn should be concerning himself.
I do not know whether there has been a new policy from the Scottish Office about restricting the sale of houses. I have never heard complaints from the two Councils with which I am familiar, that of the area in which I live and that of the area which I represent. Their complaint is that they cannot get enough money to build houses to let.
The hon. Gentleman should read his own speeches made in the Scottish Grand Committee three years ago. Perhaps, then, he might convience himself that he was right then and is wrong this time.
Mr. G. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman is probably thinking of the speeches of other hon. Members. When I was Under-Secretary, I was dealing with this Situation on very few occasions. I spoke from the Front Bench during the Committee stage of a United Kingdom Housing Bill, but not in the Scottish Grand Committee.
Mr. Robertson: On the occasion to which I have referred, the hon. Gentleman was not speaking from the Front Bench. He was speaking from the back benches in support of his Front Bench. If he cares to exercise his mind, I am sure that he will remember the occasion.
9.15 p.m.
Mr. Hugh D. Brown (Glasgow, Provan): There is something of an anti-climax about the atmosphere in the House this evening. This is understandable. For the life of me I cannot see how I can possibly relate the sale of Council houses to arms for South Africa or some of the economic problems that night be facing us. Nevertheless, we are indebted to the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) for raising this subject. It is too bad that the Minister of State will have to reply to a few points which perhaps he did not anticipate. But life has to go on, despite arms for South Africa.
I want to express a point of view, which I think is shared by most hon. Members from Glasgow, on the sale of Council houses. There is something in the argument about the selling of Council houses. We cannot afford to take a doctrinaire attitude and say that under no circumstances could we justify the sale of Council houses. The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn is probably quite reasonable in his attitude to this problem, considering that he is referring to a small burgh which does not, as far as I know, have any major problems of any kind. However, when one comes to the big cities and the larger towns in Scotland the sale of Council houses becomes a different proposition, and it certainly becomes a political issue.
I am not against owner-occupation, and this is basically what the argument is about. In some way it is to encourage the expansion of owner-occupation. It presumes that someone who buys a house acquires virtues and attitudes towards the property which he did not possess when it was a Council house. Either that, or he must be getting a bargain. If he is getting a bargain, it must presumably be at public expense. There-fore, I cannot see the contribution that it makes to solving the housing problem, and to the extent that it might encourage discussion in the House and elsewhere and tend to make it a major political issue, that would be unfortunate.
What would happen if an authority like Glasgow decided that it would be wise to sell Council houses? It has not even got the land to indulge in co-operative housing associations or to give private enterprise the opportunity of
1042
building for sale inside the city. Inevitably, if there were a sale of Council houses, one would be driven into two positions. The first would be to indulge in some kind of priority System, in the sense of giving priority to categories such as teachers or policemen. There is a good case for that. But the second would be that one would be dictated to by the group for which a case could be made out for allowing it to buy houses. It would dictate where it wanted to buy houses. In other words, it completely alters the whole attitude to housing of one establishes priority categories and on top of that gives them some greater advantage in where the house they want to buy might be.
It is a lot of old rubbish to talk about the rights of the sitting tenant who might want to buy a house. There is security of tenure. There is not a local authority in the country, to my knowledge, which has ever acted in any spirit of vindictiveness and evicted any successor to someone who had lived in the house for years. Therefore, I do not see any force in this argument.
I must admit that I am concerned about the financial arguments that always bother us in housing. I have discovered, since coming here, that if one dare suggest that certain areas have peculiar Problems one is accused of being parochial. But it is true that the Scottish Office is not facing up to the social inequalities that arise from the shortage of land in Scotland. I think that this is the biggest Charge.
In Glasgow, we have been confronted with the problem of out-county estates, with a burden on the exporting Community. It is not our fault that there is overcrowding in Glasgow. I am deeply disappointed and disturbed at the attitude of the Scottish Office in not being able to break away from the concept that it is always the fault of the city, or the town— and this can apply to Paisley or to any other large burgh which is reaching the stage of needing to export people—that it has too many people in houses which should have been condemned long ago. The greater the financial burden that is placed on exporting authorities, the greater will be the pressure from Tories and all sorts of independents to encourage the sale of Council houses to relieve the financial burden.

1043
I would like the Minister to look seriously at where we are going in Scotland. We are going to create large areas which will be deprived of the so-called benefits of a mixed Community. The Scottish Office allows the sale of houses in new towns. Why does it not allow the sale of houses in other areas? If there are special problems, why not admit them? Why should not we be more selective, and, instead of concentrating so much on the total number of houses being built in Scotland—I know that we must have some regard for this—think more in terms of where we are building, and the kind of houses that we are building?
We should look, not just at the problems of Lossiemouth, but at the whole structure of housing finance in Scotland. We need to look at the rents of controlled properties. We need to look at the whole rent structure in Scotland. We should not tinker with financial inducements to try to get private enterprise to do a job which I am certain it will not do, or will be unwilling to do. If we are to have bold and imaginative government, we must grasp some of the nettles in housing finance, and not always follow the hon. Gentlemen opposite, even though this may mean saying to burghs like Lossiemouth, "You will not get an allocation of money for housing finance unless you can prove there is a need".
Mr. G. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman knows Lossiemouth, and his father-in-law, who was a Member here, knew it well. The hon. Gentleman is entirely in agreement with me—I do not know whether he was here at the beginning of my speech —when he says that Councils do not evict the proper successors of tenants. For this reason, the sale of a house does not take away a house from someone on the housing list. My other point is that a number of houses involved in Lossiemouth, now 10, is only H per cent. of the total. There is no question of the mass sale of Council houses. It is just a small number.
Mr. Brown: I do not propose to follow the hon. Gentleman into the detailed Problems of Lossiemouth, but it is obvious that it does not have a housing problem of any significance in the sense of housing need in the Community. This is the only point that I was making.
1044
I have a great regard for the Minister's industry and energy in going round the country, but I have come to the conclusion that we cannot please everybody all the time. Not even my hon. Friend can do that. Therefore, if we are to get this imaginative break-through, we must tackle the land question. The amount of land available around Glasgow is almost a scandal. In Milngavie there are two estates under private ownership. They are not even being cultivated. They are not being put to any useful purpose whatsoever. I can find nothing in our three years of Government to show that we are going to be tough with landowners who are holding land. We do not want to use all of it for housing, but certainly far too much of it is being secured by auction by private enterprise. If we had a little more action in this regard, we would get much more support our our policies in the country.
9.25 p.m.
Mr. Alex Eadie: I do not want to develop the arguments put forward by some of my hon. Friends. I was in some difficulty in listening to the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell), who ranged from the specific to the general. If he had rested his case on the specific some of us would have been hard put to cross swords with him, but he went on to talk in general terms. He may have talked with some authority about Lossiemouth, but I question which he can talk with the same authority about the general Situation, because week in and week out, my mail is full of letters from people who need houses and should have them.
The sale of Council houses would in no way solve their problem. To talk of the sale of Council houses as if it offered a part-way Solution to the housing problem is wrong. The hon. Member should have another look at the problem. I received a letter today from a constituent who will be evicted this month because the factory where he has been working has closed down and the owners want the house in which he is living. It is a tied house, and two or three people are involved.
We must deal with need. Hon. Members opposite, when talking about housing, become obsessed with finance, believing that if we can solve some of the financial problems we can wave a magic wand and solve the housing problem. It is not a

1045
question of finance; it is a question of need. The individual is entitled to a house because he needs a house; it does not depend on whether he can afford to buy a house—a Council house or a privately-built house.
For many years I was chairman of a county housing committee, and during that time I worked with two or three medical officers for the county. They had no politics, but without exception they argued that housing was an investment for the well-being of the Community, and that industry and the Community always got a sound return from the provision of houses for rent. The question of houses to buy did not enter into the matter, because the vast majority of the people could never afford to buy a house.
In many areas we have seen the well-being of a Community uplifted by the Provision of proper housing. We have always argued about the provision of new schools being a sound investment and a necessary capital investment, for better education, yet in the very areas where those schools have been built the housing is a real disgrace to the Community. Some of the best days of my life as a housing convenor were spent ordering the bulldozing of miners' rows and the building in their place of proper housing, an investment which showed a return for the Community and industry.
The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn may not have done the Lossiemouth local authority a disservice tonight, but he may have done a disservice to Scottish local authorities generally when he spoke about such cases as an old lady living in a house which was too big for her. He must know that most local authorities operate a voluntary decanting system which works very well. The hon. Gentleman came near advocating a compulsory system—
Mr. G. Campbell: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not hear what I said— that, in that Situation, local authorities normally try to move a person to a smaller house. But I pointed out that this does not make a house available to someone on the housing list. A person would simply move from a larger to a smaller house.
Mr. Eadie: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but the logic of his argument was close to advocating a com-
1046
pulsory decanting system. I have crossed swords in the Grand Committee with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor), who also came close to advocating a compulsory policy.
It would be a sad day for Scotland if we gave any hint of encouragement to local authorities for such a system, because the social consequences would be tremendous. I agree that local authorities try to solve this problem with compassion and understanding. This relates not only to Council houses. Sometimes, a house or land has to be acquired because development is being held back. If an aged couple live there and alternative accommodation cannot be provided, it is common for most local authorities, even at gross inconvenience, to grant them a life undertaking.
The hon. Member has not advanced his case for the mass sale of Council houses. I do not know the position in Lossiemouth; his case may have been stronger if he had dealt with the specific rather than the general.
Mr. G. Campbell: Everything I said this evening was prefaced by the remark that I was not raising tonight the question of the mass sale of Council houses, but the particular questions which had arisen of the sale of individual houses. I said (hat I accepted that this Government would be opposed to mass sales and I therefore did not raise that question.
Mr. Eadie: The hon. Gentleman's speech ranged very wide, and if there was any doubt about my point, some of my hon. Friends have tried to make precisely the same point. The hon. Gentleman may have intended to deal with specific instances, but I suggest that he reads the report of his speech tomorrow, when he will discover that, in ranging so far, he gave the impression, at least to those on this side, that he was talking generally about the sale of Council houses.
9.35 p.m.
Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: The House will be grateful to the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) for initiating this debate. Although he has initiated it in the rather limited sense of Lossiemouth, as the principal Opposition spokesman on housing, we must take his speech seriously and consider it carefully, although I wonder whether he is flying something of a kite.

1047
The problem of the sale of houses has interested me for a long time. My first entry into representative Office occurred as the result of the Labour landslide in Glasgow in 1952, on this very issue. The electors of that city—and most people in the West of Scotland were in agreement with them—considered that Council houses should not be sold, and at that time the Labour Party in Glasgow secured one of its biggest majorities.
The interesting point about that election campaign was the dishonesty of the Conservative spokesmen. The Conservative Party had for a long time taken a strong stand—and the same applies today—on rents. It has always advocated that there should be economic, realistic—or what other form of words one chooses to call them—rents. But when an opportunity presented itself for the Conservative Party, in the biggest of all local authorities in Scotland, to do something about it, it shirked the issue by trying to persuade the electors there that to solve the problem by that means would really not solve it in the long run. The result was that the Conservative Party was unable to persuade the electors that all the social difficulties of the area would be solved by selling Council houses.
I do not wish to delay the House. I have only four questions to ask. The first is whether or not this is the best way to solve the admitted difficulty of financing the building of more houses by local authorities. The second is to discover whether there is a shortage of houses for sale. The third is to know whether or not there is a demand from occupiers to buy the houses in which they live. The fourth, and most important, is the effect that such a Solution would have on the thousands of people in Scotland who are waiting for Council houses.
When considering the question of Council house finance, there seems to be an unseemly interest sometimes in the whole subject. Although we are basically interested in it, some people seem to think that this is the be all and end all of local authority affairs; that local authorities must provide this one Service and do nothing else. They are not always aware that, to build more houses, local authorities must be concerned with providing the labour and obtaining the materials and resources.
1048
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said that if local authorities feel that they have a problem, then, it being a local problem, it is up to them to do what they think is necessary; that if they wish to introduce a realistic rent structure, local democracy being what it is, they have the right to do that. In other words, it is up to them to determine these matters for themselves.
It is our Obligation, as the representatives of the people, to persuade the Government about our housing difficulties. Recent legislation has been of considerable value to local authorities which find difficulty in financing their housebuilding programmes because of the cost of land, the increased cost of multistorey building and problems associated with modern house development, particularly when they are faced with a great deal of slum clearance, as is the case in West of Scotland constituencies.
At the heart of this matter is the question whether or not there is a shortage of houses for sale. The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn is aware that, in the past, I have pointed out that it is right and proper that people who aspire to own their own homes should be able to do so. This is, of course, a matter of personal choice. Many people put it as their first priority. Indeed, many make it their one ambition and are prepared to go without many things so as to own their own homes. I own my own home. That was one of my ambitions and it is now achieved, at least partly.
I used to look at the Glasgow Herald with great regularity. On several days of the week there were long columns of all the houses available in Glasgow, in Rutherglen—all over Scotland—for those wanting to buy their own houses. A great range was offered, from "Single ends", as we call them, right up to houses with 10, 11 or 12 rooms and kitchen. There is, therefore, no shortage of houses for those who want to buy them.
When we were returned in 1964 many people greatly feared that we would put a stop to the building of private houses. I now ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State whether that is the case. If my memory serves me aright, in October of this year 600 houses were completed for sale in Scotland, and about 9,600 houses for sale were under construction by private agencies. That seems to be in

1049
excess of the private housing figure we had a few years ago. This argument really hinges on demand, but the demand is at present being met.
I have never thought that it was any part of the business of local authorities to build houses for sale to private persons. Their job, quite clearly, is to build houses for those who have the greatest need for them. There are dozens of other excellent agencies which build houses for sale. I therefore appeal to my hon. Friend, though I do not think that I have any great need to do so, as I am sure that his mind is already persuaded, to bear in mind that if the policy of selling Council houses is accepted a great many people will drop right down the waiting list. As I say, it is no part of the business of local authorities to compete with private builders in providing houses for sale in this way, nor should they interfere in this business.
9.42 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): I certainly re-call the occasion to which my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie) referred when he was first elected to the Glasgow Corporation. There was a great battle in 1952 about whether Council houses should be sold.
The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) referred to Birmingham, but it is interesting to reflect that in the recent municipal elections in Glasgow, the leader of the Progressives—the rival to the Labour Party, which is in control there—and the leader of the Labour Party issued a Statement on the right before the poll saying that, which-ever party won the election, neither would operate the mass sale of Council houses nor, except in the most special and urgent corcumstances, ever seek to dispose of a Council house.
The reason given by the leader of the Progressive Party for his Statement was that about 80,000 people were on the waiting list. It is interesting to compare the Performance in Glasgow with that in Birmingham.
I do not know exactly how many houses these are in Glasgow, but I would guess that there must be about 320,000. If there are 80,000 families short of a
1050
home and 320,000 houses it means, roughly speaking, that 80 per cent. of Glasgow's people are properly housed— that is assuming that all the houses are good, which they are not. However, taking crude figures, and assuming that all the houses are good houses, and not slums or substandard, 80 per cent. of Glasgow's population is properly housed. If that is a fair figure, we can take it as some measure of what is happenning in other communities in Scotland.
I turn now to Lossiemouth. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) spoke as he did. He obviously could not have heard the figures properly, because the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn admitted that 170 families—families, not persons—in Lossiemouth were waiting for houses. I am glad that my hon. Friend misheard the figure. As a result, perhaps he will withdraw what he said earlier. If there are 171 families in the queue for housing, and I calculate that there are something like 1,800 houses in Lossiemouth, it means that 90 per cent. of the people of Lossiemouth have houses and 10 per cent. do not. That is the real measure of the problem. In this crude analysis, one ought to take into consideration the number of houses in Lossiemouth and see how many of them are substandard.
I do not want to go into all the figures, but we are not averse to discussing with a local authority any particular or peculiar circumstances affecting any tenant, and it is not the policy of the Secretary of State to say that we are absolutely against the sale of any Council house. We have said that there will have to be very special circumstances before the Secretary of State will consent.
We have arranged with the Provost of Lossiemouth that my noble Friend Lord Hughes will discuss these particular circumstances with him in detail. However, the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn must be fair and remember that when he gave notice to you, Mr. Speaker, that he would initiate this Adjournment debate, he was not acknowledging one of the points which I made. It is that it is within the discretion of the town Council to give the widow whom he mentioned the assurance which she wanted in respect of her daughter and two grandchildren.

1051
All of my hon. Friends have underlined the fact that, although there is no statutory security of tenure comparable to that under the Rent Act, in practice local authorities give favourable consideration to local authority tenants and their successors, by which I mean not just their successors in law but their successors in morality and the humane consideration of a family's circumstances.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen argued the case about the existence of houses for sale, and one of the things that I said to the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn was that people in Lossiemouth who have bought Council houses ought to have been encouraged to buy houses for sale which had been built by local builders or unsubsidised houses bought by the local authority. The party opposite has never been keen on local authorities building houses for sale. Nevertheless, I take it that the hon. Gentleman would not be averse to the local authority building houses and selling them in the peculiar circumstances of Lossiemouth.
Miss Margaret Herbison: My hon. Friend has made reference to security of tenure. Might it not be the case that to keep a house within the control of the local authority would give greater security of tenure to a daughter who stayed at home with her parents than she would have if her parents bought the house and willed it to a son who had not lived in it for a long time? Those of us who represent constituencies like my own of Lanarkshire, North know that, until the law was changed, it was very difficult for a woman who was left without a home.
Dr. Dickson Mabon: My right hon. Friend has a good point. Testacy does not always lead to justice being done. Sometimes a local authority committee is more just than the relatives of such a person. However, I will not develop that further at the moment, because I want to go on to the matter of houses for sale.
There are no houses being built for sale in Lossiemouth. There is a site of 20 acres which is owned by a private builder who cannot develop it until the necessary sewerage Services are provided. I take the point that there are private builders in Scotland who keep their own
1052
land banks and will not release land because they themselves are not ready to embark upon speculative building. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has deplored the practice on many occasions. We have warned private builders that they must not keep land out of public circulation which is necessary for the building of houses for sale. We in St. Andrew's House have worked very hard with the private builders over the last two years to identify areas in Scotland which can be used for building houses for sale. There are many reasons why houses are more expensive in Scotland than they are in most parts of England, and one of these reasons includes the fact that we do not have a proper flow of houses on to the market for sale in Scotland.
Mr. Hogh D. Brown: I do not have time to make any party issues. Can the Scottish Office find out on which land options are held by private enterprise, because this seems to be the real stumbling block?
Dr. Dickson Mabon: The Land Commission is enjoined to help us here. Much work has been done on this. It is very easy to talk in general terms, but when one gets down to specific terms and specific areas, it becomes rather difficult. Some local authorities resent—I can understand why—land being zoned for housing and then being identified as housing for sale when there is an un-satisfied need for houses to let still in the locality. There must be a balance.
I agree that Glasgow has no choice but to go on as it is. There may have been a time when it had a choice, but the circumstances became such, by reason of what the Tories did, that Glasgow had Hobson's choice in the matter. That is why, in the out-county estates, we hope that out of every three houses built at least one will be for sale and the others will be available for letting, as we hope will be the case at Erskine and in other parts.
I assert right away that the position in Scotland has always been, under both Labour and Conservative Governments, quite different from that in England, Scottish local authorities have had to seek the Secretary of State's consent to each individual sale. There is no general consent to sell houses such as exists in England and Wales.

1053
This being so, it is presumably the way in which individual requests for sales of houses have been dealt with that is worrying the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn. I give him this undertaking. The meeting with my hon. Friend Lord Hughes will be held. We will see what transpires from it. It does not always follow, because the Secretary of State refuses, that he is being dictatorial, whether it be a Tory or a Labour Secretary of State. The Secretary of State may be right in the matter which is in dispute. That is why it is important to view all the circumstances rather than just a few of them. It is not sufficient to hear only one side of the case.
The hon. Gentleman asked why there was a change of policy in February, 1967. There was not a change of policy. What happened was this. The previous Government—I think that the hon. Gentleman was Under-Secretary of State for Scotland at the time—late in 1963 or early in 1964 —I do not know when—gave Edinburgh a general dispensation with regard to the sale of Council houses. For that reason, many undertakings there had been entered into and had to be honoured when we came into office. As a consequence of that, there seemed to be some misunderstanding about the practice in Scotland, judged by the number of people asking us whether or not we in our turn had changed the policy in relation to Scotland as a whole. That was not true, either of us or of the previous Government. The previous Government had changed it only in relation to Edinburgh.
The figures are interesting. Since we came to office, we have, on average, approved the sale of 39 Council houses a year in three years. Edinburgh in 1965 accounted for 27 of the 42 sanctioned in the whole of Scotland, and in 1966 Edinburgh accounted for 32 of the total of 57 sanctioned for the whole of Scotland. These were as a consequence for the general dispensation which hon. Members opposite allowed Edinburgh in 1964. We could not go back on them, because agreements had been entered into, and they had to be honoured. In terms of numbers, from 1951 to 1964 the Tory Party sanctioned the sale of 21 Council houses a year in Scotland, on the average, out of the great stock of Council houses held.
1054
Therefore, the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn is embarking on dangerous ground for himself, as the record shows, when he seemingly advocates the sale of Council houses. This is why I was so glad when he rose at once to contradict one of my hon. Friends who accused him of urging the mass sale of Council houses. I remind him that that is not the policy of his party in England.
Mr. G. Campbell: I said that in this debate I was not raising the question of the mass sale of Council houses. I am raising the question of cases of the kind which have come up this year in Lossiemouth, and which would, no doubt, occur in other places. As regards the record of what happened in years past, I think that hon. Members on both sides have made clear that the matter of home ownership has developed recently because the Situation has changed and many more people are interested in owning their own homes now than was the case ten years ago.
Dr. Dickson Mabon: I agree that people now are in a better position to purchase their own houses than they were ten years ago. Albeit that circumstances are difficult today, they are in a much better position than they were ten years ago. I give the hon. Gentleman that. I am only sorry that his party did not do as much as we have done in a short time to try to help private builders in Scotland to get up to the level of building which we need.
We are nowhere near England in this respect. We still have a long way to go before we are building. proportionately, as many private houses for sale as are built in England. That is not the fault of the present Government. It is the fault of past circumstances plus the difficulties facing private builders. It is noteworthy that we are not advocating the building of more private houses for sale at the expense of Council houses. We are trying to enlarge the number in both sectors.
The hon. Gentleman interrupted me at the point when I was responding to his first question about an apparent change of policy. In fact, a change was made by his own Government in respect of Edinburgh in 1964, and the consequence of that was the rise in the sale of houses in Edinburgh, which affected the total in

1055
Scotland in the way I have described. But even that is very small.
The hon. Gentleman's next point—
Mr. G Campbell Mr. G Campbell rose—
Dr. Dickson Mabon: All right. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having a real field day with his Adjournment debate. His interventions are becoming almost as long as his Adjournment speech would have been in the ordinary way.
Mr. G. Campbell: The change of policy about which I was concerned was the apparent change in February this year. The Secretary of State authorised the last sale in Lossiemouth at that time, and it was a very similar case to the subsequent three which were refused. Why has there been this change? Since he has been in office, he has authorised the sale of other similar houses in Lossiemouth.
Dr. Dickson Mabon: That is, I suggest, an argumentum ad locum. It relates entirely to the position in Lossiemouth. On 14th December, 1966, the Secretary of State said:
" In Scotland's present housing position, I am against this "—
that is, the sale of Council houses—
" as a general policy, but I consent to it in very special cases."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th December, 1966; Vol. 738, c. 79.]
The hon. Gentleman must not argue that, because there has been a special case to which assent was given in one year, we must in logic assent to all cases in the particular burgh in any subsequent year. That would be nonsense, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman agrees. It means that we have to argue each case on its merits. Admittedly, it is logical and sensible to take a previous example and try to argue from there, but the hon. Gentleman cannot say that, because we assented to one in the burgh, we should assent to them all.
My hon. Friends have made the case in terms of housing need. This is the first point. One does not sell Council houses where there is a clear need for houses to let. We have adhered rigidly to that approach throughout the time we have been in office. A house sold is a house lost to the general pool of rented housing. It is well known that the ability of local
1056
authorities to meet needs over the years depends as much, or more, on a regular supply of relettings as it does on the building of new houses.
The hon. Gentleman argued that to sell a house to a sitting tenant makes no difference, but merely relieves the authority of the obligation to maintain and subsidise the house. That is to look at the Situation in close blinkers, and very unbusinesslike blinkers, too. It may be true in regard to one house at one time, but that house will at some point in the future fall vacant and be available for another family in need of rented accommodation. If it has been sold, that other family must be accommodated in a newly built house.
Even in the case of an individual house, the sale may not bring a financial gain to the local authority. As my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. John Robertson) pointed out, many older local authority houses built when costs were low are not a financial burden on the housing revenue account. It may, indeed, be said that some of the rents are higher than the historic cost actually Warrants.
Because of this the sale of a substantial number of older houses and their replacement by houses to let could have the effect of unnecessarily increasing the rents of remaining houses, or adding to the rate burden, or both, so that the sale of Council houses generally—
It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fitch.]
Dr. Dickson Mabon: —could end by being a Charge on the ratepayer and a Charge on every person living in a Council house.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen that we have increased the output of houses for sale. One has only to look at the recent figures for housebuilding to see that this year we are enjoying a very good year. So far, we have built more than 34,000 houses, so that with the total for this month we should have a very good Output this year. The breakdown of that figure shows an appreciable rise in the number of houses

1057
in the private owner sector. I should like to see this increase much more than has been the case so far.
Small burghs like Lossiemouth should lake account of the position of slums and the fact that, following the Culling-worth Report, we are considering how slum clearance legislation is being operated and how it might be improved. Everyone knows that a large part of slum clearance legislation is discretionary in the eyes of burgh or county surveyors who want more precise definitions. If there is any change in the law, as has been advocated, many so-called substandard houses which are discretionary substandard houses will become statutory slums, thus increasing the number of houses presently officially called slums.
We have also to consider management Problems. To sell some houses in different parts of a block while others are occupied by tenants would be very unfair not only to the housing management committee, but to individuals. There must be some regard:o all the circumstances, not only of the family wanting to buy the house, but of those nearby who would be affected.
The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn advocated selling at an economic price, but he is asking a lot of people v/hen he says that they should buy Council houses at an economic price, that is
1058
council houses which have been occupied for, say, 20 years and not just those very old houses which are 40 years old or more. We have encouraged local authorities to build as many houses as they can purchase.
All who have spoken tonight, including the hon. Member, have clearly shown that the mass sale of Council houses in Scotland would be crazy, crazy from the general social point of view and crazy from the financial point of view, and a great mistake in trying to encourage people properly to own their own houses, which is the right of everyone. If that is the choice of most people, we should try to give them as much assistance to that end as we can. But it is clear that none of us is in favour of the mass sale of Council houses, as is happening already in some of the larger English towns.
Secondly, it is clear that we are not shutting our minds to the prospect of individual circumstances leading to the possibility of houses in particular places being sold at particular times for particular reasons. Both parties when in Office have so far exercised this right in Scotland very sparingly, but I hope that it will be agreed that they have done so fairly. We shall try in this and in other cases to do the same.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at four minutes past Ten o'clock.

MINISTRY OF LABOUR
  Industrial Tribunals
  Industrial Tribunals
  Redundancy Payments Act
  Redundancy Payments Act
  Government Training Centres
  Government Training Centres
  Occupational Health Service
  Occupational Health Service
  Industrial Accident Prevention (Consultations)
  Industrial Accident Prevention (Consultations)
  National Minimum Wage
  National Minimum Wage
  Selective Employment Tax
  Selective Employment Tax
  Manpower Research Unit (Report)
  Manpower Research Unit (Report)
  Strikes
  Strikes
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Roberts-Arundel Ltd. (Dispute)
  Roberts-Arundel Ltd. (Dispute)
  Redundant Workers (Unemployment Benefit)
  Redundant Workers (Unemployment Benefit)
  Cost of Living Advisory Committee (Consumer Protection)
  Cost of Living Advisory Committee (Consumer Protection)
  Work Permits (Part-Time Employment)
  Work Permits (Part-Time Employment)
  Pay Claims
  Pay Claims
  Industrial Training (Grant)
  Industrial Training (Grant)
  Casual Employment (Unemployment Benefit)
  Casual Employment (Unemployment Benefit)
  Wages Regulation Orders
  Wages Regulation Orders
  Employers (Employment Exchange Charge)
  Employers (Employment Exchange Charge)
  CAIRO RADIO
  CAIRO RADIO
  SUEZ CANAL
  SUEZ CANAL
  SOUTHERN YEMEN
  SOUTHERN YEMEN
  UNITED ARAB REPUBLIC
  UNITED ARAB REPUBLIC
  SINAI PENINSULA
  SINAI PENINSULA
  SOMALILAND
  SOMALILAND
  GREECE
  GREECE
  RHODESIA
  RHODESIA
  PALESTINIAN REFUGEES
  PALESTINIAN REFUGEES
  CAMBODIA
  CAMBODIA
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  SEA BED (MALTESE RESOLUTION)
  SEA BED (MALTESE RESOLUTION)
  DIPLOMATIC SERVICE (EMOLUMENTS)
  DIPLOMATIC SERVICE (EMOLUMENTS)
  VIETNAM
  VIETNAM
  MR. BROOKE
  MR. BROOKE
  SOVIET UNION (BRITISH PUBLICATIONS)
  SOVIET UNION (BRITISH PUBLICATIONS)
  ARAB REFUGEES
  ARAB REFUGEES
  NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY
  NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY
  SOUTH AFRICA (ARMS BAN)
  SOUTH AFRICA (ARMS BAN)
  BELGIUM (UNITED KINGDOM REPRESENTATION)
  BELGIUM (UNITED KINGDOM REPRESENTATION)
HOSPITALS
  Scalebor Park Hospital
  Scalebor Park Hospital
  Leeds Regional Hospital Board Headquarters
  Leeds Regional Hospital Board Headquarters
  Human Organ Transplantation Units
  Human Organ Transplantation Units
  Waiting Lists
  Waiting Lists
  Priority of Treatment (Personal Case)
  Priority of Treatment (Personal Case)
  Dark Room Technicians (Pay)
  Dark Room Technicians (Pay)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Unfit Meat (Dock Strike)
  Unfit Meat (Dock Strike)
  Mentally Handicapped Children
  Mentally Handicapped Children
  Population Census
  Population Census
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Sand Working (Congleton)
  Sand Working (Congleton)
  Court of Common Council (Finance Control)
  Court of Common Council (Finance Control)
HOUSING
  Circular N.T.43
  Circular N.T.43
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Breath Tests (Police Stations)
  Breath Tests (Police Stations)
  Non-Returnable Glass Containers
  Non-Returnable Glass Containers
  Sir Thomas More (Free Pardon)
  Sir Thomas More (Free Pardon)
  City of London (Elections Franchise)
  City of London (Elections Franchise)
  Reading Borstal (Inquiry)
  Reading Borstal (Inquiry)
  Animals Exports (Research Purposes)
  Animals Exports (Research Purposes)
  New Police Training Centre (Site)
  New Police Training Centre (Site)
  British Standard Time
  British Standard Time
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Civil Service (Widow's Pension)
  Civil Service (Widow's Pension)
  Balance of Payments (Industrial Disputes)
  Balance of Payments (Industrial Disputes)
  Corporate Profits
  Corporate Profits
  Travel Allowance
  Travel Allowance
  £ Sterling (Purchasing Power)
  £ Sterling (Purchasing Power)
  Public Service Pensions
  Public Service Pensions
  Consumers' Expenditure
  Consumers' Expenditure
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  Prices and Incomes
  Prices and Incomes
RAILWAYS
  Southern Region (Weather)
  Southern Region (Weather)
  Closures
  Closures
  Suburban Services
  Suburban Services
  Peak Hour Travel (Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham and Newcastle)
  Peak Hour Travel (Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham and Newcastle)
TRANSPORT
  Government Motor Vehicles (Headlamps)
  Government Motor Vehicles (Headlamps)
  Passenger Transport Authorities (Manchester, Merseyside, West Midlands and Tyneside)
  Passenger Transport Authorities (Manchester, Merseyside, West Midlands and Tyneside)
  Bus Staff (Manchester, Merseyside, West Midlands and Tyneside)
  Bus Staff (Manchester, Merseyside, West Midlands and Tyneside)
  Bus Services (Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham and Newcastle)
  Bus Services (Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham and Newcastle)
  Buses (Standardisation Savings)
  Buses (Standardisation Savings)
  Travel Concessions (Manchester, West Midlands, Merseyside and Tyneside)
  Travel Concessions (Manchester, West Midlands, Merseyside and Tyneside)
  Municipal Bus Operators (Drivers' Hours of Work)
  Municipal Bus Operators (Drivers' Hours of Work)
  Traffic and Transport Plans
  Traffic and Transport Plans
  Municipal Buses (Liverpool)
  Municipal Buses (Liverpool)
  Municipal Buses (Birmingham)
  Municipal Buses (Birmingham)
  Municipal Buses (Newcastle)
  Municipal Buses (Newcastle)
  Passenger Transport Executives (Headquarters Staff)
  Passenger Transport Executives (Headquarters Staff)
  Motor Vehicles (Dipped Headlights)
  Motor Vehicles (Dipped Headlights)
  Motor Vehicles (White Reflectors)
  Motor Vehicles (White Reflectors)
  Road Accidents (Excessive Driving Hours)
  Road Accidents (Excessive Driving Hours)
  Road Haulage and Abnormal Loads Charges
  Road Haulage and Abnormal Loads Charges
ROADS
  Track Costs
  Track Costs
  Level Crossing (Helmsdale)
  Level Crossing (Helmsdale)
SHIPPING
  Stranraer-Larne Service
  Stranraer-Larne Service
TECHNOLOGY
  Departmental Expenditure
  Departmental Expenditure
  British Aircraft (Market Studies)
  British Aircraft (Market Studies)
  National Research Development Corporation
  National Research Development Corporation
  Clyde Shipyards (Merger)
  Clyde Shipyards (Merger)
  Concorde Aircraft
  Concorde Aircraft
  Departmental Cost Accountants
  Departmental Cost Accountants
  Military Research Airfields
  Military Research Airfields
  Departmental Expenditure
  Departmental Expenditure
  Hawker Siddeley Harrier Aircraft (Contracts)
  Hawker Siddeley Harrier Aircraft (Contracts)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  F111K Aircraft
  F111K Aircraft
  Royal Naval Air Station, Lossiemouth
  Royal Naval Air Station, Lossiemouth
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Mrs. Sinkins (Letter)
  Mrs. Sinkins (Letter)
  Clovelly School, North Devon
  Clovelly School, North Devon
  Pre-Teacher Training Courses (Mature Students' Grants)
  Pre-Teacher Training Courses (Mature Students' Grants)
  General Certificate of Education (Examining Boards)
  General Certificate of Education (Examining Boards)
  SOUTH AFRICA (ARMS BAN)
  SOUTH AFRICA (ARMS BAN)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Food Prices (European Economic Community)
  Food Prices (European Economic Community)
  Broccoli and Cauliflower (Statutory Grades)
  Broccoli and Cauliflower (Statutory Grades)
  Oats (Imports)
  Oats (Imports)
  RED SANDS FORT (POLICE PROCEEDINGS)
  RED SANDS FORT (POLICE PROCEEDINGS)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Burma (Exchange of Post- Graduate Students)
  Burma (Exchange of Post- Graduate Students)
  Vietnam (Aid)
  Vietnam (Aid)
COAL
  Opencast Mining
  Opencast Mining
ELECTRICITY
  Nuclear Power Stations
  Nuclear Power Stations
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Official Cars (Ministers and Civil Servants)
  Official Cars (Ministers and Civil Servants)
  New Government Building, Kirkwall
  New Government Building, Kirkwall
  Government Staff (Accommodation Cost)
  Government Staff (Accommodation Cost)
  Government Offices (Rents)
  Government Offices (Rents)
SCOTLAND
  Prescriptions (Numbers and Cost)
  Prescriptions (Numbers and Cost)
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease
  Horticultural Industry (Fuel Oil Surcharge)
  Horticultural Industry (Fuel Oil Surcharge)
  Plywood and Board (Price Increases)
  Plywood and Board (Price Increases)
  Ware Potatoes (Price)
  Ware Potatoes (Price)
  Rates Revenue
  Rates Revenue
  Children (Deaths By Drowning)
  Children (Deaths By Drowning)
SOCIAL SECURITY
  Low Income Families
  Low Income Families
  Retirement Allowances
  Retirement Allowances
  Supplementary Benefit (Dockers' Families)
  Supplementary Benefit (Dockers' Families)
AVIATION
  Gliders (Import Duty)
  Gliders (Import Duty)
  B.O.A.C. (Fares)
  B.O.A.C. (Fares)
BOARD OF TRADE
  Factories (Wales)
  Factories (Wales)
WALES
  Economic Policy (Statistical Information)
  Economic Policy (Statistical Information)
  Welsh Transport Group
  Welsh Transport Group
  Prince of Wales (Investiture)
  Prince of Wales (Investiture)
  National Theatre for Wales
  National Theatre for Wales
  Welsh Language Act 1967
  Welsh Language Act 1967
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Local Broadcasting Councils
  Local Broadcasting Councils
POST OFFICE
  British Seamen (Egyptian Mail Censorship)
  British Seamen (Egyptian Mail Censorship)
  Two-Tier Postal Service (Costs)
  Two-Tier Postal Service (Costs)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  London Exchanges (Leaflet)
  London Exchanges (Leaflet)

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

HUMAN RIGHTS CONVENTIONS
2.35 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many of the nineteen Conventions arising from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights they have ratified and signed; and if, in view of the inauguration of Human Rights Year on December 10 last, they will urgently consider the ratification and signing of the remaining Conventions.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD CHALFONT): My Lords, I take it that the noble Lord is referring to the nineteen Conventions listed in United Nations Reference Paper No. 6 of June, 1967. Of these the United Kingdom is party to ten. In addition we intend to accede to the Genocide Convention as soon as the necessary domestic legislation has been enacted, and we have signed the Convention on Racial Discrimination. Our position on this instrument, as well as on the International Covenants on Human Rights and the Convention on Consent to Marriage, is being considered and we hope to announce our decisions during Human Rights Year. The principal obstacle to ratification of the International Labour Organisation Conventions on Equal Remuneration and Discrimination in Employment and Occupation is the position regarding equal pay for equal work. Only seven countries have ratified the Convention on the Right of Correction since its adoption in 1952. In view of the terms of this instrument we do not propose to ratify it.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for that very
1262
full reply, may I ask him this question? In view of the fact that the United Nations has asked that these Conventions should be ratified before Human Rights Year, 1968, and that they particularly mention nine Conventions, four of which the Government have not signed—the two on racial discrimination, one on equal pay for equal work and one on freedom of association—will the Government seriously consider the latter Conventions during Human Rights Year?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, of course we will give close attention to these Conventions, especially with the coming Human Rights Year in view. I have answered some of the noble Lord's specific points in my original Answer, and I think he will agree that our record in this matter of signing and ratifying Human Rights Conventions is very good. Indeed, according to my latest information only seven countries in the world are party to more of these Human Rights Conventions than we are.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I assure my noble friend that I appreciate that? In relation to the Convention on racial discrimination, why have the Government only signed this and not ratified it? And in view of the Government's declaration that they will be introducing a Bill regarding discrimination in employment, what is the reason for not ratifying the Convention dealing with racial discrimination in employment and occupation?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, so far as this important Convention on racial discrimination is concerned, we did, as my noble friend will know, sign it on November 11, 1966, and the question of ratification will be considered further in the light of the Government's eventual decisions on the new domestic legislation, on race relations. This will, of course, bear very much on the subject matter of the Convention, and we cannot proceed further with the question of ratification until we are clearer as to the likely nature of our own law and practice in this particular field. The Convention itself, as my noble friend will be aware, has not yet entered into force.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, in view of the fact that every year at Labour Party Conferences a resolution

1263
demanding equal pay is supported unanimously, and this has continued for at least fifty years, why is it that when the Labour Party is now in government with a majority of a hundred it continues to exploit the work of industrial women workers by denying them the rate for the job? There is nothing to laugh at; you ought to be ashamed.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am not ashamed. I am not laughing at the noble Baroness's question or at the spirit behind it. I can assure her I take it very seriously. I was merely reacting to what appeared to be the general reaction of the House to the noble Baroness's question. If there was any suggestion in my manner that I did not take her question seriously, I deeply apologise. So far as the substance of the question is concerned, the noble Baroness will know that we are committed to the principle of equal pay, but present economic circumstances rule out immediate steps to its full implementation.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, could the noble Lord say when economic circumstances are likely in the next fifty years to enable the Government to bring in equal pay?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I cannot answer that question.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that we are rather tired of hearing about principles being accepted, and then finding that nothing is done about their implementation? Could my noble friend tell the House how many countries have ratified the Convention on equal pay; or, alternatively, how many are in the disgraceful position of ourselves in not having done so?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, without notice, I cannot answer specifically the noble Baroness's question, but in the United Nations Reference Paper No. 6 of June, 1967, which is available, the
1264
noble Baroness will be able to discover exactly who has signed and who has ratified each of these Conventions.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I have just been given the information that 54 nations have signed this Convention. If that is correct, how many nations would not have done so?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am afraid I am not in a position at this moment, without all the documents in front of me, to do that kind of arithmetic. If the noble Baroness is right and 54 nations have signed and ratified, then Reference Paper No. 6, to which I made reference, w ill tell her exactly those countries which have not ratified. I do not have the information in front of me.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, are Her Majesty's Government aware that we males are extremely reluctant to have our pay and salaries reduced to the level of the females?
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the answer he has given is precisely the same as that given by the Tories for the last thirteen years? If it is possible for 54 countries to find it economically possible to give equal pay, why is it that Great Britain, with a Labour Government, fails to do so?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, the question of equal pay obviously arouses passions and sincere feelings. I can only say again that the Government are committed to the principle of equal pay. I know that this does not satisfy certain of my noble friends. I can only say that the economic situations of other Governments do not have any great and immediate relevance to our own economic situation. This is a principle to which we are committed, and my noble friends know that; and I hope that in due course we shall be able to translate this principle into action. But it is not for me to say—I am afraid I cannot say at the moment—exactly when that will be.

SIERRA LEONE ELECTION AND COMMONWEALTH SECRETARIAT
2.44 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will use their influence to secure consideration by the Commonwealth Secretariat of the Report of the Committee headed by Mr. Justice Dove-Edwin into the circumstance of the last General Election in Sierra Leone.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, the Report to which my noble friend refers is concerned purely with the internal affairs of Sierra Leone and it would not therefore be appropriate for Her Majesty's Government to attempt to secure consideration of it by any outside body.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether it is not a fact that this Report decided that the Opposition Party, led by Mr. Stevens, had won the Election, and that the Government had committed gross malpractices? While I appreciate that this is an Internal matter, may I ask my noble friend whether he will consider this new suggestion: that if the Commonwealth is to be regarded as a significant political entity it should follow the example of the Council of Europe in appointing a Commission to which, when liberties are infringed or democratic rights are abused, there might be a right of appeal?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, that is a suggestion to which I should like to give consideration. But I am sure my noble friend will be the first to agree that internal practice in any country is very much, and should remain, the responsibility of the Government and people of that country, and it would be highly dangerous if we were to move into a field when, unilaterally, we should intervene or question what might have occurred, particularly in a Commonwealth country.
LORD BROCKWAY: Yes. But my noble friend will appreciate that my proposal
1266
was that representations should be made to the Commonwealth Secretariat which represents all Commonwealth Governments. Is he aware that I was not suggesting that the British Government should intervene; but that the Commonwealth should follow the Council of Europe in appointing such a Commission?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the Question on the Order Paper is whether Her Majesty's Government would use their influence "to secure consideration". I replied to it. I must say that I question whether the Commonwealth Secretariat is a body which could inquire into what an independent member of the Commonwealth has been involved in. But I will certainly look at the point my noble friend has made, although, frankly, I must say that I wonder whether the Secretariat is in a position to act in the way suggested.

ATTENDANCE CENTRES FOR OFFENDERS
2.47 p.m.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: 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 how many attendance centres for offenders there are in England and Wales; and how many of the centres are for the 17 to 20 year old age group.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, the number of attendance centres in England and Wales is 63, of which two are for the 17 to 20 year old age group.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend the Minister for his reply, may I ask him whether it is envisaged having more centres for the 17 to 20 year old age group, bearing in mind that the present two in London and Manchester are adequate for those two areas? May I also remind him that many courts find it difficult to deal with breaches of probation in the age group 17 to 20 because there are not attendance centres to which those concerned can be sent? May I ask

1267
him whether he envisages an increase in the number of attendance centres for that age group?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, like my noble friend I am in favour of the idea of attendance centres or, indeed, of other forms of non-custodial treatment for young offenders; but in regard to the two centres which we have opened at Greenwich and Manchester the trouble is not staff but lack of clients. So far as the provision of more centres is concerned, this must await the views of the sub-committee of the Advisory Council on the Penal System, over which my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger presides, which is considering non-custodial treatment.
With regard to junior centres, it is difficult to see whether there is any more scope for further centres because, as my noble friend knows, these centres involve group activities and there would not be enough attenders living within reasonable travelling distance to support centres in less populous areas.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, in the event of this matter being considered afresh, could it be borne in mind that it might perhaps be useful if the work at the attendance centres could be extended over the weekend and directed to some activity which would be in the community's interest?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I express my regrets to my noble friend if I did not make myself quite clear. It is not a question of considering this matter afresh. This matter, among others, is being actively considered by my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger. We await with considerable interest any suggestions or proposals which are made by that sub-committee and no doubt shall act upon them. With regard to the particular point about weekend attendance centres, my noble friend will be aware that in many cases the attendance is on Saturday, but I am sure that the point he has proposed will be considered by the sub-committee and we shall be very interested to learn their views.

ST. KITTS GOVERNMENT: ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stand, in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they agree with the statement of the Chief Justice of the West Indian Associated States in November of this year deploring the fact that the Government of St. Kitts had introduced a resolution in the House of Assembly expressing lack of confidence in the administration of justice, in the midst of a series of trials of persons accused upon charges alleged to be concerned with an attempt to overthrow the existing Government; whether they are aware that the resolution and subsequent debate followed immediately upon verdicts of acquittal by the jury in the first two of three trials; and whether they have made any protest to the Government of St. Kitts against the arbitrary denial of ordinary civil rights of defence to accused persons in St. Kitts and the use of arbitrary orders of deportation, and if not why not.]
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the matters referred to in the resolution of the House of Assembly and in the statement of the Chief Justice and the civil rights of defence of accused persons are all matters relating to the administration of justice in the Associated State of St. Kitts, Nevis and Anguilla. Her Majesty's Government have no responsibility for the administration of justice in the State.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for the trouble he has taken to evade the Question which I was trying to ask him, may I ask a supplementary question? It is a fact that Her Majesty's Government are at present subsidising the Government of St. Kitts to the extent of something like £1 million West Indian dollars a year? And if that is correct, and if the stories which are circulating from one end of the West Indies to the other about the gross subversion of civil liberties in that country are correct, does it not present to the world a picture of the British Government openly subsidising the subversion of civil liberties in a former Colony?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I did not evade the Question; I answered the Question. The noble Lord, if he doubts it, has only to read the West Indies Act 1967. Her Majesty's Government have no responsibility for the internal proceedings of the State of St. Kitts, Nevis and Anguilla. We give aid to that territory, but that is what we undertook to do, and I am quite sure that in time that country will make progress and that much of the point of criticism in the noble Lord's Question will have disappeared.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, with due respect, may I ask a further supplementary question? Am I to understand that the principle is that the British Government, in giving subsidiary aid to a former Colony, does not consider itself in any way concerned with the way that Colony is administrated, and that, however badly it may controvert all our principles, we shall continue to supply aid in that form?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have undertaken to give aid and assistance to the state of St. Kitts, Nevis and Anguilla, as we have given aid to many other countries. The problems to which the noble Lord refers are difficult ones. If the noble Lord will look at all the information which is available, he will see that many of the problems arise from both sides of the political spectrum in that country. I think it would be wrong, particularly at this stage when there is a Parliamentary mission out in that part of the world seeking reconciliation, for this matter to be pursued.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, may I ask Her Majesty's Government whether the present embarrassment of Her Majesty's Government would not have been considerably eased if they had taken the same line in the beginning with the Republic of South Africa as they are now taking with St. Kitts?
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, will my noble friend not confirm that it is the principle of Her Majesty's Government to grant-aid not only Commonwealth but also non-Commonwealth countries, with no intention of interfering, either by any grant-aiding or withholding of aid, in the internal affairs of such countries?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the purpose of aid by this country over many years has been to grant-aid and to give assistance to the people of that country.

B.E.A. AIRCRAFT REPLACEMENTS
2.55 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question of which I have given Private Notice.
[The Question was as follows:
"To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the decision not to support the development of the BAC 2–11 aircraft requested as first choice by B.E.A., they are willing to give the Corporation a written direction under the appropriate Act for purchase of the Trident 3B or some other less suitable type; and further, how Her Majesty's Government propose now to implement the pledge of ensuring that D.E.A. can operate as a fully commercial undertaking with the fleet it requires."
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, The first step is for B.E.A. to consider the future composition of their fleet in the light of the Government's decision to support the development of the Trident 3B but not that of the BAC 2–11, and to approve the purchase of the Trident 3B by B.E.A. should the Corporation so decide. Section 13 of the Air Corporations Act, 1967 provides the statutory basis for settling the lines of B.E.A.'s investment with the approval of the Board of Trade. The implementation of the Government's pledge to B.E.A. of August 2, 1966, which still stands, must depend on the type and number of aircraft finally decided on.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, this is a serious decision which penalises the economic efficiency of B.E.A. While I accept that there is a balance of considerations in the decision, as is made clear in the Second Report of the Committee on Nationalised Industries, are the Government now not making B.E.A. travel "second-class" economically, and should we not debate this very grave step, both in its general implications to national policy on a wider front than B.E.A. and also in its particular application? I have one further question. Are not the Government putting

1271
B.E.A. in the corner, denying first the Boeing aircraft, secondly the 2–11, and facing B.E.A. with no alternative to the Trident 3B? If that is so, would it not be fair for the Government to indicate to B.E.A. that they expect B.E.A. to order the Trident, and so take from the shoulders of B.E.A. the responsibility of being forced to use something which is not the most suitable for the purpose required and an aircraft which, the Government themselves admit, has slender prospects of any export orders?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I can well understand the noble Lord's feelings about this matter, but I am sure that he would not wish to over-emphasise the difficulties faced by B.E.A. If they decide to buy the Trident 3B, they will be buying an aircraft with fine passenger appeal, whose running costs will be at least equal to, and probably superior to, those of the Boeing 727 which they originally wanted to buy. So far as a debate is concerned, we would be very ready to consider through the usual channels the possibility of a debate, though I should have thought that it would be better to allow the Corporation time to consider the implications of the Government's decision.
As for the noble Lord's last question about putting B.E.A. "in a corner", I would point out that the Corporation are entitled to the freedom to make their own decision as to the equipment they would like to buy. But I am sure that the House would agree that Her Majesty's Government must be free to decide, particularly in the present economic situation, whether they have to find something like £120 million in order to finance the development of a particular aircraft.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the noble Lord has said on two occasions, "If B.E.A. decide to buy the Hawker Trident". What I am not quite clear about is: what other alternative is possible for them?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, that is not for me to say. This is a matter for the Corporation. All I am saying is that Her Majesty's Government could not agree to the lines of investment which would be involved if the BAC 2–11 were purchased. Secondly, as I have already made clear, Her Majesty's Government cannot in the present situation
1272
agree to the financing of the BAC 2–11, which would require something like £120 million of public money.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I quite understand the noble Lord's reasons. But he keeps saying: "If B.E.A. decide to buy the Trident", and what I am asking is: what else can they do?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, as I am sure the noble Lord will know, as he follows these matters very closely, B.E.A. have already decided to buy—in fact they are now being made—a number of BAC 1–11 500 series. There is also a possibility in the further future, if the European airbus comes along, that B.E.A. may decide to use the equipment which they have now and which they have already ordered.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he can say to what extent the decision of the Government, in forcing this decision on B.E.A., has been governed by their desire to enter into joint commitments with other European countries to build a European aircraft, instead of allowing B.E.A. to use British aircraft?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, the Select Committee, which went into this question very closely, advised that if in future this country were to build a large new civil aircraft, it should only do so if there was European agreement as to the specifications, and European agreement as to the financing of it. Undoubtedly, this policy was at the back of the minds of Her Majestys Government when they came to the present decision. But as I have said, the overwhelming factor in all this is the necessity of finding, if they were going in for the BAC 2–11, something like £120 million.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord two supplementary questions arising from his answer? Can he tell us whether, given this decision, the British airframe industry will now be taking the design lead in any major commercial project? Secondly, can he give an assurance that the Government have not abandoned possible support for the Rolls-Royce RB 2–11 engine?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the RB 2–11 project is not affected by this

1273
decision, although of course it would have been a fine thing had there been a British airframe into which the engine could have gone. The company have announced that the RB 2–11 will be developed, and there are good export prospects. So far as the noble Earl's first question is concerned, the design lead of another European project ought to be taken this time by Britain.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, surely the noble Lord does not mean the European airbus, the design lead for which has been taken by Sud-Aviation?
LORD BESWICK: No, my Lords. I had that in mind. That, of course, has been taken by the French, and in the event of a further European project the design lead should be taken by this country. No doubt this point was in mind when the Minister said that we were already considering the possibility of a design study of a mini-airbus.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, could the noble Lord tell us what stage of development the RB 2–11 has reached so far, and if necessary whether the Government will give a further development contract to assist export orders? Secondly, what difference was there, in fact, between the proposed operating costs of the Trident 3B and of the BAC 2–11?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I cannot give the actual figures, but undoubtedly the noble Earl is right in thinking that the 2–11 would have been the better aircraft of the two. There is absolutely no doubt about that. That is why B.E.A. wanted to buy the BAC 2–11. So far as the RB 2–11, the engine, is concerned, I cannot, without notice, say anything about Government support of that.

THE ECONOMIC SITUATION
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, at a convenient moment after half-past three my noble friend the Leader of the House will be making a statement on the economic situation.

PONIES BILL [H.L.]
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to improve conditions under which ponies are exported to prohibit or restrict the export of certain ponies; and for purposes connected therewith. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Silkin.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

CONSUMER PROTECTION BILL [H.L.]
3.6 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be in Committee (on Recommitment) read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Brown.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, would it be convenient, on this Motion, to ask what are the intentions of the Government on this Bill? I think it might be for the convenience of all of your Lordships if the Government were to say what are their intentions in regard to the handling of the Bill. I have seen the note on the Order Paper that it is proposed to adjourn the Committee stage at 7 o'clock.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, perhaps I may answer that question. The intention was to reach Clause 17, with the exception of Clause 11 about which it was said that special arrangements would be made. We further hope that it will be possible to reach Clause 17 by about 7 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I take it from that that if we have not reached Clause 17 by 7 p.m., the Government would like us to go on after that?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I think the best thing to do is to see how we get on. Certainly, if we are nearing the end and it is getting near 7 o'clock, I should have thought we could go on for a few minutes.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD AILWYN in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Prohibition of false trade descriptions]:
THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD BROWN): The object of the first Amendment on the Marshalled List in my name is to make it clear beyond all doubt that Clauses 2 to 6 of this Bill are to have effect solely for the purpose of the Bill, and that they do not in any way affect the law of contract or the normal meaning of terms when used elsewhere than in this Bill. Some of your Lordships have been doubtful whether the Bill as it stands is clear enough about this matter, particularly with reference to Clause 6. We did not share these doubts, but we have redrafted Clause 1(2)—which is the key to the matter—in order to make assurance double sure and to remove the fears which have been expressed. I hope your Lordships will therefore accept the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 11, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) Sections 2 to 6 of this Act shall have effect for the purposes of this section and for the interpretation of expressions used in this section, wherever they occur in this Act.")—(Lord Brown.)
LORD DRUMALBYNhad given Notice of his intention to move, as an Amendment to the Amendment, in line 2, after "effect" to insert "only". The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment to the Amendment is to make certain that Clauses 2 to 6 would have effect, as the noble Lord has put it, solely in relation to Clause 1 or in conjunction with Clause 1. Since the noble Lord has assured us of that, and if he can assure us that the word "only" would not help, and indeed is unnecessary, then I shall not need to move the Amendment.
LORD BROWN: Quite briefly, I can assure the noble Lord that the word "only" is indeed unnecessary.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am much obliged.
LORD AIREDALE: It is one thing for the Minister to be satisfied that this word is unnecessary, but this is a Bill which will have to be read and understood by
1276
magistrates. I should have thought that, to make it abundantly clear, there was every reason for including the word "only", as the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has suggested. It can only make the matter more abundantly clear to the magistrates who have to read and interpret the Act. I hope, therefore, that the Amendment will be moved and accepted.
LORD BROWN: This is really a matter of drafting convention. As the Bill stands, the purport is clear. Moreover, the addition would be inconsistent with drafting practice. If your Lordships were to look at the interpretation section of any modern Act, you would see that it contains some such words as,
"In this Act the following expressions have the following meanings …"
I do not think there is any case where the words are,
"In this Act, and only in this Act, the following expressions have the following meanings …".
Such additional words would be quite unnecessary; and the addition of the word "only" is equally unnecessary in the present case. What would be asked for in this Amendment is the inclusion of the word "only" in a manner which would imply that it had really been left out in thousands of other places. I ask your Lordships to accept the convention of drafting which lies behind this point, and I therefore ask the noble Lord not to move his Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I would readily have acceded to that request, but I am going to ask the noble Lord to do one more thing. If my recollection serves me aright, the words, "the effect and only effect" appear in Scottish legislation. Will he consult the Scottish and the English draftsmen to make certain that we get the same interpretation in Scotland as we expect to get in England?
LORD BROWN: Yes, I will consult upon that matter, and if there is doubt about it I will communicate with the noble Lord.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. In that case, I do not move the Amendment.
3.13 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 1, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DRUMALBYN: May I put some points on Clause 1? The first is that I think we must be clear what we are talking about in this Bill, and I should like to refer to the word "goods" in this clause. It says:
"applies a fake trade description to any goods …",
and so forth. There is a definition of "goods"; or, at any rate, Clause 37, at line 36 on page 19, refers to "goods" as including,
"ships and aircraft, things attached to land and growing crops".
I am not quite clear why one has to distinguish between things attached to the land and growing crops. I should have thought that growing crops were attached to the land until they were detached, and then, presumably, they would not be growing any more. In any case, I should have thought that growing crops were "things". So I should not have thought there was any doubt that they were "things attached to land". However, I put that point to start with.
But I think an even more important point is whether "goods" includes houses. I should like to know whether the house agent and the speculative builder are covered by Clauses 1 to 6 or by Clause 13, or by both. What is meant by "accommodation" in Clause 13? How is accommodation consisting of houses or flats to be distinguished from accommodation in houses or flats? I well remember in another place the late Sir Winston Churchill chanting, "Units of accommodation! Units of accommodation! Sweet units of accommodation!"; so I do not think there is any doubt that "accommodation" includes houses, and I think it would be awkward if we had houses and accommodation in houses covered by two separate parts of the Bill. If different rules were to apply to these two ways of supplying or providing accommodation I think we should be in trouble. Incidentally, the distinction between "supplying" and "providing" seems artificial, and would need definition for the purposes of this Bill. In the Concise Oxford Dictionary, "Provide" is given as meaning, inter alia,
"supply, furnish",
and "Supply" is given as meaning,
"furnish, provide".
We must know what we are legislating about, and I hope the noble Lord will be
1278
able to tell us what is the difference between "supplying" and "providing", and what is meant by "goods" and by "accommodation" in this context.
May I again refer the noble Lord to what he said at the earlier stage of this Bill, when I asked him what the position was, so far as concerns applying false trade descriptions to any goods, of people who act on television—I think they are known as presenters; that is, the people who actually sponsor (if you like to put it that way), who are paid to sponsor, particular goods—and, secondly, of journalists who write about goods, not in the way of advertising at all but merely in the course of their business, the business of the newspapers. As the clause is drafted, it seems to me they would be covered, because there is no doubt that a newspaper is a business and there is no doubt that a journalist is employed by his newspaper. The noble Lord kindly agreed to consider this matter at a previous stage, and we should like to know what the results of his consideration are.
LORD CAWLEY: I think I can assist the noble Lord on the question of the word "goods". We have had the Trade Marks Act, which of course deals with goods, since 1887, and it is quite clear what are goods under that Act. I think that the definition of "goods" in this Bill, under Clause 37, merely extends the definition of "goods" to things which are not goods under the Trade Marks Act—that is,
"ships and aircraft, things attached to land and growing crops".
These would not be goods under the Trade Marks Act. I can assure the noble Lord that houses are not goods under the, Trade Marks Act, either. I do not consider that any further definition of the word "goods" is needed, as it has a perfectly well-known meaning in law.
LORD BROWN: The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has made a number of very important comments. First of all, I confirm that houses do not fall within the ambit of the word "goods". That means that in one sense they do not fall within the ambit of this Bill except in so far as goods are supplied within houses.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The noble Lord means in so far as accommodation is supplied in houses, does he not?
LORD BROWN: No. You could supply baths, and such like, inside houses. Of course, the question of the provision of faulty houses comes within the ambit of the civil law, and that provision is in no way removed; but when drafting this Bill it seemed doubtful whether one ought to bring too much within the ambit of the criminal law, and this Bill does not cover houses in that respect. The noble Lord asked about the difference between the words "supply" and "provide". I may have to take exact legal advice on this, but I am under the impression that "supply" is a reference to the handing over of goods whereas "provide" is a reference to the provision of accommodation, and so on, as under Clause 13 of the Bill. That is the way in which the meanings of the two words come out. The latter word, "provide", does not refer to the sale of concrete articles which are exchanged for money.
The noble Lord has asked me to make my comments on the question of actors, and so on, speaking on television. When Clause 1 was previously considered in Committee I undertook to look into this matter. I am advised that if an actor or other person employed to present a product in a television commercial says, in the course of doing so, something about, let us say, the strength of the product, and that statement is in fact false, he is in such a case a mere mouthpiece of the advertiser and would not be held to apply the false trade description to the product. The person who applies the description in such circumstances is the person who puts the words into the actor's mouth; that is to say, in the normal case, the person whose goods are being advertised.
The noble Lord also raised the question of journalists writing about goods; and this question was raised by other noble Lords in regard to editorials, and so on. I was asked whether trade description which appears in bona fide editorial matter; that is to say, something which is not a disguised advertisement—and I stress that—is a description used in the course of trade or business. The answer must depend on the circumstances in which the trade description is used. If in a news item it is stated, for example, that Christie's are to-day selling a picture by Rembrandt, the use of the trade description is not, in the context, use in
1280
the course of a trade or business. Where, however, it is part of the business of the proprietor of a newspaper or periodical to describe goods—as in the case, for example, where national newspapers include a weekly column describing new gadgets on the market—the use of a trade description in such a column might be in the course of a trade or business.
However, if such a comment described a coat of an identifiable brand and said that it was all wool when it was not, the newspaper might be guilty of an offence; but it would have the defence provided under Clause 23(1). In the special case where the newspaper makes it its business to describe goods in an identifiable manner, then it must do so accurately. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that we should catch the man who makes it his business to describe goods and who does so inaccurately. Apart from this, noble Lords can be assured that genuine editorial matter which applies trade descriptions to goods would not result in prosecution for applying a false description, and still less a conviction.
Perhaps noble Lords will be still further assured on this matter (which I know they take as one of great importance) if I point out that under the Merchandise Marks Act 1887 it has always been an offence to apply a false trade description to goods; and a person is deemed to apply a trade description if he uses it in a manner calculated to lead to the belief that the goods in connection with which it is used are described by the description. The original Merchandise Marks Act is very broad indeed.
The Bill we are now discussing does not differ from the existing law except to the extent that the offence in this Bill is in terms somewhat narrower, in that it applies only to the application of a false trade description in the course of a trade or business. So we have narrowed down the possibility of conviction by this Bill rather than, as may be the impression, widened it. Futhermore, the 1887 Act, which is indeed very wide, has not given rise to any difficulty as regards the use of a trade description in bona fide editorial matter. I hope these comments will reassure the Committee.
LORD HAWKE: The noble Lord was not in very good voice for the first part of his speech, and I am afraid that the

1281
precise method by which houses are kept out of the Bill eluded me. I know he said that the Bill does not deal with houses, but I did not hear how he kept them out. Clearly, houses are attached to land, and houses can be prefabricated houses which you can buy by looking at a catalogue and ordering them. You can also order a caravan in the same way. Are caravans which are attached to land "goods" or not? Are caravans also excluded? Is there some method by which anything in which people live is automatically excluded from the Bill?
LORD BROWN: I am informed that it is simply a convention of the law established by precedent that the term "goods" does not include houses. There is no doubt about this. It has not been held to include houses. I take it that caravans are included in the term "goods" because, although they are things in which people live, they are not houses.
LORD HAWKE: Some houses of the modern sort are prefabricated and ordered by post from the factory. Is that a caravan or a house? This is a very important point.
LORD BROWN: I have little doubt that it is a house. The term "house" does not specify how it is to be built. The fact that it is prefabricated does not render it less likely to be deserving of the term "house".
LORD AUCKLAND: I understand the noble Lord's explanation, but for one thing. With the law as it stands, houses are not included. Whether this is a good thing is open to question; but one must accept that that is the law. But one sees frequently a description of a house as a "superior, architecturally designed house". All houses are designed by an architect; but if a house is not covered by the two years National Housebuilders' guarantee, is it nevertheless not putting the consumer—that is to say, the purchaser—in a very difficult situation if he has no redress under this clause?
LORD DRUMALBYN: It might be convenient if the noble Lord were to answer all the points together. The noble Lord has put us in a certain amount of difficulty in this, because, on the one hand, he has argued that houses have never been considered as goods. He has
1282
not pointed to any definition in law where they are expressly distinguished from goods. On the other hand, he has told us—and I noted his words—that we should catch a person who makes it his business to describe goods and does it inaccurately. He then went on to tell us that in all the long history of the 1887 Act this has never been done. I fail to see the distinction between the two. If the term "goods" has never been considered as covering houses, how is it that misdescription has never been applied to journalists? I must tell the noble Lord that journalists would be absolutely horrified with what he has said; because I think it goes far beyond what he imagines it does. This is not just a question of a column of gadgets; it is a question of describing goods in editorial matter.
I must ask him to look at this point again. It seems to me to be most extraordinary that a journalist should be taken to court for the crime of misdescription of goods because he is inaccurate in the description of those goods, when in fact he has no advertising function and is merely carrying on his work as a journalist. I am certain that if the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, were here this afternoon the Minister would have had an absolute tornado from behind him on this matter. I hope he will consider the matter again. I think it extremely unsatisfactory. I am prepared to agree that a house is not a thing attached to land, if that is good in law; but I am certain that all journalists would rise up in horror at the idea that they are liable to be taken to court for attaching a false trade description to goods about which they happen to be writing in their column.
LORD STRABOLGI: I should like to endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has just said. I listened carefully to the explanation of my noble friend Lord Brown, but I am still not clear about one or two points. As I understood my noble friend, he said that if this is a spasmodic description, which is used from time to time, it will not be liable; but if the newspaper or magazine ran a regular, or weekly, column it would be. I cannot understand the difference between the two. In fact, as is well known, practically every newspaper runs a weekly—sometimes it is more than once a week—woman's page where they have very full descriptions of goods.

1283
There are of course two limbs to this. The first is, whether the newspaper should be culpable for description of goods: that we are dealing with under this clause, and I am glad the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has raised it. There is also a question which I suggest we should defer until we come to Clause 9, or possibly Clause 37, under which the Board of Trade would have the right to force a newspaper or magazine to include additional information in the whole context of Clause 9 which relates to advertising. But I suggest that we should defer discussion on that point. I think we should have a further explanation from my noble friend, Lord Brown, about the accuracy of this matter of Press descriptions with which we are dealing at the moment, and which is by no means clear. There are, of course, sponsored supplements which I should think would come within the category of advertising. But there are descriptions which are news coverage and result from journalists' examining goods and obtaining information about them. Whether they publish any description of the goods and how they describe them is left entirely to the journalists. I hope that my noble friend will let us know rather more than he has at present about what the Government have in mind.
3.30 p.m.
LORD BROWN: Here there are really two matters. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, went from houses to journalists in a manner which I am sure was quite cogent; but I got a little confused, and I will deal with them as two separate issues. To me the connection between them is not quite clear. First, I am unwilling to give a legal precedent for the exclusion of houses from the term "goods". I am sure that they are excluded, and if noble Lords would like me at the later stage of the Bill to give them legal evidence in support of this information which I have been given, I will do so. But I can assure your Lordships that that is the case. I do not wish to confuse the Committee in any way. Houses, as such, are not included in the Bill. A misdescription of them would not be caught under the provisions of the Bill. Of course, proceedings could be taken under the law of contract,
1284
under the civil law; but we have not included houses in this Bill. If the Committee desired that this should be done, that would be a different matter, and we should have to debate it.
Regarding newspapers and periodicals which include a column specifically concerned with providing a public service by describing goods, I would say that the proprietors are in business in doing that, and if they are stupidly careless or inaccurate, or fail to take account of the standing of the law with regard to the way they should use descriptions, they will be caught under this Bill. I am a little incredulous about some of the attitudes which have been expressed. Why should a journalist, whose business it is to give this service to the public, be allowed to do it inaccurately, or be protected from the effects of so doing that other people suffer if they misdescribed their goods? Why should a journalist, whose business it is to describe goods in such a way, get off scot-free in such circumstances? I see no ground for suggesting that he should be left in an extremely protected position. If he is writing editorial matter which is not part of this specific service of describing goods, and he ventures into a description of goods, he would be all right; I am assured of that. But if he is in business writing a special column, describing goods in an identifiable manner by the use of trade names or by using the name of the supplier, and he does so inaccurately, he should be stopped, and this Bill will stop him.
LORD AUCKLAND: Surely the Board of Trade would have the remedy of the Press Council, which could step in if there were a gross inaccuracy. The Board of Trade could take action through the Council. Surely the Press Council has fairly wide discretionary terms.
LORD DRUMALBYN: May I ask a further question? I am sorry that I did not make myself clear. I think that a deduction may be made from the fact that apparently (I say "apparently" after what the noble Lord, Lord Brown, has said) there have been no prosecutions of journalists under the Merchandise Marks Acts for eighty years. The presumption is that this could be the case only because it was not possible to bring a prosecution. I cannot believe that if it had been possible

1285
to prosecute a journalist under the old Acts for misdescribing goods, that would not have happened. Therefore it follows that this Bill must be making a change in the law with respect to journalists and we are entitled to question that change in the law. I warn the noble Lord that he must look into this matter much more carefully if he intends a change in the law, because it is so extremely difficult to draw the line.
Why should one draw the line, to start with, between misdescribing goods and misdescribing any other kind of news? And then what an enormous difficulty you can get into! If a journalist reports news wrongly, it may have an effect on business decisions and may cause people a considerable loss. But he is to be taken to court for misdescribing goods, where perhaps the loss is much less than might be caused by the misreporting of news. I see little logic in that and it seems to me that the Government ale embarking on a very dangerous course. Surely the right course is to make clear that so long as the journalist had no financial or other interest in what he misdescribed, but acted in good faith, he ought not to be liable under this Bill. I suggest that the noble Lord should study this point further.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: I hope that my noble friend, Lord Brown, will look at this matter again, because it seems a very strange interpretation of this Bill to say that its provisions apply to editorial matter in the newspapers or any other publication. After all, the governing words are:
"Any person who, in the course of a trade or business, … applies a false trade description to any goods …"
It does not say a person who misdescribes the goods. That undoubtedly would be the case where there was a misdescription by a journalist writing an article. The words here, and they are the words which have been derived from the original Act, are, "applies a false trade description to any goods." Clearly, in its origin this was intended to relate to dealing with the actual goods and not a description of them published as editorial matter. This is strengthened by the next part of the clause which says:
"supplies or offers to supply any goods to which a false trade description is applied".
1286
This clearly covers the case of a person who is selling goods or offering them for sale, but surely it does not apply to a person who has no interest whatsoever in the goods and is merely writing an article in a journal or newspaper telling the public what he has seen when he went to an exhibition or something of that kind.
LORD CAWLEY: I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, may be right on this point. At the beginning of Clause 1, the words "trade or business" are used. The courts might easily interpret it as meaning trade or business in the goods, and not carrying on trade or business as a newspaper proprietor. I think that here there is a grave doubt.
LORD BROWN: I think the point is being missed, and I hope that I shall not appear to be obstinate. We are not concerned with journalists. That word has been used by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, as if I all have said referred to the normal course of journalism. We are concerned with people whose trade or business it is to describe goods. One would not normally refer to them, except in the broadest sense, as journalists, although they could be said to fall within the ambit of the term. We must focus on the point that only when it is their trade or business may they be caught up by the provisions in this Bill.
May I also add that if it were to be proven that prosecutions against journalists were not possible under the Merchandise Marks Act, to which reference has been made, then equally it would not be possible to proceed against journalists under this Bill. There is no question about that, This Bill has not broadened the attack on these "describing journalists" or whatever phrase you like to use; it has narrowed the attack on them. I am advised that this is so, and I am quite convinced of it personally. I think we are getting quite unnecessarily alarmed about this matter.
I put it to the Committee where we have these men who make their living by describing goods, as a service to the public—and whose function it is to look at the goods, examine them closely and become technical experts, if you like—and the public are going to buy the magazines because they expect to find an accurate

1287
description of the goods—and when these men, even with deliberation, describe them falsely, are we going to say that we cannot attack them under this Bill, although we will attack any manufacturer or retailer who does so? I think that that argument is very weak. I defend my position.
I wonder whether at this stage it would be appropriate, in order that the House may hear a Statement from my noble friend the Leader of the House on the economic situation, for me to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

THE ECONOMIC SITUATION: SOUTH AFRICA ARMS EXPORTS BAN
3.41 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, with permission of the House I should like to repeat a Statement on the economic position which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is making in another place. The Statement is as follows:
"I feel it right before the House rises for the Recess to make a full statement of the Government's intentions about the way in which we are now engaged in deciding on the measures necessary to ensure that industry, trade, agriculture, indeed the country as a whole, take full advantage of the opportunity presented by devaluation.
"The Government have made clear that, in order to achieve a progressive and massive swing in our balance of payments over the next two years, a substantial diversion of resources will be needed to exports, to import replacement and to investment.
"The Statement of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary on November 20 outlined the first package of measures directed to this end.
"The Government have made clear that progressively up to the Budget, and indeed at any time afterwards, when this becomes necessary, steps will be taken to ensure that home demand, including Government expenditure, is not allowed to develop to a point where the necessary shift of resources to the
1288
priority purposes of earning a payments surplus is for one moment endangered.
"As my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made clear the intention is to ensure beyond all doubt that as exports, import-saving and investment build up, the resources will be available to meet them.
"It is our intention to maintain economic growth and rising employment, taking progressively the measures needed to shift the emphasis from a consumer-led expansion to an export-led expansion. At the same time it will be the determination of Her Majesty's Government not to allow that steady expansion, as it develops over the next year and into 1969, to degenerate into a situation of inflation and excessive pressure on resources and capacity.
"As the policy develops through the period of the Estimates, the Budget and subsequently, it will mean reductions in the growth of personal expenditure and reductions in the growth of public expenditure. On personal expenditure, the success of the Government's prices and incomes policy is of crucial importance. While I cannot anticipate my right honourable friend's Budget statement or any other measures which may be needed to restrain consumption, the severity of such restraint will clearly depend on the co-operation which the Government receive in implementing their prices and incomes policy.
"So far as public expenditure is concerned, the House will be aware, through long experience, that expenditure programmes take several years to mature and that decisions taken at any moment of time may have little impact on immediate Estimates. But decisions taken now can in certain spending areas have a growing effect in the second year and a decisive effect in the third and subsequent years, provided that the decisions are taken now.
"The examination of spending programmes which this involves is being tackled in a mood of urgency. While I should have liked to give the House all the necessary details before the Recess, honourable Members will I think agree, in view of the important nature of the expenditure areas to be

1289
considered, that it would be wrong to press on with over-hasty decisions without considering all the implications. Full details will be given to the House and the decisions which have to be taken will be taken in time to govern the 1968–69 Estimates, as well as subsequent Estimates.
"But I should tell the House this.
"First, we are not approaching this expenditure review, whether in respect of home or overseas expenditure, on the basis of candle-ends or simply on the basis of minor administrative economies, though we shall not of course neglect any opportunities here. Neither are we looking for prospects of under-spending or the shifting of expenditure from one financial year to another. We are bringing under stringent review all major areas of policy, both at home and overseas, where substantial expenditure is involved.
"Secondly, no area of expenditure can be regarded as sacrosanct for the purposes of the searching examination we are making; no spending commitment, whether inherited three years ago or incurred since.
"Thirdly, it will cover local government expenditure as well as Central Government expenditure.
"Fourthly, as I have made clear, the review will cover defence and overseas expenditure as well as home civil expenditure.
"The review as a whole is being related to what is essential in expenditure here at home and to what is appropriate at a time when we have been, and are, reassessing Britain's role in the world. This must involve overseas policy. In this connection the Government have completed their examination of the question of the supply of defence equipment to South Africa and have decided that their policy on this matter—namely, to conform to the Security Council resolution of June 18, 1964—remains unchanged.
"I should add that I have the authority of the whole Cabinet categorically to repudiate as inaccurate reported statements about the position taken by the Cabinet as a whole, by a Cabinet Committee which met a week earlier, and also about the position
1290
taken by the Prime Minister and other individual Ministers.
"When next month the House is given the results of our examination of all the expenditure programmes—and indeed throughout the further development of all our policies—I intend to ensure that the totality of decisions taken will be fair as between citizen and citizen; that while everyone must bear burdens, the burdens will be fairly shared; and that, while established assumptions and traditional spending commitments will have to be called in question and in appropriate cases sacrificed, the questioning and the sacrifices equally will be fairly borne.
"At the end of the day the Government will be responsible for achieving a fair balance, whether of economic or political sacrifice, and submitting it to this House. They will then call on the House to take its full responsibility in endorsing it."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement being made by the Prime Minister.
3.47 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, we must thank the noble Earl the Leader of the House for repeating this extraordinary Statement. Wherever we sit in this House, all of us have made it clear that our first interest is the state of the economy and the strength of our currency, for the national wellbeing of all of us and of our country is involved. But I believe that this Statement will have precisely the opposite effect to that intended. This is so transparently a device to try to obscure the issue of arms to South Africa by wrapping it up in an economic Statement.
This economic Statement, which incidentally we were told was not going to come until after Christmas except in an emergency (we were told that last week by the Leader of another place), really says nothing. It makes no definite economic proposals and takes no decisions save one—that is, that we are forgoing the large export order to South Africa. May I ask the noble Earl, in passing, what value can he place on that export order? I do not believe that this Statement is the right way to restore confidence. It may paper over the cracks in the Labour Party, but devices of this kind are in the long run very damaging to the country.
BARONESS ASQUITH OF YARNBURY: My Lords, I shall not attempt to comment, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has done, on the long and complex economic statement which preceded the statement we were all waiting to hear—namely, that on the embargo of arms to South Africa. I rise, on behalf of my noble friends who sit on these Benches, to say with what wholehearted relief we have heard that statement. I am not attempting to speak for noble Lords below the gangway, but speaking, as I say, only for those who sit on these Benches. We heard with wholehearted relief that this country intends to stand by its pledged word, given at the United Nations in June. 1964, and also to uphold its long tradition of the challenge to human rights wherever they are in danger. We should like to congratulate the Prime Minister on his victory over those elements, whether in his own Party or outside it, who have attempted to persuade him to devalue our pledged word and our great tradition in defence of human rights.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for putting into those words her strong moral support for the line that we have taken in regard to arms for South Africa. I do not think it would be right (I must say this as she used a certain expression) to talk of enemies inside the Government; nor, except in a purely political sense, of enemies outside. There have been difficult problems here, and I do not think one need apologise that it has taken us a little time and some argument to make up our minds. In that respect we have no reason to feel inferior to those who make up their minds more easily. I am grateful for the general line the noble Baroness has taken, knowing what confidence her words on any large moral or political question command not only here, but so widely.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, was not able to agree with the noble Baroness and felt bound to disparage this Statement. I think when he has had time to read it more carefully—I realise that he has had only a moment or so—he will consider that it is of real economic importance. The noble Lord shakes his head; but the matters are not exactly where they were left on November
1292
20. Therefore I hope that, on reflection, he will feel that he was somewhat hasty.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I did ask the noble Earl a question about the value of the order from South Africa. Could he answer that?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, there was an inquiry but I am not sure that the full extent of the inquiry has been published.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, surely the Government must know what they have refused. Surely the House is entitled to know what the Government have decided not to export.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, the Government certainly know what it amounts to, and I can say that it was an order which would have run over ten years. Whether the precise amount has been or will be published I am not certain at the moment. I can easily let the noble Lord know.
3.54 p.m.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware—I think he must be—of the protests which have been made at the United Nations over many months past by the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, who is Her Majesty's representative there, in which he has pointed out "the prejudice, discrimination and double-talk" (these are his words) which go on in the framing of United Nations resolutions? Only last week he had to protest at the resolution on Gibraltar, described by him as "a disgrace, partial, misguided and contrary to the principles of the U.N.". How much longer, I would ask the noble Earl, are they going to allow resolutions passed under this sort of background as a cover for the sabotaging of British exports at a time when we are fighting for our lives in the export field?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, the resolution which was passed on June 18, 1964—I will read it, in case the noble Lord has not got it in mind—ran as follows:
"That the Security Council reaffirms its call upon all States to cease forthwith the sale and shipment to South Africa of arms, ammunition of all types, military vehicles and equipment and materials for the manufacture and maintenance of arms and ammunition in South Africa."

1293
May I point out to the noble Lord that this resolution was passed in June, 1964, before the present Government came in, and is one for which the United Kingdom actually voted?
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, I am aware of that; and if the noble Lord would like to join me in declaring that it was a great mistake to give that vote, I will come with him. But will he also remember that at that time it was pointed out that we were not going to use that vote to prevent arms for the defence of South Africa from being exported from this country. It is the noble Earl's Government who have refused these exports worth hundreds of millions of pounds. So do not let him try to get away with it by blaming the Tories for refusing these exports. They did not.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I was not blaming the Tories. I do not think it is valuable to cast blame in serious matters of this kind. I was pointing out that this was a resolution, in the terms I have mentioned, which was carried by the United Nations in June, 1964; that we voted for it, and we in this Government intend to honour our word.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, can the noble Earl say whether France voted for this 1964 resolution; and if France did not vote for it, does the noble Earl not feel that, in effect, we are making France a present of an order of £200 million?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I do not work out my equations of international morality in quite that way. On the subject of France, I think we can all take a good deal of instruction and inspiration from the noble Baroness, Lady Asquith of Yarnbury, in view of some of the things she has been saying over the weekend. The answer to the noble Lord's question is that France, Czechoslovakia, and the U.S.S.R. abstained.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he realises that the Statement which he has read out will increase the cynicism with which people in this country regard politicians in general, and the Government in particular? Would he say what element in
1294
the economic content to which he has referred in the Statement is new. And would he say when there will be a Statement by the Government filling in the details promised in the Statement that we have just heard in regard to the action the Government intend to take, quite apart from the vague prophecies which the Statement appears to propound?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to say so, I often find myself more in agreement with him than do some of his colleagues. Therefore I am sorry to receive this statement of his about increasing cynicism in regard to the present Government. He asked me what is new. It indicates a new approach, a new expenditure review; and it does in that sense go further than the Statement of November 20, in which £400 million worth of cuts were indicated. The noble Lord wants to know what it does, and I tell him that it takes us beyond the Statement of November 20. I am sorry that he should talk about cynicism. I do not think that helps anybody.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, while we naturally support the Government—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
LORD OGMORE: What is wrong with that? I said that "we"—I am talking about the Liberals—support the Government in carrying out the pledged word of the Government of the day. I cannot understand the Opposition objecting to the Government's carrying out something which they entered into. I think that the cynicism is on the Conservative Benches. But I want to ask one question that I think is important. What steps are the Government going to take to make sure that other countries who also either voted for or did not vote against this resolution will carry out their obligations, too? Are we going to be left as the only people who carry out our pledged word, or are we going to see that others do the same.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, it would be wrong to suggest that most other countries are breaking the revolution, but, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, three countries abstained; and they might not feel the same degree of obligation. I sympathise with the noble Lord's point

1295
of view, and if he has any suggestions for persuading these other countries to behave correctly, Her Majesty's Government will be glad to receive them. But we are not omnipotent in matters of this kind.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl the Leader of the House two questions? Is it the policy and intention of Her Majesty's Government that the South African Government should not be able to defend their country against external aggression? If that is not the object, can he say what purpose of morality is served by the South African Government's having to obtain supplies from other countries? The second question is this. Can he say what effect this decision will have on the fate of Simonstown?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I cannot answer the second question, because no one could answer it at this moment. But, as regards the first question—I am not quite sure whether the noble Lord was here when I made my Statement—
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I am afraid that I was coming across from another place. I apologise for that. I thought that the Statement made here was the same as that made there.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: The noble Lord and I are very old friends, and he is a much-respected Member of the House, but I deprecate the course of hearing Statements there, picking up some supplementaries, and bringing them here.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, arising out of the noble Earl's reply, in which two points were particularly made—that no policies would be sacrosanct and exports particularly were to be given support—may I ask this question? Is he aware that in the National Export Council, whose expenses are borne to the extent of 50 per cent. by Her Majesty's Government, the Central Council Chairman, and the President and Chairman and the whole of the Committee of the Southern African Area have all made representations to the appropriate Ministers as to the dangers that may be attracted to our civilian exports to our third biggest customer by this decision? Secondly, has he noted that the dollar
1296
premium, by which foreign financial interests are accustomed to measure the strength or weakness of sterling, has already again, since devaluation, risen to 32 per cent., and therefore presents a sad picture of the measurement of the effect of the Government's policies on sterling in the money markets of the world?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, with great respect to the noble Lord, I do not think that the last point arises to-day, certainly not in the form of a question. If we have an economics debate, he would no doubt wish to bring those points forward. If the noble Lord asks me whether I am aware that certain gentlemen helping this country a great deal in regard to exports might have come to a different decision, I am ready to believe that it is so. This is not an easy question, because the economic arguments lie in one direction and the moral and political arguments lie in another. A balance has to be struck by the Government of the day, and not by any particular group of businessmen, however patriotic.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, since the noble Earl implied that my questions were prompted by something I heard in another place, may I say that neither of the questions I asked was raised at any time while I was there?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I am quite ready to believe it. I just wondered whether the custom of Members listening to a Statement there and then putting questions here would help this House.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl two questions? I was a little surprised to hear what he had to say about the Simonstown Agreement. I should have thought that the Government would have weighed very carefully this decision which they have just made about arms to South Africa and the repercussions of that on the Simonstown Base and the Simonstown Agreement. Would he not agree with me that the closure of the Suez Canal has greatly enhanced the importance of the Base and, indeed, of the Agreement? Secondly, I think I heard aright that the Statement said that the Government were bringing under stringent review all major areas of policy at home and abroad. Only a few months

1297
ago we were told that the long-continuing process of review of defence policy was at an end. May I take it that the Statement means that this review of defence policy is once again to be re-reviewed?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, as regards Simonstown, I hope I did not give the noble Earl the impression that this matter has been dealt with lightly. Those most directly concerned have weighed it up very carefully. But I am not in a position this afternoon to make a forecast of the effect, if any, on the situation there. But I should not like to give the impression that one did not treat it as a serious matter. The short answer to the last point of the noble Earl's question is, I believe, contained in the Statement, which he will see when he has more time to study it. All forms of expenditure will come under careful review.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, the short answer then is, Yes?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, if the noble Earl likes to frame a question and then to answer it, he may do so. I prefer to fall back on words in the Statement, which I think will be more enlightening.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, may I say that we are heartily glad that the Government have stuck to their principles on the question of arms to South Africa? May I ask the noble Earl whether he can assure the House that, as a result of the further defence review, further cuts of outmoded defence commitments and expenditure will be made, so that this country has a foreign policy which it can afford and which is based on morality?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. I know how deeply this goes to the heart of the Labour Party and what it stands for, and to the hearts of many people, such as the noble Baroness, Lady Asquith of Yarnbury, and others in no way connected with the Labour Party. About defence, I can only repeat what I said to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe. Everything will be reviewed. I should not like to give the impression that, without this further review, we are landed with a lot of outmoded equipment which is inefficient.
LORD OAKSHOTT: My Lords, will the noble Earl accept that there is no monopoly anywhere of moral feeling and moral principles? Many of us feel that, particularly in the context of this South African problem. None the less, is he aware that, hand in hand with growing prosperity of the Republic, the material wellbeing of the African population has shown, and continues to show, marked improvement? Therefore, both in their interests and in view of our own economic plight, surely there is everything to be said for pursuing all markets, even defence markets—though perhaps on a selective basis—in order to broaden our trade with them and expand the volume of it in both directions.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord is entitled to put that point of view, but obviously the Government do not consider that, on balance, it prevails. I quite agree that when we are talking about South Africa we must think about all the people in South Africa and consider the effect on them. But, weighing everything up, we do not consider that a step in complete defiance of the United Nations would be calculated to improve relations between white and black people in the long run in arty part of the world.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, may I put a very short question? How does the Prime Minister expect a growth in the economy and soaring export trade, with bank rate at 8 per cent., the most crushing taxation of any country in the world, and apparently, as we have heard, a trade policy tied to the political ideologies of the Socialist Party?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, the noble Viscount will not expect a Socialist to answer that, because he will feel that a policy which is tied to Socialist principles has an ultimate and obvious condemnation, while I, of course, take pride in it.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, in applying the extra squeeze now forecast, will the Government bear in mind the necessity for a greatly increased rate of production investment in this country, particularly, for example, in power stations and communications, which are vital for expansion of production in future? Will they also bear in mind that, unless some

1299
protection can be given to the right to work and to produce, we shall have a permanent excess of demand over supply and the squeeze will be entirely frustrated?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that the very sensible points he has just brought forward will be borne very carefully in mind.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, may I apologise to the noble Earl for interrupting him? But arising out of the earlier question, on which I misunderstood him, may I ask whether there is any precedent for a general financial Statement being made just before the Recess, without an opportunity for a general discussion?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I should hesitate to answer that question offhand, but I should be very surprised if there were not precedents.

CONSUMER PROTECTION BILL [H.L.]
4.10 p.m.
Committee stage resumed.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: I have listened carefully to what has been said about Clause 1, and I am amazed that journalists are included. It never occurred to me that "in the course of a trade or business" would penalise journalists. Can my noble friend enlighten me on this point? If someone writes a weekly column in a paper, perhaps on consumer matters, and they misdirect the public, will they be guilty of an offence under this Bill? I should have thought that if a journalist were to write incorrectly about merchandise the manufacturer concerned would be able to take action against him, irrespective of this Bill.
LORD HAWKE: I think the noble Lord said rather lightheartedly that journalists would be included in this, but I feel sure there would be an awful outcry in the country if that were so. For instance, from time to time I read a journal called Which. Will it be possible to hold the writer of every article in that
1300
estimable journal responsible, and to bring a criminal action against him, if he makes a slip in recommending or not recommending some particular item? I think it is grossly unfair.
LORD BROWN: I am surprised at the course this debate has taken. Perhaps I may repeat what I have already said, that is, that the use of the word "journalist" in this general sense is somewhat misleading. If someone calls himself a journalist and earns his living by providing the service of describing goods in a column of a newspaper or a periodical, and he identifies goods precisely, and misdescribes them, thereby misleading the public into buying those goods, in this particular case only he is liable for prosecution under this Bill. May I remind the Committee once more that in the past he has been liable under the Merchandise Marks Act, and that therefore this Bill does not increase the danger in which the journalist stands. On the contrary, it is restricting that danger to the writer who earns his living in the course of his trade or business by describing goods in an identifiable form. It seems to me to be absolutely justified. If we are to protect the public against wholesalers, manufacturers, retailers and people who write advertisements, why should we go out of our way to protect the category I have described, who may possibly mislead the public for their own gain? I think this is quite justified, and I am surprised that nobody has risen to support the point of view I am putting forward.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I refer to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke? I see a distinction between a journalist who writes a column on consumer affairs in a newspaper or periodical, and one who writes in a journal like Which, in which journalists write articles after tests of merchandise have been made.
LORD STRABOLGI: Before my noble friend replies, may I ask a question about the point with regard to defences? A journalist can only describe facts which are based on information he has been given, and his interpretation of that information. In a way he is rather like the advertising agent. There is a specific

1301
defence for advertising agents in Clause 24, whereas there is no defence for journalists, who need it even more than the advertising agents who are working more closely with their clients. The journalist is merely writing up news that he is given, and if in future he is going to be culpable I think it is essential that there should be some defence open to him which, so far as I can see, is not in the Bill at present.
LORD BROWN: I am afraid I cannot refer the noble Lord to chapter and verse offhand, but in so far as the journalist is indulging in a trade or practice he is misapplying descriptions of goods. If somebody does this inadvertently there is no reason to suppose that the normal defence is not open to him. With regard to the point raised by my noble friend Lady Burton of Coventry, I imagine that the particular journal she mentioned would be the last deliberately to misdescribe goods, or perhaps even to do it inadvertently, but if that journal were guilty of the criminal offence of misdescribing goods and misleading the public they would come within the ambit of this provision.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: I am sorry, that was not quite the point. I must be stupid. In fact I am agreeing with that. I was merely saying to my noble friend that while I did not agree that a journalist with a weekly column on consumer affairs should come within this provision, I think the matter is different in so far as the magazine Which is concerned.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The noble Lords has been harrassed from all sides on the motion that Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill, and I think he will have been impressed with the fact that there is a considerable amount of feeling, and a great deal of doubt, about the effect of this clause as it now stands. It may be that new means of presenting news are now arising, which he would like to check, but the noble Lord went on to say that this is the one and only narrow group that will be caught. There I think he is entering into the realms of prophecy.
LORD BROWN: May I interrupt the noble Lord? I want to emphasise that I am advised that it is this narrow group which, in the course of carrying out their special form of journalism, are engaged in
1302
trade or business. That is the only way in which a journalist can be fitted into this category. This is the core of the statements I have been making. The noble Lord is now questioning the validity of this means of defining journalists who would come within the ambit of the Bill.
LORD DRUMALBYN: We have all taken note of the Government's intention in this matter. I am only saying that I think the intention will have to be looked at much more carefully. As the law evolves and is interpreted the intentions are often falsified. Therefore, I think it is necessary that we should look at this carefully between now and the next stage of the Bill. I would only add that we are bound to take the view that if the law is not being changed it seems extraordinary that no prosecutions have been brought by the Board of Trade or anybody else on this issue under the old Act. Either the law is being changed in this Bill in order to catch a particular group, or it is not being changed, and one wonders why no actions have been brought under this heading, and by the same token one wonders whether they ever would be.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [False trade description]:
4.20 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE LORD AIREDALE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out the first "is" and insert "means". The noble Lord said: I hope I shall not be told that this Amendment has been rendered unnecessary by the first Amendment which was accepted this afternoon. My objection to subsection (1) of Clause 3, which this Amendment seeks to amend, is that this very short subsection, which is only a line and a half long, is a statement of fact, and as a statement of fact is quite manifestly untrue. I venture to suggest to your Lordships that if you placed this particular subsection before any intelligent schoolchild and said, "What is the matter it?" the child would say, "It is a statement of fact and it is manifestly untrue."
One would at least expect the Government to be consistent throughout a Bill. This clause deals with false trade descriptions and this subsection defines

1303
them, but when you come to Clause 13 you get a kindred topic, false statements as to services, and you would suppose that the same formula would be used in the definition of false statements as to services as in false trade descriptions. You would therefore suppose that in Clause 13 you would find the definition thus: "'false' is false to a material degree" in the same way that this subsection says,
"A false trade description is a trade description which is false to a material degree".
But not at all. When you get to subsection (4) of Clause 13 you find, quite correctly and properly—and I congratulate Her Majesty's Government for it—the words:
"In this section 'false' means false to a material degree."
And in my submission it is only by using the word "means" that you can cure the manifest falsity which is contained in subsection (1) of Clause 3 which I now seek to amend. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, was kind enough to support this Amendment when I moved it the other day with what I thought was one of the shortest and strongest speeches in favour of an Amendment I have ever heard. I trust the Government are not going to perpetuate and immortalise a short subsection which is manifestly untrue, and I hope this Amendment will be accepted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 9, leave out ("is") and insert ("means").—(Lord Airedale.)
LORD BROWN: The noble Lord is really digging himself in very deep here by referring to the Government's wording as "Gilbertian", "totally untrue". "obvious to a child", and so on. I hope he has not dug himself in so deep that he will be unable to extricate himself, because I say, with all sincerity, that he is wrong. When the clause was previously debated the noble Lord put down a similar Amendment and I promised to consider it further. I have now done so and I see no grounds for accepting the Amendment. The wording of Clause 13(4) to which he alluded was held up as a desirable model. It says: "'false' means false to a material degree". We are here giving a special meaning to an
1304
adjective which refers to a property of things. To say instead "'false' is false to a material degree" would be torturing the English language, and no doubt the noble Lord agrees. But in Clause 3(1) we are dealing with a different kettle of fish altogether. We are not, as in Clause 13(4) giving a restricted meaning to an adjective, but instead defining a concept. The concept is "false trade description". In its expanded form the sentence would have read: "A false trade description is defined as a trade description which is false to a material degree". That is what you can infer from the word "is"; just as instead of saying "A motor cycle is defined as a two wheeled vehicle" et cetera, one says, "A motor cycle is a two-wheeled vehicle".
LORD AIREDALE: That statement is true.
LORD BROWN: Definitions, with respect, are never true or false; they are what you choose to make of them. Particularly where we say "for the purposes of this Act", you have to remember you have to infer for each of those statements the words "for the purposes of this Act"; and for the purposes of this Act we are defining so and so to mean so and so. That is what these definitions are concerned with. We are not concerned with truth, because we are giving a meaning to a concept. You cannot say whether this is a true or an untrue meaning.
LORD AIREDALE: Before giving meaning to a concept, why do you not use the word "means"?
LORD BROWN: If you were to cause my example to read: "A motor cycle means a two-wheeled vehicle", you would be torturing the English language. Therefore, for the same reason you do not say in this clause which we are debating: "A false trade description means a trade description which is false to a material degree"; you say "is"; and it is on those grounds that I defend the wording as it stands. I suggest, with respect to the noble Lord, that in referring to Clause 13(4) he has failed to distinguish the difference between this and the clause we are debating. In the former, Clause 13(4), we are referring to an adjective. In the latter, we are referring to a phrase which is a

1305
concept we are seeking to define. I do not agree with the Amendment, and I hope the noble Lord will withdraw it.
LORD REA: Does the Minister suggest that when a trade description is false in only a small degree it is not false?
LORD BROWN: The expanded form of that is that: "For the purposes of this Act a false trade description is defined as a trade description which is false to a material degree". If you want to get all those words in every time you utter them, I suppose that would be possible, but this convention shortens it by leaving out "For the purposes of this Act" every time, and in this convention instead of putting in "is defined as" you put in "is". If the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, were consistent, he would have to go through the Bill and in a number of other places put in "means" instead of "is". But he has not suggested that he has taken this particular example and seeks to amend it in a way inconsistent with the way in which these documents are normally written, and he is pressing the case very strongly. I beg him to reconsider this matter.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The noble Lord has plainly been converted to a view with which he was as not entirely identified or did not give the impression of being identified at an earlier stage. One need not go too far, but the mere fact is that this statement on the face of it is ridiculous, and it seems to me that if it is possible, even at the cost of a few more words, to avoid the ridiculous we should do so.
LORD BROWN: I refute completely the suggestion that it is ridiculous. It would be ridiculous if you put in the word suggested by the Amendment. The only reason why noble Lords opposite cannot see how ridiculous it is is that they have been looking at it too long. If I set out to find the meaning of the term "motor cycle", and said "motor cycle means a two wheeled vehicle" you would say that is had English. Simply because you see it in this context for so long you think it is wrong.
LORD CAWLEY: The first part of this subsection has been in the Merchandise Marks Act since 1887 and appears
1306
to be all right, and I do not think we ought to tamper with it.
LORD AIREDALE: The example of the motor cycle is a true statement, and the statement I seek to amend is untrue. That is the difference between us. Of course, I listened very hard to the Minister I always do, and he puts his arguments so charmingly one cannot help listening to them. I am sorry he thinks I was so hopelessly dug in that I could not extricate myself. I am sorry he thinks that in order to be consistent I ought to amend the Bill in a number of other places. I have not myself found the other places, and the Minister has not specified them, so I do not know what other Amendments would follow from this one. I cannot deal with that point. It appears that there is overwhelming sympathy on this side of the Committee for the Amendment that I have put down, and I regret that I cannot withdraw it.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Applying a trade description to goods
4.—(1) A person applies a trade description to goods if he—

(a) affixes or annexes it to or in any manner marks it on or incorporates it with—

(i) the goods themselves, or

(ii) anything in, on or with which the goods are supplied: or

(b) places the goods in, on or with anything which the trade description has been affixed or annexed to, marked on or incorporated with, or places any such thing with the goods; or

(c) uses the trade description in any manner likely to be taken as referring to the goods.

4.31 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved, in subsection (1)(c), after "uses" to insert "or authorises the use of". The noble Lord said: This is an important clause, because it deals with the manner of applying a trade description. Paragraph (c) covers all ways of referring to goods other than those in paragraphs (a) or (b); that is to say, other than affixing or annexing the description to the goods, or placing the goods in anything to which the trade description has been affixed. I suppose the words "uses the trade description" covers using it by letter,

1307
tender, circular, catalogue, and by advertisement and the rest.
In most of these cases the user will be the person supplying, or offering to supply, the goods. But in advertisements where the advertiser employs the services of an advertising agency, the advertising agency acts as a principal, not as an agent. It follows, therefore, that it is the agency and not the advertiser who is the person who, as the clause is drafted, "uses the trade description" in the advertisement which he himself has prepared and handed to the medium. Yet it is the advertiser, in my view, who ought to carry the ultimate responsibility; and I should have thought that he at least must be brought under the scope of the clause as the person authorising the use of the trade description.
We are here dealing with false trade descriptions of goods. It is for the advertiser to tell the advertising agency about the goods, their composition, their function, capabilities, strength, performance, accuracy, origin and all the rest of it. It is for him to see that the advertising agency does not tell the public what is untrue about his goods. The responsibility for trade description is therefore his, even if he chooses to give the advertising agent a free hand. Of course he will act on the advice of the advertising agency in matters in which the advertising agent is expert, just as the noble Lord acts on the advice of his civil servants in matters where they are expert. But the responsibility rests with the noble Lord, just as it rests on a person who acts on the advice of his solicitor. The responsibility still rests with him.
We on this side are anxious that the Bill should put the responsibility where it belongs in the case of advertisements as elsewhere. This Amendment does not wholly do this, but at least in the case of advertising it avoids the primary responsisibility being laid where it does not belong. So I urge the noble Lord strongly to have this put right in the Bill, and either to accept this Amendment or otherwise to introduce an Amendment at the next stage, which will lay the primary responsibility firmly on the advertiser, which is where I am certain it ought to lie. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 36, after ("uses") insert the said new words.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
4.35 p.m.
LORD BROWN: I have every sympathy with the purpose of this Amendment. If a manufacturer approves "copy" incorporating a false trade description which his advertising agent has produced, or supplies his advertising agent with false information and thereby causes the advertising agent to produce and place "copy" which uses a false trade description, the manufacturer must not escape and the advertising agent must not be brought to book on a matter which is not his responsibility. I am advised that this Amendment is really unnecessary for the purpose. It is unnecessary because the manufacturer will plainly be responsible for the use of the false trade description and may therefore be prosecuted and convicted for applying a false trade description. It will be a matter of discovery at the time.
If the manufacturer supplies his advertising agent with false information, the advertising agent is amply protected either under Clause 23 or Clause 24. But it is a matter of inquiry. When something like a false trading description appears in an advertisement, one has to look into the circumstances; and I imagine that in a large percentage of cases the manufacturer will have authorised the copy. There may be a few cases, as I pointed out to your Lordships in the previous debate, where the advertising agent has accepted and carries full responsibility. These are unusual cases, but they do occur. But in every other case the manufacturer, having approved, will automatically be brought to book. I am advised that there is no need to put this into the Bill at all; that it is clear in the legal sense as it stands. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will accept that assurance and will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am most grateful for the noble Lord's assurance on the effect of the Bill. I am perfectly prepared to accept what he says. The only point I want to emphasise strongly is that when he comes to give guidance to the enforcement authorities he should make certain that the matter is properly investigated, and that in the normal way

1309
the blame should and will, lie on the advertiser. What I am most anxious about is that the enforcement authority will not take the easy way out by prosecuting anybody other than the advertiser where investigation would show that the advertiser is really to blame. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
4.39 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: At the last stage of this Bill we had quite a long argument on the question of oral statements being included in the terms of the Bill and rendering the stator liable to a criminal prosecution if he made a wrong description. The Government's real argument was that they wanted oral statements to rank the same as written statements, and they said that unless they put it in the Bill in this particular way there was some doubt whether the Bill would in fact cover that particular aspect. They said that they saw no real difference between written and oral statements.
I really cannot agree with that concept. A written statement by a retailer has probably been compiled with due thought and has been authorised by higher authority—the manager perhaps—and the spoken statement may have been rash or reckless and made in the course of casual conversation with the shopper by, as I pointed out on the last occasion, somebody who may be a school-leaver, as are many of the retail shop people. I feel this is quite an unfair burden to put on the retailer.
There is another aspect of this matter which is rather dangerous, since this leaves the door open to all sorts of abuse. By threatening prosecutions and the like people can, perhaps not blackmail, but put pressure on retailers for whom they have acquired some sort of dislike. It would be easy to lead on some inexperienced girl or boy to make a statement which is probably not justifiable. I should have thought it quite adequate to leave the remedy in the Misrepresentation Act, which does not make it a criminal act, but lays down that if a person makes misrepresentation he is liable for damages and the cancellation of the contract. I think that is as far as one ought
1310
to go in respect of oral statements, and I hope that by the next stage of the Bill the Government will give consideration to that view. I feel certain that as the Bill is drafted at present a very onerous burden is put upon the retailer.
LORD CAWLEY: I do not know whether I ought to make a personal statement. I think I misled the House on Amendment No. 3. I have now been shown the Merchandise Marks Act 1887, and I see that the word "means" is used in that Act and not "is".
LORD BROWN: I am afraid that the Government are unrepentant about this oral statement, but I think with sense. I assure the noble Lord that we have not in mind a vast wave of prosecutions against shop assistants who innocently marginally mislead their customers. What we have in mind is that the Board of Trade and the authorities who prosecute have in the past had experience of these matters in other fields. The Companies Act springs to my mind immediately, and I remember our feelings in watching disaster creeping up when a number of innocent people were insuring their motor cars. We knew trouble was coming and were trying to find a way to stop it, but we found that we had not the powers. It is feelings of this sort which affect me and others in the Government to-day. We want this provision to stop very nasty forms of abuse. There will be a tendency, when we put ourselves in a position to avoid false descriptions by dealing with people who use the written word, to push them into the use of the oral word in place of the written word—we shall shift the seat of the crime. We want this Bill to take prosecutions in order to deal with some particularly nasty acts of deception which are occasionally perpetrated on the British public. I think that it would be dangerous to take this provision out of the Bill and that we should rue it in years to come.
Noble Lords are quite right to take the argument to the extreme in order to test it and to see how it would impinge on the simple shop assistant who perhaps does not quite know his business. But that is not the person we are after. As prosecuting authority, we have not time to deal with the inadvertent statement which might be misleading. In regard to this clause we are after the criminals,

1311
and I hope that that reassures the noble Lord.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: It would reassure me so far as the Board of Trade and the prosecuting authorities are concerned, but it does not deal in the least with the private prosecution. There is no guarantee whatever that the private prosecution will not be brought against a shop assistant on the most petty excuse or as the result of the most petty misdescription. It is not enough for the noble Lord to say what is intended by the authorities. He should bear the other point in mind.
LORD HAWKE: It is the private prosecution and the threat of the private prosecution—this is a blackmailer's clause.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I am sure we do not want a long debate on this subject which was dealt with during the Committee stage. I should like to support the Government wholeheartedly on this matter. In fact retailers, who are reliable people, have very good training schemes for their shop assistants, and they give them every opportunity to learn how to deal with the public. It is true that some are better than others, but a reliable, honest retailer, large or small, will see to it that those who work for him know something about what they are doing. They will give a description as accurately as they can, and if they do not know they will probably say, "We do not know". As the noble Lord, Lord Brown, has said, this clause is designed to beat the unscrupulous person who, knowing that he cannot mislead on paper in an advertisement, thinks that he can get round it by allowing people to say things which are not true or which are only partially true, but things which would mislead the public. It is most important that we should have this provision in the Bill. I very much hope that the Government will stick to their guns, for it is a matter of major protection for the public.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Trade descriptions used in advertisements
5.—(1) The following provisions of this section shall have effect with respect to a trade description used in an advertisement in relation to any class of goods.
LORD BROWN LORD BROWN moved, in subsection (1), to leave out from "effect" to the second "in" and insert:
"where in an advertisement a trade description is used".
The noble Lord said: With permission, I should like to discuss this Amendment together with Amendments No. 7 and 8. Their purpose is to clarify the method of identifying the goods to which a trade description is applied in an advertisement. First, they shift the emphasis in the clause to the use of a trade description in relation to a class of goods. As the Bill stands, subsection (3) refers to the question whether the goods are of the class to which the advertisement relates. Subsection (1) already makes it clear that it is the trade description in the advertisement which is at the heart of the matter. But we thought that it would make the clause easier to follow if subsections (1) and (3) were redrafted so as to emphasise the point all the way through.
This has enabled us to dispose of the concept of "associating" the advertisement with the goods which has troubled some of your Lordships. Instead, we propose that the relevant test should be whether, in all the circumstances, it is likely or unlikely that a person to whom the goods are supplied would think of them as belonging to the class in relation to which the trade description is used in the advertisement. The words "likely or unlikely" are important. They make it clear that this is not a subjective test. Goods are not to be taken to belong to a class just because an unreasonable or dissatisfied person has thought of the goods as belonging to that class. What the court is required to do is to have regard to the form and content of the advertisement, to the time, place, manner and frequency of its publication, and to all other matters making it likely or unlikely that a person to whom the goods are supplied would think of the goods as belonging to the class in relation to which the trade description is used. This is an objective test, and I think that it is a reasonable one. Finally, I think that these Amendments should remove all fears that where an advertisement refers to more than one item a trade description applying to a particular item might be taken as applying to all the goods

1313
covered by the advertisement. The question is quite clearly whether goods are of a class to which the trade description—and not the advertisement—relates. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 5, leave out from ("effect") to ("in") in line 6 and insert ("where in an advertisement a trade description is used").—(Lord Brown.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am not certain the clause will work, but I am certain that the noble Lord's Amendments will make it more likely to work. They represent a decided improvement on the drafting, and I should like to thank the noble Lord for the consideration which has been given to this matter.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.50 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE LORD AIREDALE moved, in subsection (2), to leave out paragraphs (a) and (b), and to insert instead:
"for the purpose of determining whether an offence has been committed—

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

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

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is put forward as a purely drafting matter, to make subsection (2) of Clause 5 easier to understand. There are 11 words which are common to paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection, and the purpose of this Amendment is to take those words out of paragraphs (a) and (b) and to put them in front of paragraph (a), thus making paragraphs (a) and (b) easier to understand.
The other day when I put forward a very similar Amendment, objection was taken to it by the Minister. I will not go into the arguments, because it is rather a technical and difficult matter to follow, but it occurred to me that I could cure the apparent defect in my earlier Amendment by adding the one word "also", and I have done this in the new paragraph (b) of my Amendment. With respect, I think I have now succeeded in putting forward a satisfactory draft Amendment which will have the effect of making the two paragraphs more easily understood. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, was kind enough to support me very strongly the other day.
1314
I am pleased to see him in his place again to-day, and I hope that this Amendment will now have the blessing of the Committee. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, leave out lines 10 to 17 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Airedale.)
LORD BROWN: This, above all, is the Amendment which I hoped would not reappear, even in its amended form, this afternoon. Your Lordships will remember that on the last occasion when this was debated I pointed out to the noble Lord, with respect, that lack of the word "also" meant that the Amendment did not quite carry out his intention; and he has now amended it. But that was not the chief ground of my appeal that he should accept the opportunity, which I held out, of meeting my own legal advisers and discussing the matter with them to see whether they could convince the noble Lord that their drafting was best, or vice versa, and I hoped to be able to shift the responsibility for debate in that way. I am still going to suggest that we do this. We could have a very substantial debate in the House this afternoon, most of which I should completely fail to understand because this is a very obscure point. But may I appeal to the noble Lord to accept my suggestion to meet my legal advisers and, in the light of the possibility of doing that, to withdraw his Amendment? I should be pleased if he would accommodate me in this way, and save us from a rather arduous and wordy debate.
LORD AIREDALE: I could not possibly fail to respond to an appeal of that kind, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BROWN LORD BROWN: I think I have discussed Amendment No. 7 with No. 5, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 19, after ("which") insert ("a trade description used in").—(Lord Brown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BROWN LORD BROWN: I beg to move Amendment No. 8.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 23, leave out from ("would") to end of line 24 and insert ("think of the

1315
goods as belonging to the class in relation to which the trade description is used in the advertisement").—(Lord Brown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 [Offer to supply]:
4.54 p.m.
LORD BROWN LORD BROWN moved, to leave out "sale" and to insert "supply". The noble Lord said: It would be convenient if your Lordships would take Amendments 9, 10 and 11 together. It may be helpful if I begin by reading the clause as it would be if these Amendments were accepted. It would read as follows:
"A person exposing goods for supply or having goods in his possession for supply shall be deemed to offer them for supply".
This is a purely drafting Amendment. Clause 6, as originally drafted, dealt first with the ordinary case—that is, sale—and then with the other less obvious forms of supply: supply by way of hire-purchase; supply in return for trading stamps, and so on. It was hoped that this approach would be regarded as a welcome departure from what I may describe as the somewhat legalistic drafting techniques which have been so often criticised in the past. However, it was apparent from the debate which we had on this clause at an earlier stage that the perhaps somewhat unfamiliar formulation of this clause was causing confusion and difficulty. Your Lordships will recollect a very long debate over the use of the word "similarly" in the clause. It has therefore been redrafted in terms of supply alone. I hope this will dispose of the criticisms which have been made of the drafting of this clause, and that these Amendments will be accepted. I beg to move Amendment No. 9.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 25, leave out ("sale") and insert ("supply").—(Lord Brown.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: We are grateful to the noble Lord for having introduced these three Amendments. I recognise that the Government were rather pleased with their drafting of Clause 6 before the Amendments. The real trouble, of course, and where we got into difficulty on the earlier stage of this Bill, was that many of us on this side of the House felt that Clause 6 was not limited only to
1316
this Bill as it stood. I think that is one of the reasons why we criticised it so much. We were concerned about that, and in so far as the noble Lord has moved his first Amendment to Clause I we are less concerned with that aspect of it. But I still think it is probably wise to retain the term "supply" in this clause as the noble Lord has now moved it, rather than divide it up into sale and other methods of supply. I think that possibly the noble Lord overestimated the strength of opinion on this, because of our feeling that there was a danger, if we left this clause as dealing with exposing goods for sale and having in possession for sale, that it would be taken as being of much wider application than was intended. From that point of view, it is an improvement to use the same word, "supply", as appears in Clause 1.
LORD CAWLEY: I am sorry to be the nigger in the woodpile, but I think there is a slight error in Amendment No. 11, because the clause says that exposing goods for supply, and so on, shall be deemed to be offering them for supply. Having got to that stage, you try to find whether the words "to offer them for supply" occur anywhere else in the Bill, and they do not. Clause 1 says
"supplies or offers to supply any goods".
It would be quite easy to put that right by an Amendment to leave out from "offer" to the end of line 28, and to insert "to supply them". That would get the wording in line with Clause 1, with which it is not in line at present.
LORD AIREDALE: We have a situation after the devil's own heart here. The Merchandise Marks Act 1887 said, "If you do this you shall be guilty of an offence". But after the noble Lord, who was the Minister in charge of the Consumer Protection Bill of two years ago, had gone out of his way to say how splendidly the Act of 1887 had worked for eighty years in this respect, the Government of to-day come forward and say, "No, we will not legislate in this straightforward way. We will not say, 'If you do this you shall be guilty of an offence'; we will say, 'If you do this you shall be deemed to have done that'." And although this clause does not say so, it is true that there is another clause which says, "If you do that you shall be guilty of an offence", so that it follows

1317
that, if you do this, you are guilty of an offence.
Now the Government come forward and say, "No, we did not really mean that. We did not mean to say, 'If you do this you shall be deemed to have done that'. What we meant to say was that if you do something else you shall be deemed to have done something else still". Then the noble Lord, Lord Cawley, rises to his feet and says, "You have not really got it quite right yet. It is really something quite different still, which the Government have not thought of, which ought to be deemed to be something quite different still".
Why cannot we go back to the 1887 Act, which was perfectly straightforward, and say: "If you do this, you shall be guilty of an offence"? It can be done perfectly easily by taking the operative words in Clause 6 and putting them in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of Clause 1. If that is done, any person reading Clause 1 will know what the offence is, and it will not be necessary to bear Clause 1 in mind until Clause 6 is reached and one finds all this "deeming". As I say, this is a situation after the devil's own heart. Will Her Majesty's Government have second thoughts, and will they go back to the practice of 1887 and legislate in a direct way? This is criminal legislation, and it should be worded in the good, old, straightforward way so that people can understand what the offences are.
LORD BROWN: In a way, there is something peculiarly unfair about being in charge of this Bill in this House. I am speaking jocularly, of course, but here I am being assailed by lawyers right, left and centre, about the words of other lawyers who drafted this Bill; and I myself am not a lawyer. That seems to me to come within the definition of unfairness. However, I can bear it. With regard to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, he may or may not be right: I have not been able to follow him with sufficient clarity to be able either to agree or to disagree with him. If he wants to follow his particular point, I suggest he puts down an Amendment at a later stage.
With regard to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Cawley, he was good
1318
enough to make the point to me earlier in writing. All I can say is that, on the face of it, I must agree with him; and, without undertaking to accept his precise words (because lawyers will have to look at them and decide whether they really do fit), I will undertake to introduce an Amendment at the next stage which will give effect to the sense of what he is trying to get at. So I thank him for the comment he has made. It may be helpful to the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BROWN LORD BROWN: I beg to move Amendment No. 10.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 26, leave out first ("sale") and insert ("supply").—(Lord Brown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BROWN LORD BROWN: I beg to move Amendment No. 11.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 26, leave out from second ("for") to end of line 28 and insert ("supply").—(Lord Brown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.4 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 6, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I do not want to appear ungrateful for what the noble Lord has done in the way of amending this clause, but I am still not entirely happy about it. The purpose of the clause, of course, is to amplify the expression "supply" in Clause 1. Neither the original clause nor the Government Amendments achieve this purpose without leaving the ambiguity of the phrase,
"having goods in his possession for supply".
Discussion in Committee has shown the difficulty of the phrase. It all turns on the intention of the seller. Obviously, he makes or he buys goods for eventual sale, but he may not have checked them; or, having checked them, he may have found them wrongly labelled and requiring an alteration. The single point of agreement in the discussion was that the seller should not be in jeopardy if he had goods in his possession but, for one reason or another, did not at that time have the intention of selling them; that is to say, he had not decided whether the goods were fit for sale.

1319
Both the noble Lord, Lord Brown, and the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, quoted the case of Ben Worsley v. Harvey. With all respect, and speaking as one who also is not a lawyer, I suggest that this case should not be taken as a binding precedent for the following reasons. First of all, it was based wholly on the Weights and Measures Act 1963, and was decided on circumstances falling wholly within that Act. The goods were adjudged to be not in possession for sale for the purposes of Section 22(2) of the Weights and Measures Act. That was specifically stated in the judgment. The provision under which the prosecution was brought, Section 22(2), specifically limits its effect to that Act. The subsection is limited to prepacked goods, and it may be argued that the judgment could be applied only to prepacked goods.
The goods were in the possession of a manufacturer for sale to wholesalers, retailers or others, not necessarily direct to the public. The manufacturer was in a position—indeed, he was under a duty—to do something to the goods, to check-weigh them, before despatching them. The position might be quite otherwise if the goods were in the possession of a retailer. In the particular circumstances of that case the defendant had instituted a procedure of checking, had employed a supervisor and clearly displayed a warning notice. The goods were not for sale until these precautions had been satisfied. That is what the decision found.
Then, again, if the words "supply" are substituted for "sale", as they have been, there is an additional reason why the so-called precedent could not be rebutted. It makes it easier still because the wording has now changed. Whether or not the Worsley case is acceptable as a precedent, a case decided under one Statute should not be prayed in aid as a reason for not removing uncertainty in a Bill of a different nature. The clause should put the issue beyond all doubt by clearly stating that the intention of the seller in relation to the goods must be proved. Whatever may apply in the rest of the Bill, in this clause what is material is the intention of the seller, and nothing else.
LORD BROWN: I have one or two notes here that I must read out because
1320
I gave undertakings to the Committee about the attention we would give to one or two matters. I will deal with these before answering the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, on the points he has just made. When the clause was debated previously the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, raised the question of "dummy" packs. As I understand it, he had in mind the bottles which one sometimes sees in the windows of chemists' shops which apparently contain scent but in fact contain coloured water. Other examples were quoted, including what appeared to be bars of chocolate in a sweet-shop window but were in reality chocolate wrappers put around blocks of wood. These "dummy" packs are not exposed for sale or in the retailer's possession for sale. He has no intention whatsoever of selling them. They are in his possession solely for display purposes; and I can assure the Committee that there is no cause for thinking that Clause 6 would put the retailer at risk because he had such "dummies" in his window.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Is that right?—because the words now are not "for sale", but "for supply".
LORD BROWN: I am sorry; I withdraw the word "sale". I should have used the word "supply", because we have passed the Amendment. But what I have said is still correct, because it is not his intention to supply these things. They are for the retailer's own use, simply on display.
I also undertook, when this clause was last debated, to amend it in such a way that it would not present unfortunate obstacles to those conducting market research, and so forth. We are still considering that matter. It has not proved easy, but we intend to deal with it if we possibly can. I give your Lordships the further assurance that, if possible, we will deal with it at Report stage; if not, it will be dealt with in another place. But it is not proving an easy matter on which to draft.
The noble Lord has raised the question of the need to clarify this clause so that the intention of the person exposing goods for supply should be the turning point of a prosecution. The noble Lord has cast some doubt on the relevance to this point of the Worsley case decision.

1321
All I can inform the Committee is that I am assured that the Worsley case, in the opinion of those who advise me, would stand in good stead in the event of a prosecution, where it was clear that the defence was that a person was not offering goods for supply, but was intending to test them. I would direct the Committee's attention to the fact that a person who exposes goods with the intention of supplying really does imply an intention. I did not emphasise this point sufficiently when I last took up this matter, but this is one of the two respects in which this clause makes it clear that one is dealing with people who have the intention.
The second point at which this becomes clear is when the clause says, "in his possession for supply". That is an expression of intention. The question of whether he had the intention of supplying them or whether there was no such intention because he was going to inspect them must be a matter for the courts to decide. You cannot decide this necessarily by simply observing the situation. It may have to be tried before a court. In the Worsley case, it was clear that if it had been recognised by the first court that the baker had the intention of inspecting these loaves, clearly the case should never have been brought before the court. What was clear is that they doubted whether his statements that he had the intention were sincere. The case turned on the sincerity of his statements rather than on the question of the facts of the case. With these comments, I hope the Committee will feel satisfied.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I do not know that this question of intention is quite as straightforward as the noble Lord may have suggested. It would appear from what he has said that it is for the prosecution to prove what was the intention of the person who had the goods in his possession. They have to prove that he intended them for supply. I am sure that this is a very difficult thing to do. It may be that you can do it only by putting the person concerned in the witness box and allowing his evidence to cause the Bench to doubt what he says.
LORD BROWN: May I interrupt the noble Viscount? I think I am right in saying that it is for the defendant to prove that he had not the intention of supplying.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: That is quite plainly not the case. If the noble Lord says that the clause as it stands contains the offence; if he says that the words "for supply" bring in the question of intent on the part of the person who has the goods; then in order to prove the offence it is for the prosecution to prove that person's intention. I have looked at Clause 23, which is the defence clause. It is quite plain that neither under a proper offering for supply nor under one of Lord Airedale's "something else" (which is a deemed offer to supply under Clause 6) is there any statutory defence which relates to intention. Indeed, I do not know whether it has been sufficiently discussed on which side the burden should be. From what the noble Lord has said I should have thought that it follows plainly that at the moment the Government intend the prosecution to prove the intention of the defendant. This is very difficult. If that is really what they mean, then I think they ought to consider the practicality of it a little further before being content with the way the clause is drafted.
LORD STRABOLGI: Before leaving this clause may I say how grateful I am to my noble friend Lord Brown for going into the matter and for explaining the position about dummy packs. I think the Amendments that he has proposed are a great improvement on the original clause. I am a little concerned that the Government may not be able to bring in an Amendment to deal with marketing samples before the Bill leaves this House. This matter was raised on a previous occasion and received a great deal of attention. I think it unlikely that the Committee will be able to conclude this stage of the Bill before Christmas. The Government therefore have until after the Recess—and I should have thought this was ample time—to bring in an Amendment to deal with this problem. Otherwise, they would be asking this House to pass a Bill which is not yet complete. Could my noble friend give me an assurance that the Government wilt at least try to draft an Amendment for presentation to this House before the Bill receives a Third Reading?
LORD BROWN: I will certainly give the assurance that we shall make every endeavour to do so. There is the question of the sort of practices which lie within

1323
the meaning of the term "market research" which requires a little exploration to make sure that the drafting of the clause to exclude these practices is correct. We will do our best. I am sure that noble Lords would rather have a skilled Amendment to the clause which deals with the point raised, than have us hurry it and get it wrong. We shall do our best.
On the matter which the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, raised, he has put me in a quandary. The whole question of the burden of proving that the person had the intention of offering to supply is one that I should like to consider further. If the Committee will pass the clause as it stands, I promise I will discuss it. I have been advised that it is a soundly-drafted legal clause up to this stage, but there is some doubt in my mind. I will discuss it with my legal advisers. If I am satisfied I shall say no more about it. If they have taken note of this conversation and are uneasy, we shall do something about it.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
5.17 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved, after Clause 6, to insert the following new clause:
Interpretation of "to a material degree" for the purpose of sections 1 to 6
" . In determining for the purposes of sections 1 to 6 of this Act whether the degree to which a trade description or other indication is false is material, regard shall be had to the likelihood or otherwise that a reasonable person would be deceived by the trade description or indication into purchasing goods to which the trade description or indication is applied."
The noble Lord said: At an earlier stage I put down an Amendment to attempt to define, under the interpretation clause, the phrase "to a material degree". Apart from raising other objections, the noble Lord pointed out some defects in the drafting of that Amendment. At any rate we have had another shot at its drafting because we think an important principle is involved. The noble Lord said on December 5:
"If the Amendment were accepted the prosecution would have to prove that every false trade description was such as to be 'likely to induce a purchase of goods'."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, col. 650.]
I believe that the prosecution should have to prove that point. We believe that
1324
people should not be prosecuted unless the enforcing authority considers it can prove that. The Molony Committee itself gave this as the criteria in paragraph 634 of their Report. They said:
"To support a charge under present law, the trade description applied must be false or misleading in a material respect as regards the goods to which it is applied'; that is to say, broadly, the error must be of such substance that it could fairly be regarded as capable of inducing a purchase. We would not interfere with this limitation."
I should have thought that it would be wholly wrong to expose a trader to the risk of prosecutions of a trivial character where there is no likelihood of any reasonable person being deceived into making a purchase. The object of the Bill must be to protect people from harm or loss incurred as a result of being deceived. There could be no other justification for invoking the criminal law in these circumstances. I should have thought there would be no more difficulty in proving that a false description is likely to deceive people into making a purchase than in proving that people are likely to think of goods as being covered by a trade description in an advertisement. Both are matters of judgment and opinion. In neither case will it be necessary to prove that any particular person has been deceived or has thought of the goods as being covered by a trade description in an advertisement.
The noble Lord made a particular point of the phrase "likely or unlikely" and the objectivity of the test. The same objectivity of test exists in this definition, or at any rate is intended to do, and if it does not I am sure it could be made to. I thought the noble Lord showed a little confusion of thought when he said, at col. 650:
"The ordinary test will apply, of whether the degree of falsity would be likely to be material to the average buyer in the circumstances, to the reasonable man."
The point is he used the word "buyer". It is only when a person is in the market for goods of the type in question that he can be influenced by the trade description or the indication that is false. If he is influenced only to the extent of making further inquiries and his loss is limited to the expenditure of time and trouble and, say, 4d. for a stamp, there is certainly no reason for a criminal prosecution. He is just "shopping around", to use a common phrase. It is

1325
only if the use of a trade description is likely to cause a loss, and if a person would be justifiably disappointed with the goods after purchasing them and not before because of the trade description, that the criminal process should be begun.
If we are to maintain respect for the law and those enforcing it we must not turn people into criminals by fiddling and finicky prosecutions. What is important is that this Bill should not appear to be motivated by prejudice against trade or commerce by which the nation lives. I invite the Government to demonstrate that they are not hostile to the trading community, by accepting this Amendment, at least in principle, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 6, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD BROWN: This Amendment seeks to achieve the same purpose as an Amendment put down to Clause 37 and withdrawn at my request by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, on a previous occasion. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, is still anxious to do something to give the court guidance as to the meaning of the words "material degree". This Amendment is free from one of the objections I raised to the previous Amendment, in that the prosecution is no longer required in each case to prove that the trade description was such as was likely to induce a purchase of goods. Even in its amended form, however, I am sorry that I cannot advise your Lordships to accept the Amendment.
As I said on the previous occasion, we must leave it to the courts to decide on the facts of each case whether a false trade description is false to a material degree. I have no doubt that in an appropriate case a court would have regard to the likelihood mentioned in the Amendment, but I am convinced that it is both unnecessary and unwise to attempt to give guidance on the interpretation of basic words like "to a material degree". I say "unnecessary" because I do not believe a court would have any difficulty with the clause as it stands; and I say "unwise" because, although I recognise that the noble Lords have framed their Amendment in terms of guidance rather than definition,
1326
it might, in the light of past experience of such attempts to guide the courts, turn out that by concentrating on one aspect of interpretation they had unwittingly had some undesirable limiting effect on the interpretation generally.
May I add an example? Suppose one gets this sort of concentration on the issue which the Amendment is designed to bring about, one might get advertisements which said, "Fine English table" when, in point of fact, it was Danish. It would be difficult for some courts to rule that this had influenced people to buy the goods, when if the advertisement had contained the correct description they might not have done so, because Danish furniture has a very enviable reputation, as we know. The reference to English furniture might not have influenced people to buy at all, yet it would obviously be a degree of falsity which, in given circumstances, might be extremely offensive, say, to manufacturers of English furniture. One could go on hypothesising examples like that quite extensively. I do not think this is a vital point, but we should not like to see the clause prejudiced in a way which at a later stage in its administration we might regret deeply, because we had given way to this Amendment. We do not think the courts would be in difficulty over this matter, and we believe it tends to narrow the effect of the clause too much to one particular sort of misleading statement. So I would ask the noble Lord to consider withdrawing the Amendment.
LORD AUCKLAND: I ask the Government to look at this matter again, because one of the purposes of this Bill is to catch the really unscrupulous person: for example, the man who would deliberately try to deceive a busy harassed housewife shopping at a multiple store in a large city. Unless there is some Amendment to this clause an enormous burden will be put on the courts because there will be all kinds of prosecutions. Whether or not the average person minds particularly whether they buy English or Danish furniture—which was the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Brown—is a matter of opinion. Many people, if they were buying furniture, would ask, "Is it made in England?" if they wanted English furniture. Therefore, whether or not the word "reasonable" may be quite

1327
the right word is something which could be re-examined. But as it is drawn at present, the powers conferred by Clause 6 are pretty wide, and I think that some kind of compromise, such as that which my noble friend has proposed, needs thinking about seriously.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: On this matter I sympathise with the purpose of the Amendment, but I find myself in agreement with the Government. It seems to me unnecessary, and I think it is also attempting to lay down directions for a court. I should have thought that the first thing a court which had to decide whether or not a description was false to a material degree would ask themselves would be, "What effect has this misleading or false information had on a prospective buyer?". And I should not have thought a case would have come before a court without that question being asked. Therefore I agree with the Government that this Amendment is unnecessary.
LORD CAWLEY: I appreciate the virtues of this Amendment, but as one who would most likely have to interpret it I would rather not have it. I think the words "to a material degree", by themselves, are quite enough to guide a court.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clauses 7 and 8 agreed to.
Clause 9:
Information etc. to be given in advertisements
9.—(1) Where it appears to the Board of Trade necessary or expedient in the interest of persons to whom any goods are to be supplied that advertisements of the goods should contain or refer to any information (whether or not amounting to or including a trade description) or instruction relating to the goods the Board may, subject to the provisions of this Act, by order impose requirements as to the inclusion of that information or instruction, or of an indication of the means by which it may be obtained, in advertisements of the goods or any such description of such advertisements as may be specified in the order.
(2) An order under this section may specify the form and manner in which any such information, instruction or indication is to be included in advertisements of any description and may make different provision for different circumstances.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved, in subsection (1), after "expedient" to insert "for the purposes of health and safety".
1328
The noble Lord said: This point was raised—it was almost the principal point—in an Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, at an earlier stage.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, but it was not at an earlier stage; it was on the previous Bill.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I thought it was the first Committee stage, but we need not argue about that. In any case, whether it was on the previous Bill or not, the point is exactly the same. The question is: for what purposes do the Government want the powers to make regulations requiring information or instructions relating to goods to be in advertisements? One can see easily why they may require powers for health and safety purposes, at least so far as information is concerned—I have subsequent Amendments dealing with instructions. It is a good deal more difficult to see for what other purpose they would be likely to require such powers.
I do not know whether the noble Lord is able to give examples of other purposes for which he would like such powers. For my part, I should be ready to give them, for the very good reason that, by and large, it is for the advertiser himself to decide the kind of information that he wants to get over to the public—except possibly in the sphere of health and safety, where there may be need in the public interest for information to be given in advertisements. It is difficult to see in what other circumstances it may be required. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 30, after ("expedient") insert ("for the purposes of health and safety").(Lord Drumalbyn.)
5.32 p.m.
LORD BROWN: I think we ought to be clear that this Amendment would limit the power of the Board of Trade to require information or instructions to be given in advertisements to cases where the information was required in the interests of health and safety. I explained at an earlier stage that we cannot accept this, although I agree that these are matters in relation to which this power is likely to be needed. There is no doubt that this is an important area where this Clause is required.

1329
Noble Lords have tended to forget mail-order advertisements, where the consumer needs to have essential information before buying goods in writing. This is the outstanding case. If this Amendment were accepted, there would be no power to limit abuse by mail-order concerns, which are selling a growing proportion of consumer goods. I am not suggesting that these firms do this. This has been a reputable and honest way of dealing so far, but we do not want to be without this power. Suppose an advertiser puts in his catalogue "Chippendale-type furniture" and the buyer discovers that the furniture is made of softwood. People who are buying from the catalogue think that because the furniture is described as "Chippendale-type", this implies that it is made of hardwood. And there are other instances where in the description of goods there should be information that makes quite clear to the consumer what he is buying. We would rather be left with this power and not have it confined simply to health and safety.
LORD HAWKE: The "Chippendale-type" furniture, which the noble Lord quoted, is a singularly bad example. Surely this was a clear misdescription, which would certainly be caught under the Bill. Can the noble Lord name a similar proviso that the Board of Trade would want to have put on goods that would not be caught elsewhere under the Bill under the title of misdescription? I cannot think of one.
LORD BROWN: The noble Lord suggests that my example is a singularly bad one. Perhaps I did not make myself quite clear. I referred to an increasing practice in the furniture trade to describe furniture in this way. I am sorry if I have referred only to the furniture trade, but I did so because it is a trade with which, as a member of the Furniture Development Council, I have been associated. I have listened to furniture manufacturers saying that they were alive to the wholesale abuses in the industry, particularly before the war, by the sale of "matchstick" furniture, and furniture of the poorest possible sort, to people who had to spend a lot of capital to acquire it; and the manufacturers said they welcomed the regulations which came in soon after the war to stop this. That example has always impressed me.
1330
But practices start in a trade; and, of course, bad money drives out good. If this Amendment were accepted, we should be left without an opportunity of putting this right by simple means.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, had put down this Amendment as a means of obtaining information. It seems to me to be a limiting Amendment. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could give me an example of the type of information for which the Board of Trade might ask. At the moment I cannot think of one. It seems to me that the noble Lord is afraid that if the Board of Trade are given these powers outside the field of health and safety, they may ask for something which would not be desirable.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: It seems to me that one of the advertisements that ought to be caught by this clause is the one containing false descriptions by travel agencies. I gave some examples at Committee stage, when I made a long speech about this. Sometimes travel brochures describe amenities which may be there in the future but which are not there now. I think it would be a pity if this clause were restricted only to health and safety. I have referred only to travel agencies, but of course there are other aspects. We want to be sure that any kind of misleading of the public is covered by this Bill; otherwise it is no good having a Consumer Protection Bill.
LORD AUCKLAND: Perhaps I may say a word on this point, because I was the author of the original Amendment at the earlier Committee stage. This is more a matter of criteria than of facts. When withdrawing this Amendment on the last occasion, I admitted that we should not make health and safety the only criteria. I accept what my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood said about travel agencies.
LORD BROWN: I wonder if I could help. The clause, of course, refers to goods and not to services.
LORD AUCKLAND: I take the noble Lord's point, but we have discussed wide matters on this clause. The thing here is that health and safety carry much wider interpretations than perhaps the

1331
Government may think. At the last stage the noble Lord, Lord Brown, mentioned those who would be deceived by advertisements of certain kinds, which is a very salient point. These people can be subject to nervous breakdowns, and so on, which would, at any rate, speaking strictly in the medical sense, be covered by "health", although from the literal point of view "health" must mean accidents, as well as safety in accidents. In other words, if one bought, say, a perfume or an aerosol which was wrongly described, and one squirted it and had an accident to one's eyes, without having been warned on the container that it was dangerous to use, then quite clearly the Amendment here would cover it. But as it is drawn at present the clause is really much too wide. Therefore, some kind of criterion had to be put in.
One of the problems is that if advertisements are to contain all kinds of descriptions and instructions, it will defeat the whole purpose of the Bill, because people will not bother to read a lot of what is in them. Therefore, I still think that the substance of this Amendment is quite reasonable, because health and safety must surely be the main criterion for any kind of advertisement. I hope that the Government will not entirely rule this Amendment out of court. Possibly between us we can bring in a more suitable type of Amendment, and at the same time deal to some extent with the too-wide powers which the Bill now gives.
LORD STRABOLGI: Before my noble friend replies, I should like to support what my noble friend Lady Burton of Coventry said about obtaining information from the Government about their intention under this clause. We have had very full descriptions of Clause 9 on both the previous Bill and the present one. In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, may I say that I had an Amendment about safety on the previous Bill, but I did not put it down on this Bill because I was reassured by what my noble friend Lord Brown said on Second Reading; that is to say, that the Government intend to interpret these powers very sensibly, and also to consult with all the organisations concerned. That, as I say, has reassured me considerably.
1332
But during the previous Bill, and also during the discussions on this Bill, we have never had what one would call an exact case of what the Government have in mind. We have heard a lot about furniture, and this and that, but what I think we should have at this stage is an indication of the kind of goods that the Government have in mind on which they wish to put these extra descriptions. They have refused to exclude from the class of advertisements, for example, television or cinema commercials; they have refused to exclude advertisements which relate only to the title of the goods or the name of the manufacturer. They have insisted on having these full powers, and now I think they should tell the Committee what they have in mind, and why they require the powers.
5.44 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I was going to keep my question for the next Amendment or for the question that the clause stand part, but in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has said, I think it might be as well if I put in my word now. The difficulty that I foresee, even if the noble Lord redrafts the clause as he is proposing to in Amendments Nos. 14 and 17, by bringing in "description of advertisement" earlier, is that you are going to have two imponderables. You will have a large number of different types of advertisement to one or more of which the order relates; you will have a large number of different types of goods to one or more of which the order will relate if the advertisement relates to that type of goods.
Where are we going to get any sort of collection by which people can know whether they are covered or not? Let me take a simple case. The Government might say, to use the noble Lord's example for convenience, that any advertisement of furniture must not say it is Chippendale type if it is made of softwood. That is all very well for a mail order or an advertisement put out by furniture manufacturers, but it is not any good if I am selling my Chippendale type softwood chair and advertising in the personal column of a newspaper in East Anglia. How would I know that that transaction must have in it some statutory form of wording showing that it is not Chippendale type at all.

1333
Unless the noble Lord is willing to say that in practice the Board of Trade will use its powers only in fairly prescribed circumstances, I cannot see how we shall be able to administer the law. The whole thing will become so wide and entirely unenforceable that the clause will become complete nonsense unless the noble Lord does what his noble friend says and tells us. It will be chaos. There are sometimes three volumes of Statutory Instruments, each three or four inches thick, published by the Government every year. Is the private citizen to go through them every year to see whether an advertisement in the local newspaper for a secondhand lawn mower has to have some description of the colour of the box into which the grass goes? As I say, the position will be quite chaotic.
LORD HAWKE: I hope the noble Lord, Lord Brown, will listen to my noble friend, because this clause is really absolute nonsense. The Board of Trade, who live in an ivory tower anyway, are grabbing for themselves the largest possible powers that they think they can possibly want to deal with all sorts of imaginary abuses. As my noble friend has said, in practice it will be quite impossible to administer the clause. If they have to administer the clause, the Government will have to recruit many more than the extra 40,000 civil servants that they have already recruited, and we shall have a state of affairs where there will be one sort of scrutineer for every shopper in the country. If we want a clause of this kind, we must try to make it as simple as possible, and the proper measures are all provided in Clause 1: that we prosecute a person for making a false description.
LORD BROWN: This is argument reductio ad absurdrun.The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, talks about selling Chippendale furniture. I am not sure whether he was talking about selling his own Chippendale furniture, or some citizen selling his Chippendale furniture. But the Bill is concerned with people in the course of their trade or business, not with individuals; it is concerned with traders, not private persons. I used sometimes to spend my time cursing lawyers when I was in business because there were lots of regulations with which one had to be familiar.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: This is not so, with great respect. This is an entirely separate offence. The offence is created under the regulation. I entirely appreciate what the noble Lord has said, that the false trade description can only be in the course of a trade or business, but here we have an absolute offence. The advertisement has to be in a specific form if it is not an offence. It does not say anything in this clause about the advertisement being in the course of trade or business. The Board of Trade is prepared to apply these criteria to any advertisement, whether in the course of trade or business or not—unless the noble Lord can show something in the clause to the contrary.
LORD BROWN: I shall now have to make quite certain, although I am virtually certain already. Perhaps we may proceed on the hypothesis that I am right. If I am not, I will certainly communicate with the noble Viscount. In business we are used to having to deal with a very large number of regulations governing a variety of things, because these are necessary in a complex modern society; and these orders would have to go back to the manufacturer, largely, to ensure they are implemented in his advertisements.
I think it is necessary that the Board of Trade should have these powers. After all, when one gives a Government Department discretion to make orders one is not necessarily giving anything very frightening. We have made enough of them in our time, and almost 99·9 per cent. recurring, do not have the evil effects the noble Lord seemed to think. That is because Government officials use them with discretion. Ministers are worried about them when they are going through; they have been the subject of consultation, and eventually they have to go in the form of an order before Parliament itself. This is a real limitation on the sort of madness which one envisages might happen if these powers were granted. If not, all sorts of situations will arise in the future which are reprehensible, which hurt people and which cause them to spend money which they can ill afford—because sometimes they are not rich people—on goods, on the assumption that they are one thing when in fact they are another, and we

1335
shall not be able to do anything about it.
LORD HAWKE: May I interrupt the noble Lord? The noble Lord says that we shall not be able to do anything about it. A man may be fined or put in prison under Clause 1.
LORD BROWN: If he is discovered. But this deals with mail-order catalogues and other forms of advertisement, and we shall have to spot them singly, one by one; and we shall not be able to deal with a lot of them. It would be much easier to make an order. I do not want to go on with my defence. I must let it rest. I want to see the clause remain as it is, and I must resist this Amendment. I am very sorry.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I would point out that the noble Lord is about to amend his own clause, so he can hardly say that he wishes it to remain as it is. But we are here dealing with a very essential matter of trading. We have to ask ourselves what exactly we expect the Government to do in this sphere. Of course, the purpose of advertising—and we are dealing here with advertising—is to draw attention to the goods, and to give information about them. It is all part of the selling process. What information is required to sell the goods is a matter for the person who is attempting to sell them. What information a person requires before he buys the goods is a matter for him; and so long as no false information is given to lead him to deduce something wrongly, it is difficult to see why the Government should take powers to require information to be given—unless, as I have said, it is something vital to the health or safety of the person concerned. This is the whole purpose of this Amendment.
I sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, in being dissatisfied with the answer he has been given. I am bound to say that the advertisement industry as a whole is far from satisfied at the moment because of the experience it is having in another area. I am inclined to believe that the Board of Trade will be reasonable in its requirements in this matter. Unfortunately, another Ministry at this very time is drafting regulations which by all accounts will be very much less reasonable and which have made the
1336
whole of the advertising industry—and indeed all those who have to deal with food manufacture—very dubious indeed about this kind of power.
To my mind, the right way for industries to decide the way in which information should be given is through a voluntary system. I think it is right that they should get together and decide themselves what information should be given in what circumstances. But, as my noble friend says, as soon as it comes to giving powers as to the kinds of media affected by the regulations, and the goods affected, and to dividing all this up in this way, an enormous complication arises. If, on the other hand, you take the broadest powers, it is quite obvious you are doing something which is quite unnecessary and quite absurd, because you will be laying on advertisers an obligation to give all kinds of information which is not applicable to their particular goods. It is for that reason that we want the Government to think out in advance what they want the powers for. We say that, as a first step—it may be necessary later on to have further legislation; indeed, there will be further legislation—they should limit the powers they want to take to the specific objectives of health or safety. I may have been wrong to say "health and safety"—the Amendment should perhaps have read "health or safety".
I do not want the noble Lord to think that he has heard the end of this matter, because we firmly believe that it is not right to give these immense powers to the Government, merely on the understanding that they will not be used very often and only where it is absolutely essential. Everybody knows that Governments are subject all the time to all kinds of pressures to do things where there is a marginal benefit to be gained. But as things are made more and more complicated, more and more difficulties arise. The more information required, the more false information will be given. Make no mistake about that: it is bound to be so. And there are more chances of making mistakes and errors in information given.
I beg the Government to limit what they require under this clause to what they really need. I am not going to press the matter further now, but I ask them to think further about it. We do not want to pass legislation that is not

1337
going to be implemented at all because it is so very wide that no one dare touch it. This has happened in the past. Let us have legislation that is specific as to the information to be given, the cases that have to be dealt with; and then it will be implemented and some good will be done. I beg the Government to reconsider this.
LORD AUCKLAND: May I intervene before the noble Lord withdraws? The noble Lord, Lord Brown, mentioned mail orders. Can he specifically mention any mail-order advertisements which might be regarded as false and which do not have some direct or indirect bearing on health or safety?—because, surely there must be very few.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I have been looking again at the point which the noble Lord, Lord Brown, made, about this applying only to goods supplied in the course of trade or business. It is very noticeable, because that expression is found in Clause 7 and Clause 8. Clause 8 says that anybody
"who, in the course of any trade or business, supplies or offers to supply"
goods in contravention of the order is guilty of an offence. But the words do not appear in Clause 9. If the noble Lord is saying that these orders are to be limited to advertisements put out by people in the course of trade or business, that certainly takes away some of my doubts. But I do not think the clause says so. We could easily put it in after the word "supplied" in line 31. I hope that the noble Lord will consider this point, because I think that, on the drafting, the clause is open to exactly the interpretation I made.
LORD BROWN: I will certainly take note of the point. One of the ways of dealing with it is this. When we come to the next Amendment you will see that we propose to describe the type of advertisement to which the order applies, and we could exclude all the advertisements put in by private people, or all those not put in in the course of trade or business. This may be the way to do it. I have a note here from which I see that my advisers agree with the noble Viscount that the wording is a little lame as it stands. It is nice to be able to concede a point.
1338
I will not re-state the case I have already put forward on the Amendment we are considering. I have listened to the other side and I have a great deal of sympathy with it, but I think that if we were to accept this Amendment we should live to regret it, because society is becoming more complex every day and all sorts of new devices are being invented by crooks to "do people down". We are not concerned only with health and safety but also with the economy.
LORD AUCKLAND: But surely health and safety are the main bases of the economy?
LORD BROWN: It all depends where you stand. If you have plenty of money, health and safety are the most important factors; but if you are hard up the economy is important. There are too many people calling at doors or sending round misleading advertisements, and I think we ought to have the power to deal with some of these people. That is why I am advising the Committee not to accept this Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I think we shall have to look at this further, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.2 p.m.
LORD BROWN LORD BROWN moved, in subsection (1), after the first "that", to insert "any description of". The noble Lord said: With this Amendment I should like to discuss also Amendment No. 17. Subsection (1) of this clause, as at present drafted, would enable the Board of Trade to make an order requiring all advertisements of the designated goods to contain or refer to information or instructions. Some of your Lordships have pointed out that there are some sorts of advertisement—a give-away pencil or a neon sign, for example—which could not in practice be required to comply with such an order, and have proposed that there should be specific exemptions in the Bill to cover such cases.
We have made it clear that we have no intention of using this proposed power to impose unreasonable requirements and that there are adequate safeguards in the Bill, such as the obligation to consult with interested bodies, to ensure that we

1339
do not make a mistake. We have, nevertheless, considered whether it would be right to restrict the power by exempting some descriptions of advertisement from the scope of the clause altogether. We have concluded that it would not, bearing in mind that the circumstances in which the power might need to be used are at this stage hypothetical. The earlier debate on an Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, which sought to exclude certain kinds of advertisements containing only one statement or slogan, illustrated the difficulties of trying to define in advance those descriptions which might be exempted.
However, we put forward these Amendments as a practical contribution to overcoming the objections that I have referred to. If they are adopted, they will make it clear that the Board of Trade must not make a blanket order covering all descriptions of advertisement in respect of any classs of goods. If and when the Board wanted to make an order under the clause they would have to specify in it those descriptions of advertisement which were to be covered; and the consultation and publication requirements of Clause 35 would ensure that all interested parties had an opportunity of pointing out anything impossible or unreasonable about the proposed coverage. I think that this is a sensible compromise and I hope your Lordships will accept it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 31, after ("that") insert ("any description of").—(Lord Brown.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: This is certainly an Amendment that we welcome. As I said earlier, it would be a great mistake to keep the wide scope of the clause as drafted. As I understand it, under the clause as at present drafted one would have to exclude particular kinds of advertisements if one did not want them to be covered, whereas under the clause as it would be amended one would have to specify the particular descriptions which are to be covered. If that is so we regard this as being a great improvement, and would certainly not wish to oppose it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "or instruction",
1340
where that word first occurs. The noble Lord said: I said earlier that I thought there might be cases where it would be desirable to require information to be given in advertisements but that I did not see that there was much scope for giving instruction, or for instructions relating to a group of goods. I think "instruction" is the word here. Even in the "tell-tag" which my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood is launching, instruction is not contained. There is a reference to where the instruction can be obtained but it is not actually on the "tell-tag", and if it is not on the "tell-tag" I should have thought it even less appropriate that it should be in advertisements.
I understand the point that was made earlier in regard to mail order, but if that is what is required then surely there should be a specific provision dealing with the mail order, so that where someone is invited to purchase directly by mail order he may be able to see the instructions relating to those goods and so judge whether the goods are appropriate for him to buy. In the general way I should have thought it quite inappropriate that one should attempt to give instructions in the ordinary type of advertisement. This is a case where one wants to specify categories separately, and I should like to see "instruction" taken out of the generality, and then, if any special instruction is required for mail order, it should be dealt with separately. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 33, leave out ("or instruction").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD BROWN: It seems to me that if it is necessary to get a certain piece of information across to consumers in advertisements, it might sometimes be most easily expressed in the form of an instruction. But on reflection I must admit that by using a different form of words, possibly longer and clumsier, the essential point could be expressed as information. For example—and I quote this merely by way of illustration, and not as a case we have particularly in mind—if it were thought expedient to ensure that mail-order advertisements of garments should forewarn customers whether or not the garments were washable or cleanable, it would in some cases be sufficient to say, "Dry-clean only". That is, I should

1341
say, an instruction. Another way of putting it would be "Not washable but may be dry-cleaned", which is information. In short, we do not feel that there is a clear distinction here between information and instruction, or that the Amendments would prevent us from achieving the essential purposes for which we seek these powers. It is on these grounds—and I do not want to deceive the noble Lord into thinking that we do not propose to seek on occasions that information be supplied—that we are happy to accept this Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am much obliged to the noble Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN: I beg to move Amendment No. 16.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 35, leave out ("or instruction").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BROWN: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 37, leave out from ("in") to ("as") in line 38 and insert ("such description of advertisements of the goods").—(Lord Brown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.10 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "form and". The noble Lord said: I am doubtful whether it is necessary to include the words "form and" for almost the same reasons as the noble Lord was giving when talking about "instruction" and "information". I am quite certain that it would be sufficient to specify the manner in which such information, instruction or indication is to be included, and I think if we only said "manner" the Government would be less tempted to go into the minutest detail as to the size of print in which it should be printed or the relationship of that size of print to the size of the name of the manufacturer, or any other information given in the advertisement. An advertisement is made up in a quite different way from a label, and I doubt whether it would be appropriate to prescribe the form in which the information should be given. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 39, leave out ("form and").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD BROWN: In one sense I have a great deal of sympathy with this Amendment, but I do not want your Lordships to accept it. I was really horrified by the example quoted, I think by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. I do not want to get myself into trouble by apparent implications of criticism of other Government Departments during the course of this debate. What was significant about the example was that it had not yet been through the process of consultation and had not yet been discussed by Parliament.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I did not quite hear what the noble Lord said.
LORD BROWN: The example that Lord Strabolgi gave—and I admit it was a horrible one—was a 200-word sentence specifying which types should be used, and so on. This example had not, in the form read to us, passed through the stages of consultation with those involved in the trade, nor had it gone before Parliament. I fully expect that that particular Order will not survive in the original form in which it was quoted to us. There is a danger that people can become stupid about a matter of this sort. But, on the other hand, if we are not able on some occasions to state the size of lettering to be used, then we probably are not able to bring about the effect which is desirable, particularly in the matters of health and safety. I would remind your Lordships of the example I quoted of the mercury battery which I picked off my own desk and which had on it in very small letters, "Do not throw on a fire because it will explode" I could not read those words without glasses; I could scarcely read them with them. If you cannot specify the size of the letters, in some cases you may be endangering life.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Of course we are not talking about Clause 8, but Clause 9. We have not excluded form and manner in regard to the marking of goods. We are trying to exclude it in the matter of advertisements, in Clause 9, which is a very different thing.
LORD BROWN: Yes, I admit that I was arguing about Clause 8. Nevertheless, this does bear on Clause 9, although not as forcibly, I confess. Nevertheless,

1343
if one wants recommendations with regard to safety put into advertisements, if it is considered necessary to protect children and so on, and you end up by making an Order and then find the information is stuck away in the corner so that people ignore it or cannot read it, you have not achieved very much. It would be unwise to omit these words because it might defeat the whole purpose of giving power to the Board of Trade to specify in advertisements contents that deal with health and safety. These are the things am particularly concerned about. I therefore recommend your Lordships not to accept the Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am sorry the noble Lord cannot accept this Amendment. As I indicated, there may be some occasions on which it might be desirable in special forms of advertisement to specify the form. But if you specify the form of every information you give in advertisements you will ossify the advertisement, make it very rigid with regard to the layout and all the rest, if you have to build the whole thing round a Board of Trade Regulation as to the form in which it should be. I hope the noble Lord will not very often find it necessary to specify the form, and I am sure that in his consultations, consultations that the Bill requires him to have, it would be a good thing in each case to consider whether there should be information required in advertisements. I hope that he will also consult as to the form and manner in which it should be given and not leave this out of consideration, because it is extremely important. If you once start interfering with the conception of an advertisement, the general layout, then I think you will destroy the whole vitality of advertising. I hope the noble Lord will take this into consideration. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 40, leave out ("instruction").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved to add to the clause:
"( ) An order made under this section shall not relate to any advertisement which refers
1344
only to the name or names of any goods, the name and address of the person supplying or offering to supply those goods, or any combination thereof, with or without an illustration."
The noble Lord said: The noble Lord has already said that he would deprecate any such addition to the clause as this, but he has also said that he would not expect to cover by regulations any such case as is covered by this Amendment. This is a question of balance as to whether you put a thing in or not. All I can say to the noble Lord is that it would give a good deal of encouragement to those who have misgivings about this clause if he were at least to accept this very small limitation, which is not a limitation at all on his powers because he certainly is not going to require this. He will, if I may venture to say so, give more confidence that he is not going to do so if he accepts the Amendment than if he merely says it is not his intention to do so. For my part, I accept his intention, but I would be much happier if he were to accept the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 46, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD STRABOLGI: From this side of the House I should like to support this Amendment, and I hope that the Government will accept it. We have had a very full discussion and the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has put forward with great force the reasons for it. I think it is an Amendment that merits every consideration.
LORD AIREDALE: I should like to say from these Benches that I agree entirely with what has been said.
LORD BROWN: Noble Lords are putting these matters so charmingly that I feel inclined to give way on some Amendments when I should not. I cannot, however, recommend your Lordships to accept this one. I thought we had met the point when we undertook to specify, in making Orders, the description of advertisements and goods to which they were to apply. I do not want to see this clause further limited. I know that the advertising interests—on whose behalf some noble Lords are probably speaking in this House—are honest people, but one has to recognise that penalties of the sort in this Bill are not

1345
provided for the reputable end of industries of that sort. Is anybody in this House going to uphold the view that there is no possibility of a picture of goods being used in a manner which could be seriously misleading, or that there is no possibility in the future of this type of advertisement needing to become the subject of an order in order to prevent that from happening on the grounds of safety and health?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Do not let us confuse the issue here. If an illustration were seriously misleading then it would be caught under Clause 3. You could not require that information should be given in a way that would not be seriously misleading in an illustration. That is just not possible. If the illustration is going to be misleading it is going to be caught under Clause 3. If I may make the illustration, this is really a red herring.
LORD BROWN: I am interested in the noble Lord's argument. I have been looking at it in a different way. I think I should undertake to have a further look at this Amendment, if the noble Lord will withdraw it. I have been assuming that one would be able to attack a seriously misleading series of advertisements which contain nothing more than pictures. But of course one can get the individual conviction. I will undertake to have another look at the matter.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.21 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 9, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD STRABOLGI: Before we leave Clause 9 I wonder whether I might ask my noble friend about descriptions in the Press in regard to goods. This was a matter on which we had some discussion under Clause 1, where it deals with false descriptions. This is a different aspect; it is the other leg of it. Under this clause the Government are requiring certain information to be given. On the December 5 Committee stage of the Bill I referred to this, and I am afraid there was a misprint in Hansard, so I should
1346
like to quote the correct passage. It is quite short, it says:
"I imagine that the Government might find themselves in the position of wishing to impose certain orders on advertising, on show cards and so on, but finding that goods were also being described, equally fully, in these supplements and women's pages."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5/12/67, col. 651.]
I am afraid the word "fully" became "falsely".
On that day we had a fairly full discussion about the false description of goods in newspapers, and I should like now to approach it from the other point of view. Under this clause the Government are intending to impose certain requirements on advertising of all kinds. I should like to know whether they intend to oblige the Press and the magazines to include the same information in their editorial comment. This is a most important point. In other words, we ought to have from the Government an explanation of exactly what they mean by "an advertisement".
LORD BROWN: The short answer is, "No". We have no intention whatever of imposing these orders on newspapers' editorial comment. The intention is to confine these orders to advertisements which are paid for by manufacturers and others to promote the sale of their goods. We have no intention of enforcing the Orders even on the special category of people who, in the course of their trade or business, write columns describing goods, because that is not specifically an advertisement in the meaning which is commonly given to the word. These words will apply to advertisements as we understand them, a means of selling goods paid for by those who wish to sell them.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am grateful to my noble friend.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [False or misleading indications as to price of goods]:
LORD BROWN: I beg to move that the consideration of Amendment No. 20, together with Clause 11 itself, be postponed until after Clause 17.
Moved, That the consideration of Amendment No. 20, together with Clause 11, be postponed until after Clause 17.—(Lord Brown.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: That will not be to-day, surely.
LORD BROWN: No.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am obliged.
On Question, Motion 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.
6.27 p.m.
LORD BROWN LORD BROWN moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "or are of a kind". The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 21, I ask the permission of the Committee also to discuss Amendments Nos. 22, 23, 24 and 25. Taken together they represent a substantial revision of Clause 12, which had been made in the light of your Lordships' comments when we last discussed the matter. Subsection (1) was originally intended to deal with a special type of case, namely, fake claims that goods or services or methods were supplied to or approved by Royalty or central or local government bodies and that they therefore possessed a special cachet because the patrons in question would have satisfied themselves as to the soundness of the supplier and of what he had to offer. Your Lordships have, however, questioned the logic of limiting this provision to those persons or bodies. Similar claims with respect to other persons may equally carry weight (though this is of course not true of all other persons): and indeed the Bill already covers such claims in some measure, in other clauses.
We accept that there is something in this argument and these Amendments represent what we think might be done. In the first place, we think that false claims concerning Her Majesty and other members of the Royal Family are in a very special category and should be treated separately and a little more comprehensively than other claims. We propose, therefore, that subsections (1) and
1348
(2) of Clause 12 should deal exclusively with claims of this sort. Secondly, we propose that the Bill should be extended to cover false claims that goods or services are of a kind supplied to or approved by any person—and this would include Government Departments and local authorities and, indeed, Her Majesty and members of the Royal Family. This is in regard to supply. To effect this change, the new subsection (3) would deal with false claims that goods or services are of a kind supplied to any person. Fake claims, as opposed to false claims, concerning the approval of goods or services by any persons are dealt with elsewhere in the Bill. Those concerning services would be covered by our proposed Amendment to Clause 13(1)(iv); and those concerning approval of a type of goods are already covered by Clause 2(1)(g). These Amendments should go a long way towards meeting your Lordships' suggestions and I hope you will be able to accept them. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 10, leave out ("or are of a kind").—(Lord Brown.)
LORD CAWLEY: We are most grateful for this Amendment. There is one point we should like to be clear about. When the noble Lord talks about "fake claims", does he mean claims in regard to supply to defunct or imaginary bodies or persons?
LORD BROWN: Yes.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am not absolutely clear of the effect of taking out the words "or are of a kind". Does this mean that it would be all right, and that it would not be an offence for someone to say that he has supplied similar goods to Her Majesty? I am not quite clear what the effect is of the leaving out of these words.
LORD BROWN: The effect is to confine subsections (1) and (2) of the clause as amended to persons claiming in regard to goods which they are supplying to others, that the goods were approved by the Royal Family or members thereof. The new subsection (3) would catch claims to supply not only to other persons but also to the Royal Family. So one is, as it were, dividing the offence into two parts. The new subsection (3) will cover both offences for everybody; subsections

1349
(1) and (2) will refer to only the particular type of offence which is constituted by making false claims as to the approval of the Royal Family of the goods which are sought to be sold. I am afraid that is a complicated statement, but I hope that I have made myself clear.
LORD AIREDALE: There is one point which occurs to me. I was pleased to hear the Minister say specifically that a Government Department is "a person" for this purpose. I think it is reasonably well known that a limited company is "a person" and that a public corporation, such as the British Transport Commission, is "a person", but I should have thought that it was perhaps not well known that a Government Department was "a person". I was not sure myself, until the Minister said it, that a Government Department was "a person". If this may not be generally known, might there not be something to be said for keeping the words "any Government Department" in the clause as they originally are, and then go on to say "or any other person", or something to make it abundantly clear to all concerned that a Government Department is "a person"? It is undoubtedly a common practice to advertise that particular goods are "as supplied to the Ministry of Transport", or whoever it may be.
LORD BROWN: I am certainly prepared to think about it. I shall have to take advice.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BROWN LORD BROWN: I beg to move Amendment No. 22.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 11, after ("Majesty") insert ("or").—(Lord Brown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BROWN: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 11, leave out from ("Family") to ("he") in line 12.—(Lord Brown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BROWN: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 19, at end insert—
("(3) If any person, in the course of any trade or business, gives, by whatever means, any false indication, direct or indirect, that
1350
any goods or services supplied by him are of a kind supplied to any person he shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be guilty of an offence.")—(Lord Brown.)
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13 [False or misleading statements as to services, etc.]:
LORD BROWN LORD BROWN: I beg to move Amendment No. 25.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 33, after ("examination") insert ("approval").—(Lord Brown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.34 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved, in subsection (4), to leave out "'false' means fake to a material degree and". The noble Lord said: Perhaps I should take this Amendment and the next together, since this is a paving Amendment for Amendment No. 27. I deliberately moved the previous Amendment relating to goods where we sought to define the terms "to a material degree" in one way, and I am now moving this in another way to try it out. It would have been as easy to have said:
"deceived into acceptance of the services, facilities or accommodation offered",
but I have deliberately moved this in a wider way. I want to impress on the Government that the test should be that a person is deceived into doing something to his own detriment or loss. I do not think I need to make the argument all over again, because the case is the same, except that here I have made it wider. It may be that this is a better formula than the other, particularly in the case of services, but I feel that one should explore this and I hope that the Government will be able to comment on the wider scope of this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 6, leave out from ("section") to ("services") in line 7.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD BROWN: I do not want to add insult to injury, but the noble Lord knows my objections to the narrowing of the definition, and I have already said a good deal about this on the previous Amendment. However, this particular Amendment is perhaps not so good as the previous one, since it uses the term "material" in the course of an attempt to

1351
define "material degree". This is a drafting fault, and it is worth drawing attention to the fact that one cannot use in the definition a word one is trying to define.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes you can. Look at the definition of "false trade description".
LORD BROWN: Yes, that is quite right; it sounds right. But in point of fact, if I went into the matter I think I could convince your Lordships that there are some words that can be used in this way and others that cannot. As the word "material" is the governing word of the thing which it is sought to define, to use the word "material" in this particular way would not, with respect, be cogent. I do not want to stress this, but I mention it in case the Amendment comes up again. It would be unfortunate if one had to make this drafting criticism on a future occasion. I am saying that, for the reasons already given, on which I have expressed my objections to this attempt to define the meaning of the term "to a material degree", I ask your Lordships not to accept this Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am sorry that the noble Lord has taken this point, but from what he says it looks as if he rather expects us to try again and perhaps get it a little nearer right next time, when I trust he will be able to deal with the substance of the matter. As the hour is getting late, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, whether Clause 13, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I should like to say a word on this clause. We are here setting out on an entirely new course, and it is not entirely clear to us what is covered. I must ask the noble Lord in this instance to tell us what "accommodation" means. Am I right in thinking that it means accommodation in buildings, and not accommodation consisting of buildings? They are two quite separate things. Perhaps he could also deal with the more general point of the difference between prefabricated houses and houses built by other means.
LORD BROWN: Accommodation is really a reference to every form (I must
1352
be careful, as I have just accused the noble Lord of using the same word as that in the term to be defined) of shelter, that does not consist of selling a person a house. In other words, it refers to hotel rooms, rooms in houses which are let, flats, and so on; but it does not cover the actual sale of a house to a person. The term "goods" does not cover houses, and for this reason houses do not come within the ambit of the Bill.
The question has been asked, and it has been asked again by the noble Lord: as houses do not come within the meaning of the term "goods", do prefabricated houses come within the meaning of the term "goods". The answer is: No; because they are still houses, and that has been a convention of the law for some time. Indeed, it surprised me to learn that houses were not "goods". I cannot for the life of me see why they are not, but that has been the law for some time.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: They are realty, not goods.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clauses 14 to 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Penalty for offences]:
6.41 p.m.
LORD BROWN LORD BROWN moved to leave out subsection (2). The noble Lord said: This Amendment would delete from Clause 17 the discretionary power of a court to order forfeiture of goods belonging to a person convicted of an offence under this Bill, being goods in relation to which or by means of which the offence was committed. After considering the points made during our earlier debate on the Amendment moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, to restrict the power of forfeiture, we have come to the conclusion that the right course is to do away with it altogether.
The present subsection (2) reproduces in substance the provisions of Section 2(3)(iii) of the Merchandise Marks Act 1887. When that Act was passed it dealt with offences such as forging trade marks, and as the noble Lord, Lord Cawley, pointed out, the power to confiscate things by means of which an offence was committed was directed to such things as the dies used to apply a forged mark. Under the present Bill

1353
there would be little scope for the use of such a power. Indeed, we feel that the whole idea of forfeiture—even of the goods in relation to which an offence is proved—is somewhat out of date in this context.
If it is considered as a means of removing wrongly marked goods from the market, it is not very effective for the purpose. It applies only to those goods in relation to which the case has been proved, which in most cases would mean the small number of articles actually before the court. The real security against a convicted trader again offering for sale the wrongly-marked goods is that he will have attracted the attention of the enforcement authorities to himself: every time he repeats the act for which he was convicted—for instance, offering to supply goods to which a false trade description is applied—he commits a fresh offence: and if he is convicted again he will face very serious penalties. This prospect is, I think, a sufficient deterrent. If forfeiture is regarded as an additional penalty, it is, I suggest, both unnecessary and unfair in principle. The penalties provided by subsection (1) of this clause are perfectly adequate.
For these reasons, we think that the power to order forfeiture is of insufficient value to warrant redefining it in the restricted form that would be desirable in order to allay fears that it might have a much wider appliction under the Bill than it has under the present Act. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will agree to accept this Amendment to omit the provision entirely. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 8, leave out subsection (2).—(Lord Brown.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I think that we on this side of the House shall be very glad to welcome this Amendment. It is also a very quick result for the noble Lord to be able to lay before the Committee so soon after the matter was discussed last time, and I think we should thank him for that as well. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard will be delighted with the result that his debate has now brought about. It seems to me that on the substance of this matter the noble Lord is right. Moreover, it will not mean that there is no power whatever, because when we come on to the redraft of Clause 27 (I do not think we shall be dealing with it to-day) we shall find a more limited power for a different purpose which, combined with what the noble Lord has said about the penalties and ensuing appearances in court if the sane man insists upon doing the same thing, will provide adequate penalties, and adequate deterrents against a repetition of an offence if the man commits it once. I would therefore agree with the noble Lord and commend this Amendment to the Committee.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.

TEACHERS SUPERANNUATION (SCOTLAND) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes before seven o'clock.